[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 57 (Wednesday, May 11, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 11, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995--CONFERENCE 
                                 REPORT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the conference report.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, we have before us the conference 
report on the budget, and I believe you would not know it by its cover, 
but this conference report in and of itself is an oxymoron. We went 
through this tremendous battle against the big spending machine here in 
this town, and it was really quite a struggle, yet all we got out of it 
was a small gnat's worth of savings. We labored mightily and of course 
we produced, in savings, just a mouse.
  The good news in this budget is that it does contain spending 
restraints that the big spenders in this city, including the 
congressional leadership and the White House, did not want to accept. I 
believe it has only been once since I have been in the Senate that this 
has happened, and that was back in 1985. When I say ``this happened,'' 
when we were up against congressional leadership of both parties and up 
against the White House when we had an opportunity to make cuts in the 
budget, that was when I offered an amendment to freeze the defense 
spending that was adopted that year.
  Let me just say in as clear terms as I possibly can, and for the 
Record, that the sky did not fall in on the defense budget or the 
Defense Department then, and it will not fall on this budget now. That 
is notwithstanding all the hair-pulling that we heard right here on 
this floor during the original debate on the budget resolution.
  I would like to think this is a big victory, given the resistance we 
encountered. You would think by listening to that debate that we were 
pulling teeth without Novocaine when we tried to cut $26 billion from 
the budget--and we did that. But now that it is over, that is half that 
figure and that is $13 billion. You know that is just one-sixth of 1 
percent. That is really only saving 1 penny out of every $6 in this 
budget. Nonetheless, I feel the American people--I hope--have some 
inkling of how herculean a task it is to cut a single penny from the 
Federal budget.
  Having observed our antics on this floor in reaction to the Exon-
Grassley amendment, the public must be incensed with how little we do 
to save the taxpayers money. They must be ticked to the height of 
``tickticity.''
  Even those who make the best fiscally responsible speeches on this 
floor oppose these cuts. Was it tough to make these cuts? Well, is a 
school bus yellow?
  It is a significant but I have to admit a small victory to the 
taxpayers who are involved in the $13 billion that was finally the 
compromise that was left over from the Exon-Grassley amendment.
  I cannot praise enough the leadership of my friend from Nebraska, 
Senator Exon, who is the main reason the outyear deficits will be that 
much lower.
  I also commend the deficit hawks on the other side of the aisle for 
standing firm against the big spenders in their own party and among 
their own leadership.
  And I commend those on my side of the aisle who stood firm and also 
voted responsibly for deficit reduction.
  Also responsible for this victory are many grassroots organizations 
that supported Senator Exon and myself during the debate on our 
amendment. They also worked hard when it was up on the floor of the 
Senate. We had to defend it three times, and they helped us maintain 
the half that we maintained in committee. So I thank them very much, 
because that grassroots efforts by these organizations are very 
significant to making even these small victories in this body.
  It is unfortunate, in my view, that the conferees could not agree to 
the full $26 billion of savings as passed by the Senate originally. 
This is especially so given our latest and newest CBO deficit 
projections, because it was just a few days ago--in other words, while 
all this was going on--that CBO reestimated the original deficit 
baseline for 1995 fiscal year; in other words, what will the deficit be 
on September 30, 1995.
  During our debate on saving $26 billion or $13 billion, they have 
already estimated the deficit upwards by nearly $100 billion. So, Madam 
President, it appears that, once again, we are courting Miss Rosy 
Scenario. It is kind of like a dallying groupie. Rosy Scenario shows up 
on the arm of administration after administration, whether it is 
Republican or Democrat.
  So this $100 billion upward adjustment on the deficit is just the 
same old refrain. We thought the $13 billion would be saved off a much 
lower baseline. We now find that for every step forward that we take in 
this body toward a lower deficit, we then take eight steps backward.
  So how did the conference committee respond in the face of this 
latest round of bad news on the deficit front? It responded by cutting 
our savings in half, whereas that new projection should have been an 
excuse for everybody to want to be fiscally responsible to fight harder 
to save the $26 billion as opposed to cutting it in half.
  Of course, these $13 billion in savings are now dwarfed by the size 
of this reestimate.
  Madam President, common sense is perhaps not so common after all. 
This is why I believe that Republicans will vote against this budget, 
because it fails to seize the moment. We had an opportunity to take 
advantage of favorable economic circumstances and make further spending 
reductions in the outyears, but the response has been little more than 
business as usual. I do not know how this bodes for continued efforts 
next year to lower the deficit, given the reaction to the modest Exon-
Grassley amendment this year by the leadership. The odds in Las Vegas 
against greater savings next year must be pretty darn high.
  There is another important reason, though, why Members of my party 
will, hopefully, oppose this budget, Madam President. This budget also 
contains bad news for the American taxpayer. The leaders in Congress 
and the administration have decided that it is not enough to raise 
taxes to near record amounts, as we did in last year's budget, but they 
also now want to unleash 5,000 more IRS agents on the taxpayers because 
that money is in this budget to hire those additional agents. They will 
do this without carefully crafted protections that we passed in the 
Senate originally as conditions for these new agents. Most outstanding 
of that was the passage by the Congress of the Taxpayers' Bill of 
Rights No. 2 sponsored by Senator Pryor and myself.
  This is the same administration, by the way, that claimed during the 
last campaign that they could find $45 billion of new money by taxing 
foreign companies. And now that they occupy the White House, they 
cannot seem to find even 10 percent of that original $45 billion that 
they said they could get.
  Even more incredible, the money for these new agents are off budget. 
The Treasury claims these agents will raise enough money to pay for 
themselves. I wish I had a nickel for every time I heard that argument.
  I decided not to oppose this proposal during the Senate consideration 
only because the sponsors and the Treasury Department agreed to 
protections for the taxpayers, like I explained in the Taxpayers' Bill 
of Rights. But those protections are gone in this conference agreement. 
I spoke about this at length last week. And 5,000 new IRS agents, 
without the kinder, gentler instructions that were in the original 
Senate proposal is not how to treat taxpayers in a civilized country.
  This proposal is strictly a Democrat initiative, let me make clear, 
snuck in by clever Treasury bureaucrats, aided and abetted by the 
leadership in the Congress who, at a minimum, I want to say, looked the 
other way with a wink and a nod.
  I want to make it clear that this is not a Republican position to 
have 5,000 new IRS agents without protections for the taxpayers through 
the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights No. 2.
  Finally, Republicans will vote against this amendment because of the 
mismatch between the Defense Department's budget and the President's 
budget. The General Accounting Office is currently evaluating the 
magnitude of this mismatch.
  To date, the General Accounting Office has identified at least $26 
billion in negative funding wages. These negative accounting entries 
are used to hide discrepancies between the 5-year defense program and 
the budget and to mask over programming. They provide an artificial way 
of forcing the books into balance.
  Such devices are inconsistent with the law governing the preparation 
and submission of the 5-year plan to Congress. The practical effect of 
this mismatch is to create management havoc which could lead to serious 
damage and consequences against our national security. This is the same 
problem that led to the hollow army syndrome of the seventies, and if 
we do not correct this problem, we could be doomed to repeat it.
  Madam President, I regret that I cannot join with my colleagues on 
the other side who showed courage and fought to preserve some of the 
Exon-Grassley savings by voting to adopt this. What was salvaged of 
Grassley-Exon is a victory not because of its substance but because it 
is modest. Rather, it is a victory because of enormous barriers it 
overcame, and that is a sad commentary. But it is reason enough for 
Republicans to just say no to this budget.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SASSER. Madam President, I yield 15 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from California [Mrs. Boxer].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair, and I thank my chairman, the Senator 
from Tennessee.
  Madam President, I am pleased to rise as a member of the Budget 
Committee in support of the budget conference report. I hope the Senate 
today will say yes to this budget. I do not anticipate we will get many 
of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us. Maybe we 
will get one or two; perhaps we will get none. But that is not 
surprising. They have been against the general approach that President 
Clinton has brought to the budget process. That approach is one that 
has led to lower deficits, it has led to, in most parts of the country, 
an economic recovery, it has led to the creation of thousands and 
thousands and thousands of jobs.
  Not one Republican, as I can recall, voted for the budget or voted 
for the reconciliation bill that carried it out. They had their own 
good reasons and they expressed them very eloquently on the floor then, 
and I am sure they will do so again today.
  But you see, I think it is the results that matter. I think we need 
to look back to the comments that were made at the time when this 
country started to turn around its economy. We have to remember, under 
the previous administration of George Bush, there was not any job 
creation. More jobs have been created in 1 year of this Presidency than 
in all 4 of the previous Presidency. I know that does not sit well with 
my Republican colleagues from the standpoint of politics. But I have to 
say the facts are the facts.

  Now, is this economy perfect? You and I know, Madam President, it is 
not. You and I know in southern California we are dragging. We have not 
caught up to northern California or to the rest of the Nation. But we 
are on a sound course, and this budget will in fact continue that 
course. And again, it is not a matter of rhetoric. When you and I voted 
on the President's budget we were not sure of the results. We hoped for 
good results. Now we have those good results: Deficits coming down 
finally, jobs being created finally, new investments being made 
finally, export controls being lifted finally. We have an economic 
strategy in this country. Again, I do not think it is perfect. I think 
there is room for improvement. This is not a perfect world. But what we 
have before us is a very sensible, commonsense document, and I support 
it.
  We see deficits continuing to go down. Yes, we would all like to see 
them go to zero. No one would rather see that than I. When I was in 
local government, on the board of supervisors, I brought zero-based 
budgeting to that board. I said, ``Let's go back to zero and start all 
over again.'' We did not have the term ``reinvent Government,'' but we 
did it on the county board. We had to balance our budget, and we did.
  I think there is definitely room for improvement here, but we are 
beginning to see it happen: A reduction of the Federal work force, a 
crime bill for which we are going to pay. So things are moving in the 
right direction.
  The budget deficit is down. A couple of years ago, before we passed 
the reconciliation bill and the President's strategy, the OMB told us 
we would have 302 billion dollars' worth of deficits, Madam President. 
We now see that coming down to $182 billion--$120 billion below where 
it would have been had we not acted in that courageous fashion.
  I have to say to many of my colleagues who are up for reelection, 
that was not an easy vote. It was not an easy vote. But you can be 
proud that you took the courageous stand.
  My friend from Iowa, whom I greatly respect, Senator Grassley, one of 
the leaders in military procurement reform--he and I have worked 
together--says the Republicans should just say no. Well, that is a 
continuation of what they have been doing. I am sure they will continue 
to say no. It is up to the American people to determine whether just 
saying no is a policy. I do not think it is a policy. I think we have 
an economic strategy embodied in this budget resolution, and I feel 
proud to support it.
  Now, it hurts when you cut spending. We all know that. But this 
budget does it. It has to be done right, Madam President. You just 
cannot do it with a meat ax, because you will disturb this economic 
recovery. And what the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Sasser 
from Tennessee, has tried to do is walk that fine line, to make sure we 
have progress on the deficit and at the same time make enough 
investments in this economy so that growth can take place.
  That is what this budget does. And again, I am proud to associate 
myself with his work and with this product.
  Madam President, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
have come to this floor to decry the military budget. I think it is 
very important to look at what we are doing in this military budget. 
There are those on the other side of the aisle who are saying we are 
destroying the military. Let us look at the facts. In 1994, last year's 
budget, the budget authority was $261 billion. In 1995, in this budget, 
it is $263 billion. So with all the rhetoric, as if we are destroying 
our military, we actually are increasing the budget authority by $2 
billion. We are spending more on the military than we do in any other 
category in the domestic discretionary budget.
  I think it is also important to take a look at what our potential 
enemies are spending on their military. Madam President, rhetoric 
aside, let us take a look at it: Russia, $29.1 billion; Iraq, $8.6 
billion; China, $7.3 billion; North Korea, $2.2 billion; Libya, $1.8 
billion; Iran, $1.2 billion; Syria, which many people say is moving 
toward our camp, $1.2 billion; Cuba, $1.2 billion.
  Madam President, those are all the potential enemies I could garner. 
That adds up to $50 billion, and we are spending $270.7 billion on 
outlays. If you look at the 10 largest countries--in other words, the 
countries that spend the most on the military after America--if you add 
them all up: Japan, France, UK, Germany, Russia, Italy, South Korea, 
Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait--you will come up to $240.1 billion. 
So we spend more than the next 10 countries combined, and most of those 
are our friends.
  So if anyone tries to scare the American people, Madam President, 
that we are not spending enough on our military, please let us look at 
the facts.
  Now, there are always those who say they could do better with $400 
billion. We all know, if money is no object, it would be lovely. It 
would be lovely to have it in the military. It would be lovely to have 
it in education. It would be lovely to have it in everything we try to 
do for the American people. But we have to budget wisely, and we have 
to expect that at that amount of money our military can and should 
perform. We need to bring better management into the system. I think we 
are doing that with procurement reform.
  So let us put that one to rest. Every time someone on the other side 
of the aisle gets up and says we are not spending enough, let us bring 
out these facts, that we spend more than the next 10 biggest spending 
countries combined, and we spend much more than all of our potential 
enemies added up together.
  Finally, Madam President, I wish to say how proud I am that this 
budget contains the Children's Initiative which I brought to the Budget 
Committee and which was supported on the floor by Republicans and 
Democrats alike. It swells my heart with pride to know that, finally, 
there is a consensus emerging in this country on the need for investing 
in our children. When we deal with the crime issue--and, Madam 
President, your brilliant leadership to ban assault weapons is 
something that will go down in history books forever--we know that we 
are dealing with the consequences of neglect. When our children live in 
poverty, when they do not have anything to believe in, when they do not 
think they have any hope or any stake in the future, they will grab an 
assault weapon if a gang member says, ``You can belong.''
  So we have to get to the root causes of the problem. And I am so 
proud that this Senate voted 93 to 5 to stand up and say, yes, we will 
cut Federal travel. It is time for a few of us to stay put so our 
children can move forward.
  Perhaps the most critical investment this budget makes is in our 
children--an investment that is overdue and necessary.
  Last month the Carnegie Corp. of New York released a new report 
documenting the circumstances faced by children under the age of 3 and 
their families. Their condition threatens our economic strength and 
competitiveness. Too many of our children fail to receive adequate 
prenatal care, child care, or parental attention which means that they 
are less likely to perform well in school or on the job--if they get a 
job. The Carnegie Corp. dubbed it the ``quiet crisis.'' But the 
appalling statistics scream out for attention.
  One in five children in this Nation lives in poverty. The number of 
poor school age children in California alone increased by 38 percent 
between 1980 and 1990. Every year nearly 1 million infants are born 
with severe medical problems that could have been avoided if their 
mothers had access to prenatal care. According to the Centers for 
Disease Control, only 44 percent of children in our Nation's major 
cities have been fully vaccinated by their second birthday. More than 5 
million children under the age of 3 are in the care of other adults 
while their parents work.
  After years of shameful neglect, it is time to make the health and 
welfare of children a top priority. With this budget, we are finally 
putting our dollars where they count--into proven programs for children 
that address these problems. I am proud of the fact that this budget 
includes the Boxer amendment which I have called the children's 
initiative.
  It overhwelmingly passed the Senate by a vote of 93 to 5.
  The children's initiative, which is a pay-as-you-go provision, 
provides $1 billion to six exemplary children's programs by cutting 
spending in Government travel expenses.
  Specifically, the amendment provides an additional $120 million for 
Head Start, enough to fund slots for approximately 24,000 children.
  It increases funding for the WIC Program by an additional $100 
million which will provide services for 200,000 pregnant women, infants 
and children.
  It adds $2000 million for childhood immunizations, enough to 
appropriately immunize over 2 million children up to age 2.
  It increases funding for the child care development grant by $200 
million, enough to provide quality child care for roughly 44,000 
children.
  The amendment increases the maternal and child health block grant by 
$200 million--an important weapon in the right against low birthweight 
babies and infant mortality.
  Finally, the amendment adds $180 million for The Emergency Food 
Assistance Program or TEFAP which is a vital resource for feeding the 
hungry and homeless in our States and communities; 1.4 million 
Californians rely on food from TEFAP every months.
  Each of these programs has a proven record of success in helping 
children and their families. The Head Start, WIC, and childhood 
immunization programs, for example, have been praised over and over for 
their cost effectiveness. All of the programs enjoy strong bipartisan 
support.
  Madam President, I am especially grateful to the distinguished 
chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Sasser, for his 
assistance in including the children's initiative in the conference 
report. Investing in our youngest citizens is the best economic 
investment that we can make for the future.
  Madam President, if the chairman of the Budget Committee is willing, 
I would like to engage him in a brief colloquy on the children's 
initiative. Since the budget resolution does not list the specific 
funding levels for each of the children's programs in my amendment, I 
would simply like the chairman's help in clarifying the Senate Budget 
Committee's intent to fund those programs at the level I requested.
  Is it the chairman's understanding that Function 350 of the fiscal 
year 1995 budget allows room for an additional $180 million above the 
President's request for food purchases under the Emergency Food 
Assistance Program?
  Mr. SASSER. Yes; that is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. Is it also his understanding that Function 500 of the 
fiscal year 1995 budget allows room for an additional $120 million 
above the President's request for Head Start?
  Mr. SASSER. Yes; that is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. Does he further agree that Function 550 of the fiscal 
year 1995 budget allows for an additional $200 million above the 
President's request for the maternal and child health block grant, and 
an additional $200 million above the President's request in 
discretionary funding for the childhood immunization program?
  Mr. SASSER. Yes; that is correct. There is also in the Function 550 
room for an additional $100 million for teenage pregnancy prevention.
  Mrs. BOXER. Finally, is it his understanding that Function 600 of the 
fiscal year 1995 budget allows for an additional $100 million above the 
President's request for the WIC Program, and an additional $200 million 
above the President's request for the child care development block 
grant?
  Mr. SASSER. Yes; that is correct.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the chairman. Again, it is an honor to serve with 
him on the Budget Committee and to have his invaluable support for 
these proven children's programs. With this budget, we are making an 
important investment in a future generation that will be healthier, 
better educated, and better able to contribute more to the economic 
strength and well-being of our country.
  Mr. SASSER. My thanks are to Senator Boxer for her tireless efforts 
on behalf of these children's programs. The Budget Committee, as well 
as America's children, have been well served by her participation in 
this year's budget process.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, in closing, let me thank the chairman, 
let me thank the members of the Budget Committee, and let me thank this 
administration. Finally we have an economic strategy in this country of 
which we can be proud, and we are making some critical investments in 
this budget. Even though we are bringing the deficit down, we are 
making some investments that will yield great dividends in the future.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SASSER. Madam President, I wish to take this opportunity to pay 
tribute to the Senator from California for the really marvelous work 
she has done in bringing the Senate's attention to the children's 
initiative and the problems of children in this country through 
including it in this budget resolution as presently before us today.
  I also want to express my appreciation to my friend from California 
for being such a valuable and productive member of the Senate Budget 
Committee. We have gone through some very historic times, Madam 
President, in the Senate over the past year-and-a-half as far as the 
budget is concerned.
  We have enacted a deficit reduction package of really monumental 
proportion. We are now seeing how the salutary effects of that are 
working its way through our economy. The Senator from California was a 
leader in getting that done. I want to pay tribute to her today for her 
help and her support, indeed her leadership, in moving this deficit 
reduction through the Senate last year and for her support this year on 
the budget resolution.
  Madam President, I see the able Senator from Florida is on the floor. 
I see no one on the other side wishing to speak.
  Would the distinguished ranking member have objection if I yield 15 
minutes to the distinguished Senator from Florida?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I wonder if I might use 2 minutes or 1 
minute to make a point and then I will choose to use some time after 
the Senator from Florida to address a few of the points raised by 
Senator Boxer.
  Might I just take 2 minutes? I take it off my side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from New Mexico is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I note that over the past 10 or 12 
days there has been a very concerted effort on the part of the White 
House to contact the Indian people of this country through their 
leaders. They had a summit at the White House. They had a listening 
session for the Indian leaders of the country in the State of New 
Mexico in the city of Albuquerque, and the various Cabinet people 
attended.
  I would like to make a point that in this President's budget, if we 
do not change it in the appropriations process, one of the most 
important functions of government in behalf of the Indian, Indian 
health, was rather dramatically cut--as a matter of fact, about $244 
billion less than is required just to maintain the current efforts and 
put personnel in the new facilities like the one at Ship Rock, NM.
  In this budget resolution, while we cannot guarantee that moneys will 
be added to that category of expenditures by allocating less money to 
some of the President's $8.6 billion in new programs or add-on 
programs, we have expressed a sense of the Senate, which is now a sense 
of the Congress, that the Indian health programs should not be cut and 
should be retained at the level of last year, plus added personnel to 
maintain the facilities.
  I just want to make that point because it has a lot to do with some 
of the problems in Indian country regarding children and families. It 
is somewhat an add-on to Senator Boxer's comments about children and 
families.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. SASSER. Madam President, let me just note that the measure just 
discussed was sponsored by Senator Bingaman, along with Senator 
Domenici. It is, I think, a very outstanding measure, and I commend 
them for bringing this to the Senate.
  Madam President, I yield 15 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you very much, Madam President.
  Madam President, I would like to begin by extending my appreciation 
and commendation to our distinguished chairman for the outstanding job 
he has done this year, as he has in previous years, in bringing to the 
Senate a responsible budget resolution. I commend him and the members 
of the committee and the able staff of the committee for their 
outstanding service to America.
  Madam President, I would like to talk about the dual purpose which 
the Senate has in considering the conference report on the budget 
resolution this afternoon. The first and the most obvious purpose is to 
develop a broad framework, an outline, for Federal spending for the 
fiscal year that we begin October 1.
  I support the fiscal plan that has been developed by the Budget 
Committee. In my judgment, it responsibly meets the needs of our people 
at a time in which there is increasing scrutiny of Federal spending.
  As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I am particularly aware 
of the pressures that are being imposed on the United States to be 
militarily strong to protect democracy in this country and around the 
world. I believe that this budget provides for a reasonable capacity 
for our military to continue to meet that function.
  I think similar statements of adequacy to function can be found 
throughout the rest of the budget. I particularly am pleased at the new 
emphasis that is being given to areas that will contribute to our long-
term economic and social strength, areas such as education, job 
training, and job creation. These are important, creative initiatives 
to which this budget recommits our Nation.
  But I would like to use most of my time, Madam President, to talk 
about the second purpose of the budget resolution debate today; that 
is, the purpose of signaling our commitment to continue to pursue the 
goal of reducing the Federal budget deficit.
  Congress made significant progress in reducing the deficit in 1993. 
Last August we took a giant step in the right direction by adopting a 
significant deficit reduction program. Before Congress had taken that 
action, Madam President, the Office of Management and Budget, pursuant 
to the blue line on this graph, had projected the Federal deficit from 
1993 through to the year 2003. It was a very depressing and alarming 
line. We started in 1993 with a deficit of $319 billion and 10 years 
later a deficit of $639 billion. That was what the President and the 
Congress faced as they began in January of last year.
  In large part because of the action that was taken last August, we 
are on a slightly less treacherous economic course. The red line 
indicates what the projection is and actually the first 2 years of 
accomplishment of the new economic plan. The deficit which had been 
projected to be $319 billion in 1993 was actually $255 billion. The 
deficit which was projected to be $301 billion in this fiscal year, 
1994, now appears to be $223 billion. In the budget that we are 
considering, instead of recommending a deficit of $296 billion for 
1995, the deficit will be $171 billion. By all accounts, those 
represent significant steps toward reduction in our deficit.
  However, Madam President, I point out the end, the tail of this red 
line. The tail of this red line is that deficits begin to rise again in 
approximately 1997. By the year 2004, we will be back up to $365 
billion, or higher than the deficits were projected to be when we 
commenced this process in 1993. That says very clearly that our work is 
not over.
  There was an unexpected bonus, a dividend, that came from our efforts 
last year to reduce the Federal budget deficit. That was a 
``surprising''--to use a word of one prominent economist on Wall 
Street--impact on long-term interest rates.
  In January of 1993, long-term interest rates hovered above 7.3 
percent. By the first of August, they were down to slightly above 6.5 
percent. By the middle of October they had dropped to 5.9 percent. So 
over a period of 10\1/2\ months, long-term interest rates have gone 
from 7.3 percent to 5.9 percent. A substantial amount of that slide 
occurred in the period immediately after the adoption of the August 
economic program.
  This sharp reduction in long-term interest rates had a dramatic 
stimulus effect on our economy. People were able to buy homes and cars; 
businesses were able to expand, employ people, and invest in new 
capital goods. It was a major contributor to the strongest economic 
report for the fourth quarter of 1993 than we have had in recent 
American economic history.
  This drop in interest rates made clear the relationship between 
fiscal policy and the state of the economy and the state of that 
economy on the lives of every American. Long-term interest rates are 
heavily influenced by the market's sense for the potential for 
inflation.
  When there is likely to be a resurgence of inflation, long-term rates 
will rise. When there is confidence that inflation will be checked, 
including checked by responsible Federal fiscal policy, long-term 
interest rates will trend downward.
  Unfortunately, just as in our previous chart, which had a tail of two 
points on the graph, the good news of the left side and the bad news of 
the right side, again, we have a tail of two points on the graph as it 
relates to long-term interest rates. Since late October of last year, 
when interest rates moved toward 5.9 percent, we have seen an upswing 
almost as dramatic as the downswing that preceded it.
  As of yesterday, long-term rates were approaching 7.5 percent, or 
higher than they had been in January 1993, when this chart commenced. 
The drop in interest rates, in turn, affects directly our Federal 
deficit. A 1-percent rise in interest rates, assuming all other 
economic assumptions are held constant, will cause net interest on the 
Federal debt to rise by $2 billion in the current fiscal year and $7 
billion in 1995. In fact, if you use yesterday's 7.48-percent long-term 
rate, rather than the 6.1-percent rate calculated by the Congressional 
Budget Office last January, net interest on the Federal debt will 
increase this fiscal year by approximately $2.5 billion and, in 1995, 
by over $9 billion.
  So we have this duality. The budget resolution that we are adopting 
not only sets Federal fiscal policy, including the level of the 
deficit, it also influences long-term interest rates; and long-term 
interest rates, in turn, influence the extent of our deficit.
  Obviously, there are a variety of factors that affect the movement of 
the market, the health of the economy, and long-term interest rates. 
But a core factor is confidence in the capacity of the U.S. Government 
to control its deficit.
  In spite of the rise in long-term interest rates, Americans currently 
have many things to be confident about. Unemployment has fallen 
sharply, down nearly a full percentage point since 1993; housing starts 
rose 25 percent between July and December; spending for durable 
equipment is expanding at the fastest pace since 1972; inflation is 
low; prices rose just 2.7 percent in 1993, the smallest increase since 
1986. In January 1994, for the first time in more than 4 years, 
consumer prices were totally flat.
  Now is the time to maintain this confidence with increased vigilance. 
It is clear that congressional action directly affects long-term 
interest rates, which, in turn, directly affect Americans' confidence 
in their economic future. We have a clear mission to continue to pursue 
deficit reduction. We must be aggressive. Americans are beginning to 
focus on what may happen when the deficit starts to rise again after 
1997.
  Congress should use every opportunity available, including this 
budget resolution, to continue to fight the deficit. I supported the 
Senate passed Exon-Grassley amendment, which cut an additional $26 
billion from the 1995 budget. With five other Senators, I offered a 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution during the budget resolution debate, 
urging that legislation should be enacted to provide enforceable limits 
to control the growth of entitlement or mandatory spending.
  Those kinds of efforts should continue. The resolution we are 
considering today contains $13 billion in additional budget cuts. I 
would have, frankly, preferred the $26 billion contained in the 
original Senate-passed version. But $13 billion in spending reduction 
is a step in the right direction.
  I am also pleased that the Senate has expressed a commitment to 
restrain entitlement spending. As we know, the primary culprit of out-
of-control entitlement spending is in the health care area. And in the 
next few weeks, as Congress debates the health bill, we should turn the 
statement of commitment into real action.
  Madam President, I hope our actions today in adopting this budget 
resolution and our resolve to take further steps in the near future 
will indicate our commitment to continued deficit reduction. If we 
continue working to reduce the deficit, we will see interest rates 
fall; more people will purchase and refinance homes; more people will 
have jobs; the economy will grow stronger. We have a chance and we have 
a responsibility to stop spending money we do not have, to help further 
strengthen our economy, and to make certain that our grandchildren are 
not left to foot the bill for a generation of irresponsible spending.
  It is my intention to vote for the budget resolution conference 
report because I believe that it is a responsible fiscal plan, and I 
hope that it will be interpreted by Americans as a statement of resolve 
today and in the near future to take further actions to reduce our 
budget deficits.
  But this must not be the only step we take. I will continue to seek 
ways to implement deficit reduction, because we owe it to America and 
we owe it to our grandchildren.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  (Mrs. MURRAY assumed the chair.)
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I wonder if my friend from Florida 
would mind if I borrowed his two charts for just a couple of minutes.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I would be honored to loan our charts, 
at a very nominal rate of interest, to our friend and colleague from 
New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We will do it at the interest rate of 6 months ago, 
rather than today, since it was a little cheaper then.
  Madam President, first, I yield myself 10 minutes. I might say to the 
Republicans who still desire to be heard on our side, I just hope they 
will make time to come down here. I do not know how much time they 
want. Senator Gramm of Texas wants some time; Senator Brown wanted 10 
minutes; and Senator Gregg and Senator Lott. Perhaps they could call in 
and tell us what time they can come, so we can pull this budget 
resolution down for final approval later on and get on with some other 
things here on the floor. I would appreciate it if Senators on my side 
will accommodate me with that.
  With reference to Senator Boxer's comments on the Defense Department 
of the United States and America's military, the United States is not 
Iraq; the United States is not Russia; the United States is not the 
Ukraine; the United States is not Japan, and so on down the list of 
countries that the distinguished Senator from California listed with 
reference to our military preparedness.
  Point 1: During the Nixon years, we changed from an army that we 
drafted, a military that we drafted, to a volunteer military, a 
gigantic step for the United States. We have decided since that time 
that we were going to call for parity to our military. It took us time 
to get there, but we are getting close to paying them for similar 
things as if they were out in the private sector. That is a historic 
situation and a magnificent statement for a democracy to make about its 
military.
  So, right off, none of those countries that were alluded to take care 
of their military. As a matter of fact, in the Soviet Union today, they 
do not even know where they will get the money to pay them, but they 
are still in the military. They do not know where they are going to get 
the money to take care of the nuclear weapons, by the thousands. And we 
are hoping they will dismantle them, but they are still there. There 
are statements from Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, and elsewhere daily 
saying maybe there will be a civil revolution there in the not-too-
distant future. At least the free world and America sits there 
wondering when we will get that neutralized.

  I now want to comment on what we have done to our military. It is 
unequivocal that defense is the only thing we have cut on the 
discretionary side of the American budget in all of the appropriations. 
The only thing we have cut, since 1990 through the President's 
proposals and for the next 4 years of the President's tentative budget 
proposals, is defense.
  I know Americans do not believe that. They must be saying that cannot 
be; we heard so much about restraint, about cuts. Well, frankly, I sent 
a little simple chart up there. Discretionary spending of the United 
States on the domestic side has gone up. It will go up every year from 
now to the 5-year program that the President has in place, and defense 
will come down each year, such that in real terms the Defense 
Department will have been cut 50 percent since 1985 in real terms. That 
means if you had no inflation to the numbers, just year after year, it 
has been cut 50 percent.
  I am not going to go through what all that means in terms of 
divisions that are down, procurements that are down, how many airplanes 
do we really have today, how many divisions are already cut. Let me 
tell you in real terms, when you cut defense 50 percent since 1985 you 
have done something to the defense of this country.
  So I repeat, that whatever the numbers are in the top line of this 
budget resolution, which show the President's numbers for defense, just 
remember that down below there is another number that says we have to 
distribute $4.7 billion in outlays, $6.7 billion in budget authority 
back through this budget. And I surmise that unless the Congress says 
we will spend the same amount that the President asks, we will get an 
allocation from the Appropriations Committee that cuts defense well 
below the President's numbers.
  Is the President of the United States asking for too much in defense? 
After we had the Bush cuts coming from the 5-year plan that came after 
the Andrews Air Force Base 1990 summit, the President asks for another 
$60 billion on top of that, and we are on that path. He finally says, 
``Do not cut below that; that is enough.''
  So, I do not think the Senator from New Mexico and some Democrats and 
most Republicans, who are concerned about that aspect of this budget 
and of the trend line that is moving in that direction, we are trying 
to spread fear. I think we are trying to say that history will probably 
reveal once again that we are right and that we ought not to 
dramatically cut defense; certainly not much more than we have done 
because we will live to rue the day just like we did after the First 
World War and immediately after the Second World War. I have gone 
through what these numbers reveal earlier this morning in terms of how 
much lower they are going to be, so I will not repeat them.
  The reason I asked if I could borrow the charts of my good friend 
from Florida is, if I were a Democrat and I said that about our 
distinguished chairman this morning, and then I will say it about 
Senator Boxer from California, I would come to the floor and say to 
Senators and to whomever is listening, it is the President's deficit 
reduction plan that has caused all these good things to happen in our 
economy. I would say that it is the economic plan that has been adopted 
that is putting people to work. I would say that it is what caused 
interest rates to come down. I would say it is what is going to cause 
us to get our deficit down dramatically over time.
  But essentially I think that, while that is said on that side of the 
aisle, that it behooves someone on this side of the aisle--and I choose 
to do it--to say: ``But I have another version. There is another set of 
facts that everybody should know something about.''
  So let me just move up here to these long-term interest rates, which 
is interesting. Let us go back to 1993, the year after the President's 
election. We will find that in August of that year--that is about 
here--we passed a tax and alleged deficit reduction package right here. 
Is it interesting that by that point in time--that is why this is 
intriguing me so much--at that point in time the long-term interest 
rates had almost gotten as low as they have been in this period of 
time.
  We can just go up a couple more and find October.
  So it is August, September, October, 3 months after the plan is 
adopted, the interest rates are at an all time low for this period of 
time.
  Now, while I am very pleased that the economy is doing well--I hope 
we are on the right track; I hope it continues--I would just like to 
share with everybody here, there is no economist, nobody who would look 
at the American economic scene who would say that that tax-and-cut 
package--and I will keep saying ``alleged'' cut package--that in 2 
months it would cause the interest rates of the United States to come 
down--no one. Almost everybody would say it takes a year to a year and 
a half for any impact to occur.
  Interestingly enough, now, of course, some will stand up and say it 
is the Federal Reserve that jinxed this package. But 2 months after it 
passed, the long-term interest rates reached their low, and they 
started back up, so that they are on a path up for all of the time 
since. So that the interest rates, starting 2 months after adoption of 
that package, are starting back up again, and they are up here to--
April is the latest date we have here, and they have gone up from 6 
percent to 7.1 percent.
  I am not presently complaining about the interest rates. I think the 
Federal Reserve Board is doing right. I believe they want this recovery 
to last longer, and they are worried and it is getting cut short. But I 
am merely making the point that if there is an American economic plan 
that is built around all of these words, like it is going to increase 
productivity, it is going to increase jobs, it is going to lower 
interest rates, then it seems to me that we ought to at least recall 
that maybe something else was going on in this economy long before that 
package was passed that brought much of this into fruition.
  I believe that is the case. As a matter of fact, I believe the 
Federal Reserve Board, for about 2\1/2\ years before George Bush was 
defeated, put us on a money supply course that has a great deal to do 
with this positive recovery. It just did not come soon enough for 
President George Bush. The business cycle did not quite reach bottom 
and start back up. And I think if one were to take this long term and 
go beyond January 1993, where my good friend from Florida started it, 
that you would find the long-term interest rates were on a path down 
for 3 years prior to adoption of the August package which I believe had 
something to do with fueling this recovery.
  Now, my friend from Florida, and my neighbor, Senator Graham from 
Florida, puts up this chart. This is an interesting one also. I will 
use it for two purposes.
  First, Madam President, here is when this new budget that we are 
talking about today comes into play. There is a great euphoria about 
how well we have done at deficit reduction and, frankly, I remind 
everybody that the deficit starts back up and I do not know that I 
agree with this number. I would think this may be higher. But recall 
that in a decade the deficit will be back higher than it was when 
President Clinton took office. And we constantly look for reduction of 
this and we say we are going to get that when we restrain entitlements.
  More particularly, most people say we are going to get this down when 
we get health care reform in place. Yet, Madam President, there is no 
plan for health care reform that costs the Government less than we are 
now spending other than the one I introduced yesterday. And I purposely 
mandate that some of the savings go to deficit reduction. So there is 
nothing left unless it is more defense and more taxes to get this to 
come down.
  Now I use it for a second point. And I have told my staff the next 
time we talk about this subject we will have this graph, but we will 
have another line in it. What we will do is, we will show how much of 
this reduction--the red line--is attributable to the deficit reduction 
package that passed in August 1993. That is a very heralded date. It is 
quite right that not a single Republican voted for it. Some Democrats 
did not. But the President got, by just the narrowest of margins, 
enough votes for it.
  We need another line in here to show that for the years 1994 and 
1995--this delta here--almost all of that deficit reduction had nothing 
to do with the deficit reduction package. Nothing. About $13 billion to 
$14 billion of the reduction over 2 years may have come from economic 
assumptions that might be prompted by this. All the rest is taxes and 
technical reassessments, such as the Resolution Trust Corporation 
costing less, such as Medicare-Medicaid inflation coming down, none of 
which, in the opinion of the Congressional Budget Office or anybody 
that I have asked, has anything to do with the deficit package that was 
passed.
  I only do that because, obviously, just as something was happening in 
the American economy prior to that August date, in fact, on the 
American economy it may have been happening for 5, 6 or 7 years, and 
perhaps--perhaps--foreign countries had more to do with making it 
better than anybody else, because American business for 7 or 8 or 9 
years decided that they were going to have to get this economy more 
productive, that they had to be more competitive. I think all of that 
was churning around during this period of time preceding the passage of 
the so-called deficit reduction package.
  So we will make another line to show how much of this reduction is 
attributable to causes that have nothing to do with the deficit 
reduction package and maybe we will make another that shows the deficit 
reduction that is all attributable to taxes.
  Having said that, I want to repeat, hopefully, this recovery is a 
good, solid one. Hopefully, we are on the right track.
  And if I were either President Clinton or a Democrat that voted for 
the package, I would be down here and wherever anybody would listen 
around the country, saying that package deserves full credit for all 
the good things that are happening in the economy. But I would not 
expect that to go unanswered, and I do not assume they do.
  I assume that people are beginning to understand--and we will help 
that along--that there are at least two or three reasons, one of which 
is the business cycle. We have not fixed it yet. It was down. It 
started up slightly before President Clinton was elected, and it is now 
moving into a very positive part of the business cycle that we have had 
regularly at very short intervals since the First World War.
  I yield the floor at this point.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous 
consent that it be charged to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I yield myself 5 minutes from Senator 
Domenici's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator is recognized.
  Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Madam President.
  I rise in concern over the budget report that is now before our body.
  Budget reports and conference reports are not new to the Senate. We 
have had them for many, many years. Long-term plans are not new. They 
have been around for many, many years.
  What is unique about this budget and about this conference report is 
that it is a long-term plan for financial insolvency.
  Let my be very clear. This is a long-term plan with specific numbers, 
specific figures, and specific programs to lead this country into 
bankruptcy. Members should be aware when they vote on this that they 
are voting to reduce savings, to reduce jobs, and to make this Nation 
insolvent.
  Those are strong words and strong charges. Let me be specific.
  One need only look at the resolution itself. The deficit, under this 
measure, rises from $174 billion to $190 billion in 1997, to $187 
billion in 1998, and to $198 billion in 1999.
  Let me be specific. The deficit is significantly higher in 1999, 
according to this plan, than it is in 1995.
  Madam President, that assumes that we meet all of the goals and 
guidelines included in the budget, which we have never done. It assumes 
that there are no emergencies that break the budget, and we have always 
had them.
  It assumes we do not overspend the budget, and we have done that 
averaging almost $20 billion a year of overspending the budget. It 
assumes we meet all the targets in terms of the assumptions, and I do 
not think I need to remind the body but the facts are these budget 
projections have always been wildly optimistic. If you accept the 
budget projections, if you assume there is no overspending the budget, 
if you assume there is no emergency that breaks it, and if you assume, 
fourth of all, that none of the loopholes carved into the budget are 
taken advantage of, even then the deficit rises and that is just in the 
first 5 years.
  CBO's budget projections for the next 5 years for all of these 
indicate an exploding of the deficit as the obligations come forward. 
The simple fact is this. This is a long-term plan for insolvency. You 
do not have to take my word for that. All you have to do is take a look 
at the report and the numbers in the report. It shows a deficit curve 
where the deficit begins to go further and further up the farther and 
farther out you go. That is in dramatic contrast with budgets we have 
had through most of the budget cycle. They may allow a deficit in the 
year they brought the budget to the floor, but they always at least 
assume it will go away by the end of the 5-year cycle. First it was 1 
year out, then 2 years out, then 3 years out, then 4 years out, then 5 
years out. This budget has a deficit going on forever and rising. It 
shows a huge explosion of the national debt. It shows a dramatic and 
continuing increase. Madam President, it will be much worse than these 
figures.
  This is a prescription for financial disaster for this Nation. Those 
who will vote for it today must report to their constituents that they 
voted for a long-term plan that will destroy the financial integrity of 
this Nation. It is a sad day.
  Let me simply add one other comment. Some who vote for this may 
excuse themselves because they claim you can solve this by future tax 
increases. I do not think future tax increases are a healthy or good 
idea for this economy but many Members here do. And some in good 
conscience will vote for this budget, assuming higher taxes will 
relieve the problem. In the President's own budget is an analysis of 
generational accounting. That shows that someone being born today will 
have to bear a tax burden that is in excess of 80 percent of his or her 
income to be able to fund the obligations that are already on the 
books.
  Madam President, that is not my figure. Those are the figures brought 
to us by the President in his own budget. Someone born today will face 
tax rates in excess of 80 percent of what their whole income will be. 
That is inexcusable. Anyone who votes for this budget assuming that 
future tax increases are going to bail out the problem simply has not 
taken the time to do his or her homework. The fact is many in this 
country can have 100 percent of their income taken in future years and 
it will not be enough to meet the obligations that we lay on the 
taxpayers of this country already. It is a tragedy that we would, 
facing this problem, choose to react with a budget of this kind--a 
budget which simply says to the future that America's financial future 
is one of insolvency. That is what this budget is. It is a burden on 
the men and women of this country. It is a burden on the working people 
of this country. It is a burden on future generations. What we need is 
a budget that faces the problems and controls spending.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Who 
yields time?
  The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. SASSER. Madam President, our distinguished friend from Colorado 
makes the point that this budget before us is different, in the sense 
that it shows growth in the deficits in the far outyears. Indeed it is 
different in that respect because this is the second truly honest 
budget that this Chamber has seen in 12 years.
  In the times of David Stockman and in the times of Richard Darman, of 
course there was no growth in the deficit in the outyears--although we 
all knew it was there. It was not there, Madam President, because the 
books were cooked--that is why it was not there.
  But what we have before this body today is a true representation of 
what is happening in the fiscal affairs of the Government of the United 
States of America and that in itself is refreshing and novel for a 
change. I want to commend the President and Chairman of the Office of 
Management and Budget, Mr. Panetta, for bringing that to us. We have a 
new era of budgeting now in this country that I hope will persevere 
beyond this administration and I suspect there are others on the other 
side of the aisle who share this view, that we will tell ourselves the 
truth about where we are with the deficit.
  The truth is that this budget proposal that is before us today, that 
carries on where the budget proposal of last year left off, will reduce 
the deficit in the neighborhood of over $650 billion over the next 5 
years. To give an example of the honesty of the projections that are 
used in this calculation, last year we were projecting a deficit 
reduction figure of slightly under $500 billion. But we find now that 
the legislation we enacted into law last year, because of increased 
economic activity, because of savings in a number of areas that were 
not anticipated, because we were not giving ourselves the benefit of 
the doubt in certain entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid--
no rosy scenario, Madam President--we find now the hard reality is not 
that we overestimated our savings in years past. It is good news that 
we underestimated our savings. So what we are finding now is the 
deficit will come down not by $500 billion--I say to my friend from 
Alabama--but by $650 billion over the next 5 years. These deficits will 
be cut in half as a percent of gross domestic product.
  I told the body this morning that during the decade of the 1980's, 
the deficits had soared to some 4.2 percent, on the average, of gross 
domestic product. We see that this budget before us will carry on the 
program of reducing the deficits to about 2.3 percent of gross domestic 
product, even lower than the average of the 1970's, when if memory 
serves me correctly, it was about 2.5 of GDP.
  So we are bringing these deficits down by any measurement you want, 
either in actual dollars or as a percentage of GDP. To complain that in 
the outyears of 1999 or the year 2000, the deficits are going up and we 
ought to reject this, and this is a phony measure--well, Madam 
President, that stretches the limits of credulity.
  Madam President, I simply wanted to take this opportunity to rebut 
some of the statements I have heard here today from the other side of 
the aisle. But the good news for the American people in this budget 
proposal for us today is not just that it is reducing the deficits, it 
is that it is reducing the national debt as a percent of the gross 
domestic product. We will be seeing the national debt as a percentage 
of the GDP, the gross domestic product, come down and start down for 
the first time in almost a quarter of a century and that is going to be 
a result of this deficit reduction effort we made last year which is 
carried out and carried on by this budget before this body here today.
  So, Madam President, I think those who vote for this budget that is 
before this body today--and those who voted for this deficit reduction 
effort last year, some at great political cost to themselves because 
they put the interest of their country ahead of political interest--I 
would say to them that they can hold their heads high and they are 
doing the work that we were sent here to do.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I yield myself 15 minutes under the time 
of Senator Domenici.
  I just listened to the remarks of the distinguished chairman of the 
Budget Committee. I found them to be very interesting.
  There is no question that in this budget resolution we have before us 
the deficit projections are lower, but are they real? First of all, we 
still have large deficits. But second, I question whether or not this 
is a real, honest budget projection. What is alarming about the 
projections that we have here is that they do not include funding for 
health care. We have heard Chairman Danny Rostenkowski, chairman of the 
Ways and Means Committee in the House, saying the health care reform 
package could cost $40 billion or more. He has suggested not once, but 
repeatedly, that what we need is a new, broad-based tax increase to pay 
for it. But even the President has indicated he probably does not want 
to go along with that, although he did not reject the idea of a new 
broad-based tax increase completely. He just said he did not think it 
would be necessary for health care reform.
  If we do not have the tax increases and we have a health care plan 
passed this year that costs $40 billion, clearly, it would add to the 
deficit. We do not know what that is going to be yet, and I know it is 
hard to project that.
  Additionally, welfare reform is not included. Obviously, welfare 
reform is something we should try to do this year; we need a more 
responsible program. Many of the crime initiatives are not provided for 
in this budget resolution. We are probably going to adopt a major new 
crime conference report this year, and there are going to be costs 
associated with it. Many of these costs are not included in these 
budget projections before us.
  Furthermore, there are no funds for GATT or for Superfund. There is 
also a significant Bottom-Up Review shortfall for the defense of the 
country, and there is no provision for that. We have unfortunately 
experienced a lot of natural disasters recently. While the Federal 
Government has repeatedly offered financial assistance, this budget 
contains no provision for disaster relief.
  I have named a number of major programs that are going to have 
increased costs this year that are not included in these projections. 
So if, in fact, the deficit is projected in this budget to be between 
$175 billion and $200 billion in the next fiscal year, in reality it 
will probably be considerably higher.
  The estimates are that the Federal deficit will decline to an 
estimated $175 billion in 1995, remain unchanged at about $174 billion 
in 1996, and then trend upward to nearly $200 billion, in 1999 under 
the assumptions of this resolution.
  The debt, by the end of fiscal year 1993, was $4.4 trillion. By 1999, 
it will be $6.3 trillion. So for the fiscal years 1994 through 1999, 
the projected growth in the national debt is $1.954 trillion.
  In addition to that, interest rates are continuing to rise. The 
Government's interest rates, and their payments on this debt, will 
increase, raising the deficit and the debt even higher. In fact, the 
gross interest on the debt in fiscal year 1994 is approximately $300 
billion; in fiscal year 1995, it will increase to $311.8 billion.
  So under this budget resolution that is praised for holding down the 
level of increase in the deficit, the fact of the matter is the deficit 
continues to go up and, therefore, the debt goes up every year. So you 
can see what will happen by the end of this decade: There is a steady 
increase every year in the debt and, therefore, of course, the interest 
we pay on that national debt. The red line on this chart tells the 
story, and that is why this budget resolution does not accomplish 
nearly what it should.
  Let me go back and make out some of the points that need to be, I 
think, emphasized as to why this conference report is not the right 
thing to do.
  Spending will grow by 2.4 percent between fiscal years 1994 and 1995 
to $1.5 trillion. The problem is we only have $1.3 trillion in revenue 
estimated to be coming in. So you have the $200 billion gap there.
  When the resolution was considered by the full Senate, we passed the 
Exon-Grassley amendment. It was adopted by the Senate, and it would 
have cut discretionary spending outlays by $26 billion over 5 years. 
You would have thought we were trying to just destroy the Federal 
budget with that amount of additional cuts.
  So, in conference, that was reduced to $13 billion. This is only 0.15 
percent of the total outlays! So the Exon-Grassley amendment just made 
a little bitty scratch on the surface of trying to control spending. 
And I emphasize again, the problem is not insufficient revenue--we have 
$1.3 trillion in revenue--the problem is still too much spending. On 
the discretionary side, the budget increases funding for the Legal 
Services Corporation by 26 percent. It increases funding for the Civil 
Rights Division of the Justice Department by 32.3 percent. It also 
increases funding for the Environmental Law Division at the Justice 
Department by 15.3 percent.
  I acknowledge, as many of the appropriators point out, that the 
deficit is not caused just by domestic discretionary spending. Much of 
it is driven by entitlement increases. But I do feel that we should 
have maintained the Exon-Grassley cuts, and we should not be adding new 
programs.
  As a matter of fact, this budget resolution adds at least 6 new 
entitlements. So while we say we are trying to control spending--and 
much of the problem is in the entitlement areas--we still find 
entitlement programs are being added. This budget assumes entitlement 
spending increases of over $5 billion relative to the CBO baseline, 
including additional spending for the agriculture crop insurance 
program, and others.
  So you have significant increases in some of the discretionary 
programs, some new entitlement programs, and significant increases in a 
number of old entitlement programs.
  Another point that should be emphasized about this budget resolution 
is that taxes also go up. There will be an increase, a growth in taxes 
from $1.338 trillion in fiscal year 1995 to $1.630 trillion in fiscal 
year 1999; a 7 percent increase in taxes.
  I want to emphasize with regard to the Exon-Grassley amendment, this 
language should not be applied to defense. Defense has already been cut 
too much, and that point has been raised by the distinguished Senator 
from New Mexico, by the chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the 
Senate, by the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in 
the House, Chairman Murtha.
  The real decisions on the defense budget will likely be made through 
the appropriations bills. The President made a pledge not to cut 
defense below the request he had made. As a matter of fact, if the cuts 
of Exon-Grassley are applied or disproportionately applied to defense, 
certainly that would bring the number down to below what the President 
asked for. I assume the President will resist that very aggressively. 
If the cuts do not come from defense, defense spending will still 
decline from $270.7 billion in fiscal year 1995 to $257.6 billion in 
fiscal year 1999. The President's 1995 request is 35 percent below the 
1985 level and represents the tenth straight year of real cuts to 
defense budget authority.
  There is another thing I found very interesting in this conference 
report. It includes a provision that increases funding in excess of the 
fiscal year 1999 discretionary spending caps for IRS compliance 
initiatives, $405 million in BA and outlay beyond the caps in fiscal 
year 1995. Paying for a program ``off-budget" under the claim it will 
save money, in my opinion, is certainly a dangerous precedent.
  One thing we do not need is additional IRS agents. It is maintained 
that if we increase the number of IRS agents, we will get more money, 
but this has not been proven true. The IRS has seen an increase of over 
40,000 full-time equivalents since 1982, roughly a 33 percent increase. 
The conference report could constitute an increase of IRS personnel of 
another 4 percent. I really question this procedure and also what 
results we are going to get. I assure you, if you ask the American 
people if they would support the idea of more IRS agents, they would 
strenuously object to it.
  While I do not believe any more IRS agents should be hired period, 
there is no reason that this provision could not have been included in 
the President's budget. We should not pass it off-budget.
  Finally, this particular budget resolution does not contain any 
economic growth incentives, which is the only way to create real, 
lasting jobs. We debated that during the earlier Senate debate on the 
budget resolution. We proposed a $500 tax credit for children and 
incentives for individual retirement accounts. There were many 
provisions in there that would have provided growth incentives and 
created some jobs, but there is nothing in this budget resolution that 
would really help to stimulate the economy.
  The conference report also includes 12 reserve funds. While these 
sound good because they require legislation be paid for, they basically 
pave the way for tax increases.
  You say, how could that be? It is because reserve funds essentially 
exempt legislation that increases taxes to pay for higher spending from 
Budget Act points of order. I think this is a very dangerous procedure 
also. I do think it is a guarantee of one way that more taxes will be 
raised and, therefore, more money spent.
  So there are many problems with this budget resolution. I note that 
in several instances this budget resolution is above what the President 
has asked. It seems that we should at least stay within or under what 
the President has asked. In international affairs, it is above what 
President Clinton has asked.
  I also note that in the energy function, the conference report 
includes $1.6 billion in budget authority and $1.4 billion in outlays 
above what the President has asked. I do not know to exactly what these 
increases would be applied. It may be for good purposes, and I might 
even be inclined to support them. But I do think as a general rule we 
should at least hold spending down to under what the President has 
asked.
  So, Madam President, I will vote against this budget resolution. I 
think there are many problems with it. And if you call this honesty in 
budgeting, I have to say I really have reservations about it because I 
think it is going to lead to tax increases, new entitlements, and more 
spending. I do not think the American people want that in their budget 
resolution.
  I yield the floor, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wellstone). Who yields time?
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I shall consume 
from the time under the control of the majority.
  Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the conference 
report on the 1995 budget resolution. I want to first thank our 
chairman for his leadership and cooperation throughout this process. I 
recognize that it is very difficult to determine just what a majority 
of the Senate wants to achieve with a budget resolution and this year 
has, I believe, been more interesting than most in that regard.
  As Members are well aware, Senator Grassley and I successfully 
offered an amendment to the 1995 budget resolution during its markup by 
the Senate Budget Committee. Our amendment cut proposed discretionary 
spending by about $26.1 billion over the next 5 years. Although efforts 
were made during floor debate of the Senate version of the budget 
resolution to weaken the Exon-Grassley amendment, we were successful in 
protecting the $26 billion in cuts.
  The House of Representatives, however, did not go along with our 
proposal. Although a motion to instruct their conferees to accept the 
Senate numbers was offered, it was narrowly defeated. It failed over 
there by a very few votes. As a result, the conferees were forced to 
compromise and have returned a conference report that retains $13 
billion of the Exon-Grassley cuts.
  Mr. President, the facts are that cutting the whole $26 billion was 
not in the cards. The House did not accept the Exon-Grassley cuts and 
senator Sasser, Senator Hollings, and Senator Johnston responsibly 
negotiated a final package. The House has already passed this 
conference report and the responsible action for the full Senate at 
this point is to support the conference report as well.
  But, the good news is that $13 billion of the Exon-Grassley cuts 
survived and that as a result we will continue to cut Government 
spending this year. There have been a number of attempts as the record 
clearly shows, to cut spending in recent months and many, if not most, 
Senators have supported one or several of those attempts. Yet, since 
passage of the deficit reduction bill last summer, we have not been 
successful, until now, in achieving any additional deficit reduction 
whatsoever.

  It is important to keep in mind that the Exon-Grassley amendment 
achieved its cuts by lowering our discretionary spending caps over the 
next 4 years and by creating a point of order in the Senate should 
those caps be exceeded. The conference report substantially retains 
that language. In short, I believe the Exon-Grassley cuts will be 
sustained in the coming years as they have created a new base for 
discretionary spending.
  I am, of course, disappointed that the entire Exon-Grassley cut was 
not retained in our conference report. I remain convinced that we could 
easily have cut the full $26.1 billion from discretionary spending over 
the next 5 years, where total spending will be over $2.7 trillion over 
that same period of time. President Clinton's own budget includes over 
$113 billion of spending increases in discretionary programs. We could 
have achieved the Exon-Grassley cuts merely by scaling back on the 
increases that some programs will enjoy over the coming years as I have 
proposed.
  As for further reductions in defense spending, it is not my view that 
such action should be taken. The Exon-Grassley cuts could easily be 
made without reducing defense which has, as the Senator from New Mexico 
has correctly pointed out, already been cut significantly over the past 
few years. Yet, as I have often pointed out, our budget resolution does 
not make binding recommendations for spending within our various 
categories. That it is a task that has been left to the Senate 
Appropriations Committee, as required by the rules.
  This budget resolution is indeed a victory for those of us who want 
to further cut spending in order to address our budgetary problems. 
Although the Exon-Grassley cuts were certainly modest, they do send, in 
my view, an important signal that Congress remains serious in its 
concern over our annual deficit spending and over our enormous national 
debt.
  And, I would add that any Member who wants additional spending cuts 
this year should support this budget resolution. If this resolution 
fails to pass, I question whether additional spending cuts will be made 
this year. In sum, a vote for this resolution is a vote for further 
deficit reduction and is the responsible vote on this point in time.
  I am also pleased that the conferees agreed to change the baseline so 
that we pass a crop insurance reform bill this year. Although that 
change does have the immediate impact of raising our projected deficits 
over the next few years, it is important to keep in mind that the 
increased spending reflected in this budget resolution for crop 
insurance is to be offset by emergency spending on crop disaster 
payments, spending that is not in our budget but that will raise our 
deficits just as well.
  In other words, the crop insurance proposal will offset on-budget 
spending with what has normally been off-budget spending. The net 
effect on our future deficits will likely be a wash, not an increase as 
technically shown in this conference agreement.
  In fact, by most accounts, the crop insurance reform proposal will 
save money over the next few years and will actually decrease our 
deficit spending--exactly the opposite of what must be detailed in the 
budget resolution.
  So, in conclusion, Mr. President, I want to once again thank Chairman 
Sasser for his efforts and cooperation throughout the battle on the 
budget. It has been a tough fight, and no one has emerged victorious on 
every issue, and that is the way it should be. Yet, I am proud of the 
cuts Senator Grassley and I have been successful in achieving. It is, 
however, time for Congress to get our budget resolution behind us and 
move ahead with the appropriations process, which will follow.
  I intend to support the conference report, and I urge my colleagues 
to do likewise. It is the only thing before us now, and not to accept 
this report, I think, would cause untold difficulties, including 
raising further the deficit that we are all very much concerned about.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous 
consent that the time on the quorum call be charged equally against 
both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are going to 
other business at 4:30. I have a bad angle on this clock. Is that 3 
minutes or 2 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield the 2 minutes we have remaining 
before getting off this measure for today to Senator Gramm.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator would just 
respond to a question, we are going to go at 4:30 to the quotas and the 
death penalty issue and then we are going to have a series of votes. 
Will we come back to this tonight or will we come back tomorrow?
  Mr. DOMENICI. The current request on the other side is that we come 
back to it tonight and set a time certain tomorrow to vote.
  Can the Senator come back this evening and take 10 minutes or 
whatever he needs?
  Mr. GRAMM. I can look at it. I obviously would rather do it tomorrow.
  Given the time we have, I will just wait. We are getting ready to 
shift over to the other issues. I have about 10 minutes of points that 
I want to make about the budget. I can do that in the morning. Maybe we 
can work out a unanimous consent request that we can come in in the 
morning and maybe have a certain amount of time equally divided and 
have a vote then and let the clock run down while we are gone tonight. 
It seems to me that would be a productive use of our time and no damage 
would be done on that basis.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We will try to work on that basis.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, might I inquire what the pending order of 
business is?

                          ____________________