[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 58 (Thursday, May 12, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 12, 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 PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 3 
o'clock having arrived, the Senate will now resume consideration of the 
conference report on House Concurrent Resolution 218 which the clerk 
will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Conference report to accompany H. Con. Res. 218, setting 
     forth the congressional budget for the United States 
     Government for fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 30 
minutes for debate on the conference report, equally divided.
  If no one wishes to speak, the time will be equally divided.
  In my capacity as a Senator from the State of Washington, I suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant 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the quorum call be rescinded.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. Madam President, under the previous order, I yield myself 
7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], is 
recognized.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, there is not a whole lot to say about the 
budget that is before us. It has been debated at some length in both 
Houses of Congress.
  I want to focus my comments today on an opportunity lost. We in 
Congress often justify our unwillingness to take tough action on the 
budget by claiming that the economy is not doing well, or unemployment 
is up, or there is something wrong somewhere that interferes with our 
ability to control spending and to reduce the deficit. And so we face a 
situation today where 50 cents out of every dollar borrowed in the 
American economy is borrowed by the Government, preventing us from 
building new homes, farms, and factories. Interest rates, in fact, are 
starting to edge back up, in part, because we are doing nothing about 
the deficit.
  Basically, today, the economy is strong. We have a recovery that 
started to take off in the third quarter of 1992. It was in full swing 
by the fourth quarter of 1992. And while it has gone up and down, we 
have had a fairly strong economy since.
  Yet, when you look at the budget before us, the 1995 deficit 
projected under our best-case scenario--if everything we hope happens--
the deficit is $175 billion.
  In 5 years, the projection of the deficit is $197.6 billion, if the 
President's health care plan is defeated. But if the President's health 
care plan is adopted, the deficit would be $230.7 billion. That is, the 
deficit would rise by almost $55 billion over a 5-year period.
  Finally, under the budget as written and projected for the next 10 
years, the deficit would grow to $365 billion.
  So, basically, my concern is that given a golden opportunity to deal 
with the deficit, we are not getting the job done.
  I think this budget tells you two things: No. 1, the administration 
may be committed to many things, but it is not committed to deficit 
reduction. No. 2, neither is this Congress.
  We had a big debate over the Grassley amendment, and many will 
remember that Senator Grassley proposed cutting discretionary spending 
by $26 billion over a 5-year period. I wanted to try to find a way to 
explain what that meant, and my trusty staff member came up with this 
chart.
  What Senator Grassley proposed was that of every $3 we spend over the 
next 5 years, we ought to cut those programs by one penny, one penny 
out of every $3. As we all know, the Senate adopted the Grassley 
amendment, but the House had not. We went to conference, and our 
conferees decided that it would be an outrage to cut one penny out of 
every $3 the Federal Government spent over the next 5 years. And so now 
we are cutting one penny out of every $6, only we are doing it by the 
way the Government keeps books. We are cutting one penny out of every 
$6 from what we ``would have" spent, not what ``we are'' spending 
today.
  In fact, under this budget, spending next year goes up by $39 
billion. I think it is important to note that while the deficit is 
projected to go down for 2 years, it then goes up like a rocket. One of 
the reasons for the decline is that we are cutting defense so 
dramatically. The last time we balanced the Federal budget--1969--
defense as a percentage of the economy, was taking 8.9 percent. Under 
this budget, by the time it is completed in 1999, defense will be 
taking 2.9 percent; yet, the deficit will be $200 billion.
  Why is that important? Well, it is important because we are going to 
be spending less on defense as a percentage of the economy than we were 
in 1940; yet, the deficit is going to be $200 billion. We have spent 
every penny of defense savings. This budget spends every penny of 
income tax increases, every penny of the Social Security tax increases; 
yet, it does not bring the deficit down over the 5-year period. In 
fact, it goes up.
  What are we to do if, in fact, we need to rebuild defense? Having 
spent the money we saved when we slashed defense, where are we going to 
get the money if we have to rebuild our defenses? That money has now 
been spent on domestic programs. Under this budget plan we will have to 
either raise taxes or raise the deficit.
  So, Madam President, I believe this is a poor budget. I believe this 
budget ought to be rejected. We ought to go back and try again. I 
believe that we can do better. I believe we need to dramatically reduce 
the growth of Government spending.
  We also need to reduce the ever-growing tax burden. From 1950 to 
1980, the tax burden grew every year, and then under Ronald Reagan, the 
tax burden actually declined. Now it is growing again. Tax freedom day, 
the last day you work for the Government and the first day you work for 
yourself, has grown by an average of 2 days since Bill Clinton became 
President. Yet we are still looking at deficits that, after a modest 2-
year decline, are then going up like a rocket. What does this say? It 
says to me we need to gain control of spending. We have not done it.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, let me yield myself 2 additional minutes 
since we will just run off the clock. Then I will put us in a quorum 
call. My dear colleague from New Mexico was in a banking hearing with 
me and should be on the way.
  Let me just sum up by saying that this is not a terrible budget. This 
is not a budget that starts a whole bunch of new programs, but it is a 
budget that continues to transfer from defense spending to domestic 
programs. It is a budget that, despite the President's stated 
priorities to fight crime, cuts prison construction by 40 percent, 
reduces the number of people at the FBI and the DEA and in the Justice 
Department, and yet ends up spending $39 billion more than this year.
  The fact is with the economy in pretty good shape, we have a golden 
opportunity to deal with this deficit and deal with it dramatically.
  I just want to predict that when the full impact of the retroactive 
tax that went into effect on April 15 on small businesses is felt, when 
the Social Security tax taxing 85 percent of the Social Security 
benefits of our senior citizens who earn over $30,000 a year goes into 
effect this coming April 15, we are going to begin to feel some impact 
on this economy, and the opportunity to deal with this deficit will 
have passed.
  My frustration, Madam President, is that we had a chance to do 
something about the deficit--I think we could have built a bipartisan 
constituency to do it--by controlling spending. We did not get the job 
done, and I think it is a tragedy we did not.
  I yield back the remainder of my time, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the time will be 
equally divided.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, could I inquire with reference to the 
time? How much time do we have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much does the other side have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirteen minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I think I will reserve my time, since Senator Dole 
wants 3 minutes, and see what the chairman wants to do.
  Madam President, the chairman has 13 minutes and we have 4. Is he 
prepared to use some of his time?
  Mr. SASSER. Madam President, a parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
  Mr. SASSER. Madam President, did I understand my friend correctly 
that we have 14 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee controls 13 
minutes; the Senator from New Mexico controls 4 minutes.
  Mr. SASSER. Madam President, I would like to make just a few 
observations here this afternoon prior to voting on this budget 
resolution conference report.
  I think we have become all too accustomed, in the debates dealing 
with the budget in recent years, to hearing claims that are 
exaggerated, partial statements of the facts, and on occasion outright 
misstatements of facts.
  Yesterday's debate, though thankfully it was not acrimonious--many of 
these budgetary debates are in that category--was liberally seasoned, I 
might say, with budgetary hyperbole, would be the charitable way to 
describe some of the observations that I heard yesterday.
  Let me take just a moment to set the record straight on a few of the 
assertions that struck me as being somewhat most egregious and then on 
a couple of lesser statements that I shall call imprecisions.
  First, the charge was made that the Congressional Budget Office has 
revised its deficit baseline upward by $100 billion and, so this claim 
goes, the pending budget resolution is unduly optimistic by that 
amount.
  Both portions of this charge are simply inaccurate and untrue. The 
Congressional Budget Office's April reestimate of the President's 
budget contains an upward deficit revision of roughly $30 billion for 
1995 through 1999--$30 billion over a 4-year period instead of the $100 
billion that was claimed here.
  Now, that is clear on page 6 of the CBO report. But, more 
importantly, it is the simple fact that the budget resolution before us 
incorporates the Congressional Budget Office's April reestimate. There 
is no attempt to disguise anything nor has there been.
  Moreover, the positive effects of what we did last year are barely 
nicked by that revision. We still reduced the 5-year deficit. We have a 
5-year deficit projection that reduces the deficit by some $650 
billion. Let me repeat that for my colleagues--a 5-year deficit 
projection that reduces the deficit by $650 billion over the next 5 
years, the largest deficit reduction package in the history of this 
country, indeed, I suppose, in the history of any country, probably in 
history, period.
  Let us move on to a second and related distortion. The bizarre claim 
was made that this budget represents a horrible departure from the past 
in that it projects outyear deficit problems.
  Now, this claim was made with a straight face, that the problem was 
that this budget continues to project outyear deficit problems and, 
therefore, it was no good and was not like the Reagan-Bush budgets of 
the past that always projected a balanced budget by the fifth year.
  I would have to say, Madam President, that it has become a melancholy 
pass in this Chamber when a fiscal document is damned for failing to 
live up to past standards of duplicity, manipulation, and delusion. And 
that is precisely what those Reagan-Bush budget projections were in the 
outyears.
  We all know about the magic asterisks. We know about the rosy 
scenarios. We know about the accounting miracles that were used for 12 
years to wish the deficit problem away.
  Finally, we have a President who refuses to misrepresent the task 
before us to the American people and he is taken to task for refusing 
to delude us. What have we come to?
  Now, Madam President, on lesser charges that were made yesterday: The 
contention was made that this budget contains a massive number of 
entitlement expansions. Well, I will be charitable and class that claim 
simply as an exaggeration.
  We have one entitlement expansion of any consequence whatsoever and, 
by most informed estimates, it is a needed reform. It is a reform of 
the Crop Insurance Program, which has never worked properly. As a 
consequence, on an annual basis, we provide disaster assistance to 
farmers that we do not pay for in our budget. The argument is made by 
the proponents of this reform that we need to fix the system.
  This is indeed an expansion. But I am told by people far more 
knowledgeable than I about farming programs that it is an absolutely 
necessary reform. And it is a reform, I might say, that has support 
from both sides of the aisle.
  The argument was also made yesterday that the only area of 
discretionary spending that has been cut in recent years is military 
spending.
  Yes, it is true. Military spending has been cut. But a look at the 
1994 appropriations bills will disabuse anyone of the notion that other 
programs have gotten off scot-free. By my count, those bills cut 342 
separate accounts below the 1993 level--51 of them were in defense and 
291 of them were in domestic or international accounts. That does not 
sound to me as if defense has been the only sufferer here.
  Finally, the charge was made about reserve funds in this budget.
  May I inquire, Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee controls 4 minutes 
and 50 seconds.
  Mr. SASSER. Madam President, I will just move on quickly and say that 
the budget before us is a solid work product. It is a necessary 
continuation of last year's very successful and, I would say, historic 
deficit-reduction plan. It contains $13 billion in cuts below the 
preexisting discretionary caps. It assumes the President's 300 program 
reductions and terminations as well as his investment priorities in 
education, child nutrition, health and crime prevention.
  It contains the strongest statement yet on record by the Senate in 
favor of overall entitlement restraint. More important, it reaffirms 
the best deficit path that we have seen in a decade--in over a decade.
  As a percent of gross domestic product, the 1995 deficit is lower 
than any time since 1979. The 1998 deficit will be $200 billion less 
than before we passed last year's plan, and projections for the 1999 
deficit have been cut in half.
  So, Madam President, the progress is real. The American people can 
feel it. They can feel it in an improved domestic economy. They can 
feel it in an improved international standing. There is no creditable 
policy reason for voting against this resolution, and there are 
profound reasons for voting for it.
  Madam President, I want to reserve the remainder of my time here 
because I think perhaps the majority leader is requesting some time to 
speak on this resolution. So I shall reserve the remainder of my time.
  I inquire of the Chair, how much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee controls 2 minutes 
and 30 seconds, and the Senator from New Mexico controls 4 minutes.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, speaking of hyperbole, I would just 
like to cite some of the wonderful prose that the chairman used 
yesterday to see if it fits his definition of hyperbole or some kind of 
rhetoric. I really thought that it was wonderful.

       It is retreating before the relentless assaults that we 
     have launched upon it over the past year and a half.

  Mr. SASSER. Yes, I said that, I say to my friend from New Mexico. And 
that is not quite Churchillian.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thought maybe we were celebrating the end of a war or 
something.
  In any event, I want to put a table in the Record, because yesterday 
I spoke of the fact that, since 1991 to this point, there have been no 
cuts on the discretionary programs that are domestic, and all the cuts 
have come out of defense. In fact, it is a little worse than that. All 
the cuts come out of defense, and domestic programs have gone up.
  I ask unanimous consent that that table be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                     DISCRETIONARY BUDGET OUTLAYS (NOMINAL)                                     
                                   [Fiscal years; dollar amounts in billions]                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Average 
                                                                                             Percent     annual 
                                                 1991     1992     1993     1994     1995     change     growth 
                                                                                             1991-95   rate 1991-
                                                                                                           95   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense......................................   $319.7   $302.6   $292.5   $279.8   $271.7      -15.0       -4.0
Nondefense...................................    215.1    233.4    251.0    267.0    273.5       27.2        6.2
                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total....................................    534.8    536.0    543.5    546.8    545.2        1.9        0.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                       DISCRETIONARY BUDGET OUTLAYS (REAL)                                      
                                   [Fiscal years; dollar amounts in billions]                                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Average 
                                                                                             Percent     annual 
                                                 1991     1992     1993     1994     1995     change     growth 
                                                                                             1991-95   rate 1991-
                                                                                                           95   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense......................................   $273.9   $251.6   $236.8   $220.8   $208.7      -23.8       -6.6
Nondefense...................................    184.3    194.1    203.2    210.8    210.0       13.9        3.3
                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total....................................    458.2    445.7    440.0    431.6    418.7       -8.6       -2.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, fellow Senators, let me just say, I 
believe once again this budget sends the wrong signals and is moving in 
the wrong direction.
  The problem with the fiscal policy of the United States is not that 
we are undertaxed. It is not that we must cut more domestic programs 
like highways and education and the like, or that we must cut defense 
more.
  The truth of the matter is, we are going to drown in the red ink of 
mandatory and entitlement programs that are growing at an incredible 
rate. That means that between the pension programs of our Nation, the 
health care programs of our Nation--which are most typical of 
entitlements--a statute is written that says people are entitled to 
something. Most of the time it is dollars or payment of their bills. 
And if they can go to court and sue for it and win, that is a 
definition of entitlement. That is currently 55 percent of the budget.
  To put this in perspective, when John Kennedy was President, I 
believe it was somewhere around 20 to 22 percent. It is growing at way 
beyond inflation and yet this budget resolution changes none of that.
  As a matter of fact, although not a lot, it increases an entitlement 
program, a mandatory one, for crop insurance $5 billion, and it has 12 
new allowables where new entitlement or mandatory programs in health 
insurance, health reform, welfare reform, and many other programs can 
be created. They will just add to the spending side, albeit under this 
process they must be neutral in terms of deficit reduction.
  So from everything I can tell, we have once again missed the 
opportunity to send a real signal to do something of a permanent nature 
about fixing the deficit. Instead, we have done the exact opposite.
  I want to have this table printed in the Record. I just want the 
Senate to see a recapitulation of how the deficit reduction occurs over 
the next 5 years. It will be most interesting when people find out that 
the Congressional Budget Office says that all we have cut in this $671 
billion claim is $56 billion in defense and $69 billion in 
discretionary over the 5 years. All the rest are taxes or adjustments 
due to the economy.
  I ask unanimous consent to have that table printed in the Record so 
everybody understands.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                             CBO POLICY DEFICIT ESTIMATES--CHANGE FROM 1993 TO 1994                             
                     [Prepared by SBC Minority Staff, May 11, 1994; in billions of dollars]                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              1993      1994      1995      1996      1997      1998      Total 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 1993 estimate.....................       310       291       284       287       319       357     1,848
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Technical reestimates.....................       -59       -30       -41       -17         3        -4      -148
Economic assumptions......................      -(*)       -13       -15       -12       -14       -25       -79
Policy changes:                                                                                                 
1993 Reconciliation:                                                                                            
    Taxes and user fees...................  ........       -28       -46       -56       -66       -66      -262
    Mandatory spending....................  ........        -4        -6       -12       -16       -18       -56
    Discretionary caps....................  ........  ........  ........        -8       -23       -38       -69
      Subtotal............................  ........       -33       -55       -83      -118      -143      -432
    Other (incl. emergencies).............         4        12         5         3       (*)         0        25
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal policy changes.............         4       -21       -50       -80      -117      -143      -407
                                           =====================================================================
Total change from 1993....................       -55       -64      -106      -109      -128      -172      -634
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
March 1994 deficit........................       255       228       179       180       192       188     1,222
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.                                                                  
                                                                                                                
(*) Less than $50 million.                                                                                      

  Mr. DOMENICI. I wish to offer my congratulations to the chairman, if 
he gets the votes today. I sense the majority leader is going to come 
down and do his share to see to it the chairman has the votes, Madam 
President.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, plain and simple, this conference report 
fails to make the tough decisions to reduce the deficit. Even though it 
calls for more spending and higher deficits than the plan the Senate 
passed earlier this year, it still lacks funding for the President's 
biggest new spending initiatives and makes no recommendations about 
where the remaining portion of the Exon-Grassley spending cuts should 
occur.
  Senator Domenici and the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee 
deserve a lot of credit. With their leadership, Senate Republicans 
developed an alternative budget--a budget that cut the deficit by more 
than $300 billion over the next 5 years, a budget that cut President 
Clinton's 1999 deficit in half, a budget that made the tough choices 
without raising taxes and without cutting Social Security.
  Our alternative budget offered a balanced approach to deficit 
reduction. All of it comes from spending cuts--60 percent from Federal 
entitlment programs, and the rest from nondefense appropriated 
accounts.
  With this conference report, the President and the Democrat 
leadership are sending American taxpayers a clear message--Democrats 
want taxpayers to invest in the future by boosting big government. 
Republicans offer a different vision for America.
  Republicans want to invest in the future by providing tax relief to 
working families and children. We want to unleash new investments and 
help protect the value of homes, small businesses, family farms, 
investments, and other assets from the corrosive effects of inflation 
by indexing capital gains.
  Republicans want to maintain a strong National Defense. The 
administration's defense experts calculate a shortfall of at least 
$20 billion in the Clinton defense plan. The President's budget plan 
forces our military to eat that $20 billion shortfall. This hidden cut 
comes on top of the $127 billion cut the President has already applied. 
During this year's budget debate, Republicans offered the only 
comprehensive budget plan that provides what the President's own 
defense experts say they need.

  Mr. President, the conference report displays defense spending at the 
President's requested level and lists $30 billion in unspecified 
unallocated discretionary budget authority cuts under the allowances 
account. Republicans will oppose efforts to allocate any of these 
cuts--totaling $6.6 billion in budget authority and $5.8 billion in 
outlays in 1995--to defense. In his State of the Union Address, 
President Clinton stated that he would oppose additional defense cuts. 
Republicans support the President on this important national security 
issue. In an effort to help the President make good on this promise, we 
will oppose efforts to cut defense below the President's request.
  Republicans want to hire more cops, make our schools safer for our 
children, put away violent criminals, and slam shut the revolving 
prison door. Our alternative budget would provide $22 billion in 
funding over 5 years for the Violent Crime Trust Fund.
  Republicans are willing to make the tough choices needed to get the 
deficit under control. Our alternative budget cut spending first to 
reduce the deficit, and it cut spending to fund our priorities like tax 
relief for working families, a strong defense and a tough crime-
fighting package.
  This conference report fails to make the tough choices. It 
essentially calls for $200 billion deficits as far as the eye can see. 
Republicans know that we can do better, that we must do better. Our 
alternative budget plan would cut the deficit to $99 billion by 1999.
  Mr. President, Republicans offered a responsible alternative to the 
status quo--one that set new priorities, cut the deficit without 
raising taxes, held the line on defense, and funded our priority 
initiatives with spending cuts. Unfortunately, 55 Senate Democrats 
voted to defeat our budget alternative.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against final passage of the conference 
report. The American people want us to do better. The Republican 
alternative budget is proof that we can.
  Mr. SASSER. I say to my friend from New Mexico, all help from any 
quarter will be appreciated, including from the majority leader. I 
would even solicit the aid of my distinguished friend from New Mexico 
if he could find it in his heart to do it when this matter comes to a 
vote.
  But I want to say this, Madam President.
  We have had the same reserve funds in budget resolutions for the last 
4 years. They have not been misused to my knowledge. Moreover, several 
of the reserves allow outlay cuts to be used to offset tax cuts. In 
short, if we were to try to pass the Nickles health bill or the Gramm 
health bill--I think a highly unlikely event, but in the event we 
should try to do that--or perhaps some versions of welfare reform, we 
could very well need to use our reserve funds.
  I draw attention to these distortions--large and small--not because 
they are particularly damaging in themselves. As I said before, we have 
grown sadly accustomed to them.
  The problem is that they are used as a foundation for outrageous 
claims by some Senators--that this resolution codifies our debt crisis 
or that it contains vast amounts of new spending or that it is a 
blueprint for disaster.
  This resolution is a continuation of the only truly serious and 
effective assault on the deficit we have seen since the red ink began 
flowing freely in 1981. Last year, we reduced the outyear deficit 
problem by roughly half--and that extends into the distant outyears 
that my friends on the other side are so concerned about.
  In January 1993, we had CBO projections that showed a deficit in the 
year 2003 of $655 billion. Subsequent to the passage of last year's 
budget, the parent of this one, that projection is down to $343 billion 
in the most recent estimate.
  The people who make the loudest the outyears almost never refer to 
what it would have been absent last years actions. Paradoxically, they 
are almost always the very same people who, when the time came to belly 
up and cast the tough vote last year, were nowhere to be found.
  The budget before us is a solid work product. It is a necessary 
continuation of last year's very successful, I would say historic, 
deficit reduction plan.
  It contains $13 billion in cuts below the pre-existing discretionary 
caps. It assumes the President's 300 Program reductions and 
terminations, as well as his investment priorities in education, child 
nutrition, health, and crime prevention. It contains the strongest 
statement yet on record by the Senate in favor of overall entitlement 
restraint.
  Most important, it reaffirms the best deficit path we have been on in 
a decade As a percent of GDP, the 1995 deficit is lower than any year 
since 1979. The 1998 deficit will be $200 billion less than before last 
year's plan, and projections for the 1999 deficit have been cut in 
half.
  The progress is real and the American people can feel it, both in our 
improved domestic economy and in our improved international standing.
  There is no credible policy reason for voting against this 
resolution. And there are profound reasons for voting for it. I have 
offered the positive reasons for an aye vote, but consider where we are 
without a budget resolution.
  It must be understood by Senators that, without the discipline of a 
budget resolution, we will have a spending-free-for-all during the 
appropriations process. There will be no supermajority points of order 
to constrain floor amendments that might propose spending on the first 
12 bills.
  Let us suppose the Health and Human Services bill is coming through 
here and someone wants to increase the allocation for a particular 
program out at NIH, by a substantial margin. They could do that with 
simply 51 votes. And all of these excesses in all of the appropriations 
bills pile up as they move here. But it reduces the allocation of the 
final appropriations bill that is coming through, and usually that is 
the defense appropriations bill.
  Pity the poor last appropriations bill--usually the defense bill--
because it will be required to absorb all the debit piled up by the 
first 12 or it will have a 60-vote point of order against it. For those 
Senators who are worried about our national defense, this should be 
cause for alarm. Some Senators have said that they would like to see a 
wall reestablished between defense and the other discretionary 
programs.
  Well, if you are worried about poaching on defense as things are 
right now, you should surely want a budget resolution. Because without 
one, it is open season.
  We do not need chaos on the floor of the Senate. We do need a 
reaffirmation of the tough deficit reduction measures we implemented 
last year.
  We should pass this conference report. The claims made against it are 
weak or disingenuous or both. Its virtues are clear and unimpeachable. 
It sustains a significantly improved deficit reduction path. It 
sustains an overall design that has helped advance our economic 
recovery. It provides spending discipline for the remainder of the 
year, and it allows us to do our jobs as legislators.
  I urge passage of this conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. SASSER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise to commend our budget conferees 
and especially the chair of the Budget Committee, Mr. Sasser, for 
bringing back at least a partial victory for the Senate and for deficit 
reduction.
  Of course, each of us would have written the conference report 
differently, to reflect our own priorities. As a supporter of the Exon-
Grassley provision in the Senate's version of the budget resolution, I 
would have preferred a level of deficit reduction greater than is 
specified in the resolution.
  However, given the need to produce a budget resolution in a timely 
manner, and the mixed and changing views of our own conferees, the 
Senator from Tennessee deserves enormous credit.
  Madam President, as I noted, the conference report is less than what 
passed the Senate. But, it is also much, much more than what passed the 
House.
  That we will be forced to continue to reduce the deficit--improving 
on the beginning made last year--is as important as the level of 
additional savings itself.
  The House position, essentially to rest on what was achieved last 
year, is, for some, a tempting one. It has been difficult to cut 
programs, some of them worthwhile in a different context, and we would 
need to make additional cuts just to comply with the deficit reduction 
mandates of our actions of last year.
  With the considerable improvement in our economy and the obvious 
progress we have made in reducing the deficit, it would be an 
attractive course to declare victory in our war on the deficit, and 
proceed to focus on other concerns.
  The conference report, though, keeps us off that easier path and on 
the course of deficit reduction.
  Madam President, thanks to the bipartisan efforts of the Senator from 
Iowa [Mr. Grassley] and the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], we will 
be forced not only to continue our efforts, but to build on them to 
further reduce the deficit.
  As was revealed by the concern it produced during the Senate's 
earlier deliberations, the significance of the Exon-Grassley proposal 
goes beyond the actual level of deficit reduction it achieved. As I 
have noted before, in striving to reduce the deficit, in most 
instances, the only time you are really achieving something is when 
people complain.
  The remarks made during the debate over the Exon-Grassley amendment 
revealed that the additional cuts--a tiny fraction of the total Federal 
budget--will pinch.
  Madam President, this budget pinches. If it didn't, we wouldn't be 
doing our job.
  I was also pleased that the arguments against Exon-Grassley because 
of potential cuts to the defense budget did not prevail.
  First, no single area of Federal spending should be held harmless in 
our efforts to reduce the Federal budget deficit. We have asked 
veterans, farmers, senior citizens, and small business to shoulder a 
share of the burden as we reduce the deficit. To immunize defense 
spending not only exempts a huge portion of the budget from the kind of 
thorough justification we ask of every other area, it will shift that 
much more burden on those who already have been asked to sacrifice.
  Second, Madam President, the total level of defense spending 
continues to reflect assumptions that may not be relevant to our 
country's security needs. Though it is true that there have been cuts 
made to the defense budget since the spending peak of the mid-1980s, 
there is still room for additional savings.
  A recent column in the Washington Post by Robert Borosage, director 
of Campaign for New Priorities, noted that, in inflation-adjusted 
dollars, the proposed Clinton defense budget is actually larger than 
those under either Eisenhower or Ford, and a scant $2 billion less than 
the Nixon administration budget, all at the height of the cold war.
  Madam President, let me conclude by noting that the spending cuts 
outlined in this conference report are only a minimum. Nothing in this 
agreement will prevent us from going beyond the required spending cuts 
to further reduce the deficit, and I look forward to working to find 
additional savings.
  This was the pattern last year. Under the leadership of people like 
the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], we were able to find 
significant additional spending cuts in the appropriations bills.
  Beyond those individual efforts, I was particularly pleased with the 
work done by the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey] and the Senator 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] in pulling together several Senators to 
produce packages of spending cuts.
  I was privileged to participate in both groups, and though the 
proposals that stemmed from these two groups have not been adopted yet, 
I am convinced that those efforts advanced the cause of deficit 
reduction, and helped maintain momentum for a conference report that 
goes beyond last year's deficit reduction package.
  Thank you Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, last year, the Congress passed, by the 
narrowest of margins, a comprehensive budget plan proposed by President 
Clinton. That plan was put forth as a blueprint for economic growth, 
deficit reduction, and realignment of Government spending. In reality 
what was enacted was the largest tax increase in history and 
substantial reductions in defense spending.
  That measure included an increase in the individual and corporate tax 
rates; a fuel tax; a higher tax on Social Security benefits; new limits 
on the deductions for certain business expenses; and a change in 
withholding rates for bonuses and commission pay.
  The budget resolution for fiscal year 1995 is more of the same. While 
this budget resolution does not contain new tax proposals, the 
administration frequently floats proposals for new taxes. In the past 
few months we have heard suggestions for tax increases on tobacco 
products, a gambling tax, taxes on annuities, and an ammunition tax. 
What we do not hear is the President's campaign proposal for tax 
relief.
  The 1995 budget resolution is not a blueprint for reducing the 
national debt. Under the budget plan, deficits continue to increase, 
from $175 billion in 1995 to $197 billion in 1999. During this same 
period the national debt, now nearly $4.5 trillion, grows to over $6 
trillion.
  With regard to Government spending, the trend is the same, increasing 
over 20 percent during the 5-year budget period. There are some 
categories of spending reductions, most notably in national defense. At 
a time when the world is growing more dangerous, and demands on the 
military are increasing, spending for defense has steadily declined. 
This has resulted in substantial reductions in force levels, a decline 
in readiness indicators, reduced funding for research and development, 
cuts in procurements, and base closings. Furthermore, according to 
Defense Department officials, the President's defense budget proposal 
does not contain adequate resources to support requirements. A 
significant shortfall of $20 billion was identified in the 
administration's Bottom-Up Review. Additional reductions in 
discretionary spending, $30.8 billion over 5 years, will have further 
negative impacts on defense funding. Yet, while defense spending is 
being reduced, entitlement spending is expected to increase over the 5-
year period by $5 billion.
  The Senate was offered an alternative, which it unfortunately 
rejected. The Republican alternative budget provided for tax relief, 
deficit reduction, and responsible Government spending.
  This body must get serious about cutting Federal spending by reducing 
or eliminating funding of ineffective programs. If we are to have 
sustained economic growth, Government spending must be significantly 
reduced. A balanced budget amendment and line-item veto authority would 
do much to bring about fiscal responsibility. I remind my colleagues 
that earlier this year the Senate failed to pass the balanced budget 
amendment.
  Madam President, I cannot support the Clinton budget proposal because 
it does not meet the needs of our national defense, it fails to control 
entitlement spending, and increases the national debt.
  Mr. MACK. Not enough. That is the message I am here to give today. 
There simply are not enough spending cuts in this budget. No one should 
be surprised by this. This congressional process is incapable of making 
real substantive cuts.
  While this bill contains minor reductions, I hardly believe it is 
worth bragging about. The Senate passed a budget with reductions of $26 
billion over 5 years. The conferees felt they would not be able to 
retain any of this, but after being convinced the budget might not pass 
without any reductions, reconsidered, and agreed to cut half the 
amount.
  My colleagues on the Appropriations Committee may feel hardpressed to 
deal with this proposed reduction. Indeed, there are many worthwhile 
competing programs. But the simple fact remains that no matter how 
tough the decisions are, it is our responsibility to make them.
  I know there will be a lot of back slapping over some $13 billion in 
cuts over 5 years. But only $500 million of this reduction occurs in 
fiscal year 1995. And remember, this is a mere $500 million out of a 
$1.5 trillion budget. Simply put, this meager cut over 5 years 
disappears in significance when we realize our deficit will grow by 
$923 billion over the same 5-year period. Let me repeat, that is a $923 
billion deficit versus the best effort of the Congress in achieving 
cuts of only $13 billion.
  I say again, there are not enough spending cuts. That is why I cannot 
support this budget resolution.
  It is painfully obvious that achieving a balanced budget is a job the 
Congress cannot accomplish by itself. During the debate on the Senate 
budget resolution, 56 of my colleagues voted with me in favor of 
enacting a Spending Reduction Commission similar to the Base Closure 
Commission. The legislation creating the Spending Reduction Commission 
has been introduced as S. 1191.
  Those who oppose this idea usually argue that Congress doesn't need 
to form another commission to do what is a constitutional 
responsibility of Congress. And that by pushing this responsibility off 
on some commission, Congress is abdicating its constitutional charge to 
make appropriations. But that just is not the case.
  The Spending Reduction Commission would only be needed if Congress 
fails to attain the spending cuts necessary to get to a balanced 
budget. The most recent Congressional Budget Office analysis says we 
need to get to cut $34 billion each year for the next 5 years to 
achieve a balanced budget. If Congress makes those cuts through their 
own budget process, the Commission never comes into play.
  Moreover, during those years when the Congress only does part of the 
job, the Commission only has to make up the difference. And again, it 
is the responsibility of the Congress to either vote in favor or 
against their recommendations. At no point does Congress abdicate its 
power.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring S. 1191, a summary of 
which follows:
  There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   The Spending Reduction Commission

       The Spending Reduction Commission take the best features of 
     the Gramm-Rudman deficit reduction plan, the Grace 
     Commission, and the Base Closure and Realignment Commission 
     to force Congress into making spending cuts to balance the 
     budget.
       Gramm-Rudman was criticized primarily because the sequester 
     was a meat ax instrument that made across the board cuts 
     without discerning priorities. Critics said Gramm-Rudman 
     involved no rational thought, no choices. This Commission is 
     a 7 member body that will make choices and establish 
     priorities.
       The Grace Commission failed because there was no mechanism 
     to enforce recommendations. The Spending Reduction Commission 
     has a specific enforcement mechanism that has been tested and 
     proven effective through the example of the Base Closure 
     Commission.
       The Spending Reduction Commission, modeled after the Base 
     Closure Commission, therefore fuses the best features of 
     Gramm-Rudman and the Grace Commission. We simply extend the 
     model to governmentwide spending and add a mandated minimum 
     target of spending reductions the package must achieve.
       CBO has affirmed that under current deficit projections $34 
     billion in spending cuts per year beginning in 1995 will 
     produce a balanced budget by the year 2000.
       Despite numerous deficit reduction initiatives, Congress 
     has been unable to cut spending first. Remember the 1990 
     budget agreement? It was hailed as serious deficit reduction. 
     Since then, the deficit has soared, taxes have increased and 
     spending has continued to grow out of control.
       It's a tragedy Congress can't cut spending, but it's a 
     reality. The Spending Reduction Commission will force 
     Congress into making the necessary spending cuts that has 
     long avoided.
       The Spending Reduction Commission will work to achieve a 
     minimum of $34 billion in spending cuts each fiscal year 
     until a balanced budget is reached by targeting wasteful 
     spending based on criteria submitted by OMB. The Commission's 
     recommendations for savings will come before the Congress in 
     the form of nonamendable legislation for an up or down vote. 
     The timetable for the Commission will be as follows:
       January 1.--The Director of OMB will publish the criteria 
     to be used in making recommendations for spending cuts.
       January 15.--The President submits to the Congress seven 
     nominees for appointment, four jointly agreed to by the 
     majority and three jointly agreed to by the minority.
       February 1.--OMB's criteria shall be used unless 
     disapproved by Congress on or before this date. Any 
     amendments to criteria must be transmitted in final form by 
     no later than February 1. Congress has until February 15 to 
     disapprove.
       April 1.--The Director shall transmit to the Appropriations 
     and Budget Committees and to the Commission its 
     recommendations for spending cuts.
       June 1.--The Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
     submits to the Congress and the Commission an analysis of the 
     Directors recommendations and selection process.
       August 1.--Congress must have passed their reconciliation 
     bill. CBO will verify to the Commission whether Congress has 
     reached the prescribed level of real cuts. If so, the 
     Commission would not be obligated to send forward further 
     spending cut recommendations for that year. If the spending 
     reductions were substantial, yet still short of the 
     prescribed level, the Commission's minimum responsibility 
     would be to propose a package making up the difference. The 
     Commission's recommendations are not to include cuts in 
     social security.
       August 15.--The Commission shall submit to the President 
     the Commission's recommendations.


                        Review by the President

       September 1.--The President submits his approval or 
     disapproval to the Congress and the Commission.
       (A) If approved, the President shall submit to the Congress 
     a certification of approval and legislative language 
     implementing such recommendations, including the 
     corresponding reduction in spending caps.
       (B) If disapproved, the President shall submit to the 
     Congress and the Commission the reasons for that disapproval. 
     The Commission shall then transmit revised recommendations by 
     no later than September 5. The President has until September 
     10 to approve or the process is terminated.


                      Congressional Consideration

       Such recommendations will be considered in the form of a 
     joint resolution. It will be a nonamendable privileged 
     motion. If not acted upon by September 30, then on that day 
     or the next day of session thereafter, the President Officer 
     will call up the resolution for a rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all time has expired 
for debate on the conference report. The question is on agreeing to the 
conference report.
  Mr. SASSER. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference 
report.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] is 
absent because of illness.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 113 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boren
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mathews
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Simon
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--46

     Bennett
     Bond
     Bradley
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durenberger
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Roth
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Shelby
       
  So, the conference report on House Concurrent Resolution 218 was 
agreed to.
  Mr. SASSER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SARBANES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kerrey). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________