[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 84 (Friday, May 19, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6949-S6963]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
now resume consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 13, which the 
clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 13) setting forth the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for the 
     fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the concurrent resolution.

       Pending:
       Hutchison (for Domenici) amendment No. 1111, in the nature 
     of a substitute.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I watched, as I am sure many people in 
America did, last night and all day yesterday, I guess starting at 
noon, the two sides debating probably the most important vote we will 
take maybe in our lifetime.
  The balanced budget amendment, I felt, was the most important vote 
because that would set a framework for us, for the future generations 
to make sure that in our framework of Government we would not allow one 
generation to put in debt future generations. So while I reserve that 
vote as the most important vote, nevertheless, what we are doing today 
is implementing the balanced budget amendment that did not pass.
  We are taking up for consideration a budget resolution that will 
balance by the year 2002.
  I was watching C-SPAN this morning and I saw a recap, I guess, of the 
debate on the House floor yesterday. They were talking about Democrats 
holding up pictures of the elderly and Republicans holding up pictures 
of children saying, basically, that is where the arguments are--that 
the Democrats are going for the senior citizens and the Republicans are 
talking about protecting children.
  I think that they are saying to the senior citizens, ``We do not 
think you will be responsible.'' I think that is what the Democrats 
were saying on the House side. ``We do not think you will 
[[Page S6950]] be responsible with our money. We want you to vote for 
making sure that we continue all of these programs, business as 
usual,'' and I do not think the seniors of America are saying that at 
all.
  In fact, one of the callers on the show called in from Florida, and 
the woman said, ``I am a senior and I want my grandchildren to have a 
balanced budget. I want them to have the same kind of America that I 
have had. I do not want to be a senior that plunges our country into 
debt and will not take the responsible position.''
  I think if there is an effort to pander to seniors, the people of 
this country are smarter than that, and especially the seniors are 
smarter than that. They are looking for the future of this country. 
They want to cut this growth in spending so that we will have a future 
for their children.
  We have been talking about cuts, cuts, cuts. I must remind everyone 
in this debate we are not talking about cutting. We are talking about 
less increases, fewer increases. We are talking about a 7-percent 
increase in Medicare, which we believe is a responsible rate of growth 
for Medicare.
  In fact, it will save the system for future generations. That is in 
question if we do not take the steps now to give innovative 
alternatives to the Medicare system we have now so that we will be able 
to say by the year 2002 the Medicare trustees were wrong. It is not 
going broke. They were wrong because we did what we needed to do with 
their warning and we saved the system.
  I hope in the year 2002 that I will be here along with many Members 
who will take the responsible position for our country to celebrate 
that our Medicare and Social Security systems are intact for our 
seniors because we have done the responsible thing. More importantly 
even than that, that we have a balanced budget to give to our children 
and grandchildren, which is what I think the seniors are expecting 
Members to do.
  Mr. President, we are going to see debate all day today in the 
Senate. We are going to see it on Monday and Tuesday. We will have this 
monumental vote probably sometime Wednesday. I want to commend the 
House of Representatives for taking this step first. I want to say that 
I hope that my colleagues will follow so we can make history for this 
country and move toward this very important balanced budget.
  I yield the floor at this time to the Senator from South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). The distinguished Senator, the 
President pro tempore, the Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I want to commend the able Senator from 
Texas for the excellent remarks she just made.
  We have the greatest nation in the world. It provides Americans more 
freedom, more justice, more opportunity, and more hope than any nation 
has provided any people in the history of the world.
  This great country of ours can be in jeopardy unless we do at least 
two things. We must provide an adequate defense to protect this 
country. That is essential. We must protect ourselves against the 
enemies who will destroy democracy and freedom in this world.
  The next is, we must have a sound financial system. We have not 
balanced this budget but one time in 32 years. Eight times in 64 years. 
That can bring destruction. We are not being fair to our children, our 
grandchildren, and future generations. We must take steps to balance 
this budget.
  I hope that we pass a budget this year, pass it now, that will take 
steps to bring sanity to this country's finances.
  I love this country. I want to do everything I can to preserve it. We 
can preserve it if we stop this big spending. We have been spending 
more than we have been taking in for all these years. We have to stop 
it and stop it now.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to say I yield to no one in my 
admiration for the senior Senator from South Carolina.
  I just want to say he is an example of just what I was talking about. 
If he would not mind my calling him a senior Senator or senior citizen, 
he is the kind of senior citizen, as a Senator, who is leading the 
effort toward doing the responsible thing.
  This is a distinguished veteran of World War II who understands the 
importance of a strong national defense. I am going to join with him 
later today or next week to try to strengthen the defense part of this 
budget resolution.
  All Members are going to make our arguments. We are going to say what 
our priorities are. I know that the Senator from South Carolina who 
chairs the Armed Services Committee, and I believe we should have a 
stronger national defense element in this budget. In the end, we are 
going to vote for a budget resolution that balances the budget of this 
country.
  After everyone has spoken and everyone's priorities have been looked 
at and considered, we are going to go with the majority of this Senate. 
I appreciate the leadership of the Senator from South Carolina, and I 
appreciate his words today, leading the charge for the responsible 
effort that so many of the senior citizens of this country are 
expecting.
  Mr. THURMOND. I wish to thank the able Senator from Texas for her 
kind remarks.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Now I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Texas for 
yielding, and appreciate the fine job she is doing as to present an 
argument as to why this balanced budget resolution is so important to 
the future in this country.
  We will hear a lot of demagoguery about how terrible everything is, 
and what the Senator from Texas is doing is focusing on positive 
effects of getting to a balanced budget.
  Today we have the opportunity to debate this. This is the President's 
budget that he sent up here earlier this year. It is for fiscal year 
1996, and it calls for in his budget, as we see by this chart, the red 
line calls for budget deficits of around $200 billion a year. That is 
what his budget numbers call for, using the Office of Management and 
Budget.
  As we know from the President's State of the Union speech, it might 
have been even his first State of the Union speech, he says we should 
not use Office of Management and Budget numbers. Those are not the 
right numbers to use. We should use the Congressional Budget Office, 
they are the better estimator, they have been shown to be more correct 
over time. They would be the ones that we should use in all budget 
debates.
  Given that fact, the purple line is the actual CBO estimate of what 
the Clinton budget, this budget right here, this budget will project 
out. Budget deficits starting around $170 billion this year, going up 
to almost $275 billion by the year 2000.
 And then up even further, up to over about $300 billion by the year 
2002.

  He is going to add, with this budget--if we approve this budget 
today, we will add $1.2 trillion to the debt, to the national debt. 
That is the solution offered by the White House. Further deficits, 
increasing deficits, further mortgaging of our country's future, 
further mortgaging of our children's future. That is the leadership.
  The President of the United States is seen by the world as having the 
moral authority to lead the world. We are, in fact, the greatest 
country in the world. We are a country that is a leader among nations, 
and our President stands as the head of that country as the supreme 
leader in the world today--leader--leadership. Is this leadership? I 
suggest it is not.
  So, as I said yesterday when I came to the floor, I am going to come 
to the floor every day, and I am going to ask the President why he is 
refusing to lead, why he is refusing to take part in possibly the most 
historic debate that we have seen in the last couple of decades here on 
the floor of the U.S. Senate, why he is abdicating his responsibility 
as the leader of the free world, putting the country that is most 
important to freedom for the world at risk by profligate spending, 
continued profligate spending. I think it is an act that is beneath the 
office, to stand on the sideline and throw barbs at those of us who are 
trying to accomplish the goal that, if I recall, when he ran for 
President he was going to do his best to accomplish, to balance this 
budget.
  He said it in 1993 when he was putting forward his plan to raise 
taxes to help solve the deficit. ``No hot air; show me 
[[Page S6951]] where,'' is what he said when it came to the 
Republicans' plan for balancing or reducing the budget. He did not want 
any smoke and mirrors, he wanted a plan.
  This is not a plan that gets you to a balanced budget. Mr. President, 
you have an obligation--you have an obligation to lead this country and 
to show us where. So, I will put up, now, unfortunately, day 2 of the 
days with no proposal to balance the budget from President Clinton. I 
will be here every day that we are in session, adding number after 
number after number, until we reach 135 days, which is October 1 of 
this year when the new fiscal year starts and it is then basically too 
late to do anything about it.
  Mr. President, we beseech you: Participate. Take the job seriously. 
Get involved in the process. Try to make a difference. Show the 
American people you really do care about what happens to the future of 
this country.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Pennsylvania 
will yield for a question?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. I ask the Senator from Pennsylvania, how much does the 
President's budget show in annual deficits every year?
  Mr. SANTORUM. If we go back to the previous chart, the purple line is 
the line that the Congressional Budget Office has estimated will be the 
annual deficit under this budget, the Clinton budget. It starts out at 
about--using rough numbers because I do not have them exactly--about 
$175 billion for this fiscal year, the one we are in right now, 
increasing to over $200 billion in 1996, about $230 billion in 1997, 
about the same amount in 1998, and then up around $290 billion for 1999 
and 2000.
  Mr. KYL. So over the 5 years of the President's budget, we are 
looking at an average of over $200 billion a year.
  Mr. SANTORUM. And going up.
  Mr. KYL. And going up.
  I further ask the Senator from Pennsylvania, according to my 
calculations, for every year that we have a $200 billion deficit, the 
average young person in this country is going to have to pay an 
additional $5,000 in taxes, with the result that after 5 years of Bill 
Clinton's budgets that is a $25,000 tax bill for the average young 
person in this country?
  Mr. SANTORUM. The reason for that is that is more debt we accumulate, 
more interest we have to pay on the debt; interest that will be paid by 
children being born today for the rest of their lives. So that is where 
we come up with this number, that is not a phony baloney number. This 
is actually numbers we add to the debt that we will have to borrow 
money for and children in the future will have to pay interest on for 
the rest of their lives, if we continue this.
  Mr. KYL. Let me ask the Senator from Pennsylvania a couple of other 
questions here. It is my understanding we are going to have the 
opportunity to vote on the President's budget later on today. I am sure 
the Senator from Pennsylvania and I will not be voting for this budget. 
During the debate on the balanced budget amendment I seem to recall a 
lot of our colleagues from the other side of the aisle, our Democratic 
friends, asking us how we were going to get to a balanced budget. They 
argued they did not need to support a balanced budget constitutional 
amendment because they could do it on their own. They did not need a 
constitutional amendment. So our constitutional amendment failed by one 
vote.
  I do not recall--perhaps the Senator from Pennsylvania could help me 
here--I do not recall any budget having been submitted by a Senator on 
the Democratic side of the aisle, a budget that will bring us in 
balance by the year 2002 or any other year--am I mistaken? Have I 
missed something here?
  Mr. SANTORUM. No. I think the Senator is right. I have not seen any 
budget being put forward either by the President, obviously, or by any 
Member of the other side of the aisle that gets us anywhere near zero 
within the 7-year timeframe or, frankly, any time thereafter. I am 
actually pretty excited about this possibility, because having sat 
through the balanced budget debate and listened to the numbers of 
Senators getting up and saying, ``Look, we do not need the balanced 
budget amendment. We can do this on our own. We have the courage within 
us to make these decisions. We will stand up when the time comes to be 
counted,'' so I am guessing, but I suspect we will get all 54 
Republican votes on this side for this budget, I am hopeful that we do 
that. If you add the 30, what, about 35 or so Democrats who voted 
against the balanced budget, who, of course, have the courage now to 
stand up and say we are going to be for a balanced budget, I think we 
will get 90 votes for this. I think we can get close to about 90 votes 
for this. We should.
  If everyone who is serious--if you are serious over there, if you 
really want a balanced budget, if you really think you can make those 
tough choices, if you really are willing to stand up to the American 
public and say we are willing, we can do it ourselves, we do not need 
any balanced budget amendment to force us to make tough decisions, we 
have the power within us to do that--then here it is. Let us do it.
  Mr. KYL. May I ask the Senator from Pennsylvania a couple more 
questions here?
  So, the bottom line here is you have not seen a budget proposed on 
the Democratic side, and I have not seen a budget proposed on the 
Democratic side. The only budget is the one proposed by the President. 
I guess we will have a chance to see whether our Democratic friends 
will support the President's budget, because they have no other 
alternative.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I cannot imagine they would because they said during 
the balanced budget amendment debate that they have the courage to 
support a balanced budget and since the folks on the other side are so 
serious about getting to a balanced budget and see this as such an 
important thing, I cannot imagine then they would support this.
  Mr. KYL. Has the Senator seen any constructive suggestions from the 
other side about how we might achieve a balanced budget by the year 
2002?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I imagine there will be several amendments. Of course, 
all of them will be deficit neutral. I am sure they will not offer any 
amendments to raise the deficit or get us off the glidepath here to 
zero. I am sure they are not going to be interested, since they have 
the courage over there to make sure we get to this balanced budget, 
they are not going to offer any amendment that is going to increase the 
deficit or throw us off this path. So I am sure they will have 
constructive suggestions about how we might tinker with this, and I 
look forward to debating those. But I do not think they are going to 
have any substitute proposal that is going to get them to a balanced 
budget on a completely different tack.
  Mr. KYL. Of course, that is what I had reference to. If I could just 
ask the Senator from Pennsylvania one final question? I have listened 
to the debate over the last 10 or 12 hours here. Much of the debate has 
focused----
  Mr. SANTORUM. You are a brave man.
  Mr. KYL. Pardon?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I said you are a brave man.
  Mr. KYL. I listened to part of it, anyway, although it gets a little 
repetitious. The argument I have heard discussed most from the 
Democratic side of the aisle is about how they would like to spend the 
dividend that is created by the fact that we balance the budget.
  In other words, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator 
Domenici, has done a very good job of putting this thing together in 
such a way that after 7 years, because interest costs will be reduced, 
we will actually have in effect a dividend of about $170 billion. While 
I have not heard any suggestion from the Democratic side about how they 
would balance the budget, and they have certainly not indicated that 
they would support the way that we will achieve that balance by the 
year 2002, I have heard a lot of discussion about how they would like 
to spend the money that we save.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, it is amazing--if the Senator will 
yield--I remember we were in the House together and we had the peace 
dividend. Remember the peace dividend? That was the time the Soviet 
Union was crumbling and we could cut our defense budget a little bit, 
and it turned out to be a lot. Therefore, we would save money. So we 
had a peace dividend. So what did we do? We were running, by the way, 
over $200 billion in annual deficits. But we had a dividend. 
[[Page S6952]] 
  So what were we going to do? Spend it somewhere else. We were not 
going to put this toward the debt; oh, no. This was a peace dividend 
that was earned by the American public, and so we have a right, here in 
the Congress, to spend it.
  Here we are again. We get a dividend, according to the Congressional 
Budget Office, by balancing the budget, and it will come down to zero 
by the year 2002. The Congressional Budget Office says they will change 
their economic assumptions to assume lower interest rates, lower 
inflation, and greater growth in the economy, which will mean less of a 
debt. So there will be a dividend.
  So what do we hear? Are we hearing, ``Well, we should put that toward 
the deficit,'' or ``We should give people who worked hard for this 
money some of that money back''; in other words, let them keep the 
money they worked for? No, no, no. On the other side of the aisle, you 
will hear suggestion after suggestion after suggestion how we should 
spend this money because it is our dividend. It is not yours, American 
public; it is our dividend. We did this. So we should take your money 
and spend it on things that we think are best.
  This is kind of ridiculous, having this kind of talk about let us get 
serious. Let us get serious. This is not our money; this is your money. 
To suggest that we could finally do something that we were hired to do, 
which is to get our house in order; that if we do our job, somehow we 
should get the dividend, to go out and take more of your money and 
spend it somewhere else? It is absolutely absurd.
  Mr. KYL. If I may conclude with this comment to the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, I think he certainly helped me to understand this issue 
better than I did.
  I guess I would summarize it this way: During the debate on the 
balanced budget amendment, we said we think we need a constitutional 
amendment because, otherwise, too many people in the Congress will not 
have the discipline to make the tough choices to bring the budget into 
balance. Most of our Democratic friends, many of them, said, ``No; we 
can do this on our own.''
  Then the Senator from Pennsylvania said the only alternative to the 
budget that we have prepared, that brings us into balance, is a budget 
that the President proposed, that does not bring us into balance. 
According to the Senator from Pennsylvania, as a matter of fact, it 
averages deficits of over $200 billion a year as far as this President 
has calculated it, and the trend is up over $200 billion a year. That 
is about a $5,000 tax every year on each American.
  I learned from the Senator from Pennsylvania that, in addition to the 
fact that the Democratic side of the aisle here has proposed no 
alternative that will achieve a balance by the year 2002, the bulk of 
the discussion so far has been how to spend the dividend that is 
created by our budget.
  So not only are they not willing to support our budget, but at the 
same time they are criticizing our budget, they want to take the money 
that we save by our budget and spend that rather than returning it to 
the American people.
  Do I have this straight? Is that about the size of it?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire is here, 
and he is on the Budget Committee. My understanding was during the 
budget debates in committee that the Democratic Members had, most of 
the debate on the committee was how to spend this $170 billion, whether 
we should do tax cuts or whether we should go out and spend a lot more 
money on a lot more programs.
  I do not know if the Senator wanted to comment on that. It is my 
understanding that they were just anxious to get at this pot of money 
so they could create some more spending here at the Federal level.
  I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, if the Senator from Pennsylvania will 
yield, he has put it absolutely correctly. Of those worthy amendments, 
the vast majority of amendments--I have forgotten the number, 17 
amendments--offered by the members of the Democratic Party on the 
Budget Committee, and everyone wanted to spend the dividend, which 
results from the lower interest rates as a result of getting to a 
balanced budget.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I want to make it absolutely clear. Of all of the 
amendments in the Budget Committee offered by the other side----
  Mr. GREGG. ``All'' may be too many, but the vast majority.
  Mr. SANTORUM. The vast majority of the amendments offered by the 
Democrats in the Budget Committee were not how to get to a balanced 
budget--were not.
  Mr. GREGG. There were not any amendments offered as to how to get to 
a balanced budget.
  Mr. SANTORUM. There was no substitute offered as to how they would 
get to a balanced budget. There were no amendments offered on how they 
would change spending priorities. But the amendments were focused on 
what? The $170 billion dividend that the CBO gives us by getting to a 
balanced budget, which assumes lower interest rates and more growth, 
how could they spend that money?
  How can you take seriously people coming to the floor during the 
balanced budget debate, saying that they have the courage to balance 
the budget; they are willing to make the tough cuts, and when the bill 
actually comes to the floor to do that, all they do is focus in on how 
they are going to spend more money? It is almost incredulous to me.
  You are going to hear speaker after speaker on the other side of the 
aisle talk about how terrible this is, and all their amendments will be 
on how to spend more money and how we have to get to balance. This just 
is not the right way. They do not have a way, but this is not the right 
one.
  All I suggest to the Senators in this Chamber--and you want to 
listen--is look at the big picture. Let us look at our responsibility 
to the future of this country, to the children of this country, to 
leave this country better off than it was left to us. We have a moral 
obligation to do just that, to balance this budget for future 
generations.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized, if 
he will suspend for a question of the Senator.
  Mr. GREGG. I just arrived on the floor. I understood there was an 
agreement that at 9:15, we would go to the statement on your side by 
Senator Dodd.
  Mr. EXON. Will the Senator repeat the question?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, it was my understanding that by 9:15, we 
would go to a statement by Senator Dodd on your side.
  Mr. EXON. Is the manager of the bill on the Republican side trying to 
interfere with the lineup that we agreed to offer on this side?
  Mr. GREGG. No.
  Mr. EXON. There was no agreement, to my understanding. I ask the 
Chair, was there an agreement as to who was to speak at what time? Last 
night as we left, I understood that we jointly yielded to allow your 
side to have the first half hour of debate. Chairman Domenici just came 
2 minutes ago, 20 seconds ago, and stood right here and said it is our 
turn now. I would give that advice to the manager of the bill on the 
Republican side. Maybe I am wrong. But I ask the Chair if I am mistaken 
and misunderstood the binding agreement that had been previously 
entered into.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The agreement previously entered into reserved 
time for the Senator from Nebraska from 10:15 until 10:30, and reserved 
time from 10:30 until 10:45 for the managers on the Republican side.
  Mr. GREGG. I simply say we were looking forward with great enthusiasm 
to hearing the Senator from Wisconsin and also the Senator from 
Connecticut, and whatever order the leader of the Democratic side, the 
manager of the bill on the Democrat Party side, wishes to go forward 
with, that is fine with this side. We were just trying to get 
clarification of what was happening as to the priorities as we 
understood the gentlemen's agreement. [[Page S6953]] 
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska has yielded time to 
the Senator from Wisconsin.
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank the Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. President, as we debate the fiscal year 1996 budget, I would like 
to discuss some of the principles I hope this year's budget embodies. I 
believe these are bipartisan principles that the majority of Americans 
and majority of Senators can support.
  I would like to talk today about a budget that is balanced, both 
financially balanced and balanced in the sacrifices it asks Americans 
to make. There is no question about our need to get to a balanced 
budget--and to get to a balanced budget in 7 years--but we must get 
there in a manner that does not do damage to our economy or to the 
basic principles of our democracy.
  We must balance the budget, but we must do it in a way that is fair 
and is perceived to be fair by all Americans. That is my central 
criticism of the plan before us. It asks that the budget be balanced 
entirely by sacrifices from elderly Americans, middle-class and lower 
income Americans, and students, and it asks nothing from the wealthiest 
among us.
  I support a balanced budget. I voted for the balanced budget 
amendment that was defeated earlier this year. And I support a balanced 
budget by the year 2002. I am pleased that we are starting this debate 
with the Budget Committee plan that gets to balance in 2002, and I hope 
that we end up with a budget that does, indeed, get to balance by 2002.
  We all know why it is essential to get to the balanced budget. Simply 
put, our economic survival depends on it. Our almost $5 trillion in 
Government debt is money taken directly away from private sector 
investment. The interest payments that are now our third largest 
spending program are dollars which are totally wasted. They are dollars 
we cannot spend educating our children, paving our roads, or providing 
tax relief to middle-income American families. And, just as bad, our 
mounting Federal debt pulls up interest rates and threatens our 
standing as a world economic power. With each year of deficits adding 
to that debt, we are rolling the dice: Will this be the year that the 
world turns its back on a country that cannot stop spending more than 
it takes in?
  So there is no question that our current fiscal irresponsibility is 
not sustainable. There is no question that we have to balance the 
budget if we want to reassert control over our economy and our destiny. 
The only question is how are we going to achieve this balance.
  Balancing the budget is a huge undertaking. It requires immediate 
reductions in Government services and real sacrifices from the American 
people. I believe the American people will respond to this challenge 
but only if the challenge is considered to be fair. We need to balance 
the budget in a way that brings our Nation together in pursuit of the 
common good and not in a way that would drive us apart in pursuit of 
partisan political gain or just monetary gain for a few interests.
  Achieving solvency is vital to our Nation's strength, but solvency 
alone will not make us strong. After all, a family is not strong only 
because its checkbook balances. A family is strong because it has 
strong values. Our country is the same. We need to balance our books. 
But if we do so in a way that pushes us apart, then we will find we 
have bought fiscal balance at the cost of values that make our 
democracy strong, values like equality of opportunity and fairness and 
compassion.
  As most of us know or should know, there exists a very disturbing 
trend toward increasing inequality in our country today. The wealthiest 
among us are getting wealthier and everybody else is losing ground. 
Between 1973 and 1993, the wealthiest 20 percent of American families 
saw their incomes increased 25 percent while the poorest 20 percent saw 
their incomes decline by 15 percent, all in real terms. And families in 
the middle of the income distribution in this country saw very little, 
if any, increase in their average income over the same period. Today, 1 
percent of the households in our country control about 40 percent of 
the Nation's wealth. Households that have net worth above $180,000--the 
most well off 20 percent of American families--control a full 80 
percent of America's wealth. And this trend is increasing. This 
concentration of wealth is more by far than is found in any other 
industrialized country.
  Mr. President, our divisions are not just among income classes. They 
are among generations as well. Our poverty rate is 25 percent for 
children under 6 years old and only half of that for our senior 
citizens.
  These growing inequalities have produced a vicious and unproductive 
cycle because poor children are poor students and poor students are 
poor workers. Poor workers are poor wage earners and poor producers, 
and no one wins in this sort of an economy. The inequality fuels the 
enemies of democracy, things like resentment and fear, anger, and 
misunderstanding.
  In balancing the budget, we must not exacerbate these inequalities. 
We must balance our books but not by knocking off balance the ladder of 
opportunity that should allow every American working family to work 
toward a better life and a better standard of living.
  In my judgment, unfortunately, the Republican budget proposal moves 
us in the opposite direction. Instead of helping lower income children 
out of the cycle of poverty by investing in education and child 
nutrition, this budget slashes Medicaid for children, takes $14 billion 
out of student aid, and cuts $34 billion out of nutrition programs. 
Instead of proposing ways to help working families stretch their 
precious dollars, the budget proposal before us reduces the earned-
income tax credit by $21 billion. That is, it raises taxes on our 
lowest income taxpayers. And instead of offering constructive 
suggestions on reducing the huge medical costs that overwhelm our 
senior citizens, the budget before us includes one-quarter of $1 
trillion in unspecified Medicare costs.
  The policy of the Republican budget for upper income taxpayers is 
exactly the opposite of this. It asks nothing from upper income 
Americans and wealthy corporations in our effort to balance the budget. 
It allows tax expenditures which are special tax subsidies that give 
benefit mostly to wealthy Americans and corporations to grow by almost 
49 percent over the next 7 years, faster than any other category of 
spending.
  In short, this budget gets to balance without any help from the 2 
percent of our wealthiest Americans who control the bulk of our 
country's wealth and without help from the biggest corporations that 
stand to gain the most from a reinvigorated economy.
  Mr. President, in my judgment, this is not a fair plan. Working 
middle-income families will not and should not tolerate unremitting 
reductions in their standard of living to finance special-interest tax 
breaks. If we are to come together as a country to solve our deficit 
problem and if we are to come together as a bipartisan Congress to 
balance the budget, we have to support a plan that asks something from 
everyone.
  I am ready to support such a plan. I am ready to work with the 
Republican majority, Democrats, and anyone else who wants to balance 
the budget in a fair and a balanced manner. It may not happen this 
week, but soon when we are all done scoring political points, Mr. 
President, I believe we will sit down together and draft a budget that 
contains the best and the fairest proposals from both parties. That 
will be a budget that balances fiscally. It will also be a budget that 
is balanced in the sacrifices it asks from all Americans and in the 
opportunities that it provides for all Americans.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I have been listening with keen interest to 
my good friend and associate from the State of Wisconsin. We have 
worked together on many things, and I thank him very much for his kind 
and thoughtful remarks. Suffice it to say I join with him again and 
appreciate his appeal for some bipartisanship on this matter. We will 
continue to pursue those goals.
  Has the Senator from Wisconsin finished his remarks or did he wish 
additional time?
[[Page S6954]]

  Mr. KOHL. I did finish.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, Senator Dodd is on his way to the Chamber 
floor. I am prepared to make some remarks. Is there someone on that 
side of the aisle who wishes to speak at this time?
  I see the Senator from Colorado has just come in. We would be very 
pleased to yield on the basis that we generally have, going back and 
forth on these matters.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator?
  Mr. GREGG. I yield the Senator from Colorado 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BROWN. I thank the Chair.
  Many Americans, as they listen to this debate, will think this is 
just another discussion in Congress about a budget with a lot of 
details.
  Mr. President, it is not that. This is a discussion of the future of 
the Nation. This is a discussion of whether we follow the Clinton plan. 
Mr. President, the Congressional Budget Office, which the President has 
said is the right one to decide these things, has evaluated the Clinton 
plan. The Clinton plan increases the deficit from under $200 billion to 
in the neighborhood of $300 billion by the end of the 5-year plan and 
above $300 billion by the end of the 7-year plan if projections go on.
  It is a debate between having a deficit at the end of 7 years of over 
$300 billion, according to President Clinton, or a balanced budget 
according to the Republican plan. Mr. President, it is quite simply a 
question of whether or not we bankrupt this Nation or whether or not we 
put it back on sound footing.
  Members have come to the floor and talked about children. Mr. 
President, that is a fair evaluation. We ought to ask about the impact 
of these budgets on children. I hope every person, Democrat, 
Republican, or Independent, liberal or conservative, will ask 
themselves what are the consequences of bankrupting our Nation. That is 
what this question is all about.
  And please do not kid yourself. There is no alternative to the 
Republican balanced budget plan. There is none, except President 
Clinton's bankruptcy plan. Now that is the difference that is being 
questioned here.
  Hopefully, moderate Democrats will come together with a plan that 
also balances the budget. I personally would welcome it. I would be 
happy to look at their alternatives. But that has not been presented. 
Not once, not once in all the amendments that came up in the Budget 
Committee was that offered.
  Mr. President, does it make a difference with regard to whether or 
not we adopt the Republican plan?
  Let me point out in a world economy how the world reacted when they 
saw Republicans were willing to turn this Nation around. As a young 
man, when I was in the Navy and I visited Japan, there were 460 yen to 
the dollar. When President Clinton came into office, there were 130 yen 
to the dollar. Before the Democrats defeated the balanced budget 
amendment in the U.S. Senate, you can see the yen to the dollar ratio, 
somewhere a little above 97. When the Democrats defeated the balanced 
budget amendment, the yen-dollar ratio plummeted. We had one of the 
biggest movements of current situations of any time in our history.
  Let me remind Americans that every working person in this country who 
buys a product produced overseas, there is an impact to that because it 
is instant inflation, it is an instant increase in cost, whether you 
buy oil products or you buy Japanese cars or other products.
  What we saw was a world referendum on American policy. And what 
happened was one of the most dramatic drops in the value of the dollar 
at any time in our history. Within a few days, we lost 14 percent of 
the value of the U.S. dollar against the yen when the Democrats 
defeated the balanced budget amendment.
  But take a look at what happened, Mr. President, when Republicans 
passed the balanced budget in the House of Representatives. It 
reversed. You had one of the biggest increases in the value of the 
dollar in history.
  Take a look at the headline. This is Friday, May 12, from the 
Washington Times. The headline is simple and straightforward: ``Dollar 
Jumps in Biggest One Day Advance in Four Years.''
  Mr. President, that is what has happened. That is what the difference 
in this is.
  If you want to destroy the value of the dollar and you want to 
destroy the credibility of the United States in the world economy, 
adopt the bankruptcy budget from President Clinton. And I say that 
because it is perfectly accurate. It is exactly where that budget heads 
us to.
  If you want to straighten it out and if you want a future for 
American citizens, if you want our children to have a chance to compete 
in the world market, then you will adopt the Republican budget.
  Mr. President, I want to make one other point, because I know time is 
scarce. Mr. President, I am not a millionaire. I admire those people 
who have done well. But, Mr. President, I have listened over the last 
several days to a series of Democratic millionaires, many of whom 
inherited their money, won and earned by someone else, come to this 
floor and bash the Republican budget because of how kind it is to 
millionaires. Now, being lectured about the evils of wealth from 
Democrats who inherited millions of dollars, I think, challenges the 
credibility. But what challenges it even more is the fact that they 
misrepresent what this budget does.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used the allotted time.
  Does the manager yield additional time to the Senator?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Colorado an 
additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I think the point needs to be made that 
these millionaires, who inherited their money and have the audacity to 
come down and lecture Republicans who are working people, have 
misrepresented the facts. To suggest that the Republican budget 
provides tax cuts for the millionaires is absolutely false. As a matter 
of fact, the Boxer-Brown amendment that is included in the budget 
document specifically addresses the question of tax cuts and 
specifically allocates 90 percent of any tax cuts that might come down 
for those working people who earn under $100,000 a year. Mr. President, 
the allegation that they make is absolutely false.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, what is the time situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The remaining time controlled by the Senator 
from New Hampshire is 8 minutes and 45 seconds. The time remaining to 
the Senator from Nebraska is 31 minutes and 27 seconds.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, my friend and colleague, Senator Dodd, will 
be speaking in a very few moments. Let me take this time to make some 
remarks on the procedures and what the hopes are on this side of the 
aisle.
  Mr. President, I am very disappointed by the amendment that is before 
us, because I do not think it is particularly helpful but it creates 
political drama.
  Yesterday I made a sincere offer to my Republican colleagues to work 
with them to craft a bipartisan budget. I offered the hand of 
friendship and the hand of reason.
  This amendment, the first amendment offered by those on the other 
side of the aisle, is a stinging rebuke to that offer of 
bipartisanship. The Republicans have decided to begin their part of the 
budget debate with a bit of political theater, and we have seen that 
tactic vividly displayed this morning. Theatrics and voice quivering 
dramatics is not the stuff of which reasonable debate and a sound 
budget is reached. They seem to want to deflect attention from the 
priorities in the Republican budget by setting up a straw man and then 
knocking that straw man down.
  Time and time again in the debate this morning, we Democrats have 
been accused by the majority, basically walking in lockstep, of wanting 
to make changes in the Republican-offered budget, that we are trying to 
be [[Page S6955]] helpful and reasonable in offering changes as an 
attempt by the Democrats to spend, spend, spend.
  I think that anyone who has followed the debate thus far would have 
to concede that we on this side of the aisle are not spending, 
spending, spending, as has been accused in the theatrics that have 
taken place thus far on the floor of the Senate. What we are trying to 
do is to be reasonable, to restore some of the cuts on some of the most 
needy programs, to not allow the budget offered by the Republicans to 
do terrible harm in certain areas that I think we and, basically, most 
of the Republicans hold very, very dear.
  We are trying to be reasonable, Mr. President. We are not trying to 
spend money. We are trying to alleviate some of the draconian cuts in 
certain programs that we think are very vital to the United States of 
America and the people that dwell happily therein.
  Mr. President, I would simply say--and I want to emphasize once 
again--that we on this side of the aisle have not offered a single 
amendment on the floor, nor did we as Democrats in the Budget Committee 
offer a single amendment that basically changed the goal of balancing 
the budget by the year 2002 and making some necessary and painful cuts 
that we recognize and realize are vital if we are going to get to that 
point of balancing the budget in the year 2002.
  I noticed in the debate this morning that there was much ado about 
nothing with regard to the continued reference to the fact that those 
on this side of the aisle, and at least one on their side of the aisle, 
prevented the balanced budget constitutional amendment to pass. Well, 
this is a Senator that rejects that proposal, rejects what I consider 
lack of reasoning, because as the Chair and everyone else in the Senate 
knows, this Senator has long sought a constitutional amendment 
requiring a balanced budget. I, and others on our side of the aisle, 
supported that when it lost by only one vote on the floor.
  But we come back to the matter of what is reasonable, what is 
possible, what can be done. This confrontation that I see we are 
running into on that side of the aisle is back to, I think, what can be 
pointed to as the failure link, if you will, of the budget offered by 
the Republicans which the Republicans seem to be defending at every 
turn in the road. You cannot move a comma, you cannot dot an ``i,'' you 
cannot make a change. I do not believe that that kind of theatrics that 
we have heard this morning, that kind of rhetoric or that kind of what 
I consider lack of reasoning is beneficial to getting us to a place 
where we can balance the budget by the year 2002 and do it in a 
responsible fashion.
  Congress received the administration's budget on February 6. The 
President, frankly, admitted that he invited Congress to come forward 
with its alternative, and the Congress has, so that we as a nation 
could begin our great discussion on the budget.
  A lot of things have happened since February 6. For one thing, we had 
a thorough debate on the amendment to the Constitution that would have 
required a balanced budget. As I said, I supported that amendment, and 
so did nearly two-thirds of both Houses in recorded votes. So, of 
course, the political landscape has changed dramatically since the 
President submitted his budget on February 6.
  As we stated on the floor of the Senate yesterday, there is a broad 
consensus in favor of balancing the Federal budget by the year 2002. 
All of the amendments offered on this side of the aisle in the Budget 
Committee and the debate that was held there, and with regard to what 
we will be offering later on today and next week, all are deficit 
neutral, as far as throwing us further into debt, expanding the debt, 
and all are designed to balance the budget by the year 2002, which is 
the central theme of the majority budget that has been offered. I said 
some good things about that yesterday.
  I just simply want to point out, Mr. President, and have everyone 
understand that every single amendment that we offered in the committee 
and which will be offered on the floor of the U.S. Senate, to my 
knowledge, would have balanced the budget just as quickly and at the 
same time as the Republican-offered budget that seems to be sacrosanct 
in which no change, even one cent, can be made. We do not disagree 
about the goal of balancing the budget. What we disagree with is the 
priorities, or lack thereof, that has been set and made part of the 
budget process that has been offered by the opposition. This is a 
debate we should be having, and I look forward to our proceeding to 
that debate.
  Because so much water has gone over the dam since then, I cannot 
support the President's budget as offered, and certainly it is not a 
starting point, but it was something that the President started and was 
required to do some months ago. I certainly was not enthusiastic about 
the President's blueprint when it was first offered.
  As I said in my opening remarks, we on this side will offer 
perfecting amendments to the Republican budget to try to enter into a 
constructive process to improve the Republican budget. In my view, the 
President's budget should be handled in the same manner, but we all 
know the fate of that proposal. So there is no point whatsoever in 
attempting to amend it.
  I have never been a Senator who blindly follows the President, 
regardless of party. In 1993, I worked hard to make changes in the 
President's budget. As a result of those efforts, the proposed cut in 
agriculture was significantly reduced. I would not--I would not--have 
supported the President's budget then had it not been changed along the 
manner that I suggested.
  I can only hope, Mr. President, that as this debate continues, there 
will be some on the other side of the aisle who will choose not to 
blindly follow their leadership and who will vote against the 
Republican budget unless the hits, the unfair hits on some key 
proposals, are reduced. If those on that side of the aisle want to call 
that irresponsible spending--it is not true--they have to live with 
their words.
  But the important part is that we need to start with the budget that 
has a chance of getting the votes to pass and then work to improve that 
document. The sooner we begin that process, the sooner we will start to 
get something serious and constructive done. The sooner we get to that 
process, the sooner we will end the political theater.
  Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to my colleague from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized for 
20 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me at the very outset thank 
my colleague from Nebraska, the ranking member of the Budget Committee. 
Let me also express my gratitude to the chairman of the Budget 
Committee, Senator Domenici, for whom I have a high degree of respect 
and regard. I just want to say at the outset that while I have 
disagreements with the budget proposal as presented by the Senate 
Budget Committee, the budget presented by the majority party in this 
body is substantially better than the budget presented by the majority 
in the other body. A great deal of attention has been focused on the 
so-called Republican budget, but I invite all to examine the 
significant differences that exist between Republicans in the other 
body and this body. There is a substantial difference.
  While I said at the outset that I have my disagreements with this 
particular product, I want to begin my remarks by at least suggesting 
that the product that has been produced by the majority on this side of 
the Congress is a far more honest proposal, with numbers that I think 
are real.
  Having said that, Mr. President, let me also say that I am 
disappointed that the first amendment to come up, to be offered by my 
friends on the other side, is to propose the President's budget. This 
is not a serious effort.
  It is unfortunate, with a subject matter as serious as this is, to 
begin the process by putting forward a proposal that the President made 
and recommended--and that is what Presidents do, they recommend. 
Presidents do not sign these resolutions. There is no Presidential 
participation and no room for a veto pen on a budget resolution. Unlike 
other matters that will come before us, this is a matter for the 
Congress. The law requires that we deal with a budget resolution. 
Certainly the President's voice and his priorities are critically 
important in any discussion involving the budget. But to 
[[Page S6956]] have as the first matter of business a proposal more 
designed to garner a headline than to deal with the underlying problems 
does not speak well for the direction in which we begin this 
discussion.
  What will ultimately be critically important is that there be some 
consensus developed, hopefully, on these matters. That is the only way 
in this body that you can move the ball forward at all.
  So I am disappointed that we are consuming our limited time on an 
issue that really has very little legislative relevancy at all and, 
therefore, detracts from what we all should be engaging in, and that is 
a way to try to come to some consensus on these matters.
  Earlier this year, our colleagues on the other side roundly denounced 
the President's budget as dead on arrival. Apparently, it is not quite 
dead because we are now considering it here. So it must be a bit like 
Lazarus. We are going to raise it from the dead only to try to kill it 
once more so we can achieve again the kind of headlines that will 
submit it to yet a further death. Maybe we can go through this during 
the next week or so to kill it and raise it, kill it and raise it, if 
that is going to advance the public awareness and knowledge of the 
problems of our budget. Having been denounced dead on arrival, it is 
apparently alive and will shortly be dead again.
  I see my colleague from New Hampshire. Does he want to ask me to 
yield?
  Mr. GREGG. I was just wondering, if I might ask the Senator from 
Connecticut, if it is the request of the Senator that we offer the 
President's budget next week as our second amendment?
  Mr. DODD. I say to my good friend that I suspect if this keeps up, it 
may be the second, third, and fourth amendments. Maybe it will be the 
gift that keeps on giving, as we once described another amendment in 
the Budget Committee. Nonetheless, it is disappointing to this Member 
that that is the first matter of business that we have before us.
  Let me say for the record--and, again, I say this more in sorrow than 
anything else--the budget proposal that is before us, the product of 
the Budget Committee, basically was crafted with one side alone being 
involved. The minority, our side, got our first look at this budget 
last week--38 days late, I might point out, by the law. This comes 
almost 6 months to the day after our friends on the other side have 
either known they were in power or have assumed power. They announced 
they would have a budget for us in December, January, February, March, 
April, and finally in late May, 38 days after the law requires it, the 
budget was reported by the Budget Committee. The budget was presented 
to the minority just last week--a day and a half after the Budget 
Committee began its consideration of the proposal. Now, the first 
amendment offered by the majority is an amendment that brings up the 
President's budget. So this looks more like theater than legislating, 
and I regret that that is the case.
  It is clear that no Members of the majority here have any intention 
of supporting the very resolution they have asked us to vote on. So by 
definition this substitute will fail. So why are we wasting our limited 
time debating it, Mr. President? Why do we not talk about what really 
matters in this country?
  A budget resolution, I point out, is much more than just a 
compilation of figures. Members of Congress are much more than green-
visored number crunchers. A budget should be a road map for the future 
of this Nation. It plots the course we will follow as a country, and it 
should be the embodiment of our values and priorities as a people.
  The values in the majority budget, the Republican budget plan, in my 
view, are wrong. It treats our people not as assets to be developed, 
but as items in a spending cut process. It burns, in my view, the 
bridges that ordinary Americans use, or hope to use, to cross over to a 
better life for themselves and their families.
  American politics is about change, Mr. President. But it is not about 
this kind of change. This debate should be about how we build a 
stronger and a richer America, not just fiscally, as important as that 
is, but economically and socially and morally, as well. Using this 
standard, I believe the Republican budget proposal just does not 
measure up.
  I would like to take a few moments, if I could, and provide some 
historical perspective on balanced and unbalanced budgets. Over the 
last decade, we have had a tendency to look at our current deficit and 
debt problems in isolation.
  Contrary to popular perception, balanced budgets have not been a 
natural part of our national experience. There have been wide 
variations throughout the 200-plus-year history of our country in 
spending patterns. We have had surpluses, Mr. President, as high as 102 
percent of Federal spending in 1835, and deficits as great as 89 
percent of Federal spending in 1862, during the height of the Civil 
War. We have run deficits in half of our last 200 years as a nation.
  Our current difficulties, I point out, are small relative to deficits 
that our Nation has experienced in the past. In 1983, at the height of 
our current deficit problems, the Federal deficit was 26 percent of 
overall spending. It is now about 13 percent.
  This historical perspective is not designed, I point out, to diminish 
the severity of our current deficit problems. Quite to the contrary. 
Everybody agrees that we must reduce our deficits and bring our budgets 
as close to balance as possible.
  Clearly, balanced budgets are desirable. I know of no Member here 
that believes otherwise. But they are not and should not be seen as our 
only goal. Providing economic and military stability, raising living 
standards, promoting adequate savings and investment, and reacting 
appropriately to unforeseen events are also critically important 
objectives. It is unrealistic to expect any great nation to achieve all 
of these goals in every given year. Yet, all are critically important 
goals for any great nation.
  This economic reality has not been our experience alone. According to 
commentator Kevin Phillips:

       Among the group of seven industrialized nations, the United 
     States has either the lowest or second-lowest annual budget 
     deficit as a percentage of overall gross national product.

  Having provided a historical perspective, let us remember for a 
moment, at least, how we got into this present mess that we now find 
ourselves in.
  If we go back to 1981 when President Reagan was the leader of our 
country, and there was a Republican Senate, the majority then promised 
to--and listen to these words--``cut taxes, increase defense spending, 
and balance the budget by 1984.'' I am not making that up, Mr. 
President. Those were the words and language used more than a decade 
ago.
  The majority is now making a very similar argument for why we ought 
to accept the budget they have presented us with. It did not work in 
the 1980's. Instead, as most Americans are aware, since 1984, we saw 
the national debt quadrupled in this country.
  Our fiscal year 1996 budget would be in balance, Mr. President, if we 
were not paying the interest on the debt accumulated during the Reagan-
Bush eras. We would be in surplus next year.
  In January 1993 when the Governor of Arkansas, who never served in 
Congress, never served in the Senate, arrived in town as our newly 
elected President, what did he inherit? He inherited a $327 billion 
deficit for that year alone. He had to, and was committed to, clean up 
the fiscal train wreck of the 1980's. Just 27 days--not 38 days late 
under the law, but 27 days--after being sworn in as the President of 
the United States, President Clinton submitted a detailed budget plan 
that contained more than $500 billion in deficit reduction; 27 days 
after coming into office, this former Governor of Arkansas, who 
inherited the problem, made difficult and painful choices. The choices, 
in fact, were so hard that not a single Republican Member of this body 
supported his deficit reduction initiative. Instead, they attacked it 
and said, ``This is going to create economic havoc in the country and 
it is going to destroy our ability to have a growing economy.''
  Yet, we know the opposite has proved to be the case. The President 
reversed the trend of the Reagan-Bush era. Then the national debt, as I 
pointed out a moment ago, was growing faster than the economy of this 
country. Now our economy, for the first time in a decade 
[[Page S6957]] and a half, is growing faster than the debt of this 
country. That happened without a single Member of today's majority 
voting for that deficit reduction plan.
  The combined rates of unemployment and inflation have reached a 25-
year low. Now, do not believe me, do not believe the talk you hear in 
the body of the U.S. Senate; talk to the people on Main Street and Wall 
Street in this country. The best evidence that President Clinton's 
budget plan provided the kind of leadership that he said he would is 
evidenced by what happened to the economy over the last several years. 
The marketplace is telling us that he did the right thing--not 
political rhetoric, but the marketplace.
  The deficit is now at its lowest level as a percentage of GDP than at 
any time in the last 15 years, about 2.7 percent. Again, that is not 
rhetoric. That is not talk. That is a fact.
  In February, the President submitted his 1996 budget and recommended 
an additional $81 billion in deficit reduction. The President 
recommended consolidating Federal programs, devolving Federal functions 
to the States, privatizing some functions that the private sector can 
perform at least as well at a lower cost, and terminating many programs 
that have outlived their usefulness.
  The President's budget resolution was not designed as an end point. 
The President made eminently clear that we cannot succeed in reducing 
our deficits without reining in rising health care costs.
  The identification of a $200 billion deficit problem as long as the 
eye can see in the future is right. My colleague from New Mexico has 
said that. He is correct. That $200 billion deficit item is sticking 
out there. But why is it sticking out there? It is sticking out there, 
we all know the reason, because of rising health care costs.
  I say to my friends on the other side that the health care problem is 
not going to go away by just talking about Medicare. If we read the 
Contract With America--and again none of my colleagues here signed the 
so-called contract--we cannot find the words ``health care'' mentioned. 
The word Medicare does not show up in the contract. Yet we all know 
that health care is the 1,000-pound gorilla sitting out there that has 
to be addressed.
  So the President, in his budget, recognized that fact. He said last 
year we did not get it done, we should try again this year and step up 
to the plate and deal with the issue.
  With all due respect to my colleagues on the other side, the budget 
plan that has been presented ducks the genuine health care reform 
issue. Instead, it takes a meat ax to a Federal health care program, 
cutting more than $430 billion from Medicare and Medicaid.
  The resolution provides no details of how these cuts are to be 
achieved, but says instead we will appoint a commission, a commission. 
That, in my view, is nothing more than an effort to disguise the 
problem rather than facing up to it ourselves. Our colleagues pin all 
their hopes on some outside group which will have the miraculous power 
to turn water into wine and to magically extract $430 billion from 
Medicare and Medicaid without causing any pain to anyone. Mr. 
President, it simply cannot be done.
  Let us assume for a moment that this budget becomes law and that its 
assumptions are carried out. What will the America of 2002 look like? 
This budget may achieve balance. But, it would also, in my view, 
inflame our social and economic conditions. We may find the Holy Grail 
of a balanced budget, but will we have suffered enormous casualties in 
the crusade to get our hands on it?
  Where will senior citizens be in the year 2002? After decades of hard 
work, many will face retirement years full of anxiety over medical 
bills. Medicare recipients, who, I might point out, Mr. President, have 
a median income of $17,000 a year, will live in constant fear that the 
next illness will bankrupt them or worse. Seniors will face higher 
deductibles, copayments, and premiums on the order of $900 a year as a 
result.
  We can say this is only a cut in growth, but tell that to a person 
out in the country who is living on $17,000 a year or less. Let me 
point out, Mr. President, 95 percent of the 35 million people on 
Medicare have incomes of $50,000 or less; 7.7 million of the 35 million 
have incomes of $10,000 or less.
  Last year, Medicare recipients paid almost $3,000 in out-of-pocket 
costs toward their medical expenses. This budget proposal will ask them 
to pay $900 more on average; $900 more in Medicare costs. These people 
cannot afford that.
  We have got to come up with better answers to solve the overall 
Medicare problem. Do not tell me it will not hurt. Do not tell me it 
will be painless.
  Every Member of this body has a health care plan. If we get sick, we 
are covered. We have incomes of $135,000 a year. To a person out there 
living on $10,000, $15,000, $14,000, $16,000 or $20,000 a year, this 
kind of increase in their out-of-pocket expenses hurts deeply. We have 
to do a better job.
  Medicare is not the cause of the problem, it is the symptom. It is 
one feature. To put all of our eggs in the Medicare/Medicaid basket and 
say we have now solved the health care problem is to be totally 
unmindful of the magnitude of this issue.
   Mr. President, when those who say on the other side of the aisle, 
``Sorry, this is painful''--but we have spread the pain widely, they 
are not being fair to or honest with the American people. I say to my 
friend from New Mexico--and I respect him because he does not have the 
kind of tax cut in his proposal that exists on the other side--but how 
do we say to someone watching that House budget pass with massive tax 
cuts for the affluent on one hand, and massive cuts in Medicare--by far 
the largest in our history--that this is the least bit equitable. The 
surveys in this country say that Americans would like to have a tax 
cut. Everybody would. But we think deficit reduction is more important. 
And yet we will sacrifice the people on Medicare, people on Medicaid, 
for a tax cut. What kind of balance is that? What kind of fairness is 
that? That is not what people asked for in this country when they voted 
last fall.
  Now, Mr. President, let me turn to education, because that is also a 
critical issue. It is the key to our society's and our economy's 
success. Ask any person in this country what is the single most 
important issue in many ways and they will say an educated society.
  With income increasingly correlated with educational achievement, it 
is quite obvious. According to the New York Times, the wage gap between 
college graduates and high school graduates doubled during the 1980's. 
College graduates used to earn about 30 percent more than high school 
graduates. Today they earn 60 percent more than high school graduates.
  Labor Secretary Bob Reich reports that every year of post-secondary 
education or training boosts earning power by 6 to 12 percent. It is 
not just a question of learning something, it is also economic power. 
It is the opportunity to climb out of a difficult situation that a 
family may be in. Education is the key to success. At a time when we 
should be devoting more resources to the 21st century needs of this 
Nation, in the year 2002 of this budget, we will be spending a third 
less than we are today--a third less, Mr. President--on education.
  Ask the American public whether or not they think it is wise fiscal 
policy to slash the education needs of middle-income families. Half of 
all college students count on Federal financial aid to put themselves 
through school, but this budget puts them under the gun.
  By 2002, interest will start accruing on student loans while students 
are still in school. These cuts will lift higher education out of the 
reach of many of American families. A million students, Mr. President, 
will lose their Pell grants. Other forms of financial aid will become 
scarce.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator is expired.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I do not see my colleague to ask for time. 
We are out of time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator is expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, on that note, let me just say to the 
American people, there will not be 1 million Pell grants lost under the 
Senate proposal. We will prove that in due course, but that is a nice 
way to end the Senator's remarks, by making this commitment and 
observation to the people.
  I yield to Senator Gramm 8 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from Texas.
  [[Page S6958]]
  
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I thank our dear colleague from New Mexico 
for yielding.
  I want to make a couple of points about the President and his budget 
and his lack of leadership. I will only make a few points, because the 
President has decided to make himself irrelevant to the number one 
issue in the Congress by submitting a budget that over the next 5 years 
has the deficit explode up to almost $300 billion a year. Now, 
everybody has to understand that represents a total lack of leadership.
  Now, let me begin by talking about the President's budget 2 years 
ago. It was a budget that raised taxes by $252 billion, taxed Social 
Security benefits on Social Security families that were earning over 
$30,000 a year, taxed gasoline, imposed a massive tax on small 
business. Yet what happened to the deficit? It went up. The deficit is 
rising.
  If we went back and took away Bill Clinton's tax increase and took 
away the spending increases that have occurred since he has become 
President, the deficit would be lower today if there had been no tax 
increase and no spending increase.
 So it is true that Republicans voted against the Clinton budget 
because it raised taxes, and raised spending more than it raised taxes.

  I think it is also important, since many people are going to talk 
about defense--we won the cold war. We tore down the Berlin Wall. We 
liberated Eastern Europe. We changed the world through the leadership 
of Ronald Reagan.
  But if every penny of defense savings since 1985 had gone to deficit 
reduction instead of being spent, we would have a balanced budget 
today. So not only have we spent every penny of massive increases in 
taxes, but Congress and the President have spent every penny of defense 
savings since we won the cold war.
  Finally, in terms of Medicare, I will tell you one thing about our 
Democratic colleagues and that is they are willing to take an issue 
where they have no standing and cloak themselves in righteousness on 
it. When the President proposed a 1,300 page bill to have the 
Government take over and run the health care system, to reinvent the 
greatest health care system in the history of the world in the image of 
the post office, the one part of the American health care system that 
he chose to exclude from health care reform was Medicare.
  Now the Democrats tell us, look, you cannot possibly do what a 
bipartisan commission tells you that you have to do to prevent Medicare 
from going broke without having the Government take over and run the 
whole health care system. And yet, when they proposed that the 
Government take over and run the health care system, they exempted 
Medicare. So I am afraid their words simply do not have the ring of 
truth in them.
  What has happened to the Federal budget? If we went back to 1950 and 
we looked at the growth of Government's budget relative to the growth 
of the budget of the average family in America we see a very, very 
clear picture. Government's budget at the Federal level has grown 2\1/
2\ times as fast on average as the budget of the average family in 
America since 1950. Let me convert that into something I think people 
will understand. If you went back to 1950 and you had the Federal 
Government's budget grow at the rate that the family budget has grown 
in America, our Government today would be one-third its size. If the 
family budget, beginning in 1950, had grown as fast as the Government 
budget has grown, the average working family in America would be 
earning $128,000 a year today.
  Now, I think if you ask most people if they would rather have that 
America or the one we have now, I think most Americans would prefer to 
have that America. But what the President is proposing, what our 
Democratic colleagues are proposing, is more of the same. The President 
is so committed to preserving the Government he knows and loves, 
programs which he has a political and emotional attachment to, that it 
does not matter that in the last 40 years those programs have failed. 
It does not matter that people on welfare are poorer, more dependent, 
and less happy today than they were in 1965. The President's answer is 
more spending on welfare.
  It does not matter that Medicare is going broke and a bipartisan 
commission, appointed by President Clinton, says that by the year 2002, 
we will not be able to pay the bills because the average retired couple 
is going to end up having expenses of over $110,000 more over their 
lifetime than we have in the system to pay for their benefits. The 
President says not to worry about it; 2002? I guess President Clinton 
figures he will be out of office and the roof will fall on somebody 
else's head. This budget worries about it.
  How do we deal with deficits? Basically, what the budget that is 
being offered on the floor of the Senate does is limit the growth of 
Government spending to 3.3 percent a year. In fact, if you look at this 
red line I have on my chart here, that is what Government spending in 
total looks like under the Domenici budget, the budget that the 
Democrats are here attacking, saying the world is coming to an end if 
we adopt this budget. Government spending grows every single day under 
the Domenici budget. It grows by 3.3 percent a year. And I submit there 
are a lot of working families in America who are not going to see their 
incomes grow by 3.3 percent a year. By limiting the growth of 
Government spending to 3.3 percent a year, we can balance the budget 
over the next 7 years.
  Now, we have some people who say that is enough; that is as hard a 
job as we can do. I believe we can do better. I believe we should limit 
the growth of Federal spending to about 3 percent a year so we can do 
what the House has done, balance the Federal budget and cut spending 
further so we can let working families keep more of what they earn, and 
so we can provide incentives for job creation and economic growth.
  Our people need less Government and more freedom. They need the 
opportunity to spend more of their own money on their own children. We 
need incentives for job creation. We can do that by adopting a budget 
which balances the budget but which cuts spending further so we can let 
people make investments.
  I hope on Tuesday to give Members an opportunity to both balance the 
budget and to cut spending further so we can let people keep more of 
what they earn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Under the agreement of 15 minutes on each side before the vote at 
10:45, the Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I yield myself, on behalf of the ranking 
member of the Budget Committee, 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, those not familiar with the workings of the 
Senate might find it strange that the first amendment offered by 
proponents of this budget resolution is one they will vote against.
  Let me explain why. Last night, I heard one of the most disrespectful 
speeches I have ever heard on the Senate floor. I saw one of the most 
disrespectful charts I have ever seen. What I saw was disrespectful of 
the President of the United States personally and of the office of the 
Presidency.
  The amendment before us is a further attempt to embarrass the 
President.
  In January 1993, President Bush presented his last budget to Congress 
as required by law. That budget showed deficits climbing to $320 
billion by fiscal year 1998. I do not intend to offer President Bush's 
last budget as an amendment, but I do ask unanimous consent to have a 
summary of that budget printed in the Record so the Record will show 
the contrast. Compare the numbers in the last Bush administration 
budget with the underlying amendment.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

.......................................................................
[[Page S6959]]
                            FINAL BUSH ADMINISTRATION BUDGET SUBMISSION, JANUARY 1993                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Estimate                                  
                        1992actual -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        1993         1994         1995         1996         1997         1998   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Receipts.............      1,091.6      1,147.6      1,230.3      1,305.6      1,378.5      1,439.7      1,523.4
Outlays:                                                                                                        
    Discretionary....        534.3        548.1        537.4        539.1        539.1        539.1        539.1
    Mandatory:                                                                                                  
        Deposit                                                                                                 
         insurance...          2.6         15.5         16.2         -7.1        -14.9        -11.3         -6.9
        Medicaid.....         67.8         80.5         92.9        107.8        122.7        138.8        156.4
        Federal                                                                                                 
         retirement..         74.9         77.4         81.5         83.9         88.6         94.1         98.2
        Means-tested                                                                                            
         entitlements         75.0         83.4         89.8         95.6         98.5        106.2        112.4
        Medicare.....        116.2        129.9        147.8        166.3        188.5        211.4        235.8
        Social                                                                                                  
         Security....        285.1        302.2        318.7        336.2        355.1        374.8        395.6
        Unemployment                                                                                            
         compensation         37.0         32.7         24.7         24.4         25.5         26.3         27.4
        Undistributed                                                                                           
         offsetting                                                                                             
         receipted...        -39.3        -37.2        -39.0        -40.3        -41.5        -43.5        -46.0
        Other........         28.7         39.6         32.7         27.9         20.7         22.9         22.9
                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal,                                                                                             
         mandatory...        648.0        724.1        765.2        794.9        843.2        919.6        995.7
Net interest.........        199.4        202.8        220.1        244.1        262.5        286.0        308.4
                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total outlays....      1,381.8      1,474.9      1,522.7      1,578.0      1,644.8      1,744.7      1,843.2
                      ==========================================================================================
Deficit (-) excluding                                                                                           
 MDA sequester.......       -290.2       -327.3       -292.4       -272.4       -266.4       -305.0       -319.8
  MDA sequester                                                                                                 
   savings (includes                                                                                            
   PAYGO and debt                                                                                               
   service savings of                                                                                           
   $1.7 billion in                                                                                              
   1994 and $1.8                                                                                                
   billion in 1995)..           NA           NA         22.4         42.8           NA           NA           NA
                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Deficit (-)                                                                                                 
     including MDA                                                                                              
     sequester.......       -290.2       -327.3       -269.9       -229.6       -266.4       -305.0       -319.8
                                                                                                                
      Memorandum                                                                                                
                                                                                                                
Surplus or deficit (-                                                                                           
 ) (excluding MDA                                                                                               
 sequester savings):                                                                                            
    On-budget........       -340.3       -379.9       -354.8       -342.6       -348.5       -395.6       -422.9
    Off-budget.......         50.1         52.6         62.5         70.3         82.1         90.7        103.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The following estimates exclude an MDA sequester. If existing MDA's are not adjusted, the 1994 deficit    
  would be lower by between $23.2 billion and $50.0 billion, and the 1995 deficit would be lower by between     
  $21.8 billion and $71.4 billion.                                                                              

The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute has expired.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FORD. What a difference 2 years has made.
  What it means to me is also a loud signal that those on the other 
side of the aisle have no intention of developing a bipartisan approach 
to deficit reduction. I think that is regrettable.
  I do not intend to vote for either the pending amendment or the 
underlying budget resolution. It is still my hope that we can find a 
bipartisan solution at the end of the day. But not by offering 
amendments like this one, for political purposes.
  I think it is unfortunate and I urge its defeat.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have reluctantly concluded that I cannot 
support the President's budget as submitted. The major change that 
should be made to his budget, in my judgment, would be to eliminate his 
proposed tax cut and, instead, apply the amount that would be required 
for this purpose toward deficit reduction.
  The President deserves great credit for his leadership in proposing a 
major deficit reduction package shortly after he assumed office in 
1993. That deficit reduction package was subsequently enacted into law 
without one Republican vote in either the House or the Senate. It 
resulted in deficit reduction over a 5-year period of approximately 
$500 billion.
  I note that in this year's budget submission, however, the 
President's budget proposals would result in a continuation of annual 
deficits in the $200 billion range for each of the next 5 years. I 
think that we can, and must, do better. The place to start is to 
restrain ourselves from making the easy choices like tax cuts and 
instead make the difficult choices that may be necessary and apply any 
savings to deficit reduction.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, there are two starkly different budgets 
before us that would move this country in opposite directions. First, 
there is the Republican budget now before this body. That budget offers 
a vision for the future. Under that plan the deficit would slowly 
decline until it would disappear in 2002. It is the only budget with a 
vision and a future. It would balance present-day needs with long-term 
needs for seniors, for children, for the needy, and for the taxpayer.
  There is another budget before us, Mr. President. It is the 
President's budget. And his budget moves in the opposite direction. 
Under his vision of the future, deficits would rise as far as the eye 
can see. His direction would be devastating to our children and 
grandchildren, and to America's future. It would saddle future 
generations with an additional $1.7 trillion in debt over the next 5 
years.
  I have not seen a more irresponsible budget proposed by a President 
since the Rose Garden budget proposed by President Reagan in 1984. That 
budget did nothing to attack the deficit. This one does even less.
  The President's budget submission represents an abdication of 
leadership by the President. At a time when he could have carried 
fiscal responsibility across the goal line, he punted. He took a walk. 
He decided to play Pontius Pilate and wash his hands of the matter.
  Mr. President, I hope this budget is soundly defeated. This body has 
to send the message that the direction taken by this President in his 
budget is unacceptable. It represents abdication, retreat, and failed 
leadership. It represents the triumph of business-as-usual over vision. 
I urge its defeat.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, just this week my Republican 
colleagues, belatedly, unveiled their budget priorities to the American 
people and the U.S. Senate. Their priorities are expressed in Senator 
Domenici's budget proposal which is now pending on the Senate floor. 
The loss leaders in this Republican budget are the basic health 
programs protecting our Nation's senior citizens, poor children, the 
disabled, and pregnant women, also known as Medicare and Medicaid. 
Historic levels of cuts in these programs--$256 billion out of Medicare 
and $175 billion out of Medicaid--make the major contribution to the 
deficit reduction in their proposal. Education gets hit hard, as do 
other investment priorities I care about, like job training. Our 
Nation's veterans lose. Working families who depend on the earned 
income tax credit lose. In my judgment, the people of West Virginia, 
whom I represent, lose under the Republican budget proposal. 
Nevertheless, the Republican budget priorities are here. Their budget 
is finally on the table and the subject of discussion and debate in the 
U.S. Senate. Is that what Republicans want to debate and talk about? 
No.
  The Republicans' first order of business during the floor action of 
their budget has been to exercise their parliamentary right to offer 
the first amendment. Their first amendment, offered by the chairman of 
the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, is to substitute the 
President's fiscal year 1996 budget for their long-awaited proposal. It 
seems rather odd to propose a complete substitute for their much 
anticipated proposal before there has been any real debate on the 
Senate floor about what is in their proposal--who wins and who loses 
under their plan. And it is even more extraordinary that my Republican 
colleagues would choose to move to adopt the President's budget 
proposal as a substitute, after purporting to have just outlined their 
version of a responsible budget before the Senate. Why have they asked 
the Senate to vote on the President's budget before any meaningful 
[[Page S6960]] discussion has ensued about the details of the 
Republican budget proposal? Why have they changed the subject?
  This amendment is nothing more than a political ploy. I suppose it is 
meant to make the point that the President's budget would not garner a 
majority of votes in the Senate. But we already know that. They are not 
going to vote for it and they are the majority of Members of this body. 
Undoubtedly, their proposed amendment will fail, regardless of how 
Democratic Senators vote. So they must be using their parliamentary 
right purely to make a political point. A point which seems obvious to 
me.
  I believe they have chosen to pursue this strategy because they want 
to distract the American people, the Senate, the media, from what ought 
to be the focus of our budget debate--the affects of the Republican 
budget proposal on the budgets of America's working families, seniors, 
small businesses, students, and on the investments I believe are 
important to the job creation and job growth.
  They do not want to talk about the details of their plan. They want 
to talk about somebody else's plan. They want to score political 
points. Well, much as they seem to dislike the fact that they are now 
being asked to produce the details of their budget and explain what 
their priorities are, it is their responsibility to do so. They are the 
new majority. We made tough choices when we were in the majority. We 
produced consistent deficit reduction. Under Democratic congressional 
leadership we reduced the deficit by over a trillion dollars in the 
last 5 years. We have met the challenge. It is their turn to lead.
  Their first response is to say let us talk about something else. Well 
that is just not good enough. They have a duty to explain what is in 
their proposal and why. They have yet to do that in any meaningful way, 
despite a slew of opening statements given on the floor today.
  For instance, we have heard people suggest the Medicare Program's 
growth is out of control and that is why it ought to be restricted. 
That is not the real reason the Republican budget slashes in Medicare. 
The real reason, I believe, is that they need huge amounts of Medicare 
cuts to pull off balancing the budget on their arbitrary timetable. The 
truth is Medicare's growing at the same rate as the health care costs 
of other Americans, including our health care costs of those of us here 
in Congress, maybe a percent higher. That is hardly way out of sync 
with the increases that individual Americans are coping with, and it is 
to be expected when we have yet to address the country's basic need for 
fundamental health care reform. So why the need to zero in on Medicare 
for mammoth cuts--to pay for an irresponsible and unfair tax cut for 
the rich.
  I would be derelict not to note that our failure to deal with the 
complicated issues of health care reform last year means that our 
deficit problem is even greater. Indeed, the major complaint about the 
President's fiscal year 1996 budget--that it does not produce 
sufficient deficit reduction--would be moot if we had achieved 
comprehensive health care reform last year. As Democrats have been 
warning for years, and as President Clinton insisted throughout his 
campaign, if we don't deal with our Nation's health care problems which 
affect our
 families, our businesses, our children and our seniors, and each of 
our Federal health programs, we will never get the deficit under 
control. I would like to believe that the Congress is still willing to 
step up to the health care challenge, although outside of rhetoric and 
a forced march to meet a predetermined budget target, I have not seen 
any evidence that my Republican colleagues are in fact willing to step 
up to the plate.

  I wish that was not the case, but I have to tell you what I believe 
to be true.
  Finally, I want to point out that even without reaching agreement on 
comprehensive health care reform, if the President's budget proposal 
had not included an additional tax break for working class families it 
would produce continued significant deficit reduction. The basic 
building blocks of the President's budget proposal focus on all the 
right priorities--it delivers on two promises to West Virginia and the 
rest of America:
  It comes through with funding for what matters most to our State: 
jobs, health care, fighting crime, and children. It has more money for 
highways, for education, and for job training.
  The President's budget proposal also continues to cut wasteful 
spending. It mothballs 130 programs that the President thinks should be 
shelved. It is a tight-fisted budget aimed at continuing the efforts of 
OBRA93 to cut the Federal deficit.
  But I recognize what is going on here. So do my colleagues, and so 
should the American people. I will not dignify the Republicans' attempt 
to shift the debate from their budget to an alternative that has no 
hope of passing with my vote. This important debate is about 
priorities. And it is their turn to explain theirs. I do not share 
them, but I have yet to hear an articulate defense of the details of 
their proposal.
  To conclude, I will vote against Senator Domenici's amendment to 
substitute the President's fiscal year 1996 budget for the hard-
hearted, extreme proposals in the Republican budget plan--regarding 
which they seem unwilling to discuss in any careful detail. I will vote 
no despite the fact that I believe the President's budget, and 
therefore the amendment, would be a much better basis for a discussion 
of our national goals and priorities than the underlying Republican 
budget we have before us today, if only because it does not devastate 
the Medicare and Medicaid programs on which 70 million Americans rely 
for their health care.
  I am interested in hearing the Republican's explanation of how they 
believe their budget puts the emphasis where it belongs: on our 
Nation's economic development, jobs, health care, crime, and children--
or why it does not. That is the kind of Federal budget that deals with 
the day to day needs of West Virginia and that is the only kind of 
Federal budget which I can support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  We are about to vote on the first amendment in this budget resolution 
debate. Let me say, as far as most of us on this side of the aisle are 
concerned, it is not a serious vote. This is purely political 
gamesmanship. It is a rite of every budget year. Democrats did it when 
Presidents Reagan and Bush were in office, and now our Republican 
colleagues are taking their turn.
  This is not a serious vote. This vote has nothing to do with the 
budget resolution that is on the floor of the Senate. The Budget 
Committee has reported its resolution. That is the operative document. 
That is the document that will guide congressional action.
  That is the document Senate Democrats find defective, and are seeking 
to improve with a series of amendments that we will be offering over 
the course of the next 3 or 4 days.
  The budget resolution is a congressional document. It is not 
presented to the President, and it does not require his signature. It 
is our internal guideline.
  The next stage will involve the President for he must sign or veto 
the reconciliation bill. The President has already indicated his 
willingness to work toward a common solution, a bipartisan solution. 
But he has been very clear about the conditions which must be met.
  The Republicans must abandon their tax cut that favors the very rich. 
If there is to be a tax cut, it must be targeted to the middle class, 
and it must be paid for.
  Second, the Republicans must rescind their tax increase on working 
Americans. We simply cannot accept a tax increase of $1,500 per year on 
those people who are struggling just to stay off welfare.
  Third, the Republicans must restore their cuts to education. Asking 
college students to pay an additional $3,000 a year is simply wrong.
  Fourth, any changes in Medicare must take place in the context of 
overall health care reform. We have said that over and over again. A 
$256 billion cut in Medicare is draconian.
  The stock market yesterday went down 82 points, and a lot of us have 
been convinced that is simply senior citizens selling their stock to 
pay for Medicare insurance in the next several years.
  Those conditions are the reality of the budget. Those issues will be 
the [[Page S6961]] ones that define this budget year. Those are the 
issues that count with all Americans.
  But this current vote has nothing to do with reality. It is a 
meaningless political gesture.
  In light of this, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. 
I suggest we not dignify this vote by taking it seriously.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, do they have any additional time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 10 minutes remaining on that side, 
and 15 minutes remaining on the other side.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I understand our 15 is our wrap-up time.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished 
Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Might I take 30 seconds of my time and then yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I just wanted to say most of us think the reason the 
stock market went haywire is the President threatened to veto a 
rescissions bill which means that he is not going to sign a 
reconciliation bill which means we are going to continue the deficit 
spending for as far as the eye can see. I think that is what the stock 
market saw yesterday.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all, let me thank the distinguished 
Democratic leader.
  Let me say at the very outset, that I want to commend the Democratic 
leader for his work putting together packages which we will be able to 
raise in the next few days highlighting our disagreements with the 
budget proposal as submitted by the majority party. Let me also 
underscore the points that the minority leader has made; and, that is, 
that if our colleagues on the other side will drop their tax cut 
proposals and be willing to deal with comprehensive health care reform, 
if they will not take a meat ax to education and the working poor, I am 
confident that we can put together a budget here that would get us to a 
balance hopefully by the year 2002, and, if not then, shortly 
thereafter and do it in a meaningful way.
  I have already talked briefly on the issue of Medicare, and 
education. But under the proposal being submitted to us by the 
Republican majority, 12 million working poor Americans will face 
increased taxes in the year 2002. These working families who are trying 
to play by the rules and to provide for themselves and their children 
near the poverty level will face a tax increase in the form of a 
reduction in the earned income tax credit. They will pay on average 
$350 a year more in additional taxes in the year 2002.
  This unfair and shortsighted deficit saver will make welfare look 
even more attractive compared to low-wage work, and people working full 
time at a minimum wage will not be able to lift themselves out of 
poverty.
  I have said for years the best social program anybody came up with is 
a job. Here we have an awful lot of people who are living on the 
margins in this country. The earned income tax credit has been one of 
the most successful programs in providing economic relief to people 
living on the margins. President Reagan called it the best idea we have 
for assisting people at the margins.
  Our colleague and chairman of the Budget Committee has heralded the 
success of the EITC in the past. There are problems. I do not disagree. 
We ought to deal with those problems. But to change this program and to 
take $21 billion out of it at a time when we are going to be talking 
about welfare reform, when we are trying to lift people out--not 
temporarily, but permanently off public dependency--does not make any 
sense. Those not benefiting from economic growth are going to find 
themselves falling further and further behind.
  Since 1979 the bottom 20 percent of Americans, by income, have seen 
their real wages plummet 17 percent. We have expanded the earned income 
tax credit to address this dangerous trend on a bipartisan basis. I 
would point out that by gutting the credit the Republican budget will 
only make matters worse.
  Working Americans are going to find themselves increasingly cut off 
from the American dream in the year 2002 if this budget is approved. 
Who is going to be better off under this proposal? The well off or the 
best off in this country are going to do relatively well.
  The budget leaves the door wide open to a tax cut along the lines 
approved by the House. More than half the benefits in that package 
flow, as we know, to people earning more than $100,000 a year. Here we 
are talking about people at the low-income level who are working today, 
not living on welfare, not getting AFDC, trying to make ends meet, 
trying to take care of their families. And we are going to hit them 
with a $21 billion hit while we are providing relief for many people 
making $100,000 or more. I do not fault anybody in that income 
category. Everybody wants to be in that income category. But to get 
there you have to make the investments. You have to give them a chance 
to get going.
  Here we have a budget proposal that goes after people right on the 
fringes, and to pay for that we take people at the upper-income levels 
and we give them a tax break. What kind of logic is that? What does 
that say about the direction we are heading in as a country in the year 
2002?
  Mr. President, almost 60 years ago we heard another American 
President, Franklin Roosevelt, say:

       In every land there are always at work forces that drive 
     men apart and forces that draw men together. In our personal 
     ambitions we are individualists. But in our seeking for 
     economic and political progress as a nation, we all go up, or 
     else we all go down, as one people.

  In my view we should heed this wise advice as we prepare to close out 
this century and begin the 21st century.
  This budget resolution gives to the strong at the expense of the 
weak. It provides relief to those least in need of it at the expense of 
those with nothing extra to spare. It is not a road map to a place that 
we as a nation should go. I certainly hope we come to our senses and 
choose a different course than the one proposed by this budget. It is 
not just a question of knowing the price of everything but knowing the 
value of things as well.
  A generation of Americans benefited from the GI bill. Today, if we 
were to pass the GI bill, it would cost $9,700 for every recipient. 
That is what those dollars meant in the latter part of the forties and 
early fifties. How many people in this country benefited? How many 
families today are better off because that investment was made? Those 
were hard dollars to vote for. Yet, we grew as a country. We benefited 
as a country.
  VA mortgages--2-percent loans gave people in this country a chance to 
buy their first home. How many people today are doing better, have good 
homes because they got a start? How many people got jobs in building 
those homes? Those were investments we made in people.
  Today we have to think along similar lines to make those investments 
in education, in growth, in opportunity. The best deficit reducer in 
the long-term is a growing economy.
  So we ought to keep that in mind as we go through this process of 
deciding the kind of investments and cuts to make.
  Again, Mr. President, there is no debate about deficit reduction in 
this body, none that I know. We ought to get there as soon as we can 
but do so with moderation, intelligence, and sensitivity about what 
makes a great country stronger. Fiscal responsibility is a critical 
element. Investing in education, in health, in social progress also 
contributes significantly to a strong country.
  My deep, deep fear is that the budget proposal I am fearful we are 
going to adopt takes us in the opposite direction. I say that in all 
due respect to its authors, but I think this is a time to be coming 
together in seeking some common ground as to how we can put a proposal 
together that allows us a deficit-neutral society, creating surpluses, 
but does so in a way that grows America and gives this next generation 
an opportunity to enjoy the dreams and visions that this Nation ought 
to be providing.
  So with that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and look forward to 
the debate next week.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  [[Page S6962]]
  
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 14 minutes 40 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 7 minutes to Senator Snowe from Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. I thank the Chair. I thank the chairman of the Budget 
Committee, Senator Domenici, not only for yielding me this time but, as 
a member of the Senate Budget Committee, I have certainly appreciated 
the leadership he has provided on this most serious and critical of 
issues.
  I am a little surprised by what the Senate minority leader mentioned 
earlier when he said that offering the President's budget which he 
offered this year for fiscal year 1996 was really empty, meaningless, 
and not a serious gesture.
  What is that saying, that the President was not serious about 
offering his proposal to the American people to address deficit 
reduction and, indeed, balancing the budget for future generations?
  I think it is a sad commentary to suggest that the President is not 
serious in engaging in this issue. Is he suggesting that the President 
does not want to be relevant in balancing the budget and joining 
Congress in doing what is important for the American people?
  I think it is very much a fair comparison because we have heard over 
and over again about the proposal that came out of the Senate Budget 
Committee. We worked very hard. We wanted a bipartisan agreement. But 
the administration's proposal is a monument to status quo. The irony is 
that the administration has referred to the Republican budget 
resolution, which achieves a balanced budget through serious deficit 
reduction by the year 2002--that is what, in fact, many of the minority 
Members of the Senate have indicated during the debate on the 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget, that they did want to 
balance that budget by the year 2002. They just did not want a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget. But the administration 
and administration officials have referred to our budget as ``dumb and 
dumber'' and ``clear and present danger.''
  Frankly, if the administration would like to invoke a film fee, I 
would be happy to oblige them because, due to the years and years of 
deficit and red ink that the President extends in his budget into the 
next century, I certainly would describe the President's budget as the 
``crimson tide'' because that is the legacy the President is leaving 
future generations. That is in fact his budget. It is a sea of red ink.
  Compare that to what we have offered in the Senate Budget Committee--
responsible deficit reduction that does achieve a balanced budget by 
the year 2002. I think it does not take an Einstein to figure out who 
is doing something for the future of this country, for the future of 
children and seniors and the stability of this country. Do we leave a 
monument of red ink to future generations just beyond the turn of the 
century that will require them to pay an 82-percent tax rate to finance 
this red ink that is in President Clinton's budget? Or do we do 
something now so that they can have a better future and invest in the 
priorities that everybody wants this Nation to invest in, such as 
education and health care and our infrastructure?
  They cannot do that with the President's budget, because it is a sea 
of red ink. So I am dismayed that the President offered a budget that 
was not serious in reaching and achieving a balanced budget by the year 
2002. The fact is the President is offering $2 trillion by the year 
2002 in additional debt. Even the Washington Post had this editorial 
comment a day after the President released his budget, and I quote:

       It is troubling that he has now decided to take a holiday 
     from the hard and painful responsibility to keep working the 
     deficit downward. The issue is this country's future standard 
     of living.

  Even the distinguished ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee 
said earlier today that he was not enthusiastic about the President's 
plan. In fact, he noted a month or two ago ``In the administration's 
failure to chart a new fiscal course for our Nation,'' he said, ``the 
President dropped the ball by offering a budget that falls short, way 
short of the deficit reduction we need.''
  This budget tells a tale of two Presidents, one who promises a 
balanced budget and another who fails to deliver; one President who 
promises deep cuts in the Nation's deficit and another who oversees a 
more than doubling of the predicted deficit in the year 2004; and one 
President who promises middle-class protection and another who saddles 
the middle class with increased per capita debts, increased taxes on 
Social Security benefits and increased taxes on those who own family 
farms and small businesses.
  Simply put, there is a nagging fundamental disparity between what 
this President says and what he does. It reminds me of the Shakespeare 
quote ``action is eloquence.'' If that is the case, we better tongue-
tie the administration when it comes to budget policy and economics.
  President Clinton made a statement on April 15 in which he presented 
a three-point legislative priority list which included welfare reform 
and crime, but he also mentioned tax and spending cuts that both reduce 
the budget deficit and the spending deficit. But you would not know 
that reducing the deficit was even one of the President's legislative 
priorities because, again getting back to this chart, he has $200 to 
$300 billion in annual deficits between now and the end of this decade 
and beyond into the next century.
  The President had said in February that his budget plan will by 1997 
cut $140 billion in that year alone from the deficit.
  Well, that being the case, it must have been another President that 
crafted the budget plan for the next 5 years. 
According to the reality-based reestimate by the Congressional Budget 
Office, the 1996 budget deficit will be $211 billion, not the $197 
billion the administration projected. The 1998 deficit will rise to 
$231 billion, not the $196 billion projected by the administration, and 
the 1999 deficit will reach an estimated $256 billion, a far cry from 
what the administration projected of $197 billion.
  And if that is not bad enough, we have to look at the year 2000. CBO 
says the deficit will reach $276 billion rather than the $194 billion 
projected by the administration. That is almost a $100 billion 
difference in the deficit between what the administration projects and 
what the Congressional Budget Office estimates.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. SNOWE. There is no question as to where we need to go and who is 
being responsible for the future of this country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President and fellow Senators, first of all, I 
offered this amendment after asking if any Democrats would like to 
offer it, so I would like to make that very clear. I do not like to 
introduce the President's budget. I am not for it, but I thought it 
deserved a vote. Normally, we vote on Presidents' budgets whether we 
agree with them or not. When they did not agree with the Republican 
Presidents' budgets, obviously, they were offered just for the same 
reason--to see how many people really supported it.
  But equally as important, the press secretary for the President on 
May 15 said, and I quote:

       It would be a good place to begin. It's better than what 
     they're talking about.

  So I do this to oblige. Since, speaking for the President, his is 
better than ours, we would like to have a vote and see.
  Now, Mr. President and fellow Senators, there are 2 approaches to the 
future of our country, not 15 or 20. There are two at this point in 
history: This one, the President's budget--the President's budget 
surrenders to the deficit, makes few if any hard choices--and the 
Republican budget which I was privileged to help craft with many 
Members and many task forces, this budget.
  Now, this budget is a budget for the future.
  This budget is a budget of the past.
  This budget changes things.
  This budget is the status quo.
  This budget says the future generations should not be taxed without 
representation--little children born today should not be taxed without 
representation.
  This budget says we will tax the next generation. We will tax every 
man, [[Page S6963]] woman, and child who is working today to pay for 
programs that we insist on spending their money for even though they 
are not even around to be consulted, they are not being asked, and they 
may not even know that they are being taxed without representation. 
Because, indeed, we just continue to borrow money and say, ``You pay 
for it.'' This budget says, ``We'll keep borrowing money. Kids cannot 
complain anyway. Children cannot vote anyway. Children are not even 
going to be heard on this budget. But we are going to keep on taxing 
them by taking away their standard of living, by making them have to 
work ever harder and ever longer to pay for this budget and the 
programs that we refuse to restrain, reform, make relevant, or get rid 
of duplication.''
  This budget says the Government of the United States can continue to 
grow. Our responsibility to millions of Americans will continue. This 
budget says, make Medicare solvent. This budget says we want Medicare 
not only for the current seniors but for seniors yet to join and need 
it for their health care. This budget says we want to help the poor in 
our States who need health care because we are going to have a program 
that can be sustained, that we can afford.
  This budget says to keep on paying for a Medicaid Program that we 
cannot afford. Sooner or later, 2, 3, or 4 years from now, we will have 
to say to the poor people that get Medicaid, ``We can't afford it 
anymore.''
  This budget says start fixing it right now.
  So, fellow Senators, let me suggest that we hear a lot about our 
senior citizens. And we say to them, ``When all of this is over, you 
will have a Medicare Program. It will be as good or better than the one 
you have now.''
  We say to the poor, who are getting health care from Medicaid, ``You 
will have a program and it will be better than the one now.'' And, yes, 
we will say in one loud voice, ``There is a future with an increased 
standard of living and opportunity,'' if you adopt this budget, the 
Republican budget, and fail to adopt the President's budget which is 
pending before us today.
  Many comments have been made today about various programs. We do not 
have an opportunity to answer right in the middle of these speeches, 
but before you pass judgment on education and what reforms we have 
recommended on Medicare, Medicaid, and on the earned-income tax 
credit--which, incidentally, will grow at 40 percent while some are 
talking about it being cut--wait for the details. We will discuss them 
one by one with the American people.
  But, for now, we have an opportunity to reject a status quo budget, a 
budget of the past, and set in motion the budget of the future.
  I yield to Senator Stevens, who wants to make a unanimous-consent 
request.
  I yield to the majority leader whatever time I might have remaining.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.

                          ____________________