[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 86 (Tuesday, May 23, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7225-S7229]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                 RURAL HOUSING GUARANTEED LOAN PROGRAM

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wish to engage in a colloquy with 
Senator Domenici, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, 
with respect to the rural housing guaranteed loan program.
  In reviewing the report accompanying the Fiscal Year 1996 Concurrent 
Budget Resolution, I note that the Senate Budget Committee recommends 
``the reduction or elimination of certain subsidies provided by the 
federal government for a range of credit programs in the Small Business 
Administration, the Federal Housing Administration, and the Rural 
Housing and Community Development Service.'' Am I correct in 
understanding this to mean that the Budget Committee assumes no savings 
from the Rural Housing and Community Development Service's Section 502 
unsubsidized guaranteed loan program over the next seven years?
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator from Rhode Island is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President. I will oppose the Roth amendment which 
takes a meat-ax approach to eliminating federal jobs. The 
administration has made laudable progress by downsizing the government 
by more than a quarter of a million workers by the end of the year. 
Under the leadership of Vice President Gore, careful evaluation, 
systematic studies, and cost-benefit analyses have been used to shape a 
leaner more effective Federal workforce. Because it is not 
based on such studies and analysis, the Roth amendment, by contrast, 
could result in the slicing away of essential jobs, such as those 
needed to get out the social security checks, staff the veterans' 
hospitals, or to protect federal facilities and workers from another 
terrorist incident. Also, the Roth amendment, according to its author, 
assumes the elimination of the Department of Commerce, an action with 
which I do not agree.
                                  afdc

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I intend to propose an amendment that 
will enable us to improve our welfare system rather than dismantle it. 
Under my amendment, Aid to Families With Dependent Children will remain 
a Federal entitlement program. [[Page S7226]] 
  The amendment I propose will, over 7 years, restore $55 billion to 
income security programs, including Aid to Families With Dependent 
Children, Supplemental Security Income and Unemployment Insurance under 
the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee.
  My amendment is deficit neutral. It is financed by using part of the 
fiscal dividend that will accrue to the Federal Government if we 
balance the budget.
  The budget resolution reported out by the Senate Budget Committee 
reserves the fiscal dividend for tax cuts.
  I fail to understand how we can justify tax cuts at the same time 
that we are, for example: withdrawing the Federal guarantee of support 
for dependent children; reducing government programs like Medicare and 
Medicaid by over 15 percent; and threatening an end to vital public 
services through the elimination of subsidies for AMTRAK.
  As I stated on introducing the Family Support Act of 1995 last 
Thursday:

       It is beyond belief that in the middle of the Great 
     Depression in the 1930's, we provided for children a minimum 
     benefit to keep them alive, and in the middle of a successful 
     1990's with a 7 trillion dollar economy we're going to take 
     that away.

  Senators who have been following the subject of welfare policy will 
recognize the bill I introduced last week as a successor to the Family 
Support Act of 1988, which was adopted in
 this Chamber just this side of 7 years ago, on September 29, 1988, by 
a vote of 96 to 1.

  When President Ronald Reagan signed the bill in the Rose Garden on 
October 13, he thanked those who, as he said, shared the credit for 
``this landmark legislation'', including Senator Dole, Senator 
Packwood, and Senator Bentsen, as well as Representatives Rostenkowski, 
Hank Brown, Michel, Frenzel, and Downey.
  These members of Congress will be remembered, President Reagan said;

     for accomplishing what many have attempted, but no one has 
     achieved in several decades: a meaningful redirection of our 
     welfare system.

  It will seem unimaginable to us today, but the Family Support Act was 
not a partisan political measure.
  Together Republicans and Democrats passed a bill that was based 
largely on what we had learned during the 1980's about how to get 
welfare recipients into work. A number of States had used the 
flexibility we gave them in 1981 to do this, and there had been careful 
evaluation of their efforts. The Family Support Act of 1988 recognized 
a mutual obligation. The Government would provide training and child 
care, and help the parent find a job. But the parent had an obligation 
to do what was required.
  The proposal that is envisaged in this budget resolution is vastly 
different. It gives up entirely on a national commitment.
  We have a problem in this country that we share with most of the rest 
of the western world, and that is the problem of the breakdown in 
family structure. As recently as 1960 the percentage of children born 
to single parents was about 5 percent. A manageable problem. It is now 
about 33 percent. The same trend is happening in Canada. The out-of-
wedlock birth rate in the United Kingdom and France exceeds 30 percent, 
very close to ours.
  And we do not know what to do about it.
  Dr. Lawrence Mead, professor at New York University, now visiting 
professor at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and
 International Affairs at Princeton, testified before the Finance 
Committee on March 9 of this year. He asked:

       Can the forces behind growing welfare be stemmed? 
     Conservative analysts say that unwed pregnancy is the 
     greatest evil in welfare, the cause not only of dependency 
     but other social ills. On all sides, people call for a 
     ``family policy'' that would solve this problem.
       But we have no such policy. The great fact is that neither 
     policymakers nor researchers have found any incentive, 
     benefit, or other intervention that can do much to cut the 
     unwed pregnancy rate.

  What we do know is that the program we enacted in 1988, the Job 
Opportunities and Basic Skills Training [JOBS] Program, can have a 
modest, but important effect.
  Dr. Mead told the committee that:

       A tough JOBS program appears to be one reason why Wisconsin 
     has reduced its welfare rolls, despite generous welfare 
     benefits. Very likely, JOBS has operated to restrain welfare 
     growth nationwide.

  Lawrence Townsend, Director of the Department of Public Social 
Services of Riverside County, CA, who runs what is recognized as one of 
the most successful JOBS programs in the country, spoke to the Finance 
Committee on March 20:

     * * * of the importance of the existence of a Federally 
     mandated, properly focused, and adequately funded JOBS 
     program. If designed properly, the JOBS program can be one of 
     the best vehicles for assisting those who are AFDC-dependent 
     to successfully traverse the road to self sufficiency.

  The Family Support Act of 1995 builds on what we know. Evaluation 
confirms that the JOBS program works. As a result of evaluation we are 
learning how programs can perform better, by increasing participation 
requirements, and placing more emphasis on actual work.
  States need more flexibility to test new policies. My bill allows 
States to set their own rules for assets and to design their own rules 
for eligibility for the Unemployed Parent program--welfare benefits for 
2-parent families. It says that a decision on a waiver will be made 
within 90 days.
  And we can fulfill our obligations to our Nation's children and still 
balance the budget in a reasonable timeframe if we eschew tax cuts.
  Faced with a huge budget deficits I have consistently opposed tax 
cuts in any shape or form.
  As I indicated 10 days ago on ``Meet the Press'':

       I dropped (the President's) tax cut plan the moment I heard 
     about it.

  I oppose the tax cuts advocated in the Contract for America. The 
Contract for America's tax proposals were incorporated into the House 
budget resolution--a resolution that would eliminate the Federal 
guarantee on AFDC for dependent children while providing funding for a 
7-year $354 billion tax cut.
  And I am opposed to the tax cuts implicit in the budget resolution 
now before the Senate. You may make the tax cuts appear costless by 
stipulating that tax reduction will be financed with the so-called 
fiscal dividend--estimated by CBO to be about $170 billion.
  But why should the fiscal dividend be reserved for tax cuts?
  Who can have a greater claim on our conscience than poor children. I 
am simply asking the Senate to adjust less than one-half of 1 percent 
of total spending provided for in the budget resolution in favor of 
impoverished children. Have we really come to the point, at the close 
of the 20th century, when that is too much to ask?
  In a series of speeches in February of this year I opposed the 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget. I stated then, and 
still believe, that we can and will balance the budget without a 
constitutional requirement.
  I noted the progress that had already been made as a result of a $500 
billion deficit reduction program enacted in 1993--enacted I might add 
without one Republican vote in either the Senate or the House. As a 
result of deficit reduction measures enacted in 1993, the deficit has 
declined for three straight years--from $290 billion in fiscal year 
1992 to an estimated $175 billion for the current fiscal year.
  Let us proceed with good cheer knowing that we can get a balanced 
budget without ending an entitlement for dependent children.
                         Medicare/Medicaid cuts

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this debate is about priorities, fairness 
and choices. We agree on the bottom line. We agree on balancing the 
budget and bringing this deficit down. But we part company on how to 
get there.
  I say we should get to the bottom line without putting our seniors, 
our students, our farmers, and our working families in the firing line.
  I say we should choose quality health care for our seniors over 
unnecessary tax breaks for those who need it the least.
  In the last couple of weeks I have heard my Republican friends say 
that their budget resolution does not cut Medicare. They say, ``Only in 
Washington would someone say that reducing the rate of growth from 10 
to 7.1 percent is a cut''.
  Well, to this I respond with the following: Only in Washington would 
they say to a senior citizen--We're not cutting your Medicare, just 
hand over $900 more out of your pocket each year to pay for 
it. [[Page S7227]] 
  But, while we're doing it--remember, it's not a cut.
  Only in Washington would they propose the largest insurance rate hike 
on senior citizens in our country's history, at the same time they hand 
over a new $20,000 tax break to those making over $350,000 a year.
  But, remember, it's not a cut.
  Only in Washington would we propose soaking our seniors while we 
continue to needlessly funnel billions into the bloated, wasteful 
Pentagon.
  But, remember, it's not a cut.
  Mr. President, a constituent from Dubuque, Iowa hit the nail right on 
the head when she wrote me last week. ``How can they reconcile these 
cuts,'' she said, ``and give tax cuts to the more affluent * * * 
meanwhile nothing is being cut from the Pentagon.''
  Today, we spend five times more on our military than all of our 
potential enemies combined. If you couple that with what our allies 
spend--today, we are outspending our enemies ten to one. The United 
States and our allies spend about $510 billion a year. While our 
potential enemies spend about $54 billion combined.
  And we can't find one thin dime to cut from the military? In fact, 
this budget increases the Pentagon by $25 billion.
  Mr. President, let us call this what it is. This is an assault on our 
senior citizens. A $256 billion assault. By far, the largest Medicare 
cut in history.
  We have a moral responsibility to bring down the deficit and balance 
the budget. But it is morally wrong to promise a huge tax cut to the 
wealthy at the same time we ask seniors to take a cut in their health 
care.
  It is morally wrong to give a $20,000 gift to the wealthy while we 
cut benefits for seniors who live on less than $20,000 a year.
  I hear a lot of talk about the Contract With America. What about our 
Nation's contract with senior citizens? What about keeping that 
commitment?
  Medicare and Medicaid are a basic part of America's contract with 
seniors. And we ought not to break that contract to pay for a tax break 
to those who need it the least.
  These cuts will hit Iowa particularly hard. Iowa ranks first in 
percent of citizens over age 85 and third nationally in percent of the 
population over age 65. The health care system in rural Iowa is already 
on the critical list--we have too, few doctors, nurses and other health 
care professionals and many of our rural hospitals are barely making 
it.
  And, Iowa hospitals, doctors, and other health professionals depend 
heavily on Medicare payments. In some rural Iowa hospitals, as much as 
80 percent of total patient revenues come from the Medicare system.
  Iowa hospitals are financially strained and 75 percent of all 
hospitals lost money on patient revenue in 1993. But, according to a 
recent study conducted by Lewin-VHI, under the Republican plan, Iowa 
hospitals will lose on average $1,276 for each Medicare case in the 
year 2000. And rural hospitals throughout the United States stand to 
lose $866 per case in the year 2000--Iowa rural hospitals will lose 
even more.
  But rural hospitals are not the only ones to lose. As rural hospitals 
go, so goes the rest of the health care system, so goes quality and 
access to care provided to all Iowans, and so goes our rural economy.
  If the hospital closes it often means that the doctor's office 
closes, the pharmacy closes, and the nursing home goes. Pretty soon so 
does the local economy. It is a domino effect.
  Listen to what a doctor in Sibley, IA, had to say:

       In Sibley, we have a very viable, small rural hospital that 
     gives total patient care. We are able to manage most patients 
     efficiently and effectively. But with the proposed cuts in 
     Medicare that the current budget is envisioning, we can see 
     this as a terrible drain on our hospital's economy. The 
     proposed cuts would put our hospital in a losing situation. 
     Further cutting in the funding could certainly endanger the 
     existence of this hospital. In Sibley, the Osceola Community 
     Hospital is the only hospital in a 20-mile radius. This could 
     certainly be a hazard to the health of the general area.

  But Medicare is not the only item on the hit list. What about 
Medicaid? What about long-term care?
  Instead of improving the system, the Republicans are proposing a $175 
billion cut in Medicaid. That will deal a heavy blow to the 6 out of 10 
people in nursing homes who are receiving help from Medicaid.
  These people have used up whatever savings they had before they 
qualified for Medicaid. They are hard working middle-class families 
that, because of an illness in the family, have lost their life 
savings.
  They are not looking for an easy way out or handout. They continue to 
share in the cost of their care--they use their Social Security and 
pension income to pay as much of the bills as they can.
  But the Republican budget resolution would cut an estimated $299 
million in long-term care spending in Iowa through the year 2000--a 
15.3 percent cut in long-term care spending.
  Under these cuts, an estimated 5,300 Iowans are expected to lose 
their eligibility for Medicaid long term care benefits in 1996--and 
that could grow to 28,500 by the year 2000. That's a 48 percent 
reduction in the number of long-term care recipients by the year 2000.
  I also hear a lot about our children in this budget debate. What 
about kids? This budget resolution places the health care of millions 
of children at risk. Thirteen percent of Iowa's children are covered by 
Medicaid and many of these children are very sick or have severe 
disabilities.
  These cuts are going to hurt hard working Iowa families. Let me give 
you just one example.
  Deb and Doug live in Lake View, IA, and in 1982 their son Jon was 
born en route to the hospital--2 months premature. Jon spent 6 weeks in 
intensive care in Blank Children's Hospital in Des Moines. When Jon was 
9 months old he was diagnosed with severe cerebral palsy and severe 
developmental delays. Today, Jon is doing great. He is growing up in 
rural Iowa with his dad, mom, and big brother.
  Both Deb and Doug work--Doug during the day and Deb at night so one 
of them can always be home to care for Jon. But, Jon is able to stay 
home because Medicaid help pays for Jon's health care and other 
services that will help him become an independent working adult.
  Deb says that Jon would not be the happy healthy kid he is today if 
it wasn't for the help he received through Medicaid. Under this budget 
resolution there are no guarantees that Jon, or others like him, will 
continue to received the health care services that he needs to live a 
full life.
  The budget resolution before us means that fewer children in working 
families and children with severe disabilities will have access to 
health care. Last year, 82 percent of the people who lost their health 
care coverage were children. Our children deserve a chance. Our 
children are our future and if we don't take care of them now we will 
pay later--in lower productivity and greater health and education 
costs.
  Mr. President, I will end where I began. This is a debate about 
choices and the future. The future for not just the next generation of 
children, but this generation, too.
  Let us work to cut the deficit without cutting the future for 
seniors, working families, students, and kids. Let's make the right 
choice.
                           amendment no. 1123

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, during my campaign, I promised the voters 
of Michigan to both oppose any effort to raise their taxes and to 
support badly needed tax cuts--especially for the hard working middle-
class families in our State. While not perfect, I intend to support the 
amendment before the Senate because it first provides for a balanced 
budget and also provides significant tax relief primarily targeted at 
American families. Indeed, I plan to support any reasonable proposal 
for middle-class family tax relief brought to the Senate until some 
form of family tax cut is adopted.
  Although I support much in this amendment, there are certain 
provisions which I would change given the opportunity. For example, 
while I support restraining the growth of mandatory spending, the 
underlying resolution already slows the growth of Medicare as much as 
most Governors are willing to support.
  Furthermore, while I agree that it is possible to reduce 
discretionary spending further than the pending budget resolution 
provides, I do not think it is advisable to do so on a proportionate 
across-the-board basis. Rather, I believe additional program 
eliminations [[Page S7228]] and consolidations in targeted areas is the 
proper course to follow.
  Given these reservations, I intend to work to see that other spending 
reductions--focused primarily on corporate welfare--are used to help 
pay for tax cuts in the event this amendment passes.
  A final concern I have is with the overall distribution of benefits 
resulting from this amendment. I disagree with those who would set up a 
quota system for tax cuts, measuring the value of each provision by how 
uniformly it distributes its benefits. At the same time, it is easy to 
forget that it is middle-class Americans and their families who pay 
most of the taxes the Federal Government consumes, and I believe they 
should be the primary beneficiaries of tax cuts. Thus, if this 
amendment or any other tax reduction proposal is adopted, I intend to 
work with the Finance Committee to ensure that middle-class Americans 
are made the focus of any tax cut passed by the Senate this year.
                            position on vote

  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, due to an unfortunate miscommunication, 
my vote on the Harkin amendment to restore education funding, which was 
the second of two back-to-back amendments, was not recorded. There is 
no one in the Senate who is a stronger advocate for education programs 
than I am, and I am disappointed that this error occurred. If it had 
been recorded, my vote would have been ``yea.''


  raise taxes on working families to pay for tax cuts benefiting the 
                  wealthy? That's the Republican plan

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in the Republican budget resolution, 
there is only one explicit tax provision. It is not, as many Americans 
might guess, a measure to provide tax relief. Rather, it is a tax 
increase, and an egregious one at that. It is egregious because it 
targets those on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder, the families 
that are working harder than ever and yet are still struggling to 
support themselves and their families.
  This provision would reduce payments under the Earned Income Tax 
Credit [EITC] by $17 billion over 7 years. More than 12 million low-
income working families would see their tax bills go up by more than 
$1,500--and the money they have left over for food, housing, clothing 
and medical care go down.
  Make no mistake, however. The Republicans do plan further action on 
taxes. They plan to take the savings they achieve from cutting tax 
credits to low-income working families, cutting education, cutting 
Medicare--and use those savings to fund a tax cut which will largely 
benefit the wealthiest members of our society.
  Some of my Republican colleagues have argued that they are not 
raising taxes on low-income workers, that they are merely reducing the 
rate of growth in the EITC program. This semantic exercise does not 
change one simple fact--this budget resolution will mean fewer dollars 
in the pockets of these workers.
  As we debate the proper level of funding for the earned income tax 
credit, we should remember that the number we set will have a very real 
impact on millions of American families and over 31,000 families in my 
State. I'd like to introduce you to two South Dakota families to 
illustrate my point.
  Karen Olson and Paul Lovestrand are a married couple who live in 
Rapid City, which is located in the western part of my home State. They 
have three small children--aged 4 years, 2 years, and 7 months. Paul 
works 60 hours per week as a baker at the Sixth Street Bakery and Deli, 
Karen works two part-time jobs--catering for the same deli and cleaning 
a dentist's office.
  Despite their hard work, Karen and Paul do not have any savings. They 
have qualified for the EITC for the past 2 years, receiving $600 this 
year. Karen and Paul relied on their EITC payment to cover the cost of 
a needed plumbing job and a repair to the steps of their house that was 
required by their insurance company. Without the EITC, they would have 
had to cut back in other areas to pay these repair bills.
  Nancy and Ted Lewis also live in Rapid City. They are married with 
two small children--aged 3 years and 6 months. Both Nancy and Ted are 
college-educated, but they have had trouble finding work since moving 
to Rapid City nearly 3 years ago. Ted holds down two jobs--he teaches 
English at Western Dakota Technical Institute and works at a sign-
making store. Nancy is trained as an art teacher, but cannot find work 
that would pay more than the cost of child care.
  For the past 3 years, Nancy and Ted have qualified for the EITC, 
receiving the maximum amount this year. They have relied on their EITC 
payments for major car repairs, children's clothing and overdue bills. 
The EITC also allowed them to repay a loan they took out when Ted was 
between jobs and rent money was scarce.
  Karen and Paul and Nancy and Ted are playing by the rules. They are 
working hard and raising their children in a stable family environment. 
But even though they are doing everything right, their wages are not 
high enough to provide for all of their families' needs.
  For years, Democrats and Republicans have agreed that the Federal 
Government should give families like Karen and Paul's and Nancy and 
Ted's a helping hand. By lessening their tax burden, the EITC makes it 
a little easier for them to make ends meet. In other words, the EITC 
rewards those who choose work over welfare.
  But now my Republican colleagues have decided that the EITC program 
is out of control and fraught with fraud and error. These excuses are 
being used to justify a cut in funds for the program that President 
Ronald Reagan called ``the best antipoverty, the best pro-family, the 
best job creation measure to come out of the Congress.''
  A quick look at these arguments shows they are without merit. First, 
the program is not out of control because it is growing at the rate set 
by the Congress. In 1993, an expansion of the EITC was approved. Once 
this expansion is fully phased in next year, the rate of growth level 
out so as to correspond to the rate of inflation and population growth. 
Indeed, the credit will decline as a percentage of GDP beginning in 
1997.
  Second, the claims of some Senators that a whopping 35 to 45 percent 
of all EITC payments by the IRS are made erroneously are simply not 
true. It is true that an IRS study of 1,000 returns filed 
electronically in January 1994 found that approximately 25 percent of 
the EITC benefits claimed were in error. The IRS concluded that many of 
these errors were unintentional but that some significant fraud also 
existed.
  What the critics will not tell you, however, is that the Clinton 
administration has acted swiftly and aggressively to correct this 
problem. Specifically, 12 measures to simplify the EITC and reduce 
erroneous or undeserved claims have already been adopted. The critics 
conveniently leave out another very important fact. The study that they 
rely on was conducted before any of the administration's anti-error 
provisions were put in place.
  Mr. President, there can be no justification for this rollback of the 
EITC, other than a desire on the part of my Republican colleagues to 
find ways to pay for their tax cut plan, which will largely benefit the 
wealthy. Putting the burden of paying for that ill-advised plan on low-
income families is simply inexcusable.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, when I was elected to the Senate in 
1992, I came to Washington committed to taking bold action in order to 
balance the Federal budget and eliminate the national debt. I knew that 
the tough decisions necessary to reach these goals would require 
tremendous political courage by individual Members of Congress. Frankly 
Mr. President, it was not until the Republican Party assumed control of 
the Congress last November and Senator Domenici assumed the 
chairmanship of the Budget Committee that I began to see the sort of 
courage necessary to put America's financial house in order.
  Despite having control of the White House and both chambers of 
Congress from 1992 to 1994, the Democrat Party failed to offer a plan 
to balance the budget. Instead, President Clinton gave America its 
largest tax increase ever and proposed a government takeover of health 
care. This is just the type of behavior which voters have come to 
expect from President Clinton. When faced with an impending financial 
disaster his administration offered this [[Page S7229]] Nation higher 
taxes and bigger government as the solution. Well, with the support of 
his congressional allies, President Clinton got his tax increase, but 
his big-government approach to health care crashed and sank on the 
rocks of old-fashioned American common sense.
  That was the last Congress. What plan has the President offered 
during the 104th Congress to balance the budget? In the words of 
Senator Dole, President Clinton has been AWOL on the budget--``absent 
without leadership.'' I just don't understand it. Every time that 
President Clinton stares a balanced budget in the eye, he blinks. 
First, he actively fought against the balanced budget amendment, and 
then he refused to offer his own plan for bringing the Federal budget 
into balance. Moreover, when his cabinet informed him that we are 
facing an imminent Medicare crisis, the President did nothing. Perhaps, 
that is what he does best: nothing.
  When President Clinton does meekly act to fulfill his constitutional 
responsibilities, such as proposing his own budget plan, even his own 
party cuts and runs. Last week the Senate rejected the Clinton budget 
by a vote of 99 to 0. No one voted for the Clinton budget. No 
responsible Member of Congress would dare vote for a budget which would 
have increased the deficit from $176 billion this year to $276 billion 
in the year 2000 by which time we would have added $1.2 trillion to the 
national debt. And yet this is what President Clinton proposed.
  President Clinton may be content to sit in the Oval Office at the 
other end of Pennsylvania Avenue and blithely ignore the current budget 
crisis and the daily mounting debt, but I for one did not leave 45 
years of hard work in the private sector to come
 to Washington and turn a blind-eye to our Nation's fundamental 
problem. That is why I have come to the Senate floor today to assure my 
colleagues that I am wholeheartedly committed to working with them to 
balance the budget, and go beyond that to paying down the principal on 
our $4.7 trillion national debt.

  A child born today would have to pay $187,500 over his or her 
lifetime just to pay interest on the national debt. For those concerned 
about the impact of the proposed budget on children, this per child 
cost imposed by the national debt should be the real focus of our 
concern for children.
  We all know that the steps necessary to balance the budget will not 
be easy. It will require each of us to summon up the courage to cut or 
eliminate government programs which in times of a budget surplus we 
might otherwise support.
  I recognize that such questions about government programs are 
difficult, but as the national debt continues to grow out-of-control at 
a rate of $20 million per hour, the questions only become more 
difficult. That is why last week I introduced a welfare reform bill 
which addresses the root causes of welfare dependency and runaway 
welfare costs. It is also why I agreed to co-chair the Senate Task 
Force on the elimination of federal agencies which today will announce 
plans for abolishing the Department of Commerce. Plans for eliminating 
the Departments of HUD, Energy and Education are in the offing.
  We must not lack the courage to act together to take bold actions 
such as limiting the growth in welfare spending, abolishing unnecessary 
agencies, and reforming Medicare. To do otherwise, will be to tell our 
children and grandchildren that the generation which fought and won 
World War II and the cold war has now chosen to abdicate its 
generational responsibility. A legacy of debt is grossly inconsistent 
with the self-reliant pioneer values which have built this great nation 
and made it the world's lone superpower.
  When debate time on the budget resolution has expired and the time 
for voting occurs, the eyes of the world and our children will be 
focused on the United States Senate. They will wait to see whether, 
like the House of Representatives, Members of the Senate possess the 
courage and vision to support a resolution which provides for a 
balanced budget.
  We have already seen the reaction of the world's financial markets 
when the balanced budget amendment died in this Chamber not long ago. 
If we repeat that profile in cowardice we will no doubt reap the 
whirlwind. We will signal to the rest of the world and more importantly 
to our children that nothing has changed in Washington--the business as 
usual spending spree continues and we have no intention whatsoever to 
make serious spending cuts.
  I commend Chairman Domenici for his outstanding leadership in 
drafting a long overdue plan to end our Nation's experiment with fiscal 
irresponsibility. In my short career in the Senate, I can think of no 
vote more important than this one. Our votes on this budget resolution 
will clearly define where each of us stands on the most important issue 
facing our Nation. I intend to stand with those who want to balance the 
budget by 2002. I intend to stand with those who believe that America's 
families are desperately in need of tax relief.
  The people of North Carolina who sent me here expect and deserve no 
less.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.

                          ____________________