[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 88 (Thursday, May 25, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7459-S7474]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                IMPACT STATEMENTS ON FUNDING FOR THE NIH

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on May 18 of this year, the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Health, Human Services, Education and 
Labor held a hearing on the funding for the National Institutes of 
Health, and at that time a request was made by the representatives of 
the various units of the NIH to submit impact statements as to what the 
budget reductions would do. A good bit of this information was used by 
me in my statement on an amendment offered by Senator Hatfield.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Record contain these impact 
statements.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

      A Guide to the Impact Statements About NIH Budget Reductions

       The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has identified 15 
     specific areas of research that would be severely affected by 
     the cuts recommended by the Senate Budget Committee. These 
     are only a representative sampling of the many research 
     activities that would be significantly slowed, halted, or 
     never started due to the proposed reductions. The effects are 
     likely to be especially dramatic and long-lasting for several 
     reasons:
       NIH now funds less than one in four grant applications, so 
     that any reduction in support would affect only those 
     investigators already judged by expert peer reviewers to be 
     among the best in the nation.
       It is in the nature of medical research to find that the 
     most important discoveries are made in unexpected places. If 
     funding is reduced to what are deemed bare essentials, much 
     of the best research may be eliminated because it is not 
     obviously connected to immediate medical goals.
       Over 80 percent of the NIH budget supports research at many 
     colleges, universities, medical schools, and institutes in 
     every state in the country. These awards are essential not 
     only for generating new knowledge; they also improve the 
     quality of medical care and training, help to recruit new 
     biomedical scientists, and strengthen educational programs. A 
     major reduction in funding will undermine these important 
     aspects of American life; the effect will be felt for many 
     years. Bright, young people, recognizing that the future for 
     biomedical research has dimmed, would pursue other career 
     options.
       The research that NIH supports in the areas discussed in 
     our samples is different from the kind of work conducted at 
     biotechnology and pharmaceutical firms, where a commercial 
     product is the central goal. Without the basic knowledge 
     generated by NIH-sponsored investigators, our international 
     leadership in the industrial sector will be threatened.
        IMPACT STATEMENTS FROM THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

       Alcoholism.
       Alzheimer's Disease.
       Anti-Cocaine Agent.
       Blinding Diseases.
       Breast Cancer.
       Cancer Vaccines.
       Conquering Genetic Diseases (mapping the human genome).
       New and Re-emerging Infectious Diseases.
       The Obesity Gene.
       Otitis Media (a serious childhood infection).
       Parkinson's Disease.
       Prostate Cancer.
       Sexually Transmitted Diseases.
       Sickle Cell Disease.
       Stem Cell Research.
       Stroke.
       Vaccines to Prevent Stomach Ulcers and Stomach Cancer.


              IMPACT OF NIH BUDGET CUTS ON PEOPLE'S HEALTH

       Alcoholism: Naltrexone, the first medication approved for 
     treating alcoholism in forty years, is a major step forward.
       The Promise: Researchers supported by the National 
     Institutes of Health (NIH) have shown that naltrexone, an 
     opiate-blocker used for treating heroin addiction, is an 
     effective treatment for alcohol addiction. The combination of 
     naltrexone and skilled counseling resulted in alcohol-
     dependent people staying sober twice as long as placebo-
     treated patients. Even if naltrexone-treated alcoholics 
     drank, they rarely ``binged.''
       The Next Steps: Naltrexone is the first medication approved 
     for the treatment of alcoholism in forty years. However, that 
     approval is only for three months of use in any patient. 
     Further research is needed to make this treatment more 
     effective and to exploit what insights it may provide into 
     underlying biological and behavioral mechanisms. NIH is 
     currently studying naltrexone's longer-term use, side 
     effects, and most importantly, how naltrexone--an opiate 
     blocker--reduces alcohol craving.
       Improved technologies are also aiding in the study of 
     alcohol addiction. New brain imaging systems can actually 
     show what alcohol craving looks like, including blood flow 
     changes. Computer-aided design of new drugs to treat 
     alcoholism has begun, using recently discovered information 
     on how alcohol affects the surface of nerve cells. And 
     investigators are narrowing in on the genes which account for 
     inherited vulnerability to alcoholism.
       Effects of a Budget Cut: The clinical trials of the longer-
     term use of naltrexone would have to be curtailed or not 
     initiated. Other promising leads in alcoholism research would 
     either have to be delayed or dropped.
       Alcohol kills over 100,000 Americans every year. Some 20 to 
     40 percent of adult hospital beds in large urban hospitals 
     are occupied by people being treated for alcohol-caused organ 
     damage. Alcoholism and alcohol abuse costs the Nation about 
     $100 billion every year in medical costs, social costs, and 
     loss of productivity. Slowing advances in the treatment of 
     alcoholism could cost tens of billions of dollars.
       Comment: Alcohol addiction is the number one drug problem 
     in the United States. New treatments to help alcohol-
     dependent people stay sober are showing positive results, and 
     the biological roots of alcoholism are being uncovered.

[[Page S7460]]

       Alzheimer's Disease: Delaying or preventing the onset of 
     symptoms and loss of mental capacity.
       The Promise: Just in the last year, scientists working with 
     support from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have: 
     discovered a gene that is a major risk factor for Alzheimer's 
     disease and found ways to detect early changes in the brain 
     (by combining brain imaging and genetic analysis) before 
     obvious symptoms of Alzheimer's develop
       The Next Steps: Now scientists are ready to conduct 
     critical studies to find the direct role played by genes in 
     Alzheimer's disease so that they can find ways to prevent the 
     disease or at least delay the loss of mental capacity that 
     devastates the patients and their families.
       Effects of a Budget Cut: NIH's ability to continue these 
     studies on Alzheimer's disease depends on maintaining a 
     network of scientists, patients, and research institutions. A 
     budget cut would cripple this network, delaying the 
     translation of research advances to the next step--effective 
     treatments.
       Today, there is no effective treatment for Alzheimer's 
     disease, which affects 4 million Americans. If no treatment 
     is developed, by the year 2050, there will be over 14 million 
     people affected by some form of dementia requiring care and 
     institutionalization.
       Comment: No family is immune from Alzheimer's disease--that 
     became clear earlier this year when former President Reagan 
     chose to reveal his diagnosis.
       Total national cost to care for patients with Alzheimer's 
     disease is about $100 billion annually. If we don't find ways 
     to delay, prevent or treat the disease, our health care 
     system will be overwhelmed early in the 21st Century. The 
     total NIH budget--for all diseases--is a small fraction of 
     those health care costs and a small price to pay for the hope 
     that Alzheimer's disease can be conquered.
       Anti-cocaine Agent: To help combat the escalating epidemic 
     of cocaine use, including ``crack'' cocaine.
       The Promise: Because of breakthroughs in brain and 
     immunology research in the last five years, scientists 
     supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are on 
     the threshold of providing an effective anti-cocaine 
     medication or ``cocaine blocker''.
       In the last two years, scientists have: identified the 
     major sites (receptors) where cocaine works on the brain; 
     discovered how cocaine works on the brain; and uncovered 4 
     biological targets at which to aim medication development, 
     with more than 12 compounds in the pipeline
       The Next Steps: Medical scientists are now ready to study 
     more closely the new, candidate compounds and select the most 
     promising for tests in patients.
       Effects of a Budget Cut: A reduction in the budget would 
     freeze this program in its infancy, shut down the pipeline of 
     new candidate medications, and preclude testing in patients 
     of even the most promising drugs. It would delay by at least 
     5 years the development of an effective anti-cocaine agent.
       Currently there is no way to treat cocaine overdose and 
     there are no medications available to treat cocaine 
     addiction. Large numbers of people die of overdose, and the 
     Nation pays dearly for the violence, family disruption, and 
     health care costs that result from growing cocaine use.
       Comment: The single most important need in this Nation's 
     battle against drug abuse and addiction is an effective anti-
     cocaine medication. Today we have none. Research is 
     desperately needed to develop a useful drug to help us 
     control the cocaine epidemic.
       Blindness: Finding ways to treat eye diseases causing 
     blindness.
       The Promise: Scientists have recently identified a gene 
     related to glaucoma in young people. This discovery provides 
     great opportunities for early diagnosis and treatment of a 
     disease that is the second leading cause of blindness in this 
     country.
       Other scientists have developed micro-surgical techniques 
     in animals to ``rescue'' degenerated macular cells--cells in 
     the part of the eye that allows the clearest, sharpest 
     vision. If this surgical ``rescue'' proves successful in 
     humans, it would be a major breakthrough in treating macular 
     degeneration, the leading cause of blindness of people over 
     age 60.
       The Next Steps: Scientists supported by the National 
     Institutes of Health (NIH) are now ready to capitalize on the 
     genetic discovery relating to glaucoma in young people by 
     developing ways to identify at-risk patients early so that 
     effective treatment can be begun.
       Other scientists supported by the NIH are set to apply 
     microsurgical techniques for macular cell ``rescue'' in 
     humans. Advances are desperately needed in macular 
     degeneration, a disease for which, in most cases, no 
     treatment currently exists.
       Effects of a Budget Cut: Budget reductions would slow 
     scientists' ability to move these two promising early 
     findings into larger scale studies involving humans.
       Comment: Blindness from glaucoma is estimated to cost the 
     U.S. more than $1.5 billion annually in Social Security 
     benefits, lost tax revenues, and health care expenditures. 
     Macular degeneration, which affects one of ten Americans over 
     age 60, will become an increasingly important national health 
     problem as the U.S. population ages. We need to continue this 
     potentially sight-saving research.
       Breast Cancer: Gene discoveries promise clinical advances.
       The Promise: Scientists are on the verge of major clinical 
     advances in breast cancer, thanks to long-awaited gene 
     discoveries made in the last year. BRCA1, a breast cancer 
     susceptibility gene, has been isolated and characterized, and 
     scientists are closing in on other breast cancer genes, 
     including BRCA2. Such breast cancer genes--when inherited in 
     a mutated form--can cause breast cancers that strike early 
     and afflict many women in the same family through 
     generations.
       These gene discoveries will permit the development of 
     diagnostic tests to identify women who are at risk and will 
     speed research to develop effective methods of prevention, 
     early detection, and treatment.
       The Next Steps: Scientists are eager to take the next 
     steps:
       Determine the role BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes play in converting 
     a normal breast cell into a cancer cell;
       Develop cost-effective, accurate diagnostic tests to 
     identify those women at risk in order to intervene early;
       Establish genetic counseling services to help women who 
     believe--from family history--they are at risk make informed 
     decisions and cope with the emotional trauma; and
       Continue research to fully understand all the mutations 
     involved in breast cancer including those involved in the 
     spread of the disease (metastasis) in order to improve our 
     ability to prevent, diagnose, and treat this disease.
       Effects of a Budget Cut: A budget cut would slow or even 
     curtail the enormous promise of these gene discoveries at the 
     very time women are anticipating the real possibility of 
     changing the previously depressing outcomes of breast cancer.
       Comment: 182,000 women will be diagnosed as having breast 
     cancer in 1995 and 46,000 women will die of breast cancer. 
     Five to ten percent of these woman will be classified as 
     genetically prone to early onset familial breast cancer 
     through BRCA1 and related genes. A diagnosis of breast cancer 
     is most dreaded by American women. The widespread publicity 
     attendant on the discovery of these breast cancer genes has 
     led to optimism that this disease may be prevented or cured. 
     The women's health movement would be devastated if this 
     research is curtailed.
       Cancer Vaccines: Strengthening the body's own natural 
     defense against diseases that have already developed.
       The Promise: Just a month ago, medical scientists working 
     with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) reported that 
     they had reversed the course of disease in a 43-year-old 
     woman dying of multiple myeloma, a type of blood cancer that 
     is nearly always fatal. They accomplished this by immunizing 
     a healthy bone marrow donor against the cancer and then 
     transferring the immunity to the sick woman through a bone 
     marrow transplant. Two years later, she is free of detectable 
     cancer.
       Long-term follow-up of cancer patients receiving 
     immunotherapy shows that this approach can bring dramatic 
     response in melanoma and kidney cancer. In addition, last 
     year, scientists identified a gene for one of the principal 
     proteins that elicits natural immunity against melanoma. 
     Potentially, this gene or its corresponding protein, could be 
     used to produce a melanoma vaccine.
       The Next Steps: In the next few years, this and other 
     ``vaccine'' approaches to curing cancer need to be tested. 
     Eight different vaccines for breast cancer and 13 for skin 
     cancer (melanoma) are in early stages of testing in patients. 
     If these efforts offer promise, they could someday be applied 
     to other cancers such as prostate, colon, and lung cancer.
       Effects of a Budget Cut: A budget cut would curtail or slow 
     the testing of the 21 cancer ``vaccines'' already being used 
     in patients. The entire ``vaccine'' approach to cancer 
     treatment would be held back--an approach that offers hope 
     for the thousands of cancer patients who die every year 
     despite treatment with surgery, radiation and chemotherapy.
       Comment: The American public desperately needs new ways to 
     treat cancer. Today many people are cured of cancer through 
     surgery, radiation, and the drugs--thanks to research 
     supported for many years by the NIH--but 550,000 die of 
     cancer each year and are counting on these vital research 
     advances.
       Conquering Genetic Diseases: Jump-started by mapping the 
     human genome.
       The Promise: Creating detailed maps of the human genome and 
     understanding the make-up of the estimated 100,000 human 
     genes will certainly speed the discovery of the approximately 
     5,000 genes that cause human disease.
       Discovery of disease genes will dramatically improve our 
     ability to develop tests for individuals who are at risk for 
     the diseases, and enhance early treatment.
       Scientists supported by the National Institutes of Health 
     (NIH) have already:
       A full year ahead of schedule, created a detailed genetic 
     map of the human genome (this provides landmarks along the 
     chromosomes, a powerful tool aiding scientists in search of 
     disease genes);
       Nearly completed a physical map of the human genome (this 
     provides even more information for the gene-hunters); and
       Discovered 42 disease genes, including those for early 
     onset breast cancer, hereditary colon cancer, polycystic 
     kidney disease, and Huntington's disease.
       The Next Steps: Mapping alone will greatly increase the 
     number of disease genes isolated. In addition, scientists are 
     now ready [[Page S7461]] to begin``sequencing''--analyzing 
     the chemical makeup of the genes--a year ahead of schedule. 
     The entire sequencing project is expected to be completed by 
     2005 and tremendously speed the discovery of disease genes 
     and new avenues for diagnosis, prevention and treatment.
       Effects of a Budget Cut: A reduction in resources will mean 
     that large-scale gene ``sequencing'' will not be started and 
     the project will not be completed by 2005, because funds are 
     needed to improve sequencing technology.
       Scientists are on the brink of finding genes for prostate 
     cancer, diabetes, familial Alzheimer's, obesity, 
     schizophrenia and manic depression. A cut in funding will 
     delay these discoveries.
       Comment: If the U.S. fails to follow through, Japan, 
     Britain and Germany are poised to finish the project 
     themselves and they will be first to reap the health and 
     economic benefits. The hopes of many patients and families 
     will be dashed.
       New and Re-Emerging Infectious Diseases: Changes in 
     microbes and our environment, overuse of antibiotics, and 
     increasing global travel present new challenges.
       The Promise: One of the triumphs of the twentieth century 
     is the conquest and control of many infectious diseases. This 
     conquest was a result of research on vaccines, antibiotics, 
     and the basic properties of microbes (much of it conducted by 
     the National Institutes of Health). But in the past 15 years, 
     new and re-emerging microbes and antibiotic-resistant 
     organisms have eroded that victory.
       The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is establishing a 
     ``New and Re-emerging Infectious Disease Initiative.'' This 
     initiative addresses the threat of new microbes (such as 
     Ebola virus and HIV), re-emerging infectious diseases (such 
     as cholera and hantavirus), and drug-resistant strains of 
     previously treatable infections (such as tuberculosis and 
     streptococcus). The focal point of this initiative will be 
     the development of vaccines, the most cost-effective and 
     dependable method to combat new and re-emerging infectious 
     diseases, particularly in light of increasing resistance to 
     virtually all of the currently available antibiotics.
       The NIH is uniquely positioned to launch this initiative 
     because of its many infectious disease research 
     collaborations with the World Health Organization, the 
     Centers for Disease Control, the Agency for International 
     Development and many individual nations. All of these 
     collaborations assist in the attempt to identify and to 
     control outbreaks of emerging and re-emerging microbes.
       Additionally the NIH has established:
       Seven U.S. university-based programs working in countries 
     where tropical diseases are common;
       Three tropical medicine research centers located in 
     Colombia, Brazil and the Philippines;
       Four tropical disease research units at U.S. academic 
     medical centers;
       An intramural Center for International Disease Research 
     which is focused on parasitic diseases; and
       Eight Regional Primate Research Centers across the U.S. 
     Non-human primates are the natural reservoirs of many 
     emerging diseases. These primate centers facilitate the rapid 
     identification, study, and containment of these threats to 
     our Nation's health.
       Effects of a Budget Cut: A budget cut would curtail or 
     significantly slow all of these efforts, both the launching 
     of the ``New and Re-emerging Infectious Diseases Initiative'' 
     and the continuation of NIH's network of national and 
     international tropical, parasitic and primate research 
     centers. International collaborations are especially 
     vulnerable to budget cuts, but the ongoing crisis concerning 
     the Ebola virus demonstrates the obvious need for sustained, 
     stable funding.
       The seriousness of this challenge cannot be overstated. 
     Events of the past year have demonstrated our increasing 
     vulnerability to infectious diseases that may rapidly assume 
     epidemic proportions. Many new and re-emerging microbes 
     threaten our Nation's health. Vaccine development, continued 
     international collaboration, and rapid identification of new 
     strains are our best hope for the future.
       Comment: The ``antibiotic holiday'' is over. We need a 
     sustained strategic approach to new and re-emerging 
     infectious diseases.
       The Obesity Gene: Revolutionary advance providing hope for 
     reducing obesity and its complications.
       The Promise: Last year, scientists supported by the 
     National Institutes of Health (NIH) discovered a gene in mice 
     related to a protein that regulates body weight. A very 
     similar ``obesity gene'' was also found in humans.
       This finding has great potential for developing a totally 
     new kind of agent for regulating body weight in humans. Over 
     50 million Americans are obese, and the number of obese 
     adults has increased by one third in just one decade. An 
     effective new obesity treatment could also combat the serious 
     complications of obesity--heart disease, diabetes, stroke and 
     cancer.
       The current economic costs of the obesity epidemic are 
     estimated at almost $70 billion annually, to which can be 
     added an estimated $33 billion spent each year on weight 
     reduction products and services, for a total of $100 billion 
     annually. Thus, the potential economic impact of the obesity 
     gene discovery is tremendous.
       The Next Steps: To capitalize on this important discovery, 
     scientists supported by NIH now need to:
       Study the protein made by the obesity gene to understand 
     how the gene acts on the body and prepare an experimental 
     form of the protein to learn its biological activity;
       Conduct tests of the effects of the protein on obese and 
     normal animals; and
       Initiate clinical studies in humans to determine the 
     potential of the gene product in obesity prevention or 
     treatment.
       Effects of a Budget Cut: Decreases in the budget would mean 
     that NIH could fund fewer new research grants, thus slowing 
     the basic, early research steps that scientists are eager to 
     begin. Human studies would be put off into the future, 
     awaiting the results of basic research.
       Comment: The discovery of the obesity gene was met with 
     great interest by the scientific community and the public. 
     Research should push on to bring the public the benefits of 
     this advance.
       Otitis Media: A serious childhood infection in need of a 
     better solution.
       The Promise: Scientists funded by the National Institutes 
     of Health (NIH) have recently been successful in developing a 
     candidate vaccine to combat otitis media (oh-TIGHT-iss MEE-
     dee-ah), a bacterial or viral infection of the middle ear 
     common in young children ages 3 months to 3 years.
       Further development and testing of this candidate vaccine 
     would offer hope that children might be spared the severe 
     pain and sometimes serious side-effects of these middle ear 
     infections. A useful vaccine could also significantly reduce 
     the estimated health care costs of this disease--$1 billion 
     annually.
       The Next Steps: Having developed a promising candidate 
     vaccine, scientists are now ready to progress into the 
     testing phase, initially in animals and later in children, 
     looking first at safety and in later stages for clinical 
     effectiveness.
       Effects of a Budget Cut: It is estimated that a reduction 
     in the budget at this time would delay development of a 
     clinically useful vaccine by three years.
       Comment: Otitis media is the major reason cited for taking 
     a young child to the emergency room or to a physician's 
     office and is the most frequent reason that doctors prescribe 
     antibiotics for children. The disease causes little children 
     and their families great distress. Each year of delay in the 
     development of a vaccine costs the country $1 billion in 
     health care bills. Securing a vaccine to fight otitis media 
     would reduce this toll on children, their families and the 
     health care system.
       Parkinson's Disease: New treatments for degenerating nerve 
     cells.
       The Promise: Parkinson's disease is caused by the 
     degeneration of the cells that make dopamine, a chemical 
     messenger in the brain. Lack of dopamine produces tremor, 
     rigidity, gait abnormalities, and often changes in behavior. 
     Replacement of the missing neurotransmitter, dopamine, with 
     L-dopa has a limited effect and undesirable side effects.
       Researchers supported by the National Institutes of Health 
     (NIH) have discovered a drug, deprenyl, which delays the need 
     for L-dopa therapy in Parkinson's disease patients, thereby 
     significantly improving their quality of life. In addition, 
     possible surgical intervention and other new treatment 
     developments--including growth factors--are on the horizon.
       The Next Steps: Scientists are ready to:
       Develop new drugs with fewer side effects, building on 
     deprenyl;
       Evaluate surgery that restores brain functions impaired by 
     the disease and surgical methods to implant dopamine-
     producing cells;
       Assess whether a recently discovered growth factor can 
     restore function by protecting dopamine-producing cells; and
       Develop new methods, using biotechnology and genetic 
     engineering, to deliver treatments to the targeted cells.
       Effects of a Budget Cut: Budget cuts would slow the basic 
     and applied research that has led to the first real progress 
     against Parkinson's in forty years. Clinical trials of 
     promising treatments would have to be delayed and the 
     momentum created by the discovery of deprenyl would be lost.
       A budget cut would diminish the hopes of the approximately 
     500,000 Americans--one percent of those over 50--who suffer 
     from Parkinson's disease. The economic burden of Parkinson's 
     disease, currently estimated at $6 billion per year, will 
     only increase as the U.S. population ages.
       Prostate Cancer: New discoveries may lead to clinical 
     advances.
       The Promise: Clinical advances in prostate cancer have been 
     slow in coming, but recent new discoveries offer hope:
       Some useful animal models of the disease have been found;
       The drug finasteride (Proscar), which is useful in 
     controlling a non-cancerous prostate condition that may be a 
     precursor to prostate cancer, could offer a way to prevent 
     the cancer;
       Male sex hormones have been shown to exert a strong 
     influence on the prostate, and new reports indicate that 
     mutations occur in receptor genes for male sex hormones when 
     prostate cancer worsens; and
       Chemical markers--such as the prostate specific antigen (or 
     PSA)--show promise for diagnosing prostate cancer.
       The Next Steps: NIH-supported scientists have recently 
     begun studies of: [[Page S7462]] 
       The role of oncogenes (cancer-causing genes) and suppressor 
     (cancer-blocking) genes in transforming a normal prostate 
     cell into a malignant cancer cell that can be spread 
     throughout the body;
       The roles of the male hormone (androgen) and its receptor 
     in the transition of prostate cancers from hormone 
     sensitivity to hormone resistance;
       Hormone treatment in combination with surgery in an attempt 
     to develop better therapy;
       The drug finasteride (Proscar) to prevent prostate cancer 
     in human trials; and
       Diagnosis of prostate cancer using a blood test to detect 
     prostate specific antigen (PSA) in combination with 
     ultrasound.
       Effects of a Budget Cut: A budget cut would curtail or 
     significantly slow all of these studies. This will, in turn, 
     inhibit development of new and improved methods of 
     prevention, early diagnosis and treatment for this very 
     serious disease.
       Comment: Prostate cancer, although it receives less 
     attention than breast cancer, is a significant public health 
     problem. New, promising leads should be followed so as to 
     have an impact on this disease. This year 244,000 American 
     men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer. Some 40,400 
     deaths will occur this year as a result of metastatic disease 
     (the spread of cancer throughout the body) due to prostate 
     cancer.
       Sexually Transmitted Diseases: Topical microbicides for 
     women could reduce the spread of HIV [the AIDS virus] and 
     other sexually transmitted diseases.
       The Promise: Scientists supported by the National 
     Institutes of Health (NIH) are researching safe, effective 
     ``topical microbicides'' which may be applied by women to 
     block the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases 
     (STDs). Currently several promising topical microbicides are 
     being evaluated that kill the infectious microbes that cause 
     HIV and other STDs. The successful development of these 
     products will enable women to take control of their own 
     reproductive health and significantly reduce the incidence of 
     STDS, including HIV.
       The Next Steps: Evaluation of these promising topical 
     agents requires clinical trials to prove that a proposed 
     microbicide is both safe and effective. Development of better 
     microbicide products based on the results of these trials, as 
     well as further basic research in the laboratory is also a 
     part of the overall research program.
       Effects of a Budget Cut: A budget cut would significantly 
     impair the ability of the NIH to move these products from the 
     laboratory into clinical trials. This would result in a delay 
     in making safe and effective topical microbicides available 
     to women, and thereby diminish any impact on the current 
     epidemic of STDs and HIV. The significant cost savings and 
     the reduction in illness and death associated with STDs and 
     HIV will be severely delayed and possibly lost entirely.
       Comment: A sexually transmitted disease, including HIV, is 
     acquired each year by an estimated 12 million Americans--a 
     disproportionate number of whom are women. Adolescents and 
     young adults under 25 account for 63 percent of these cases. 
     STDs account for over $6 billion in health care costs alone. 
     Up to forty percent of women with certain forms of STDs 
     become infertile. STDs contribute excessively to illnesses, 
     deaths, and health care costs among women as well as among 
     newborns, who can be infected before or during birth.
       Topical microbicides would greatly increase the empowerment 
     of women in the prevention of all sexually transmitted 
     diseases, including AIDS.
       Sickle Cell Disease: The first effective treatment nearly 
     ready for wide application
       The Promise: People who suffer the painful, debilitating 
     effects of sickle cell disease, an inherited blood disorder 
     that primarily affects African-Americans, can now look 
     forward to a better quality of life.
       After many years of research investment, scientists 
     supported by the National Institutes of Health (HIH) this 
     year developed the first effective treatment for the disease.
       A drug--hydroxyurea (hy-DROX-ee-urEE-ah)--relieves the pain 
     and reduces by half the number of episodes or ``crises'' 
     afflicting people with sickle cell disease.
       The drug was also proven to reduce the number of blood 
     transfusions and hospitalizations for sickle cell ``crises'', 
     which are estimated to cost about $350 million annually.
       The Next Steps: Having proven success in treating adults 
     with sickle cell disease, medical scientists are now ready to 
     test the drug in children. The challenge is to test whether 
     the drug is as effective in children as in adults, and 
     whether the drug harms growing children.
       Additional clinical studies are needed to find the optimal 
     dosage, consider long-term effects of the drug, and look at 
     combination therapy to improve treatment further.
       Effects of a Budget Cut: A reduction in funding would put a 
     hold on the availability of this promising treatment for 
     children, because the needed clinical studies would be 
     slowed. This would prolong the suffering of both the children 
     and their families. The likely reduction in health care costs 
     would not materialize.
       Comment: Thanks to 20 years of research investment, tens of 
     thousands of adults who suffer from the excruciating pain of 
     sickle cell disease now have hope for relief. We cannot turn 
     our backs on children who might also benefit from treatment.
       STEM CELL RESEARCH: A revolutionary approach to a variety 
     of diseases
       The Promise: Bone marrow transplantation and gene therapy 
     are currently being used to treat disease, but their utility 
     is limited by the availability of blood stem cells.
       Scientists are beginning to understand and harness the 
     incredible promise of stem cells--cells that give rise to all 
     the different cells found in blood. These stem cells may make 
     ideal ``universal donor cells'' because they maintain the 
     capability for cell division and can accept genes from other 
     cells.
       Recently, scientists have learned how better to isolate 
     these cells, not only from bone marrow, but also from 
     umbilical and peripheral blood. They have also learned how to 
     increase the number of stem cells produced in animal models 
     and in human volunteers.
       There is great hope that stem cells can be used to:
       Improve the prospects for people--such as those with 
     aplastic anemia, a serious blood disorder--waiting for 
     suitable bone marrow donors; the goal is to perform 
     transplants from sources other than bone marrow, perhaps from 
     blood itself;
       Re-populate blood cells necessarily killed off when cancer 
     patients undergo life-saving chemotherapy; and
       Advance human gene therapy for patients with genetic 
     disorders, AIDS and cancer.
       The Next Steps: Scientists supported by the National 
     Institutes of Health (NIH) are eager to move quickly to:
       Search for sources of stem cells and test their usefulness 
     for patients;
       Explore potential for using stem cells for gene therapy;
       Continue basic research to better understand how blood is 
     formed; and
       Create special facilities needed to isolate and grow stem 
     cells under sterile conditions so they can be used in 
     patients.
       Effects of a Budget Cut: A budget reduction would mean that 
     the research--both basic and clinical--would move more slowly 
     and the clinical payoffs would be significantly delayed. A 
     delay would deny the great potential of this revolutionary 
     approach.
       Stroke: Preventing stroke and limiting brain damage.
       The Promise: Research supported by the National Institutes 
     of Health (NIH) has recently provided important new advances 
     and insights:
       Surgery to open blocked arteries in the neck can prevent 
     stroke or stroke death;
       Aspirin can protect against stroke in certain patients; and
       New treatments to protect brain cells from damage during 
     stroke are emerging from animals studies
       The Next Steps: Further research could show how to prevent 
     more strokes, limit brain damage when stroke occurs, and help 
     people regain normal life after a stroke.
       Scientists are ready to begin new studies in patients to:
       Compare drug treatment and surgical approaches to episodes 
     of bleeding within the brain;
       Learn more about differences in stroke and in optimal 
     treatment for stroke in different racial groups; and
       Refine ways to reduce the occurrence and severity of brain 
     bleeding in low birth weight infants.
       Effects of a Budget Cut: A reduction in the budget would 
     come just as scientists are poised to take a new approach by 
     aggressively treating acute stroke to prevent brain damage.
       Basic research would be curtained just as promising new 
     opportunities are coming to light, such as the effects of 
     vitamin supplements, clot-dissolving medications, and agents 
     such as calcium channel blockers to protect brain cells.
       Comment: Research has brought us a dramatic decline in 
     stroke death in the U.S. in the last 25 years, but stroke is 
     still the third leading cause of death. Every year, over 
     500,000 Americans experience a stroke and many are left 
     disabled, costing more than $25 billion annually for medical 
     treatment, rehabilitation, long-term care, and lost wages. 
     These numbers and costs will only increase as the U.S. 
     population ages.
       Additional research--capitalizing on scientific 
     opportunities--can help us learn how to prevent stroke and 
     limit its damage when it does occur.
         Vaccines to Prevent Stomach Ulcers and Stomach Cancer

       The Promise: Tremendous opportunity now exists for 
     scientists supported by the National Institutes of Health 
     (NIH) to develop a vaccine to prevent gastric (stomach) ulcer 
     and to create the possibility of preventing stomach cancer.
       This opportunity flows from the recent discovery that 
     stomach ulcers are caused by a bacterium, H. pylori (pie-LOR-
     ee), and that recurrence of ulcers can be prevented with a 
     simple antibiotic treatment. This finding can save an 
     estimated $400-$800 million annually by preventing ulcer 
     recurrence alone.
       It is also known that H. pylori is strongly linked to 
     stomach cancer, one of the leading causes of cancer death 
     throughout the world. Today only about 18 percent of patients 
     survive stomach cancer in the U.S., where there are 23,000 
     cases per year.
       The Next Steps: Scientists are now ready to:
       Isolate the genes from the bacterium in order to develop a 
     vaccine;
       Study how the bacterium might cause cancer; and
       Follow up on preliminary evidence that other types of H. 
     pylori may cause other intestinal cancers such as liver 
     cancer. [[Page S7463]] 
       Effects of a Budget Cut: A reduction in the budget would 
     impede scientists' ability to pursue the many steps needed to 
     develop a vaccine against H. pylori, conduct critical human 
     trials on ulcer prevention, and understand more fully the 
     role of the bacterium in various cancers and how to prevent 
     them.
       A budget reduction would diminish the number of scientists 
     working on this important problem. Cuts would delay by years 
     the development of a simple vaccine that might bring life-
     long protection from some of the most deadly cancers.
       Comment: Recent understanding that stomach ulcers, and 
     probably stomach cancers, are caused by a bacterium offers 
     tremendous opportunity to develop a protective vaccine. We 
     should not turn our backs on this opportunity to have a major 
     impact on a serious public health problem.
       Schizophrenia: Identifying the genetic factors involved in 
     the onset of Schizophrenia.
       The Promise: In the past few months, NIH-supported 
     scientists reported and subsequently verified that a specific 
     gene located on chromosome 6 is one trigger to the 
     expression, or onset, of schizophrenia. While more than one 
     gene is likely to have a role in causing this complex 
     disease, this finding is of major importance to researchers 
     seeking to develop more effective methods to diagnose, treat, 
     and even prevent schizophrenia.
       The Next Steps: For the first time, because of advanced 
     genetic research and the possibility of locating the family 
     of genes that underlay the vulnerability to schizophrenia, it 
     may be ultimately possible to prevent a mental illness. This 
     concept was virtually unthinkable 5 years ago. Having located 
     a single gene loci associated with schizophrenia, it is vital 
     that we pursue this lead aggressively to search for other 
     relevant genes. In this manner, the complexity of this 
     disease will be delineated and heretofore unknown approaches 
     to treatment and prevention will be elucidated.
       Effects of a Budget Cut: A budget cut at this time would 
     have the effect of extending by years efforts to devise and 
     apply molecular genetic strategies to the prevention of 
     schizophrenia.
       Comment: Schizophrenia, the most devastating mental 
     illness, affects approximately 2 million Americans annually. 
     Although there is no known single cause, scientists believe 
     that genetic factors produce a vulnerability that may be 
     triggered by environmental factors. Most currently available 
     medications are only palliative and have severe side effects. 
     In addition to the distress and disability caused by 
     schizophrenia, the financial cost to society is great: 
     treatment costs alone exceed $7 billion per year, and social 
     costs are estimated to be $20 billion annually.
                             change of vote

  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, on rollcall 229 I voted no. It was my 
intention to vote yes. It was a tabling motion.
  Therefore I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my 
vote. This will in no way change the outcome of the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Senate 
concurrent resolution 13, the fiscal year 1996 congressional budget 
resolution.
  I want to commend the hard work undertaken, and the excellent results 
obtained, by the chairman of the Budget Committee, the senior Senator 
from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici]. We all know that his expertise in 
budget matters is unequalled and that he has great respect within this 
body and without as an opponent of deficit spending. I also appreciate 
how he has sought to work with and accommodate Senators with a wide 
variety of concerns.
  This budget is not perfect; but then, no document produced by a 
committee--or a Senate--ever is. It is a good budget. More importantly, 
it is an essential budget, because it is a balanced budget.
  My perfect budget would have included instructions for tax relief 
that is pro-family, pro-saving, pro-investment, and pro-economic 
growth.
  We had a chance to vote on such a package yesterday, in the amendment 
offered by Senator Gramm of Texas. That amendment was similar to the 
Contract With America tax relief bill passed by the House of 
Representatives. It was also similar to the Coats-Grams-Craig bill, S. 
568, the first bill--the Family, Investment, Retirement, Savings, and 
Tax Fairness Act.
  I'm disappointed that the Gramm amendment was not adopted. But I 
applaud Senator Domenici for designating a ``fiscal dividend'' reserve 
fund that takes the additional deficit reduction and surpluses expected 
under this budget, which will come from an improved economy and lower 
interest rates, and dedicates them to tax relief.
  Senators have spent much time these last few days debating over this 
and many other budget priorities. This is what should happen when we 
consider a budget resolution. But this budget fulfills what is, by far, 
the single most important priority:
  It sets us firmly on a course toward a balanced budget by the year 
2002.
  For most of our Nation's history, the moral imperative to balance the 
budget was considered part of what has been called our ``unwritten 
constitution''--those traditions so firmly imbedded in the American 
system, like political parties and the actual operation of the 
electoral college that they have the status of virtual constitutional 
status. For more than 60 years now, and especially over the last 30 
years, this balanced budget rule has been repealed.
  Because Congresses and Presidents did not have to set priorities, 
every item of spending has been treated like a priority. To qualify, an 
item needs only some well-intentioned supporters. We all know what has 
happened as a result:
  The sum total of these individually pleasant programs exceeds the 
capacity or the willingness of the American people to pay for all of 
them.
  Without a binding requirement, or at least an extraordinary 
commitment, to balance the budget, there is no constituency to limit 
spending to the amount the American people are willing or able to pay 
in taxes.
  This dynamic has become a systemic problem, a fundamental flaw, in 
how our Government operates. It has led us to the point where the 
Government has saddled its citizens with almost $5 trillion in debt. It 
has put the economic security of every American on a collision course 
with catastrophe.
  This isn't just one Senator or one political party talking. The 
realization is bipartisan. The status quo is the least tolerable 
alternative. The experts agree:
  The General Accounting Office's 1992 report, entitled Prompt Action 
Necessary to Avert Long-Term Damage to the Economy, said, ``[I]naction 
is not a sustainable policy. * * * [T]he Nation cannot continue on the 
current path.''
  The Bipartisan Entitlement Commission's Final Report, issued in 
January of this year, said, ``The present trend is not sustainable.''
  DRI/McGraw-Hill, one of the world's leading economic forecasting 
firms, in testimony before the Senate Budget Committee in January, 
said, ``[T]he current economic strength is not sustainable. * * * A 
balanced budget would be a major boost to the long-term growth of the 
U.S. economy.''
  This is the year, and this is the budget, in which Congress finally 
makes that extraordinary commitment necessary to balance the budget.
  By definition, an extraordinary commitment is not permanent. That's 
why we still will need to return to, and pass, the balanced budget 
amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
  When we debated that amendment on the floor of the Senate earlier 
this year, opponents said, ``You don't need a constitutional amendment; 
all you need is the political will.'' They also raised the taunt, 
``Where's your plan? Show us which way you'll balance the budget.''
  Well, the first Republican Congress in 40 years is showing the 
professional skeptics in Washington, DC, and the people across America 
that it has the will and the way.
  This budget resolution is a blueprint for hope, full of promise for 
current and future generations. This budget is the one that will 
restore opportunity and growth. This is the budget for America's 
future.
  My colleagues know, and it is important to remind others watching, 
that a budget resolution is just a blueprint. The details will be 
filled in during the coming weeks and months by the Appropriations 
Committee and the various authorizing committees. I, for one, look 
forward to carrying this process forward within my assignments on the 
Agriculture, Energy, and Veterans Affairs Committees.
  There's been plenty of blame to go around for not balancing the 
budget. That blame has extended, for years, to both political parties 
and both the legislative and executive branches of Government. With 
today's vote, we will see if the solution is bipartisan, as it should 
be and as I hope it is.
  In the coming weeks, we will see if the President is willing to 
become part [[Page S7464]] of the solution. I was sad to see the 
President become a conscientious objector to the war on deficit 
spending when he submitted his official budget this past February.
  The law said the President had to submit a budget, so he did. But 
that budget dodged responsibility, dodged deficit reduction, and 
declared unconditional surrender to bigger deficits and more debt as 
far as the eye could see. In contrast, the budget before us today 
enlists, fights, and promises to win the war on the deficit.
  The President still will have the chance to choose whether to be a 
fiscal freedom fighter or a member of the status quo resistance. 
Congress will give him that chance in the coming weeks as we send him 
13 appropriations bills and a budget reconciliation bill. Those bills, 
taken all together, will enact into law a 7-year plan that finally, in 
fiscal year 2002, for the first time in 33 years, and only the second 
time in 42 years, will balance the budget.
  It's very tempting to make the perfect into the enemy of the very 
good. And probably not one Senator thinks this budget is perfect. Many 
of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have come to the floor 
to say how much they are for balancing the budget. Then they add that 
one little word, those three little letters, that cause so much 
mischief in this town: ``B-U-T.'' We keep hearing, ``I'm for a balanced 
budget, but * * *.''
  Maybe they think 7 years is too soon. Or too late. Or they say it's 
not really balanced unless you don't count Social Security. Or they 
want to take interest savings that aren't officially counted yet and 
use that for more social spending. Or they don't want to rescue and 
reform a Medicare System that is on the verge of bankruptcy. Or they 
demand the cart come before the horse and they want Medicare to be 
completely overhauled before we assume in a budget blueprint that it's 
going to be overhauled. Or they do want to reform Medicare, but not 
without the Federal Government taking over everybody's health care, or 
the list goes on.
  The easy thing is to vote no and say you wished someone had given you 
something on which to vote yes. There are always excuses available, if 
you want to say you're for a balanced budget but you want to vote 
against the real balanced budget.
  Mr. President, the only balanced budget that counts is the one that 
passes, the one that can be translated into binding law as the budget 
process continues this summer.
  A balanced budget is not an abstract goal or a political sound bite. 
It's an absolute necessity.
  The vote that counts today is a ``yes'' vote on final passage of 
Senate Concurrent Resolution 13. I'm proud to cast that vote. I'm proud 
of the Budget Committee for writing a fair, reasonable, balanced budget 
resolution. I expect to be proud of the Senate when the vote is 
complete, and I believe the American people will feel the same way.
  Mr. President, I spoke briefly on Monday about what I consider the 
top ten reasons why the budget must be balanced, as it will be under 
this resolution. I would like to reiterate some of those points now, 
and expand on why this conclusion is inescapable.


the top ten reasons to pass senate concurrent resolution 13 and balance 
                               the budget

                       10. the will of the people

  A vote for the balanced budget resolution is the vote consistent with 
the will of the American people that the Federal Government get its 
house in order: 70 percent in some polls, 80 percent-plus in others.


                        9. reasonable glidepath

  Under this budget resolution, overall spending still increases 3 
percent a year through 2002, compared with the current rate of 5.4 
percent a year.
  The real dividend comes after a successful glidepath to balance. 
After fiscal year 2002, all it takes to keep the budget balanced is to 
match future spending growth to revenue growth. That would again allow 
more than 5.2 percent a year growth in spending after 2002, based on 
CBO projections.
  It is critical to keep in mind: balancing the budget will be easier 
now than it will be later.
  In the mid-1980's, a glidepath comparable to that in Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 13 would have produced a balanced budget within 2 
to 4 years. Now, it will take 7 years. The longer we wait, the harder 
it will get to balance the budget ever. Anyone who has any experience 
with debt accumulation understands why. Anyone who understands the 
explosive growth in Federal programs under current trends understands 
why.
  This year, fiscal year 1995,
  The $175 billion Federal budget deficit is 11.4 percent of total 
outlays, 12.9 percent of revenues, and 2.5 percent of gross domestic 
product.
  Total revenues are enough to cover all entitlement spending plus 
interest payments plus 68 percent of discretionary spending, in other 
words, enough to cover 88.5 percent of outlays.
  Total Federal outlays are 21.8 percent of GDP.
  According to the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform, 
under current trends, by the year 2030:
  The deficit will be almost 50 percent of outlays and almost 19 
percent of GDP.
  ``Projected spending for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and 
Federal employee retirement programs alone will consume all tax 
revenues collected by the Federal Government.'' That is, revenues will 
cover barely 50 percent of all outlays.
  Total Federal outlays could exceed 37 percent of the economy.
  This is why a number of us have said during this debate that this is 
not only our best chance of passing a balanced budget--it may be our 
last.


            8. preserving flexibility to address priorities

  Families and businesses understand that, if you have discipline in 
the short term, if you forego instant gratification, you will have more 
later, more money and more options.
  The increasing share of the Federal budget consumed by interest 
payments on the debt means a decreasing share which Congress controls, 
ever-higher taxes, or both.
  More debt means more interest payments on that debt. Interest costs 
squeeze other spending priorities and threaten to swallow the options 
of our kids and grandchildren.
  Already, by fiscal year 1994, net interest payments were five and 
one-half times as much as outlays for all education, job training, and 
employment programs combined.
  GAO's 1992 report found that, if current policies continue, Congress 
may be forced to enact one-half trillion dollars in deficit reduction 
each year just to hold annual deficits to a constant 3 percent of GDP.
  According to the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform:
  If current trends continue, by the year 2030 net interest payments 
will consume 30 percent of the Federal budget--double the rate of 
today.
  Under current trends, net interest payments on the Federal debt will 
more than triple as a percentage of GDP. Net interest is currently 3.3 
percent of GDP and is projected at more than 10 percent of GDP by 2030.
  Beyond the deficit reduction already built into this budget 
resolution, CBO has acknowledged a possible $170 billion ``reserve 
fund,'' or ``Domenici dividend,'' in debt service savings and increased 
revenues from economic growth. This could result in an additional $170 
billion in deficit reduction and surpluses over 7 years, which frees up 
more money for other budget priorities, such as tax relief.
  DRI/McGraw-Hill went even further, saying that, by 2002, half of all 
the $1 trillion in spending restraint necessary to balance the budget 
could come from interest savings alone.


         7. stopping the regressive/overseas transfer of wealth

  Interest on the Federal debt is largely a transfer from middle-income 
taxpayers to large institutions, wealthy individuals and foreign 
investors.
  In fiscal year 1994, 22.8 percent, $44.5 billion, of the interest on 
debt held by the public was paid to foreign investors. Also in fiscal 
year 1994, 33.9 percent--$62.6 billion--of the dollars borrowed from 
the public came from overseas.
  Interest on the Federal debt is actually the biggest foreign aid 
program in history. In fact, these payments amount to more than twice 
the amount spent on everything in the international affairs budget 
function, $17.1 billion in fiscal year 1994, $18.9 billion in fiscal 
year 1995.
  I do not mean to imply here that there is anything wrong with being 
[[Page S7465]] wealthy, a lender, or investor. To the contrary, these 
persons supply the capital that creates jobs, raises living standards, 
and legitimately finances the Government in time of war or dire 
emergency.
  But it is unfair to taxpayers, and bad for the entire economy, for 
wealth to be arbitrarily and artificially redistributed through 
interest payments on a growing and excessive debt that has been 
accumulated over the decades, merely because spending and borrowing was 
the course of least political resistance.
  This actually was one of the reasons why the original Jeffersonian 
Republicans were so opposed to Government indebtedness. The 
Republicans, representing them, as now, farmers, merchants, and other 
working Americans, did not want to see the fruits of their labors taxed 
excessively to pay interest to the monied class, represented by the 
big-government Federalists.


                    6. interest rates and investment

  Lower interest rates and greater economic growth, of course, do not 
benefit only the Federal budget, but all Americans.
  In an appendix to its April ``Analysis of the President's Budgetary 
Proposals,'' CBO discussed the drop in interest rates that could result 
from balancing the budget, noting:

       Good arguments exist for * * * a range of from 100 to 200 
     basis points. A drop of that magnitude from CBO's baseline 
     forecast would leave real long-term rates at between 1 and 2 
     percent--lower than they have been since the 1950's--and real 
     short-term rates close to zero * * * (R)eal short-term 
     interest rates have already been as low as zero.
       One widely used model, developed by Data Resources, Inc. 
     (DRI), predicts an exceptionally large drop in interest rates 
     as the deficit falls, nearly 400 basis points * * *.

  We know what these interest-rate drops mean to American families: 
buying a house, buying a car, or financing a college education would be 
more affordable than today, by hundreds and even thousands of dollars.
  DRI/McGraw-Hill says that balancing the budget could result in 
nonresidential investment increasing 4 to 5 percent by 2002, over what 
it would be with today's $200 billion annual deficits.


                           5. economic growth

  Balancing the budget means preserving, in the near term and 
especially for our children, the American dream of economic 
opportunity. The damage being done by the borrow-and-spend status quo 
must be stopped. A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York showed 
that America lost 5 percent growth in GNP--and 3.75 million jobs--from 
1978-89 because of deficit and debt. DRI/McGraw-Hill estimates that 
balancing the budget by fiscal year 2002 would raise real gross 
national product by about 2.5 percent. That means putting about $1,000 
a year into the average household's pockets, at today's prices, by 
2005.
  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has cited a Laurence H. Meyer & 
Associates study showing that economic output would rise between 1 to 
1.6 percent within 5 years after balancing the budget.
  Even the Congressional Budget Office, using a more cautious model, 
projects a GNP in 2002 that is 0.8 percent--almost 1 percent--higher 
than in its baseline projections.
  The idea that balanced budgets produce economic growth is not a new 
one. More than 160 years ago, President Andrew Jackson said:

       Once the budget is balanced and the debts paid off, our 
     population will be relieved from a considerable portion of 
     its present burdens and will find not only new motives to 
     patriotic affection, but additional means for the display of 
     individual enterprise.


                             4. lower taxes

  Balancing the budget and keeping it balanced will remove pressure for 
future tax increases. Since every dollar borrowed today has to be 
repaid eventually, with interest, the status quo promises ruinous 
levels of taxation in the future.
  According to the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, for every year 
in which the Federal Government runs a $200 billion deficit, the 
average child of today will pay $5,000 in additional taxes over his or 
her lifetime. The status quo and the Clinton budget show deficits that 
large and larger for as long as the eye can see.
  President Clinton's fiscal year 1995 budget included a section on 
``generational accounting.'' It projected that failure to change 
current trends will force generations to face a lifetime net tax rate 
of 82 percent to pay off the current generation's bills, counting taxes 
at all levels of government.


                         3. protecting seniors

  The debt is the threat to Social Security, Medicare, and the economic 
security of seniors on fixed incomes.
  Gross interest payments on debt are the second largest single 
spending item for the Federal Government, and under the status quo or 
the President's budget, would overtake Social Security within a few 
years.
  Growing interest payments crowd out other spending, regardless of 
whether an item is off-budget or on-budget or financed through a trust 
fund. When the Government faces the need to make good on its 
obligations, its ability to do so is going to be affected by the total 
debt load it is carrying.
  More debt and a bigger chunk of the budget going for interest 
payments ultimately threatens the Government's ability to pay for 
anything else.
  This becomes more obvious and more true when we remember that, under 
current trends: Medicare goes into deficit in 1996 and runs out of 
money in 2002; and Social Security taxes no longer cover benefits in 
2013, the system goes into deficit in 2019, and it runs out of money in 
2029.


                                2. jobs

  DRI/McGraw-Hill projects that balancing the Federal budget can create 
2.5 million new jobs by 2002.
  The last Federal balanced budget was in 1969. According to Investor's 
Business Daily, unemployment from 1970-1990 averaged 6.7 percent as 
compared to the post-war period as a whole which was 5.7 percent. In 
the first three decades of this century, before deficit spending was 
the rule and not the exception, unemployment averaged 4.5 percent.


                            1. our children

  The future for our children and grandchildren depends on the future 
of the economy.
  The General Accounting Office, in its 1992 report, showed gains in 
standard of living of between 7 percent and 36 percent in 2020 
resulting from balanced Federal budgets. More recent economic and 
budget developments would still keep projections well within this 
range.
  In fact, remembering the late 1970's, there's every reason to believe 
that the borrow-and-spend trends of the status quo and the President's 
budget would provoke a return of high interest rates and make GAO's 
``no action'' scenario positively optimistic.
  We all have become familiar with Thomas Jefferson's admonition in 
this regard:

       The question whether one generation has the right to bind 
     another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such 
     consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles 
     of government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to 
     saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay 
     them ourselves.

  Now is the time to act on that principle, by passing Senate 
Congressional Resolution 13, the balanced budget resolution.
  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I would like to preface my remarks by 
commending Senator Domenici for his efforts to help tame the Federal 
Government's runaway deficits.
  As you know, Mr. President, under 12 years of Republican 
administrations, the Federal debt quintupled. In 1980, when Republicans 
took over both the White House and the Senate, the Federal debt stood 
at about $800 billion. After 12 years of Republican leadership, the 
debt stood at roughly $4 trillion. If it were not for the almost $200 
billion in interest that we pay each and every year on the debt that 
was amassed under successive Republican administrations, we would 
already have a balanced budget. In 1993, in order to begin to tackle 
the problems posed by this mountain of debt, Congress passed the 
largest deficit reduction passage in history. We did this without a 
single Republican joining in the effort.
  Time and time again, I have stated that we cannot gain control over 
the Government's fiscal crisis with gimmicks. No amendment to the 
Constitution will ever balance the budget. No rosy projections about 
economic [[Page S7466]] growth and supply-side impacts will balance the 
budget. Only strong and consistent leadership will balance the budget. 
If we want to restore the Federal Government to fiscal sanity, we 
cannot abrogate our leadership responsibilities or refuse to join the 
debate for fear of the political consequences of tough decisions. 
Instead, we must act decisively to continue to move toward a balanced 
budget.
  We could adopt a ``scorched earth'' approach to balancing the budget, 
slashing and burning everything which gets in our way. But what good 
have we done for our children if we reduce their debt burden but deny 
them a decent education and adequate health care? How much have we 
improved our workers' ability to compete in the world economy if we 
deny them the funding necessary to improve their skills?
  Presenting numbers which add up to a balanced budget is one thing; 
deciding how to reach those numbers is an altogether different task. It 
is in deciding how to reach those numbers--deciding what our priorities 
really are--that we reveal who we are as individuals and what we stand 
for as a nation. So, Mr. President, while I am pleased that the 
proposed budget resolution moves us toward a balanced budget, I am 
concerned about the means used to achieve this end.
  Mr. President, the Republicans' choices distort the principle of 
shared sacrifice. They have balanced the budget on the backs of 
children, students, families, and seniors. They have chosen to cut 
programs for those most in need in our society, while asking little or 
nothing of large corporations and the wealthy.
  Mr. President, no matter how the Republicans phrase their assault on 
Medicare, it's just that--an assault. Their cuts will force millions of 
seniors to suffer drastically reduced benefits, a much lower quality of 
care, and significantly higher medical bills. We desperately need 
Medicare reform, but we cannot simply let seniors free-fall until these 
reforms take place.
  The Republicans' Medicare cuts mean that, on average, seniors will 
have to find an additional $3,447 to pay for their health care over the 
next 7 years. For the majority of seniors, this will be no easy task. 
In 1992, the median income of seniors in this country was only about 
$17,000 a year, and about a quarter of elderly households had incomes 
under $10,000. These seniors already spend more than $1 of every $5 on 
medical care. For the millions of seniors across the country who live 
on fixed incomes, finding an additional $3,447 will mean sacrificing 
something else which is important to them. It has been stated that each 
month millions of American seniors are forced to choose between food 
and necessary medication. I can't help wondering how many more will be 
faced with this horrible choice once the proposed cuts are put into 
place.
  In addition to higher costs, seniors are likely to have fewer 
choices. In many cases, financial limitations will leave them with no 
choice but to join a managed care plan. Doctors, hospitals, and others 
providers are all likely to face even lower reimbursement rates. As a 
result, many health care providers may no longer be able to afford to 
accept Medicare patients. Those that can will be forced to shift even 
more costs onto their privately insured patients, creating a hidden tax 
on employers and individuals.
  Mr. President, that's just Medicare. This budget proposal also cuts 
Medicaid by $175 billion. Again, I think it is important that we all 
understand exactly who these cuts will affect. Medicaid now insures 
about one of every four American children. It helps to pay for roughly 
one of every three births in this country. It also provides aid to over 
three-fifths of the people who need long-term care services, either in 
nursing homes or at home. Most elderly recipients of Medicaid are 
people who spent their whole lives as members of the middle class. But 
when faced with nursing home costs averaging almost $40,000 a year, it 
doesn't take long for their entire life's savings to disappear. Once 
they reach this point, these people have nowhere
 else to turn. Thankfully, Medicaid has been there to provide a safety 
net for them.

  This resolution caps Federal Medicaid spending at an average annual 
growth rate of 5 percent. We all know that Medicaid spending is 
expected to grow faster than that in the future. By setting a 5-percent 
cap, the Federal Government is essentially saying to the States: ``It's 
all your problem now. We can't figure out how to deal with the growing 
number of uninsured and the rising costs of health care, so you do it. 
We wash our hands of any responsibility to help you deal with these 
critical needs.'' But, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit 
that States can't cope with these problems alone.
  So, Mr. President, let me tell you what is expected to happen once 
these proposed Medicaid cuts go into effect. By the year 2002, the 
number of uninsured children in America is predicted to rise by more 
than 6 million. By that same year, there will be an additional 3 
million persons who need, but will not receive assistance with, the 
costs of long-term care. These individuals will not be able to obtain 
nursing home care, despite the fact that they will need more care than 
their family and friends will be able to provide. For those individuals 
who will be able to enter and remain in nursing homes the picture will 
not be much brighter. Medicaid now pays significantly less than the 
private sector for long-term care. When Medicaid cuts these payments 
even further--as it will have to do in response to the budget cuts--
nursing homes will have to do even more with less. This means that 
staff will be stretched even thinner, and each resident will receive 
even less personal attention. The proposed cuts will mean that the 
quality of life of nursing home residents will deteriorate even 
further.
  There is no doubt that Medicare and Medicaid have taken the brunt of 
the proposed cuts. But they are not the only examples of shortsighted 
cuts contained in this budget proposal. Consider the cuts to the earned 
income tax credit and education funding. The EITC provides tax relief 
to lower income working families. By proposing to cut the EITC, this 
budget deals a strong blow to the working families. While I strongly 
believe that sacrifice is needed to balance the budget, I have to ask: 
Is it fair to ask working families to make a sacrifice of this 
magnitude at the same time the Republican budget proposals contemplate 
tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest Americans?
  At the same time, this budget significantly cuts funding for student 
loans. We all recognize that we must balance the budget so that our 
citizens will be able to compete successfully in the next century. 
While I agree with the need to prepare for increased global 
competition, it is difficult to understand how we will become more 
competitive without the skills and knowledge that an education 
provides.
  At the same time that this budget makes drastic cuts in critical 
programs, it completely ignores the billions of dollars we spend each 
year on special-interest tax loopholes. The tax code provides special 
exceptions that will total over $480 billion in 1996, more than double 
the entire Federal deficit and nearly one-quarter of total Federal 
spending. Because many of these tax code provisions single out narrow 
subclasses for benefit, the rest of us must pay more in taxes.
  Balancing the budget will not be easy. It will require significant 
sacrifices. However, how can we argue that we are fairly balancing the 
budget when we raise taxes on working families and make dramatic cuts 
in Medicare, Medicaid, and education, yet continue to spend billions 
each year in tax pork?
  Mr. President, to help correct many of the problems contained in the 
Republican budget proposal, I have offered a substitute balanced budget 
proposal. In fact, under my proposal, the Federal Government would have 
a significant budget surplus by the year 2002.
  The main difference between the proposals the Republicans and I have 
offered is in the priorities that they set. I believe that our Nation's 
future success will depend on the choices we make today. To ensure this 
success, I believe that our priorities must be placed on our children. 
The most important step we can take to build a better life for our 
children will be to balance the budget, which my proposal would do. 
However, in our efforts to put the budget in balance over the long run, 
we cannot ignore the needs of our [[Page S7467]] children today. 
Therefore, my proposal would fully fund the education and child 
nutrition programs cut under the Republican proposal.
  At the same time we are attempting to create a better future for our 
children, we cannot ignore the legitimate needs of older citizens 
today. To ensure that the elderly and the least well off in our society 
are not forced to bear the bulk of the sacrifices that balancing the 
budget will require, my proposal restores $100 billion in Medicare 
funding and replaces $75 billion in Medicaid cuts.
  I would also repeal the Republican tax increase on those families 
that are trying to work their way out of poverty. Although we need to 
balance the Federal budget, it would be short-sighted to do so on the 
backs of America's working and middle-class families. In the face of 
declining real wages and Republican proposals to cut important aid 
programs, more and more American families are facing increasingly tough 
times. These are working families who need every penny of the wages 
they earn just to make ends meet. We simply should not tax these 
families into poverty by cutting the EITC.
  My budget would pay for these changes by reducing defense spending by 
just $5 billion below the current baseline, cutting $15 billion in 
wasteful, pork-barrel spending, eliminating $46 billion in unnecessary 
agriculture subsidies, and raising the tobacco tax by $1 per pack to 
restore much of the funds lost in the Republican Medicare cuts.
  I would also close $197 billion in special-interest tax loopholes. My 
budget explicitly provides that individual tax rates will not be raised 
and that the deductions for mortgage interest, charitable 
contributions, and State and local taxes will not be affected. Instead, 
these savings will be realized by simply slowing the rate of growth in 
special-interest loopholes enjoyed by corporations and the very 
wealthy. Left unchanged, between now and the year 2002, the Federal 
Government will spend roughly $4 trillion on tax subsidies; my proposal 
would affect less than 5 percent of this amount.
  Rather than reducing the deficit by singling out children, working 
families, and the elderly for especially harsh treatment, I would 
offset a portion of these potential cuts by setting specific targets 
for eliminating tax loopholes. I believe that this approach would allow 
us to balance the needs of the many with the desires of the few.
  Mr. President, I expect that some will attempt to mischaracterize my 
efforts to close special interest tax loopholes as a tax increase. If 
there was a special tax credit for Members of Congress, and we closed 
that loophole, no one would claim that we were raising taxes. However, 
when we attempt to close tax loopholes for the oil and gas industry, 
the agricultural industry, or other industries, we hear the champions 
of these special interests claim that we are trying to raise taxes.
  Tax loopholes give some individuals and corporations a special 
exception from the rules that oblige everyone to share in the 
responsibility of our national defense and protecting the young, the 
aged, and the infirm. The only way to let everyone keep more of what 
they have earned is to minimize these tax expenditures so that we can 
reduce the burden of the national debt and bring down tax rates fairly, 
for everyone.
  Finally, if, by balancing the budget, we realize additional savings, 
my budget provides that these savings may be used to provide a middle-
class tax cut. This tax cut would not be available until after we have 
achieved the savings necessary to put us on a path toward a balanced 
budget. It is my strongest hope that we will have these savings in 
order to provide much needed tax relief to working families in New 
Jersey and across the country.
  Frankly, Mr. President, I do not expect my budget proposal to pass. 
By asking the Defense Department, the tobacco industry, agribusiness, 
and other special interests to share in the burdens of balancing the 
budget, my proposal takes a small bite out of a number of sacred cows. 
As a result, I anticipate that my budget proposal will raise a good 
deal of organized opposition. Unfortunately, unlike defense, tobacco, 
and the wealthy, most Americans cannot afford high-paid lobbyists to 
protect their interests. So, in all likelihood, my budget proposal will 
be defeated, average Americans will be left bearing the burden of 
balancing the budget, and special interests will continue to enjoy all 
of their same benefits at the expense of the rest of us.
  Mr. President, fundamentally, my budget proposal is about setting 
priorities. There's no serious disagreement between Democrats and 
Republicans on the need to balance the budget. In fact, my proposal 
would reduce the deficit by even more than the Republican proposal. 
However, the real question that my proposal raises is how we should 
balance the budget. Either we can balance the budget by raising taxes 
on working families and cutting needed assistance for children and the 
elderly--as the Republican proposal would do--or we can spread the 
burden for balancing the budget more fairly--as my proposal would do.
  I am very pleased that our Republican colleagues have chosen to join 
the fight to eliminate budget deficits. Again, I commend Senator 
Domenici for introducing a budget resolution which seeks to achieve 
that goal. At the same time, however, I have serious concerns about 
many of the specific proposals contained in this budget. I am deeply 
concerned for our Nation's children, families, and seniors. And, I am 
concerned that many of the cuts in the Republican budget proposal are 
necessary because of a refusal to simply slow the rate of growth in 
special interest loopholes.
  Mr. President, America needs a balanced budget. But it deserves a 
much better balanced budget than that proposed by our Republican 
colleagues. The budget I have proposed will balance the budget without 
losing sight of the obligations we have as a nation to our children, 
families, and seniors.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, today, by voting for the amendment 
offered by Senator Conrad, I voted to balance the Federal budget by the 
year 2002. I was pleased to work with Senator Conrad in recent days on 
his amendment, and I am particularly pleased that it restored funds for 
education, economic growth, job training, and environmental protection. 
Senator Conrad's amendment would have balanced the budget by making 
tough choices: it drastically slowed the increase in spending on 
Medicare and Medicaid; it froze discretionary spending, meaning no real 
growth in spending over the next 7 years; it closed tax loopholes and 
eliminated wasteful subsidies.
  I did not agree with every detail of this amendment, but it came 
closest to my priorities in terms of what we need to preserve and what 
we need to reduce or get rid of to reach the goal of a balanced budget. 
It balanced the budget without harming our Nation's defense or reducing 
our fight against crime. It did so without slashing Government's 
commitment to helping businesses create jobs, helping children receive 
a good education, and helping protect our environment from pollution.
  I am sorry that the amendment did not pass, but I do not regret my 
decision to support it, because I believe achieving a balanced budget 
is essential if we are to keep our economy strong and keep hope for a 
brighter future alive for our children.
  After careful consideration of the budget offered by Senator 
Domenici, I decided to vote against it. I have great admiration for 
what he has done: he brought a serious balanced budget to the floor and 
shaped a historic debate over the direction of our country. Senator 
Domenici deserves much credit for putting us on the path toward a 
balanced budget.
  But I concluded the path his budget takes to achieve that goal is too 
strewn with policies that I do not support. The worthy end does not 
justify the harsh means. I decided to oppose the Budget Committee's 
budget because it: reduces government's key role in promoting 
education, research, technology, and trade promotion, all of which are 
crucial to our children's economic future; turns back the clock on 
environmental protection, threatening to foul our waters and beaches 
and pollute our lands; and increases the tax burden on working families 
by canceling the expansion of the earned income tax credit.
  I could not reconcile the Budget Committee's balanced budget with the 
[[Page S7468]] steps taken to achieve that balance. If there were no 
other way to achieve a balanced budget, I would have had no choice. But 
the Conrad Amendment proved that there is a better way.
  One final point: this has been, for the most part, a sober, 
substantive debate over a serious, precedent-setting budget resolution. 
But too much politics was being played by both parties. Unfortunately, 
some Democrats used this occasion too frivolously by simply sniping at 
the Budget Committee's plan for short-term, partisan gain. As a 
consequence, they have helped reinforce an image of our party as 
reflexively committed to spending and the status quo. I also regret 
that the leadership of the Republican party failed to reach out to 
those of us on the other side of the aisle who share a genuine 
commitment to a balanced budget to fashion a budget that could have won 
substantial bipartisan support. By acting alone, I believe they have 
gone too far.
  This is the first step of a long process, however, and I hope we can 
begin to work together so that, in the end, we can pass a bipartisan 
balanced budget.
                         the budget resolution

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, America has three deficits--not one. And we 
have to address all three if we are to solve our fiscal and social 
problems. We have to cut the budget and reduce the fiscal deficit, but, 
as I have said before, we also have an investment deficit and a 
spiritual deficit that require our collective commitment to retool and 
rebuild our communities, our politics, and our culture for the next 
century.
  This budget, Mr. President, is wrong-headed and misdirected in 
concept as well as in substance. It is at best myopic and at worst 
destructive.
  I have come, once again, to the floor to talk about the three 
American deficits, not one about a commonsense approach to the budget 
and about fair cuts. These things seem to have eluded my friends on the 
other side of the aisle, and I submit that this budget proposal, Mr. 
President, proves it.
  I have to say, first, I think the American people are looking for an 
honest, truthful budget that tells them what really is being cut and 
who will bear the burden.
  Mr. President, we all want to eliminate the deficit. It is 
bankrupting this country, but to cut Medicare and break a generational 
compact with American mothers and fathers who are retired and 
struggling to make ends meet in order to pay for tax cuts for the 
wealthiest among us is not the way to do it.
  I was both troubled and in a way amused to see, Mr. President, that 
the Republican cuts in Medicare actually take ``choice'' in health care 
away from senior citizens. They will not be able to chose their own 
doctors. That is exactly what my friends on the other side complained 
about last year when they rejected the President's health care plan 
because working Americans would not have a choice of doctors.
  And now, here they are doing what they said was wrong for workers 
last year, but in their minds is apparently right for senior citizens 
this year.
  Mr. President, this is the height of hypocrisy. We saw television 
commercials that played on those fears, and here we are today with 
those same Republicans doing what they claimed a year ago was dead 
wrong.
  If that is not a flip-flop on the fundamental issue of health care 
reform, then I don't now what is.
  Let me say a few things about Medicare, Mr. President.
  Medicare was a Democratic compact and I--for one--will not trade it 
for an ill-conceived attempt to score political points.
  It is a bedrock program that provides adequate health care to one out 
of every seven Americans--that's 38.3 million people--38.3 million 
Americans who worked hard, played by the rules, and made plans based on 
our contract with them, and we won't break it.
  Without these benefits many if not most of our seniors would have 
limited access to adequate care, and in many cases no treatment at all.
  Mr. President, when it comes to Medicare, turning our back on our 
commitment to the elderly and disabled by asking them to pay almost 
$900 more per year in premiums, $1200 for home health services, and 
$100 more per year to meet their deductible may be what the Republicans 
think they need to do to keep their promise to protect the wealthiest 
and the strongest in this society, but it is not part of the Democratic 
commitment to protect average, hard-working Americans.
  That is not to say that Medicare doesn't need to be fixed, but this 
is not how we ought to fix it.
  Mr. President, I find it very interesting that the proposed cuts in 
the Medicare program under this Republican plan virtually equal the 
total amount the Republicans have budgeted for a tax cut for the 
wealthy.
  They have to break a promise to millions of Americans who live on 
fixed incomes and have made careful plans based on our commitment to 
them to achieve their goal.
  It is absolutely outrageous. It is fundamentally unfair. And it's 
just plain wrong.
  We need to fix the system, Mr. President, but fixing it does not mean 
using it to balance the budget or win some ideological points.
  The system is, indeed, costly. This year's estimated Medicare 
expenditures will be 10.4 percent higher than last year. But that is 
not the function of government largesse. It is the function of a number 
of factors: including a rapidly aging population resulting in more 
beneficiaries, increases in the costs of medical procedures, 
inefficiencies in the utilization of medical services, and the costs of 
new technologies for increased medical care.
  For all these reasons, Mr. President, Democrats supported 
comprehensive health care reform last year, and my colleagues on the 
other side took a walk on it; and now I am amazed to hear my colleagues 
demanding that the Democrats should take the lead on the budget and do 
something about health care costs.
  We did, and they said no. Now it is time for them--now that they are 
in the majority--to stand and deliver.
  The truth is that the President's proposals to accomplish this last 
year were shot down by the Republicans without their offering even a 
single alternative--and despite all the publicity of the Contract With 
America, it has not produced even the beginnings of a broad health care 
reform proposal, much less a comprehensive plan this year.
  Mr. President, it has been my belief that we must gain control over 
the increases in Medicare costs. But it should be done in the context 
of comprehensive reform of our health care system, not by willy-nilly 
cutting benefits to the elderly.
  The problem with Medicare is nothing new. It has been articulated by 
the trustees, and by every responsible government official. For this 
reason, Mr. President, when this latest political effort to trade 
Medicare for tax cuts is over, I anticipate that this Congress, 
Republicans and Democrats, will support a broad range of bi-partisan 
reforms that will make the Medicare trust fund solvent--just as we did 
for Social Security in 1981.
  I do not support dumping those problems on the States, or 
thoughtlessly cutting eligibility for these programs or the services 
they finance for the elderly.
  And I am not for cutting reimbursement rates to providers so deeply 
that they leave the program, go out of business, or simply shift costs 
to individuals who pay for their care directly or with private 
insurance.
  Mr. President, I will support only thoughtfully-devised approaches 
designed to address these six basic reforms to Medicare: eliminate 
unneeded care and treatment; put a stop to paying for ineffective 
treatments; increase inefficiency of the entire medical care delivery 
system; emphasize preventive rather than remedial care; emphasize 
outpatient rather than inpatient care; and implement financial reforms 
that build-in disincentives to excessive use of medical services 
without inhibiting needed preventive care.
  Any plan that addresses these six basic areas will represent the kind 
of comprehensive reform we need.
  But, Mr. President, we must approach reform intelligently and 
compassionately with a deep and abiding regard for the promises we've 
made to elderly Americans who have reached the age of 65 and have 
planned on Medicare benefits.
  Medicare needs to be fixed--not raided. [[Page S7469]] 
  Having said that Mr. President, I believe that Medicare is hardly the 
only problem with this proposed budget.
  I have said on this floor, and I will say it again, that we face an 
enormous fiscal deficit and I am prepared to make the cuts necessary to 
reduce the deficit and avoid bankrupting our children and 
grandchildren, if they pass the fairness test and the common sense 
tests.
  But I want to discuss how this budget fails to address the two other 
American deficits.
  Yes, we face a growing fiscal deficit, but we also face a growing
   investment deficit and a growing spiritual deficit, and this budget 
is wrongheaded in not understanding or appreciating the significance 
and interrelation of the three American deficits that are ruining this 
nation.

  As much as we need to reduce the fiscal deficit we also need to 
increase living standards, create jobs, educate our children and our 
workforce, and preserve and protect the quality of life that 
generations of Americans have come to expect.
  I believe the budget debate should focus on attacking all three of 
these deficits:
  The first is the fiscal deficit. The national debt has more than 
tripled since 1979 and will soon top $5 billion. Just the interest 
payments on the debt affect every other budget decision we can make. We 
know that.
  We know that if we let this continue, we will be crowding out all the 
other choices we can make: how much we can spend on national defense 
and on essential social programs like drug treatment and prevention.
  The second deficit is the investment deficit. We need to find ways to 
invest in our infrastructure as well as in our people. A nation that 
does not invest is a nation that has given up hope for the future. We 
are not such a nation.
  And let me tell you, we are a nation that has always found a way to 
build and grow--re-tool and re-invest in education, in business, in the 
arts and sciences, in our culture and in our families. We need to 
remove unnecessary regulations so business can create jobs while, at 
the same time, we maintain the health and safety of every American.
  The third deficit is the spiritual deficit. Values, my friends, do 
not come from laws and speeches. They come from families, teachers, and 
churches.
  There are millions of young Americans today who no longer have 
significant contact with any of these sources.
  If this country is going to have children having children; if 
families are going to continue to erode--then our ability to reach 
these kids is essential. If that means investing in community 
organizations with a track record of success, then we should do it.
  So, I submit that this budget debate needs to go beyond the political 
rhetoric about our fiscal deficit. We all agree that we need to 
downsize and streamline government, but we must not lose sight of our 
obligation to re-invest in our people and in our nation to keep both 
strong.
  Mr. President, let me quote from an editorial on this budget debate 
in the Washington Post on Tuesday by E.J. Dionne. I think he asks an 
important question that must be addressed.
  He asks, ``Will Democrats be bold enough to question the Republicans' 
core assumptions about government? The issue in this debate,'' he said, 
``should not be whether to reduce the deficit, but how that can be done 
in ways that will increase living standards and average wages, which 
have been dropping for two decades.''
  Now, Mr. President, I am challenging those core assumptions of the 
Republicans because I believe they are short-sighted and wrong. And I 
believe that we will not be in an economic position to increase living 
standards until we have a budget that addresses the three American 
deficits simultaneously.
  In fact, Mr. President, I submit that if we pass this budget we will 
dramatically increase our investment and our spiritual deficits because 
we will not have committed ourselves to creating opportunities and 
jobs. We will not have committed to preserving the fundamental 
structural integrity of our nation--whether it's our roads, railroads, 
and bridges, or our values and our belief in citizenship and in the 
concept of community.
  This budget, Mr. President, is, therefore, wrong-headed, misdirected. 
It doesn't make any sense. It fails the common sense test. It fails the 
fairness test.
  This budget disinvests in people and makes us less competitive.
  It cuts Medicare by $256 billion; it cuts student aid by $14 billion; 
it terminates AMTRAK by the year 2000--terminates it.
  Do you know that we are 34th in the world in our commitment to our 
rail system which industry and commerce rely on. We are behind Ecuador 
and just
 ahead of Bangladesh. And the Republicans now want to cut all support 
for the railroads.

  The proposed budget decimates environmental programs and cuts all the 
crime prevention programs we passed last year.
  It cuts $34 billion from food and nutrition programs.
  It cuts unemployment compensation, SSI, and other programs under the 
jurisdiction of the Finance Committee by $66 billion.
  But this so called revolution doesn't stop there. It disinvests in 
our infrastructure by cutting $3 billion for airports, highways and 
school improvements.
  It disinvests in job training for young people by cutting $272 
million. It disinvests in summer jobs for kids by cutting $871 million. 
It even disinvests in safe drinking water with a $1.3 billion cut in 
grants to the states to keep our water clean.
  These are not just draconian cuts that go to the heart of our ability 
to address the three deficits we face. They are the symbol, Mr. 
President, of a wrong-headed political philosophy that does not 
represent the mainstream of America.
  So, I submit that this budget is fundamentally flawed in its concept 
and is designed simply to achieve the political goals of a minority of 
anti-government zealots who are blind to the real needs of this nation. 
They cut what we need and keep what we don't.
  Let me conclude by saying, Mr. President, that I am emphatically for 
a balanced budget. I voted for the Bradley and Conrad alternative 
budgets because, though they are not perfect, they better protect 
Medicare, Medicaid, education, and other critical government services 
and they make better choices than the Republican leadership's budget.
  What the Bradley and Conrad alternatives prove is that we can balance 
the budget in less than ten years without increasing income tax rates 
for lower- and middle-income Americans. They prove in some what 
different ways that we can balance the budget without pillaging or 
eliminating key government services on which tens of millions of 
Americans depend and which are critical to keeping our nation 
competitive and our people healthy, happy, and safe.
  Both of these alternatives balance the budget in a fairer fashion 
than the Republican leadership in both the House and the Senate has 
tried to persuade the American people is possible.
  Mr. President, until my Republican colleagues understand that this 
budget is about people and their future and the future of our nations, 
and that there are three deficits we face as a nation--until they 
change their core assumptions about what we must preserve as well as 
what we must cut, then they will have failed, as the majority party, to 
legislate in the best interest of the people who have entrusted them 
with the fundamental process of this democracy. As I oppose this Budget 
Resolution, I commit to continue working to place us on a different 
course that will permit us to realize our potential as a nation.
                           amendment no. 1150

       oil and gas leasing in the arctic national wildlife refuge

  Mr. KERRY. Yesterday the Senate voted on an amendment sponsored by 
Senator Roth which removed from the budget all savings attributable to 
enactment of legislation to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
(ANWR) to oil and gas leasing. The Arctic Refuge is often referred to 
as America's Serengeti because of its outstanding wildlife, beauty and 
recreation opportunities. ANWR serves as the staging area for thousands 
of migratory birds, denning habitat for polar bears, and calving 
grounds for the 160,000 member Porcupine Caribou Herd. Moreover, the 
Refuge plays an integral part in the [[Page S7470]] lives of the 
Gwich'in people, whose members depend upon the seasonal migrations of 
the caribou for both survival and cultural identity. The biological 
heart of this pristine wilderness is the 1.5 million acre coastal 
plain.
  The fate of ANWR has been the subject of a complex and highly 
contested debate for more than a decade. That is why I am deeply 
saddened that the Budget Committee would use this back door approach 
via the budget process to try to open one of the Nation's last great 
wilderness areas to oil drilling.
  Under current law, receipts generated from assets sales and leases 
cannot be used for deficit reduction. I fear using the
 anticipated $1.4 billion proceeds from opening ANWR to drilling for 
deficit reduction may signal the beginning of a ``fire sale'' of 
natural resources such as the ANWR. For many Americans, trading the 
Arctic Refuge wilderness for a one-time budget reduction, and the 
possibility but only the possibility of finding oil, is simply not 
worth it. The environmental costs of opening the Refuge to leasing are 
not worth the estimated benefits, especially when the oil--estimated to 
supply only a 200 days supply of oil for the nation--is not needed 
because small gains in energy conservation could provide both more 
energy and more job creation than developing all of the potential for 
oil available in ANWR. It is very ironic that, while taking the first 
step towards opening up ANWR for exploration for petroleum, this budget 
will cut funding for energy conservation programs that could decrease 
our dependence on petroleum and create more U.S. jobs. A national 
energy efficiency program would create, on average, ten times the 
number of jobs that might be produced from Arctic Refuge drilling.

  All Americans have a stake in our national wildlife refuges and 
parks. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the crown jewel of the 
National Wildlife Refuge System. The Refuge is a wilderness area unique 
not only in the United States but in the world. The words of the 
renowned naturalist, George Schaller, say it all:

       Based on my experience, I conclude that the Arctic National 
     Wildlife Refuge in all its magnificent diversity, from 
     mountain range to coastal plain, is unique and irreplaceable 
     not just on a national basis, but also on an international 
     basis. It is sometimes thought that there are still many 
     remote and untouched wilderness areas in which the earth's 
     biological diversity will be protected . . . Most remote 
     ecosystems, both inside and outside reserves, are rapidly 
     being modified. The Refuge has remained a rare exception. It 
     represents one of the last and true large wilderness areas 
     left on earth, an area unspoiled, its biological systems 
     intact. Our civilization will be measured by what we leave 
     behind. The Refuge was established not for economic value but 
     as a statement of our nation's vision. There are certain 
     places on earth that are so unique that they must be 
     preserved without compromise . . . Such places include the 
     Virunga Volcanoes with its mountain gorillas, the Serengeti 
     plains, the Chang Tang of Tibet--and the Arctic National 
     Wildlife Refuge.

  Mr. President, I voted for the Roth amendment primarily because I 
believe it is unconscionable to allow the degradation of the 
``biological heart'' of the only complete arctic ecosystem protected in 
North America without a thorough and substantive debate undertaken in 
full view of the American public. I terribly regret a majority of the 
Senate did not vote the same way and that we moved one step closer to 
what I believe is an unacceptable outcome.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from North 
Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. I thank the ranking member.
  I wish to commend the chairman of the Budget Committee and commend 
the ranking member for really an exceptional effort. The chairman of 
the Budget Committee has been truly dedicated to balancing the budget 
and deficit reduction for as long as I have been a Member of this body, 
and I wish to pay respect to that commitment.
  The goal is absolutely right. This is precisely what we must do for 
the country's future. I think all of us who have worked on the budget 
understand that we must rein in the growth of entitlements, we must 
look at freezing defense spending and domestic discretionary spending 
if we are going to have a chance to do what is the right economic 
policy for this Nation's future. It will mean a better future for 
America if we achieve a balanced budget.
  Mr. President, I do not believe the specifics that we have in this 
plan are yet a fair sharing of the burden of deficit reduction.
  It seems to me that the middle-class children and the elderly have 
been ordered into the front lines, but the wealthiest among us have 
been ushered to the sidelines. More than that, they have been put at 
the head of the line for additional tax preferences, tax breaks, and 
tax loopholes.
  Mr. President, I do not think that is right. A group of us offered an 
alternative. We called it the fair share plan because we think it had a 
more equitable distribution of the burden of reaching a balanced 
budget, and we reached a balanced budget in the year 2004 without 
counting the Social Security surpluses. We had more deficit reduction 
in the year 2002 than the plan we will vote on momentarily.
  But perhaps the most interesting irony is that as part of our plan, 
we proposed closing tax preferences and tax loopholes. Yesterday, the 
other side said that was a tax increase. But interestingly enough, the 
last vote that we had on an amendment offered by a Republican Senator 
was to do precisely what we advocated.
  The Senator from Maine offered an amendment to restore funding to 
education priorities and do it by closing tax preferences and tax 
loopholes. I am glad they have put it on the table. It got 67 votes, 
when that was the last amendment adopted because that is precisely what 
direction we ought to take to reach a fair conclusion when we vote on 
reconciliation. I hope we do that, Mr. President. I hope we do that.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield me 2 minutes?
  Mr. EXON. I yield 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, we have reached an important point in 
dealing with the budget deficit. The Senator from New Mexico has 
proposed a deficit reduction budget that is real. The Senator from 
Nebraska and the Senator from the State of North Dakota and Senator 
Bradley and I, although they are different plans, have introduced 
proposals that are real, genuine reductions in working on a balanced 
budget and moving to a balanced budget within 7 years.
  But there is a big difference here. I believe the one we are about to 
vote on is simply not fair. We can get there from here fairly. There is 
a fundamental difference in the approach taken by Senator Bradley and 
myself and the Senator from North Dakota, and others, and the 
Republican proposal, and that is, we put a lot less burden on the 
elderly, a lot less burden, or no burden, on college loans, a lot less 
burden on middle-class folks. We increase the burden on other elements 
of society. The point is, we do look at and do play a major part in 
dealing with closing tax loopholes.
  It is a big difference. It is a fundamental difference, but this is 
only the first round of the fight. This is a budget resolution that 
does not mean a darn thing other than as it guides us. It is not a law. 
It does not change anything. The President does not get to veto it or 
sign it. We now get into the hard stuff, the hard part.
  I am confident that as the American people understand the commitment 
on both sides to move to a balanced budget, they are going to be able 
to begin to weigh what the real costs are, and they are going to make a 
judgment whether or not cutting Medicare and Medicaid by $400 billion 
is a better way to go than closing $176 billion worth of tax loopholes. 
They are going to make those basic judgments. I think we will be back 
at it again. I compliment the managers of the bill for their diligent 
effort.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 1 minute to Senator Thurmond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The President pro tempore of the U.S. Senate 
is recognized.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, we have the greatest nation in the 
world. It has given us more freedom, more justice, more opportunity and 
more hope [[Page S7471]] than any nation has given its people in the 
history of the world. If we are going to keep it free, though, and 
enjoy freedom and democracy, we have to do at least two things: We have 
to keep a defense that is strong to protect us from our enemies. And 
the other thing is, we have to take steps to handle our finances 
correctly. We have not balanced this budget but once in 32 years, eight 
times in 64 years. We cannot keep on like this.
  I want to commend Senator Domenici, the chairman, for the great job 
he has done. I also commend the able Senator from Nebraska for how he 
has handled this bill on the floor. In addition I commend Senator Dole, 
for the leadership he provides.
  Mr. President, we must take steps to take care of our finances. If we 
do that, and protect our defense, we can continue as the greatest 
nation in the world. I hope we will take a step tonight toward putting 
our fiscal house in order, and pass this Budget Resolution. I thank the 
chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, it is my understanding both the 
distinguished minority leader and the majority leader each have 5 
minutes of the allotted 40 minutes. How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 9 minutes left for the Senator from 
New Mexico and 2 minutes left for the Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. DOLE. I wonder if I might inquire of the Democratic leader, will 
he speak following the Senator from New Mexico?
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the order, I thought, was I would speak, 
Senator Domenici would speak, Senator Daschle, and then Senator Dole. 
That is what we tentatively agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes so the 
Senator from Kansas can make the final remarks on our side.
  Mr. President, there are so many people to thank. I do not believe I 
am going to try to thank them name by name, because I am going to 
forget some. But I must say, there are 11 Senators that I must thank 
very personally and very specifically.
  Senator Dole, on January 6, assigned the Budget Committee and I was 
its chairman. As I looked at the Senators that were assigned and the 
Senators that were left from previous years, I wondered how would I get 
12 Senators to vote together.
  Maybe to those on the outside they would not understand this, but let 
me just read off the names as I thank them individually and share with 
our leader how difficult and daunting I thought the chore was on 
January 6:
  Senator Grassley, Senator Nickles, Senator Gramm of Texas, Senator 
Bond, Senator Lott, Senator Brown, Senator Gregg, Senator Gorton, 
Senator Snowe, Senator Abraham, and Senator Frist. That is a very 
diverse group of Republican Senators.
  But let me say to the American people, a very significant event is 
going to occur tonight when we vote on this balanced budget. And as it 
is recorded and as we look back on it, while many deserve credit, none 
deserve the credit more than these 11 Senators who joined with me in 
producing what I am absolutely convinced is a fair budget, is a good 
budget and will, indeed, protect today and tomorrow. It is a budget for 
today and a budget for tomorrow.
  The tomorrow part is shown right here behind me. I am not going to go 
through each one. Here are five little children and a set of twins.
  Mr. President, if you look at those big numbers on each of these 
including--let us pick whatever you want, Sam and Nicholas. You can 
guess about how old they are. You see that $151,000. Mr. President, I 
say to my fellow Senators that $151,000 is what those children will pay 
out of their income to pay the interest on the national debt if we were 
to adopt the President's budget and stay at current law.
  Mr. President, I say to my fellow Senators, we can talk all we want 
about who this budget helps and who it hurts. But I want to tell you, 
for one thing, you cannot continue to do that to our children or there 
will be no America, there will be no future. For what will young people 
have to work for if they work for us to pay our interest on our debts 
which we adult leaders refuse to pay?
  Frankly, what we are saying today is a very simple vision. For the 
first time in 25 years, the grown-up leadership of America is going to 
say we are going to pay our own bills. If we want to give citizens of 
the United States benefits, if we want to have programs that we herald 
across America, we are going to pay for them or we are not going to 
have them. That is what this budget says, 7 years from now, not 
tomorrow, for some would say, is it not too quick?
  How quick is too quick? Twenty-five years in deficit and 7 more in 
deficit--that is 32, I say to my friend. When is it enough? Mr. 
President, let me suggest that Senator Exon has been a marvelous 
ranking member, and I thank him, his great staff and my great staff. 
But I do not believe it is fair to say that there was no room for 
cooperation. It is now many, many days since we put forth a 
comprehensive budget that everyone that has looked at it says not only 
is it fair, but it is filled with integrity. It is honest, it has no 
smoke and mirrors, and, if implemented, its probability for a balance 
is very, very high. We cannot do much better for our people than to 
produce that.
  Now, frankly, I have not seen any real serious effort to try to 
address the issues that we put before the Budget Committee or here on 
the floor. Frankly, in the committee they have an argument. The first 
couple of days they did not know enough about it. Even after they found 
out about it, the amendments all went to spending more money but taking 
it out of the reserve fund.
  I close today saying to my fellow Americans--young, old, seniors, 
military men--you all ought to be proud of the Senate tonight because 
we will vote about 56 or 57 strong to preserve today and make sure that 
we are strong and powerful in the future and that our children live in 
a land of opportunity.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four and a half minutes to the Senator from 
New Mexico, 2 minutes to the Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I will use additional leader time, if I must, to 
accommodate whatever time is required for my remarks.
  Mr. President, let me begin by commending the distinguished chairman 
of the Budget Committee and the ranking member for what I consider to 
be an outstanding job. They have led this Senate in the last several 
days in a very good-faith effort, and I applaud their work, and I 
applaud the staff, especially, for what has been an extraordinarily 
arduous and extremely meaningful project for which we can all be very 
proud.
  Let me also say there is absolutely no disagreement with what the 
chairman said about those children. There is no disagreement about how 
concerned we are about the debt they are incurring. There is no 
disagreement whatsoever about their futures and how important it is 
that we address this budget. The only disagreement is how we got the 
interest amounts that were designated under each picture. The amounts 
those children have to pay, in large measure, were run up in the Reagan 
and Bush administration years, and everyone understands that.
  The question now is: How do we get out of it? Because for the last 
couple of years, that is what this administration has given us the 
opportunity to do--to begin making the downpayment on a balanced 
Federal budget.
  So this debate is about priorities. It is not about goals. Everyone 
understands the importance of the goal. We agree on the need for a 
balanced budget. We agree on the need for a date certain by which the 
budget should be balanced. We agree on the tough choices that have to 
be made.
  We offered over 50 amendments to this budget resolution and not one--
not one, Mr. President--would have increased the debt. Not $1. Only one 
moved back the date, because it was honest, because it did what we said 
a couple of months ago we had to do, and [[Page S7472]] that was to 
exclude Social Security. In fact, this budget resolution does not bring 
about a balanced Federal budget by the year 2002 as touted. On page 7, 
on line 21, it shows that we will still have a $113 billion debt, money 
borrowed from the Social Security trust fund to make the budget appear 
balanced.
  Whether or not Social Security is included, let me reiterate that 
this debate is about priorities. This debate is about what is 
important. With or without Social Security, we agree on the goal.
  When it comes to those priorities, this budget resolution, in the 
opinion of most Senators on this side of the aisle, is fundamentally 
flawed. We have many substantive disagreements, but most of them boil 
down to one core difference--the Republican majority has insisted on 
tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 million Americans, and they have made 
that the highest priority above everything else. As a result, this 
budget takes the side of the privileged few. It virtually abandons 
ordinary Americans, families, students, veterans, seniors, and 
children. It demands deep sacrifice from America's middle class, while 
it showers tax cuts on the elite.
  We knew the Republicans had the votes to pass this resolution. That 
was never in doubt. What Democrats have tried to do is to reveal the 
truth about this budget and to try as best we can to improve it.
  Without increasing the debt, Mr. President, our priority was to 
ensure that millions of older Americans have access to health care, by 
taking $100 billion in tax cuts for the most prosperous among us and 
investing in the health of senior citizens. The Republicans said 
``no.''
  Without increasing the debt, we tried to help millions of young 
Americans by investing $40 billion in education and averting the 
largest educational cuts in our Nation's history. The Republicans said 
``no.''
  Without increasing the debt, we tried to assist 12 million working 
Americans by repealing a $21 billion tax increase by slightly reducing 
the huge tax breaks going to the 1 million wealthiest among us. The 
Republicans said ``no.''
  Without increasing the debt, we tried to invest a small part of the 
tax cuts in science, technology and research. The Republicans said 
``no.''
  We tried to use the tax cuts to reduce the deficit. The Republicans 
said ``no.''
  With our amendments--and without increasing the debt--we tried to 
help seniors, to lower the heavy burden on students, to attempt to be 
fair to veterans and to farmers and to small businessmen and to 
families, to reduce the deficit. And on virtually every occasion, the 
Republicans said ``no.''
  We even tried to ensure that the middle class would be the 
beneficiaries if we had a tax cut, and that 90 percent of the benefit 
would not go to the 10 percent of us who are the most well-to-do. And 
again, the Republicans said ``no.''
  Time after time, amendment after amendment, the wealthy won and the 
middle class lost.
  Fairness and equal sacrifice were great goals, but they were lost to 
the higher Republican priority--a tax cut we simply cannot afford.
  This budget is fundamentally flawed, Mr. President. It does not 
strengthen America; it weakens it. It does not bring us together; it 
moves us apart.
  The ``haves'' will have more and the rest will have less.
  It is not what the American people would have as their priorities, 
not when you put tax cuts for the privileged ahead of seniors, 
students, families and deficit reduction.
  But this is a long process. It is only the beginning. Today is the 
easy part. When the American people understand whose side this budget 
is on, I believe they will demand that we change it. By the time the 
committees confront the hard choices in reconciliation, the public will 
understand who is sacrificing and who is benefitting. This budget will 
be altered, or it will not become law.
  Democrats remain committed to balancing the budget. We remain open to 
working with Republicans to fashion a bipartisan budget. But it must be 
a budget that asks equal sacrifice and does not exclude the privileged 
few.
  It must be a budget that invests in America, even as we reduce 
spending, a budget that pulls Americans together, rather than divide 
us. We can do that, Mr. President. It is not beyond our reach. And the 
American people expect no less.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, like most Senators, I have lost track of the 
meetings I have attended. But a few years back, I was in a meeting that 
I will never forget.
  These people were not presidents or prime ministers. They did not run 
big businesses. In fact, most of them did not even have a job.
  Who were they? They were high school seniors--100 of them--one boy 
and one girl from each State.
  The reason why I will never forget that day is because of what they 
taught me--and what they should teach all of us.
  Sometime during our meeting, one young man stood up and said, 
``Senator, it seems like every group of Americans is represented in 
Washington. Everyone has somebody who speaks for them.'' ``But who 
speaks for us?'' He asked me, ``Who speaks for the future?''
  It was a good question then. And it is a good question now.
  And for far too long, the answer has been that ``No one speaks for 
the future.'' Instead, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging 
our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present.
  But today, the Senate will make a statement, and we will make history 
in the process.
  We will finally begin to unpile the deficits. We will finally begin 
to speak for the future. And we will do it with one word--leadership.
  Harry Truman was right when he said:

       Where there is no leadership, society stands still. 
     Progress occurs when courageous leaders seize the opportunity 
     to change things for the better.

  And let us be frank. When it comes to reducing the deficit, Congress 
has stood still--frozen in place year after year after year, as our 
debt grew bigger and bigger and bigger.
  But in November 1994, Americans voted to change all that. For the 
first time in 40 years, they gave control of Congress to the Republican 
Party. And with that control came a responsibility.
  A responsibility to do what we promised--a responsibility to act 
courageously--a responsibility to change things for the better.
  And under the leadership of Senator Domenici that is exactly what we 
have done. We have accepted the responsibility of leadership. We have 
made the tough choices. We have put a plan on the table that will 
result in a balanced budget within 7 years.
  This budget is based on the underlying principle that we simply 
cannot go on spending our children's money.
  In fulfilling that principle, those bureaucracies and programs 
counting on their usual big spending increases must learn to make do 
with less--$961 billion less over the next 7 years, to be exact.
  And we begin right here in Congress, as this budget reduces 
legislative branch spending by some $200 million.
  Those who are used to more and more power flowing to Washington, DC, 
will have to adjust to a new tide, where power is carried back to the 
States and to the people.
  And we will have to learn how to make do without the Department of 
Commerce, and its more than 140 Federal departments, agencies, and 
programs. This Senator is confident that we will do just fine, thank 
you.
  And despite the rhetoric coming out of the White House, this budget 
also recognizes that Government has certain responsibilities.
  Responsibilities like taking the steps necessary to preserve, 
improve, and protect Medicare, which three of the President's Cabinet 
members tell us will go bankrupt in 7 years if we do nothing. We do 
this by slowing the growth rate of Medicare--while still allowing 
Medicare spending to increase by $1.6 trillion.
  This budget also recognizes that there are those in need who depend 
on Government programs, and who often have nowhere else to turn.
  Therefore, it provides for an additional $36 billion in spending for 
Medicaid.
  It increases funding for the Women/Infant/Children Program by $2 
billion. [[Page S7473]] 
  It increases funding for food stamps, for aid to families with 
dependent children, for supplemental security income.
 and for the earned income tax credit.

  Is the budget perfect? Of course not. Some of us would have reduced 
spending in other programs than the ones chosen. Some of us would have 
increased spending in others. And some of us--including this Senator--
would have dedicated more funds to reducing the tax burden on 
Americans.
  But make no mistake about it, this budget does provide tax relief.
  The $170 billion fund this budget creates must and will be devoted to 
tax reductions that will help America's families, stimulate savings, 
increase investment, create jobs, and promote economic growth.
  Family tax credits, spousal IRA's, estate tax relief for family 
businesses, and a capital gains rate reduction are some of the actions 
I will promote as Senate majority leader, and as a member of the 
Finance Committee.
  Additionally, it's no secret that when the House and Senate return 
from conference on our respective budgets, we are likely to to return 
with a budget that will dedicate even more funds to tax relief.
  Mr. President, when Republicans drew up our plan to reach a balanced 
budget, we also drew a line in the sand.
  And we said that those who are serious about balancing the budget 
will cross that line and work with us, or propose an alternative.
  And those who are not serious will stay on the other side of the line 
and offer no leadership. I regret to say that President Clinton has 
never come close to crossing that line.
  While he says we have the wrong plan, he never comes close to saying 
what the right plan is--except one that gave America $200 to $300 
billion deficits well into the next century, and that would have added 
$1.2 trillion to our debt in the next 5 years.
  Thankfully, that plan was defeated by a vote of 99-0.
  Instead of leadership, the President offers fear. And he casts his 
net far and wide. Seniors, children, the so-called middle class, the 
needy, farmers, students, the list goes on and on. Each day, the 
President tells them they should be afraid of our budget, they should 
be afraid of Republicans.
  Let me again quote the words of Harry Truman. Truman said:

       America was not built on fear. America was built on 
     courage, on imagination, and an unbeatable determination to 
     do the job at hand.

  So, Mr. President, we will win this vote today. We will take our 
budget to conference. We will work with the Republican majority in the 
House. And we will return with a plan that will balance the budget in 7 
years. We will do it with the help of the American people--people who 
have always exhibited courage, imagination, and an unbeatable 
determination to do the job at hand.
  I conclude where I began. With speaking for the future. And I 
conclude not by quoting Harry Truman, but by quoting another President.

       Somewhere at this very moment, another child is born in 
     America. Let it be our cause to give that child a happy home, 
     a healthy family, a hopeful future. Let it be our cause to 
     see that child reach the fullest of their God-given 
     abilities.

  Those words were spoken by Bill Clinton in 1992, as he accepted his 
party's nomination for President.
  And with passage of this budget, Republicans will turn those words 
into action. Because somewhere at this very moment, another child is 
born in America.
  And that child comes into the world already owing $18,500 as his or 
her share of the national debt.
  That child comes into the world with the knowledge that he or she 
will pay $163,300 in taxes during his working life just to pay off 
interest on the debt. That child comes into a world facing a future of 
fewer jobs, fewer opportunities, and higher interest rates.
  Today, with this vote, we begin to change that child's world for 
better.
  Today, we begin to speak for all the children born today and in the 
days to come.
  Today, we begin to speak for the future.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to consideration of Calendar No. 115, the House budget 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 67) setting forth the 
     congressional budget for the United States Government for the 
     fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the concurrent resolution?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the 
concurrent resolution.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all after 
the resolving clause be stricken and the text of Senate Concurrent 
Resolution 13, as amended, be substituted in lieu thereof, and that the 
Senate amendment be adopted, and that all time on the resolution be 
yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is now on agreeing to the concurrent resolution.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DOLE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                             Change of Vote

  Mr. HATFIELD. On rollcall vote No. 231, I voted ``no.'' It was my 
intention to vote ``yea.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to change my vote. This will in no way change the outcome of 
the vote. This has been cleared by the two leaders.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the concurrent 
resolution, as amended. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 232 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--42

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Mikulski
       
  So the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 67), as amended, was 
agreed to.
  (The text of the concurrent resolution will be printed in a future 
edition of the Record.)
  (Applause.)
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
concurrent resolution was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
insist on its amendment and request a conference with the House on the 
disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and that the Chair be authorized 
to appoint conferees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  [[Page S7474]]
  
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________