[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 160 (Tuesday, October 17, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15192-S15193]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             RECONCILIATION

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I want to congratulate my freshman 
colleagues who have been on the floor the last hour. I think they have 
brought to the floor today an understanding of what this national 
debate that is going on is all about and what the debate that we will 
be having for the next few weeks in this Chamber is all about.
  It is appropriate that the freshman Members, myself included, are 
making this debate today as we have in the past, because we were the 
ones who came through the last election and listened to what the 
American people had to say, as, of course, all our colleagues did. In a 
sense, we were a little closer to that.
  My colleagues who preceded me today have talked very eloquently. I 
think if I could summarize, I would say 

[[Page S 15193]]
that what they have talked about is to try to give us real 
understanding about what this debate that we are engaging in this 
Congress is all about.
  The term ``reconciliation'' may be a term that is not familiar to the 
American people today, but I suspect in the next 3 or 4 weeks it may 
become more familiar.
  We are going to be talking about a lot of specifics that are 
contained in the reconciliation bill. We will talk about some 
provisions of this bill that, frankly, I may not like. I suspect there 
are few Members on this floor, if they were very candid, who would not 
point out a provision or two or more of the reconciliation bill that we 
will be considering that they may not like.
  But, instead of focusing on the minutiae, I think it is important for 
us to step back, as we tried to do during this last 50 minutes of 
debate, and keep our eye on the ball and talk about the big picture and 
what is at stake.
  My colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Santorum, who just concluded, 
I think, said it very, very well when he talked about promises that 
were made. What are those promises? What were those promises? How will 
this Congress be judged? I think we will ultimately be judged on four 
things, the four big promises that were made.
  First, to balance the budget; to do something that this Congress has 
not done since I was a senior at Miami University in Ohio in 1969--a 
long time ago, a quarter of a century--that is to balance the Federal 
budget, and to set us on the path so that we will, within that 
reasonable period of time of 7 years, have a balanced budget and do 
something we have not done for a quarter of a century and to make sure 
the figures are real, the promises kept.
  Second, to save Medicare. I use the term save because, as my 
colleague from Tennessee, who is currently presiding, has very 
eloquently pointed out, that is what this debate about Medicare is 
really all about: to save it, to preserve it, to strengthen it.
  Third, is to reform welfare. We passed a welfare bill. The House has 
passed one. We understand if we are really going to change the 
direction of this country, we have to first start with a change in 
welfare.
  And the fourth: commitment. The fourth thing I think this Congress 
will be judged on is our commitment to have a modest tax cut--it is a 
modest tax cut--for working men and women in this country. So, I think 
it is important for us to truly keep our eye on the ball.
  Let me conclude by saying the comments of my colleague from Tennessee 
I thought were most appropriate as was the chart that was displayed 
here a few moments ago. What these promises, once they are kept, will 
really do is to improve dramatically the quality of life for the 
average man, woman, and child--particularly child--in this country. 
Because, as he so eloquently pointed out, interest rates and other 
things that silently affect our ability to purchase a home, for a 
young, newly married couple to purchase a home, have their interests 
rates down, to have a newer car, a safer car, all of these will be 
affected by what we do with the Federal deficit. The quality of life of 
people who are struggling to get out of poverty will be affected by 
what we have done and will do in regard to true welfare reform.
  I think sometimes we forget the big picture. Sometimes we spend a lot 
of time on this floor talking about individual bills, which we should, 
and what impact some small bill, relatively small bill, is going to 
have on individuals. Sometimes we forget what we do in regard to the 
big picture, what we do in regard to welfare reform, what we do in 
regard to a meaningful tax cut for working men and women, what we do in 
regard to balancing the budget, what we do in regard to saving 
Medicare. This big picture will affect, ultimately, the quality of life 
of our children much more than what we do on any individual program.
  I again congratulate my colleagues, congratulate my friend and 
colleague from Tennessee, whose statistics and chart I think pointed 
that out very, very well. So, as we head into this debate and as we 
talk about the minutiae of reconciliation--I see my friend from New 
Mexico, the chairman of the Budget Committee, who is, obviously, going 
to be involved very much in that debate--I think it is important to 
keep our eye on the ball, keep our eye on the commitments, what we told 
the American people we were going to do, why we were coming to 
Washington. And, as we cast these tough and, frankly, very unpleasant 
votes we are going to have to cast in the weeks ahead, it is important 
for us to do that, to keep our eye on the ball and remember the big 
picture.
  Remember, it is the big actions that we take in the four areas I have 
talked about that are going to impact the quality of life of our 
children and our grandchildren much more than any one particular bill, 
any one particular amendment, any one particular vote.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Is there any 
order that we have agreed upon? I do not want to impose if there is.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senators can have up to 5 minutes. The Senator 
from Illinois has 45 minutes reserved, which he has not yet used.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if we could complete our argument in about 6 
or 7 minutes and then the Senator could have his time?
  Mr. SIMON. I yield to my colleague from New Mexico, as I almost 
always do.

                          ____________________