[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 166 (Wednesday, October 25, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15596-S15597]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             RECONCILIATION

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today, the Senate will begin deliberating 
something called the budget reconciliation bill, which for most 
Americans is a term that does not mean very much. The reconciliation 
bill means reconciling spending on Federal programs to the terms of the 
budget agreement that was agreed to earlier this year by the Congress.
  The reconciliation bill is probably one of the most significant 
pieces of legislation that has been considered in this Chamber in 
several decades. Yet we were provided with the reconciliation bill late 
yesterday afternoon.
  For purposes of illustrating what the Senate is going to be 
considering, this bill is contained in these two volumes, about 2,000 
pages of legislation. It is 1,949 pages, to be exact, and was delivered 
late yesterday to our desks.
  Because there was a World Series game last night and I was 
preoccupied, unfortunately, until the 11th inning of that game--until 
quarter to 1 in the morning--I did try to muddle my way through these 
2,000 pages but without great success. This is not a very good way to 
legislate.
  However, I want to make two points about this bill. First, even 
though there will be a lot of criticism back and forth, and much of it 
justifiable, we should recognize that there are some provisions in this 
bill on which both political parties agree. There are things in this 
reconciliation bill that make a lot of sense, and I commend the 
majority party for a number of things that they intend to do. For 
instance, we do need to cut spending.
  There are a number of areas of spending cuts offered by the majority 
party for which I say to them, ``Good job; I support you.'' There are 
areas here where there is agreement. The American people in most cases 
hear only about where we disagree --for good reason, because there is 
no need to stand up and debate for hours about an issue where there's 
already agreement. In those areas where we agree, I think we should 
recognize there has been some good work done, bringing some of this to 
the floor of the Senate. I commend the people who worked to do that.
  I do note, however, that some of the proposals in this bill are very 
troublesome and those are the ones that will engender a substantial 
amount of debate.
  One of my colleagues took to the floor yesterday, and I am sure it 
took a fair amount of courage to do so. Senator Specter spoke at length 
about this reconciliation bill, and one thing he said struck me. He 
said, and I am paraphrasing, ``I have concern that the tax cuts are 
unfair or at least give the perception of unfairness.'' Senator Specter 
said, ``I express this concern because much of the pain of the spending 
cuts goes to the elderly, the young, the infirm, while allowing tax 
cuts for corporate America and those in higher brackets.''
  It is not often that someone in the Chamber speaks in such an 
unvarnished way. I am sure it was not easy for Senator Specter to do, 
because I do not think that is the prevailing message on that side of 
the aisle. Yet that is what is in these 2,000 pages.
  It seems to me that, while containing some good recommendations and 
some commendable work, this bill is also a vehicle making profound 
changes in Medicare and Medicaid. It is also going to make it harder 
for middle-income parents to send their kids to college. It represents 
a set of priorities that I think Senator Specter properly says will 
impose most of the burden on lower income folks and will bestow most of 
the benefits on those who are very privileged in our country.
  There is reason for us to be having a disagreement if we each believe 
in a different approach. I happen to agree that we should cut spending, 
but I do think there are some areas of spending that are more important 
than others. I personally do not support the star wars program. I do 
not think we have to build 20 more B-2 bombers at $30 billion. I could 
go through a whole list of items I think we should cut. But I do think 
it is valuable to keep the Head Start Program running and fully funded. 
I do not think it is wise to kick 55,000 kids off Head Start. I think 
it is valuable to keep kids in Head Start. That is a priority of mine. 
This is going to be a debate over the next 3 or 4 days about 
priorities.
  Again, I have said this several times in the last couple of weeks, 
but people should not lament the fact that we are debating and 
aggressively disagreeing in this Chamber. The way you reach compromise 
is to take different positions that you might believe in very strongly, 
debate them aggressively, and from that debate comes compromise. My 
hope is that there will be a compromise on this reconciliation bill 
after these 2,000 pages are most likely passed by the Congress without 

[[Page S15597]]

my vote and then vetoed by the President of the United States. 
Following that veto, there must follow, by necessity, some kind of 
compromise. This system is predicated on compromise.
  I think this is a sign of strength. We come to the floor. We discuss 
2,000 pages. It is not a sign of strength that we get 2,000 pages in 
the late afternoon and are told, ``By the way, we will start in the 
morning.'' That is not the right way to do it.
  But we will have, I think, in the next few days, a pretty aggressive 
debate about priorities, and I hope at the end, after this bill is 
vetoed, we will come back to another set of priorities that better 
represents this country's interests.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. BYRD. It is a sign of strength just to be able to lift this 
monstrosity. Does anybody in this Senate know what is in this bill; 
1,949 pages? We will be flying deaf, dumb, and blind, because we do not 
know what we are voting on here. I suppose there are a few members of 
the Budget Committee who will know something about it, but the rest of 
us, though, do not. It is a monstrosity. It is an abomination. And we 
have all of 20 hours--20 hours for debate, for amendments, motions, et 
cetera. It is ridiculous.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. DORGAN. I could not agree more with the Senator. Again, I think 
this will be vetoed and perhaps after that, we will have a more orderly 
process that results in better priorities.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as soon as Senator Daschle or Senator Exon 
are on the floor, I will call up the reconciliation package, but I will 
await their arrival and go ahead and make my remarks.

                          ____________________