[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 179 (Monday, November 13, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S16949-S16967]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         THE 7-YEAR BALANCED BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1995

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


               Motion to Instruct--Nursing Home Standards

  Mr. DORGAN. On the specific amendment offered by the Senator from 
Arkansas, I came just to offer a word of 

[[Page S 16950]]
encouragement. This is a very important amendment. Those who talk about 
reform and a new and different future and then say, ``By the way, why 
do we not get rid of Federal standards or national quality standards on 
nursing homes'' do no service to the word change or reform.
  I have sat in nursing homes for some good long while, regrettably. 
Many of us probably have with parents and other loved ones. I also sat 
recently at a hearing at which we heard from people who led the charge 
for nursing home reform in 1987 for Federal quality standards. You all 
know the stories. You have read the stories of the 1950's, 1960's, 
1970's about what was going on in some nursing homes in this country. 
For good reason we adopted national quality standards.
  Anyone who wants to retreat once again to experience the stories that 
we heard in the hearing recently by families who had loved ones in 
nursing homes, anyone who wants to retreat to that era is not 
understanding, in my judgment, what that era was all about. We have, I 
think, done a real service for our country and for senior citizens with 
the quality standards that came from the 1987 act, and we ought not to 
retreat on those standards and we ought not repeal those standards.
  The first inclination of the Senate and the House was to go ahead and 
repeal them. Then the Senator from Arkansas raised such a fuss, as did 
others of us, that they finally said, ``Let's not repeal them outright. 
Let's just say we won't repeal them, but give the States the ability to 
seek waivers,'' which is the same thing for a State that wants to get 
them repealed.
  So I am pleased today to add my voice to the amendment offered by the 
Senator from Arkansas. This makes good sense. Every Member of the House 
and Senate ought to vote for this. I am all for change. I am all for 
constructive change that improves things that need improving, but I am 
not for change that suggests let us turn back the clock to the 1950's 
here with respect to quality standards in nursing homes.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, if I might inquire, please, of the Chair, 
what is the time situation for the Democratic side and the Republican 
side of the aisle remaining on the motion?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas has 11 minutes 40 
seconds. The Senator from Michigan has 4 minutes 15 seconds.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum. I ask unanimous consent that the 
time used in the quorum call not be charged to either side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. 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. ABRAHAM. I yield myself such time as I may have remaining. I may 
use all of it; I may not.
  Mr. President, I think it is important for us in this discussion of 
the nursing home standards to emphasize several points that are part of 
the Senate-passed reconciliation bill which is going to conference 
because some allusions have been made that would suggest that there is 
an interest in that package in backing away from Federal standards that 
have been created here in the Congress.
  I just would say this: I think that part of that attitude or that 
sentiment is also suggesting that somehow the States and local 
communities of our country are lacking in the compassion and the 
concerns that we have here in Washington. I cannot speak for what might 
have been the conditions in the 1950's or 1960's that were referenced, 
but I believe that in the 1990's Governors and State legislators have 
every bit as much concern and compassion about these issues as we do 
here in Washington.
  I also think it is the case that a lot of States had these concerns 
before we did here in Washington. Proponents of the Federal standards 
have suggested that what this legislation does, as passed over here, is 
to eliminate these standards altogether. But the bottom line, Mr. 
President, is that the Senate bill does include the Federal nursing 
home standards.
  States, however, have complained about the administrative burdens 
associated with implementing these Federal standards since the very 
beginning. Obviously, there is inevitably some tug of war that goes on 
between Federal and State governments over the rules and regulations. 
We do not in the legislation we passed propose in any sense to back 
away from the Federal standards that are out there, but we do 
acknowledge sometimes the implementation of a Washington-knows-best, 
one- size-fits-all approach does not translate into efficiency in 
government at the State and local level because of the diversity 
between the 50 States.
  Therefore, what we have done in the bill that passed the Senate is 
not back away from Federal standards. We have retained them in the 
legislation. What we have done, however, is include a provision that 
only allows States with nursing home standards that are equal to or 
stricter--or stricter--than the Federal standards to seek a waiver from 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
  Let me just go over that again, Mr. President. We are not talking 
about less stringent standards. We are talking about States that have 
equal or more strict standards may seek a waiver from the Secretary of 
HHS to be able to use their standards and to supplant Federal standards 
with the stricter standards that they may have at the State level.
  We are talking here about seeking a waiver, Mr. President. We are not 
talking about anything that happens automatically. The Secretary of 
Health and Human Services must reach the conclusion that the State 
standards are equal to or stricter than the Federal standards before 
the waiver will be granted. If the Secretary does not believe that the 
State nursing home standards are equal to or stricter than the Federal 
standards, no waiver will be granted. That seems to me to be the best 
way, Mr. President, to preserve the tough standards that I think all of 
us here at the Federal level want to see maintained across this 
country.
  I just say that the comments of the Senator from North Dakota struck 
home with me, as I am sure they did with many others, because I would 
bet virtually every Member of this body has had a loved one at one time 
or another confined to some type of care facility, a nursing home or 
other similar care-providing facility. We want those tough standards. 
But we also recognize, and I think this compromise is the way to 
achieve it, that sometimes the States can do it better, the States can 
do it less expensively, and the States can have tougher standards.
  Obviously, different States have had different experiences. But my 
State, I think, is a good example of one which was ahead of the curve 
on these issues. Michigan was interested in quality nursing homes long 
before the Federal Government established its standards in 1990. 
Indeed, the Michigan Nursing Home Reform Act was passed and signed in 
1978. And it was a much tougher law than anything that existed at the 
time.
  It still contains some of the strongest penalties in the country for 
poor performance. In fact, recently an effort to test the standards of 
our nursing homes found that our State government did its tests. Only 
one nursing home it went into failed to meet the tough standards 
Michigan imposed. We are proud of the way we oversee these facilities. 
I think other States are, too. I think this waiver system is the way to 
balance Federal concerns with State flexibility.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. My time has expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Michigan has 
expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Might the Senator from West Virginia ask the Senator 
from Arkansas a question?
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, should the Senator from West Virginia like 

[[Page S 16951]]
  some time to ask a question to the Senator from Michigan, I will be 
glad to yield to him 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Michigan, I 
just came on the floor this moment, but I thought I heard the Senator 
saying that States, where standards are as strict or stricter than 
Federal standards, could seek a waiver.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Right.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. That leads to the question as to States which are 
not restricted or whose standards are in compilation or regulations are 
being made, et cetera. I ask this question: It was my impression at one 
time in the evolution of the majority party's standards for nursing 
homes that each State was allowed to describe and make its own 
standards; is that correct?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, it is my understanding we are debating 
today the current focus of the reconciliation debate, which is the bill 
that passed the Senate. I believe in the perfecting amendment the 
Finance Committee brought to us, the concerns that were raised about 
standards being below Federal standards were addressed in such a way 
that the only waivers that will be permitted are those which would be 
offered for States that have standards that are equal to or stricter 
than.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I understand that. I am not even talking about the 
waiver question. I am talking about the matter of States setting 
standards, whether or not they get to the waiver point. Is it not true 
that all 50 States would then get to set their own standards, and then 
at some point along the line, obviously somebody would make a judgment 
as to whether the waiver was justified or unjustified?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Right now, my understanding is States are free to set 
their standards today. The issue of whether to comply with their own 
standards or to be held to a higher or Federal standard is going to be 
determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services who would be 
empowered to decide whether or not those State standards that they 
might set were equal to or stricter than the Federal standards. If they 
are not, then they cannot be used.
  That is my understanding of the way this would work. I believe right 
now the legislature of Michigan or the legislature of West Virginia 
could pass legislation that would have standards of their own choosing. 
The issue of whether or not those would be preempted by Federal 
standards, I think, would be determined, under our bill, by the 
Secretary of HHS who might decide the Michigan standards, as has been 
the case for many years, are tough standards; tougher, in fact, in many 
cases than Federal standards.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I think before the time runs out, let me just make 
my point to the Senator. And that is, I understand the point the 
Senator is making, but I think there are a large number of States, I 
believe, which do not come under any kind of Federal standards, whether 
they are by waiver or not, which are allowed to make their own 
standards, which is not exactly the same as it is today where States do 
have to comply with certain Federal standards, witness 1987. And that 
the Senator makes the assumption that the junior Senator from West 
Virginia would not make, and that is that the States would make 
standards for their nursing homes which would be at or above Federal 
standards. That is something which concerns me greatly, but I was 
trying to seek information from the Senator.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Just in summary, my impression and understanding of what 
we attempted to accomplish here was to create a Federal standard that 
would be a floor rather than a ceiling, and if States wanted to have 
more strict standards, they would be permitted waivers to do so, but 
they would not be permitted waivers if they had standards less strict. 
That is my impression of the legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 2 minutes have expired.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 minutes.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I do not plan to use 8 minutes, but I would 
like to, basically, close my proposal that our conferees, when named, 
be instructed to keep the present standards for nursing homes this 
Congress adopted by an overwhelming bipartisan support in the great 
effort of 1987.
  I would like to talk about the substance of the difference between 
our proposal and the proposal as supported, evidently, by our good 
friend from Michigan and his colleagues on the other side.
  First, we are yielding two things in the Roth proposal that we voted 
for on October 27. We are yielding two things. The Federal Government, 
notwithstanding the fact that all nursing home residents--most of them, 
two-thirds--are Medicaid paid for, so there is a Federal involvement, a 
Federal attachment, but the Federal Government is saying, unless we 
instruct the conferees, unless we keep the present standards, the U.S. 
Government is saying in effect, we are giving up any protection or any 
regulations or any enforcement opportunities, notwithstanding the fact 
that nursing home residents are not treated fairly; that they are given 
poor food; that they are not clothed properly, they are not bathed 
properly. All this can take place, and if a State has a waiver, Mr. 
President, the Federal Government has given up that opportunity to 
enforce standards.
  The second major concept that I would like to talk about that my 
friend from Michigan has raised--and I thank my good friend from West 
Virginia who has been so strong in the movement behind keeping the 
strongest and strictest standards--is the concept of a State being able 
to adopt stronger standards. That is the law today. That is the beauty 
of the 1987 law.
  The Federal Government said, ``States, if you want to, you can adopt 
stronger standards than the Federal Government has.'' That is what we 
said to the States. There is a former Governor of a great State, a 
great Governor of the State of West Virginia. I was the Governor of 
Arkansas. I may not have been a very great Governor, but I was a 
Governor. I said, that makes sense. I said that in 1987, that makes 
sense.
  So today we give the States that opportunity to go forward to adopt 
any stronger standards they would like if they think that Federal 
standards are not sufficient. But if the States apply to HHS and the 
Secretary of HHS stamps that piece of paper and says you have a waiver, 
then the Federal Government is walking away from its powers to enforce, 
the Federal Government is walking away from its powers to regulate, and 
we are going to rue the day, because we are going to find ourselves 
back in the pre-1987 period of time when we saw that many of the 
nursing home residents were not being cared for, that they were not 
being protected, that there were too many bedsores, that they were 
improperly tied up, that they were improperly looked after, basically, 
Mr. President, and there is no reason--there is no reason--as Time 
magazine said, there is no reason for us to go back to the dark ages. 
There is no reason for it. There is no support for it.
  I can say, if we had the 2 million nursing home residents out there 
in our country voting as to whether they would like to have this extra 
amount of protection by the Federal Government, I think all of us in 
this body would know what that vote would be. I bet it would be 
unanimous, of all 2 million residents out there who would be saying, 
``Thank you for that extra protection because my quality of life is 
being made better.''
  Mr. President, this has been an issue for some weeks now that has 
basically been a very grave concern to many in this body and many in 
the other body, many organizations. But if I might, I would like to 
state just a few of the groups who have written in support of keeping 
the strongest standards:
  The American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging; the 
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; the 
American Geriatrics Society; the American Health Care Association; the 
American Medical Directors Association; the Catholic Health 
Association; the Catholic Social Services Organization; the United Auto 
Workers, and actually a long list of individual nursing homes across 
our country that in the past you might have said, ``Well, these nursing 


[[Page S 16952]]
homes would like to get by with no regulations.'' That is not the case.
  These regulations, these standards are uniform. They are true in 
every State. They are the same in every State. If I had a mother living 
today and she were in a nursing home in California, I could be living 
in Oregon and I would know exactly what those regulations were, because 
they are the same all over this country. We need to keep that. We 
should not obfuscate the nursing home regulations. We should not invite 
lawsuit after lawsuit to try to find out what these regulations meant. 
I have a letter from the National Senior Citizens Law Center.

  I ask unanimous consent that their analysis of the legislation, as 
proposed by Senator Roth, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                   National Senior


                                          Citizens Law Center,

                                 Washington, DC, November 1, 1995.
     Hon. David Pryor,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Pryor: At the request of Theresa Forster of 
     your staff, I have reviewed the language of the Roth 
     Amendment that addresses nursing home reform. For the reasons 
     stated below, I do not believe that the Roth Amendment 
     reinstates the federal nursing home reform law, as does the 
     Pryor/Cohen Amendment, Number 2983, which was approved by the 
     Senate earlier in the day on October 27. The Roth Amendment 
     fails to provide nursing facility residents with the full 
     protection of the federal law.
       1. The waiver language does not make sense, when analyzed. 
     Although there is surface appeal to saying that the 
     protections of federal law will be waived only if the 
     Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services 
     determines that a state's law is ``equivalent to or stricter 
     than the requirements'' of federal law, this provision does 
     not make sense when it is analyzed. If a state's law were the 
     same as or stricter than federal law--and therefore the state 
     was doing the same or more than federal law required--why 
     would the state want or need to get a wavier of the federal 
     law? It makes no sense.
       Senator Cohen said on the Senate floor on October 27:
       ``I do not know of any State that has the same or better 
     [standards] than the Federal ones. But assuming States come 
     forward, as they have not in the past, and raise their 
     standards to those at the Federal level. If they can 
     establish that, and if they can satisfy the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services that they have done that, that does 
     not mean they are free and clear to go forward and then abuse 
     their patients. . . .'' [emphasis supplied]
       Congressional Record, Oct. 27, 1995, S 16044. As Senator 
     Cohen correctly points out, states could meet the Roth 
     Amendment test only by raising their standards to the level 
     of current federal standards. Therefore, the waiver provision 
     makes no sense.
       Moreover, a state can always offer more protection to 
     residents than federal law provides, under state licensing 
     authority, and some states do. For example, some states 
     require more extensive training for nurse aides than federal 
     law currently provides.
       2. The Roth Amendment includes no standards for the 
     Secretary to use in considering states' waiver requests. In 
     reality, under the Roth Amendment, states will seek waivers 
     of the federal law when their laws are different from federal 
     law. However, the Roth Amendment includes no standards for 
     the Secretary to use in analyzing a state's law. Does a 
     state's law have to be equally stringent in each and every 
     aspect of federal law? Or will waivers of parts of the law be 
     allowed?
       Current federal law addresses, with respect to standards 
     required of nursing facilities: quality of life, quality 
     assessment and assurance, scope of services and activities 
     under plan of care, resident assessment, provision of 
     services and activities, required training of nurse aides, 
     physician services, clinical records, residents' rights 
     (including free choice, freedom from restraints, privacy, 
     confidentiality, accommodation of needs, grievances, 
     participation in resident and family groups, participation in 
     other activities, examination of survey results, notice of 
     rights and services, rights of incompetent residents, 
     transfer and discharge rights, access and visitation rights, 
     equal access to quality care, admission policy protection of 
     residents' funds), administration and other matters, life 
     safety code, and sanitary and infection control and physical 
     environment. Current federal law also addresses the survey 
     and certification process and enforcement of standards.
       Senator Cohen said on the Senate floor on October 27: ``The 
     amendment clearly indicates that no such waiver is allowed 
     unless the Secretary approves the waiver, and only if each 
     standards is equal to or more stringent than the Federal 
     Standard.'' [emphasis supplied]
       Congressional Record, Oct. 27, 1995, S 16043. The language 
     of the Roth amendment does not state that each state standard 
     must equal each federal standard.
       Moreover, the federal reform law now permits states to use 
     their own laws and systems to enforce nursing home standards 
     if they demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary that 
     their laws are as effective as the remedies specified by the 
     federal law in deterring noncompliance and correcting 
     deficiencies. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1396r(h)(2)(B)(ii). No state has 
     used the process provided by the reform law to request the 
     right to use its own enforcement system since the new system 
     went into place July 1, 1995.
       3. The Roth Amendment offers no process for the Secretary 
     to use in granting state waivers. The Amendment authorizes a 
     120-day ``approval period,'' (Sec. 2137(a)(2)(C)), but does 
     not specify what processes the Secretary must use. For 
     example, there is no provision for notice to the public or 
     for a public hearing on a state's request for a waiver. There 
     is no requirement that the Secretary issue a written 
     determination that a state's law meets the stringency 
     standard and no provision for residents to seek judicial 
     review of the Secretary's decision to grant a waiver.
       4. The Roth Amendment does not specify what happens to a 
     state's request for waiver if the Secretary falls to act 
     within the 120 day approval period. If the Secretary does not 
     act to grant or to deny a waiver request within the 120 day 
     approval period, the Amendment does not say whether the 
     waiver request is deemed approved or deemed denied. If the 
     Secretary receives many waiver requests, he/she may need more 
     than 120 days to decide the requests.
       5. In reality, many states will argue that their laws are 
     equal to or more stringent than federal law. Despite the 
     language of the amendment, which limits waivers to states 
     whose laws are equivalent to or stricter than federal law, 
     many states will argue that their laws meet the standard, 
     regardless of the merits. Many states already routinely make 
     this argument.
       California argued in the summer of 1990 that its law was as 
     good as federal law when it sought an exemption from the law 
     from the Health care Financing Administration and from 
     Congress. California also argued that complying with federal 
     law would cost billions of dollars more than the existing 
     system. HCFA rejected a waiver because it had no authority to 
     waive the federal law and Congress also refused to exempt 
     California from the requirements of federal law. California 
     nevertheless went forward with it defiance of federal law and 
     announced publicly on October 1, 1990, the effective date of 
     the law, that it would not implement federal law. As a 
     result, a statewide class of residents in California sued the 
     state to compel it to implement the federal law. I was and 
     still am, lead attorney for plaintiffs in that litigation. 
     The federal district court ruled in January 1991 that 
     California's law was not the same as federal law and that it 
     offered residents less protection. Finding that residents 
     faced irreparable harm from California's conduct, the court 
     ordered California to implement the entire law immediately. 
     If the reform law had not been in place, with its lack of 
     provision for waiver of federal standards, California 
     residents would not have been protected.
       6. The federal government would lose current authority to 
     enforce standards of care against nursing facilities. Section 
     2137(a)(2)(D), ``No waiver of enforcement,'' begins, ``A 
     state granted a waiver . . . shall be subject to [three 
     categories of penalties].'' This provision addresses solely 
     the authority of the Secretary to impose penalties against 
     states that fail to meet state standards for which they 
     received a waiver. This language does not retain authority in 
     the Secretary to impose penalties against nursing facilities 
     that fail to meet standards.
       Subsection (iii) of 2137(a)(2)(D) does not appear to make 
     sense. Although its purports to give the Secretary 
     enforcement authority under the reform law, the opening 
     language of the section quoted above restricts this federal 
     enforcement authority to actions against states.
       Senator Cohen insisted in his statement on October 27 that 
     ``the Federal Government must continue a central role in 
     monitoring and enforcing nursing home standards.'' 
     Congressional Record, Oct. 27, 1995, S 16043. However, the 
     language of the Roth Amendment does not carry out his intent.
       7. The Secretary's penalty against states for noncompliance 
     is considerably weaker than current federal law. Section 
     2137(b) limits the financial penalty against states to no 
     more than 2% of the federal payment under section 2121(c). 
     Current federal law authorizes the Secretary to withhold all 
     of a state's Medicaid payments if he/she finds that the state 
     plan does not conform to the requirements of the Medicaid law 
     or if a state fails to comply with the law in its 
     administration of the state plan. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1316(a)(1).
       When California announced on October 1, 1990 that it would 
     not implement the nursing home reform law, the Secretary 
     issued a determination that California was not in compliance 
     with federal law. 56 Federal Register 80 (Jan. 2, 1991). All 
     of California's Medicaid money for nursing homes was 
     jeopardized.
       A maximum of a 2% penalty is a considerably weaker federal 
     sanction.
       At the Senate Aging Committee hearing on October 26, the 
     witnesses made clear that there needs to be a federal set of 
     standards that are uniform for everyone, no matter where they 
     live. Waivers for what are fundamental rights for individuals 
     who live in nursing facilities (as witnesses described the 
     law) would be granted or denied in a highly political 
     situation, not on their merits.

[[Page S 16953]]

       Thank you for your efforts on behalf of nursing home 
     residents. The Pryor/Cohen Amendment, No. 2983, offers 
     better, more comprehensive protection to residents than the 
     Roth Amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Toby S. Edelman.

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, they have analyzed this particular issue, I 
think, as well as and as objectively and as fairly as they know how. 
They come down with the bottom line that we do not want to see 
compromised the safety, health, and the quality of life for the nursing 
home residents of the United States of America.
  Mr. President, I see no other Senator seeking recognition. Therefore, 
I yield the remainder of my time, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. PRYOR. 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. PRYOR. Mr. President, I do not think I have requested the yeas 
and nays.
  Therefore, I request the yeas and nays on my motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily lay 
aside the motion to instruct the conferees on the nursing home 
standards.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record as part of this debate, since our time has expired, a 
report.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Reasons Why the Nursing Home Reform Provisions in OBRA '87 Should Be 
                                Repealed

       1. The cost to the Medicare program for the survey and 
     certification of Nursing Homes (skilled nursing facilities) 
     will be approximately one hundred million dollars for the 
     current fiscal year. Combine the national Medicare cost with 
     the one hundred million dollar cost to the Medicaid program 
     to do surveys of Medicaid nursing facilities and you can 
     project a total national savings of two hundred million 
     dollars to Medicare and Medicaid.
       2. The survey, enforcement and certification requirements 
     flowing from OBRA '87 are excessive in scope, difficult to 
     administer and were not pilot tested to demonstrate their 
     applicability. As a result there is gross inconsistency in 
     survey findings and enforcement remedies between individual 
     states and HCFA regions across the country.
       For example, for the 1,676 national surveys competed 
     between July 1, 1995 and September 1, 1995, Michigan found 
     only 1.6% (1 of 61) of facilities surveyed to be in 
     ``substantial compliance'' and not requiring any enforcement 
     remedies. The national percentage of facilities in 
     ``substantial compliance'' for the same period was 32%. 
     Michigan continues to identify 60% of its facilities as 
     providers of ``substandard quality of care'' when utilizing 
     the HCFA definition while the national rate is 18%. These 
     unacceptable variations are largely due to vague statutory 
     requirements that have been implemented without adequate 
     evaluation and training.
       3. Implementation of the enforcement requirements in OBRA 
     '87 has resulted in inappropriate labelling of some providers 
     as providers of ``Substandard Quality of Care'' when the 
     infractions cited are easily correctable. In the meantime, 
     these providers are prohibited for the next two years from 
     having state approval of a nurse aide training program 
     operated in or by that facility.
       4. Administration of the enforcement processes required by 
     OBRA '87 is incredibly complex and cannot be administered by 
     the states without a significant increase in the budget and 
     the number of personnel dedicated to this task. Individual 
     states should be given the opportunity to design and 
     implement a survey and enforcement program that make sense, 
     are affordable and can be administered by that state.
       5. States have existed state licensure and enforcement laws 
     and regulations. They should be given a chance to use this 
     authority. In the past there was a disincentive to do so 
     since Medicare and Medicaid regulations took precedence since 
     they controlled funding to the facility. States would welcome 
     the opportunity to design their own programs--probably 
     incorporating some of the positive elements of OBRA '87 but 
     leaving out those components that have not worked.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.


                      motion to instruct--medicare

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk and ask 
that it be stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:


 motion to instruct budget conferees of H.R. 2491, offered by senator 
                              rockefeller

       I move to instruct the conferees on the part of the Senate 
     not to agree to any reductions in Medicare beyond the $89 
     billion needed to maintain the solvency of the Medicare Trust 
     Fund through the year 2006, and to reduce tax breaks for 
     upper-income taxpayers and corporations by the amount 
     necessary to ensure deficit neutrality.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, we have come to one of those days, I 
think, in the Senate and in this Congress which is pretty definitional. 
I think, based upon some town meetings that I held yesterday in West 
Virginia in very rural counties, people are really looking at the 
Congress today to find out what we are made of and whether or not we 
can govern. I think there is a suspicion that we cannot, but there is a 
hope that we will. The day that that will be determined will be, I 
suppose, today and tomorrow, but basically today, up until midnight.
  Mr. President, the reason that I have offered this motion, which the 
clerk just read, is to, in fact, do a favor for every Senator and to 
give every Senator an additional chance to defend what is probably the 
most popular program in this country--and that is Medicare--and to 
protect that program from robbery that can, in fact, still be stopped. 
But, at the moment, it is not being stopped and, therefore, 37 million 
Americans are in jeopardy.
  The motion, as the clerk read it, gives very precise instructions to 
the conferees of this reconciliation bill, who are in fact still trying 
to figure out what to do. If a Senator, at a later hour, is to vote for 
this motion, the Senator will be telling the conferees that Medicare--
again, probably the most popular program in the country--should only be 
cut to ensure that Medicare's solvency, the trust fund's solvency, is 
ensured through 2006.
  Now, there is no reason to ensure solvency longer than that period 
because, in fact, there has to be a longer term solution made, in any 
event, and that, I hope--and I know the majority leader hopes, and I 
know the ranking member of the Finance Committee hopes--that will be 
done by some kind of a commission which will be sort of a binding 
commission, a Base Closing Commission, wherein hard decisions will be 
made about the future of Medicare, how it is to be paid for, what it is 
to offer, et cetera, and that will be remanded back, so to speak, to 
the Congress, who will vote that up or down, and the President will 
sign it.
  My feeling would be, of course, that the Congress would vote for the 
bill, as they did the Social Security Commission, because it would be 
carefully thought through by a group of experts, and that is the longer 
term solution. But that is for another day.
  For the moment, we have to figure out how can we get from here to the 
year 2006 and keep Medicare solvent. The trustees of the Medicare 
hospital insurance trust fund have made it very clear in public 
statements, private statements, writings, official statements, 
unofficial statements, and in any statement they have ever made about 
this, that all of the problems of Medicare part A can be solved by 
means of an $89 billion cut. Of course, that is $181 billion less than 
the excessive and, I think, dangerous, and certainly unnecessary, cut 
of $270 million, which was put forward by the two versions of the 
Republican budgets now passed by the Senate and the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. President, $270 billion of Republican cuts get you to the year 
2006 for solvency, and $89 billion of Democratic cuts get you to the 
year 2006 for solvency.
  At some point, one has to ask the logical question: How come if both 
get you to the same place for solvency, even give or take a year, why 
is there such a difference? Why is there a $181 billion difference in 
what the Democrats are suggesting--this is what the trustees suggested 
to us--and what the Republicans are suggesting? 

[[Page S 16954]]

  This motion is a final chance to go on record for the survival and 
the solvency of Medicare. I repeat, a final chance. It really is. Every 
Republican Senator can take advantage in a sense of this 1-day special 
opportunity. If you want to make it clear that you do not want Medicare 
to wither on the vine, this is definitely the vote for you.
  These are not political words, in fact. The words could not be more 
clear. They could not be more precise. Mr. President, $89 billion does 
the job. Anything else is for some other purpose. Mr. President, $89 
billion in cuts give Medicare solvency for the short and medium term. 
Anything else above that is for some other purpose.
  The trustees of the Medicare trust fund have said in print and in 
every other way that $89 billion of savings is precisely the amount 
needed to ensure Medicare solvency until that magic year of the year 
2006. The problem for the Republican budget is that it needs a lot more 
money than $89 billion in cuts of Medicare.
  I am trying to say this as objectively as I can. It really does need 
more money. If there were $89 billion in cuts made out of Medicare, a 
major function of the Republican budget would fall on its face. I have 
a very strong suspicion, as do most of my colleagues on this side of 
the aisle and surely some on the other side of the aisle, that the 
reason for $270 billion of cuts in Medicare and the reason, in fact, 
for $187 billion or $182 billion in cuts in Medicaid adding to $450 
billion, to give ample savings or cuts so that the $245 billion tax 
break can be paid for.
  There are not many places in the Federal Government that you can go 
for money anymore. You cannot go to the Defense Department. We made 
about as many cuts as we can make there. You cannot go elsewhere--to 
the National Endowment for the Arts. You cannot go to AmeriCorps; that 
is being abolished. You really have to go to Medicare and Medicaid.
  If the proposition that people want to have a tax break for certain 
people and certain corporations, then, obviously, at the exact same 
moment as 7 years is being used to reduce the budget deficit to zero or 
purportedly to zero--there is discussion about that--you have to get a 
very large amount of money from some other source. Of course, that 
source, the largest of all of those sources, and the most tempting 
target, is Medicare. That is exactly where the Republicans go.
  They do that, as I indicate, to pay for tax breaks that are listed 
one after another after another, promising special dividends galore for 
people who are already wealthy, and corporations that want to pay less 
are willing to make working families pay more.
  Now, I do not agree with that philosophy. This is a democratic 
society, a democratic body. The Republicans control the Senate. The 
Republicans control the House. They have made their decision. This is 
what they want to do.
  Let it be clear that raiding Medicare is not reform. The last time I 
spoke on this subject, I had a Webster's dictionary and I looked up 
``reform'' in that dictionary. Once again, I refer to that because the 
record of definition of ``reform'' is ``to put or change into an 
improved form or condition.'' That is how Webster defines reform: to 
put or change into an improved form or condition.
  Cutting $270 billion, $181 billion in excess of what is necessary, is 
certainly not putting or changing Medicare into an improved form or 
condition. Not only that, it is making decisions about Medicare which 
should not be made now, which should be made in the context of the 
longer term, which is the idea of the commission.
  Often Republicans say, ``Well, Democrats are afraid to means test.'' 
I do not think that is the case. I think Democrats are not afraid to 
means test. In this case, this Senator would not be afraid to means 
test. I would be very much afraid to means test in the absence of any 
other consideration of what is going on in Medicare. I want to look at 
means testing in the broad spectrum of a larger commission, which is 
what I think that President Clinton would do, perhaps within a year or, 
if he is reelected, within 2 years. Then call together 30 experts, as 
he did for the Greenspan commission, and sit down and discuss Medicare 
behind closed doors, with the public involved through consumers and 
seniors, experts, actuaries, and everybody else.
  When you want to, as Webster says, ``to put or change into an 
improved form or condition,'' you want to make sure you are doing the 
right thing with something that means so much to senior citizens and to 
some disabled, as does Medicare.
  So, $270 billion is not going to put Medicare into better form. It 
will put it into far worse form, a much worse condition. I think that 
is axiomatic. The numbers would simply say that. We do not have to wait 
and see. I do not want to wait and see right now what that means.
  The reconciliation bill lays out how to get $270 billion out of 
Medicare in various cold print. The majority party has said premiums 
and deductibles for seniors shall be doubled. Nothing hidden. The 
seniors I was with yesterday, their premiums will be doubled. Their 
deductibles will be doubled. Hospitals will get less. Rural hospitals--
I was in a county yesterday in which one of the rural hospitals had 
just closed, gone bankrupt. I am trying to figure out a way to save it. 
In the meantime, their costs, were they open, would go up, which makes 
it, of course, more difficult to open. Doctors will get less from 
Medicare.
  What is interesting is that some doctors have told us for the record 
that they are just not going to take older Americans as patients any 
longer. They are not going to accept them as patients. There will be a 
little sign on their shingle which says Dr. So and So, ``Medicare 
patients, not accepted.'' They have said that to us, Mr. President. I 
do not create that.
  If all the cutbacks and price increases for seniors could not 
generate $270 billion, then there is some automatic chain saw which no 
longer exists in the Senate budget which does in some other draconian 
form exist in the House budget, some automatic chain saw will keep on 
cutting Medicare.
  The Senate had a very infamous section to it called ``BELT,'' to whip 
out, to rip-off, so to speak, and then to take Medicare and cut it 
blindly. In other words, if Medicare grew faster--everybody knew 
Medicare definitely was going to grow faster. They set in this BELT 
program a very low growth possibility so obviously Medicare would fail 
the test, BELT would be put into effect, and then a whole series of 
cuts would then be put into effect in a whole series of services so 
they could no longer be offered to Medicare patients.

  I think the minority embarrassed the majority in this body to take 
that out. I am glad. I congratulate the majority party for doing that 
because I think it was wise to do. But that has not happened in the 
House, where it is very hard to embarrass the majority party. The 
minority party is not very good at it over there. They do not have the 
numbers to do it.
  In any event, as far as we know, it stays there, a BELT-like 
instrument, which is a meat ax, and that will just make the problem of 
seniors and paying for Medicare much, much, much, much worse. We offer 
this motion to instruct conferees to give Senators another chance to 
fix this budget--again; to get the priorities straight--again. 
Balancing the budget does not mean, I do not think, by definition, 
destroying Medicare, hurting Medicare, spending huge sums on new tax 
breaks and increasing the debt over the next 7 years. It means 
protecting Medicare's solvency with the $89 billion. It means limiting 
tax relief to what we can afford.
  Notice I am not saying abolish tax relief altogether, but simply 
limiting it to what we can truly afford. And then limiting it to those 
who can use it the best, who either need it the most or can use it the 
most productively, in terms of jobs, in terms of giving people a better 
opportunity, a life. Of course, it means using some common fiscal 
sense. That is the kind of budget we should be working together to pass 
in this body.
  I urge every Senator to vote for this motion. I am not sure that 
every Senator will, but I urge every Senator to do that. It is a bonus 
vote. Yes, it is our final--and yes it is a desperate--act, to try to 
convince Senators on the Republican side to protect Medicare and not 
sacrifice Medicare at this very early stage on the alter of budget 
deficit reduction for the purpose of a tax break. 

[[Page S 16955]]

  Let us remember why Americans of all ages feel so strongly about 
Medicare. It is one of the country's proudest achievements. It enables 
every American to count on dignity and decency when they retire and get 
older. It tells families fortunate enough to have parents and 
grandparents who grow old that they will not have to make the terrible 
choice between buying a house or sending a child to college and paying 
the health bill of a mother, father, grandmother or grandfather, as 
they get into their seventies and eighties or beyond that.
  The Members of this body on both sides of the aisle should always 
have courage to change course when the signs are obvious that it is 
time to go down a different road. We are at, now, such a time. This 
motion is a genuine effort to give Senators a chance to do just that. I 
do not know of any other way to appeal to the conscience of the 
majority in the Senate than by this motion to instruct the conferees. 
We have exhausted every other opportunity. We cannot vote on bills 
anymore. All we can do is to make a motion to instruct the conferees to 
consider what it is we have been trying to say. There is nothing else 
left to us, so we do what we possibly can to protect seniors.
  The plan to use Medicare to pay for other agendas is just not 
working. The public is not buying it. It is going over like a lead 
balloon out there on Main Street and in the coffee shops and living 
rooms and senior centers where cutting $270 billion from Medicare is 
understood very clearly.
  Again, I was at two town meetings yesterday in my State, in 
relatively rural counties. The people understand, there, the seniors 
understand, there, very well, exactly what has happened. They did not 
need to get a lecture from me on it. They understood it. That message 
has really gotten through. It is really hurting.
  If I were a member of the majority party in this body I would hear 
that message loud and clear. I would be somewhat afraid of that 
message. But most important, I would respect that message because it is 
a message which is coming directly from people who are affected by it 
and they do understand it. They understand it very clearly. The 
American people are really paying attention to this part of our debate 
over priorities.
  A lot of the rest may go by, but this part they are paying close 
attention to. They are tuned in and they are turned off and they are 
angry and they are scared. Not by the minority, but by the fact that 
their premiums and deductibles will get doubled; that they may be 
turned away by hospitals or doctors; that hospitals will lose money. 
Hospitals will not turn them away--but they are scared of the idea of 
$270 billion in Medicare cuts. And they have every reason to be scared 
about that, because the $270 billion in cuts are not needed, they are 
not called for. They have another agenda.
  Before Medicare was enacted, just under half of America's elderly had 
no health insurance--over half had no health insurance, in fact, 
whatsoever. Can you imagine that? To be 80 years old and have no health 
insurance? What would that mean to a lady or a man, perhaps living by 
themselves, to have no health insurance? Today, 97 percent of America's 
seniors do have health insurance, thanks to Medicare. And that includes 
330,115 older and disabled citizens in my State of West Virginia. I 
happen to care about them. I want to see the right thing done by them. 
The right thing can still be done by them, for them, by us.
  Nationwide, these are Americans whose average income is $17,750, 
which is not very much money. Not so in West Virginia. In West Virginia 
the average income for seniors is $10,700 a year, of which already one-
fifth is being spent on health care. So think about what an $11 premium 
increase per month would mean? In other words, if you start out with 
$10,700 and then already 21 percent is being spent for health care, so 
that is more than $2,000. And then you have to add on another $1,000 
just for the premium. You come very quickly to the point where these 
folks, who are real people--you know they are real people, they come 
out in the cold to meetings in West Virginia and other States, and meet 
with us. They are afraid. I did not tell them to be afraid. They are 
afraid. They arrive at the meetings afraid. That is why they came to 
the meeting, because they are afraid and they want to know is there 
going to be a change in this policy?
  They want to stay healthy. They want to stay alive. They do not even 
get prescription drugs, do they, under Medicare? They do not even get 
prescription drug coverage; or home care, which is what we all want. 
They cannot get that under Medicare. But certain things they can get 
and they really do want them.
  If I could be very blunt about it, Medicare, I think, is on the short 
list of America's all-time great accomplishments as a Nation. I think 
it belongs on the list that includes winning the American revolution, 
breaking off with the British, in other words, and starting the world's 
greatest democracy; establishing Social Security; stopping Hitler and 
ending the Asia part of the Second World War; sending a man to the 
Moon. I put Medicare in a league with those. We had hundreds of 
thousands of soldiers killed in the Second World War. We have hundreds 
of thousands of seniors who live, dependent, upon Medicare in West 
Virginia, and 37 million across the country each and every year, except 
that the number gets larger.

  Medicare should not be treated like the bank standing there on the 
corner to be robbed so the money can be just handed out to the most 
wealthy, even though some of the intentions might be good. Before the 
conferees finish their work, this motion is a chance to give up on an 
idea that is making Americans mad. And it is not just senior Americans.
  At town meetings I have gone to over recent months--and the one I was 
at yesterday--it is not just the seniors that are mad. It is all of 
those folks that turn out in those rural counties that are mad. They 
are angry that this is happening--happening in a sense without their 
knowledge. The knowledge has gotten through because of the press after 
its usual preoccupation with trying to figure out not the substance of 
the issue but who wins and who loses. Are the Republicans up? Are the 
Democrats down? What is Clinton going to do? What is he not going to do 
in the offer to the President today? That is what it always is. That is 
what these people have to get. It is political warfare. It has nothing 
to do with their lives. That is for the most part what the media out 
there covers. So it is hard for them to get the point, but they are 
informed on this issue.
  So, again, before the conferees finish their work, this motion is a 
chance to give up on the idea that is making Americans so mad and is 
forcing the budget process to remain divided and contentious--in some 
ways is forcing a constitutional crisis. I will get to that in a 
moment. The Senators on this side have absolutely no choice, Mr. 
President--no choice.
  We have exhausted our remedies. There is nothing more we can do. We 
are in the minority trying to fight for Medicare. But we have exhausted 
our remedies except for something called a motion to instruct 
conferees, which probably will not pass, but I hope it does. I hope it 
does because it is in the interest of everybody in this body and 
certainly in the interest of senior Americans.
  The President has absolutely no choice but to promise the veto pen. 
We were elected to stand for what we think this country stands for. 
That includes the idea of health, income security through Medicare, 
through Medicaid, and through Social Security--all of these things--
when you have finally finished your working years and you reach your 
later years.
  I know the people of West Virginia expect me to keep fighting for 
Medicare. They told me that yesterday. Go back there and fight. Go back 
there and fight. That was their instruction. They understand that 
balancing the budget does not mean using Medicare as some kind of a 
fund for giveaways. It means using Medicare for Medicare.
  The Senate can agree on a budget that will eliminate the deficit, but 
only when we first agree that Medicare should still be standing the day 
that vital goal is reached.
  Mr. President, I voted for a balanced budget in 7 years. It was not 
the one that prevailed. It was another one. But 

[[Page S 16956]]
it balances the budget in 7 years. I am for that.
  So I do not offer this as some kind of an evasive mechanism. I offer 
it with the deepest sincerity, with a real sense of fear for what is 
going to happen to our seniors, and potentially to our country.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion to protect Medicare 
and the millions of seniors who should hear from us that their security 
is not being traded away.
  Let me also just make a comment at this point. If I might ask how 
much time is remaining to this Senator?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith). The Senator has 11 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, let me also comment on the issue that 
fills the morning headlines and the news stories--as well it should--
that relates directly to Medicare and the 37 million senior citizens 
who count on Medicare. We all know too well that some are not acting as 
if it is not going to happen. But, you know, it is right on the 
threshold. We are right on the brink.
  The Federal Government may shut down within 24 hours. That may be a 
thought that pleases a lot of people, but if you are trying to land an 
airplane and you are trying to make sure that you can get a passport to 
come back from Europe to this country, or whatever, this is a very, 
very grave subject. This has not happened, I think, since perhaps in 
the year 1990. And there is some thought that, if this happens, this 
time it will last longer. The last time it cost the American taxpayers 
$1.7 billion. Heavens only know what it will cost this time. But here 
we are.
  Is the Government going to shut down in 24 hours? Beyond that, the 
United States' fiscal integrity is on the line as it has never been on 
the line before.
  When Robert Rubin talks, it is interesting. He is not just sort of 
talking like the Secretary of the Treasury, so to speak. He is scared. 
He is afraid of what is going to happen.
  Why are we in peril? Why is our integrity in peril? Because our debt 
ceiling limit may not be extended in time. Why? Because the party, to 
be quite honest about it, Mr. President, that sought control of this 
Congress, that asked for the votes to be able to control this 
Congress--and has those votes and does control this Congress easily--
needed to be the majority party. You are. I would say to the Presiding 
Officer, you all are in charge. And the majority party now refuses to 
take care of one of the most basic responsibilities involved in 
Government.
  The Republican leaders are actually refusing to allow two basic 
measures--the continuing resolution and the debt ceiling extension--to 
travel from Congress to the President without a bunch of unnecessary, 
inappropriate, frankly some just silly baggage loaded onto these two 
monumental bills because of what can happen.
  It would be one thing if the majority would claim that they have 
completed their own promised work on the budget and a series of 
appropriations bills. But they have not. They are still negotiating the 
reconciliation bill in some room somewhere to figure out amongst 
themselves just exactly how they plan to cut Medicare by $270 billion. 
That is going on right now. And then to dole most of that money out 
through tax breaks.
  The Republican majority still needs to finish their own work on the 
budget, and we are 24 hours from shutting down the Government. Shutting 
down the Government is like shutting down the people, in certain 
respects--not in all respects, but shutting down the work of the people 
and what the people need to have done.
  So, for some reason, even though any teacher would give the 
Republicans an ``incomplete'' today on their promise to produce a 7-
year budget plan, we find the majority party playing with fire and 
endangering the country in ways that can be and have to be avoided.
  Take the continuing resolution. That is the basic piece of 
legislation to keep the Federal Government operating so national parks 
stay open, passports get approved, checks go out. The list goes on and 
on and on. Of all possible pieces of baggage that the majority party 
could attach to this bill, never, ever, ever, never, ever, ever, did I 
think that they would take a premium increase in Medicare, a premium 
increase for Medicare beneficiaries and make it as their top priority--
to say to the President of the United States, ``You take this premium 
increase, Mr. President, or we will shut down the Government.'' Take 
this premium increase on 37 million seniors in this country or we will 
shut down the Government.
  We used to do that kind of stuff at camp except we did not run the 
Government. But that is the kind of stuff we used to do at camp, I say 
to my friend from Arkansas. The Republican leaders are actually 
demanding that the President swallow an increase in Medicare premiums 
in order to keep the Government running. The Government is meant to be 
serious stuff. The premium increase or whatever is going to happen, 
that comes in the commission stage later on. That should not be the 
issue now. The issue now should be to make Medicare solvent. I say to 
the President, do not swallow this ridiculous demand and do not give in 
to it. Do not do that to our country. Do not do that to your office. Do 
not humble your office in that manner, by agreeing to this Republican 
demand to hurt seniors as a tradeoff to keep the Government running.
  More than three-quarters of all Americans on Medicare have yearly 
incomes of less than $25,000 a year, and as I have said, in my home 
State of West Virginia--and I daresay in the home State of the Senator 
from Arkansas it is not much more than what it is in West Virginia--the 
average annual income for Medicare beneficiaries is $10,700 a year--not 
$25,000, not $17,000, $10,700 a year, and $2,000 plus already of that 
goes to health care. So that leaves them $8,000 for the rest of the 
year for everything else. And now we are going to add $150 or whatever 
of new premiums--and that is just part of doubling Medicare copays and 
deductibles as is contemplated in the rest of the majority party's 
budget plan.
  The specific Medicare premium increase that the Republican leaders 
are demanding would cost our seniors an extra $11 a month. That means 
their premium would go from $42.50 to $53.50 a month. Maybe the upper-
income Americans in this body and some others of the upper-income 
Americans who are counting on a tax cut in the Republican budget bill 
will not notice the $11 increase in their premium insurance, but I 
guarantee you every last senior that I saw yesterday in town meetings--
that I have seen during the course of these years--will feel it and 
will have to make choices as a result of it. An extra $11 a month in 
cost just might mean skipping a couple more meals at the end of the 
month.
  Just talk, you say. No, it is not. It just is not. That is how fine 
the margin is for them. Or not being able to pick up one's heart 
medicine or coming up short when it is time to pay for the heating 
bill.
  That is why the President cannot in this Senator's judgment and will 
not in this Senator's judgment and should not even consider the idea of 
being pushed by Republicans to raise Medicare premiums even before they 
have finished their budget.
  Today is the day that the Republicans should give up trying to use 
Medicare and 37 million seniors and disabled Americans as pawns. This 
is that day. It is a ploy that is not working. It is a ploy which is 
not good. I think most Republicans probably recognize that at this 
point.
  Mr. President, I close simply by saying that what I am doing is 
begging my colleagues to walk away from this Medicare premium change at 
this point. Do not make the President veto it because of something like 
that. Let us try to do this properly and rationally.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield my remaining time to the 
Senator from Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time remaining under the control of the 
Senator from West Virginia has expired.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be 
allowed 2 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  I thank my colleague from West Virginia. His statement was eloquent. 
It 

[[Page S 16957]]
was delivered with compassion and force as always, and I applaud him 
for his commitment to this cause.
  The Senator from West Virginia has brought up a most telling point 
which brings us to the brink of the so-called closing down of the 
Government, which does not have to happen. The Medicare issue that is 
today in the reconciliation bill is also the issue--that is, 
threatening to bring down the Government--that the Republicans have put 
into the concurrent resolution. It is the same issue. It should not be 
debated in the continuing resolution. It should be debated in the 
reconciliation bill, as my colleague and friend from West Virginia 
knows, but there is a reason why there is no debate going on between 
the conferees of the House and Senate, Republicans and Democrats on 
reconciliation. We do not have any conferees. There is no one to confer 
with. And as a result we find the Government is about to close down. We 
hope not. It is not necessary. It is manufactured, this crisis.
  In behalf of the Democratic leader, I would like for the Record to 
indicate that no Democratic Senator would require nor request a vote on 
sending the continuing resolution in its current form to the President. 
We understood and hoped this morning that there would be presented the 
continuing resolution to the Senate. We were not. No Democratic Senator 
voted for the continuing resolution which passed on Thursday, and we 
see no reason to delay the continuing resolution going to the President 
for his disposition.
  I ask for 30 additional seconds, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. PRYOR. Nor do we attempt to slow down this process. We want to 
see this process go forward. We want to prevent this Government closing 
down. It does not have to. It is our understanding on the Democratic 
side of the aisle that Republicans may now seek to amend the continuing 
resolution further and we are now waiting word as to what that 
amendment might be.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank the distinguished manager. 
I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time of the Senator has expired. The 
Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may 
require.
  Let me today respond in part at least to some of the issues that were 
raised by our colleague from West Virginia in presenting his motion to 
instruct conferees. What I would like to begin with is a discussion of 
the numbers themselves.
  The Senator from West Virginia and others on the Democratic side of 
the aisle have contended in recent weeks that if we only reduced the 
growth of Medicare spending by $89 billion, somehow this alone would be 
enough to make the Medicare Program solvent, to preserve and protect 
and strengthen it.
  That is simply not the case. The $89 billion number which has floated 
around here for some time is a number which at least many of us 
consider to be a number in great dispute. Once again, it is a number 
that comes not from the Congressional Budget Office, the office that I 
would assume Members of Congress would look to for accurate 
information, but, rather, comes from the Office of Management and 
Budget.
  We have talked on numerous occasions here on the floor of how, when 
the President was first elected, he came to Congress and said, ``It's 
time to end the games of rosy scenarios and administration politicking 
by using executive branch numbers. Let's all use the same numbers. 
Let's all use the CBO.'' But now when the crisis hits, when the crunch 
time comes, we are back using OMB numbers. And $89 billion simply will 
not get the job done.
  In fact, it is interesting to note, Mr. President, that the President 
himself in his proposals to bring the budget into balance has suggested 
a number in the range of $127 billion as the amount of dollars that 
need to be reduced in Medicare spending over the next few years in 
order to bring the budget into balance. That $127 billion is also an 
OMB number. If it was calculated by the CBO, using the assumptions we 
have made here, it would be much higher. In fact, I think it would be 
closer to $190 billion, using CBO kinds of assumptions, to get the job 
done.
  But the $89 billion proposed by this motion really only covers part 
of Medicare. That is the second thing that needs to be put into 
perspective. That covers part A of the trust fund. Let us look at that 
trust fund. Part A of the trust fund will go into deficit this year for 
the first time in its history. We have heard a lot of talk during the 
debate about the Medicare Program, from the beginning when the 
trustees' report was released, that, in fact, the trustees' report 
should not be taken too seriously. After all, for years and years the 
trustees have prophesied that at some date in the future Medicare part 
A would go bankrupt.
  Now we are hearing a different story. Now maybe there is a need to 
adjust it. I say that $89 billion is not enough. There is a very 
serious need because part A, for the first time, in 1996 will run a 
deficit. And at this point there is no foreseeable stage in the future 
when it will not run on an annual basis deficits that will grow larger 
and larger and larger.
  That is because the structure of the program, the way it is currently 
set up, absolutely guarantees that the deficits in part A will continue 
to grow. It will grow faster, faster, and even faster in about 15 years 
as people in the so-called baby-boom generation reach an age when they 
become consumers of entitlements rather than people providing revenue 
to these trust funds.
  Reductions of $89 billion in spending in Medicare represents business 
as usual, represents the approach that has been taken for too long here 
in the Congress of the United States, the kind of piecemeal, one-step-
at-a-time approach to Medicare that has caused the program to continue 
to run at growth rates that are far greater than what the private 
sector sees in health care provider increases.
  It is time to end that approach and play by the real numbers and time 
to play by the CBO numbers. The $89 billion is a stopgap solution; we 
need a longer solution. We need not only a solution for part A, we need 
to solve the problems of part B, because part B is growing too fast as 
well. That is what we have attempted to do in this budget 
reconciliation package.
  Mr. President, the allusions that have been made suggest that the 
changes we are talking about are ones that are simply designed to cause 
people hardship and difficulty. That is not the case. Let me just 
review for the Congress today some of the changes that are incorporated 
in our reconciliation package.
  First, as was alluded to by the Senator from West Virginia, we intend 
to means test beneficiaries so that upper income citizens are not on 
the same level as those in greater need and, in fact, do pay their fair 
share. It is suggested that before we move in that direction, we should 
have a long-term study and commission or some other form of assessing 
whether or not to move toward the pay-your-fair-share approach. I think 
we should put the commissions out of commission. I think this is an 
approach that is needed now. We do not need to delay in making that 
decision.
  Second, what we have tried to do in our plan is try to provide those 
people who are in the Medicare Program with the right to choose a 
program that is best for them.
  The Senator from West Virginia made a comment or two that I was 
struck by. He talked about how Medicare does not provide for 
pharmaceuticals. It does not provide, as you also know, Mr. President, 
for things like new eyeglasses. That is because we have a one-size-
fits-all Medicare plan. If you are a senior citizen in this country, 
you do not have a choice, you are in Medicare and you only get one 
approach. If you are not, if you are in the younger age category, you 
have a lot of choices.

  What we want to do and one of the ways we intend to bring down the 
growth of Medicare is by giving our seniors the right to choose 
different options. I know seniors who say, ``What I would like is a 
system where I do not have to pay for pharmaceuticals, where we have a 
break on drugs like a lot of private health care plans have.'' We want 
to give seniors that right. We do not want to take away their choices. 
We want to expand them. 

[[Page S 16958]]

  I know seniors who say, ``I would like to have a situation where I 
can get my eyeglasses changed and not have to be hit in the pocketbook 
by the excessive costs of new eyeglass prescriptions.'' We want to give 
them that choice, not diminish their choice; expand it.
  Finally, what we want to do is eliminate the waste and the fraud and 
the mismanagement in the Medicare Program. One of the ways we intend to 
reduce the growth of Medicare is by enforcing tough standards to deal 
with fraud and abuse. Indeed, Mr. President, this Senator offered an 
amendment which was adopted to provide the beneficiaries of Medicare 
with an opportunity to obtain rewards for ferreting out the waste and 
fraud and bringing it to the attention of Federal officials or finding 
ways to make the program run more efficiently.
  There are a lot of ways we can address these problems. Every way does 
not include, as was suggested earlier, simply more hardship for people. 
We are trying to be innovative and broaden the choices for people. And 
what we are trying to do is offer a long-term solution to this problem, 
because it is not going to get better, Mr. President, it is going to 
get worse.
  If you are in Medicare now or if you are approaching Medicare age, we 
are facing insolvency in the Medicare system. And the motion to 
instruct, if it were to be implemented, would not offset that potential 
insolvency because, Mr. President, in just a few years, as the 
entitlement commission indicated just last summer, we are talking about 
a day in this country, if we do not slow the rate of growth of these 
programs, when entitlement spending and spending on the interest on the 
national debt will together consume all of the revenues of Government. 
That would mean no national security, no law enforcement, no spending 
on education, training, highways, or anything else unless we started 
borrowing money at a level that this country's economy could not 
sustain, which means we have to address these problems now, early in 
the process, not much later on. That is what the Republican plan 
intends to do.
  Finally, I would like to just address another point or two with 
regard to the Medicare issue. Today, it is being suggested that the 
lines are clearly drawn, that there is a side that cares about seniors 
and a side that does not. The majority party cares about seniors of 
this country. It was not the majority party that increased the tax on 
the earnings of Social Security beneficiaries. In fact, every Member of 
the majority party voted against those tax hikes in 1993. It was the 
other side who imposed those higher taxes.
  It was not the majority party that just last week wanted to give the 
President the ability to tap into the Social Security trust funds to 
deal with our debt limit. We want to protect those Social Security 
trust funds. And that is why our short-term debt ceiling bill would 
keep those trust funds sacred.
  Finally, it was not the majority party that introduced a balanced 
budget plan that would dramatically change the CPI without any 
consideration of those issues. It was the balanced budget plan offered 
on the other side.
  Mr. President, we see a lot of polls. We see polls that were alluded 
to by the Senator from West Virginia that say, ``Gee, these plans may 
or may not be popular today.'' But, Mr. President, every day the polls 
change. If there is a new TV ad attacking a plan, that will change the 
polls. If there is a story in the newspaper or on the news, that will 
change the polls. We did not come here, Mr. President, to change our 
philosophies, to change our objectives, to change what we were sent 
here to do based on the intermittent polls conducted by various 
pollsters whether for the media or on a partisan basis.
  We came here to fulfill promises that were made. And those promises, 
just so I can bring them back to the foreground, which underlie what we 
are trying to do across the board with this budget, were to, first, end 
the red ink in Washington, 25 years of deficit spending. That is what 
our budget does. It brings the budget into balance. And what does that 
mean? It means lower interest rates. It means the Federal Government 
finally operating the way we have to operate in our families and many 
State and local governments have to operate. That is by spending no 
more than you take in.
  Second, we have an obligation and a promise and a commitment to 
preserve, protect, and strengthen Medicare, not through next year's 
election but into the future. And that is what our plan accomplishes.
  Finally, we have a commitment, a promise, to let people keep more of 
what they earn. We heard a lot of talk about this tax cut already. I do 
not want to get into great detail about it here again today. The motion 
to instruct suggests that somehow we would offset any budget impact of 
this reduction in the change in the rate of growth of Medicare by 
reducing so-called tax breaks for upper income taxpayers and 
corporations.
  Mr. President, the tax cuts that are part of this reconciliation 
package, just to go over them one more time, fall to families, fall to 
small businesses in great degree. Over $140 billion of the $245 
billion--actually a $225 billion net tax cut--is the family tax credit, 
and 83 percent of that, under the current version, goes to families who 
make less than $100,000 a year and over 70 percent to families making 
less than $75,000 a year.
  Another major part of that tax cut is the spousal IRA; another part 
is ending the marriage penalty; another part is to allow family farmers 
and small business people to pass on their assets to their children 
without facing huge Federal taxes at the time somebody passes away.
  The only way we are going to offset the change that would be 
suggested in this motion through tax changes would be to hit families 
and undermine the tax cuts which we have developed for them. That is 
not the way, I think, we should do business, Mr. President.
  So, for all of these reasons, we stand strong, I think, in support of 
the original reconciliation package of the past.
  At this time, I yield such time as we may have remaining to the 
Senator from Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming has 7\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I, of course as all of us, have listened with great 
interest this morning. Medicare is an item in which all of us have a 
great interest.
  I would like, as the Senator from West Virginia indicated, to say to 
the town meeting, Let's take the easy way out. I would like to say, We 
don't really need to make the tough decisions. We can put it off again, 
as we have in the past. I guess it would be easier to fix it through 
the next election rather than through the next generation.
  I do not think that is why we are here. Many of us just came here, 
and we came here with a dedication to make some fundamental changes. We 
came here with some dedication to not continue as we have over the last 
30 years and just fix it so it is easy, just fix it so we can get by 
until the next crisis, but rather really look at making some 
fundamental changes.
  I think there is a concept we all have to consider, and that is, when 
you look at the way things are and you are not happy with them, then 
you have to make some change. You cannot expect to get different 
results by continuing to do the same thing, which is what has gone on 
here for too long.
  We are seeking to make some changes. We are seeking to make a 
philosophical difference, a fundamental difference in direction, and I 
understand there are changes. I happen to believe, and I think the 
majority party believes, we ought to have less Government, it ought to 
be less costly, we ought to balance the budget, we ought to have 
fundamental reform in welfare, we need to strengthen and maintain 
Medicare, Medicaid, we need to have tax reduction--we believe in that.
  I understand there are those who believe more Government is better, 
and that is a legitimate view. I do not share it.
  I am a little concerned, frankly, in the area of public policy where 
we transfer decisions to people, but they have to be based on facts. I 
heard yesterday on the TV how we are raising the Medicare premium. It 
is just not a fact. We now pay 31.5 percent. That is what we will 
continue to pay. It has been that way since 1990. It was raised by a 
Democratic Congress in the Budget Reconciliation Act. That is a fact. 

[[Page S 16959]]
 We are not raising it. It is continuing on where it was as a 
percentage of the cost of that premium.
  A balanced budget, how long has it been? Almost everyone who will get 
up and object to what is happening has been here for these years when 
we have not balanced the budget. Now, I know there are various ways to 
do it, but we do need to change. We talked about the taxes--not 
accurate. We talked about great educational cuts, less than one-tenth 
of 1 percent.
  So, Mr. President, we need to talk about facts if we are going to 
have a participatory Government. The President has not participated in 
this dialog and still does not.
  So, of course, we are talking about a popular program and all of us 
want to maintain it. That is really the issue: How do you best do it.

  Why is it attached? Why is this portion attached? Let me tell you 
why. Because in part A, which it deals with, part A is withheld from 
Social Security and you cannot change the computers as quickly. If you 
waited until after the first of the year to do this, then it would be 
May again before you could change the computers back to 31.5 percent. 
There is a logical reason for it being there. The rest of Medicare is 
not there. This one is there because it is a mechanical process that 
has to be accommodated.
  I, too, come from a rural State. Let me tell you some of the things 
in Medicare that are going to be useful to rural States. The Senator 
from West Virginia talked about hospitals that have been closed. We 
just had one close. It had a utilization of 4 percent. You cannot 
operate that way.
  Under the current law, the Federal Government cannot reimburse for 
hospitals that are not full hospitals. We have a proposition in here to 
redefine hospitals so that a community like that can have an emergency 
room, it can have a stabilizing facility so that you could be there and 
be reimbursed by the Federal Government.
  We have Medicare bonus payments so physicians come to these rural 
areas. We have telemedicine grants, rural emergency access, hospitals 
which I just spoke about. We do something to equalize HMO and Medicare. 
In Florida, they get $650 a month for Medicare. In Wyoming and South 
Dakota, it is $150. That is not fairness, that is not equity.
  These are the kind of changes, if we want to have a strong Medicare 
Program, that have to be made over time. We cannot take the easy way 
out. We cannot just patch it up and see if it can go forward. We have 
to make some changes, and that is what it is all about.
  Only that portion that has to do with this maintaining the 31.5-
percent level is in this proposition that we are talking about, and it 
is in there for a particular reason, a mechanical reason, so that it 
can continue to be.
  So, Mr. President, I suggest to you we need to reach down, we need to 
take a look at the kind of results we want, we need to take a look at 
the fact that under the proposal that is being talked about here, there 
is only stability for about 6 years, when we are talking about going on 
to 2009 when the baby boomers come in. You need to do something before 
that. We do not need to go to another committee. We have been through 
this time and time and time again. We have spent all 2 years on this 
matter--everyone in this body.
  So we know what decisions have to be made. They are tough. Of course, 
they are tough. Decisions are not easy. We are here to be trustees for 
people to make decisions to make things work. We are not here to pass 
it off. We are not here to be easy. We are not here to be able to get 
on TV and make things sound great. We are here to deal with the facts. 
We are here to deal with change. We are here to deal with maintaining 
Medicare so that we have a program for the elderly, and if we want to 
do that, then we have to make a fundamental change.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair indicates to the Senator only 10 
seconds is remaining.
  Mr. THOMAS. My time has expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired on the motion.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, has all time expired on the motion to 
instruct that was offered by the Senator from West Virginia?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I believe under the previous order, it is 
now in order to offer a third motion to instruct conferees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. There are two motions 
pending, the motion to instruct regarding Social Security and the 
motion to instruct regarding health care.


                  Motion to Instruct--Social Security

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham] moves to instruct 
     conferees on H.R. 2491, the Balanced Budget Reconciliation 
     Act of 1995--
       (1) to honor section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 
     1990,
       (2) not to include in the conference report any language 
     that violates this section, and thus
       (3) not to include the $12 billion in Social Security cuts 
     that were included as an offset for on-budget spending in the 
     Finance Committee's amendment.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I control 20 minutes. The Senator from 
South Carolina controls 20 minutes. I defer to the Senator from South 
Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank my distinguished colleague from Florida.
  Mr. President, the reason we make this motion is not simply to obey 
the law, but to understand and appreciate the reasons that we 
overwhelmingly passed this law back in 1990.
  Let me ask unanimous consent at this point to have section 13301 of 
the Budget Act printed in the Record at this time.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      Subtitle C--Social Security

     SEC. 13301. OFF-BUDGET STATUS OF OASDI TRUST FUNDS.

       (a) Exclusion of Social Security From All Budgets.--
     Nothwithstanding any other provision of law, the receipts and 
     disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance 
     Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund 
     shall not be counted as new budget, authority, outlays, and 
     receipts, or deficit or surplus for purposes of--
       (1) the budget of the United States Government as submitted 
     by the President,
       (2) the congressional budget, or
       (3) the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act 
     of 1985.
       (b) Exclusion of Social Security From Congressional 
     Budget.--Section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 is amended by adding at the end the following: ``The 
     concurrent resolution shall not include the outlays and 
     revenue totals of the old age, survivors, and disability 
     insurance program established under title II of the Social 
     Security Act or the related provisions of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 in the surplus or deficit totals 
     required by this subsection or in any other surplus or 
     deficit totals required by this title.''.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this section essentially says, ``thou 
shall not use Social Security trust funds in computing the deficit or 
the debt.''
  We passed this provision back in 1990 after the Budget Committee had 
fully considered the particular problem. What we had been doing was 
obscuring the true size of the deficit, not by reducing it, but by 
moving it. In other words, we would take the surplus in the trust funds 
for Social Security and count them as revenues so that, when balanced 
against the expenditure column, it looked like we had reduced the 
deficit.
  The truth of the matter is that we were only moving the deficit--from 
what we owned the financial markets to what we owned the Social 
Security trust fund. That is why my colleagues on the Budget Committee 
voted overwhelmingly to take the Social Security trust fund off budget 
by a vote of 20-1 on July 10, 1990.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the record of this vote printed in 
the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     Hollings Motion To Report the Social Security Preservation Act

       The Committee agreed to the Hollings motion to report the 
     Social Security Preservation Act by a vote of 20 yeas to 1 
     nay:
       Yeas: Mr. Sasser, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Riegle, 
     Mr. Exon, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Simon, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Wirth, 
     Mr. Fowler, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Robb, Mr. Domenici, Mr. 
     Boschwitz, Mr. Symms, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Kasten, Mr. Nickles, 
     Mr. Bond.

[[Page S 16960]]

       Nays: Mr. Gramm.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Senator Domenici, myself, and the rest of the Senate 
Budget Committee save the Senator from Texas, Senator Gramm, voted that 
trust funds of Social Security not be used in calculating the annual 
deficits or surpluses. Soon thereafter, on October 18, 1990, we had a 
vote in the U.S. Senate and passed the same legislation by a vote of 
98-2.
  I ask unanimous consent that that vote be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Vote on Hollings-Heinz, et al., Amendment Which Excludes the Social 
Security Trust Funds From the Budget Deficit Calculation, Beginning in 
                            Fiscal Year 1991

       Yeas (98)--Democrats: Adams, Akaka, Baucus, Bentsen, Biden, 
     Bingaman, Boren, Bradley, Breaux, Bryan, Bumpers, Burdick, 
     Byrd, Conrad, Cranston, Daschle, DeConcini, Dixon, Dodd, 
     Exon, Ford, Fowler, Glenn, Gore, Graham, Harkin, Heflin, 
     Hollings, Inouye, Johnston, Kennedy, Kerrey, Kerry, Kohl, 
     Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Metzenbaum, Mikulski, 
     Mitchell, Moynihan, Nunn, Pell, Pryor, Reid, Riegle, Robb, 
     Rockefeller, Sanford, Sarbanes, Sasser, Shelby, Simon, Wirth.
       Republicans: Bond, Boschwitz, Burns, Chafee, Coats, 
     Cochran, Cohen, D'Amato, Danforth, Dole, Domenici, 
     Durenberger, Garn, Gorton, Gramm, Grassley, Hatch, Hatfield, 
     Heinz, Helms, Humphrey, Jeffords, Kassebaum, Kasten, Lott, 
     Lugar, Mack, McCain, McClure, McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles, 
     Packwood, Pressler, Roth, Rudman, Simpson, Specter, Stevens, 
     Symms, Thurmond, Warner, Wilson.
       Nays (2)--Republicans: Armstrong, Wallop.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, at that particular time, so there will 
be no misunderstanding, the present leader of the budget in the U.S. 
Senate, the chairman of our committee, Senator Domenici of New Mexico, 
said:

       I support taking Social Security out of the budget deficit 
     calculation. I support the Heinz-Hollings-Moynihan amendment.

  Thereafter, the Senator did have some misgivings, and I want to quote 
him:

       The issues involved with taking Social Security, including 
     interest, out of the budget deficit, are not as simple or 
     painless as they seem, or as the sponsors of this measure 
     have suggested. If we take interest off budget, then we have 
     to come up with more deficit reduction, and that means only 
     one of two things--more taxes or more spending cuts.

  Now, Mr. President, we get right to the meat of the coconut. The real 
fiscal cancer in the Federal Government today is the amount that we 
have to pay annually in interest costs on the national debt. The 
estimate for this fiscal year is $348 billion. We could adopt the GOP 
budget in the next 10 minutes, and we still would not have not cut 
spending. Why? Because spending for our interest costs on the national 
debt are up to a billion dollars a day.
  It gets worse and worse and worse every day, and it will be next to 
impossible to attack this problem if we do not act now. We are 7 years 
and two Presidential elections from the time when Medicare will go into 
the red. We are 25 years away from the time when Social Security 
surpluses will be exhausted. Yet we constantly hear the rhetoric about 
the looming crisis in Social Security and the need to ``protect, 
preserve, and strengthen'' Medicare--all because we do not want to talk 
about the fiscal crisis that we are in this very minute. Why do we 
avoid this reality? Because if we were to talk about it, we might be 
forced to do something about it.
  In order to do something about it, you have to have a balanced 
approach that includes spending cuts as well as revenue increases. Our 
budget history for the last 15 years highlights this reality. When 
Howard Baker was the majority leader, he and I joined in trying to pass 
a budget freeze from 1981 to 1985. We said, ``Take this year's budget 
for next year.'' That would have saved billions of dollars, but alas, 
that road was not travelled.
  Having not succeeded there, I started working with Senator Gramm of 
Texas and Senator Rudman of New Hampshire and said, under Gramm-Rudman-
Hollings, that we would have truth in budgeting. We would not only have 
the freeze, but additional cuts across the board as well. We were on 
course with automatic $37-billion-a-year cuts, in an orderly fashion, 
to give us a balanced budget by 1990.
  In 1986, we expanded our field of vision saying, wait a minute, it is 
not just the Appropriations Committee appropriating and spending more; 
that Finance Committee should be responsible as well in cracking down 
on unnecessary tax breaks. As a result, we had tax reform which 
purported to end corporate welfare.
  By 1987, we met in the Budget Committee and considered other freezes, 
cuts, loophole closings. I remember telling Dick Darman, Director of 
OMB for President Bush, ``Look, unless we grab a hold of this now with 
some kind of taxes, as well as the cuts and freezes and loophole 
closings, we are going to be in desperate circumstances. We are going 
to run up to about $400 billion deficits, the debt growing all along, 
and interest costs growing all along.''
  As a result, eight of us in the Budget Committee voted in a 
bipartisan fashion to increase taxes. You cannot find that type of 
candor anymore around this Capitol, around the White House or anywhere 
else in this city. But, you are not going to get on top of this cancer 
unless you have that kind of surgery. Because, unless revenues are part 
of the solution increase taxes will continue to rise.
  So let me be clear, Mr. President, those who say they are against 
taxes and want to cut spending, and even taxes, are totally off base 
with respect to fiscal responsibility. They know it, you know it, and 
the blooming press knows it, but they will not print it because they 
have joined in the pollster conspiracy. When the question is asked: Are 
you for taxes? The answer invariably is: Oh, I am against taxes. So we 
all jump on the bandwagon. A public servant who comes out for paying a 
bill is portrayed as some fellow for wasteful spending. You cannot get 
any more wasteful than a billion dollars a day in interest costs for 
nothing. It was only $75 billion when Reagan took over. It is now $348 
billion. That is an increase of $273 billion for absolutely nothing.
  So my point is, let us quit obscuring the size of the deficit. Let us 
quit moving the deficit from the general fund over to the Social 
Security.
  My colleague from Florida will talk specifically about the $12 
billion they borrowed from the trust fund when they had to pick up 
votes on the other side of the aisle with the Roth amendment. In 
offsetting their amendment, they used $12 billion that under the law 
should not be used for additional spending but should be credited to 
the Social Security Trust fund. It is the height of what we call smoke 
and mirrors. People sincerely get on the floor and claim, ``We are not 
using smoke and mirrors.'' False. That is exactly what you are doing 
when you use the surpluses in the Social Security trust fund to claim 
that you are balanced and when you backload all of the tough choices.
  Indeed, 50 percent of the proposed cuts under the GOP plan do not 
come until after the Presidential election in the year 2000.
  This year, to be specific, we are trying to cut $45 billion in 
spending under the Republican budget. In the year 2002, Mr. President, 
we will have to slash $347 billion. We cannot get the $45 billion this 
year, much less the $347 necessary in year 7. That is why 10 of the 13 
appropriations bill are not over to the President--because Republicans 
cannot agree on what to cut.
  We have friends on both sides of the aisle who think we ought to do 
more in education, more in technology, in legal services, and right 
down the list.
  Mr. President, we should look at what we have been doing. We have 
been long on sweeping promises to the American people and slow on 
results. In 1981 under President Reagan, the first concurrent budget 
resolution for the fiscal year 1982 predicted a deficit by fiscal year 
1984 of zero. No deficit, a balanced budget.
  I ask unanimous consent to have that page printed in the Record at 
this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Excerpt From First Concurrent Resolution on the Budget--Fiscal Year 
                                  1982

       (4) the amount of the deficit in the budget which is 
     appropriate in the light of economic conditions and all other 
     relevant factors is as follows:
       Fiscal year 1982: $48,800,000,000;
       Fiscal year 1983: $21,400,000,000;
       Fiscal year 1984: $0;
       (b) the appropriate level of the public debt is as follows:

[[Page S 16961]]

       Fiscal year 1982: $1,091,200,000,000;
       Fiscal year 1983: $1,154,300,000,000;
       Fiscal year 1984: $1,197,600,000,000;

     and the amount by which the temporary statutory limit on such 
     debt should be accordingly increased is as follows:
       Fiscal year 1982: $91,400,000,000;
       Fiscal year 1983: $63,100,000,000;
       Fiscal year 1984: $43,300,000,000.
       (b) Based on allocations of the appropriate levels of total 
     new budget authority and of total budget outlays as set forth 
     in paragraphs (2) and (3) of the preceding subsection of this 
     resolution, the Congress hereby determines and declares 
     pursuant to section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974 that, for the fiscal years beginning on October 1, 1981, 
     October 1, 1982, and October 1, 1983, the appropriate level

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Then in 1985--we need not put that in; everyone knows 
that Gramm-Rudman-Hollings was a 5-year path to a balanced budget.
  They talk about fiscal responsibility. I will show them the TV where 
I got the Good Government Award for ending deficits for all time from 
President Ronald Wilson Reagan.
  By 1990, we got together--and please, my gracious, put this in the 
Record, please. I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution 
on the budget for the year 1991 be printed at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   Excerpt From Concurrent Resolution on the Budget--Fiscal Year 1991

       (3) The appropriate levels of total budget outlays are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1991: $1,002,300,000,000;
       Fiscal year 1992: $1,024,800,000,000;
       Fiscal year 1993: $1,049,900,000,000;
       Fiscal year 1994: $1,059,900,000,000;
       Fiscal year 1995: $1,080,900,000,000.
       (4)(A) The amounts of the deficits are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1991: $143,700,000,000;
       Fiscal year 1992: $100,900,000,000;
       Fiscal year 1993: $62,000,000,000;
       Fiscal year 1994: $14,700,000,000.
       (B) The amount of the surplus is as follows:
       Fiscal year 1995: $20,500,000,000.
       (5) The appropriate levels of the public debt are as 
     follows:
       Fiscal year 1991: $3,369,600,000,000;
       Fiscal year 1992: $3,540,900,000,000;
       Fiscal year 1993: $3,676,700,000,000;
       Fiscal year 1994: $3,766,900,000,000;
       Fiscal year 1995: $3,827,600,000,000.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. The record I read--and everybody should fall down dead 
from shock--``The amount of surplus is as follows: Fiscal year 1995, 
$20.5 billion.'' That was at the end of September, a month before last. 
We are supposed to have a $20.5 billion surplus. Instead we have a 
$283.3 billion deficit.
  Here we go again, balanced budget promised in 1981. Balanced budget 
promised in 1985. Surplus promised in 1990. Now they come, with a 7-
year promise that gets by two Presidential elections, and relies on 
completely unrealistic cuts.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the particular chart entitled ``Here We Go Again'' that gives the true 
facts.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                          ``Here We Go Again''

                    (By Senator Ernest F. Hollings)

       Starting in 1995 with:
       (a) A deficit of $283.3 billion for 1995:

1995:                                                     (In billions)
  Outlays........................................................$1,530
  Trust funds.....................................................121.9
  Unified deficit.................................................161.4
  Real deficit...................................................-283.3
  Gross interest..................................................336.0

       (b) And a debt of $4,927 billion.
       How do you balance the budget by:
       (a) Increasing spending over revenues $1,801 billion over 
     seven years?

           GOP ``SOLID'', ``NO SMOKE AND MIRRORS'' BUDGET PLAN          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      CBO     Cumulative
                 Year                     CBO      revenues    deficits 
                                        outlays   (billions)  (billions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996.................................     $1,583      $1,355       -$228
1997.................................      1,624       1,419        -205
1998.................................      1,663       1,478        -185
1999.................................      1,718       1,549        -169
2000.................................      1,779       1,622        -157
2001.................................      1,819       1,701        -118
2002.................................      1,874       1,884         +10
                                      ----------------------------------
      Total..........................     12,060      11,008      -1,052
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (b) And increasing the national debt from $4,927.0 billion 
     to $6,728.0 billion?

                                  DEBT                                  
                       [*off CBO's April baseline]                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   National    Interest 
                                                     debt        costs  
                                                  (billions)  (billions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995............................................    $4,927.0      $336.0
1996............................................     5,261.7       369.9
1997............................................     5,551.4       381.6
1998............................................     5,821.6       390.9
1999............................................     6,081.1       404.0
2000............................................     6,331.3       416.1
2001............................................     6,575.9       426.8
2002............................................     6,728.0       436.0
                                                 -----------------------
      Increase 1995-2002........................     1,801.0       100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     1996        2002   
                                                  (billions)  (billions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debt includes:                                                          
                                                                        
  (1) Owed to the Trust Funds...................    $1,361.8    $2,355.7
  (2) Owed to Government Accounts...............        81.9     ( \1\ )
  (3) Owed to Additional Borrowing..............     3,794.3     4,372.7
                                                 -----------------------
      [Note: No ``unified'' debt; just total                            
       debt]....................................     5,238.0     6,728.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Included above.                                                     

       (c) And increasing mandatory spending for interest costs by 
     $100 billion?
       How? You don't.
       (a) 1996 budget: Kasich conference report, p. 3: -$108 
     billion deficit.
       (b) October 20, 1995, CBO letter from June O'Neill: -$105 
     billion deficit.
       You just fabricate a ``paper balance'' by ``smoke and 
     mirrors'' and borrowing more:


                           smoke and mirrors

       (a) Picking up $19 billion by cutting the Consumer Price 
     Index (CPI) by .2%--thereby reducing Social Security benefits 
     and increasing taxes by increasing ``bracket creep''.
       (b) With impossible spending cuts: $270 billion in 
     Medicare, $182 billion in Medicaid, $83 billion in Welfare.
       (c) ``Backloading'' the plan: Promising a cut of $347 
     billion in fiscal year 2002 when a cut of $45 billion this 
     year will never materialize.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Billions          Billions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 CBO baseline budget............  $1,874.................     $1,884
This assumes:.......................  (1) Discretionary             -121
                                       freeze plus                      
                                       discretionary cuts (in           
                                       2002).                           
                                      (2) Entitlement cuts          -226
                                       and interest savings             
                                       (in 2002).                       
[1996 cuts, $45 B]..................  Spending reductions (in       -347
                                       2002).                           
Using Social Security trust fund....  .......................       -115
                                     -----------------------------------
      Total reductions (in 2002)....  .......................       -462
                                     ===================================
+Increased borrowing from tax cut...  .......................        -93
                                     -----------------------------------
      Grand total...................  .......................       -555
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (d) By increasing revenues by decreasing revenues (tax 
     cut)--$245 billion.
       (e) By borrowing and increasing the debt (1995-2002): 
     Includes $636 billion ``embezzlement'' of the Social Security 
     trust fund--$1,801 billion.


                            the real problem

       Not Medicare--in surplus $147 billion--paid for.
       Not Social Security--in surplus $481 billion--paid for.
       But interest costs on the National debt--are now at almost 
     $1 billion a day and are growing faster than any possible 
     spending cuts.
       And both the Republican Congress and Democratic White House 
     as well as the media are afraid to tell the American people 
     the truth: ``A tax increase is necessary.''
       Solution: Spending cuts, spending freezes, tax loophole 
     closings, withholding new programs (Americorps) and a 5 
     percent value added tax allocated to the deficit and the 
     debt.

                                              ``HERE WE GO AGAIN''                                              
                                           [Promised balanced budgets]                                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Reagan.....................  1981 budget............  $0.....................  (by FY 1984)           
President Reagan.....................  1985 GRH budget........  0......................  (by FY 1991)           
President Bush.......................  1990 budget............  +20.5 billion..........  (by FY 1995)           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. HOLLINGS. The unrealistic cuts are completely unrealistic. We cut 
Medicare and Medicaid under President Reagan. We cut Medicare and 
Medicaid under President Bush. We cut $57 billion under President 
Clinton from Medicare. At that time when we could not get a single 
Republican vote in either the House or Senate, we cut Medicare.
  Now, after all of those cuts, Republicans are arguing to reduce 
Medicare by another $270 billion just to give everyone a tax cut and 
reap the political benefit in next year's elections?
  It is a disgrace. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. You cannot 
generate that amount of savings. It will not happen. Nor will you save 
the over $80 billion banked on from welfare reform. You cannot set up a 
jobs program, a training program, a day care center program and 
everything else to put those on welfare to work without spending more 
money. Ask your Governor, because I can assure you, you will be hearing 
from him or her in the coming months. It is totally unrealistic.
  As a final trick, the GOP plan borrows $636 billion from Social 
Security over the next 7 years in order to obscure the size of the 
deficit and say the job is done.
  Added to the over $484 billion that we already owe Social Security, 
we will owe the Social Security trust fund $1 trillion in the year 
2002. It is sordid 

[[Page S 16962]]
gamesmanship, Mr. President. Sordid gamesmanship.
  With this one instruction, Mr. President, we can hopefully sober them 
up. Maybe the media that is supposed to keep us honest can help out a 
bit. I think it was Jefferson who said, if it is between the free 
Government and the free press, I choose the latter.
  Why? You can get a free Government, but you will not hold it along 
unless you have free media. I hope that still holds true for the press 
in Washington, DC. This media crowd is fast asleep. There one exception 
that I have found in a recent USA Today article entitled ``The Balanced 
Budget Myth,''.
  I ask unanimous consent that this editorial be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   [From the USA Today, Nov. 6, 1995]

                        The Balanced-Budget Myth

       Each day, the debate over balancing the budget produces 
     another dire warning. The cuts are too deep! say the 
     Democrats. Taxes must fall! say the Republicans.
       But after they compromise and begin arguing over who won a 
     few weeks from now, one truth will remain: Both sides will be 
     lying, because neither is talking about a truly balanced 
     budget at all.
       The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office underscored 
     that point recently. It pointed out that come 2002, when the 
     budget will be ``balanced'' under Republican plans, the 
     government will still be borrowing more than $100 billion a 
     year. This is done by writing IOUs from the Treasury to 
     Social Security and other trust funds that Congress declares 
     ``off-budget.''
       The bill for this little game won't come due in the 
     political life of President Clinton or much of today's 
     Congress. But the public will pay it soon enough.
       To understand, look, ahead to 2005. That's just 10 years 
     away, about the time it takes for an 11-year-old child to go 
     from grade school through college.
       That year a critical balance tips. Increased costs for 
     Social Security will begin to deplete Congress' cushion. 
     Because the Social Security trust fund is a fiction filled 
     with nothing but government promises to pay, Congress will 
     gradually lose its fudge factor.
       By 2013, when the trust fund peaks, taxpayers will feel a 
     hard bite. They'll have to start doing what the trust fund 
     was supposed to do--pay for the retirement of 75 million baby 
     boomers. The budget will plummet into a sea of red ink, with 
     $760 billion a year deficits by 2030. By then the government 
     will have to double the current 12.4% employer-employee 
     payroll tax to cover Social Security obligations.
       That's unaffordable. Yet, neither President Clinton nor 
     leaders of either party in Congress acknowledge reform is 
     needed to avert economic catastrophe. To do so would require 
     Republicans to get off their tax-cut bandwagon and democrats 
     to accept deeper spending cuts. Both prefer the myths that a 
     budget borrowing from Social Security is balanced and a trust 
     fund filled with IOUs to be paid by today's 11-year-olds has 
     value.
       Those are frauds only fundamental reform can fix.
       The leaders of Clinton's commission on entitlements--Sen. 
     Robert Kerrey, D-Neb., and former Sen. John Danforth, R-Mo.--
     last year recommended raising the retirement age to 70 and 
     converting a portion of the current payroll tax into a 
     mandated personal retirement account. The Concord Coalition, 
     a deficit watchdog, has called for cutting benefits to upper-
     income retirees. Other proposals include taxing all income 
     for Social Security and subjecting all benefits to normal 
     income taxation.
       Which measures are best? Only a thorough debate of the 
     various measures can decide. But first political leaders must 
     give up their convenient budget myths and face the fact--a 
     Social Security train wreck is coming, and sooner than they 
     think.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. ``Both sides will be lying,'' it says. ``After the 
compromise,'' and again arguing over who won a few weeks from now, 
``one truth will remain. Both sides will be lying because neither is 
talking about a truly balanced budget.''
  Once again, Mr. President, we have lied to the American people. In 
this context, I just hope the media will wake up and start reporting 
it. The real deficit had to be reported by Chairman Kasich in the 
conference report. He reported $108 billion deficit.
  June O'Neill, in a letter on October 20--and I ask unanimous consent 
to have the letter printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                      Congressional Budget Office,


                                                U.S. Congress,

                                 Washington, DC, October 20, 1995.
     Hon. Kent Conrad,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: Pursuant to Section 205(a) of the budget 
     resolution for fiscal year 1996 (H. Con. Res. 67), the 
     Congressional Budget Office provided the Chairman of the 
     Senate Budget Committee on October 18 with a projection of 
     the budget deficits or surpluses that would result from 
     enactment of the reconciliation legislation submitted to the 
     Budget Committee. As specified in section 205(a), CBO 
     provided projections (using the economic and technical 
     assumptions underlying the budget resolution and assuming the 
     level of discretionary spending specified in that resolution) 
     of the deficit or surplus of the total budget--that is, the 
     deficit or surplus resulting from all budgetary transactions 
     of the federal government, including Social Security and 
     Postal Service spending and receipts that are designated as 
     off-budget transactions. As stated in the letter to Chairman 
     Dominici, CBO projected that there will be a total-budget 
     surplus of $10 billion in 2002. Excluding an estimated off-
     budget surplus of $115 billion in 2002 from the calculation, 
     CBO would project an on-budget deficit of $105 billion in 
     2002. (The letter you received yesterday incorrectly stated 
     these two figures.)
       If you wish further details of this projection, we will be 
     pleased to provide them. The staff contact is Jim Horney, who 
     can be reached at 226-2880.
           Sincerely,
                                                  June E. O'Neill.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. The Director of the CBO, estimates a projected budget 
deficit of $105 billion in 2002.
  We had to write and insist that she follow section 13301 of the 
Budget Act. Two days before, she had said ``Why, heavens above, we have 
a $10 billion surplus.'' Two days later, obeying the law, she found 
$105 billion deficit.
  No wonder in the New York Times Adam Clymer wrote the article here 
about 10 days ago that 81 percent of the American people do not believe 
the budget will be balanced. God bless them for their common sense.
  I yield the floor. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hatch). Who yields time?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I believe under the previous order I have 
20 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida has 20 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I wish to commend my colleague from South 
Carolina, who has been toiling in these vineyards with the goal of 
achieving a balanced budget for many years and has given us the 
background, the historical context in which a very serious event 
occurred on October 27. Let me recall for the Senate what happened that 
night.
  You may remember we had been in session for many hours that day. That 
was the day in which we cast some 40 individual votes. We had been 
waiting to receive the final amendment that would encapsulate a number 
of revisions to the Finance Committee's section of the reconciliation 
bill. After having requested for the better part of 36 hours the 
legislative language of those revisions and the impact which they would 
have, finally, at approximately 6:25 in the evening, we received 
version 1 and, at 9:45, received version 2 of what came to be known as 
the Roth amendment.
  So, just prior to the Senate's final vote on the reconciliation 
legislation, Senator Roth submitted an amendment which adds the 
following components. It modified certain Medicare provisions, it 
changed nursing home standards, and, the most significant provision 
from an economic standpoint, it reallocated the Medicaid funding 
formula.
  Those modifications had a total cost of approximately $13 billion. 
The motion which I have offered goes to the budget offset, which was 
offered in the amendment of Senator Roth, as the basis of paying for 
the modifications in his amendment.
  The amendment of Senator Roth directed that all outlay programs 
within the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee use a cost-of-living 
adjustment rate of 2.6 percent rather than the 3.1 percent cost of 
living, which had been estimated several months earlier in the budget 
resolution.
  Let me quote the language of the amendment by Senator Roth as it 
relates to the methods of paying for the additional spending in his 
amendment.
  ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law''--I say to my 
colleague, Senator Hollings:

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in the case of 
     any program within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
     Finance of the U.S. Senate which is adjusted for any increase 
     in the Consumer Price Index for all urban wage earners and 
     clerical workers 

[[Page S 16963]]
     [CPI-W] for the United States city average for all items, any such 
     adjustment which takes effect during the fiscal year 1996 
     shall be equal to 2.6 percent.

  That amendment raised several questions. One of those questions is 
just exactly what programs is this provision intended to affect. 
Application of the 2.6 percent rate would impact a number of outlay 
programs, including railroad retirement benefits and supplemental 
Social Security income.
  But, by far, the lion's share of the impact would be on one program. 
Mr. President, you guessed it, that program is Social Security. 
Approximately $12 of every $13 affected by this amendment, or $12 
billion of the $13 billion in savings, comes from one program: Social 
Security.
  Some have stated this is not a raid on the Social Security trust 
fund; instead, it merely recognizes the economic reality that the cost-
of-living adjustment will be 2.6 percent rather than the 3.1 percent 
upon which the budget was predicated when we passed the original budget 
resolution last spring. As a result of this lower actual cost of 
living, the Federal Government will pay out less in numerous outlay 
programs, including Social Security.

  At first that seems to be a plausible argument. But like so many 
things, the devil is in the details. And here is what the devil says. 
The devil says that there is no real money being saved by legislating 
at this lower rate. That is why the Congressional Budget Office stated 
that the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and 
Budget do not score savings for a cost of living that would have 
happened anyway under current law.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately after my 
remarks, a memorandum from Mr. Paul Van de Water, Assistant Director of 
the Congressional Budget Office in the Budget Analysis Division, be 
printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. GRAHAM. What Mr. Van de Water said is that the policy of the 
Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget is 
not to score savings when the law would have incorporated those savings 
in any event.
  The reason the Congressional Budget Office historically does not 
score an updated cost-of-living assumption alone, out of the context of 
all of the other economic factors which influence the ultimate Federal 
deficit or surplus--the size of the deficit, the size of the surplus--
is that to do so would create a very dangerous temptation.
  What would that temptation be? The temptation would be for a Member 
of Congress to look at all the factors such as are listed on this chart 
that go into arriving at an overall assessment of the Federal 
Government's fiscal condition. Suppose, for instance, if you focused on 
the issue of inflation and because of the change in inflation rates 
between the time that the original budget resolution was passed until 
the time that the debate was taking place--in this case, on the 27th of 
October--if the movement of inflation had been such that it had 
increased revenues or had suppressed outlays, then we might say, let us 
change the inflation adjustment factor and take the benefit that would 
give us in terms of additional expenditures because of higher revenues 
or additional moneys being available because of we have repressed our 
expenditures.
  But what if the other had occurred? Suppose, in fact, inflation had 
increased and therefore had caused us to have to spend more money on 
things like the national debt and had reduced our revenues because 
higher inflation had resulted in less economic activity? Which Senator 
would come forward then to offer an amendment to say, ``Let us come up 
with some additional spending cuts, let us find a source of taxation in 
order to counterbalance what has happened in the area of inflation''?
  The fact is, there would be very, very few who would do so. So, 
instead, by being able to pick and choose which factors happen to 
benefit the position that one wished to advocate, you would do exactly 
as the Senator from South Carolina has suggested we have been doing for 
the better part of the last two decades, and that is creating the 
smoke, looking into the fraudulent mirror that gives us the false sense 
we are making progress in reducing the deficit but actually contributes 
to higher and higher deficits, higher and higher national debt.
  So, how does the Congressional Budget Office deal with this issue? 
The Congressional Budget Office says they will only revise the baseline 
if they take into account all factors, not just cherry picking those 
that happen to have a beneficial effect. Let me quote, again, from the 
letter from Mr. Van de Water.

       At the request of the budget committees, CBO [the 
     Congressional Budget Office] has from time to time, updated 
     the baseline to reflect recent economic and technical 
     developments. In such circumstances, however, we insist on 
     incorporating all relevant new information, not just selected 
     items such as COLA's [cost-of-living adjustments].

  Did the Roth amendment take into account all economic changes and 
technical developments during the 8 months since the economic baseline 
had been established? You see all the factors that primarily influenced 
that economic baseline.
  Does the amendment take into account the fact that interest rates 
have actually been higher than assumed in the baseline, which results 
in higher outlays? No.
  Does the amendment take into account the fact that the Federal 
Government be required to make an additional $20 billion in payments 
resulting from adverse court decisions in the banking area? No.
  No, the Roth amendment only takes into account a portion of the 
inflation factor--namely, cost of living. Furthermore, the amendment 
only takes into account the cost of living as it relates to outlays 
rather than both outlays and revenues. And, moreover, it relates only 
to certain outlays, those within the Finance Committee's jurisdiction.
  Mr. President, this is the most compelling detail in the devil's 
brew. If we had followed the Congressional Budget Office precedent and 
taken into account all factors, we would not have had a $13 billion 
savings to use to finance these new spending items in the Roth 
amendment. No. In fact, we would not have had any savings at all. The 
economic reality is that the baseline assumptions were too optimistic.
  Let me quote again from Mr. Van de Water's memo.

       In this instance, if we were to include all of the 
     information in our August baseline, plus the actual 1996 cost 
     of living, our estimate of the year 2002 deficit would have 
     been higher, not lower.

  It would have been a higher deficit, Mr. President, not a lower 
deficit.
  An economic update would show a higher deficit, and we count the 
update as saving money. I call it a raid on the Federal accounts. And 
since the Roth legislative language calls for the money to come from 
$12 out of every $13 from the Social Security payments, Mr. Senator 
from South Carolina, I call it a raid on the Social Security trust 
fund.
  Some may argue that this macroanalysis proves too much and that the 
Roth amendment deals only with Finance Committee programs. Let us look 
narrowly and see if there has been a raid, looking only at Finance 
Committee programs.
  The Roth amendment takes into account only outlays impacted by a 
lower 2.6 cost of living. The Social Security fund will spend fewer 
dollars to meet its obligations to the Social Security beneficiaries at 
a 2.6 cost-of-living adjustment. It would have had a 3.1-percent cost-
of-living adjustment. True, but there are other ramifications to that 
lower cost of living. For example, many workers' salaries are tied to 
the same consumer price index that is the basis of our cost of living. 
If those salaries rise by only 2.6 percent rather than 3.1 percent, 
what happens to the payroll taxes withheld from their checks? They will 
be lower than the economic baseline projected, and, as a result, less 
money will flow into the Social Security trust fund.
  Does the Roth amendment take these lower revenues into account? Mr. 
President, sadly, no. It only takes credit for lower outlays and does 
not recognize the effect of lower receipts into the Social Security 
trust fund.
  Just what would be the impact of an updated economic assumption on 
the Social Security trust fund? Outlays are reduced by $18 billion--$12 
billion by the COLA reduction and $6 billion from 

[[Page S 16964]]
other changes. But, Mr. President, revenues are down by $62 billion as 
a result of economic changes such as the lower amount of payroll taxes 
coming into the Social Security trust fund.
  Thus, the net effect to the Social Security trust fund of the $18 
billion of lower outlays but the $62 billion in lower revenue to the 
Social Security trust fund is a decrease of $44 billion in the status 
of the Social Security trust fund over the 7 years from that which had 
originally been estimated under the budget resolution.
  So, Mr. President, we are diverting $12 billion from the Social 
Security trust fund in order to finance additional spending while the 
trust fund will actually have $44 billion less than originally 
projected. That, Mr. President, is a raid on the Social Security trust 
fund.
  I find it quite ironic that Congress would be so concerned about the 
Social Security trust fund that we would attach a rider to the debt 
ceiling extension legislation which would preclude the Secretary of the 
Treasury from using Social Security and other trust funds as a form of 
cash management during this period in which we are about to reach our 
legal spending level.
  Why would we be so concerned that we would put the ability of the 
Federal Government to meet its financial obligations at risk but then 
we would so freely raid the very same trust fund to pay for additional 
spending, additional spending unrelated to Social Security obligations? 
We cannot have it both ways.
  We cannot say, on the one hand, that we want to be the great 
defenders of the Social Security trust fund, but, on the other hand, 
raid the Social Security trust fund. We cannot say, on the one hand, 
that these COLA modifications merely reflect reality and that it would 
have happened anyway, and then it is not real savings but just funny 
money and cannot be used to offset real spending. If it is a real cut, 
on the other hand, then it constitutes a diversion of funds and a raid 
on the Social Security trust fund. You cannot have it both ways, Mr. 
President.
  Either conclusion--either that it is phony money to support real 
spending or that it is a raid on the Social Security trust fund, real 
money to support real spending--either one of those conclusions 
justifies jettisoning the Roth amendment as the basis of paying for an 
additional $12 billion in new spending unrelated to Social Security 
obligations.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to adopt the motion offered by the 
Senator from South Carolina and myself to instruct the conferees not to 
include the $12 billion in Social Security cuts contained in the Roth 
Finance Committee amendment.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.

                               Exhibit 1

                               Memorandum

     To: Sue Nelson.
     From: Paul Van de Water, Assistant Director of CBO in the 
         Budget Analysis Division.
     Subject: Taking account of the actual COLA.
       The budget resolution baseline assumes a 3.1-percent cost-
     of-living adjustment for Social Security and other federal 
     programs in January 1996. The actual COLA will be 2.6 
     percent. Two clear precedents apply in this situation.
       CBO and OMB do not score savings for legislating a COLA 
     that would happen anyway under current law. This rule was 
     applied to veterans compensation in 1991 and to Food Stamps 
     in 1992.
       At the request of the Budget Committees, CBO has from time 
     to time updated the baseline to reflect recent economic and 
     technical developments. In such circumstances, however, we 
     insist on incorporating all relevant new information, not 
     just selected items, such as COLAs. In this instance, if we 
     were to include all the information in our August baseline 
     plus the actual 1996 COLA, our estimate of the 2002 deficit 
     using the discretionary spending amounts specified in the 
     budget resolution would be higher, not lower.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, could the President inform us as to how 
much time remains on this motion to instruct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida has 2 minutes and 12 
seconds, and the Senator from Michigan has 20 minutes.
  Mr. GRAHAM. We will reserve our time, Mr. President.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum and seek 
unanimous consent that the time not be charged to either side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. 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. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield at this time such time as he may 
need to the Senator from Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Michigan for 
yielding.
  I have listened with a tremendous amount of interest to the debate 
over this motion to instruct conferees. I guess the thing that 
frustrates me most in the midst of all of this, in the midst of a 
Presidential veto this morning, is that by the unwillingness of this 
administration to act we are clearly putting a variety of trust funds 
in jeopardy at this moment that budget reconciliation has in every way 
sought to assure.
  During our debate on the balanced budget amendment, we heard the 
other side literally go on for days that the reason we were balancing 
the budget was a variety of things, and that we were going to do it on 
the back of the Social Security trust funds. It was the only way 
Republicans could figure out a way to balance the budget. I think what 
is their greatest frustration today is that we have offered a truly 
legitimate balanced budget and the trust funds are secure, and in fact 
the trust funds are safe.
  When the Senator from Florida suggests in his motion not to include 
the $12 billion in Social Security cuts that are included as an offset 
in relation to CPI adjustment, I find it interesting that he would 
phrase it that way when in fact but just a few days ago he voted for a 
Simon-Conrad budget that did the same thing. So we have really reduced 
the debate in this Chamber to politics, plain and simple raw politics: 
Do you want to maintain the stability programs like Social Security and 
balance the budget in doing so, or do you really want to progress down 
the same old path of spend and spend and promise well more than this 
Government could possibly provide or the taxpayers would be willing to 
pay for.
  That is what we have reduced ourselves to in the final hours of a 
critical debate on a very conclusive process that honors the commitment 
that a variety of us made to the American people some months ago, that 
we would work in every way for a balanced budget by downsizing all of 
the areas of Government, except Social Security would remain sound and 
stable and off the table.
  We have done all of those things, but because that is what the 
American people want and because there are many who are very fearful 
that they lose control of the phenomenal power they have exercised for 
decades in the ability to promise and spend and promise and spend and 
literally make our citizenry the victims of a government instead of the 
beneficiaries of a government, we have finally arrived at this debate.
  What we are offering is very straightforward in protecting these 
systems and assuring their stability out into the future. Everyone 
knows that the only real saving grace of Social Security or any of 
these kinds of programs that extend benefits to citizens in our society 
either based on a commitment long term in an actuarial sense like 
Social Security or even that of qualifying under certain criteria for 
need, the only way you can offer those is if you have a balanced 
budget. The only way you can guarantee 30 years out that the 
beneficiaries of Social Security are going to get their Social Security 
checks is if there is no massive debt in this country that is pulling 
$400 billion or $500 billion a year out of general fund moneys to pay 
interest on debt. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. We know that. The 
American people know it. That is why for the last many months we have 
struggled on key and important budget issues from both sides of the 
aisle trying to strike the compromise and split the difference and 

[[Page S 16965]]
yet continually march ourselves toward a balanced budget by the year 
2002.
  So when I look at instructions like this, these are like reverter 
clauses--revert to the old ways, revert backward, revert to deficit 
spending, revert to trust fund instability, revert to debt, revert to 
borrowing back money from future generations and not being willing to 
pay for it. But what the American people said is, do not revert at all. 
They instructed us last November. We had our instructions as conferees 
in a massive referendum across this country that was one of the most 
politically realigning referendums in the history of our country. They 
said to us as conferees: Balance the budget, stabilize the programs, 
reduce the unnecessary spending, reprioritize the programs of 
Government. If it is 30 years old, it is not working, and its intent 
has never been met, review it and get rid of it, but honor Social 
Security and in so doing make sure it is strong. That is exactly what 
we have done in all instances here.
  Every Senator on this floor serves as a member of the board of 
directors of Social Security. We have the absolute responsibility by 
our pledge, and that is to uphold the Constitution, and our commitment 
to the American citizens that we will honor programs of this nature by 
providing for their stability, and we must manage them accordingly.
  For this Senate to vote to follow the instructions of this motion to 
the conferees would not be to strengthen or stabilize, it would be to 
perpetuate the past. And the past, by all estimation, is wrong and has 
brought about the kind of instability, the kind of doubt in the minds 
of the American people that beg for change. And we have offered that in 
the budget reconciliation process that we are currently under that will 
spell not only significant change, but tremendous stability.
  Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Michigan for yielding. I 
yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, can I inquire as to how much time we have 
remaining at this point?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has 12 minutes 41 
seconds. The Senator from Florida has 2 minutes 12 seconds.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may need 
just to enter a few additional comments into the Record that I would 
like to make after the fine address by the Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. President, the Senator from Florida, in explaining his motion, at 
the conclusion of his remarks, commented on the issues that pertain to 
the short-term debt bill which we voted on here last Thursday night and 
expressed puzzlement that in that short-term debt bill the Republican 
Members here who supported it included a provision that would limit the 
ability of the President to raid those Social Security trust funds that 
are in fact the subject of his motion today. He said he is puzzled 
because of the Roth amendment, which his motion specifically addresses, 
to change the number that is employed for calculation of Consumer Price 
Index changes.
  I guess I have sort of the reverse puzzlement. I am puzzled that 
people who, on the one hand, argue that they are concerned about the 
Social Security and other trust funds' integrity were willing to vote 
against the short-term debt limit issue, a bill that we passed last 
Thursday night, because if this is the issue that they hold as so vital 
and important, I would think they would have joined us in calling for 
those various trust funds to be off limits and to prevent the President 
from having the ability to raid those trust funds.
  During the debate on the debt limit, the Democrats supported an 
amendment offered, I believe, by the Senator from New York, which would 
have given the administration the authority to raid Federal workers' 
retirement trust funds, the elderly's trust funds, Social Security 
benefits, and the pensions of our country's veterans. The amendment 
would have essentially stricken all language pertaining to all of those 
trust funds from the short-term debt bill.
  Now, I understand that on final passage people might have found some 
of the provisions, in addition to those trust fund provisions, 
objectionable. But I was amazed that no effort was made at the time of 
consideration of the Moynihan amendment to limit that amendment to the 
areas that did not pertain to these trust funds, but rather to include 
them.
  In short, the Democrats had the opportunity to make the strong 
statement, which this motion to instruct suggests they wish to make, 
regarding the integrity of these trust funds by either voting against 
that Moynihan amendment, as we did on our side, or by offering a 
smaller version of the Moynihan amendment that would have only focused 
on those aspects of the short-term debt bill that were unrelated to the 
trust funds. And yet that did not happen.
  The President, of course, has said he needs the extension of the debt 
limit. He has now vetoed that extension. The administration now says 
that they can raid the $1.3 trillion in pension funds of Federal 
workers and the Social Security trust fund in order to keep the 
Government from defaulting. This does not seem to me, Mr. President, 
consistent with the concerns that are certainly embodied in this motion 
and that the Senator from Florida has spoken about many times here to 
us, the concern that relates to the integrity of these trust funds.
  And I find that far more puzzling--far more puzzling--than the issues 
that were raised by the Senator from Florida with regard to the 
Republican position regarding the Moynihan amendment. One of the 
reasons this Senator voted against the Moynihan amendment was because 
it would have provided that kind of basically unlimited credit card 
option to the President and to his economic advisers to tap into those 
trust funds in order to address these issues pertaining to the payment 
of U.S. obligations.

  I would like to now turn briefly to address some of the issues that 
were raised by the Senator from South Carolina with reference to the 
various ways by which the budget deficit is calculated. The fact is 
that ever since the Budget Act of 1974, every budget has calculated the 
budget on a unified basis. Now, I am not at great odds with the Senator 
from South Carolina in the concerns that have been expressed that we 
need to go further, that we are not going far enough in terms of 
reducing the growth of Federal spending. On those points I am in 
agreement. In fact, I was sort of, I have to say, surprised and pleased 
to hear his concerns as expressed today because we have had numerous 
opportunities before the Senate over the last few months to vote to 
tighten the belt further, and all too infrequently have we heard 
support for those gestures on the other side of the aisle.
  But the fact is, Mr. President, both the Office of Management and 
Budget and the Congressional Budget Office use the unified budget to 
calculate the deficit. When the Democrats were in charge here in 
Congress, they calculated the deficit including the Social Security 
trust funds. Both budgets submitted by President Clinton this year 
included the Social Security surplus in their calculations. And, 
indeed, some of the changes in the level of the deficit that have been 
pointed to, with pride, by the President are, in fact, changes that 
were in large part obtained because of these Social Security trust fund 
surpluses that the President uses in his calculations.
  In short, Mr. President, I guess I would be more sympathetic to the 
case that is being made if the same fervor had been used here on the 
floor to criticize the President's budget when it came down here as is 
now being employed to criticize our budget. The fact is that there 
seems to be a certain priority here. When the Republicans come forth 
using the same unified budget that has been used every year since 1974, 
suddenly the issue of using the trust funds is of great concern. When 
the President comes forward using those same surpluses, the issue seems 
to not be on the front burner. I guess I have to draw a conclusion from 
that discrepancy that this is more of a partisan attack than it is one 
of a substantive sort.
  Let me talk about the broader question that was raised by the Senator 
from South Carolina, at least as it pertains to the deficits, because 
he makes the point that in the 7-year period we are talking about, at 
the end of that period of time, according to the unified budget, we 
will have eliminated the 

[[Page S 16966]]
Federal deficit, but because of the Social Security surplus' effects, 
there will still be that deficit to contend with.
  I have good news for the Senator from South Carolina. The good news 
is that not only is the Republican budget which we have been voting on 
here in recent months the only budget that achieves balance using the 
Social Security trust funds in the year 2002 according to CBO scoring, 
but the Republicans are also the only people here who have a budget 
that achieves balance without using the Social Security trust funds. 
And that will be achieved in the year 2005.
  Indeed, Mr. President, according to the Senate Budget Committee, the 
surplus from our balanced budget plan will exceed the surplus in the 
Social Security trust fund in the year 2005. In other words, we are not 
only on the way to achieving balance in the year 2002 under the unified 
budget, but the plan which we have been fighting for here in the 
Senate, the plan that is responsive to citizens across this country who 
have said it is time to put the Federal fiscal house in order will 
achieve balance even if you do not use a unified budget by the year 
2005.
  In other words, it continues the job that we were sent here to do, to 
bring about the kind of fiscal integrity in Washington that every 
family in my State of Michigan from Sanilac County in the thumb all the 
way over to St. Joseph, MI, and Berrien County in southwest Michigan 
has to do in their own home, that is, to bring about balance.
  We will achieve that in the year 2005 under anybody's calculus. That 
is what is critical, because nobody else, Mr. President, even comes 
close to achieving this balance. According to the CBO, the President's 
so-called balanced budget would still have a $200 billion deficit in 
the year 2002.
  And that $200 billion or so deficit will continue as far as the eye 
can see.
  So, Mr. President, I guess what I will just say in closing, one last 
point just to follow up on the concerns that have been expressed 
relative to the CPI, is that there was another balanced budget proposal 
brought before the Senate which Senator Craig alluded to. It was 
brought by Senators Simon and Conrad during our reconciliation debate. 
It was brought and supported, I believe, exclusively by folks on the 
other side of the political aisle.
  In that budget, they brought about balance by very substantially 
tapping into the Social Security trust funds by making a very 
substantial adjustment in the CPI, not an adjustment based on this 
year's actual inflation numbers, as was the case with the Roth 
amendment, but by simply on an across-the-board basis, adjusting at an 
adequate level to bring about a balanced budget. In short, they used 
the Social Security changes, a reduction, in fact, Mr. President, of 
some $41.1 billion in Social Security payments, to bring their budget 
into balance.
  In total, they reduced Federal outlays from the various trust funds, 
and so on, including Social Security, by over $73 billion over 7 years, 
all of it because of changes in the Consumer Price Index in order to 
make their budget stand the challenge of reaching balance.
  Mr. President, I will say, $73 billion is considerably more than $13 
billion, and it was not achieved based on an actual number, but rather 
on a number that was needed to reach balance. So if there is a plan 
before the Senate that should be critically analyzed and, I believe, 
scrutinized very closely for having addressed the Social Security trust 
fund numbers improperly by making changes in the CPI that were very 
substantial, it was that amendment offered on the other side.
  I suggest if there are concerns about the CPI that they should be 
directed at those who proposed that approach, not the approach that was 
used on our side where the real inflation number was employed.
  In summary, Mr. President, the fact is that we came here to balance 
the budget. The Republican plan will put us in balance in the year 2002 
using the unified-budget approach that has been used by Presidents and 
Congresses since the 1974 Budget Act. The Republican plan will put us 
into balance, regardless of whether you use a unified budget, by the 
year 2005. It is the only plan in town that will accomplish those 
objectives. It is the only plan in town that will begin to bring down 
the interest rates that people pay across this country for student 
loans, new cars, new homes and various other things they need for their 
families. It is the only plan that will restore fiscal integrity to the 
Government of the United States, and that is why we feel so strongly 
that it is the right plan for America.
  I yield back whatever time remains.
  Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, to close the motion to instruct, I want to 
say how much I admire the Senator from Michigan. In the several 
opportunities I have had to discuss with him issues from foreign policy 
to issues of our national fiscal future, he always approaches the 
question with a learned background and with thoughtful analysis. I 
think that is in the tradition of the U.S. Senate and, frankly, that is 
what the American people would like to have us do: To have a reasoned 
dialog. We may disagree, but at least we will be disagreeing on a set 
of facts that are reasonable and we will be expressing the basis of our 
disagreement in a manner that the American people can understand and 
evaluate. I commend him for his contribution to the Senate level of 
discussion.
  Mr. President, the debate on the motion to instruct is not the debate 
on whether you are for or against the balanced budget amendment or 
whether you are for or against the goal of a balanced budget at an 
early date. I share those goals. I voted for the balanced budget 
amendment. I voted for a provision in the balanced budget amendment 
that would define what constitutes balance as not including the use of 
the Social Security surpluses to that end, and I have voted for a plan, 
along with over 75 percent of my Democratic colleagues, that would 
have achieved that objective and would have done so before the year 
2005.

  What I think is significant about the direction of this motion is 
that it goes to an unusual use of the Social Security trust fund. It is 
not like the kind of cash management uses of the trust fund that have 
been used under both Republican and Democratic Secretaries of Treasury 
in time of need where, in every instance, the Social Security trust 
fund has been fully reimbursed after the moment of crisis has passed. 
It is not like efforts that have resulted in a reduction in the outlays 
of Social Security where the money stayed in the Social Security trust 
fund and, therefore, contributed to a larger surplus and greater long-
term solvency.
  What is unusual about this Roth amendment is it first cuts Social 
Security outlays by $12 billion and then shifts them and uses those 
outlays to support different spending, spending unrelated to Social 
Security.
  I will ask to have printed in the Record the statement of the 
chairman of the Budget Committee when he was asked if this is what, in 
fact, is intended, and his response was: ``I want to say that the 
dollar numbers being referred to''--that is the $12 billion being 
removed from the Social Security trust fund--``are actual. That is all 
I want to say.''
  That is the quotation from the chairman of the Budget Committee.
  I ask unanimous consent that that portion of the Congressional Record 
of October 27 be printed in the Record immediately after my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I just ask this question in closing. Here 
is what the motion says. Who wishes to disagree with these 
propositions: That we will honor section 13301 of the Budget 
Enforcement Act of 1990 which states that thou shalt not commingle the 
trust fund of Social Security with general Federal spending. Who 
disagrees with that proposition that we should honor that commitment 
made in 1990?
  Who disagrees with the proposition that we should not include in any 
conference report any language that violates section 13301 of the 
Budget Enforcement Act? Who disagrees that we should not include any 
language that violates that principle of sanctity of the Social 
Security trust fund? 

[[Page S 16967]]

  And who disagrees with the proposition, therefore, that we should not 
include $12 billion in Social Security cuts that were included as an 
offset for on-budget spending in the Finance Committee amendment?
  That is what we are being asked to vote on: To honor, to not include 
and, therefore, to not violate our trust.
  This is a motion that ought to be adopted unanimously by voice vote. 
I cannot believe that Members of the Senate are going to vote against a 
motion that effectively says we will dishonor our commitment to 
maintain the integrity of the Social Security trust fund, that we will 
include language that is contrary to the spirit and intent and very 
language that we committed ourselves to in 1990 and, therefore, that we 
should consummate that disavowal by raiding the Social Security trust 
fund of $12 billion to support spending unrelated to Social Security 
obligations.
  Those are the questions: To honor, to violate, to include, to 
maintain our sense of honor and responsibility to the Social Security 
trust fund.
  I urge, Mr. President, my colleagues' adoption of this motion to 
instruct our conferees and that our conferees follow our admonition as 
they proceed in the conference committee on the reconciliation 
legislation.
  Thank you, Mr. President.

                               Exhibit 1

       Mr. Graham. Mr. President, I am directing my attention to 
     section 7482 of the legislation, which begins on page 45 and 
     states:
       ``Cost-of-Living Adjustments During Fiscal Year 1996.
       ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in the case 
     of any program within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
     Finance of the United States Senate which is adjusted for any 
     increase in the consumer price index for all urban wage 
     earners and clerical workers (CPI-W) for the United States 
     city average of all items, any such adjustment which takes 
     effect during fiscal year 1996 shall be equal to 2.6 
     percent''
       It is to that section, Mr. President, that I direct the 
     point of order. I raise the point of order under section 
     310(d) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 against the 
     pending amendment because it counts $12 billion in cuts to 
     Social Security which is off budget to offset spending in the 
     amendment.
       The Presiding Officer. Does the Senator from New Mexico 
     wish to be heard on this point of order?
       Mr. Domenici. I want to say the dollar numbers being 
     referred to are actual. That is all I want to say.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Michigan has 
34 seconds remaining.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, one more motion to 
instruct the conferees is in order.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, notwithstanding the previous order, I ask 
unanimous consent that Senator Kennedy be recognized at 4:30 p.m. today 
to make a motion to instruct conferees with respect to the 
reconciliation bill, and that the House message on H.R. 2491 be laid 
aside until that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________