[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 182 (Thursday, November 16, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17103-S17136]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1996

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now consider House Joint 
Resolution 122, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 122) making further 
     continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1996, and for 
     other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the joint resolution?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the joint 
resolution.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the Senate now has under consideration 
House Joint Resolution 122, making further continuing appropriations 
for fiscal year 1996. The resolution provides authority to obligate 
funds for programs and activities normally funded in the nine regular 
appropriations bills not yet signed into law. The rate of operations is 
to be the lowest of the current rate, the rate proposed by the Senate 
or the rate proposed by the House. Programs and activities terminated 
or significantly reduced under that formulation may be maintained at a 
rate not to exceed 60 percent of the current rate. And the rate of 
operations may be adjusted further to avoid reductions in force.
  The expiration date of this continuing resolution is December 5, 
1995. This resolution does not include the provision relative to 
Medicare part B premiums that was in the measure vetoed by the 
President on Monday. Let me emphasize, that has been removed. That was 
the great focus of debate and discussion on that first continuing 
resolution. That is gone.
  Instead, there is included the following provision which I will read 
in its entirety.
  Section 301 of this continuing resolution:

       (a) The President and the Congress shall enact legislation 
     in the 104th Congress to achieve a unified balanced budget 
     not later than the fiscal year 2002 as scored by the 
     nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
       (b) The unified balanced budget in subsection (a) shall be 
     based on the most current economic and technical assumptions 
     of the Congressional Budget Office.

  That is it. Nothing more. Simple, straightforward. Mr. President, I 
want to say, in adopting this resolution, we are simply recommending 
and recommitting ourselves to a balanced budget. That is a commitment I 
believe we all share.
  There is nothing in this resolution, Mr. President, that says we will 
achieve balance with tax increases or with tax cuts. There is nothing 
here that says whether defense spending will rise or fall. There is no 
mention of Medicare or COLA's or highways or education or the 
environment. We will have our arguments about all of those things, but 
we ought to be able to agree that we will balance the budget. That is 
all we are committing ourselves to.
  And in stipulating that our efforts should be measured by the 
Congressional Budget Office, we are only restating what we are already 
required to do and what the President of the United States, Mr. Clinton 
himself, asked us to do in his address to a joint session of Congress 
some time ago. We cannot bring any proposal to this floor that has not 
been scored by the Congressional Budget Office. The President has 
agreed to that.
  As one of those who voted against the constitutional amendment 
requiring a balanced budget, I argued that we did not need to encumber 
the Constitution when we could achieve balance within legislation. 
Members on the other side of the aisle argued the same. I still hold 
that position, and I ask my 

[[Page S 17104]]
colleagues who stood with me to stand with me in voting for this 
continuing resolution.
  I am very interested to hear responses. I cannot understand how 
anybody can stand on this floor or before the American public and say 
they are against balancing the budget. We say 2002, and we only say the 
Congressional Budget Office shall do as is required to be done to score 
proposals. How can anyone oppose this continuing resolution, unless 
they have turned their back on the very principle of balancing the 
budget?
  Now, if that is so, so be it, but let us be honest and frank with one 
another. This stalemate we are in now is unnecessary, and we can end 
it. At the same time, we can commit ourselves to the American public 
that is expecting us to give some kind of a statement as to when we are 
going to balance the budget.
  So let us not get into all these byways and these sidetracks about 
Medicare and education and all those things. My position is well known 
on those social programs. I would have liked to have written perhaps a 
certain major reduction in military spending, but that is a personal 
view. I will argue that at some other time. But on this continuing 
resolution, let us put the Government back on track, let us end the 
stalemate, let us say to the American people we have a separation of 
powers, but at the same time we can unite ourselves, regardless of our 
party, regardless of the branch of Government, to a simple goal of 
balancing the budget by 2002. I yield the floor.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Oregon for his 
opening remarks, and I am pleased that we are at least getting to this 
so-called continuing resolution. I hope that we can move on it in an 
expeditious fashion, because after we move on it and after it passes 
the Senate, as it is foreordained that it will given the commitment 
that the majority in the House and Senate have expressed, everyone 
knows it is going to the President. Everyone knows when it gets to the 
President, he is going to veto it.
  So we continue the charade that we have been going through now for 
entirely too long. This is the third day of the Government shutdown. 
Tomorrow will be the fourth day and the day after that will be the 
fifth.

  Mr. President, it seems to me it is time we begin to get serious 
about this and stop the charades, but nevertheless, under the process, 
we must go through it.
  The real issue, I suggest, before us today is whether the Congress of 
the United States wants to stop acting like a bunch of spoiled children 
and start acting like adults. On the way in this morning, I was treated 
to a radio program that was unbelievable. It said that the Speaker of 
the House of Representatives said that he was very upset, piqued by not 
being treated properly by the President en route to the funeral in 
Israel. Someone suggested that probably that was not a proper way to 
act, and I believe the words by the Speaker were something like, 
``Well, it may be petty, but it's human.''
  That is a sad commentary, indeed, but probably sums up much better 
than I could in any words how ridiculous this whole process is.
  We have this continuing resolution which was just explained by the 
leader of the Appropriations Committee. I simply say to my friend that 
regardless of how well-intentioned this continuing resolution is--and 
as yet I have not even seen the numbers, but as I understand it, it is 
a continuing resolution to continue the Government of the United States 
and get people back to work until sometime in December; is that 
correct?
  Mr. HATFIELD. December 5.
  Mr. EXON. I have been advised, for the record, on the 5th of 
December.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Will the Senator yield for a moment for me to give a 
little further explanation?
  Mr. EXON. Yes.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, as you well know, we have 13 
appropriations bills. We now have 7 of those 13 bills that are in the 
process of being sent down to the White House that we expect to be 
signed. We have had three or four signed by now: transportation, energy 
and water, the military construction, and the agriculture bills. We 
have acted upon foreign operations, and we will be acting today 
probably on Treasury-Post Office. We have already acted on the 
legislative.
  In other words, I think we will have by, hopefully, the end of today 
seven of these bills on the President's desk signed into law. That 
means we have the remaining bills. The Defense bill we hope to have 
acted upon today, the conference, to reach some kind of a conclusion. 
HUD is meeting today. In other words, December 5 has a very specific 
reason; we believe that we can get the rest of these appropriations 
bills completed. And we have stripped things from those bills that have 
been unacceptable by the President, as the Istook amendment on the 
Treasury-Post Office, as abortion language that was on the foreign 
operations bill. So what I am saying is simply that by the December 5 
deadline, we expect to have all of those 13 bills completed and, 
hopefully, signed by the President.
  As the Senator knows, as the President signs each one of these bills, 
that part of the Government drops out of this particular stalemate, 
because that means that money has been appropriated and approved by the 
President.
  So we are hoping to have all 13 of those bills completed by December 
5.
  As I say, we hope to have seven signed within the hours of today, or 
maybe early tomorrow. That is all out of the continuing resolution, all 
seven of those bills. As we pass each succeeding bill, that will be 
removed from the continuing resolution, and that part of the Government 
will be back in full operation, like the energy and water, and 
agriculture, and so forth, that we have now assigned, and 
transportation. So that is the reason for the December 5.
  Mr. EXON. I appreciate the explanation by my friend. Another way of 
saying that is that you were hopeful that in the next few hours, or in 
the next few days at least, that seven of the 13, or roughly half of 
the appropriations bills, will have been completed and, hopefully, 
signed by the President.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Yes, of which we have four of those seven now signed by 
the President.
  Mr. EXON. Now, another way of saying that is that we only finished 
approximately half of the 13 key appropriations bills and presented 
them to the President, is that correct? Or we will in the next day or 
so?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Yes. Let me further explain that the real problem we 
have had with appropriations in this particular year is--there are a 
number of reasons, but let me give you two major reasons. As the 
Committee on the Budget, on which the Senator serves as the ranking 
member, presented the budget resolution to this Congress, it called for 
about a $22 billion reduction in nondefense discretionary programs. 
Therefore, all of the nondefense programs had to make a rather serious 
and severe reduction, and the judgments on that have certainly varied. 
And so we have faced a dollar question, a reduction of dollars. I would 
like to have had far less in the defense spending. But somehow, the 
Budget Committee and the bodies, the House and the Senate, have agreed 
that that is not part of our great reduction scheme. But rather, it is 
going to be the nondefense programs--education programs, health 
programs, welfare programs, and so forth. So the committee had to make 
those judgments.
  The second problem we have faced--and there are not sufficient 
dollars to meet the needs on the level of spending that the President 
has requested or wants--but the other problem we have had increasingly 
over the years, as the Senator knows, is that nonappropriation matters 
have been piggybacked on appropriation bills--abortion, school prayer, 
striker replacement, on and on I could go about legislative matters on 
the appropriations bills. We could have handled a number of these bills 
far faster if we had not had to deal with the riders. That has been the 
second factor. We had an abortion issue on three separate appropriation 
bills, with a little different wording, a little different application, 
and so forth and so on. You know how hot an item that is. I happen to 
be pro-life. The Senator happens to be pro-choice, but nevertheless----

  Mr. EXON. Let me correct the Senator, so that we keep the record 
straight. 

[[Page S 17105]]

  Mr. HATFIELD. I will just say that some Senators are pro-life and 
some are pro-choice.
  Mr. EXON. To advise and correct the Record, this Senator has, I 
think, been generally along the same line with the Senator from Oregon. 
I am a pro-life Senator, not a pro-choice Senator. Let us correct the 
Record.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I will correct the Record, as well, by saying that the 
Senator and I have agreement on that. We do not share that same 
agreement, of course, with other views here in the Senate. 
Consequently, what I am saying is that that issue has been a very 
contentious issue over the years. As a consequence, it has slowed the 
whole process of appropriations down.
  Those are the reasons that we are at this point in time relating to 
the appropriations process. We are hoping to strip the riders, as we 
have been doing, or modify them, or amend them, to make them acceptable 
downtown in the White House.
  So I just wanted to indicate again why, from the appropriations point 
of view, we happen to be in this situation today and are fast trying to 
extricate ourselves from it, as indicated by the fact that we have 
seven bills on the President's desk, four of them signed, and how we 
hope to get the others down to the President within the period between 
now and December 5.
  Mr. EXON. Let me further inquire of the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, with whom I have worked very long and very 
well over the years. I believe that the Senator from Oregon has been on 
the Appropriations Committee nearly all of the time he has served with 
great distinction in the U.S. Senate.
  Does the Senator from Oregon ever recall a time when we have been 
this far behind in passing appropriations bills, regardless of what the 
reason was for the delay?
  Mr. HATFIELD. Oh, yes. I would say that back in the 1980's we had a 
CR that went a whole year. We could not resolve those problems. We had 
other CR's. We had probably three or four in a period from 1981 to 
1985, short-term CR's. We had the Government shut down for a couple of 
days. This is not new. It is not the way to do business.

  Mr. EXON. I thank my friend. Again, I will proceed with my remarks.
  I was saying, Mr. President, I was disappointed in the fact that we 
have delay upon delay upon delay, and we are going through charades, as 
we are going through today on this continuing resolution that is going 
to be passed, very likely, and vetoed by the President.
  So this is an exercise in futility, unfortunately, at a time when the 
Nation is wanting. I simply say, Mr. President, that in negotiations 
during the last few days, myself and others have been pleading, and the 
administration has been pleading, with the Republican majority to just 
give us a clean continuing resolution. By ``clean,'' I mean every 
extraneous measure, or thought, or condition, or concept would be 
thrown off, and we would just have a continuing resolution for 24 
hours, or 48 hours. That was rejected. I was mystified by that because 
I could not understand how any reasonable group of people, regardless 
of their political affiliation, would not agree that it was wise to 
continue the normal functions of Government, at least for a short 
period of time, while we continued to negotiate.
  I now understand why we were turned down flatly on what would appear 
to any reasonable person as the course of action which could be taken. 
It was because the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and others, 
clearly had in their hip pocket this new, ludicrous plan that they knew 
it would not open up Government once again, but it might give them, on 
a political scale, some advantage, or an up-bump in the polls that have 
been quite devastating to the Speaker and others in the last few weeks.
  The measure before us today is a farce. It is game playing. It is not 
the way to do business, and it is not doing business; it is playing 
politics. Grown-ups know that it is a childish game to shut down the 
Government in order to blackmail the President into accepting extreme 
measures, the extreme Republican budget, and trying to make excuses for 
why they are doing it.
  The sad part is that this game has real consequences to real people. 
Hundreds of thousands of Federal workers do not know whether they are 
going to be able to pay their bills. Thousands of Americans who are 
entitled to sign up for Social Security are not able to do so because 
no one is at work to process the new legitimate claims. Thousands of 
veterans who should be signing up for new benefits that they have 
earned are not able to do so because Government is not on the job. 
Thousands of Federal contractors are not being paid, but the Government 
has agreed to pay them.
  According to press reports, for example, Mr. President, 39 illegal 
immigrants--I repeat, Mr. President, according to press reports, 39 
illegal immigrants--were detained, as they should have been, and sent 
on their merry way, smiling and laughing on Tuesday because the 
Government was shut down. It left the Immigration and Naturalization 
Services shorthanded.
  Another matter, the Colorado State Police stopped a van, called INS, 
and was informed they would be unable to investigate because they 
lacked the manpower to do so because the staff had been furloughed.
  This is no way to run the Government. What we should do is pass a 
clean continuing resolution to allow the Government to serve the 
people, pay its bills, and do so in a timely fashion. That is our duty.
  The majority wants to set the terms for the coming negotiations on 
the deficit reduction bill. All this political posturing about how to 
do the big deficit reduction bill is just a transparent attempt, I 
suggest, to coerce the President to weakening his negotiating position 
before--before--negotiations even begin.
  The responsible thing to do, of course, would be to pass a clean 
continuing resolution for either a shorter or a longer number of days 
and allow the Republicans to get the extreme budget proposals that they 
are pushing out of their system, because they are not going to prevail.
  We should let the President go ahead and veto these bills, which is 
what he is going to do, and then and only then start some real serious 
negotiations where people of good will can sit down and say, ``We are 
not, any of us, going to get exactly what we want.'' Through 
negotiations and compromise, we can do our job as we were sent here to 
do.
  In these real negotiations, everything should be on the table. Let me 
repeat that, Mr. President, because that is not the mode that we are 
operating under now. In these real negotiations to come that I am quite 
prepared for at this time, and will have some recommendations to make 
at the proper time that I think might be an important step toward 
bringing us together--bringing us together--these real negotiations 
have to start with everything being laid on the table. Otherwise, we 
will not get anything done.
  The length of time it takes to balance should be on the table, along 
with everything else. The economic assumptions that we use should be on 
the table. What do we need to make the extreme cuts in Medicare that 
the Republicans advocate should be on the table, and will be on the 
table. At least I am pleased that the Republicans at this very late 
hour have taken the Medicare matter off the table temporarily.

  Also on the table should be whether we want to give tax breaks to the 
wealthiest among us. That has to be on the table. Let me tell my 
colleagues, I have run the numbers on this budget and I have been 
trying to figure out a way to get to a balanced budget. I do not agree 
with the White House with regard to a 7-year budget. I think we can 
come to agreement to balance a budget by 7 years.
  I believe under the proper circumstances we would be able to convince 
the President to sign such a measure if we can put everything on the 
table and if we can sit down as adults and reach a compromise.
  I must say, Mr. President, that if the Republicans continue to 
insist--I repeat this, if the Republicans continue to insist--on a $245 
billion tax break for the wealthy, and if they continue to insist on 
using CBO assumptions only and purely, there is no way that we can get 
to a balance in 7 years without extreme and deep cuts in Medicare, in 
nursing home care, nursing homes, and in education.
  We hold out the hand, the offer of compromise, once again. After we 
get 

[[Page S 17106]]
through with this ridiculous exercise that is going nowhere today, 
maybe we can get to that point tomorrow or the next day or the day 
after that.
  I am proud, and the President is right to oppose such a budget. I 
support him in that. Passing of the continuing resolution that has just 
been offered to us from the House of Representatives would tie the 
President's hands to such an extent that it would be almost impossible 
to start meaningful negotiations on a compromise.
  Therefore, I will strenuously oppose this continuing resolution and 
hope that we can move it along to a fair and honest role that can pass 
both Houses and receive the President's signature, and stop this 
charade and game playing. I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I have listened to the Senator from 
Nebraska, whom I greatly admire as ranking member of the Budget 
Committee, and from what I have heard him say, I can understand no 
reason why he would not vote for this resolution.
  This resolution does not use specifics as to how we reach a balanced 
budget. It does not say that we must follow the outline laid down by 
the Republicans on our side of the aisle--which outline I happen to 
think is a fairly reasonable one.
  The Senator from Nebraska has characterized it as ``extremist,'' but 
I do not know what is extreme about balancing a budget over 7 years, 
allowing the Government to grow by 3 percent over that period of time, 
allowing Medicare to grow by 6.5 percent, or $349 billion, over that 
time, allowing Medicaid to grow by about 5.4 to 5 percent or $146 
billion over that period of time, saying to senior citizens, ``We will 
spend $4,800 on you today but in the year 2002 we will spend $6,700 on 
your health care.'' Those are hardly extreme positions. They are fairly 
reasonable positions, and they allow us to reach a balanced budget by 
slowing the rate of growth of the Federal Government.

  If you allow the terminology of the Senator from Nebraska to apply--
``extremism''; this is what is being used often on the other side as a 
reason for rejecting a balanced budget--even if you accepted what the 
Senator from Nebraska has said that he would, however, be willing to 
agree to a budget which reaches balance in 7 years and that that is a 
doable event--he does not like our budget but it is a doable event.
  What this continuing resolution says is, ``Let's reach a balanced 
budget in 7 years.'' It does not say how. It does not give specifics. 
It does not bind the President or the members of the other party to a 
specific glidepath to reaching that balanced budget. It simply says the 
President and the Congress shall enact legislation in the 104th 
Congress to achieve a unified balanced budget not later than the fiscal 
year 2002 as scored by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
  Therefore, all it is saying is that we have to reach a balanced 
budget by the year 2002. It is not saying how we reach a balanced 
budget. It is not demanding a certain set of specifics be used for 
reaching that balanced budget. It simply is saying, during the term of 
this Congress, during our watch, we must put in place a balanced budget 
that is scored by the Congressional Budget Office which, of course, is 
what the President initially said he would use as a scoring agency.
  Therefore, when the Senator from Nebraska, the ranking member of the 
Budget Committee, gets up and states he is for a balanced budget in 7 
years, it seems to me he should be comfortable with this resolution 
which says exactly that: Let us reach a balanced budget in 7 years. It 
does not say let us reach the Republican game plan for a balanced 
budget, it says let us reach a balanced budget in 7 years. So, I do not 
see this resolution as being on the extreme. In fact, this resolution 
is right in the mainstream of the comments made by the distinguished 
Senator.
  The further comments were made that it is ludicrous, and there is an 
attitude of futility here, in pursuing a balanced budget under these 
types of terms. Why is it ludicrous? Why is it futile to bind the 
Congress and the President to reaching a balanced budget in 7 years? We 
are not saying, in this resolution, you have to cut this program, you 
have to cut that program, you have to slow the rate of growth in this 
program, you have to raise this tax or cut that tax. We are just saying 
let us do it. Let us agree we are going to do it, we are going to 
balance the budget in 7 years. What could be ludicrous or futile about 
that? That seems like a fairly constructive statement. It is a 
statement which I suspect most Americans would say is maybe too passive 
on the issue of reaching a balanced budget. I suspect most Americans 
would like us to say specifically how we are going to do it.
  We as Republicans have. We have laid down a plan for that. From the 
other side we have not seen such a plan, but we have heard statements, 
like the Senator from Nebraska's, saying they would agree to balance 
the budget in 7 years. So all we have done in this continuing 
resolution is say: All right, let us take one little baby step on the 
road to balancing the budget. Let us, as a Congress, agree, with the 
President's support, that we shall balance the budget in 7 years. Let 
us not get into specifics, but let us just take this little step into 
the water. Let us put our toes in the water, the water of a balanced 
budget, and say we are going to commit to it. That is neither ludicrous 
nor futile. That is what we are supposed to be doing as a Government. 
We do not say do it in 4 years or 5 years, which is what the President 
originally said he would do when he ran for this office, and what many 
of us would like to do. We say 7 years, which is a fairly reasonable 
timeframe.
  During this period of 3 weeks, while we will be functioning under the 
continuing resolution, we have not unfairly impacted the spending 
accounts of this country. We have simply set up a structure which says 
we will spend at the levels, the lower levels of either the House or 
the Senate numbers. Or, if there is no spending on a program, we will 
have it function at 60 percent of its level, which is a fairly 
reasonable thing to do when we are talking about a short timeframe.
  Why would you want to excessively fund programs over their funding 
levels which have been laid out in the appropriations bills as they 
have been coming through? It would be unreasonable to fund them at the 
higher level. It would be inconsistent with good government to fund 
them at a higher level when we as a Congress may choose the lower level 
when we finally pass the appropriating bills. So it is the safer and 
more thoughtful course to take the lower level.
  Thus, this is a resolution which really does not do a whole lot. As I 
say, it just puts our toe in the water of the balanced budget issue. In 
fact, I happen to think it is far too weak. I have serious reservations 
about it. I personally am on the borderline of whether I even want to 
vote for something that is this weak on the issue of balancing the 
budget.

  But the fact is, it is not extreme, it is not futile, and it is not 
ludicrous to suggest the Congress, the 104th Congress, should commit 
with the President on this resolution that we are going to balance the 
budget by the year 2002. That is not only not extreme, ludicrous, or 
futile, that is our job. That is what we should be doing. That is what 
the American people hired us for. And therefore I take a bit of 
exception to the statements of the Senator from Nebraska and ask him to 
review those statements in the context of the resolution. I think if he 
does, he will come to the conclusion he can support this resolution.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I rise to join those who expressed their 
reservation in opposition to the proposal that passed the House of 
Representatives last evening, some 16 pages or 17 pages of continuing 
resolution plus the words that have been mentioned in reference to the 
balanced budget.
  I think it is only appropriate to look at where we are today to 
understand why the President is deeply concerned about signing this 
particular proposal. We have to really understand what the significance 
of all of this means, beyond just the words which are included in the 
continuing resolution. We have to look back at the fact that, in the 
spring of last year, the Speaker of the House had indicated what was 
going to happen in the late fall, that there would be a clash between 
the executive 

[[Page S 17107]]
branch and the Congress on a budget for this country, and that he 
planned to shut the government down to get his way. He has said that 
repeatedly, in the spring and in the early fall. My colleagues have 
included those statements in the Record.
  Effectively, to sum up what the Speaker was talking about, Speaker 
Gingrich's at-all-cost strategy shows little hint of compromise or 
common ground. For months he has implemented a strategy to blackmail 
the American people and the President into accepting his budget 
priorities. We have to consider all of the statements that were made by 
the Speaker predicting where we were going to be in the fall, the 
impasse that we find ourselves in today. That was all predicted. It is 
part of a plan. It was his intent to do so and this is where we are 
today as a result of that intransigence. This crisis we are facing 
today was predicted and planned by the Speaker and other Republican 
leaders. So no one should suddenly be surprised that we have this 
situation, because we have had a long period of notice.
  Now it was not only the statements of the Speaker, but it has been 
how the House and the Appropriations Committee have been dealing with 
their business. Up to just a day or two ago, only 4 of the 13 
appropriations bills were actually sent to and signed by the President 
of the United States.
  I listened with interest to my good friend from Oregon, the chairman 
of the Appropriations Committee, who said we will be up to almost half 
in the next couple of days. The fact of the matter remains that, of the 
major appropriations bills that deal with the heavy commitments of the 
Federal Government, about 80 percent have not been sent down to the 
President. So we find, on the one hand, the prediction by the Speaker 
of the House of Representatives of the United States saying we will 
have this train wreck, we will slow or stop the Government--repeatedly 
stating that. And with the other actions of the Speaker--because, as 
all of us know, those appropriations initiate over in the House of 
Representatives--we know we are going to have, effectively, the crisis, 
because he is not going to pass the appropriations bills. If you do not 
pass the appropriations bills you have the continuing resolution.
  It was by design and intent, design and intent by Republican 
leadership, that we were going to have crisis--both by the statements 
and by the failure of the appropriations process and the leadership in 
the House of Representatives in sending those appropriations over here.
  I would just add, as I heard the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee say, ``then there were so many riders that were put on those 
bills.'' Who is in charge here? Who put the riders on? They could not 
get on if they had not had the support of our Republican friends and 
colleagues. And, as we know, the tradition of this institution is we do 
not provide legislative matters on appropriations. We never used to. We 
do this year, because of the majority, and that has slowed the whole 
process down.
  But, Mr. President, the Republican leadership understood that would 
be the direct impact of adding rider after rider on appropriations. The 
conferences have not done their work. They have not finished the 
appropriations and set them down and had them completed. So, where we 
are today should not surprise any Member here. It will become 
increasingly clear to the American public why we are here, and who 
intended us to be here with this particular crisis.

  Mr. President, I listened last night to the debate over in the House 
of Representatives. I am mindful what is going to be on the floor of 
the Senate tomorrow--the Republican budget, the reflection of their 
priorities. You know something, Mr. President, in 24 hours we will 
probably have here on the floor of the U.S. Senate those same cuts in 
Medicare that were included in the continuing resolution. I mean come 
on, colleagues. We know exactly what is going on here. They are not 
even going to wait 24 hours. We are going to have the same cuts in 
Medicare that were included in the continuing resolution, tomorrow, on 
the floor of the U.S. Senate. What is the idea? They say, let us work 
this out together, we are coming with clean hands, and we are prepared 
to work with the President of the United States on a balanced budget--
but they still bring their cuts in the Medicare Program.
  This is a back-door cut in Medicare, and every senior citizen ought 
to know about it. And 24 hours from now we will have that budget with 
those cuts on the floor of the U.S. Senate We will have the budget with 
those tax breaks for the wealthiest individuals. And we will have the 
cuts in education programs on the floor of the U.S. Senate. We are 
going to have to have it within 24 hours.
  So spare us the arguments my friends, the Republicans, that you just 
want to work this out with the President of the United States. Why did 
you not work out the budget with the President of the United States? 
Why did you not sit down and say, ``All right. This is acceptable, and 
can't we work this out in order to move toward a balanced budget?'' He 
is committed to do that, but we never had that opportunity. We never 
had that negotiation.
  As has been stated repeatedly on the floor by the relevant committee 
chairman, most of the Democrats were not included in the conferences. 
They never had a chance to express an opinion. We were reduced the 
other night to a situation where Members could not address this body, 
or talk for their constituents in their State about what was really 
happening around the consideration of the budget.
  Last night I took the time to watch that debate over in the House of 
Representatives. There was not one single Republican, not one, that 
stood up and said, with the passage of this proposal we are prepared to 
take Medicare off the table. Not one. Not one of them said, pass this 
resolution and we will reconsider our tax breaks for the wealthy. Not 
one. Not one of them said, pass this particular resolution and we will 
reconsider the severe cuts in the education programs that will put a 
dollar sign on every college door in this country that says ``Only the 
Wealthy Need Apply.'' In 3 hours of debate, not one of them said we are 
going to reconsider our position on tax cuts and Medicare cuts. Not 
one.
  So what are we left with? We are left with the language that we heard 
from a number of our Republican colleagues last night. They said, let 
us give the President a message. Let us put him on the spot. Let us 
drop this on the door of the President of the United States--over and 
over again.
  So we ought to understand where we are, and why the President is 
absolutely correct in vetoing this measure. Mr. President, passage of 
this measure is just another indication that there will be cuts in the 
Medicare Program. Make no mistake about it. Do not listen to this 
Senator. Just take the time to listen to the debate tomorrow on the 
floor of the U.S. Senate. That is a better indication of where the 
Republican priorities are than all of the speeches that are made here 
this morning, this afternoon, and maybe even this evening. They can 
say, we are really just trying to do what the President says he wants 
to do. And they can say, all you have to do is put your toe in the 
water and move us toward a balanced budget. But that is hogwash. And 
every senior citizen ought to know about it. Their plan means an 
increase in premiums. It means an increase in the deductible. It means 
an increase in the copayments. It means a diminution of quality of 
health care. And it means taking away from the seniors their ability to 
choose their doctors.
  So when our colleagues say, we want to go back to the basics, and we 
want to work this out with the President, we are really approaching 
this with good faith on that--that just does not fly, not when you look 
at the facts.
  In the meantime, Mr. President, we see where we have gone with our 
Republican friends. They say everything is on the table. Yet, in this 
continuing resolution--they cut the heart out of many of the education 
programs which are essential to improving the quality of education for 
the young people of this country.
  They reduce the Goals 2000 legislation. They cut it by some 40-
percent. That is a block grant that makes sense. That says that 90 
percent of the funds to improve and enhance the education of the young 
people of this country are going to go to the local school districts, 
go to the parents, go to the 

[[Page S 17108]]
teachers, go to the school boards, and let the local communities help 
develop a program to increase academic achievement. It goes for 
education at the local level. It passed overwhelmingly with Republicans 
and Democrats alike last year. And nonetheless, because it was a 
President Clinton initiative on education, it was zeroed out in the 
House of Representatives--abandoned. Now it hobbles along under this 
particular resolution reduced from the previous resolution of the 
Republicans that left it at 90 percent. Now it is going to be funded at 
60 percent--a 40-percent cut, Mr. President.
  What will the Republican resolution be on December 6? This resolution 
only goes to December 5. And we have that kind of a cut from 90 
percent. We cut it 40 percent in this continuing resolution. That is 
unacceptable.
  You take safe and drug-free schools. How many times do we listen to 
our Republican colleagues talk about the problems of substance abuse, 
and here they are cutting out a significant program. That is not the 
answer. All of us understand from various hearings on these programs, 
you need not only a program in the schools, but you need after-school 
programs, and preschool programs. You need employment, you need sports, 
you need a variety of different activities to involve young people in 
this country. Safe and drug free schools and communities has been an 
effective program in many schools--and it is cut by 40 percent.
  Take the funding for new technology for schools, which is already 
available to so many children in many of the private schools in this 
country. Effectively, that program is gutted--cut by 40 percent. Making 
new technology available in the public schools of this country is being 
cut by 40 percent.
  Take the Eisenhower Professional Development Program. It is one of 
the very best teacher training programs in the Nation. It enhances the 
academic achievement and accomplishments of teachers and offers wide 
range of new courses to strengthen their academic background and 
overall experience so that they can be better teachers in the 
classrooms across the country. That program is cut by 40 percent.
  Then the Perkins Loan Program, which is an additional college loan 
program to help the students of this country pursue their education is 
cut by 40 percent. These are cuts in efforts to reform the basic 
education programs, cuts in technology, cuts again in help and 
assistance for those that are pursuing higher education.
  And the summer jobs for youth is cut 40 percent. I guess an awful lot 
of those teenagers cannot vote. This program is zeroed out in the House 
of Representatives--summer jobs for youth, a program that makes a big 
difference to many of the young people in this country, and in urban 
and rural areas alike. Major cities, such as Boston, receive extensive 
matches in funds by the private sector. There is an effective 
recruiting mechanism for young students in the inner cities to find 
employment as they work in the summer jobs. They then work for many of 
these companies and corporations in the cities. This important effort 
is cut by 40 percent.
  So there it is, Mr. President. That is what we are being asked to do. 
On the one hand, we are going to hear the same statements repeatedly 
today. They will say, let us just ask the President to work with us on 
a balanced budget. But every single Member in this body knows that we 
are facing the Republican budget tomorrow that cuts the Medicare 
Program, provides tax breaks for wealthy individuals, and cuts 
education.
  If they were serious, they would have said, let us work out the 
priorities in those areas. Let us really move to a bipartisan balanced 
budget. Let us find out what we can do working together, and then have 
the opportunity to get beyond what the Speaker of the House called a 
train wreck. A train wreck that he predicted and an event that he 
effectively implemented by failing to provide leadership to ensure the 
timely completion of the appropriations bills. Let us not fool the 
American people, Mr. President. We know what is happening here.
  They are just trying to score the political points, trying to put 
something to the President of the United States. They will not say 
today, all right, we will reconsider our tax cut.
  I am going to watch today and see whether any Member who supports 
this proposal will say, look, we are operating in good faith. We will 
reconsider our tax cut for the wealthiest individuals. We will 
reconsider that. We will consider the Democrats' position on the 
Medicare Program and their wish to ensure its financial stability to 
the outer years. We will reconsider our $270 billion, and we will 
reconcile that with your $87 billion. We will look at that. We are 
serious about today. We will meet with you all during the day with our 
Budget Committee to consider some of the Democratic priorities. And we 
will also take another look at these extraordinary cuts that have been 
made in education. We have addressed the education issues. We have had 
some success in restoring them here. But do you think that is reflected 
in the continuing resolution? Absolutely not.
  So, Mr. President, I think we all understand what is at risk here. 
The President is wise to reject this. But the President should 
challenge Republicans and Democrats alike to sit down and work this 
out. We have no preconditions, no preconditions to moving toward a 
balanced budget, as has been repeated by the President and leaders, 
every Member of this side. They are for the balanced budget, but not 
for the Republican priorities.
  That is the problem. The Republicans are saying, oh well, you have to 
vote for this because it says balanced budget but we are going to stick 
it to the elderly on the Medicare cuts, and we are going to stick it to 
the children, and we are going to enhance the wealthiest corporations 
and richest individuals with unjustified tax breaks. That is wrong. 
This resolution should be defeated.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first, I thank the Chair for recognizing 
me. I wish to say for Republicans on our side so they will understand, 
this is an appropriations matter. Chairman Hatfield is going to be 
managing the bill. There are no time limits thus far. So if Senators 
think that we can allocate time, there is no allocation. It is a 
question of the Chair observing the precedents of the Senate in 
recognizing Senators either to speak or offer amendments. So everyone 
should know I do not think I can get them time if they just call on the 
phone. There is open debate unless and until we reach some unanimous-
consent agreement with reference to the situation.
  Mr. President, I wish to make a couple of points rather than go into 
a lot of detail. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] has 
failed to mention to the American people one thing. As he goes through 
a litany of reductions and cuts, he failed to tell the American people 
what we have before us is a 19-day bill--one-nine, 19 days.
  For the next 19 days, if this is signed, the U.S. Government will 
continue to operate under an interim funding program described in this 
bill. This is not a year. This is 19 days. So all the comments about 
what is being reduced in expenditures, how much we are asking programs 
to take a cut is for the next 19 days, and until we finally reach a 
conclusion between the President and the Congress on the full year, 
this 19 days is a very insignificant portion of what is going to be 
funded and how things are going to come out.
  It is generally and historically true around here that when the 
Congress and the Presidents are battling over expenditures continuing 
resolutions are funded at less than what you finally agree to do. So as 
to make the point, in this case we want to spend less overall rather 
than more. The problem we have is that some Democrats--and of late it 
seems the President joins with them--just want to spend more money 
rather than less while they are talking about reducing the deficit. So 
let us make sure that everybody understands, whoever comes to the floor 
from whichever side of the aisle during the next 3 or 4 hours and talks 
about what is being cut on the appropriations side, we are talking 
about an interim, short-term funding measure for 19 days. We are not 
talking about the entire year. We are not talking about final 
appropriations numbers.
  For those who wonder about not getting all the appropriations bills 
done on time, let me suggest that the very 

[[Page S 17109]]
last Democratic Senate with a Republican President had six continuing 
resolutions. If I recall, we have had one, so far. They had six to make 
their case to a President and then eventually were able to work 
something out. So it is not untoward or unexpected or something we have 
invented. At the end of the year, when you are arguing over important 
differences, frequently you have short-term extensions of the 
appropriations bills while you attempt to get something worked out.
  Let us talk about getting something worked out and why we are here 
today. We are here today because we want to open the Government, put 
the people back to work, have a 19-day extension of funding, and then 
presumably the day after tomorrow we will pass a Balanced Budget Act of 
1995. We will send that to the President. He has said he will veto it, 
and then we are left with nothing. We are left with no serious deficit 
reduction. Presumably, according to the President, he would like to 
work with us then. He submits that he would like a budget, a short-term 
appropriations bill that says, look, give us the right kind of funding, 
do not worry about that, and let us just state in there that we are 
going to get together after all of these vetoes and we are going to 
work on the budget. Then and there we are going to agree on when it is 
going to be balanced, and then and there we are going to agree on what 
economic assumptions we are going to use.
  I see that as the end of a balanced budget. There is no chance you 
can work anything out that way. With the differences that exist, if 
there is not some kind of a benchmark that guides and leads those 
negotiations, you will be nowhere and probably nowhere forever.
  Having said that, let me suggest that there is going to be a lot of 
debate on the other side of the aisle on how onerous and difficult this 
7-year balanced budget using real economics is. There is going to be a 
lot of debate that the Republican agenda is mandated by this balanced-
budget-in-7-years portion of this bill. Neither is true. This is not a 
balanced budget amendment that says how we will get to balance, when we 
start negotiating with the President.
  It is not how we get there. It is whether we get there. It is not how 
we get there. It is whether we get there. The truth of the matter is 
that all the ideas for spending more money, for reducing the tax cuts, 
for saving every program that everybody wants to stand up and say we 
ought to save, they are all on the table. When the President comes to 
that meeting with his experts talking about this issue, they are all on 
the table. There is no agenda that is predetermined. Whatever any 
Member of the House or Senate says, the language is clear. Republicans 
do not dictate the agenda and the President does not. The benchmark is 
that we will all start with one premise, 7 years, and we will balance.
  It seems to me that the President and others are saying we do not 
know if we can do a balanced budget in 7 years using real economics. 
Let me suggest there are 71 Senators that have said we can and have 
voted for a plan to do it.
  Nineteen Democratic Senators voted for a plan, a bill, that says we 
should have balance in 7 years using real economics. Nineteen of them, 
added to the 52 Republican Senators, my arithmetic says that is 71. So, 
71 have said it can be done. Nineteen say, ``Do it a different way.'' 
Fifty-two say, ``Do it the Republican way.''
  It is my understanding that last night 48 Democrats joined the 
Republicans in recommending this to the President. Previous balanced 
budgets this year voted on by the House, 299 House Members, considering 
two different plans, one by Democrats and one by Republicans, voted for 
a balanced budget in 7 years using real economics. What is the 
President afraid of? What are Democrats afraid of in terms of a 7-year 
balanced budget that says, ``We aren't telling you how, we're just 
telling you whether we have a balanced budget or not"?
  Having said that, Mr. President, I would like now to just read a few 
comments from The Washington Post editorial of this morning. Mr. 
President, it is called, ``The Real Default.'' It is about half a page. 
I might suspect some would say, ``If it's the Washington Post, they are 
probably saying the Republicans are `in default.''' I regret to tell 
you Democrats, it is not us that they say are in default. It is the 
President and the Democratic leadership that this says are in default. 
I would like to just read a little bit of it.

       The budget deficit is the central problem of the Federal 
     Government and one from which many of the country's other, 
     most difficult problems flow. The deficit is largely driven 
     in turn by the cost of the great entitlements that go not to 
     small special classes of rich or poor but across the board to 
     almost all Americans in time. The most important of these are 
     the principal social programs for the elderly, Social 
     Security and Medicare. In fiscal terms, Medicare is currently 
     the greatest threat and the chief offender.
       Bill Clinton and the congressional Democrats were handed an 
     unusual chance this year to deal constructively with the 
     effect of Medicare on the deficit, and they blew it. The 
     chance came in the form of the congressional Republican plan 
     to balance the budget over 7 years. Some other aspects of 
     that plan deserve to be resisted, but the Republican proposal 
     to get at the deficit partly by confronting the cost of 
     Medicare [and its own default] deserves support. The 
     Democrats, led by the president, chose instead to present 
     themselves as Medicare's great protectors. They have 
     shamelessly used the issue, demagogued on it, because they 
     think that's where the votes are and the way to derail the 
     Republican proposals generally. The President was still doing 
     it this week; a Republican proposal to increase Medicare 
     premiums was one of the reasons he alleged for the veto that 
     has shut down the government--and never mind [says the 
     editorial] that he himself, in his own budget, would 
     countenance a similar increase.
       We've said some of this before; it gets more serious. If 
     the Democrats play the Medicare card and win, they will have 
     set back for years, for the worst of political reasons, the 
     very cost of rational government in behalf of which they 
     profess to be behaving. Politically, they will have helped to 
     lock in place the enormous financial pressure that they 
     themselves are first to deplore on so many other Federal 
     programs, not least the programs for the poor. That's the 
     real default that could occur this year. In the end, the 
     Treasury will meet its financial obligations. You can be 
     pretty sure of that. The question is whether the president 
     and the Democrats will meet or flee their obligations of a 
     different kind. On the strength of the record so far, you 
     would have to bet on flight.

  Now, there is much more. I ask unanimous consent that this editorial 
be printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Nov. 16, 1995]

                            The Real Default

       The budget deficit is the central problem of the federal 
     government and one from which many of the country's other, 
     most difficult problems flow. The deficit is largely driven 
     in turn by the cost of the great entitlements that go not to 
     small special classes of rich or poor but across the board to 
     almost all Americans in time. The most important of these are 
     the principal social insurance programs for the elderly, 
     Social Security and Medicare. In fiscal terms, Medicare is 
     currently the greatest threat and chief offender.
       Bill Clinton and the congressional Democrats were handed an 
     unusual chance this year to deal constructively with the 
     effect of Medicare on the deficit, and they blew it. The 
     chance came in the form of the congressional Republican plan 
     to balance the budget over seven years. Some other aspects of 
     that plan deserved to be resisted, but the Republican 
     proposal to get at the deficit partly by confronting the cost 
     of Medicare deserved support. The Democrats, led by the 
     president, chose instead to present themselves as Medicare's 
     great protectors. They have shamelessly used the issue, 
     demagogued on it, because they think that's where the votes 
     are and the way to derail the Republican proposals generally. 
     The president was still doing it this week; a Republican 
     proposal to increase Medicare premiums was one of the reasons 
     he alleged for the veto that has shut down the government--
     and never mind that he himself, in his own budget, would 
     countenance a similar increase.
       We've said some of this before; it gets more serious. If 
     the Democrats play the Medicare card and win they will have 
     set back for years, for the worst of political reasons, the 
     very cause of rational government in behalf of which they 
     profess to be behaving. Politically, they will have helped to 
     lock in place the enormous financial pressure that they 
     themselves are first to deplore on so many other federal 
     programs, not least the programs for poor. That's the real 
     default that could occur this year. In the end, the Treasury 
     will meet its financial obligations. You can be pretty sure 
     of that. The question is whether the president and the 
     Democrats will meet or flee their obligations of a different 
     kind. On the strength of the record so far, you'd have to bet 
     on flight.
       You'll hear the argument from some that this is a phony 
     issue; they contend that the deficit isn't that great a 
     problem. The people who make this argument are whistling past 
     a graveyard that they themselves most likely helped to dig. 
     The national debt in 1980 

[[Page S 17110]]
     was less than $1 trillion. That was the sum of all the deficits the 
     government had previously incurred--the whole two centuries' 
     worth. The debt now, a fun-filled 15 years later, is five 
     times that and rising at a rate approaching $1 trillion a 
     presidential term. Interest costs are a seventh of the 
     budget, by themselves now a quarter of a trillion dollars a 
     year and rising; we are paying not just for the government we 
     have but for the government we had and didn't pay for 
     earlier.
       The blamesters, or some of them, will tell you Ronald 
     Reagan did it, and his low-tax, credit-card philosophy of 
     government surely played its part. The Democratic Congresses 
     that ratified his budgets and often went him one better on 
     tax cuts and spending increases played their part as well. 
     Various sections of the budget are also favorite punching 
     bags, depending who is doing the punching. You will hear it 
     said that someone's taxes ought to be higher (generally 
     someone else's), or that defense should be cut, or welfare, 
     or farm price supports or the cost of the bureaucracy. But 
     even Draconian cuts in any or all of these areas would be 
     insufficient to the problem and, because dwelling on them is 
     a way of pretending the real deficit-generating costs don't 
     exist, beside the point as well.
       What you don't hear said in all this talk of which programs 
     should take the hit, since the subject is so much harder 
     politically to confront, is that the principal business of 
     the federal government has become elder-care. Aid to the 
     elderly, principally through Social Security and Medicare, is 
     now a third of all spending and half of all for other than 
     interest on the debt and defense. That aid is one of the 
     major social accomplishments of the past 30 years; the 
     poverty rate for the elderly is now, famously, well below the 
     rate for the society as a whole. It is also an enormous and 
     perhaps unsustainable cost that can only become more so as 
     the baby-boomers shortly begin to retire. How does the 
     society deal with it?
       The Republicans stepped up to this as part of their 
     proposal to balance the budget. About a fourth of their 
     spending cuts would come from Medicare. It took guts to 
     propose that. You may remember the time, not that many months 
     ago, when the village wisdom was that, whatever else they 
     proposed, they'd never take on Medicare this way. There were 
     too many votes at stake. We don't mean to suggest by this 
     that their proposal with regard to Medicare is perfect--it 
     most emphatically is not, as we ourselves have said as much 
     at some length in this space. So they ought to be argued 
     with, and ways should be found to take the good of their 
     ideas while rejecting the bad.
       But that's not what the president and congressional 
     Democrats have done. They've trashed the whole proposal as 
     destructive, taken to the air waves with a slick scare 
     program about it, championing themselves as noble defenders 
     of those about to be victimized. They--the Republicans--want 
     to take away your Medicare; that's the insistent PR message 
     that Democrats have been drumming into the elderly and the 
     children of the elderly all year. The Democrats used to 
     complain that the Republicans used wedge issues; this is the 
     super wedge. And it's wrong. In the long run, if it succeeds, 
     the tactic will make it harder to achieve not just the right 
     fiscal result but the right social result. The lesson to 
     future politicians will be that you reach out to restructure 
     Medicare at your peril. The result will be to crowd out of 
     the budget other programs for less popular or powerful 
     constituencies--we have in mind the poor--that the Democrats 
     claim they are committed to protect.
       There's a way to get the deficit down without doing 
     enormous social harm. It isn't rocket science. You spread the 
     burden as widely as possible. Among much else, that means 
     including the broad and, in some respects, inflated middle-
     class entitlements in the cuts. That's the direction in which 
     the president ought to be leading and the congressional 
     Democrats following. To do otherwise is to hide, to lull the 
     public and to perpetuate the budget problem they profess to 
     be trying to solve. Let us say it again: If that's what 
     happens, it will be the real default.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Now, Mr. President, I want to repeat to every 
Democratic Senator here, to the President of the United States, this 
continuing resolution in this very simple language:

       The President and Congress shall enact legislation in the 
     104th Congress to achieve a unified balanced budget not later 
     than the fiscal year 2002 as scored by the non-partisan 
     Congressional Budget Office.
       The unified balanced budget in subsection (a) shall be 
     based on the most current economic and technical assumptions 
     of the Congressional Budget Office.

  If ever there was a simple statement of whether or not we intend, 
whether or not we as a Congress, intend, and the President, as our 
leader, intends to stop spending our children's, grandchildren's, and 
unborn children's wealth to pay for programs of today, there could not 
be a better statement than that. Do you want to continue that or not?
  I have been at it for a long time. I have been unsure from time to 
time when we could reach a balanced budget. But, Mr. President, and 
fellow Senators, I am absolutely convinced, and 19 Democrats backed 
this, and 299 House Members have voted it, that 7 years is ample time 
to get rid of the legacy of debt, and pass on a legacy of opportunity 
to our children. I am absolutely convinced it can be done.
  For those who would argue we are trying to force our agenda, then I 
submit this is the people's agenda, 7 years using real economics. It is 
not a Republican agenda. And we are not even saying how you should do 
it. We are saying that we ought to continue this Government of America, 
put our people back to work, but we ought to make a commitment to the 
American people, and our President ought to join us. He has said he 
wants a balanced budget. And at one point he said 5 years. At one point 
he said 10 years. At another point he said 9 years, maybe 8.
  Mr. President, you have to seriously consider what you are saying 
when you say, ``We will not do one thing with the Republicans. We will 
not negotiate,'' if they say let us start with a very basic marker of a 
balanced budget in 7 years.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator from New Mexico yield for a question?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I would be pleased to yield without losing my right to 
the floor.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, it is my understanding that anyone who 
votes for this resolution will not be voting for a tax cut or promise 
to vote for a tax cut, will not be voting for a reduction in Medicare 
spending, will not be voting for a reduction in Medicaid spending and 
will not be voting for any of the specifics that are laid out in the 
Republican budget? None of that is referenced in the continuing 
resolution; is that correct?
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator from Pennsylvania is absolutely correct.
  Mr. SANTORUM. No one can make the claim they are voting against this 
because they are against the Republican budget as outlined; is that 
correct?
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct. I might put it another way. Nineteen 
Democratic Senators offered their own plan to balance the budget at the 
same time as the Republicans using the same economics. If that is what 
the Democrats want when we go meet with the President, and if that is 
what the President wants, it has the exact same validity and the exact 
same merit as the Republican budget.
  Mr. SANTORUM. One additional question. The only other thing, other 
than saying we are to balance the budget in 7 years, is that we will 
use the Congressional Budget Office as the final arbiter; is that not 
correct?
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Has there ever been objection by the other side using 
the Congressional Budget Office as the final arbiter that you are aware 
of?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am not going to say I never heard anyone on the other 
side of the aisle object to using the Congressional Budget Office, 
because they might have, but let me tell you, never in the Budget 
Committee as we debated this did I hear any of my good friends on the 
Democratic side, including their leader in the budget matters, say that 
we ought to depart this year or last year from the Congressional Budget 
Office's economics. I have not heard that.
  Mr. SANTORUM. My understanding is that the Democratic leader said on 
June 25, ``We will come to whatever accommodations that are to ensure 
that CBO is the final arbiter of the numbers.'' So that is the 
Democratic leader speaking.
  I just want to know if anybody else has spoken differently, to your 
knowledge?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I know of none.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will be pleased to.
  Mr. DORGAN. I thought I heard the discussion suggested that the only 
other change with CBO is also the case that this 15-page continuing 
resolution cuts by 40 percent some programs, including, for example, 
low-income energy assistance. It is now wintertime, of course. I come 
from a State that gets pretty cold. Some low-income folks get energy 
assistance. Does this not cut that by 40 percent? Is that not a change? 
I am using that as one example. Would that not be an example of other 
changes you put in this 15-page document?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Might I answer the Senator this way. You were not on 
the 

[[Page S 17111]]
floor, I believe, so I will answer again. This document does not run 
Government for the entire year of 1996. It runs Government for 19 days. 
And during those 19 days, those who are managing the programs cannot 
spend on the program you described at more than a rate of 60 percent of 
current program funding, but it does not set the year-long funding for 
those programs.
  Continuing resolutions are for a short period of time only. I add, it 
will be for 19 days. I cannot conceive that that would be the level in 
the long run that we would be at. That is what we still have to work 
out, and that is what continuing resolutions are for.
  I thank you for the question, and anybody who has questions on all 
the other 10 programs, the answer is the same. It does not eliminate 
anything. It does not set the pattern for the full year. It says 19 
days from now. That is until December 5.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for one additional question?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
  Mr. DORGAN. That is a change from previous CR's where it was 90 
percent. It will now be 60 percent, so the cut would be 40 percent of 
things like star schools, low-income energy, et cetera.
  Mr. DOMENICI. It is; yes. Frankly, when you are involved in this kind 
of situation in trying to get something done, it is not unusual that 
continuing resolutions change each time, seeing if some headway can be 
made about the loggerhead situation by adjusting it. That has been done 
before.
  Now, Mr. President, I want to continue on. I want to talk a little 
bit about what I think is the real problem. First of all, I think the 
problem is that the President of the United States has committed to a 
balanced budget, and what I am saying I do not say about Democratic 
Senators. They had some very serious proposals, and I believe they 
tried very hard--19 of them--to get a balanced budget. I believe 
Senator Exon would clearly try to get a balanced budget in 7 years and 
achieve it.
  But what I think the problem is, is that the President of the United 
States does not want to tell anybody how much money he wants to spend. 
The issue is how much do you want to spend in the next 7 years, not how 
much you want to cut taxes.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania is correct, if you vote for this, the 
President can go to the table saying, ``I don't want any taxes.'' And I 
repeat that. He can go to the table saying, ``I don't want to cut one 
bit of education. I want it to increase education instead of it being 
frozen or reduced.'' This does not obligate any specifics.
  What I believe is the case is that the President is not prepared to 
tell the American people how much he wants to spend. It is spending 
that is ruining America's future. It is spending too much that brings 
the Washington Post to saying, ``The budget deficit is the central 
problem of the Federal Government and one from which many of the 
country's other most difficult problems flow.''
  Deficits do not come from the air. They come from spending more than 
you take in, and I believe if the President and his experts will sit 
down in a room between now and the time we finally send this bill to 
them and ask themselves seriously--forget the Republican agenda--``How 
much do we want to spend?'' They do not have to tell anybody, but I 
believe they will come to one of two conclusions: One, they want to 
spend too much and, therefore, cannot agree to this, or, to their 
amazement, they will find under their priorities they can easily get a 
balanced budget by the year 2002.
  I believe that without a question. In fact, I will volunteer to sit 
down with them and use their priorities. How much more do you really 
want in education? It is annually appropriated, but let us just put it 
on the table, I say to my colleague, Senator Cochran, put it on there. 
How much more do you want in the Environmental Protection Agency? Put 
it on the table. Not very big budget items. Put some more on that they 
have been talking about. Put them on the table.
  Look at this resolution: ``The unified balanced budget shall be based 
on the most current economic and technical assumptions of the 
Congressional Budget Office.''
  We did not use those because we kept our budget resolution to the 
April ones. But, Mr. President, I say to my fellow Democrats, I ask 
that you look at those. See how much more that gives us to spend. I 
will guess $30 billion. Your priorities can be plugged into those, but 
why in the world, with the effort that has gone forth and with over 85 
percent of Americans wanting a balanced budget, why would the President 
not commit and why would Democratic Senators not vote for a very basic, 
simple cornerstone for the beginning of serious negotiations by the 
Executive and the Congress, and there are no other conditions? Right?
  It does not say how we get there. It does not say what committee does 
it. It does not say which programs are in, which are out. Very, very 
simple: Do you want to agree to the cornerstone of fiscal sanity, which 
is 7 years using real economics, and sit down and do it? As a matter of 
fact, I would assume that if it turns out to be impossible, that it 
would turn out to be impossible because there is great justification on 
the part of the President not to do it and even that the American 
people might buy in after serious negotiations.
  Nobody goes to jail. Nobody is run out of office. It just says the 
Congress and the President shall do this. We cannot tie our President's 
hands. We can just say let us get on with this.
  Let me put into my last thoughts--this idea is sort of budgetese and 
hard to talk about--but whose economic assumptions should you use? Let 
me try to draw a distinction that maybe everybody can understand. We 
created an institution called the Congressional Budget Office, led by 
Democrats and Republicans, I am very pleased to say to this day to this 
Senator's satisfaction, and in my opinion, they are very objective and 
they are very good. Nobody owns them. They do not work for the majority 
or the minority or the President. They have a cadre of economists that 
are as good as any. They have number crunchers that are the best.
  Why did we do that and why did we tell them to do their work and to 
give it to the U.S. Congress? Because we wanted a neutral, objective 
evaluator of the realities of the American economy, especially if you 
had to do some predicting.
  Nobody is going to take the floor and say that they are inferior to 
the President's people who do the same kind of work. Most will say they 
are superior to the President's people. Most will get the record out 
and say they are right more times than any of the others, which is 
true.
  What is this battle about? The President of the United States got up 
at a joint session of Congress. He had his first budget before us as 
President. In that budget, he used what? Congressional Budget Office 
assumptions. He bragged about it, and he said that we are not cooking 
the books anymore. I am paraphrasing. We are not cooking the books 
anymore. No more smoke and mirrors. We are using the real authenticator 
of economics.
  Who was it he was talking about? The Congressional Budget Office. He 
directed that sort of at Republicans that night. At least we took it 
that way. The Democrats cheered. Republicans sort of said, I guess he 
is picking on us.
  The very next year, the President of the United States, for some 
reason, said, ``I am not using them anymore. I am going to use my own 
people.'' Everybody should understand that those who do this work for 
the President work for him. The Office of Management and Budget 
Director is appointed by the President. We confirmed him. His Chief of 
Economics, head of that council, he picks them. The Secretary of the 
Treasury, he picks them.
  Why did we create CBO? Because we were not too sure that when it came 
to these kinds of things, that you would not just lean a little bit 
toward your boss, right? We think some of those did that for Ronald 
Reagan, and we were the ones that took it in the neck for it. We had to 
end up saying we do not like these magic asterisks anymore and rosy 
economics.
  So, for some reason--I think I now know why--the President, after 1 
year, changed his mind, and he produced a budget that used different 
economic assumptions--growth, interest rates, and how much programs 
would cost, such as Medicare and Medicaid. He did that with his people 
and said, ``If you want 

[[Page S 17112]]
to use the Congressional Budget Office up there on the Hill, that is 
your business.'' But it turns out, right now, that it happens to be 
everybody's business because, essentially, if you use what the 
President's own people did for him, you have a no-pain budget. You do 
not have to change things very much because you pick up great savings 
because of assumptions. You even save a huge amount of money on 
Medicare and Medicaid without changing anything. You do not change a 
sentence in the law, put a new period in; you just assume more savings 
and then the program costs less.
  I must say, I really wish that, before I went to the trouble of 
producing the budget that we are going to bring up the day after 
tomorrow and that we voted on here, somebody would have given me a 
present. What kind of present? A $475 billion present saying you do not 
have to worry about $475 billion of these reforms and restraints and 
reductions, because we just found them. Where did you find them? We 
found them because the President's men, the President's workers, the 
President's OMB Director found them by changing the books.
  Now, I understand--and there is no inference that there is anything 
illegal about this at all--they have their views, and they are 
competent, smart, informed people. But the truth of the matter is that 
they work for the President and the Congressional Budget Office does 
not, nor does it work for Republicans. They have been more right than 
wrong, and we have been burned many times using economic assumptions 
that turn out not to be right.
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. What I think I am hearing from Members on the other 
side is they are trying to find a reason to vote against this 
continuing resolution. They may not be comfortable with voting against 
it because it balances the budget in 7 years or because we are using 
Congressional Budget Office scoring. But some are trying to find a 
reduction in the expenditure levels in the continuing resolution as a 
reason to vote against this continuing resolution.
  I want to ask the Senator, who I know is on the Appropriations 
Committee--and I conferred with the Senator from Mississippi, who is 
also on the committee--is it not a custom that when a continuing 
resolution is passed, in that continuing resolution you use the lower 
of the House- or Senate-passed levels of spending for the various 
programs, and that becomes the continuing resolution? Is that not the 
custom of continuing resolutions, I ask the Senator from New Mexico?
  Mr. DOMENICI. While I was not intimately involved in the process that 
developed that theory, it actually has a name. It is called the Michel 
rule, which is from the former minority leader in the House, 
Representative Michel, because at a point in time when he was in his 
leadership role, we were confronted with a Republican President and a 
Democratic Congress, and they were trying to work together to get some 
time, like we are, in a continuing resolution. Bob Michel suggested the 
lower of either House for this short interval, and it has thus been 
known as the Michel rule. So that is the case. That has been the 
practice.
  Mr. SANTORUM. This bill conforms with the Michel rule?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Right.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Have Members on both sides voted for CR's that do that?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes. We have to lay that on the table. There is a 
slight addition because there are programs that are zeroed out in the 
Michel rule application. The House feels strongly about those. The 
President feels strongly about those. And so rather than using the 
Michel rule, which would have said the lower of either means zero, we 
have compromised at 60 percent for the next 19 days.
  Mr. SANTORUM. So actually we are even spending more money than the 
Michel rule would require because we are taking programs that would 
have been zeroed out because the House zeroed out those programs. They 
are spending 60 percent just to continue those programs during this 
period of time. So, in fact, we are being more generous than previous 
CR's would have been; is that correct?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, in the sense that if you had a zero and applied 
the Michel rule, that would be the lowest possible one. So it would be 
zeroed out. I do not know if there has ever been any such zeroing out 
in a continuing resolution applying the Michel rule. Maybe the Senator 
from Mississippi knows that.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a question on that point?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
  Mr. SARBANES. The Michel rule never applied to a set of facts in 
which you were zeroing out programs.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I just said that.
  Mr. SARBANES. That is absolutely right. So the response to the 
question put from the Senator from Pennsylvania is contrary to his 
assertion. The Michel rule never reached the matter we are confronting 
with all the zeroing out of these very important programs, including 
the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which the Senator from 
North Dakota made reference to earlier.
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say, first, to Senator Sarbanes, one might put it 
another way and be just as accurate as your statement. One might say 
that the Michel rule has to be modified because, as it was applied, 
there were no zeroing out of program funding. So it is being modified. 
And we are modifying it and saying 60 percent funding for a temporary 
period of 19 days. That is one way to say it. I think that is what we 
are acknowledging.
  Mr. CONRAD. If the Senator will yield for a quick question, I ask if 
the Senator from New Mexico is aware that, this morning, the Wall 
Street Journal has endorsed the economic assumptions of the President, 
rather than the economic assumptions of the Congressional Budget 
Office. The Wall Street Journal this morning said: ``While the 
Congressional Budget Office predicted 2.3 percent annual economic 
growth, OMB boosted it to 2.5 percent.'' And, interestingly enough, the 
Wall Street Journal, this morning, said: ``In our view, both growth 
assumptions are overly pessimistic. Corporate profits look fairly 
cheerful. There is no reason the economy should not grow at 3 
percent,'' according to the Wall Street Journal. ``Government policies, 
whether monetary or fiscal, should not be designed to foreclose this 
result.''

  I wanted to know if the Senator from New Mexico was aware that the 
Wall Street Journal--this is perhaps the most conservative journal in 
the country with respect to these issues--has this morning endorsed the 
economic assumptions of the Office of Management and Budget--if you 
look at the last 2 years.
  I further ask, is it not true that the actual results of economic 
growth have exceeded both CBO and OMB assumptions, and that the actual 
results on deficit reduction have been better--the actual results--than 
CBO or OMB assumptions?
  In fact, both have been overly conservative, and that perhaps the 
Wall Street Journal has got it right in that both OMB and CBO are 
overly conservative.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Is that the question?
  Mr. CONRAD. That is the question.
  Was the Senator aware the Wall Street Journal has endorsed the 
President's economic assumptions, saying that both OMB and CBO are 
overly pessimistic?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I was not aware, but it does not surprise me. I have 
the greatest respect for the Wall Street Journal but their charter is 
not to balance the budget. Our charter is to balance the budget. Theirs 
is to write editorials and make assessments and predictions. They are 
good at it.
  The fact of the matter is if you put to the American people in 
language they could understand, if you are going to work at a balanced 
budget would you want to take a chance on using a rosy economic 
scenario and pulling us in again, or do you want to be more 
conservative?
  If the conservative economics are right, lo and behold, we will have 
a nice surplus. Is that all so bad? Especially when you look at what we 
have do to get there, and if the Democrats will look at what we have 
done to get there, and apply their priorities on it, you get to a 
balanced budget using the 

[[Page S 17113]]
Congressional Budget Office's more conservative, historically more 
accurate, economic assumptions than those prepared either by OMB or 
confirmed by the Wall Street Journal in their opinion as being more 
appropriate.
  Now, Mr. President----
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Sure.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I have tremendous respect for the Senator and I want 
to ask one thing. There are a number of us here who are anxious to be 
part of the debate. Will the Senator hold the floor longer, or is there 
an opportunity to have this debate, I think many of us would like to 
have?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am fully aware you want to debate, and I am sure we 
will debate and I will be through very soon.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me just give you, the people 
listening and those who at least understand where I am coming from, my 
last observations.
  Mr. President, I want to give my last observation of the situation: 
It is going to be very difficult to get a balanced budget. Once the 
President has vetoed the Balanced Budget Act we will present, it will 
be very difficult. Then there is no game plan and we will have to sit 
down as best we can and see if we can put one together.
  I predict with almost certainty that if we do not have at least a 
cornerstone from which to start that work of a balanced budget in 7 
years with agreed-upon economics, I submit it will never happen. I 
sense that in my discussions with people from the White House.
  The differences are so severe that we will be all over the lot, and 
without 7 years staring us in the face and agreed upon priorities--and 
I say ``agreed upon'' because they are not ours at that point, they are 
negotiable--we will not get there.
  Senators on your side want to debate things, and I wonder, is Senator 
Exon the manager?
  Mr. EXON. There are no time restraints. It is open season, so to 
speak.
  I believe the Senator from North Dakota was very, very early, but it 
is up to the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I did not yield because of the nature of this amendment 
that is pending and the fact that it can be amended. I have to either 
ask that there be no amendments to it for the next 30 minutes or 40 
minutes or an hour or I will have to bring the Republican leader to the 
floor.
  Mr. EXON. Would the chairman of the committee please restate the 
request.
  Mr. DOMENICI. If I give up the floor without getting the majority 
leader to the floor so I can talk to him, could we have an agreement 
for the next hour we will debate and there will be no amendments?
  Mr. EXON. There are some amendments that we want to offer. I simply 
inquire--we could not agree to that without further consideration.
  The floor is open to amendments at any time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I was unaware of a conversation between the majority 
leader and your leader that has already occurred that straightens out 
my problem, so I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have listened for some while this 
morning, and I will respond to some of the discussion that I have 
heard.
  This is either, in theatrical terms, a comedy or tragedy. I suppose 
some view it both ways.
  A comedy--I came to the Capitol this morning to see a newspaper that 
says ``Cry Baby,'' and a newspaper saying that the Speaker had a 
tantrum and closed down the Government because Clinton made him sit at 
the back of the plane.
  I do not know the veracity of the news piece but the quote that is in 
this piece says, claiming that Clinton refused to open budget talks and 
snubbed him aboard Air Force One, Gingrich said, ``That's part of why 
you ended up with us sending down a tougher stopgap spending bill.''
  Well, I hope that is not the case. I hope that is just hyperbole, but 
if it is the case, it truly is comedy--low-grade comedy. It does not 
make any sense for this country to be in this situation. The tragedy is 
this affects a lot of people in a lot of significant ways.
  I know that truth is often the first casualty in debates like this. I 
know that on the floor of the Senate there are people today who will 
work very hard to make the case that this debate is about whether we 
should balance the budget.
  We will see contortions and acrobatic approaches today that suggest 
this is only about whether we should balance the budget. It is not 
about that at all.
  Of course we should balance the budget. Of course we should balance 
the budget. I do not think anyone in here disagrees with that. That 
ought to be the goal.
  The question is, how do you balance the budget? What approach do you 
use to balance the budget? I know that we will have people for the next 
hour who will say the debate here is about CBO versus OMB. I bet a lot 
of people do not understand the interests of that--CBO versus OMB. I do 
not care whether it is CBO, OMB, AT&T, or the NFL.
  That is not the issue with me. What I do care about is the notion 
that people are bringing legislative initiatives to this floor to--they 
say--balance the budget, in a manner that cuts health care for the 
elderly and the vulnerable in our country, takes kids off the Head 
Start Program. It does dozens of things to the more vulnerable parts of 
our society and then rewards others with tax breaks.
  As long as people are coming to this floor saying what we need to do 
is borrow money to give a tax break, some $245 billion, 80 percent of 
which will go to the top 20 percent of the income earners, as long as 
people are saying we must do that, and in order to pay for all of that, 
we ought to take a big hunk out of Medicare, Medicaid, education, low-
income energy assistance for poor people, when they are trying to heat 
their homes during the winter as an example, I am not going to be 
interested in talking about CBO versus OMB.
  I am for 7 years. That is fine. If we can do it quicker, that is fine 
as well. The fact is, we ought to do it the right way, and the right 
way is not to borrow money to give a tax cut which will reward the 
privileged in this country.
  There was an article the other day that described in summary what we 
are facing here. The ``how to balance the budget,'' represented by the 
priorities of the road map already given us by the majority party, is 
to do it this way. It says, you take a roomful of people and have that 
roomful of people represent the population of the United States. Then 
you divide them. You take the 20 percent of your room that have the 
lowest incomes and you put them on this side of the room in chairs. You 
say: You sit over there because you have the lowest income in the room, 
you 20 percent. Now we are going to cut spending in a way that says you 
20 percent with the lowest incomes get 80 percent of the spending cuts. 
You bear the burden of 80 percent of all we are going to do on the 
spending cut side.
  In the same room you say: By the way, we would like to take the 20 
percent that have the highest incomes in this room and put them over 
here in chairs on this side of the room. Then you go over to them and 
say: By the way, we have good news for you. You 20 percent with the 
highest incomes in this little room of ours, we are going to give you 
80 percent of the tax cut.
  Now we have our room divided, a microcosm of our country. We have the 
20 percent of the lowest income earners on this side of the room and we 
have 60 percent in the middle and then we have the 20 percent of the 
highest income earners on the other side of the room. And we have said: 
You folks that do not have much, we are going to make things a lot 
worse for you because you are going to take 80 percent of the spending 
cuts, that is what we are saddling you with. And you folks that have 
the most, we are going to reward you with 80 percent of the tax cuts. 
That is what we are facing. That is the road map.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield when I have finished, if I have 
any time left, but I have just begun my statement----
  Mr. COCHRAN. Let me just ask, about the tax cut----
  Mr. DORGAN. We were generous with the Senator from New Mexico, who 
had the floor for some while----
  Mr. COCHRAN. He yielded to you for a question.
  Mr. DORGAN. All right. I will yield for a question of----

[[Page S 17114]]

  Mr. COCHRAN. I was just going to ask the Senator if there is any tax 
cut in this bill? This is a continuing resolution that provides, is it 
not true, for 3 weeks for a cooling-off period to fund Government and 
get everybody back in the agencies and departments? There is not 
anything in this resolution that would require any tax to be cut, is 
that not true?
  Mr. DORGAN. I get your question. Let me ask you a question. Would you 
agree to balance this budget without a tax cut so you are not borrowing 
money to give a tax cut to the wealthy?
  Mr. COCHRAN. We are not debating how we get to the balanced budget, 
is my response. That is what you are trying to convert this into, is a 
debate over tax cuts. This is a debate on getting the Government 
functioning, is it not true? That is what the continuing resolution is 
about.
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me reclaim my time. We already know what your plan 
is. It has been on the floor twice, just as recently as a couple of 
weeks ago. It includes a tax cut. We know that.
  My question to you, Senator Cochran, was would you agree to balance 
this budget without giving a tax cut? Because the fact is, every single 
dollar of tax cut you are going to borrow.
  I simply ask that question of you.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I will be happy to respond to my good friend. This is 
not a debate over how we balance the budget. It is a debate over 
whether or not we ought to commit ourselves to working together to 
achieve a balanced budget. That is the provision in this resolution.
  Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate the Senator's response. The fact is, he did 
not answer my question. The reason he did not answer my question, he 
and I both know, is that you have no intention, the majority party has 
no intention and never has had an intention, of bringing a balanced 
budget resolution to the floor of the Senate that does not include a 
big tax cut that will, in most cases, reward the most privileged of 
people in our country and every single dollar of the tax cut you are 
going to borrow. The fact is, every dollar that is given as a tax cut 
to someone during the next 7 years will be a dollar that is borrowed 
and increases this country's debt. If you call that conservative 
economics, I do not know what school teaches it.
  The fact is, we know what the plan is. So to come here and say this 
is about 7 years and CBO and put blinders on--here is the journey. Do 
not remember, by the way, where we have taken you in the past. We know 
exactly what that journey is about and we know all of the stops along 
the way.
  Among those stops are a very significant tax cut, because that is the 
centerpole in the tent on the contract for America. The fact is, the 
American people are a lot smarter than a lot of the folks running 
around town. They understand that, when the job in front of you is to 
balance the Federal budget, you roll up your sleeves and you talk about 
how you do it. They also understand that those who roll up their 
sleeves and talk about a tax cut while you are up to your neck in debt 
do no service to the future of this country.
  I know it is popular. I know why my colleagues, some of my colleagues 
on the House and Senate side, want to talk about tax cuts. Because it 
is enormously popular. I have a couple of kids who want to eat desert 
first every single meal. I know why they want to do that. And I know 
why you all want to talk about tax cuts. But you all know, if you are 
honest, that every single dollar of the tax cut will be borrowed.
  Let me just suggest a couple of other points about the tax cut. We do 
not know what this tax cut is going to be, but let me give some 
examples of what it can be.
  In the House of Representatives, they give a $2 million tax cut 
apiece for 2,000 corporations by eliminating something called the 
alternative minimum tax. That does not mean much to anybody. Eliminate 
the AMT. That is pretty foreign stuff. Nobody knows what that means.
  What it means is this. In the old days we used to read stories about 
a corporation that would make $2 billion in income and guess what they 
paid in taxes? Zero. Nothing. Then we put together something called an 
alternative minimum tax, to say that is not fair. If you make $2 
billion, and somebody goes out and works 8 or 10 hours a day and makes 
$8 or $10 an hour, guess what? They have to take a shower at night and 
fill out a tax return and they are going to pay a tax. It is not fair, 
if you make $2 billion and pay zero, so we are going to have an 
alternative minimum tax.
  Our friends in the House said we do not want an alternative minimum 
tax. Why should we want those big interests to start paying taxes 
again? Let us eliminate that. Let us give 2,000 corporations $2 million 
each in tax breaks and then let us tell 55,000 kids we cannot afford 
Head Start for them. Tell them we cannot afford a Head Start Program 
for you.
  In this bill--you know, it is interesting. We are told this is an 
innocent little piece of legislation. The only thing that matters on 
this piece of legislation is the last page, page 15, which talks about 
7 years and CBO.
  What about page 9? I wonder if somebody wants to talk about page 9. 
Page 9 says the Star Schools Program--which deals with math and 
education and science, in which we are going to try to boost America's 
schools--that program we ought to get rid of. What we do is we cut 
funding 40 percent on the Star Schools Program. And the Senator from 
New Mexico says, that is only for 19 days; what are you concerned 
about? Cut Star Schools by only 40 percent for 19 days.
  Do you know something? The same people who bring us these priorities, 
cutting Star Schools, and call themselves conservatives and say they 
want to balance the budget, are off trying to build star wars for $48 
billion, building an astrodome over America. The Soviet Union is gone, 
but now we want to build an astrodome over America for $48 billion 
because, when it comes to star wars, the sky is the limit. We have 
plenty of money. Let us spend it like it is Saturday night and we have 
unlimited credit cards. But when it comes to Star Schools, we are 
sorry, it is just not in the rank of priorities for us.
  I somehow do not understand the priorities. We are here, not by 
accident. This is an engineered circumstance. All of us know that. I 
have read before, but I want to read again, statements by the Speaker 
last April. He vowed ``to create a titanic legislative standoff with 
President Clinton by adding vetoed bills to must-pass legislation 
increasing the national debt ceiling.''
  This is not an accident. We are not here by some trick of fate. This 
is a deliberate, engineered shutdown. Why? I guess--I do not know. 
Maybe it is because somebody was not invited to get off the front of 
the airplane and he got piqued. It is human. Maybe it is petty. Maybe 
it is human. Or maybe because there is a genuine difference in 
priorities.
  I guess they want the debate today to be a debate about 7 years CBO. 
Seven years does not matter to me. Six years will be fine, as far as I 
am concerned. If we get good economic growth, maybe get some moderation 
of health care prices, we can do it faster than 7 years. But the fact 
is, the differences between us are differences in priorities, very 
substantial differences in priorities.
  Just a couple of other quick points. We have heard a lot already this 
morning, and we will hear all day, that they have a plan to balance the 
budget. Of course they do not have a plan to balance the budget. The 
Congressional Budget Office says their plan results in a $110 billion 
deficit in the year 2002. I hope the Senator from South Carolina, who 
is on the floor, will address this as well. What a fraud. It does not 
balance the budget and never has. The only way they address it is to 
take money from the Social Security trust funds, move it over, and then 
claim after they have taken the money they have balanced budget.
  Everybody in this room knows it is a sham. I said it in 1983 and 
offered an amendment in the Ways and Means Committee in the House in 
1983, and said: This is what they are going to do with the Social 
Security surplus if it is not protected. And 12 years later, sure 
enough, every single year they have done it. So they say we have a 
balanced budget. Sure they do.
  They got to a balanced budget by, in my judgment, dishonestly using 
Social Security trust funds in the operating budget. No. 1; No. 2, 
borrowing money to give a tax cut, 80 percent of which will go to the 
top 20 percent of the income earners in the country. 

[[Page S 17115]]

  The fact is this is all about special interest, all about big money. 
I come from a rural area. I know about the sound of hogs in a corn crib 
and feeding. I tell you. This is all about feeding. It is about who 
gets helped and who gets hurt, who gets saddled with the cost and who 
gets the benefit.
  And predictably when you look at winners and losers--not whether we 
balance the budget but who wins and who loses under this plan--it is 
pretty clear.
  There is an old song by Bob Wills.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). Does the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. I will not yield.
  There is an old song by Bob Wills and the Texas Playboys that I have 
used on the floor before with lyrics that I think are appropriate to 
these priorities. ``The little bee sucks the blossom, and the big bee 
gets the honey. The little guy picks the cotton, and the big guy gets 
the money.'' That is what this is about. This is about queen bees and 
big guys. Guess who ends up with all the money, and guess who winds up 
with all the hurt?
  What we ought to do--all of us--is get in a room and talk about what 
works and what does not. Who needs help and who does not? How do we 
move our country ahead? What kind of incentives provide opportunity and 
growth? All of those things are important to everyone of us in this 
room. Our differences at this point are over priorities, and choices. 
And honestly I think there are some who do not want them solved. I 
understand that. There are some who are piqued. There are some who are 
upset about what end of a plane they got off of at some point. But 
there are others, myself included, who believe it is worthy to balance 
this budget. It is important to the country to do it, but to do it with 
the right choices and the right priorities so that all of the American 
people benefit from this exercise.
  I am happy to yield.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the distinguished Senator for yielding.
  My question was simply to refer to the statement he made, and to ask 
him whether or not on the Star Schools issue he realized that in the 
Senate committee that has jurisdiction over education we recommend in 
the bill that we tried to call up the other day that Star Schools be 
funded at the same level that it was funded last year; that the House 
provided no funding in their bill. And the suggestion of the Senator 
from North Dakota though is this continuing resolution, if it passed, 
would zero out Star Schools. The program is forward funded anyway. But 
in the Senate bill, which the Democrats refused to let us bring up when 
they refused to permit us to agree to the motion to proceed to the 
bill, would fund that program at the same level that was funded at last 
year.
  Mr. DORGAN. The Senator is correct. He is also correct that the House 
version of the appropriations bill zeroed it out. I guess I have little 
faith that rather than getting the best of each we will probably get 
the worst of both.
  So I think that when you come to this floor saying that the Star 
Schools Program shall have a reduction in funding of 40 percent, which 
is what I said, the Star Schools Program be reduced by 40 percent in 
this continuing resolution at the same time that we have a bunch of 
folks who are genuflecting trying to build a star wars program that 
will cost $48 billion. I am scratching my head. Who sees the bigger 
picture for our country--those who want the best in schools and kids, 
or those who want to build a star wars project with money we do not 
need and do not have?
  That is the only point I was trying to make. That is why I think this 
is truly about choices. This it about priorities. This is a very worthy 
debate. We ought not have it while the Government is shut down. There 
ought to be, in my judgment, more thoughtful programs keeping the 
Government open trying the prioritize as we balance the budget, and, 
yes, in 7 years. That is fine with me. Score keeping is not the issue 
here. It seems to me that it is choices and priorities.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. Yes.
  Mr. SARBANES. Is the article to which the Senator was referring the 
one from the New York Daily News that starts out ``House Speaker Newt 
Gingrich admitted yesterday that he provoked the government shutdown in 
a fit of pique over how President Clinton treated him on last week's 
trip to Israel''?
  Later on it says, ``And so, Gingrich's wounded pride fueled the 
shutdown that forced the furlough of 800,000 Federal workers and closed 
nonessential services--costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of 
dollars.''
  Is that the article?
  Mr. DORGAN. That is the article to which I was referring to.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that article be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  [From the Daily News, Nov. 16, 1995]

Cry Baby--Newt's Tantrum: He Closed Down the Government Because Clinton 
                     Made Him Sit at Back of Plane

               (By Timothy Clifford and Dave Eisenstadt)

       Washington.--House Speaker Newt Gingrich admitted yesterday 
     that he provoked the government shutdown in a fit of pique 
     over how President Clinton treated him on last week's trip to 
     Israel.
       Claiming that Clinton refused to open budget talks and 
     snubbed him and Senate GOP Leader Bob Dole (Kan.) aboard Air 
     Force One, Gingrich (R-Ga.) said, ``That's part of why you 
     ended up with us sending down a tougher [stopgap spending 
     bill].''
       On Monday night, Clinton vetoed the GOP bill that would 
     have kept the government running through Dec. 1.
       Clinton rejected the measure because Gingrich and Dole put 
     in provisions that would have raised Medicare premiums and 
     cut deeply into education and environmental programs.
       And so, Gingrich's wounded pride fueled the shutdown that 
     forced the furlough of 800,000 federal workers and closed 
     nonessential services--costing taxpayers hundreds of millions 
     of dollars.
       Even though Gingrich and Dole spent 25 hours flying to and 
     from Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's funeral, the 
     speaker groused that they never talked about the budget.
       And Gingrich told reporters that White House staffers 
     ushered him and Dole off the back of the aircraft on their 
     return--far from the media cameras focused on Clinton and 
     former Presidents George Bush and Jimmy Carter walking out 
     the front.
       ``You just wonder, where is their sense of manners, where 
     is their sense of courtesy?'' Gingrich told reporters. ``I 
     don't know. Was it just a sign of utter incompetence or lack 
     of consideration, or was it a deliberate strategy of 
     insult?''
       Despite conceding that his complaints sounded ``petty,'' 
     Gingrich argued, ``We think they were sending us a deliberate 
     signal that they're not going to negotiate; they don't care 
     what we are doing, that they have, in fact, decided on their 
     path and that is the path of confrontation.''
       Democrats immediately ridiculed Gingrich--saying that the 
     President let the speaker bring his wife on the trip.
       ``I'm amazed that he would be the biggest whiner,'' Senate 
     Democratic Leader Tom Daschle (S.D.) said. ``We'll give him 
     another flight over there, and the President can play cards 
     with him. . . . It's crazy.''
       And Clinton spokesman Mike McCurry said, ``You all know 
     that they were going to mourn a death by assassination of the 
     Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. And the speaker was 
     treated with utmost courtesy.''
       Dole distanced himself from Gingrich's outrage, joking 
     about the incident.
       ``We got in on the front exit, went out the rear exit,'' 
     Dole told reporters. ``Maybe that's just the normal 
     rotation.''
       Slightly backing down last night, Gingrich and Dole 
     proposed a new stopgap funding bill without the controversial 
     Medicare provision.
       But the measure also would force Clinton to accept 
     balancing the budget in seven years and retains the cuts to 
     environmental and educational programs.
       The White House immediately announced that Clinton would 
     veto that bill.
       With polls showing public support for his stand, Clinton 
     told CBS television that he would not cave to the 
     Republicans. ``I'm not going to do it, even if it's 90 days, 
     120 days or 180 days. If we take it right into the next 
     election, let the American people decide,'' the President 
     said.
       Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin took more than 
     $60 billion from two Civil Service retirement funds to stave 
     off the first default in U.S. history.
       Clinton vetoed the GOP's debt limit extension Monday, 
     forcing Rubin to take the extraordinary action that 
     guarantees that the U.S. can pay its bills through the new 
     year.
       The financial markets showed approval of Rubin's actions, 
     but the Federal Reserve failed to cut interest rates as many 
     expected it would.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, is the Senator familiar with the 
articles which appeared in today's Post and today's Baltimore Sun, one 
headed ``Underlying Gingrich's Stance Is His Pique About President,'' 
and the other one, 

[[Page S 17116]]
``Gingrich links stalemate to perceived Clinton snub.''
  This is an absolute tragedy. You have 800,000 employees out of work, 
services cut down at great expense, and it is all because the Speaker 
has had a fit of pique about this matter.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that those articles be printed 
in the Record as well, along with a column by Lars-Erik Nelson, of the 
New York Daily News, headed ``Crisis reveals Newt depths of 
pettiness.''
  This is incredible. The Speaker himself at a breakfast in effect 
conceded that this provoked him into taking this action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair informs the Senator from Maryland 
that the Senator from North Dakota has the floor.
  Mr. SARBANES. That is right. I am finished.
  I ask unanimous consent that the articles to which I referred be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Nov. 16, 1995]

       Underlying Gingrich's Stance Is His Pique About President

                           (By John E. Yang)

       The budget battle between President Clinton and Congress 
     turns on many things, but House Speaker Newt Gingrich keeps 
     coming back to that long plane flight back from Israel when 
     he says the president ignored and insulted him.
       Gingrich (R-Ga.) yesterday said the tough terms of the 
     interim spending bill Clinton vetoed Monday night, triggering 
     a partial government shutdown, were partly the result of 
     pique he and Senate Majority Leader Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.) 
     felt on Air Force One during the long round-trip flight to 
     Jerusalem for the funeral of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak 
     Rabin.
       ``This is petty,'' he told reporters. ``[But] you land at 
     Andrews [Air Force Base] and you've been on the plane for 25 
     hours and nobody has talked to you and they ask you to get 
     off the plane by the back ramp. . . .You just wonder, where 
     is their sense of manners? Where is their sense of 
     courtesy?''
       At a breakfast with reporters, Gingrich delivered an almost 
     stream-of-consciousness analysis of the current political 
     crisis, a candid performance he said he knew his press 
     secretary would not like. Gingrich alternately and astutely 
     described how his party was positioned in the current debate 
     over the budget, and angrily relived--at length--the 
     disrespect he felt he suffered at the president's hands 
     aboard Air Force One. He said that the fact that Clinton did 
     not speak to him or Dole during the trip to and from 
     Jerusalem is ``part of why you ended up with us sending down 
     a tougher'' interim spending bill.
       ``It's petty . . . but I think it's human.''
       Gingrich's comments brought immediate disdain from 
     Democrats. Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) 
     who was also on the trip to attend Rabin's funeral, called on 
     Gingrich to ``quit the whinning--let's get on with the real 
     business here.''
       And White House press secretary Michael McCurry reacted 
     with mock disbelief when asked about Gingrich's allegations 
     of disrespect on the part of the president.
       ``You all know that they were going to mourn the death by 
     assassination of the Israeli prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin,'' 
     McCurry told reporters at his daily briefing. ``And the 
     speaker was treated with utmost courtesy. In fact, so much 
     courtesy that his wife was invited when other wives of this 
     delegation were not invited. And until someone shows me these 
     words in black and white. I will refuse to believe that the 
     speaker said anything that as you described it as so petty. . 
     . . I just fail to believe the speaker would somehow connect 
     this to the current budget crisis.''.
       As the budget battle intensifies, the bickering between 
     Clinton and congressional Republican leaders is becoming 
     increasingly bitter and personal.
       During Monday night's Oval Office meeting between Clinton 
     and congressional leaders, for instance, House Majority 
     Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) complained about having ``to 
     listen to these lies'' from the White House, according to a 
     participant.
       Clinton responded by saying the congressional Republicans 
     had been worse in their attacks, telling Armey who had 
     criticized Hillary Rodham Clinton during last year's health 
     care debate: ``I never, ever have and never expect to 
     criticize your wife or members of your family.''
       A phone call last Saturday produced complaints of rudeness 
     on the president's part. Dole complained publicly that 
     Clinton had all but hung up on him when he called to discuss 
     a possible budget deal, and Gingrich was angry that Clinton 
     promised to call them back and never did. The White House 
     explained that Clinton was leaving for a Veterans Day event 
     when the Republicans called and that Clinton said then he 
     could talk for only five minutes.
       The tension is not surprising. Gingrich is in the midst of 
     the most crucial week yet of his speakership. Not only is he 
     engaged in a high-stakes confrontation with Clinton, but he 
     and his leadership team are struggling to complete work on 
     the massive Republican balanced-budget bill--which leaders 
     vowed would be done last Friday. Gingrich called the measure 
     ``central'' to Republicans. ``It will decide for a generation 
     who we are,'' he said.
       ``This is not a game of political chicken . . . this is not 
     a bunch of juveniles,'' the speaker said. ``This is a 
     serious, historic debate and a serious, historic power 
     struggle. . . . That's why there will not be an immediate 
     resolution to this crisis.''
       Gingrich told reporters that is why the lack of 
     negotiations aboard Air Force One was so serious.
       The speaker said the airborne silence was a signal ``that 
     they had made a decision because of their political 
     calculation that they wanted a fight. . . .  Our calculation 
     was that they hadn't seen us deliberately. . . . Our feelings 
     aren't hurt.''
       The speaker said the terms of the interim spending bill 
     were toughened because it was clear it would have to pass 
     without Democratic support.
       Whether Gingrich took it as an affront or not, the incident 
     became a rallying cry among House Republicans, who rarely 
     failed to mention it when asked about the possibility of 
     working with the administration.
       Among the other things on which the budget battle is 
     turning, Gingrich said, is instinct. That, he said, was the 
     basis for the Republicans' demand that the federal budget 
     deficit be eliminated in seven years. Clinton is refusing to 
     accept that time frame and, earlier this year, proposed 
     balancing the budget in 10 years.
       ``Seven [years] is the longest period in which you can 
     maintain the discipline to insist on it happening,'' Gingrich 
     said. ``Ten [years] allows you to avoid all the decisions 
     that get you to a balanced budget.''
       Asked on what that was based, the speaker gave a one-word 
     answer: ``Intuition.''
       Gingrich also dismissed polls indicating that more 
     Americans blame congressional Republicans than Clinton for 
     the budget impasse, saying that his party would win in the 
     long run.
       Gingrich said the average American ``frankly hasn't thought 
     about it, doesn't particularly care. . . . If the choice [of 
     whom to blame] is a vacillating, extremely misleading 
     president who refuses to make any serious decisions, who 
     refuses to tell the truth and shows up on television trying 
     to make you like him by telling you things that aren't true, 
     and a Congress that says in a very firm, adult way: `Yeah, 
     we're going to balance the budget.' Now of those two, which 
     one is more likely to get blamed?''
       But, Gingrich said, the Republicans will prevail. ``The 
     public relations fight is easy,'' he said. ``That's why we've 
     ignored it. . . . We're on the right side of history, we're 
     on the right side of this culture.''
                                                                    ____


                [From the Baltimore Sun, Nov. 16, 1995]

           Gingrich Links Stalemate to Perceived Clinton Snub

                            (By Susan Baer)

       Washington.--In remarks that reveal the personal tenor of 
     the budget battle, House Speaker Newt Gingrich suggested 
     yesterday that he and Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole 
     toughened the spending bill that has led to the partial 
     government shutdown because they felt President Clinton 
     snubbed them on a recent plane ride.
       At a breakfast session with reporters, Mr. Gingrich said he 
     was insulted and appalled that, on the long trip aboard Air 
     Force One this month to and from the funeral of Israel Prime 
     Minister Yitzhak Rabin, the president failed to invite the 
     Republican leaders to the front of the plane to discuss the 
     budget, and then made them exit at the rear of the plane.
       ``I think that's part of why you ended up with us sending 
     down a tougher continuing resolution,'' Mr. Gingrich said.
       ``This is petty, and I'm going to say up front it's petty, 
     and Tony will probably say that I shouldn't say it, but I 
     think it's human,'' the speaker added, referring to Tony 
     Blankley, his spokesman.
       Mr. Gingrich's remarks suggest that the shabby treatment he 
     perceived helped shape the ``continuing resolution,'' the 
     temporary spending bill that Mr. Clinton vetoed Monday. The 
     bill is at the heart of the budget impasse that has closed 
     parts of the government and furloughed 800,000 federal 
     workers this week.
       Mr. Gingrich said he thought ``a couple of hours of 
     dialogue'' among the three leaders on the plane might have 
     averted the stalemate that has led to the partial government 
     shutdown.
       As he has done repeatedly since returning from the Nov. 6 
     Rabin funeral, Mr. Gingrich railed against Mr. Clinton's 
     treatment of him and Mr. Dole during their 25 hours in 
     flight--specifically the president's decision not to discuss 
     the federal budget with them.
       Upon arriving back in Washington, he and Mr. Dole had to 
     exit the plane by the rear door instead of by the front door 
     with Mr. Clinton and former Presidents George Bush and Jimmy 
     Carter.
       ``When you land at Andrews [Air Base] and you've been on 
     the plane for 25 hours and nobody has talked to you and they 
     ask you to get off by the back ramp so the media won't 
     picture the Senate majority leader and the speaker of the 
     House returning from Israel, you just wonder, where's their 
     sense of manners, where's their sense of courtesy?'' the 
     speaker said.
       ``Had they just been asleep all night and it hadn't 
     occurred to them that maybe Bob 

[[Page S 17117]]
     Dole deserved the dignity of walking down the front ramp? Forget me--
     I'm only speaker of the House. But you just have to say to 
     yourself, was it deliberate calculated aloofness or just 
     total incompetence?''
       Mike McCurry, Mr. Clinton's spokesman, called Mr. 
     Gingrich's remarks ``incomprehensible'' and said he could not 
     believe the speaker would connect the trip to the Rabin 
     funeral with the current budget crisis.
       When pressed by reporters, Mr. Gingrich tried to dismiss 
     the notion that his tougher negotiating stance on the 
     spending measure was a result of a bruised ego.
       Rather, he said, the Republican position was influenced by 
     his sense--stemming from the neglect he and Mr. Dole 
     perceived on the plane ride--that the White House was itching 
     for a fight and was simply not interested in negotiating.
       ``It was clear to us getting off that airplane they had 
     made a decision because of their political calculations that 
     they wanted a fight,'' the House speaker said.
       During the plane trip, he said, he and Mr. Dole tried to 
     grasp the message of the administration's apparent snub.
       ``It's like Kremlinology,'' Mr. Gingrich said. ``You have 
     Clintonology. What are they doing? What are the signals? One 
     of the signals was that in 25 hours it was not worthwhile to 
     sit down and talk. One of the signals was, once we arrived 
     back in America, we no longer mattered.''
       Asked at a news conference whether he, too, was offended by 
     his treatment aboard Air Force One, Mr. Dole said, ``I 
     wondered why I went out the rear exit. We went in the front 
     exit. Maybe that's just the normal rotation.''
       Mr. McCurry said that, during the flight, Mr. Clinton 
     walked back to the Republican leaders to thank them for 
     joining the delegation to Israel. Budget negotiating, Mr. 
     McCurry said, was not the purpose of the trip.
       ``The president of the United States lost a friend,'' Mr. 
     McCurry said. ``And I don't think he much felt like talking 
     about budget politics with speaker Gingrich, with all due 
     respect.''
       Mr. McCurry said the speaker was treated with ``so much 
     courtesy'' on the trip that he was permitted to bring his 
     wife, Marianne, on Air Force One. The privilege was not 
     extended to anyone else in the delegation, including Mr. Bush 
     and Mr. Carter.
       Other Democrats, in the heat of the budget stalemate 
     yesterday, seized on the speaker's remarks. South Dakota Sen. 
     Tom Daschle, the Senate minority leader who was also on the 
     trip, said Mr. Gingrich ``must have been sleepwalking that 
     night'' because the president had spoken with the 
     congressional leaders several times.
       Noting Mrs. Gingrich's presence on the plane, Mr. Daschle 
     said: ``For a person who was given extra privileges, extra 
     opportunities to experience this extraordinary piece of 
     history, I'm amazed that he would be the biggest whiner.''
                                                                    ____


                  [From the Daily News, Nov. 16, 1995]

                Crisis Reveals Newt Depths of Pettiness

                         (By Lars-Erik Nelson)

       Washington.--Across the breakfast table, House Speaker Newt 
     Gingrich was doing a good imitation of Capt. Queeg at the end 
     of ``The Caine Mutiny'' court-martial, slowly unraveling into 
     resentment and self-pity.
       He was fighting liars, he said. And disrespect. ``Forget 
     me, I'm only the speaker of the House,'' he said. Here was 
     Newt Gingrich, leader of the Republican Revolution and 
     defender of civilization on this planet, forced to sit for 25 
     hours in the back of Air Force One, waiting for President 
     Clinton to stop by and negotiate a budget deal.
       But Clinton never came back. So Gingrich, in his rage, 
     drafted two resolutions that forced Clinton to bring the 
     federal government to a grinding halt.
       The extraordinary behind-the-scenes tale Gingrich told 
     yesterday morning at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast is 
     either comedy or tragedy, or junior high school cafeteria 
     intrigue, take your pick. It surely was not what you expect 
     to hear from the stewards of your government.
       Gingrich had been invited aboard Air Force One last week to 
     fly to the funeral of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. 
     With a budget crisis pending, he expected Clinton would take 
     time out during the flight to talk about a possible solution.
       But Clinton, who seemed to be genuinely grieving over 
     Rabin's death, stayed up front in a cabin with former 
     Presidents Jimmy Carter and George Bush on both the outward-
     bound and return trips.
       Then, when the plane landed at Andrews Air Force base 
     outside Washington, Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Bob 
     Dole were asked to deplane by--gasp!--the rear door.
       ``This is petty,'' Gingrich confessed. ``I'm going to say 
     up front it's petty, but I think it's human. When you land at 
     Andrews and you've been on the plane for 25 hours and nobody 
     has talked to you and they ask you to get off by the back 
     ramp . . . you just wonder, where is their sense of manners, 
     where is their sense of courtesy?''
       To Gingrich, the professor of history, this was one of the 
     snubs of the century, ranking, he said, with the time Charles 
     Evans Hughes stiffed Hiram Johnson of the California 
     Progressive Party back in 1916, a slight that cost Hughes the 
     California vote and the presidency. And it was this 
     disrespect, Gingrich continued, that caused him to send the 
     President two temporary financing and spending bills he knew 
     that Clinton would have to veto--thus shutting down the 
     federal government.
       As Gingrich spoke, feeling sorrier and sorrier for himself 
     and Dole over their treatment aboard Air Force One, he 
     realized that what he was saying did indeed sound petty. So 
     he changed his tack. ``This was not petty,'' he insisted. 
     ``This was an effort on our part to read the White House 
     strategy. . . . It was clear to us coming off that airplane 
     that they had made a decision because of their political 
     calculation that they wanted a fight.''
       But then again, he wasn't sure. ``Was it just a sign of 
     utter incompetence or lack of consideration, or was it a 
     deliberate strategy of insult?'' he asked himself. ``I don't 
     know which it was.''
       Either way, the federal government is shut down, 800,000 
     employes are laid off, the Treasury is scrambling to honor 
     payments on its bonds, the once-in-a-lifetime Johannes 
     Vermeer exhibit at the National Gallery of Art is padlocked, 
     the Statue of Liberty is closed down for the duration and 
     Gingrich, second in line for the presidency, walks around 
     town seeing plots against his dignity.
       Well, what about it, George Stephanopoulos? Did you 
     intentionally snub the speaker of the House aboard Air Force 
     One?
       ``I think the speaker needs a weekend off,'' Stephanopoulos 
     said. ``The President was in mourning for a friend. He had 
     several briefings with the speaker, and the rules for Air 
     Force One are that only the President goes out the front 
     door.''

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, before I yield the floor, I fervently hope 
that thoughtful people will sit down, and that we will reason together 
and compromise on these choices--not on the question of whether we 
should balance the budget. Of course, we should. Not on the question of 
7 years or score keeping--compromise on the question of priorities and 
choices that allow us to get our fiscal house in order, and allow us to 
build a better future for this country.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3055

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I know that there are a number of 
amendments to be offered. I think it is important that we get on with 
them.
  So, in interest of doing so, I send an amendment to the desk
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3055.
       Strike all after the first word and insert the following:
       Section 106(C) of Public Law 104-31 is amended by striking 
     ``November 13, 1995'' and inserting ``December 22, 1995''.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me first explain the amendment. It 
very simply says let us get down to business here. Let us put aside all 
of the debate, all of politics, all of the charges, and let us do first 
things first. Let us pass a continuing resolution to the 22d of 
December, about a month, giving us time to work through what we know is 
going to be an extraordinarily difficult 4 weeks. We know we are going 
to have more of this debate. We know we are going to have many 
differences. We know that we are not going to resolve many of them. But 
we also know that we cannot let all of what is happening out there for 
the last 48 hours continue day after day after day.
  I do not have today's report, Mr. President. But let me give you 
yesterday's. So far, in just 2 days, 56,000 people have been unable to 
apply for Social Security benefits--56,000; 3,226 veterans have been 
unable to file new claims for compensation and pension benefits; 1\1/2\ 
million visitors have been turned away in 2 days from our national 
parks; 46,000 people have been unable to apply for passports.
  Mr. President, I could go on and on. But that is result of what is 
happening here. Until we resolve the issue of a continuing resolution, 
we are not going to see changes except for the fact that these are 
going to get worse and worse and worse. Those are the changes we can 
expect.
  So my amendment simply says this. Let us agree to disagree on all of 
the other issues for now, and let us at least agree that this cannot go 
on; that the American people expecting services from the Federal 
Government ought to get them; that this looks worse and worse, and that 
we ought to resolve at least this part of it. I do not think that is 
too much to ask, Mr. President.
  So I would hope every Senator could support at least this. That is 
all we are 

[[Page S 17118]]
doing today--offering an amendment that says the Government must 
continue to function.
  What is all the more troubling is what we have just heard in the 
dialog and in the colloquy on the floor between the distinguished 
Senators from North Dakota, from Maryland, and others who have laid out 
what may be the motivation behind this impasse.
  It sounds to me more like this impasse is directly a function of the 
result of a hunch and a grudge on part of the Speaker--a hunch and a 
grudge, a grudge that somehow he was not given adequate consideration 
on the plane to Israel. Well, I must tell you--and I will tell my 
colleagues what I have said repeatedly now in the last week or 10 days 
on the floor and in public forums throughout the last week and a 
half. I was in that same room, and I do not know whether this is 
selected memory or sleepwalking on an airplane or what. The President 
came back on a number of occasions, talked to us a number of times 
about the extraordinary nature of the trip itself. We were going to one 
of the most difficult, one of the most emotional, certainly one of the 
most memorable occasions that I have had in public life, the burial of 
a head of State. He came back. We talked at some length about that with 
the Israeli Ambassador, who, by the way, was also in the room. We had 
those conversations. The Speaker was there. Why he chooses now not to 
remember that is something I do not understand.

  He came back on other occasions talking about the need to find 
agreement, the need to breach our differences, the need to find a way 
with which to resolve the impasse. And when he was finished coming 
back, the Chief of Staff came back on several occasions and asked about 
whether or not we could resolve our differences.
  I must remind my colleagues, I recall very well when I got the call 
from the White House that this was a development that had just occurred 
and could I come back to Washington. I was in South Dakota. Reference 
was made to spouses, and I was informed that spouses in this situation 
just were not welcome. And I said I understood. I knew the plane would 
be crowded. I knew how difficult the trip. I knew all the logistical 
problems. So I did not challenge whether spouses ought to be there or 
not. But I am told the Speaker did. The Speaker said: I have got to 
have my wife there, and she was there. I do not deny her the right. I 
am glad she was. She is a delightful woman, and I appreciated having 
the chance to have her on the airplane and for her to experience what 
we experienced. However, it makes all the more petty, all the more 
demeaning this whole affair. I do not understand it. And so, Mr. 
President, I must say that for him to be using this, given the facts, 
is absolutely incredible.
  And then to go beyond just the grudge--the hunch. The hunch. 
Yesterday morning, the Speaker was asked, on what do you base your 
calculation that this has to be done in 7 years? What is it about 7 
years that you think really drives the need to have a balanced budget 
in that timeframe? The question was, what do you base it on? His 
answer? Intuition. Intuition. That is my answer. That is how it is that 
we have concluded a 7-year balanced budget is the right number of 
years.
  As my colleagues have said and as the Wall Street Journal says again 
this morning, maybe it is time to privatize these economic projections. 
I hear arguments on the other side that we ought to privatize 
everything. Well, there have been seven economic analyses. The CBO is 
the most conservative of the seven. In 1993, they were so conservative 
they were $100 billion off in 2 years--$100 billion. And now we are 
saying we have to use these conservative estimates as we project for 
the next 7 years in spite of the fact--and I hope everyone just thinks 
about this for a minute. It is one of the most inexplicable 
inconsistencies. Maybe our Republican colleagues can enlighten me 
here--our economic growth for the last 25 years has been 2.5 percent, 
2.5 percent.
  CBO is projecting economic growth for the next 7 years at 2.3 
percent. But we are told--and I think there is a mutual agreement--that 
if we balance the budget, if we do all the things that we should be 
doing to spur economic growth, it should be more, not less, than what 
it has been historically. It ought to be more than 2.3 percent. So what 
the Republican majority is apparently telling us is that we are going 
to go through all the pain, all the difficult choices, all these 
circumstances so that we can enjoy a growth rate less than what we have 
enjoyed for the last 25 years.

  Mr. President, somebody smarter than I has to explain why the 
American people should buy that. Everyone is entitled to buy their own 
projections but somebody ought to explain that to the American people. 
And again I go back to whether or not----
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the leader yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I will yield when I finish. I will be happy to yield to 
the Senator from Alaska as soon as I finish my train of thought.
  I will stand by whatever we may ultimately agree to here, but let us 
be real. Let us be honest. The Government does not have a monopoly on 
good numbers. If the private sector is telling us not once, not twice, 
but on five different analyses done about economic growth in the 
future, if they are all telling us, look, you are missing something 
here, we think it is a lot better because of what you have been doing, 
it is going to be a lot better than 2.3 percent, why not consider it? 
Why not think about it? Why not privatize economic growth? If we are 
privatizing everything else, let us privatize this, too. Because if we 
privatize it, we are going to be in a lot better position to better 
understand the implications of all this than we are right now.
  So, Mr. President, that is what this is about. I am very, very 
disappointed that we have not been able to resolve our differences on 
the continuing resolution at least. We will have more to say about the 
balanced budget, but let me just emphasize we have all voted for a 
balanced budget. Many of us have voted for a balanced budget in 7 
years. But to say under any condition you just have to accept the fact 
that it is going to be 7 years and we will fill in all the blanks later 
makes me very, very skeptical, frankly.
  The Republicans have been very uneasy about the fine print in that 7 
years, and now we want to get on to the large print. I think we have to 
go back to the fine print and look at exactly what we are talking about 
in 7 years. I hope we can agree to 7 years at some point. But if we do 
or if we do not, before we are called upon to vote on a 7-year budget, 
I hope everyone understands it is like buying a house from the curb. We 
look at it from a distance and it looks like a nice house. It looks 
like a great house. But what happens when you walk inside? Is it a 
money pit? Is it a house of horrors? What will that house include? Does 
it have a roof? Does it have a basement? What will be the definition of 
this house? What will be the design?

  That is something we are going to start working on tomorrow. As early 
as tomorrow the reconciliation package will be before us. If we have 
some concern about what this house looks like, maybe it is for good 
reason, because we have already seen the Senate-passed and the House-
passed reconciliation bills. We know what they look like. We know that 
they cut $270 billion out of Medicare for tax cuts totaling over $200 
billion. We know that. We know they cut over $185 billion out of 
Medicaid. We know that. We know they have made deep cuts in education.
  There is a room we ought to look at. Let us walk into the education 
room for a minute. There on one side of the room I see a lot of cuts 
directly affecting school programs. I see a loss of student loans to 
college students. I see a whole array of losses in the education room 
that I am not prepared to accept.
  Then I walk into the working person's room, and I find dramatic cuts 
in the earned-income tax credit, almost a complete demolition of the 
EITC.
  So the more I walk through this house, Mr. President, I have to tell 
you it is a house of horrors, and that is why we are very skeptical 
about whether or not signing on to this house from the curb makes a lot 
of sense to us regardless--regardless--of whether or not we agree on an 
amendment by a date certain.
  I know a lot of people have asked to speak, and the distinguished 
Senator from Alaska sought recognition for purposes of yielding for a 
question. I will be happy to do that. Let me just again state my motive 
here. 

[[Page S 17119]]

  Our motive is simply to say let us have that debate tomorrow. Let us 
have it on Friday when reconciliation comes. Let us get into next week 
if we have to, but let us at least agree that the thousands of people--
the thousands of people--who are not getting the services that they 
expect from their Government, services they have paid for in their hard 
earned taxes, that at least that much we can agree on, that we are 
going to give those services back to the people who expect them. This 
amendment provides that. And I hope it will enjoy broad bipartisan 
support.

  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Democratic leader yield?
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Democratic leader yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Alaska 
since he sought recognition first.
  Mr. STEVENS. I listened with interest to the leader on the other side 
of the aisle. There are two questions I have. There are two parts to 
the resolution that is before us: One deals with recognizing the 
economics through the CBO, and the other deals with the date, 7 years.
  Could the leader tell me what has happened since the President of the 
United States stood before us in joint session, and said, ``I'm going 
to rely on the CBO, and ask you to rely on the CBO. Let's get out of 
this business of having different numbers.''
  My memory is the Democratic side of the aisle cheered very wildly at 
that time. What has happened since that time, since the President asked 
us to rely on the CBO?
  Second, my memory is that the President's group that was put together 
on Medicare said that Medicare would be bankrupt by 2002, that the 7 
years came from the Medicare report. And it was the President himself 
in the first instance that said we should do it within 7 years.
  What has happened to change the position of the people on the other 
side of the aisle from what the President asked us to do, rely on CBO, 
and what the President's people predicted, that unless we act that 
Medicare fund will itself be bankrupt by 2002? That is the reason for 
the 7 years. What has been the change, Mr. Leader?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to answer both questions of the 
distinguished Senator from Alaska. And they are good questions.
  The first question: I think it is fair to say our confidence has been 
shaken a little bit when any Government agency happens to make, in a 2-
year timeframe, a $100 billion mistake--$100 billion. We said, ``We're 
going to listen to you, but I hope you're going to be right. And if you 
are not right, would it not make sense to go back and find whether or 
not there is a better way to calculate whether, as we make one of the 
most important decisions regarding our spending for the next 7 years, 
that we not use numbers that are more accurate?'' If we are off $100 
billion in 2 years, what is that calculated for 7? How much more off 
are we going to be in 7 years?
  So that is the first question. He assumed they could calculate, that 
they could give us an accurate assumption of what we were going to be 
experiencing for 2 years. But to be off $100 billion, that sounds like 
another governmental agency that needs some work.
  The answer to the second question is, yes, absolutely we have got to 
solve the Medicare bankruptcy problem, the problem involving the trust 
fund. But nothing we are talking about here does that. If we are going 
to solve the problem with regard to the trust fund, we have only got to 
deal with part A, and for that we need $89 billion. And, of course, the 
distinguished Senator from Alaska has read the same trustees' report 
that we have. The trustees say, ``You're going to need $89 billion.''
  That begs the question, why in the Republican budget do we need $181 
billion more than the $89 billion? Why the $270 billion? We know why 
the $270 billion, because $181 billion of that $270 billion is going 
for the tax cut, to pay for $200 billion-plus in handouts to those that 
do not need them. Those are the best answers I can give to the 
distinguished Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. EXON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from North Dakota was seeking to ask a 
question. I yield to him.
  Mr. CONRAD. I would ask the Senator from South Dakota if he was aware 
that the Wall Street Journal this morning has endorsed the President's 
economic assumptions? Was the Senator from South Dakota aware that this 
morning the Wall Street Journal has said the estimates of both CBO and 
OMB are overly pessimistic, that both of them are wrong? Based on what? 
Based on what has actually happened the last 2 years.
  I would just ask the ranking member of the Budget Committee, who has 
brought charts that show the actual results the last 2 years, that 
demonstrate CBO and OMB have both been wrong with respect to what has 
actually occurred with economic growth, have both been wrong with 
respect to deficit reduction.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield to the Senator from Nebraska, the ranking member 
of the Budget Committee, because it is directly relevant to the Senator 
from Alaska's question. Perhaps he can explain the chart.
  Mr. EXON. The Senator from Alaska----
  Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. EXON. The Senator from--
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, who retains the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader retains the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I would yield for a question.
  Mr. SPECTER. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader has the floor.
  Mr. EXON. The Senator from Alaska's question was a very good one, and 
this chart answers it directly. I am confident that the Senator from 
Alaska did not know about this. He seems to think that the projections 
of both CBO and OMB are infallible. This chart indicates the opposite 
and indicates and answers the question of what has happened to 
projections.
  You will note on this particular chart that President Clinton 
delivers on deficit reduction. When we passed----
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I call for the regular order.
  Mr. EXON. Would you kindly direct the Senator from Pennsylvania to 
follow the rules?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader has the floor and may 
only yield for the purpose of a question.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Which is what I did. I yielded to the Senator from 
Nebraska for a question. Part of the question involves an explanation 
of a chart for which I hope to give an answer as soon as the 
explanation is complete.
  Mr. EXON. May I ask this question of the Democratic leader? Was the 
Democratic leader aware, as a response to the question asked by the 
Senator from Alaska, that the reason that we are questioning these 
projections are that this chart showed very clearly that after the 
President's deficit-reduction bill, which was projected by both CBO and 
OMB to be in the range of $275 billion, very close, actually the 
deficit reduced dramatically less than that, clear down to the $175 
billion level? Was the Democratic leader aware of that?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I was not aware of it. And I appreciate the Senator from 
Nebraska's explanation.
  Mr. EXON. One more thought that maybe the Senator from Alaska or the 
Democratic leader indicated----
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield to the Senator from Nebraska for another 
question.
  Mr. EXON. Was the Democratic leader aware, on the projection idea, as 
to what economic growth has come about? Economic growth is what the 
article that has been referred to by many Senators this morning with 
regard to the Wall Street Journal--the economic growths that were 
predicted both by OMB and CBO, as a result of the President's actions, 
came at this level. Notice they are almost parallel.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would remind the Senator from 
Nebraska that the Democratic leader has yielded for the purpose of a 
question.
  Mr. EXON. I am asking a question. I am asking a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It did not appear to be.
  Mr. EXON. I am asking if the majority leader knew that, in addition 
to the other chart, on this particular chart the numbers were far, far 
more than either CBO or OMB had estimated? 

[[Page S 17120]]

  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Nebraska makes the point in his 
question, and I think it goes to the very issue raised by the Senator 
from North Dakota. They have both been too conservative, not accurate; 
and as a result, they miss the mark by more than $100 billion.
  Mr. SARBANES. Would the Senator yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I know the Senator from Mississippi has been seeking 
recognition for purposes of a question. I yield to him at this time.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Democratic 
leader.
  My question is this: The Democratic leader's amendment seeks to 
extend the time for the continuing resolution. My question is whether 
you support the continuing resolution with this change and would 
recommend that the President sign it.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I would recommend--I am not sure I understand the 
question completely. But if the Senator is asking, would I recommend to 
the President to sign a clean resolution taking us through December 22, 
my answer is, of course, yes. I would hope he would sign it.
  Mr. COCHRAN. My understanding is that the amendment the distinguished 
leader has offered has simply extended the date of the resolution, as 
offered, to well over into December rather than----
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. COCHRAN. My question is, if this amendment is adopted, that we 
vote for it, would you recommend it to the President?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Yes, he would. He would sign it.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Without any change in the content of the resolution?
  Mr. LEVIN. No.
  Mr. DASCHLE. My amendment modifies their resolution to take out any 
other references, to take out balanced budgets, to any of the other 
intentions----
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thought it was just changing the date.
  Mr. DASCHLE. No. No. I apologize.
  Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator is taking out all of the language in the 
resolution completely?
  Mr. DASCHLE. As I said, I describe this as a clean resolution, a 
resolution that allows us to debate the question of a balanced budget 
on a time certain, beginning tomorrow during the reconciliation, when 
we should. This simply says, let us pass a resolution through December 
22 at the level of funding we established in the previous continuing 
resolution.
  Mr. COCHRAN. But not making any commitment to achieve a balanced 
budget?
  Mr. DASCHLE. We can make a--absolutely. We would certainly make a 
commitment. The question is, does it have to be written in as a 
language specific to CBO as part of the CR, the continuing resolution?
  Mr. COCHRAN. And if I could ask.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield again to the Senator.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Does your amendment say there will be a balanced budget 
in 7 years, that that is the commitment that is being made by the 
Democrats to achieve a balanced budget in 7 years?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am sorry the distinguished Senator from Mississippi 
was not listening to my remarks, because I thought I made it very 
clear. I will be happy to clarify one more time.
  We support a balanced budget by a date certain. Many of us could even 
support a 7-year balanced budget under the right set of circumstances, 
but we have to know what the house looks like from the inside, not just 
the outside. And while we are looking at the house, I think it is 
important that the services of Government continue to be provided.
  That is what this does. It allows us to have a good debate about a 
balanced budget, with all of its ramifications, including Medicare and 
tax cuts, something you heard us talk about a lot, all of that 
beginning tomorrow, but it allows the Government to continue to run, as 
we expect it to run, through December 22.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. As I understand the leader's position, the examination 
of the rooms within this house--the education room, the Medicare room, 
Medicaid room, so forth--should take place in the course of considering 
the reconciliation.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Exactly.
  Mr. SARBANES. That is the package under which that examination takes 
place; is that correct?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Maryland is absolutely correct.
  Mr. SARBANES. And that examination should take place in a 
circumstance in which a gun is not being held at the head of the people 
conducting the examination by virtue of closing down the Government and 
terminating all these services. This is a coercive measure which has no 
place----
  Mr. SPECTER. I call the Senator on rule XIX.
  Mr. SARBANES. In our consideration; is that not the leader's view?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. SARBANES. Let me ask the leader one other question on these 
estimate figures. Is the leader aware that the blue chip consensus, 
which is derived from a monthly survey of 50 private sector 
forecasters, disagrees with CBO and, in fact, agrees with OMB on the 
forecast? So the private sector forecasters, in effect, do not validate 
the CBO projections; they agree with the OMB projections. Is the leader 
aware of that?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I was aware of that, and the Senator is right to point 
it out.
  Mr. SARBANES. And furthermore, the CBO projections have been notably 
short in recent times----
  Mr. SPECTER. I call the Senator under rule XIX.
  Mr. SARBANES. In terms of hitting the mark with respect to the growth 
figures; is that not correct?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will the leader yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to yield for a question from the Senator 
from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. It had been represented a little earlier this morning that 
there are only two parts of the resolution before us that came over 
from the House. On one part, we are told that there is a commitment to 
a 7-year balanced budget, and the other part is that CBO figures would 
be used. Is it not true that those two parts are only part of title 
III, which represents less than one page of the CR that came over from 
the House, and that the other 14 pages contain other significant 
changes, including 40-percent reductions in low-income home energy 
assistance; 40-percent reductions during this CR period of 18 days of 
drug elimination grants; 40-percent reductions of housing for severely 
distressed folks; VA construction cuts of 40 percent; 40-percent cuts 
during this period of impact----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair reminds the Senator from Michigan 
that the leader has yielded only for the purpose of a question.
  Mr. LEVIN. I am in the middle of a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair was not certain about that.
  Mr. LEVIN. Is it not also true that this same document that came over 
from the House, in addition to the two parts of title III that have 
been referred to, contain 40-percent cuts in dozens of programs during 
this period of the continuing resolution?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is accurate. That is the case. As the 
resolution has been presented, not only does it address the issue of 
whether or not we ought to be confined by numbers which have been 
demonstrated to be extraordinarily erroneous over the last 2 years, but 
we are also compelled to vote for dramatic, draconian, extreme cuts in 
current funding levels.
  Mr. President, I do not want to abuse my floor privileges. I know 
others have sought recognition.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Can I ask the Senator a brief question?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield for a brief question from the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Which will require only a very brief answer. My 
question to the minority leader is as follows: Is the Senator aware 
that right now some of these programs, like the Low-Income Energy 
Assistance Program, which my colleague from Pennsylvania has been a 
very strong advocate for, the funding is not getting out to the cold 
weather States, and for those States this is an issue right now? 

[[Page S 17121]]

  Is the Senator aware that on this continuing resolution, as my 
colleague from Michigan just stated, we are talking about only 60-
percent funding of a very minimum amount nationwide?
  And, finally, is the Senator aware--can I please put this in human 
terms--that as a matter of fact, if we keep this up here, there are 
people who could go cold and freeze to death? That could happen. Is the 
Senator aware of that? That is not melodramatic. Is the Senator aware 
that that could happen?
  Mr. DASCHLE. My answer to the Senator from Minnesota is yes, I am 
aware of that, and that is the reason we are offering this amendment.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DOLE. Can we agree to vote on this amendment or on a motion to 
table this amendment, say, at 12:45?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would be willing to enter into that 
agreement, as long as we have the understanding it is either a tabling 
motion or up or down; that it is not subject to second degree.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. And equally divide the time. I will say, we will not offer 
a second-degree amendment. That will give each side additional time to 
debate. I understand there is one additional amendment.
  Mr. DASCHLE. As I understand it, the Senator from South Carolina has 
asked for the opportunity to offer an amendment, and he would be 
willing to commit to a relatively short timeframe. So I think it would 
be three amendments.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Let me indicate, I have been here since 9:30--we all 
have--and I am not complaining about it, but I do not want any 
agreement, I say to the distinguished leader, to forego the chance to 
offer an amendment sometime today and a fair chance to debate it as 
relative to the unified budget versus using Social Security funds.
  We just voted on Monday not to use Social Security funds. Now today 
it appears by the resolution--and I want to be able to correct it with 
an amendment--we are going to use Social Security trust funds to 
balance the budget, and that is just a one-line amendment. I have it 
drawn, as the Parliamentarian has indicated, where I can present it 
again and again and again, second degreed or perfecting or otherwise. 
That is why I am stating this so the majority leader understands the 
intent of the Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. DOLE. It was impressed on me, which is why I did not file cloture 
last night, that there would be two amendments offered today. More can 
be offered. If that is the case, I may get my cloture motion out. If we 
are going to shut the Government down by filibuster or offering 
amendments throughout the day, then do not blame this side of the 
aisle.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me respond to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I understand the majority leader's concern. There is 
absolutely no interest in filibustering this bill. We would agree to 
time agreements on each of these amendments, as I have indicated. I 
will enter into those time agreements whenever it is appropriate. We 
already have a time agreement on the first amendment, and we will do so 
on the second and third as well.
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the leader yield?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I will be glad to enter into a time agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time on the amendment?
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield just for a comment?
  Mr. DASCHLE. You can take the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the minority leader yield time? The 
minority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. If I am recognized, I will be happy to yield to the 
Senator from North Dakota.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader can yield for a question.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Because of the time agreement, I understand, I will 
yield such time as he may require to the Senator from North Dakota. As 
I indicated, it is not our desire to monopolize the floor. There have 
been people waiting on both sides. I yield to the Senator from North 
Dakota for a question.
  Mr. DOLE. As I understand it, we do have an agreement there will be a 
vote on or in relation to the pending amendment at 12:45?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the agreement.
  Mr. DOLE. And that time is equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the agreement.
  Mr. SPECTER. Was that unanimous-consent agreement entered into?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, it was.
  Mr. DOLE. I yield 10 minutes of that time to the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, after the exchange between the minority 
leader and the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Republican leader. I was going to alert the 
leaders that I, too, have an amendment on which I would be happy to 
take a short-time agreement. But I think it is important that an 
additional amendment be offered. I would like the time to do that. I 
would be happy to take a short-time agreement to do so.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Well, we will work that out.
  Mr. SARBANES. Will the majority leader yield me 30 seconds to make a 
point?
  Mr. EXON. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to put this in the Record. The 
Government private forecast, fourth quarter to fourth quarter, on GDP 
growth for 1995 was 2.5 percent. The CBO forecast was 1.3 percent, 
which fell way short of what the actual growth has been over that 
period of time.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have been on the floor for a 
considerable period of time and on my feet, and I had called Senators 
to order under rule XIX, where there had been a succession of 
questions, which I think, fairly stated, really went beyond a question. 
The rules of the Senate do not permit any Senator, even a leader, to 
yield to another Senator on the floor for anything other than a 
question. The proceedings went far beyond a question. I just wanted to 
make that explanatory statement as to why I was on my feet seeking 
recognition and seeking that the rules of the Senate be complied with, 
so that others might have an opportunity to seek recognition.
  As I have listened to this debate, Mr. President, I am reminded of 
the statement by a very distinguished Senator from Maine, Senator 
Margaret Chase Smith, who made the distinction between the principle of 
compromise and the compromise of principle.
  As I listen to this debate, we are not talking about first amendment 
issues. We are talking about dollars and cents and some sort of an 
accommodation. I heard the question raised by the Senator from 
Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, about low-income energy assistance and 
how it was not being provided to the poor people of America. And he 
made a reference to what this Senator had been trying to do. I think 
that characterizes the situation on the Senate floor, where we have a 
bill on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, the 
subcommittee which I chair, which has not been brought to the floor 
because there is a filibuster effort by the Democrats on a provision 
relating to striker replacement. I do not say that in the context of 
fixing blame on the Democrats, necessarily, because that provision is a 
substantive provision added on to an appropriation bill by Republicans 
and we really ought not to use the appropriations process for 
substantive provisions which are contested.
  I think that is what has happened now when we have had the Government 
shut down for 2 days, and we have had many, many Americans 
inconvenienced. There has been a recitation of the people who have been 
inconvenienced--the Social Security beneficiaries cannot apply, and the 
veterans, and the situation with passports, and immigration issues, and 
visitors.
  I received a call yesterday from my hometown of Philadelphia, where 
people cannot go to Independence Hall, and they are saying, ``What is 
going on down there?''
  Mr. President, I believe we are witnessing a real spectacle in the 
Congress 

[[Page S 17122]]
for the last 2 days. What we have been seeing over the past several 
years has really been a demise of democracy. When I first ran for 
public office, not too long ago, 70 to 75 percent of the people of 
Philadelphia came out to vote in a mayoral election. Last week, we had 
an election in Philadelphia, and less than half of the people came out 
because of the disillusionment, disenchantment with what is happening 
in Washington, DC, inside this beltway, and really around America in 
the political process. What is happening here--and it is no surprise 
and it is understandable, in a sense--is this maneuvering for political 
advantage.
  I suggest to my colleagues, both in the Congress and in the executive 
branch, that nobody is getting any political advantage now. This is not 
a win-win situation, this is a lose-lose situation for everybody. When 
Senators come to the floor and decry the issue of political advantage 
and go on and on about what the Speaker's wife did as a passenger on an 
airplane, that is hardly going to the issue of what we are trying to do 
to solve this crisis in Government and this crisis in confidence.
  Mr. President, what is really involved here is a question of 
priorities. I think it is far beyond the issue of pique. I think people 
do not understand really how tired everybody is in Washington and how 
tired everybody is around the country about what is going on in 
Washington. But we have late-night sessions, and many of the people 
just went to Israel for the sad funeral of Prime Minister Rabin--16 
hours over and 16 hours back. There is a certain sense of exhaustion 
which is working here. We certainly do not want the American people to 
think that the Government is being run out of a sense of pique or out 
of a sense of grudge. What we are boiling down to here, Mr. President, 
I think, is a crystallization of the issues which have to be decided at 
the next election.
  The issue of a balanced budget is one where a lot of lip service is 
being given on both sides of the aisle. But I suggest that the record 
is reasonably clear--and it is hard to have a reasonably clear record 
on anything in Washington, DC--that it is pretty much a party issue, 
with every Republican, except one, voting for a balanced budget 
amendment. And on the Democrat side of the aisle, there was substantial 
disagreement with six Senators last year in favoring a balanced budget 
amendment, and now not favoring it.
  The President of the United States--and not in a harsh rhetoric 
sense--opposes a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. We may 
be clarifying an issue here about having the 7-year timeframe for a 
balanced budget amendment, as postulated on this continuing resolution. 
It is my hope that President Clinton will sign a continuing resolution 
that has two qualifications. One is a 7-year time limit, which, on 
occasion, he has endorsed, and a second on figures from the 
Congressional Budget Office, which, again, on occasion, he has 
endorsed.
  Of course, you can raise arguments as to anything on any issue at any 
time, anyplace, especially around here. But those are not unreasonable 
conditions to move ahead with a continuing resolution, to get the 
Government back in operation. If the President decides not to sign that 
continuing resolution, then I think we have to come to terms, leave the 
issue for the 1996 election in fairly crystal form, and get this 
Government running again.
  If we come back to basic principles, we all agree that the Congress 
passes legislation which has to be signed by the President, unless 
there are two-thirds of each body of the House and Senate that will 
override a Presidential veto. And if we have a gridlock, if the 
President is adamant, for whatever reason, and if the Congress is 
adamant, for whatever reason--and I think the American people see it as 
a lot of political posturing on both sides and are saying ``a plague on 
both of your houses''--why cannot the Congress of the United States 
come to terms? This is not freedom of religion; this is not due process 
of law; these are dollars and cents which, customarily, have been 
split. If we cannot split them, let us crystallize the issue for the 
1996 election. But let us not tie up the Government of the United 
States in the context where we all look so foolish.
  Yesterday, I had my regular weekly radio news conference, and the 
only question asked was about the stalemate in Washington and the 
gridlock. I said, candidly, that it was an embarrassment. It was 
embarrassing to be a Senator when what is happening in Washington, DC, 
goes on without any resolution. So I hope, Mr. President, in the first 
instance, that President Clinton will accept this continuing 
resolution. It is not too onerous.

  There is no commitment as to what is going to appear in all of the 
rooms discussed by my colleagues within the 7 years. I have been on the 
floor of this body objecting to the tax cuts at a time when we are 
seeking to balance the budget and to tighten our belts and we are 
asking people to take cuts in programs. I have the chairmanship of the 
appropriations subcommittee covering three big departments:
  Education--where we have added $1.6 billion on a Republican bill 
which is being filibustered by the Democrats. Again, I do not question 
it, really, because a substantive measure was added on striker 
replacement.
  Health and Human Services--both the House and the Senate have agreed 
to add substantial funds to the National Institutes of Health on their 
important research projects. That is being held up because of the 
bickering. Certainly the President would agree to sign that.
  And we cover the Department of Labor. Our subcommittee came back in 
on a $70 billion discretionary budget and cut $8 billion with a scalpel 
instead of a meat ax in a way which satisfied the distinguished Senator 
from Iowa, Senator Harkin, who has worked with me on that subcommittee.
  So we really ought to come to terms here. If there is a limitation of 
7 years, it does not say that is going to be done to any one of the 
departments. There is plenty of time to object at a later stage.
  I hope the President will sign a continuing resolution with these two 
relatively modest limitations. If that does not happen, Mr. President, 
I hope we heed the words of Margaret Chase Smith and distinguish 
between what is the principle of compromise as opposed to the 
compromise of principle and recognize that our Constitution gives the 
President the veto power and a dominant role, or at least an equal 
partnership role, unless we have two-thirds to override--which we do 
not--so that we can end the charade, get the Government going, and 
crystallize that issue for the 1996 election.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I had talked to the distinguished 
ranking member on the other side of the aisle and asked for 10 minutes 
but he is not here so I yield myself 10 minutes.
  Mr. President, my colleague from Pennsylvania talks about the 
resolution without smoke and without mirrors.
  Let me point to the smoke and let me point to the mirrors. It says 
here on the last page about commitment to a 7-year balanced budget: 
``The President and the Congress shall enact legislation to achieve a 
unified balanced budget.''
  Now you have the smoke. Now you have the mirrors. This is exactly 
what the U.S. Senate on Monday--today is only Thursday--exactly what 
the U.S. Senate on Monday voted 97-2 against, this smoke, this mirror.
  Let me quote, since the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania is 
here, our late colleague, the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, 
Senator John Heinz.

       Since 1983, when we may have saved the Social Security 
     goose, we have systematically proceeded to melt down and pawn 
     the golden egg. It doesn't take a financial wizard to tell us 
     that spending these reserves on today's bills does not bode 
     well for tomorrow's retirees.

  I quote another statement from Senator John Heinz:

       The truth is that Congress, by counting the old-age, 
     survivors and disability income trust funds as part of 
     general revenues, radically distorts the actual financial 
     health of this Nation by pretending that the money paid in by 
     workers to Social Security will never be paid out.

  Stating further:

       Mr. President, in all the great jambalaya of frauds 
     surrounding the budget, surely the most reprehensible is the 
     systematic and total ransacking of the Social Security trust 
     fund in order to mask the true size of the deficit.

  Now, that is exactly, Mr. President, why I have an amendment at the 
desk 

[[Page S 17123]]
which I will call later in its due time. We have the amendment on the 
date of December 22, which I favor, but I thank the distinguished 
leadership for yielding me this time because here on Monday, here on 
Monday, the distinguished leader stated, when we read in here that ``on 
the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995, the U.S. Congress agrees to 
honor section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 so as not to 
include in the conference any language that violates that section.''
  Now, what does that section that Senator Heinz had enacted back and 
signed into law on November 5, 1990, say? I ask unanimous consent that 
section 13301 be printed in the Record.
  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.--
     Notwithstanding 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, 
     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. In order to vote for the resolution you have to vote to 
violate the law. They know it. That is the smoke and that is the 
mirror.
  On Monday, they agreed--in fact, the Senator from New Mexico, the 
chairman of the Budget Committee talking now about ``unified'' stated 
at the time we passed the Heinz-Hollings-Moynihan amendment, ``I 
support taking Social Security out of the budget deficit calculation . 
. .'' Again, on Monday, he voted that way.
  It reminds me, Mr. President, of a contest that we had for an 
insurance company and they wanted a slogan for the new insurance 
company. The winning slogan we finally got was, ``The Capital Life will 
surely pay if the small print on the back don't take it away.''
  Now, Mr. President, that is the gamesmanship you see here. That is 
$636 billion. This is a problem not of technicalities. It is real. For 
we, at the present moment, owe Social Security $481 billion. Pass this 
GOP budget and you will use again another $636 billion.
  So, come the year 2002 we will say, ``Oops, what a smart boy am I. I 
have made solvent Medicare but, oh, heavens above, I have forced Social 
Security into bankruptcy. I owe $1 trillion and there is nobody around 
ready to raise $1 trillion worth of taxes to make the IOU sound.''
  Let me look at the morning paper here and see exactly what it says. 
It says:

       Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin announced plans 
     yesterday to pull $61.3 billion from two Federal retirement 
     accounts, an unprecedented fiscal move he said was necessary 
     to save the U.S. Government from the first default in its 
     history.
       He authorized withdrawal of the entire $21.5 billion held 
     in a Federal savings plan known as the G-fund, and as much as 
     $39.8 billion of the $350 billion in the Civil Service 
     retirement fund. In effect, both funds would be given a 
     temporary IOU that would obligate Treasury to make complete 
     repayment with interest after a permanent increase in the 
     debt limit is finally approved.

  Now, Mr. President, that is my point. We should reduce deficits. We 
should eliminate deficits. We should not move deficits. You move them 
from the general fund over to the Social Security trust fund. Or as the 
Secretary of the Treasury did yesterday, you move it from the general 
fund over into the Civil Service retirement fund. That moving around is 
absolute trickery and is putting us in such a position that we are no 
longer allowed the luxury of children and grandchildren arguments. We 
will get it through the neck here in about 2 years.
  We owe, this minute, trust funds $1.255 trillion--right this minute. 
If we continue to spend now under this so-called continuing resolution, 
a unified budget, then we really are going to be up a creek.
  Let me tell you who loves this--Wall Street. The financial market. I 
talked to one of them just earlier this week. They love a unified 
budget.
  Why? Theirs is to make money. And so if you can borrow around from 
the other Government funds there is less of a burden of borrowing on 
the New York stock exchange. When we come in for borrowing funds, with 
the sharp elbows of Government, we shove away other capital investment. 
They love that. But we have the responsibility of running the 
Government, not of making money.

  This thing was, perhaps, a good idea at one time. But now we have 
come with the contract and the revolution that says we are not going to 
have business as usual. We are going to have change.
  Do not tell me what Presidents have done, what this President will 
do. Tell us what we will do to not have business as usual. Namely, 
adhere to the law--adhere to the principle and policy of not using the 
trust funds.
  That is why there is a lack of trust in Government, if the youngsters 
coming along see that you are frittering away their retirement funds. I 
lose trust myself. So there is no mystery to this thing. Let us have an 
honest budget, without smoke and without mirrors. Let us get right down 
to the idea, here, that we are not using the Social Security trust 
fund. It is against the law to do it.
  On October 18, if you refer to the Congressional Record, the 
distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee stood on the Senate 
floor and he said here: I have the certificate, certified of this GOP 
budget, and we have a $10 billion surplus.
  When we reminded her of the law--would you think you would have to 
remind a Congressional Budget Office Director of the law? Once reminded 
of the law, June O'Neill, the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office, came and said, ``Oops, I am sorry. You have a $105 billion 
deficit.'' So they went from a $10 billion surplus, in 48 hours, to a 
$105 billion deficit.
  And they talk about CBO figures. That is what destroys the trust in 
CBO. Because they have gamesmanship there. But let us not have 
gamesmanship here.
  We all voted on Monday to stop the gamesmanship with the Social 
Security trust funds. Let us again vote for this amendment when it 
comes up that says: Notwithstanding any other provision of this joint 
resolution, the 7-year balanced budget passed by the Congress to the 
President shall not include Social Security trust funds to reduce or 
apply to the deficit--to effect or obtain a balance.
  Mr. President, I retain the remainder of my time and yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from North Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. EXON. Will the Senator from North Carolina yield for just 30 
seconds while the majority leader is on the floor so we can maybe move 
to some kind of tentative agreement?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Yes, I will.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Charge it to my time.
  I advise the Senate that as far as I am able to ascertain at this 
time on this side of the aisle, we have the amendment pending, offered 
by the minority leader. There will be a second amendment by the 
minority leader, and there will be an amendment offered by the Senator 
from South Carolina.
  I would simply say at this time, in order to give us some idea of 
where we are going, we want to move in an expeditious fashion. How much 
time, when we get to the amendment that will be offered by the Senator 
from South Carolina, how much time does he think he would need to 
further explain his amendment, in addition to the time he has just 
used?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The Senator indicates an hour, a half-hour to a side, 
just on this amendment. 

[[Page S 17124]]

  Mr. EXON. I ask the majority leader, are there any amendments or 
second-degree amendments that he is aware of on his side of the aisle?
  Mr. DOLE. I am not aware of any at this point.
  Mr. EXON. I am simply saying, it seems to me--the majority leader 
requested a while ago, and the minority leader indicated, too, we want 
to move expeditiously. It would appear to me that right now we are in a 
position when we dispose of this at 12:45, we probably--maybe at that 
time we may be in a position to frame some time agreements, short time 
agreements, and finish and have final passage on this sometime early in 
the afternoon.
  Mr. DOLE. I hope that is the case, because we would like to move to 
the Defense Appropriations conference report. Then, tomorrow, of 
course, we will have the Balanced Budget Act of 1995.
  I do not know what happens after the CR goes to the White House, if 
it is vetoed, where we are as far as the Government is concerned. But I 
will be happy to work with the Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. I am working with the minority leader. I think we are 
making some real progress.
  I thank my friend from North Carolina for yielding.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask that time not come out of the time of 
the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is charged to the minority.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 
continuing resolution for the very simple reason that all this 
resolution says is that the Federal Government can reopen if the 
President agrees to balance the budget in 7 years. It is that simple.
  I want to read the precise language. It might have been read before 
this morning, but it bears repeating.

       The President and the Congress shall enact legislation in 
     the 104th Congress to achieve a unified balanced budget not 
     later than the fiscal year 2002 as scored by the non partisan 
     Congressional Budget Office.

  This is all the Congress is asking for. We need a commitment from the 
President to this timetable.
  I have to wonder when the President will begin worrying about the 
taxpayers of this country and the children yet unborn. We are $5 
trillion in debt--$5 trillion. Twenty years ago our total debt was $595 
billion, and in 20 years we spent $4.5 trillion that we do not have.
  It took us 200 years from the founding of this country until 1982 to 
build a $1 trillion debt. We have spent almost five times that much in 
the last 12 years.
  In the President's 1996 budget, 16 cents of every dollar will be 
spent to pay interest on the debt. What that equates to is 41 percent 
of all individual income taxes sent to the Government will be used to 
pay interest--41 percent. Can we really keep taxing America's hard-
earned money to pay interest and run a viable economy? No, we cannot. 
This has to stop. If we do not do it now, it will never be done. Now is 
the opportune time.
  When he ran for President, President Clinton said he wanted to 
balance the budget in 5 years. This does it in 7 years. But he made the 
promise 3 years ago. This is 10 years from the original promise, and he 
still refuses to sign--says he is going to refuse to sign a 7-year 
commitment to balance it.
  When he ran for President, he said he wanted to cut taxes for the 
middle class. This budget does that.
  When he ran for President, he said he wanted welfare reform and 
Republicans in Congress are going to give him that. It should be clear 
the Republicans in Congress are keeping their commitment to the 
American people. Bill Clinton is not. But this should come as a 
surprise to no one.
  When he ran for Governor of Arkansas in 1990, he said he would not 
run for President. If only he had kept that promise. If the President 
was so concerned about having the Government closed, why has he chosen 
not to negotiate? For 26 hours last week he was on the same plane with 
Speaker Gingrich and majority leader Dole: No negotiation.
  Finally, in a typical Washington political move, he offered to meet 
at 10 p.m., 2 hours before the Government shutdown. Not only a typical 
Washington, but a more typical Clinton maneuver.
  I said 2 days ago this President is playing politics at its worst. 
Instead of doing something good for his country and the future of this 
country, he is concerned with the poll numbers. His political adviser, 
Dick Morris, calls it triangulation. This means Clinton is supposed to 
appear moderate. Really, it is not triangulation; it is strangulation 
of the Federal Government by no leadership, no principles, and no 
negotiation. The President is not serious. He is not accepting 
responsibility. This Congress is.
  We have to stop spending money we do not have. We have been doing it 
for far too long now.
  Mr. President, I strongly urge the President of the United States to 
come to the table and work with the leadership of this Congress. He 
needs to negotiate in good faith. He needs to negotiate for the good of 
this country and its future.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from North 
Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank the ranking 
member.
  Republicans say they want to balance the budget in 7 years using CBO 
numbers. The fact is the Republican plan does not balance the budget, 
according to the Congressional Budget Office.
  Mr. President, this is a letter that I received on October 20, 1995, 
from the head of the Congressional Budget Office pointing out that, if 
we obey the law--that is, we do not count Social Security trust funds 
in the calculation--the Republican plan has a $105 billion deficit in 
2002. Why is that? It is because the only way the Republican plan 
achieves balance is to take every penny of Social Security trust fund 
money over the next 7 years.
  The law--this is a copy of the law--specifically precludes that. 
Ninety-eight Senators voted for this law.
  This chart shows the looting of the Social Security trust funds that 
is going to occur, if we adopt what the Republicans call a balanced 
budget by 2002. We are going to be taking $636 billion of the Social 
Security trust fund surplus in order to call it a balanced budget.
  Mr. President, that is not a balanced budget by law. It is not a 
balanced budget by any serious economic standard.
  Some say, ``Where is your alternative? Why don't the Democrats have 
an alternative?'' Very simply, Mr. President, we do. During the budget 
resolution, I offered what I called the fair share balanced budget 
plan. Thirty-nine Senate Democrats voted for it. It achieved more 
deficit reduction by 2002 than the GOP plan. In fact, it achieved $100 
billion more of deficit reduction in that period than the GOP plan, and 
it achieved true balance in 9 years without counting the Social 
Security surpluses.
  At the same time, it had different priorities. It did not slash 
Medicare, Medicaid, or education. In fact, we restored more than $100 
billion of the $270 billion Republican cut to Medicare. We restored 
full funding for student loans, and provided additional discretionary 
funding for education at all levels. We had nutrition and agriculture 
restored by $24 billion, and veterans restored $5 billion so that we 
could have a better set of priorities.
  But we did have savings out of the spending entitlements. We had $156 
billion of savings out of Medicare instead of the Republican plan of 
$270 billion. We also had savings out of Medicaid.
  So we had savings out of the spending entitlements. But we also 
recognized that the biggest entitlement of all is the tax entitlements. 
The tax entitlements, as this chart shows, amount to $4 trillion over 
the next 7 years. It is interesting to compare the tax entitlements--$4 
trillion over the next 7 years. The Republicans never want to talk 
about the tax entitlements. They want to talk about the spending 
entitlements of Social Security. That is about $3 trillion over the 
next 7 years. Medicare, that is about $2 trillion over the next 7 
years; Medicaid, $1 trillion. But the granddaddy of them all are the 
tax entitlements, $4 trillion.
  In the Democratic plan we said, yes. Slow the growth of the spending 
entitlements, absolutely--Medicaid and 

[[Page S 17125]]
Medicare. But also slow the growth of the tax entitlements to inflation 
plus 1 percent. That is fair. That asks everybody in our society to 
contribute to deficit reduction. We don't just put middle class and 
working families into the front lines in the battle to balance the 
budget--we also ask the wealthiest among us to contribute to deficit 
reduction. That means no tax cut until we balance the budget.
  Mr. President, we are going to be adding under the Republican plan 
$1.8 trillion to the national debt over the next 7 years. Why would we 
be increasing that debt by borrowing money to give a tax reduction that 
disproportionately goes to wealthiest among us?
  Mr. President, we not only have the fair share plan that a group of 
Democrats offered. We also have the common sense budget plan. On the 
question again of no tax cut, there is no tax cut because it makes no 
sense to be adding to the debt, to be digging the hole deeper before we 
start filling it in.
  On the question of the Congressional Budget Office versus OMB, I 
think it is critically important to understand that the Wall Street 
Journal this morning made reference to that in their editorial. They 
said, ``The Congressional Budget Office predicts over the next 7 years 
2.3 percent economic growth. OMB projects 2.5 percent.'' Listen to what 
the Wall Street Journal says. ``In our view, both growth assumptions 
are overly pessimistic. Corporate profits look cheerful. There is no 
reason this economy should not grow at three percent in good years as 
it has through much of the past. Government policies, whether monetary 
or fiscal, should not be designed to foreclose this result.''
  Why did the Wall Street Journal come to this conclusion? Because they 
have looked at what actually happened over the last 2 years. And look 
at what has happened. This shows economic growth. The President's plan 
projects on the blue line what economic growth would look like. The 
Congressional Budget Office is the red line. The orange line shows what 
has actually happened. And what has really happened in the real world 
is both the Congressional Budget Office and OMB have been too 
conservative. They have been wrong.
  What are the results? Look at the deficit reduction. The President's 
plan shows the blue line. That is what he was predicting. The red line 
shows what the Congressional Budget Office was predicting. The yellow 
line shows what has actually happened. Again, both the Congressional 
Budget Office and OMB have been wrong.
  Let us break the gridlock. Let us agree to a plan to balance the 
budget, but let us base it on the best estimates of private 
forecasters. Let us use the blue chip forecasters, and break the 
gridlock.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I join my colleagues from both sides of the 
aisle in condemning the situation that has brought us to the point 
where the Federal Government has shut down.
  The American public should understand one thing about the shutdown: 
this budget crisis is completely avoidable. It was manufactured by the 
House Speaker as a tactic to impose his extreme budget priorities on 
America.
  The Speaker's own words illustrate this point. Last April 3, he told 
reporters that he intended to ``create a titanic legislative standoff 
with President Clinton by adding vetoed bills to must-pass 
legislation.'' With the Speaker at the helm, Republicans have put the 
Federal budget on a collision course with the iceberg.
  Congressional Republicans are in the majority in the House and 
Senate, which gives them the power and votes to keep the Government 
operating.
  Instead, they have shut down the Government and are gambling with our 
economy and credit rating, in a political game to force a heartless 
budget on the American people.
  Today we have an opportunity to end the budget impasse. Our 
Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, proposed a temporary funding 
resolution in an effort to get the Federal Government back to work. 
This would have extended spending authority through December 22.
  Unfortunately for the American public, the funding resolution that 
the Democrats proposed was rejected, and the Government shutdown 
orchestrated by the Speaker continues.
  Senator Daschle's amendment provided the best opportunity to end the 
Government shutdown. This is an amendment that the President can sign. 
We should pass the Daschle amendment, put an end to this crisis, and 
begin the important work of negotiating a budget agreement.
  How many thousands of veterans will be unable to submit new benefit 
claims because VA offices remain closed?
  How many Americans will be turned away from Social Security offices 
around the country because no Government workers are available to 
process their applications? How many millions of visitors must be 
turned away from our national parks, museums, and monuments before 
Republicans in Congress will vote to end this stalemate and approve a 
clean funding resolution?
  How many corporations will be unable to conduct business overseas 
because their executives cannot get their passports renewed?
  The Republicans, led by the Speaker, have forced a political showdown 
at the expense of our needy, elderly, and veterans of our country. 
What's good about telling senior citizens who want to apply for Social 
Security or veterans trying to get their benefits processed that 
they'll have to wait until the Government reopens?
  I think it is important that we review the record of the Republican 
Congress on spending bills.
  None of the 13 appropriation bills were passed by the September 
deadline. All 13 of these bills should have been passed by September 
30. Because of this failure, a temporary spending bill is necessary to 
keep the Government running.
  Republicans are trying to use this manufactured funding crisis, which 
they could easily have avoided, to force an increase in seniors' 
Medicare premiums and to provide tax breaks for wealthy Americans.
  We should say no to political blackmail and yes to a clean CR.
  And most importantly, let us get our people back to work.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the majority 
leader has asked me to control the time on this side of the aisle.
  I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, 
Senator Gregg.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi for 
this time, and I want to respond just briefly to the comments that were 
just made and make a couple of additional points.
  This debate is about whether or not the President wishes to 
participate in balancing the budget--nothing else. Everything has been 
taken off of this continuing resolution that the President originally 
objected to. The only thing that is on this continuing resolution that 
does not involve day-to-day operation of the Government--remember, this 
resolution only runs for 19 days--the only thing that is on this 
resolution is a statement that the President will join with the 104th 
Congress in a commitment to balancing the budget by the year 2002 using 
the Congressional Budget Office numbers. It does not say he has to 
agree to our approach to balancing the budget. If he wants to use the 
two proposals outlined by the Senator from North Dakota, he can do 
that.
  He can use either of those proposals if he wants to use them. And 
some of the ideas put forward by the Senator from North Dakota may be 
ideas upon which we could reach an agreement.
  The point is that he has to agree initially. He has to make this 
initial minor step, small, incremental progress of saying, hey, I wish 
to balance the budget, too.
  That is all we are saying to the President. Just come forward and say 
I wish to balance the budget, too, in 7 years. Is that an outrageous 
request? I should not think so since he has already on a number of 
occasions said he wanted to balance it in 5 years, 6 years, 7 years, 8 
years, 9 years. He has been at 

[[Page S 17126]]
this position once or twice before during his term of office. We are 
just asking him that he sort of settle out, settle out, on the idea of 
7 years. I think it is a reasonable request.
  I do not think most Americans feel 7 years is an unreasonable period 
of time to get this financial house in order. I think most Americans 
look at 7 years as maybe an excessive amount of time for us to get our 
financial house in order. They wonder why we cannot do it a little 
sooner, but we do not appear to be able to. So we said 7 years.
  On the issue of whether or not we use CBO numbers, of course, the 
opposition to that really is a red herring because the President came 
to this Congress and he, in rather definitive terms, said he was 
willing to use CBO numbers in his first statement to this body. And so 
the opposition to that language is, I think, a bit of a sidetracking 
exercise because he has already agreed to that.
  If the President wants--and the Senator from North Dakota mentioned 
the tax issues in our budget--he can come up here with a balanced 
budget which raises taxes. He can do it all with tax increases, and he 
will be consistent with the language we have asked him to sign on to. 
We have not said he had to do it by reducing the rate of growth of 
Government as we have proposed. We suggested that the rate of growth of 
Government not be cut. We have not done anything that draconian. We 
have just suggested it grow at 3.3 percent annually, which is more than 
the rate of growth of the economy.
  We have suggested that Medicare be allowed to grow at 6.5 percent; 
that Medicaid be allowed to grow at 4 percent; that senior citizens be 
given more choices for their health care options; that the States be 
given control over welfare, that people who are on welfare be allowed 
to only stay on it for 5 years during their lifetime, not be on there 
for an entire experience of their working lifetime; that they be asked 
to go to work after a couple of years.
  These were our suggestions for how you get to a balanced budget. But 
we are not saying we have all the answers. If the President wants to 
come up here with a new tax package as he did a year, 2 years ago, when 
he proposed the largest tax package in history, as a way to get this 
budget under control, if he wants to duplicate that event, so be it. 
That is his option. Under this language, it would be consistent with 
the proposal that we are asking for. All we are saying to the President 
is, sign on to a balanced budget. Agree that the budget must be 
balanced.
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield for a question on that point?
  Mr. GREGG. Yes, I yield to the Senator from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). The Senator yields.
  Mr. CONRAD. I would just ask my colleague from New Hampshire, who I 
have respect for on this issue, I think the Senator has made serious 
attempts to make serious proposals to reduce the deficit, and I would 
ask him, if the President agreed to a 7-year timeframe for balancing 
the budget but said to us, ``I would want to use the blue-chip private 
forecasters rather than CBO, because it turns out that they have been 
more accurate over the last 2 years than has CBO or OMB,'' would the 
Senator from New Hampshire say that is an unacceptable position?
  Mr. GREGG. Well, what the Senator from New Hampshire----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GREGG. The Senator may not be able to say what his position is.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I yield the distinguished Senator an 
additional minute to respond to the question of the Senator from North 
Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I would say that the President was off on a tangent, and a 
tangent which is really not necessary to be on because the President 
already came up here once and said CBO is OK. In fact, he not only said 
it was OK, he demanded that we follow CBO.
  I believe that his initial decision in that area was correct. I just 
want to hold him to what his initial commitment was, that CBO should be 
the scorer. I see no reason why we should not use CBO. They are going 
to be right sometimes, wrong sometimes. Blue chips are going to be 
right sometimes, wrong sometimes. But at least we are using one 
acceptable group. The CBO being the group both the President and 
ourselves have used over the years, it seems reasonable we accept them. 
Then that standard is one we should all be comfortable with. But the 
core issue, of course, is he has to agree to balancing the budget in 7 
years.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired. Who yields time?
  Mr. EXON. I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, my office, like most of the offices in this complex, 
has been besieged with calls from constituents wanting to know why we 
cannot pass the necessary legislation to keep the Government operating. 
These calls are not simply coming from people who work for the Federal 
Government. Most are from people who do not work for the Federal 
Government. They are not just from people who rely on Government 
services and programs.
  It is interesting that most of the people who call do not identify 
themselves as Democrats or Republicans. They are just average Americans 
whose greatest expectation of Government is that it operate to serve 
the interests of the people, to operate in the interest of serving the 
taxpayer. They are the kinds of people who pay their taxes. They play 
by the rules and vote for the person, not for the party. They want to 
know why this standoff is occurring.
  The answer is very simple. The Congress, which is controlled in the 
House and in the Senate by the Republican Party, has not allowed 
appropriations bills to go through this body. There are 13 
appropriations bills, and they simply have not passed. Everyone knows 
that the morning news said the transportation appropriations bill was 
signed and 29,000 Federal workers reported for work today.
  The reason Federal workers are not working today is because the 
appropriations bills have not been completed. I have been here going on 
14 years. There has never been anything like this.
  When was the House supposed to pass their bills? By June 10. They 
simply did not do it. They did not pass their bills on time, and, of 
course, if they do not pass their bills on time, there is no way the 
Senate can pass its bills on time. The House missed the deadline on 
every appropriations bill.
  We hear all this talk about personal responsibility. Well, what about 
responsibility of the majority party that rules the House and Senate? 
Do they not have a responsibility to get us these bills so the 
Government does not shut down?
  The deadlines missed by the House have caused the Senate 
Appropriations Committee to push back the dates on which they could and 
should have considered these measures.
  While the Senate is not bound by a similar deadline, it is required 
to complete action on these bills by the end of September. The Senate 
has had more success than the House in meeting the deadlines, but it 
still was doing the things at the 11th hour, and after we pass them, of 
course, there has to be a conference.
  It has been a total lack of responsibility by the majority, that is, 
the Republican Party controlling both bodies.
  As of today, only four of these bills, maybe five, have been signed. 
I do not know what the latest report is. And why were these annual 
appropriations bills not passed on time? Let me tell you why they were 
not passed on time. It is because they were stuffed with some of the 
most controversial, radical proposals in the history of this body, in 
the history of the other body.
  Why do I say that? Rather than going through the ordinary legislative 
process, they wanted things like any charitable organization, a charity 
would not be able to lobby Congress even if they paid for it with 
private funds. That held up two appropriations bills.
  How is that for democracy? You cannot even come back here and talk to 
your Representative even if you pay for it yourself. EPA, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, 17 different regulations they wanted 
passed. They put them in appropriations bills. They could not pass 
these laws changing environmental laws, food safety laws, safe drinking 
water laws, and clean air laws through the normal course of 

[[Page S 17127]]
business. Instead, they engaged in a high stakes gamble.
  In one of these bills, they completely rewrote the Housing Act in an 
appropriations bill. The crime bill, the Commerce-State-Justice bill--
they rewrote the crime bill. And abortions held up three bills. Now, 
Mr. President, I am not an advocate of abortion, but this is not the 
way to do appropriations bills. Grazing, timber, drilling for oil, all 
issues that they could not get done in an ordinary legislative process, 
they stuck on appropriations bills. They would force the President to 
sign legislation that the majority of Americans oppose for the sake of 
keeping the Government operating.
  This was apparent as far back as April. If you do not believe me, 
here is what the Speaker of the House of Representatives said in April. 
He vowed to ``create a titanic legislative standoff with President 
Clinton by adding vetoed bills to must pass legislation increasing the 
national debt ceiling.'' This is reported in the Washington Times 
newspaper, April 3.
  He also said, the President ``will veto a number of things, and we'll 
then put them all on debt ceiling. And then he'll decide how big a 
crisis he wants.''
  This has been a planned crisis. It is a war, Mr. President, but it is 
a war that is not being won by the Republicans. Kevin Phillips, a 
Republican political analyst, said yesterday on public radio:

       If the United States budget deficit problem does represent 
     the fiscal equivalent of war--and maybe it does--then what we 
     are really looking at is one of the most flagrant examples of 
     war profiteering this century has ever seen.

  That is what Kevin Phillips said. He said that the only people 
benefiting are the people with money with this debt crisis. And that is 
too bad.
  We continued to learn today why the Speaker is allowing this standoff 
to continue. It is not even any longer for scoring political points. It 
is about ruffled feathers and perceived slights. Remember, he did not 
get to sit in the front of the airplane when they went to Israel to the 
funeral of Prime Minister Rabin. He indicated, it is part of why they 
ended up sending down a tougher interim spending bill. And he is quoted 
as saying, ``it's petty * * * but I think it's human.'' He has made the 
CR tougher because he did not get to ride where he wanted to in the 
airplane going to Israel. Mr. President, I respectfully submit this is 
just plain petty.
  I return to my point that all this could have been avoided if we had 
done our job and the majority allowed us to vote on appropriations 
bills. We failed to do that. Now we are at a crisis point. If all this 
was part of some master plan, it is truly sad, it is truly sad. And 
even if it was due to simply a lack of diligence or negligence, it is 
also not excusable. Thousands and thousands of Federal workers are now 
sitting idle at home because the Speaker feels he was slighted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator from Nevada that 
his time has expired.
  Mr. REID. I ask that I be yielded 1 additional minute.
  Mr. EXON. I yield 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. This not only affects Federal workers, Mr. President, it 
affects other people, because they, the Federal workers, buy groceries 
and clothes and cars, and they use the services of small 
businesspeople. It also, in the short term and especially the long 
term, is going to hurt the American business community.

  This Senator suggests that the Speaker begin to consider the feelings 
of thousands of public servants and the people that depend on those 
public servants' paychecks. I think it is important that he consider 
their feelings, Federal workers who simplly want to be able to come to 
work and get a paycheck on a regular basis and take care of their 
families. That is what this is all about. It is too bad they are not 
being recognized because they are really important to the American 
people.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator from Nebraska 
has 2 minutes remaining on his side. The Senator from Mississippi has 
9\1/2\ minutes.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. EXON. I reserve the remainder of our time.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I understood that I yielded 6 minutes to 
the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire and that that would leave 
us 10 minutes of time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. You have about 9\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Utah, [Mr. Bennett].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Utah.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I listened to the debate here this 
morning with some interest. I do not have a prepared statement, but I 
have a few observations I want to make.
  First, with respect to this forecasting issue and what should be and 
should not be in it, I would like to point out one fact that many have 
ignored with respect to forecasting. This is not a forecast; this is a 
historical report. Martin Feldstein, writing in the Wall Street 
Journal, has pointed out the difference between the forecast made 2 
years ago for the President's tax increase and the amount of tax 
actually received is this: The Federal Government has received one-
third as much tax revenue as was forecast. Nobody is talking about 
that. They say the President raised the taxes because he had so much 
courage and that solved the deficit problem. In fact, the forecasters 
were off by two-thirds. We got one-third as much money as was forecast.
  Now we are being told, ``Yeah, the blue chip forecasters are now 
saying that we will get more money than CBO or OMB say we will get. So 
why don't we take that forecast?'' I will be happy to take that 
forecast, Mr. President. I will do it in a heartbeat on this 
condition--that we use the same blue chip forecasters to score the 
legislation that we pass.
  But we are stuck with the CBO whether we like it or not. The CBO 
scores the Senator from New Mexico on every budget action that he 
takes. Why do we have one set of numbers for our legislative action and 
then say we will have another set of numbers for the balanced budget 
circumstance?
  Let us put it out very clearly, Mr. President. If the CBO is wrong 
and too low, that means that the bill that we pass will bring us to a 
balanced budget faster than 7 years. That means if the CBO is wrong, we 
will make the terrible mistake of balancing the budget in 5. But, if 
the CBO is right and OMB is wrong and we pass the President's program, 
that means we will balance the budget never.
  I have learned since I have come to Washington the true definition of 
the phrase ``the outyears.'' I never knew what the outyears meant. In 
Washington, the outyears mean those years that are far out there. Well, 
in fact, in this debate, Mr. President, the outyears mean never. We 
have to recognize that if we are going to balance the budget, we have 
to start now and not depend on a rosy scenario for the outyears, no 
matter who makes it, whether it is CBO or OMB or the blue chip 
forecasters or whoever. If we wait for the outyears to make the 
decision, we will never ever get there. So we must take the first step. 
We must take it this year. And we must not flinch.

  One other thing, Mr. President. The President pounded the pulpit the 
other day and said some 16 times he believes in a balanced budget. 
Well, Mr. President, we are going to find out, because some of the 
political handlers at the White House did not bother to inform the 
President that the election is next year, not this year. And between 
now and then he is required by law to send us a budget. And we will see 
when he sends us his budget in 1997 just how serious he is. And we will 
see how effective it is because the budget he sent us in 1996----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BENNETT. Ten more seconds.
  The budget he sent us in 1996 received the resounding vote of 99-0 
against it. We will see what he does next year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. I have 2 minutes left.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute 44 seconds. 

[[Page S 17128]]

  Mr. EXON. Let me first respond to the remarks just made. Why it is 
necessary that we use realistic assumptions? That is because we are 
overpenalizing Medicare, we are overpenalizing students, we are 
overpenalizing people who receive Medicaid. If we are realistic in our 
assumptions, we do not have to hurt people as much. Also being 
overlooked by those who talk the argument we have to stay with CBO is 
the obvious fact that they talk about paying for this in later years. 
If you look at the Republican budget, you see that they delay all of 
the hard choices to the fifth, sixth and seventh years.
  Mr. President, the amendment before us is simple and direct. It will 
put the Government back to work. It would allow time for negotiations 
on the larger budget bill which is going to definitely be tough going, 
but we need to reduce the deficit. That is the responsible thing for us 
to do: Adopt the Daschle amendment.
  The underlying bill will be vetoed. The underlying bill tries to 
stack the deck against the President in negotiations to come. The 
underlying bill is an attempt to force the President to accept the 
extreme cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and education in the Republican 
budget bill. It is blackmail, very pure and very simple. The President 
will use his veto, and properly so, to prevent that from happening.
  The President would sign this bill as amended by the pending 
amendment. So the choice is clear. If Senators want to pass a bill that 
the President can sign to keep the Government running, then Senators 
should vote for this amendment. A vote against this amendment is simply 
a vote to continue the shutdown.
  If we are to act responsibly, we must adopt the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator his time has 
expired.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I will move to table the pending amendment 
at the conclusion of my remarks. Somebody sent me--in fact someone from 
Georgia sent me a fax. I have already written a note to thank him. He 
included in the comments a quote from Mark Twain. I thought--at least I 
have not heard it before--maybe some of my colleagues have. Let me 
quote it:

       In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, 
     brave and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, 
     however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be 
     a patriot.

  I must say, as I get into this debate again about a balanced budget, 
I think that quotation applies today. This is about change, it is about 
fundamental change. I am not an advocate of shutting down the 
Government. I have never been an advocate for shutting down the 
Government.
  But this is an unusual circumstance. We have a President in the White 
House who said he would balance the budget in 5 years, in 7 years, in 8 
years, in 9 years, in 10 years. So we picked 7. Nothing in our balanced 
budget statement, if you read the language carefully, which is on the 
last page--in fact, I watched the debate last night on the House side, 
and I heard Congressman Hoyer--I have great respect for him--from 
Maryland say:

       There is nothing wrong with the first 14 pages of this 
     amendment; it is the last page.

  Everything else was OK, all except title III, which is very brief, 
and let me read it, because we have talked about it, but I am not 
certain it has been read. All it says is:

       The President and the Congress shall enact legislation in 
     the 104th Congress to achieve a unified balanced budget not 
     later than the fiscal year 2002 as scored by the non-partisan 
     Congressional Budget Office.
       (b) The unified balance budget in subsection (a) shall be 
     based on the most current economic and technical assumptions 
     of the Congressional Budget Office.

  I believe later today the Senator from New Mexico will quote 
colleagues on the other side who say we ought to use CBO to balance the 
budget, including the distinguished manager on the other side and the 
distinguished minority leader. That is all we have said.
  Mr. President, there is nothing in here about Medicare, nothing about 
Social Security, nothing about Medicaid. It is about balancing the 
budget in 7 years, which 83 percent of the American people support. 
There is nothing in this that should prevent the President from signing 
this bill. It says:

       The President and Congress shall enact legislation. * * *

  That means we are going to have a lot of discussion, a lot of 
negotiation or we cannot enact it, he can veto it.
  So I hope when final passage comes, we will have some bipartisan 
support. I watched last night on C-SPAN the House action. I watched as 
48 Democrats voted with Republicans, a tremendous victory, a bipartisan 
victory. And I listened to one Democrat from Virginia, Congressman 
Moran, who said it is time we stop this foolishness, the American 
people want to balance the budget, the Federal employees want to go 
back to work.
  That is all we are asking. It is nothing unreasonable. There is no 
Medicare. Oh, they beat us up on Medicare, but I must say, I never 
thought I would be around to read an editorial like this in the 
Washington Post called ``The Real Default.'' In the Washington Post, 
believe me of all papers--well, the New York Times might startle me 
more--but the Washington Post, known by some of us as sort of The Daily 
Democrat Journal, talking about the real default, demagoguery, lack of 
leadership on the Democratic side, in effect setting back the cause of 
balancing the budget for years by trying to make Medicare a scare word 
with senior citizens.

  Somewhere we have lost sight of what we are here to do. Somewhere we 
have lost sight of what the American people expect of us, and somewhere 
we have lost sight of what is going to happen next week, next month, 
next year, and the next century.
  We have stepped up to make some tough decisions, and it is not easy. 
We are doing the heavy lifting, as my colleague from New Mexico said a 
few days ago. When you are not lifting anything, it is easy.
  I just suggest to my colleagues, I am one who would like to resolve 
this issue. I met with the President the other night. I thought he was 
one who wanted to resolve the issue. He told us in his first State of 
the Union Message that CBO numbers are the ones they are using in their 
budget. I remember Republicans laughed. He looked at us and said, ``All 
those Republicans laughing, remember, they have been more conservative 
most of the time,'' the CBO numbers, the Congressional Budget Office 
numbers.
  So I do not think we have done anything here that is so bad. We were 
told last night on the House floor in debate, ``If you just tear off 
the last page, the President will sign it in a minute.'' What is wrong 
with this last page? It does not say he has to sign a balanced budget 
today, or next week or next month. It says ``in the 104th Congress.''
  And if you watched TV last night and you saw the President saying, 
``I'm for a 5-year balanced budget,'' and then, ``I'm for a 7-year,'' 
``I'm for a 10-year,'' ``I'm for a 9-year,'' ``I'm for an 8-year''--the 
American people are confused.
  So let us send this to the President. Let us not take all day in 
doing it. Let us get it down to the President of the United States. I 
believe after reflection, he will sign it. It is a commitment to a 7-
year balanced budget. That is all it is. That is what it says in the 
title, ``commitment.'' It is not a law, it is a commitment.
  So I urge my colleagues to table this amendment and to table the 
other two amendments to be offered and, hopefully, have some bipartisan 
support on final passage.
  I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 577 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns 

[[Page S 17129]]

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

                                NAYS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3055) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOLE. I move to table the motion.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I understand that Senator Hollings wishes to proceed.


                           Amendment No. 3056

  (Purpose: To reaffirm the commitment of the Congress not to use the 
 surpluses in the Social Security trust fund to mask the true size of 
             the deficit in any plan for a balanced budget)

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I 
ask the clerk to report my amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3056.
       Add at the end of the Joint Resolution, the following last 
     section:
       Sec.  . Notwithstanding any other provision of this Joint 
     Resolution, the seven year balanced budget passed by the 
     Congress to the President shall not include the use of Social 
     Security Trust Funds to reflect a balanced budget.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it was Mark Twain who said the truth is 
such a precious thing that it should be used very sparingly. As a 
result, Mr. President, what we have been doing is calling budgets 
``balanced'' when in reality there have been raids, or, as the former 
Senator from Pennsylvania, John Heinz, called it, ``embezzlement'' of 
the Social Security trust fund.
  At the present moment we owe Social Security, due to this lack of 
truth in budgeting. We owe Social Security $481 billion, and if you 
duck the proposed reconciliation tomorrow or the GOP budget, you will 
expend another $636 billion of Social Security trust fund.
  Now, what may have been in the original instance an instrument of 
good, turned into a usurpation and a bankruptcy of Social Security if 
you have to borrow a few billion dollars. In the morning paper, you see 
the Secretary of the Treasury, in order to keep from defaulting, the 
Secretary of the Treasury has borrowed $61.3 billion from the civil 
service retirement. And they say later on, of course, he has to pay it 
back with interest--and that is the point. You have to pay Social 
Security back with interest and at the end of the 7-year budget you 
will owe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold a moment? The Senate 
is not in order.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, there are nine conversations going on on 
the floor right now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is aware of it and is trying to get 
order.
  The Senator from South Carolina may proceed.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair.
  At the end of the 7-year period, we will all have to pay back, 
supposedly, over $1 trillion into the Social Security trust fund, and 
no one has any idea--not any Senator or House Member --who is going to 
introduce the increase in taxes to refund the Social Security trust 
fund.
  The remedy for this particular evil is to obey the law. We saw this 
in the Budget Committee. We tortured over it. We realized this back in 
1983 when we passed the Greenspan Commission report making the Social 
Security trust funds solvent into the middle of the next century, we 
said, so the children and the grandchildren could count on it.
  We raised the taxes and assured everyone--in fact, we could not have 
done it for defense or for foreign aid or for welfare or for any of the 
other endeavors of Government. We said we were raising these Social 
Security taxes to make certain that there was trust in the trust fund 
through the year 2050.
  Having done that, 5 years ago we met in the Budget Committee and 
realized, look, on an emergency basis, yes, we borrowed from Social 
Security, maybe $100 billion here, $200 billion there. As Senator 
Dirksen says, it could easily run into money.
  So we voted, on a vote of 20 to 1 in the Budget Committee, that we 
would stop this nonsense by writing into the law section 13301 of the 
statutory laws of the United States of America that ``thou shalt not 
use Social Security trust funds to in any way be computed in outlays or 
revenues of the United States Government or in any way to obscure the 
size of the deficit.'' That particular measure passed this body by a 
vote of 98 to 2. It was signed into law by President George Herbert 
Walker Bush on November 5, 1990, and no less than reaffirmed in a 
solemn vote here on the floor of the U.S. Senate on Monday, 3 days ago. 
We said in the reconciliation----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will withhold a moment. We have 
several other conversations going on on the floor. The Senate will be 
in order.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. We said in the reconciliation instructions that they 
adhere to the law 13301.
  At that particular time, the distinguished chairman of the Budget 
Committee looked at it. It was Senator Graham of Florida and the 
Senator from South Carolina who introduced the particular language. We 
said about the Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995, and I read, 
``. . . that the conferees be instructed to honor section 13301 of the 
Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and, 2, not to include in the 
conference report any language that violates this section.'' And, to 
that, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, the Senator 
from New Mexico, said, and I quote: ``Mr. President, the first portion 
of this instruction, we have never violated, so we can be instructed on 
it. The second section, we have never violated it, so we can be 
instructed not to.''
  Absolutely false. That is categorical. We have regularly violated it. 
And that is the plea, later on, of the distinguished chairman of the 
Budget Committee, that all the Presidents have done it. All the 
Congresses have done it. So, the heck with the law. He gets up and says 
solemnly: We have never violated it. We continue to do so.
  The fact that President Reagan reported a budget that way, and 
President Bush reported a budget that way, President Clinton reported a 
budget that way, makes no impression on this particular Senator. It is 
our responsibility to have truth in budgeting. It is our responsibility 
to adhere to the statutory laws of the United States of America. It is 
not a technicality of law; it is a fundamental here involved.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a budget table showing the U.S. budget outlays beginning in 1945, the 
use of trust funds under President Truman at that particular time, the 
real deficit, and then, of course, the gross Federal deficit.
  When you put together the borrowing from the trust funds that must be 
replenished, you get the real deficit, the gross Federal debt, and the 
gross interest costs.
  These are all on one page so all the Members cannot dance around and 
talk about CBO and OMB. These are the figures of the U.S. Government.
  I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

.......................................................................

[[Page S 17130]]
                                                                      BUDGET TABLES                                                                     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            U.S. budget                                    Gross Federal                
                            President                              Year     (outlays in     Trust funds    Real deficit        debt       Gross interest
                                                                             billions)                                      (billions)                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truman..........................................................    1945            92.7             5.4  ..............           260.1  ..............
                                                                    1946            55.2             3.9           -10.9           271.0  ..............
                                                                    1947            34.5             3.4           +13.9           257.1  ..............
                                                                    1948            29.8             3.0            +5.1           252.0  ..............
                                                                    1949            38.8             2.4            -0.6           252.6  ..............
                                                                    1950            42.6            -0.1            -4.3           256.9  ..............
                                                                    1951            45.5             3.7            +1.6           255.3  ..............
                                                                    1952            67.7             3.5            -3.8           259.1  ..............
                                                                    1953            76.1             3.4            -6.9           266.0  ..............
Eisenhower......................................................    1954            70.9             2.0            -4.8           270.8  ..............
                                                                    1955            68.4             1.2            -3.6           274.4  ..............
                                                                    1956            70.6             2.6            +1.7           272.7  ..............
                                                                    1957            76.6             1.8            +0.4           272.3  ..............
                                                                    1958            82.4             0.2            -7.4           279.7  ..............
                                                                    1959            92.1            -1.6            -7.8           287.5  ..............
                                                                    1960            92.2            -0.5            -3.0           290.5  ..............
                                                                    1961            97.7             0.9            -2.1           292.6  ..............
Kennedy.........................................................    1962           106.8            -0.3           -10.3           302.9             9.1
                                                                    1963           111.3             1.9            -7.4           310.3             9.9
Johnson.........................................................    1964           118.5             2.7            -5.8           316.1            10.7
                                                                    1965           118.2             2.5            -6.2           322.3            11.3
                                                                    1966           134.5             1.5            -6.2           328.5            12.0
                                                                    1967           157.5             7.1           -11.9           340.4            13.4
                                                                    1968           178.1             3.1           -28.3           368.7            14.6
                                                                    1969           183.6            -0.3            +2.9           365.8            16.6
Nixon...........................................................    1970           195.6            12.3           -15.1           380.9            19.3
                                                                    1971           210.2             4.3           -27.3           408.2            21.0
                                                                    1972           230.7             4.3           -27.7           435.9            21.8
                                                                    1973           245.7            15.5           -30.4           466.3            24.2
                                                                    1974           269.4            11.5           -17.6           483.9            29.3
Ford............................................................    1975           332.3             4.8           -58.0           541.9            32.7
                                                                    1976           371.8            13.4           -87.1           629.0            37.1
Carter..........................................................    1977           409.2            23.7           -77.4           706.4            41.9
                                                                    1978           458.7            11.0           -70.2           776.6            48.7
                                                                    1979           503.5            12.2           -52.9           829.5            59.9
                                                                    1980           590.9             5.8           -79.6           909.1            74.8
Reagan..........................................................    1981           678.2             6.7           -85.7           994.8            95.5
                                                                    1982           745.8            14.5          -142.5         1,137.3           117.2
                                                                    1983           808.4            26.6          -234.4         1,371.7           128.7
                                                                    1984           851.8             7.6          -193.0         1,564.7           153.9
                                                                    1985           946.4            40.6          -252.9         1,817.6           178.9
                                                                    1986           990.3            81.8          -303.0         2,120.6           190.3
                                                                    1987         1,003.9            75.7          -225.5         2,346.1           195.3
                                                                    1988         1,064.1           100.0          -255.2         2,601.3           214.1
Bush............................................................    1989         1,143.2           114.2          -266.7         2,868.0           240.9
                                                                    1990         1,252.7           117.2          -338.6         3,206.6           264.7
                                                                    1991         1,323.8           122.7          -391.9         3,598.5           285.5
                                                                    1992         1,380.9           113.2          -403.6         4,002.1           292.3
Clinton.........................................................    1993         1,408.2            94.2          -349.3         4,351.4           292.5
                                                                    1994         1,460.6            89.1          -292.3         4,463.7           296.3
                                                                    1995         1,518.0           121.9          -283.3         4,927.0           336.0
      Estimate..................................................    1996         1,602.0           121.8          -311.1         5,238.0           348.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Historical tables, Budget of the U.S. Government Fiscal Year 1996; beginning in 1962 CBO's 1995 Economic and Budget Outlook.                          


  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, as you go down, you will see we have 
been borrowing sumptuously from trust funds. At the present time--not 
just owing Social Security the $481 billion--at this very minute, we 
owe the trust funds of the United States, we owe to the veterans, we 
owe to the civil service retirees, we owe to the military retirees, we 
owe, yes, to Medicare. We have been using everybody else's moneys: 
$1,255,000,000,000.
  So, the thrust of using the word ``unified'' is to obscure just that; 
that we are already in hock, before we begin the year, 
$1,255,000,000,000. We are already in hock on a national debt of just 
about $5 trillion. And, since this is all Presidential campaign 
politics, whoever the next President is, when he comes to town January 
a year from now, he will find at least $500 billion spent for 
absolutely nothing, just for the past profligacy and waste, Congresses 
for 15 years now are spending over $200 billion more than we have taken 
in.

  Congress has continued to campaign on balanced budgets, and they all 
tell you on the political stump how they are going to balance the 
budget. When they come to town, they get into the smoke and the 
mirrors. There is no question that the smoke and the mirror are just in 
that one word ``unified.'' Just say ``the balanced budget.''
  I have heard Senators say it is not complicated. You take the 
revenues that the Government receives, you take the expenditures, or 
outlays the Government spends, and there is the balance. That is not 
the way.
  Then they want to move deficits. They say, ``Wait a minute, when you 
take the revenues in, the outlays out, and you look at that figure, 
that is too high for me to run on in the next election. So we will take 
an amount of money out of the right pocket and put it into the left 
pocket. We will take $636 billion from Social Security in this budget 
that we have under consideration and put it in the general fund to make 
it appear we are balancing the budget.''
  That is what my particular amendment is. As soon as I caught this 
word ``unified,'' the attempt has been made to abolish this section 
13301. They do not like it. But the Senator from South Carolina 
watches.
  So the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution which I was 
prepared for, ready for, and have voted for numerous times--and am 
ready, willing, and able to vote for at this minute--included in 
section 7 the repeal of section 13301. I caught that earlier in this 
session this year. I told the distinguished majority leader and our 
distinguished colleague from Illinois, Senator Simon, who was 
sponsoring this, I said, ``You got my vote. I understand you got five 
other Democratic votes in a minute. Just take out the repeal of what 
John Heinz called embezzlement provisions that protects the Social 
Security Trust Fund from embezzlement.'' They will not do it. They were 
adamant.
  Then they figured, ``Wait a minute. It is good politics if we try to 
blame it on one vote--if we fail to pass a constitutional amendment for 
a balanced budget by one vote--and then take it down and offer it next 
year during the election year.
  I have the same amendment right in my pocket. Everybody has been 
walking around with the contract in their pocket. My distinguished 
former majority leader from West Virginia carries the Constitution in 
his pocket. I carry around in my pocket the Social Security provision--
namely, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that does not 
repeal section 13301 of the United States Code.
  Mr. President, there are those who love this unified budget that has 
brought a modicum of dignity and financial expertise to the politician 
Senator. Because you go up on the financial market, and I am astounded. 
But still the best of economists, the best of financial officers, the 
biggest and the best of the banks, are reporting what? A unified 
budget. They are the ones 

[[Page S 17131]]
who want it because they are in the business of making money. And the 
less pressures of the Federal Government's borrowing in the financial 
market, the more the interest rates, momentarily, will drop and the 
ease with which to finance momentarily will grow. And, if they can have 
the Government itself back in Washington borrowing from each other even 
though, of course, the debt is up, up, and away to $5 trillion, who 
cares? This crowd operates on quarterly reports, computers, tenths of a 
second, moving money around, all around the world. They have no 
responsibility. The Government, Mr. President, you and I, do.
  So, it is fine, momentarily, for the financial markets in reducing 
the pressure. But we, who have the responsibility of serving here in 
public office as a public trust, have to cut out the nonsense and 
playing around with the smoke and mirrors. We have to cut out trying to 
fool the American people that under, for example, this resolution, you 
would have a balanced budget when it is unified. Not at all. When it is 
unified alone from Social Security and $636 billion and over the 7-year 
period from civil service retirement and military retirees and others, 
we will borrow another $200 billion. So it will be over $836 billion 
needed to get to a so-called ``paper balance.''
  Let me tell you about the paper balance because I have to listen to 
the talk on the other side of the aisle about this historic effort and 
that we finally are doing the heavy lifting. They have not lifted 
anything. When we lifted year before last, when we cut $500 billion in 
spending, when we taxed cigarettes, when we taxed liquor, when we taxed 
gasoline and Social Security, when we cut Medicare $57 billion, they 
wanted lifting? They were out at recess. There was not a single vote on 
the other side of the aisle in this body, or in the other body.
  And they have the unmitigated gall to come and say, ``President 
Clinton does not want a balanced budget.'' Well, he is the only one 
that cannot be blamed for it. The distinguished Presiding Officer, this 
distinguished Senator from South Carolina, may have voted for 
expenditures that unbalanced the budget, but not President William 
Jefferson Clinton. He was down in Little Rock doing what? Balancing the 
budgets. He balanced them for 10 years. That was part of the good 
record that helped in his election in 1992.
  But we instead were engaged in this shabby exercise of growth, 
growth--that we will just cut out all the revenue and buy the vote with 
Reaganomics and with President Bush.
  It was President Clinton who came to town, yes, to give us a change 
in direction. I was here under President Lyndon Johnson. He was 
conscientious about this political charge of guns and butter and 
runaway government. So with George Mahon and others working in a 
committee, we called at the very end, in December 1968, the fiscal year 
running from the 1st of July back to the next year, June 30, and we 
told the President, ``We can cut another $5 billion.'' He said, ``Don't 
do it.'' And the budget for the war in Vietnam, for Social Security, 
for Medicare and all these particular programs was $178 billion.
  To show how far we have gotten out of hand, the interest costs for 
absolutely nothing--no government is obtained there--the interest cost 
on the national debt this fiscal year is $348 billion, $1 billion a 
day. But President Johnson not only balanced, but he gave us a $3.2 
billion surplus.
  President Nixon came to town. We were working with him again on the 
idea of block grants, incidentally. But in 1973, the OPEC cartel hit. 
We began to run some $21 billion deficits. President Ford took over, 
and our friend, President Ford, knew well what the problem was. And he 
called us all together in a summit. He said, ``Let's get our hands on 
this thing. It is runaway.'' We held it down to $66 billion. 
Thereafter, President Carter came to town. He said, ``I have to at 
least reduce this.''
  Now, you are looking at the author of the first reconciliation bill. 
I was chairman of the Budget Committee, and I went over on the Friday 
after President Jimmy Carter was defeated on a Tuesday in November 
1980, and I said, ``Mr. President, a Democrat is never going to get 
elected again with this deficit going up, up, and away.''
  He said, ``How much?''
  I said, ``Mr. President, the Congressional Budget Office has just 
estimated the deficit is going up to $75 billion.''
  He said, ``Heavens. What are we going to do?''
  I said, ``There is a fancy word called reconciliation. It means cut--
just cut across the board already-approved spending.''
  He said, ``We can do that?''
  I said, ``If you can just take Harris and McIntyre''--who were 
working at OMB and the assistant at OMB trying to give away the money 
to reelect their President--``if you tell them to stay out of the 
Capitol, I will go to my good liberal friends''--I say that with 
reverence--``and I will get the votes, and we will cut it back.''

  And President Carter said, ``Go to it.''
  I came to Warren Magnuson of Washington and Frank Church of Idaho and 
John Culver of Iowa and George McGovern of South Dakota and Birch Bayh 
of Indiana and Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin. I said, ``Before you all 
leave, you have to give me one vote because we have got to prove that 
we are fiscally responsible.'' They did, and we reduced the deficit 
down to $57 billion, just about $58 billion.
  Then came to town the leader of them all against waste, fraud and 
abuse, President Ronald Wilson Reagan, and he was beginning to put up 
budgets that we were going to work with. But he got behind the poll, 
behind the curve. Do not ever fool with polls. That is why I have this 
particular article on the desk. But getting behind it, he adopted what 
he had earlier rejected, namely Kemp-Roth. Reaganomics. They termed the 
name, and we were going to cut out all the revenues.
  I stood at this desk--and I saw the distinguished Republican Senator 
last night--and the Senator from Maryland, Senator Mathias agreed with 
me, and some 10 other Democrats. We tried to hold the line. We said: 
Wait a minute; this thing is going to get way out of hand. What is 
going to grow is these deficits and debts with the very intent that you 
have in mind and by talking this political nonsense that we will have 
more sales, we will have more purchases, we will have more sales taxes, 
more income, more income tax revenues.
  ``Give the money to the people. They know how to spend it best.'' 
That was the political cry. ``Get out of the wagon and help us pull'' 
and that kind of nonsense. We are the ones up in the wagon. Who is in 
the wagon? The Congress has been in this wagon for 15 years. The people 
outside have been pulling. I am trying to get the Congress out of the 
wagon--$200 billion a year more than we have taken in for 15 years.
  President Reagan said he was going to balance the budget in 1 year. 
If necessary, I will go get the speech for you. He came to Washington 
after his inauguration and he said: Whoops, this is way worse than I 
ever thought. So I will put in a budget that we will balance in 3 
years. And just like this paper document that we are going to consider 
tomorrow--the so-called reconciliation that nothing but a paper 
document--it reported formally that it would be balanced by the year 
1984.
  I will include that page that we have for the fiscal year 1984. It 
says, ``Fiscal year, zero,'' Calendar No. 63, the 97th Congress, first 
session. I ask unanimous consent that the report be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

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;

                           *   *   *   *   *

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Then, Mr. President, we came to one of the wonderful 
chapters in history, Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. I had worked earlier--and 
we got to wish him a happy birthday--Senator Howard Baker. Senator 
Howard Baker was the majority leader, and he tried to help me on the 
freeze. We could not get the freeze. And so I then got with Senator 
Phil Gramm of Texas and said, ``Look, I understand you have an idea of 
cutting spending across the board.'' 

[[Page S 17132]]

  I remember well as Governor I got a triple A credit rating doing just 
that. We had truth in budgeting back in South Carolina in 1959. We said 
that whatever your budget said was going to happen and would have to 
occur within the expenditures and revenues. If the expenditures ever 
exceeded the revenues, automatically by law--no discretion--the 
spending amounts across the board would be cut. And from Standard & 
Poor's and Moody's, I got a triple A rating ahead of Texas and up to 
Maryland and before any of the Southern States. I used it as my calling 
card as a young Governor to carpetbag the North, trying to get industry 
down. So I feel it keenly.
  It is lost now. Why is it lost now? We have Republican 
administrations that are giving that same nonsense. That is why I would 
not join them. It is all rhetoric. It is all applesauce. We have lost 
the triple A credit rating in South Carolina on account of growth.
  But be that as it may, Senator Gramm, Senator Rudman and I put in 
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. I have the tape from President Reagan giving me 
The Good Government Award and litany and congratulations and everything 
else, and, yes, the budgets were going to be balanced because we had 
truth in budgeting.
  And then what happened? We found out that it was too severe, these 
$37 billion cuts annually, and they went out in the year 1990 to 
Andrews Air Force Base and repealed Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. I raised a 
point of order on October the 19th, 1990, at 12:41 a.m., and they voted 
me down. I said when you get away from the automatic cuts across the 
board, the sequesters, what you have is so-called spending caps that 
are pure rhetoric, and you can see what has happened. The spending has 
gone up, up and away.
  So they repealed it at that time. And let us go to the 1990 budget at 
the time of the repeal. Mr. President, that is the most interesting 
document for our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to ever look 
upon for the simple reason that it has an astounding figure to it. It 
says here for the 101st Congress, Second Session, report 101-820--I ask 
unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Concurrent Resolution on the Budget--Fiscal Year 1991

                           *   *   *   *   *


       (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.

                           *   *   *   *   *

  Mr. HOLLINGS. ``The appropriate levels of total budget outlays are as 
follows * * *'' And going right down the list, the amount of surplus is 
as follows: ``Fiscal year 1995, $20.5 billion.''
  So to their crowd saying: ``We are carrying the load; we are lifting 
things,'' I say you all are doing nothing. They have not voted for 
anything since Clinton has been in town. They have not passed the 
appropriations bills. They have not passed the reconciliation. I want 
to see that lifting.
  Be that as it may, this 1990 document is another paper document--a 
surplus we are supposed to have, this minute, of $20 billion. What is 
the actual deficit? I put the tables in. The actual real deficit at 
this particular minute is $283.3 billion instead of a $20 billion 
surplus.
  So every 5 years, in 1981 reflecting one, in 1984 and 1985 reflecting 
one, in 1990 reflecting a surplus, and here we go again, in with 
another paper document for another 7 years.
  Another day older and deeper in debt. But who will be around 7 years 
from now? We will have two Presidential elections under this scheme. We 
will have unrealistic cuts. We have had already cuts in Social 
Security. You are not going to get $270 billion in Medicare. I do not 
care what you say or how you vote, we have been cutting.
  I have been on this Budget Committee 20-some years, and every year 
President Reagan, President Bush, and other Presidents, they would come 
and they would want to cut $5 billion to show they were headed in the 
right direction. We would have to restore $2 billion or $3 billion. So 
momentarily, or annually, I should say, we have been cutting billions 
out of Medicare. So it is under President Clinton who came to town, he 
cut $57 billion in the year 1993 out of Medicare.
  Last year--last year--Mr. President, he proposed a $120 billion cut. 
Now, let me just as an aside and say a word about Social Security. 
``For by their fruits shall ye know them.'' In 1994, last year, I read 
the so-called report of the board of trustees of the Federal Hospital 
Insurance Fund. And from page 2:

       The trust fund ratio defined as the ratio of assets at the 
     beginning of the year to disbursements during the year was 
     131 percent in 1993, and then under the immediate assumptions 
     is projected to decline steadily until the fund is completely 
     exhausted in the year 2001.

  Now, mind you me, Mr. President, that this is the same report they 
are talking about 2002. Last year when they said it was going broke in 
2001, they did not even care about it. They went around whining, 
``What's the matter with health care? We have got the best in the 
world.'' There was no proposal to confront that so-called dreadful 
disaster 7 years from now.
  But with President Clinton, not with their votes, President Clinton 
and the Democratic votes--and the Vice President had to vote--we at 
least picked up a year with the $57 billion cut. And it was completely 
rejected, repudiated. The First Lady was ridiculed all last year about 
health care.
  An interesting thing because the distinguished Senator from Texas was 
saying that with Social Security taxes, they were going to be hunting 
us down like dogs in the street and shooting us. Like dogs in the 
street. Oh, they said the whole country was going into inflation. 
Unemployment was going to soar. Plants were going to close. The economy 
was going to be in a depression. And they were going to grab us 
politicians who voted for this and hunt us down like dogs in the street 
and shoot us.
  Well, it was not easy to vote to tax Social Security. But, mind you 
me, Mr. President, when we taxed it, we said, wait a minute, the 
revenues from this tax, $25 billion, shall go to--what? Shall go to 
help making Medicare solvent. We allocated $25 billion to Medicare. 
Here we had already cut $57 billion.
  Here then we had allocated some $25 billion. And you know what the 
contract crowd did in November? They came in there and said, ``Do away 
with this $25 billion, Medicare,'' that they now are worried about 7 
years from now. Pure theater. An absolute sham.
  They, in their contract, increase the deficit of Medicare some $25 
billion. They did not help strengthen the Medicare fund. Why is it that 
we pick out these straw men out here 7 years from now in Medicare, 30 
years from now in Social Security, and are not worried about going 
broke this minute?
  We have fiscal cancer. The interest costs--the automatic spending to 
pay the interest costs on a $5 trillion debt--is going $1 billion a day 
up, up and away. There is no plan, Democratic or Republican, that says 
let us cut spending $1 billion a day.
  So let us get down to the real facts. The real facts are, in the GOP 
budget, that for every year they increase spending, the fact is, the 
present budget--the reconciliation we will vote on tomorrow--will 
increase spending $53 billion. $53 billion over the present year. A $53 
billion increase in spending. You look over at the increase in 
revenues, and you say, well, maybe we had to spend more. But we took in 
more. We did have some of that growth. Not so. Not so.
  You add up the 7 years, Mr. President. The expenditures, the outlays 
by CBO. Incidentally, I do not mind CBO figures. I do not mind the 7-
year budget. I am prepared to vote for a 7-year budget and CBO 
figures--so long as it is a true balanced budget and not an 
embezzlement of Social Security. None of this unified. Do not give old 
Hollings that. I heard it before. I hear it again. I hear the whine 
that other Presidents have done it.
  We came to town in November, my dear Republican colleagues, for 
change, not for business as usual, not how Presidents have done it, not 
how Congress has done it before, but the truth in budgeting. But, Mr. 
President, the outlays exceed the revenues some $1,052,000,000,000 
during that first 7 years. How do you start with a $283.3 billion 
deficit, increase spending over 

[[Page S 17133]]
revenues each year for 7 years, and get a balanced budget?
  You cannot. There is no mystery to it. You use smoke and mirrors. In 
fact, the very authorities they use, they misquote. You look at page 3 
of the conference report of Chairman Kasich over in the House side.
  I ask unanimous consent that a portion of that report be printed in 
the Record at this particular point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal year 1996

                           *   *   *   *   *


       (4) Deficits.--For purposes of the enforcement of this 
     resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as follows:
       Fiscal year 1996: $245,600,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1997: $234,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1998: $204,000,000,000.
       Fiscal year 1999: $192,900,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2000: $181,100,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2001: $140,200,000,000.
       Fiscal year 2002: $108,400,000,000.

                           *   *   *   *   *

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. Kasich there for the 104th Congress, the first 
session, concurrent resolution for the fiscal budget for the fiscal 
year 1996. It says fiscal year 2002.
  Mr. President, everybody ought to listen. They do not want to hear 
it: It shows a $108,400,000,000 deficit. Aha. They keep on these 
weekend shows, morning interviews, the TV, 20-second scripts. Truth in 
budgeting. But they themselves say in the year 2002, it is a 
$108,400,000,000 deficit.
  And then, of course, June O'Neill, on October 20, 1995. This, 
incidentally, Mr. President, was subsequent to the October 18 good 
Government award that the chairman of the Budget Committee came to the 
floor and gave his budget.
  He said, now we have got it certified. Now we have got it certified. 
And I do not want to just repeat the record of those particular 
amounts, but he had them all detailed out there on October 18. And he 
said, the Congressional Budget Office has reviewed our budget that I 
have just quoted from, and they have found that we have a $10 billion 
surplus in the year 2002.
  I said, wait a minute, I can read. Kasich himself said a $108.4 
billion deficit. Where in the world did this $10 billion surplus come 
from? Two days later, when we admonished the Madam Director to obey the 
law--to cut out the embezzlement of the Social Security trust--she 
wrote back meekly.
  I ask unanimous consent that that letter be printed in the Record, 
the letter of October 20.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                 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 
     Domenici, 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 on 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,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it shows there, and I read, ``CBO would 
project an on-budget deficit of $105 billion in 2002.''
  ``Peace, peace, everywhere a man cried peace,'' said Patrick Henry, 
``But there was no peace.'' Balance, balance, balance, balance, 
everywhere men cry balance. There is no balance. There is a deficit.
  Let us level with the American people. To quote Mark Twain, ``The 
truth is such a precious thing, it should be used very sparingly.''
  And that is the credo of this Congress that is up in the wagon trying 
to get by again and is using the pressures of the Government closedown 
on itself to get what they cannot get by a majority vote. They could 
not get a majority vote because--I joined with one on legal services. 
They do not want, like the gang of 73 over on the House side, to 
abolish legal services. So we joined in reinstating legal services in 
the appropriations bill.
  Mr. President, they do not want to abolish the Department of 
Commerce. That is why we had a voice vote to strike the provision that 
would have abolished the Department of Commerce.
  What is happening is they are trying to force feed the White House on 
measures that they cannot even get a majority vote for.
  And they're nagging and crying like children about where they sat on 
the plane going to a funeral. I do not believe anybody felt much like 
talking. But our distinguished minority leader, Senator Daschle, was 
there and I believe him, and he recounted the several times that the 
President came back. That is one thing you cannot accuse President 
Clinton of is not talking, for God's sake. Heavens above. Where have we 
come to in this town of ours putting on this show?
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the document 
``Here we go again,'' which has the budget tables.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


            ``Here We Go Again'': Senator Ernest F. Hollings

             [By fiscal year 1995; in billions of dollars]

Starting in 1995 with:
  (a) A deficit of $283.3 Billion for 1995--
    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          
                        [In billions of dollars]                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    CBO       Cumulative
               Year                CBO outlays    revenues     deficits 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 *)                   
                        [In billions of dollars]                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  National     Interest 
                     Year                           debt        costs   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Off CBO's August Baseline.                                            


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       1996       2002  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debt Includes:                                                          
  (1) Owed to the Trust Funds.....................   $1,361.8   $2,355.7
  (2) Owed to Government Accts....................       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 must 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:
                                                                Billion
  Medicare........................................................-$270
  Medicaid........................................................-$182
  Welfare..........................................................-$83

[[Page S 17134]]

       (c) ``Backloading'' the plan:
       --Promising a cut of $347 Billion in FY 2002 when a cut of 
     $45 Billion this year will never materialize.

2002 CBO Baseline Budget..........................     $1,874     $1,884
                                                   =====================
This assumes:                                                           
  (1) Discretionary Freeze Plus Discretionary Cuts                      
   (in 2002)......................................  .........      -$121
  (2) Entitlement Cuts and Interest Savings (in                         
   2002)..........................................  .........       -226
                                                   ---------------------
      [1996 Cuts, $45 B] Spending Reductions (in                        
       2002)......................................  .........       -347
  Using SS 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
(e) By borrowing and increasing the debt (1995-                         
 2002)............................................  .........      1,801
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Includes $636 billion ``embezzlement'' of the Social Security Trust   
  Fund.                                                                 

       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% 
     Value Added Tax allocated to the deficit and the debt.


            ``Here We Go Again''--Promised Balanced Budgets



                                                                Billion
President Reagan (by FY 1984) 1981 Budget...........................  0
President Reagan (by FY 1991) 1985 GRH Budget.......................  0
President Bush (by FY 1995) 1990 Budget..........................+$20.5
  (Mr. STEVENS assumed the chair.)
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President--reading from that document, which use 
CBO figures--during the 7-year period, the debt actually goes up $1.8 
trillion. I have listed down in that document what is owed to the trust 
fund, what is owed to the Government accounts, and what is owed to 
additional borrowing. And, of course, interest costs go up from $348 
billion to at least $448 billion, but over the 7 years, every expert on 
Wall Street says interest cost is going up and will exceed $500 
billion.
  So how do you do it? You do not. Mr. Kasich, the chairman, says you 
cannot. He records a deficit; the CBO records a deficit. How do you do 
it? You fabricate a paper balance with smoke and mirrors.
  One of the big smokes that has recently surfaced and in 20 years I 
have not heard this tricky one, is that the CPI, the Consumer Price 
Index, has been overstated. So we will have less of a CPI and spend the 
money. You cannot. When you give less to Social Security, you do two 
things: You cut the benefits, of course, because you are giving less, 
but more than anything else --and I welcome that--you increase the 
Social Security surplus. You do not have ready moneys to spend in 
violation of 13301. You do not have ready moneys for Medicare when you 
use a different CPI to spend for the deficit. It goes to Medicare, and 
we are trying to save Medicare. So let us talk sense.
  That CPI is a gimmick. Use it if you will, but the result is not to 
lower the deficit. It is to increase the surplus. On that basis, we 
need to do that and the Senator from South Carolina would support it. 
But come down to the reality of Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare. I 
could go through each one of them. Let us just take welfare.
  We say some $83 billion saved in the welfare reform. The House side 
says $100 billion or so. I can tell you it will cause spending more 
money.
  I have been a Governor. You give me welfare and say, ``Governor, now 
you have to set up a job-of-last-resort system in the government,'' 
because they have to work, and I can tell you it is going to be 
difficult now to get people to work because they have closed down 17 
textile plants in South Carolina since NAFTA. There have been at 
least--and this is last week's figure--92,000 jobs lost. So we are 
moving our manufacturing overseas like gangbusters and here come 
welfare recipients.
  If you cannot get them a regular job, you have to give them a 
government job. But to give them a government job, of course, they have 
to be skilled. So you not only set up a jobs program. You have to set 
up a skill program. That costs money.
  And, oh my gracious, two-thirds of children--the other third are 
minority mothers, single mothers--are part of the program and you look 
around and say, ``They can't leave the children,'' so you set up a 
child care program.
  All of this costs money. The intent is splendid. Let us put everybody 
to work, but let us not kid the taxpayers that we are saving money. 
What we are doing, and I welcome it, is saving lives. Yes, let us train 
them, skill them, try to find jobs for them, and that is a worthwhile, 
necessary Government program. The market is not going to do it. That is 
the kind of thing we need Government for that they are trying to 
abolish.
  But they abolish their own responsibility, the Gang of 73, by giving 
it back to the Governors under the chant that ``government closest to 
the people is the best government.''
  So we will get rid of that responsibility and start cutting the 
moneys. That is not going to happen.
  The worst thing of course, Mr. President, you see in this document is 
backloading. When I talk about backloading, if we were to adopt ipso 
facto the reconciliation bill that they bring out tomorrow, we will 
have cut or saved, however you look at it, $45 billion, and that is 
assuming the truth of everything that happened under that particular 
budget.
  We will have cut $45 billion. That has not been easy. We are already 
at Thanksgiving, and we have not gotten the bill. It is so difficult. 
Do you know what they say to do in the year 2002? Cut $347 billion. 
This thing is just to get their attention and get out of town to get 
the President's election over with next November. They say, ``Do not 
pay attention to it; oh, we'll come back, we'll change it later; it 
doesn't have any impact on the Presidential election.''
  They do not have anything there much cut as compared to the enormous 
task of saving billions of dollars. They put it all in the last 2 years 
after two Presidential elections. Gamesmanship, smoke and mirrors and, 
yes, Social Security embezzlement.
  Now they embezzled $636 billion. That word embezzlement is from none 
other than the former Senator of Pennsylvania, Senator John Heinz, when 
we debated and passed the law.
  Now they have another little thing that has come along. They give 
themselves credit and say we are going to cut taxes. That, if anything, 
ought to expose the charade, the fraud that we are being asked to 
adopt. When you come around and you are looking for money and you cut 
well-conceived programs--education, Head Start, technology, health 
care, research--they then have the audacity to say we have to buy the 
vote for next year with this middle-class tax cut. Under the tax cut, 
we are going to get--like Reaganomics--increased revenues, they say. 
That is what they say.
  Mr. President, we were faced with this 8 years ago in the Budget 
Committee. We had tried with the freeze during the early eighties. We 
tried with Gramm-Rudman-Hollings the cuts across the board. We had 
tried with the tax reform, with Senator Bentsen. In the Tax Reform Act 
of 1986, we closed the loopholes and then, yes, 8 years ago in 1987, 
eight of us Senators cold-sober voted what? To increase taxes. We voted 
for that in the Budget Committee.
  I abhor taxes just like everybody else in this land. But we looked 
and saw what was occurring, and I conferred at that particular time 
with Dick Darman, the head of OMB for President Bush. I said, ``Look, 
what we need to do is get''--actually, President Reagan was still in, 
but we were talking to Darman who was coming in--``we need not only 
freezes, we need not only spending cuts, we need not only loophole 
closings, but we need all of those and a tax increase.'' We voted that, 
allocating it to the deficit and the debt.
  I want you to know we did not give up with President Clinton. In 
February 1993, shortly after his inauguration, I asked for a personal 
interview with the President of the United States. 

[[Page S 17135]]

  And I said, Mr. President, I have been in this thing almost 20 years, 
and there is no way out. What we really need to do is get what cuts you 
can get, what savings you can get. But to get on top of this hemorrhage 
of interest cost spending on the national debt, you are going to need a 
revenue measure. And on careful consideration, we would suggest a 
value-added tax.
  In fact, I said, ``Mr. President, if you take it, I will take the 
lead.'' I had just been beat up upon, being reelected in 1992 as 
``high-tax Hollings.'' But I said I would take the lead, and we could 
get the votes, as long as the President is leading. Nobody, for 
example, on the House side running for reelection is going to throw 
himself on the tax sword if it is going to be vetoed. One-third of 
those in the U.S. Senate, running for reelection, are not going to 
throw themselves on a tax sword if it is going to be vetoed.
  So, Mr. President, you are going to have to get it. And he said, 
``You know, that is interesting, Senator.'' He said, ``Last night I got 
a call from Lane Kirkland of the AFL-CIO. He was down in Bar Harbor at 
the annual conference. He said he would favor a 5-percent VAT to get 
rid of the deficit and the debt.''
  I said, ``Mr. President, happy day. When I testified before the 
Finance Committee, that was the opposition, and organized labor was 
talking about the regressivity.'' They do not talk about the 
regressivity of spending for nothing. Nothing is more regressive than 
the present course Government is on and insisting upon raiding trust 
funds, just to look politically smart. ``Come on,'' I said, ``If we 
have the AFL-CIO, we can really get it done.''
  The next morning, Mr. President, the President of the United States 
was out doing his jog, and one of the reporters asked him about some of 
his thoughts. He said, ``I am thinking about a VAT.'' Well, before he 
got back to the White House, they were stepping all over us and all the 
rest of that crowd said, ``You're lying, the President overspoke; he 
did not say it,'' and everything else. I will show it to you in the 
newspaper. That ended any effort.
  At least the President came back with $500 billion in cuts, increased 
taxes on gasoline, Social Security, and the least cuts in Medicare and 
acted very responsibly, which has gotten us into a pretty good economic 
situation--for the moment. But we have fiscal cancer.
  The automatic spending and interest costs on the national debt are 
eating us alive--are growing each day and cannot be stopped, unless we 
get rid of this debt and this deficit. Ironically, the only way to get 
rid of the increased taxes--because that is what the interests costs 
are. They cannot be avoided, like death and taxes; you have to pay the 
interest costs. The only way to get rid of the automatic increase in 
taxes is to increase taxes.
  Now, if you understand that, you will understand the predicament the 
land is in. All of this other thing of force-feeding, whether it is 
education, whether it is the environment, whether it is Medicare and 
all, is beyond repair. Why argue here in November 1995 about something 
that is solvent and paid for like Medicare? Why argue about something 
that is solvent and paid for like Social Security?
  Let us look at the real problem that we are trying to finesse. Let us 
understand that we are in the same act, same scene. And, as President 
Reagan said, ``Here we go again.'' We proposed and supported a balanced 
budget in 1987 we proposed and supported a balanced budget in 1991, and 
we were supposed to, under Bush in 1990, report a surplus in 1995.
  Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator will yield for a question.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
  Mr. DORGAN. I know Senator Hollings was serving in the Senate in 
1983. I was serving in the House of Representatives and was on the Ways 
and Means Committee when the Social Security reform package was 
enacted.
  I offered an amendment in 1983 in the Ways and Means Committee that 
failed, but the amendment that I offered--I ask a question about this--
said if we are going to incur surpluses in Social Security year by year 
in order to save for the future, as a deliberate strategy, then we are 
going to have to put those surpluses aside so they are not used for 
other purposes, because if they are part of the unified budget, they 
will get used. So I offered the amendment and the amendment failed. 
That was 12 years ago. Now, 12 years later, we are back debating this.
  Is it not the case that 12 years later we are debating that because 
what I feared would happen in 1983, and offered an amendment to try to 
prevent from happening, is happening. The Senator from Pennsylvania 
said it has happened under Democrats and Republicans. He is absolutely 
correct. But it is business as usual, and it is wrong. It has been 
wrong, and it is wrong now. Is that not correct?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is exactly correct. If anybody heard anything 
during this week's debate, listen to the Senator from North Dakota. He 
was there and made the motion. I remember it well.
  At that particular time, we were raising taxes on the absolute 
promise that it would only go for Social Security. If we said at the 
time we are going to raise taxes for defense and raise taxes for 
foreign aid and raise taxes for education--in fact at that particular 
time they were trying to abolish the Department of Education--and raise 
taxes for any of these other endeavors of Government, you could not 
have gotten a tax increase. You got it on a solid promise that we were 
keeping faith under the Social Security fund.
  Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield for an additional question, the 
Senator then, subsequently, in future years, offered an amendment on 
the floor of the Senate that actually succeeded. It was an amendment 
similar to what I offered in 1983 and failed in the Ways and Means 
Committee. Senator Hollings then offered an amendment that subsequently 
had become law that says you cannot use the Social Security trust fund 
as part of the unified budget, which meant that when the balanced 
budget agreement was brought to the floor by the majority party, on 
page 3 of the agreement, they had the years of the deficits and, in 
2002, this document they said was their balanced budget document set 
deficits in 2002 of, I believe, it was $108 billion.
  Now, why would something they called a balanced budget propose a $108 
billion deficit in 2002? Is it not because, in fact, the law prevents 
them from bringing something to the floor that says ``zero,'' 
especially inasmuch as the law says you cannot use the Social Security 
trust funds. But by calling it a balanced budget, they know what they 
are doing; they are using the Social Security trust funds as an offset 
against other revenue, thereby saying, yes, we balance the budget, but, 
in fact, they have taken the trust funds to do it, and, in fact, the 
budget is not in balance at all; is that not the case?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is the case. Our only chance at getting out of 
this particular fix is the free press, the media.
  I have dutifully called all around the clock. I think at that time 
President Jefferson said, ``As between a free Government and a free 
press, I would choose the latter.'' Yes, you can have a free 
Government, but it will not remain free long unless you have a free 
media. Right to the point, I have gotten the Washington Post economic 
writer, I have gotten all the particular people--for example, on ``Meet 
the Press.'' I have talked to editors and written articles. I keep 
talking about it, and they keep reporting just like Greenspan, like he 
is some authority. He represents Wall Street.
  Wall Street loves a unified budget. When you say a unified budget, 
the Government in Washington borrows from itself and not from Wall 
Street. There is less of a burden on the financial market. So they have 
a selfish interest involved here, and they do not want to see us, as 
public servants, start putting this Government on a pay-as-you-go 
basis. Greenspan has been a lawyer here for 15 years.
  I can tell you, in football, I would have had another coach long ago. 
I got some remarks of his somewhere here. He was talking, just the 
other day, to some group and he said, ``We don't want to be lulled 
asleep.'' If there is one person who has lulled us asleep, it has been 
Alan Greenspan. He talks of unified budgets. He never says, 
categorically, what the truth is, and that is that you have to get tax 
revenues in here to do this job. When you are at $1 billion a day, and 
$348 billion a year, and use $271 billion in defense, you can 

[[Page S 17136]]
eliminate defense and you would still have a deficit.
  Domestic discretionary spending is the President, Congress, courts, 
Department of the Interior, Justice, go right around, Commerce, general 
government. That is $273 billion. You could eliminate it, not just cut 
it, and you still have a deficit.
  We are in a position like the character in ``Alice in Wonderland.'' 
In order to stay where you are, you have to run as fast as you can; in 
order to get ahead, you have to run even faster.
  No one wants to talk about it. We have fiscal cancer. Once again, we 
are prepared to lie to the American people. Therein, the Hollings 
amendment. It is very clear-cut. Do not give us any of this Social 
Security embezzlement budget. It is not the balanced budget. Read the 
language. Section 301 of the continuing resolution says the President, 
the Congress, must enact legislation to achieve a unified balanced 
budget. That is the trick.
  We voted on Monday just exactly not to do that by a vote of 97 to 2. 
At that particular time, the distinguished chairman of the Budget 
Committee said the first portion of this instruction ``we have never 
violated, so we can be instructed on it.'' False. We continually--as he 
argues, every President, every Congress has given budgets that way and 
it has been in violation. He knows it.
  The second section ``we have never violated, so we can be instructed 
not to.'' False. We continue to violate it. You come around and you 
raise a point when he is on the floor, he will say, ``Senator, that is 
what President Clinton does.'' Do not give me that. I am serious. I 
expect to be here after President Clinton. Come on. I have been here 
after all of these Presidents that are running up these deficits.
  We are conscientious about it. We do not want to see this charade 
continue. The only way to make sure that everybody knows when they 
vote--I will vote for your resolution, Senator, on 7 years; I will vote 
for CBO figures. Nothing wrong with that. But do not give me the trick, 
the smoke, the mirror, of unified. That is raiding the trust funds--
$636 billion, specifically, of Social Security, $200 billion from the 
airport and airways trust fund, the highway trust fund, the Medicare 
trust fund, the Civil Service retirement, your military retirees.
  The distinguished Senator from Alaska has that responsibility. You 
can see the trickery as they do.
  Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin announced plans yesterday to pull 
$61.3 billion from two retirement accounts.
  He authorized withdrawal of the entire $21.5 billion--in the G-fund, 
and as much as $39.8 billion of the $350 billion held in the Civil 
Services retirement fund. In effect, both funds would be given--IOU 
that would obligate Treasury to make complete repayment with interest 
after a permanent increase in the debt limit is finally approved.
  (Mr. BURNS assumed the chair.)
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield.
  Mr. STEVENS. I must say that I am saddened here when the Senator from 
South Carolina made that statement, because as he knows I am the author 
of that bill that created those funds just mentioned. It is a defect in 
the legislation.
  We intended that to be available to the administration in the event 
of a national emergency. We meant a true national emergency.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Not a political war.
  Mr. STEVENS. I think this is a political war and an aberration. No 
administration has done that before.
  It is very sad because we saved the taxpayers billions of dollars by 
creating a separate fund in which employees contribute and the employer 
matches a portion of that. And, a portion of that is invested in 
Government securities.
  What they have now done is they have reached into funds that 
employees have put into Government securities, pulled it out, and said, 
``We can run the Government on it.''
  This is the worst thing I have seen in the history of the 
Government's relationship to its employees--to invade the trust funds, 
and at a loss now, the employees will lose interest.
  They will give the employees a chit to pay interest. What will be the 
interest? The interest paid on the national debt?
  That is why we took it out of there, because the national debt is so 
fluctuating--it, too, is political in a sense.
  I think it is unfortunate we have reached a point where that action 
was taken by the President.
  I am enjoying the Senator's comments and my question is this: I heard 
the Senator from South Carolina say he could support this amendment--
this continuing resolution--but did he say with an amendment?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. The amendment that is now under the consideration of 
the body. Namely, it says that the 7-year balanced budget passed by the 
Congress to the President shall not include Social Security trust fund 
to reflect a balance.
  Very simple. I have copies of it. I will be glad to try to change it 
around and make it clearer, but I do not know--I wanted to make you an 
offer you could not refuse. You just voted for it on Monday. Here it is 
Thursday. That was my intent.
  If I do it now, then we will correct this situation and we will all 
be pulling forward together and finally getting out of Senator Gramm's 
wagon of spending $200 billion a year and raiding trust funds, and 
talking about how intent we are in doing heavy lifting and how Mark 
Twain, and whether we are patriots and whether we are popular--that is 
children's talk.
  We should do the job. In order to do the job, quit moving deficits. 
Do not move the deficit from the general fund over to the Social 
Security. Our idea is to lessen or eliminate deficits, not move them 
around.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I think the Senator has a germ of an 
idea. I am not sure I concur entirely in what he is saying. I do not 
believe we should have a situation where the balancing of the budget 
comes about because of a failure to use the Social Security trust fund 
the way it was intended. Is that the position of the Senator?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. My position is it not be used. The budget--so far we 
had in the Budget Committee, the document by Chairman Kasich of the 
conference itself on the budget reflects a usage of Social Security 
trust fund--$636 billion over the 7 years.
  Mr. STEVENS. Is that not a restriction? It leaves the money in the 
trust fund. It does not put it in the Treasury. But we are not 
transferring to the Treasury.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. You are. The law itself says that it cannot be used in 
that fashion, if I could put my finger on it. That is exactly the law 
you voted for and I voted for in 1990, that it not be employed in that 
fashion, to obscure the size of the twist.
  We are spending more than we are taking in. That is what we are 
doing. It is not a technicality about being in the Treasury. Certainly 
it is in the Treasury, and it should, under our intent of increasing 
the taxes back in 1983, be embellishing a surplus. Nothing wrong with 
that.
  The fact is with the surplus there, your children and my children can 
count on their retirement. As it is now, Senator Thurmond and I are 
holding free on that score but the kids are not. They are caught up 
because we are using all the money.
  We owe $481 billion. If we spend another $636 billion under this 
budget, thereupon, at 2002 we will all be owing Social Security over $1 
trillion, and then they will be coming around on the floor of the 
Congress saying, ``Social Security is busted and we have to save it.''
  How will you find $1 trillion to save it?
  Mr. STEVENS. I have another question. Would the Senator yield for a 
moment to make a unanimous-consent request on behalf of the leader?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield.

                          ____________________