[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 182 (Thursday, November 16, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17137-S17147]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       FUTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1996

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the joint resolution.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have the question, if I might ask my 
friend?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes, sir.
  Mr. STEVENS. Because he is a good friend, as a matter of fact.
  If we were to vote for your amendment, do you have any indication the 
President would support it as amended?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. It makes no difference to me. I would hate to see a 
President want to veto that and say I want to raid the Social Security 
trust fund. He does know politics. I do not think he would hesitate 
signing that part of it, I can tell you that.
  Mr. STEVENS. My question, respectfully, to my friend, is, has he 
discussed this amendment with the White House.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. No. This gentleman is working on his own. This is no 
White House amendment. I can tell you here and now, if I wait on that 
crowd over there, we would not get it done.
  Mr. President, there is one more thing to be recognized and that is 
the exception that makes the rule. That is, as I am critical of the 
media for just going fast asleep on this one, and battling the 
Greenspan unified nonsense, the one exception is USA Today just about a 
week ago--10 days ago, November 6, Monday.
  I ask unanimous consent this editorial and an October 20 column by 
Lars-Erik Nelson be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     [From USA Today, Nov. 6, 1995]

                        The Balanced-Budget Myth


our view: both parties use social security to hide the truth about the 
               budget; and in time, the public will pay.

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


             [From the New York Daily News, Oct. 20, 1995]

                 Borrowing From Soc Sec to Aid the Rich

                         (By Lars-Erik Nelson)

       Washington--See that Social Security deduction on your 
     paycheck? It's the key to the Republican plan to ``balance'' 
     the federal budget while giving tax cuts to the wealthy.
       In 2002, the year Republicans have been promising a 
     balanced budget, they will in fact come up $108 billion 
     short, according to the House Budget Committee's report. The 
     Republican plan makes up the difference by ``borrowing''--the 
     late Sen. John Heinz (R-Pa.) called it ``embezzling''--from 
     the Social Security trust fund.
       By law, Social Security deductions are supposed to be 
     earmarked to pay benefits for future retirees. But for the 
     past dozen years the Social Security surplus has been used to 
     mask the real size of the federal deficit.
       The Republican plan continues the embezzlement. In pure 
     accounting terms, the Republicans are right: If the amount of 
     money the government collects in a given year equals the 
     amount that it pays out, the budget is in balance. But 
     borrowing from the trust fund to cover current operating 
     costs means raising taxes on the next generation--our 
     children--to pay back the debt to the trust fund.
       In addition, using Social Security deductions to balance 
     the budget means that working people, who cannot escape that 
     FICA deduction on their paychecks, make up the shortfall 
     caused by tax breaks for the wealthy and for business.
       ``It's the largest transfer of wealth from labor to capital 
     in our history,'' Sen. Daniel Moynihan (D-N.Y.) said 
     yesterday. ``We are using a 15% payroll tax [the combined 
     burden on employer and employe] to pay the interest on 
     Treasury bonds, which are generally not owned by blue-collar 
     workers.''
       ``These guys [the Republicans] don't have any intention of 
     balancing the budget,'' agreed Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-S.C.). 
     ``All they want to do is to get credit for it, make room for 
     a big tax cut and destroy the government.''
       Republican budget plans are still something of a moving 
     target, with many details being worked out behind closed 
     doors, often in consultation with business lobbyists. 
     ``You're really not supposed to understand this until it's 
     too late,'' one of the lobbyists confessed with a grin 
     yesterday.
       But the general outline is clear. The budget plans call for 
     increasing taxes on the lowest-income Americans--those 
     earning under $30,000 a year--primarily by curtailing the 
     Earned Income Tax Credit for working people.
       The way the tax cuts are skewed, the wealthiest 12% of 
     Americans share $53 billion in tax breaks; the remaining 88% 
     of taxpayers share $49 billion. Federal spending cuts also 
     hit the low-earners harder than they do upper-income 
     families.
       More bad news: En route to their supposedly ``balanced 
     budget,'' the Republicans run annual deficits that will add 
     another $1 trillion to the national debt. That means that in 
     2002, interest costs--now running at nearly $1 billion a 
     day--will eat up even more of the federal budget, leaving 
     less money for spending on everything else.
       Moynihan tried yesterday to strike $245 billion in GOP tax 
     cuts and use the money to reduce the deficit, preserve the 
     EITC and spare some of the proposed cuts in Medicare. he was 
     defeated.
       ``This is simply the wrong time to cut taxes,'' Moynihan 
     argued. Republicans did not listen.
       As Ronald Reagan's conscience-stricken budget director, 
     David Stockman, observed in identical circumstances just over 
     a dozen years ago, ``Now the hogs are really feeding.''

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Talking about the budget, the editorial says:

       The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office underscored 
     that point recently. It pointed out that come 2002, when the 
     budget will be ``balanced'' under the Republican plans, the 
     Government will still be borrowing more than $100 billion a 
     year.

  The truth is, it is over $348. But then:

       But after they compromise and begin arguing over who won a 
     few weeks from now, one truth will remain: Both sides will be 
     lying, because neither is talking about a truly balanced 
     budget at all.

  That is what I want to do, is repair the lying with this particular 
amendment. So both sides can be telling the truth and we are not any 
longer embezzling Social Security.
  The title of this one is ``A Balanced Budget Myth.'' There is one 
particular entity, now, that has the truth and they are after us. I 
hope all the media will wake up and get after us. Let us start talking 
sense, rather than who is on top and who is lost and who is popular and 
what the polls show.
  I absolutely, since I have the time here, have learned one thing in 
40 years of public service. That is, this political polling is a 
cancer. Yes, you have to 

[[Page S 17138]]
get it. The opposition gets it when you run for office. But if you try 
to administer, if you try to govern with a poll--I think of the 
Marshall plan. Mr. President, 14 percent favored the Marshall plan at 
the time it was adopted. It was overwhelmingly opposed.
  I go back as a young House member in my own State legislature, when I 
offered the sales tax bill and education finance reform to start 
building up public education in my own home State. Sales tax, at that 
time, was totally unpopular. As of this minute, if you took a poll in 
South Carolina on the sales tax, I am convinced the majority, by far, 
would say they oppose the sales tax.
  But, in the 45 years, from 1950 to 1995, not a single bill has been 
introduced in the legislature to repeal it. The polls would show 
overwhelmingly it is a popular thing, but the people know if they did 
repeal it the government would go broke. We would not have any BMW's 
coming from South Carolina. We would not be correcting the illiteracy. 
We would not be giving the youngsters an opportunity in public 
education.
  So, let us get away from this cancer, in addition to the interest 
costs on the national debt, of how well the President or the Congress 
is up or down in the polls.
  We have a job to do. Under this job, let us have truth in budgeting.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I will just repeat what I said a couple of 
times here on the floor. We talk about who is at fault in these various 
things, in the impasse we have that has furloughed so many hard-working 
people. I could not help but think the other day, when I heard the 
Speaker of the House talking about the kind of discipline they now have 
in the House and how they are able to move, ``We told the American 
people we would do certain things and by golly we are doing them right 
on time''--et cetera.
  One of the things they did was take over control of both bodies. And 
one of the things you are supposed to do, and get paid to do, is to 
pass appropriations bills on time--for example, all 13 by the end of 
the fiscal year in September. What they have not told the American 
people is that you have hired us to run the Congress, pay us over 
$130,000 a year to do that, but we failed to get our work done on time 
in September. We passed and had signed into law only two of the 13 
appropriations bills. Today there are only about 4 of the 13 that have 
been signed into law. That is why we are debating what kind of 
continuing resolution we might have.
  I cannot remember a time in my 21 years here--and I have been in the 
Senate, first under Democratic leadership and then under Republican 
leadership then under Democratic leadership and then under Republican 
leadership--I cannot remember a time that the Congress has been so 
derelict in passing and getting signed into law our appropriations 
bills. That is what has happened. That is why we are in the problem we 
are in.
  Every appropriations bill begins in the other body. It is the other 
body that has a Speaker who talks of the tremendous control he has over 
the House and tells us how, now that we have this Contract With 
America, there is a new majority ruling and they will run things. They 
ought to at least run the trains on time.
  The fact of the matter is, they were a dismal failure in just passing 
the legislation that Members of Congress are supposed to pass every 
year. There are certain things we have to do. You raise the flag up on 
the roof when you go into session. You turn the lights on. You show up 
for work. And you pass the appropriations bills.
  Nobody has been over here filibustering the appropriations bills. 
Yet, probably it is the most dismal record of passing bills in 
anybody's memory in Congress. I think they virtually guaranteed we 
would have this shutdown. I can remember some years we might have 
gotten 10 of the 13 passed and we had to have a continuing resolution 
for a week or two, into October, to get the other 2 or 3 passed. But to 
have nine of them not passed by now? To have nine when you are 6 weeks 
past the date? If anybody was running a business and had employees who 
were that tardy, they would fire them all. They would fire them all.
  Then we hear on some of the things when he finally does take an 
interest, when the Speaker has taken an interest--he has taken an 
interest in one thing, in the farm programs. He has announced to the 
Senate, which passed a dairy compact 2-to-1, he is just going to take 
that out. It does not affect his little district in Georgia so, even 
though it affects all the Northeast, he is just going to take it out. 
All New England--he is just going to take it out, regardless of the 
fact the Senate passed it 2 to 1 with Republican and Democratic 
majorities on it. He will just take it out. He says next time around he 
will take out anything else that affects us.
  Frankly, I would be happy to have the Speaker of the House come up to 
Vermont and see how hard dairy farmers work. In fact, I guarantee, so 
he will be in a good mood, he can ride in the front of the airplane and 
he can come out the front door of the airplane. We will have somebody 
greet him there. While he will not have the chauffeurs and bodyguards 
he might have here, I will personally drive him. He can ride right up 
front. We will give him an ice cream cone and give him anything else he 
wants. We will make sure we give great attention and deference to him, 
talk to him whenever he wants. I will shine his shoes, do whatever he 
feels is his due. He should come up and see just how hard farmers work 
in Vermont.
  He should come up and see how hard farmers work in Vermont. He should 
come up and see how hard a lot of other people work in Vermont. He 
should see how hard the Immigration and Naturalization Service works in 
Vermont for all of us, Republicans and Democrats, and independents 
alike. He should see how hard the people who run our Forest Service 
work in Vermont, the people who have been furloughed because of temper 
tantrums over where he may sit on the airplane. He should see how hard 
the people work who have to pay the mortgage, have to pay the tuition, 
and have to pay the children's dental bills. He should see how hard 
they work, those people now without a job because under his control and 
his leadership, the majority control, we have one of the most dismal 
records of passing appropriations bills that I can remember in my 21 
years here.
  During that whole time I have never, during Democratic Presidents, 
Republican Presidents, seen the Congress so lax in doing what we are 
paid $133,000 a year to pass the bills that keep this Government 
running.
  You could vote to change this way or that way. They have the 
majority. They can pass them in any form they want. But at least pass 
them. Do it. Get it passed. There has never been a situation like this.
  So, in case you start wondering who is at fault, are we at fault? Is 
the Government closing down because the Speaker did not get the seat he 
wanted on Air Force One? Most of this country would feel pretty 
privileged to ride on Air Force One, if they just wanted to go to a 
funeral or something. Are we closing the Government down for that? 
Apparently, that is one reason. But the biggest reason even predates 
that. The biggest reason is people are supposed to keep these things 
running, and they did not get things done on time. They did not get 
their work done in time. They have not completed their work, and there 
we stand.
  So I have heard those who are speaking here. The distinguished 
Senator from South Carolina, former Governor of his State, a good 
friend, Senator Hollings, made a very good point here.
  I simply close with this, Mr. President. Let us not talk about 
gamesmanship. Let us stop trying to say who is up in the polls this 
day, who is up in the polls tomorrow, who is going to be running in 
this Presidential primary, who is going to be running in that, and who 
is going to have their face on Time, or Newsweek, or U.S. News this 
week, or who is going to be on there next week. Let us at least do the 
Government's business. We will vote different ways on different issues. 
Republicans will vote differently than Democrats on some, and different 
Democrats will vote differently than each other. Some Republicans will 
vote differently than each other. But at least get the bills up and get 
them passed.
  Let us do the things we are hired to do. Let us at least pass the 
basic bills 

[[Page S 17139]]
that run the Government as we are hired to do. The new majority may 
well change what they think the priorities are with the Government. 
They have the right to do that. But at least get it done.
  This is sort of like having somebody who is going to repair the roof 
on your house before the thunderstorm comes, and they keep coming to 
you every day and saying, ``We will be there. We will be there. Keep 
paying us. You paid us to fix the roof. We will get there someday. We 
will get there someday.'' In the meantime, thunderstorms come.
  I ask my friend from North Dakota, is that not so?
  Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield for one brief question, I will 
make it a brief question.
  He raises the point about the continuing resolution and where we are 
at the moment. I made a point on the floor earlier today about two 
little issues, actually two issues--one little, and one big--that sort 
of described the dilemma of this continuing resolution. One is a 
program called star schools, and the other is a program called star 
wars. I have some additional information.
  I was wondering if the Senator from Vermont knows the information. I 
was unaware of it until I looked into it. Star schools is a tiny little 
program designed to improve math, science scores, to help schools 
advance, to help kids, and it is an investment in education to create 
star schools. It was funded at only $25 million for the whole country. 
Under this continuing resolution, this program is going to go from $25 
million down to $15 million. So it is going to lose 40 percent of its 
funding because the House wants to kill the whole program.
  So this continuing resolution says on star schools you kick 40 
percent of the funding out. But another program, star wars--the star 
wars program for which the administration requested $371 million for 
R&D. That is all they requested. They requested no money for 
deployment. The Congress said in their bill let us stick in an extra 
$300 million for deployment. We invest. You spend that.
  So what happened in this continuing resolution? The continuing 
resolution means that the star wars gets $300 million extra money, and 
Star Schools gets 40 percent less. If there ever is a vivid description 
of warped priorities, it is the juxtaposition of star wars and Star 
Schools. That is what this is about.
  I ask the Senator. When people come to the floor and say, ``This is a 
tiny little decision, it is 7 years, and the Congressional Budget 
Office,'' is it not true that it is much more than that? Because this 
continuing resolution, which is 15 pages long, also says to Star 
Schools, guess what? You are unworthy. We cut you 40 percent, and then 
allows generously $300 million more for star wars. This is about big 
guys and little guys, about big interests and little interests. That is 
what this is all about. Guess what? Is it not true that the big 
interests get rewarded and the little get penalized?
  Mr. LEAHY. It is. I say to my friend that, if we wanted to simply 
pass a continuing resolution to have the Government continue, we could 
do that in a one sentence--in one sentence say we will continue the 
expenditures at whatever percentage until such a time as the 
appropriations bills are passed. But instead we have not done what the 
public is led to believe with a simple continuing resolution. But every 
single piece of special interest legislation that can be packed on in 
the back room somewhere with no debate. That is what this continuing 
resolution is. It is a continuing resolution that rewrites the farm 
bill. It rewrites our education bill. It rewrites health, and does all 
these things with no hearings, no votes--done in a back room.
  Why not do what the American people pay us to do? Bring up each of 
the appropriations bills, and in those if they want to cut out the 
money for education and star schools or anything else, then have a vote 
so that people can look and say, ``This Senator voted for the education 
bill. This Senator voted against the education bill. Here is their 
reason.'' Be accountable. But no. We do not do it.
  If we are going to have star wars to defend against the Soviet Union, 
for those who have not been reading the newspapers and do not 
understand where the Soviet Union is today, then at least have a vote 
on it. Vote to spend hundreds of millions of dollars of our tax 
dollars, or vote against it. But stand up and be accountable.
  What we are doing is saying we will take care of all these special 
interests. We will get rid of all these things people might want. But 
there will not be any fingerprints on them.
  It makes me think of the days when I was a prosecuting attorney, and 
we would come in and realize the burglar had worn gloves. That is what 
happened here. The burglar is wearing gloves.
  I have cast a lot of votes that I knew would be unpopular in this 
body in the last 20 years. But I am willing to stand up and do them. 
This is something being done by people who do not even have to vote. 
Let us vote on it. If we are going to fund a B-2 bomber, vote on it.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LEAHY. In just a moment, because of my great respect for the 
Senator from Alaska. He and I serve on the Appropriations Committee. We 
usually get at least most of the bills passed by the end of September. 
That is my point.
  I, of course, yield to the Senator from Alaska for a question.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the continuing resolution is even more 
fair than in the past. In the past we took the lower of the House or 
the Senate figure. This time there is a 60 percent, in the event that 
defunded items are in the budget this year. That is much more fair than 
in the past during the time the Senator's party was controlling the 
Congress, and we had Republican Presidents. What is more unfair than in 
the past?
  Mr. LEAHY. If I might respond to my friend, the point I make is this. 
I do not remember a time in this body--and he has been here longer than 
I--a time under either the Republican leadership in the Senate or the 
Democratic leadership, under Republican Presidents or Democratic 
Presidents, that we were so derelict in the number of appropriations 
bills that have passed--certainly by the middle of November--passed and 
signed into law. I can remember sometimes we had continuing resolutions 
for a few. But I can think of sometimes, certainly in the last 3 or 4 
years, when we had all thirteen passed.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield again, I can 
remember distinctly the times back in the days when we had the 
Republican majority in the 1980's when we had the problems with regard 
to the House, and we had continuing resolutions that had all 13 bills 
in it.
  As a matter of fact----
  Mr. LEAHY. For how long? A week?
  Mr. STEVENS. It was the Armed Services bill----
  Mr. LEAHY. For a week or maybe 2 weeks in October but never mid-
November. Never mid-November.
  Mr. STEVENS. That is my question to the Senator again. We gave the 
President a continuing resolution from October 1 until November 13. We 
are under the second continuing resolution now. As a matter of fact, 
the resolution before us is again short term. The Senator is making it 
look like--does the Senator wish the public to understand we have cut 
those programs in this bill? This does not cut them. It preserves their 
funding for 2 weeks.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yielded for the question. I would say 
this: Before the Senator from Alaska came in, it was pointed out that 
we cut Star Schools very substantially in this continuing resolution 
and increased very substantially star wars beyond what the President--
--
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? It is just not 
true.
  Mr. LEAHY. If I could, just for a moment. It is, if you read the 
continuing resolution. My point is this--and I think the Senator from 
Alaska would have to agree--never have we been down to mid-November--to 
mid-November--with so few--in fact, before Monday I think we had only 2 
of the 13 appropriations bills signed into law, and on Monday we had 
signed 3 of the 13. I guess now we sent down another one. But does the 
Senator from Alaska remember any time under either Republican or 
Democratic leadership that we were down to mid-November with only two 
of the appropriations bills signed into law? 

[[Page S 17140]]

  Mr. STEVENS. I would be happy to answer that if I may. In 1988, we 
had a continuing resolution that had all 13 appropriations bills. Three 
of them had not even been considered by the Senate.
  Mr. LEAHY. Was that November 15?
  Mr. STEVENS. This was November, yes. Yes. As a matter of fact, it was 
a time of the Nicaragua contra aid problem, if the Senator will 
remember. But we had all of them in the bill at one time. And at that 
time the Senator's party was in the majority.
  Mr. LEAHY. But not down this late. Not down this late, I would say to 
the Senator from Alaska. Not this late into the session.
  Mr. STEVENS. As a matter of fact, if the Senator will yield again, 
the Senator will recall there was a sequestration ordered that year. It 
was late. We finally had to pass a continuing resolution to suspend the 
sequestration under the Budget Act.
  Mr. President, my question to the Senator is, he implies that we have 
raised star wars by this bill. We are going to bring to the floor--we 
just got the agreement now--the Defense Department appropriations bill 
for this coming year. It deals with the star wars issue. Because of the 
fact that bill is almost ready to go, it appears that it is higher than 
the other funding, but the other funding is in another bill. We are 
continuing the funding for the Star Schools for a 2-week period rather 
than leave them out altogether.
  Does the Senator object to that?
  Mr. LEAHY. We have also seen, I would say, Mr. President, in these 
continuing resolutions, we have even arranged a way to do the LIHEAP 
program. I will give you some idea of what happens when you do not pass 
your appropriations bills on time.
  The LIHEAP program is to provide heating assistance for those of us 
in States with severe weather, none more severe than the Senator from 
Alaska, obviously. But in my own State we have 25- and 35-below-zero 
days. This is to give heating assistance to the people, aid in heating 
to the poorest people in our States, to help them weatherize their 
homes, or whatever else. Not only is the program cut substantially, but 
it is set up so you can pay out only \1/365\ per day. So, in other 
words, if you are in Montana or Alaska or Vermont and it is 25 or 30 
below zero in January, you are told: Sorry, we do not have enough, but 
come back in June and we will probably be able to take care of you.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield again?
  Mr. LEAHY. Of course.
  Mr. STEVENS. I remember the time when because of the controversy over 
the SST we carried through the continuing resolution to the following 
March. Does the Senator remember that?
  Mr. LEAHY. On one bill.
  Mr. STEVENS. As a matter of fact, in 1988----
  Mr. LEAHY. On one bill.
  Mr. STEVENS. When we had that, it was December when we had this.
  Mr. LEAHY. I do not remember. I must admit that was before --
  Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator know Star Schools are forward funded? 
It is not affected by this bill at all.
  Mr. LEAHY. The SST, I would say, was before I was old enough to be in 
the Senate so I will have to take the remembrance of the Senator from 
Alaska on that.
  Mr. STEVENS. Senator Thurmond and I remember that very well. We 
stepped off the Mayflower and voted at that time.
  Mr. LEAHY. The SST was before I had reached the constitutional age of 
30 to be here.
  Mr. STEVENS. Again, will the Senator answer my question? Does he know 
that Star Schools are forward funded; they are not affected by this 
bill at all?
  Mr. LEAHY. I will tell the Senator to go back to the comments made 
earlier by the Senator from North Dakota who read the specific chapter 
and verse.
  Mr. STEVENS. I wish I would get a chance to talk to the Senator from 
North Dakota about that.
  Mr. LEAHY. I am sure the Senator will.
  Mr. STEVENS. I hope the Senator will not mislead the public here as 
to the Appropriations Committee, on which we both serve so well. I 
think we try to do our best. And this bill is a better bill than 
previous continuing resolutions. It leaves out less programs as a 
result of its total breadth than have been covered by prior continuing 
resolutions. Under that circumstance, it should be readily approved by 
the President.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Alaska, I have 
always enjoyed, and I think enjoyed more, serving on appropriations 
than any other committee. One of the reasons for that is my 
relationship with the Senator from Alaska. I know of nobody who works 
harder. I have no higher respect for anybody than he. And he and I have 
served on several subcommittees together. I probably now ruined his 
electoral chances in Alaska by saying nice things about him here.
  The fact of the matter is there was no Nicaragua Contra debate, there 
was no sequestration debate, there were none of these things that 
stopped us from getting the appropriations bills through, bills that 
begin in the other body, at the time we are required to, expected to 
and paid to. That is the end of September.
  But when I hear the Speaker of the House tell about how they are able 
to do all the things they are supposed to do, and they are running 
things on time and all, the fact of the matter is these bills begin 
over there and have not gone through at the speed they should, and were 
all the appropriations bills done, we would not have a Government 
shutdown. In those areas where we have passed appropriations bills, 
there are no shutdowns.
  All I am saying is let us stop worrying about who sat where on the 
way to a funeral or who got off which door. Let us get on with the 
business.
  I think the Senator from Alaska may recall this. I started saying in 
August, in July, that Democrats and Republicans have got to sit down 
and start figuring out how to get these budgets through; that there 
will not be a Clinton budget exactly, there will not be a Gingrich 
budget exactly, there will not be a Stevens or a Leahy budget exactly. 
But all of us working together could get a budget that might make sense 
for the country.
  I see my friend from New York is here, and he has been waiting at a 
time when others were waiting, such as my friend from Washington, so I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to strongly support 
and endorse the underlying resolution, House Joint Resolution 122, 
called the continuing resolution.
  I doubt if the American people really know what a continuing 
resolution is, but let me say one thing. I have no doubt that the 
American people are absolutely fed up with what they see going on. I 
have no doubt that the American people do not want us to continue doing 
business as usual. Some want us to just continue our merry way--spend 
and spend, tax and tax for programs that they have decided are good for 
the American people whether they like them or not. We have colleagues 
here who have said we are going to give the American people health care 
whether they like it or not. That is the kind of attitude. That is why 
the people are angry.
  People voted for change. They voted for change in 1992. They did. And 
in 1994, when they saw that it did not happen, they said, by gosh, we 
want you to change things. We want you to really keep your commitment.
  Now, President Clinton, for all his noble politicking--and he is good 
at it--has a happy facility of forgetting what he says. He will say 
just about anything to get your vote or to go up in the popularity 
polls, and then when it becomes a little tough, he goes the other way 
or conveniently forgets when the pressures from his party come up. When 
he ran in 1992, he was the new Democrat. He was going to change things. 
He was going to cut taxes for working middle-class families. That was 
his promise. Not only was he going to cut taxes, he was going to 
balance the budget in 5 years--not 7 years, not 10 years--5 years.
  Promises made; promises broken. And that is why in 1994 you saw a 
revolution. People said, we are sick and tired of it. And we want 
people who are going to go down and do the job. All over the country 
they sent a message. 

[[Page S 17141]]
 Wherever there was an open seat, they elected Republicans who said, 
yes, we are going to cut taxes, cut spending, we are going to let 
middle-class working families keep their money, and we are going to 
have less Government--that was the message--and balance the budget over 
7 years.
  Here you have a President that said, ``I'm willing to balance the 
budget in 5 years.'' And yet he is having trouble saying, ``Yes, I'll 
do it in 7.'' Here is a President who said we are going to use the real 
legitimate figures to ascertain what economic growth is, how much money 
we owe, how much money we do not. That is called the Congressional 
Budget Office, CBO. Most Americans do not understand, but here is the 
President, and he says, ``I'm going to balance the budget in 5 years. 
And I'm going to give tax cuts to working middle-class families. We're 
going to use the Congressional Budget Office to be the official 
accounter for whether or not a budget is in balance,'' and now, 1995, 
he has forgotten that.
  I am proud that those men and women who were elected for change are 
down here fighting for change. I do not think we are doing a good job 
in getting the message out. I think we are doing a terrible job. I 
think the President is beating our pants off. And the media loves him 
and they play his score. What do we hear? We hear the President 
sanctimoniously saying, ``I have to tell you I'm not going to allow 
them to cut programs for the senior citizens, Medicare, Medicaid, and 
give tax breaks to the wealthy.'' That is hokum, Mr. President. That is 
just simply an overstatement and an exaggeration that comes down to 
being untruthful. It is disingenuous.
  As a matter of fact, the cuts he has proposed in Medicare, or 
reducing the rate of growth, in many cases, parallel those that we have 
put forth, in many cases. Now, let us take a look at the so-called tax 
cuts for the wealthy.
  We have proposed, and the President will not even come to the table 
to discuss it, a package of $245 billion worth of tax cuts. Here is a 
famous Governor from my State, a Democrat, who said something many 
years ago that we should refer to. He said, ``Let's look at the 
record.'' So we look at the record to see exactly where the so-called 
tax cuts go. We will find they do not go to the wealthy people. Indeed, 
70 percent, $171.46 billion, 70 percent, goes to family relief. I hear 
all of this jargon and all this talking and all the crocodile tears 
about ``we care about families.'' Well, we do. We really do. And that 
is what this tax package puts forth, $171.46 billion in tax relief for 
the working middle-class families of America.
  And indeed, the child tax credit, if you are talking about one 
person, it is phased out at $70,000; a couple it is phased out at 
$110,000. So we are talking about giving relief for families under 
$100,000. Most of them, the bulk of them, fall in this $50,000 to 
$70,000, $45,000 to $70,000 area. They are not wealthy people. So 70 
percent--and let me give you a breakdown.
  When we talk about the child tax credit, that means if you have a 
child you will get back $500 in taxes that you would otherwise pay. A 
family of three, $1,500. That is pretty good. Families earning $45,000 
a year, that means they can keep $1,500 that they can invest, that they 
can spend, that they can save. They will make a determination, not some 
bureaucrat down in Washington. I like that. That is $147 billion of the 
total of $245 billion that just goes to families who have children.

  Mr. President, I heard a lot of talk about the marriage penalty. I 
daresay, many people will say, what are you talking about, a marriage 
penalty? Under the Tax Code, if a couple gets married, they can have 
the same incomes, they join, and they wind up paying more than if they 
lived separate and apart or lived together and were not married. It is 
called a marriage penalty.
  We are talking about trying to bring American families together, 
helping families. Government cannot do it by way of stepping in itself. 
But it can relieve some of the inequities, some of the burdens. They 
can say, if you have children, you are to get $500; if you are going to 
get married, we are not going to penalize you for getting married. We 
begin to phase it out. That is a small step. That is $8 billion worth 
of relief.
  Let me ask you, Mr. President, is a child tax credit for the wealthy 
or is it really going to most working middle-class families? Is phasing 
out the marriage penalty for the wealthy or is it going to working 
middle-class families who are being penalized for doing, I guess, that 
which we want to encourage--people getting married--as opposed to 
people living together who do not get married paying less taxes? We 
penalize people for getting married? There was this--ever since I was a 
kid I heard politicians talking about doing away with this, phasing it 
out. Here we start to do it. That is $8 billion.
  We talk about the homeless and we talk about abandoned children and 
we talk about those who need help. And almost $2 billion, $1.9 billion, 
in this family package--you know, you hear ``family friendly''--this is 
a tax-friendly package. It is a tax-friendly package for families. And 
$2 billion is to be provided for those families who want to adopt 
children. It seems to me we have had so much in the way of discourse 
and disagreement as it relates to children, those who are unwanted. And 
here we provide an opportunity for those families who are willing to 
take in children, to make it possible for them to pay the cost that 
otherwise, in many cases, would keep poor families and working middle-
class families from adopting a youngster who would have no home, who 
would be in foster care, who would be a charge of the State. That is $2 
billion.
  I do not hear anybody--Mr. President, why do you not tell the 
American people? Do you support giving credits for families who are 
going to adopt children or are you opposed to it? Are you opposed to a 
$500 tax credit for children for working families? Are you for it or 
against it? Do you want to keep the marriage penalty in place? Are you 
for it or against it? Is that for the wealthy families or is that for 
middle-class Americans?
  Student loans: We provide $1 billion to help. I would like to see it 
more. And maybe if we got to compromise and sat down with the 
President, began the work, we would find some more money for students. 
Mr. President, $1 billion.
  Tax deductions for elderly parents living with their children: Do we 
want to see elderly parents placed as charges of the State who are poor 
or do we want to provide some incentive for youngsters to keep their 
elderly parents in their homes? That is almost $1 billion.
  We add that up, it is almost $160 billion, Mr. President. Now, let me 
tell you, I said $171 billion. And 70 percent of all the taxes go to 
families. I am a little bit short, $11.8 billion short.

  IRA's, individual retirement account: One of the things we do is we 
say, for those spouses who are taking care of children, who are taking 
care of the home, should they not be entitled to an IRA and not be able 
to put $2,000 aside for their retirement for the days when they become 
elderly? Is that something that is used by the wealthy or is it 
something that will be used by working middle-class families? The vast 
bulk of that will be working-class families. So $11.8 billion in 
individual retirement accounts is made available.
  So, Mr. President, we come up to $171.46 billion, and 70 percent of 
the so-called tax cut for the wealthy goes to families. If you make 
more than $110,000, you do not qualify for most of that or any of that. 
Where does the balance go? Let me talk to you about some of the 
balance.
  Long-term care insurance: a deduction. All right. Should people be 
permitted to go out and buy insurance for their long-term care if they 
have a catastrophe or do you want them to be Government charges? We 
provide $5.7 billion. A 50 percent deduction for small business 
insurance, $1 billion. That is $6.7 billion. Small business being able 
to deduct expenses for purchases of equipment, $3 billion.
  Mr. President, I submit to you that when President Clinton says that 
we are cutting programs to advantage the wealthy, that is just not 
true. It is disingenuous. And I would debate with the President any 
time on the business of whether or not we should have a tax cut that is 
going to help create jobs, because let me tell you something, I--think 
we do need that.
  I think we need a capital gains tax cut. And we do provide for that, 
and it does and will help creativity, job expansion, capital formation. 
It will 

[[Page S 17142]]
bring about more in the way of jobs and more in the way of revenue. 
And, indeed, as Al Smith said, ``Let's look at the record.'' It was 
John F. Kennedy who brought in a capital gains tax cut that produced 
revenue. Somehow our colleagues like to forget that. If you give 
business the opportunity to expand, reward people for investment, they 
will do exactly that, you will get more economic activity, you will get 
more jobs, you will get more growth.

  So, Mr. President, with any reasonable calculations, more than 80 
percent of tax cuts that we have provided will go to individuals 
earning less than $100,000, and those tax breaks that go for capital 
gains tax cuts, I submit to you, in the fullness of time, will 
advantage more working people, more middle-class people, more poor 
people than bigger spending, than larger deficits
  I think that President Clinton has an obligation to sign the balanced 
budget act into law and stop playing political games with the economic 
well-being of our country, and that is exactly what he is doing. He 
will be taking a poll in about 2 hours, and his pollster will come in 
and tell him whether or not he is gaining on extending this 
politically. If they say he continues to gain, he is going to draw this 
out. At some point in time the people are going to really make it known 
they are holding him responsible, too, and maybe then he will begin to 
bargain in good faith.
  I think that is a heck of a way to run Government or make policy. I 
submit to you that is exactly what is taking place. The American people 
want us to balance the budget, and what this continuing resolution says 
is we will give you until December 5 to do exactly that.
  Listen to the great commitment it has. It is a commitment that 
anybody should be willing to sign off on. It continues Government 
basically at the same spending levels. Oh, you can make an argument 
that there is a little percent here or there that is out of whack, but 
it continues the essential programs that people want and need. Then it 
says in section 301(a):

       The President and the Congress shall enact legislation in 
     the 104th Congress to achieve a unified balanced budget no 
     later than the fiscal year 2002 as scored by the non-partisan 
     Congressional Budget Office.

  Putting aside the legalese, that means the President would be 
committed, he will be making a commitment that he is going to work for 
a balanced budget over the next 7 years. That is the basis on which we 
go forward. We do not say it is our numbers, our programs, he has to 
agree with all our tax cuts and tax programs. But we do say we have to 
have an honest method of accounting, not pie in the sky.
  By the way, I have been here when I have seen pie in the sky. I have 
been here when Dave Stockman cooked the books and projected economic 
growth that was unrealistic and interest rates that could absolutely 
not be achieved. If you want to balance the budget, predict a 4-percent 
economic growth when, indeed, it is 2.3. That will bring you in tens 
and tens of billions of dollars of extra revenue. Therefore you say, 
``I balanced the budget.''
  You predict the interest rates are going to be lower and you predict 
billions of dollars. That is why we insist we use an honest 
scorekeeper, not your scorekeeper or mine--an honest one. If, when the 
President took office, he said he was going to use the Congressional 
Budget Office to be that official scorekeeper, what is wrong today? 
What has changed? Promises made, promises broken. The President says, 
``When I'm elected, I'm going to cut middle-class taxes.'' He raised 
them. Then he had to say, ``I made a mistake.''
  Did he make a mistake when he said we will use the Congressional 
Budget Office as the official scorekeeper to determine whether or not 
we are really going to have a balanced budget? What did he mean and 
when did he mean it? Was he just kidding us when he made that promise 
to the American people, when he came before and addressed the Congress 
and said, ``We are going to use the CBO''? Was he kidding then and is 
he serious now, or is he kidding now and was he serious then? Is he 
jockeying for partisan political advantage, and I fear he is? I think 
the American people know that.

  The American people are not exactly throwing bouquets at us, because 
I think we have done a poor job in explaining what we are trying to do 
here. I really do. Whether or not I got off the back of the plane, the 
beginning of the plane, the side of the plane, they would not even let 
me on the plane. So what? And let me tell you, I went on a different 
plane and they did not even want me to go on that plane. They did 
everything they could to keep me from going. And that is a fact. That 
is a fact.
  You want to talk about partisanship, well, let us put the 
partisanship away. Let us do the business of the people. I want to tell 
you something, if this goes on much longer--the American people are fed 
up. They want a balanced budget, they want us to cut taxes, they want 
us to give future generations the economic opportunity that they are 
entitled to. They expect us to make the tough decisions, and if we 
continue this nonsense, they are going to say ``a plague on both your 
houses,'' and they will be right. That means we have to stand tall and 
call them the way we see them, and we also have to be open and ready to 
deal with the President, but to deal with him honestly, and he has to 
deal with us honestly and not the political sloganeering.
  So, Mr. President, I support the commitment to go forward, to extend, 
yes, and to continue spending for a limited period of time basically at 
the same rate for the next 2 weeks provided that the President says he 
agrees he is committed to balancing the budget using real numbers, 
using the Congressional Budget Office as the real referees, not my 
favorite guy or his favorite guy, not someone who is going to cook the 
books to disadvantage one side as opposed to the other, but an honest 
scorekeeper. The American people are entitled to that.
  I ask the President of the United States, ``You tell us why you have 
changed your mind now, why you want a new referee, your referee to call 
the game your way? Are you really serious about doing the business of 
the people and bringing in that impartial referee and getting down to 
doing the business of the people?'' That is what they expect.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from New 
York for his comments. They are right on. I think he hits the nail 
right on the head. This is about the future of our children. This is 
about balancing the budget.
  I am glad as a member of the Finance Committee he took on all these 
assertions to talk about tax cuts for the rich. The Senator from New 
York is right. These are tax cuts for middle-income families.
  The only thing that would not be targeted for tax cuts for middle-
income families would be capital gains. The Senator from New York 
correctly said capital gains reductions are job-creating engines that 
employ middle-income families. So whether you are giving them a tax 
break or you are giving them an opportunity to get a job, it is 
targeted toward families of middle income.
  We, obviously, do not do a very good job getting our message out. I 
keep hearing over and over again--I talk to folks from Pennsylvania who 
are in the Capitol, I talk to them as they call into my office, 
whatever the case may be. I explain to them what we do, what we are 
trying to accomplish here, and they say, ``Why doesn't anybody report 
that?'' Well, talk to the national media why they do not report what is 
in this bill.
  The reason we are so passionate about sticking up for a balanced 
budget over the next 7 years and the reason we care so much about what 
we are doing here and why we invested all this time in putting this 
bill together is because we honestly believe that when we pass this 
into law, the American public will approve in overwhelming numbers what 
we do. If we thought this was bad policy, I can guarantee no one would 
be standing here taking on every sacred cow in Washington, DC.
  It is amazing to me some suggest this is being done on our side for 
partisan political advantage. Let me assure you--and if you do not 
believe me, look at the poll--let me assure you, there is little 
partisan political advantage in trying to reform Medicare, in trying to 
reform Medicaid, in trying to make decisions on education. There is no 
partisan advantage here. 

[[Page S 17143]]

  The advantage is it is the right thing for America, for our children, 
and for our future. This has nothing to do with politics. It has 
everything to do about the future of this country. It has everything to 
do about deeply held, passionate policy beliefs about what direction 
this country should take.
  That is what we are debating here. I know this is all sort of seen 
from the outside as sort of a squabble between the President and 
Congress and Republicans and Democrats. I assure you that this is not 
partisan politics. This is a fundamental difference of opinion about 
what is right for America. We believe what is right for America, which 
is in the continuing resolution, is a balanced budget--not talking 
about it, not saying we like it, not saying that, gee, we would like to 
get there some day, but doing it. Doing it for our children.
  I look up in the galleries and walk around here, and there are 
students around all the time. Sometimes I have to look down. I do not 
know how Members around here who keep voting for more and more 
spending, more deficits, more and more passing the buck to future 
generations, can stare at a kid today and say, ``You pay the bill. I 
get the votes, you pay the bill.'' That is what is going on. It has 
been going on here on both sides of the aisle for 25 years. We are 
trying to say today: Enough. Enough. Let us do the right thing.
  This is not hard, Mr. President. Balance the budget using real 
economic assumptions. How hard is this? You said you wanted to do it. 
Everything in this resolution, you have made public statements saying 
you want to do. You want to balance the budget in 7 years. You said 
that.
  Now, I know promises do not mean as much down at the White House as 
they do up here. See, we believe our promises should be kept. Those of 
us who ran--and Senator Abraham was here and the Presiding Officer, 
Senator Thompson, ran in 1994--made a promise. We said we were going to 
come to Washington and change this town, and we were going to, first, 
balance the budget. We happen to believe promises are made to be kept, 
not just to get elected. There is a difference here. My dad always told 
me you do not make promises to get what you want and then go do what 
you want. You make promises and you give your word. Remember when a 
handshake used to mean a contract in this country? You gave your word 
and that meant everything. We did not need all these lawyers filling 
out all these forms. You gave your word.
  There was a day when people listened to a politician who gave them 
their word, and they actually believed them. Think about that. You 
watched him give a speech, and you actually believed what they were 
saying was actually what they were going to do. Nobody believes that 
anymore. No wonder we have politicians here and politicians down at the 
White House who just say whatever the polls tell them to say today. No 
wonder people are sick and tired of this place. No wonder they have no 
faith in our institutions. Promises do not mean anything.
  I think promises do mean something. You ask me why we are stuck in 
cement over here or standing firm. Because promises mean something. We 
are going to stand firm. We are going to get a balanced budget. We will 
get a balanced budget over the next 7 years. We will. I do not know how 
long it will take, but we will because it is the right thing to do. It 
is the right thing to do.
  The plan we put together, while I agree with it and I think it is an 
excellent plan, is not everything I want to do. We have a few things on 
the agriculture side we are not particularly crazy about. Would I do it 
differently? Absolutely, I would. But we did the best we could. Now, is 
all that stuff negotiable with the President? Of course, it is.
  Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield for a question on that point, I 
was just listening to the President speak.

  Mr. SANTORUM. I am sorry I missed it.
  Mr. GREGG. He said--and maybe he does not understand this. He said 
that in order to sign this continuing resolution, ``I would have to 
sign on to the Republican budget.''
  Now, as I understand this continuing, all it says is that he must 
agree, or should agree, to join with the Congress in promoting a 
proposal that reaches balance by 2002, the practical effect of that 
being he can put forward his proposal and we can put ours forward, and 
we can reach an agreement.
  Is he right, or is my understanding of this right?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Some might find this hard to believe, but the President 
is not being forthcoming in this issue. I know you find it incredible 
that he is not owning up to the facts.
  I asked the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, that 
question earlier. By voting for or signing on to the Republican 
balanced budget plan, the specifics--the tax cuts, the reductions in 
the growth of Medicare, the changes in Medicare--does all that then 
come with signing this? He said, ``No, it does not.'' It says two 
things. I will read you this. And remember, those of you listening, the 
President of the United States just said--would you repeat exactly what 
he said, or paraphrase it?
  Mr. GREGG. Without your yielding to the floor----
  Mr. SANTORUM. I yield for a question.
  Mr. GREGG. He said that to sign this continuing resolution would mean 
that he would have to commit to the Republican budget proposal.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Let me read what this continuing resolution says. Do 
you want to know who is telling the truth, what promises mean?

       Section 301: 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.
       The unified budget in subsection (a), shall be based on the 
     most current economic and technical assumptions made by the 
     Congressional Budget Office.

  That is all it says.
  Mr. GREGG. If the Senator will yield for another question.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Yes.
  Mr. GREGG. Therefore, when the President cited that to sign this 
continuing resolution, he would have to sign on to the Republican 
budget, he was wrong. What he should have said was, to sign this 
continuing resolution means I have to commit to a balanced budget by 
the year 2002, under any terms I want. That would have been his reason 
for rejecting this.
  Mr. SANTORUM. That would be the only reason you would reject this.
  Mr. GREGG. I will ask another question. Earlier today, I heard the 
Chief of Staff, who used to be the head of the OMB and the Budget 
Committee in the House, state that the reason they oppose this 
continuing resolution was because it meant massive cuts in the Medicare 
Program.
  Now, it is my understanding--and I wish the Senator would clarify 
this for me--first, that this budget resolution deals with 
discretionary spending, am I not correct? And it deals with Medicare 
entitlement spending, and this continuing resolution has no impact of 
any nature on any Medicare spending that is presently occurring, 
because Medicare spending is an entitlement program, is that correct?

  Mr. SANTORUM. The Senator from New Hampshire is exactly correct. To 
explain, a continuing resolution needs to be passed because we have not 
gotten it enacted here in the Congress or signed by the President. 
Discretionary spending--that means spending that is not mandatory, 
which we have to spend. These are programs that we have to appropriate 
money for every year. If we do not appropriate that money by October 1, 
we then have to pass a resolution to continue spending, because if we 
do not, no spending is permitted. That is on discretionary programs.
  Medicare is not a discretionary program. Medicare is a mandatory 
program. That means the money is spent, whether we have a budget or 
not. And so when someone says that they will be signing off on 
reductions in Medicare by signing a continuing resolution, a spending 
bill, they either fundamentally misunderstand how Government works in 
this town--and I know the former chairman of the Budget Committee 
understands how the budget works--or there was a deliberate attempt to 
mislead and, I would go further, to scare seniors.
  There is nothing here--I will read the operative part one more time:

       The President and the Congress shall enact legislation in 
     the 104th Congress to achieve a unified balanced budget not 
     later than the 

[[Page S 17144]]
     year 2002, as scored by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

  Enact legislation. It does not say enact Senate bill such and such, 
or enact the Republican reconciliation or budget bill. It has enact 
legislation. Very broad. It does not nail anybody down to anything.
  Mr. GREGG. May I ask the Senator another question?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I am happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. GREGG. If I am to understand this correctly, when the Chief of 
Staff of the President comes out on the portico of the White House and 
says to the national press, ``The reason we oppose this continuing is 
because it means cuts in Medicare,'' he either, one, does not 
understand how the continuing resolution works--which would be 
difficult to believe in light of his history as head of OMB and head of 
the Budget Committee--or alternatively, he is continuing this rather 
jingoistic theme of trying to scare seniors without substance, which 
appears to be the policy of this White House relative to this budget 
process, is that correct?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I think the Senator from New Hampshire is correct. I 
finished last night reading Harry Truman's biography written by David 
McCullough. Every time I look at the current occupants of the White 
House and see them get up there and say these kinds of things and 
deliberately mislead to scare people--this is not enlightening. This is 
fear. This is just misleading people for fear.

  This is from the White House. There are people all over the world who 
look on the White House as a center of freedom, as sort of this ground 
that democracy first took hold.
  Here we are--have we reached that, have we really reached that low in 
this country that we cannot sit and have an honest discussion? Do you 
know what this continuing resolution asks for? An honest discussion. An 
honest discussion. That is all this is.
  A balanced budget in 7 years, sit down and negotiate, using real 
numbers--not trumped-up numbers, not numbers that wish away problems, 
but real numbers. An honest discussion.
  We have a President who will not even agree to an honest discussion 
on things he says he wants. We have a President who says he wants to 
balance the budget. We balance the budget. We want it balanced. We have 
a President that says he wants to end welfare as we know it. In the 
budget bill that we have, we end welfare as we know it--frankly, pretty 
close to what the President had suggested.
  We have a lot of things in there that the President actually proposed 
himself. We really did reach out. I think we--as we did in the Senate 
bill--got 87 votes on the Senate floor for the welfare reform bill. I 
think we can get that many for this. We save the Medicare system, 
which, according to his trustees, his office, is going to go bankrupt 
in 6 years, 7 years.
  He even suggested change. Sure, we can negotiate how much, what to 
do, but we both agree it has to be brought up. He wanted a middle-
income tax cut for families. We provide it. You heard the Senator from 
New York, a middle-income tax cut for families.
  If we were talking massive buildup in defense, huge tax cuts on the 
wealthy, slashing a bunch of programs, if we were miles apart on this 
thing, then I think we could have sort of the logjam we are in now. We 
would be miles apart. Folks, we are not miles apart.
  For those who see this as sort of the reason we tried to get elected 
here, to try to bring this fiscal sanity to Washington and to see that 
the sides on this issue are so close, yet if you listen to the national 
media you would think that he is in California and we are in Maine and 
we are not even talking the same language.
  But we are not that far apart. That is the frustrating thing. Not 
only are we not that far apart, but we are willing to negotiate to come 
closer.
  I know the polls are bad. As I said before, we took on sacred cows. 
When you take on sacred cows, you have someone standing up at the 
House--at the White House--out there using that position to scare 
people, using the Presidency of the United States to scare 81-year-old 
people. Boy, the power of the White House, the bully pulpit. The moral 
compass for the world. We are now out to scare people who rely on 
Social Security and Medicare to make ends meet.
  Mr. President, I want to turn now briefly to the Hollings amendment.
  I know he has offered this amendment, and I know he sincerely feels 
very strongly about this.
  I find it absolutely incredible for the Senator from South Carolina 
and the Senator from North Dakota, who was just on the floor every day 
talking about how the Social Security are being used to ``balance the 
budget.''
  No. 1, I do not know how you can stand here and talk about, through 
an accounting measure, the Social Security trust funds are being used 
when in fact nobody is taking the money out and using it. In fact, that 
money that is in the Social Security surplus, the trust fund, is being 
invested in Government bonds and earning interest, right now. And at 
the same time, right now, the President of the United States is 
raiding--raiding--the pension funds of Federal employees--raiding them. 
Not using them for accounting purposes to balance the budget, but 
literally reaching in there, taking the money out to pay for debt 
service--raiding the money. Not paying interest, taking the money, 
physically taking the money.
  Now, I have heard a lot of demagoguery around here, but when you say 
we are in the right because we are not going to use the Social Security 
trust fund for accounting purposes to determine whether we have a 
balanced budget or not, that is one thing; but when you have your 
President at the same time you are making that argument literally 
raiding trust funds, raiding pension funds--it is like a CEO who is 
running a corporation and the bank will not lend him any more money. 
What does he do? He raids the pension fund. Do you know what happens to 
CEO's where banks will not lend them any more money and that CEO goes 
into the pension fund and raids the pension fund? They go to jail. They 
go to jail. We do not raid pension funds in this country. We have a 
Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation set up so they do not raid 
pension funds. Now we have all this whining and gnashing of teeth about 
using accounting measures to determine whether we balanced the budget 
on Social Security. And the President is raiding pension funds.

  Where are the protestations? Where are the people grieving for the 
Federal employees who are having their pension funds raided? Where is 
the other side saying, ``Oh, the President should not be doing this.''
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Wait until I am done.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I protested.
  Mr. SANTORUM. You had a chance to vote on that. Senator Moynihan 
offered an amendment to the debt limit, and in the debt limit we had a 
provision in there saying we could not do that. We had a provision in 
there saying you could not raid pension funds to keep the debt going.
  Guess what? No protestations over there. They voted to strip it out. 
And the President vetoed it.
  Oh, yes, you can protest. Put the votes down. Put the votes down. 
Where are the protestations? Raiding pension funds, that is what we are 
doing.
  Let me just summarize it. We have a President, a Chief of Staff of 
the White House, at the White House today, at the United States of 
America's White House, out there scaring seniors; at the same time, 
raiding seniors' pension funds, who are Federal employees. Do you know 
what they are telling them? Do you know what they are trying to do? 
``Please trust us, we know what we are doing. Please trust us, we know 
how to balance this budget. We are protecting you.''
  Give me a break. Come to the table. Let us work this out. This is an 
embarrassment. The more this goes on the more embarrassing it is going 
to get. You are not solving problems, Mr. President. It is time to be 
President, not to run for President. It is time to be President. It is 
time to solve problems.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I am happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if we could get a unanimous consent and have a 
vote on this particular amendment. I do not know how much longer you 
would like to speak, but Senator Murray would like to speak for 6 
minutes. 

[[Page S 17145]]
 Then we will vote on the Hollings amendment on a motion to table.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Murray be granted 6 minutes and 
Senator Santorum 6 minutes, after which we proceed to a rollcall vote 
on a table. I ask it be in order at this point to ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, I thought I had gone over and talked to the 
leader and I thought when I came to the floor, it had been agreed.
  Senator Murray was the only one on your side that would speak before 
we voted on this, or I would not have imposed that. We have been on 
this for a long time. Your side has a lot of time.
  How much time would you want? We have another amendment from your 
side, too, shortly, right now, on this issue. How much time would you 
need?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Senator, I know you want to get this amendment disposed 
of. I do not want to be an impediment to it. I will take 8 minutes and 
remove my objection.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Can we add 8 minutes for Senator Bumpers and then 
proceed with the rest of my request?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Give me 3 more minutes to respond.
  Mr. DOMENICI. To be equal, we will add 3 minutes to Senator Santorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask it be in order that I seek the 
yeas and nays on a motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. And do we have a motion to table, that the yeas and 
nays have been ordered on?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays will be ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Could I have it in order now, even though there is 
time, that I ask for the--I move to table.
  I move to table and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Federal Government is now in its 
third day of shutdown, and just like 3 days ago, there certainly is no 
end in sight and it seems like we in Congress are destined to flounder 
for a couple of more days because the majority is insisting on debating 
a continuing resolution that the President has vowed he will veto.
  Listening to the rhetoric of the last hour it seems to me this is 
more about putting somebody into somebody's face than it is about 
solving problems. It seems like it is more about drawing lines in the 
sand and calling names than it is in making sure that this country gets 
moving again.
  I have to ask the question, why are we doing this? Why are we not 
putting together a proposal that we can all agree on, that will get the 
Government running again, restore public services, and put people back 
to work?
  I heard my colleague from Vermont a short time ago say it does not 
take 15 pages of paper with a lot of additions. It only takes one 
sentence to get us back to work again.
  I have to remind my colleagues the American people are tired and 
impatient. They want solutions, not politics and rhetoric. They want to 
know that Government works for them. They want to feel secure and have 
faith in their elected officials.
  Unfortunately today they are probably watching us in disbelief. They 
cannot believe we are unable to solve the country's problems.
  That concerns me. I want to move forward. I want Congress to get its 
act together and balance this budget. And the longer we take to do so, 
the more disaffected our constituents become. We just reinforce in 
their minds the belief that Congress is unaware of their real needs and 
concerns. They look at us and they say, ``How can those people really 
understand how difficult it is for me to pay the rent, put food on the 
table for my kids, or take care of my elderly parents? All they can do 
in DC is whine and squabble about where they sat on an airplane.''
  As we muse about Presidential politics and other hi-jinks, we better 
not forget what this Government shutdown really means. We have all 
heard the numbers. We know that 30,000 people a day are unable to apply 
for Medicare. And we know this Government shutdown is costing us $200 
million a day in lost productivity.
  But the shutdown comes a little closer to home when we put human 
faces on those numbers. One woman, an attorney from Seattle, called my 
office yesterday. She is trying to adopt a child in China. For months 
she has been filling out paperwork and dealing with bureaucratic 
redtape.
  She finally got her plane ticket but because the United States 
Consulate in China is closed, she cannot get her baby's visa. So she 
was forced to postpone her trip.
  She has no idea when she will finally be united with her new baby 
daughter. She is a real person. And she is hurting because of what we 
are doing on this floor.
  Last weekend I was in central Washington for the opening of the 
Yakima Valley Veterans Center. Many of the people I talked to wanted to 
celebrate the opening of the new center, but because of the pending 
Government shutdown they were too worried about whether or not they 
were going to receive their veterans benefits. Today's Spokesman-Review 
paper ran an article about a young man in Spokane, WA, who quit a 
stable computer-based job to take his dream job. He was going to become 
a physical fitness director aboard a cruise ship. The young man was 
offered the job unexpectedly on November 4. He scrambled to get his 
paperwork taken care of and a passport in time to sail by November 25.

  Unfortunately, this Government is shut down. He cannot get his 
passport and time is growing short.
  I want to read that young man's words into the Record. They could not 
be more to the point. He said:

       This is a dream in my heart that finally manifested. The 
     Government is getting in the way of people's dreams. I've got 
     airplane tickets. Everything is settled. Everything but this 
     last hurdle.

  These few people provide just a few examples of what a Government 
shutdown really means. They are angry and concerned. They have bills to 
pay, families to care for, business to conduct, and dreams to fulfill. 
Instead, we are telling them, ``not now.''
  So, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to act wisely. Let us move 
on. Let us put together an honest and reasonable continuing resolution 
that will get this country back on track.
  My view is pretty straightforward. As a Member of the Budget 
Committee and the Appropriations Committee I know I have a job to do. 
The job is to pass a budget plan and 13 appropriations bills. So far, 
this Congress has done neither. In fact, just yesterday the House 
failed to pass the Interior bill for the third time. There are five 
other bills that have not even made it to this floor yet.
  Instead of getting our work done, we are debating a bill we know will 
be vetoed. It will be vetoed because it stacks the deck against working 
families and senior citizens in favor of unneeded tax breaks. We are 
not moving the process forward one bit; we are ensuring that it will go 
nowhere.
  I say it is time to get our work done. We can balance the budget. We 
can stay true to our priorities. And we can do it without interrupting 
the lives of regular, everyday people in our States.
  All we need to do is pass a clean interim spending bill and then get 
on with our business of finishing the overall budget.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I saw an article this morning where the 
Speaker of the House was asked, ``What is sacred about 7 years?''
  I thought that was a good question. I have been curious about that 
myself.
  And the Speaker said, ``Well, it was just intuition. All major 
decisions are based on intuition.''
  I do not like the idea of one man's intuition determining the fate of 
the country. His intuition may not match mine. It may not match 
anybody's. Frankly, I think intuition is always a fine thing, if a man 
is getting ready to make an investment. I think his intuition is 
important in a lot of ways. But when it comes to putting in concrete 
the time in which the Congress will have to balance the budget, I do 
not want anybody's intuition. I would like to see some hard figures. 

[[Page S 17146]]

  In this particular case, this amendment deals with Social Security. 
Everybody says we are going to balance the budget by the year 2002. If 
everything went swimmingly, according to every projection, we would 
still, in the year 2002, have used $650 billion in Social Security 
trust funds.
  I am not quarreling with that. The Republicans can come back and say, 
``You did it. This President has done it.''
  That is all well and true. But it still means there is $650 billion 
that was used that has to be paid back, just as certainly as the 
national debt has to be paid back.

  I think I have to say the tax cut in this bill is the most repugnant 
part of it. What in the name of all that is good and holy are we doing 
cutting taxes $245 billion in the name of deficit reduction? We tried 
that in 1981.
  The Washington Post editorial this morning, which has been cited a 
number of times here today as though it came right out of the Holy 
Bible, talks about how the Democrats have been demagoging the Medicare 
issue, and that Medicare really is in trouble, and that the cost of 
Medicare continues to go up. That is true. I do not quarrel with the 
idea that the Medicare system is in considerable trouble and needs to 
be fixed. I think $270 billion in cuts out of Medicare over the next 7 
years is unacceptable.
  The thing I find most unacceptable about it is that it is being used 
to provide a $245 billion tax cut. And for whom? The wealthiest people 
in America who have not asked for it. But the people who really need it 
do not get it.
  A Post editorial this morning obliquely suggested that the addition 
of $3 trillion worth of debt during Ronald Reagan and George Bush 
Presidencies was somehow or other Congress' fault, with no mention of 
the fact that neither one of them could ever find their veto pen when 
they were in the President's office. President Reagan never vetoed one 
single spending bill, Mr. President--not one. All he did was send out 
millions of letters saying, you know, ``I cannot spend a dime that 
Congress does not appropriate.'' Congress cannot appropriate anything 
unless they have 67 votes to overcome his veto. But he looked through 
his desk drawer time and again and could never find his veto pen.
  The U.S. Government now owes four times as much money as it did when 
he took office. It took 200 years to get to $1 trillion. It took 12 
years to get to $4 trillion. The Nobel award-winning economist at MIT 
said it was the most irresponsible economic policy in the history of 
the world.
  On that tax cut, Mr. President, I made this point yesterday, but I am 
going to make it every day that I can get the floor. You hear this 
unctuous, solemn business about the tax credit for our children. There 
are 5 million households in this country that have 11 million children 
in them. With those 11 million children and those 5 million households, 
the parents--not the children--will get a partial or full $500 tax 
credit. There are 8 million households in this country with 11 million 
children that will not get one single thin dime.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BUMPERS. You bet.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Why would 8 million households not get it?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Because they have not paid income tax.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you.
  Mr. BUMPERS. A family with a man and a wife and three children making 
$25,000 a year do not pay any income tax. A man and wife with three 
children making $100,000 will pay $10,000 to $20,000. They get the full 
$1,500 refund. The people who need it, the man and wife with three 
children making $25,000 a year, do not get one red cent.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Yes.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Does a family of three making $100,000 a year qualify 
for the EITC?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Do they qualify for what?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Does a family of three earning $100,000 qualify for the 
earned income tax credit?
  Mr. BUMPERS. Certainly. I hope so.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Does a family making $320,000 a year qualify?
  Mr. BUMPERS. They used to qualify for it. I do not know whether they 
are going to or not. That is another $32 billion.
  We are not just depriving people of an education. We are not just 
depriving people of school lunches. We are not just putting another 
million children in poverty under the welfare bill. We are not just 
savaging the Medicaid Program for the poorest children in America to 
have health care. We are also savaging a program that even Ronald 
Reagan said was the best thing that was ever invented to keep people 
off welfare. We said ``no.'' No. If you are working for $4.25 an hour 
and trying to keep body and soul together and stay off welfare, in the 
past we have said, if you will stay off welfare, we will give you a 
couple of grand at the end of the year. We are savaging that program.
  Mr. President, I agree with the Senator from Pennsylvania on one 
thing. I do not like taking pension funds. Do you know why we are 
taking pension funds? Because the Senator from Pennsylvania will not 
send a debt ceiling to the President that simply said we spent the 
money, let us pay for it. No. You want to put habeas corpus and 
regulatory reform on the debt ceiling, of all things. Of course the 
President vetoed it. I would never have voted for him again if he had 
not.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, just by way of quickly responding to the 
earned income tax credit under the conference report that will be 
coming out, no one, with the exception of families who have no 
children, no family that has children will get less money under it than 
they would have gotten under current law. No family will get less money 
under the earned income tax credit next year than they would have under 
current law. Some will get more because some qualify also for the tax 
credit for children. That is in the bill.
  So do not talk about slashing the EITC, [the earned income tax 
credit], for working families. We do not. In fact, the increase that is 
projected that is in law under the President's 1993 Budget Act--those 
people at least get that much, and some will get more. Particularly 
families who are in the $15,000 to $20,000 to $25,000 range will 
actually get more because some of them actually do pay taxes.
  I will be happy to yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from 
Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, what is the situation on time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes 20 seconds.
  Mr. THOMAS. The other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, it would be interesting, would not it, to look in on 
this recent conversation, this recent debate if you came from somewhere 
and you knew nothing about the background of what was going on here? I 
suppose you would say, ``Gosh. What is this all about? What is the 
issue here?'' We are talking about all kinds of things. We are talking 
about Medicare, slashing Medicare, when in fact it does not slash 
Medicare. We are talking about raising premiums on Medicare when in 
fact it does not raise premiums at all. They stay where they are.
  You would say, ``Gosh. What is happening? What is this?'' You would 
hear this morning the Senator from Nebraska saying this resolution is 
ridiculous. It deals with balancing the budget. I think you would go on 
to say there are some principles. What is ridiculous about a principle 
of balancing a budget that this body has not balanced for 30 years?
  It would be interesting to sort of sum up the years that the 
opposition on that side of the aisle has been in this place and never 
has balanced a budget. They talked about it. They say now we are for a 
balanced budget. For 30 years they have not balanced the budget.
  You would say, ``Gosh. What is going on here?'' Everyone who has 
risen has said, ``I am for balancing the budget.'' And it has not 
happened. I guess they would say, ``What is wrong?'' People who ran in 
the last election particularly said we have a priority to balance the 
budget. That is what we are talking about doing here. 

[[Page S 17147]]

  I guess you might also be surprised at how difficult it would be if 
you were a newcomer looking at it, and saying, ``Gosh. What should be 
so difficult about balancing the budget?'' You do it in your family, 
and I do it in my family. You do it in my business because you have to. 
Do you do it in government? Is that not financially and fiscally 
responsible as we move into a new century? Is it not responsible to 
balance the budget rather than continuing to charge it to your children 
and your grandchildren? Is that what it is about? If that is the issue, 
why are we talking about all of these other things?
  A balanced budget is not extraneous. Someone rose this morning and 
said, ``Oh, gosh. This continuing resolution has extraneous materials 
on it.'' Balancing the budget is, after all, the key issue. All we are 
asking is that the President certify that in 7 years he will join us in 
balancing the budget, and use the Congressional Budget Office numbers 
that the President said in his State of the Union Message we all needed 
to use so we all work in the same place. It is not a new idea.
  The minority leader, who a short while ago objected to the idea of 
CBO, stood up not 2 weeks ago and said we all will do whatever 
accommodation to use CBO numbers.
  So I think you would say, gosh, what is it? You would probably soon 
recognize that part of it is philosophical. There is a difference in 
view. There is a legitimate view among liberals that we ought to have 
more Government and more spending. That is a legitimate view. I do not 
share it. I do not think the majority of people here share it. 
Nevertheless, there is a populace view that is there.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on 
agreeing to the motion to table. The yeas and nays have been ordered. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 578 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     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 table the amendment (No. 3056) was agreed to.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. THURMOND. Order in the Senate, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chamber will be in order. May we have 
order in the Chamber, please?
  The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, life does not often provide second 
chances, but the Congress is giving President Clinton just that. With 
this continuing resolution, we are providing the opportunity for him to 
right the terrible wrong committed by vetoing the previous continuing 
resolution and shutting down the Government. This resolution will allow 
the U.S. Government to reopen and remain open while Congress and the 
President resolve outstanding issues on the remaining appropriations 
bills and the Balanced Budget Act.
  As a Presidential candidate, and early in his Presidency, President 
Clinton told the American people that he wanted to balance the budget. 
Here is his chance to fulfill that pledge, since he has failed to send 
a balanced budget plan to Congress. President Clinton said he wanted to 
use Congressional Budget Office numbers. Here is his chance to commit 
to that. President Clinton recently stated that he raised taxes too 
much. The Congress will give him a chance to correct that mistake and 
fulfill his pledge for a middle-class tax break.
  Madam President, President Clinton's veto of the previous continuing 
resolution brought the Federal Government to a standstill. Here is his 
chance to right that wrong. President Clinton must put aside his 
reelection concerns and focus on his responsibility to govern. By 
agreeing to this continuing resolution, he can do the right thing, 
restore full Government services and put the hundreds of thousands of 
Federal workers who are facing the holidays without a paycheck back to 
work immediately.
  Congress and the President previously approved a continuing 
resolution which funded the Government through November 13. The 
Congress sought to extend it earlier this week, for the purpose of 
avoiding a shutdown of the Federal Government. We are giving President 
Clinton another chance to keep the Government operating and to fulfill 
his promise to balance the budget.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate minority leader.


                           Amendment No. 3057

  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, subject to the majority leader's 
intention, as I understand it, we may set this bill aside. But given 
the informal agreement we had this morning, I now send the second 
Democratic amendment to the desk--I guess it is the third Democratic 
amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3057.

  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       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.
       Sec. 2. (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.
       (b) The unified balanced budget in subsection (a) must 
     assure that:
       (1) Medicare and Medicaid are not cut to pay for tax 
     breaks; and
       (2) Any possible tax cuts shall go only to American 
     families making less than $100,000.

  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

                          ____________________