[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 182 (Thursday, November 16, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17170-S17178]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the joint resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry, are we back on the 
continuing resolution?
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, may we have order, please?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is not in order. The Senate will 
please come to order.
  The minority leader is correct.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment and raise a point 
of order that the bill violates section 306 of the Congressional Budget 
Act.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the point of 
order be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me explain. I know it is certainly 
the intent of colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work through 
this process and to accommodate what we all want here, and that is an 
agreement on a continuing resolution at the earliest possible date. It 
is also my personal view, and the view of most of our colleagues, that 
the best way to do that, of course, is to send a clean resolution to 
the President. I offered the point of order in the hope that we could 
strip away the extraneous matters and get back to what we tried to do 
this morning, which was to offer a clean continuing resolution. 

[[Page S 17171]]

  It appears, however, that that would entail a good deal of 
parliamentary discussion and negotiation and procedure that, in my 
view, would be counterproductive, frankly, because it would take us at 
least through another day.
  It was not my intent to surprise the majority leader. I thought we 
had an understanding about the point of order, and there was some 
misunderstanding. For that reason, as well, I think it is propitious at 
this point to pick up where we left off prior to the time the point of 
order was offered.
  So I have discussed the matter with the majority leader, and I am 
prepared to offer our second amendment, as we had agreed to do earlier 
today. This would expedite our consideration of the continuing 
resolution and will allow us to get the bill down to the President, 
allow us to continue the negotiations in good faith, and to find, at an 
earlier date rather than a later date, some resolution.
  I have no doubt that if this bill goes to the White House, the 
President will be required to veto this one, as well. So we will be 
back to where we were prior to the time we offered this.
  So I am looking for, and the majority leader is looking for, a way in 
which to find some resolution. It is in that good-faith effort that I 
have asked for the unanimous consent.


                           Amendment No. 3057

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send an 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 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''.
       Section 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. DOLE. Mr. President, I will take a minute to thank the Senator 
from South Dakota. We had a miscommunication, and I will let it go at 
that. We have to work together. We do not surprise each other. I think 
we are on the right track.
  It is my understanding that the Senator from South Dakota would agree 
to 40 minutes equally divided, or more?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Yes, 40 minutes, I think, is adequate time to consider 
this amendment.
  Mr. DOLE. Prior to a vote or a motion to table in relation to the 
amendment.
  Mr. DASCHLE. As I understand it, there will be no second degree 
amendments.
  Mr. DOLE. Right. I ask unanimous consent that what was just stated be 
the order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. It is my understanding, also, that following disposition of 
this amendment, maybe after some debate, we will go to final passage.
  Mr. DASCHLE. That is my understanding, as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this amendment starts where the last 
amendment left off. It simply says that we ought to have a resolution 
that takes us at least through the month of December, setting as a 
target date December 22. That is what the earlier amendment did. This 
amendment would accomplish the same thing.
  Second, it uses the same level of spending for all of those agencies 
of Government affected as the previous continuing resolution--the same, 
again, as the amendment we proposed this morning.
  So in an effort to accommodate what I hoped would be a very serious 
negotiation on reconciliation, we would offer this continuing 
resolution, with the expectation that we could avoid facing another 
crisis for at least for another 4 weeks. So we start with an 
appreciation that it is going to take longer than a couple of weeks to 
resolve all of the outstanding differences that we have with respect to 
reconciliation. If that is the case, rather than revisiting the issue, 
let us be serious about a continuing resolution. Let us move this date 
to a point that is practical, that is prudent, that accepts the fact 
that we may not be able to finish our work prior to that time.
  Second, Mr. President, it simply says if we are going to insist in 
this resolution that there be a 7-year budget, that we use the 7-year 
budget timeframe within which to resolve all the other differences, 
priorities, and circumstances that we have, and then let us do a couple 
of other things. Let us also, since we are setting some parameters 
here, decide that we are not going to use the Medicare trust fund as a 
pool from which to draw resources to pay for a tax cut. Let us not do 
that. And let us not use this process, this particular piece of 
legislation, to exacerbate income distribution even more than it is.
  In other words, let us not build upon what is already happening in 
this country, where more and more of the wealth is being shifted to the 
upper-income levels. And to avoid that, let us assume that there will 
be a tax break; or let us just say if there is a tax break, the 
resources we will spend for those tax breaks will all go to those 
making under $100,000 a year--that is, no tax breaks for those making 
more than $100,000 a year.
  So, Mr. President, that is really what this amendment does. First, it 
allows us to do our work through December 22. Second, it sets funding 
levels where they have been in the past continuing resolution. Third, 
it says if we are going to have a 7-year budget resolution, let us at 
least recognize that that is a constraint that might warrant a couple 
of other constraints--the first being the protection of Medicare from 
cuts to finance tax breaks. We have had votes on it in the past. I 
think this Senate has been on record now on a number of occasions that 
it is not right, that it is not acceptable, that it is not something 
that even some Republicans have indicated they can support--to block 
the use of Medicare resources for purposes of a tax cut--under any 
circumstances.
  I, frankly, think that is one of the most challenging of all the 
things that we are going to be facing as we sit down to negotiate a 
final reconciliation package. How do you pay for the tax cut? I know we 
are told by CBO that there is going to be roughly a $170 billion 
dividend. Frankly, I am amazed that we can project a dividend 7 years 
out without really knowing whether there is going to be a recession or 
what kind of economic growth there is going to be.
  We are going to have less economic growth, I remind my colleagues, 
using CBO growth projections at 2.3 percent than we have had in the 
last 25 years. In the last 25 years, we are told that the growth, on 
the average, was 2.5 percent. So what CBO is telling us is that we are 
going to have a balanced budget at the end of 7 years, but the growth 
is only going to be 2.3 percent, two-tenths of a percent less than what 
we have had historically. That seems inconsistent to me, and it is hard 
to understand how one generates dividends from that. But let us assume 
there is a dividend of some $170 billion. The tax cut is over $220 
billion. It may even be $245 billion, if our House colleagues have 
their way.
  So the question is: Where does the additional amount of revenue come 
from? We all know that this is all pretty flexible here. We all know 
that, in the meantime, before the dividend is realized, that revenue 
has to come from somewhere because the tax cuts start immediately. 
Well, the tax cut revenue is going to come from pools of resources 
already in the budget. And the only pools of resources available are 
Medicare and Medicaid, to the degree we need large revenue sources to 
pay for the tax cut.
  Mr. President, that has been our concern from the very beginning, a 
very legitimate concern about paying for tax cuts from revenue that is 
already 

[[Page S 17172]]
dedicated to virtually the most important function, in my view, 
virtually in the entire budget. The health care of senior citizens, the 
health care of those who are unemployed, insured only by Medicaid, the 
health care of those who are going to nursing homes--that is what we 
are talking about, providing a safety net, some security, to those 
people who have counted on it now for 30 years.
  Mr. President, that is a fundamental question that in our view ought 
to be addressed. If we are going to set out 7 years as a precondition, 
it is our view we also ought to set out preconditions about where 
Medicare and Medicaid resources go.
  We recognize the need to bring about trust fund solvency. We are not 
talking about solvency here. We are talking about $270 billion in cuts, 
$181 billion more than what the trustees tell us we need for solvency. 
For what reason? Unfortunately, it is our view, it is to provide the 
tax cuts that, in our view, simply are not necessary in many cases.
  That is the first stipulation.
  The second stipulation is that if we are going to have those tax 
cuts, at least ensure they go to those who have the greatest need. Make 
sure it is working families whose incomes are already stretched with 
college and a whole range of difficulties. Make sure they are the ones 
who are held harmless in all of the cuts and to make sure, to the 
extent we can, that if we have tax cuts, they go to those working 
families who need it the most.
  I really do not know that somebody making $2 million or $3 million or 
$4 million needs a tax cut, regardless of the circumstances. I do not 
think somebody with our income level, regardless of what it may be now 
under this difficulty we are facing, needs a tax cut.
  We do not need a tax cut. And certainly no one making more than 
$1,000,000 a year needs a tax cut--not if we are really serious about 
balancing the budget, not if we are really serious about bringing down 
not only the deficit but the debt.
  I have always been curious, and I have never had one of my 
conservative friends respond to this, are they not as concerned about 
the aggregate debt as they are about the deficit? The aggregate 
deficits total $6 trillion.
  So even if we reach a balanced budget, we still have $6 trillion of 
indebtedness out there--$6 trillion. I have not heard one of my 
Republican colleagues give me any indication as to what they think 
ought to be done with that.
  How are we going to buy down that debt? Are we going to be content to 
leave it out there to continue to pay the interest on it? It seems to 
me before we start talking about tax breaks not only should we dedicate 
our efforts to reducing the deficit but we should dedicate our efforts 
to reducing the debt as well.
  I know my colleague from Massachusetts is here. How much time 
remains, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10 minutes 49 seconds.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I inquire of Senator Daschle if he would possibly yield 
for a question.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. KENNEDY. It seems to me, and I ask whether the Senator would 
agree with me, that the President of the United States, when the 
initial continuing resolution was sent down there, it had the increase 
of the premium--some $52 billion.
  At that time, he vetoed it and our Republican friends said, all 
right, we will not put in that increase for the premiums. All we are 
interested in is a balanced budget.
  Now we have the real intention of our Republican friends, because I 
do not know whether the minority leader has had a chance to examine the 
reconciliation that will be up here on the floor tomorrow which right 
here on title VIII has all of the premium increases that would have 
been increased on the continuing resolution, they went through it and 
said all they were interested in was a balanced budget.

  Here we have--tomorrow we will be addressing these issues. Is the 
Senator familiar that all of those increases in Medicare are going to 
be part of their program?
  The point I am just making is all day long and just recently this 
evening we heard about the willingness of Mr. Gingrich and our 
Republican leader who wanted to get a balanced budget.
  Tomorrow we are going to have the $270 billion Medicare cuts, the $52 
billion in additional premiums which will result in $2,500 additional 
premiums, the Medicaid cuts of $180 billion, the student loan cuts of 
$4.9 billion, and the raid on the pensions which we passed here, 94 to 
5--$20 billion raid on worker pensions.
  Does the Senator agree with me that this argument that is being made 
here that we have to pass this this evening and all we are interested 
in is trying to get the President to sign this so we can have a 
balanced budget, we are glad to work the priorities out with the 
President, that is rather a hollow statement and comment given the fact 
that our Republican friends have worked this out in a closed session 
with effectively only Republicans participating, and they are doing 
just what we warned they would do in terms of cutting the Medicare $270 
billion and tax breaks for the wealthiest individuals at $240 billion? 
Does the Senator agree with me that has some inconsistency in terms of 
what this issue is really all about?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Massachusetts makes a very, very good 
point. This is just the beginning.
  The real debate will begin perhaps as early as tomorrow when we get 
the reconciliation package. As the Senator noted, none of us have had 
the opportunity to see this package yet. It will be on the floor in the 
next 48 hours at some point.
  We know, given what the House did and what the Senate did, there are 
huge cuts--three times more cuts than we have ever seen before, for 
Medicare, cuts that go deeply into the program, that go way beyond 
trust fund solvency, cuts that will be used to create the pool of 
resources, to create the tax cuts that the Republican majority 
continues to want to defend.
  That is what this is all about.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Even if the President signed this resolution tomorrow, 
these Medicare cuts of $270 billion would still be up here on the floor 
of the Senate--our senior citizens ought to know it--and there is every 
indication that the votes are there to pass it.
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is right. We may have taken it out of the 
last continuing resolution. It was dropped from the CR, but it is in 
the budget reconciliation bill. It is in the permanent legislation. It 
is in the language that we are going to be voting and debating 
beginning tomorrow, in all of its detail, spelling out exactly how 
deeply they are going to cut into the Medicare and Medicaid programs. 
We will see it tomorrow.
  We know it is there tonight. We know that there is a huge cut in 
Medicare. We know that is the pool of resources from which they will 
pay for the tax cut. That much we know. All the other details we still 
do not know.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Finally, because I see my friend and colleague, this is 
one Senator who finds this whole exercise of Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Dole 
to be rather a hollow one. This idea that all you have to do is 
indicate to us that we are headed for a balanced budget goal and we are 
quite ready to sit down with you and work out the priorities. I do not 
know how many times I have heard that on the radio and heard it last 
night. All the while, the priorities are going to be voted on by this 
body under a very strict time agreement, which will be $270 billion 
cuts in the Medicare Program.
  I think our senior citizens ought to understand who is standing up 
for them in this debate. It has been the President. It has been the 
minority leader. It is the Senator from Nebraska, and I am proud to be 
supporting their efforts.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator for his comments. I yield to the 
Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. I want to ask a question, too, of our Democratic leader.
  First, we have been hearing on television and here on the floor that 
the Democrats do not want to balance the budget in 7 years.
  I have looked--and I do not think we have emphasized that the very 
first part of the amendment you have offered says the President and the 
Congress shall enact legislation in the 

[[Page S 17173]]
104th Congress to achieve a unified balance of the budget no later than 
fiscal year 2002.
  As I understand and interpret that--but I want to hear it from the 
lips of my leader--here is a case where we are proposing to balance a 
budget by the year 2002; is that correct?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct.
  There is a way to balance the budget by the year 2002. The Senator 
from Nebraska has voted for it. The Senator from South Dakota has voted 
for it. Many of our colleagues have voted for it.
  If you do not have a tax cut, if you use reasonable economic 
projections about what will happen in the next 7 years, there is a real 
possibility that you could achieve a meaningful balanced budget in 
perhaps even less than 7 years.
  But it is the Republican insistence on a tax cut, it is the 
Republican insistence on economic growth projections that go way below 
what we have experienced historically, for at least the last 25 years, 
that make many of us very skeptical about whether it is achievable in 7 
years.
  Mr. EXON. Then the Republican charge that I have heard over and over 
and over again, that the Democrats simply do not want to balance the 
budget in 7 years, is blown pretty much sky high with the amendment 
that you have offered on behalf of the minority?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senator is absolutely correct. This 
makes it very clear that it is not our desire to oppose a 7-year 
balanced budget amendment necessarily. What I said this morning holds 
this evening. It is our desire to ensure that we have to have some 
better understanding of what we are talking about here.
  We will support a 7-year budget resolution if we know that Medicare 
is not going to be used to pay for tax cuts; if we know that any tax 
cuts incorporated into the legislation will be targeted to those making 
less than $100,000 per year. Those kinds of things are fundamental to 
our enthusiasm, our level of support for whatever else may have come 
from the negotiations during reconciliation.
  Mr. EXON. If I understand the amendment, then, offered by the 
Democratic leader, that we just talked about, it provides for balancing 
the budget by the year 2002; and then second and equally important it 
says that, if we have a tax cut, that tax cut would be limited to only 
American families making less than $100,000 a year? So if you made over 
$100,000 a year you would not get any tax cut, if we have one. If we do 
have a tax cut all of it goes to those making $100,000 or less, is that 
correct?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is absolutely correct.
  I thank the Senator and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have just heard a preposterous 
argument. The Republicans are saying to the President of the United 
States: Mr. President, we have been working since the beginning of this 
year to develop a balanced budget that is real, that the true 
authenticator of economics, the reliable group that the President told 
us to work with, says is in balance in the year 2002.
  The President does not like our priorities. He does not like to give 
tax cuts, apparently. And perhaps the Democrats do not want to give any 
tax cuts. So, we are suggesting that here is a compromise. You do what 
you want, but we are going to vote on what we want. And we will go to 
conference with you, Mr. President.
  You are not bound to anything. If you do not want any taxes you go to 
the table and say we do not want any. If you do not want to reduce 
Medicare savings, you go to the table and say you do not want to. If 
you want to bring the CPI to the table, you bring it to the table. 
Whatever it is. We are only asking for a commitment that, in 7 years, 
you will have a balanced budget using conservative economics. So that 
we will not be burned again, and think we got a balanced budget only to 
find that we got a lot of it as a gift from economic assumptions that 
were too high.
  For, as the distinguished occupant of the chair has said, if the 
Office of Management and Budget, which makes it easier to balance the 
budget because you do not have to cut so much if you have these 
exciting high economic assumptions--if they happen to be wrong, you 
never get a balanced budget. That is not the case if we use the 
economics we propose. If we happen to be wrong you get a surplus. And 
what would be wrong with that?

  That is one argument. But let me repeat it just slightly--just a 
different way. We have been hearing from the other side: Do not tell 
the President what to do. We have been trying to say we are not trying 
to tell him what to do. All we want is a commitment to a balanced 
budget in 7 years, using real economics. That is all we want. The 
priorities are up to you. But we have our priorities. We want a vote on 
them and we want to send them to the American people and send them to 
you and you veto them. And all we are saying is, this Congress, with 
the President who is now in the White House, we get together and our 
only commitment is to produce a balanced budget in 7 years using real 
economics. There is no other commitment.
  The Democrats tonight are saying wait a minute. We would like to tell 
you what is going to be in that budget in advance, when they have not 
had to vote on anything. They have not produced a balanced budget. They 
have not told us what they would restrain and what they would not 
restrain--I take it back. Mr. President, 19 have; 19 Democrats put a 
budget before us.
  Incidentally, they used the same economics we used and they got a 
balanced budget. They did not want to cut taxes so they did not cut 
taxes. But they produced one. What is the discussion about? Now they 
want to tell us how to run that budget when they have not voted on 
anything. They have not voted on what to do in Medicare and Medicaid 
and taxes. And they would like, now, to tell us: Wait a minute, we 
would like to tell you in advance what we cannot do.
  All we are suggesting is, Mr. President, sit down with us, and your 
team and some Democrats, and just use one benchmark. Do you want a 
balanced budget in 7 years using real economics? No other test. That is 
the only issue.
  Now, Mr. President, because the issue has been raised about Medicare, 
Medicaid and taxes, we must speak to them. So let me refresh 
everybody's recollection.
  The Washington Post today lends real credence to why we should vote 
this particular amendment down and why the people of this country ought 
to listen to the rhetoric of the last 15 minutes and be very suspicious 
of what it is really about. This editorial today, by the Washington 
Post, called ``The Real Default'' addresses the demagoguery of the 
President of the United States and the leading Democrats, who choose to 
make the case to the senior citizens for them not to worry. We do not 
have to change anything in Medicare. Everything is rosy. And this calls 
it what it is.
  It will destroy any opportunity to get a balanced budget. It will put 
us in a position where we are living year by year to see whether the 
senior citizens have a program of health care. Once again, at this 
point in my debate, I ask unanimous consent to have this editorial 
printed in the Record. I will merely read one part of it.

       We've said some of this before; it gets more serious. If 
     the Democrats play the Medicare card and win, they will have 
     set back for years, for the worst of political reasons, the 
     very cause of rational government in behalf of which they 
     profess to be behaving.

  Meaning there will be no chance to fix the budget of the United 
States.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

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

                            The Real Default

       The budget deficit is the central problem of the federal 
     government and one from which many of the country's other, 
     most difficult problems flow. The deficit is largely driven 
     in turn by the cost of the great entitlements that go not to 
     small special classes of  rich  or  poor  but  across  the 
     board to almost all Americans in time. The most important of 
     these are the principal social insurance programs for the 
     elderly, Social Security and Medicare. In fiscal terms, 
     Medicare is currently the greatest threat and chief offender.
       Bill Clinton and the congressional Democrats were handed an 
     unusual chance this year to deal constructively with the 
     effect of Medicare on the deficit, and they blew it. The 
     chance came in the form of the congressional Republican plan 
     to balance the budget 

[[Page S 17174]]
     over seven years. Some other aspects of that plan deserved to be 
     resisted, but the Republican proposal to get at the deficit 
     partly by confronting the cost of Medicare deserved support. 
     The Democrats, led by the president, chose instead to present 
     themselves as Medicare's great protectors. They have 
     shamelessly used the issue, demagogued on it, because they 
     think that's where the votes are and the way to derail the 
     Republican proposals generally. The president was still doing 
     it this week; a Republican proposal to increase Medicare 
     premiums was one of the reasons he alleged for the veto that 
     has shut down the government--and never mind that he himself, 
     in his own budget, would countenance a similar increase.
       We've said some of this before; it gets more serious. If 
     the Democrats play the Medicare card and win, they will have 
     set back for years, for the worst of political reasons, the 
     very cause of rational government in behalf of which they 
     profess to being behaving. Politically, they will have helped 
     to lock in place the enormous financial pressure that they 
     themselves are first to deplore on so many other federal 
     programs, not least the programs for the poor. That's the 
     real default that could occur this year. In the end, the 
     Treasury will meet its financial obligations. You can be 
     pretty sure of that. The question is whether the president 
     and the Democrats will meet or flee their obligations of a 
     different kind. On the strength of the record so far, you'd 
     have to bet on flight.
       You'll hear the argument from some that this is a phony 
     issue; they content that the deficit isn't that great a 
     problem. The people who make this argument are whistling past 
     a graveyard that they themselves most likely helped to dig. 
     The national debt in 1980 was less than $1 trillion. That was 
     the sum of all the deficits the government had previously 
     incurred--the whole two centuries' worth. The debt now, a 
     fun-filled 15 years later, is five times that and rising at a 
     rate approaching $1 trillion a presidential term. Interest 
     costs are a seventh of the budget, by themselves now a 
     quarter of a trillion dollars a year and rising; we are 
     paying not just for the government we have but for the 
     government we had and didn't pay for earlier.
       The blamesters, or some of them, will tell you Ronald 
     Reagan did it, and his low-tax, credit-card philosophy of 
     government surely played its part. The Democratic Congresses 
     that ratified his budgets and often went him one better on 
     tax cuts and spending increases played their parts as well. 
     Various sections of the budget are also favorite punching 
     bags, depending who is doing the punching. You will hear it 
     said that someone's taxes ought to be higher (generally 
     someone else's), or that defense should be cut, or 
     welfare, or farm price supports or the cost of the 
     bureaucracy. But even Draconian cuts in any or all of 
     these areas would be insufficient to the problem and, 
     because dwelling on them is a way of pretending the real 
     deficit-generating costs don't exist, beside the point as 
     well.
       What you don't hear said in all this talk of which programs 
     should take the hit, since the subject is so much harder 
     politically to confront, is that the principal business of 
     the federal government has become elder-care. Aid to the 
     elderly, principally through Social Security and Medicare, is 
     now a third of all spending and half of all for other than 
     interest on the debt and defense. That aid is one of the 
     major social accomplishments of the past 30 years; the 
     poverty rate for the elderly is now, famously, well below the 
     rate for the society as a society as a whole. It is also an 
     enormous and perhaps unsustainable cost that can only become 
     more so as the baby-boomers shortly begin to retire. How does 
     the society deal with it?
       The Republicans stepped up to this as part of their 
     proposal to balance the budget. About a fourth of their 
     spending cuts would come from Medicare. It took guts to 
     propose that. You may remember the time, not that many months 
     ago, when the village wisdom was that, whatever else they 
     proposed, they'd never take on Medicare this way. There were 
     too many votes at stake. We don't mean to suggest by this 
     that their proposal with regard to Medicare is perfect--it 
     most emphatically is not, as we ourselves have said as much 
     at some length in this space. So they ought to be argued 
     with, and ways should be found to take the good of their 
     ideas while rejecting the bad.
       But that's not what the president and congressional 
     Democrats have done. They've trashed the whole proposal as 
     destructive, taken to the air waves with a slick scare 
     program about it, championing themselves as noble defenders 
     of those about to be victimized. They--the Republicans--want 
     to take away your Medicare; that's the insistent PR message 
     that Democrats have been drumming into the elderly and the 
     children of the elderly all year. The Democrats used to 
     complain that the Republicans used wedge issues; this is the 
     super wedge. And it's wrong. In the long run, if it succeeds, 
     the tactic will make it harder to achieve not just the right 
     fiscal result but the right social result. The lesson to 
     future politicians will be that you reach out to restructure 
     Medicare at your peril. The result will be to crowd out of 
     the budget other programs for less popular or powerful 
     constituencies--we have in mind the poor--that the Democrats 
     claim they are committed to protect.
       There's a way to get the deficit down without doing 
     enormous social harm. It isn't rocket science. You spread the 
     burden as widely as possible. Among much else, that means 
     including the broad and, in some respects, inflated middle-
     class entitlements in the cuts. That's the direction in which 
     the president ought to be leading and the congressional 
     Democrats following. To do otherwise is to hide, to lull the 
     public and to perpetuate the budget problem they profess to 
     be trying to solve. Let us say it again: If that's what 
     happens, it will be the real default.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Having said that, let me make sure those who are 
listening tonight do not misunderstand a couple of things.
  If you want to know what is in our budget it should not come as a 
surprise to you. It has been sitting on your desk most of the day. So, 
tomorrow when we vote, here it is, the Congressional Budget Act. If not 
all day, it is here now. If you are interested there it is. I will tell 
you what is in it.
  Medicare is not cut. Medicare will grow 7.7 percent a year for the 
next 7 years; 7.7 percent.
  Medicaid will grow at the rate of 5.5 percent a year. Medicaid will 
grow 42 percent. Would anybody have guessed that from what we are 
hearing here on the floor of the Senate?
  Inflation is at about 2.5 percent. Medicare is going to grow at 7.7 
percent. In fact, Medicare spending will go from $178 billion to $294 
billion. Medicaid spending, that is the program for the poor, from $89 
billion to $127 billion. I do not think either of those, to any 
Americans listening, are cuts. They are substantial increases and they 
will suffice and they will have a very valid program for the seniors 
and the poor people in health care. We will do it more efficiently with 
more choice.
  Having said that, let us talk a minute about preserving the Medicare 
trust fund. Mr. President, when the seniors and the other side reads 
this budget, this Balanced Budget Act of 1995, they are going to find 
something very, very interesting and very exciting for senior citizens.
  We made a conscious decision that we wanted to make the trust fund 
solvent, not for 5 years, or 7 years, but for 15 to 17 years. And you 
will read in this that every single penny that is saved in Medicare, 
not just the hospital trust fund savings, every single penny goes into 
the trust fund to save the health care program for the senior citizens.
  So how can we put it in the trust fund and spend it on tax cuts at 
the same time? Every penny of it is in the trust fund. Somebody might 
get up and say, ``Are you serious, Senator Domenici?'' We have never 
done that before. We have never put savings from the general tax fund, 
which is what pays for part of this, we have never put it in that trust 
fund. We decided we would because we want to make it solvent for a long 
enough period of time for us to work on it, not just until the next 
election, but for 15 to 17 years. You cannot put it in the trust fund 
for the seniors and spend it for taxes also.
  (Mr. SANTORUM assumed the chair.)
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, having said that, let me suggest that we 
firmly believe in an annual increase in Medicaid, the program for the 
poor, of 5.5 percent. If you add to it some flexibility in the delivery 
of it, it will be an excellent program covering more poor people than 
are covered today because you will have the flexibility of managed care 
and other delivery systems, which everyone knows are more efficient.
  If that is the case and when we are finished with all our budget work 
we have an economic dividend, that is, a surplus, what would the 
Democrats have us do with it? I assume, from hearing here on the floor, 
that they would have us spend it. For I can draw no other conclusions. 
They would have us spend it.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me just finish this thought. I would submit that, 
if you balance the budget and if you had been fair by the seniors by 
putting every single savings in the trust fund so their fund is 
solvent, if you are giving the poor of America a 5.5-percent increase 
every year for Medicaid and there is a dividend left over of a surplus, 
I submit that you have an exact case of Republicans versus Democrats.
  For what would they do with it? They would spend it. They would say, 
put it back in the budget and spend it on this, that, or the other. 
What do we say? Very simple. We say give it back to the taxpayer. And, 
as a matter of fact, the old tired, wornout argument that they are 
giving it back to the rich 

[[Page S 17175]]
instead of the middle-class, middle-income Americans, is not true. Just 
find the section on taxes and read it. Some $141 billion of those tax 
cuts go as tax credits to the American families with children, and no 
one over $100,000 of earnings gets one penny.
  What is wrong with that? You speak of being profamily, which is 
rhetoric; but you give them back tax dollars to spend, and you are 
helping them with their family. The only thing conceivably that is for 
the rich under their rubric is capital gains, which goes to everyone. 
And that merely says we want you to invest more in America so you can 
make it grow and have a better economic life for the future.
  I will be pleased to yield to my friend.
  Mr. BENNETT. Did I hear the Senator correctly say that the growth of 
Medicare would be 7.7 percent per year?
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BENNETT. Does the Senator recall that under the health care 
proposal offered by George Mitchell last year the growth rate on 
Medicare was held to 7.1 percent per year?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I believe that is right. It was 7.1 or 7.2.
  Mr. BENNETT. Is it the Senator's memory that Senator Kennedy endorsed 
the 7.1 percent of the President's health care program?
  Mr. DOMENICI. My recollection is that he was wholeheartedly in favor 
of that program.
  Mr. BENNETT. Is it the Senator's memory that Senator Daschle endorsed 
the 7.1 percent of Senator Mitchell's proposal?
  Mr. DOMENICI. My recollection is that he wholeheartedly supported it.
  Mr. BENNETT. Is it the Senator's recollection that the majority of 
the Democratic Members of the Senate endorsed the 7.1 percent growth 
rate in Medicare?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I believe that is the case.
  Mr. BENNETT. Does the Senator not agree with the Senator from Utah in 
finding it interesting that since we proposed to allow Medicare to grow 
more rapidly than the President did, more rapidly than the bill 
endorsed by a majority of the Members of the Democratic Party in the 
Senate, that we are now being pilloried as those who would slash 
Medicare?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I believe that is an understatement.
  Mr. BENNETT. Perhaps we should choose the 7.1 percent level that they 
endorsed in the previous Congress when they controlled it and thereby 
slash Medicare a little more.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Maybe we would get their support.
  Mr. BENNETT. I am not that optimistic.
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to read one further sentence out 
of the Washington Post's analysis of the President's position on this.

       Medicare premiums was one of the reasons he alleged for the 
     veto that has shut down the government--and never mind that 
     he himself, in his own budget, would countenance a similar 
     increase.

  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes 30 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I voted earlier today for a clean 
continuing resolution, which simply extended current funding for a 
couple of weeks, to open up the Government and allow for budget 
negotiations to move forward. A simple, clean extension of Federal 
funding, without all the ideological bells and whistles attached, 
should have sailed through this place and would have been signed by the 
President lickety split. But that effort failed.
  I intend to vote for the pending Daschle substitute amendment as 
well, because it is a significant improvement over the Republican 
version, which would have harsh consequences for a host of federal 
efforts to protect children, the vulnerable elderly, and other 
Americans who have been caught in the middle of this unnecessary budget 
showdown. Now that the earlier clean continuing resolution has failed, 
this substitute is the surest, quickest, fairest way remaining to get 
the Federal Government up and running, and to ensure that Federal parks 
are opened, Social Security applications are again taken, Veterans and 
other benefit checks are sent out, passport offices are opened, FBI law 
enforcement training is renewed, and other key Federal functions are 
being performed.
  This Daschle substitute provides for additional interim funding at a 
rate of 90 percent for a host of Federal programs that were wiped out 
altogether by House versions of appropriations bills, and that would 
otherwise suffer cuts of 40 percent in the Republican version of this 
bill. These include the Low Income Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP], 
education for disadvantaged kids, Goals 2000, Safe and Drug-Free School 
efforts, regional economic development programs, homeless assistance, 
and many others. I don't know about other Senators, but energy 
assistance in my State has completely run out of money, and people are 
getting their fuel shut off across my state. This is a real crisis, Mr. 
President, which I described in greater detail earlier this week on the 
Senate floor. This substitute will help bring an end to this energy 
assistance crisis.
  The substitute also embodies other important principles for which we 
have fought. For example, it provides that Medicare and Medicaid 
savings are not to be used to pay for tax cuts. It provides that should 
any tax cuts be included in a final budget agreement, they should only 
go to families with incomes under $100,000. While I have opposed broad-
based tax cuts before we get the budget into balance, I believe that 
this provision moves us in the right direction, and will help to ensure 
that massive Medicare cuts made by the Republicans will not be used to 
pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.
  Finally, it sets a deadline of December 22, which gives us more time 
to get our work done: to send to the President the numerous 
appropriations bills which have been stuck for months in Congress, and 
to send them to him in a form that he can sign into law.
  There is a provision in this substitute that, while it does not have 
the force of law, suggests that Congress should enact a balanced budget 
by the year 2002. I have consistently opposed this, observing that 
since it took us 15 years to get into this mess, starting with the 
massive Reagan tax cuts and defense build-up of the early 1980's, it 
will take us more than 7 years to get out of it. The President has also 
opposed this date, observing rightly that the spending cuts it would 
require in Medicare, Medicaid, and other areas would be draconian and 
irresponsible, and would likely destabilize the economy.
  I agree. I do not believe that we can get there by 2002 without 
excessive cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, education, job training, poverty 
programs, and other key Federal investments in the character, skills, 
health, and educational opportunities of American families. And we 
certainly can't do it by then if a majority of my colleagues continue 
to refuse to scale back defense spending and corporate welfare. But it 
is true that we must eventually get to balance, and I believe that we 
can do it; it's just that it will take us 2 or 3 years more than this 
suggests.
  Mr. President, most of us acknowledge that we are here today, in the 
midst of a Government shutdown, for one major reason: Congress has 
failed to do its job. Let's do our job tonight, and get this substitute 
passed and on to the President for his signature. We have so far been 
able to move only a few appropriations bills to the President this 
year, and even many of those Republicans in Congress knew would be 
vetoed.
  Let us for a change keep the interests of the American people in 
mind, get this substitute bill signed into law, and then begin a full 
and robust debate on the real budget, which slashes Medicare and 
Medicaid in order to pay for massive tax breaks for Americans 
wealthiest citizens, starting tomorrow.
  I look forward to that debate. I do not believe the extremist 
proposals put forward by Speaker Gingrich and his band of merry 
followers in the House are America's priorities. I do not believe 
similar proposals contained in the Senate-passed version of the budget 
bill were America's priorities. I believe this debate, and the 
elections next year, will bear that out. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska. 

[[Page S 17176]]

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I will yield the remainder of our time in a 
moment to the Senator from California.
  I simply thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for finally, at 
long last, giving us the figures that he has been working on now behind 
closed doors for weeks, months, if not years, to arrive here--not all 
day, less than an hour or two ago. We have not had a chance to look at 
it. But at least tomorrow we will proceed to a debate on this.
  I appreciate his giving us the information at least a few hours in 
advance of the major debate.
  I yield the remainder of my time to my colleague from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, anyone who believes the Republicans want 
to protect Medicare just must be living on another planet. I have to 
tell you. You go back through history, you will see who voted in 
Medicare. It was the Democrats.
  I listened to Newt Gingrich from a couple of weeks ago. He wants 
Medicare to wither on the vine. The majority leader bragged to a group 
that he led the charge against Medicare.
  So, do not be fooled. If they support Medicare, they ought to now 
support the Daschle resolution. It says balance the budget in 7 years, 
but protect Medicare and keep the tax cuts for those earning under 
$100,000.
  They keep saying they love Medicare. They keep saying they want to 
protect Medicare. They keep saying they want to balance the budget in 7 
years. They keep saying they care about the middle class.
  This is the moment of truth. Let us come together. I serve on the 
Budget Committee. I offered some amendments that passed to keep the tax 
cuts for people earning under $100,000. We all said we were for 
Medicare.
  What does the Daschle resolution simply say? It simply says we will 
balance the budget in 7 years, and at the same time we will not use 
those tax cuts. We will not use the cuts in Medicare to fund those tax 
cuts.
  It is a wonderful and should be a bipartisan effort.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. The Wall Street Journal said the assumptions are wrong. I 
hope we will support Senator Daschle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to leave the floor. I believe the 
majority leader is en route. He wants to speak for 3 minutes or so. But 
let me have a few closing remarks.
  I say to the Democrats on the other side who have voted to balance 
the budget in 7 years--and there are 19--I say to them that they ought 
to vote this down and vote for the Republican resolution which will put 
the Government back to work and does nothing more than what they have 
been for. It says during this Congress we will pass the balanced budget 
amendment. It will be a 7-year budget, and it will use the economics 
that they used heretofore in their own approaches.
  So I ask them to be consistent tonight, and tonight not join with the 
demagogry of just because it is Republican we can sell the American 
people that it is anti-senior citizen, that it is anti-poor people.
  Let me repeat. The Social Security trust fund will be solvent under 
this proposal for 15 to 17 years and not one penny of the savings in 
any part of Medicare will go to tax cuts. It goes into a trust fund for 
the seniors of America.
  Now, you will not hear that tomorrow, and you do not hear that 
tonight. But we care about senior citizens, and we want their fund 
solvent.
  We also care about little kids, and maybe we even care more about 
children that have not been born. And the truth of the matter is, if 
you listen to that side of the aisle, money grows on trees.
  It does not grow on trees. Somebody pays for it. If we do not change 
things, Mr. President, lo and behold, the money tree will be without 
money and the children not born will be paying up to 80 percent of 
their earnings for our bills.
  What a wonderful life they will have and how thrilled they will be at 
the adult leadership of this decade. They will look at us and say: Who 
were they kidding as they ran around trying to scare seniors while they 
put America into a bankrupt position where we did not have enough money 
to pay, so we borrowed it. We were not around when it was paid back so 
our children and grandchildren have to do it.
  Now, I stand pretty proud that after all these years we are on the 
brink of passing a real balanced budget. But I do not say that the 
President of the United States must accept that. I say he ought to 
accept only one thing and so should they, and that is, let us balance 
this budget. We do not know whose way yet. Maybe half the President's 
way, half our way. But let us commit ourselves to that, and then let us 
open Government and let our people go back to work.
  How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute, 50 seconds.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me close this then, Mr. President.
  I remain thoroughly amazed at the President of the United States and 
his continual day-by-day arguments that the Republicans in the Congress 
are busy about doing all kinds of actions that will hurt people when we 
have not seen a balanced budget from him. We have seen everything from 
a commitment to 5 years, to one that said maybe 10 years, to one with a 
whole batch of new economics that said maybe 8 years, and yet even 
tonight he says he will not sign anything that will harm Americans, 
that will harm seniors, that will hurt the poor, and yet he tells them, 
I am for a balanced budget.
  It just does not ring true. What would ring true would be a very 
simple gesture when we send this bill to him if he signed it and if the 
very next day he set up a team and said, let us get this going.

  I do not know which budget is coming out of it. I do not know whose 
priorities will prevail because, after all, the Congress is Republican 
and the President is Democrat. But we assume in those meetings we would 
all be Americans. But we cannot go there not knowing where we are 
supposed to end up. We cannot just say it will all come out all right. 
We have been at it for years. It has not come out all right. We have 
had all kinds of meetings. It has not come out all right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time for as much 
time as I may consume.
  I did not hear all of the remarks of the distinguished Senator from 
New Mexico, but let me respond to what I did hear.
  I know that the Senator from New Mexico has had the opportunity to 
serve under many Presidents, and he has seen Republicans and Democrats 
in the White House. He knows what the record is for the 1980's and 
early 1990's. Frankly, I think there is a difference between talking 
and doing.
  We heard a lot of talk in the 1980's about the importance of a 
balanced budget, but the fact is we rolled up a deficit five times what 
we had prior to the time a Republican President took office in 1981--
five times, from $800 billion now to almost $6 trillion. So there is a 
difference between talking and doing.
  The Senator from New Mexico did not mention that the United States 
has the lowest deficit of any country on a per GNP basis, any 
industrialized country except Norway. We are lower now than every other 
country. Why? Because the President showed some courage, showed some 
leadership, was able to convince the Congress in 1993 to take the 
single biggest step toward deficit reduction that we have seen in 
decades.
  And what happened? We have the best economic growth. We put 7.5 
million people to work. We have actually seen a downward trend in the 
deficit now for 3 years running. That has not happened since the 
1940's. So I hope everyone understands what the record is here.
  This amendment says we want to continue building on what the 
President has done for the last 3 years. We recognize that we have to 
go further. We recognize the job has not been finished. We recognize 
that we have to set 

[[Page S 17177]]
a time certain, and if you want to insist on 7 years, we have no 
problem with that necessarily. But we also want to recognize that the 
fundamental investments that this country has made in better health, in 
better economic opportunities be protected.
  That is all we are saying; that it is not an either/or; that we can 
balance the budget, but we do not have to do it on the backs of senior 
citizens who need health care. And if we are going to do a tax cut, we 
do not have to give it to those who do not need it.
  That is really what this amendment is saying. We want to balance the 
budget. We want to continue to work with our Republican colleagues, 
even though we did not get much help in 1993 when we committed to that 
plan. We want to make it work now. But we also strongly believe that it 
is important to commit to the kind of protection, the kind of security, 
the kind of opportunity that American people now have had since 1965.
  This amendment is very simple, and, frankly, I do not know how people 
could vote against it. If you support a 7-year budget and if you 
support this concept of not using Medicare to pay for a tax cut, and if 
you support tax cuts but recognize the need to ensure some economic 
equity, then you will want to support this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to table and ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the motion 
to lay on the table amendment No. 3057. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] 
and the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 52 nays 45 as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 580 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     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
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--45

     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
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Moynihan
     Nunn
       
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3057) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am voting for the House-passed 
continuing resolution. As we have debated this measure throughout the 
day, I supported various amendments which have been proposed which I 
think were perfectly reasonable, but now the question is whether to 
vote for or against this continuing resolution. The fatal flaws in the 
previous version have been removed. Thanks to the President's resolve, 
Medicare beneficiaries do not face a Medicare premium increase, and I 
hope and expect the President will continue to persevere with regard to 
the extremist reconciliation bill, which contains even greater 
increases for Medicare beneficiaries.
  Balancing the Federal budget has been my priority since first coming 
to the Senate, and this resolution commits us to a legislative approach 
to reaching that goal by 2002. I ran on that issue. I proposed an 82-
plus point plan with specific, balanced cuts to achieve a balanced 
budget in 5 years, and I was proud to support the President's $600 
billion deficit reduction package during the 103d Congress, a package 
that contained many of the provisions I included in my own plan.
  I have also been proud to participate in other deficit reduction 
efforts, including the bipartisan proposal put together by Senator 
Kerrey (D-Nebraska) and Senator Brown (R-Colorado), and the package 
developed under the leadership of Senator Kerry (D-Massachusets).
  To me, the language in this continuing resolution means no more and 
no less than a commitment to achieving a balanced budget by 2002 and it 
does so without mangling our Constitution. It does not endorse in any 
way the extremist reconciliation plan that will be before us shortly, a 
plan which is not based on the goal of a balanced budget but on the 
reckless, politically self-serving desire of providing a fiscally 
irresponsible tax cut--tax cuts apparently scheduled to be mailed to 
voters only days before the 1996 elections.
  I firmly believe there is significant bipartisan support in the 
Senate for a responsible budget measure that achieves a balanced budget 
in 7 years, or even sooner. Such a plan would reject the reckless $245 
billion tax cut, make prudent reforms to our Medicare and Medicaid 
Programs, and would ask all areas of Federal spending to share in the 
burden of deficit reduction, including our military, and the special 
interests that benefit from the massive spending done through the Tax 
Code.
  That is the formula for a budget plan that cannot only be enacted 
into law, but can be sustained over the entire lifetime of the 
glidepath to a balanced budget. It is very much like the alternative 
budget plan I supported that was offered by Senator Conrad (D-North 
Dakota) during the budget resolution debate last spring, and is a 
budget I believe the President would sign. I hope we can soon begin to 
work toward such a budget.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise to announce how I will vote on the 
pending continuing resolution--and why.
  Earlier today I voted for the Democratic ``clean'' continuing 
resolution because I believe that is the appropriate way to authorize 
the continued operation of the government, even though I have long 
supported the 7-year commitment to balance the budget using CBO 
numbers. The Republican Majority opposed that amendment, and it was 
defeated, despite the fact that the lapse in agency spending authority 
was caused by the failure of Congress to pass the 13 appropriations 
bills on time.
  I also voted for the Democratic substitute which would have required 
a unified balanced budget in 7 years while assuring that Medicare and 
Medicaid would not be cut to pay for tax breaks and any tax cuts would 
go only to families making under $100,000. I supported this amendment 
even though I have said repeatedly that I do not believe we should pass 
any new tax cuts at all, no matter how well targeted, until we actually 
achieve a balanced budget.
  But that amendment met the same fate as the first Democratic 
substitute.
  I voted as I did on these Democratic substitutes because I could do 
so in good faith--and because I wanted to support the President and the 
minority leader.
  But the question before us now is whether to vote for or against a 
continuing resolution that would end this indefensible partial shutdown 
of the Federal Government, which has created unnecessary uncertainty 
for hundreds of thousands of blameless federal workers, generated 
hardship for countless Americans, disrupted many local 

[[Page S 17178]]
economies, and further eroded confidence in our government and its 
leaders.
  I have always said that achieving fiscal discipline would present 
tough choices. And this vote presents one of these tough choices. I 
take the minority leader's opposition to this resolution and the 
President's expected veto very seriously. I would like to continue to 
support them tonight as I have on so many other occasions. But fiscal 
responsibility is at the very core of everything I have ever stood for 
as a public official. And the conditions attached to this pending 
resolution incorporate precisely the advice I have urged both privately 
and publicly.
  To be sure, it was Congress that precipitated this government 
shutdown by failing to pass appropriations bills on time. And it then 
exacerbated the problem by challenging the President of the United 
States, a President whom I know for a fact has been fully prepared to 
negotiate seriously on spending priorities for a long time.
  And none of this had to happen.
  Even though this situation could--and should--have been avoided, 
emotions are raw today. Too many American families have suffered 
needless disruption and uncertainty. Too many hardworking federal 
employees have been held hostage by our actions and denigrated as non-
essential, which diminishes the value of their labor and their service 
to their county. So while I continue to support the position of the 
President and many of my Democratic colleagues that a ``clean'' 
resolution is the appropriate way to proceed, I cannot in good 
conscience vote against a measure that reflects the kind of fiscal 
restraint I believe is necessary and would end the protracted agony of 
so many of the people I represent.
  Mr. DOLE. We are now ready for final passage. I wonder if we might 
get an agreement on debate on final passage. Maybe 30 minutes equally 
divided, or we could vote and everybody could talk.
  By popular demand we will vote. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the joint resolution for 
the third time.
  The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 122) was ordered to a third reading, 
and was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the 
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] 
and the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Nunn] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 37, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 581 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bradley
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moseley-Braun
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--37

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Moynihan
     Nunn
       
  So the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 122) was passed.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
joint resolution was passed.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                             Change of Vote

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on the previous 
vote on the motion to table by the Senator from New Mexico--I was 
recorded as voting ``aye''--that my vote be recorded as ``no.''
  That will not change the outcome of the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)

                          ____________________