[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 183 (Friday, November 17, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17227-S17244]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         THE 7-YEAR BALANCED BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1995

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be a 
period of debate on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2491, the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1995. Debate consumed during this period will be 
counted against the 10-hour statutory time limit under the 
Congressional Budget Act.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I can indicate to our colleagues what the 
program is for today. We have a consent agreement that the time, as of 
5 minutes ago, the 10-hour statutory time on the conference report on 
the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 started to run. We will not receive 
that from the House until about 3 o'clock. In any event, the time has 
started running, and if we use all the time, we will vote about 
sometime after 11 o'clock tonight. If we do not use all the time, 
obviously, we will vote at an earlier time.
  Anybody who would like to debate this particular subject, now is a 
good time to start. If there is no indication of debate, why, we can be 
in recess subject to call of the Chair, whatever.
  And on tomorrow, it will be HUD-VA, if available, and there may be 
another CR tomorrow coming from the House, which will be a narrow CR 
dealing with Social Security, veterans, and Medicare, those three 
topics. But we have to have consent over here before we can bring that 
up. If we put in a lot of amendments, we will not get it passed. These 
are subjects the President mentioned in his statement yesterday. That 
will probably come over tomorrow.
  I am somewhat doubtful the HUD-VA is going to make it. I do not think 
they will finish in the House in time. That is sort of where we are. I 
hope we can have some resolution of the continuing resolution. I 
understand there are different people talking to different people about 
different things.
  [Laughter.]
  I do not know whether they are going to get it resolved or not. Mr. 
President, I ask the minority leader if he has anything to add?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I share the majority leader's view that 
this is a good time to begin the debate on the reconciliation bill. I 
know a number of our colleagues have expressed an interest in beginning 
the debate and have statements to make. I think we can proceed with 
that and try to give them an update from time to time on what, if 
anything, the negotiations may be producing with regard to an agreement 
on the CR.
  Mr. DOLE. The time will be under the control of the Senator from New 
Mexico and the Senator from Nebraska, or their designees.
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the leader yield for a question?
  Mr. DOLE. Sure.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] 
and I were going to introduce legislation, Kassebaum-Leahy legislation. 
I wonder at what point it will be an appropriate time.
  Mr. DOLE. Right now.
  Mr. LEAHY. I cannot speak for the Senator from Kansas on how much 
time she needs, but I know I only need about 4 or 5 minutes.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I do not need any longer, maybe even 
less than that. It is just to introduce some legislation.
  Mr. DOLE. As far as I know, if there is no objection by the managers, 
it can be done right now.
  Mr. EXON. I will be pleased to yield whatever time is necessary 
equally off the 10 hours.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Feingold 
pertaining to the introduction of S. 1419 are located in today's Record 
under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is a historic day, in my opinion, 
in the life of our country. While we do not have the resolution, a 
balanced budget amendment of 1995, over here from the House, yet I am 
holding the text of it in my hand.
  Essentially today, in my opinion, we have finally cast aside years of 
irresponsibility. Today, we will keep our word to the American people. 
Today, for the first time in 25 years, the Congress of the United 
States will approve the first balanced budget in more than 25 years.
  Today, we will act like adults and give this Nation the grown-up 
leadership needed to protect its future and allow our children to 
prosper.
  Leaders, it has been said, are the custodians of a nation, of its 
ideals, its values, its hopes, and its aspirations-- those things which 
bind a nation and make it more than a mere aggregation of individuals. 
By governing for today, it is obvious that it is much easier to just 
govern for today than leading for the future. It does not take a great 
deal of talent or courage to solve an immediate need. It is a lot 
harder to pave the pathway for the future.
  Yet, we who serve in public office and those of us who do have a high 
responsibility to protect a great nation's future, we must work on 
behalf of those who will follow us, our children and our grandchildren. 
When the facts are clear, we must act in their behalf or we are not 
leaders. We are the trustees of the future and of their future, of 
their legacy, of their opportunities. Leadership requires courage. It 
requires boldness and foresight to safeguard a nation's ambitions and 
comfort and to confront its challenges.
  We have tried to provide the leadership needed to throttle runaway 
Federal spending and give the American people the first balanced budget 
in more than a quarter century. That might not be much in the life of 
this Nation, but essentially what we have rung up on the credit card is 
now approaching $5 trillion.
  So during that 25 years since we last had a balanced budget, we have 
mortgaged our future in a rather almost irreparable way. We better fix 
it, and fix it now.
  So, for many of us who have thought this was the biggest 
socioeconomic issue that our Nation has, this is a red-letter day. It 
is a day of great pride.
  Now, there is no use kidding ourselves. What we have done is 
controversial and difficult. Obviously, the President says he will veto 
it. But it is also obvious that with that veto pen comes a high 
responsibility. The shoulders of the President will have a very heavy 

[[Page S17228]]
load on them as he exercises that veto pen, because the question will 
be: When will we get a balanced budget, Mr. President? The question 
will be: What is our legacy going to be to our children once we have 
placed this in the hands of the President?

  For it will now be up to him, sometime this evening or tomorrow when 
we finish, it will be up to him, not us. But we will pass it here in 
the Senate as it will pass in the U.S. House.
  It has not been an easy road for scores of Senators. It has been a 
difficult job politically for many Members on our side of the aisle. 
Yes, we are getting beat about the head and shoulders. It has not been 
easy, perhaps, for today more people think we are not doing the right 
thing than think we are doing the right thing. But I believe when you 
do great things and difficult things you have to take a little bit of 
the heat for a while until it all sinks in, in terms of what you really 
have accomplished.
  Again, I repeat: Since we have accomplished it, it will be on the 
shoulders of the President; then, once it is vetoed, to accomplish 
something of equal value and of equal legacy for our people.
  We knew from the beginning this would be difficult. We knew it would 
require determination and endurance, but we had promised the American 
people that we would balance this budget and put an end to persistent 
deficit spending that has been bleeding our Nation dry and leaving our 
children with less of a future than we had, which is not a good 
thought, not one we relish very much as adult leaders in the world's 
greatest democracy and the world's greatest capitalist system, which 
has produced more goods and wealth for our people and for the world 
than any group of people living under any kind of government forever.
  A deficit that is growing by $482 million a day, $335,000 a minute, 
$5,500 every second, and growing--our deficit spending is heaping 
mountains of debt upon our children. It will drag them down. We are 
irresponsible in shackling our children with our bills. If this pattern 
is left unchanged, they will be the first generation of Americans to 
suffer a lower standard of living and less opportunity than their 
parents.

  Yes, if we pass this budget, our budget, we can reverse that tide. We 
can restore our Nation's fiscal equilibrium, and preserve America as a 
land of opportunity, not just for the ``now'' generation, but for 
future generations of children yet unborn.
  Our budget reflects a commitment to responsibility, to generating 
economic growth, creating family-wage jobs, and protecting the American 
dream for all our citizens, young and old. A balanced budget does not 
just mean a better future for our children. It will put more money in 
the pockets of working Americans today. It will mean lower interest 
rates, cheaper mortgages, and lower car payments. With our budget in 
place, working Americans will have an easier time sending their 
children to school or buying their first home.
  Economists predict a balanced budget will result in a 2 point drop in 
interest rates. That is a yearly $200 saving on a typical 10-year loan 
of $10,000, or $2,000. Over the life of a loan, a family will save 
$2,500 a year on a $100,000 mortgage on their home if this budget is 
balanced. We owe it to the American people, and to those who live in 
our houses and make them their homes, to make it a little easier for 
them to live in that style.
  Studies conclude that a balanced budget will boost an average 
family's income. Others say it will create 2\1/2\ million new jobs. 
And, even as we move toward a balanced budget in 2002, under our 
budget, Federal spending will continue to grow.
  We will spend $12 trillion over the next 7 years; a number that is 
almost unfathomable to most American citizens, and to many of us. That 
is only $890 billion less than we would have otherwise spent--around 
$900 billion less.
  Also, we balance this budget without touching Social Security. The 
budget shrinks the Federal bureaucracy, eliminating many Federal 
agencies and departments and programs. And, over time, to meet the 
targets even more will have to be changed.
  We move money and power out of Washington and back to citizens in 
their States and communities. This budget reform will also take care of 
an old, an ancient welfare system, for it, too, will be reformed. But, 
yet, we will maintain a safety net for those in true need, especially 
children.
  It preserves and improves Medicare and it protects Medicare. In fact, 
the way it is written in this document, we make the Medicare system 
solvent for anywhere from 14 to 17 years instead of until the next 
election, or just a few years.

  I want to say to my colleagues who may not agree with every item in 
this package, there may be some portions you would like to change. That 
may happen. But I also want to remind you that this is an honest and 
straightforward balanced budget. In the vernacular of past budget 
debates, you may disagree but there is no smoke and no mirrors, no rosy 
scenarios, no cooking the books, just balancing the books. The 
President says he will veto this budget. As I said a few moments ago, I 
wish he would not. But I think I understand the game and I think I 
understand what the White House is up to. He says he is kinder and 
gentler and he is going to have a kinder and gentler budget, that 
somehow magically gets to balance while spending about $300 billion 
more in domestic programs. He says he can get to balance by spending 
more and cutting less. It sounds a little bit phony. That is because 
the President's so-called budget hides about $475 billion in the smoke 
and mirrors of different economic assumptions from those of the 
Congressional Budget Office, which dictates our economic assumptions 
and our costs of programming.
  The President's document, in my opinion, is a political one, hastily 
thrown together last June in response to a Republican determined effort 
and our passage of the budget resolution which set the path for a 
balanced budget. Yet, I understand sooner rather than later we will 
have to work with our President to get a balanced budget. But I think 
it behooves us here, today, to make sure that the American people 
understand that we had a real balanced budget and when you look at it 
in its entirety, it is a pretty fair document. When you look at it, as 
to what it has accomplished that the people want, it preserves and 
protects Medicare without any question. And for those who come to the 
floor talking about increases in the costs, I remind them that even the 
President has recommended increased costs in Medicare. In fact, some of 
our experts will take to the floor and will bring to the people of the 
country the realization that most of the President's talk in the last 4 
or 5 days about Medicare and not reducing and not cutting Medicare and 
not increasing the fees that have to be paid by seniors--that, in fact, 
the President has already recommended that we do that. Last year he 
recommended it. This year he recommended it. I think there is only a 
couple of dollars difference between his recommendations and ours.
  So, I understand. We might have made a tactical mistake, assuming 
that the President would not play politics with Medicare when we sent 
down our last continuing resolution. But we set that aside for now. We 
will take that up at another date, if in fact we are able to get to the 
table with the President, if he makes sufficient commitment in advance 
so we know we are going to get there. For, obviously, we will not give 
until the President agrees to accept a continuing resolution that 
assures us we are going to go to the table, negotiating about a 
balanced budget at a given time that we can all live with. We believe 
that time is 7 years.

  The reality is that throughout the debate we have had to drag along 
the White House toward a balanced budget. I will not belabor it, but 
clearly the President produced a budget earlier this year that ignored 
the deficit totally. Only after we had our determined effort of many 
months did he put together a balanced budget--allegedly a balanced 
budget--put together very short shrift, a 21-page document, nine of 
which are graphs.
  So, now the time is clear and it is right ahead of us. Sometime 
tonight or early tomorrow we will pass a historic document. It will 
already have passed the House. And then the President of the United 
States will have it firmly and squarely on his shoulders. I believe 
there is hope. I am ready to meet with 

[[Page S17229]]
budget leaders at the White House any time, so they might join with us 
in fashioning a budget that gets to balance in 7 years. I am ready to 
do it any time. But I believe it is far more important that, during the 
next 24 hours, we pass this one, which is our marker, our marker for 
this year and for the future. And I think just getting this budget 
passed will forever change the way we handle our citizens' tax dollars.
  I believe we will have shown that excuses for a balanced budget are 
not justified. Excuses merely mean we do not have the guts to do it, or 
the courage to do it. But it can be done and it should be done. It may 
set the pattern for decades to come, that we do not spend--that we do 
not go in deficit in good economic times, that we pay our bills in good 
economic times so somebody else does not have to pay them, some other 
American who did not even vote on any of this because they were not 
around, or they were too little, or too young, or not born yet.
  So with this background, I believe we have before us a real important 
event in American history. Later on, we will talk in more detail about 
what we actually did in Medicare and Medicaid and tax cuts. I will rely 
on others to give their versions of it, but clearly I will be here 
during the next 12 hours or so to give my version. Since I have tried 
as hard as I could to learn as much as I could about this, it is 
important to me that we get our message across and get it across well. 
I believe we will.
  It is a pleasure working with Senator Exon. We do not agree on a lot 
of things, but I guarantee you, if Senator Exon and I were locked in a 
room and told to come out with a balanced budget that was good, we 
might shock some people. It might be right. For now, we are on other 
sides of the ledger, and I understand that.
  Let me at the end of my remarks insert in the Record a document that 
I was anxious about the last 3 weeks. As we went through our conference 
and had to change a lot of things, I was very anxious that we get this 
one document from the authenticator of budgets, the Congressional 
Budget Office, headed by Dr. June O'Neill, and this was directed to me 
dated November 16: ``Dear Mr. Chairman.'' In essence, it says this 
budget reaches a balance in 2002 and has a surplus of $4 billion. That 
is the story.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter confirming and ratifying that 
be made a part of the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                Washington, DC, November 16, 1995.
     Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
     reviewed the conference report on H.R. 2491, the Balanced 
     Budget Act of 1995, and has projected the deficits that would 
     result if the bill is enacted. These projections use the 
     economic and technical assumptions underlying the budget 
     resolution for fiscal year 1996 (H. Con. Res. 67), assume the 
     level of discretionary spending indicated in the budget 
     resolution, and include changes in outlays and revenues 
     estimated to result from the economic impact of balancing the 
     budget by fiscal year 2002 as estimated by CBO in its April 
     1995 report, An Analysis of the President's Budgetary 
     Proposals for Fiscal Year 1996. On that basis, CBO projects 
     that enactment of the reconciliation legislation recommended 
     by the conferees would produce a small budget surplus in 
     2002. The estimated federal spending, revenues and deficits 
     that would occur if the proposal is enacted are shown in 
     Table 1. The resulting differences from CBO's April 1995 
     baseline are summarized in Table 2, which includes the 
     adjustments to the baseline assumed by the budget resolution. 
     The estimated savings from changes in direct spending and 
     revenues that would result from enactment of each title of 
     the bill are summarized in Table 3 and described in more 
     detail in an attachment.
           Sincerely,
                                                  June E. O'Neill.

                              TABLE 1.--CONFERENCE OUTLAYS, REVENUES, AND DEFICITS                              
                                    [By fiscal year, in billions of dollars]                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    1996     1997     1998     1999     2000     2001     2002  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outlays: Discretionary...........................     534      524      518      516      520      516      515 
                                                  ==============================================================
Mandatory:                                                                                                      
  Medicare\1\....................................     196      210      217      226      248      267      289 
  Medicaid.......................................      97      104      109      113      118      122      127 
  Other..........................................     506      529      555      586      618      642      676 
                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal.....................................     799      843      881      925      984    1,031    1,093 
Net interest.....................................     257      262      261      262      260      254      249 
                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------
    Total outlays................................   1,590    1,629    1,660    1,703    1,764    1,801    1,857 
                                                  ==============================================================
Revenues.........................................   1,412    1,440    1,514    1,585    1,665    1,756    1,861 
Deficit..........................................     178      189      146      118      100       46       -4 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Medicare benefit payments only. Excludes Medicare premiums.                                                  
                                                                                                                
Source: Congressional Budget Office.                                                                            
Notes.--The fiscal dividend expected to result from balancing the budget is reflected in these figures. Numbers 
  may not add to totals because of rounding.                                                                    

  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I have listened with great interest to my 
friend and colleague giving his opening remarks in the debate. I would 
simply thank him for his kind comments, and I agree that we have worked 
together as friends, not always agreeing on all of the issues but at 
least we will continue in the future to work together, and eventually 
that relationship might be the basis for some kind of a workable 
compromise that obviously is going to have to come about, hopefully 
sooner than later.
  Mr. President, since this budget was unveiled last spring--and we are 
just now looking at the final details of it that were presented to us 
for the first time last night as numbers were concerned--we happen to 
feel that the Republicans are asking the American people a question 
that was once made famous by Groucho Marx. Groucho said, ``Are you 
going to believe what you see or what I'm telling you?'' The American 
people see a budget that is unfair. They see a budget that showers tax 
breaks for those living on Easy Street but punishes those slogging it 
out on Main Street. They see a budget that bestows bucks to the wealthy 
but passes the buck to working Americans. They see the Republicans 
pledge to their Contract With America but break the promise of Medicare 
made to American seniors 30 years ago. They see a budget totally out of 
tune with the values of fairness and reasonableness that they hold so 
very dear.
  But to this day the Republicans keep trying to spin this budget, 
blurring its hard edges and test marketing its language as if it were a 
new brand of cereal. But the American people can see through it all. 
The American people see that the Republicans have gone too far, too 
fast, and the American people are right.
  I have spent as much time as any Senator arguing for a balanced 
budget and working for one. It has been an article of faith with this 
Senator. It has been an article of faith with this Senator and many 
others on this side of the aisle who are in general agreement with many 
Senators on the opposite side of the aisle in this regard.
  I must say, though, that one of my biggest disappointments has been 
our inability to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. 
But there is a way, Mr. President, there is a right way to do it and 
there is a wrong way to balance the budget. Regardless of where it 
originates, it must be fair, and it must have shared sacrifice. This 
Republican budget falls flat in that regard. 

[[Page S17230]]


  The ugly truth about this extremist Republican budget is that it has 
no semblance of balance. The overwhelming majority of the mandatory 
reductions come from only two areas--the first are the means-tested 
programs that serve primarily low- and moderate-income Americans. The 
second is Medicare, where three-fourths of the beneficiaries have 
incomes under $25,000 a year.
  Under this budget, ordinary Americans will pay more through higher 
premiums in Medicare, through higher student loan fees, through higher 
contributions for the GI bill benefits, and through cuts of a major 
magnitude, through cuts of a major magnitude in the earned-income tax 
credit. The Republicans keep turning the screws tighter and tighter and 
tighter on the ordinary Americans while opening the spigot of tax 
breaks for the wealthy.
  The $270 billion in Medicare reductions are extreme. It is far more, 
far more than the $89 billion needed to retain solvency of the trust 
fund as recommended by the trustees. Obviously, when the Republicans 
had to make a choice between doing right for our parents and doing 
right for the rich, they, unfortunately, decided to soak it to our 
seniors to the benefit of the wealthiest of Americans. That is one of 
the main points that we are most concerned about with regard to this 
budget rescission that will be vetoed, fortunately, by the President.
  The same is true with approximately $165 billion in Medicare 
reductions. How many of our most vulnerable neighbors will lose all of 
their health insurance? No one knows for sure but estimates have run as 
high as 12 million Americans will lose.
  Rural America's fragile health care system could be shattered through 
the combined Medicare and Medicaid reductions.
  Yes, the fix is in for distribution of the tax breaks. If you are 
making under $30,000 a year, your taxes are going to go up. The events 
of the past week are an absolute disgrace and do not bode well, 
unfortunately, for the future. The extremists have obviously hijacked 
the Republican Party, especially in the House, where there is no 
semblance of reason, fairness, or proportion. The House Republicans 
bared their fangs and they also bared their souls. No wonder the 
American people believe that Republicans have gone too far and way too 
fast. What our Nation needed was a simple extension, just this last 
week, a simple extension of the continuing resolution and the debt 
limit, a short-term bridge, one might say. What we got from the House 
were two bills loaded with so much junk that they looked like a truck 
from the Beverly Hillbillies. So what happened? The Government, 
unfortunately, is shutting down and default looms. The Republican 
majority seemed ready to turn Uncle Sam into a deadbeat dad.
  What the Republicans did not tell the American public is that their 
very own budget reconciliation bill will require that the debt ceiling 
be raised from the present $4.9 to $6.7 trillion by the year 2002. And 
one of the biggest reasons for jacking up the national debt by $1.8 
trillion is to help pay for the $245 billion break in taxes for the 
wealthy.
  Every dollar, every dollar for tax breaks, will have to be borrowed 
or found from some other source, and the American people will have to 
cover the ever-increasing cost resulting from it in the form of 
interest.
  Since the Republicans clearly need the debt ceiling to be raised to 
accommodate their budget, why, oh, why, then, did we have to go through 
this charade of the last week? The answer is an old one. Unfortunately, 
it is politics. The Republicans are trying to twist the arm of the 
President of the United States into accepting an unacceptable budget, 
which the President will not do. They are willing to push this country 
over the edge just to gain better purchase in upcoming negotiations. 
That is unacceptable also to this Senator. And I believe unacceptable 
to the American people.
  In spite of all this acrimony over the past month, I still am not 
without hope. The essayist C.S. Lewis once said that ``Our friends are 
not necessarily people who agree with us, they are people asking the 
same questions.'' I feel that way about many of my friends on the other 
side of the aisle, especially my friend and colleague for so many, many 
years, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator 
Domenici. For many years we have been asking the same questions about 
how to balance the budget.
  Our time on the Budget Committee goes way back to those days when I 
first came here, when Senator Muskie of Maine was here and Senator 
Henry Bellmon was the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee. And I 
must say that I think looking back to those days, we both had great 
respect for Senator Muskie and for Senator Bellmon. And I think by and 
large during our tenure as the leaders of our two parties on the Budget 
Committee, Senator Domenici and I, with our differences, have had to 
try and carry on that bipartisan spirit as best we could.
  For many years then, we, Senator Domenici and I, have been asking the 
same questions about how to balance the budget. This time we came to 
different answers. But in the weeks ahead we may come to an agreement 
because I say to all once again, when all the dust clears, and when all 
the rhetoric is over, then we are going to have to do the true heavy 
lifting by getting a budget that can pass the House and the Senate and 
a budget that will not be vetoed and will be happily signed by the 
President of the United States. That is going to be an enormous task 
under the obvious difficulties that face us. But in the weeks ahead, I 
suggest we must come to agreement.
  In closing, Mr. President, we should not view compromise as a 
weakness. I have always viewed it as a sign of leadership and a sign of 
maturity. And I believe that is the way the American people understand 
it. We know this bill will be vetoed by the President. And in spite of 
the bullying and in spite of the ultimatums, there is no way the 
President will sign it. To this Senator the first compromise is clear, 
and it is compelling. The need is there.
  We must get together and respond as quickly as we can. Both sides can 
continue this trench warfare as long as they want, leaving a scorched 
and desolate landscape. But in the end the heavy lifting, the 
compromise, mutual understandings are going to have to be reached, and 
I will be a part of that. If we do not do that, Mr. President, we are 
going to continue the chaos that we see in America today with the close 
down of the Government.
  Mr. President, I will do all that I can, everything in my power, to 
help facilitate that process. And I am standing ready once again to do 
whatever I can to bring a measure of understanding to this body and 
hopefully in the other body to get on with the budget that is not going 
to be perfect, but a budget that could be workable and a budget that I 
feel can be formulated to balance the income and the outgo of the 
Federal Government in 7 years, as the chairman of the committee has so 
often stated is a necessity.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may use.
  Mr. President, in the eloquent and impassioned remarks by my friend, 
the Senator from Nebraska, outlining his reasons and those of the 
President of the United States for rejecting this historic proposal, 
the first proposal which offers to balance the budget in almost 30 
years, one two-word phrase stood out, and I believe fairly summarizes 
his position and that of the President of the United States. That 
phrase was--and I quote--``simple extension.''
  Why would not the Republican Party grant to the President, the 
Democratic Party, a simple extension of what we have already been 
doing, a simple extension of the policies of the last 30 years, a 
simple extension of policies which promise us $200 billion deficits as 
far as the eye can see, a simple extension of a policy which was 
phrased elegantly in yesterday's Washington Post as ``paying not just 
for the government we have, but for the government we had and did not 
pay for earlier?''
  The policy of the President, the policy of the minority party in this 
body is to do just that, not to pay for the Government we have, not to 
pay for the Government we want, but to consume all of these societal 
goods and send the bill to someone else, in this case, to our children 
and to our grandchildren.
  George Will put it in his column yesterday:


[[Page S17231]]

       Having sought in 1992 a mandate for an empty idea--
     ``change''--he [that is to say, President Clinton] has come 
     to the arguable conclusion that serious change is more 
     trouble than it is worth. Never a martyr to candor, he will 
     not make that argument. [But] still, he does represent a 
     discernible notion of what the Federal Government ought to 
     do--approximately what it is doing.

  And between that idea, simple change, that the Government ought to 
continue to do approximately what it is doing, and the ideas presented 
in this budget, there is, Mr. President, a great gulf fixed. We do not 
stand for a simple extension. We do not stand for a Government which 
continues to do what it has been doing. We stand for a Government which 
provides no more in services than it is willing to pay for.
  The road to that conclusion, seemingly too radical for our 
administration or our friends on the other side of the aisle, is, 
according to them, fraught with great difficulty. But, in fact, of 
course, Mr. President, it does not mean that we must cut the budget. 
The budget of the United States will increase by 3 percent in each and 
every year from now until the budget is balanced. It does not mean that 
we will cut Medicare. Medicare will grow at almost 8 percent a year--
interestingly enough, at a slightly greater rate than it would have 
grown had we adopted the President's proposals for Medicare that were a 
part of his health care bill just one short year ago. Yet, this course 
of action is denounced as inhuman, as impossible, as literally throwing 
millions of Americans into poverty, principally, I suspect, because to 
argue its specific content would be to show the shallowness of the 
opposition to this set of ideas.
  Now, is the proposal which has been laid before us by our wonderfully 
distinguished friend and colleague, the senior Senator from New Mexico, 
in pursuit of nothing other than some form of ideology that says it is 
nice to have two columns of figures balanced against one another? If 
that were the case, arguments against it might have some fairly 
considerable validity. But that is not the case.
  It is this business as usual, this simple extension that caused every 
American, no matter what his or her age last year, to pay an average of 
some $800 in taxes just to cover interest on the national debt; it is 
this simple extension which causes an American born today to inherit an 
average debt of some $187,000 during his or her lifetime just to cover 
interest on our national debt; it is this simple extension, this love 
for the status quo that, according to the Concord Coalition, headed by 
two former Members of this body, one from each party, to report the 
debt and deficit spending has lowered the income of American families 
by an average of $15,000 per year--$15,000 per year, Mr. President; and 
it is the fact that the proposal that is before us today is believed, 
by a very conservative Congressional Budget Office, to have such a 
positive impact on our economy that the Government of the United States 
itself will be $170 billion better off by the year 2002 than it will be 
if we grant a simple extension.
  That $170 billion is a small figure compared to the half trillion 
dollars or more by which the American people will be better off because 
of better job and career opportunities, higher incomes, lower interest 
rates on the homes and the automobiles, and the other goods and 
services that they buy on a time-payment basis.
  Those are the reasons, Mr. President, that this proposal is before 
you. Those are the reasons that this proposal represents such a 
dramatic change in course, as the Senator from New Mexico reported 
earlier. In fact, it is perhaps even a greater change in course than he 
expressed.
  He reported, as we have frequently, that the last time the budget was 
balanced was the year 1969. But balancing the budget in 1969 required 
only modest changes from budget deficits of the previous years. This 
deficit and this simple extension does require a degree of political 
courage and a change of course that has not been matched in the memory 
of any Member of either House of the Congress of the United States; not 
matched by my party in the early 1980's; not matched by the other party 
ever, as far as we can tell.
  We are told that this is too much too fast, and the fundamental 
rationale behind that conclusion is that while a balanced budget may be 
a good idea in the abstract, not now, not on our watch.
  Mr. President, I dredge up into my memory some of my reading in 
college about St. Augustine, who was reported to have written, and I 
paraphrase, ``Grant me repentance and a new life, O Lord, but not 
now.'' That, I think, is the view of those on the other side. The 
President now, for today at least, holds the belief that maybe we can 
balance the budget in 10 years, a period of time at least 5 years 
beyond the end of any term which he could constitutionally hold as 
President of the United States.
  ``Lord, let me repent and grant me a new life, but not now, let 
someone else do it at some later time.'' That is the difference between 
the positions represented by this responsible budget which offers a 
dividend to the American people and their Government of almost a 
trillion dollars and the course of action advocated by my friend from 
Nebraska, and I quote, ``simple extension.'' We are not for a simple 
extension; we are for a new and better course of action.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Chair recognizes the 
Senator from California.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if the Senator will permit me 30 seconds.
  Mrs. BOXER. Absolutely.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New 
Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me comment for Republican Senators, 
we are trying to accommodate everybody who wants to speak. If you could 
send down your names and give us some idea when you might be available 
in the next 3 or 4 hours, we very much would like to accommodate you 
because we do want people to express themselves. We have a lot of time. 
If you can do that, bring it down to the manager's desk and we will try 
to work it out to everybody's convenience.
  I thank the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I am glad as a member 
of the Budget Committee that we have finally gotten to this point where 
we have the reconciliation bill before us, because if ever there was a 
difference between the two parties, this is the time and the place for 
all America to see it. And those people who say there is no difference 
between the parties ought to listen to this debate, because there is a 
huge difference between the two parties. Both want to balance the 
budget. The question is, how do you do it? That is the issue. That is 
why our President has taken such a firm stand and has not blinked and 
has not wavered, and has said, in fact, that he could not possibly be 
President of the United States if these values of the Republicans--
these radical priorities of the Republicans--prevail.

  It is a tough fight. We are all tired. Many of us are very tired. 
There are a lot of workers today, American workers, who are not getting 
paid because of this fight. Of course, every one of the Senators is 
getting paid. Essential workers, who are working, are not getting their 
paychecks now. But every Senator is getting a paycheck. This Senate 
voted twice for the Boxer bill--the no budget-no pay bill. It passed 
unanimously. But Speaker Gingrich is stopping it from coming up in the 
House, and now we are having trouble right here in this Chamber. 
Senator Snowe, a Republican Senator from Maine, has a very important 
bill to treat us like every other Federal employee. She is being 
blocked from bringing it up, for whatever reason. Senator Snowe and I 
are going to continue to try to bring it up because it is very 
interesting that people around here can dish out the pain, but their 
families do not have to worry. I heard one colleague say, ``I cannot do 
that, I have a mortgage to pay.'' That is right. So does every other 
Federal employee out there. The ones who were told to go home wanted to 
work. They have kids that they love and they are not getting paid. So, 
yes, this is a very painful fight. It is painful for a lot of people. I 
know that every single Senator in the U.S. Senate, be he or she 
Republican or Democrat, has stated in speeches that America is ``the 
greatest country in the world.''
  This is the greatest country in the world. Why? Because of the genius 
of the American people, because of the 

[[Page S17232]]
strength of the people who would lay their lives down for this country, 
because of our great democracy, which is the envy of the world. But 
also because of our Constitution.
  I am going to read the preamble to the Constitution. When we get 
elected to this office, be we Republicans or Democrats, we raise our 
right hands to uphold this Constitution. I want to read the preamble, 
which is the reason for our Government:

       We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more 
     perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic 
     Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the 
     general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to 
     ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this 
     Constitution for the United States of America.

  That is our guidance. That is what we are supposed to do--provide for 
the common defense, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, 
promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to 
ourselves and our posterity. That is why we are the greatest Nation in 
the world because, all through the years, in a bipartisan way, we have 
worked to ensure those words.
  Now, I believe in my heart of hearts--and I do not know whether it is 
popular or whether it is unpopular--that this budget that is before 
us--and I tried as a member of the Budget Committee to make it better, 
along with my ranking member, Jim Exon, and the other colleagues on 
that committee--is a radical departure from many years of 
bipartisanship. This budget is a radical departure from bipartisanship. 
It destroys, in my view, what has made us the greatest country in the 
world--values. Values, where we say it is, in fact, important to invest 
in our children and their education; that it is important to invest in 
environmental protection. Just look at Eastern Europe when they tore 
down those walls. It was so polluted, they could not have economic 
development. But, in a bipartisan way, we passed environmental 
legislation.
  This budget guts education, guts environmental protection, guts 
protecting our senior citizens. I have been on this floor and debated 
this with my colleagues, and the script that they have over on that 
side of the aisle is very clever. ``We are not reducing Medicare, we 
are saving it.'' Well, the senior citizens know better. I ask you, who 
do you believe? Speaker Gingrich, who said Medicare should ``wither on 
the vine''? The Republican majority leader, who said, proudly, a month 
ago, ``I led the fight against Medicare?''
  If people in this country believe that the Republican Party, by 
cutting Medicare by $270 billion when the trustees tell us you have to 
cut $89 billion--if the people of the United States believe that is the 
party that is going to protect Medicare, then I say: Read history--not 
ancient history. Go back to the sixties when this program was formed. 
It was the idea of Harry Truman. It passed during Lyndon Johnson's 
days.
  You know what? The last time we had a surplus was when Lyndon Johnson 
was President. When the Republicans took over from Jimmy Carter in 
1980, I remember when President Reagan turned to Jimmy Carter in a 
debate and said, ``There you go again.'' He said, ``I am going to 
balance the budget in 4 years.'' They added more to the debt under the 
years of Ronald Reagan and George Bush than in all the years from 
George Washington up to Jimmy Carter. They would have you believe that 
they are the ones who have always been fiscally responsible.
  Ask them why they increased military spending $30 billion more than 
the Pentagon asked for. Suddenly, their credentials for cutting budgets 
fly out the window. When it comes to Star Wars, go, go, go--even though 
the cold war is over. The weapons systems that were drawn up by the 
Pentagon so we would be prepared to fight with the Soviet Union are not 
going away, they are coming back.
  Fiscally responsible people. When it comes to gutting Medicare, oh, 
yes, they are fiscally responsible. They gut it. When it comes to 
cutting Medicaid, education, the environment, oh, we are tough. But not 
when it comes to the Pentagon.
  When it comes to raising taxes on the people who make under $30,000, 
they are tough. We will get more money from those people. That is what 
they do in this budget. If you earn over $350,000, you get back $5,600 
a year. What is the matter with this picture?
  David Gergen, a Republican, says this Republican budget is harsh. Why 
does he say that? Because 80 percent of the cuts go to the bottom 20 
percent of Americans and 80 percent of the benefit goes to the top 20 
percent of Americans.
  That is the vote we are going to cast here on this reconciliation 
bill.
  Speaker Gingrich says it was his intuition--I am quoting him--that 
led him to a 7-year balanced budget. The President says if we go to 8 
years, 9 years, we can soften the cuts.
  I hope once this bill is vetoed that there will be some compromise. 
We were sent here to keep the Government going, to pass a budget. We 
have to get down to doing just that.
  Let me give, in closing, because I see other colleagues have come 
over to the floor, in very quick version, the top 10 outrageous aspects 
of this GOP reconciliation conference report.
  First, the GOP uses about $270 billion cuts in Medicare to pay for a 
$245 billion tax cut for the wealthy. They are taking the Medicare 
fund, they are gutting it, and taking the money and giving it to the 
wealthiest of members. That is probably the top outrage.
  Second, the GOP increases taxes on working families by $32 billion. 
Outrage No. 2. In other words, a majority of people under $30,000 a 
year get a tax increase in this budget.
  Third, the GOP drastically cuts the corporate alternative minimum 
tax. Do you remember the 1980's when we had lists of corporations that 
paid no taxes? We fixed it by writing the alternative minimum tax. Some 
of these corporations actually got refunds--got refunds. We fixed it. 
This budget reconciliation package takes us back to those bad old days.
  Next, the GOP permits corporate raids on pension funds. Can you 
imagine, you save for your retirement, and in this bill corporations 
can go in and essentially take your money. The money that you put away 
every month, and you look at it, how is it growing, how is it going, 
how is it doing--they can go in there and take that money. That should 
be disallowed. So we outlawed that. It is back.
  While giving tax breaks to the wealthy, the GOP cuts child nutrition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Does the Senator find it somewhat amazing that on many 
of these issues like billionaires' tax cut, over 90 Members of the 
Senate, Republican and Democrat alike, voted to change that particular 
provision, and then when it goes over to the closed doors and closets 
of the Republican conference it comes back in?
  Does the Senator remember when we voted 94-5 not to permit the 
corporate raiders to rob the pensions? We passed that, Republican and 
Democrat. It goes over to the conference and it comes right back again. 
We did that on the discounts for drugs for Medicaid and for public 
hospitals. It went over and came right back again.
  Double billing--to try and collect for seniors who are on Medicare 
from being charged again. Struck out in conference. Our conferees 
retained the current law. We passed it, it goes over there, and it 
comes back again.
  Does the Senator reach the conclusion with me that our Republican 
friends, when it is out in the sunlight they respond to the public 
interest, and when they are behind the closed doors they have the 
private and special interests? That is what we are dealing with.
  Mrs. BOXER. The Senator is exactly right. When it comes to the 
corporate raids on pension funds he is right. We voted in a bipartisan 
way to stop that. Guess what happened? In this conference report, 
corporations would withdraw as much as $20 billion from pension funds--
up to $20 billion. These provisions were avidly sought by corporate 
lobbyists, but many pension experts warn it could endanger the security 
of the pension funds.
  In the light of day they all walk the walk and talk the talk but get 
behind close doors, there it goes. Everything we fought for on this 
side goes out the window.
  I say to say my friend from Massachusetts who fought hard on this, 
and 

[[Page S17233]]
my friend from Minnesota, these are issues they brought here.
  That is why I am reading these 10 outrages because suddenly things we 
fixed are back here again. There are 10 reasons--there are many more 
than that--but these are the 10 outrages in this reconciliation bill.
  Here is another one. While giving tax breaks to the wealthiest among 
us, the GOP cuts child nutrition programs, including school lunches, by 
$6 billion. Is it no wonder that this President is taking such a strong 
stand?
  Next, while giving tax breaks to the wealthy, the GOP cut student 
loan program by $5 billion, including rolling back direct student loan 
program to 10 percent of the loan.
  My friend from Massachusetts has stood up here on his feet hour after 
hour, making the point that the direct loan program means more dollars 
for the students and cutting out the middle man, if you will. It is 
very important that we not shut down the direct loan program. They keep 
it going only for 10 percent of the loans. All the hard work my friend 
put into this is out the window.
  Next, in its Medicaid repeal provision, the GOP eliminates the 
guarantees of nursing home care for seniors who have exhausted their 
assets. Imagine such a thing--imagine such a thing.
  Of course, there is more on that. We know they have weakened nursing 
home standards as well.
  In its Medicaid repeal provision, the GOP eliminates the guarantee of 
help with Medicare premiums for low-income seniors.
  Next, the GOP protects physician fees under Medicare from any actual 
reductions while at the same time doubling seniors Medicare premiums. 
We saw that happen. Suddenly the AMA says, ``We will back the plan,'' 
because they cut a deal at the expense of seniors. Their fees are going 
to be just fine, but Medicare premiums are going to double.
  How about this: The GOP opens the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to 
drilling in this bill. Imagine drilling for oil in a wildlife refuge. 
It is an unbelievable thought. Why is it a refuge if you are going to 
allow drilling in it? It makes no sense. But it is in this bill.
  I just add, as a California Senator, what else is in this bill? They 
slipped through a provision--follow this one, my friends--that would 
allow for the transfer of 1,100 acres of land to Pete Wilson in 
California, the Governor of California, who is going to take it for 
$500,000. Mr. President, 1,100 acres of land, what a giveaway, for a 
nuclear waste dump, and it is slipped into this bill. What an outrage 
that is, and what another reason for this President to veto this.

  While they transfer the land, they say, ``Waive all environmental 
laws. No environmental laws will apply.'' So imagine, I say to the 
American people who may be watching this, you wake up one day and the 
next day you have a nuclear waste dump next door to you and all the 
environmental laws have been waived on it. You cannot even go to court. 
That is another outrage, a particular California outrage that is in 
this bill.
  So, let me say, if ever people wonder why there is a difference 
between the two parties, it is synthesized in this budget. And I pray 
the President will have the continued strength to take the heat.
  The Speaker of the House said one of the reasons you got such a tough 
time here is because the President did not talk to me on Air Force One. 
Unfortunately for the Speaker, there are pictures that show that not 
only did the President go back there--here is the picture--but he was 
intently listening to Speaker Gingrich. And at another time, the same 
way.
  This is Speaker Gingrich clearly holding court on Air Force One. He 
complains he was treated unfairly. I say to Speaker Gingrich and the 
people who follow his lead around here, you ought to start thinking of 
the American people, not the fact that you wanted to spend 3 hours with 
the President instead of an hour and a half, or you went out of another 
door. You are not the President of the United States of America.
  Mr. LEAHY. Will my colleague yield for a question?
  Mrs. BOXER. I will be happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. LEAHY. If I might, just for 3 minutes, and I have spoken to the 
Senator from Minnesota here who I know wishes to speak, but I would ask 
this question. When I look at this, I look at this vote as being one of 
the most significant I will cast in the U.S. Senate. Would my colleague 
not agree, this is a bill that will punish Vermonters?
  It will punish the Vermont economy for years to come. It imposes a 
radical agenda on the American people that will squeeze the middle 
class, hurt the poor, and reward the rich.
  In my State, I would say, we want a balanced budget. I want a 
balanced budget. Most Vermonters--Republicans, Democrats, 
Independents--want a balanced budget. Vermonters want a balanced 
budget, but they do not want it under an agenda that wipes out most of 
them. They want an agenda that speaks to all of them.
  But this balanced budget is Newt Gingrich's agenda. It is not 
Vermont's agenda.
  Would the Senator from California agree with that?
  Mrs. BOXER. Clearly, it is his agenda. A lot of it is based on 
intuition, is what he told the press.
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator agree this extreme measure forces working 
Vermonters to pay more in taxes, makes it a lot harder for them to send 
their children to college, makes it harder for them to have a safe 
nursing home for their parents, and that average Vermonters will be 
making these sacrifices, not to balance the budget, but to pay for tax 
breaks for the rich because it will give the wealthy $245 million in 
new tax money? Will the Senator from California agree with that?
  Mrs. BOXER. My friend is so right. He has a small State. I come from 
a large State, more than 30 million people. So, I say to my friend, 
imagine, if you took Vermont and put it into California, and you had 
many Vermonts to make up all of California, that is what this Senator 
is feeling. Because for each Vermonter that gets hurt, many more 
Californians get hurt. So I totally agree with my friend.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I would say I ask this question to the 
Senator from California because she represents the largest State in the 
Union while I represent the second smallest in population. The 
distinguished Presiding Officer, of course, represents the smallest in 
population, although one that in land area encompasses our State many 
times over.
  I would also say, if I might, I have traveled many times in the State 
represented by the distinguished Presiding Officer. It is one of the 
most beautiful places. Were I to live somewhere other than Vermont, it 
would appeal to me.
  I raise these questions because we have a 2,000-page bill and, 
whether you are from a large State or a small State, you have to ask 
what it does. The bill will cut Medicare by $271 billion over the next 
7 years; it will cut payment rates to providers and hospitals; it will 
make seniors pay higher premiums; it will increase deductibles.
  In Vermont, 73 percent of our elderly population have incomes of less 
than $15,000. These are things--in a small State like ours, I do not 
know how we could possibly handle it.
  Average Vermonters must make these sacrifices not to balance the 
budget, but to pay for tax breaks for the rich. This bill gives the 
wealthy $245 billion in new tax breaks. The wealthy do not need these 
tax breaks and we cannot afford them.
  The bill's unnecessary cuts in Medicaid, Medicare, student loans, and 
school lunches will send the Vermont economy reeling. This is the wrong 
way to balance the budget.
  At a time when many working Vermonters are struggling to make ends 
meet, this budget would hike Federal taxes on low- and moderate-income 
working families by cutting $32 billion from the earned income tax 
credit--a program the rewards work and compensates for low wages.
  This Federal tax increase also would raise State taxes in seven 
States, including Vermont, that have a State earned income tax credit. 
As a result, 27,000 Vermont working families earning less than $30,000 
a year would be forced to pay higher taxes. This is a double whammy for 
working families.
  This budget bill would leave my home State in an economic crisis for 
years to come.
  I would say, as I have been saying since June or July on this floor, 
let us 

[[Page S17234]]
come together, Democrats and Republicans. Let us forge a bipartisan 
consensus that will balance the budget but gives educational 
opportunities to our children, allows us to have safe nursing homes for 
parents, gives opportunity for working people.
  I thank the Senator from California for doing me the courtesy of 
making these points. I appreciate it.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator for his questions, and I yield the 
floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I yield such time as the Senator from 
Mississippi requires.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank the distinguished Senator from Washington State.
  Mr. President, first, I would like to express my sincere appreciation 
for the great work that has been done on this very important 
legislation, the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, by the chairman of the 
Senate Budget Committee, the Senator from New Mexico. Senator Domenici 
has been prepared for this moment by many trials of fire. He has been 
through the budget battles for 15 years at least now. They have always 
been tough, but none have been as tough or as important as this one. 
There is no question, without his experience and without his dynamic 
leadership, without Senator Domenici we would not be here today. I want 
the record to reflect my sincere appreciation for his work, and also 
for the outstanding work done by Senator Roth, who is the new chairman 
of the Finance Committee. He moved into that chairmanship at a very 
critical time. He quickly got on top of the issues and has provided 
genuine leadership in producing a big chunk of what is in this balanced 
budget bill.
  Of course, I want to recognize the majority leader. Senator Dole has 
put many, many hours into this effort. As the negotiations on the 
conference report went forward, he was there and met with the conferees 
and subgroups and spent literally hours making this possible. So I 
commend those three gentlemen for their outstanding work.
  Many staff people have been involved in it too, and many Members on 
both sides of the aisle have worked in good faith to try to come up 
with a genuine balanced budget.
  Finally, we are getting to what this whole year has been about. 
Finally, after missing the target many times, the Washington Post this 
morning got it right. The Washington Post reported, ``Clinton 
reiterated his opposition on the grounds that it cuts spending too 
deeply and commits him to balancing the budget in seven years.'' That 
sums it up. That is what we have been going through here for the last 
few days--in fact, all year. The President wants spending increases in 
almost every program, and he does not really want a balanced budget.
  With this bill he is going to get the balanced budget he doesn't 
want. He will get an opportunity to sign it and confirm that he in fact 
means what he says when he says he is for a balanced budget, for 
changes in Medicare, for welfare reform and even for tax cuts. He has 
advocated those, too, on occasion. Or, if he vetoes it, then we will 
have to wonder, what does he really mean when he says he supports those 
goals?
  But, in the end he is going to have to sit down together and talk. We 
are going to have to come together, and we are going to have to come to 
an agreement. The agreement will be that we are going to have a 
balanced budget in 7 years. I think that, finally, Republicans and 
Democrats alike now acknowledge that is what we are going to do.
  The question is: how do we get there? I am sure the priorities will 
be argued over as we go forward, but we are setting our priorities here 
today. We are setting out in this Balanced Budget Act of 1995 what 
needs to be done. I am very proud that we have stepped up to the task, 
and we are going to achieve it in a responsible, honest and fair 
manner.
  This balanced budget is accomplished by controlling the rate of 
growth of spending. How many times will we hear from the other side 
that this program is being cut, that program is being slashed? They 
keep missing the fact that, in getting the budget under control, what 
we are really doing is not cutting and slashing programs; what we are 
doing is controlling the rate of growth.
  Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LOTT. The American people would be shocked to find out, as a 
matter of fact, even with this balanced budget, there will still be an 
annual growth of 3 percent in Government spending.
  Let me say that again. Federal spending will grow at an annual rate 
of 3 percent.
  So how do you call it a cut when you have a growth, even at a time 
when we are moving toward a balanced budget?
  Let me ask the Senator to let me continue. I waited a long time, and 
I have a meeting I am supposed to attend in just 10 minutes. Let me 
continue for a few minutes, and I will be glad to yield, get in a 
dialog with the Senator from Massachusetts, unless he just wants to ask 
a unanimous-consent request or something.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I did want to ask the Senator a question, 
but I appreciate that.
  Mr. LOTT. Let me continue for a few minutes. We have a time agreement 
and we want to make sure we keep it even. We are a little bit behind 
time. Let me go ahead, and I will yield in a few minutes, if the 
Senator would not mind. I would be glad to get into a discussion with 
the Senator from Massachusetts because I know he is interested in this, 
and I know he wants to help find a way to get to a balanced budget.
  But let me make some points we have not heard yet in speeches that 
have been given. And I think it is important we get them on the record.
  This is where you put up or you shut up. My friends, this is it. Now, 
are you for a balanced budget or not? A dozen or more Senators on the 
Democratic side have voted for a constitutional amendment for a 
balanced budget. You voted for it. Not all of them this year, but some 
this year and some in previous years. Maybe they were for it some years 
and not this year. And every Republican has voted for balanced budget 
constitutional amendments.
  Also, this very week the former chairman, now the ranking Democrat 
member of the House Budget Committee, stood up and said he was for a 
balanced budget in 7 years. Many of our colleagues over here on both 
sides of the aisle have said they are for a balanced budget. Well, when 
and how? What we hear over and over again is, oh, yes, we are for a 
balanced budget but not here, not there, not somewhere else.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle, you cannot get there 
unless you are willing to step up to the task of controlling the rate 
of growth of spending or by raising taxes. Oh, and you have 
demonstrated that you know how to raise taxes. This is where you get a 
chance to vote for real spending control that will get us to a balanced 
budget.
  Where is your plan? No, you do not have a plan. All you say is you 
cannot do it here; you cannot do it there. A few of you did try an 
alternative. It got, I think, 19 votes in the Senate--19 votes. In the 
House there were a few remaining Democrats that said, hey, we have to 
have some alternative. Congressman Stenholm from Texas and I think 
maybe even the former chairman of the Budget Committee over there, 
Congressman Sabo, did have a package that got 80 votes. And they had 
some good proposals in there. At least they had a proposal.

  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. LOTT. Just for a brief comment. As I said earlier, if I start 
yielding, I am never going to get to make my remarks. I listened 
patiently while the Senator from California, Senator Boxer, went on at 
great length.
  Let me make my remarks, and then I will be glad to yield.
  I believe the Senator is one of the Senators who did have a proposal. 
I think it got around 19 votes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would just say that we had two 
proposals. One got 39.
  Mr. LOTT. Thirty-seven.
  Mr. CONRAD. Thirty-nine out of forty-six Democrats for a balanced 
budget.
  Mr. LOTT. Good. I would like to hear you at least say how you would 
get there. And, of course, what they always say is, ``Cut defense, cut 
defense, cut 

[[Page S17235]]
defense.'' We have been cutting defense. It is going to take a little 
more than that. So I think maybe it is important I get to the details 
of how we achieve a balanced budget.
  It is achieved by controlling the rate of growth throughout the 
Government. Every committee in the Senate has had to face up to this 
task, and it is never easy. Every committee, from the Commerce 
Committee to the Interior Committee to the Defense Committee, has had 
to come up with its allocated savings, and we have done it. So it is 
throughout the Government. We will have a decreased rate of growth in 
spending on interior, defense, agriculture--something I do not 
particularly like, but, yes, agriculture had to ante up, come up to the 
table and kick in a little bit--energy. Everybody has had to 
participate.
  Now, let me talk about education. So many bits of misinformation are 
being put out in that area. Education is not being gutted. In fact, the 
Senate language was accepted in this conference report. That language 
was accepted with an amendment on a bipartisan vote, as I recall. That 
language prevailed. I wish to emphasize this, too. There will be no 
direct student impact. Now, some banks will be impacted, maybe some 
institutions, but not the students. Who are my friends on the other 
side of the aisle really standing up for? The students will not be 
impacted.
  We do control the rate of growth in Medicare. It needs to be done. 
You cannot have a program that grows 10 percent or more every year over 
the previous year. I wonder, is maybe a growth each year of 7.7 percent 
enough? I wish to emphasize that. Under the MedicarePlus Program in 
this bill, Medicare will grow at a rate of 7.7 percent. That is an 
increase in case ``grow'' is not clear enough. It will go up.
  It was alleged a while ago that deductibles will go up. That is 
inaccurate. Deductibles are not touched in this package. What we do is 
control the rate of growth.
  As a matter of fact, the individual per capita Medicare will increase 
from $4,800 today to over $7,200 in the year 2002. Now, you can only 
demagog Medicare and scare elderly people so long. But they understand 
that there are some improvements that need to be made in the program. 
We must step up to the needs of Medicare so it will not be insolvent or 
eventually bankrupt. We have to make some decisions that will allow 
more choice in the Medicare Plus Program, and that is what we have done 
in this bill.
  We have dealt with Medicare's problems; we have preserved it; and in 
fact, we sincerely believe we have improved it.
  With regard to the MediGrant Program, previously referred to as 
Medicaid, that, too, will grow. As a matter of fact, the MediGrant 
Program will grow from $90 billion this year to over $127 billion in 
the year 2002--a 5.2-percent average annual increase.
  Now, how can you scream and holler that we are cutting the program 
when in fact it is going to grow from $90 to $127 billion--5.2-percent 
average annual increase. And the same is true with programs serving the 
needy. Those programs will grow over the period of this balanced budget 
effort from $98.2 billion to $132 billion--a 34-percent increase in the 
next 7 years for programs serving the needy.
  My friends, we are making tough choices, but we are making sure that 
the Medicare Program is going to be there and will grow to serve the 
people like my mother and my family, my children I hope. The same is 
true with Medicare and the programs serving the needy.
  Let me talk about another Medicare issue, something that I am sure is 
going to get neglected. I have seen statistics--and I believe it is 
true--that as much of the money that we spend for the Medicare Program, 
as much as 10 percent of it may actually be wasted through fraud and 
abuse. We all know there is a problem with that. And there is an effort 
in this exercise to deal with that problem. That is a significant 
amount of money that we can save or redistribute to the elderly that 
really need the help.

  All through the day I am sure the bulk of the debate will be about 
the balanced budget effort, and it should be, but there will be a lot 
of effort to distort--distort--what we are trying to do with giving 
some tax relief to the working people of America.
  It is a novel idea, I know, letting the people who work and earn the 
taxes keep a little bit of their money. Novel, but it is something that 
I would like to see happen. There are those who say, ``Well, that won't 
benefit the poor.'' If you are not working and paying taxes, how can 
you get a little tax relief? That is what we have the needy programs 
for, for those who are in that category. But I am worried about the 
shipyard worker and the paper mill worker and the farmer, the young 
businessman, young entrepreneur who wants to make a little money and 
create some jobs; give them a little incentive. But I wish to go down 
the list and talk about what is really in this bill.
  First of all, even with the $245 billion tax relief in this package, 
Federal taxes will still increase from $1.4 trillion to $1.9 trillion. 
So we give a little tax fairness, a little tax relief and yet Federal 
taxes will still grow dramatically, way too much, in my opinion.
  I do not guess you talk to the same constituents I do. When I go 
home, people hammer me and complain about how hard they work and how 
much they are paying for taxes. They want a little relief.
  It is easy to say, ``Oh, yes, we can't have these terrible tax cuts, 
you know, for the wealthy.'' But let me ask my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle, which one of these programs it is you are really 
against. You indict it en bloc. But look at the specifics in the bill 
and tell me what it is you do not like.
  Do you not like giving some relief from the marriage penalty? How 
many of us stood up over the years in the House and the Senate and 
said, ``The marriage penalty, how unfair. How can it possibly be?'' You 
get penalized if you get married. Do you want marriage penalized or 
not? Are you opposed to that? I do not think you will stand up and say 
that, not a single one of you.
  How about a spousal IRA? Why should the homemakers working in the 
home be able to have an IRA like everybody else in America? We are all 
for that. ``Oh, yes, we're all for that.'' Sure. OK. So, we will accept 
that.
  Are you opposed to the adoption credit? Would you not like to give 
people a little incentive, a little help in adopting children? Oh, 
yeah, you would like that. How about the deduction for custodial care? 
You probably like that, too. Do you think that individual retirement 
accounts are a good idea as a whole, especially if it is the super-IRA 
that allows you to use, without tax penalty, your IRA for your first 
home mortgage, for education, or medical expenses? I will bet you like 
that. And also, by the way, it is limited to the middle-income people, 
not to the wealthy.
  I would like to see everybody entitled to have more IRA's. They 
encourage something we need in America. It is called more savings. We 
go over to meetings with parliamentarians from other parts of the 
world, and one of the things we hear about our problems from 
economists, and everybody else, is Americans do not save enough. It is 
because you get penalized in America if you try to save. So we have 
some additional consideration for individual retirement accounts.
  We have in this bill a deduction for student loan interest. Anybody 
want to stand up and oppose the deduction for student loan interest? 
No. Even the President wants more than that. He wants us to be able to 
deduct all of the expenses for education. Frankly, I like that idea.
  But as you go down this list, and this tax cut, what we are talking 
about is putting some fairness back in the code, getting rid of some of 
these things, like the marriage penalty, and creating some incentives 
to encourage savings.
  And the capital gains rate. If we cut the capital gains tax rate--and 
we are going to do it in this bill--it will have a tremendous impact on 
growth in the economy. So many of us now get so deep into argument over 
spending and the balanced budget that we forget to talk about, how do 
we get some continued growth in the economy? How do we create jobs? It 
is great to talk about welfare reform with work required at the end, 
but what can we do to help ensure that there are jobs being created? 

[[Page S17236]]
 The capital gains rate cut is a little relief by cutting that capital 
gains rate down to 18.9 percent.
  The President says he is for that. And that is not hearsay. He has 
told this Senator, personally, ``Yes. I like the capital gains tax 
cut.'' And I believe he still thinks that. Maybe we will not know for 
sure until later. But if you want to complain about a capital gains 
rate cut that might go to some people that are making use of it, 
including people that just maybe want to sell their home and are 
entitled to a little break there, I do not believe you want to really 
stand up and oppose that.

  We provide some relief in estate taxes. I have never understood how 
we got into the process of taxing death. Why should a couple that works 
all their lives when they die have their estate taken away because of 
ridiculous, excessive, in my opinion, estate taxes that should not 
exist at all? We provide a little estate tax relief for family-owned 
businesses and farms.
  So if you go through this whole tax cut package, we have a special 
low-income housing tax credit that is included in this package. Medical 
savings accounts--I think this is a great idea. Give people some 
incentive, a little encouragement, to have a medical savings account on 
their own.
  This is a good package. And it is going to provide more fairness to 
the Tax Code and going to create growth in the economy. It is an 
important component of this whole package. I really do frankly think 
that the growth estimates that we are dealing with are low. I think we 
are going to have more growth.
  I think the package is going to contribute to an explosion of 
activity in the economy. I think there is going to be more growth than 
we are now projecting. But I do not want to spend it before we get it. 
Let us see what happens. If we get down the road a couple years and 
everything is doing great, because we had the courage to pass a real 
tax incentive package, then we can have maybe another unusual idea--let 
the people who pay the taxes get a little bit more of their money back.
  So my colleagues, I think a good job has been done here. I think it 
is time to quit whining and growling and pointing fingers. We have been 
through all of that.
  This is a good and balanced package. Let us get it through. Let us go 
ahead and pass it as we are going to do tonight, and I hope with some 
Democrat support. I think maybe we will. And let us see what we can do 
to get it signed into law and have, for the first time in my 23 years 
in Congress, a balanced budget proposal that will actually get us to a 
balanced budget in a reasonable period of time, 7 years.
  Mr. President, I would be glad to yield to the Senator from 
Massachusetts at this point. I would like to ask, at the suggestion of 
the floor leader, at this time that it count against the other side's 
time so we can keep a balance. Under these rules, we only have 5 hours 
each. So, would the Senator from Nebraska yield a little time to the 
Senator from Massachusetts, if he would like to ask questions?
  Mr. EXON. I would not object to yielding. I would simply say that 
this is a very difficult position that I am in. We have plenty of time, 
but we have an awful lot of Senators wanting to make a speech that I 
think is very, very important. Therefore, I do not believe I would be 
interested in yielding any significant amount of time because there 
have been several Senators that I have stacked up waiting now.
  How much time would it take to ask the question of the Senator from 
Massachusetts?
  Mr. KERRY. One minute.
  Mr. EXON. I am pleased to yield 1 minute.
  Mr. LOTT. I will be glad to respond.
  Mr. KERRY. I simply would like to ask my colleague, how he can 
persist in the myth that there is not a cut, when you unilaterally take 
a certain amount of money that is available for a fixed set of benefits 
and you cut that amount of money, even if it still is only a reduction 
in the rate of growth? How is it not a cut, if the growth in the 
population of people expecting those benefits continues at a rate that 
exceeds what is provided in your budget? How is that not a cut?
  Mr. LOTT. The Senator said it himself, ``even in those areas of 
growth.'' It goes from $4,800 to $7,200 over the 7 years. In the 
Medicare-Plus program that is a growth any way you slice it. But also 
we are not just dealing with numbers. We are also making programmatic 
changes.
  We are trying to give incentives for people to find ways to maybe get 
Medicare at less cost. That is the idea behind the medical savings 
account. And that is the idea behind encouraging people to take 
advantage of whatever it is, the physicians services organizations, 
HMO's. A whole variety of new ideas can be pursued through this 
legislation. And also we believe we can just--and in a bipartisan way--
have a process to get at the fraud and abuse. That is 10 percent of the 
cost of this program that we can then use to help the people that need 
the help in the Medicare area.
  Mr. KERRY. I wish we had time to pursue it. I do not now, but I will 
when I speak.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I would like to get some order now if we 
could. We have plenty of time, but we are having difficulty meeting the 
schedules of the individual Senators. At 3:15 we had this list in their 
order of appearance on the floor: Senator Wellstone, Senator Bob 
Kerrey, Senator Kennedy, Senator Dorgan, Senator Conrad, Senator John 
Kerry and Senator Pryor.
  Senator Wellstone will be first. He has indicated to me that he would 
like 10 minutes. May I inquire of the other Senators about how much 
time they would take when I yield, so the other Senators would have 
some idea of time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Fifteen minutes.
  Mr. EXON. Fifteen. All right.
  Mr. CONRAD. I would like 15 as well.
  Mr. EXON. Fifteen.
  Senator Dorgan, 15?
  Mr. DORGAN. Yes.
  Mr. EXON. Does Senator Conrad ask for 15?
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes.
  Mr. EXON. Senator John Kerry, 15?
  Mr. KERRY. Yes.
  Mr. EXON. Senator Pryor?
  Mr. PRYOR. Fifteen.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Can I say to the Senator from Nebraska, I will try to 
do 10. If I go a little over--why not put 15? Put 15 and I will try to 
do 10.
  Mr. EXON. You bid first. I ask unanimous consent at this particular 
time, upon recognition from the Chair, that the following Senators be 
recognized in this order charged to our time: Senator Wellstone, 10 
minutes; the following Senators 15 minutes each: Senator Bob Kerrey, 
Senator Kennedy, Senator Dorgan, Senator John Kerry and Senator Pryor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, true, I was here waiting for a long 
time. I would like 15.
  Mr. EXON. I correct the Record. The only change is the Senator from 
Minnesota gets 15 minutes instead of 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, as I listened to my 
colleague from Mississippi--and I am really sorry he is not here, and 
the reason he is not here, he has other work to do. We speak and we 
leave. He is not here because he is unwilling to be engaged in debate. 
He certainly is.
  In many ways, I think this debate goes way beyond the whole question 
of a balanced budget, since I think all Senators believe we ought to 
pay the interest off on our debt. But I am reminded of David Stockman's 
book in the early 1980's, and I think this Gingrich agenda is not 
really about balancing the budget. I think it is about overturning 60 
years of people's history, because if it was about balancing the 
budget, there would be some standard of fairness.
  If it was about balancing the budget, you would have military 
contractors that would be asked to sacrifice and would be asked to 
tighten their belt.
  If it was about balancing the budget, you would not have all of these 
tax giveaways which disproportionately flow to those people at the top 
of the income ladder.
  If this was about balancing the budget, we would have everything on 
the table and all of those tax loopholes and tax breaks and tax 
giveaways that the Pulitzer prize-winning journalists 

[[Page S17237]]
Bartlett and Steele talk about in their book ``America: Who Really Pays 
Their Taxes,'' all of that would be on the table.
  I do not even think this is about balancing the budget, because if it 
was about balancing the budget, we would be looking at all of those 
areas, and we would be asking all of the citizens of our country to be 
willing to be a part of the sacrifice, because they are more than 
willing to do so.

  This is not about balancing the budget. This is about overturning 60 
years of people's history, and there is going to be one heck of a 
debate on the floor of the Senate, but most important of all, there is 
going to be a huge debate in this country, and let me give but a few 
examples.
  Mr. President, in 1965, we passed the Medicare and the Medical 
Assistance Program. There was a reason we passed those programs. They 
did not represent Heaven on Earth, but they made life a lot better for 
people who were elderly and also low-income people. There are 
imperfections. We can do better.
  But I want to just say to my colleagues that this Gingrich agenda--I 
have called it very reckless with the lives of the people in our 
country--let me just tell you that it will have a very serious and a 
very negative impact on the lives of Minnesotans.
  I said it before when I was debating Haley Barbour the other day on a 
show, he was talking about this agenda--and I will not put words into 
his mouth, he is not here to debate me; that is not fair--but I kept 
coming back to him and saying, ``You don't know my State: In my State, 
we have already kept the costs down and now you are penalizing us for 
keeping costs down?''
  I said, ``You don't know my State: In greater Minnesota, in rural 
Minnesota, many of our caregivers, our hospitals, our doctors, our 
clinics have a patient payment mix where it is 60, 70 percent 
Medicare.''
  ``You don't know my State.'' I went on to say, ``You don't know my 
State: Seventy thousand senior citizens in Minnesota are poor. Stop 
talking about the elderly as if they are affluent.''
  ``You don't know my State: The median income for elderly people is 
$17,000 a year and, on the average, every year they pay $2,500 out of 
pocket.''
  ``You don't know my State: Many of them can't afford prescription 
drug costs.''
  ``You don't know my State: My mother and father are no longer alive. 
They both had Parkinson's disease. Without Medicare coverage--they 
never had any money--they would have gone under.''
  I just feel as if the people who designed this agenda do not know my 
State. I think they have moved way beyond the goodness of people in 
America. It is too extreme and it is too harsh.
  ``You don't know my State: 300,000 children are covered by medical 
assistance. We have done a great job in Minnesota using that program as 
a safety net for children.''

  ``You don't know my State: Many families are able to keep a severely 
disabled child at home because of medical assistance and now they worry 
that they may not be able to do that.''
  ``You don't know my State: Two-thirds of the people in the nursing 
homes receive medical assistance, and we are trying to figure out who 
makes up that gap.''
  Mr. President, I heard my colleague from Mississippi say it is about 
values. He is right, it is about values. And I will tell you something 
right now. I am confident that Minnesotans believe it is far more 
important to invest in health care and the health and intellect and 
character of young people--education--and also to provide children with 
a chance than it is to give away all these tax breaks to large 
corporations, to have these tax giveaways, $245 billion mainly going to 
people on the top, to have a Pentagon budget that is over what the 
Pentagon asked. You better believe it is all about choices. That is 
exactly what it is about.
  But this Gingrich agenda is not an agenda to balance the budget. It 
is an agenda to move our country not into the 21st century but back 
into the 19th century.
  Mr. President, we did not get it right in the last 60 years, but we 
made gains for people. We developed a safety net. It did not mean that 
every child had it so good. But at least we made it better for 
children. We had a safety net that at least gave us some assurance that 
children would not be so impoverished that they, in fact, would go 
hungry.
  I argue, if we are going to talk about values that I believe as a 
Senator from Minnesota, I believe as the son of a Jewish immigrant from 
Russia, I believe as a former college teacher, I believe as a father, 
and I believe as a grandfather that every infant, regardless of gender 
and regardless of race and regardless of income and regardless of rural 
or urban, should have the same chance to fully develop his potential or 
her potential.
  Now we have a safety net program for low-income children slashed by 
$82 billion, $17 billion more than the Senate ``welfare reform'' bill. 
Now we have the School Lunch Program cut by $6 billion.
  We have had two studies, one of them by Health and Human Services and 
one of them by the Office of Management and Budget, and those studies 
told us something we did not want to know, or at least some of my 
colleagues do not want to know, which is that these cuts in these 
programs will mean that there will be more impoverished children in 
America and more children will go hungry in America.

  This is all about values, that is for certain, but it is not about 
balancing the budget.
  I brought to the floor of the Senate an amendment, and it says we 
could cut $70 billion by just having some tax fairness. We have a Tax 
Code for regular people; we have a Tax Code for privileged people. I 
looked at a number of different areas. I looked at the minimum tax, 
retaining the minimum tax for large multinational corporations in this 
budget bill; that is no longer there. I looked at subsidies for oil 
companies and coal companies. I looked at subsidies for pharmaceutical 
companies, and the list could go on and on.
  Mr. President, what my colleagues do not tell you about are these tax 
giveaways, all the cuts in capital gains tax, all the cuts in rapid 
depreciation allowances, you name it. People in this country do not 
believe that we ought to at this time of tight budgets, at this time of 
deficit reduction be doing this in such a way that we ask the citizens 
to tighten their belts who cannot tighten their belts; that we target 
the elderly, we target people with disabilities, we target children, 
for God's sake, we target working families, families with incomes under 
$27,000 a year. But, at the same time, we have tax giveaways for the 
wealthy. We do not take on any of the corporate welfare. We let all 
these large companies continue with all of their tax loopholes and all 
of their tax breaks, and the military contractors have it just fine.

  Mr. President, this is not about balancing the budget. This is an 
effort on the part of my colleagues to essentially say that they do not 
believe in a country where we focus so much on education, and equality 
of opportunity, and adequate health care for people, health care that 
is delivered in a humane and dignified way; they do not think the 
public sector should be involved in this area. As a matter of fact, 
they think when it comes to some of the most pressing problems of 
people's lives, there is nothing the Government can or should do.
  That is a great philosophy if you own your own large corporation. But 
if you do not, if you are in the majority in this country, what we are 
talking about right here is an assault on what is the dearest principle 
of this country, which is equality of opportunity.
  Mr. President, this is not a debate about balancing the budget. This 
is a debate about what this country stands for. This is a debate about 
the very values people hold dear.
  I will tell you right now, Mr. President, people in this country do 
not believe in the harshness of this Gingrich budget. They believe it 
is mean-spirited, they believe it is extreme, they believe it goes too 
far. And the more people come to understand what is in this budget 
proposal, the less they are going to like it.
  As a Senator from Minnesota, I am very proud to speak on the floor of 
the Senate on behalf of what I consider to be the vast majority of 
people in my State. I am proud to speak against this budget proposal. I 
do not believe that this proposal is good for this Nation. I do not 
believe that this proposal brings this Nation forward. I think it turns 


[[Page S17238]]
the clock backward. I think most people in the country believe that.
  I think the President, without a doubt, will veto this, and we will 
have a debate again, based upon substantive work, based upon what I 
hope will be a set of proposals that will make this Nation all that 
this Nation can be.
  This budget ought not to be accepted. This budget should not pass. It 
will. This budget will be vetoed by the President. He should do so. As 
far as I am concerned, we can have a debate about the values. We can 
have a debate about choices, and we can have a debate about priorities 
for America, and we can take it right to the 1996 election.

  I will be proud to say to Minnesotans that I am the children's 
Senator and that I fight hard for senior citizens. I will be proud to 
say to Minnesotans that I am a health care Senator. I will be proud to 
say to Minnesotans that I am an education Senator. I will be proud to 
say to Minnesotans that I think some of the heavy hitters and large 
special interests ought to also be asked to tighten their belts. I will 
be proud to say to Minnesotans that my vote, my debate, my words, and 
what I do as a U.S. Senator is based upon a Minnesota sense of 
fairness. That is lacking in this budget. It should be defeated.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may need. I 
will be very brief.
  Mr. President, I guess two people can look at the same bill and see 
different things. I have a hard time looking at our Balanced Budget Act 
of 1995 and seeing the kind of recklessness in values and concerns the 
Senator has just spoken of. I see a whole different picture in front of 
America if we do not pass this act.
  What I see as reckless is spending the country into the debt we are 
headed toward, in which children, in their lifetime, will pay $187,000 
just in interest on the Federal debt that will grow during their 
lifetime if we do not bring this under control. That is the kind of 
unfairness to children in America we are here to end today. When we are 
talking about values, I can think of no values more important than the 
long-sustaining values of this country, and that we pass on to the next 
generation more than we inherited, not less. Yet, that is the direction 
in which we would head if we do not balance the budget and pass this 
act today.
  To expand more on that, I now yield 15 minutes to the Senator from 
Missouri, Senator Ashcroft.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for 
yielding time to me.
  It is true that different people can look at the same thing and see 
different things. As the Senator from Michigan has aptly stated, some 
look at this package and view spending $4,800 in 1996 per recipient to 
$7,000 in 2002 per recipient as a cut. I think you have to be a very 
substantial pessimist to call an increase of $2,200 over a base of 
$4,800 a cut--but that is how some people are choosing to view it.
  I personally do not think it is nor do I see it as a cut. I see it as 
an increase. It is this precise inability to come to the same 
conclusion from viewing the same set of facts that sometimes confuses 
us. However, sometimes--as a single individual--you can look at the 
same thing--time and time again--and see something different all the 
time.
  For instance, you can look at the President of the United States and 
try and find out whether he wants a balanced budget at all, or whether 
he wants a balanced budget in 7 years, or whether he wants a balanced 
budget in 10 years. You could look at the President of the United 
States and try and find out whether he wants to use the figures of the 
Office of Management and Budget, which is the political arm of the 
Presidency, or whether he wants to balance the budget according to the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
  Depending on when you look at our President, you get a different 
reading. You and I know that he said, when he was a candidate, that he 
wanted a balanced budget in 5 years. Later on, he came to us with a 
budget that would never balance. Then he came with one that would 
balance in 10 years, but only if you use the partisan figures of his 
Office of Management and Budget. In between times, he said 7 to 9 
years.
  So looking even at the same President, you might see far different 
things. It is, in part, because the President has not been firm. He has 
not reflected the kind of dedication and commitment to a balanced 
budget that indicates that he has a plan for one. As a matter of fact, 
the President has not had a budget at all. Well, he did send a budget 
up here, and it was so unrealistic that it lost 0-99. His second 
budget, the so-called balanced budget, was voted down 0-96. Not a 
single Member of the minority party voted in favor of either budget.
  As we have been trying to find ways for the President to maintain the 
operation of Government in the last several days, we have seen the same 
President, but we have seen something vastly different every time we 
have seen him. At first, he says it is the Medicare problem. He cannot 
bear to have spending increased only from $4,800 to $7,000 per Medicare 
recipient per year over the next 5 or 6 or 7 years. That is not a big 
enough increase.
  The truth of the matter is that the provision we are going to send 
him in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 has bigger increases in Medicare 
than he originally requested. He asked for 7.1 percent, I think, and we 
are sending a budget that has a 7.7 percent. He threatened to veto our 
proposals due to both his effectiveness and willingness to scare people 
over Medicare.
  Medicare also was his main concern when trying to pass the continuing 
resolution. Therefore, we decided to send him a continuing resolution 
without a Medicare provision. When we ripped off the Medicare mask, 
what did we see? We saw a President concerned about regulatory reform. 
He said ``I would not want to sign something that has regulatory reform 
associated with it.'' I said to myself, is this the same President 
that, in the past, has said, ``We want and need regulatory reform, and 
we need to free this economy, and we need to unshackle the economy so 
we can have more jobs, growth and opportunity''? Apparently, not at the 
moment, because he said, ``If you have regulatory reform or the 
criminal justice system reform in the package***'' --oh, about 20 years 
ago, the President and I had the privilege of each being an attorney 
general. We all know the way in which the criminal element manipulates 
the criminal appeals, and how the habeas corpus laws are abused. We saw 
them operate as attorneys general. We saw them operate as Governors. We 
see them operate now.
  I believe he really knows that we need to reform the criminal appeals 
process, but he said he did not want to sign a continuing resolution 
containing criminal appeals reform. So we took the criminal appeals and 
regulatory reform out. We even took the provisions strengthening, 
protecting and preserving Medicare out of the continuing resolution and 
sent it to the President. It became clear, after ripping off all the 
masks--the Medicare, the regulatory reform and the habeas corpus reform 
masks--the real reason for his veto. His real reason for vetoing the 
continuing resolution can rest only on the single condition that now 
attends the continuing resolution, and that is the condition of a 
balanced budget in 7 years, with honest CBO figures.
  A balanced budget is important. It is important that we understand 
that a balanced budget is not a sacrifice for this country--it is a 
substantial investment in this country.
  We talk about cuts and we use the phony language of Washington to 
make it a cut. When you have an increase from $4,800 per year per 
capita to over $7,000 per year per capita, only in Washington, DC, does 
a $2,200 increase on a $4,800 base per capita result in the ability of 
some individuals to call it a cut.
  Not only do we not cut spending, we make substantial improvements and 
give substantial opportunities to the American people.
  The benefits have been quantified. The econometric studies have been 
conducted. The ideas have been distilled. The forecasts have been made. 
Here is the forecast: Nearly $11 billion more to our gross domestic 
product will result from a balanced budget. 

[[Page S17239]]
 That is real growth. That is real increase. An additional $32 billion 
in real disposable income to American families will be realized in the 
time period covered.
  More than 100,000 additional new houses will be built over the next 7 
years. More than 600,000 new cars will be sold in America over the next 
7 years as a result of the discipline, as a result of the priority 
setting, as a result of this country doing what every family has to do 
on a regular basis. That is--sit around and say what can we afford, 
what can we not afford, how can we structure what we are doing--how can 
we achieve prosperity rather than continuing our decline.
  That prosperity is important and it will make a big difference to 
people who are buying houses. They say $10,000 less for payments for 
people on a $100,000 home loan--a $10,000 bonus for a family in 
addition to the tax relief for families in the bill. You consider other 
areas where the family is borrowing money, such as car loans and 
student loans. The impact on our culture is not an impact of shared 
sacrifice. This is an impact of enjoyed benefit.
  We balance the budget. Not only are there more jobs, 100,000 new 
houses, 600,000 more new cars in the country in the next 7 years, but 
also we have this vitality in the economy that gives us all great 
opportunity.
  Our President, though, is unwilling to make a commitment to join us, 
to join us in the necessary discipline to balance the budget.
  I am afraid we have found ourselves backed into a political corner. 
He is saying he cannot do it because of Medicare. He is saying he 
wanted to increase Medicare by 7.1 percent, and this bill increases 
Medicare by 7.7 percent. This proposal significantly exceeds his own 
proposal. Yet he holds up Medicare as an attempt to scare the American 
people.
  Not only do we spend substantially more for Medicare but we are going 
to provide ways for people to use what we spend to be much more 
effective. All the marketing, all the revolution in the health care 
professions to restrain costs and to expand service and to improve the 
product available to the American people and the private sector really 
has not been available in the public sector. That is why the public 
sector's costs have soared.
  Well, in the private sector for medical costs we have seen a leveling 
off of those costs, the HMO's, the PPO's, the ability of physicians to 
join together in order to offer services. All of those things are part 
of the program in addition to moving people from $4,800 a year to over 
$7,000 a year. That is not just a gross number but a per capita number, 
taking into account the demographic projections that seem to frighten 
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle so dramatically.
  It is time for us to understand this is a great opportunity. We have 
come to a crossroads in American history. We are at a turning point. It 
is a turning point that we need to recognize and understand.
  It is whether or not we will conduct business as usual, whether we 
are just going to go merrily down the beaten path of massaging the old 
hot button of acquiescence in the demands of this or that special 
interest group, and continue to run the printing press which publishes 
the debt of the United States. It is whether we are going to generate 
at higher and higher volumes to the detriment of our children, or 
whether we will make some important decisions about allocating our 
resources.
  There are tough decisions, but they are not impossible by any stretch 
of the imagination. There are a few areas where there are real cuts, 
but frankly there are many more areas where we just restrain the 
growth. We bring Government under control.
  This is a question about Government control, whether we will control 
Government or whether Government--out of control--now will spend so 
much of the next generation's money that it will control everything 
that they do.
  If kids who are born this year are going to have to spend $187,000 
just to cover the interest costs on the national debt during their 
lifetimes, their spending will be controlled. They will not have the 
opportunity to decide to do other things. They will have an obligation 
which will simply lock them into paying for the excesses of our 
consumption. We can turn that around, and we can turn it around now. We 
have not done so since 1969. We have not had the encouragement. We have 
not had the integrity. We have not had the tenacity.
  In 1994, last fall about this time, the American people said 
``stiffen your spine. Resolve to make a difference. Do something 
different. Change the way.'' That is why we are at a turning point. 
This is about control. We want the future generations to be able to 
control their own environment and their own communities. We want the 
future generations to have the control to spend their money on their 
own priorities, not to have to just pay off the debt which we have been 
paying.
  We must act now if we want to stop this potential of eroding the 
ability of the next generation, undermining the ability of your 
children and mine. Hopefully someday I will have grandchildren--and I 
do not want to shift to them the responsibility to pay for the things 
that I have done. I want them to have the opportunity to do what every 
American should have the opportunity to do--that is to exercise the 
freedom of shaping a Government and spending your own resources the way 
you choose. It is as fundamental as the beginning of the American 
Republic.
  Mr. President, 200 years ago Thomas Payne said it best, I think: ``We 
have it within our power to make the world over again.'' That is 
basically a statement that free people can govern themselves and they 
can devote their resources to things that they choose to devote their 
resources to.
  We keep spending in debt--further and further in debt--stacking it up 
to where it is now about $19,000 per person, every man, woman and 
child. Mr. President, it is $76,000 for a family of four, and we are 
not paying off the debt, we are just paying interest on it.
  Now if we keep stacking up that kind of debt we simply will not allow 
the next generation to make any choices on their own. They are just 
going to have to spend all they have to pay foreign creditors, pay all 
kinds of other individuals.
  Talk about big business. They talk about we sure do not want to do 
anything that would help business. We want the little guy to prosper. 
Who do you think holds this debt? The people that own the securities of 
the United States--a lot is held in the hands of foreign people and 
governments.
  Do you want the people who command what your children and 
grandchildren do to be people overseas--people who have the ability to 
call the debt and demand that the payments be made. Then the only thing 
that those who follow us have the opportunity to decide will be to 
decide to pay the guys who hold the debt? We owe them much more than 
that. We owe them much more than that.
  Our country came into existence as a result of taxation without 
representation. I am afraid unless we stand up for the children right 
now and say we are now going to continue spending their money without 
their representation, we are not going to continue spending their 
resources and displacing to them the costs of doing our business--they 
would have every right to revolt against us--just as we did to 
establish this country in the first instance.
  It is time for accountability. The American people want a Government 
which pays its debts. They sense that we can do it. When the different 
masks were being displayed by the President--about we cannot do this 
because it is the Medicare thing, there was a lot of confusion. Then 
the Medicare mask was taken off and we sent a continuing resolution 
without the Medicare provision and another mask was pulled out. Finally 
all the masks are gone.
  The only thing that is left is the balanced budget. We come down to 
the question, Mr. President--I ask for an additional minute.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield 1 minute to the Senator.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. So, now the President has before him an ability to 
continue the operation of the Government, coupled with a golden 
opportunity to commit this Government to responsibility and integrity. 
He can do that in signing a continuing resolution and he can do that in 
embracing a historic achievement for his administration or any other, 
the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. 

[[Page S17240]]

  This is a golden opportunity. It is not an opportunity that will make 
that much difference to you and me, but it will make a great difference 
to the generations that follow.
  It is time for us to share with them the benefits of an ordered, 
priority-setting development of a budget that is structured and 
responsible and respects our future.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cochran). Who yields time?
  The Senator from Nebraska, under an earlier order, is recognized for 
15 minutes.
  Mr. KERREY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, this reconciliation bill conference report is going to 
pass. It is going to be sent to the President and he is going to veto 
it. The question will be, in the aftermath, can Republicans and 
Democrats get together, can we pass something that is veto proof? I 
hope in fact we can.
  I must say at the beginning, I praise the Republican leadership for 
attacking this problem. It is very difficult, almost always guaranteed 
to produce a considerable amount of controversy. It is rarely popular 
when you take something away from somebody who has an expectation they 
are going to get it and you always set yourself up for exaggerated 
claims, regardless of whether they are coming from this side of the 
aisle or coming from out in the community. I have done it as Governor. 
I voted for it as a Senator in 1990 and 1993. It always happens. It is 
very seldom the sort of thing that gets you a round of applause, when 
you do what I consider to be a very important and responsible thing.
  So I begin my analysis of this conference report by thanking the 
Republican leadership for tackling this problem. I believe we do need 
to balance our budget. I do not in fact buy into the argument that our 
debt is rising at an unacceptable level. As a percent of GDP, it is 
actually going down. Relative to where we were after World War II, it 
looks fairly good. As a matter of fact, if you look at the markets and 
what the market is doing right now, it seems to me we ought to be 
careful as we examine this argument about whether or not our debt is 
where it ought to be or should it be higher or should it be lower. It 
seems to me it is heading in the right direction.
  Nonetheless, it is important, in my judgment, for the Federal 
Government to have its budget in balance. So, again, I praise the 
Republican leadership for setting before this body a proposal that will 
accomplish that. I hope, after this proposal is vetoed, that some of 
the comments I have made might give Republican leadership some ideas of 
where I, at least, as one Democrat, want to see some change.
  To begin with, I do think it has to be fair. It has to pass some test 
of fairness. This proposal left no impact upon me. It will have 
absolutely no impact upon me. Before I got here, and after I leave, and 
right now, my income is high enough it does not have any impact upon 
me. I do not receive a great deal of Government services, and as a 
consequence I can stand here courageously and say, ``Go ahead and do 
the deal.'' I have some stocks and bonds, so maybe I will have a gain 
on the capital gains tax reduction. It seems to me some standard of 
fairness needs to be applied.

  Second, one of the things I think we urgently need to do as a body is 
answer the question, what kind of safety net does the Federal 
Government need to provide? If we want to have a market economy, and I 
think most of us understand we need to have a market economy in order 
to create jobs, and I think most of us support the idea of creating tax 
and regulatory environments so that people will want to make 
investments so our economy will grow, we need a safety net of some 
kind. All of us understand that. That is one of the most encouraging 
things in this debate, is Republicans saying they want to preserve and 
protect Medicare. Medicare is a safety net provided for people over the 
age of 65. When they leave the work force they have been and are able 
to purchase health insurance. It has worked. Nobody over the age of 65 
is uninsured. Mr. President, 100 percent of the people over the age of 
65 are insured.
  The problem is, the economy has changed substantially since 1965 and 
all you have to do is pick up the newspaper and read about record 
mergers and read about companies laying folks off, or go home and talk 
to somebody who is 50 years of age, man or woman, who has worked in a 
company for 30 years, who finds himself or herself unable to purchase 
health care, finds himself or herself struggling with retirement 
questions, struggling with how do I retrain myself.
  We have a radically different economy, and if we want a market 
economy, it seems to me, the question we ought to be wrestling with is 
what kind of safety net should be built? This proposal, as I see it, 
moves us away from a safety net, particularly as regards to health 
care. And particularly, especially the block granting of Medicaid back 
to the States, as I see it, will erode and move us away from that kind 
of--at least that kind--of a safety net.
  I have a number of objections to this proposal that cause me to have 
to vote no. I had to vote no earlier and vote no again on the 
conference report. First and foremost are the reductions in Medicare 
and Medicaid over the next 7 years, in exchange, it seems to be, for 
tax cuts. Or at least the exchange is occurring somewhere. There is 
$270 billion in Medicare, $180 in Medicaid, $245 billion for the tax 
cuts.
  Condition No. 1 for me, as a Democrat, is let us drop the tax cut. 
Again, if we are going to ask people to sacrifice and take less in 
their Government, take less in the way of income from their Government, 
it seems to me one of the ways, one of the actions we need take to 
restore fairness, is drop the idea of providing a tax cut which will 
benefit less than half of the American homes. More than half of the 
American homes will not even be impacted by this tax cut proposal. It 
seems to me that it is reasonable for us to say, at the beginning, let 
us drop that tax cut proposal.
  I, as a Democrat, am willing, in exchange for that, to vote for some 
things that I also think need to be included. I think the CPI does need 
to be adjusted, the Consumer Price Index that is used to adjust 
transfer payments and used to adjust as well our Tax Code. It seems to 
me at least a half a point adjustment is reasonable. If you drop the 
tax cut and you drop the CPI, we will still be reducing the growth of 
Medicare and the growth of Medicaid. But we will be able to do it in a 
fashion, it seems to me, Mr. President, that is much more fair, much 
more reasonable, and much more likely that, in a bipartisan fashion, we 
can sell what will be nonetheless a difficult proposal to the American 
people.

  I, for one, as well, happen to believe if you are going to really 
reform our Medicare system and our entitlement system, that you do have 
to adjust the age. In the Entitlement Commission recommendation, 
Senator Danforth and I recommended, and Senator Simpson and I have a 
proposal on Social Security that phases in an adjustment of eligibility 
age for Social Security. I would propose to do the same thing in 
Medicare. Not for current beneficiaries, not for anybody who is 
currently in the program, but for future beneficiaries.
  The longer we wait to do that the more difficult, it seems to me, it 
is going to be to break the news that when the baby boomers retire we 
have this promise laying on the table we are simply not going to be 
able to keep.
  I say to my Republican colleagues, I am willing to vote to drop the 
CPI by at least a half a point. I am willing to do the same thing on 
eligibility age. I have no difficulty adjusting the premium for part B. 
It is fair, it is reasonable, it ought to be done. It seems to me, at 
the very least we should say no more than a 70 percent subsidy for part 
B Medicare. I am willing to vote for that.
  But I do not want a tax cut proposal on there because I cannot sell 
it as fair. I cannot explain it as being necessary, because it is not 
necessary. There are other ways for us to do this, to generate the 
savings needed to balance the budget in 7 years and get us to that 
objective.
  The next thing I want to spend a little more time on is talking about 
this idea of building a safety net. I listen to people talk, both at 
home and as I watch the news and read the newspaper. Increasingly, 
people are saying this debate has provoked their concern once again 
about whether or not they are going to be able to have health care. 
Why? Mr. President, in the State 

[[Page S17241]]
of Texas, 50 percent of all babies are paid for by Medicaid. These are 
working families out there. These are people who are earning the 
minimum wage or slightly above, that cannot afford to buy health 
insurance. If you want to preserve and protect Medicare, if you have 
ever come to this floor and said let us preserve and protect Medicare, 
the fundamental premise of that program is that at some point the 
market does not work, that we have to collectively look for some way to 
provide for health care for people who either are not going to be able 
to afford to buy it or might be excluded as a consequence of some 
physical condition on their part.
  We need a safety net that guarantees health insurance to every single 
American. No one should be left off the hook of having to pay. The 
payment ought to be based upon our capacity to pay.
  Not only do I support a means testing, an affluence testing of 
Medicare, but I would love to see us change the eligibility and allow 
every single American or every legal resident--once you pass those two 
tests, you know with certainty you have it. You can go out and work. 
You can go out and pay attention to your education and do the sorts of 
things you need to do to lift your earning power and do not worry that 
you are going to lose health insurance.
  I think we need a safety net in changing our retirement laws. I think 
we need a safety net as well in education. The work force today places 
a very heavy premium on those with skills. It seems to me one of the 
worst things about this proposal is that we are not increasing the 
amount of money that families need to be able to send their children to 
college. It seems to me we are moving in the opposite direction in 
trying to build the kind of safety net that we need for an active, 
vibrant market economy.
  Finally, Mr. President, I would like to talk about something I have 
talked about ad nauseam on this floor a time or two before, and that is 
this question of entitlements as a percent of our budget and what this 
does to our ability to invest in education, transportation, research, 
those things that either will improve the quality of our lives like 
parks or helping those who are mentally retarded. Whatever it is we 
decide we want to do to strengthen our conscience, we are decreasing 
our ability to do it as entitlements as a percent of our budget grow. 
This year, it is 34.5 percent for domestic spending. At the end of this 
budget proposal it is 26.5 percent.
  Now, percentages do not mean much to us typically, so let me try to 
convert that. If you think this year's budget is tough on 
appropriations, wait until 2002. I do not think we can do the things 
that are required in this budget proposal. If you think you can, do not 
try to construct a budget with these numbers.
  Mr. President, 27.5 percent gives you $435 billion for defense and 
nondefense spending. Let us presume we spend $263 billion on defense, 
which we did this year. I think we can spend slightly less than that. 
No matter what you do, you are going to spend $255 to $265 billion on 
defense. So let us take $263 billion out, which is this year's 
spending, which I presume most, if not all, of the Republicans believe 
ought to occur. That leaves you $172 billion.
  I know the occupant of the chair, who is on the Appropriations 
Committee, probably is familiar with this, but let me just show you 
what I have done. I take $18.7 billion for law enforcement, for drug 
efforts, for the FBI, for Border Patrol, for the U.S. attorneys; I take 
$17 billion for international affairs--I did not really pull these 
because they are my priorities; I just pulled some numbers--$17 
billion, slightly more than 1 percent of our entire budget; $20 billion 
appropriated for veterans--that is veterans' pensions that are only 
appropriated accounts; $10 billion for community efforts such as the 
CDBG efforts; $17 billion for science and space; $38 billion for 
transportation; $53 billion for all of education and training.
  Mr. President, that is $174 billion. Right there you have $174 
billion. So I ask those who say: Well, that is fine, what are you going 
to do about the NIH? What are you going to do about all environmental 
protection, all of housing, the management of our national parks, 
disaster relief, natural resources management? The list goes on and on 
and on.
  The answer is you cannot do it. There is not a single Member of this 
body, I suggest to my colleagues, who could come to the floor and tell 
me, make a proposal that would show how we are going to in the year 
2002 allocate defense and nondefense with only $435 billion. It is not 
possible.
  It is not desirable either, I might point out, for us to be heading 
in that direction. If you think that is bad in 2002, just look a little 
beyond that when my generation starts to retire. Instead of a 1-percent 
erosion of operations, which is about $15 billion a year, it will 
double in the year 2008, and then it is too late. Then the kinds of 
changes that we have to put in place, the kinds of changes that we have 
to put in place will cut current beneficiaries of Social Security and 
Medicare. It will cut current beneficiaries substantially or we are 
going to have to say to our young people in the work force: We have to 
have a substantial increase in your payroll taxes in order to be able 
to cover the bills.
  I am here to say again I appreciate the work that the Republicans 
have done in trying to tackle this problem. There are other problems 
that need to be addressed that are left unaddressed in this proposal. 
It is going to be vetoed by the President. It is going to be sent back 
here, and it will be up to the Republican leadership. Do we embrace the 
ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee, who is one of the most 
fiscally conservative Members of this body. For gosh sakes, if he and 
the chairman cannot put together a balanced budget, I do not know who 
else can.
  The question will occur, when the Republican leadership package is 
vetoed and sent back, not can you not find Democrats who will support 
it, but will you make an active effort to recruit and bring us into the 
process and say, what are your standards of fairness? What are the 
things you want before you will support this proposal? I think there is 
the will to balance the budget, but there is a desire to do an awful 
lot more than that. I hope that after this bill is vetoed and after it 
is sent back to us and after we have unsuccessfully attempted to 
override it, that those who want to balance the budget will join those 
of us on this side who want to balance the budget as well. I hope you 
will turn to us and give us an opportunity to participate.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. At this time I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from 
Delaware, the chairman of the Finance Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Delaware is 
recognized.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today we are closer than ever to meeting 
four fundamental promises we made to the American people when we 
promised to balance the budget. This legislation offers a balanced 
budget. We promised to save Medicare, a critical program for our 
elderly. This legislation preserves and strengthens Medicare. We 
promised to reform welfare, to end the perverse incentives that have 
found us spending more and more money only to find more and more 
children living under the poverty level. We have provided in this 
legislation real reforms. And, finally, we promised to cut taxes on 
Americans everywhere, to reverse the record-setting Clinton increases 
that even the President admits were too high. And with this important 
balanced budget package we have done just that.
  I am encouraged by all that this legislative package offers--the 
Balanced Budget Act of 1995. I am concerned that certain political 
dynamics that have overtaken this debate are obscuring the real 
importance of what we are offering today.
  On its most fundamental level, this legislation is about change, real 
change in Government. It is the beginning of a new era, a redesigning 
of the way Washington does business. Certainly, given the monumental 
issues this package addresses, we can understand why President Clinton 
has forced us to an impasse. Make no mistake, this legislation is 
revolutionary. It begins to 

[[Page S17242]]
make changes in the way Government has done business over the last 50 
years. It takes the large, overbearing, income-eating, inefficient 
Federal monolith, a government that was designed for the industrial 
age, and it prepares it for the 21st century.
  Making this kind of change is not easy. Institutions resist 
modernization. They even resist improvements. For this reason, many 
once mighty civilizations have fallen. On the other hand, growth and 
opportunity come from change. As the philosophers say, ``The mixture 
which is not shaken decomposes. Progress lies in changing things that 
are.''
  Our Government needs to change. We need to balance the budget. This 
is not only the responsible thing to do, it is necessary for a strong, 
vibrant economy. A balanced budget will lower rates. It will create 
jobs. Some forecast that over 6 million jobs would be created if the 
budget were balanced.
  A balanced budget would also provide a higher standard of living for 
all Americans. A balanced budget will reduce the burden of debt on 
future generations. Again, this is a moral responsibility. As Thomas 
Paine argued, ``* * * no parent, or master, nor all the authority of 
parliament * * * can bind or control the personal freedom of their 
posterity.'' But that is exactly what our Government, with 50 years of 
tax and spend policies, has done. A child born today owes more than 
$185,000 in interest alone on the Federal debt.
  If he or she were to pay the debt, it would literally conscript him 
or her to a lifetime tax rate of 84 percent. Now, we have the 
responsibility to do something about this, and the package before us 
today is the beginning of a real and lasting solution. President 
Clinton in his first State of the Union address maintained that any 
economic forecasting should be performed by the nonpartisan 
Congressional Budget Office.
  Mr. President, the CBO maintains that our program balanced the budget 
in 7 years. To balance the budget, of course, we must control the 
growth of Government, and controlling growth does not mean cutting or 
abolishing important programs. It simply means that we must bring 
spending into line with reality. It means getting back within our 
budget, within our ability to pay for necessary programs and making 
these programs as efficient and cost effective as possible, and that is 
what we accomplish with this legislation.
  I understand that there are basic philosophical differences at play 
in this current debate. There are honorable representatives and 
arguments on both sides of the issue, each promoting a vision of 
Government. Now, those who argue for the status quo believe in the 
status quo. They have faith in big Government. They trust big 
Government. And they see it as the solution to very real concerns. 
Others--and I count myself among this latter group--believe Government 
needs to be reformed and that growth in Government spending needs to be 
slowed down.
  We look at welfare and see that, despite the fact that Government has 
spent more than $5 trillion--let me repeat--has spent more than $5 
trillion over the last 30 years, the program is a catastrophe. We see 
that in 1965 some 15.6 percent of all families with children under the 
age of 18 lived below the poverty level. By 1993, that number had grown 
to 18.5 percent. In other words, we see that despite the fact that 
Government has thrown trillions and trillions of dollars at the 
problem, the problem has only become worse.
  Likewise, the pathologies associated with welfare--
crime, illegitimacy, drug abuse, child neglect, and others--have 
increased to alarming proportions. And we see that between 1965 and 
1992, the number of children receiving AFDC has grown by nearly 200 
percent, even while the entire population of children under the age of 
18 declined by 5.5 percent during this same period of time.

  Mr. President, big Government has not worked. In Medicare, big 
Government has created a program rife with waste, fraud, and abuse. Big 
Government has literally run the system to the point of bankruptcy. We 
all know what President Clinton's own commission has said.
  And I quote:

       The Hospital Insurance Trust Fund (part A) continues to be 
     severely out of financial balance and is projected to be 
     exhausted in about seven years. The SMI Trust Fund (part B), 
     while in balance on an annual basis, shows a rate of growth 
     of costs which is clearly unsustainable.

  Again, I am repeating what President Clinton's own commissioners had 
to say.

       Moreover, [they continue] this fund is projected to be 75 
     percent or more financed by general revenues, so that given 
     the general budget deficit problem, it is a major contributor 
     to the larger fiscal problems of the nation. The Medicare 
     program is clearly unsustainable in its present form.

  Again, this analysis of Medicare's current crisis comes from the 
administration's own trustees. And what we propose today is a solution.
  Mr. President, we also propose real tax relief. Big Government has 
successfully pilfered the taxpayer's pocket. Real Federal taxes per 
household now top $12,000 a year. Total Government taxes, Federal, 
State, local, reach $18,500 per household. The Federal regulatory 
burden, which can also be considered a tax, exceeds $6,000 a year. 
These numbers have been constantly rising, even as the Government has 
fallen deeper and deeper into debt.
  For example, Federal taxes now take nearly 25 percent of our median 
household income every year, up from about 16 percent in 1970. This 
incessant increase in taxes has stifled economic growth. It is 
engendered irresponsibility in Government spending, even perverse 
incentives where programs grow based on their inefficiencies and 
wasteful practices. And all this has to stop.
  Let this legislation serve as the catalyst for real reform. It 
successfully balances the budget in 7 years by controlling the growth 
of spending while promoting economic growth. It preserves and 
strengthens Medicare by allowing the program to grow at about twice the 
rate of inflation and by introducing choice in the system. In this way, 
seniors are guaranteed continued coverage as well as the ability to 
choose those plans and health care providers that best meet their 
needs.

  In this bill, Medicare spending increases from $178 billion in 1995 
to $286 billion in 2002. Average spending per beneficiary grows 7.7 
percent per year, or from $4,800 to $7,100. Remember, President Clinton 
himself said, ``Medicare [is] going up three times the rate of 
inflation. We propose to let it go up at two times the rate of 
inflation. This is not a Medicare . . . cut.'' That is a quote of 
President Clinton himself.
  Our proposal controls runaway costs by introducing choice into the 
system. It gives our seniors the ability to remain in the current fee-
for-service plan, if that is what they want. There is no change, no cut 
in any of the medical services available today.
  But, in addition, we also offer them an unlimited number of health 
care plan options that they may choose to better meet their needs. Our 
plan also aggressively attacks fraud and abuse in the Medicare Program. 
The GAO estimates the loss to Medicare from fraud and abuse equals some 
10 percent of the program's total spending, and law enforcement 
officials claim that the majority of Medicare fraud goes undetected.
  Our proposal directs the Secretary of HHS and the Attorney General to 
establish a national health care fraud and abuse control program to 
coordinate Federal, State and local law enforcement efforts in this 
area. We earmark some $150 million in the first year to use 
specifically for investigations and prosecutions of health care fraud.
  We also offer a number of new tools to assist investigators and 
prosecutors in attacking this problem. The CBO has estimated that our 
provisions in this area will save the program more than $3.5 billion 
over 7 years.
  Mr. President, these are the kinds of reforms we must make to 
preserve and to strengthen important programs. In welfare reform, we 
must reverse perverse incentives that have sapped the spirit of so many 
Americans, perverse incentives that have engendered dependency on 
Government and contributed to decay and even moral decline within our 
cities.
  We must give Americans, as I say, tax relief. President Clinton, by 
his recent admission that he raised taxes too high, recognizes that our 
families are stretched beyond reasonable limits. High taxes kill 
savings, risk taking, incentive and economic opportunity. High taxes 
undermine job creation. 

[[Page S17243]]

  We offer Americans $245 billion in tax relief over 7 years. This 
includes a $500 per child credit, relief from the marriage penalty and 
tax credits for adoptions and deductions for student loans. This relief 
gives our families incentives to save. That President Clinton has 
elected to shut down the Government rather than work with us towards 
achieving these objectives is, indeed, a mystery.
  Again, he once proposed a child tax credit, a credit of up to $800. 
Now, as with Medicare and welfare and even balancing the budget, he is 
backing away from his promises. Not only this, some are even attempting 
to make political hay out of the tax relief we are offering, trying to 
tie it to our efforts to slow the runaway growth in Medicare.
  Let me say again that tax relief does not come at the expense of 
Medicare. As the Washington Post points out:
  ``The Democrats have fabricated the Medicare-tax cut connection 
because it is useful politically.''
  In an earlier editorial, the Post stated that ``the Democrats are 
engaged in demagoguery, big time. And it's wrong. * * *''
  It goes on to say:

       [the Republicans] have a plan. Enough is known about it to 
     say it's credible; it's gutsy and in some respects 
     inventive--and it addresses a genuine problem that is only 
     going to get worse. What Democrats have on the other hand is 
     a lot of expostulation, TV ads and scare talk.
  We must get beyond the scare talks. We must get beyond the political 
posturing that has brought the greatest Government on Earth to a 
standstill. The American people deserve better. They deserve a 
Government that works, a Government that works for them.
  This, of course, is not the first time Government has been shut down. 
Ronald Reagan shut the Government down because during his tenure, 
Congress wanted to spend too much. Today, Clinton has shut it down 
because he wants to spend too much.
  Look at the numbers, Mr. President. We cannot afford the waste, 
growth and inefficiency of the last 50 years, but what we can afford 
are the well-conceived, workable reforms contained in this Balanced 
Budget Act of 1995. I stand behind it, and I urge the President to sign 
it.
  Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under an earlier order, the Senator from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I always welcome the 
opportunity to hear our Republican friends talk about reducing the 
deficit. I remember in 1980 when President Reagan was elected, we had 
about a $465 billion deficit, and all during that period of time of 
President Reagan and President Bush, we went up to $4.7 trillion, all 
run up during that period of time. It is always interesting to me, 
President Reagan requested higher budgets than were actually approved 
by the Democratic Congress.
  Then we had President Clinton's program that went into effect that 
reduced the deficit by $600 billion. It is useful, as we examine what I 
consider an extreme resolution that is before us and budget before us, 
to put in some context exactly which party and who has been trying to 
do something about the deficit and basically who have been talking 
about it. Of course, as history points out, we did not get one single 
Republican vote when we put in place the deficit reduction program.
  As was mentioned by other Members, by those Senators on the other 
side, this really is an issue of priority. I welcome the opportunity to 
compare the priorities. It is now clear to the whole country that this 
is not a conflict about a balanced budget, it is a dispute about 
fundamental American values and priorities.
  The Republican budget plan is a program to sacrifice senior citizens, 
students and children and working families in order to pay for lavish 
tax breaks for the wealthiest individuals and corporations in America. 
It is a program to destroy Medicare, to benefit the rich. It is a 
program to slash aid to education and trash the environment. It raids 
private pension funds, closes the door of colleges and universities to 
the sons and daughters of working families, dumps over a million 
more children into poverty in a misguided version of welfare reform.

  In page after page of this legislation, Republicans offer an open 
hand to powerful special interests and the back of their hand to 
everyone else.
  Republicans pretend their continuing resolution is not about raising 
Medicare premiums, but their reconciliation bill certainly is--$52 
billion in additional premiums over the next 7 years, an additional 
$2,500 in premiums for every elderly couple. That is only the tip of 
the iceberg.
  The overall Republican cuts in Medicare total $270 billion. The 
trustees said what was necessary was $87 billion; their cut $270 
billion. Compare that to the $245 billion in Republican tax breaks for 
the wealthy. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to understand 
that shameful arithmetic.
  The Republican Medicare plan is also carefully constructed to force 
senior citizens to give up their own doctors and join HMO's and other 
private insurance plans. That means billions of dollars in higher 
profits for the insurance firms at the expense of elderly Americans.
  Why are all the insurance companies supporting this particular 
proposal? Because they recognize it opens the opportunities for 
billions and billions in profits.
  The Republican Medicare plan may be Heaven for the health insurance 
industry, but it is hell on senior citizens.
  Senior citizens also depend on Medicaid for nursing home care and 
other services Medicare does not cover. Medicaid provides the health 
care for one-fifth of the Nation's children and for millions of 
American families with family members with disabilities.
  It is interesting, 18 million children are on Medicaid; 94 percent of 
those children's parents work; 65 percent of them work full time. These 
are sons and daughters of hard-working Americans that are going to be 
cast adrift under this proposal that is before us.
  The Republicans do not care about their health care. They cut 
Medicaid by $180 billion. By the year 2002, it will be slashed by one-
third. Effectively, with the program for 7 years, they are taking 2 
years of the payment out. They are taking that out of the program and 
giving it back to the States and saying, ``Provide better services for 
them.''
  Millions of our needy citizens will lose. Last year, the Republicans 
blocked health reform that would have guaranteed coverage for all this 
year. They are taking away the coverage from those who now have it.
  The giveaways go on. The weakening of the nursing home standards was 
defeated in the Senate by 95 to 1, but the weakened standards are back 
in the final Republican bill; liens on the homes of nursing home 
residents, defeated on the floor of the U.S. Senate, but the liens are 
back in the bill; permission for doctors to charge more than Medicare 
will pay, defeated in the Senate, back in the bill; weakened antifraud 
standards, defeated in the Senate, back in the bill. The casualty list 
for senior citizens goes on and on.
  We have distributed a fact sheet laying out some of these back-room 
deals in more detail. On education, the Republican budget is a triumph 
of special interests over student interests. It is rigged to funnel 
over $100 billion in new business to banks and money lenders at the 
expense of colleges and students. It is hard to find a more vivid or 
disgraceful example of the prostitution of Republican principles. When 
profits are at stake, Republicans are more willing to sell out the free 
market competition and replace it with the heavy hand of Government-
guaranteed monopoly.
  The Republican budget also drastically cuts education. It slashes 
Federal aid by a third. It cuts aid for school reform. It cuts college 
student assistance by $5 billion. It caps the direct lending program at 
the ridiculously low level of 10 percent. Twelve-hundred colleges and 
universities will be forced out of this program they want for their 
students. Why? So the banks and guaranteed agencies can profit to the 
tune of $103 billion in new business over the next 7 years, and the 
best estimate is that it will be $7 to $9 billion in profits that ought 
to be used to lower the cost of education for the children of this 
country.
  For children, this bill is a nightmare. There is a right way and a 
wrong way to reform welfare. Punishing children is the wrong way. 
Denying job training 

[[Page S17244]]
and work opportunities is the wrong way. Leaving States holding the bag 
is the wrong way. This bill takes a bad Senate bill and makes it worse. 
The Senate bill eliminated 60 years of a good-faith national commitment 
to protect all needy children. This conference report adds insult to 
injury by guaranteeing increased suffering for millions of children and 
families.
  The Senate bill cuts food stamps for 14 million children, SSI 
benefits for 225,000 disabled children and protection for 100,000 
abused children. This conference report slashes these essential 
programs by $82 billion--$17 billion more than the Senate bill. 
Nutrition programs, disability benefits, and antichild abuse programs 
will suffer heavily.
  If the conference report becomes law, children born to parents on 
welfare will be punished in every State. Victims of domestic violence 
will lose their special protection. Food stamps for the unemployed will 
be further restricted. Family preservation and child abuse programs 
will be block granted. Family hardship exemptions and State investment 
requirements will be reduced. All this is above and beyond the Senate 
bill. Even the modest child care provisions added to the Republican 
``home alone'' bill in the Senate have been rolled back.
  This bill cuts essential child care funding and eliminates essential 
protections for children and child care. As a result, many more 
children will be left home alone, and countless others will find 
themselves in unsafe conditions. The bill cuts more than a billion 
dollars from the Senate-passed welfare bill by stretching out the $3 
billion in new funds over 7 years and capping the child care 
development block grant for low-income working families. It eliminates 
any real requirements for States to ensure adequate health and safety 
protection for children in child care. It repeals the requirements for 
States to adopt minimal health and safety provisions for immunizations, 
building safety, and appropriate health and safety training for anyone 
receiving Federal funds.
  These provisions were negotiated by Senator Hatch and the Bush 
administration, and they have had broad bipartisan support--until now. 
In addition, the Republicans have cut more than 50 percent of the funds 
set aside to improve the quality of child care. Report after report 
documents the shocking poor quality of child care in far too many child 
care settings. These funds are making a measurable difference in the 
development and growth of low-income children.
  What is happening is the standards, which were established by Senator 
Hatch and Senator Dodd, signed by President Bush, have been 
significantly weakened. It is so interesting that we are prepared to 
give real standards of protection for the child care in the military, 
and we deny them to the civilian workers of this country. Any man or 
woman in this body can go out and visit a child care center on any 
military base, and they will find it is up to standards. There were 
only six votes in this body against those kind of standards when we did 
it for the military. But when you are talking about dealing with poor 
people, you take those standards and safety net away. You know what is 
going to happen? In another 1 or 2 years, there will be a study and it 
will talk about how all of these programs have deteriorated and people 
will say that is what happens when you have a Federal program, and 
there will be pressure to provide less and less support for those poor 
children, and more and more tax giveaways for the wealthy in this 
country. It is wrong.
  If this bill passes, the Senate will be turning its back on needy 
children, on poor mothers struggling to make ends meet--millions of our 
fellow citizens who need help the most.
  The Republican priorities are clear: For millionaires they will move 
mountains; for poor children, they will not even lift a finger. We all 
want to balance the budget, but it cannot and should not be done on the 
backs of America's children. Enough is enough. Enough of the back room 
deals with high-paid corporate lobbyists. Enough of dismantling 
commitments to children and families in need.

  In the end, this is a battle for the heart and soul of this Nation. 
It is a simple question of priorities. Are we going to leave millions 
of low-income children behind in order to give huge tax breaks to the 
rich?
  This bill is legislative child abuse at its worst.
  A further outrageous provision in the reconciliation is the hunting 
license it gives corporations to raid employee pension plans and divert 
billions of dollars in retirement funds to other purposes.
  Despite the overwhelming 94-5 vote by the Senate 3 weeks ago to strip 
the indefensible pension raid from the Senate bill, the Republican 
majority persist in their reckless scheme to turn private pension plans 
into piggy banks for corporate raiders and greedy executives at the 
expense of the retirement security of millions of Americans.
  One other decision by the Republican conferees vividly demonstrates 
what this debate is about. All year, Democrats have tried to close the 
so-called billionaires' tax loophole, which lets wealthy Americans 
renounce their American citizenship to evade their fair share of taxes 
on the massive wealth they have accumulated in America. Have we heard 
any Member of that side defend that provision? The silence is 
deafening. It is difficult to imagine a more obscene loophole. Every 
time we have raised it in the Senate, no one tries to defend it. Once 
again, behind closed doors, the Republicans have saved it. The 
billionaires' loophole is alive and well in this bill. Shame on the 
Republican Ways and Means Committee. I doubt if they have ever sunk 
lower.
  The Republicans claim that their plan provides a balanced budget, but 
it is profoundly out of balance. It tilts the scales heavily to the 
wealthy and the powerful at the expense of ordinary Americans. The 
Republicans know that President Clinton will never sign this bill. They 
know that Congress will never override his veto. The question is: How 
long this shut-down-the-Government tantrum will go on before they 
realize the American people are not buying what the Republicans are 
selling and never will.
  I yield to the Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. I listened very carefully to the Senator from 
Massachusetts with respect to the impact of this reconciliation bill on 
children. Is it not the case that if the tax break provisions of this 
reconciliation were not in this package--in other words, this $250 
billion worth of tax breaks for the very wealthy--these drastic cuts 
with respect to these programs for children would not have to be made, 
is that not correct?

  Mr. KENNEDY. Well, the Senator is absolutely correct. And to further 
add to the Senator's point, the Senator understands that for every 
dollar that you cut, both in education and in child care, you increase 
the cost to society by 3 or 4 more dollars. So if you are looking at 
this, either from a bottom-line point of view about what the costs are 
going to be over any period of time, or looking at it--I think all of 
us would like to think that the way we are looking at it is caring for 
the child. It makes absolutely no sense, what they have done.
  Mr. SARBANES. The costs accumulate. But the fact is--and people must 
understand this--that in order to give tax breaks to very wealthy 
people, draconian cuts are being made in these programs to help 
children. So there is a direct tradeoff that has to be understood. In 
other words, these cuts are happening to child care, to feeding 
programs, education programs, and others, in order to accumulate a pot 
of money with which to give tax breaks to wealthy people. If you did 
not give the tax breaks, you would not have to make the cuts, is that 
not correct?
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is absolutely correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.