[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 188 (Tuesday, November 28, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17548-S17549]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        THE RECONCILIATION BILL

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the current Presiding Officer has spent 
substantial amounts of time on the floor talking about reconciliation, 
and he feels passionately and strongly, I believe, that we ought to 
balance the Federal budget. I share that with him. There is not 
disagreement in this Chamber about the goal.
  I said back home last week--and I have said here--that in my judgment 
the Republicans deserve some praise for pushing and pushing for a 
balanced budget. I commend them for that. I do not commend them for the 
priorities on how they would get there. But, frankly, all of us ought 
to have more inertia to try to put this country's books in order. And 
the question is not whether. The question is, How are we going to 
balance the budget in 7 years?
  Negotiations will begin today or tomorrow between the Republicans in 
the Congress and the Democrats in the White House on how to do that in 
7 years. I would simply ask the American people, and my colleagues in 
the Senate, to think through these priorities some because it is not 
just let us do it in 7 years and never mind the consequences. It is, 
let us do it in 7 years. Let us do it the right way, and the smart way 
for this country. Let us make the right choices for this country's 
future. It is not the only job in front of us. We should balance the 
budget. We must, and we will balance the budget. But we also must make 
sure that those who are disadvantaged in this country are not ignored. 
We must make sure that our education system works, and we must make 
sure that our air is clean and our water is clean. Those are other 
priorities as well.
  But in the terms of choosing priorities by which we balance the 
budget, I would like to once again demonstrate that there is 
substantial difference and a legitimate difference in what we think 
will enhance our country's long-term interests. I happen to think that 
there is nothing more important in this country than investing in 
building the best education system in the world. I want, when all of 
this is said and done, for us to be able to say our generation, this 
group of Americans, made a commitment that we want to have the finest 
schools in the world. We want our kids to be the best they can be 
because they went to the best schools in the world. There is a little 
provision in the reconciliation bill, and the continuing resolution 
that was passed a week and a half ago, a tiny little issue called Star 
Schools.
  It is a tiny little program, but it is designed to try to lift and 
enhance those schools that are focusing on math and sciences to bring 
our children up to international levels in math and sciences, to be 
competitive. This little Star Schools Program was cut 40 percent--40 
percent.
  Now, there is a bigger program, a kind of a giant tumor over in the 
Defense Department called star wars or national missile defense or SDI, 
depending on what name you want to call it. Because this proposal has a 
space-

[[Page S 17549]]
based component, I have heard it called star wars, but nonetheless it 
is a program that, in its infancy, costs hundreds of millions of 
dollars a year, and it is going to grow to billions of dollars a year 
and eventually cost $48 billion. The star wars program was increased in 
this process this year by 100 percent.
  Now, the point is Star Schools you cut by 40 percent, star wars you 
increase by 100 percent. The question is, What do you think is worthy 
of a star here, schools or corporations that want to build a $48 
billion star wars program, because that is what this is. This is about 
special interests that want to build a weapons system the Secretary of 
Defense did not order, did not ask for, and says he does not need. The 
priority is clear: Star Schools or star wars. Cut Star Schools 40 
percent, increase star wars 100 percent. If you think that enhances 
America's future, then that is what you do. I do not think it enhances 
America's future. I think it is exactly the wrong choice.
  I use that example as I have before simply to say the question is not 
whether, but how, do we balance the budget.
  Two other tiny little issues. I offered an amendment, and it was 
defeated on a party line vote, regrettably. It is an issue that I think 
also describes the how in terms of what we believe in. We have in the 
Tax Code in this country a perverse, insidious, little tax incentive 
that says, move your plant overseas. Close your plant in America, move 
it overseas to a tax haven country, and we will give you a tax break. I 
offered an amendment that said let us reduce the deficit by getting rid 
of this insidious little tax break that says move your plant and jobs 
overseas and we will give you a break. I lost on a party line vote.
  In terms of priorities, the priority, it seems to me, in balancing 
the budget is to do what works to help create jobs and opportunities in 
our country. How better to help create jobs and opportunities than to 
shut off the faucet on a tax break that encourages plants to shut down 
in America and relocate overseas and take the jobs that used to be U.S. 
jobs and turn them into jobs in a tax haven country.
  That is a priority we ought to pursue. Again, it is not whether, it 
is how do you balance the budget. Let us balance the budget by getting 
rid of this little tax break that is wrong for our country, that 
weakens our country, that says let us move jobs out of our country. 
That does not make any sense to me.
  The smart choice is, yes, Star Schools, education, investment in the 
future. It is, yes, jobs, shutting off tax breaks that persuade people 
to move out of the country, and it also is, yes, choosing between a tax 
cut for the very wealthiest of Americans and a cut in Medicare 
reimbursement for some of the poorest of Americans.
  That amendment also was offered, and I hope that will be reconsidered 
in a reconciliation conference in the next week or two. What we said 
was very simple. Those of the upper income strata in this country have 
done very, very well. They have garnered a substantial portion of the 
income, regrettably, at the expense of the bottom portion of the income 
earners in our country. What we said with the amendment was very 
simple. We said, let us at least limit the tax break to incomes of a 
quarter of a million dollars or less, and then let us use the savings 
from that limitation to see if we cannot reduce the cut in Medicare 
that is going to affect some low-income elderly folks.
  Once again, we lost, but again it is choices--what is important and 
what is not. Is it important to give the wealthiest people in our 
country a significant tax cut? Gee, I do not think so. It seems to me, 
if you look at the statistics, you will find that they have done very, 
very well, much better, with income growth that is substantial.
  In fact, the top percent in our country have seen income growths on a 
real basis of something like 70 percent real income growth in a period 
of a decade, and the bottom 60 percent now sit down for supper at night 
at the family table and talk about their lot in life. What they 
discover is that they are working harder and earning less than 20 years 
ago when you adjust for inflation.
  Our point is that we do not think it makes any sense to give big tax 
cuts to those at the upper one-half of 1 percent of the income earners 
at the same time that we are saying we cannot afford Medicare for some 
of the poorest of the elderly. And, again, it is a question of 
priorities.
  I think that we are now on a track in the next week or two with 
respect to the reconciliation bill that will be constructive for this 
country.
  I mentioned these three areas only because I think there are 
differences in priorities that are legitimate differences. On the other 
hand, it seems to me if Republicans and Democrats can sit down together 
in the next couple of weeks and if the President can sit down with 
Congress, out of the glare of the spotlights, a lot of agreement can 
result, and we can in fact balance this country's budget and put this 
country on solid financial footing for the years ahead.
  This country, it seems to me, will be advantaged in a world in which 
we see increasingly competitive, shrewd, tough trade allies and others 
if we find some way to work more together, and I do not think that is 
an impossible circumstance. I know there is a lot of controversy 
floating around, and I get involved in it from time to time. I hear 
what the Speaker of the House says, and I may respond. But the fact is 
that with all of the controversy which circulates, we are still all on 
the same team. Our interest is the American economy. Our interest is 
American jobs and opportunities in the future.
  It seems to me, even though we may belong to different political 
parties, our country will be advantaged if we can find a thoughtful, 
sober, reflective way of choosing the right priorities that all of us 
think will move this country ahead and build a better economy and a 
better future.
  My hope and my expectation is that maybe, just maybe, as we approach 
the Christmas season, more of a spirit of cooperativeness will exist. 
We put this question behind us of whether, and the question now is how 
to balance the budget. And although these are not easy questions to 
answer, I think people of good will can get together and do what is 
right for this country.
  Mr. President, I see no other speakers waiting. I yield the floor, 
and I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for a few 
minutes in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.

                          ____________________