[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 190 (Thursday, November 30, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17839-S17840]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        THE BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have been asked to be one of the 
negotiators in the budget negotiations. So I and Senator Exon, 
representing the Democratic side in the budget negotiations, are 
spending a lot of time and will spend a great deal of time on this 
issue. I do not need, nor do I think the President nor anyone else 
needs, to have their sincerity questioned about whether or not they 
want a balanced budget. I believe it is in this country's interest to 
have a balanced budget. I believe that is a goal that represents a 
legitimate and important goal for this country. It is one goal. There 
are others.
  Do we care and should we do something about making sure we have the 
best schools in the world? Yes. That is another goal. Do we care that 
we have clean air and clean water and a decent environment in the 
country? Yes. That is a third goal. Do we care whether low-income 
senior citizens have access to health care? Do we care whether children 
have access to good nutrition? Do we care whether poor children have 
access to health care? Those are other goals. It is not a case where 
there is only one goal in this country. We have a number of goals we 
must meet.
  It is true the Republicans put together a plan. It is also true that 
plan is dead, gone. The President will veto it. There are 34 people who 
will sustain the veto. And that plan does not exist at that point. Then 
what is true is Democrats and Republicans sit down at the table and 
decide together, how do we balance the budget in 7 years? That is going 
to take a substantial amount of effort and good will. And it is not 
just how do you balance the budget in 7 years, but it is how do you do 
that in a responsible way for the long-term interests of this country?
  Those who paraded in here this morning had a plan that would balance 
the budget in 7 years by, among other things, providing--let me give 
you a couple of little examples--that we repeal most of the alternative 
minimum tax for corporations so 2,000 corporations will get $7 million 
each in tax breaks because of the reduction in the alternative minimum 
tax. I do not know whether everyone who voted for that knew that was in 
there. But those who voted for it and believe that should happen do no 
service to this country. That is not good public policy.
  I wonder whether those who voted for this plan they are so proud of 
understand that what they did was increase the tax incentive for people 
to close down their plants in America and move their jobs overseas. 
That is in the plan. It says, by the way, if you do that, we will give 
you a bigger tax benefit. Just move the American jobs you have overseas 
and we will give you a benefit. I do not know whether anybody is proud 
of that or whether they want to come here and boast that was in their 
plan.
  There are a series of very large policy areas that we must address--
Medicare, Medicaid, education, environment, and others. On the issue of 
Medicare, the majority party plan, which is now going to be dead when 
the President vetoes it, calls for $270 billion in budget 

[[Page S17840]]
savings for Medicare. Many of us believe that is too much. There needs 
to be a compromise in that area. The same plan provided for $245 
billion in tax cuts.
  I offered an amendment on the floor of the Senate that I believe 
every single Republican voted against. It was very simple. I said, if 
there is going to be tax cuts--I do not think there should be at this 
point. I think we ought to balance the budget first. Then we ought to 
decide after the budget is balanced how to change the tax system, and 
where to cut taxes. But if there will be tax cuts, I said, let us at 
least decide this. Let us decide that those tax cuts shall be limited 
to people whose incomes are below a quarter of a million dollars. Can 
we not at least agree that we will provide the tax cuts only to those 
whose incomes are below a quarter of a million dollars a year and use 
the savings from that, somewhere around $50 billion in 7 years, to 
reduce the reductions in Medicare, reduce the hit on Medicare 
especially for low-income elderly?
  I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. I posed the question in an amendment. Should we not, if 
we are going to do that, at least limit the tax cuts to those whose 
incomes are a quarter of a million dollars a year or less and use the 
savings from that limitation to reduce the hurt that is going to be 
caused to low-income senior citizens on Medicare? The answer was no. 
They said no. We insist that people above $250,000 get a tax cut. Some 
will get an enormous tax cut from this legislation.
  So those who come here and bust their suit buttons boasting about 
what they have done, what they have done was unacceptable to a lot of 
folks. Not that they have balanced the budget. That is not 
unacceptable. It is the way they have done it that is unacceptable. I 
want to balance the budget. I want to spend a lot of hours in the room 
with negotiators and try to balance the budget. I am not going to come 
out here and question their sincerity. I do not think they ought to 
come out here and suggest the President is hiding in Europe. It does no 
service to try to advance an opportunity to reach agreement on these 
issues.
  We are talking, after all, about a 7-year spending plan for this 
country, a 7-year spending plan created in such a way that put this 
country's books in balance. That is a worthy goal--put the books in 
balance in a way that also recognizes the need for investment in 
certain areas, education; the need for protection in certain areas, 
health care for low-income elderly, and others. We can do that. I am 
convinced we can do that. But we cannot do it if we keep shouting 
across the aisle that we are the only ones that had a plan, that we are 
the only ones on the right track, and that all the rest of you folks do 
not believe in it. We question your sincerity. You are hiding.
  What kind of nonsense is that? That is not thoughtful. That is 
thoughtless political pandering. And I think that we will all be better 
off if we decide--yes, the goal is worthy. The plan that was advanced 
was not acceptable.
  So let us have a rectangular table where we sit down and in good 
faith decide how we balance the budget and to do it in the right way. I 
want to do that. It is good for this country. The motives of the other 
side are, in my judgment, good motives. But some of the language makes 
no sense. Let us decide to work together in a spirit of cooperation, 
and fix what is wrong in this country and do it the right way.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from 
North Dakota for his comments. I believe they are right on. They are 
helpful, and I think they are positive.
  It is my belief that the budget debate could be settled in 20 
minutes, if both sides really sat down and did it. I think the Senator 
from North Dakota clearly gave the main kernel of a solution. The tax 
cuts that are in the bill--no one benefits from those tax cuts more 
than my own family does. My husband is an investment banker. The 
capital gains clearly benefits him. He would love to have those 
benefits. It would be a nice thing to have, and many Americans feel 
that way. However, to have those benefits by making deeper cuts in 
Medicare and Medicaid--in my own State the Medicaid Program pays half a 
million of the poorest Californians' premiums and copayments whose 
Medicare would be done away with. We do not need to do that in this 
bill. You do not need to have the depth of the cuts to balance the 
budget in 7 years.
  The issue is not balancing the budget in 7 years. We have all agreed 
that is now going to be the case. The issue is do we need to have a 
major tax reduction benefiting largely upper-income people by taking 
those dollars, by making the cuts deeper in Medicare and Medicaid and 
social programs that are important to the well-being of this Nation? I 
think the answer to that, for anyone that looks at this from a moral 
perspective, clearly has to be no. So my own view is that this thing 
can be settled very quickly, and that the Senator from North Dakota 
clearly put forward a kernel of that solution.

                          ____________________