[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 200 (Friday, December 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S18713-S18729]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

                                 ______


                           MOTION TO PROCEED

                                 ______


                             CLOTURE MOTION

  Mr. DOLE. In an effort to make some headway on the Labor, HHS bill--
we have already had two votes which we have lost on a party-line vote--
I move to proceed to H.R. 2127, and I send a cloture motion to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:


                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to the consideration of H.R. 2127, the Labor, HHS 
     appropriations bill.
     Senators Robert Dole, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Rick 
     Santorum, Thad Cochran, Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond, Don 
     Nickles, Craig Thomas, Mitch O'Connell, Slade Gorton, Dirk 
     Kempthorne, Robert F. Bennett, Hank Brown, Connie Mack, and 
     Mark Hatfield.

  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I would only seek the floor if the majority leader is 
completed.
  Mr. DOLE. I yield the floor.

           BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS AND THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I did not have the opportunity to hear 
all of the comments of the majority leader. Obviously, there are 
legitimate points of view that are very different as we consider the 
circumstances we are in right now.
  The majority leader said we ought to have the truth about what is 
happening right now. His version of the truth and mine could not be 
more different. My version of the truth is--and I think it is shared by 
virtually every Member on this side of the aisle--it was the 
Republicans this afternoon who got up and walked out of the room. They 
were the ones to say, ``It's over. We don't want to deal with you any 
more. You're not acting in good faith.''

  My version of the truth is that there is absolutely no reason why we 
should connect the continuing resolution with our effort in the 
reconciliation bill, none at all. There is absolutely no connection. 
And the reason why we are going through this charade right now with the 
appropriations bills is because they know that we are way overdue in 
completing these appropriations bills. We should have done them a long 
time ago.
  And I will tell you one of the reasons we are overdue. Because they 
are putting stuff that does not belong in appropriations business on 
that bill. What does striker replacement have to do with health and 
human services? Absolutely nothing. We know that. They know that.
  And on so many of these pieces of legislation there is absolutely 
irrelevant, completely unassociated matters legislatively that have 
nothing to do with appropriations, and that is the hangup, and they 
know it. If you want to pass that appropriations bill, we can do it by 
6 o'clock, and it is now 5 to 6. We could do it by 6 o'clock if we 
would sit down in a serious way and take the extraneous things out and 
begin dealing with it.
  That bill is going to be vetoed. We do not have to talk about it a 
long time. But we are not willing to do that because of those 
extraneous issues and everybody knows it.
  So let us be clear. We do not have to shut the Government down 
because there is a pick with the President about whether he has been 
working in good faith or not. There is no reason to tell people one 
more time that they are out of work for whatever length of time. That 
is not necessary. We want a clean continuing resolution. We ought to 
have it tonight. We ought to pass it, and we ought to get serious about 
negotiations.
  Now, we know as well that one of the biggest differences between 
Republicans and Democrats all through this reconciliation process has 
been the tax cut. And for whatever reason, the Republicans continue to 
say that is a nonnegotiable item; that we want to hold on to that tax 
cut virtually at all cost.
  But that is not where we started. Where we started was the Republican 
insistence that we go to a 7-year balanced budget. The majority leader 
said it has to be on the President's terms. Well, the President said he 
had a 10-year balanced budget. And many of us supported the idea of 
balancing the budget in 10, 7, it does not matter, but the President 
had 10 years. The President said, ``As an indication of my good faith, 
I will go from 10 to 7.''
  That is what he said. Now, the President also said we have a very big 
difference in our projection on what the economy is going to do when we 
balance the budget than what CBO does. There is a profound difference. 
CBO is saying that once we go through all the pain, there is really no 
gain. Once we cut all these programs as deeply as the Republican budget 
proposes and we balance the budget, interest rates are actually going 
to go up, unemployment is going to go up, corporate profits are going 
to go down, overall economic growth is going to do down, but we still 
think it is a great idea to get out there and balance the budget. 

[[Page S18714]]


  Mr. President, we do not buy that. You cannot tell me after NAFTA and 
after GATT and after balancing the budget and after doing all the 
things that we said we were going to do we cannot look forward to a 
better economic picture than that.
  Now, why is it that the Republicans continue to insist on holding to 
that scenario before we even sit down and talk about our disagreements 
on policy? I do not know. OMB said it is not that bleak; we ought to be 
able to look at the next 7 years with a little more optimism than that.
  So that is a fundamental disagreement that we ought to be able to 
work through. We should not just take our papers and walk out of the 
room saying, ``It's over; forget it.'' That is not how we do things 
around here. That is a legitimate difference of opinion that ought to 
be discussed.
  And when it comes to the policy questions themselves, we are not 
prepared to go beyond where we said we were on Medicare and on Medicaid 
and on education and on taxing working people. We are not prepared to 
do that as long as the Republican position is tax cuts are sacrosanct, 
we cannot touch them.
  So that is where we are. We thought that after the second proposal 
any objective person would say we are working in good faith.
  That has not happened. I am disappointed. The Republicans have taken 
their papers and walked out of the room and now have threatened to shut 
down the Government because they did not get their way.
  It does not have to be this way. We can go back in that room. We can 
discuss and negotiate and get the job done. There is still time. We are 
willing to do it tonight, tomorrow, Sunday, Monday. It does not matter 
how long. We are there. We will be there. Call the meeting. Let us get 
this job done.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me indicate that I have talked to both 
Senator Domenici and Congressman Kasich. There was never any mention of 
the word ``walkout.'' They suggested if we got serious, we would all 
come back together. And that is precisely where it is. We are prepared 
to come back. When the President of the United States gets serious, 
then we are prepared to come back and start negotiations.
  I think most of us made plans to be here all weekend just for that 
purpose. We thought they were going to start this afternoon. We did 
start the meeting at 11:30, another meeting at 3 o'clock.
  And it seems to me that as I watched events unfold, I think maybe 
there is a split not on our side. I do not know of any. But I think the 
Democrats are split. Some want to resolve the problem and some want to 
go into next year so there can be an election issue on a balanced 
budget. Maybe that is a legitimate concern.
  We sent a balanced budget to the President. He vetoed it. We spent 10 
months, 10 long, hard months putting that together. For the first time 
in my memory, we sent a balanced budget to put us on a path for a 
balanced budget by the year 2002 to the President of the United States, 
and he vetoed it. So he has already vetoed a balanced budget.
  And now he says that even though he has vetoed one and wants one--we 
do not want one, or do we want one? And I would hope that--there is 
still plenty of time. It is only 6 p.m. Friday. I would hope that the 
President of the United States would contact those of us who have the 
responsibility, the leadership, and say, ``Let us sit down and try to 
work this out.'' If we cannot work it out, let us stop kidding the 
American people.
  You cannot have it both ways, Mr. President. You cannot go out and 
attack us for trying to save Medicare, which you call a cut, and go 
back and take a look at Mrs. Clinton testifying on health care: ``You 
are going to need to lower the rate of growth of health care down to 6 
or 7 percent,'' she testified, went before a committee. That is 
precisely what we are doing. That is what we are doing.
  We finally had an accurate reflection of what we are doing on 
``Nightline'' last week. Everybody ought to watch it. They took all the 
rhetoric and all the politics and wrung it out. And now they told the 
American people, separate the politics, we are trying to save, preserve 
Medicare.
  And I will say to my friends on the other side, part B Medicare is 
voluntary. It does not come out of the trust fund. It comes out of 
general revenues. So the people working in the Senate, anywhere in the 
Senate, in the kitchen, anywhere, take their tax money and pay premiums 
for millionaires, multimillionaires. And the President says you cannot 
charge those millionaires--the Government is paying 68.5 percent--you 
cannot charge them 31.5 percent. It has got to drop down to 25 percent.
  That is the President of the United States who ought to say we are 
after all these people. He is protecting the people who could pay more. 
I do not understand it. He wants to keep it at 25 percent so everybody 
else in America can help pick up the premiums, part B, which is 
voluntary, for people who can afford to pay a lot more than the people 
paying the taxes in the first place. Yet he is out rapping us every 
day, as he just concluded, saying we are trying to devastate Medicare.
  It is not true, Mr. President. You know it is not true. So it seems 
to me that--I just look in the calendar. We have had this 
appropriations bill on the calendar since September 15, 3 months today, 
and we have tried twice to take it up. We failed on a party-line vote. 
I think I counted--somebody counted--about 160,000, 170,000 people 
would be able to go to work Monday morning had we passed that bill. But 
the Democrats--every Democrat opposed us on cloture so we could not get 
the bill up. So I filed cloture again. It will not get the vote until 
Monday. So it will be at least 1 day off or 2 days off.
  But I want the workers to know, the Federal workers to know, 
Republicans did not prevent this bill from coming up. This is the big 
one. This is the big one, as far as Federal employees are concerned.
  And maybe we can work out some consent agreement and pass it tonight 
by consent, go to conference, get it back here tomorrow or Sunday, in 
time so that the people--if you cannot get a CR--then they can go back 
to work.
  So, Mr. President, let me also state, as I said to my colleagues 
earlier, a list of the possible remaining items for Senate 
consideration prior to Christmas. It includes nominations and Executive 
Calendar items, subpoena for Whitewater, if that is going to be debated 
or necessary, whatever, the budget negotiation, whatever, continuing 
resolution, remaining appropriations bills, DOD authorization 
conference report, other available conference reports, rangeland 
reform.

  This is all assuming that we take up and pass the defense 
authorization bill on Tuesday, that we can do all these next week and 
the following week. I have the feeling that there may be a few 
absentees around here between Christmas and New Years. But it does seem 
very likely we will be in session, unless we can reach a framework of 
an agreement by the 22d of December, which appears to me to be fairly 
remote after what I thought was an indication from the President, 2 
days running, that he was serious about it, he was prepared to come 
back here Friday and was prepared to get involved himself.
  I am certainly prepared to get involved myself. I know the Speaker is 
prepared to get involved. I know the Democratic leader indicated his 
readiness. And I assume the same is true for Congressman Gephardt. We 
ought to be doing it now--now.
  We ought to be doing this away from the press. I like the press. They 
are great people. But we are not going to negotiate if every 30 minutes 
each side has a press conference, as we did this afternoon, everybody 
out putting their spin on it. And now look where we are now. We are 
nowhere. We are right where we started.
  So, hopefully, if we ever do sit down, we will sit down somewhere 
where we cannot be found, where we can discuss the issues and not what 
spin we put on it after it fails.
  So I am still prepared to meet the President. I am still prepared to 
work with the President.
  The Democratic leader mentioned GATT. He mentioned NAFTA. They would 
not have passed without Republican support. The President knows 

[[Page S18715]]
that. Oh, it was fine to cooperate on those things because that is 
something he wanted. Well, the American people want a balanced budget 
by a big, big percentage. And we believe that we ought to have some 
real effort made by the President of the United States.
  So one thing I did not add to this would be welfare reform will be up 
next week, the conference report we will send to the President.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DOLE. I will be happy to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I was not present on the floor the last 15 or 20 
minutes, but I was in transit, and I seem to have heard something which 
the Senator kind of corroborates that I heard, that the distinguished 
minority leader said on the floor of the U.S. Senate--he is here, 
Senator Daschle--that the Republicans broke off negotiations on the 
balanced budget today. Did I hear that correctly? He said that?
  Mr. DOLE. The Senator from South Dakota is here. But I think that is 
the general feeling I had. And I do not think it is accurate, but that 
is what the statement was.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, if you would permit me, and the Senator 
might respond, because I have been reporting to the Senator regularly, 
the truth of the matter is that the President of the United States and 
the Democrats sent nothing to the conference. They put nothing on the 
table. And if they would like me to go through details, I will go 
through details.
  They found $54 billion worth of savings, I say to my friend from the 
State of Florida, without turning a stitch. They did not change a 
single program. They said, ``We disagree on economics.''

  I am not talking about $54 billion over 7 years, I am talking about 
it in the last year. They want to balance a budget so they say, ``Look, 
we do not agree that the CBO is right on this and this and this.'' So 
they find 54 billion dollars' worth of savings. And they want us to sit 
there and say, ``Hooray. You have really made some changes.'' No 
change. Not one thing changed. Not one program altered. And then they 
say, ``Well, look, we think the CBO is wrong on some estimates, so why 
don't we get the estimates right?''
  And $21 billion. They have not changed a program. They have not had 
to bite a bullet and have not had to do a thing. That is $21 billion. I 
think if you add them up, that is $75 billion of movement toward a 
balanced budget in the last year without having to do anything. Is that 
not a marvelous, marvelous way to fix the budget of the United States? 
It is as if spending does not really matter.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, is the Senator from New Mexico asking a 
question at this point?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes. I am still asking the question. I will get to the 
question very shortly.
  Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator will get to the question.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I would appreciate it if the Chair would advise the 
Senator I am entitled to finish my question. They have had plenty of 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The leader has the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. And he is not objecting at this point. The President 
had the airwaves across all of America. He talked about what we had in 
mind. I want the Americans to know and the Senators to know what he had 
in mind. He had in mind that he could come to a conference and do 
nothing, offer nothing, change nothing, and then blame us. So that is 
what they did.
  They said, ``We found 121 billion dollars' worth of savings.'' I have 
just given you $75 billion of it. ``And we have not changed anything. 
We haven't cut a pea. We haven't reduced spending.''
  Then we go up and--let me tell you a neat one the President 
recommended today. If you want to understand the pickle we are in in 
trying to get a balanced budget for America, they take 23 billion 
dollars' worth of savings in the last year by saying, ``We don't want 
any tax cuts.'' Got it? You save $23 billion. But they say that really 
is not the case. ``We do want the tax cuts. We just want to say, if we 
are wrong on the economics, we will cancel the tax cut.''
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I will not ask for the regular order, 
but----
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will ask my good friend, Senator Dole, who I have 
gone through this with regularly: Do you really believe, Senator, when 
the President of the United States signed a bill, and it says we will 
have a balanced budget using the Congressional Budget Office economics, 
and you and I have been asking the President to send us a proposal, do 
you think that it is a credible proposal to have absolutely no savings, 
no changes, and say to us, ``If you don't sit down and negotiate, 
somehow you're to blame for this?'' Could you give us your view on 
that?

  Mr. DOLE. Well, let me say to the chairman of the Budget Committee, 
as I have indicated earlier, I am very disappointed because I 
understood the President--we have had a lot of talks the last few days 
on a number of issues--he indicated to me he was serious about this, 
because I asked him on the telephone, ``If you're not serious and we're 
not serious, why are we doing this? Why don't we do something else and 
go home?''
  He indicated he was serious.
  I know that was not the final offer. Neither was ours the final 
offer. But we actually did things in our offer, real things in our 
offer that made a difference: Put money back into Medicare and 
Medicaid, more money for discretionary spending, whether it is 
education, environment, whatever. We thought we were in good faith.
  So I say to the Senator from New Mexico, I am disappointed. It seems 
to me we had an opportunity. This is now the 15th of December. This 
year is going to be over before long, and we are probably going to be 
right here to be able to see it leave.
  The question is whether or not we are serious about getting down to 
business. We ought to be meeting right now. The meeting ought to be 
going on right now. We ought to be talking about the 82 areas where we 
have a difference--82 areas, according to White House sources, major 
areas--plus probably dozens and dozens of others.
  So it would take all the energy we could muster between now and the 
22d of December to even put together a framework of agreement, which I 
assume we would have to come back a couple days in January to pass 
under some expedited procedure.
  So I know it is not easy. It is not easy making tough decisions. It 
is easy doing, as I said, things Darman had not even thought of when he 
was around. Smoke and mirrors, they used to say in those days. Just 
save $54 billion there, but baseline----
  Mr. DOMENICI. Fifty-four right there just changing the economics. I 
say to the leader, did you not tell me to go back to the conference 
with the Democrats and say we will continue to negotiate, we will be 
there any hour, any time, provided you make some headway in moving the 
budget in the direction of making some changes that bring us closer 
together and bringing us a balanced budget according to the 
Congressional Budget Office? That is what you told me to do.
  Mr. DOLE. In fact, I can say very honestly, we had a discussion after 
the first session, and the question was whether or not we ought to call 
the President of the United States by telephone and say, ``Mr. 
President, we can't negotiate with what was sent up here under your 
name, and if you're not serious, we don't see any reason to go back a 
second time.''
  We said, ``No, let's go back again.'' We instructed Congressman 
Kasich and the Senator from New Mexico, ``Go back again. Nobody is 
blaming us for this not succeeding. Go back again and see if you get 
some serious statement or effort from Chief of Staff, Mr. Panetta, or 
somebody else.'' And that never happened. We did not walk out.
  Mr. DOMENICI. No, sir.
  Mr. DOLE. As far as I know, I guess everybody left; they had to walk 
out, but nobody left saying, ``This is it; it's over.''
  Now the President is on all the stations saying, ``Oh, well, they 
broke off talks, broke off talks, cutting education,'' cutting this, 
cutting that, same old propaganda that has been used in the past 60 to 
90 days.
  So we are prepared to do whatever is necessary, and we are prepared 
to be here tomorrow and Sunday and Monday and all next week trying to 
pass the Labor-HHS bill, which would put some 100,000 people back to 
work, 180,000. 

[[Page S18716]]

  The Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, made a unanimous-
consent request just 25 minutes ago to bring it up right now, and it 
was objected to. Not on this side. We have tried since September 15 to 
bring it up. It has been objected to. We cannot invoke cloture. We have 
every vote on this side, but not on that side. We do not have 60 
Members. So I do not know how--we can bring it up if we agree to 
everything the Democrats want to do, then, ``Oh, we'll bring it up if 
you take out striker replacement, and you can't have any votes on your 
amendments or one vote.''
  To me, that is not the way it ought to be. We are prepared to bring 
it up right now. They can move to strike striker replacement. We can 
move to strike some other committee amendments, and then finish the 
bill. It might take a day or two or three, but it will be completed.
  So I want the Federal employees to understand, whatever they may read 
in the paper or hear on the television from the President of the United 
States or somebody else putting the White House spin on it, this bill, 
H.R. 2127, has been on the calendar since September 15. We have 
attempted to bring it up time after time after time. You would all be 
working Monday had we completed action on this bill, but it was 
objected to not once, twice, three times and we could not invoke 
cloture. We had no problem on the Republican side. All the problems 
were on the other side.

  So if somebody is out there disappointed and in any of the agencies 
covered by this particular bill, they should understand precisely why 
it has not passed, why it has not gone to the President. We will take 
the rap on a couple of the others, as the minority leader indicated. On 
foreign ops, yes, it is held up on an abortion issue. DC is held up on 
a scholarship issue. We are trying to resolve that yet tonight. And the 
others have gone to the President or will go to the President.
  So my view is, this is a big one, talking about Federal employees. 
This is a big one. We have been trying to get it up for 90 days. So I 
hope the President mentions that the next time he speaks and asks the 
Democrats to cooperate. Of course, he is for striker replacement and 
issued an Executive order which we think went beyond his authority. We 
repealed that in the bill. That is why he objects, that is why 
Democrats object to our bringing it up.
  We are still around. We will be here this evening. We are prepared to 
reconvene if our colleagues are serious about it. If not, we will do 
the best we can to try to find some resolution between now and Monday 
morning.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). The Senate minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, there are many people who want to 
speak, and I do not want to take more time. Let me respond to a couple 
of points that were raised.
  The distinguished Senator from New Mexico made a great speech. It was 
just all wrong. All wrong. We will not resolve it on the floor, and we 
will leave it to others to decide who is right and who is wrong.
  This President has now provided not one, not two, but three bona fide 
offers to sit down and reach a balanced budget. He did it first with 
his 10-year budget last spring. He did it, second, about 2 weeks ago 
with yet another effort to bring us to the table in good faith, cutting 
over $150 billion in real cuts. And today, whether you accept all of 
the numbers or not, $121 billion in more changes than what he offered 
just last week.
  Listen to the language. We were again told tonight that we will 
convene if we think the Democrats are serious. Madam President, if that 
does not make my point, I do not know what does. We, frankly, do not 
think they are serious. We do not think they are willing, really, to 
bring down this tax cut so we do not have to cut so deeply in Medicare 
and Medicaid.

  And let me just say, I do not know how you describe what happened at 
the meeting, except to say that before Leon Panetta even had the words 
out of his mouth, the Republicans had stood up and were working their 
way out of the room.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Were you there? I ask, were you there, Senator? Were 
you in the room, Senator?
  Mr. DASCHLE. What do you do with a case like that----
  Mr. DOMENICI. Were you there, Senator?
  Mr. LEAHY. Regular order.
  Mr. DORGAN. Regular order.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I will yield the floor and allow others to speak.
  Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Let me say this. We all know that the most immediate 
thing we have to do is the continuing resolution. It expires tonight at 
midnight. We know that.
  We know that we are not going to resolve our differences on all these 
appropriations bills and pass them by midnight. The distinguished 
majority leader made a point, and he is right: The majority of people 
support a balanced budget. I think a majority of the people--the vast 
majority--also want us not to shut the Government down, in spite of our 
differences.


                   Unanimous-Consent Request--S. 1410

  Mr. DASCHLE. So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed 
to the consideration of calendar No. 240, S. 1410, a clean continuing 
appropriations bill, that the bill be read the third time and passed, 
as amended, with a date change until December 22, with the language 
that will permit the expenditure of funds for low-income energy 
assistance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I have objected, and I hope the time will 
come in the next couple of days where we can do something like this. 
But we cannot do it now. Obviously, we have made no headway.
  I have been in a lot of negotiations around here, and I can tell when 
they are serious, I can tell when they are not. I can tell when they 
are posturing, and I can tell when they ought to end. I was not in the 
room, so I cannot make a judgment on this particular negotiation. But I 
do know that we made significant changes. I went over every one of the 
changes for hours and hours yesterday. We talked about the changes in 
my office with the Speaker and a number of Senators, and they were real 
and they were genuine and they were serious changes. We sought to 
address some of the concerns raised by the President and the Democrats 
in the House and the Senate.
  So I just say that I think we made a good-faith effort. It is all 
about good-faith efforts. We do not believe the President did. Maybe 
they thought, ``We will shoot them a blank the first time, and maybe 
the second or third time we will put a little something in it.'' But I 
think we have already gone beyond that point.
  It has been 26 days since we passed the last continuing resolution, 
and we are supposed to work all this out during that time. Well, 
nothing has happened, and we are here again. If there is no CR passed 
by midnight--and I am certain there will not be one passed--certain 
people will be affected over the weekend. If we do not pass one Sunday 
evening, a lot more people will be affected Monday morning. It will not 
be as many as last time because a number of the bills have been signed. 
The President can reduce the number because State, Justice, Commerce is 
at the White House, and he can sign that. That will take care of a 
number of employees if he signs that. HUD-VA is on the way; that will 
go to the President tomorrow. We will try to finish the DC 
appropriations sometime over the weekend, and we will try to figure out 
a way to get Labor-HHS. That would leave Foreign Ops, which we think we 
may have an agreement on, based on language from the Senator from 
Colorado, Senator Brown. That would be it.

  There would not be any more debate about a CR, but we would still 
have--Interior is going down tomorrow, too. That is another one. The 
President has all kinds of opportunities here to put people to work on 
Monday, without relying on a CR. He does not need one. That is the 
point I make.
  I might ask, Madam President, since I interrupted the distinguished 
Senator from Florida, if he could be recognized at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. MACK. Madam President, about 26 days ago, when we were in similar 


[[Page S18717]]
circumstances, there were negotiations between the White House and the 
House and the Senate about what to do to solve the impasse. An 
agreement was reached with a continuing resolution, signed into law by 
the President of the United States, with language included which said 
that he committed himself to a balanced budget in the first session of 
the 104th Congress--a balanced budget scored by CBO.
  As the majority leader indicated a moment ago, it has been 26 days, 
and there has not been one single proposal made by the President of the 
United States that complies with that commitment. I must tell you that 
those of us who thought that 26 days ago, that there may have been an 
opportunity to move forward with a balanced budget proposal, we were 
hopeful that there would be an opportunity in these last 3\1/2\ weeks. 
In fact, we anticipated that this Friday, today, we would see, for the 
first time, a true proposal from the President of the United States to 
balance the budget. The minority leader referred to the number of plans 
that were sent here by the President of the United States.
  I remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, you had an 
opportunity to vote on one of those plans, and every single one of you, 
as far as I can recall, turned your backs on the President because you 
knew it was a phony budget. And every proposal he has sent to us since 
then has been phony. It has been an absolute positive phony.
  We come here this evening with a sense of utter disappointment 
because we are serious in this effort to balance the budget. We feel 
like you are playing games with us, you are playing games with the 
American people, and you are playing games with the future of this 
country and our children and our grandchildren. And, yes, we are a 
little bit angry and upset. We feel betrayed.

  Let me be real plain about how I feel about this President. The 
President of the United States has, once again, proven that his 
commitment to principle is nonexistent. He gave his word; he broke his 
word. It is a habit he does not seem able to break. It is unfortunate 
to have to say that, but that is an accurate statement about this 
President. To imply that the offer made today was a serious offer is an 
insult to us. To come down here with a proposal that virtually does 
nothing with respect to making additional reductions in spending is an 
insult to the Congress of the United States and an insult to the people 
of this country.
  If you look over this proposal, in the year 2002, they put on the 
table a suggestion that they were going to eliminate the deficit in the 
seventh year to the tune of $121 billion. And the reason they came up 
with that number is because the Congressional Budget Office scored the 
last proposal that the President sent down here. It was a proposal that 
he said would balance the budget. After all, all we are doing is using 
the Congressional Budget Office, which, if you will recall, in January 
of 1993, the President of the United States reminded all of us that it 
was important to use the Congressional Budget Office to evaluate budget 
plans, because he did not want to be accused of estimating his way out 
of the problem.
  Well, I say again, very plainly, it is pretty obvious to me and 
pretty obvious, I think, to the American people, that the only thing 
this President wants to do is estimate his way out of the problem. When 
you look at the proposal they sent down to us today, out of that $121 
billion, $54 billion is in economic baseline differences--estimating 
your way out of the problem. And $21 billion more, a proposed 
resolution of scoring differences--estimating your way out of the 
problem. And then another $23 billion, which I will say is a tax 
increase. What it says, in essence, is if you get to the 7th year and 
you are not in the balanced budget range, then you eliminate the tax 
cuts he has in his budget, which amounts to $23 billion. He has, in 
this proposal, about $98 billion out of $121 billion, which is 
estimating his way out, and the other is raising taxes.
  That is an absolute phony proposal. I must say, I admire Senator 
Domenici for his willingness to go back into the meeting for the second 
time today after this phony piece of paper was put on the table.
  Madam President, I agree with the minority leader that we do have 
legitimate differences. But you do not have the guts to put those 
legitimate differences on the table. The reason for the last 26 days 
that you have avoided coming down here and putting a proposal on the 
table is because you will not tell the American people what you are 
willing to do. You will not make the tough decisions. You just refuse 
to put a legitimate offer on the table. And then you have the gall to 
come to us and tell us that we ought to put another proposal on the 
table.
  So, Madam President, this President of the United States vetoed a 
balanced budget proposal. It was a proposal that would have balanced 
the budget, and it was the first time in decades that I know of where a 
President of the United States received a plan that would balance the 
budget--and this President vetoed it.
  This is the same President who is opposed to the balanced budget 
amendment. This is the same President who has been opposed to every 
plan that has been put forward to balance the budget. When he vetoed 
it, he took on the responsibility of providing a legitimate 
alternative. He has, in fact, refused to do that. I think it is very, 
very clear to the American people that, in fact, he has broken his word 
once again.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. EXON. Madam President, I was listening with great interest to the 
goings on the Senate floor. I have been involved in all of the meetings 
that have been held, both the joint meetings with the conferees to try 
and come up with a role, and I have been involved in many meetings on 
the Democratic side. In 5 minutes I am going back to another meeting.
  We, the Democrats in the House and the Senate, will try once again to 
come up with something that would get the Government back working 
again. I bear my share of the responsibility for what I think is the 
totally ridiculous position we find ourselves in. Grown men and women, 
here at 6:30 or so on a Friday evening, with the Government ready to 
shut down in another 5 hours, and we are quibbling. We cannot even get 
through a continuing resolution just offered by the minority leader to 
keep the Government going for a few days. They turned that down.
  You heard the objection by the majority leader to the Democratic 
leader's reasonable offer. How could any reasonable person object to 
keeping the Government going for another 3 or 4 days? I do not think 
this is the proudest moment in the history of the U.S. Senate. We all 
have to bear our share of the responsibility for that failure.
  When I have been hearing all of these remarks about the President of 
the United States not being sincere, not making a legitimate offer, 
Madam President, I will not dignify that kind of talk with a lengthy 
statement except to say that I do not agree at all with that kind of 
rhetoric.
  I say, Madam President, in conclusion, that if those on the other 
side of the aisle are suggesting that we get real, then I suggest that 
they get real by coming up front with what we all know has to be the 
major ``give'' to reach a balanced budget in 7 years, and that is the 
ridiculous, outlandish tax cut that basically affects the wealthiest 
among us in America, $245 billion worth that is the centerpiece, I 
suggest, of the Republican balanced budget amendment.
  The main reason that the President of the United States properly 
vetoed the reconciliation bill which would have allowed that--how 
anybody on the Republican side of the aisle can in good conscience 
stand up and criticize us for not being real when they are insisting on 
the centerpiece of their whole budget, unfortunately which is the $245 
billion tax cut basically weighted to the wealthiest people in the 
United States of America. Until they come off of that in a realistic 
fashion, we are not going to bend.

  Fortunately, we have the President of the United States on our side 
with a veto pen. Maybe I should stand corrected, Madam President. I 
just said they have a $245 billion tax cut that basically goes to 
protect the wealthiest among us. I stand corrected. It is $242 billion, 
because in all good conscience the Republican conferees came to that 
meeting today and they agreed to cut $5 billion--a total of $5 billion 
out of a $245 billion tax break for the wealthiest 

[[Page S18718]]
among us, and they claim that we are not being reasonable.
  I simply say, Madam President, while I am not particularly proud of 
what is going on in the U.S. Senate tonight, and for the life of me I 
cannot understand how reasonable people with legitimate differences of 
opinion on how we reach the balanced budget cannot agree to a 
continuing resolution to keep the Government running while we continue 
the frustrating process of trying to come up with a balanced budget.
  Madam President, there is no way that the Democrats can, should, or 
will give up our insistence of at least a measure of protection for the 
Medicare recipients and the Medicaid recipients. The latter, I point 
out, is not welfare, it is health care. Most or all of the billions of 
dollars that we spend in the Medicaid Program, over half of it goes to 
the senior citizens, the oldest and frailest among us who are lying in 
beds, many of them never getting out of beds, in our nursing homes.
  The Republicans are making draconian cuts in that program. Like it or 
not, we will not have it. We will not put up with it. We are willing to 
compromise, but we will not move until they get realistic on 
eliminating that gross $242 billion tax cut for the wealthiest among us 
and the American people know and the American people by a vast majority 
stand with us, even though we stand in the minority.
  I remind all in closing, Madam President, this Senator has been for a 
balanced budget for a long, long time, worked hard for it. I voted for 
the Republican constitutional amendment to balance a budget in 7 years. 
My credentials are pretty hard to argue with. I simply say that I, once 
again, emphasize that I am not particularly proud of what we are doing 
on either side of the aisle this Friday night on December 15. I simply 
say that if you are looking for someone to blame, we Democrats are 
willing to take our share of the blame when and if the people on the 
other side of the aisle would get off their kick which is the 
centerpiece of their budget proposal to throw away $242 billion in a 
tax break on the rich while savaging Medicare and Medicaid and other 
social programs that we think are very important. I yield the floor.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I have had an opportunity to listen to 
this whole discourse between the leaders and the chairman and now 
ranking member of the Budget Committee, and the excellent statement 
that came before.
  Sometimes I wonder what country I am in, how much revisionist history 
that we are going to be subjected to on the floor of the U.S. Senate. I 
have come to expect it out of the White House. I turn on the White 
House now and I expect to hear the latest version of nonreality. It 
just comes up every day. As the Senator from Florida said, this 
President just does not know how to tell the truth anymore. He just 
makes a promise and breaks it every day. Changes it every day. What is 
the story today? What does the poll read today? How can I flip-flop 
again today?

  One time he is out criticizing the Republicans for gutting Medicare, 
and his wife and himself just 2 years prior to this were advocating the 
exact same reductions in Medicare. I will show you the videotape. The 
Senator from Kansas, the majority leader, is absolutely right. All of 
you who can get a chance to watch ``Nightline''--this is not exactly a 
Republican, GOP ``Rising Tide'' program, this is ``Nightline,'' ABC 
``Nightline'' on December 12--watch it. Get a copy of it. Get the 
transcript. Find out the truth. Find out the truth.
  Mrs. Clinton, in front of a committee I happen to serve on, the Ways 
and Means Committee, testified she wanted Medicare to grow between 6 
and 7 percent. Our program under this bill grows Medicare at over 7 
percent each year. And that is a slash? That is destroying? ``That is 
horrible. You hate seniors.''
  As his press secretary said, ``Oh, Republicans want these seniors to 
die.'' That is the kind of rhetoric we get out of the White House--the 
White House, the President of the United States, not some two-bit 
peddler on the corner trying to hawk his wares, who can make any kind 
of outrageous statement he wants to, to try to sell the goods. No, the 
President of the United States, to the American public--bald-faced 
untruths. Every day. Just like his press conference a little while ago. 
Not true. Not true.
  Is his offer legitimate? Oh, how do you walk into a budget 
negotiation that you say you are going to live up to what the 
continuing resolution, the last spending bill, said--and what did he 
sign into law? He signed into law a balanced budget, that we would 
balance the budget in 7 years using the Congressional Budget Office 
numbers--into law. Not another one of his promises on the campaign 
trail, which he broke, like cutting taxes for the middle class, but 
signed something into law with a pen--not Lyndon Johnson's pen, maybe 
it wasn't Lyndon Johnson's pen--but into law.
  So, where does he come, the day of the shutdown? He comes into a room 
with a budget that does not even come close to balancing.
  We have had the President's budgets before. In fact, we voted on them 
on the floor of the Senate. The last one that was supposedly balanced 
in 10 years--96 to nothing. Not a single Democrat voted for his 
balanced budget. Another phony, another untruth that even the people on 
the Democratic side of the aisle could not stomach--this untruth. We 
are tired of stomaching untruths over here. We are downright getting 
angry over here. We are not angry because we feel betrayed. I disagree 
with the Senator from Florida. I do not feel betrayed. I expect it. I 
predict it. This guy is not going to tell the truth. Just believe that. 
Go into negotiations believing that.

  What I am upset about is I think we are missing an opportunity here 
to do something good for America. We can balance the budget of the 
United States. We can improve the economy of this country, create more 
jobs, lower interest rates, give some of that money back to the 
American families across this country.
  Oh, I know these people who do not need the money, according to many. 
Oh, you know, these working families making $30,000 a year who do not 
need the money, who would waste it if they did not give it to us. We 
can use it better than they can.
  Oh, this is the tax break for the wealthy that we have been hearing 
about. Let us talk about this tax break for the wealthy. Over 80 
percent of the tax break for the wealthy goes to people who earn under 
$100,000 a year. That is the tax break for the wealthy--targeted. This 
is wonderful rhetoric, targeted at the wealthy, primarily the wealthy.
  Let me tell you about targeting. Do you know who pays 50 percent, 
roughly 50 percent of the taxes in this country? The top 5 percent of 
income earners in this country pay 50 percent of the taxes. So, if you 
were going to give an across-the-board tax cut based on how much you 
pay, obviously 50 percent of the benefit will go to the top 5 percent, 
because they pay 50 percent of the taxes. Yet, in this case, 80 percent 
of the benefits go to people who pay well under 50 percent of the 
taxes.
  How, is that targeted toward the wealthy? In reality, how can you 
make the argument, based on those facts--nobody argues those facts, 
where this money is being allocated, who the tax cuts benefit. How can 
you stand up on the floor of the Senate and make a factual statement, 
as the President has done--not on the floor of the Senate but in other 
places--and many Senators, make the statement that we have tax cuts 
targeted for the wealthy, when they know that is a lie?
  I am using strong terms like ``lie,'' but I do not think anybody 
understands these other sort of terms: obtuse, indirect, you know, not-
coming-forward. We have gone beyond that. We are just dealing with some 
systematic disinformation campaigns that I have not seen in my 
lifetime.

  I can tell you, we have not done a very good job--I will be self-
critical of myself and other Members on this side of the aisle and 
others who are supporting a balanced budget--we have not done a very 
good job of getting the facts out. In fact, if we do get the facts out, 
we know we can succeed.
  I will refer you to last Thursday's Wall Street Journal. There was a 
poll of Americans. The question was asked, ``Given the fact that under 
the Republican budget, Medicare spending increases by 45 percent over 
the next 7 years, do you think that is, A, too much; B, too little; or 
C, just about right as far as the increase is concerned? 

[[Page S18719]]

  Madam President, 60 percent of the people said a 45 percent increase 
in Medicare spending was too much; 38 percent said it was just right; 2 
percent thought it was too little. Two percent of the American public 
as surveyed thought that it was too little of an increase.
  Now, with the recent changes that we have just made in our Medicare 
proposal, Medicare spending goes up at a higher rate than 45 percent. 
Maybe that would drop to 1 percent of people who think it is too 
little.
  See, we believe that when we get the facts out--not rhetoric, not, 
``Oh, you are going to hurt this person or that person,'' or showing 
the pictures, those graphic photos about how people are going to sleep 
on grates, or your grandmother who is not going to be in the nursing 
home.
  We have a responsibility here to deal with the facts. The facts. We 
have a responsibility here to base our decisions on what is good public 
policy for today, tomorrow, and the future. We are standing up as 
Republicans, doing what I believe is a very courageous thing. We are 
taking on the sacred cows of Washington, DC. We are taking on Medicare 
and Medicaid and welfare. We are not doing it in a time of severe 
financial crisis or foreign crisis. We are doing it because we believe 
it is in the best interests of our children and their children, and 
people living today to do just that.
  I will never forget, as a Member of Congress, reading column after 
column, expert after expert, people here on this floor and in the 
House, saying, ``When are we going to get statesmen again in this 
country? When are we going to get people who ignore the polls--who 
ignore the polls--who ignore the moment, who forget about the next 
election and think about the next generation? When are we going to get 
these statesmen here in Washington again?"

  They are here. And they are willing to sit down and negotiate. They 
are willing to get serious about solving problems.
  Maybe the White House should take a few days off from polling and 
quit worrying about what the public is saying tomorrow or the next day 
and think about what future generations are crying to us to do.
  Senator Coverdell, from Georgia, comes to the floor on a frequent 
basis and puts up a chart showing how, within 15 years, five programs 
will consume every dollar of Federal spending. Five programs: Welfare, 
Medicaid, Federal retirement, Medicare, and Social Security. Those five 
entitlement programs will consume every Federal dollar, with the 
exception of payments for interest.
  You can trot around here all you want about: You should not touch 
Medicare. You should not do this. If we do not control the rapid growth 
of all of these programs, you will not have to worry about Head Start 
funding. We will not have to worry about Labor-HHS. There will be no 
Labor-HHS bill. We will not have to worry about continuing resolutions. 
We will not have any money to appropriate. We will have all entitlement 
spending. We can go home. We do not have to pass any bills around here. 
Everything will be on automatic pilot. We will just spend away.
  To suggest by our efforts to reform Medicare and Medicaid that we, 
somehow, do not care about your grandmother or grandfather in a nursing 
home or do not care about people who are indigent getting care is the 
lowest form of demagoguery.
  Do you not care about people today and tomorrow? Do you not care 
about the future? Do you not really care that unless we make changes, 
these programs are doomed? You can whistle through the graveyard at 
night all you want, but eventually, folks, we face the music. We must 
face the music. And when the President of the United States walks in 
with his negotiators in a budget negotiation today to present an honest 
budget, he does not even nick either of those programs, Medicare or 
Medicaid, does not even talk about reforms of either of those programs, 
when he knows that we have to make fundamental changes.
  They did not walk out, but I would not have blamed Senator Domenici 
and Congressman Kasich to walk out. There comes a time in every 
negotiation when one side just has to call the bluff, and right now the 
President is bluffing. He has been bluffing for months. He is hiding 
those cards. He has not shown them to anybody. All he is doing is 
looking at those cards and telling the American public: Oh, my cards 
are great. They protect our values. I sometimes quiver at what his 
values are. But they protect them.
  Our cards are all laid out on the table. They are all face up. You 
can see every one of them. You can see our good cards and you can see 
our bad cards. You know what we have said? We are willing to negotiate 
all of those cards. I do not know where the Senator from Nebraska or 
the Senator from South Dakota are coming from in saying that we are not 
willing to negotiate the tax cuts. I have not heard one remark from any 
of the negotiators or any of the leaders or anyone on this floor who 
said we are not willing to negotiate the tax cuts. We are certainly 
willing to negotiate the tax cuts.
  We have already, as the Senator from Nebraska said--and it may not 
have been as much as he would like to have seen--we have already 
changed the tax cut a little bit. We knocked off $5 billion. But 
remember, this is money that you work for. You would think around here 
that a tax cut is money that we have in Washington that we may want to 
give to you.
  Let me remind you that you have to pay it here first. You have to 
work hard to earn it and then pay it here. We do not have a right to 
it. This is not a Government where you say, well, 100 percent of what 
you own is ours and whatever we are willing to give you back you can 
keep. That is not the way it works. Over the next 7 years, taxes will 
increase above the level today by over $3 trillion. Americans will pay 
$3 trillion more in taxes over the next 7 years. What are we 
suggesting? Well, instead of increasing it $3 trillion, it will 
increase a little less than that, about $240 billion less than that. 
Boy, what a giveaway. Boy, what a steal here. We are just throwing 
money out of Washington, are we not? You are going to give us $3 
trillion more and we will give you a couple hundred billion and we will 
target it specifically.

  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SANTORUM. That is, $141 billion of the $245 billion targeted 
specifically at middle-income working families.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield as far as time?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I yield for a question.
  Mrs. BOXER. It has nothing to do with substance, but could I ask the 
Senator how long he expects to continue?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Just a few more minutes. I will be done in 5 more 
minutes, I would suggest.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator very much.
  Mr. SANTORUM. So we have a tax cut proposal targeted at middle-income 
working families. I had done a few fundraisers last year when some of 
our local candidates were running, and there were people out there who 
expressed to me the same sentiment that I hear from many Members on 
this side at these fundraising events saying, ``We really don't need 
these tax cuts.'' That is what these people at fundraisers were saying: 
``Well, we really don't need these tax cuts.'' And my response to them 
was very simple. ``That's right, you don't need these tax cuts. But 
there are millions of working families who do, who can't afford to be 
at these fundraisers because they have to feed children on two 
incomes.''
  We want to give them a little break so maybe they do not have to work 
two jobs. Maybe they can just work one extra job to make ends meet. And 
we want to reform Medicare so Medicare will be here not just for this 
generation of seniors but for future generations. It absolutely amazes 
me how anyone could stand up here and say we are for seniors but we are 
not for touching Medicare in the face of a report that says it goes 
bankrupt in 7 years. How can you say that? How can you say you are for 
seniors?
  Mr. FORD. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I will be happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. FORD. What budget has the Senator seen that has not reduced 
Medicare?
  What budget has the Senator seen that does not reduce Medicare?
  Mr. SANTORUM. The President's budget--
  
[[Page S18720]]

  Mr. FORD. I just asked the Senator a question.
  Mr. SANTORUM. --weakly addresses the issue of Medicare.
  Mr. FORD. The budget that was presented reduced it $89 billion, the 
first one out of the box.

  Mr. SANTORUM. I take my time back.
  Mr. FORD. Take it back, but be careful and be accurate.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I will be happy to be accurate. The President's budget, 
I will concede, reduces slightly the growth of Medicare.
  Mr. FORD. What about the second offer?
  Mr. SANTORUM. But nowhere near the amount needed.
  Mr. BENNETT. Will the Senator yield for another question?
  Mr. SANTORUM. Be happy to.
  Mr. BENNETT. Will the Senator explain to me how increasing Medicare 
at the rate of 7 percent is described as a reduction in any budget? I 
have not seen a single budget anywhere that reduces the level of 
spending in Medicare. I have only seen a budget that reduces it from 
proposals. So I would ask the Senator why he uses the term 
``reduction'' when in fact the amount of money being spent goes up each 
and every year?
  Mr. SANTORUM. The Senator caught me in my own inaccuracy, and I 
apologize for that, and I apologize to my Democrat colleague. I should 
not use the term ``reduction.'' The Senator is absolutely right. I 
should fill that in--reduction in the rate of growth of Medicare, 
because that is all we are doing. We are reducing the rate of growth.
  As I said earlier, Medicare increases by over 45 percent over the 
next 7 years. And so while the President wants to reduce the rate of 
growth a minimal amount, less, I might add, than his original proposal 
when he was advocating universal health reform, all of a sudden from 
one year to the next he has decided that Medicare does not need to be 
reformed as much as he first thought it would.
  Now, I do not know what has led him to that conclusion other than the 
fact that now we want to do it and he does not.
  What he wanted to do before was reduce Medicare so we could get 
another big Federal program started--universal health care, Government-
run health care. He was willing to sacrifice seniors, using his term, 
sacrifice seniors to fund a big new entitlement program, more health 
care, Government run, but when it comes to balancing the budget, no, it 
is not worth that sacrifice then to balance the budget--if that is what 
it is, a sacrifice.
  I guess it is a matter of your priorities. If your priority is to 
grow the Government, create new entitlements, create new programs, oh, 
it is worth taking a little bit out of one Government program to fund a 
brand new one. But if it is about balancing the budget, if it is about 
helping working Americans, if it is about creating a better economy, if 
it is about giving up some power here in Washington, oh, no. No, that 
is not a high priority in this administration. What is a high priority 
is scare tactics. Scare tactics. Oh, no, we are not scaring 25-year-old 
folks who are getting out of school and ready to take on the world. Oh, 
we would not scare them because, you know what, you probably cannot 
scare them. Oh, let us scare our grandmothers. Let us scare the golden. 
Let us scare the people in nursing homes. Let us scare the people who 
rely on Federal Government checks. Let us scare those people. They are 
the most vulnerable. We can get them. Oh, they rely on us. We can get 
their votes. We can swing their votes. It is pathetic. It is pathetic.

  If the Senator from Kentucky is right that the President wants 
meaningful Medicare reform, well, let us talk about it, do not run 
around the country, do not run around the country scaring seniors. Let 
us sit at the table and discuss it, and let us come forward with some 
real reforms, let us come forward with some movement. We have not seen 
any movement.
  The President's budget remains as it has at the same Medicare figure. 
Have we seen any changes in Medicare? No. Has he moved? No. Has he 
moved on Medicaid? No. Has he proposed a balanced budget? No. Why? Why? 
Maybe that is the fundamental question we sort of have to end with 
here. Why is it that the President of the United States, who promised--
I know that is not necessarily a big thing around here--who promised to 
balance the budget using honest numbers in 7 years, why has not he put 
on the table a balanced budget? Why?
  Why do you think that is? Do you think it is because that is not 
possible? No. It is not because it is not possible. We know it is 
possible. We actually did it in the U.S. Senate. We passed a balanced 
budget. I give credit, 19 Democrats had a balanced budget, using 
Congressional Budget Office scoring, so I give them credit. They put 
forward a balanced budget. I did not agree with its priorities. It 
might be a good place to start working from.
  But why has not the President put forward a balanced budget? I think 
the answer is pretty simple. Because if he was going to put forward a 
balanced budget, keeping true to what he said he wanted to do, balance 
the budget, provide middle-income tax cuts for families, which he said 
he wanted to--promised during his election. I know that does not mean 
anything anymore. We do not believe candidates anymore, some more than 
others, but he said he wanted to do that. He wanted to save Medicare, 
end welfare as we know it. That was part of his election campaign--end 
welfare as we know it.
  Why could he not come up with that balanced budget? The answer is 
very simple. If you want to do what the President says he wants to do, 
he has to make changes to his Medicaid and Medicare proposal. And if he 
does that, then he cannot run around the country scaring seniors 
anymore. I mean, let us cut to the chase here, folks. That is the 
bottom line.
  We all know where the savings have to come from. It is no secret 
here. If you take Social Security off the table, if you take Federal 
retirement off the table, and you are going to reform entitlements, 
where do you get your savings from? Where are you going to get your 
reforms from? We all know the answer. The President knows the answer.

  And why it is he is so reticent to come forward and put it on the 
table? Because he loses his political cards if he does it.
  Mr. DORGAN. Would the Senator yield? I wonder how much time the 
Senator is going----
  Mr. SANTORUM. I was interrupted, and it threw off my train of 
thought. I will do my best. If I am not continued to be interrupted, I 
will do my best to close up pretty soon.
  Mr. FORD. We would love for you to.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I know the Senator from Kentucky would love to have the 
opportunity to have the floor and say some things. And I do not think 
we are going to close down shop here any time soon, so I am sure you 
will have plenty of chances to talk for quite some time.
  But the reason that the President has not come forward with a 
balanced budget is simple--because he does not want to make the hard 
choices, he does not want to make the politically difficult choices of 
balancing the budget, he does not want to lead. It is much easier to 
sit up in the gallery and throw stones at the players.
  Oh, it is easy to be a fan. It is easy to be a critic. It is easy to 
be condescending. It is very hard to get on the field, put the pads on, 
and hit the line, make the tough choices. The President would rather 
stay off the field.
  Well, unfortunately, when you become President, you have to make some 
of the tough choices. That is why you get paid the big bucks because 
you have to make tough choices. And the reason that the Republicans are 
saying, ``Call me when you are ready,'' is because the President is not 
ready yet. He has not made the tough choices. And this is not the 
Senator from Pennsylvania talking, this is just about every major 
publication in this country who are beginning, slowly beginning, to 
understand that the President is not playing from the top and dealing 
from the top of the deck.
  It is about promises. And I will conclude with this. No applause 
necessary. We promised--we promised, those of us elected in 1994 and 
here in the Senate, and many others who were elected in their elections 
even prior to 1994, we promised that we would balance this budget. We 
promised. And I know promises are not thought a lot of down here. In 
fact, they are just sort of made to get elected. I know that is the 
common thing. You say things to get elected. Say you are for a balanced 
budget 

[[Page S18721]]
and vote against it on the floor; say you are for tax cuts and vote 
against on it the floor or do not propose it in your bills. But you 
know what? We promised.

  I will tell you a story of a man who was the head of a Bible college 
in South Carolina, something he always wanted to do. His father started 
the college, and he always thought of his life's vocation as taking 
over the college from his father and leading that school. And he did. 
He did for several years and was terrific at it. Loved his work.
  Unfortunately, his wife came down with Alzheimer's. And, as you know, 
Alzheimer's is a very debilitating disease. Over time she got worse and 
worse and worse to the point where she needed around-the-clock care. 
She was completely incapacitated, did not know who anybody was, did not 
know who he was. And he made the decision to quit his job at the Bible 
college and give up his vocation.
  The members of the board of the Bible college came to him and said, 
``What are you doing? You are giving up something you have always 
wanted to do, and you are doing it so well. Look at the number of 
people you are going out to educate, to spread the Lord's word all 
throughout the country. And you are giving that up to go home and take 
care of your wife? She does not even know who you are.''
  And he said two things. First he said, ``She may not know who I am, 
but I know who she is. And, second, when I married her, I promised till 
death do us part. And there is something more than a calling from God; 
it is a promise.''
  We promised. And we are going to stay here every day, all day if 
necessary. And yes, we will storm out of rooms and maybe they do not 
storm out but they should have for the demagoguery that is going on. 
But we will be here every day ready, willing and able to negotiate 
because we promised. And I have told the leader I will be here 
Christmas Day. If we are going to vote on the floor of the Senate to 
send American men and women to be in tents and around kerosene heaters 
in Tuzla, then I can be away from my family on the floor of the Senate 
to save the next generation of Americans.
  We will be here. And we will win. The President will eventually 
understand that our resolve to balance this budget is greater than his 
to get away with not doing it.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Madam President.
  Before the Senator leaves the floor, I disagree with him on many of 
the things he said; and on a couple I agree. When he said we need more 
statesmen in the U.S. Senate and in Government, he is right. We need 
more statesmen and we need more stateswomen in politics.
  But I want to say to my friend that statesmen do not show disrespect 
to the Office of the Presidency and statesmen do not use the word 
``lie'' on the floor of the Senate. And I think it is very important 
for the sanctity of this institution that we respect each other and 
that we respect the Office of the Presidency.
  And I have to say that I hope the Senator from Pennsylvania will read 
his remarks in the Record and will have an opportunity to go over those 
remarks.
  Perhaps when he reads those remarks, he will understand the 
difference between making a point in a way that is disrespectful and 
making a point in a way that is respectful.
  I will say to him further that he talks a lot on this floor about 
children. Children watch us debate. Children need to learn respect, and 
I hope that he will think about what I have said, and perhaps the next 
time he comes on to this floor of the U.S. Senate to disagree with the 
President of the United States, because he happens to believe the 
President is wrong to stand up against $270 billion cuts in Medicare 
and change the nature of Medicaid, he thinks the President is wrong to 
stand up against tax cuts which, in fact--in fact--benefit the 
wealthiest among us--as a matter of fact, if you earn over $350,000 in 
this Republican budget that they are so proud of, if you earn over 
$350,000, you will get back thousands of dollars each and every year. 
As a matter of fact, over a 10-year period, you will probably get back 
more than $80,000 in taxes, and that is why the President is making the 
Senator from Pennsylvania so angry. That is why the President of the 
United States is making the majority leader so angry. And that is why 
the President of the United States caused the Senator from Florida, 
Senator Mack, to say, ``I'm angry.''
  You know what? That is just fine with me. That is just fine with me. 
If you are angry because the President is standing up for the people of 
this country, not the special powerful few, but the people of this 
country, then go ahead and be angry.
  To talk about, as the Senator from Florida, Senator Mack, did that 
the Democrats have no guts, let us talk about that for a minute. When 
we started here on the floor of this U.S. Senate talking about the 
budget of Newt Gingrich that was the centerpiece of the Contract With 
America, we were not popular. We were not popular at all. As a matter 
of fact, the polls said the Republicans were flying high. But we stood 
on the floor of the U.S. Senate and we said we will not allow the power 
of Government to stand behind the wealthiest few and abandon the middle 
class and the people in nursing homes and the people on Medicare; we 
will not allow that.
  And suddenly, the people in this country woke up, and they heard us 
and they heard this President. Yes, they want a balanced budget, and so 
do we, and we voted for several of them. They agree with us. Yes, they 
want a balanced budget, but they want a balanced budget that does not 
hurt the elderly, that does not hurt the middle class, that does not 
hurt the children, that does not hurt the environment.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. BOXER. I will be happy to do so.
  Mr. REID. It is true, is it not, the Republican budget, every one 
they put forth, raises taxes on anyone making less than $10,000 a year, 
which includes the majority of people in America?
  Mrs. BOXER. My friend is accurate, a majority of people who earn less 
than $10,000 a year are hit with a tax increase in the Republican 
budget.
  Mr. REID. If my friend will just let me again ask another question?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Anyone in the United States, which includes a majority of 
the people in America, under the budget proposals we have gotten from 
Republicans, every one of them, everyone making less than $10,000 a 
year, will have a tax increase, is that not right?
  Mrs. BOXER. It is true, a majority of those earning under $10,000 a 
year will be hit with a tax increase and the tax cuts go to the 
wealthiest. That is a fact. And as I serve on the Budget Committee, I 
say to my friend, I tried. We offered amendments that said if there 
will be any tax breaks or cuts it should be aimed at the middle class, 
not at the wealthy.
  I know that my friend from North Dakota has been wanting to speak, so 
I am going to sum it up in about 3 more minutes, and I want to make a 
point. There is no reason to shut this Government down, no reason in 
the world to shut this Government down. It is childish, it is stamping 
your feet, it is saying, ``I'm taking my books and I'm going home.'' 
But more than that, it is selfish, and it is cruel to do it.
  I want to talk to you in my remaining moments about a couple of 
people in California. Ken Takada, a veterans claims examiner in Los 
Angeles. His job is to make sure veterans receive the health and 
pension benefits to which they are entitled. If the Government shuts 
down, Ken will not be there to see that our veterans get what they 
deserve. Even after the shutdown ends, its effects will be felt for a 
long time, because while the VA is closed, new files are piled on his 
desk, lengthening the case backlog that is already too long.
  So the veterans will get hurt and the shutdown will hurt Ken. He is 
not independently wealthy. He lives like most Americans, from paycheck 
to paycheck. If his pay does not come in, he could default on his 
student loans.
  But when Senator Daschle stood here and offered a continuing 
resolution that was clean that said keep the Government going, let 
these people go to work, let them do the work they are paid to do, let 
them have some sense of 

[[Page S18722]]
security, the Majority Leader Dole objected.
  So let me tell you, my friends, it is an ugly situation here. 
Senators who will not lose a day's pay--there is no corner on anger in 
this Chamber, and I know the Presiding Officer and I tried hard to make 
sure that we sacrificed something when we cannot get our act together 
and the Government shuts down.
  We have a bill that simply says we should be treated like the most 
adversely affected Federal employee. But, no, the majority leader 
objects when the Democratic leader says, ``Let's keep the Government 
going just for a few days.'' And what is the price that Senators and 
Congressmen and Newt Gingrich get to pay? Zero, because Newt Gingrich 
himself has blocked that bill from coming before the House.
  It has passed here three separate times. I think it is an utter 
disgrace, it is despicable. I hope every single person in this country 
will let Speaker Gingrich know and call him on the phone 225-0600--it 
is a 202 area code--and tell him that he does not deserve to get his 
pay as long as Federal employees are not getting theirs.
  Let me just say this. They can put any spin they want on the other 
side of the aisle. They can do it. But it comes down to the bottom 
line: This President is not going to allow Medicare, Medicaid, 
education, or the environment to suffer in order to give a huge tax 
break to the wealthiest people. That is the issue and they do not like 
it. They will spin it their way and tell you they are going to save 
Medicare.

  I will ask you to look at Newt Gingrich's speech made 2 months ago 
when he said, ``We cannot kill Medicare outright. We are going to let 
it wither on the vine.'' Those are his words, not mine.
  The majority leader, Senator Dole, who says they are going to save 
Medicare--and he bragged about it in a recent speech that when it was 
brought up in the U.S. Senate and U.S. Congress, he was here to fight 
against it. So if the American people believe the Republican Party is 
going to save Medicare, either, first, they do not know their recent 
history and past history, or, second, they must think that Jack the 
Ripper is Mother Teresa, because there is no way that this Republican 
Party, given its history and given this budget, can stand with a 
straight face and say they are the party that is trying to save 
Medicare, and, oh, they are the party that is going to make sure the 
middle class and the poor are brought along. It just is not true.
  So there is a lot of anger around here. There is a lot of 
disappointment around here, and it permeates through this Chamber, but, 
frankly, it is for different reasons.
  I stand with President Clinton in standing up against a budget that 
would be put in balance at the expense of the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I appreciate the recognition. I say to 
my friend, I know he has been on his feet. I have been in the Chamber 
for some time, also. I will not go on as long as my colleague from 
Pennsylvania, and I assure him he will get an opportunity to respond as 
quickly as I can make a few points.
  I will not use words like ``lie.'' I will not use ``despicable'' and 
``disgraceful.'' I came over here a little bit angry, but I will not 
use the word ``anger.'' I will do my best to try to analyze what I 
think is really going on here and hope it might make a modest 
contribution to the dialog.
  I do not believe that anybody is proposing savaging Medicare. That 
was a phrase that was used earlier on this floor. I am willing to 
stipulate, for this Senator, right this moment, that I will accept the 
President's number for Medicare. It happens to mean, in terms of 
increased premiums--one of the things the President has been most upset 
about--that I am now sacrificing Federal revenue of 39 cents per day 
per recipient by going to the President's number.

  I know enough about forecasting to know that I am perfectly safe in 
saying I will take the President's number as to what the premiums will 
be 7 years from now, because anyone who really thinks we can make a 
forecast within pennies that is good for 7 years is kidding himself or 
herself. So I am willing to stipulate that the Medicare debate over 
numbers is off the table because I am willing to accept the President's 
numbers as the target numbers rather than the Republican numbers 
because they are literally pennies apart. There is no point in fighting 
over it. If that means that I am now redeemed from savaging Medicare, I 
appreciate the redemption. But what it really means, Madam President, 
is that the phrase savaging Medicare is a misplaced phrase because the 
President, himself, has proposed a number that is, as you go over the 
life of the program, simply pennies away from the number we have been 
attacked for in these many months.
  I would like to talk about the tax cut for the wealthiest among us. 
One of the most serious problems we face in this country--which we 
sometimes lose sight of, but occasionally turn to--is the fact that 
real wages among people who work for salaries and work for wages, who 
do not have investment income and interest income, have been stagnant 
for many years. The stagnancy goes back into past administrations. It 
has not changed under this administration. It is one of the economic 
problems we face--real wages for what we call ordinary people have been 
stagnant.
  I will confess that I approached the tax cut for children with some 
concern because I looked at it solely in economic terms, and I said to 
myself that this particular tax cut is not going to increase the rate 
of growth in the economy, which is the root problem. There are now 
economic studies that challenge that conclusion that demonstrate that 
this tax cut will, in fact, stimulate economic growth. But I will leave 
that debate for another time.
  I will simply raise this point. If, in fact, one of our more serious 
difficulties is stagnant real wages for ordinary people, and it is a 
fact that--being the father of six children, I know this one--the 
biggest impact comes upon those who have kids. They have to worry about 
clothing them and educating them and taking care of them. What could be 
a better way of attacking that particular economic problem than saying 
to those ordinary people, who have children, that we will allow you to 
keep an extra $500 per year for each one of your children, while we 
work on this long-term problem of solving our growth difficulties?

  The Senator from California was talking about people who are earning 
$350,000 a year who are going to get $100,000 in tax benefits. My 
reaction is that they are sure going to have an awful lot of kids if 
they are going to get $100,000 a year, because the tax break comes at 
$500 per child. That is going to require more children than I know of 
anybody having had to get to the full $100,000. We are talking about 
$500 per child for the man, or the woman, or the couple, who has a 
child, who is working for wages at $20,000 or $30,000 or $40,000 a year 
and is having financial problems, because his or her real income has 
been stagnant for years.
  So I have revised my position on the tax cut, as I have looked at it 
in those terms, and said that this makes sense. It certainly makes a 
lot more sense than taking that $500 and bringing it to Washington and 
spending it on some kind of job retraining program in the hope that you 
can do something about the stagnant real wages of that wage earner. 
This is not a tax cut for the rich. The statistics demonstrate it. The 
demagoguery goes the other way. We need to keep our focus elsewhere.
  What is this really all about, Madam President? Why are we facing 
this kind of a crisis here tonight? Some would summarize it by saying 
the Republicans are willing to risk shutting down the Government in 
order to get a balanced budget.
  The President is willing to risk shutting down the Government in 
order to prevent a balanced budget.
  I prepared to say that and I decided, no, I better go farther than 
that; that is too glib a summary. This is what I think this is all 
about. Let us go back to the 1992 campaign. My friend, Senator Dorgan, 
who is probably going to be recognized next, and I both ran for the 
Senate in 1992. So did Bill Clinton run for President in 1992. I do not 
know what the Senator's campaign slogan was, but I know what mine was. 
It was change. 

[[Page S18723]]

  I had a little trouble with that because somebody said, ``That is 
Governor Clinton's slogan. He is running on change.'' The woman elected 
to the second congressional district in Utah, Karen Shepherd, a 
Democrat, ran on change. We all got elected. President Clinton got 
elected on change, I got elected on change, and Karen Shepherd got 
elected on change, Republicans and Democrats, on the wave was change. 
Then the President put forth his first serious financial proposal. It 
was a $19 billion stimulus package saying we had to stimulate a 
sluggish economy by spending $19 billion in an emergency appropriation.

  Why do I point that out, Madam President? For this reason: Emergency 
appropriations do not go through the budget process. Emergency 
appropriations go directly to the deficit. We have an emergency, we 
have to bypass the budget process. We stood here on this floor 
recognizing that the procedure of taking emergency appropriations to 
bypass the budget and taking care of your political constituency in an 
emergency appropriations bill was not changed, it was the ultimate 
example of business as usual in this town.
  We Republicans like to say we brilliantly executed a strategy 
blocking that. As a matter of fact, we stumbled into it. There was not 
any brilliant strategy. It just kind of happened. Then we discovered 
something. The American people liked the fact that we blocked the 
stimulus package which was really business as usual.
  So the 1994 election, in my view, turned on this issue and this issue 
primarily: Which party is really the party of change? The American 
people had no change--what they wanted. They voted for change in 1992. 
They felt they did not get it, so they voted for it in 1994.
  What are we talking about tonight, Madam President? We are talking 
about change. We are talking about which party is most dedicated to 
changing the way the Government works. We are cloaking that debate in 
conversation about the rate of growth in Medicare, or slashing Medicare 
if you prefer that rhetoric. We are cloaking that debate in talks about 
tax cuts for the rich, and then others respond saying it is not for the 
rich. We can have that debate. What we are really talking about is 
whether or not the Government is going to fundamentally change the way 
it does business and the way it keeps its books--the balanced budget 
amendment, the balanced budget bill, a balanced budget in 7 years.
  Let me conclude by telling you Government as usual--and why I think 
we need change. I have been around this town or observed this town for 
over 30 years, even though I have been a Senator for only 3 years. I 
have seen politicians of both parties and of all political stripes--
liberals, conservatives, moderates--all stand up and claim their 
undying allegiance to a balanced budget. When?
  It reminds me of the old Wall Street advice by a wise old broker who 
says, ``When somebody asks you about a stock price, give them a number 
or give them a date but never give them both.'' Stocks going to 
double--do not tell them when. Give them a number, give them a date, 
but never give them both.

  That has been Government as usual with balanced budget--Republicans 
have done it, Ronald Reagan has done it, Democrats have done it, Jimmy 
Carter did it--give them a number, give them a date, but never give 
them both. We have to give a date here.
  When is the date that the budget will be balanced? It is always in 
the outyears. That is a phrase that the American people do not 
understand. The budgeteers tell you outyears means the years out there 
somewhere in the future. I discovered that outyears means never. The 
budget is going to be balanced in the outyears. That means never.
  What this fight is all about is whether or not we are going to take 
Government as usual and procedure as usual that promises a balanced 
budget in the outyears, or whether we will take the first steps this 
year and in this budget.
  President Clinton sent us a budget. It was put on the floor. It was 
defeated 99 to 0. I hope the people that are guiding the President in 
these budget negotiations remember that under law he has to send us a 
budget for fiscal year 1997. His budget for fiscal year 1996 was 
defeated 99 to 0. He has to send us a budget for fiscal year 1997. If, 
indeed, what we are proposing is too draconian for fiscal year 1996, 
and he really does want to get the budget balanced by 1997, he has to 
be far more draconian in 1997 than the Republicans will be, because we 
have a head start on him by virtue of what we are willing to undertake 
in fiscal year 1996. Of course he would prefer 10 years--10 years gives 
3 more outyears in which to make his projections.
  I think with all the rhetoric that is going on, the real core problem 
here that is dividing the two parties and that has created the anger 
and the excitement and the specter of certain portions of the 
Government being shut down tomorrow is more fundamental than the 
rhetoric around. It is over the question of where is the Government 
going, and are we finally going to undertake the hard choices of doing 
it now rather than giving us the rhetoric of doing it in the outyears.
  In conclusion, Madam President, I offer this summary which may be a 
little irreverent but that I think helps us understand what we are 
talking about. The Presidency of John F. Kennedy has been summarized in 
shorthand now by virtue of a comment his wife made after his death when 
she said his favorite musical was Camelot. She described how she and he 
would listen to records in the evening as they were falling asleep. 
They would put a record on it and listen to it, and his favorite 
musical was Camelot. She said--referring to the Kennedy Presidency from 
the language of that musical--``Let the word go forth and let it never 
be forgot that once there was a place that was known as Camelot.'' And 
that name has stuck.

  If I may, with I hope appropriate respect, suggest that for this 
administration, the musical should not be Camelot but Annie because the 
hit song in Annie is ``Tomorrow.'' ``Tomorrow, tomorrow, I love you 
tomorrow, you're always a day away.'' I suggest that this debate is 
about whether or not we attack the difficulty of balancing the budget 
today or whether we leave it for the outyears--``Tomorrow, tomorrow, 
always a day away.''
  I side with those that say tomorrow is never going to come. If we are 
going to deal with the problems of the balanced budget we must deal 
with it now. We must deal with it here no matter how difficult and 
problematic it becomes and how angry it makes us. We must step out to 
that hard choice and deal with it today instead of waiting for the time 
that is always a day away.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  (Mr. BENNETT assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have stayed on the floor for some while 
because I felt a number of things need to be said in this debate, and 
the longer I stay the more I regretted having stayed, listening to some 
of the debate.
  I must say the Senator from Utah is, I think, one of the most 
thoughtful Members of this Senate, and I admire him and respect his 
views. He has, as he usually does, expressed his views with great 
respect tonight on the floor of the Senate.
  I say to him, however, that his use of the song from Annie is 
probably an appropriate starting point because the implication of the 
song that is sung in Annie, ``Tomorrow, tomorrow,'' is the 
postponement. He says that there is not today, there is always the 
postponement. Actually, the lyrics of that song are ``The sun will come 
up tomorrow,'' and so on, and it seems to me that that does represent a 
kind of a difference here.
  If your notion is there is only today, we are only dealing with 
today, I guess you sometimes forget about the tomorrow--the 5-year-old 
that will be in first grade next year; the kid who is 3 that might get 
a chance to go to Head Start next year. Really, the difference in 
priorities among many of us is to look to tomorrow, look to the future, 
look to what this country is going to be, in 2 years, 5 years 7 years, 
10 years, look about what we will do for our children, what we will do 
when people reach retirement age, what we will do about those who want 
an education. Yes, it is really about tomorrow. Let us do what we 
should do today. Let us meet our responsibilities today and also decide 
to care about tomorrow, to care about our children, to care about our 
elderly, and to do the right thing.

  You will not hear me in discussing our differences use the terms 
``liar,'' 

[[Page S18724]]
``dishonest,'' ``untruthful.'' And I must say, having sat and listened, 
now, this evening, that this, because of the circumstances of this 
budget debate and the breakdown of the negotiations and the potential 
of another shutdown of the Government, is not a proud day in the 104th 
Congress. I am not proud of the debate I have heard here in the Senate 
over the last couple of hours, with pejorative terms about motives of 
others.
  It seems to me that we can disagree without being disagreeable with 
each other. We can talk about fundamental policy differences--Medicare, 
education, agriculture, veterans, Medicaid and so many others--without 
deciding that because you are on one side or the other of the debate, 
you are unworthy or you are not able to think or you are not honest. 
That is not, in my judgment, debate that advances the interests of the 
Senate or the interests of this country.
  I put my hand on a Bible when I was sworn into the U.S. Senate, and 
it was one of the proudest days of my life. I did not come here to want 
to create problems. I came here because I wanted to solve problems. I 
want this country to be better. I have children who are in school. I 
want life to be better for those children. I want the world to be 
safer. I want our schools to be better. I want their job opportunities 
to be broader. That is what I want to participate in.
  We might reach those goals in different ways because we have 
different philosophies, but I expect most of us want the same thing. 
The question is, why can we not decide to sit down and reason together 
without the threats and without the language and without the punitive 
kind of approach that some here would take; to say: In order for me to 
win I must make you lose?
  I want to talk just a little about the pieces to this puzzle, this 
issue of a Federal budget. We talk a lot about numbers, and it is true 
it is a puzzle with pieces that deal with numbers. The question is, How 
do you make them all fit together? The numbers all represent 
investments or expenditures for one reason or another. We do not often 
enough talk about what it is this country has tried to do.
  I was on a radio program some while ago. Someone asked me of my 
heritage, and I explained about my great grandmother Caroline who, with 
six children, after her husband died, left Saint Paul, MN, and took her 
children to the prairies of Hettinger County, ND, and pitched a tent. 
This woman, born in Norway, whose husband died, went to Hettinger 
County, ND, to pitch a tent, build a house, and build a farm, and raise 
her kids.
  Someone called the radio show and said, ``I wonder what she would 
have done had there been a welfare program back at the turn of the 
century? Would she not have been enticed, probably, just to go on 
welfare?''
  I said, Who do you think gave her the 160 acres of land? What do you 
think the Homestead Act was? Do you think that was the largesse of 
Chase Manhattan Bank? Do you think it was the Rockefeller Trust that 
said, ``Here, if you will do this, we will provide you 160 acres of 
land''? No. It was the Federal Government. It was the Homestead Program 
that said, ``Here is an incentive for you to do the right thing.''

  And this sturdy Norwegian woman--Lord only knows the courage it must 
have taken to take her children and go to the prairies of North Dakota 
and pitch a tent and start a farm by herself. This sturdy woman said, 
``I am going to do that.'' But it was the Homestead Act that helped her 
do that as well.
  I am proud of a lot of those things. I am enormously proud that we 
decided to have an REA program that lights up the farms in America. I 
am proud of the fact that we have a Medicare Program. Over half the 
senior citizens of this country 35 years ago had no health care at all. 
Mr. President, 99 percent of them are covered for health care these 
days. I am proud of that. If someone stands up here and says, ``Why 
don't you decide to start defending these things?'' To put us--I am not 
defensive about it. I am proud of what we have done. We have made this 
a better country because of it.
  Do we have to balance the books in this country? Do we have to 
balance the budget? Of course we do. That is not at odds. Of course we 
must. The question is how do we do that? How do we do it in the right 
way that serves this country's interests?
  I come to this floor and I hear people stand up all the time and they 
point a finger at somebody and say, ``You, you are the one. You are the 
big spender. You are the obstacle. You never want to cut spending.''
  The Presiding Officer knows what the business of the Senate is 
tonight. The business of the Senate is the Defense authorization bill, 
that is what is on the floor right now. Let us talk just for a second 
about some of the facts.
  You know, you spend money not in some aggregate, hypothetical scheme 
called a budget debate; you spend money by authorizing it in a Defense 
authorization bill and an appropriations bill. I just want to show, for 
those who are interested, what is on the floor tonight: A Defense 
authorization bill. Mr. President, $7 billion was added to this bill 
beyond what the Air Force, the Army, the Marines and the Navy said they 
wanted or needed to defend this country. They said, here is what we 
need. Here is what we ask you for. Here are the trucks, the ships, the 
planes, the submarines we need to defend our country.
  And then this Congress, this body says, General, Admiral, Mr. 
Secretary--you are wrong about that. You need $7 billion more. You need 
17 more T-39 jet trainers. And we insist you buy them. You need six EA 
strike aircraft. You need an LHD-7 amphibious ship that costs $1.3 
billion, and you need another ship. You did not ask for them, but you 
also need a second amphibious ship for $900 million. You need six more 
F-15's that you did not ask for. You need six more F-16 jet fighters 
that you did not want and we insist you buy them. We want, we insist 
you order three C-130 cargo aircraft. B-2 bombers? We think you are 
wrong when you say you do not want B-2 bombers. We want you to buy 20 
of them, at $35 billion.
  Star wars? We insist you buy it. We increase 100 percent of the 
funding for star wars, and we demand you begin to build it in 1999. By 
the way, we want multiple sites and we want it to be space-based.
  I could go on at some length. This is a long list of what people who 
say they want to balance the budget have decided they want to add to 
this bill. After all, this is a specific bill. This is where you really 
begin to balance the budget, in day-to-day individual decisions.

  In fact, when this bill came to the floor of the Senate, do you know 
there was a little provision tucked away in it calling to spend $60 
million for blimps? Yes, blimps. I went on a short scavenger hunt, 
asking who would want to buy blimps in the defense budget? Could 
someone tell me who the blimp is for? Will there be a name on the 
blimp? Will that identify the author? There were no hearings--$60 
million for blimps.
  My point is this: The next time someone stands up and points at 
someone else and says, ``You are the big spender,'' I ask them how did 
you feel about this? Do you want to balance the budget? Let us start 
with the first step right now, 10 minutes to 8, let us decide we do not 
need B-2 bombers the Air Force says it does not want. Let us decide we 
should not build a star wars program the Secretary of Defense says is 
unwise to build at this point. This is where budget cutting starts. 
This is where balancing the budget starts. And the fact is, the folks 
who are here busting their buttons, bellowing, often the loudest--not 
everybody bellows, but there are some bellowers--bellowing the loudest 
about they are the ones who would solve America's problems and balance 
the budget, are the very ones who come to the floor with this set of 
priorities.
  The Treasury Department did a story about the numbers that I think 
makes it pretty clear. It says, picture it this way: Spending and 
taxing priorities in the budget that has been offered and that the 
President vetoed, take a roomful of people--my hometown was 400 
people--a roomful of 400 people. Get them all in the room, and you have 
a community meeting. You say to them: Here is the way we divide this up 
in this approach to balancing the budget. We want the 20 percent of you 
in this room who have the lowest incomes to move all your chairs to 
this side of the room. And so you get the 20 percent 

[[Page S18725]]
with the lowest income moved over to this side of the room. And we say: 
We have news for you. We have to cut the budget. We just have to 
tighten our belts. We have to cut back. You 20 percent with the lowest 
incomes, you get 80 percent of the burden of the spending cuts in the 
budget.
  Now, we know that is bad news, so we do not want the entire room to 
be filled with bad news. We do have some good news. We would like the 
20 percent with the highest incomes in this room to move their chairs 
over to this side of the room, and they do. So the 20 percent with the 
highest incomes are all sitting on this side of the room. We say: Now, 
we have some good news for you. You 20 percent with the highest incomes 
get 80 percent of the tax benefits in this bill.
  And that is the problem with the priorities.
  I am not here to point fingers but neither am I willing to allow 
people to stand in the Chamber of the Senate and say it is the 
Democrats that have misrepresented what the majority party has done.
  I wish to hold up a chart that I held up before. It is Kevin 
Phillips, whom all of you know, a noted author. He is a Republican 
political analyst. He has been a Republican all of his life. And here 
is what he says about it. Not me, a Republican, Kevin Phillips, has 
written:

       Spending on Government programs--

  He is speaking about the reconciliation bill to balance the budget 
that the President said was unfair and he vetoed it.

     from Medicare and education to home heating oil assistance is 
     to be reduced in ways that principally burden the poor and 
     the middle class, while simultaneously taxes are to be cut in 
     ways that predominantly benefit the top one or two percent of 
     Americans.

  That is not me saying that. This is the writing of a Republican 
political analyst. And frankly, he is right and that is the problem 
with the priorities. We can do better than that. We can do better than 
that. The common interest of Republicans and Democrats in the Congress 
to come together and compromise can produce a result that is more fair 
to the American people.
  We, I think, should solve this problem. There is no reason for there 
to be a shutdown of Government services tonight. That is a failure by 
any standard, a failure shared, in my judgment, by both political 
parties. I do not deny that. But there is not any reason that we ought 
not have negotiations that reach a result which is good for the future 
of this country.
  Tomorrow, tomorrow, the sun will come up tomorrow. There is a 
tomorrow. There are people who will experience the joys of being an 
American tomorrow, hopefully benefit from the fruits of what being an 
American is--going to good schools, having a nutritious lunch for a 
low-income child in the middle of the day at a school lunch program or 
for a 4-year old to be able to show up with hope in their heart because 
we have a Head Start Program that says you come from a troubled family 
and you come from circumstances that you were not selecting when you 
were born; you did not select to be born into poverty, but we are going 
to give you a head start. We are going to give a head start in life.

  I saw 60 of them out here in the Capitol this morning; a group of 60 
Head Start kids came in with parents and teachers, and I stopped and 
talked to them because I love the Head Start Program. It works. We know 
it works. It works well. It invests in young kids. It invests in the 
future. And we are saying with the priorities in this Congress that we 
want to increase star wars by 100 percent; we want to increase the 
funding for star wars by 100 percent, but we want to say to 55,000 
kids, each one of whom has a name and hope in their heart for a better 
day tomorrow, we do not have room for you in the Head Start Program; we 
cannot afford you. You have to be told you are going to have to leave 
the Head Start Program. I am just saying to you that is not the right 
set of priorities.
  Let me in just a final moment come to a specific piece that was 
raised by others because I think, to be fair to the President, we need 
to have the agreement that was entered into some 2\1/2\ weeks ago put 
in the Record, and I am going to read it because no one who has 
referenced this agreement has read it out loud. This is a CR commitment 
to a 7-year balanced budget.

       The President and Congress shall enact legislation in the 
     first session of the 104th Congress to achieve a balanced 
     budget not later than fiscal year 2002 as estimated by the 
     Congressional Budget Office. The President and the Congress 
     agree that the balanced budget must protect future 
     generations, ensure Medicare solvency, reform welfare, 
     provide adequate funding for Medicaid, education, 
     agriculture, national defense, veterans and the environment.
       Further, the balanced budget shall adopt tax policies to 
     help working families and to stimulate future economic 
     growth.
       B. The balanced budget agreement shall be estimated by the 
     Congressional Budget Office based on its most recent current 
     economic and technical assumptions following a thorough 
     consultation and review with the Office of Management and 
     Budget and other Government and private experts.

  The balanced budget agreement shall be estimated by the Congressional 
Budget Office. The President has agreed to that. I agree to that. I 
believe it should be so. But there is nowhere in this document that 
suggests that the discussions at this point in the process can or will 
be scored by CBO because the fact is CBO still has not scored the 
options that are laying on the table. So you work from a series of 
options to get to an end point where you reach agreement and that will 
be scored by the Congressional Budget Office. The President agreed that 
that is what it will be. But it also is an acknowledgement that it be 
scored by the Congressional Budget Office after consulting with OMB and 
other Government and private experts on economic growth, and so on, and 
also that it will relate to the priorities--Medicare, Medicaid, and 
others. And those are very important elements. I think to the extent 
that I have heard this discussed tonight in the Chamber of the Senate 
it has not been related the way it was just read by me.
  And so there is a lot to talk here with respect to what we are doing 
and where we are. We need to reach an end point, not with games but 
with honest budgets that deal with priorities that are right for this 
country's future. Will Rogers once told a story that I thought was 
interesting. He talked about what his daddy said to him about how to 
succeed in life. Will said his dad told him to buy stock and then hold 
it till it goes up and then sell it. And he says, ``If it doesn't go 
up, don't buy it.''

  I thought about it. That is pretty interesting advice, right? There 
is a lot of that kind of mechanical description of dealings here in the 
Congress, the so-called guarantees. We see from the majority side 
interests that they have, legitimate interests. I understand them with 
respect to balancing the budget. They say to us we want a $250 billion 
tax cut.
  Personally, I think there ought not be a tax cut until the budget is 
balanced. I think we ought to put it aside and say, let us do the heavy 
lifting first. Let us honestly balance the budget. When we are done 
with that, then let us turn to the Tax Code and hopefully cut taxes for 
middle American families. But the majority party says, no, that is a 
priority. It is a legitimate thing. I understand that that is their 
priority. They came to the negotiating table today and said, OK, we 
have changed our position on tax cuts. We said roughly $245 billion. We 
are going to come down from that $5 billion.
  It seems to me that is not very much movement in terms of negotiating 
a compromise. The tax cut includes, some will say--and I expect 
Senators who will speak afterwards will say--a $500 cut for children, 
knowing, of course, that nearly half of the children in this country 
will not get any benefit or full benefit of the $500 because they come 
from poor families and this is not refundable. So a lot of kids are 
left out of this, of course. But there are a couple other things that 
are in there that I will not expect anybody to stand up and support 
tonight because I think they do not want people to understand what is 
sort of slipped under there just below the surface of the water that 
nobody really should see. Let me give you an example.
  A cut in the alternative minimum tax for the largest corporations in 
the country that will mean each of 2,000 corporations will receive a $7 
million tax reduction. It seems to me when you are short of money for 
Head Start but you say ``I have money to give 2,000 corporations $7 
million each in tax reductions'' is not a right priority.
  Another little one, a tiny little issue that I bet no one knows who 
stuck in--

[[Page S18726]]
in fact, about 3 days ago, I asked if anyone in the Senate knew who 
stuck this provision in. Would they please identify themselves so we 
could debate the wisdom of it. It is a little provision. I think it is 
called 956A. I am not sure I have the right number on it, but it is a 
little provision that makes it more attractive to close your 
manufacturing plant in the United States and move it overseas.
  It deals with investment in passive assets on overseas income that 
would otherwise be repatriated to the United States. In short, it says, 
let us make it more attractive to move American jobs overseas. And $244 
million is lost by increasing the tax break to corporations who would 
move their jobs overseas.
  I want to know who in this Chamber thinks it is a good idea for us in 
this bill to decide, or that we ought to encourage even more the 
movement of American jobs overseas? Anyone? Three days have passed 
since I asked who wrote it, and no one has been willing to claim 
credit. It is only $244 million. That is only a quarter of a billion. 
And some people think that is probably not relevant. But when you come 
from a town of 400 people, we are talking pretty big money when you 
talk about $244 million.
  I would like to find out who did that, and why, and how do they stand 
up and claim that one side does not bargain in good faith, but we have 
a plan that says let us help move jobs overseas, let us help move 
American jobs out of America. And we are upset that the President 
vetoed that?
  See, I mean, the Senator from Utah, who I have indicated is a 
thoughtful legislator, I think, said it right. This is not a case where 
one side is all right and the other side is all wrong. I would like to 
get to the point where we could recognize there are good ideas on both 
sides of the political aisle. Let us try to collect the best of both 
rather than get the worst of each.
  Again, I think all of these things we will debate in the coming days 
again. But my hope is that reasonable people can decide that we ought 
not shut down the Government tonight. Why should we make the American 
people pay the price? And that is who will pay the price of the 
shutdown--furloughed workers will get paid though they will not work--
the American people will pay the price of failure here in Congress.
  So there is no reason that there ought to be a shutdown of the 
Government tonight. Those who think they want to let this Government 
shut down do no service to the American people, in my judgment. And I 
would say to the majority leader and the minority leader and everyone 
involved in this--and I have been one of the negotiators for 2\1/2\ 
weeks--we have not, frankly, negotiated very much because people did 
not want to sit down and go through this.
  We should. It is time, I say to all of them, it is time right now. 
Start on page one and go through it. Let us reach agreement and 
compromise, balance the budget, do it the right way, protect the right 
priorities and solve this country's problems.
  President Clinton has a veto, and he used it because he said some 
things are important. We are going to stand and fight for some things. 
Elderly people who live with very little income and rely on Medicare do 
not deserve to pay more and get less health care. We want to protect 
that program. It does not mean there cannot be some cuts. There will be 
some cuts, but we do not believe you ought to have a quarter of a 
trillion dollar tax cut in order to make room for the cut in Medicare 
by a quarter of a trillion dollars. That is not fair. It is not 
balanced. And it is not the right thing to do.
  There is a better way to do it, and I think that reasonable people 
could sit down and in a very reasonably--I should not say very 
reasonably--in a short period of time come to a reasonable compromise 
that protects some of these things that are important for the future of 
this country.
  Mr. President, the Senator from Wisconsin has been extraordinarily 
patient. I apologize for the length, but I appreciate having the 
opportunity to address some of these issues on the floor of the Senate. 
I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, first of all, I would like to thank the 
Senator from North Dakota for his remarks. I think they very correctly 
set the tone, the tone that should have been established out here this 
evening, not the tone that we were treated to earlier in the evening.
  These remarks are not directed at the Chair. In fact, the Chair, the 
Senator from Utah, I thought very politely and effectively made an 
analogy to a musical, ``Annie,'' and brought the debate back to an 
exchange of respect in an attempt to point out the differences we have. 
What I heard earlier on the floor was just rank partisanship. It was 
very extreme. It was very harsh. It was very personal toward the 
President of the United States.
  When it comes to voting, I think people should do whatever they can 
to vote their principles, as a rule. Of course, there is such a thing 
as party loyalty, but you should vote your principles as much as 
possible. I think the thing that frustrates the American people more 
than any issue is their belief that this institution is just loaded 
with partisanship.
  You know what I tell them, Mr. President? I tell them that actually 
the U.S. Senate is not as partisan as it looks on television, that the 
interpersonal exchanges when the TV cameras are not on are really very 
civil, most of the time, and that they would be proud of it.
  But I think we went over that line tonight, and it troubles me 
because recently on a couple of occasions I have parted company with my 
President and my party and voted with the majority party here. This 
week I was the only Democrat Member of the Senate to vote against my 
President on the Bosnia action. I voted with mostly Republicans, 
because I do not think you should just use partisan consideration when 
you are doing something as significant as sending American men and 
women to a very dangerous situation in Bosnia.
  And more than that, on the issue before us tonight, the budget issue, 
I was one of only seven Democrats to say, when the Republicans proposed 
that the budget be balanced within 7 years, I voted, yes, that sounds 
reasonable. I disagree with the way the Republicans want to do it, but 
I thought it was reasonable to continue the Government with the 
agreement that we should balance it within 7 years according to 
Congressional Budget Office numbers.
  So I have been giving the Democrat President some heartache lately. I 
am sure I am not No. 1 on his Hit Parade, as some people say back home. 
And I regret it when I have to disagree with him.
  But I am very troubled by the personal attacks I heard on the floor 
tonight toward the President. I remember when I was a young teenager, 
the Vietnam war was on. My father and I had a strong disagreement about 
whether the Democratic President, President Johnson, was doing the 
right thing in Vietnam, and I said some things that were intemperate 
about the President. My dad said to me, ``Remember, at any one time you 
only have one President.'' And I have always remembered that as a basic 
statement about the responsibility of every American, and especially 
the Members of this body, about the personal way in which you refer to 
the President of the United States.
  The comments that he cannot keep a promise, and the other references 
seem to me undignified for this great body. In fact, I find it 
particularly odd that he would be criticized for not keeping a promise 
when in fact the very issues now that he is being asked to compromise 
on require him to move away from positions he has taken.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania said that the President promised a tax 
cut, middle-class tax cut, but he broke his promise. In fact, what the 
majority party is asking for is not simply a middle-class tax cut, but 
a tax cut that is heavily skewed toward not the middle class, but 
toward upper income people. So, in effect, he is being criticized for 
not keeping his promises and at the same time being told to break that 
promise and spend the money even more so on folks who make more.
  The fact is that this President is a doer. You may not like 
everything he is trying to do; he may change his mind sometimes and try 
one thing and then try another, but he is not a do nothing. He is a 
doer. And the people in 

[[Page S18727]]
my State are pretty positive toward him because they think more than 
anything else he is trying to solve the problems of this country. So 
let me put a word in of respect and admiration for that President who I 
have been forced, out of principle, to disagree with in the last 2 
weeks.
  I do think some of the points that the Members of the other party 
made tonight about whether we should use Office of Management and 
Budget or CBO numbers are important issues. But those can be resolved. 
I think the American people should know tonight what the real roadblock 
is here on this budget. There is a real roadblock. And if we are going 
to have a Government shutdown in less than 4 hours, there is a reason 
why the Government will shut down. It is the same reason why we had the 
first shutdown. It is the reason we are going to have this shutdown. It 
is because there is one priority of the majority party here over 
everything else, one thing that is more important to them than anything 
else. It is what the Speaker of the other House has called the crown 
jewel of the Republican contract.
  Now, you may think, given all the rhetoric of the last few weeks, 
that crown jewel of the Republican contract would have been balancing 
the budget. But it is not. That is not the crown jewel of the 
Republican contract. Guess again. You may think it was passing the 
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. That is not what has 
been referred to as the crown jewel of the Republican contract.
  Maybe you would have thought it was the flag burning amendment. Given 
the rhetoric this week on the floor of the Senate about that, you would 
have thought that would be what had been identified as the crown jewel 
of the Republican contract. But it was not.
  How about the line-item veto? If I had to pick something that was 
really popular out there in the 1994 elections, and I think was, in 
fact, one of the issues that drove the Republican victory, it was the 
desire to give the President the line-item veto.
  That cannot be the crown jewel, and I will tell you why. Because the 
House passed the line-item veto in February and we passed it in March 
in the Senate and guess what, the Republican leadership of this 
institution has not seen fit to resolve the differences and send it 
down to the President. They are just sitting on it. This President 
could have that line-item veto today and be vetoing stuff that he does 
not believe in. But that, obviously, is not the crown jewel of the 
Republican contract.
  The crown jewel is a tax cut. The crown jewel is a $245 billion--I 
guess it is now down to $242 billion--tax cut, 50 percent of which 
would go to people who make over $100,000 a year. That is the most 
important priority. Of course, it is completely and directly 
inconsistent with the priority of trying to balance the budget, which 
many of the Senators who spoke on the floor tonight would suggest is 
the real issue here.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania said this party, the Democratic Party, 
does not care about future generations. Does anyone believe that this 
tax cut is going to future generations? They talk about the $500 per 
family per kid tax cut. Obviously, as the Senator from North Dakota 
pointed out, it does not even go to all the families.
  This is not going into some kid's bank account. This is not going 
into a trust fund for their education. I hope the kids back home know 
that some people are trying to suggest that they are going to get that 
$500 and they get to spend it or their children get to spend it. It is 
not for that. The parents can take it and spend it on important family 
needs, but, if they want, they could go spend it at the casino. This 
debate isn't about money going to the kids and the grandchildren. It is 
about a tax cut. Of course, we all would like to be able to vote for a 
tax cut. Everyone would like to have a tax cut. If the money was not 
needed here to balance the budget, it would be a great idea, but it is 
not.
  What it really is is an obsession. The majority party here has an 
obsession with wanting a tax cut at a time when it obviously makes 
absolutely no sense.
  Just before Christmas, it reminds me a little bit of the way they 
used to do things in the State to the south of us in Chicago. It used 
to be tradition to hand out a turkey to everybody in the wards, to make 
sure everybody got a little something around Christmastime to remember 
who was running the show.
  How in the world can handing out a tax cut at this difficult time 
when we are talking about Medicare cuts and Medicaid cuts and student 
loan cuts and veterans cuts and agriculture cuts, how can it be a 
priority to hand out tax cuts, 50 percent of which go to people who 
make over $100,000 a year?
  How do we get to this point? It has taken about a year. The election 
was held a year ago November 8. The Contract With America called for 
this tax cut. But I believe that the top priority had to be, given the 
mood of the electorate and the rhetoric on the floor during the 
balanced budget debate, that we have to balance the budget first before 
we have a tax cut. But that is just the opposite of what is being 
proposed here. This tax cut would go into effect right away, right as 
the 7-year plan would begin.
  I have tried, I was the first Member of the entire U.S. Congress, 
almost a year ago today, to come out and say we just cannot afford this 
tax cut. And there are many other Members on the other side of the 
aisle who have told me personally they do not believe we can afford the 
tax cut. In fact, at one point, one of them was cosponsoring an 
amendment with me to eliminate the tax cut. He came over to me and 
said, ``I'm sorry, I can't stick with you on this anymore. We need our 
party discipline.''
  The party discipline of the majority party here requires that this 
tax cut be delivered now, even though it flies directly in the face of 
the presumably principal goal of both parties, which is balancing the 
budget.
  So, Mr. President, the fact is, we can have a balanced budget by the 
year 2002 without a great deal of difficulty. We can have it today, Mr. 
President, not tomorrow, as the song from ``Annie'' suggests.
  We can have a balanced budget by the year 2002 without going to the 
extent of a $270 billion Medicare cut.
  We can have a balanced budget by the year 2002 without $170 billion 
in Medicaid cuts.
  We can have a balanced budget by the year 2002 without $10 billion 
taken out of student loans.
  We can have a balanced budget by the year 2002 without $8 billion 
taken out of veterans programs, including health programs.
  Mr. President, we can have a balanced budget on or before the year 
2002 without shutting down the Government in a few hours. We can have a 
balanced budget without this acrimony. We can have a balanced budget 
without this partisanship, but it requires the elimination of this 
obsession with delivering a tax cut at the same time that you are 
trying to move right in the opposite direction and when those dollars 
are needed to balance the budget.
  I have the good fortune of having a few more words from the song I 
quoted. The words, I am told, are:

       When I'm stuck with a day that's gray and lonely, I just 
     stick out my chin and grin and say, The Sun will come out 
     tomorrow, bet your bottom dollar.

  That is the question. What will we do with our bottom dollar? Will 
the bottom dollar be used to balance the budget, or will that same 
dollar be used to give a tax cut to upper-income people? That is the 
choice before us, and until the people on both sides drop the tax cut, 
we cannot use that bottom dollar to achieve what I believe is the 
shared goal here: Balancing the budget by the year 2002.
  Let me conclude, Mr. President, by saying that we can also have a 
balanced budget without such rancor and without such disrespect for the 
Chief Executive of this country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I know we can be sitting here and listening 
and what we are going to hear, I am afraid, starting tonight, which we 
already heard and probably will for the next couple of days, is a lot 
of excuses, excuses of why this Government is going to shut down, as I 
know Senators before me have pointed out, at midnight tonight. Why is 
this going to happen? 

[[Page S18728]]

  The basic reason, and what we keep hearing is people just want to 
change the focus, change the direction, put the blame somewhere else, 
excuse after excuse of why we cannot reach a balanced budget.
  The fact of the matter is, the President has not come to the table 
with a balanced budget. And in fact, the Democratic Party has not come 
to the table with a balanced budget scored by CBO to balance in 7 
years.
  The President's budgets have been on the floor of this Senate debated 
twice--Clinton I, Clinton II. It is too bad we have to start putting 
numbers to this. Clinton I, Clinton II have been offered on the floor. 
Not one Democrat voted for it. In fact, it was zero in favor, 99 
against.
  The budget that was delivered again today that was supposed to be the 
latest good-faith effort by this administration, called Clinton III, is 
about the same as what we saw in Clinton I and II, and yet I still 
cannot, for the life of me, figure out how we can have Senators stand 
on the floor tonight and defend the budget that they have failed two 
times previously to even take a vote for.
  Now, they talked about $245 billion in tax cuts. Somehow Americans do 
not deserve to keep some of their own money--money that they get up 
early in the morning to earn. If you are in my home State of Minnesota, 
you get up when it is 21 below zero, get out in the cold car and drive 
to your job, 7 days a week, 5 days a week, 6 days a week, and you make 
$300, $400, and the Government wants more of it. And somehow, Senators 
sitting in a warm Chamber here in Washington, DC, somehow do not 
believe they should be able to keep it.
  It was not very hard for these same Senators, in 1993, to vote to 
increase your taxes by $265 billion--the largest tax increase in 
history. That was easy for them because they are compassionate with 
your money--not theirs, your money, the money you get up every day and 
work hard for and want to provide for your children, your family. But, 
somehow, they have first dibs, first claim on the money, somehow, that 
you are out working for. What they want to do is bring it to Washington 
so they can be compassionate and somehow give it back to you--$245 
billion. Then they say, well, if we do not give you this tax cut, we 
can balance this budget in 7 years without the pain.
  I would like to ask taxpayers to look at it in this light: If we do 
not provide the $245 billion in tax reduction over the next 7 years, 
where is that money going to go? I have not heard one person on the 
floor say that if we do not provide this tax cut, we will balance the 
budget faster. It will still be 7 years. In that respect, what are they 
saying? They are saying Congress can spend that $245 billion wiser than 
you can.
  In other words, the $12.4 trillion that Congress is going to get its 
hands on in the next 7 years is not enough. They want that other 1.5 
percent from you. They want that other $245 billion so they can spend 
it. They do not want to save it. They want to spend it. CBO revised 
their numbers, updating their forecast. They say, ``We believe there 
will be another $135 billion.'' What is the first fiscal responsibility 
that we hear? Spend it. Spend it.
  The last 3 years of our balanced budget plan calls for deficits 
totaling $131 billion. If they are really serious, why don't we take 
that whole $135 billion in new spending and put it directly against the 
deficit? We can balance this budget in 5 years, not 7, but 5 years, if 
we want to do that. But I have not heard anybody say that.
  They are saying: Let us spend it. On top of the $245 billion, now the 
President wants to, again, and the Democratic leadership wants to, 
again, take away from American taxpayers the $135 billion on top of 
that and spend that as well.
  That sends a very clear message: Tax and spend. Tax and spend. That 
has been the Democratic philosophy for the last 40 years, which has 
equated into a $5 trillion deficit. They talk about being worried about 
children. We want to provide for our children. They have names and they 
have faces. We need to provide. But how do we provide? By robbing the 
piggy banks of those same children with those names and faces, so we 
can spend that money today on programs that we think are important?
  If our children had the right to vote on this floor--if my four 
grandchildren could stand on this floor and vote on something that says 
we are going to encumber your life to the tune of $5.5 trillion, how 
many votes do you think they would give us? None. None.
  I am glad to hear some of the Democrats tonight say they are willing 
to share the blame for the shutdown of the Government tonight at 
midnight. They are willing to share the blame. They better have bigger 
shoulders than that, and they better be able to point to the very 
person that that blame should be on, and that is the President himself. 
We hear talk about being partisan, about personal attacks against the 
President, and that we should have more kindness on the floor.

  Well, Mr. President, I am not here to be polite. I am here tonight 
trying to fight for the taxpayers of Minnesota and this country that 
sent me here. They say, ``We want to be polite and compassionate, as we 
have for 40 years, so let us raise taxes.'' That has always been the 
easy answer.
  Let us just look at it. In 1950, 2 percent of your income went to the 
Federal Government for taxes. So for every $50 you made, $1 went to 
Washington. It seemed to meet the needs. We were taking care of this 
country. We paid the debts. In fact, we paid for World War I and World 
War II. For Social Security, they used to take one-half of 1 percent of 
your incomes. That is what it used to be. Today, the Federal Government 
takes 26 percent. So, now, for every $4 you make, you send $1 to 
Washington. And Social Security has risen to over 15 percent of your 
income--not a half percent, but 15 percent. For your children, it is 
going to be 20, 25, and 30 percent, if we do not stop this growth.
  So when they are saying, ``This is not fair, these are not American 
values,'' I would like to know whose values they are talking about. 
They are not talking about my values or my fairness because I am 
looking at those names and those faces of the hard-working taxpayers of 
Minnesota, their children and their grandchildren, and I am saying I am 
not going to spend their inheritance into the ground so people here in 
Washington can pound their chest and say: ``Well, I am compassionate, I 
have taken care of the problem. I have taken your money. Pat me on the 
back. Let us send out some franked mail to our constituents and say, 
look what we did for you, look at how good we are for you. By the way, 
when you look at your check stubs and fill out your taxes next April, 
blame it on the Republicans.
  Well, everybody wants to focus on the tax cut--that $245 billion. Let 
us focus on the tax cut. Boy, I will tell you, if there were two lines 
back in my State and one says, ``Line up here to pay $2,000 in Federal 
taxes, or here to pay $1,000 in Federal taxes,'' I do not think there 
is going to be a very big decision made. I do not think anybody would 
be at the $2,000 window.
  We all want good Government and good services, but it does not come 
at any cost. There has to be some fiscal responsibility for the dollars 
that this Congress takes in and the dollars that this Congress spends. 
That is where the focus should be, not on the puny, little tax cut of 
$245 billion over 7 years, when we are spending over $12.5 trillion. 
They say that we better take that extra 1 percent because you are too 
dumb to spend it. Oh, I heard we are going to spend it at casinos if we 
give it to the parents. There is no such thing as a savings account, 
education, food, clothing, maybe a movie or a pizza; no, that is not in 
the realm of a smart parent. Oh, your children are not going to get 
that money; it is going to go to the parents and it will go to the 
casinos. Well, that is rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric.
  Let us focus on the spending. How are we spending these dollars? 
Where are they going? There are two big things. Tax cuts is one thing 
they focus on, and the other is Medicare. As the Senator from 
Pennsylvania was saying, they want to pick on the most vulnerable and 
scare them and scare them. The fact of the matter is that we are very 
close to what the President has even proposed. When you look back at 
what Mrs. Clinton said in testimony before one of the committees in 
Congress, she said that we should hold Medicare spending to between 6 
and 7 percent in order to get a handle on the 

[[Page S18729]]
growth. That does not mean we are not going to provide the services 
that we need. It is not going to mean Grandma is going to be out of her 
wheelchair and out in the street. But she said between 6 and 7 percent. 
Our plan calls for a 7.2-percent growth--from $4,800 this year to 
nearly $7,200 in 7 years. They know it. They have been written up in 
the newspapers for demagoging Medicare. They have no shame. They 
continue to come and talk about it. Then they say we have to be polite 
and we cannot be partisan.

  Personal attacks. I am not attacking individuals, I am attacking 
policy. This is not the right policy. Fairness, American values. How do 
you take more from our hard-working people and say you have to send 
more to Washington because we need this, we have to have more money 
here?
  The fact again is that the President does not have a plan. The 
Democrats do not have a plan. We have had a balanced budget on the 
table for months. The President signed a pledge that said before the 
end of this year he would put a balanced budget on the table for 7 
years scored by CBO numbers. We hate to get into calling people liars, 
but when we do not see the information here, I will let people draw 
their own conclusions of whether that pledge has been lived up to.
  The Republican budget proposal that was put on the table today was 
different. It was a movement in the other direction. It was trying to 
find some common ground here. How do you find common ground when you 
are shadow boxing, when somebody will not come to the table and 
honestly put on a budget?
  Then they talk about no personal attacks. I do not know if people in 
the gallery or people at home had a chance to watch the news tonight, 
but the President did not take off his gloves when he came after the 
Republicans and spewed more of this rhetoric. I cannot understand for 
the life of me how people can stand on the floor here and defend this 
type of action.
  Talk about defense--defense is declining in actual dollars 20 percent 
over the next 7 years. It is not going up. Medicare is going up 53 
percent; defense is going down 20 percent. Yet, they hang on to this as 
using this as some kind of example.
  Then we have some Senator saying 80 percent of the tax cuts are going 
to the wealthiest in the country. Then they have others that say 50 
percent is going to the wealthiest. When you pull numbers out of the 
air and make up stories--maybe they should go back and get the stories 
straight. The fact is, 80 percent of the tax reduction in this package 
goes to families that make less than $100,000--not $100,000 tax credit 
for someone making $350,000. It sounds good. It is rhetoric. It might 
get headlines, but it is not fact. Rhetoric, half-truths, distortions.
  I have been the author of the $500-per-child tax credit and I have 
worked for it for 3 years because I thought it was important that 
families were able to keep more of the money they made. Families out 
there expect this. Republicans better remember it and the Democrats 
should remember it because I think this is going to be one of the 
telling tales in the election of 1996.
  I will wrap up quickly. I see the leader on the floor. Americans know 
why they voted for Republicans in 1994. Why are there 11 freshman 
Republicans in the Senate and not 1 Democrat? I think it is pretty 
clear. There was a clear message. Not one Republican freshman lost his 
seat in the House. It was pretty clear what Americans wanted. If they 
listened to the Republican plan, the Contract With America--you might 
not agree with everything in the contract--I think the majority of 
people in this country agree with the majority of the contract, and at 
least it is moving this country away from a bigger, faster growing, 
bloated, inefficient, money-wasting Government, to try to streamline it 
to make it more effective, more cost friendly for taxpayers, and to 
provide the better services, to provide the Medicare, to provide the 
welfare, to provide Medicaid, Head Start, and other programs to the 
kids that need it, but to also ensure that those programs are going to 
be here tomorrow and the next day, and the next year and the next year.
  If we are going to spend their money today, if you think we are 
facing tough budget battles today, if we do not face this problem 
today, by the year 2000 this is going to be an animal that we will not 
want to grab the tail of because it is getting away from us now and we 
do not have much time to get it fixed. If we spend more money and 
increase the size of this Government, it will make that problem harder 
and harder to control. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________