[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 206 (Thursday, December 21, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S19025-S19034]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   BASING BUDGET NEGOTIATIONS ON MOST RECENT TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC 
               ASSUMPTIONS OF CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to consider House Joint Resolution 132, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 132) affirming that budget 
     negotiations shall be based on the most recent technical and 
     economic assumptions of the Congressional Budget Office and 
     shall achieve a balanced budget by fiscal year 2002 based on 
     those assumptions.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the joint resolution.
  Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, the night before last there was an effort to 
bring this resolution to the floor of the Senate for debate and vote 
under a unanimous-consent request. There was objection to that request. 
My understanding is that those who objected did so because the full 
text of the previous language from the continuing resolution that was 
passed 30 days ago was not included. The resolution only contained 
language dealing with the the requirement that the President submit to 
the concept of a 7-year balanced budget using real numbers as generated 
by the Congressional Budget Office. That was the resolution.
  As I understand it, there will be an effort this morning to add 
additional language to the resolution. Frankly, I have no objection to 
this proposal. The additional language provides for the protection of 
various programs, including: ensuring Medicare solvency, something that 
we have all been working toward; reforming welfare, which clearly 

[[Page S19026]]
I think we are on the verge of accomplishing; and the adoption of tax 
policies that help working families and stimulate economic growth.
  So I suspect there will be strong support for this resolution. But it 
is unfortunate that the Senate has to spend its time this morning on 
this issue. It is unfortunate that the Congress has to take this time 
to remind the President of the commitment which he made over 30 days 
ago.
  There is a real question as to why the President of the United States 
has not submitted a 7-year balanced budget plan. The President has 
submitted a number of budget proposals this year. I think it is three. 
I could be wrong about that. Some indicate that the President has 
submitted four. However, not a single one of those four budget 
proposals has eliminated the deficit in the seventh year. The 
President's budget plans still accumulates a tremendous amount of debt. 
They maintain many wasteful liberal programs that have failed--that 
people throughout the country recognize as having failed, but not one 
single budget proposal that the President has submitted reaches a 
balance by the year 2002.
  There are many people who would expect me, a Republican Senator, to 
say these kinds of things. But I think there is evidence to indicate 
that Senators on both sides of this aisle--and clearly the Members in 
the other body--have rejected the President's proposals because, 
frankly, they do not meet the test of a balanced budget as scored by 
the Congressional Budget Office.
  I do not remember the date or the exact vote in the Senate, but I 
remember bringing the President's first budget proposal to the Senate 
for a vote. As I recall, not a single--well, maybe there was one 
Senator who voted for the President's proposal. But it was soundly 
rejected by both sides of the aisle. And the reason that it was 
rejected was because it did not reach a balanced budget by the year 
2002.
  Just a few days ago the other body brought the most recent of the 
President's proposals to the floor of the House and it was also soundly 
defeated. In fact, I believe there was absolutely no support, again, on 
either side of the aisle for the President's budget proposal.
  Let me give a little explanation as to what that budget proposal was.
  The fourth submission by the President which the administration 
claimed to be in balance was finally scored by the Congressional Budget 
Office and was, in fact, $116 billion short in the seventh year. Again, 
the administration wants to create the impression that it is for a 
balanced budget but continues to fail to come forward with a plan that 
balances the budget in 7 years with CBO numbers.
  Now, I am under the impression, or I have been given information 
which indicates that the minority leader has a proposal now that would, 
according to their numbers which we have been told are based on CBO 
assumptions reach a balance in the budget by the year 2002. I think 
this is a helpful first step.
  But again, the President just absolutely refuses to come forward with 
a plan that balances the budget. Let me give you my perspective as to 
why he will not do it. He simply does not want to tell the people in 
the country those things that he supports. He does not want to choose 
those Federal programs which he thinks are so important that they need 
to be protected. Oh, clearly he has made his statement with respect to 
Medicare and Medicaid, but he has not talked about any other programs 
in the Federal Government that he wants to continue in force. Because 
in order for the President to keep those programs in force, to keep 
them growing, to keep them as part of the Federal budget, he has to 
indicate what other programs he is willing to cut. And he does not want 
anybody to know what programs he is willing to cut or eliminate.
  It is time. The country is waiting. The country is committed to a 
balanced budget in 7 years. Eventually, the polling data is going to 
indicate that. Eventually, the President is going to get the message.
  There is one other indicator that I think will get the President's 
attention as well. I do not know whether this is a record, and my 
colleague, Senator Exon, may be aware of whether it is a record or not. 
But I understand that yesterday while the President was announcing that 
there would not be a meeting between himself and the leaders of the 
House and the Senate, the market fell 50 points in somewhere between 10 
and 15 minutes. I have been told that that is a record.
  I have a feeling that what is happening in the markets, a decline of 
100 points 2 days ago, or 3 days ago and a decline yesterday of an 
additional 50 points, probably has the President's attention. I say 
this because the point which we have been making on this side is that 
one of the benefits derived from a balanced budget is lower interest 
rates. This means lower mortgage payments. This means more affordable 
student loans. This means lower taxes for American families. Everybody 
benefits from a balanced budget. But when the market heard that the 
President was not going to meet with the leaders of the House and the 
Senate, the market dropped 50 points in about 15 minutes. I would 
suggest to the President it is time now to get serious about balancing 
the budget, doing it with real numbers, using CBO, and getting it done 
over a 7-year period.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the matter before us is one that I think 
does not require a great deal of debate and consideration. I think 
probably it is going to be overwhelmingly approved if we have a voice 
vote on the matter. I simply say that I am not sure at this particular 
juncture, when the Government is shut down, when there is great anxiety 
in America that we get on with this matter of balancing the budget, it 
is particularly helpful to go on another diatribe and sharp debate in 
the Senate on scolding the President or scolding other people.
  I noticed with interest the manager of this measure on the other side 
indicated that we never have come forth. We have a program, of which 
this Senator was a chief author, that does, indeed, balance the budget 
in 7 years, does, indeed, balance the budget based on CBO numbers, 
period, without any caveats whatsoever.
  So in total keeping with the cooperation that has come forth from the 
Democratic side, we are in basic agreement with what we are attempting 
to do here, and therefore it is simply a statement of what once again 
is the obvious.
  What I am attempting to do at this time is to restrain our rhetoric, 
to restrain our differences of opinion as to how we reach that goal of 
a balanced budget in 7 years using the conservative scoring techniques 
of the Congressional Budget Office, which, I might add, has been proven 
wrong. The figures by CBO have been wrong the last 2 years by a very 
large proportion and all other scoring outside of CBO has been right 
with regard to what the economy has been doing. There cannot be any 
question about that.
  Regardless of that, I simply say that I think this is the time of 
coming together rather than to try to blame everybody else for what has 
or has not happened up to date. The facts are that it is a national 
disgrace that here we are in a situation 2 or 3 or 4 days before 
Christmas Eve, people are being sent home and laid off, the Government 
is being shut down, while at the same time I see certain leaders 
rushing to the floor or rushing to the microphones to say, ``Well, all 
you employees that have been sent home because of the impasse that we 
have created, regardless of whose fault it is, do not worry; you are 
going to be paid. We are going to have the taxpayers pay you even 
though you are not at work.''
  That is one of the reasons, Mr. President, that as far as this 
Senator was concerned and many others, I kept each and every one of my 
employees at their post during the last Government shutdown when others 
were rushing to send them home in the spirit of shutting down 
Government. I knew that was a ridiculous proposal because I knew that 
if I had sent my good associates and coworkers, over which I have 
control, home, they would be sitting at home twiddling their thumbs, 
doing nothing, wishing that they were at work with the full realization 
that they were going to be paid even though we sent them home. That is 
part of the phoniness, I suggest, of this whole process that we are 
going through. If we cannot come to an understanding of 

[[Page S19027]]
a continuing resolution to keep Government fully operating between now 
and Friday, which is 2 days from now, then it shows how ridiculous all 
this impasse has been, meant to create something, I guess, from the 
standpoint of a revolution, a revolution that is taking place without 
due consideration for all others.
  With regard to the President of the United States, I have not agreed 
with the original budget presented by the President of the United 
States as the Democratic leader on the Budget Committee, but I think 
the President of the United States is not all right or all wrong. I do 
not know whether I am all right or all wrong in our proposal. I believe 
the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, does not claim that the plan 
that we have put together and offered that does, indeed, do exactly 
what has been demanded by some, balancing the budget in 7 years, with 
CBO scoring--we have met all those commitments in the plan we offered 
yesterday--is all right or all wrong.
  Our plan has not been universally blessed by the President of the 
United States, but I believe the President of the United States 
realizes and recognizes there is going to have to be some give and 
take, there is going to have to be some compromise, there is going to 
have to be some understanding, there is going to have to be something 
more than political rhetoric back and forth on both sides. If we are to 
come together, as I think we must, as reasoned adult people, to 
recognize with 535 Members of the Congress of the United States, there 
is no way we are going to write a budget that each and every one of 
those 535 Members says, ``Boy, that's fine. That's just what I want.''
  So I would simply say, Mr. President, that we are working very hard 
in a bipartisan fashion to try and come together, and I am not sure 
that a great deal of rhetoric on this measure that probably is not 
going to be seriously contested from either its intent or its language, 
because we generally agree.
  I yield whatever time is necessary to the Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the distinguished Senator from Nebraska.


                           Amendment No. 3108

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have an amendment and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Daschle] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3108 as follows:
       On page 2, line 2, strike office''; and insert the 
     following: ``Office, and the President and the Congress agree 
     that the balanced budget must protect future generations, 
     ensure Medicare solvency, reform welfare, and provide 
     adequate funding for Medicaid, education, agriculture, 
     national defense, veternas, and the environment. Further, the 
     balanced budget shall adopt tax policies to help working 
     families and to stimulate future economic growth.''

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is simply 
to restate the principles that we outlined on November 19, when we 
passed the last complete continuing resolution. In that continuing 
resolution, we did two things. We asserted again our belief in the need 
to find a way to balance the budget within 7 years, ultimately scored 
by CBO, but to also protect the priorities that we as Democrats have 
been talking about for a long period of time; Medicare, Medicaid, 
reforming welfare, education, agriculture, defense, veterans, the 
environment. These are fundamental investments that this country has 
made in our people, strengthening the nation and enhancing our 
security.
  So as we debate the importance of a balanced budget in 7 years, we 
also must debate the consequences of that we make toward that end. And 
so this amendment--in my view, improves upon the resolution that is 
pending. And I hope that it will enjoy unanimous support given the fact 
that the continuing resolution received such support on November 19.
  The distinguished Senator from Nebraska said a number of things with 
which I wish to associate myself. Most importantly, while this is a 
fine resolution in which we again assert our support for a balanced 
budget, the more pressing resolution ought to be the one that funds the 
Government. We should take care of the immediate and unnecessary crisis 
before us, as we proceed with negotiations for a 7-year balanced 
budget.
  The taxpayers are getting cheated, Mr. President, when tens of 
thousands of Government employees are not at work. They are not getting 
the services they deserve and expect when people are sent home. And the 
sad tragedy of it all is that it is not necessary. There is no direct 
connection between funding the Government through these appropriations 
bills and passing a budget resolution. It has been the design of some 
to make that connection, but there is none. And people should not be 
confused by it.
  So I hope that sometime today we could pass a continuing resolution 
putting people back to work, making sure that the taxpayers get not 
only what they expect in a 7-year budget resolution, but also the 
services that they pay for with their tax dollars every day.
  I might just say one other thing with regard to this particular 
resolution. I am sure that many of our colleagues will continue to 
insist that whatever we agree upon be scored by the Congressional 
Budget Office. CBO has been a very important institution within the 
Congress now for over 20 years. We have turned to the CBO time and 
again for objective analysis in the hope that we could project with as 
much clarity as possible the economic repercussions that will result 
from the decisions we make.
  In the past, every single CBO director has had strong bipartisan 
support--bipartisan support--prior to the time he or she has taken 
office. Unfortunately, that was not the case this year. In the past, on 
a bipartisan basis, Members have acknowledged the authenticity, the 
clarity, and the integrity of CBO numbers, even when they worked 
against us.
  I can recall so vividly the health care debate 2 years ago where CBO 
argued with us vociferously about our projections with regard to the 
impact of the health care reform bill. We didn't like what they had to 
say, but we had to deal with that. We had to accept that because the 
director at the time was the appointed official in charge of making 
those projections. And while we disagreed, we accepted his authority.
  I must say, Mr. President, I am disturbed this year about the 
credibility of this particular director and CBO's activities in the 
last 7 months. I hope in the future that they will be especially 
careful to not in any way reflect a partisan bent in the work that they 
do. Because I am troubled by the very difficult time we have had in 
getting responses and getting information. And I am troubled by the 
manner in which much of the information has been presented to the 
Congress.
  I am also troubled, frankly, by the projections themselves. While I 
would like to believe that these projections are not driven by a 
partisan motivation, I am concerned when I see the very esteemed blue-
chip forecasters agreeing virtually down the line with the Office of 
Management and Budget about what happens when we actually achieve what 
we say we want in this resolution.
  We have all made our speeches about the importance of a balanced 
budget in terms of bringing down the rates of interest, about the 
effect it will have on unemployment, about the effect it will have on 
corporate profits, about the effect it will have on the economy itself. 
And it has been that expectation that has driven my support for a 
balanced budget.
  So it is troubling to see CBO projections predicting just the 
opposite, predicting a decline in real wages, a decline in corporate 
profits, a decline in economic growth, a decline in overall economic 
activity and vitality within the economy. These issues ought to be a 
very central feature as we debate this overall resolution.
  Do we expect to see better economic performance than CBO now 
projects? I think we will. If we do not, what does it say about the 
impact of a balanced budget? Democrats all expect good things to 
develop. I believe that under a balanced budget they will develop. And 
it is one of the reasons we have fought so hard on this point, because 
we think that the economy will do a lot better than CBO now projects. 
So this issue should remain on the table, and the very positive effects 
of our actions ought to be something that remains a part of these 
negotiations. 

[[Page S19028]]

  So, today, once again we will express our support for a CBO-scored 
resolution at the end of all of this, not at the beginning, not during 
the debate, not during the negotiations, but at the end. We expect that 
CBO and the blue-chip forecasters and OMB can give us the best 
information available about what this means in terms of the policy 
ramifications, and we look forward to receiving that information when 
we have an agreement.
  So it is with a caveat that we say, yes, we will score our numbers 
with CBO, as we have done for more than 20 years. But let us be 
realistic about projections and be a little more optimistic about what 
all this may mean, for I fear that we are going to send exactly the 
wrong message if we do not.
  But perhaps of all of the considerations to be made, as we vote on 
this resolution later on this morning, is the insistence that these 
priorities be identified and be assured as we consider how we balance 
the budget in 7 years.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). Who yields time?
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 21 minutes 55 seconds remaining.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, because the amendment amends the 
preamble, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be in order at 
this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MACK. How much time is remaining on the Democratic side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 15 minutes 31 seconds remaining.
  Mr. MACK. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I was interested to hear my friend and 
colleague, Senator Daschle, express concern about the integrity and the 
accuracy of the Congressional Budget Office. I could not help but be 
amused because earlier this year Senator Daschle offered a balanced 
budget constitutional amendment on behalf of the other side of the 
aisle that wrote the Congressional Budget Office's authority in these 
matters into the Constitution. I just find kind of interesting that now 
he is questioning their methods or partisanship.
  I am very supportive of the resolution before the Senate. I am 
optimistic it will pass. A similar resolution has already passed 
overwhelmingly in the House, and I hope this one will pass 
overwhelmingly in the Senate today. Maybe the President will pay 
attention to it. It has been very, very bothersome to me, after the 
Government shutdown of a month ago when the President signed on to a 
resolution that agreed to a balanced budget in 7 years using CBO 
numbers, that he still has not done so. One would think if he signed 
that law, he would comply with it. He has yet to do so.
  President Clinton has now submitted four budgets, none of which are 
in balance as scored by CBO, none of which are even close to being in 
balance.
  His first budget had deficits increasing from $200 billion up toward 
$300 billion. His second budget, which came out in June, had deficits 
of $200 billion forever, as scored by CBO. His third budget, which came 
within the last month, had a deficit of $115 billion in the seventh 
year. It may be better than $200 billion, but it is still $115 billion. 
That is not even close to being balanced.
  His fourth budget submitted last week still has deficits very close 
to $100 billion. It also has a back-door tax increase. The President 
says, ``Well, if we don't meet our deficit targets, we'll have 
automatic tax increases.'' What Congress has done in the past if we did 
not meet our deficit targets is have automatic spending reductions. But 
no, the President does not want to reduce the amount of money 
Washington spends; he wants to take more money from individuals. That 
was his approach under his fourth budget.
  Even given the President's automatic tax increases in the last couple 
years, he still does not come up with a balanced budget. So now 
Congress feels it is necessary to remind the President, ``The current 
negotiations between Congress and the President shall be based on the 
most recent technical and economic assumptions of CBO and that we are 
going to reach agreement this year.''
  You would think the President's common sense would say, ``Let's 
submit a balanced budget using CBO numbers.'' He still refuses to do 
that.
  A lot of people are asking, ``Why did we have the breakdown in talks 
yesterday?'' Speaker Gingrich and Leader Dole come out of a meeting 
with the President the day before and they said, ``Everyone agrees to 
use CBO numbers. We're going to work hard. We're going to be the 
principals, with the President of the United States, and we're going to 
negotiate the agreement. We're going to try to get it done this year.'' 
That was the statement made by the leaders.
  Shortly after that, the Vice President came out and said the 
President did not agree to that. They said the final agreement may be 
scored by CBO, but they never said the President would be willing to 
submit a balanced budget. The House of Representatives, understandably, 
became quite upset. Many House Members said, ``Wait a minute, this 
sounds like the same reaction we got when we thought we had an 
agreement with the administration a month ago,'' and they have yet to 
comply.
  Then last night, the President went on TV and said, ``I thought the 
Speaker and the Republican leader gave their word that we would 
continue funding Government. And who can I deal with if they can't keep 
their word?"
  That bothered me, because I remember the President of the United 
States standing in the well of the House before a joint session of 
Congress and the entire American public and saying, ``We're not going 
to hassle over which numbers and which economic assumptions to use, 
we're not going to use smoke and mirrors, we're going to use 
Congressional Budget Office numbers and we're going to work together to 
get the deficit down.''
  He has not done that. He has not kept his word, and that bothers me. 
For the last month, he has yet to submit a balanced budget. We are 
trying to negotiate, we are trying to enact a balanced budget, and yet 
the President is on a different playing field. We are trying to work 
out our differences. We want to compare apples to apples, and yet he 
will not agree to the same assumptions, and it is impossible to do.
  I compliment my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who 
evidently today are going to submit a balanced budget using CBO 
numbers. I compliment them for that. They are on the same playing 
field. We can work out the differences, even though that is not easily 
done. I know it is not easily done. So, again, I compliment my 
colleagues who are willing to do that. Let us work together. There are 
a lot of us who want to make this happen. We are not just interested in 
Republicans scoring points or the Democrats scoring points or who is 
going to win.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 
1 minute.
  Mr. MACK. I yield the Senator 1 additional minute.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for us to have success, it cannot be a 
Republican victory or a Democratic victory or a Presidential victory, 
it is going to have to be an American victory. It is going to have to 
be a victory where we unite, where we curtail the growth of entitlement 
programs, where we make responsible decisions and both sides can 
declare victory. A victory on behalf of Congress, a victory on behalf 
of the administration and, most importantly, a victory on behalf of the 
American people. It needs to happen, and it needs to happen this year.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and thank my colleague from Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, once again, I say that I am tempted to 
answer word for word, charge for charge what is being made on the other 
side. I will be restrained. When I get up in the morning, I go through 
a few exercises, maybe take a little walk and then have breakfast. My 
main desire when I get out of bed in the morning is not to come to the 
floor of the U.S. Senate to bash the President of the United States. 

[[Page S19029]]

  I will simply say, while the President of the United States has not 
always come up with the numbers with regard to a balanced budget that 
this Senator would like to see, as I said a few moments ago, I simply 
say that the record is pretty clear that this President has done a 
better job than most Presidents of the United States in modern times 
with regard to trying to restrain the deficit.
  The fact of the matter is that in 3 straight years under President 
Clinton, we have had a significant reduction of nearly 50 percent in 
the annual deficits. That is the first time that has happened since the 
administration of another Democratic President by the name of Harry S. 
Truman.
  So I do not know that Clinton bashing--although it is vogue in some 
quarters today--is particularly helpful at this juncture when we are 
trying to come together rather than split ourselves further apart. I 
yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 7 
minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, let me, first 
of all, thank the Senator from Nebraska. I do not think there is 
probably one Senator here, Democrat or Republican alike, who does not 
have tremendous respect for the work that he has done. I am really 
sorry to see him leave the Senate. I think it is a great loss for the 
country.
  When I came here, I only knew about the Senator from Nebraska. Boy, 
as I had a chance to watch him, if you want to talk about a marriage of 
personal integrity with commitment to people and commitment to country, 
there is not anybody who does any better than the Senator from 
Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. May I interrupt for just a moment and thank my friend from 
Minnesota. I only yielded him 7 minutes, but with the tone he is 
following, he can have about 5 hours. [Laughter.]
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, just to try to cut 
through all the rhetoric--and we are trying to get past all of that--
the fact of the matter is, and we all know it, this is not just a 
debate about numbers. We are talking about policies that will 
dramatically affect people's lives, the quality or lack of quality of 
people's lives, depending on what we do. We do not just disagree about 
numbers. There are major policy differences in the health care area, in 
children's issues, environment issues, in terms of what constitutes 
fair taxes--you name it.
  The fact of the matter is--and people in the country know it--there 
should not be some rush to recklessness. These differences are not 
going to be worked out in 4 days. Nobody can force that or make a 
threat to make that happen. We all ought to be serious about the 
negotiations, and I think we all are. We should have difficult and 
substantive negotiations and debate, not hate. But you cannot shut the 
Government down and say, ``If we do not get exactly what we want when 
we want it, the Government will stay shut down.'' This does not serve 
the country well or serve any of us well. That is my first point.
  My second point is that I would like to thank the Senator from 
Nebraska, and others. I have been involved in many of these meetings, 
and many of us have worked very hard. I think there is much in the 
Democratic alternative that makes sense. That is to say, it is clear to 
me that there is no question when laid alongside what the Republicans 
have proposed, what the Democrats have proposed, I think, at least 
comes much closer to meeting the Minnesota standard of fairness. It 
does not make any sense when my colleague from Oklahoma says, ``We want 
to do something that benefits the American people.'' The question 
becomes: Which people?
  If you are going to have huge numbers of tax cuts, several hundred 
billion dollars of tax cuts, which, in the main, flow to the people who 
are most affluent, to the largest corporations, multinational 
corporations, and at the same time you have reductions in health care 
programs that are so important to seniors or children or working 
families, I am not sure that it does benefit most of the American 
people. To have zero in tax giveaways makes a great deal of sense. To 
make a strong commitment to medical assistance and children--everybody 
has heard our priorities--I think makes a great deal of sense. To do a 
little bit better in terms of asking some of the larger corporations to 
pay their fair share to eliminate some of the tax loopholes and 
outright tax giveaways, I think, meets a standard of fairness in this 
country.
  So, Mr. President, I think that this budget, compared to the 
Republican budget, comes much closer to meeting a basic standard of 
fairness. I congratulate colleagues for their work on this.
  Mr. President, there is, however, one question that I still have 
about all of this. That has to do with why it is that there is not more 
on the table in terms of where we can make cuts. There was a book 
written by Donald Barlett and James Steele, called ``America: What Went 
Wrong.'' It won a Pulitzer Prize. Then this book came out, which is 
called ``America: Who Really Pays the Taxes.''
  On the first page, the sentence that caught my attention says: ``That 
when members of Congress talk about cutting entitlements, they mean 
yours--not theirs.''
  Then they go on and they talk about tax law and they say there is 
``one for the rich and powerful--call the Privileged Person's Tax Law; 
another for you and everyone else--call it the Common Person's Tax 
Law.''
  Now I jump to a letter that the Senator from Massachusetts sent in 
response to some ads that have come out by some of the leading 
corporate executives calling for resolution of this budget crisis where 
the Senator from Massachusetts calls on them to agree that tax 
subsidies for wealthy individuals and corporations should bear their 
fair share of the reductions needed to reach a balanced budget.
  I now read from one paragraph I think is extremely interesting:

       I make the following proposal, the Republican plan would 
     provide a reduction of 17 percent in the Federal budget in 
     the next 7 years, exclusive of defense spending and Social 
     Security. Reducing the $4 trillion in tax subsidies by 17 
     percent would achieve savings of $680 billion. If we applied 
     the 17 percent reduction to only one-quarter of the tax 
     expenditures, we would save $170 billion, a huge step toward 
     providing the additional savings needed in the current 
     impasse to balance the budget fairly in 7 years.

  This is the disconnect between Washington and the rest of the country 
that I do not understand, because 70 to 80 percent of the country will 
say, ``Look, if you are going to ask everybody to tighten their belts, 
look at some of these tax giveaways to some of these huge multinational 
corporations and ask them to be a part of the sacrifice. Why focus on 
nutrition for children, or Medicare for seniors, but not these 
subsidies for oil companies, or tobacco companies, or pharmaceutical 
companies, you name it?"
  Mr. President, I do not understand why it is we cannot do more. As 
Senator Kennedy said in this letter, we are talking about a tiny 
percentage, which can net $170 billion. It seems to me that what 
explains the difference is sort of power in America. I really think if 
this deficit reduction is going to be based upon a standard of 
fairness, this corporate welfare has to be on the table, and we have to 
do a better job in terms of plugging some of these loopholes and doing 
away with some of these tax giveaways.
  The second point is the Pentagon budget. Mr. President, let me simply 
say that by a conservative estimate, over 10 years, you could have $114 
billion of reduction in Pentagon expenditures. I have a chart of a 
variety of different ways. Many people have said, my God, can we not 
also look at the military contractors and have some reductions here? 
Mr. President, I remind my colleagues that the real national security 
is not more B-2 bombers that the Pentagon says it does not need, to the 
tune of $1.5 billion each. The real national security is when we invest 
in people in our own communities. I would argue that the corporate 
welfare and some of the military contracts ought to be on the table and 
that we can do better in terms of meeting the standard of fairness, 
since we all agree that we have to balance the budget.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I want to make a couple of comments today 
in response to some issues that have been raised and then focus on what 
I think we are about here. 

[[Page S19030]]

  Earlier, concerns were raised with respect to the manner in which the 
nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office scores the various polices and 
economic projections that make up the budget. In response to these 
remarks, I would like to say this: In my State of Michigan, people are 
concerned with the way Washington does its bookkeeping. For them, the 
principal criticism of the Congressional Budget Office, leaving aside 
the issue of whether it is partisan or not, is that it is too 
optimistic.
  In Michigan, and other States as well, average working men and women 
think Washington has been way too liberal in our bookkeeping for way 
too long. Too often in the past, we relied on rosy economic projections 
to make it appear as if we were taking action, whether it was in 
deficit reduction or in any other area of Federal Government activity, 
only to see those rosy scenarios unrealized.
  For that reason, it is in our interest to have a budget office that 
scores our legislation on a conservative basis. Mr. President, I have 
very little fear that Congress will have difficulty figuring how to 
spend the surplus, should the Congressional Budget Office's numbers 
prove to be too conservative. On the other hand, I am confident, based 
upon the last 25 years of behavior, that Congress will have a very 
difficult time making additional spending cuts, if we use too 
optimistic projections that result in future deficits.
  I should point out that the Congressional Budget Office is taking the 
same kind of conservative approach that the average American family 
takes when it projects how it is going to handle its finances. I know 
in my family, and in families across the country, nobody sits down and 
says, ``I think there is a good chance I am going to get a big raise in 
2 years or 4 years,'' and base all of their spending decisions on that 
assumption. Instead, they try to be, if anything, conservative in their 
expectations so that they do not end up in debt. So I applaud the 
Congressional Budget Office for its efforts to finally bring a 
conservative, practical approach to the way it does its business.
  Second, Mr. President, I think it is important that this resolution 
brings us back to what we are about. What we are about is balancing the 
budget and reducing the growth of Government. We are about trying to 
make sure that Government does not consume so much of our wealth so 
that the people in America, the families in this country, find 
themselves spending too much of their time working for us in Washington 
instead of the other way around.
  In addition, Mr. President, what we are about is allowing those 
families to keep more of what they earn. This resolution--and I think 
we should not lose sight of it--includes provisions for reducing the 
tax burden on families and stimulating economic growth. That is 
important.
  We learned in previous budget deals that increasing taxes on this 
country's job creators hurts families. I believe there was a 
significant luxury tax on boats that was imposed 5 years ago. What 
happened? To no one's surprise, at least to people who look at these 
things in the economic sense, the number of boats being produced in 
this country quickly and dramatically dropped. Numerous boat builders 
went out of business, and thousands of jobs were destroyed. So that 
luxury tax was repealed. A whole industry of working people with 
families found themselves suffering because we thought you can tax and 
tax and not have repercussions that affect average people. Instead, as 
this resolution makes clear, we should reduce the tax burden on 
families and businesses alike.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, what we are about is balancing the 
budget, letting people keep more of what they earn, and putting our 
priorities in the right order. That is why this resolution should pass. 
I urge its adoption.
  Mr. MACK. I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the resolution as 
well. I want to reinforce the remarks that have just been made by the 
distinguished Senator from Michigan.
  I point out that since the Congressional Budget Office began 
forecasting in 1976, it has been more accurate than OMB private 
forecasters on the four economic indicators most important to the 
budget: inflation, economic growth, 3-month Treasury bills, and 10-year 
interest rates. In long-run forecasts, CBO has outpurchased OMB for 12 
of the last 15 years. In fact, both CBO and the past five 
administrations have been more likely to be too optimistic instead of 
too pessimistic. As June O'Neill says, it is CBO's view that erring on 
the side of caution increases--increases--the likelihood that a 
balanced budget will actually be achieved in the time desired.

  Mr. President, I want to respond to my colleague from Nebraska, 
Senator Exon's remarks, about acrimony. Certainly we have seen that, 
but the President does not escape the admonition of the Senator from 
Nebraska. If you watch any of the newscasts or any of pronouncements 
that have been made by the President with regard to the balanced 
budget, you would see immediately that he is engaged in the very 
practice that you suggested that we should not.
  Today, because of paid advertising and the President's remarks about 
our proposals for Medicare, a majority of Americans believe that our 
budget either freezes the investment per beneficiary, or a third of the 
Americans believe that our budget cuts the payments--cuts them. That is 
not true. But the President continues to say that over and over and 
over. Now, in time, I am not concerned about it because the truth will 
come out. The fact that we are increasing our spending on Medicare by 
71 percent--actually a bit more than suggested by the First Lady in the 
health care debate last year-- that is not true, but it is repeated 
despite the fact that even Washington Post editorials have called his 
comments shameless. If you talk about the demeanor of the Senate, I 
hope that you would address some of those remarks to the White House 
itself.
  With regard to the balanced budget, I think it useful from time to 
time to review the lineage of the debate, Mr. President. It began with 
the effort to pass a balanced budget amendment which failed in this 
Senate by one vote. Had the President supported the balanced budget 
amendment, I believe it would have passed with 75 votes in the Senate, 
because clearly a number of Members on the other side of the aisle 
changed their vote over the President's admonition or suggestion that 
we not have a balanced budget amendment.
  At the time, the argument made was that the Congress simply had to 
have the will. We did not need an amendment to the Constitution, we 
needed the will. For the first time, this Congress in almost three 
decades has developed a will and passed a balanced budget.
  I rise in support of this. I hope all my colleagues will come to the 
table for a Balanced Budget Act this session.
  Mr. EXON. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. I thank my friend.
  Mr. President, I am a little bit older than some in this Chamber and 
going back to the years when I was growing up, my grandfather would not 
make any kind of a contract on Sunday. He never had to worry about 
signing a paper during the week; we always shook hands. A handshake was 
our bond, and our word was our bond.
  I hear a lot about all the blame on the President. I listened to the 
majority leader say now we are finally going to get some adults to 
negotiate the balanced budget--some adults. Well, the President calls 
to get the adults together, I guess. That was the majority leader, the 
Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the President of the 
United States. They shook hands after 2\1/2\ hours, or better than 2 
hours, I understand, on what they would do.
  The Democratic Caucus in the Senate voted unanimously under those 
circumstances to give to our minority leader, our Democratic leader, 
the ability to go and represent us. I assumed from the remarks of the 
majority leader that he had the same respect and admonition from those 
on his side. But, lo and behold, the Speaker of the House could not get 
his caucus to agree to sit down and work out a CR, to develop the 
framework, to arrive at a balanced budget in 7 years.
  We hear the CBO is conservative and OMB is optimistic. Let me just 
say, something happened to CBO. They got optimistic and increased their 
projection by $135 billion and got them closer to OMB. I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida has 7 minutes and 25 

[[Page S19031]]
  seconds, and the Senator from Nebraska has 1 minute.
  Mr. MACK. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the resolution. It 
seems to me it is a very important restatement of where we have been.
  I appreciated the enumeration of the Senator from Kentucky of what 
has happened here. One of the difficulties is that the Vice President 
came on TV and said there is no agreement, and that caused people to 
have some concern.
  I take my 3 minutes to get away a little bit from the numbers and put 
myself back in Cody, WY, where I grew up, and say, what is the 
responsibility here to do something about balancing the budget as a 
citizen? It seems to me there are several that are very meaningful.
  No. 1, it is personal, it is parochial, it is selfish, I suppose.
  I think if we can balance the budget, it means that every family that 
has loans on their home, every family that has loans on their car, 
every family that has educational loans will find, because of lower 
interest, there is a benefit of $2,500 or $3,000 to many families.
  I think, second, it has something to do with responsibility. If we 
are going to enjoy some benefits, those of us who are enjoying them, we 
should pay for them. This idea of enjoying the benefits and putting it 
on the credit card for someone else does not fly. This is a democracy. 
This is freedom that we protect. With that goes some responsibility to 
do some things.
  Concern about our kids--we have to be concerned about the future, 
when interest becomes the largest single line item in the budget, 
interest on the debt, and we simply pass that along, along with $5 
trillion in debt.
  I think we have to have some consideration for change in the 
direction of Government. I really believe most people say the Federal 
Government is too big and it costs too much and we need to change that. 
That is a fundamental change we are seeking to do here. Balancing the 
budget and doing something about containing the growth of entitlements 
is a fundamental issue. It is not arithmetic. That is what is going on 
here. I think it is terribly important.
  Credibility--I think there is a certain function of credibility in 
this body. We have said we are going to balance the budget. We have 
said, in a resolution some 30 days ago, we are going to balance the 
budget in 7 years, using CBO numbers. We ought to do that. Many of us 
came here--we have not been here as long as some others--and we said 
one of the things we want to do is we want to be responsible in 
spending and balancing the budget. There is a credibility question here 
for all of us.
  So, Mr. President, I certainly think we have a great opportunity to 
move forward, not only this morning but in this total matter of 
balancing the budget. We can do it. We have an opportunity, the first 
opportunity in nearly 30 years. It would be a shame not to take 
advantage of it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. MACK. I inquire how much time remains.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remains 4 minutes and 30 seconds.
  Mr. MACK. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me reminisce, if I could, with the 
Senator from Wyoming. When we talk numbers, we talk people. If we do 
not believe our actions here and if the President does not believe his 
actions have consequences on people, then we are not thinking very 
straight.
  We watched the stock market bounce around this week as the Congress 
and the President tried to come to a budget agreement. While the stock 
market is a reaction of people, it is also a barometer of the economy 
and how people think the economy will work. The economy in our country 
clearly translates to jobs and incomes, spendable incomes, and the 
security of a home and a family and food on the table--and it always 
has.
  What we are talking about in a balanced budget and a tax cut is 32 
billion dollars' worth of real, disposable income. That is family 
income. That is food on the table. That is a college education. Mr. 
President, $66.2 billion of consumer expenditure, that is what the 
stock market was reacting to yesterday.
  My time is up. Let me close.
  Mr. President, our actions have consequences and a balanced budget 
and a tax cut going with it create the kind of economic vitality in 
this country that is good for people, working people, families, income, 
security.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute and 12 seconds.
  Mr. EXON. I understand there is some talk about a unanimous consent 
agreement to extend the time. Does the manager on the other side know 
about this?
  Mr. MACK. I was under the impression what we were going to do was to 
have the vote at 11 o'clock; we were not extending the time on the 
debate.
  Mr. EXON. I think that would be the best of all worlds. Let me 
conclude, then, on the remainder of the time that I have.
  Despite the temptation that has been offered me by those on the other 
side, trying to bait this Senator into rancorous political discussions, 
I said at the outset that was not my goal. I just received a call from 
Leon Panetta, the Chief of Staff. Some progress has been made. We are 
going to have a meeting at 1 o'clock today and another meeting at 5 
o'clock. Then the chief negotiators on the Senate side, Democrat and 
Republican, will make presentations of how well we are going forward to 
the White House in the morning, as I understand it, in front of the big 
five.
  We are trying to move things along. So, despite the baiting, I am not 
going to become involved in a partisan debate at this time to pick each 
other apart. This is a time to come together, and I hope, if we extend 
the time for the vote, we do not extend the debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The 
Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, again I state it is my intention to conclude 
the debate. I believe we are extending the time for the vote to 
accommodate Members of the Senate, but I do not see any need to 
continue the debate.

  Mr. President, let me close then with my remarks in asking the Senate 
to support the resolution that is before us. As I said a moment ago, it 
is unfortunate the Senate would have to spend this time to remind the 
President of a commitment that he made over 30 days ago.
  I can remember the excitement that occurred when there was an 
agreement on the part of the President to a 7-year balanced budget 
scored by the Congressional Budget Office, thinking that that really 
set us on the road toward an agreement. We have now seen, again, over 
30 days go by and the administration has failed to put forward a budget 
that balances in 7 years.
  Several speakers on the other side spoke about the failure to have a 
continuing resolution. Frankly, I believe the House has failed to 
provide a continuing resolution because they have looked at the actions 
on the part of the administration and, based on what they perceived 
their promises to be over 30 days ago, they in fact feel that they were 
fooled. One of the things that people have learned over the years is, 
if you get fooled one time, you do not fall for the same trick a second 
time. So the House has said they want to see a balanced budget before 
they extend Government activities.
  There is, in fact, a fundamental difference between our approach and 
that of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Our first 
objective is getting a balanced budget. Then Government will proceed. 
Their first concern is getting Government to move forward and then we 
will discuss a balanced budget. To us, the No. 1 concern is balancing 
the budget.
  The reason we are concerned is because we think that as a result of 
that balanced budget, everyone in America will have greater 
opportunities--greater opportunities for jobs, there will be more 
businesses created, we will see interest rates come down, we will see 
lower payments on mortgages, on automobile loans, on student loans and 
so 

[[Page S19032]]
forth. America's opportunity will be tremendous if we can just get to 
the point where we agree that we should not spend more than we are 
taking in, that we ought to let hard working men and women keep more of 
their earned income.
  There were some remarks made with respect to corporate welfare. It is 
interesting, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about 
the moneys earned by individuals and corporations as if it were the 
Government's and we were going to decide how much they get to keep of 
their money, as opposed to the other way around.
  I yield whatever time I have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The 
Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. May I inquire where the Senate is at this moment, with the 
time having expired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate is 
supposed to adopt the amendment of the Senator from South Dakota and 
then proceed to an immediate vote on the resolution.
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the vote occur on 
adoption of House Joint Resolution 132 at 11 a.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would like 
to agree with my colleague on this. I would like to offer a substitute 
by asking unanimous consent that the vote occur on the adoption of 
House Joint Resolution 132 at 11 a.m., with the time between now and 11 
a.m. equally divided as in morning business, with the time remaining on 
this side under the control of the Senator from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MACK. I suggest to my colleague that we just, since there seems 
to be some interest in this issue, since we are going to have the vote 
at 11, that we now just continue the debate with time equally divided.
  Mr. EXON. No objection. Whatever you want.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time? The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining under my 
control, under the new arrangement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska has 9 minutes and 40 
seconds.
  Mr. EXON. How much?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine minutes and 40 seconds.
  Mr. EXON. I yield 9 minutes and forty seconds to the Senator from 
North Dakota, with his allotment to any other Senators on our side 
wishing to speak out of that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized 
for 9 minutes and 33 seconds.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Nebraska 
providing me the time. If it is the intent of some on the other side 
who want to speak in the middle of this, I would be happy to 
accommodate that as well. I know the Senator from Idaho is waiting to 
speak. I will speak for a couple of minutes, and then I would be happy 
to let the Senator from Idaho speak, after which I would like to 
reclaim the balance of the time.
  Mr. President, as I was listening to the debate this morning, it 
occurred to me that it is time, on December 21, to turn down the volume 
just a bit on the discussion that has been held on these budget issues, 
especially on the floor of the Senate and here in Washington. It is 
appropriate for us to be struggling to find a way to put this puzzle 
together. The pieces do not always seem to fit just right. It has been 
difficult to find a way to put it together to make it work.
  On the other side, we hear that they say the top priority is a 
balanced budget. It is a priority. I have said two or three times--let 
me say again this morning--that I give the majority party credit for 
pushing for the balanced budget. They deserve credit for that. But it 
is only one of the goals. Let us balance the budget and at the same 
time protect other important priorities. In other words, let us balance 
the budget and do it the right way. If one says the only goal we have 
is to balance the budget, you fall short, it seems to me. Balance the 
budget, and do it the right way.
  As we struggle to do this the right way by cutting spending, 
protecting Medicare and Medicaid, and trying to make sure those who are 
vulnerable in this country are not going to be hurt, I ask that as we 
sort through the menu of how we get to a balanced budget that we do it 
thoughtfully. And at the end of the day when people turn the page on 
the plan, if there is a plan that is agreed to--and I hope there is--
that you do not come to a page that says, ``Wait a second. What is 
this? What is this deal? Who put this in? Why on Earth would this be 
part of the plan?''
  The plan was passed here that balanced the budget. It includes a 
little thing called repeal of 956(A). I will bet there are not four 
people here in Congress who know what this meant or what it did or why 
it was done. I do not know whether the other Members on the Senate 
floor know about the repeal of section 956(A). It is only $244 million.
  So when I say only in the scheme of the billions of dollars that are 
put into these agreements, $244 million probably does not seem like 
much to somebody who wrote this. What is repeal of Section 956(A)? It 
says to U.S. companies which have moved their jobs overseas--
manufacturing plants that might have been closed in America and moved 
the jobs overseas--that we will give you a tax break to do that and we 
will make the tax break even a little more generous by about $244 
million by repealing section 956(A). If anybody thinks there is a 
reason to make it more attractive to move American jobs overseas at 
taxpayer expense, about $244 million, I would like to hear the reason 
for that.
  I only use this as an example of the things that are in a plan that, 
in my judgment, does not make sense. Let us decide that we will put a 
plan together that balances the budget, score it with the Congressional 
Budget Office and do it in 7 years, but do it in a way that all of us 
can go home and talk to people and say, ``We protected Medicare. We 
protected Medicaid. We are not going to hurt the vulnerable people in 
this program. We will protect programs that make this a better place.''
  If we can do all of that, then we will have succeeded in doing 
something important for the future of this country. The difference, it 
seems to me, is that for the moment someone on the other side says we 
have only one goal and that is balance the budget. You need to expand 
that to a goal of balancing the budget while protecting the things that 
are important and are priorities to our country.
  I understand the Senator from Idaho has a time constraint. If you do 
not mind, I will relinquish the floor with the intention of reclaiming 
the floor when the Senator from Idaho is completed.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Let me respond in part to the Senator that has just spoken because so 
many have been arguing for so long. Balancing the budget is fine. I 
happen to be one of those who for well over a decade has argued that 
this country must come to grips with its spending habits, that we are 
indebting a future generation in such a dramatic way that the 
consequences will be incalculable.
  Now, there is an interesting drumbeat down at the White House amongst 
some who, while they will argue they support a balanced budget by 
concept, say let us do so without any consideration of tax cuts. The 
Senator happened to suggest one that is offered. I think he is right. 
Few would know all the details of that particular tax cut, but there is 
one thing that becomes very clear in the whole of what we try to do 
with a balanced budget.
  To reduce Federal spending alone--because Federal spending has become 
such a very large part of the U.S. economy--does, in fact, have 
economic consequences that in part can become negative unless there is 
an appropriate stimulus on the other side that balances it out so that 
you get accelerated 

[[Page S19033]]
growth in the private sector, the job-creating kind of stimulus that 
offsets some of that expenditure. And I happen to think that it is a 
more positive kind of expenditure if it is going on out in the private 
sector and not necessarily money being taken from the private sector 
funneled through the public sector and allowing us to decide how it 
gets spent.
  There is no doubt that a pure pattern of spending reductions by 
Government with no consideration for economic stimulus on the outside--
by recognizing some capital gains, by assuredly recognizing the ability 
of the individual wealth-creating, job-holding family to properly 
invest and to have more money to spend--might not have the right kind 
of economic consequences in the macro sense of the economy.
  That is why we have tried to couple some tax cuts along with it to 
middle and lower income Americans and to some of the economic job-
generating sectors of our country to create positive stimulus all the 
way around. There are few economists that will disagree with what I 
have just said; that as you offset one side of the overall large 
economy of Government, you have to stimulate the other. That is exactly 
what we are trying to do at this moment.
  I have spoken enough on this. I think it is important that we talk 
about linking the two together. Balancing the budget is something I 
have strongly supported, and will, but let us also talk about the value 
of leaving money in the private sector and stimulating it for economic 
growth purposes and job creation.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I want to continue this discussion because 
I think it is a good discussion. I have enormous respect for the 
Senator from Idaho. He has been faithful to the issue of wanting to 
balance the budget. He and I would disagree as to whether it makes 
sense to propose a very significant tax cut at the same time you are 
trying to balance the budget. I happen to think first things first: cut 
spending and balance the budget. When you are done with that job, then 
turn to the Tax Code and talk about cuts for those who need it.
  Every time I hear someone, especially on the other side, talk about a 
stimulating tax cut, I always look at who they are stimulating. The 
wrong people get stimulated. It is interesting to me that the changes 
that the majority party would propose in their plan on the earned 
income tax credit--I do not think there is any great dispute about 
this--would result in a higher tax burden than is now experienced by 
many Americans, millions of Americans who earn less than $30,000 a 
year.
  So if one is stimulating some of the folks in this country who have 
the largest incomes but saying to those who have $20,000 or $15,000 in 
income, ``By the way, the stimulus does not work for you, you are going 
to have to pay a little more in taxes,'' I say, ``Gee, I think those 
folks might want to be stimulated a while by the majority party as 
well.''
  I would like to yield for just a moment for a point that the Senator 
from New Mexico wants to make, Senator Bingaman.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I did want to ask the Senator from North 
Dakota a question. He referred to the old phrase ``first things 
first,'' and I have tried to read Peter Drucker and Steven Coffey and 
some of these people who advise us on proper management procedures, and 
they all make that same point--first things first. It seems to me the 
first thing we ought to be doing in this Congress is to be passing a 
continuing resolution to fund the Government.
  My question relates to an article that is in the morning paper where 
it says, ``GOP Pledges to Pay Furloughed Workers.'' It says, 
``Congressional Republican leaders promised yesterday that the 260,000 
Federal workers idled by the budget battle would eventually actually be 
paid for their days they are furloughed.''
  Then it goes on to say, ``At a GOP meeting yesterday, House Speaker 
Newt Gingrich persuaded party members to agree to pay employees for 
days missed. The employees are losing about $40 million a day in wages, 
according to the administration.''
  The question I get most from people in my State is, if you promise to 
pay these people, why not send them to work? It is one thing to charge 
the taxpayers $40 million a day for their services--and you can argue 
whether that ought to be done or not if you do not like the 
Government--but why are we paying people and not letting them work? It 
just does not make any sense to the people I represent.
  It seems to me that this place is becoming more Alice in Wonderland 
every day, and that is a classic example. If the Senator has a comment 
on that, I would be interested in hearing it.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I heard Ted Koppel ask one of the Members 
of the House last evening twice the same question: What kind of 
leverage are you getting if you say to Federal workers you cannot come 
to work but we will pay you anyway? Are you not just penalizing 
taxpayers? What kind of leverage do you think you are getting with 
that?
  He asked the question twice, and, of course, there is not an answer 
for it. It is a case of someone having an argument with their relative 
and deciding, well, I am angry at my uncle here who I just had an 
argument with. I think I will walk across the street and punch my 
neighbor.
  What sense does it make to suggest the Government ought to be shut 
down so the American taxpayer can pay Federal workers who are not 
allowed to come to work? That just makes no sense to me at all. And 
that is first things first. The Senator from New Mexico is correct. We 
ought to pass a clean funding resolution, a funding bill right now, 
within 20 minutes have those people come back to work, and at least 
solve that issue first.
  But, second, then we ought to go to the balanced budget amendment. I 
am hopeful that these talks at the White House will bear some fruit. I 
do not believe I have the time to continue to talk about how you get to 
a balanced budget.
  How much time is remaining, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 29 seconds.
  Mr. DORGAN. But I was going to make the point about those who say, 
here is the menu, including all kinds of special little deals. Let us 
give a $7 million tax cut each to 2,000 corporations by changing the 
alternative minimum tax--a $7 million check to 2,000 corporations. And 
I am asking myself--I happen to think we ought to balance the budget--
is this the way we ought to balance it?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MACK. The time remaining, please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes 30 seconds.
  Mr. MACK. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized 
for 6 minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from Florida.
  I rise in support of the resolution. I guess the real question here 
is why we have reached the point where we need this resolution, which 
once again states that we want to have a balanced budget in 7 years and 
that we want to use CBO figures.
  The reason we have arrived at this point is because there has been an 
inconsistency from the administration, specifically from the President, 
as to what his position is on a balanced budget, as to what his 
position is on a timeframe for a balanced budget, as to what his 
position is on how we will account for getting to a balanced budget.
  We have had four different budgets sent up here by this 
administration. Not one of them has been in balance. Every one of them 
has been rejected by their own party within this Senate, if not on a 
formal vote, at least informally, a couple at least with formal votes, 
and we have an administration which has one day been in favor of a 
welfare reform bill which was passed by this Senate and then a few days 
later been opposed to the welfare reform bill passed by the Senate. We 
have an administration, the chief spokesman of which on health care, 
the wife of the President, has said that she wants to see a rate of 
growth in Medicare at 6 to 7 percent and the President in the same 
basic timeframe excoriating Republicans because we have proposed a rate 


[[Page S19034]]
of growth in health care, in Medicare, which is 6 or 7 percent.
  The inconsistency that comes forth from this administration is 
consistent. That is about the only consistent thing about this 
administration--its inconsistency.
  So we are once again calling on the administration to commit to what 
we thought they committed to 3 or 4 weeks ago but which they have 
backed off of, which is to balance the budget in 7 years and use CBO 
figures.
  We have heard a lot of discussion about why this is important, but I 
just want to reiterate that unless you look at the issue of how you are 
balancing the budget off the same baseline, unless everybody is looking 
at the same numbers, you can never get to any agreement assuming an 
agreement is possible. But there is a big issue here also, and that is 
that the few times we have been able to get any definitive direction 
out of the White House, it has become very clear that there are some 
deep philosophical differences between the two parties.
  We believe that borrowing from our children to pay for the costs of 
operating the Government today is wrong, that it is fundamentally 
wrong. I heard the Senator from North Dakota talk about the vulnerable 
people in our society. Who is more vulnerable than our children, people 
who are being asked, even though they do not have any ability to 
confirm this decision, to take on the debt which our generation is 
running up? We have, as Republicans, said this is not right, and 
therefore we put together a real budget that reaches balance in 7 
years.
  Second, we have said you cannot run a system to assist our senior 
citizens if we know the system is going to go bankrupt in 7 years. We 
have been told by the trustees of the Medicare trust fund that it goes 
bankrupt in 7 years unless something is done, and so we have stood up 
and made a proposal which puts that system into solvency.
  We have done it in a way which gives seniors more choices than they 
have today, which gives seniors the same options essentially as Members 
of Congress in choosing their health care. We have done it by using the 
marketplace.
  We have further said that if you have a welfare system which says to 
people, you can stay on welfare all your life and then you can have 
your children on welfare, whether they are legitimate or illegitimate, 
and they can have their children on welfare, that is wrong; that people 
should not be on welfare for the remainder of their existence in this 
country but they should be asked to participate in the system of 
productivity which creates the ability to benefit those who are in 
need, and it is called work.
  So we have proposed under our welfare proposal that people be 
required to go to work after a reasonable amount of time, 2 years, and 
after 5 years of being on welfare they not be any longer a charge to 
the State but be required to be out in society being a productive 
citizen.
  These goals which we have--balancing the budget so that our children 
do not get the bills for this time but have an opportunity in their 
time to be successful; creating a Medicare system which is, first of 
all, solvent and, second of all, gives our seniors the same choices in 
the marketplace as citizens who are in the private sector; which allows 
a welfare system which is really directed at caring for the people who 
need support, not for the people who are abusing and using the system--
these basic goals which we have put forward have been essentially 
rejected by this administration. They have either been rejected out of 
hand or they have been rejected in indirect ways through the 
manipulation of the numbers or the proposals that they have brought 
forward.
  Underlying this administration's basic philosophy there appears to be 
a goal, or maybe it is their philosophy that is the goal, and it is 
called reelection. That is what is driving the basic decisions which we 
hear from the White House. There is no desire for substantive change 
for the purposes of improving the Medicare system or improving the 
Medicare system and getting our Government into balance. There does 
appear, however, to be a substantive drive for reelection. And that 
drive for reelection has caused this administration to time and again 
put forward proposals which are superficial, inconsistent.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time has expired.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Chair for noting that. I will just simply wrap 
up by saying if we are going to accomplish a balanced budget, we have 
to get this administration to agree to a balanced budget, to do it in 7 
years, to do it with CBO figures, and to do it by addressing the 
spending that the Government is presently involved in.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. MACK. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not been.
  Mr. MACK. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate adopts 
the amendment of the Senator from South Dakota, Senator Daschle.
  So the amendment (No. 3108) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendment and third reading of the joint resolution.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed, and the joint resolution 
to be read a third time.
  The joint resolution was read a third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the 
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], the 
Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats], and the Senator from Delaware [Mr. 
Roth] are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft] is 
absent due to a death in the family.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Missouri [Mr. Ashcroft] would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley] 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 611 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Ashcroft
     Bradley
     Coats
     Gramm
     Roth
  So the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 132) was passed.
  The preamble, as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.

                          ____________________