[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 8 (Tuesday, January 23, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S297-S298]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   CONCERN OVER CONGRESSIONAL RECESS

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to express my 
concern about our being out of session for the next considerable period 
of time in the context of the gridlock and breakdown over the 
negotiations of the budget. It is my hope that the negotiators will 
continue the budget negotiations because of the importance of reaching 
a resolution on those subjects, and that we will not have a recurrence 
of the shutdown of Government, as we have had twice in the course of 
the past several weeks, or that there will not be a resort to the debt 
ceiling issue as an instrument of, candidly speaking, political 
blackmail--which I think will be unsuccessful. If we are not able to 
resolve the budget disagreements, that we will at least crystallize the 
issue and make that the election issue in 1996.

  I made this point back on November 14, on the second day of the first 
governmental shutdown. It seemed to me from the start that this was bad 
policy. From the reaction of the American people, that view was 
confirmed. That is simply not the way to run the Government of the 
United States.
  I think the budget negotiators, however, have worked hard and there 
has been considerable progress made. I have taken a look, in reviewing 
the issues, and believe that the negotiators with more work can come to 
a conclusion. The central point is to have a balanced budget--a matter 
of enormous importance.
  There has been an agreement in principle by the Republican-controlled 
Congress and Republican-controlled White--almost a Freudian slip, to 
make the Republicans control the White House as well. We have a divided 


[[Page S298]]
Government, but at least there has been agreement on that principle. 
There is a substantial question as to whether the balanced budget 
proposal offered by the administration meets the ``fair'' criterion, 
since so much of it is deferred until the years 2001 and 2002. But I 
think there is ample room for negotiation, in order to have a realistic 
agreement made in those terms.
  I spoke on this matter to some extent yesterday and wish to amplify 
it today. One set of figures which bear repeating are the statistics on 
the narrowing of the gap between the parties on major issues such as 
Medicare, where the rate of increase is reduced in the conference 
report passed by the Republican-controlled Congress. Note it is not a 
cut but rather a reduction of the rate of increase by $270 billion, 
which has since been reduced to $168 billion. The administration first 
agreed to $102 billion and now recommends reducing the rate of increase 
by $124 billion. So there is a gap now remaining of $44 billion, 
considerably closer than what had been initially in the range of $168 
billion.
  Similarly, on Medicare, the original position of the Republican-
controlled Congress was $133 billion, since reduced to $85 billion with 
the administration at $59 billion on a reduction on the rate of 
increase. So that gap is narrowing.
  Similarly, on the tax cut, the House figures are in the range of $350 
billion and were reduced to $245 billion in the conference report. That 
has since been reduced further to $203 billion, while the 
administration proposes $130 billion.
  I have taken a close look at a number of the structural points in 
disagreement, while working with others in the House and Senate, to try 
to report out a bill on the Appropriations Subcommittee for Labor, 
Health, Human Services and Education, a subcommittee which I chair. I 
have had extensive negotiations with Donna Shalala, Secretary of Health 
and Human Services, Richard Riley, Secretary of Education, and Robert 
Reich, Secretary of Labor and find that the principal issues arise in 
the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services.
  As I have taken a look at the various issues, it seems to me that 
middle ground can be reached. If you take a look at the medical savings 
account, which is a controversial item, or the Medicare opt-out 
position as to HMO's back and forth, or the Medicare beneficiary part B 
payments, or the issue of balance billing by doctors, or the concern 
which has been expressed over the regulation of doctors' fees--all of 
those matters--if you take the congressional position as opposed to the 
administration position, you find there is middle ground available.
  If you look at the Medicaid issue, in addition to the figures 
narrowing, the structural matters also are subject to compromise.
  If you take a look at welfare, there again, compromise is possible. 
Where the welfare reform bill passed by the Senate with overwhelming 
numbers, some 87 Senators voting in favor of the measure, there was a 
great deal of reliance on the block grants. There is an area for 
compromise on providing the bulk of welfare related programs through 
block grants but certain specific programs should remain with standards 
established by the Federal Government. I think the statement made by 
the very distinguished Senator from Maine, Margaret Chase Smith, is 
worth repeating, when she distinguished between the issues of the 
principle of compromise as opposed to the compromise of principle. We 
are not talking about freedom of speech or freedom of religion or first 
amendment issues. We are talking about dollars and cents. And we are, 
really, very, very close together.
  So it is my hope that the negotiators will continue, because I think 
agreement is within reach, and when we are talking about the central 
principle of a balanced budget, that is something that we ought not 
give up on. We ought to continue to work to try to narrow the gap, and 
I hope that we will continue to do that.

                          ____________________