[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 11 (Friday, January 26, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S418-S429]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 THE BALANCED BUDGET DOWNPAYMENT ACT, I

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.


                           Amendment No. 3120

              (Purpose: To increase the public debt limit)

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. 
  
[[Page S419]]

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3120.
       At the end of the bill, add the following:

                       TITLE V--PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT

     SEC. 501. INCREASE IN PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT.

       Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking the dollar amount contained in 
     the first sentence and inserting ``$5,400,000,000,000''.

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I will remark, if I might, on the 
brevity of this measure, the succinctness of its purpose, which is to 
increase the debt ceiling of the United States from the present $4.9 
trillion to $5.4--one should not use decimal points when referring to 
trillions--$5.4 trillion. This $500 billion increase will provide 
sufficient borrowing authority for the Federal Government until about 
the end of May 1997.
  Mr. President, I offer this amendment on the circumstance of the 11th 
time since 1984 that the Federal Government has been in a ``debt 
issuance suspension period,'' commonly known as a debt ceiling crisis. 
The repeated past crises of the debt ceiling, and the present 
unprecedented, protracted crisis that has been upon us since the debt 
ceiling was reached over 2 months ago, has left the Secretary of the 
Treasury, the distinguished Secretary Robert Rubin, with little 
recourse under law by which he could allow the Government to continue. 
But he has now stated that there are three remaining ones, with the 
very specific sums associated with each, and that in no circumstances 
can the Government meet its financial obligations after the 29th of 
February or the 1st of March.
  What we face, Mr. President, is the prospect of default. Moody's 
Investors Service has placed on review for possible downgrading--those 
are the terms--some $387 billion of obligations of the U.S. Treasury 
for interest payments falling due between February 29 and April 1, the 
first time in our history that the credit of the United States has been 
potentially brought into question by an investment advisory service.
  How to scale this event? We are not going to have many people 
participate in this debate and not many people will be on the floor as 
we proceed. I wonder if there is not some apprehension about this issue 
that leads to a kind of avoidance.
  How would you scale this prospect of default, Mr. President? I give 
you the typical prospect. It would be the equivalent of losing a war. 
We are not talking about a program. We are not talking about 
appropriations. We are talking about the United States of America.
  The War of 1812 was perhaps the closest we ever came to losing a war. 
In 1814 the British seized Washington. They burned the White House. 
They burned the Treasury building. They burned the Capitol. But the 
service of the debt of the U.S. Government went forward undisturbed out 
of subtreasuries elsewhere, prominently New York and Philadelphia.
  We were a debtor then, a debtor nation, rapidly paying off our debt. 
We would have none whatever by 1837. We had acquired that debt in the 
course of the Revolutionary War. State governments incurred this debt, 
and Alexander Hamilton insisted that the Federal Government assume that 
debt. Paying it off established the credit of the United States in 
Europe and in a mode that allowed us to be a great importer of capital 
through the 19th century as we built our industries and infrastructure.
  Today we are not only a debtor once again but we are the world's 
largest debtor, the result, Mr. President, not of the War for 
Independence, but of the working out of the long-term strategy that 
took shape in the late 1970's designed to refashion the American 
National Government by dismantling its finances.
  Mr. President, I spoke upon that subject on any number of times in 
the 1970's. In July 7, 1980, I wrote a long article for the New York 
Times describing it. And I said of that strategy which came to be known 
as starve the beast:

       The Republicans' dominant idea, at least for the moment, 
     seems to be that the social controls of modern Government 
     have become tyrannical or at the very least exorbitantly 
     expensive. This impression, so the strategic analysis goes, 
     is made possible by taxation such that cutting taxes becomes 
     an objective in its own right, business cycles 
     notwithstanding.

  And 3\1/2\ years later, with the new administration in place and a 
budget deficit now steadily rising, I wrote of this same subject. Might 
I just add, Mr. President, that on January 20, 1981, the debt was about 
$900 billion. In the intervening 15 years we have added $4 trillion.
  I spoke again of this basic proposition, not easily understood, not 
widely even noted. The proposition is that the deficits were 
purposeful, that is to say, that the deficits in the President's 
initial budgets were purposeful. They were expected to disappear. They 
have not disappeared.
  The then-Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Mr. David 
Stockman, said there are $200 billion deficits as far as the eye can 
see. And in that mode, the debt was beginning to accumulate.
  I put it up to the whole legislative budgetary agenda at that time. I 
quote--this is in the New Republic of December 31, 1983. I said:

       There was a hidden agenda. It came out--hidden in plain 
     view like pearls of a purloined necklace.
       It came out in a television speech sixteen days after 
     President Reagan's inauguration, when he stated, ``There were 
     always those who told us that taxes couldn't be cut until 
     spending was reduced. Well, you know we can lecture our 
     children about extravagance until we run out of voice and 
     breath. Or we can cut their extravagance by simply reducing 
     their allowance.''

  That was the pattern, starve the beast. It would be pointless to try 
to argue out of existence this program, that program, another 
appropriation. Simply make it impossible to go forward because there 
are no funds, and indeed we looked the unthinkable prospect of default 
in the very face.
  I wrote then that there was an alternative, that the possibility of a 
historical compromise was present.
  Democrats might come to understand the sense of the opposing party 
that Government, indeed, had become too big, too interventionist, at 
times, indeed, an obstacle to the private lives and private fortunes of 
the citizenry. There is that edge, the regulatory state.
  Republicans would have to understand that they could not put it in 
service of the political strategy, they could not put the integrity of 
the United States of America at risk and that compromise may finally 
have been reached. It has been agreed that we will balance the budget 
in 7 years. This will involve reducing a great many programs. It will 
involve preserving others.
  I stand here, Mr. President, to say to the Republican Members across 
the aisle, ``Your strategy has worked.'' The President, in the State of 
the Union message 2 days ago, declared: ``The era of big Government is 
over.'' He said it not just once, he said it twice.
  The debt service did it, not quite as anticipated but effectively so. 
The strategy has worked. I might give you a specific, and I will not be 
long. In 1994-1997, the period we are in, spending on Government 
programs is less than taxes for the first time since the 1960's. If you 
go back 30 years to the Kennedy-Johnson era, you will find a time when 
we were spending less than we collected in revenues, and at that time, 
a great source of concern arose for economists: the phenomenon of 
fiscal drag. Congress was not spending as much money as it brought in.
  That changed so dramatically. The deficits of the 1980's, as far as 
the eye can see, continued until, in 1993, under President Clinton, we 
passed legislation that reduced spending and increased revenues by half 
a trillion dollars. After that, the deficit premium, as it is called, 
on interest rates declined. The anticipation that we would deal with 
the deficit reduced interest payments, and outlays were reduced by 
another $100 billion.
  So right now, revenues are running ahead of outlays, save for the 
debt service. The debt service has done its work. Debt has done its 
work, and now it seems to me, it appears to me, that we have an 
understanding of the reality. However little either side might like it, 
it is there.
  Can we not go forward now to agree to extend the debt ceiling in the 
context of an agreement to bring about a balanced budget, not to put 
the United States at risk in a world in which we are the largest 
debtor, and our debt is held by central banks and elsewhere all around 
the world? To bring it into 

[[Page S420]]
question is to bring the fundamentals of the American Government into 
question as well.
  I urge the Senate, I urge my friends on the other side of the aisle 
to declare victory and preserve the authority and integrity of the 
United States Government because, Mr. President, nothing less is at 
issue.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the two articles I 
mentioned be printed in the Record.
       There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be 
     printed in the Record, as follows:

                 [From the New Republic, Dec. 31, 1983]

       The Biggest Spender of Them All--Reagan's Bankrupt Budget

                      (By Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

       In his first thousand days in office Ronald Reagan 
     increased the national debt of the United States by half. If 
     he should serve a second term, and the debt continues to 
     mount as currently forecast by the Congressional Budget 
     Office, the Reagan Administration will have nearly tripled 
     the national debt. In eight years, one Republican 
     Administration will have done twice, you might say, what it 
     took 192 years and thirty-eight Federalist, Democratic, Whig, 
     and Republican predecessors to do once. The numbers are so 
     large they defy any ordinary effort at comprehension (a 
     billion minutes ago St. Peter was fourteen years dead), but 
     for the record they are as follows. On President Reagan's 
     inauguration day, January 20, 1981, the national debt stood 
     at $940.5 billion. In the next thirty-two months, $457 
     billion was added. The projected eight-year growth is $1.64 
     trillion, bringing us to a total debt, by 1989, of $2.58 
     trillion.
       Debt service, which is to say interest on the debt, will 
     rise accordingly. It came to $75 billion in fiscal year 1980. 
     By the end of this fiscal year, it will be something like 
     $148.5 billion. And so it might also be said that the Reagan 
     Administration will have doubled the cost of the debt in four 
     years.
       A law of opposites frequently influences the American 
     Presidency. Once in office, Presidents are seen to do things 
     least expected of them, often things they had explicitly 
     promised not to do. Previous commitments or perceived 
     inclinations act as a kind of insurance that protects against 
     any great loss if a President behaves contrary to 
     expectation. He is given the benefit of the doubt. He can't 
     have wanted to do this or that; he must have had to do it. 
     President Eisenhower made peace, President Kennedy went to 
     war; President Nixon went to China.
       Something of this indulgence is now being granted President 
     Reagan. Consider the extraordinary deficits, $200 billion a 
     year, and continuing, in David Stockman's phrase, as far as 
     the eye can see. This accumulation of a serious debt--the 
     kind that leads the International Monetary Fund to take over 
     a third world country's economic affairs (or in olden times 
     would lead us to send in the Marines to collect customs 
     duties)--is all happening without any great public protest, 
     or apparent political cost.
       As such, this need be no great cause for concern. If Ronald 
     Reagan is lucky, good for him. There is little enough luck in 
     the business. But, unfortunately, something much larger is at 
     issue. If nothing is done, the debt and the deficit will 
     virtually paralyze American national government for the rest 
     of the decade. The first thing to be done, to use that old 
     Marxist terminology, is to demystify the Reagan deficit.
       If I may say so, what I now write, I know. That is not and 
     should not be enough for the reader. I will ask to be judged, 
     then, by whether the proposition to be presented is coherent, 
     and whether any other proposition makes more sense.
       The proposition is that the deficits were purposeful, that 
     is to say, the deficits for the President's initial budgets. 
     They were thereafter expected to disappear. That they have 
     not, and will not, is the result of a massive 
     misunderstanding of American government. This is not 
     understood in either party. Democrats feel uneasy with the 
     subject, one on which we have been attacked since the New 
     Deal. Republicans are simply uncomprehending, or, as Senator 
     John Danforth of Missouri said in a speech on the debt 
     ceiling in November (referring to the whole Senate, but 
     permit me an inference), ``catatonic.''
       Start with the campaign. Although we may be forgiven if we 
     remember otherwise, as a candidate, Mr. Reagan did not 
     propose to reduce federal spending. Waste, yes, that would be 
     eliminated, but name a program, at least one of any 
     significance, that was to go. To the contrary, defense 
     spending was to be considerably increased. That was the one 
     program issue of his campaign. It was the peculiar genius of 
     that campaign that it proposed to increase defense 
     expenditures while cutting taxes. This was the Kemp-Roth 
     proposal, based on Arthur Laffer's celebrated curve. As a 
     candidate, Mr. Reagan went so far as to assert that this 
     particular tax cut would actually increase revenues.
       What follows is crucial: no one believed this. Obviously a 
     tax can be so high that it discourages the taxed activity and 
     reduces revenue. This is called price elasticity and is a 
     principle that applies to pretty much everything from the 
     price of The New Republic to the price Justice Holmes said we 
     pay for civilization. But any massive reduction in something 
     as fundamental as the income tax was going to bring about a 
     massive loss of revenue. And this was intended.
       There was a hidden agenda. It came out in a television 
     speech sixteen days after President Reagan's inauguration, 
     when he stated, ``There were always those who told us that 
     taxes couldn't be cut until spending was reduced. Well, you 
     know we can lecture our children about extravagance until we 
     run out of voice and breath. Or we can cut their extravagance 
     by simply reducing their allowance.'' The President genuinely 
     wanted to reduce the size of the federal government. He 
     genuinely thought it was riddled with ``waste, fraud, and 
     abuse,'' with things that needn't or shouldn't be done. He 
     was astute enough to know there are constituencies for such 
     activities, and he thought it pointless to try to argue them 
     out of existence one by one. He would instead create a fiscal 
     crisis in which, willy-nilly, they would be driven out of 
     existence.
       If his understanding of the government had been right, his 
     strategy for reducing its size would have been sound. But his 
     understanding was desperately flawed. There is waste in the 
     federal budget, but it is of the kind generic to large and 
     long-established enterprises. Thus we have an Army, a Navy, 
     and an Air Force. They compete, they overlap, they duplicate. 
     Well, yes. But they also fight, in no small measure because 
     these uniforms mean something to those men and women, and 
     have, in the case of the Army and Navy (and of course the 
     Marine Corps, which is part of the Navy) for more than two 
     centuries. A management consultant might merge them. I sure 
     as hell wouldn't, except perhaps way at the top. For the 
     rest, well, there is the F.B.I. at $1 billion; the Coast 
     Guard (equally long established) at $2.5 billion, and so on. 
     Welfare? In the sense of welfare mothers? The Aid to Families 
     with Dependent Children program comes in at about 1 percent 
     of the whole budget. (The Washington Post has half-seriously 
     proposed that it be abolished altogether so that people will 
     stop talking about it.) There are areas in the budget where 
     expenditure is indeed growing at enormous rates, principally 
     that of medical care. But for the most part, and especially 
     in the case of medical care, expenditure is growing at 
     similar rates in both the private and public sectors. Large 
     social forces are at work, not simply a peculiarly 
     pathological tendency of government.
       A notable area of miscalculation, or rather misinformation, 
     among the Reaganites was that of foreign affairs. President 
     Reagan has acted much as his predecessors have done in 
     foreign affairs, and for the elemental reason that he is 
     faced with much the same situations. Invariably, this has 
     meant spending money. This fall the President had to plead 
     with Congress to increase appropriations for the 
     International Monetary Fund, something he cannot have 
     expected ever to be doing, but there you are. As I write, the 
     Kissinger Commission on Central America is no doubt drawing 
     up a massive ``Marshall Plan'' for the area. Is there any 
     doubt that in the next session the President will be pleading 
     with Congress to increase this particular form of foreign 
     aid? (Just as, had his supporters in the Senate been 
     successful in blocking the Panama Canal treaties in the 
     Carter years, he would be pleading today with the Senate to 
     consent to their ratification.)
       President Reagan's tax cut--the largest tax reduction in 
     history--became law in August 1981. Critics, if they are 
     members of Congress, typically must begin by explaining why 
     they voted for the tax cut. I am one. (There were only eleven 
     Senators who voted no.) I have an explanation, but no excuse.
       After years of intense inflation and the accompanying 
     ``bracket creep'' in the income tax, we did need to reduce 
     personal tax rates. A year earlier, the Senate Finance 
     Committee, controlled by the Democratic majority, had 
     reported out just such a bill, but Mr. Carter's White House 
     would not hear of it. This helped lose the Senate for the 
     democrats, but the lesson was not lost.
       The great recession of 1981-82 made it painfully clear that 
     the tax cut was too small for the first year, when a neo-
     Keynesian stimulus was in order. At the time, however, a 
     bidding war broke out in the House, sending the parties into 
     senseless competition to offer loopholes to special 
     interests. The result was a tax cut much too large for the 
     later years. Thus the $200 billion annual deficit. Again, no 
     excuses from this quarter, but in the Democratic response to 
     the President's televised speech of July 27, 1981, I did say, 
     ``In the last few days something like an auction of the 
     Treasury has been going on . . . what this is doing is taking 
     a tax cut we could afford and transforming it into a great 
     barbecue that we can't afford. I would say to the President 
     that some victories come too dear.
       Enter the Federal Reserve Board which looked at the huge 
     tax cuts in the midst of high inflation and decided to create 
     an economic downturn. Of all the structural anomalies of 
     American government, the arrangements for setting 
     macroeconomic policy are the most perverse. Although fiscal 
     policy (the amounts of money the government spends, receives, 
     and borrows) is made through a painfully elaborate public 
     process by an elected President and an elected Congress, 
     monetary policy (the total amount of money in the economy and 
     the cost of borrowing it) is made in secret by appointed 
     officials. The Reserve Board tightened the growth of the 
     money supply so strenuously that it actually declined in the 
     third quarter of 1981. Real interest rates reached the 
     highest levels in our nation's history, and the economy fell 
     off the cliff. At the end of September 1981, the steel 
     industry was operating 

[[Page S421]]
     at 74.5 percent of capacity; by the end of 1982, it was operating at 
     29.8 percent of capacity.
       To be sure, the Fed does not control the precise money 
     supply and cannot precisely determine interest rates. But it 
     can set the direction and range for both and this it did. 
     Anyone who tried to dissent was soundly rapped. Its two dozen 
     or so central bankers decided to bust the economy, and bust 
     it they did. In a White House appearance in October 1982, 
     Nobel Economist George Stigler used the term ``depression'' 
     to describe the economy.
       There is a tendency for any government to live beyond its 
     income. The Reagan Administration transformed this temptation 
     from a vice into an opportunity. Put plainly, under Ronald 
     Reagan, big government became a bargain. For seventy-five 
     cents worth of taxes, you got one dollar's worth of 
     return. Washington came to resemble a giant discount 
     house. If no tax would balance the budget, and no outlay 
     would make it any worse, why try?
       A boom psychology moved through government. Defense came 
     first, from space wars to battleships--the latest defense 
     appropriations reactivates the World War II-vintage U.S.S. 
     Missouri. Hog wild is the only way to describe the farm 
     program. Jimmy Carter left behind a $4 billion enterprise, 
     somewhat overpriced at that and the object of incessant 
     right-wing criticism. Whereupon the fundamentalists and their 
     political brethren took over. Within thirty-six months they 
     increased the annual cost of the farm program more than 
     fourfold. Their most recent enthusiasm, signed into law by 
     President Reagan, is a program paying dairy farmers not to 
     milk their cows.
       What is to be done? The economy is at stake. The country 
     can bankrupt itself. According to the latest budget 
     projections, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office 
     under the impeccably conservative new director, Rudolph G. 
     Penner (formerly of the American Enterprise Institute), the 
     deficit for the six years 1984 to 1989 will come to 
     approximately $1,339,000,000,000. In order to support and 
     service this debt, the government will have to absorb more 
     and more of the capital that is coming available in the 
     nation's credit markets. Direct federal borrowing for the 
     deficit and federally guaranteed loans absorbed 62 percent of 
     all credit raised on the nation's financial markets this 
     year, compared to an average absorption rate of 8.3 percent 
     in the 1960s and 15.3 percent in the 1970s. This ``crowding 
     out'' was not much felt, because few others were borrowing to 
     invest. But when the day comes that business, consumers, and 
     government all compete for the same funds, interest rates 
     will go up, with predictable consequences.
       Under these circumstances, the only thing a Republican 
     Administration and a Republican Senate will be able to 
     consider doing will be to revert to their original agenda: 
     use the budget deficit to force massive reductions in social 
     programs. This time they will be able to cite not mere 
     illusions but necessity. Even if interest on the debt climbs 
     to $200 billion a year, as now seems likely, presumably there 
     will still be an Army, an F.B.I., and some kind of customs 
     service and border control. What then will be left to cut?
       Entitlements, or more precisely, Social Security.
       The word is already the rage. There is scarcely a 
     Republican member of the Senate who does not know that 
     entitlements must be cut, and cut deeply. Many Democrats 
     agree; almost none dissent. Remember, at least twenty 
     Senators are millionaires, living at considerable social 
     distance from those who would be most affected. It will be 
     much the same in the House. The budget deficit in the year 
     ahead will threaten any sustained recovery. The members of 
     the House, as a rule, are not millionaires, but they know 
     their street corners. The street corners will say, ``Cut. 
     Something must be done.''
       Cut back Social Security in desperation, and you abandon a 
     solemn promise of the Democratic Party and of American 
     society. This promise, once broken, will fracture a little 
     bit of society. (Moreover, cutting Social Security will not 
     improve the deficit problem. As Martin Feldstein, chairman of 
     the Council of Economic Advisers, has noted, Social Security 
     is funded by separate payroll taxes and contributes not a 
     cent to the deficit.)
       There is an alternative. There is the possibility of a 
     historic compromise that can bring the now dominant branch of 
     the Republican Party to grips with reality, while shaking the 
     now dominant branch of the Democratic Party from its illusion 
     that no one will listen to Republicans for very long. Such a 
     compromise cannot await a change in the political culture. It 
     must be negotiated. We need a structure, a forum in which 
     negotiations can take place. A Presidential commission might 
     be such a structure.
       The National Commission on Social Security Reform--on which 
     I served--would provide a model. It was established by 
     President Reagan in December 1981, after Congress rejected 
     his original plan to sharply reduce Social Security benefits. 
     One point in particular is crucial. Alan Greenspan, who 
     chaired the commission, adopted a simple rule: each member 
     was entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts. Within 
     a year Mr. Greenspan had established the facts, which showed 
     that the problem was neither trivial nor hopeless. The 
     commission as such could reach no agreement. But with the 
     facts established, we put together a bipartisan legislative 
     package last January in exactly twelve days.
       The budget crisis presents a harder problem, but it can be 
     approached in the same way. Martin Feldstein made a good 
     beginning in a speech to the Southern Economic Association on 
     November 21. He agreed with the Congressional Budget Office 
     that by 1988 the deficit will absorb 5.1 percent of the 
     nation's G.N.P. Of this, Feldstein noted, 2.4 percent will 
     come from increased defense spending, 1.7 percent from the 
     tax cut, and the remaining 1 percent from higher interest 
     payments. The facts about the structural deficit flow readily 
     from such quantification.
       The members of the budget commission--representatives from 
     the Administration, Congress, the Federal Reserve, and the 
     Congressional Budget Office--would determine the actual 
     effects of deficits on employment, real interest rates, 
     capital formation, investment, and the prospects for vigorous 
     economic growth. Then they would propose the steps to reduce 
     the deficit, making certain that the burden of these 
     reductions did not fall disproportionately on any economic or 
     social group. Delaying tax indexing, reforming corporate tax 
     law deductions and credits, cutting defense spending, and 
     reducing farm price supports, among other proposals, would 
     have to be considered. Medicare, secure in the short term, 
     will be in deep trouble before the end of this decade. The 
     deficit commission must face up to this problem. Democrats 
     should agree to do so in return for assurances that the 
     Social Security agreement will be respected and that the 
     Social Security trust fund will not be raided (the plain 
     purpose of those who say entitlements are the problem).
       Moreover, a solution to the deficit crisis will require 
     more than adjustments in spending and taxation. It will 
     demand change in the way we make fiscal and monetary policy 
     and the way those policies are coordinated. Monetary policy 
     and the operations of the Federal Reserve must be an integral 
     part of any fiscal resolution. Nothing can be achieved 
     without a joint monetary-fiscal effort to promote an 
     expanding economy and an approach to full employment--a one 
     percentage point drop in unemployment alone reduces the 
     budget deficit by $30 billion.
       But let's stop here. I have my own thoughts. The reader 
     will have his or hers. On the final day of the last session 
     of Congress, I introduced legislation to establish the 
     National Commission on Deficit Reduction. Now, can we get the 
     President to join?
                                                                    ____


                [From the New York Times, July 7, 1980]

                  Of ``Sons'' and Their ``Grandsons''

                      (By Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

       Once upon a time, before the Coming of the New Deal, there 
     was a group of Republican Senators who were not sound men on 
     subjects such as the High Tariff. Their names were well 
     enough known--Johnson of California, Norris of Nebraska, La 
     Follette of Wisconsin, Shipstead of Minnesota--but you might 
     say their families were not. They were definitely Western, 
     arguably Populists, and assuredly Not Quite in the Best of 
     Taste.
       In a speech on the Senate floor in 1924, an Eastern 
     Republican, drawing on Jeremiah 14:6, referred to them as 
     ``sons of the wild jackass.'' The phrase was much in vogue in 
     the brief period remaining to that era, after which 
     Republicans generally lapsed into an undifferentiated and 
     glum opposition.
       Soon the wild jackasses were no more. But of a sudden their 
     grandsons have appeared. In the Senate surely, and in their 
     party generally, and the reaction has been much the same, 
     except that this time it has come from--Democrats!
       Take this business of cutting taxes. The Secretary of the 
     Treasury was not amused. The White House received 
     unimpeachable intelligence from the Best Sources that it was 
     a Bad Idea. Dissenting Democratic Senators were informed that 
     the Chief Executive Officer of the largest corporation in 
     Delaware had reported that industry was not at all impressed 
     by the Republican proposal, whilst the head of the Federal 
     Reserve branch in New York City reported that The Street was 
     definitely not in favor.
       Psychologists call this role reversal. As a Democrat, I 
     call it terrifying. And to miss it is to miss what could be 
     the onset of the transformation of American politics.
       Not by chance, but by dint of sustained and often complex 
     argument there is a movement to turn Republicans into 
     Populists, a party of the People arrayed against a Democratic 
     Party of the State.
       This is the clue to the across-the-board Republican tax-cut 
     proposal now being offered more or less daily in the Senate 
     by Dole of Kansas, Armstrong of Colorado and their 
     increasingly confident cohorts.
       It happens that just now they are ``right.'' The economy is 
     in a steep recession, facing a huge tax increase (windfall 
     profits and Social Security payments, combined with the 
     ``bracket creep'') next year. Certainly a $30 billion cut in 
     1981 taxes is in order, and ought to be agreed on quickly, 
     with luck using the opportunity to get better depreciation 
     schedules for industrial investment.
       But these same Republicans were calling for tax cuts in 
     1978 and 1979 when clearly they were ``wrong--by, that is, 
     established standards of fiscal policy. The point is that 
     these are no longer men of that Establishment.
       The process of change has been unremarkable enough. After a 
     half century of more or less unavailing opposition 
     (Republicans have controlled the Congress only four years 
     since 1930) it was possible to agree that new ideas were 
     necessary.
     
[[Page S422]]

       Observe Bill Brock, chairman of the Republican National 
     Committee, announcing the appearance, in 1978, of A 
     Republican Journal of Thought and Opinion: Commonsense:
       ``We must not forget that the last great partisan coalition 
     of American politics was built on ideas. These were no less 
     forceful and appealing, if also debatable, for all their 
     identification with a political party. The notion of an 
     activist federal government, with an obligation to use its 
     centralized power to meet new social problems with new social 
     controls, was a new idea in the 1930s. But it took hold, 
     built a durable coalition, became the foundation for decades 
     of programmatic public policy, and tended to capture the 
     terms of the political debate.
       ``As an idea, it had consequences. Only lately have these 
     come to be generally understood as having mixed implications 
     for the nation and for individuals in it. Accordingly, the 
     Republican Party finds itself in opposition, at this writing, 
     not only to a majority party that controls the machineries of 
     government, but to the force of certain such idea. It is our 
     continuing obligation, therefore--to articulate our own.''
       This journal has been faithful to its promise: The material 
     is first-rate. (We Democrats have nothing approaching it.) Of 
     a sudden, the G.O.P. gas become a party of ideas.
       The Republicans' dominant idea, at lest for the moment, 
     seems to be that the social controls of modern government 
     have become tyrannical or, at the very least, exorbitantly 
     expensive. This oppression--so the strategic analysis goes--
     is made possible by taxation, such that cutting taxes becomes 
     an objective in its own right, business cycles 
     notwithstanding.
       Similarly, ``supply-side'' economics speaks to the people 
     as producers, as against the Government as consumer. Within 
     the Republican Party this is put forth as populism and argued 
     for as such. To be wild jackasses, to be Teddy Roosevelts, 
     and to trust the people. Asked by a commentator whether an 
     across-the-board tax could really lead to the needed increase 
     in savings, a Republican Senator replied that he took for 
     granted that the people would know what to do with their own 
     money.
       There is much G.K. Chesterton in this--indeed, Brock cites 
     how in another passage to his introduction of Commonsense--
     who raged against the elitism of Tory and Socialist alike. 
     Beer and Liberty, as it has been put, verus Soap and 
     Socialism. And property for all versus the goods for all, if 
     such goods came only from giant businesses.
       And then there is also much of the Frontier in this New 
     Republicanism. Some get plenty; and some get none. But it is 
     surely also a challenge. For we Democrats have been in power 
     so long we have not been able to avoid becoming in ways the 
     Party of the Government, and it shows. The party, to be 
     specific, of those classes and professions and enterprises, 
     public and private, that depend on Government subvention and 
     guarantee. With the public sector at a third of gross 
     national product, (and the Federal share tending toward one 
     quarter), this is no small constituency. But it is not yet a 
     majority. And we would do well to take heed when Republicans 
     start campaigning, as indeed they have, on platforms that 
     they are the ``party of the working man.'' Do us both good.

  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I see my distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Finance is on the floor, and I look forward to his agreement and 
collaboration.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote against 
this amendment to raise the debt ceiling on this occasion. Without a 
doubt, the debt ceiling will eventually be raised as it needs to be and 
as it should be in order to avoid default.
  The problem with addressing the debt ceiling issue at this point is 
that there is some urgency in our need to enact the continuing 
resolution. To keep Government from shutting down, this resolution must 
be enacted today and it must be clean.
  This CR has already been negotiated with the House, the Senate, and 
the White House. The President has said that he will sign this bill 
tonight. This is critically important to maintain uninterrupted 
Government services for the American people.
  To open the CR now for amendment is to create an obstacle that will 
most certainly keep this bill from passing and result in a Government 
shutdown. We must reach closure today.
  We will address the debt ceiling. Secretary Rubin has asked us to do 
so before March 1. That's over a month away. Consequently, there is no 
urgency to extend the debt limit now--not if it means once again 
shutting down the Government.
  The Finance Committee is currently in discussions with Treasury 
regarding various aspects of this issue. And we will move forward with 
the debt ceiling issue when the moment serves. But not now.
  The amendment violates the Constitution. Revenue bills must arise in 
the House, and that includes legislation affecting the debt ceiling. If 
we adopt this amendment, the House will blue slip the legislation, and 
we will be further behind than if we pass this CR and address the debt 
at a more appropriate time.
  It is customary for Congress to consider debt ceiling legislation 
together with provisions to reduce the deficit. The House is in the 
process of fashioning such a package. The Speaker has talked with the 
President.
  Leon Panetta has indicated the administration is willing to work on 
such a package. This amendment derails that effort. It is clear, then, 
that this amendment, even if it were legal, would not be well received 
in the House. Rather than achieve gridlock once again with the Moynihan 
amendment, we need to send this continuing resolution to the President.
  Mr. President, again, I urge my colleagues to vote against the 
amendment to raise the debt ceiling on this occasion.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, may I say to my friend, the 
distinguished chairman--and I understand his reasons full well, and 
they are wholly appropriate--what separates this moment from others in 
the past is that the full faith and credit of the United States is even 
now being questioned in international markets. That has never happened. 
It has not happened since 1792 when Hamilton worked out the assumption 
of the State debt.
  I think the fact that the President and the Republican leaders in the 
House and here in the Senate have come to an understanding that there 
will be a balanced budget agreed to--and the distinguished chairman of 
the Budget Committee was there--that should be enough for us to say 
that will happen. And, incidentally, do not for a moment ever think 
that the United States would default on their debt. That is all we seek 
in the spirit of good will.
  I point out that the budget agreement, already tentatively marked up, 
cuts domestic discretionary spending of the Federal Government by one-
third in 7 years. David Stockman, in his moment of the utmost optimism, 
could never have conceived that such an amount of drastic reduction 
would not only be agreed to but hardly remarked upon. The era of big 
Government is, in fact, over. But the era of default, bankrupt 
Government, surely must not commence.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senate can be assured that I want to 
expedite the vote on this issue as much as anyone else. So I will be 
very brief. There are some people in the country that are concerned 
about the full faith and credit that has been such an advantageous 
thing for our Treasury bills and the financing of our debt. Our 
Treasury bills have been almost the greatest currency in the world. 
They are the money market in many parts of the world. Certainly, it 
does not behoove the Senate or the U.S. House, Democrat or Republican, 
to do anything to tarnish that.
  But I believe today the issue before us is: Shall we open the 
Government, pay our workers, and get on with the ordinary daily 
activities of the Government and, at the same time, assure the 
marketplace and those who are concerned that there is no intention on 
the part of those on this side of the aisle that are in a position 
during the next 4 or 5 weeks to get that debt limit extended, and that 
there is no intention on our part that we let the Treasury bills of the 
United States go into default? 

[[Page S423]]

  I stand before the Senate because some of those people that are 
influenced by our actions are, from time to time, interested in my 
opinion and my views. Frankly, I am saying tonight that I think we 
ought not cause the Government of the United States to be closed down 
even for 24 hours while we add an amendment that is not necessary 
tonight.

  We are saying as strongly as we can--I have been with our leader; 
there is no intention to do anything other than to work with the 
President to extend the debt limit. I cannot say here to Senator 
Moynihan that it will be absolutely a clean debt limit, but I can say 
there is an intention to extend it in a way that would be signed by the 
President.
  I remind everyone it would be almost historic if in this kind of a 
situation you had a clean bill. There would be some things worked out 
between the White House and the Congress. It is always a vehicle that 
sends some things to the White House that get done that everyone wants 
done. I do not believe we ought to leave the notion out there in 
America that if this proposal of Senator Moynihan is tabled, and I hope 
it is tabled, that there is any intention to do anything but have a 
debt limit extension in an orderly and timely manner.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New 
Mexico and the distinguished Senator, the chairman of the Finance 
Committee, because I have risen in both our caucuses here recently and 
expressed my grave concern about this issue of the full faith and 
credit of the United States, how that could be combatted by the actions 
with relation to the debt limit.
  I, like the distinguished Senator, the chairman of the committee 
here, feel very strongly, as does the Senator from Delaware and the 
Senator from New Mexico, that we cannot shut down the Government 
tonight.
  I ask unanimous consent that two editorials on this subject be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorials were ordered to be printed 
in the Record, as follows:

                 [From the Plain Dealer, Jan. 24, 1996]

                        Hitting the Debt Ceiling

       It is all well and good for House Republicans to fight hard 
     for their budget priorities. But using the good faith and 
     credit of the United States government as a weapon in that 
     fight is short-sighted and dangerous. It is also likely to 
     backfire.
       Until very recently, at least a few top House Republicans 
     seemed to understand this. Both House Speaker Newt Gingrich 
     and Budget Committee Chairman John Kasich had signaled a 
     willingness to pass legislation that would allow the 
     government--which will soon reach its credit limit--to borrow 
     more money to avoid default. But on Sunday, House Majority 
     Leader Dick Armey took a different tack.
       Speaking on NBC's ``Meet the Press,'' Armey said Congress 
     would not increase the debt ceiling unless conditions were 
     attached. The conditions, he said, would have to advance the 
     GOP agenda of ``decreasing the size and the intrusiveness of 
     government.''
       The next day, Gingrich adjusted his tune to harmonize more 
     closely with Armey's. To get a debt-ceiling bill from 
     Congress, Gingrich said, President Bill Clinton will have to 
     propose ``substantial reforms'' in future spending.
       However much dissent there may still be in Republican 
     ranks, clearly some party leaders are again embracing the 
     notion that the goal of forcing an ideologically palatable 
     budget deal warrants dramatics of the highest order. That is 
     troubling.
       Though deficit-reduction and long-term entitlements reform 
     are supremely worthy ends for Republicans to pursue, they do 
     not justify any means. Forcing the U.S. government to default 
     on its obligations is irresponsible. It is bad policy and bad 
     politics.
       The price of a default--which could include a dive in the 
     stock market, a leap in interest rates, and a worldwide 
     ripple of doubt about the reliability of U.S. securities--is 
     simply too high. If the goal of the most ardent GOP budget 
     cutters is to promote America's long-term economic well-
     being, they defeat their purpose if they ruin America's 
     credit rating along the way.
       It is not hard to understand why some House Republicans 
     would be feeling acutely frustrated these days. Not only has 
     budget-making become mired in an extended state of 
     indecision, but numerous policy initiatives have become 
     stuck. . . .
                                                                    ____


               [From the Chicago Tribune, Jan. 24, 1996]

                    The Madness of Courting Default

       For months, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin has used every 
     loophole and opening he could find to extend the government's 
     borrowing powers and keep Republican lawmakers from using the 
     debt ceiling to muscle budget concessions out of President 
     Clinton.
       But now, Rubin says, he has run out of options that are 
     legal and acceptable to Clinton. Unless Congress raises the 
     debt ceiling, he warns, the nation will for the first time in 
     its history default on its debts--probably by March 1.
       Don't worry, some cynics say. Rubin has more tricks up his 
     sleeve and will do anything to avoid default.
       Start worrying, say others. The Treasury is at the end of 
     its line, and House Speaker, Newt Gingrich won't raise the 
     debt ceiling unless Clinton agrees to some GOP-proposed 
     reforms on entitlements or welfare. The president insists he 
     won't be blackmailed.
       Wherever the truth lies, it's time to stop this reckless 
     gamesmanship. It's one thing to reach an impasse over how to 
     balance the budget and agree to take the issue to the voters, 
     which both Democrats and Republicans seem content to do. But 
     it's totally irresponsible to jeopardize the credit of the 
     United States.
       Congress' primary concern in the weeks ahead must be to 
     protect the reputation of the nation as a rock of financial 
     stability and as a debtor that always has honored its 
     obligations. Despite their frustration at being stymied on 
     budget reforms, Gingrich and the Republican hard-liners must 
     pass an extension of the debt ceiling, without extraneous 
     conditions.
       So far, the financial markets haven't been roiled by the 
     budget gridlock in Washington. And no one can be sure what 
     default, or even the imminent threat of it, could mean to the 
     economy and markets. But it couldn't mean anything good.
       Felix Rohatyn, the respected investment banker who is being 
     considered by the Clinton administration for vice chairman of 
     the Federal Reserve Board, wrote recently that it ``could 
     create a catastrophe.'' Politically, the rest of the world 
     would think America's institutions had collapsed and the 
     country was no longer governable. Financially, because more 
     than $500 billion of the nearly $5 trillion in U.S. debt is 
     held overseas, a default could ``trigger a global financial 
     crisis of completely unpredictable proportions.''

  Mr. WARNER. As I understand, both Senators are giving the assurance 
to the Senate that we will, in an orderly manner, work this thing out 
in a manner that will not have an adverse impact upon the financial 
markets of our Nation. I believe the Senator is giving that assurance.
  Mr. ROTH. I say to the distinguished Senator from Virginia, that is 
exactly what we are doing. We are acting in a responsible way today; we 
are taking action that will ensure that the Government can continue to 
function, which I know is of primary interest to our distinguished 
Senator from Virginia. That is the reason we do not want it to be 
amended further. That would only delay the process and bring about the 
shutdown that I think no one wants.
  As a second step, we are working already, together with the House, 
with the administration. I was in contact yesterday with the Secretary 
of the Treasury. We are proceeding to do something about the debt 
ceiling because I, like Senator Warner, want full faith from the 
President. So we are working to provide the type of legislation that 
meets everybody's requirements and can be enacted by the Congress.

  Mr. WARNER. I thank the distinguished Senator from Delaware. 
Yesterday we had a discussion about this in our caucus, and he 
responded in a way similar to that of today.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Before yielding to the distinguished Senator from Rhode 
Island, may I welcome the statements by the chairman of the Committee 
on Finance and the chairman of the Committee on the Budget. I take them 
wholly with integrity and give them the full faith and credit of the 
U.S. Senate.
  I have to point out that we have not always had as good an experience 
on the House side. A Member on the House side, the counterpart to the 
distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, once openly said, 
``Let's do this,'' and then disappeared. We cannot put the United 
States, the integrity of the United States of America, at risk this way 
with complete understanding of the Senator from Virginia's concern that 
the Federal Government stay open. I still hope we might have a vote on 
this. I do not want to prolong matters.
  The Senator from Rhode Island has risen. I yield 3 minutes.
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I wanted to rise in full support of the 
amendment by the distinguished Senator from New York. If ever there was 
a valid reason for stalling an increase in the debt limit, I believe it 
has evaporated. The basic agreement has been achieved on 

[[Page S424]]
the objective of controlling the deficits that contribute to the debt.
  While policy disagreements still persist on some issues, including 
Medicare, there appears to be sufficient agreement on other budget 
issues to provide $700 billion in long-term savings. Surely, there has 
been more than adequate demonstration of good faith.
  The apprehensions of Moody's Investor Service with respect to the 
credit rating of the U.S. Federal securities should dispel any glib 
assurances that the Secretary of the Treasury can still perform acts of 
fiscal wizardry to stay under the present limit.
  We can only wonder what the motive might be of those who would delay 
further. There is no good purpose economically or fiscally.
  I want to commend the Senator from New York for raising this matter 
and bringing the amendment to the floor. The full faith and credit of 
the United States should not be clouded for another single day, and the 
Senator from New York is acting responsibly. I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for the 
amendment offered by Senator Moynihan to attach a clean debt limit 
extension to the continuing resolution. Congress must not play politics 
with the full faith and credit of the United States. We must extend the 
debt limit within the next 5 weeks or the consequences will be 
catastrophic.
  If we fail to raise the debt limit by March 1, the United States will 
default on its financial obligations for the first time in the history 
of our Republic. As a result, bondholders will not receive the payments 
they are due. Social security recipients and veterans may not receive 
their monthly benefits, and long-term interest rates will increase 
across the board.
  Interest rate increases mean that the United States will waste 
billions of dollars on increased debt service costs, ironically, making 
it even more difficult to balance the budget. But perhaps most 
important, higher interest rates mean that the millions of Americans 
with any kind of loan--mortgages, car loans, even credit card 
balances--can expect higher monthly payments for years to come.
  I would urge my colleagues to heed the words of former Treasury 
Secretary James A. Baker, who stated in 1985, ``It would be an absolute 
disgrace if the United States defaulted for the first time in its over-
200-year history. Any default will have swift and severe implications 
both domestically and internationally.''
  On November 9, 1995, six former Secretaries of the Treasury, who 
served in Democratic and Republican Presidential administrations, 
wrote, ``We urge that prompt action be taken either to raise the debt 
limit permanently * * * or that a sufficient short-term increase be 
enacted to allow the debate over priorities to proceed in an orderly 
manner without impairing market confidence in our Nation's commitment 
to discharge its obligations''.
  Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, has written, ``a 
failure to make timely payment of interest and principal on our 
obligations for the first time would put a cloud over our securities 
that would not dissipate for many years''.
  Furthermore, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Paul Volker wrote 
that ``The appropriate approach, short of early agreement on a 
comprehensive budget program * * * [is] raising the debt ceiling so 
that authorized expenditures--including payment of interest on Treasury 
debt--can be made in a timely fashion.''
  In addition to these current and former leaders of the Treasury 
Department and the Federal Reserve, leading credit agencies have warned 
of the dire consequences of default. Standard & Poors has warned, 
``Even a short-lived default on the U.S. Government's direct debt 
obligations would profoundly impact a broad range of securities and 
financial market participants.''
  Again, Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New York for offering 
this very important amendment.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me reinforce the statement made by the 
chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth. I have been meeting 
with Republican Senators throughout the afternoon. We are, I think the 
Senator from New York would appreciate, acting in good faith. We 
believe we can resolve this.
  Having been chairman of the Finance Committee and having to deal with 
debt ceilings, I know there is always a problem. When there is a 
Republican in the White House, the problem is on that side of the 
aisle; when there is a Democrat in the White House, the problem is on 
this side of the aisle, the problem as far as the administration is 
concerned.
  I remember going to conference with amendments on Nicaragua. I think 
there were 19 amendments--foreign policy, everything you could think of 
was on the debt ceiling. I assure the Democratic leader on the floor 
and the former chairman of the Finance Committee, as I did Secretary 
Rubin the night of the State of the Union Message, we believe we can 
get this done in a timely fashion so no checks will be late, nothing 
will be interrupted in any way.
  Having said that, as one who did not favor the shutting down of the 
Government in the first place, I do not think we ought to risk doing it 
on a Friday afternoon. If this amendment should be accepted, it has to 
go back to the House. The House is in recess. I assume they could come 
back Sunday or whenever.
  I really believe we have an agreement here that has been approved by 
the White House and by the leadership in both parties, in both the 
House and the Senate. I hope we will not make it more difficult by--I 
know that is not the intent of the Senator from New York, do not 
misunderstand me, but I think it would make it more difficult. I know 
that is not the Senator's intent. I respectfully move to table the 
amendment, and 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. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. I announce that the Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett], the 
Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell], the Senator from Indiana [Mr. 
Coats], the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Faircloth], the Senator 
from Texas [Mr. Gramm], the Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], and the 
Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Colorado [Mr. Campbell] would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. 
Hollings] is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nickles). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 45, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 2 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bond
     Brown
     Burns
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Frist
     Gorton
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Roth
     Santorum
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Heflin
     Inouye
     Johnston
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bennett
     Campbell
     Coats
     Faircloth
     Gramm
     Hollings
     Kyl
     Shelby
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 3120) was agreed 
to.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  
[[Page S425]]

  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I would like to thank all of those who 
have participated in the debate. I would like particularly to thank the 
chairmen of the Committee on Finance and the Committee on the Budget 
for the undertakings that they have made, and to say again that I hold 
them in full faith and credit of the United States. I think we can work 
this out, and clearly we intend to do so. It can be done.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I assume one of the votes that we will have 
today will be the continuing resolution. The fiscal year 1996 Foreign 
Operations conference report has been attached in its entirety to this 
continuing resolution. That means that foreign aid programs will be 
funded through the fiscal year at the levels agreed to by the House and 
Senate conferees.
  The conference report represents a devastating assault on many 
foreign operations programs that are vital United States interests 
abroad. For that the House Republican leadership bears primary 
responsibility. But our alternative, a year long continuing resolution, 
would be far worse. It would cause irreparable harm to these programs 
and many of the Federal employees who implement them would have to be 
laid off. For that reason it is essential that this conference report 
be enacted into law.
  The conference report funds a wide range of activities that are 
strongly supported by both Democrats and Republicans. Although I 
believe the funding provided for many programs falls far short of what 
is required to effectively combat global threats to the American 
people--whether it is environmental pollution, the spread of infectious 
disease, unchecked population growth, political and economic 
instability caused by enormous numbers of people living in abject 
poverty, the growing problem of international crime and terrorism, and 
the proliferation of nuclear and conventional weapons, it is better 
than no funds at all.
  On a more positive note, it also contains a provision of special 
importance to me, which was passed by two-thirds of the Senate, 
Republicans and Democrats, to impose a moratorium on the use of 
antipersonnel landmines.
  Since the NATO operation began in Bosnia just a little over a month 
ago, over 20 NATO soldiers have been injured or killed by landmines, 
including 1 American. That is in addition to the 225 UNPROFOR landmine 
casualties in Bosnia, and the thousands of civilian landmine victims, 
since the war began 4 years ago. Of the estimated 100 million 
unexploded landmines in the world, 6 million are in the former 
Yugoslavia. Landmines are killing and maiming an average of one person 
every 22 minutes, every day of the year.
  My amendment aims to put the United States in the forefront of the 
effort against these inhumane weapons. It follows by just 1 week the 
announcement by the Canadian Government that it will unilaterally halt 
all production, use and export of antipersonnel landmines. In just the 
past year, Belgium, France, Austria, Switzerland and the Philippines 
have taken similar steps.
  It follows by just 2 weeks the announcement in Geneva that 22 nations 
have called for an immediate total ban on these weapons.
  Mr. President, this amendment represents a dramatic shift in the 
policy of the U.S. Government, from one which has lagged behind several 
of our NATO allies to one which aims to exert U.S. leadership to build 
international support for ridding the world of these inhumane weapons.
  That is the goal President Clinton announced at the United Nations 
over a year ago. This amendment sets the stage for making that goal a 
reality. Once this provision is signed into law, the President, the 
Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, the Pentagon bureaucracy, the Secretary of State, and 
our U.N. Ambassador should all speak forcefully and with one voice. The 
message should be that antipersonnel landmines are unacceptable. They 
are indiscriminate, inhumane, impossible to control, and the United 
States is going to stop using them and do whatever we can to convince 
other governments to join with us in making their use a war crime.
  Mr. President, the one amendment in disagreement in the Foreign 
Operations conference report which deals with international family 
planning has also been resolved, but I want to be sure Senators 
understand what the House has done. Essentially, the House has 
presented us with a fait accompli. The choice is either take their 
offer on the amendment in disagreement, with no opportunity to amend 
it, or the entire Foreign Operations budget, with none of the policy 
language, will be governed by a continuing resolution.
  I know that the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, Senator Hatfield, is as frustrated about this as I am. I 
certainly intend to do whatever I can to resist these heavy handed 
tactics in the future. But given the choice, we have no alternative. A 
year long CR at either the House level or 75 percent of fiscal year 
1995 levels would be far worse for many important programs.
  Our conference report categorically prohibits the use of any funds 
for abortion. Yet the House, at the behest of the right-to-life lobby, 
would cut $88 million from programs that have only one purpose--to give 
couples the means to avoid unwanted pregnancies and reduce the 
incidence of abortion. Why anyone would want to do that is beyond me, 
but that is what the House has done. Anyone who wants to see fewer 
abortions, and fewer women die from botched abortions, should deplore 
this action.
  The provision in this CR would prohibit the obligation of any family 
planning funds--funds to purchase and distribute contraceptives, to 
provide technical assistance for improving the quality and safety of 
contraceptives, to educate couples about birth spacing--none of these 
funds could be spent before July 1 unless they are specifically 
authorized.
  If there is no authorization bill by that date, and I have yet to 
meet anyone who thinks there will be, only 65 percent of the fiscal 
year 1995 level for family planning could be obligated, and then only 
in monthly installments. The net effect of this will be an $88 million 
cut in family planning assistance.
  That is the pound of flesh the right-to-life lobby will have won, if 
it does not succeed in its goal of reinstating the Mexico City policy--
a policy that has been ridiculed around the world, repeatedly rejected 
by the Senate, is opposed by a majority of Americans, and which the 
President has said he would veto.
  I am very pleased that we successfully resisted attempts to reinstate 
the discredited Mexico City policy. I will continue to oppose any 
effort to do that. But I will vote for this continuing resolution only 
with great reluctance, because of the harm it will do to family 
planning.
  If I thought there was any way to amend this provision without 
jeopardizing the entire conference report, I would not hesitate because 
I know a majority of the Senate would support me. Indeed, a majority of 
the House would too--although perhaps not a majority of House 
Republicans--but the House Republican leadership would never have the 
courage to put it to a vote.
  Mr. President, the United States has been a leader in the effort to 
stabilize the world's exploding rate of population growth. Tens of 
millions of people are born into abject poverty every year, but today 
we are cutting programs to give couples the means to avoid unwanted 
pregnancies. Anyone with an ounce of brains can see that the logical 
result will be more abortions, not less. That is what the right-to-life 
lobby, and their defenders in the House have accomplished.
  Mr. President, I want to thank Senator McConnell, for his efforts to 
get this conference report enacted. I also want to pay special tribute 
to Senator Hatfield, who has been a strong supporter of funding for 
family planning assistance and who played a central role in the 
negotiations with the House over the past few days.


                     International Family Planning

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, of the many controversial issues in the 
continuing resolution we are considering today, few have been as 
contentious as 

[[Page S426]]
the debate about international population programs in the foreign 
operations appropriations bill. Astoundingly, the entire foreign aid 
bill has been held up for months by several antichoice Members, mainly 
in the House, who have, illogically, sought to impose restrictions 
concerning abortion on international family planning assistance.
  These misguided provisions are not included in today's CR. Instead we 
are faced with provisions withholding population funds until July 1, 
unless there is an authorization, and then limiting funding for the 
program to 65 percent of today's levels. It is a victory for those of 
us who are prochoice on the question of abortion, but not very good 
news for those of us--presumably the vast majority of the Congress, and 
including most of the people who fought against the original Senate 
provisions--who support family planning. What a bizarre, if not 
ridiculous, situation we are in today.
  As my colleagues will remember, in the name, supposedly, of stopping 
abortion, the House sought to prohibit U.S. contributions to the United 
Nations Population Assistance Fund, and reimpose the regressive Mexico 
City policy on population. Of course, such propositions would not do 
anything to reduce incidents of abortion, but would actually harm 
efforts to increase family planning assistance--the best remedy, 
obviously, for avoiding abortion. Fortunately, these anti-abortion 
restrictions have all been stripped from the foreign ops bill, and 
population assistance will not be hindered by irrelevant but damaging 
restrictions. In that, we have succeeded, finally, in separating 
population assistance from abortion, and have scored a victory for 
family planning. The Mexico City policy has been rebuffed by the 104th 
Congress, and our support for the work of the UNFPA has been 
reaffirmed.
  But, Mr. President, the cause of curbing abortion will not be served 
well by the cuts in population assistance legislated in this bill. In 
fact, the only inroads the antifamily planning forces made today was in 
taking gratuitous and harassing shots at the budget for population. 
While other programs will be held to 75 percent of current funding 
levels, population programs will be funded at only 65 percent of 
today's budget. The money will not be distributed until July 1, and 
even then, it will be apportioned only on a month-to-month basis. Mr. 
President, this is nothing more than a formula for disarray, and will 
do nothing to achieve the goals of its sponsors.
  Who really believes that the rapid, exponential growth of the world's 
population--regardless of our positions on abortion--does not impact 
American interests? Population pressures are a linchpin of so many 
global concerns, such as economic development, health, food security, 
migration, environment, and improving the status of women. Through the 
U.S. bilateral population program, as well as our contribution to the 
UNFPA, we have affected significant successes in all those fields.
  It is beyond me--and saddens me--that these issues have been 
entangled in a debate about abortion. It reflects a fundamental 
misunderstanding that family planning and abortion are not the same. 
Supporters of family planning have been subjected to charges and 
insinuations that we support China's appalling coercive abortion 
policy; that we want to fund lobbies that promote pro-abortion policies 
worldwide; and that we actually want to promote abortion as a method of 
family planning. All these propositions are untrue, and are in fact red 
herrings. I'm pleased that they have been recognized as such, and 
dropped in the final provisions of this bill.
  Unfortunately, however, the presumptions that underlie this 
thinking--that family planning is somehow not essential to curbing 
abortion--are prevailing in this bill. Population assistance should be 
treated just as any other foreign aid account, and by subjecting it to 
deeper cuts, and odd distribution guidelines, no one's goal is being 
reached.


 THE EFFECTS OF THE CONTINUING FUNDING RESOLUTION ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL 
                           PROTECTION AGENCY

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this morning Administrator Carol Browner 
of the Environmental Protection Agency testified before the Senate 
Appropriations Committee on the consequences of this continued funding 
resolution. She said that it: ``represents a severe cutback that will 
not allow us to adequately protect public health and our environment. 
Our air, our water, our land, will not be as safe''.
  The cuts in this continued funding resolution compromise our Nation's 
public health and environment. This bill appropriates 5.7 billion 
dollars for EPA--that's a 14-percent cut--or nearly one billion dollars 
from the fiscal year 1995 level. It's a 22.5 percent cut--or 1.7 
billion dollars--from the President's fiscal year 1996 request.
  Mr. President, the cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency in 
this bill mean that an already stretched agency will not be able to 
carry out critically important work that ensures the health and safety 
of all Americans, and will result in a set-back of national efforts to 
ensure that every American citizen breaths clean air, drinks clean 
water, and is safe from the dangers of hazardous waste. These are the 
EPA funds that are spent working with States and municipalities in the 
development of our air quality, water quality, lead abatement, and food 
safety standards; the funds that allow EPA to keep track of the level 
of pollution in our air, our water, our food, our environment; that 
allow the EPA to work with states and with industries to help them 
discover the sources of pollution problems and helps they comply with 
Federal safety standards; that allow the EPA to give technical 
assistance to State pollution control agencies and county air and water 
quality boards; that allow the EPA to carry out environmental impact 
statements on industry actions that may hurt the environment; that 
allow EPA to work all over this country to educate industry and small 
business and help comply with the law so that enforcement actions are 
avoided. In the long run this will mean more water pollution, more smog 
in our cities and countryside, more toxic waste problems. For example 
funding cuts are seriously jeopardizing cleanup of 12 toxic superfund 
sites in and around the Los Angeles area including the Newark San 
Bernadino site and San Gabriel sites.
  Republicans seem to take great pride in their efforts to dismantle 
key social programs that Americans hold dear, but they have chosen to 
take their war against the environment underground. The cuts to the EPA 
budget show us the covert war that is being waged by Republicans 
against our environment. It has to be covert because they have seen the 
results of poll after poll showing that the vast majority of Americans 
feel that our environmental laws should be strengthened not stripped 
away. In my many years in public office not once has anyone told me, 
``Senator, our air is too clean,'' or ``our water is too safe.'' The 
back door attack on our environmental laws seen here is cuts in EPA's 
budget that will cripple EPA's ability to set and enforce environmental 
standards.
  This continued funding resolution cuts enforcement of all 
environmental programs by 14.6 percent, $77 million from fiscal year 
1995. It hits at the heart of EPA administration and management in 
EPA's ability to set and enforce environmental and public health 
standards with a 7-percent cut, $115 million from fiscal year 1995.
  This bill also cuts EPA's budget in other crucial areas: A 9-percent 
$110 million cut from fiscal year 1995 in funds that go straight to the 
States to help cities all over the country build sewage treatment 
plants that keep raw sewage from flowing into our coastal waters, 
rivers, lakes, and streams.
  A 79-percent; $1 billion cut from the pre-rescissions fiscal year 
1995 level in funds that go to States to protect our drinking water 
nationwide.
  A 13-percent; $168 million cut from fiscal year 1995 in funds that go 
toward cleaning up hazardous waste sites.
  Mr. President, it is for all these reasons that I am very distressed 
at having to have to vote for this continuing resolution.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I cannot support the continuing resolution 
which is before the Senate today. This resolution cuts education funds 
to the House passed level, except for those programs that were not 
funded by the House in which case they are cut by 25 percent. If we 
were to extend this continuing resolution for the remainder of the 
fiscal year, the impact would be an 

[[Page S427]]
unprecedented $3.1 billion cut in education funds from the fiscal year 
1995 funding level. And, it contains deep cuts in a range of important 
domestic priorities, like a 25 percent reduction in the funds to put 
100,000 cops on the streets of America. This in a year in which $7 
billion more has been appropriated in defense spending than the 
Pentagon asked for.
  We are presented on the last day before funding once again runs out 
for these agencies of the Government and for their programs with a 
continuing resolution that makes deep cuts in vital and proven 
education programs.
  The failure to support a simple continuing resolution that adequately 
funds education programs at fiscal year 1995 levels is creating serious 
problems for schools, teachers, and students. Our children--America's 
future--are the innocent victims of this retreat from education. Here 
are just a few examples, Mr. President, of the devastating impact if 
the funding level in this continuing resolution is continued through 
the remainder of the fiscal year.
  The $1 billion cut in title I funding will deny 1.1 million 
educationally disadvantaged children the crucial help they need in 
reading, writing, math, and critical thinking.
  The Safe and Drug Free Schools Program in almost every school 
district in the country--more than 14,000--is cut by 25 percent, $115 
million less than the fiscal year 1995 level of $466 million. These 
programs help schools reduce drug abuse and prevent violence.
  The innovative School-to-Work Program, which helps youths make the 
transition from school to future careers and education by forming a 
three-way partnership between Government, educators, and private 
industry is cut by $55 million.
  The $93 million cut in Goals 2000 comes at a time nearly 17,000 
schools and communities have already completed planning and are 
beginning to implement comprehensive reforms based on their own 
academic standards and will deny funding to programs serving over 5.1 
million children.
  The Eisenhower Professional Development Teacher Training Program, 
which supports State and local efforts to better prepare educators to 
reach high standards in core academic subjects, such as mathematics and 
the sciences, is cut by 25 percent or $63 million.
  Mr. President, the impact of this continuing resolution will be 
immediate and long-lasting because of the way in which school budgets 
are set. Now is the time for teacher contracts to be signed. Schools 
must by law send layoff notices to teachers as early as March and 
April, advising them they will not be rehired in the fall, but 
communities cannot make these decisions because the funding is 
uncertain. Plans for professional development, technology purchases, 
training, and school safety programs could be delayed or eliminated. 
Now is the time for cities to submit their school budgets, but they 
cannot adequately do this because they do not have any numbers to work 
with. Now is the time for colleges to project what aid they will have 
to offer newly enrolled students, but they cannot make funding 
projections because they have not been told how much they are going to 
have to offer students. If students cannot be assured they will have 
financial aid, many will have to forgo plans to go to college.
  The strategy of causing Government shutdowns and threatening to raise 
the debt ceiling, thereby threatening the credit rating of the United 
States, has been inappropriate and discredited. We are told by the 
majority that there is no longer a quorum available in the House of 
Representatives, so we cannot amend this continuing resolution. The 
implication is that we have to accept these cuts and make no 
adjustments, otherwise the Government would be shutdown tomorrow--the 
third time this year. Again, we are painted into a corner. Well the 
House can return to work at the call of the Speaker. If we do the right 
thing by education, they can quickly do so too.
  I think we should reject this bill which does not reflect priorities, 
particularly in education and the environment. The Congress should stay 
here, all night, all weekend, if necessary, and work out and adopt a 
clean continuing resolution with adequate domestic funding and a clean 
bill to raise the debt ceiling so that the credit rating of the United 
States is not in doubt for weeks to come.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I want to say at the outset that 
our Federal employees, our financial markets, and our economy in 
general, should never have been subjected to the risks created by 
shutdowns, threats of shutdowns, and the failure to act responsibly 
with respect to the debt ceiling. Hostage-taking and legislative 
blackmail is not the way to arrive at the kind of solution we need to 
solve our budget problems.
  I am a firm believer in tightening our Government's fiscal policies 
and will continue to work toward that end. I am convinced that 
restoring budget discipline will help ensure that our children--and 
future generations--will be able to achieve the American Dream. We have 
an obligation to our children to protect their future opportunities, 
and not to leave them a legacy of debt.
  But passing one short-term funding bill after another--one every few 
weeks or so, is not the way to do it. This is unfair to our students 
who want to pursue educational opportunities. It is unfair to our 
science community whose research is interrupted. It is unfair to 
Government employees who want to work. And it is unfair to all others 
who depend upon the appropriations contained in these bills.
  Of the 13 appropriations bills Congress is supposed to pass every 
year, 6 are still undone even though the fiscal year is almost one-
third over. Nine Federal Cabinet departments have been without fully 
approved spending plans.
  Now, 4 months into the fiscal year, we are considering a fourth 
extension. Mr. President, it's time to act on these appropriations 
bills--not just by temporary extension, but by getting them passed. We 
should not hold these six appropriations bills hostage in the name of 
balancing the budget.
  It is ironic, isn't it, that the activities financed by these 
uncompleted appropriation bills, or what is also known as domestic 
discretionary spending, is not the part of Federal spending that has 
caused the budget crisis the Federal Government is facing. 
Discretionary spending is not the sole problem. Domestic discretionary 
spending has not grown as a percentage of the GDP since 1969, the last 
time we had a balanced budget. Domestic discretionary spending 
comprises only one-sixth of the $1.5 trillion Federal budget, and it is 
steadily declining.
  Every dollar of Federal spending must be examined to see what can be 
done better, and what we no longer need to do. However, the budget 
cannot be balanced by looking in this one area, no matter how large the 
cuts.
  We are debating issues that have little or nothing to do with 
balancing the budget.
  The budget proposed by the majority party calls for $349 billion in 
savings from discretionary spending, but that comes from a portion of 
the budget that constitutes only 18 percent of the overall Federal 
budget--the part of spending that is not growing and the part of the 
budget that funds education and police and basic services we all count 
on. This part of the budget is not the major source of our deficit 
problem. We need to focus our savings on those areas of the budget that 
don't conflict with our priorities and values.
  How we bring back fiscal discipline makes a real difference. If we 
care about our children, if we care about our future, if we care about 
our Nation and ensuring an opportunity for every American to achieve 
the American Dream, we cannot abandon our commitment to education, 
access to health care, and to creating economic opportunity.
  That is why I cosponsored and voted for Senator Kennedy's education 
amendment because I believe that we should meet our obligation to our 
children and to the future. If the current CR were extended for a full 
year, education funding would be cut $3.1 billion below last year's 
level. Illinois would lose $72.4 million, including a $54 million cut 
in title I funding.
  Continuing to fund education programs at 75 percent of their 1995 
levels will, at some point, simply become a 25-percent cut in education 
funding. Schools that are trying to plan for the coming year will soon 
have no choice but to assume a 25-percent cut and plan accordingly.
  There are scientists at my alma mater, the University of Chicago, and 


[[Page S428]]
at universities all throughout the Nation, who are awaiting approval of 
their grants because the National Science Foundation and NASA do not 
know how much money is available and cannot make decisions about grant 
awards.
  Health and safety inspections at public housing may be forced to 
cease. In Chicago last week a tragic fire took four lives; HUD couldn't 
check fire alarms due to budgetary uncertainty.
  The Fish and Wildlife Service will experience delays in issuing 
wetlands permits--Illinois already has a backlog of permit requests 
from the last shutdown that is 8 feet tall.
  Furthermore, there are five Superfund sites in Illinois, including 
Waukegan, Rockford, and East Cape Girardeau, that will experience 
delays in cleanups.
  Mr. President, these are just a few examples of how my State will be 
affected. We need to move to a balanced budget. And we need to do it in 
a way that does not sacrifice the long-term goals of the American 
people to achieve illusory short-term cuts. We need a budget that 
restores fiscal discipline to the Federal Government. We need a budget 
based on the realities facing Americans. Most importantly, we need a 
budget for our future.
  I believe that we can achieve that kind of budget, if we put aside 
partisan bickering and political point scoring, and if we get down to 
the work the American people elected us to do.
  I will reluctantly support this bill not because it's the answer but 
because we must avoid a shutdown. I hope we will use the next 45 days 
that this CR gives us to reach the kind of overall permanent budget 
agreement that the American people want and deserve.


                     INTERNATIONAL FAMILY PLANNING

  Mr. KENNEDY. The continuing resolution being considered will severely 
undermine the Nation's support for the International Family Planning 
Program. According to the terms of the CR, the International Family 
Planning Program will receive funding at only 65 percent of its fiscal 
year 1995 level. Also, program administrators will be forced to spend 
money in predetermined monthly allotments. Let's not pretend that any 
program can work efficiently and effectively in this manner.
  We all know the purpose of this provision--the elimination of the 
International Family Planning Program. Opponents of abortion apparently 
believe that less family planning will lead to fewer abortions. Nothing 
could be farther from the truth.
  We know that abortions are reduced when family planning services are 
available. This CR will lead to serious reductions in family planning. 
The effect will be an increase in abortions in other nations. Our 
colleagues opposed to abortion should not be encouraging this result.
  International family planning is also good international health care 
policy. By providing a wide range of services and information, family 
planning makes a difference to millions of women around the world. It 
is estimated that approximately 300 million women will require family 
planning services in the next decade. It is estimated that such 
services can prevent 125,000 women from dying of complications related 
to pregnancy and childbirth. We know that these programs have reduced 
infant mortality. Inevitably, disease, unintended pregnancies, 
abortions, and maternal deaths will increase if this restrictive 
language continues to apply.
  International family planning programs are important to the overall 
health of large numbers of women and children in many other countries. 
The family planning provision in this CR is bad policy, and it should 
be reversed at the next opportunity.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I will gladly vote for the 
Kennedy amendment to restore funding for education to last year's 
level. Education is an area that we should not shortchange.
  The bill before us today will continue funding for programs that do 
not yet have year-long funding until March 15. Education programs are 
cut $3.1 billion on an annual basis, the largest Federal education cut 
in history. This is a cut our schools cannot sustain.
  Under this bill, California's elementary and secondary schools could 
lose at least $169.8 million. For title I, programs for disadvantaged 
students, service to 1 in 5 students could be eliminated. Schools will 
have to lay off title I teachers and teaching assistants that provide 
those extra services that help these students learn. Programs like Safe 
and Drug-free Schools, Goals 2000, and student loans could lose 25 
percent. The University of California will lose $111 million, much of 
which is student aid.
  I am also concerned about the stop-and-go pattern of Federal funding 
that we have undergone this year. This is the ninth short-term bill 
we've considered. We are almost 4 months into the school year and 3 
months into the fiscal year. Once again, we are called on to vote on a 
short-term funding measure. This bill only funds programs for 49 days, 
until March 15.
  These short-term bills are particularly unfair to our schools. Like 
businesses, they have to plan. In my State, at the end of January, 
courtesy notices go out to teachers who are likely to be laid off. 
School districts are beginning to plan their budgets for the next 
school year. For title I programs, schools are preparing contracts for 
teachers and other personnel. Our school districts cannot effectively 
plan with this on-again, off-again funding stream.
  Our students, teachers, and administrators should not be held hostage 
any longer. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to restore these 
education funds and put education funding on a more stable footing.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I think it is outrageous that, of all 
things to choose, this latest temporary spending bill cuts spending for 
the 100,000 Cops on the Beat Program under the 1994 crime law. I want 
to make clear that the only reason I'm voting for this continuing 
resolution is because it is a compromise and would allow States and 
localities to continue hiring cops for the next 49 days. The 
alternative is no cops.
  But this is a terrible way to implement public policy. This 
continuing resolution would, if extended over a full year, cut the Cops 
on the Beat Program by over one-half--over $1 billion promised to the 
American people for cops on the street. That means that communities 
across the Nation would lose over 13,000 police officers. That is 
totally unacceptable.
  This continuing resolution funds the Cops Program at 75 percent of 
the 1995 level for outlays, which was $1.187 billion. Seventy-five 
percent of that would be $890 million for the year.
  In contrast, full funding for the 100,000 Cops Program for 1996 is 
$1.9 billion. That is what we agreed on in the 1994 crime law. That is 
what was requested by the President. So this resolution would actually 
cut over $1 billion from the Cops on the Beat Program--over one-half--
if it continued for the full year.
  Let no one be fooled. This continuing resolution is a back door 
attempt by Republicans to reverse the gains of the 100,000 Cops Program 
and the American people will not stand for this the next time around. 
We all know the Republicans want to change the crime law now at work. 
They said so in their Contract With America. We all know the 
Republicans want to eliminate the 100,000 Cops on the Beat Program.
  They would rather see the money squandered away in a block grant that 
funds virtually anything under the sun than to send the money directly 
to COPS for the one anticrime measure we know works--community 
policing. Cops on the Beat.
  The Cops on the Beat Program is overwhelmingly supported by the 
American public as well as every major law enforcement group in the 
country. I don't know a single responsible police leader, academic 
expert, or public official who does not agree that putting more police 
officers on our streets and in our neighborhoods is the best way to 
fight crime.
  Community policing enables police to fight crime on two fronts at 
once--they are better positioned to respond and apprehend suspects when 
crime occurs, but even more importantly, they are also better 
positioned to keep crime from occurring in the first place.
  The reports from the field all across the Nation are the same--
community policing works. When it comes to anticrime efforts, the one 
thing we know is that more community police officers means less crime. 
And we should keep our word to the American people.

[[Page S429]]

  The 1994 crime law targets $8.8 billion for States and localities to 
train and hire 100,000 new community police officers over 6 years.
  And as we pass the 1-year mark, it is already clear that the Cops 
Program is working even beyond expectations. Already, more than 33,000 
out of 100,000 cops are funded in every State in the Nation. And 
because of the way we've set it up--with a match requirement and 
spreading out the cost over a period of years--the money will continue 
to work, keeping these cops on the beat and preventing crime in our 
communities far into the future. In a word, the law is working.

  But that progress will come to a screeching halt if my Republican 
colleagues get their way--either through drastic spending cuts as under 
this continuing resolution or through block grants with loopholes you 
could drive a truck through.
  What is one to conclude from the efforts of the Republicans to gut 
the 100,000 Cops on the Beat Program? Is it that tax cuts to a few are 
more important than protecting the safety of average Americans?
  Apparently my Republican colleagues in Washington just don't seem to 
get the message. So let me make this crystal clear. If they think that 
they will use their new targeted appropriations strategy to kill the 
Cops on the Beat Program--to cut $1 billion and thousands of cops--they 
are sorely mistaken. I will do everything in my power to prevent the 
Republicans from further undermining the 100,000 Cops Program.
  So, although this continuing resolution funds cops at 75 percent of 
last year's outlays for the next 49 days, this indirect ambush on the 
100,000 Cops on the Beat Program--a program demanded by the American 
people--will not be tolerated for the full year.

                          ____________________