[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 85 (Tuesday, June 11, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6063-S6066]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997--CONFERENCE
REPORT
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, just for purposes of some kind of
accounting, how much time has Senator Exon used and how much have I
used, with all of that which I asked that I yield and asked be credited
to me even though the speeches were on Senator Dole?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has used 28
minutes; the Senator from Nebraska has used 17 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask Senator Exon if he has any other
Senators coming down this afternoon.
Mr. EXON. I advise my friend, I am expecting Senator Kennedy
momentarily. I have no certainty beyond Senator Kennedy, but I am
certain Senator Kennedy will be here very shortly, and I will yield to
him such time as he needs when he comes. Other than that, I know of no
Senator on this side who will be speaking tonight, but we have had
surprises before, as you know.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will just ask again if there are any
Republican Senators desiring to speak on this budget resolution or ask
any questions regarding it. While there will be some time tomorrow--I
am not at all sure how much time there will be--to speak on the
resolution. I think we are going to be here--
Mr. EXON. I might advise my colleague that Senator Kennedy will be
using approximately 30 minutes when he arrives, and I have just been
advised Senator Simon, a member of the Budget Committee, wishes 15
minutes. So that is about 45 minutes that I know of for Senators at
this juncture.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I repeat for Senators on this side, if
they would like to speak this evening--I know it is somewhat of an
imposition since we have already announced there are no votes for the
remainder of the day--there will be some time this evening and there
will be some time tomorrow. Clearly, there will be some Members who
would like to be heard.
Mr. President, I yield myself 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I did not get to hear all the remarks of
the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, but I believe I know generally
what his criticism is, and I would like to address my views and my
beliefs with reference to this budget.
First, Medicare, the trust fund for the senior citizens' hospital
protection--and I do not say this with any joy in my voice--is going
broke. I do not know how else to say it. This is not partisanship that
determines that the trust fund is going bankrupt. It is not Republicans
predicting it, it is not Democrats predicting it, in the sense of
elected Members of Congress.
The trustees who are in charge of telling the American people the
truth about the trust fund and making recommendations have, once again,
reported--I do not say this to frighten anyone; it is just true--we are
now spending more money out of the trust fund for senior citizens than
is coming into the trust fund. In fact, we started doing that last year
by a small amount. It is growing this year, that is, the amount that is
spent in excess of what is coming in, and the next year after that it
is more, and the trustees say in 5 years--in 5 years, not 30, not 20; 5
years--there will not be any money in the trust fund to pay the
hospital bills for senior citizens.
No one has violated the trust fund. Congress has not taken money out
of the Medicare fund. All of the money in
[[Page S6064]]
those payroll deductions is going into that trust fund. The problem is
that the hospital costs and home health care costs which are in that
trust fund are growing more rapidly than the money that comes in.
Can you believe that when we try to fix it and save money that
somebody says we are doing this because we want to cut taxes? I do not
know how else to present it. When the trust fund is going bankrupt and
you say, ``Let's save money for the trust fund'', and then you save the
money for the trust fund and the trust fund gets more solvent, and over
on the side you are cutting taxes, how in the world can it be said that
saving the trust fund is being done so you can cut taxes?
What if you did not cut any taxes? Would the trust fund be any more
solvent? What if you said, no tax breaks for families with children--
which we want to do--does that make the trust fund solvent? Not at all.
It has none, zero, impact on the trust fund. If the trust fund
continues to spend more than it takes in, it continues bit by bit to go
bankrupt.
Everyone knows that, and yet time after time, as we move along and
say, ``Let's fix the trust fund and let's fix the insurance program for
seniors,'' as soon as you say you are doing that, somebody says,
``You're doing it to cut taxes.''
The President is cutting taxes. In fact, he made another announcement
recently of another tax cut. Are we running around saying that he is
doing that because he is reforming Medicare to try to save it, albeit
he is not doing very much? He is doing it more than a few billion
dollars' worth of savings, of reforms. Can it be said then that the
President is doing that so he can cut taxes? Of course not. They are
not even related.
That is bad enough, but then we hear it is not changed no matter what
we do to this budget. It is the same song and dance: ``You're cutting
taxes for the rich.''
I want to repeat one more time, and I defy anyone who reads budgets
to say this is not true, taxes are reduced in the next 6 years by the
sum total of $122 billion. That means, as best you can calculate, taxes
were going to be X billions of dollars over the next 6 years. We have
said, ``Let's assume they will be $122 billion less.'' What more can we
do than to say in a budget resolution that $122 billion shall be used
for, what? For up to $500 child credit for 46 million American
families. That is what the $122 billion is for.
Is that for the rich of America, or is that because we are worried
about families in America? Is that Republicans cutting taxes for the
rich of America, or is it to say that it is very tough to raise two or
three children with the tax deductions you get because they have not
kept pace with the demands and the needs and the moneys required to
raise children?
If they want to say, ``Republicans are trying to give families with
children a $500 credit for each child,'' we will stand up and say, ``We
are guilty.'' Right? We will say, ``We are guilty as charged.'' But
then to then turn around and say, ``That's not the case, you're helping
rich Americans''?
Mr. President, look at the budget. Read the budget, and that is what
it says. It says precisely what I have just done, and I ask for
Senators who will come to the floor and say you are reducing the
expenditures and the outlays under Medicare so you can cut taxes, I ask
one question: What if you do not cut any taxes, does the Medicare fund
get any better? Does it last 10 years instead of going bankrupt in 5?
Of course not. You have to reduce expenditures within the trust fund or
increase taxes that go into the trust fund to give it more longevity
and a longer life.
Having said that, does the President of the United States not propose
to save Medicare? If he does, must he not think it is going bankrupt? I
believe he uses the same principles we use. But I want to stay on this
subject for just a couple more minutes.
The President has a very, very strange way of saving Medicare, and
let me explain it. Frankly, the President of the United States plays
games with Medicare and the taxpayers of America when it comes to
Medicare for the future. Now let me tell you how.
The President says, ``Yes, my trustees,'' four of whom are part of
his Cabinet or appointed by him to run Social Security and Medicare,
``have told us this trust fund is going to be bankrupt in 5 years.''
So the President says, ``Let's fix it.'' Now, how does he fix it? If
this is not a sham, then I have never seen one. If this is not smoke
and mirrors, then I have not been around when smoke and mirrors were
perpetrated as part of a budget. He says, ``Let's just take $55 billion
of the current expenditures under that trust fund of the current
obligations, just take them out.'' What does he take out?
He says, ``Let's take out the fastest growing item in Medicare, take
it out of the trust fund, and not pay for it out of the trust fund
anymore. Magic. What is the fastest one? Home health care. Home health
care has been part of the trust fund for a long, long time. So seniors
expect their home health care bills and their hospital bills to be paid
for out of that trust fund. Sort of like magic. What is the word?
Abracadabra. I am making it $55 billion more solvent because it does
not have to pay those obligations anymore. I just take them out of
there and let somebody else pay for them.
Who is the somebody else? The President says the taxpayer will pay
for it. They do not even know it. They are about to be given a big gift
by the President. The gift is, you taxpayers pay $55 billion for the
home health part of Medicare, which I just relieved the Medicare trust
fund of, so that I can say it is getting solvent.
What is happening to America? It may be getting solvent, but America
is getting whacked for $55 billion in taxes that a couple sitting
around at their table one morning, wondering about how much taxes they
are paying and will it ever stop, they just got a new present. The
present is another tax burden, because the President wants to claim he
is fixing Medicare by letting that couple, who are paying income taxes
on their hard earned money, let them pay.
Is that the right way to fix Medicare? I ask in all honesty, if you
brought before the U.S. Senate a proposal, freestanding, just put one
up here one of these days, and resolve that henceforth $55 billion over
the next 6 years of Medicare expenditures will be paid for by the
general tax coffers of America, and then vote. I surmise there may be
10 Senators that vote for it, but we have never voted to put general
tax money in Medicare part A or in Social Security, because we
understand those are trust funds that should be paid for by the
revenues dedicated to those entrusted funds, not by the general
taxpayer. But this is being done in this bill, and at the same time the
President and my good friend from Nebraska can run away and say it is
the Republicans who are restraining and cutting back on Medicare, not
the President.
What do we do? We say how much money is necessary to make it solvent
in the next decade, and keep it solvent for 10 years. We are told how.
We have said, ``Let's reform the system, give seniors options to have
their coverage in different ways,'' but always they can keep what they
have, the same system they have, and let us ratchet back on how
providers are paid and hospitals are paid and save enough money to make
it solvent. We have not increased 1 cent of cost to the senior
citizens, yet we are making it solvent for 10 years.
Frankly, when we say we are doing that and Democrats and the
President say you do not have to do that, we have done it another way.
I just told you the other way. This is a very short-term fix. Medicare
will be growing at an annual rate of 6.2 percent--not cut. The per
capita expenditure for seniors will not go down. It will go from about
$5,200 to $7,000, an $1,800 increase over that 6-year period. All of
that in the name of doing what is right, for which we are accused of
harming seniors, of doing this so we can cut taxes, when it will be
insolvent whether you cut taxes or whether you do not cut taxes.
Let me move for a minute quickly to how we treat two big other items
in the budget. The President of the United States produced another very
interesting phenomenon in his budget, 1997, which will be appropriated
before October of this year, an election year. The President of the
United States says for all of the discretionary accounts, the non-
Social Security, the non-Medicare, the nondefense domestic accounts,
the President says, ``I think I want to balance the budget, but I think
for 1997 I
[[Page S6065]]
better increase spending.'' So he increases it $15 billion. The
discretionary accounts are increased $15 billion. But, Mr. President,
only for 1997. After all, we have to balance this budget.
Then read the Broder article on Sunday where Senator Bond is making
the case that after you get the $15 billion increase, and then you
still say you are going to balance by the year 2002, you let the
discretionary spending just fall off the log, $72 billion in cuts in
the last year in discretionary accounts, but not in the year of the
budget, not in the year of the election. Then you get Cabinet Members
telling the public of the United States that the President is not
serious about that. After all, he is not going to cut veterans that
much, even though if you look at where that leads you, veterans get
scalped.
But they are saying, ``We will take it 1 year at a time.'' How, 1
year at a time, when the dollar numbers keep going down, how are you
going to fit them all in with an increase? Something will get cut. They
would like to let the American people think it is only Republicans that
have to make these cuts.
What do we propose? We propose a freeze, fellow Americans. In a year
we are really trying to get a budget, if we cannot live with a freeze
in domestic spending, we will never get the budget balanced. So we are
not cutting this year. The conference report that comes back has a
freeze in budget authority. Program authority for all domestic bills
freeze at exactly the level we are now spending for all of these
programs. I believe that is a fair approach in a difficult year. I hope
we produce these appropriations bills at a freeze level, one after
another. I hope there will be no strings attached and no riders, and we
will see whether the President wants to close down Government based
upon a freeze, especially if he has to say we want $15 billion more to
keep it open. We will not mind that battle this time. We will not mind
that battle this time.
Which do you really want? Are you serious about a balanced budget? We
will give you a freeze. No harm, no gain. Or do you want to spend $15
billion more? Those are the basic elements. I have given the tax
proposals. I have given Medicare. Medicaid will grow at 6.2 percent a
year on average, not be cut, but more power is going home to our
Governors and to our legislators to see if we cannot streamline and
make the programs more efficient.
From my standpoint, I do not think it matters what we change in this
budget and how it is different from last year or the year before. We
will hear the same broken-down medley, ``hurting senior citizens,
helping the rich with tax cuts, hurting the poor with Medicare cuts,''
when, as a matter of fact, what we are really trying to do is help
seniors, keep the fund from going bankrupt, and do little or no harm to
them. We have the exact same dollar amount of savings for the insurance
program for senior citizens as the President. He found he needed $44
billion. We got the same amount.
When you are all finished, clearly, there is a lot of politics
surrounding all of this. I wish it was not the case. Sooner or later we
have to fix Medicare, fix Medicaid. We have to save money on both
programs. We have to reduce taxes on working families in the United
States significantly, sooner or later. We think this is the right year
to do it.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, under the leadership of a Congress
committed to fundamental reform of the Federal Government, we have once
again delivered a balanced budget to the American people. I have no
doubt that this budget is a blueprint that will protect the future of
every American child.
Last year, Mr. President, the debate on the budget was mainly focused
on whether we should have a balanced budget by 2002. Today, all sides,
including President Clinton, have agreed that we should and can balance
our budget by 2002, while we provide tax relief to middle-class
American families. The remaining question is how.
In my view, our budget priorities should reflect traditional American
values: a smaller government, less spending and more savings, and
helping those who want to help themselves. Mr. President, I must say
that this budget resolution moves us confidently in that direction. The
budget resolution will balance our budget in 6 years, yielding a $5
billion surplus in 2002. It will also create more jobs, provide more
affordable education, make Medicare more secure, and offer real welfare
and Medicaid reform.
Mr. President, I am particularly pleased that this resolution has
kept our promise to the American people to provide meaningful tax
relief for middle-class Americans. The resolution explicitly recommends
that this should include a tax credit of $500 per child. I am proud
that this provision, which I have made a priority since my election to
Congress, remains at the heart of our efforts to balance the budget
while reducing the tax burden on working families.
The tax burden has become increasingly unbearable for middle-class
Americans. This year, the average American worked from January 1 until
May 7 to pay his or her tax bill. Only after paying the Government more
than one-third of their earnings can the taxpayers then spend to meet
their own needs. If we do not impose discipline in our budget, children
born today would have to pay as high as 84 percent of their lifetime
earnings for our Government spending and national debt. This is simply
outrageous. We must provide tax relief for middle-class families to
reduce their financial burden, and encourage saving and investment.
It is my belief, Mr. President, that the $500-per-child tax credit is
essential. Cutting taxes creates more real spending power for
Americans. It would allow more than 201,000 families in my home State
of Minnesota with 437,000 children to save or spend more of their own
money--money that should not have been taken from them in the first
place. The $500 per-child tax credit would return $297 million to the
taxpayers of Minnesota, $45 million to the taxpayers of South Dakota,
$39 million to the taxpayers of North Dakota, $329 million to the
taxpayers of Wisconsin, and $180 million to the taxpayers of Iowa.
Mr. President, we not only need to eliminate wasteful and unnecessary
spending, but we also must reform and control our entitlement programs.
Without responsible reforms, entitlement spending will consume all
Federal spending in 2015, leaving nothing for education, environment,
defense, and other domestic discretionary programs.
I am therefore pleased, Mr. President, that this budget resolution
has included my amendment on long-term trends in budget estimates. In
the past, budget estimates were projected for only 5 years. My
amendment requires both CBO and OMB to provide a 30-year projection of
the budget impact on entitlements. This is good policy and will help
Congress and the American taxpayer understand the long-term commitments
were are imposing on future generations. My amendment also requires the
President to include long-term economic projections in his budget.
Entitlement programs can then be reviewed and analyzed for their
economic impact today and for generations to come.
Mr. President, although I personally would prefer more cuts in
Federal spending and more tax relief for working American families,
this budget resolution is a well-balanced one. While it reduces Federal
spending by $580 billion over 6 years, it has kept vital programs such
as law enforcement and crime prevention, education, veterans' benefits,
R&D, and environmental protection as national priorities. In my view,
this budget resolution is a credible, workable and no-gimmicks plan for
getting our fiscal house in order.
If we want to rebuild the financial integrity of this Nation, avert
the Nation from fiscal disaster, and leave our children a viable
government, we must pass this balanced budget to control government
spending and reduce the burden for our children.
Mr. President, I believe strongly that it is the responsibility and
duty of this Congress to ensure our children and grandchildren a strong
economy, a good education, a clean environment, and a debt-free future.
Let us fulfill that responsibility and pass the balanced budget
resolution conference report.
Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Exon, can we accommodate a couple speakers on
Senator Dole statements?
Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I would like 5 minutes.
[[Page S6066]]
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would like 2 minutes.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the health
insurance reform legislation. So I am happy to wait my turn.
Mr. DOMENICI. We have an arrangement that the Senator from
Massachusetts will go next. It is your turn.
Mr. EXON. With the understanding, I might say, that the Senator from
Massachusetts has been very patient. I scheduled him at 4:30, the best
I could.
Mr. KENNEDY. That is fine.
Mr. EXON. We understand that you will have 7 minutes for other
matters, and then we will yield to the Senator from Massachusetts, is
that correct?
Mr. DOMENICI. That is exactly what I hope and agree to.
Mr. EXON. We agree with that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized
for 5 minutes; following that, the Senator from Kentucky will be
recognized for 2 minutes; then the Senator from Massachusetts will be
recognized for such time as the Senator from Nebraska may yield him.
The Chair recognizes the Senator from South Dakota.
____________________