[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.

                          ____________________