[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 86 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6117-S6130]
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. BOND. Mr. President, I have been authorized to allocate myself 
such time as may be required from the time allocated to the majority on 
the conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from Missouri 
yield for a bit of information?
  Mr. BOND. I am delighted to yield.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, first I want to thank the Senator from 
Missouri for the good work he has been doing in this area. I have seen 
the questions he has asked about the outyears in the budget as proposed 
by the administration, and how in the world they plan to meet those 
numbers. In fact, you have had administration officials say, ``Well, we 
do not really plan to.''
  So I hope you will continue to pursue this because this is a very 
important question of whether or not we are getting accurate 
information, what this means for the future in terms of trying to get a 
balanced budget.
  So I hope you will continue to pursue aggressively those questions 
because we need to know the answers.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to advise 
Members that it appears that the House will not be able to complete 
action on the budget resolution conference report by the 3:30 hour, and 
possibly not until much later this afternoon.
  Therefore, there will not be a vote on the budget resolution 
conference report today. We will consult with the Budget Committee 
leaders and the Democratic leader and announce this afternoon exactly 
what time the vote will occur on Thursday.
  I thank you for yielding.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the majority leader and join my colleagues in 
offering congratulations and tell him that we are delighted to have his 
leadership. We look forward to working with him, and I also appreciate 
your comments about this measure.
  Mr. President, I am here today to commend our chairman of the Budget 
Committee, and the staff who worked together to put an honest budget 
together which will get our budget to balance in the year 2002. It is 
an honest budget, and, therefore, it makes some tough choices. Some 
people do not like it because it makes tough choices. It makes those 
tough choices honestly.
  I think it is a fair subject to debate. We have had those debates in 
this body. They had it on the other side, and we are now going to act 
on a conference report.
  I am a strong supporter of this budget even though it does have to 
make some tough restrictions on our spending. Because I believe we have 
a solemn commitment to our constituents, to future generations of 
Americans to bring our budget in balance. I have been very disturbed in 
the last several weeks to hear our budget attacked in comparison to a 
budget submitted by the President which is far more generous in 
election years and then purports to get to a balance by the year 2002 
by making some draconian cuts in many discretionary spending programs.
  In addition to serving on the Budget Committee I have the privilege 
of serving as chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that deals 
with the Veterans' Administration, HUD, and independent agencies. As my 
colleagues know, we have a number of very large and very important 
entities that are funded in that budget. So I have been holding 
hearings in the appropriations subcommittee over the last several weeks 
knowing how important budgets are for planning, and for implementing 
our fiscal decisions down the road. I have been asking the 
administration officials who have come before me how they plan to 
handle the large cuts proposed by the President's budget for the years 
1998 to 2002.
  We do not have to emphasize the fact that 1998 comes after the 
current election cycle. Apparently, some people may think that the heat 
will go off and they will not have to be quite so accountable.
  Mr. President, I have been asking questions in the appropriations 
hearing as one who has dealt with budgets and agencies for many years. 
How can you cut 23 percent out of the Veterans' Administration medical 
care without some plan in place to close hospitals; to consolidate or 
switch to outpatient care? If you intend to continue the care that we 
owe to our veterans and you believe, as the administration purports to 
recognize in its budget--this document published at great expense at 
the cost of many, many trees which shows that there will be almost $13 
billion cut out of the Veterans' Administration in the next 6 years--
how can this be done?
  I was so concerned about it that I asked Secretary Brown how they 
planned to live with the 23-percent reduction. Imagine my surprise when 
the Secretary told me that he had no plan; that in fact he had no 
intent of creating a plan because he had been assured that the cuts 
were not going to happen.
  Mr. President, this book is what we are supposed to be operating 
from. This book is what we are supposed to be comparing as the 
administration's budget plan versus the plan that will be before us for 
a vote we hope later this week.
  The numbers in the President's budget show that VA medical care drops 
from an annual appropriations of $17 billion to $13 billion over the 
next 4 years. But the VA Secretary tells me that those are not real, 
that the President's budget is not what he really proposes to do, that 
he would be shocked if it were actually to happen.
  So why are the numbers in the budget, in this booklet, if they are 
not the President's plan? I did not have an opportunity to listen. But 
I have seen the transcript of the President's comments in his Memorial 
Day radio show which seemed to be geared along the same lines as was 
stated by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
  He did not follow the line and warn the veterans on Memorial Day that 
he would be proposing cuts that would shut down one-quarter of the VA 
medical care system, hospitals, clinics, and nursing homes at a time 
when the veterans population is rapidly aging and in need of services.
  The President said in his Memorial Day message:

       Even as we balance our budget, my administration is working 
     to keep our solemn commitment to America's veterans by 
     improving the health care they receive.

  So a fair question, I think, would be, Whose budget is that he is 
talking about? Which budget is he talking about? Is there another 
budget that perhaps has not been printed up that we have not seen?
  I thought perhaps it was just the Veterans Administration which was 
suffering from these mixed signals and maybe they were confused or 
maybe they thought the best way to avoid the potential political 
consequences of calling VA medical care unnecessary or a low priority 
was to issue confusing statements to the veterans by saying, ``Don't 
worry about it, it won't really happen.''
  So the next agency that came before our committee for a hearing was 
that of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I asked the 
NASA Administrator Dan Goldin how he was going to plan for the over $3 
billion cuts in the 6-year plan for NASA, because they have already 
taken very serious cuts. I commended Administrator Goldin for having 
done a very responsible job in downsizing that agency. It seems to me 
those cuts were unduly harsh and would, perhaps, imperil the mission of 
that vital agency.
  Much to my amazement, the NASA Administrator told me that OMB had 
told him not to worry about the outyear cuts either.
  Wait a minute, what is going on? Let me stop just for a moment and 
explain why this matters.
  The cuts I was asking about are those which the President needs and 
which he sets forth in his budget to be able to claim to the public he 
has presented a balanced budget proposal. We need to have these budget 
plans, not only for what we expect to happen in the future, but how we 
plan to appropriate money for this year. If, for example, there is a 
way to eliminate $12.9 billion out of the VA Administration budget and 
not harm veterans medical care, then maybe we ought to be looking at 
that plan right now so we can make sure that we meet all our 
commitments for housing for low-income people in this country, because 
we are

[[Page S6118]]

going to be very mightily squeezed to achieve the necessary funding 
that we need for our ongoing commitments.
  The President's budget asked for a couple of new hospitals. How is he 
going to build new hospitals when he is looking at a 23-percent cut 
that is going to wind up shutting down at least one-quarter of the 
institutions now in the VA system? That makes the cuts on other 
facilities even greater. There is no way responsibly you can be 
building new hospitals and planning for an increase this year if you 
are going to take a 23-percent cut immediately thereafter. It does not 
make any sense.
  What appears to be going on here is that there are two sets of books. 
One is what the President talks about whenever he wants to say he has a 
balanced budget, because there are a lot of people--I know, I have 
talked to a lot of people in my State who say we have to balance the 
budget, we have to cut spending, and I agree with them, because we are 
mortgaging our future and threatening our children's security by 
spending more than we take in.

  On the other hand, the President has another set of books whenever he 
wants to tell them that he is protecting their priorities and not 
causing any political pain. It is truly breathtaking to see the ease 
with which the President shifts effortlessly back and forth between the 
two sets of books. Using this set of books, he is a tough budget 
cutter.
  Now, in the next speech, when he gets on the radio and talks to 
veterans on Veterans Day, he is the mainstream protector against those 
extremists, Republicans and other budget cutters, who are gutting these 
favorite programs, cutting programs that are vital for the services we 
must provide.
  My question very simply is, Mr. President, which set of books are we 
to believe? That is why I, along with several of my colleagues on the 
Budget Committee, have written a series of letters to OMB Director 
Rivlin asking for clarification and the details on which budget is 
going to be followed. We have also written to several agencies asking 
them what actions they are taking to plan for the outyear cuts. We want 
to know from the Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Aviation 
Administration, Federal Highway Administration, the Under Secretary of 
Agriculture for the School Lunch Program and WIC Program how they would 
work with those cuts.
  Then, in a hearing before our committee, I asked the EPA 
Administrator Browner what their plans would be for handling the 
reductions. The Administrator of EPA told me that EPA was a priority. 
She was absolutely sure that EPA would not face the 10-percent cut in 
2001 and an additional 18-percent cut in 2002, as prescribed in this 
book.
  Then I joined another subcommittee on which I serve to question the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary Donna Shalala, about 
the cuts that are being planned in her agency. Secretary Shalala told 
me that in her budget, she was absolutely convinced that NIH would not 
be cut, Indian Health Services would not be cut, HCFA administrative 
costs would not be cut, Head Start would not be cut, the Ryan White 
AIDS Program would not be cut, and there may be others as well.
  So far, what I am getting back is, we see these drastic cuts 
proposed, but nobody is going to be cut. That has to be the best of all 
possible worlds. You are going to balance the budget with cuts, but you 
are not going to cut anybody.
  I received an interesting followup, a response--actually, it was 
addressed to Senator Shelby who had joined with me in the letter I sent 
to the Food and Drug Administration. We sent a letter to Dr. Kessler 
asking how the FDA would handle their cuts. Well, they must have placed 
a high priority on our request, because it was signed by the Acting 
Associate Commissioner for Legislative Affairs, and she wrote back with 
this very clear statement:

       FDA is moving ahead with Agency budgeting plans for the 
     immediate future based on the budget authority by function 
     and program as contained in the health function forecasted to 
     the year 2002 of the President's fiscal year 1997 budget.

  Let me interpret. As best I can understand, that means that the FDA 
is planning on a budget that reflects the figures in the initial book 
presentation prior to the triggered cuts. In other words, the figures 
in this book show spending that would be about $81 billion out of 
balance. The only way the President gets to balance is to employ a 
trigger mechanism to make 10 percent cuts in 2001 and 18 percent cuts 
in 2002.
  So it appears that the FDA is planning on smooth sailing. They are 
going to sail along in the out-of-balance budget because they, too, 
apparently do not plan on making any cuts.
  So no one is being cut, yet somehow the budget is being balanced. Let 
us get at the truth. Which set of books is the real Clinton budget? Now 
that the cat is out of the bag and we know that there are two sets of 
books, what is the administration's response?
  Well, this is really interesting. I have just seen a Monday 
Associated Press article, I believe it was printed June 11 in the 
Washington Times. It says:

       In an unusual public admission, two top Clinton 
     administration officials say the White House will not 
     necessarily pursue some cuts in veterans and space programs.

  Then they went on to say that the comments by the people who had 
testified before my committee were politically awkward.

       . . . another official said privately that Mr. Brown and 
     Mr. Goldin would be talked to.

  That means somebody in the administration is going to talk to VA 
Secretary Brown and NASA Administrator Dan Goldin. They are going to be 
talked to? Talked to about what? About telling the truth that the 
administration has no intention of balancing the budget? That their 
budget is a sham, exposing the second set of books to the light of day? 
Or does that mean they are going to be told to go back and start 
planning on making those very serious cuts in their Agency?
  Somehow, Mr. President, I do not believe they are being told they 
have to go back and make those cuts. Now, I may be wrong. I am from 
Missouri, and you can show me. If the Veterans' Administration comes in 
with a set of figures that shows how they take $12.9 billion out of 
their budget in the next 6 years, then we will take a look at it. But 
that is why I have said recently that we want some honest answers to 
the questions we have posed to OMB Director Rivlin: Where will the $67 
billion in triggered spending cuts fall? Are certain programs exempt 
from cuts as claimed--education, environment, law enforcement? Are the 
numbers in their budget real for VA? Is Secretary Brown wrong or right 
in his claim that the President assured him the cuts proposed would not 
happen? And if the VA numbers are not true, what else in the 
President's budget should we disbelieve?
  If none of these programs are to be cut, are there really other cuts 
that are going to be made in the administration's implementation of 
their budget? Too often in Washington, no one is accountable, but this 
issue is too important to be treated as if it were business as usual 
and it does not really matter.
  A Cabinet Secretary and an agency head have apparently let the cat 
out of the bag, and for their candor, they are being talked to.
  The administration officials who keep playing the Clinton budget 
game, described in a column by David Broder on Sunday, have been talked 
to. But what are the creators of the two sets of books designed to fool 
the public into doing? Are they being talked to? Only those two 
officials who happen to tell Congress and the public what is actually 
going on, they are the ones to blame, according to this news article. 
That is wrong.
  Until we get some answers to the basic simple questions of which set 
of books is the real set, I will continue to pursue these questions.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article from the 
Monday Associated Press and the article by David Broder be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Times, June 10, 1996]

           VA, NASA Chiefs Contradict Clinton Plans for Cuts

       In an unusual public admission, two top Clinton 
     administration officials say the White House will not 
     necessarily pursue some cuts in veterans and space programs 
     that it proposed in its budget-balancing package just three 
     months ago.
       The recent remarks by Veterans Affairs Secretary Jesse 
     Brown and NASA chief Daniel Goldin put the administration in 
     the position of disavowing details of its own plans for 
     eliminating deficits by 2002. And the comments come during 
     President Clinton's reelection campaign, in which one 
     Republican

[[Page S6119]]

     strategy has been to attack his commitment to balancing the 
     budget.
       ``They're keeping two sets of books, one to balance the 
     budget, the other to avoid cuts in agencies that would cause 
     problems in the election,'' said Sen. Christopher S. Bond, 
     Missouri Republican, who elicited the comments from Mr. Brown 
     and Mr. Goldin.
       ``This is well thought through as a political avoidance 
     strategy, a downside-avoidance strategy,'' said Senate Budget 
     Committee Chairman Pete V. Domenici, New Mexico Republican.
       Administration officials and Democrats said Mr. Clinton was 
     sticking to his overall plan to eliminate annual deficits by 
     2002 but would review details every year, a fact of life in 
     the government's annual budgeting process.
       ``The president is committed to the overall numbers. They 
     reflect his commitment to getting to a balanced budget by 
     2002,'' said Alice Rivlin, director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget. ``But the priorities will be revisited 
     annually, as they are on the Hill.''
       But conceding that the comments were politically awkward, 
     another official said privately that Mr. Brown and Mr. Goldin 
     would be talked to.
       Mr. Clinton has proposed slight increases for education, 
     environment and technological research. Because there is a 
     fixed amount of money for these and other annually approved 
     programs, other areas must be cut.
       Mr. Brown and Mr. Goldin made their comments in separate 
     appearance before the Senate Appropriation subcommittee that 
     oversees space, veterans and other programs, which was 
     holding hearings on the budget for fiscal 1997. The fiscal 
     year begins Oct. 1.
       On May 3, Mr. Brown told the panel the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs ``cannot live'' with the cuts proposed in 
     the agency's budget beyond fiscal 1997 by either Mr. Clinton 
     or Congress. He said the Clinton cuts would force the agency 
     to deny care to 1 million veterans and close the equivalent 
     of 41 hospitals.
       ``The president has told me personally . . . he will 
     negotiate the VA's budget each and ever year with the 
     veterans of this nation,'' Mr. Brown said.
       Asked by Mr. Bond, the panel's chairman, whether he 
     expected to see the future-year cuts Clinton has proposed, 
     Mr. Brown responded, ``I would be shocked.''
       On May 16, Mr. Goldin told the panel that ``the White House 
     has instructed us to make no precipitous action'' on cutting 
     NASA programs after 1997.
       Mrs. Rivlin said the spending figures Mr. Clinton proposed 
     for many programs after 1997 were ``not finely tuned 
     assessments of what exactly would be needed each year.''
       ``That's a normal thing,'' she added.
       Democrats said GOP-written budgets have long included 
     unworkable long-range assumptions. For example, they said, 
     the new GOP budget-balancing plan assumes that proposed tax 
     cuts will get smaller in 2002, and that less should be spent 
     for defense than Mr. Clinton wants. Both are considered 
     politically unrealistic.
                                                                    ____


               [From the Washington Post, June 10, 1996]

                         Clinton's Budget Game

                          (By David S. Broder)

       A recent exchange between Sen. Christopher (Kit) Bond (R-
     Mo.) and Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jesse Brown casts a 
     clear light on the reality behind the partisan rhetoric of 
     the past week's budget debate.
       Bond is chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that 
     handles the VA budget. He was grilling Brown on President 
     Clinton's budget proposal for veterans' health care and 
     hospitalization. For next year, Bond noted, Clinton is urging 
     a level of spending for this politically important 
     constituency more than $1 billion higher than it was in 1995. 
     But in the following two years--after the election--Clinton's 
     budget would cut that spending from $17 billion down to $14 
     billion, and then slice it further.
       How can you meet your obligations to veterans under that 
     budget? Bond asked. ``Sen. Bond, we cannot,'' Brown replied. 
     If funding were to remain flat (as Republicans have 
     proposed), ``it would force us to deny care to about a 
     million veterans and it would force us to close the 
     equivalent of 41 hospitals. So obviously . . . we will not be 
     able to live with the red line'' showing the postelection 
     cuts suggested by Clinton.
       And then Brown made this eyebrow-raising statement: ``The 
     president understands that. I talked with him personally 
     about it and . . . he gave me his personal commitment that he 
     was going to make sure that the nation honors its commitments 
     to veterans and that he will negotiate the budget each and 
     every year . . . with the veterans of the nation.''
       Bond: ``So you are saying that these out-years mean 
     nothing. It is all going to be negotiated in the future, so 
     we should not worry about the president's budget plan. . . . 
     You are not planning to live with that budget?''
       Brown: ``I am not planning to live with it. I am not 
     planning to live with your budget . . . nor am I planning to 
     live with the president's line.''
       Bond: ``You do not work for us. You work for the president. 
     You are saying that you do not like our budget, but you know 
     that his budget does not mean anything.''
       After this remarkable exchange, Bond made similar inquiries 
     of the director of another huge agency, Dan Goldin of NASA. 
     He too said that White House budget officials had told him to 
     make no plans based on the sharp cuts indicated for future 
     years in Clinton's budget. As Goldin put it, ``the White 
     House has instructed us to take no precipitous action on out-
     year budgets, and we are taking them at their word.''
       To Bond and other Republicans, this looks suspiciously like 
     a shell game. The president has told Congress and the country 
     that he can achieve a balanced budget by 2002, without the 
     serious savings in Medicare and Medicaid that Republicans 
     have proposed. At the same time, he has said that he can keep 
     spending in five or six priority areas at least even with 
     inflation.
       He can do all that, he has said, by cutting ``Less 
     important'' spending. Veterans and space budgets are not on 
     his priority list. But the men running these programs say 
     they have assurances that the numbers the White House has 
     given Congress are just paper figures--not mandates to 
     prepare for belt-tightening.
       White House Budget Director Alice Rivlin has assured Bond 
     and his colleagues--and then tried to convince me--that there 
     is no contradiction. ``Simply put,'' Rivlin wrote Bond, ``the 
     president is committed to the discretionary savings needed to 
     help reach balance in 2002 . . . but will continue to revisit 
     decisions about specific programs one year at a time.''
       ``Nobody is cheating,'' Rivlin insisted in an interview 
     with me.
       ``I don't think it washes,'' Bond said. ``It's not an 
     honest budget.''
       Two things are going on here. Clinton, in his desire to 
     dodge serious cuts in politically popular programs such as 
     Medicare and Medicaid, while promising more spending for 
     education, the environment and law enforcement, is projecting 
     cuts in other programs that are so severe they will be very 
     hard to achieve. That is why people like Brown and Goldin say 
     the cuts are unimaginable.
       And second, in order to postpone the pain, Clinton is 
     telling not just the constituents of the endangered programs 
     but their managers that they will have plenty of 
     opportunities in future years to stave off the cuts.
       That may not be ``cheating,'' as Rivlin says, but it is 
     playing a game that is too clever by half. Balancing the 
     budget means making tough choices. Clinton is postponing 
     those choices and--by giving people the sense that the goal 
     can be reached without giving up anything that is important--
     making it that much harder when the crunch comes.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BOND. I will be happy to yield to the distinguished chairman of 
the Budget Committee.
  Mr. DOMENICI. First, I want to congratulate the Senator on this 
effort. For a couple of months he has been trying to tell the American 
people that there were two sets of books and that, indeed, if you use 
the set of books that gets a balanced budget in the same way that we 
do--because the President now says, ``You asked me to get a balanced 
budget using Congressional Budget Office assessments''--of the two 
sets, if you use the same set of numbers of economic assumptions that 
we have been compelled to use, then all of those cuts that are called 
triggered cuts have to be in the budget or it is not in balance. Is 
that not correct?
  Mr. BOND. That is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. So what the President has done is he has two balanced 
budgets, one using the same economic assumptions that we have used, 
which he told the American people, ``They have told me to use that, and 
I've used it, and I'm in balance,'' but he has another budget when he 
does not use those same economic assumptions. He uses his own, prepared 
by the Office of Management and Budget, under the direction of the 
executive branch. And that is the second set of books.
  Which set of books are we telling the American people balances the 
budget? I believe the President is making it very clear that he 
balances the budget the same way we do. But then he produces a second 
set of books where he does not have to have as many cuts, he does not 
have to have these triggered cuts because the economics are so much 
better that he can get by with less.
  Let us make it very clear, if we talk about the President's budget 
that is just like our budget in terms of which level you are jumping 
over, where is the stick that you are doing your high jump over? Using 
the same one for both, then there is no way that the President can be 
in balance without cutting, in the last 2 years of this budget, 
discretionary programs by 10 percent and 18 percent respectively. Is 
that not correct?
  Mr. BOND. That is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Is it not in that regard that the Senator has been 
inquiring, and has the Senator not been saying, under the real budget, 
the budget

[[Page S6120]]

using the Congressional Budget Office numbers, what are you going to do 
to the veterans? Is that not when the Senator is getting the answers 
that they do not believe they are going to do this? Is that a fair 
assumption?
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is actually worse than that. It is 
actually worse than that. It is not just the triggered cuts that fall 
very heavily on the veterans.
  But let me say, earlier in my remarks, I came to the floor to say 
that the Senator from New Mexico, under his leadership, has produced a 
balanced budget, an honest balanced budget that makes some very 
difficult choices. People do not like it because it is an honest 
budget, and it has had to make some difficult choices. But the 
President has submitted a budget which he claims is in balance, but he 
has told his people not to worry about it.
  Now the cuts in the Veterans' Administration are not just the result 
of the triggered cuts.
  Mr. DOMENICI. No.
  Mr. BOND. The cuts in the Veterans' Administration begin 
precipitously in 1998, even under his OMB assumptions. Even using the 
rosy scenario, he would still chop that Veterans' Administration budget 
by 23 percent prior to the time that the triggering budget cuts would 
have to be implemented in 2001 and 2002.

  So regardless of which set of assumptions he uses, even under his 
favorable budget, the favorable budget that he set up originally that 
did not have the triggered cuts in it, he slashes VA by 23 percent, and 
that was the first thing that tipped us off that maybe there was 
another set of books that we had not seen.
  He had apparently convinced the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the 
Veterans' Administration, that those cuts, even the ones he had in his 
OMB-approved numbers beginning in 1998, were not going to happen. That 
is why we cannot make an honest comparison between the numbers that the 
Senator has presented and the numbers that the Clinton administration 
claim come to a zero deficit in the year 2002, if we are being assured 
by all of the agencies that they do not have to plan for these cuts. 
They have no intention of making these cuts because the President and 
OMB have told them, ``Don't worry about making the cuts.'' Something is 
amiss here.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask the Senator, one of the reasons that that 
precipitous fall occurs, even under the OMB budget, is because the 
President desires to tell the American people that certain parts of 
Government are going to get increased and so he has built into that 
budget these very large increases for education, for the environment, 
which end up, if you go that high on them, you have to take it out of 
somewhere else. That is where the veterans get that big cut the Senator 
has spoken to.
  Mr. BOND. That is what happens when you establish priorities. If 
that, in fact, is his priority that he wants to put veterans that far 
down on the list, then we ought to be debating it. And we did have a 
debate on this floor. The Republicans voted to amend the President's 
proposal by taking additional savings out of welfare. Even my 
Democratic colleagues, who did vote for that proposal, had voted for 
another one that restored those cuts. Nobody agrees with those 
priorities that the President has proposed.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I want to thank the Senator once again for the 
excellent work he has done. And it ought to be clear to everyone, the 
President of the United States does not have a balanced budget. He does 
not have a balanced budget using the Congressional Budget Office 
numbers, which he has touted across the land, unless he is willing to 
admit that these programs get tremendous cuts starting in 1998, 1999, 
2000, 2001, 2002, which he clearly does not want to tell the American 
people. That is how I see it.
  These Cabinet members who are seeing these cuts are being told, 
``We'll look at them once every year. We're evaluating them every 
year.'' You can evaluate them every year, but if there is a very large 
cut in a program, somebody has to be cut, right?
  Mr. BOND. I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for that very 
important clarification.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. BOND. Frankly, if it did not matter what we are going to spend in 
the outyears because we would negotiate it anyhow, we would not present 
multiyear budgets. We have to do that as part of a responsible plan 
process, Mr. President, so we know if we are on a path to get our 
Federal spending machine under control.

  When we see a budget presented that claims to have significant cuts, 
but the people who would be affected have been assured by the President 
and OMB that those cuts will not be made, we can only conclude that 
either there is a very secret second set of books which eliminates 
programs we have not been able to identify, or the President and his 
Office of Management and Budget are not serious about balancing the 
budget and making the limitation in cuts in discretionary spending to 
achieve that balance.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to 
proceed for 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I did not come to respond to my friends 
from Missouri or New Mexico, but I find it kind of interesting. You 
know, we deal with names and these issues so much, and we use the 
jargon so much, that sometimes it is pretty interesting and pretty 
confusing to the American people. I am not suggesting that the things 
that either of my colleagues have said is not substantively correct, 
but I would suggest it is out of context.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, would the Senator----
  Mr. BIDEN. I will not yield until I explain what I said. Then I will 
be happy to yield.
  First of all, the Republican-appointed Director of the Congressional 
Budget Office states in the latest CBO report--and I quote from the 
summary page:

       Both the Congress and the President, however, have proposed 
     changes in policies that would balance the budget in 2002.

  Let me read it again.

       Both the Congress and the President, however, have proposed 
     changes in policies that would balance the budget in the year 
     2002.

  I am reading from the ``Economic and Budget Outlook, Fiscal Years 
1997 to 2002, Report to the Senate and House Committees on the Budget, 
Congress of the United States, Congressional Budget Office.''
  The second point that I will make: That does not suggest that what my 
friend said is not true, but it is kind of like you have to watch the 
pea and the shells here.
  The idea of these dual books, the President all along has said the 
economy is going to grow more robustly, has all along said that the 
CBO's estimates are too cabined, that things are going to be better 
than they say. So far he looks like he is right. But he said, ``You 
want me to do it according to the way you want the numbers,'' which I 
do not think are realistic numbers. I think they are too conservative. 
Business thinks they are too conservative. Everybody thinks they are 
too conservative except our conservative Republican friends.
  He said, ``OK, if that's the deal, I'll submit a budget based on 
that.'' And he submitted a budget based on that. Their Republican-
appointed Director of the Congressional Budget Office said, ``Yeah, he 
submitted one on that, and it balances that way.''
  It is not, then, inconsistent for the President to say, ``By the way, 
I submitted it,'' but basically saying, ``I am predicting to you things 
are going to be better than these economic forecasts called for. If it 
turns out the economic forecast is as bad as you all say it is going to 
be, then this is what we're going to have to do to balance it. I will 
balance it under those conditions.''
  But what he is saying makes it sound sinister, this two-book thing. 
He is saying, ``But my prediction to you is, you won't have to do it 
this badly, you won't have to cut this much.'' He is not saying, ``I 
won't do it if the economic forecasts turn out this way.'' He is just 
saying, ``I don't think the economic forecasts are going to be that 
way.''
  You know, it is kind of like my saying to my son or my daughter when 
they were teenagers--they say, ``Dad, I want to go away to camp, and I 
would like to go for 2 weeks to camp.'' I say, ``How much is camp, 
honey?'' They say,

[[Page S6121]]

``Well, it's $100 a week.'' I say, ``I don't have $200. I've got $100. 
We'll sign you up for camp for 1 week. You're going, but I think I'm 
going to find another $100, and I think before it's time to go to camp 
you'll get to go for 2 weeks because I think economically I'm going to 
find another $100. But if I don't, you only go for 1 week.''
  These guys make everything sound so sinister. Like, you know, ``Well, 
let's find the fingerprints on budget No. 2.''
  So all I am saying to you is, keep your eye on the ball. The bottom 
line in this budget debate, no pun intended, is the summary of the 
Republican-led Congressional Budget Office that says--unless they 
changed their mind in the last couple hours--both the Congress and the 
President, however, have proposed changes in policy that would balance 
the budget in 2002.
  Now, Mr. President, a number of our colleagues, including two who 
have just spoken, have once again attacked the President's budget as 
providing too little in appropriated spending. I find this a 
fascinating debate. They say, ``By the way, you are not going to 
balance the budget because you have two books. You really do not mean 
it. You are really going to cut something you have not told us,'' et 
cetera. But then they say, ``By the way, one of the reasons we do not 
like this President's budget is it provides too little in appropriated 
spending.''
  They criticize the President's cuts as being too painful. It is true, 
the President's budget does make substantial cuts in discretionary 
spending. But the cuts in the Republican budget are far deeper. Over 
the 6 years of the budget, the Republican budget cuts appropriated 
spending by $68 billion more than the President's budget. In the year 
about which the Senator from Missouri most complains, 2002, the 
Republican budget cuts appropriated spending by $16 billion more than 
does the President's budget, using the assumptions that we are both 
using.
  If the Senator from Missouri and others find the President's budget 
cuts too painful, and they are painful, he must find the Republican 
budget positively deadly.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent two tables comparing the cuts 
in the Republican budget with those of the President's budget be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                COMPARISON OF BUDGET PLANS: 6-YEAR TOTALS               
                        [In billions of dollars]                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   President's   Republican             
                                      budget       budget     Difference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spending cuts:                                                          
    Discretionary................         -230         -298          -68
    Mandatory:                                                          
        Medicare.................         -117         -168          -51
        Medicaid.................          -54          -72          -18
        Other health \1\.........            9           10            1
        Welfare..................          -38          -53          -15
        EITC.....................           -5          -19          -14
        Spectrum auctions........          -37          -19           18
        Other mandatory..........          -24          -34          -10
                                  --------------------------------------
          Subtotal...............         -265         -355          -90
                                  ======================================
Revenues: \2\                                                           
        Tax relief and other.....           99          180           81
        Corporate reforms........          -40          -21           19
        Other proposals..........           -5          (?)            5
        Expiring provisions......          -43          -36            7
                                  --------------------------------------
          Subtotal...............           11          122          112
                                  ======================================
Policy savings...................         -485         -531          -46
Debt service.....................          -41          -49           -8
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total savings..............         -525         -580          -55
2002 deficit/surplus.............            0            5            5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Health care reforms in President's budget; GME add-back in          
  Republican plan.                                                      
\2\ The Republican plan reconciles a net tax change of $122 billion over
  6 years, but includes reserve fund language that allows for additional
  tax cuts on a revenue neutral basis. The revenue figures for the      
  Republican plan show gross tax cuts assuming that the Republicans     
  adopt the corporate reforms contained in the Balanced Budget Act and  
  certain tax provisions that have expired since last year.             


               COMPARISON OF BUDGET PLANS: SAVINGS IN 2002              
                        [In billions of dollars]                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   President's   Republican             
                                      budget       budget     Difference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spending cuts:                                                          
    Discretionary................          -84         -100          -16
    Mandatory:                                                          
        Medicare.................          -34          -53          -19
        Medicaid.................          -22          -30           -8
        Welfare..................           -8          -13           -5
        EITC.....................           -1           -4           -3
        Spectrum auctions........          -23           -7           16
        Other mandatory..........           -5           -4            1
                                  --------------------------------------
          Subtotal...............          -92         -110          -18
                                  ======================================
Revenues:                                                               
        Tax relief and other.....            3           29           25
        Corporate reforms \1\....           -7           -5            2
        Other proposals..........           -3          (?)            3
        Expiring provisions \1\..           -8           -7            1
                                  --------------------------------------
          Subtotal...............          -15           17           32
                                  ======================================
Policy savings...................         -190         -193           -3
Debt service.....................          -20          -22           -2
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total savings..............         -210         -215           -5
2002 deficit/surplus.............            0            5            5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Republican plan reconciles a net tax change of $122 billion over
  6 years, but includes reserve fund language that allows for additional
  tax cuts on a revenue neutral basis. The revenue figures for the      
  Republican plan show gross tax cuts assuming that the Republicans     
  adopt the corporate reforms contained in the Balanced Budget Act and  
  certain tax provisions that have expired since last year.             


  Mr. BOND. Is the distinguished Senator from Delaware ready to respond 
to a question?
  Mr. BIDEN. If you let me complete, I will take 12 minutes and respond 
to any questions you have. I know that if I start to respond--I did not 
come to make the statement I just made. I am just responding to what I 
heard. Let me make the statement I came prepared to make and then yield 
to the Senator for anything he wants to say or ask.
  Mr. President, to state the obvious, a budget, whether it is a 
household budget, whether it is a company's budget, whether it is the 
Nation's budget, is the formal expression of our priorities as a 
company or as a family or as a nation. It tells us, after all the talk 
is over, where we decided to spend our hard-earned money. In this case, 
the hard-earned money of taxpayers like all of us.
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, the budget resolution before the 
Senate, in my view, fails to address the most fundamental issues before 
the country. It fails to take care of the basic priorities that have 
made our Nation great, the priorities that can help us meet the 
challenges of the future. Again, I think we can all agree on one thing. 
I used to be on the Budget Committee. I am delighted I am no longer on 
the Budget Committee. I was on it for a long time. When I used to be on 
the Budget Committee and had to give it up to move over to other 
committees, new members come and say, ``What do you think about getting 
on the Budget Committee?'' Or I speak to university groups or 
constituents at home and they say, ``What about the Budget Committee?'' 
I say that the single most important thing a new Member of the Congress 
can do is be a member of the Budget Committee. Just like the single 
most important thing you can do if you go with a big company is look at 
the company's budget.
  When all the rhetoric is gone, and everything is stripped aside, 
where we spend our money says volumes about what our real priorities 
are. If we say we care about education and do not spend money on 
education, then we obviously do not care about it very much. If we say 
we care about crime in dealing with crime and do not allocate our 
resources there, we do not care about it very much. If we say we care a 
lot about a national defense, and we do spend our money on it, it 
establishes we do care a lot about national defense. We say to 
students, if you want to know what a company really does, what a family 
really cares about, what a nation cares about, go look at its budget, 
its budget. I do not think anybody could disagree with that, have any 
reasonable disagreement with that. It lays out our priorities as a 
nation.
  The point I want to make in the next few minutes, I think we have in 
the budget before the Senate, the Republican budget, our priorities out 
of whack. It is not a bad budget. It is not an awful budget, not a 
draconian budget. We can say a lot of political things about it. The 
real debate on this budget is no longer about no matter what you hear 
people say here, we are going to balance the budget, are we committed 
to balance the budget; it is how we balance a budget, how we balance a 
budget.
  It is just like a family can decide if your child gets into Harvard 
University whether you are going to spend $25,000, meaning that you 
cannot buy a car for the next 4 years. Or you can buy a new car for the 
next 4 years and send your kid to my alma mater, the University of 
Delaware, which will cost $7,000. There are priorities. I happen to 
think a Delaware education is better than a Harvard education, but that 
is a personal thing.
  It is real important when we talk all the mumbo jumbo out of this and 
understand what this debate is about. It is about where we are going to 
spend money, and even more importantly in

[[Page S6122]]

this environment, where we will cut. There is no way to get from here 
to balance under anybody's numbers, anybody's numbers, any assumptions, 
short of divine intervention by the Lord, without cutting.

  It is a question. You can measure one's value system based on how 
much more they spend on something, how much more they cut. When you 
have to cut, who do you cut it from? Do you cut it and decide you are 
going to cut it from your children's education and still go to the 
beach for 2 weeks, or are you going to decide to cut the beach and 
spend it on your children's education? It says something about how much 
a family values education. It says something about how much they value 
vacations. I am not making a value judgment. A vacation for one family 
may be more therapeutically needed than an education for another child. 
That is literally what it does. That is what this fight is about. That 
is the difference between Democrats and Republicans here. It is not 
that we both decided to say, ``I like being with a party that has a 
letter that begins earlier in the alphabet.'' That is not the reason 
why I am a Democrat or why my friends are Republicans. We have 
different priorities here.
  How do you best make the Nation function? I do not doubt for one 
second the positive patriotic intentions of my Republican colleagues. 
They proposed this budget not because they are mean-spirited. They 
proposed it because they believe this is truly the best way for the 
most Americans to do the best. We have a disagreement. I think America 
will not prosper spiritually, morally, economically, politically, as 
well, under their set of budget priorities than they do under mine or 
my parties or the President's. That is what this is about.
  You all are going to get the smokescreen out. ``There are a secret 
set of books buried somewhere in the Capitol, and in the year 2002 we 
will open them and you will find the fingerprints of John Q. Wilson who 
worked for the FBI in 1974''--what are we talking about? We should have 
a straight up-and-down fight. They do not want to spend as much money 
on education as we want to. They do not want to spend as much on the 
environment as we want to spend. They do not want to spend as much 
money in law enforcement as we do. We do not want to spend as much on 
defense, or as much on the wealthy as they do, and so on. They are 
legitimate, fundamental, disagreements. I think we should do the 
American people a favor. Have a referendum on what they want, which 
theory they buy into.
  My comments, the remainder of them, are directed at why I think my 
theory, my party's theory, my party's priorities, are better not only 
for average Americans but for the community of America, than are those 
of my Republican friends. I do not doubt their good intentions, I want 
to make it clear. I do not think they sit in the Cloakroom and say, 
``You know, how can we make sure that John Kluge makes more money?'' 
Some of my left-wing friends think they sit there and say, ``Well, how 
are we going to get the wealthy to do better at the expense of the 
poor?'' I no more believe that than I think this chair can get up and 
levitate. They believe the way to help the poor the best is to see that 
those who have the most have the greatest freedom and prosperity to 
invest. I found that theory does not necessarily follow. I have a 
disagreement.
  Let me make it clear, lest anyone come out here. I do not question 
the intentions, motivation, or sincerity of any of my Republican 
colleagues. I think they are wrong--not morally wrong--wrong. They will 
not turn out as you predict.
  Mr. President, each year education becomes ever more important to 
keep our economy growing and to enable our citizens to become 
productive members of society. This budget in question cuts, in my 
view, too much from education.
  (Mr. BROWN assumed the chair.)
  Mr. BIDEN. By eliminating the guaranteed student loan program it 
makes college education even more expensive, in my view. And far from 
increasing our commitment to a better-trained work force, the budget 
provides less and less money for education and training as we move into 
the next century. In real terms, adjusted for inflation, their budget 
cuts spending by $25 billion for spending in this area over the next 6 
years.
  Look, we can argue about elementary and secondary education, we can 
argue about whether or not prayer in school will change it, or we can 
argue about whether or not spending more money in title I will change 
it, and we can argue about how bad off our education is. There is one 
thing there is no argument about. We have the best higher education 
system in the world--in the world. It is the only place we do not have 
to look at any little thing and say we rank 7th, 17th, 91st--we rank 
No. 1 in the world in higher education.
  So what are we doing? As more and more people from different 
countries are beating their brains out to get into our higher education 
system, we are--I suspect unintentionally--making it harder for 
Americans to get into educational institutions of higher learning. We 
are not arguing about the quality of that education.
  My Republican friends--in my State, at least--like to argue what 
Ronald Reagan argued: You know the best way to cure education is to 
spend less money on it. The one place nobody makes that argument is 
higher education. That is what I mean when I talk about guaranteed 
student loan programs. As for our country's commitment to our parents' 
generation, Mr. President, this budget's Medicare cuts will make health 
care more expensive than our proposal will. Its cuts in Medicare will 
make nursing home and long-term care a greater burden for families of 
those whose seniors depend on them.
  Whenever we talk about Medicare, we always talk in terms of the 
effect on seniors. That is not how I talk about it. Where I come from, 
I talk about it based on the values I was raised with. Can you imagine, 
I say to anybody listening here, if your mom or dad comes to you and 
says, ``You know, honey, under the changes taking place, I am no longer 
able to see Dr. Smith, and I have to do'' this, that or the other 
thing--can you imagine any decent child in a position to financially 
take care of them not saying, ``Do not worry, mom, I will pay for it.''
  Who do you think is going to pay for this? Middle-class parents. The 
people who are 45 to 55, who have children coming up through school 
trying to get into higher education and have moms and dads with 
increasing medical bills or needs. I wonder how many Americans--men or 
women, husband or wife--are going to turn to their mother and father or 
mother-in-law and father-in-law and say, ``It is too bad that they 
changed the system that way. You have less money for health care, and I 
am not chipping in.'' This is going to increase the burden on my 
generation, which is getting squeezed.
  Now, again, I do not suggest that is why it is being done. I suggest 
that we have different priorities, because one of the things my friend 
said is that if we spend more money on education, we have to cut 
something else here. If we spend more money on Medicare, we have to cut 
something else down here. This is not a zero sum game. This is not one 
of these things where I can say if you buy into my proposal, you get 
everything. I am not saying that. This is different priorities.

  In my view, the place where we should be putting all of our energy is 
to deal with the shrinking middle class, which is getting their brains 
kicked in. We all acknowledge that.
  Mr. President, most troubling for me is the failure of this budget 
resolution to fully fund the most basic function of Government--that is 
the purpose of my being here today--which is to protect our citizens 
from violent crime.
  Mr. President, let me first review the facts that underscore just how 
we have come to face a budget resolution that cuts funding for the 
administration of justice account--that is a fancy Senate term for the 
money we spend on law enforcement--below what the President requested, 
below what the U.S. Senate has passed, and below what the House of 
Representatives has passed. Let me review what has gone on so far. The 
President requested a total of $23.5 billion for 1997, $5 billion of 
which is for the crime law trust fund--which I am proud to say I was 
the author of, along with several others--to fund the entire Justice 
Department, which includes the FBI, DEA, prisons, other Federal law 
enforcement, and the courts--they are all included. Then the House-
passed

[[Page S6123]]

budget resolution proposed by the Republican leadership of the House of 
Representatives, by a narrow partisan vote--that sounds pejorative; I 
mean a narrow vote that was based on party lines--226-195; 221 
Republicans voted for it, 4 against, and 190 Democrats voted against 
it, 5 for.
  What did that House budget resolution do? It cut the President's 
$23.5 billion request for law enforcement, and all the functions 
related to that, to $22.1 billion, a cut of $1.4 billion. Included in 
this was a $317 million cut for the crime law trust fund. That is the 
thing that funds all the cops--the State cops, local cops, the 100,000 
cops--and that is the thing that funds prison money for States. That is 
the thing that funds that whole crime law.
  Then the Senate passed a budget resolution offered by Chairman 
Domenici. Unlike the House, to his credit, Chairman Domenici fully 
funded the $5 billion requested by the President for the crime law 
trust fund. But the Senate budget resolution cut the total from the 
administration of justice account--that is everything else--to $21.7 
billion. That is a cut of $1.8 billion below what the President wants.
  Again, we are talking priorities here. We acknowledge that if we 
spend $1.8 billion more on crime than the Republicans want, we have to 
find $1.8 billion somewhere not to spend it. We acknowledge that. The 
point I am making is the priorities here. We do not think we should cut 
it from there.
  Finally, the House and the Senate Republicans offered the Senate a 
conference report. For those listening, that is when the House passes 
their bill and the Senate passes their bill on the same subject, but 
they are different in detail. So we have a conference and literally 
meet in a room in the middle of the Capitol somewhere and work out the 
differences. Then we send back a compromised version, called a 
conference report, to the House and Senate, which has to be voted on 
again.
  Now, the House and Senate Republicans offered the Senate a conference 
report that makes even deeper cuts than were made by either the House 
or the Senate in the Senate-passed resolutions to the President's 
request for crime-fighting dollars.
  The conference cuts the President's $23.5 billion to $20.9 billion, a 
cut of $2.6 billion. So it has gone from $1.2 to $1.8 to $2.6 billion 
less being spent on crime fighting. In fact, this cut would put the 
administration of justice account, in 1997, below the 1996 level by $45 
billion. We will spend less next year than this past year if this 
budget resolution were to become law, if we do what it proposes.

  Mr. President, by the way, what happened to all the tough-on-crime 
rhetoric that we have been hearing from all sides--Democrats and 
Republicans? Neither side is immune from being shameless in talking 
about how tough on crime they are. It seems that the President held up 
his end of the bargain. He requested the largest ever annual budget for 
the FBI, DEA, U.S. attorneys, and help for the State and local prisons 
and police. But a majority of the Congress has been AWOL--absent 
without law enforcement leave here. If the proposed cut of $317 million 
for the crime law trust fund is allowed to stand, there can only be one 
result: Fewer Federal dollars will be able to combat crime.
  As my colleagues know, the general numbers of the budget resolution 
do not specify which programs will be cut. But it is clear that some 
programs, when they get to the appropriators, will have to be cut below 
what the President and what I and others want. What specifically might 
this mean? Let us just review the law enforcement efforts funded by the 
crime law trust fund. We fund Federal prosecutors out of that fund in 
the amount of $55 million; the FBI, $40 million; the DEA, $200 million; 
border enforcement and deportation of aliens who break the law, $525 
million. By the way, we spent weeks on the floor talking about why that 
is so important. The violence against women efforts including more 
police and prosecutors and more shelters for battered women, $254 
million. A billion dollars for the construction of prisons and 
reimbursing States from imprisoning criminal aliens. And an additional 
$2.6 billion is to aid State and local law enforcement.
  We all know there is no free lunch. So if there is a cut in the total 
for the trust fund, at least some of what I just read will have to be 
cut. It is going to be less border patrol, less efforts to combat 
violence against women, fewer FBI agents, fewer DEA agents. There are 
going to be cuts.
  Again, I am not questioning the motivation. I am just saying there is 
an honest disagreement. I think we should cut other things rather than 
cops, or the FBI, or prison construction. Just because I was the author 
of the law that this funds, I have to acknowledge that. So I lay it 
out. I do have a bit of an interest in it in the sense that I spent 6 
years trying to get it passed, but that is not the reason alone. I 
think it is the single highest domestic priority we have.
  To review the potential impact of the total cuts of $2.6 billion, let 
us look at how the President proposed to spend his $23.5 billion that 
he proposes for the administration of justice accounts. Again, we 
cannot be sure specifically what will be cut, but it is clear that 
there will have to be significant cuts of the President's request.
  He wants $2.5 billion for the FBI, $818 million for the DEA, $2.2 
billion to build Federal prisons and maintain them, $949 million for 
Federal prosecutors, $372 million for interagency drug enforcement task 
forces which every State in the Nation is asking for help on, and $1.7 
billion for immigration enforcement.
  None of us can say where the cuts will have to be made, but if this 
budget passes, the appropriators are going to have to go out and find 
that money--hundreds of millions of dollars to cut from each or all of 
those accounts. There is no way to avoid it. None. Granted, everyone 
can vote for this budget, and when the FBI says, ``You voted to cut our 
budget,'' they say ``No, no, I didn't vote to cut your budget. The 
President said $2.5 billion, and I want to spend it at $2.5 billion.''
  Tell me where you are going to cut the $2.7, or whatever the number 
is when we finish here? None of us can say where the cuts will be made, 
but it is clear there will have to be some significant cuts in all of 
these key law enforcement initiatives.
  Is there anyone in this Senate, though, who thinks our Nation will be 
better served by a smaller FBI, by a smaller DEA or fewer Federal 
prosecutors? I would like for them to come forward and tell me that. 
Again, that is a little unfair.
  That implies, by the way, that I said that people really want to do 
this. I am not even sure, if we had all the money in the world--
economic assumptions are different--that we would have little 
disagreement about spending all of this money. Maybe a little, 
particularly by some of our friends on the House side who may think 
that all Federal agents are jack-booted thugs and who want to cut it 
out and who probably think the Freemen are doing the right thing, and 
so on. If they exist, they are overwhelmingly in the minority. I know 
of none in the Senate.
  But what we are doing here is, we are saying this is the place we 
should cut more than we should cut tax exemptions for individuals. This 
is the place we should cut for corporations. This is the place we 
should cut rather than cut money for the Defense Department. That is 
what we are saying. That is what I have difficulty agreeing with.
  If there are no additional resources, no more FBI agents, no more DEA 
agents, no more Border Patrol, no more prosecutors, no more State and 
local police added to our streets, no more drug testing of offenders, 
no more prisons built, all the new laws we can pass will not be worth 
the paper we write them on. If you are going to pass tough laws and 
say, ``Put them in prison,'' you have to have a prison to put them in. 
It costs money. It even costs money to shoot them. It even costs money 
to hang them. It even costs money to inject them lethally. It costs 
money.

  Mr. President, this budget resolution shortchanges, in my view, the 
national effort against crime. I submit that this Congress could pass a 
new terrorism bill, or any other criminal justice reform, every single 
week from now until the end of the session, but if it does not require 
more agents, nor more law enforcement officers, nor more Border Patrol, 
nor more prisons, nor more prosecutors, it ain't worth a darn. But this 
is not the only reason I urge my colleagues to vote against this budget 
resolution.

[[Page S6124]]

  America became a great economic power because we developed an 
educational system. Any hope we have to maintain our Nation as the 
world's most productive economy depends on our willingness to commit 
resources to our workers for the skills which they need. Ours is a 
great country because we respect the contributions of those who have 
gone before us--our parents' generation who made us into a leader of 
the free world.
  We committed to support them. We committed to support what they have 
done to guarantee them the health care they need and deserve. We made 
that commitment. We made the commitment not only because they are 
parents but for what they did to build this country. Americans 
everywhere want and deserve clean air and clean water and not backing 
off.
  All this stuff, by the way, about the environment, I just want to say 
again what I said several times before. I have not had a single, 
solitary Delawarian come to me and say, ``You know, Biden, you are 
spending too much money on determining whether or not my water is 
clean. I don't want you paying that much attention to it.'' I have not 
heard one single, solitary Delawarian come to me say, ``Biden, you are 
spending too much money on monitoring whether or not the water in my 
State is clean.'' It seems to say, to me, that is what the American 
people, the Delaware people, want their money spent on: clean air and 
clean water. We do not spend enough in this budget on those things.
  On each and every one of these fundamental priorities--fighting 
crime, educating our children, particularly higher education, caring 
for our elderly, and protecting the environment--I believe this well-
intended resolution fails to take care of the most important priorities 
that have been made by us in past generations, and continue to be the 
priorities we all say we care about, priorities that help us meet the 
challenge of the future.
  Mr. President, education, crime, caring for our elderly, and 
protecting the environment are the priorities upon which we do not 
disagree on whether we should do them. I want to make it clear again. I 
am not suggesting that there is any Republican who does not want to 
protect the elderly, have clean air and water, have a good education 
system, and fight crime.
  I am suggesting that the tools they have given us to do those things 
in this budget are not sufficient, and they give more than is needed 
for other areas which should not be priorities. If, in fact, we had all 
the money in the world, we will not have to make these hard choices. 
But, ultimately, a budget is about deciding what you think is most 
important, and today we measure ``most important'' by what we do not 
cut as much as something else. I think their priorities are not the 
ones that I would like to see.
  And, therefore, I will urge my colleagues to vote against the budget 
resolution.
  I see the distinguished manager on the Democratic side is here.
  I yield the floor. I thank my colleagues.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might need.
  I start out by thanking my friend from Delaware for the excellent 
remarks that he has made on the budget in general. Once again, I 
listened with keen interest to the very solid presentation that he has 
made.
  Mr. President, yesterday the Director of the OMB, Dr. Alice Rivlin, 
sent a letter laying out the administration's objections to the budget 
resolution conference report that we are now discussing. Dr. Rivlin 
provided a very good analysis of the budget and its many failings.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the letter be printed in the 
Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                    Washington, DC, June 11, 1996.
     Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to transmit the 
     Administration's views on the conference report on H. Con. 
     Res. 178, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
     years 1997-2002.
       As you know, the President has proposed a plan the 
     Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said would reach balance in 
     2002. It targets tax relief to middle-income Americans, makes 
     prudent savings in Medicare and Medicaid, and provides enough 
     in discretionary funds to finance the President's investments 
     in key priorities. Clearly, a balanced budget does not 
     necessitate extreme cuts in programs on which tens of 
     millions of Americans rely.
       With H. Con. Res. 178, the Republican majority has crafted 
     a resolution designed to appear more moderate than the budget 
     policies it pursued last year; however, the resolution 
     continues the extreme policies first contained in the 
     reconciliation bill that the President vetoed last fall.
       For instance, the plan calls for Medicare cuts of $168 
     billion--more than $50 billion higher than the savings in the 
     President's budget, according to CBO. Since the Budget 
     Committees have claimed that their level of Medicare Part B 
     savings is identical to the President's, the full difference 
     must come from Medicare Part A. Cuts of this size could limit 
     beneficiary access to hospital health services and lead to 
     lower payments to hospitals even in nominal terms--not just 
     cuts in the rate of growth. This could place huge stress on 
     hospitals, leading to lower quality and threatening the 
     financial viability of hospitals--particularly rural and 
     urban hospitals. In addition, the structural changes proposed 
     in recent Republican plans would seriously threaten the long-
     term health and viability of Medicare.
       The conference agreement also includes $72 billion in 
     Medicaid savings, far more than in the last Republican 
     Medicaid restructuring proposal (if estimated under CBO's new 
     baseline). If the resolution assumes previous Republican 
     proposals that allow for lower State matching contributions, 
     the actual cuts in Medicaid services and coverage could reach 
     $250 billion. Along with these cuts, recent Republican 
     proposals have included damaging structural changes, 
     including the block granting of Medicaid, that would 
     undermine the guarantee of coverage. If these provisions are 
     retained, the resolution would mean, for example, an end to 
     the Federal guarantee of coverage for up to 2.5 million 
     children from ages 13 to 18. It would also mean an end to the 
     guarantee of meaningful benefits for over 36 million Medicaid 
     beneficiaries, including 18 million children and over 6 
     million people with disabilities.
       With regard to taxes, the resolution would raise income 
     taxes on working Americans by assuming cuts in the Earned 
     Income Tax Credit (EITC). In fact, the cuts of between $17-
     $20 billion actually would make working Americans even worse 
     off than the latest Republican offer in the President's 
     negotiations with congressional leaders, which called for 
     cuts of $15 billion. We can balance the budget without 
     raising taxes on working Americans.
       In addition, the tax cuts--which purport to be $122 
     billion--are understated and misleading. For one thing, the 
     cost of the child tax credit inexplicably falls in the year 
     2002, meaning either the revenue estimate for the credit is 
     too low or part of the credit itself disappears. For another, 
     the level of permitted tax cuts is actually higher. In fact, 
     Republicans have talked about total tax cuts of $170-$185 
     billion. The resolution appears to reserve billions of 
     dollars in revenues to pay for these excessive tax cuts--$36 
     billion from extending expiring provisions (from last year's 
     vetoed reconciliation bill) and $26 billion from closing 
     corporate loopholes and other tax measures (from the last 
     Republican offer). Rather than finance excessive tax cuts, 
     these revenues could offset some of the unnecessarily deep 
     cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and other priorities. By 
     contrast, the President proposes and pays for targeted tax 
     cuts to help middle-income Americans raise their young 
     children, pay for postsecondary education, and save for the 
     future.
       On welfare, the President supports real bipartisan welfare 
     reform that would move people from welfare to work and 
     protect children. The President has consistently said he 
     wants to work with Congress to reach that goal. The 
     resolution, however, assumes cuts in low-income assistance 
     programs of $53 billion over six years--$2 billion more than 
     the recently introduced Republican welfare bill that does not 
     meet that objective. While the new bill has more child care 
     funding than the Republican welfare bill that the President 
     vetoed in January, the cuts outside Aid to Families with 
     Dependent Children and child care are actually deeper than in 
     the vetoed bill. Like the vetoed bill, the new bill couples 
     deep cuts with severe structural changes and bans on benefits 
     for legal immigrants--policies that would harm children.
       Moreover, the resolution instructs congressional 
     committees, as part of the first reconciliation bill, to link 
     welfare reform with the proposed changes to Medicaid and with 
     tax cuts. The President wants real welfare reform, but he 
     will not accept any legislation that would block grant 
     Medicaid and undermine its guarantee of health coverage to 
     millions of vulnerable Americans. Congress should not link 
     welfare reform to Medicaid policies the President has 
     consistently said are unacceptable. In addition, it should 
     not pay for tax cuts by making excessive cuts in Medicaid and 
     welfare. Finally, this reconciliation package would make 
     virtually no progress on deficit reduction.

[[Page S6125]]

       On student loans, the resolution assumes that 
     reconciliation legislation will impose a cap on the amount of 
     student loan volume in the Direct Loan program, which would 
     eliminate hundreds of colleges from the program and deprive 
     millions of students of the benefits of the flexible 
     repayment options under that program, including income-
     contingent repayment. And the reconciliation instructions 
     appear to require the opening of the Alaska National Wildlife 
     Refuge, a national treasure, to oil and gas development--a 
     policy the President has said he would veto.
       On discretionary spending, we recognize that the conferees 
     added non-defense discretionary spending for 1997 to the 
     House-passed level. These levels, however, are still 
     inadequate--more than $15 billion in budget authority below 
     the President's request. In fact, the President's budget 
     proposes higher total and non-defense discretionary levels 
     than the conference agreement in every year through 2002--
     while still balancing the budget according to CBO. The non-
     defense discretionary levels are inadequate to fund key 
     investments in education and training, the environment, 
     science and technology, and law enforcement. For example, the 
     resolution provides $57 billion less for education and 
     training from 1997 to 2002 compared to the President's 
     budget, jeopardizing adequate funding for such priorities as 
     Head Start, Education for the Disadvantaged, Goals 2000, 
     School-to-Work, education technology, Pell grants, summer 
     youth jobs, and dislocated worker training.
       In the near term, the resolution shifts more resources into 
     defense programs than necessary, squeezing investments in 
     non-defense programs. The resolution provides over $11 
     billion more in defense budget authority for 1997 than the 
     President's defense plan--which already commits historically 
     high levels of resources to readiness, as measured in funding 
     per troop. At the same time, the resolution does not provide 
     enough budget authority, compared to the President's defense 
     program, in the critical years of defense modernization at 
     the turn of the century--the years when new technologies come 
     on line.
       In their negotiations last winter, the President and 
     congressional leaders found more than enough savings in 
     common to reach balance by 2002. The President wants to 
     finish the job, and he has repeatedly asked the Republican 
     leadership to return to the negotiating table.
       As you can see, while the Administration and Congress share 
     the goal of a balanced budget, we have grave concerns about 
     the approach contained in this resolution. We also hope 
     Republicans learned from last year's experience, which 
     included two government shutdowns and 13 continuing 
     resolutions, that we need to work together. We want to work 
     with Congress, as the process moves forward, to give the 
     American people the balanced budget they deserve.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Alice M. Rivlin,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, we have additional speakers that will be 
seeking recognition. In the meantime, I suggest the absence of a quorum 
and ask that the time be equally charged to each side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Faircloth). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we are now in debate on the budget 
conference report, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, is there a time agreement at this moment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is controlled under the Budget Act.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me just yield myself 7 minutes from 
our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we find ourselves once again debating a 
budget conference agreement that some have dressed in new clothes and 
wrapped with new ribbons and brought to the floor of the Senate to say, 
``Gee, we've made changes. This is a new budget. It's a different 
approach. And we seek support for it.''
  The Senator from Nebraska, Senator Exon, I think said yesterday quite 
appropriately, there is nothing new about this. This is the same 
approach for 2 years that has been trotted out on the floor of the 
Senate by the majority party saying, ``Here's what we insist on in a 
budget agreement.'' The dilemma I see in this budget agreement is this. 
The conference report is designed to try to reduce spending and balance 
the budget, but it also includes at the same time a substantial tax 
reduction.
  Would the American people like a tax reduction? Of course. Would it 
be popular to talk about cutting taxes rather than cutting spending and 
reducing the deficit? Yes, of course it is more popular to talk about 
cutting taxes. But our problem is, we have got deficits in this country 
that need to be brought down. There are a couple ways of doing that, 
but not proposing a very large tax cut is not on the list of ways to 
bring the deficit down. The majority party brings this conference 
agreement to the floor and downplays the tax cut.
  I want to show my colleagues a quote from the chairman of the Budget 
Committee on the other side of the Capitol Building, a Congressman for 
whom I have great respect, Congressman Kasich, who is the chairman of 
the House Budget Committee. He says in response to a question:

       We will have a capital gains tax cut. We will have all the 
     . . . Contract With America items that we originally 
     proposed. . .. So what you ultimately get is . . . a gross 
     tax cut number that will approach $180 billion.

  The paradox is, as we are trying to reduce the budget deficit, we 
have folks here who want to serve dessert before they serve dinner. It 
does not make any sense.
  The most responsible position, it seems to me, is for the majority 
party to set aside tax cut questions at this point and let us deal with 
the issue of cutting Federal spending in appropriate ways to reach a 
balanced budget. When we have reached a balanced budget, then let us 
turn our attention to the question of how we can appropriately cut 
taxes to reduce the burden on middle-income families.
  But it is not appropriate in my judgment, to be bringing a budget to 
the floor of the Senate that purports to reduce the Federal budget 
deficit but also includes in it a substantial tax cut, much of which 
will go to the wealthiest Americans.
  Let me quickly say I have nothing against those who have made a great 
deal of money in our country. Many of them are wonderful Americans who 
have been enormously successful. They are resourceful people who 
deserve and have received the benefits of doing well in our system. But 
it is also true that the small group on the top of the economic ladder 
in our country has had substantial, substantial economic gains and 
their tax burden has not kept pace. They have been treated very, very 
well.
  It seems to me that when we are attempting to reduce the budget 
deficit, it makes very little sense for us to decide at the same time 
we should provide significant tax cuts to those who need them least.

  Let me give you one little example. Some Americans will remember when 
we would read in the paper reports about studies on the amount of taxes 
paid by some of the largest enterprises in America. We would discover 
while reading the morning paper that some of the largest corporations 
in America have made billions of dollars and pay zero in income taxes--
not a lot, not a little--zero in income taxes.
  People were wondering, ``Well, if I make $20,000 a year, and work 
hard all day, and try to do the best I can, why do I have to pay taxes 
when a corporation that makes $3 billion in income pays zero?'' It is a 
good question. So the Congress began to address that in the mid-1980's 
and said, ``Well, let us put together what is called an alternative 
minimum tax so if a big company were able to use tax loopholes to pay 
zero in income taxes, they at least must pay an alternative minimum 
tax, a minimum tax.''
  Have you heard lately of a big corporation that makes a lot of money 
that pays zero in income taxes? No. Why? Because there is what is 
called an AMT, an alternative minimum tax so they must pay some taxes.
  Well, guess what is deep in the bowels of this budget? You got it. A 
change in the alternative minimum tax that will say to some of those 
corporations, ``Let's go back to the good old days. You can start 
zeroing out again.'' It just does not make sense for us, when we are 
here to try to reduce the Federal budget deficit, to say, ``By the way, 
let's bestow a little gift here on some of the biggest enterprises in 
America and say to them, `You can go ahead and zero out, make lots of 
money and pay no taxes anymore.' ''
  I just do not understand the mindset of people who refuse to keep 
their eye

[[Page S6126]]

on the ball. The ball is the budget deficit. The menu of changes needed 
to address the budget deficit does not include new tax breaks for some 
of the biggest corporations in the country. It does not include new tax 
breaks for people who make $50 and $100 million a year. And, yes, there 
are some people in this country who make that and they do not need a 
tax break.
  So I ask the majority party, and instead of advertising a tired old 
product as something new, let us go back to the drawing boards, set the 
issue of cutting taxes aside, especially cutting taxes for the 
wealthiest Americans, set it aside and let us deal with one specific 
element in our responsibility. Let us use the budget in the 7-year 
budget cycle to reach a balanced budget. When we have done that, then 
let us turn to the proposition of changing the Tax Code so that it is 
less of a burden on middle-income families.
  Let me make one important point that needs to be cleared up. I heard 
earlier today a discussion by, I believe, the Senator from New Mexico 
and the Senator from Missouri and some others. They were talking about 
the President's budget, the majority budget, and a balanced budget here 
and there. None of these budgets balance the budget. None of them--not 
the President's budget and not the budget that is brought to the floor 
of this Senate from this conference. They fall short, because in the 
year 2002, they will use the Social Security trust funds as ordinary 
revenue in order to claim they have balanced the budget. None of them 
balance the budget. Yet, even though they still fall short in the year 
2002 of balancing the budget, the majority party says, ``We are 
proposing $180 billion in tax cuts during the 7-year period.''
  I suppose I would probably not protest so much--I still would 
protest, but not so much--if the tax cuts were going in the right 
direction. They so fundamentally distort who ought to be paying what. 
These tax cuts are wrapped gifts to the biggest economic interests in 
America. It makes no sense to do this.
  I just think, generally speaking, we ought not be talking about tax 
cuts until we have met our responsibility to balance the budget. This 
resolution on the floor demonstrably does not balance the budget, no 
matter what has been said on the floor today by those who push this 
proposal here in the Senate.
  If I had the time, I would speak at length about a range of 
priorities. Let he finish with one point about the issues inside the 
budget. We must fix our Medicare Program. It is a good program. It has 
helped a lot of Americans. It is a program that works well. It is a 
program whose costs are outrunning our ability to pay those costs. We 
must make adjustments to it.
  No one ought to come to the floor selling some snake oil that says, 
``Let us cut approximately the same amount from Medicare spending so we 
can make room for the same amount of tax cuts. Let us take from those 
who do not have much by reducing the Medicare Program, and give to 
those who have plenty, with tax cuts for upper-income folks.'' I find 
that to be a strange, twisted set of priorities.
  Even as I say that, I recognize all of us must find a way to reduce 
the kinds of budget claims the Medicare Program has in the Federal 
budget. We can do that sensibly, thoughtfully. We cannot do that if we 
want to use savings from the Medicare Program in order to make room for 
a tax cut. That is an inappropriate subject in the first instance while 
we are trying to balance the Federal budget. It will be interesting in 
the next week or two to see the manifestation of this philosophy.
  The majority party says they are the ones that want to balance the 
budget. They also want to bring to the floor of the Senate a defense 
bill that will spend some $13 billion more than the Pentagon asks for, 
a star wars program that will cost some $60 billion in money we do not 
have to build something we do not need.
  It seems to me the real test of what you stand for is not what you 
say, but what you bring to the floor. What specific proposals do you 
have? How will you require the American people to pay for them in the 
future? As soon as the American people understand exactly what are the 
details of this plan, I think they will understand the twisted set of 
priorities embraced by this budget conference report.
  I see my colleague from North Dakota is on the floor prepared to 
speak about the budget. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the senior Senator from 
North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleague from North 
Dakota, who has spoken clearly and well on the basic point that none of 
these plans is a truly balanced budget. One of the most frustrating 
things I have felt during our discussions--about what is a balanced 
budget and what is not a balanced budget--is that somehow when we get 
inside this Chamber, our financial common sense goes right out the 
window. I say that because I come from a financial background. My 
colleague who just spoke from North Dakota has a financial background.

  Frankly, Mr. President, if we were in any financial institution and 
said we were balancing the budget, when in part what we were doing was 
taking the retirement funds of our employees and throwing those into 
the pot, we would be laughed out of the room. Mr. President, that is 
not a balanced budget. The Chair knows that. I think every Senator in 
this room knows that. That is not a balanced budget.
  In fact, this budget shows a $103 billion deficit in the year 2002 if 
we are to exclude Social Security surpluses. Of course, we have to 
exclude them if we are going to be basing our determinations on honest 
accounting and on the law. That is not a balanced budget.
  I would point out that last year I offered the only plan that did 
balance the budget without counting Social Security surpluses. That was 
the fair share plan, and it got 39 votes here in the U.S. Senate.
  I think in the interest of honest disclosure, we have to acknowledge 
the President's plan is not truly a balanced budget plan. The 
Republican plan is not truly a balanced budget plan. In fact, the 
centrist coalition, which I was a part of, did not produce a truly 
balanced budget plan. All of them were significant deficit reduction 
plans, but none of them achieve a truly balanced budget.
  Mr. President, I want to take a few moments to talk about the budget 
before the Senate. I believe the most important work that any Congress 
does is its determinations on the budget, because that determines where 
the nation's resources are going to go for the next year, and beyond.
  Mr. President, yesterday was a remarkable moment in this Chamber. 
Senator Dole, who has been here in the U.S. Senate for 27 years, 
retired and left this Chamber to pursue his candidacy for the 
Presidency of the United States. Yesterday, when he stood in the well 
and at the majority leader's desk and gave his final farewell address 
to the Members, I was struck when he talked about the things that he 
was most proud of, the things that he had done here that he will 
remember and be proud of.
  What did he talk about? He talked about a series of legislative 
accomplishments that were all bipartisan in nature. He talked about 
working across the gap between Republicans and Democrats, working 
across the aisle to accomplish things that were important for our 
country.
  Mr. President, I think all of us know, in our heart of hearts, when 
this institution works best, it works in a bipartisan way to achieve 
legislative advances for the American people that we are all sent here 
to represent.
  Mr. President, it was that sense of bipartisanship that was palpable 
in this Chamber yesterday, but that is so lacking in this budget 
proposal before the Senate today. This is the same song, second verse, 
of a Republican budget plan that was offered last year and was vetoed 
by the President. There is very little difference. It is rewrapped with 
new packaging, but if you open up the package and look at what is 
inside, you find there is very little difference between what the 
Republican majority offered last year and what they are offering to us 
this year.
  The press has reported, and reported widely, this is a kinder, 
gentler Republican budget. Frankly, they have been fooled, because this 
has gone from being a 7-year budget plan to a 6-year plan. They are 
comparing last year's 7-year plan to this year's 6-year plan, so all of 
a sudden the numbers look better.

[[Page S6127]]

  Mr. President, that is not a fair comparison. You have to compare 
apples to apples and oranges to oranges, a 7-year plan to a 7-year 
plan, not a 6-year plan to a 7-year plan. If one does that, you find 
there is almost no change. Yogi Berra said, ``Deja vu all over again.''
  Mr. President, let's look at a real comparison, a 7-year comparison, 
to what the majority offered just last year and what they are offering 
us this year. On Medicare last year, they offered $226.8 billion in 
cuts over 7 years. This year, if you adjust their 6-year plan to a 7-
year plan, it is $228 billion of cuts in Medicare. Very little 
difference.
  On Medicaid, last year it was $132.6 billion in cuts; this year it is 
$106 billion. On welfare last year, the Republican plan was $65.6 
billion; this year, they have actually increased the cuts, if it is 
over a 7-year period, to $66.7 billion.
  Last year, on the earned-income tax credit, a provision that will 
increase the taxes for moderate-income Americans who work, they are 
actually going to increase those folks' taxes, $21.2 billion in last 
year's plan; they have taken $1 billion off this year, and it is a $20 
billion increase. Tax breaks, last year, the plan was $246.7 billion 
over 7 years; this year, on a fair comparison, it is $220.4 billion. 
Very little change.
  Mr. President, I oppose this budget resolution. I do not think it is 
bipartisan. I do not think it represents the kind of settlement between 
the two sides that can be sustained. If we are serious about reducing 
the budget deficit and getting our fiscal house in order, we know there 
is only one way to accomplish that goal. We must march together, 
Republicans and Democrats, so we can actually enact into law what we 
propose here on the floor of this Chamber.
  (Mr. GREGG assumed the chair.)
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to emphasize that it is critically 
important that we succeed in this endeavor. Make no mistake about it, 
we are on a fiscal course that cannot be sustained. As I have said 
repeatedly to my colleagues on the Budget Committee and on the floor of 
this Chamber, it is true that we have seen a substantial reduction in 
the budget deficit, and that is certainly good news.
  Without question, this chart shows what happened to the unified 
Federal budget deficit as a percentage of the economy from 1980 to 
1996. Back in 1980, the deficit was about 3 percent of our economy, 
about 3 percent of gross domestic product. It then shot up to 6.3 
percent in the early 1980's, worked its way back down in 1990, when it 
was back down to around 3 percent, and then it jumped up again to 
nearly 5 percent. During the tenure of Bill Clinton as President of the 
United States, the deficit has come down 4 years in a row. We are now 
down to a deficit that is less than 2 percent of our gross domestic 
product. That is the lowest deficit as measured against the size of the 
economy of any industrialized country in the world. So we have made 
great progress.
  But no one should be under any illusion. While we have made 
significant progress, if we do not keep working, if we do not keep 
putting on the pressure of deficit reduction, all of these gains are 
going to be lost as we start to move toward the time that the baby boom 
generation retires.
  Mr. President, we face a demographic time bomb in this country. It is 
the baby boom generation, because when they start to retire, the number 
of people who are eligible for programs like Medicare and Social 
Security is going to double. We are going to go from 24 million people 
eligible for Social Security and Medicare to 48 million people 
eligible. None of us can put our heads in the sand and say it is not 
going to happen. It is going to happen. And the consequences are going 
to be enormous, and they are going to be severe. We have been told by 
the Entitlements Commission that if we fail to change course, by the 
year 2012 every dime of Federal revenue will go for entitlements and 
interest on the debt. There will be no money for any of the other 
functions of the Federal Government. There will be no money for roads. 
There will be no money for parks. There will be no money for education. 
There will be no money for research.
  Mr. President, that is not an acceptable result. We were also told 
last year that if we stay on the current course, future generations 
will face either an 82-percent lifetime net tax rate or a one-third cut 
in all benefits. Let me repeat that because I think it is so jarring 
that most people almost cannot hear it when you say it. We were told 
last year that if we stay on the current course, future generations 
will face either an 82-percent lifetime net tax rate or a one-third cut 
in all benefits. Does anyone believe we are going to have an 82-percent 
tax rate in this country? I do not believe it. That is never going to 
happen. So the alternative is a one-third cut in all benefits. What a 
disaster that would be for those who are anticipating and counting on 
those programs to be present when they retire.
  Mr. President, it is not only for those reasons that we must move to 
reduce the budget deficit further, it is also because balancing the 
budget will provide an enormous boost to our economy. Economists have 
told us repeatedly that if we reduce the deficit, that will expand the 
pool of national savings that are available for investment. It is only 
through investment that we are able to improve future economic growth. 
We have to have investment to grow.
  Where do you get money to invest? You have to have savings in order 
for there to be investment. Where do those savings come from? Well, 
they come from the private sector. But they also come by eliminating 
the budget deficit because the budget deficit eats into the pool of 
savings that are available for investment--that investment that is 
necessary to improve the economic performance of our economy.
  Mr. President, all we have to do is look back and see what we 
accomplished by the 1993 budget plan that cut spending and, yes, raised 
income taxes on the wealthiest 1 percent in this country. That plan 
significantly reduced the deficit. There were certainly other factors, 
as well, that contributed to that deficit reduction. But because we 
reduced the deficit, the pool of societal savings was increased, 
interest rates came down, business investment went to a 30-year high, 9 
million jobs have been created, and the American economy has been on a 
path of sustained growth.
  Mr. President, we should not let this opportunity pass us by again 
this year. We should seize this opportunity and, on a bipartisan basis, 
form an agreement to reach a budget accord that would get this job 
done, that would move us toward fiscal responsibility, that would move 
us toward balancing this Federal budget. Let me just say that, very 
often, people talk about balancing the budget in moralistic terms. 
Unfortunately, I think that turns off a certain segment of the American 
people who think, all that is in deficit reduction is pain, all that is 
in it is cutting programs we like, or raising our taxes, or some 
combination of both. None of it is good news.
  Mr. President, there is enormous good news in deficit reduction. The 
good news comes when you lower interest rates and save the American 
people money. A 1-percent drop in interest rates, as a result of 
deficit reduction, means individual savings of almost $5,000 over 5 
years on a conventional mortgage. Just think of what that means to the 
average American family. A 1-percent reduction in interest rates on 
their home mortgage means, to the average American family, nearly 
$1,000 a year, or $400 a year on a 5-year car loan. And to people in my 
State--my State is a farm State, North Dakota--it means nearly $1,000 a 
year of savings to a North Dakota farmer.
  So not only is balancing the budget better for the average American 
now, it is also of the utmost importance for economic growth and our 
children's future. We were told last year by a GAO study that if we 
would balance the unified budget by the year 2002, this economy, by the 
year 2029, would be 25 percent larger than if we failed to change 
course. Think of what that means in terms of jobs and opportunity and 
economic growth. Think of what that means in the quality of our 
children's lives.
  Mr. President, I know the occupant of the chair is somebody who has 
been dedicated to deficit reduction. I must say of my colleagues here 
in this Chamber, I think few match the occupant of the chair for his 
dedication and seriousness and commitment to deficit reduction. I 
applaud him for it, because

[[Page S6128]]

I think all of us can see that it is clearly in the interest of our 
country. Somehow we ought to find a way to work together to achieve 
that result.
  Let me say that the budget before us troubles me in many respects. 
First of all, the first reconciliation package that the budget 
resolution conference report provides for--that first reconciliation 
bill provides for $124 billion in mandatory savings for Medicaid and 
welfare, but up to $122 billion in tax reductions. That is a fine way 
to begin a deficit reduction effort--to start by spending every penny 
that we save.
  Mr. President, that is not my idea of a path toward deficit 
reduction.
  Let me say that the Republicans in this latest proposal have made 
some improvements in their Medicaid package, but the proposal remains 
fatally flawed. It does not provide a guarantee of a meaningful 
benefits package, and it gives away Federal dollars to the States 
through changes in the Federal matching formula and the repeal of a 
restriction against State scams to tap into the Federal Treasury. Well, 
I can understand why some of the Governors of this country are lined up 
behind this proposal. I can understand why those Governors support it. 
It is great for them. They are able to tap into the Federal Treasury to 
replace some of the money that they are currently spending.
  Mr. President, we have seen the scams that have gone on in the past 
by way of provider taxes in which the States would engage in what is 
really an accounting sham to shift their spending onto the Federal 
Government in order to relieve State budgets and make it a Federal 
budget obligation and responsibility.
  Mr. President, that is the last kind of high jinks we need if we are 
serious about reducing the Federal budget deficit. The Federal budget 
is out of balance. The last thing we need to do is shift responsibility 
and obligations from State governments to the Federal Government, when 
the Federal Government cannot meet the obligations it currently has.
  In sum, might I say that the assumptions contained in this budget 
resolution with regard to Medicaid are designed as a poison pill to 
ensure that the President does not sign a welfare reform package. They 
have linked Medicaid changes that are totally unacceptable to the 
President with welfare reform knowing that he cannot accept the 
Medicaid part of the package. So they know he cannot accept the package 
as a whole.
  What we have here is a political game. It does not serve either side 
well. It does not serve the American people well. And it does not lead 
us to resolution of anything.
  With respect to welfare reform, let me say that I am a strong 
advocate of welfare reform. I think it is intolerable that we have a 
system that abuses everyone in the system, abuses the taxpayers that 
pay for it, abuses the recipients who receive it, and abuses all the 
rest of us who must witness the results of a system that clearly is 
failing.
  Last year Congress debated welfare reform, and one of the most 
important lessons we have learned is that in order to have successful 
welfare reform, we must work together. We had a package that passed the 
Senate overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis. I wish the same could be 
said of the budget proposal that is before us. But I cannot. It was not 
done in a bipartisan way. As a result, we have a package that is not 
going to work.
  Last year, I introduced my own sweeping welfare reform package that 
emphasized work, that protected children, that safeguarded taxpayers. 
Those are the principles that we ought to, on a bipartisan basis, apply 
to writing a budget resolution as well.
  A few weeks ago, Republicans introduced their new welfare reform 
package. I must say I have concern about many of the provisions 
contained in this proposal, including decreasing the maintenance of 
effort to 75 percent. This proposal has the potential to allow States 
to supplant, rather than supplement, State spending on low-income 
families with Federal dollars. That is not what we ought to do as we go 
about the important task of reforming the welfare system.
  The proposal also lacks provisions to promote Government 
accountability and to ensure the integrity of Federal funds.
  Another major deficiency, in my judgment, in the Republican proposal 
is the State option to block grant the Food Stamp Program. The Food 
Stamp Program is the anchor for the Nation's nutritional safety net. 
The program has an impressive history of responding to economic 
fluctuations in our country and changes in child poverty levels.
  Senator Dole stood at the majority leader's desk yesterday and said 
one of his proudest accomplishments here in the Senate was the Food 
Stamp Program. Mr. President, Senator Dole was right. That is a proud 
accomplishment. The program can be improved, and it must be.
  But we should not take steps that might undermine and destroy that 
program that has made such a difference in the lives of millions of 
Americans. No American ought to go to bed at night hungry. That is what 
the Food Stamp Program has changed.
  I remember very well coming here as a teenage boy and listening to 
testimony before the Senate Agriculture Committee--Senator Dole was a 
member--about hunger in America, and the very real circumstances that 
families faced up and down the east coast of the United States, and in 
the central part of America where hunger was prevalent before we had a 
Food Stamp Program.
  Senator Dole spoke movingly yesterday about what he himself saw in a 
hearing that was held in South Carolina--hungry people that were helped 
by a program that was passed on a bipartisan basis.
  The conference report of the budget resolution also provides for a 
reconciliation bill to consider Medicare reform in July and a tax cut 
bill coupled with other mandatory savings in September. I am 
disappointed that a reconciliation bill to provide tax cuts, which may 
not be fully offset, is provided for in this conference report.
  When the Senate considered the budget resolution, much was made of 
the fact that the first two reconciliation bills would have to be 
enacted first in order for the Senate to consider the third 
reconciliation bill which would have the tax cuts in it. Now, all of a 
sudden, that is all out the window. It shows, I believe, the real 
priority of some in this Congress to cut taxes regardless of whether 
they are accompanied by tough budgetary decisions to make certain that 
the deficit is not increased as a result.
  This approach really makes me wonder if we have learned anything from 
the disastrous fiscal policies of the 1980's. Are we really going to 
embark on that course once again of cutting taxes and not having the 
spending cuts to go with them and seeing the deficit mushroom and 
seeing the economic security of this country once again threatened? Is 
that really the course we are going to embark on? I hope not.
  Mr. President, I also want to comment briefly on the discretionary 
spending proposals that are contained in this budget resolution. This 
proposal contains huge and completely unrealistic cuts in discretionary 
spending. Behind the scenes it is kind of laughed at by everybody who 
has really spent time on these budget proposals.
  Whether it is the President's proposal or this Republican proposal, 
these domestic cuts are totally unrealistic. Everyone knows they are 
not going to happen. It is kind of the dirty little secret of these 
budget plans. They are back-end loaded, both of them.
  I have another chart that shows what we are faced with by both of 
these budget plans--how truly unrealistic they are. This shows the 
distribution of the total savings in the budget plans, both the 
President's plan and the Republican plan before us. It shows by 2002 
what the savings are.
  But look at what happens under both of these plans. The Republican 
plan has 64 percent of its savings in the last 2 years. The President's 
plan is no better. He has 66 percent of his savings in the last 2 
years. Over the last 3 years, they are identical. Both of them have 82 
percent of their savings in the last 3 years.
  A big chunk of this is domestic spending cuts in both the President's 
plan and the Republican plan. They are not going to happen. They are 
unrealistic. We would be much better off to be honest with each other 
and have a spending plan that might really be sustained by future 
Congresses so that we can be on a path that really gives the result all 
of us seek--getting the Federal budget deficit under control. That

[[Page S6129]]

is in our common interest. It is in our country's interest. It is what 
we ought to do.
  I will just close by saying I will oppose the conference report on 
the budget resolution. I think it sets in motion another partisan 
political war over budget priorities and contains misguided priorities. 
As I indicated earlier, I think it is the same song, second verse, of 
what we saw last year--very little difference if you compare it on a 7-
year basis to what was offered by the majority last year and what is 
being offered this year.
  I close by saying, there is another way. There is another way 
different from what the President has proposed and different from what 
the Republican majority has given us in this budget resolution; that 
is, the centrist plan that got 46 votes here on the floor of the Senate 
just a few weeks ago. Twenty-four Democrats voted for that plan and 22 
Republicans voted for it, even though the leadership on both sides were 
opposed to it. I think that sends a signal that we were on the right 
path.
  I would be the first to assert that it is not a perfect plan. It was 
the product of compromise. But it was the product of bipartisan work--
the only place where there has been a successful effort to reach across 
the aisle to try to bring agreement and closure to a plan that would 
really put us on the path to serious deficit reduction, and not just 
deficit reduction until 2002, but deficit reduction beyond that time.
  As I said earlier, that plan is not a balanced budget plan either 
because, as I have indicated, of the use of Social Security surpluses.
  Mr. President, I hope that before this year is over we can go back to 
a process of bipartisanship, of reaching out and working together to 
achieve a result that is important for our country.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the budget 
resolution conference report. I oppose this conference agreement 
because it fails to meet the day-to-day needs of the American people. I 
oppose it because it threatens the economic and retirement security of 
our most vulnerable citizens. And, I oppose the conference report 
because it fails to make the investments in education and training that 
are needed to prepare our work force to meet the challenges of the 
global marketplace.
  Mr. President. Let me be absolutely clear. I believe we need a 
balanced budget. I voted for just such a plan when the Senate 
considered the budget resolution. I joined with 44 of my colleagues in 
voting for the President's budget plan, which would achieve balance by 
the year 2002.
  The President's plan cut spending by $528 billion over 6 years. But 
it made these cuts without jeopardizing the Medicare Program, without 
jeopardizing Medicaid, without harming the environment, and without 
excessive cuts in education and training.
  Unfortunately, the conference report before us is the same old wolf 
in new sheep's clothing. Let me mention one area of particular concern 
to me. Under this conference report, once again, Medicare and Medicaid 
are under assault. This plan would cut Medicare spending by $168 
billion. These massive cuts, coupled with the structural changes 
proposed by the Republicans, will turn the Medicare Program into a 
second-class system for the sickest and poorest of our seniors.
  The Medicaid Program would be cut by $72 billion, and under 
Republican Medicaid proposals some 36 million people will lose the 
guarantee of access to health care, while others may be forced to 
accept a reduced level of benefits. Together these Medicaid and 
Medicare cuts make the promise of health security impossible to 
achieve.
  What is particularly distressing is that these massive cuts, cuts 
which will be felt most seriously by our most vulnerable citizens, are 
being made to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. While the budget plan 
I supported eliminated special interest tax breaks, providing $40 
billion in additional revenues, the Republican plan contains absolutely 
no savings from this category. Instead it contains tax breaks in the 
order of $180 billion.
  I think that is an outrage. And I believe it does not reflect the 
needs and priorities of the American people.
  Mr. President, I was elected by the people of Maryland to save lives, 
to save jobs, and to save communities. I work every day to meet 
people's day-to-day needs, and I want a budget that reflects those 
priorities.
  This budget plan sets us on the course for the same painful and 
divisive budget battles that we fought all last year. It is a 
prescription for gridlock.
  Yes, we must balance the budget. But the way to do that is to follow 
a steady, responsible course toward deficit reduction. We have made 
much progress under the Clinton administration in moving toward a 
balanced budget. In fact, the budget deficit has declined to $130 
billion, less than half of the $290.4 billion deficit President Clinton 
inherited from the previous administration.
  We have tightened belts and made many tough decisions to achieve this 
success. And we will continue to do more. But we have done that while 
protecting people and priorities. That is what the citizens of Maryland 
sent me here to do.
  That's why I believe we need to reject the extremism of this 
conference report, and reach for the sensible center in our budget 
negotiations. And that is why I will vote against this conference 
report.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to express my displeasure with 
House Concurrent Resolution 178, the Republican budget resolution, and 
my disappointment that the budget was not improved during the House-
Senate conference. Rather, the budget has grown even more troubling 
since going into conference. And I want to take a few minutes to 
discuss some of the provisions that concern me.
  Two weeks ago, I voted against the Senate Republican budget 
resolution because it failed to reflect the priorities and values held 
by most Americans--the belief that we need to ensure our quality of 
life, educate our children, and care for our elderly and disabled.
  The majority party could have improved the budget in the House-Senate 
conference meeting. They could have acknowledged the growing support 
for the centrist budget and the strong desire to reach a true balanced 
budget compromise. We should not forget the Chafee-Breaux balanced 
budget proposal received 46 votes, and I was proud to be among them. It 
received strong bipartisan support, and it is proof that Congress can 
get the job done.
  Mr. President, House Concurrent Resolution 178 took an extreme Senate 
Republican budget and made it worse. Rather than moving toward the 
centrist budget, the Republican leadership yielded to some disturbing 
House positions. Their actions lead me to believe some Republicans want 
gridlock--they do not want a balanced budget compromise.
  For instance, House Concurrent Resolution 178 includes a section 
known as the Government shutdown prevention allowance, or section 307. 
This section quite simply confirms the Republican strategy not to 
reward the American people with a balanced budget agreement this year. 
This section acknowledges the fact that the Republican budget is too 
extreme to be accepted by mainstream Americans.
  Section 307 states the Budget Committee chairman can increase 
appropriation spending caps by $1.3 billion if the appropriators pass a 
continuing resolution. This language makes it very clear the 
Republicans intend to pass a long-term CR rather than work toward a 
comprehensive budget agreement. Mr. President, the American people 
expect and deserve better. The American people do not want to see us 
throw the towel in early.
  The budget conference also reveals the fact that Republicans again 
wish to give tax breaks to the wealthy by cutting Medicaid coverage for 
the poor. Mr. President, after last year's budget debate, I would have 
thought the Republicans learned Americans are not in favor of giving 
tax breaks to the wealthy by cutting health care coverage to our 
children, elderly, and disabled. As written, the Republican budget cuts 
Medicaid by $72 billion over 6 years. Along with welfare reform, the 
Medicaid cut will offset $122 billion worth of tax cuts.
  A year ago, I was opposed to cutting back Medicaid because it 
provides health care for our poorest children and it ensures quality 
nursing home standards for our parents. But, after

[[Page S6130]]

talking to health care experts in Washington State, I concluded my home 
State could still serve our most vulnerable populations while absorbing 
a significant cut to Medicaid. I am willing to concede that point, and 
I know now that if we all give a little, we can reach compromise.
  However, we should not be cutting Medicaid simply to hand out 
politically-popular tax breaks. That does not make good sense--that 
would not fall in line with our recent efforts to become more fiscally 
responsible.
  And, Mr. President, let us remember exactly where we are on this road 
to ending the deficit. Since 1993, we have made great progress toward 
reducing this Nation's deficit. CBO estimates the 1996 deficit will 
fall to $130 billion--the fourth straight year the deficit has 
declined. We have cut the budget deficit in half in less than 4 years, 
and today's annual deficit is the lowest percent of our gross domestic 
product since 1980. I'm proud of this fact. I am proud to have been 
involved in crafting the omnibus budget package of 1993. That deficit 
reduction package has us on the right track.
  Our need to do more, however, spawned a bipartisan group of Senators 
to come together and formulate a well-reasoned, well-balanced budget 
proposal. I commend Senators Chafee and Breaux for their leadership and 
hard work on this matter. I voted for their budget alternative because 
it is exactly the kind of bipartisan teamwork congress needs. 
Certainly, I would like to see less savings come out of discretionary 
accounts that include education, job training, trade promotion, and the 
environment. And the tax cuts may be too generous.
  The Chafee-Breaux plan may not be perfect, but I believe it is 
probably the most realistic compromise one could craft. I am hopeful 
this centrist plan will become the framework for future budget 
negotiations.
  Mr. President, this past year has taught us we can reach a balanced 
budget. We learned we can formulate a balanced budget that uses common 
sense and reflects America's values and priorities. That is why Senator 
Kerry and I offered an amendment to restore education and job training 
funds in the Republican budget. As my colleagues know, this amendment 
failed despite the fact that the Republican budget will cut education 
spending 20 percent from current levels.
  Americans understand how important education and job training 
investments are for our children, and the future success of this 
Nation. A recent USA Today poll found that education has become the 
most important issue for Americans--ranking above crime, the economy, 
and the quality of one's job.
  Mr. President, we have a lot of work to do if we are going to reach a 
balanced budget. But the truth of the matter is that both parties have 
agreed to enough savings that we could balance the budget today if we 
really want to. When considering the entire budget, the difference 
between the two parties amounts to less than 1 percent of the Federal 
Government's spending. A balanced budget plan is possible. All we need 
is the courage to find compromise.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Appropriations 
and Budget Committees in order to make sure this Congress' spending 
priorities are balanced and in line with our constituents' wishes. 
Unfortunately, today's budget resolution fails to strike a balance. It 
is simply a replay of last year's failed Republican budget. And I will 
be fighting to make sure this Congress does not lose sight of what is 
truly important to our friends and families.
  We have made tremendous progress in the past 3 years. The 1993 budget 
reconciliation enabled us to cut the deficit in half, and create over 9 
million jobs in the process. This is great news; but that is not all--
last year we narrowed the differences in the competing budget plans to 
just a few, and a centrist plan to bridge the gap fell short by only 
five votes. We are close. We are very close to finishing the job.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this partisan plan and rededicate 
themselves to reaching a workable compromise.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________