[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 86 (Wednesday, June 12, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6131-S6136]
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. HOLLINGS. I yield myself 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the explanation of the conferees has 
come to my attention. It is a joint explanatory statement of the 
committee of conference on this particular conference report, and on 
pages 32 and 33, starting at the bottom of page 32, it reads:

       The first use of reconciliation was for legislation that 
     reduced revenues. In 1975, the applicable budget resolution, 
     House Concurrent Resolution 466, provided an instruction to 
     both Ways and Means and Finance to report legislation 
     decreasing revenues. Notwithstanding the fact that the 
     authors of this 1974 Budget Act were neutral as to the policy 
     objectives of reconciliation, since 1975, reconciliation and 
     reconciliation legislation has been used to reduce the 
     deficit. The cited conferees notes while this resolution 
     includes a reconciliation instruction to reduce revenues, the 
     sum of the instructions would not only reduce the deficit but 
     would result in a balanced budget by the year 2002.

  On the last point, of course, Mr. President, we only have to turn, 
once again to the facts. This is almost getting to be an exercise in 
futility. Somehow this is the only place in America where the truth 
cannot be recognized, even when they print it for you in black and 
white.
  I refer specifically to the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
the fiscal year 1997. At the top of page 4, you will see where they 
have listed deficits for the purpose of the enforcement of this 
resolution. ``The amounts of the deficits are as follows,'' and it 
lists fiscal years 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and for the fiscal 
year 2002, where the distinguished conferees, and particularly the 
chairman of the Budget Committee, is using the expression ``balanced 
budget,'' his own document, for fiscal year 2002, shows a deficit of 
$103,845,000,000.
  Reading further down the page to section 102 on page 4, you will find 
that in the fiscal year 2002, the amount of the increase in the public 
debt, subject to limitations, are for that year $130 billion. So how do 
you balance the budget by the year 2002, and yet you have to go out and 
borrow $130 billion?
  My point here is to change this record with respect to 
reconciliation, because the truth, as stated by the distinguished 
Senator from New Mexico at that particular time--is shown here on page 
S. 15351 of the Congressional Record of the U.S. Senate dated December 
3, 1980--not 1975. And I read the words of the distinguished chairman, 
now chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici of New Mexico:

       I think it is fitting that that last event signifies the 
     possibility of a new beginning because, as a matter of fact, 
     this is the first time in the history of our country that we 
     will send a bill to the President that is called a 
     reconciliation bill, and that means that some of the laws of 
     this country have been reconciled with the budget. That means 
     that they have been changed so that they come more into sync 
     or more harmonious with a budget that is left unchanged. That 
     is what reconciliation means. With all the years that our 
     distinguished Republican leader, Senator Bellmon, has spent 
     patiently working with the institution to bring some real 
     support for this process into fiscal restraint reality, I 
     think it is at least reaching fruition when we have a 
     reconciliation law that will go to the President. I hope 
     after the Senate votes today I commend him for that. Also 
     obviously, it is an extremely fitting event for Senator 
     Hollings. He did not have the privilege of being chairman of 
     the committee for very long, but he worked on the committee 
     for years, and I think he must feel very good today knowing 
     that under his leadership, this first reconciliation act will 
     become a reality.

  That is the record made by the now chairman of the Budget Committee 
in 1980 and not 5 years previous thereto in 1975.
  Specifically, Mr. President, in 1975, and I read from page 40297, 
dated December 12, 1975:

       Mr. Mansfield. Mr. President, for the information of the 
     Senate, I have a few announcements. At 12 o'clock today, we 
     will be proceed to the consideration of the conference 
     report, of the defense appropriations conference report. 
     After that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
     Senate proceed to the consideration of the tax bill, H.R. 
     5559 that is to be laid before the Senate and be the pending 
     business.

  The majority leader called it a tax bill. A wrangle ensued. My good 
and very clever friend Senator Long, the former distinguished chairman 
of the Finance Committee, was trying to limit debate and limit 
amendments. He very liberally referred to it as a reconciliation bill, 
but it was not a reconciliation. It was a tax bill.
  At that particular time, the former chairman of the Budget Committee, 
Senator Muskie, was momentarily misled trying to back Senator Long. But 
if you will read the Record, they finally ended up, Mr. President, by 
calling it a tax bill and entering into a unanimous-consent agreement 
requiring that all amendments be germane except for one nongermane 
amendment to be offered by Senator Hartke, the then-Senator from 
Indiana. The Record is clear that the bill was a tax bill despite the 
erroneous use of the word ``reconciliation.''
  Having worked on that budget, having been a part of the process 
during the 1970's, having helped Senator Muskie on budget conferences, 
we know that the first reconciliation bill in the history of the United 
States was in December 1980.
  That is not only supported by the statements made by the Senator from 
New Mexico, but also by the statements made by our House colleagues. I 
could refer to what Congressman Dick Bolling called it, Congressman 
Latta, Congressman Panetta, and others as well.
  So the precedent relied upon by the Parliamentarian which we had to 
appeal quite simply misrepresents what actually happened. I hope that 
it will not have any standing whatsoever in this body because when they 
look at the facts, the truth will have out that reconciliation 
throughout its history has always been used as a budgetary tool to 
reduce the deficit, not increase the deficit.
  My point is, Mr. President, that under this reconciliation bill, the 
Republicans have perverted the process in order to cut taxes somewhere 
between $122 and $180 billion. It is very difficult to estimate it at 
this particular point.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be yielded 2 more 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, what they have in mind is to split up 
the reconciliation bill. To use the process for political purposes in 
sending the President a legislation that combines Medicaid and welfare 
reforms to pay for tax cuts. Even the casual observer should be able to 
see what's going on. The Medicaid cuts will have to be vetoed by the 
President because they take away the fundamental protection that we 
give children in the United States of America. Even the Governors do 
not want to do that.
  Then it comes down to September and last of three bills that they 
will call a reconciliation bill. And in the heat of a national 
presidential campaign, they will come forward with the political gift 
of a tax cut.
  But a tax cut for wealthy corporations, or for the poor, or for the 
rich, or for the middle class, or for anybody is sheer nonsense.
  We are running deficits right now, according to this conference 
report that we are going to vote on. I started to say, they know no 
shame. But I have to amend that comment for the simple reason that the 
House Members know some shame. I say that because somebody over there 
has held the budget up that we were going to--bam, bam--put through the 
House, put through the Senate, and finish this afternoon. The reason we 
do not have it this afternoon--it increases deficits.
  Under this conference report, for the year 2002, the Government will 
run, under a best case scenario, a deficit of $103.8 billion.
  In sum, Mr. President, we do not have the luxury of revenues to cut. 
We cannot go in two different directions at once, but that is exactly 
the road that this conference report takes us down.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 more 
minute.

[[Page S6132]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. We have to pay the bills. We have to stop playing games 
and telling the people that somehow you can get tax cuts, when the 
resolutions says that next year we will be running deficits in excess 
of $227 billion.
  Mr. President, it is obvious this is just a sordid political game 
that is totally shameless. They come in here with these political, long 
pass plays. Let us get rid of the gasoline revenues--but just 
temporarily until after the Presidential election.
  Nobody ought to appear in the U.S. Congress where we are supposed to 
be responsible with that kind of nonsense. But they come in here with 
that. Now with deficits projected at $227 billion for fiscal year 1997, 
they say, ``We can get a tax cut and balance the budget.'' I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the sole issue before the U.S. Senate that 
is being debated this afternoon and voted on at such time as the House 
has completed action, is whether or not we accept a budget resolution 
agreed to by a majority of conferees on the budget.
  Once again, we are engaged in debate in which the opponents of this 
resolution, without exception, give lip service to a balanced budget. 
But as has been the case this year, last year, in 1994, in 1993, and 
every year back through the 1970's, it is always a different balanced 
budget, not this one, not the resolution we have before us right now.
  More taxes, says the Senator from South Carolina; more cuts in 
defense says another Senator; less in the way of a restriction on 
entitlement growth, says a third.
  Mr. President, I am convinced that it is that kind of ``I'm for a 
balanced budget, but not this one, not now, not this year, not this 
way,'' that causes us to have a national debt that exceeds $5 trillion.
  If I had my way, Mr. President, this would not be the balanced budget 
that we would be adopting. If the Presiding Officer had his way, this 
would not be the balanced budget we would be adopting. If my close and 
distinguished friend, the Senator from New Mexico, who chairs the 
Senate Budget Committee, had his way, it would not be this balanced 
budget that we would be adopting.
  But I believe that each of us has said, even though he has not gotten 
his own way as against 99 other Members of the Senate, it is more 
important to take this step and to move forward in a correct and 
responsible direction than it is to say, ``Not now, not this year, not 
this way. Do it my way or don't do it at all.''
  I listened with great sympathy to my friend on the other side of the 
aisle, the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, and I listened to 
him with great sympathy because of his obvious and evident dedication 
to reaching this goal. He and I and the Senator who is now presiding 
all were a part of the bipartisan group to which he referred.
  We worked for months on a proposal which would balance the budget and 
which could join together Republicans and Democrats. In spite of the 
opposition of the leadership in both parties and the President of the 
United States, we got 46 votes for our proposal. But 46 is not a 
majority of 100 Senators.
  I believe that was superior to the resolution that is before us now, 
but I do not believe it was perfect. As the Senator from North Dakota 
pointed out, each of us who was involved in that set of negotiations 
gave up something for the greater good.
  But we do not have that proposal before us right now. I must say that 
I am disappointed in my friend from North Dakota because the question 
is not whether or not there is a better way to do this--each of us can 
find something that he or she would use to improve this proposition--
the question is whether or not we are going to do something that moves 
us decisively in the right direction or nothing at all.
  I regret to say that, I guess, Mr. President, in the ultimate 
analysis we may do nothing. Oh, yes, we are going to pass this 
resolution. This is a responsible resolution which allows American 
working families to make at least a slightly greater judgment over how 
they spend the money they earn than they can do at the present time by 
lowering taxes on those families. That moves modestly, though not 
decisively enough, in the direction of reducing the growth of 
entitlement programs which are destroying the fiscal stability of this 
country and eating the heart out of the futures of our children and our 
grandchildren, and a resolution that deals responsibly with our need to 
fund something else through this Government than just a handful of huge 
income transfer programs and entitlements. We have that choice on one 
side, perhaps too modest on entitlements, too modest on tax relief for 
American working families, I think perhaps too stringent on much of our 
discretionary spending.

  Nonetheless, we have a choice of doing that or saying, ``Oh, no, this 
is not perfect. We will vote against it. We will do nothing. We will 
leave it until next year.'' Almost inevitably, a President of the 
United States running for reelection is going to end up vetoing all of 
the formal major statutory changes that would move us in this 
direction.
  I can only be reminded in connection with his actions, most 
regrettably, Mr. President, by the supposed comment of Louis the XV of 
France on his deathbed: ``After me, the deluge.''
  The President sees a Medicare trust fund report that says that the 
Medicare hospital trust fund will go bankrupt in the year 2001, and 
even if he is reelected President of the United States, that is after 
his watch is over. So we do not need to do anything now. We can 
continue on the status quo road, at least until after this next 
election. It is exactly that attitude, which certainly is not 
exclusively held by the President of the United States, ``Let's wait 
until after the next election,'' that has given us this $5 trillion in 
debt.
  I hope against hope, Mr. President, of course, that in addition to a 
degree of responsibility of party discipline on this side of the aisle, 
we will have Members of the other party who say, ``This is not exactly 
what I wanted, but it certainly moves us in the right direction as a 
country. It certainly provides a degree of relief for this Nation. It 
will certainly help generations who are going to come after us who 
cannot vote in the elections of 1996. So I will swallow some of my 
reservations, and I make that move in the right direction.''
  I hope against hope that the President will believe that is at least 
as advantageous as demagoging the issue. I will hope next year we come 
closer to doing something like the bipartisan budget that failed by so 
narrow a margin. I hope for all of those things, Mr. President, the 
only actual duty that I have right now and that every other Senator has 
right now is to say yes to this proposal that moves in the right 
direction, or, no, we can go another year without doing anything at 
all, letting the situation get worse and worse and worse.
  Mr. President, the overwhelming argument is in favor of the passage 
of this budget resolution.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President I ask to be recognized for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, my distinguished colleague from 
Washington, who I have the privilege of serving with not only on the 
Budget Committee but on the Commerce Committee, and for whom I have the 
greatest respect, says that what we are hearing now is nothing but lip 
service from people who do not want to do anything. People who say, 
``Not this way, not that way.''
  The truth of the matter is, Mr. President, he knows otherwise. This 
particular Senator, his colleague, voted for a balanced budget in 1968, 
offered a freeze that they still refer to as the ``Fritz freeze,'' and 
coauthored Gramm-Rudman-Hollings with cuts across the board. We passed 
that, got President Reagan to sign it. We followed that up in the 
Budget Committee with a bipartisan proposal to increase taxes because 
we found out that you could not choose this way or that way, but rather 
needed all of the above. We needed to freeze spending, we needed to 
make cuts, we had to withhold new programs, and we had to increase 
taxes in order to get a balanced budget.

[[Page S6133]]

  That brings me to the point. Do not come here and blame the 
President, saying that he has put off the tough decisions until after 
the next election. In December 1994 the leaders of the new Republican 
majority appeared on ``Meet the Press'' and said the President was 
irrelevant, they didn't care what he said. But as this conference 
report lays bare, the Republicans have their sights set on the White 
House in 1996. That is why almost two-thirds of the tough choices under 
their plan are deferred until the Presidential election in the year 
2000.

  So the 7 year, ``do nothing in two Presidential elections'' approach 
was what the contract crowd proposed. That was the arrogance of the 
whole thing. This debate is not about President Clinton. In 1993, he 
proposed a budget that did something about deficits--the only President 
that has reduced the deficit in the past 30 years. He cut the deficit 
$500 billion. He taxed Social Security and gasoline. He cut Medicare 
$57 billion. And he did it without a single Republican vote.
  The unmitigated gall of those who will stand on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate and say the President is tricky or the President backloads or 
the President does not care about deficits. There ought to be ashes in 
their mouths. They are the ones that caused this fiscal cancer. 
President Clinton has moved us in the right direction.
  We are trying to get together and get something done. But to come and 
call this a balanced budget, where their own document shows that they 
have a deficit of $103.8 billion in the year 2002, is a pure sham. It 
is all politics.
  It is sordid legislation they are bringing up here in the months 
before the election. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, to be 
equally charged.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kempthorne). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I might say to Senators--I am sure 
Senator Exon would agree with this statement--the hour of 3:30 is going 
to arrive and the House will not have sent us the resolution, so we 
cannot vote. The unanimous consent said we would vote at another time 
tomorrow, to be established by the majority leader in consultation with 
the minority leader.
  I think, for Senators who might want to speak this afternoon, we are 
trying to get off of the resolution at 3:30, which was when we were 
going to vote, and then have a reasonable amount of time left, by 
agreement, for when we bring it up tomorrow. So, if other things have 
to get done, they can today. Clearly, there is no reason to sit here 
without the resolution and using the Senate's time.
  Mr. President, I think Senator Hollings, the distinguished former 
chairman of the Budget Committee and ranking member for some period of 
time, has in his own way attempted to make a case against one of the 
reconciliation instructions in this budget resolution.
  Frankly, I now have in my hands the second concurrent resolution on 
the budget for fiscal year 1976, Mr. Muskie, chairman, conference 
report. I just want to read it, and perhaps I might engage with the 
current Parliamentarian in a few parliamentary inquiries about the 
content of this resolution and what some of the content has been 
construed to be by the Parliamentarian. I do not know that it is earth-
shaking that we are doing three reconciliation bills. I do not believe 
we are going to change our mind. And I do not believe we have done 
anything to dramatically alter reconciliation or to offend the Senate 
and its processes in some irrevocable way. So we are going to continue 
down our path.
  I am having a great deal of difficulty understanding how my good 
friend, Senator Hollings, can say we have never heretofore reconciled a 
committee to reduce taxes when I read from a conference report that, 
among other things, says, ``The Congress determines and declares 
pursuant to section 310(a) of the Budget Act of 1974 that for fiscal 
year beginning July 1, 1975''--and then I will move down to paragraph 4 
and read the following:

       The recommended level of Federal revenues is $300.8 
     billion, and the House Committee on Ways and Means and the 
     Senate Committee on Finance shall submit to their respective 
     Houses legislation to decrease Federal revenues by 
     approximately $6.4 billion.

  Now, there are other provisions, but I am just going to read that 
one. I think I am going to ask now, if I might, the Parliamentarian, if 
he has that language before him and the precedence of the Senate. 
Parliamentary inquiry. Was that provision not construed in that year to 
be a reconciliation instruction?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. You were not the Parliamentarian then, but is it 
recorded in the precedence of the Senate as a decision regarding a 
reconciliation instruction, Mr. Parliamentarian?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. What does the precedent say with reference to that 
parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On December 15, 1975, the Senate began 
consideration of H.R. 5559, which as passed by the House was not a 
reconciliation bill, and which contained only one substantive 
provision: to exclude from income certain earnings derived from 
payments by common carriers for use of railroad rolling stock owned by 
foreign corporations. After the Senate began its consideration, and the 
chairman of the Finance Committee asserted that the bill as reported 
with a substitute was intended to carry out the reconciliation 
instructions contained in the most recently adopted concurrent 
resolution on the budget, the Chair stated that there would be 20 hours 
debate on the bill, 2 hours on first-degree amendments, 1 hour on 
second-degree amendments and motions, and that amendments, except those 
specified in an earlier unanimous consent agreement, would have to be 
germane. These were the conditions specified in the Budget Act for the 
consideration of reconciliation bills.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair and the Parliamentarian.
  Mr. President, I want to just take one more opportunity, while we 
wait for others who might want to speak and wait for clearance on the 
proposal that I have just stated to the Senate that we might try to 
accomplish--that is, try to get off of the resolution at 3:30 and save 
a reasonable amount of time, hopefully 1 hour on a side, for the time 
preceding the actual vote, which would be determined for tomorrow by 
the joint leadership.
  I want to speak just about two issues one more time. Mr. President, 
in this budget resolution, there are discretionary appropriations for 
the Defense Department and discretionary appropriations for all of the 
rest of Government, the domestic portion of our Government. When I say 
discretionary appropriations, what I am talking about is program 
authority that must be passed upon and enacted every year. That is the 
way the current law is. So if you appropriate $286 billion for the 
defense of our country, it is for 1 year. Come the next year, you have 
to appropriate again. Likewise, in the 10 predominantly domestic 
discretionary appropriations bills, whether it is the Treasury-Postal 
bill, the energy and water bill, the Labor, Health and Human Services 
bill, this is a 1-year appropriation of money. It lasts for 1 year. It 
must be passed every year. Without it, there is no money to spend for 
any of those programs and activities.
  Now, last year, we got into a very big debate with our President over 
the domestic discretionary budgets, these various subcommittees that I 
have described. There were two big problems. One was that in both 
Houses we had put riders on the appropriation bill, which is not an 
uncommon thing.
  Second, in some instances, some programs were cut more than the 
President wanted, and we got ourselves into a political hiatus, and 
Government was closed down and reopened and closed down and reopened 
and closed down and reopened.
  Now, what we have done in this budget resolution is we have asked the 
Congressional Budget Office how much money do we need to have a freeze 
on

[[Page S6134]]

all of these domestic accounts--no cuts, a freeze. They gave us the 
dollar number that we needed in these bills to continue, without any 
cuts, a freeze on all of these domestic programs that require 
appropriations this year, for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 
1996, through the end of September 1997.
  So this budget does not propose any significant cuts in domestic 
programs. It proposes a freeze. What does the President propose? The 
President proposes in his 6- or 7-year budget that in 1997 those 
appropriated accounts go up $15 billion. So while on the one hand we 
talk of balancing the budget, the President produced a budget that said 
let us spend $15 billion more than we spent last year. Obviously, that 
gives the President for 1 year the latitude to say he is increasing 
education, he is increasing this, he is increasing that. We say freeze 
them, if you are serious about a budget. You can take a freeze, if you 
are serious about a balanced budget.
  What is interesting about the budget differences--we do not have the 
President's budget before us because it was voted down in the Senate. 
Nonetheless, what is interesting is that the President's increases 
continue only for an election year and then start down. Then he 
produces two budgets, not one. He produces one using his own numbers, 
his own economics, and he says, ``This is what I am going to do over 
the next 7 years.'' And it comes tumbling down in the last 2 years, and 
this is where you have the argument that Senator Bond is making that 
since the President wants to spend even during that downturn more money 
for certain areas like education and others, it is inevitable that the 
veterans' function gets cut dramatically. Many others programs get cut 
dramatically. The space program is disassembled for all intents and 
purposes. But the Cabinet members run around telling the constituency 
``We are not bound by that. The President has told us we will take it 
one year at a time.'' That is one budget. The President has another 
budget. That budget is the one, the second one, that permits him to 
say, ``They told me to do it their way, and I have done it their way. I 
have a balanced budget.'' It is the same kind of balance as Congress 
has excepting that in that budget he has to really cut. He has to 
really cut the veterans. He has to really cut the domestic accounts, 
except you wait until the last 2 years and then cut $67 billion out of 
those accounts. But that is not the budget he is telling the people 
about. He is telling them about the easier budget, the one where he 
uses his own economics and his own assumptions which is kind of the 
rosy scenario budget. Then in turn Cabinet people send out to our 
respective States how much has to be cut under our budgets with silence 
about how much has to be cut in theirs; in fact, disavowing that 
anything necessarily has to be cut because, if asked, they say, ``We 
will take it one year at a time.''
  I believe it is only fair that we set the record straight here. We 
are going to deliver appropriations bills--it is not my responsibility 
except for one subcommittee--but our distinguished chairman, Senator 
Hatfield, I am certain with the cooperation of Democrats is going to 
produce these bills that are very close to a freeze in every case. I am 
very hopeful that the public understands that it is really kind of 
phony to say we ought to spend $15 billion more because this is an 
election year only to find as soon as the election is over we will 
start reducing them and actually 2 years after this President would 
leave office, even if he is reelected, is when we get serious about 
making some real cuts. So I think the freeze is fair.
  My second point has to do, just for a minute one more time, about 
Medicare and the huge misrepresentation in the President's Medicare 
proposal. So let me tell Americans one more time how the President is 
handling Medicare.
  First of all, I repeat that Medicare is going broke. I do not say 
this with any joy. I did not do the estimating. My committee staff did 
not. Three Cabinet members and the head person of Social Security are 
four out of the five people who review it annually and tell us the 
truth. Three of them work for the President. One of them is appointed 
by the President. What did they say? They said things are getting worse 
since last year when you did nothing and the fund is going to be 
bankrupt in 5 years. Let us throw out that word ``bankrupt'' and let us 
say what it means.
  Each year the trust fund is spending more for seniors who are 
entitled to the coverage than the taxes coming in. There was a surplus, 
Mr. President. So we are still able to pay the bill. The surplus is 
disappearing and the money coming in is not enough to pay the bills 
going out. So in the fifth year they now say--5 years--there will not 
be any money to pay the bills. How else can we say it? Everybody's 
paycheck keeps having that money taken out of it for Medicare and it 
keeps going in. Nobody is cheating in terms of putting it in there.
  One of the most enforced laws around is that for withholding for 
Social Security and Medicare. These trustees told us in the following 
language, and I do not quote but I paraphrase: It is imperative that 
you make the fund solvent by restraining and curtailing the costs of 
the program. What did the President do? The President finds a magic 
asterisk of $55 billion, a master stroke of magic. He says let us take 
$55 billion of the expenditures for our seniors and let us just take it 
out of there. Let us not spend it for seniors, $55 billion. And the $55 
billion happens to be the fastest growing account in Medicare, home 
health care.

  Now, watch, when this becomes an issue, and it is getting there, 
there will be some kind of argument. The argument will be, ``Well, home 
care should never have been in there to begin with.'' The point of it 
is, when the trustees write about this fund going bankrupt, they are 
writing about the fund and the expenditures and programs of today. It 
just happens we are paying home health care and hospitalization out of 
that trust fund; point No. 1.
  Point No. 2, if that fund is going broke, the fastest contributor to 
it going broke is the home health care costs. So, is it not 
interesting, magically take out those costs and put them someplace else 
and, of course, you can say Medicare just got $55 billion more solvent. 
What happens to home health care costs of $55 billion and growing? The 
President says let the average taxpayer pay for it. He did not just 
kind of slip it through and say whatever you have been paying, 
taxpayers--struggling, working, both of you with a job, trying to make 
ends meet--whatever you were paying taxes for, I just decided to add 
$55 billion more to that tax burden.
  Frankly, I do not think that is right. I do not think the President 
ought to be able to say he has fixed Medicare without having to change 
the cost structure and save real money, just slip the payment over, 
change it around, move it someplace else onto the already burdened 
taxpayer and abracadabra, magic, the fund is now more solvent.
  We had to do what the trustees told us to do. We had to restrain 
those costs, so instead of growing at 10.5 percent, they are growing at 
7 percent. They are not getting cut, they are growing at 7 percent. We 
will be spending $7,000 per capita under Medicare in 6 years, and it is 
$5,200 now. It is not less, it is $1,800 more. But we will reform the 
system, offer options, change the way we pay the various providers, and 
create a new, modern program where cost containment and restraints will 
benefit the senior in that the fund will become solvent as will the 
taxpayer, in that you will not switch $55 billion of the program to the 
taxpayers of America.
  I think it is imperative that everybody begin to understand the 
situation. Second, the second part of Medicare is an insurance policy. 
Back yonder, perhaps under Lyndon Johnson or somewhere around there, we 
said we ought to give seniors more than hospital coverage, so we gave 
them an optional insurance policy. When we started it we said we will 
pay 50 percent, the senior will pay 50 percent. We got generous some 
years ago and said let us make it 75 percent taxpayers, 25 percent 
seniors.
  Six years ago we said let us let the senior pay a little bit more, 31 
percent and the taxpayers pay the rest. It has now come back down to 
25, because that number of years that we made the change has now 
expired. And we contend, in order to make that a reliable program, we 
must save $44 billion over 6 years. Interestingly enough, the President 
says we need to do 44 billion dollars' worth, too. He does it one way,

[[Page S6135]]

we do it another way, but there is no argument on how much has to be 
done.
  So, as we began to look at one of the major issues, and this is one, 
instead of an issue of making this solvent and getting rid of this 
disaster that is pending right around the corner, it has become the 
political issue that is who is doing best by the seniors, who is making 
the fund more solvent for a longer period of time, and who is doing it 
most fairly.
  I submit it is pretty easy to fix the Medicare fund if you just want 
to take away its responsibilities and its liabilities and the costs 
imposed and just take them out, take them away and let somebody else 
pay for them like the general tax coffers, general taxpayers. That is 
essentially a substantial portion of the way the President chooses to 
solve it.
  I believe a freestanding bill in this place, and in the U.S. House, 
and thoroughly aired across America, that said do you want the general 
taxpayers to pay $55 billion of the health trust fund for seniors or do 
you want to continue with the trust fund and the payroll situation we 
have now--I do not believe very many people would vote to take general 
tax dollars and put them in that trust fund. We are doing it, kind of 
by just a slip of the pen here, just a turn of the page and write in 
something on a budget that says it is all changed.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Quickly, Mr. President, because the hour of 3:30 is 
arriving, the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from South 
Carolina do not have a differing view with respect to the Finance 
Committee bringing out a tax reduction bill. There is no question they 
can do that, subject to the instructions, particularly back in 1975 
where we had several budget resolutions. But not the reconciliation 
process, that is exactly what it was and that is what they stated.
  Mr. Mansfield said, ``I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to 
the consideration of the tax bill, H.R. 5559'' on December 12. Then, on 
December 15, as the distinguished Senator referred, the assistant 
legislative clerk read as follows: ``A bill, H.R. 1559, to make changes 
in certain income tax provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1954.''
  However, it was clearly obvious from the full Record, and we can make 
that Record here as a part of this Record if we wish, that Senator Long 
was trying to limit debate and not have the Hartke amendments, which 
were not germane. And in that discourse, even though Mr. Long had 
called it reconciliation, the chairman said, and I quote Mr. Hartke:

       The chairman of the Finance Committee can make a statement 
     but that does not make it the situation. The Committee on 
     Finance has not acted upon this being a reconciliation bill. 
     There is no record of its being a reconciliation bill. There 
     is no mention of it in the report as being a reconciliation 
     bill. Therefore, I think the point of order would not be well 
     taken in regard to any amendment because it is not a 
     reconciliation bill. This is a tax reduction bill.

  And finally, Senator Muskie, the chairman, and the rest of them, 
after a long debate, including Senator Dole who was on Finance and 
supporting the position taken by Senator Hartke, allowed the Hartke 
amendments. And somewhat in defeat, when he finally was there, on 
December 15, Mr. Muskie said, ``I wonder if I might not yield the 
floor. I think I have made whatever contribution I can with discussions 
of the problem.'' And he yielded to the whole thing whereby they 
brought the amendment up.
  Now, Mr. President, I would hope the Senator from New Mexico would 
agree with his own words. We know Mr. Ullman, I have here; Mr. Panetta, 
Mr. Bellmon, Mr. Regula, Mr. Bolling and the numerous Senators on this 
side, but particularly Senator Domenici. I quote, on December 3, 1980, 
where 5 years hence, and I quote him:

       And also obviously it is an extremely fitting event for 
     Senator Hollings. He did not have the privilege of being 
     chairman of this committee for very long, but he worked on 
     the committee for years and I think that he must feel very 
     good today, knowing that under his leadership this first 
     reconciliation act will become a reality.

  It was the first. And all reconciliation, as Mr. Pickle from Texas 
and everyone else pointed out--reconciliation was the process to bring 
the deficits down, bring the spending down into a particular budget 
target, not to increase deficits with tax cuts.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article by Bill 
Dauster, dated May 30, in Roll Call entitled ``The Day the Senate Died: 
Budget Measure Weakens Minority'' be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     [From Roll Call, May 30, 1996]

        The Day the Senate Died: Budget Measure Weakens Minority

                           (By Bill Dauster)

       The Senate died last week. At the very least, it suffered a 
     blow that leaves it clinging to life.
       You may be forgiven if you missed it. It happened while the 
     Senate considered the budget resolution, a budget whose 
     fiscal priorities pretty much repeat last year's endless 
     budget failure.
       But while most observers of Congress yawned, the Republican 
     majority used the budget process to fundamentally alter the 
     way the Senate works. From now on, the Senate will conduct 
     much of its business at its hallmark deliberative pace only 
     if the majority wants it that way.
       It is the Senate's deliberative pace that has distinguished 
     it from the House of Representatives and other parliaments. 
     Yes, the Senate does apportion its membership by state 
     instead of by population, but its true uniqueness flows from 
     the way its rules preserve the rights of determined 
     minorities.
       Once the presiding officer has recognized a Senator, the 
     Senate's rules allow the Senator to speak as long as humanly 
     possible, unless 60 Senators vote to end the filibuster. The 
     mere threat of filibuster--called a ``hold'' can detain 
     legislation.
       As well, when the Senate is considering one subject, 
     Senators have the perfect right to offer amendments on 
     entirely different subjects. These powers to debate and amend 
     make every single-United States Senator a force to be 
     reckoned with. They give dedicated groups of Senators 
     substantial power. And they give 41 Senators the absolute 
     right to kill a bill.
       All that changed last week. Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM), the 
     Budget Committee chairman, brought to the Senate floor a 
     budget resolution that markedly expanded the use of a 
     procedure called ``reconciliation.'' The reconciliation 
     process creates bills that the Senate considers with only 
     limited debate and limited opportunities to amend.
       Because reconciliation bills limit debate, Senators cannot 
     filibuster them. A simple majority can pass them. Because 
     Senators may offer only germane amendments to reconciliation 
     bills, Senators must stick to only the subjects chosen by the 
     majority in the committee process. Because of the 
     reconciliation process's power, the Senate has limited it 
     solely to deficit reduction through the ``Byrd Rule,'' named 
     after the Senate's parliamentary conscience, Sen. Robert Byrd 
     (D-WVa).
       This year's budget will generate an unprecedented three 
     reconciliation bills--on welfare, Medicare, and tax cuts--
     designed to maximize partisan confrontation with the 
     President. And in a marked departure from past practice, the 
     Republican budget resolution devotes one of the three 
     reconciliation bills--the one to cut taxes--solely to 
     worsening the deficit.
       On May 21, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD), 
     backed by Sens. Jim Exon (D-Neb), Emest Hollings (D-SC), and 
     Byron Dorgan (D-ND), formally challenged the procedure. The 
     Republican-appointed Parliamentarian gave it his blessing.
       In a series of exchanges with the presiding officer, 
     Daschle demonstrated that the new procedure has few limits. 
     Daschle appealed the ruling, but the Senate sustained the 
     procedure on a straight party-line vote.
       From now on, the majority party can create as many 
     reconciliation bills as it wants. And the majority can use 
     them to increase spending or cut taxes, worsening the 
     deficit. From now on, the majority can use the reconciliation 
     process to move its entire legislative agenda through the 
     Senate with simple majority votes and few distractions.
       The old Senate is dead. Some may say, ``Good riddance.'' 
     After all, as a Democratic Member of Congress once said, ``In 
     the Senate, you can't go to the bathroom without 60 votes.''
       If a simple majority can now pass important legislation in 
     the Senate, perhaps a lot more will get done. Democrats will 
     recall their frustration with Republican filibusters. Indeed, 
     then-Budget Committee Chairman Jim Sasser (D-Tenn) once tried 
     to convince Byrd to allow the Senate to consider the Clinton 
     health care reform bill using the reconciliation process. 
     Byrd did not want that done.
       Also, the Parliamentarian at that time advised that it 
     would not be in order for a budget resolution to instruct the 
     creation of a reconciliation bill that solely worsened the 
     deficit.
       One can think about efficiency and Congress in two ways. 
     The current conventional wisdom thinks in terms of 
     legislative efficiency: How many bills become laws?
       But as Nobel Prize-winning economist James Buchanan has 
     argued, societal efficiency may be better served by a 
     Congress

[[Page S6136]]

     that has hard time enacting laws. Under those circumstances, 
     laws would change less often, less frequently disrupting 
     peoples' lives, less often intruding into them. If you agree 
     with Thoreau that the best government is that which governs 
     least, then the most societally efficient government is the 
     one with the most checks and balances.
       The Republican majority may thus have served legislative 
     efficiency at the expense of societal efficiency. Good or 
     bad, the Senate has changed.
       As Daschle warned on May 21, ``What goes around comes 
     around.'' Democrats will remember the lessons the Republicans 
     have taught them of how to use the power of the majority.
       So say ``bye, bye'' to this slice of American pie. This'll 
     be the day that it dies. This'll be the way that it dies.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________