[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 87 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6167-S6182]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997--CONFERENCE 
                                 REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now move to consideration of the conference report, House 
Report 104-612, accompanying House Concurrent Resolution 178, which the 
clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment to the bill (H. Con. Res. 178), a 
     concurrent resolution establishing the congressional budget 
     for the United States Government for fiscal year 1997 and 
     setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 
     1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, having met, after full and 
     free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to 
     their respective Houses this report, signed by a majority of 
     the conferees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of June 7, 1996.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 hours of debate equally 
divided between the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, and the 
Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Exon.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on behalf of Mr. Exon, who controls the time 
on this side, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It will not be 
30 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am convinced that if this budget 
resolution conference agreement is fully implemented over the next 6 
years, it will lead the Nation into far more serious fiscal difficulty 
than we are in today. It follows the familiar supply-side policies of 
the Reagan administration, which, as we all recall, promised to balance 
the Federal budget while at the same time enacting massive tax cuts, it 
calls for increases in defense spending even when the Pentagon says it 
does not need the money, and cuts in entitlements--which never came to 
pass under the Reagan administration. President Reagan's policies did 
not result in the economy growing itself out of deficits or in 
balancing the budget. I voted with the President, Mr. Reagan, in 
support of his massive tax cuts and I also supported his buildup of a 
bloated defense budget. Instead, what did we see? We saw a massive 
increase in the national debt, which rose from under $1 trillion in the 
previous 200 years of the Nation to over $2.6 trillion on January

[[Page S6168]]

20, 1989, the day President Reagan left office.
  Astoundingly to me, the fiscal blueprint contained in this budget 
resolution conference agreement is remarkably similar to those failed 
Reagan policies which nearly bankrupted the Nation, and from which we 
are still suffering, and which are still placing us in desperate 
straits with respect to our fiscal situation. For example, unlike the 
Senate-passed budget resolution, which allowed a tax cut to occur in a 
third reconciliation measure only after enactment into law of the first 
two reconciliation measures which contained deficit reduction, this 
conference agreement moves the tax cuts forward to the first 
reconciliation bill. The instructions for that first reconciliation 
bill call for the relevant Senate committees to report their proposals 
by June 21. Those instructions go to those committees with jurisdiction 
over welfare, Medicaid, and tax breaks.
  So what we see then is that this first reconciliation bill will 
presumably cut Medicaid spending, cut welfare spending, and use those 
savings to finance a massive tax cut. That first reconciliation bill, I 
am advised, will reduce the deficit by a mere $2 billion over the 
entire 6 years, because the savings from welfare reform and Medicaid 
will be used to finance a huge tax cut.
  I think it is utter folly to be talking about a tax cut at this time 
in our fiscal history. I say that with respect not only to the 
Republican tax cut, but also to the tax cut that is proposed by the 
Clinton administration. I was the one Democrat who voted against the 
President's budget, so I think I come into court here with fairly clean 
hands. I voted against that budget for two reasons: One, it cut taxes; 
and, two, it cut discretionary funding a great deal.
  So if that were not enough, this conference agreement also allows for 
further tax breaks in the third reconciliation bill. Presumably, the 
purpose for this process is to allow the majority in the Congress to 
have another bite at the apple, should the President veto the first 
tax-break bill, or, if the majority finds that they did not do enough 
tax cutting in the first measure, even if the President signs it, they 
will have the opportunity to provide more tax cuts in the third 
reconciliation bill.
  I do not try to second-guess the leadership or the other party in 
this matter. I have tremendous respect for Senator Domenici and Senator 
Exon. They provide a great service to the people of this country and to 
the Senate, and the Senate is in their debt. I respect them for their 
sincere judgments. But to those of us--I am one--who participated in 
the river boat gamble. So I come into court with unclean hands. I voted 
for the massive tax cuts over a 3-year period. I voted for them, 
although I did offer an amendment to provide that the tax cut for the 
third year, I believe, would not go into effect until such time as we 
could see what the impact of the tax cuts in the first 2 years would be 
on our budgetary and fiscal situation. But I voted for those. So I 
participated in that river boat gamble of tax cuts and a defense 
buildup first. I supported those two things as strongly as did the 
Republicans in this body. So I am not a Johnny-come-lately after the 
fact complaining about what the Republicans did on that occasion. I 
voted with them. I have been sorry for it.

  To those of us who participated in the river boat gamble of tax cuts 
and spending cuts later as proposed by President Reagan, this 
conference agreement's proposed tax cuts now and spending cuts later is 
all too familiar to us. Have we not learned our lesson? It is all too 
easy to enact tax cuts and save the pain for later. I have voted for a 
good many tax cuts in my 50 years of politics, and I have voted against 
them. I said to the administration people that it is folly to talk 
about cutting taxes now with the colossal deficits that we have and the 
colossal debt that we have; the colossal payments of interest that we 
have to make on that colossal debt. If we follow the policies proposed 
in this budget resolution, we are about to do it again. What will keep 
the results from being the same at the end of this 7-year period as 
they were when we followed the policies proposed by the Reagan 
administration?
  This budget resolution calls for $11 billion more in defense spending 
just in fiscal year 1997 alone than has been proposed by the President. 
It proposes tax cuts ranging from $100 to $200 billion or more. It 
proposes terrible devastation on the domestic discretionary part of the 
budget. I have been a member of the Appropriations Committee longer 
than anybody else in this body. I have been chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee for 6 years, and I have been a member of the 
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee for quite a long time. So I view 
these reductions in discretionary funding of exceedingly important 
programs to our people and to our country with a great deal of regret. 
It proposes, as I say, a terrible devastation on the domestic 
discretionary part of the budget--that portion which funds our 
investment in our Nation's education, environmental cleanup, clean air 
and water, highways, bridges and airports, flood prevention, crime 
control, war against drugs, plus the operations of the entire Federal 
budget. For that portion of the budget, this agreement, according to 
the Congressional Budget Office in a table provided to me just last 
evening, proposes real cuts in domestic discretionary budget authority 
of $254.9 billion below inflation over the period of fiscal years 1997-
2002--$254.9 billion below inflation for domestic discretionary budget 
authority.
  The people of this country are going to wake up one day, and they are 
going to say, ``We are tired of having our domestic discretionary 
programs cut to the bone.'' It is already into the marrow of the bone, 
and discretionary spending has taken it on the nose for several years. 
Discretionary funding of domestic programs has borne the brunt of the 
budget cuts and will continue to bear the brunt of those cuts under 
this measure that is before us. One day the American people will say, 
``Where have you been? What is happening to our infrastructure--
our highways, our sewage and water projects?'' We need more money in 
West Virginia and in other rural areas to update our sewerage and water 
systems, and in some instances to install systems for the first time.

  I am sure West Virginia is not alone in this. Why cannot we help our 
people? That is pretty important business--having clean water to drink. 
I offered an amendment twice here just in the last few days to provide 
for additional funding for States and for communities that need help 
with respect to their water and sewerage problems. Those amendments 
were defeated. Everything is being sacrificed here on the altar of a 
balanced budget. I do not decry the need to work toward our balancing 
the budget. But the way we are doing it, the way we are going about it, 
I object to.
  Under this budget resolution, we will be able to purchase nearly $255 
billion less in the year 2002 for domestic discretionary investments 
than we can today. The needs will be greater. The funding will be less 
than today.
  I would point out that this budget resolution conference agreement 
cuts domestic discretionary budget authority below a freeze by $33 
billion. That is a real cut. That is a cut from which the American 
people suffer, and they are going to be asking some questions down the 
road. They will be shaken out of their lethargy when they wake up one 
day and see that we are continuing to cut funding for domestic programs 
that mean so much for the health and well-being of the American people 
themselves. It is an outrage. It is a disgrace for American communities 
in this day and time not to have modern water systems. They need them 
in those rural areas to have pure water. Not to have clean water to 
drink--what is more important than that? In other words, under this 
budget resolution, $33 billion less will be available than would be 
required to fund the investments contained in the domestic 
discretionary portion of the budget at a hard freeze level over the 
next 6 years.
  For fiscal year 1997 alone, Dr. Rivlin, the Director of OMB, points 
out in her letter to the chairman of the Budget Committee dated June 
11, 1996, nondefense discretionary spending is cut by more than $15 
billion below the President's request. The President's request was not 
anything to boast about. I can tell you that. The President's request 
was too low. The President's budget over the 6 years is $230 billion 
below inflation. So that is why I voted against them. It was not 
anything to beat one's chest over when it came to discretionary 
programs by President Clinton.

[[Page S6169]]

  Furthermore, there is a peculiar section in this agreement as it 
relates to discretionary outlays for fiscal year 1997. According to 
page 28 of this conference report, section 307 is entitled ``Government 
Shutdown Prevention Allowance.'' That section will hold in reserve 
$1,337,000,000 in nondefense discretionary outlays which will only be 
made available in the Senate pursuant to section 307(b). That paragraph 
reads as follows:

       (b) Revised Allocations.--In the Senate, upon the 
     consideration of a motion to proceed or an agreement to 
     proceed to a resolution making continuing appropriations for 
     fiscal year 1997, or in the House of Representatives, upon 
     the filing of a conference report thereon, that complies with 
     the fiscal year 1997 discretionary limit on nondefense budget 
     authority, the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the 
     appropriate House may submit a revised outlay allocation for 
     such committee and appropriately revised aggregates and 
     limits to carry out this section.

  In other words, if I understand it correctly, this section will allow 
the chairman of the Budget Committee to provide additional nondefense 
outlays of up to $1,337,000,000 to the Appropriations Committee ``upon 
the consideration of a motion to proceed or an agreement to proceed to 
a resolution making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 1997.''
  This is getting curiouser and curiouser. Section 307 virtually 
ensures that there will be at least one continuing resolution for 1997. 
How else can the Appropriations Committee receive the $1.3 billion in 
outlays? What is this? This is an attempt by the majority to bludgeon 
the President into signing appropriation bills which will contain $15 
billion less than he has requested for public investments in education, 
environmental cleanup, clean air and water, crime fighting, and a host 
of other programs. We faced this same problem in fiscal year 1996 and 
the President refused to accept cuts of this magnitude, and we ended up 
with total gridlock, Government shutdowns, and a record-setting 13 
continuing resolutions to keep the Government functioning.
  What we have in this agreement, it appears to me, is a blatant 
attempt to bypass the regular appropriations process even before it 
begins. Anyone can see that the President will not agree to sign 
regular 1997 appropriation bills when he is assured of getting $1.337 
billion more in outlays if he waits for a continuing resolution. So the 
Republican majority has thrown up its hands and given up before it even 
begins to fight for the enactment of the 13 regular appropriation 
bills. They have tried to save themselves by creating a ``Government 
Shutdown Prevention Allowance.''
  This just will not wash. Does the majority think that the President 
will just roll over and play dead on his budget priorities this year--
with cuts of $15 billion as this resolution requires? Do they think 
that I and others who oppose such devastation in domestic investments 
will be satisfied with such cuts simply because we have a new 
Government shutdown prevention allowance? Well, let the majority 
proceed with their proposals and we will meet them one at a time and 
see how it turns out.
  I can tell every Senator with complete confidence that this Nation 
cannot sustain the levels of cuts to the domestic discretionary portion 
of the budget over this 6-year period that are contained in this budget 
resolution without destroying the hopes of the American people for the 
betterment of their children and grandchildren. The money will not be 
there for increased investments in education. The money will not be 
there for an adequate transportation system to move our goods to market 
and our people to and from work in an efficient manner. The money will 
not be there for the safety and increased capacity of our national 
airport system, for improvement in flood prevention, cleaning up the 
environment, better water and sewage treatment for communities 
throughout the Nation. These will not be possible. There will be no 
improvement to these infrastructure systems, which are already in a 
state of serious deterioration.

  Mr. President, like other budget resolutions before this which 
claimed to balance the Federal budget, several of which were put before 
the Senate by the present chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. 
Domenici, this conference agreement contains no enforcement mechanism 
for any area of the budget except discretionary spending. We have 
operated under enforceable caps with across-the-board sequester 
mechanisms for a number of years. So that Senators can be sure that the 
devastation proposed by the cuts proposed in this budget resolution to 
the domestic discretionary portion of the budget will occur. 
Enforcement mechanisms make that a virtual certainty.
  But, like all of its predecessors, this budget resolution conference 
agreement contains no such enforcement mechanisms for entitlement 
spending or for revenues. In other words, there is no assurance that 
the spending cuts proposed in any reconciliation measure that may be 
enacted into law pursuant to this budget resolution will actually 
result in the savings claimed. Traditionally, those savings have been 
far less than predicted. Similarly, any revenue increase measures that 
may occur in any of these reconciliation bills may not achieve the 
levels projected and the tax cuts may actually cost more than is being 
projected. If so, there is no method in this resolution to make certain 
that the revenue projections are, in fact, achieved or that the 
entitlement savings are, in fact, achieved.
  There is no sequester mechanism or automatic tax-surcharge mechanism 
so that we may be certain that the entitlement spending cuts or any 
revenue increases will be achieved, or that any tax cuts will cost no 
more than is projected. So to all Senators who support this budget 
resolution today, I ask where will you be when the numbers go south in 
the future years as they did in the Reagan budgets? Where will you be? 
There is nothing here to ensure that these deficit projections will be 
reached. The only sure achievements will be the devastation in 
discretionary spending--that is a sure achievement--because of the caps 
for each of the next 6 years.
  Finally, Mr. President, in closing let me point out that, despite all 
the rhetoric to the contrary, this budget resolution conference 
agreement does not result in a balanced budget in the year 2002. To 
confirm this fact one simply needs to turn to pages 3 and 4 of the 
conference report. At the bottom of page 3 one will see under Section 
101(4) a heading entitled, deficits.

       For purposes of the enforcement of this resolution, the 
     amounts of the deficits are as follows:
       fiscal year 1997: $227,283,000,000.
       fiscal year 1998: $224,399,000,000.
       fiscal year 1999: $206,405,000,000.
       fiscal year 2000: $185,315,000,000.
       fiscal year 2001: $141,762,000,000.
       fiscal year 2002: $103,854,000,000.

  So, apparently, there will still be a deficit of over $100 billion in 
fiscal year 2002 under this conference agreement.
  No matter how hard this thing tries to impress by sticking out its 
chest and spreading its tail feathers, it is still a turkey and it will 
not fly.
  I say this again to emphasize, with great respect to all of the 
Senators who have had a part in developing this conference agreement. 
We sometimes do the best we can, and then we are not able to do enough. 
I was not entitled to sit in on the conference. I do not know what 
arguments were made and what arguments were made and lost. I am simply 
looking at the agreement as I find it here today and making my own 
personal judgment concerning it.
  Mr. President, how much time have I used?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 29 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I kept my word.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to Senator Byrd, I purposely came 
to the floor so I could hear his remarks, and I was here for all of 
them. I cannot respond right now, because the call of duty has me going 
somewhere else. But four or five of the points the Senator makes, I 
will state our versions of them, which I think are different than your 
assumptions.
  I share some concerns. It is clear that if I were producing a budget 
and I were the king and all I had to do was do it myself, while I might 
come and confer with you, it would not be this budget. But we have to 
get a majority of the Senators to vote to reduce this deficit.
  Frankly, I believe it is a pretty good plan. I think your analysis of 
the

[[Page S6170]]

taxes, the tax cuts--I think we have an explanation that is slightly 
different, maybe in some respects greatly different, than you assume.
  I would say one thing with reference to the appropriated accounts--
well, let me say two things. It is most interesting, you have properly 
stated how much the President cuts discretionary programs. You would 
then, I am sure, agree that if we took the triggered part of his 
budget, it even cuts it more. That is the one that is on par--or did 
you use the triggered numbers? It would be more.
  Mr. BYRD. I already took that into account in my numbers.
  Mr. DOMENICI. There are two budgets, one which uses the Congressional 
Budget Office assumptions and one which uses the President's own 
assumptions. In each instance, the amount of the cuts are different.
  But I would say one answer to your concern might be that you might 
adopt some of the President's Cabinet's approach to out-year 
appropriated accounts, for they come around and testify they are 
meaningless; it goes 1 year at a time, and not to worry about it. 
Frankly, we have not done that because we figure we need some of the 
savings. But when you put a budget down, you have to stand by it. You 
cannot find excuses and say it really is not real.
  The second point is, we are fully aware that it would be grossly 
unfair, and probably not good for the country, to not get the 
entitlement cuts and insist on all of the discretionary. You would have 
some things out of proportion, and you probably would not get a 
balance. If you read the report and the resolution, it says if, in 
1998, the entitlement savings have not occurred, then the caps are off 
discretionary accounts. That is not of great help, but it does at least 
make the point that we are fully aware that to get the balance, you 
have to have the entitlement savings; you cannot just do the 
discretionary accounts.
  I will return and have a few additional comments. I yield the floor 
at this point.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, while the distinguished Senator from New 
Mexico, the chairman of the Budget Committee, is on the floor, I would 
like to ask him a question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has yielded the 
floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, do I have the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, sir.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding 
I have the floor, I may ask a question of another Senator without 
losing my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am really going to be in a meeting. I will come back 
and answer any questions the Senator has within the next 30 or 40 
minutes. I am supposed to be in Representative Armey's office at this 
moment, but I will come back, if the Senator has some questions.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? If neither side yields time, 
time will be charged to both sides equally.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
unanimous consent the time be charged equally against both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have noted with interest over the last 
several weeks that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
repeatedly spoken of the need for a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution. They have talked repeatedly about the need for deficit 
reduction.
  I believe we do need to balance the budget. I believe we do need 
significant deficit reduction, because we face a demographic time bomb 
in this country. That demographic time bomb is the baby boom 
generation. When they begin to retire, they will double, in very short 
order, the number of people eligible for Social Security and Medicare, 
and that is going to put severe pressure on the finances of the United 
States. So it is critically important that we get our fiscal house in 
order.
  Mr. President, given all the rhetoric that has come from the 
Republican side of the aisle about the need to balance the budget, 
about the need for deficit reduction, I looked with anticipation at 
their budget proposal that is, after all, the work that they now 
control. They control the House of Representatives. They control the 
U.S. Senate. As everyone in this Chamber knows, and everyone knows in 
the other House, the President is not involved with the budget 
resolution. He cannot veto it. He plays no role in it. This is 
completely a creature of the two Chambers, the House and the Senate, 
controlled by the Republican Party.
  So I think, given the rhetoric, one would anticipate that if you look 
at the budget proposal, the Republicans would be reducing the deficit. 
What a shock it is to look at the budget proposal before us and find 
out that our Republican friends, instead of reducing the deficit, are 
increasing the deficit.
  Let me repeat that, because I am certain a lot of people will find 
that hard to believe. After all of the rhetoric, after all of the 
discussion that said we are going to reduce the deficit, that that is 
the priority, if you look at the plan before us, it does not reduce the 
deficit, it increases the deficit.
  Mr. President, this year the deficit is going to come in at $130 to 
$140 billion. Next year under this plan, the deficit will not go down, 
will not be decreased, will not be cut, the deficit will go up. The 
deficit will go up to $153 billion. The next year it will be $147 
billion, both higher than the deficit we have now.
  Sometimes I think the popular image is the Democrats are less in 
favor of deficit reduction than our friends on the other side of the 
aisle, but if one looks at the record, one finds quite a different 
result.
  When President Clinton came into office, he inherited a deficit of 
$290 billion. That was the deficit in 1992. In 1993, we passed a plan 
that not a single Republican supported, and that plan led to a 
reduction in the deficit the next year of $255 billion. The next year 
it was further reduced to $203 billion. The next year it was reduced to 
$164 billion, and now this year, $130 to $140 billion--4 years of 
deficit reduction, the first time since the administration of Benjamin 
Harrison.
  I think in fairness, one has to say the Democratic record of deficit 
reduction in the Clinton administration has been a good one. And I must 
say, I am disappointed our friends on the other side of the aisle, when 
they have a chance to exercise control over the budget, come in with a 
proposal that, instead of reducing the deficit, raises the deficit. 
That is not the direction we ought to be going.
  I am still hopeful that we will go back to an approach of a 
bipartisan attempt to do what we all know must be done, which is to put 
this country on a path to fiscal responsibility. Not just rhetoric, but 
the reality.
  I must say, I read in the paper this morning that some House 
Republicans were in revolt, because they did not come here to raise the 
deficit, but that is precisely what their plan does. Mr. President, I 
intend to vote against that plan. I hope other of my colleagues will 
vote against that plan as well, because not only does it raise the 
deficit, but it contains a set of priorities that are virtually the 
same set of priorities that we were confronted with last year which the 
American people soundly rejected--soundly rejected.

  We should not go on that path again this year, and we certainly 
should not be voting for a plan that raises the deficit.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if my colleague will stay just for a 
moment, I would like to engage in a colloquy with him about a point the 
Senator from West Virginia made.
  I have been listening to part of the debate and participating in part 
of the debate. I found the representation both

[[Page S6171]]

on the floor of the Senate and even in the newspaper this morning very 
interesting. It says ``House Narrowly Passes Balanced Budget Plan,'' 
which is the plan we are talking about here. This is the plan the House 
narrowly passed yesterday, described as a ``balanced budget plan.''
  This piece of paper is on every Senate desk. It is laying here on 
mine, but every Senate desk has it, and this is the actual conference 
report. On page 4 of the actual conference report, it says, 
``Deficits,'' and then in the year 2002, it says, ``$103 billion in 
deficits.''
  The Senator from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, has spoken on this 
before as well, but it seems to me what this does is technically comply 
with the law, because the law says that you cannot use Social Security 
trust funds to portray in a piece of legislation like this that you 
have balanced the budget. But with the exception of this notation on 
page 4 that the deficit is going to be $103 billion in 2002, with the 
exception of that one notation, every other piece of information given 
on the floor of the Senate, every speech given by the majority that 
brings this to the floor alleges this is a balanced budget.
  Is it just out of step, I guess, with common practice to be able to 
ignore what you put in the legislation and claim something different? 
Can Senator Conrad answer that question? I guess the question I would 
ask is, what is the circumstance that allows this kind of hoax to 
continue?
  Mr. CONRAD. In answer, Mr. President, I might just say it is perhaps 
one of the most perplexing stories in this town, because this is not a 
balanced budget plan. I mean, honestly stated, to take the retirement 
funds of the people of the United States and throw those into the pot 
and call it a balanced budget, frankly, borders on laughable. There is 
a $103 billion deficit by the year 2002 under this plan.
  Sometimes I think the media just do not get it. They are reporting on 
what we call the unified budget. The unified budget is when you put 
everything into the same pot and then you see whether you have balance 
or not. The problem with that, of course, is that includes Social 
Security, all of the receipts and all of the expenditures. Social 
Security is not contributing to the deficit, as the Senator from North 
Dakota knows, Social Security is in surplus, substantial surplus. And 
that is going to continue. In fact, those surpluses are going to grow, 
and the reason we put a plan in place to have Social Security surpluses 
grow is because we are getting ready for when the baby boom generation 
retires.
  But, of course, we are not getting ready; we are spending every dime. 
As a result, to call these balanced budgets is not accurate. It is 
misleading.
  Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield further, on the same page it 
says, ``Social Security revenues,'' and they are anticipating how much 
in revenues will come in to the Social Security Program during the next 
6 years.
  During the 6 years, the revenues from Social Security, which is the 
payroll tax everyone pays from their paycheck while they are working, 
will increase by $100 billion over the 6 years. It will go from $385 to 
$487 billion. In other words, this contemplates that from the payroll 
taxes, which are regressive taxes, will rise by $100 billion. People 
talk about flat taxes. These are the flat taxes. This is totally flat. 
Every worker, no matter what their income is, pays the identical 
percentage of payroll tax. That payroll tax will increase the proceeds 
to the Federal Government by $100 billion in the 6 years.

  The solemn promise that has been made in law is that increase in the 
regressive payroll tax is designed to be put in a trust fund to be 
saved for when it is needed when the Social Security System will 
exhibit some strains when the war babies retire. It is interesting to 
me that the $100 billion increase in the regressive payroll tax is 
clearly not going to be saved, if you listen to the other side claim 
they now have balanced the budget, because they clearly are taking that 
$100 billion on the bottom of page 4 and saying, ``Well, we don't care 
what the promise is with respect to taking that from workers and 
putting it in the trust fund, we intend to use it to balance the 
budget.''
  At the same time they want to construct a budget they say needs 
balancing, they want to reduce taxes. Yes, they want to cut the 
alternative minimum tax for corporations, they want to make it easier 
to move your plant overseas by giving a tax break, they want to enact a 
whole series of tax cuts. Most of those tax cuts will benefit upper 
income people.
  They want to bring, next, to the floor of the Senate a proposal to 
build up to a $60 billion star wars program. There is an unending 
appetite to spend money on the part of even those who claim they are 
balancing the budget, but are not balancing the budget in this 
proposal.
  I ask Senator Conrad about the $100 billion increase in Social 
Security revenues that are anticipated in this budget. Does it not 
appear as if those are the revenues that they would then use to claim 
they have balanced the budget, when in fact they have not?
  Mr. CONRAD. In fact, if you take the amount of money over the 6 
years, it is $525 billion of Social Security surpluses that are going 
to be used to say that the budget has been balanced. So $525 billion of 
Social Security surpluses are going to be looted or raided, or whatever 
terminology one wants to apply in order to claim a balanced budget.
  This is not a balanced budget. In fairness, I think one ought to say 
the President's plan is also not a balanced budget. Even the plan that 
I was part of, part of the centrist coalition, was not truly a balanced 
budget. None of these plans are truly balanced budgets.
  In fact, the only plan that we have had a chance to vote on in the 
last 2 years that was truly a balanced budget was the one I offered 
last year, and the Senator from North Dakota supported it, the fair 
share balanced budget plan. That did balance without counting Social 
Security surpluses. It is the only budget that has been voted on on the 
floor on the Senate that was a true balanced budget plan. That got 39 
votes here in the U.S. Senate. Obviously, 39 votes does not prevail.
  I just say, the media, when they report, ought to tell the people 
accurately and honestly what has happened. Because to take retirement 
funds and throw those into the pot and call it a balanced budget, if we 
were doing that in the private sector, if in any company you took the 
retirement funds of employees, threw those into the pot, and said you 
were balancing the budget, you would be headed for a Federal 
institution. It would not be the U.S. Congress. It would be a Federal 
facility, a law enforcement facility. You would be headed for Federal 
prison because that is a violation of Federal law.
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me make one additional comment.
  Mr. President, I know the Senator from Nebraska wishes to contribute 
on these subjects. But the Senator from North Dakota says something I 
said yesterday. The President's budget also is not in balance, nor was 
the bipartisan budget in balance. I have never claimed they were. But 
those who bring this to the floor who claim they are in balance are 
wrong. This is not a balanced budget.
  I only make the point that the Senator from Nebraska has been on the 
floor talking about this budget issue. I read his statement yesterday. 
I did not hear his statement when he made it, but I read it in the 
Congressional Record. He makes the point that I think is very 
important.
  We ought not be talking about tax cuts. I know that might be popular. 
We ought to set the issue of tax cuts aside, talk seriously about how 
do you honestly and really balance the budget, do that job, finish that 
job, then come back to the question of how do you construct a tax 
system that eliminates or reduces some of the burden on middle-income 
people? That is what we ought to do.
  But instead of that, we have a bunch of folks out here who wave their 
arms and flail around on the floor of the Senate and claim they have a 
balanced budget, which is not in balance; and then in the next breath 
say, ``We not only have a balanced budget''--that is not in balance--
``but we want to cut taxes and increase spending.''
  What on Earth kind of priorities are those? That does not make any 
sense. I could understand if there was a consistent approach, even if 
it was wrong. I can understand consistency. But to be consistently 
inappropriate in the way you approach this issue just makes no sense.
  How can you be for a balanced budget and then come to the floor with 
this

[[Page S6172]]

and be consistent about wanting to do the things that reach a balanced 
budget? This is not advertising. I mean, this is not some marketing 
game we are playing. The issue is, are we going to solve this problem?
  This document is a remarkable document, not only for what it says, 
but for what it does not say. What it says is, ``There they go again.'' 
That is what it says. That is what the Senator from Nebraska said. It 
is the same tired, old set of priorities. ``Let's take money from the 
health care for the elderly and give it for tax breaks for upper income 
folks.'' There they go again; the same set of priorities.
  But even more important than that, the inconsistency here is stark, 
the inconsistency of saying we want a balanced budget, then proposing 
one that is not in balance and then in the same breath saying let us 
reduce revenue by giving tax cuts to those, especially those at the 
upper end, who do not need it. And then let us spend more money 
especially on things like star wars and other defense boondoggles that 
cost tens and tens of billions of dollars. The inconsistency is 
incomprehensible. Senator Conrad made that point and Senator Exon has 
made the point as well.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, how much time is left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska has 13 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. EXON. How much?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirteen minutes.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I have three other speakers who wanted 5 
minutes each, including the leader.
  At this point, Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from West 
Virginia for the kind remarks that he made about this individual with 
regard to the budget. He is a real stalwart. I have enjoyed working 
very much with Senator Byrd over the years.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an analysis of the 
Republican budget, prepared by the Democratic staff of the Senate 
Budget Committee, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the analysis was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 Analysis of the Republican Conference Report on the Fiscal Year 1997 
Budget Resolution Prepared by the Democratic Staff of the Senate Budget 
                               Committee


                              INTRODUCTION

       With the filing of this conference report, all of the 
     efforts of the Republican majority to portray their budget as 
     moderate are in vain. The Republican majority have done a 
     superb job to airbrush their budget, but the American people 
     can see the real thing--warts and all.
       It retains the same unflattering profile as its 
     predecessor: unnecessary reductions in Medicare and Medicaid 
     paying for tax breaks for the wealthy. This is in fact the 
     Newt Gingrich Budget. And as Senator Dole leaves Capitol Hill 
     for the campaign trail, he leaves whatever is left of his 
     budget to the tender mercies of the extreme right. They will 
     give it their full attention.
       This rehashed budget is part and parcel of the Republican 
     strategy of no-work and all-political-play. They wanted to 
     ram through their failed and stale political agenda and 
     confront the President at every turn of this crooked 
     legislative road. Worst of all, two of the three baby 
     reconciliation bills the conference report creates will be 
     devoted largely to cutting taxes--an act that will worsen the 
     deficit.
       The House is already working its voodoo in this conference 
     report. At least the Senate language required that all the 
     entitlement spending reductions be enacted into law before we 
     considered the tax breaks. The House shamelessly tossed that 
     requirement out the window and the Senate concurred.
       The first reconciliation bill contains Medicaid, welfare, 
     and tax breaks. So much for performing deficit reduction 
     before doling out the tax breaks. So much for fiscal 
     conservatism. The first reconciliation bill will reduce the 
     deficit by just $2 billion, if it reduces the deficit at all. 
     This is as plain as the light of day. The majority now want 
     to eliminate the Medicaid guarantee of meaningful health care 
     benefits for 18 million children, 6 million disabled 
     Americans, millions of nursing home residents, 36 million 
     people in all, to fund their tax breaks.
       The conferees assume a net tax cut of $122 billion, yet 
     Chairman Kasich maintains that the cuts will be as large as 
     $180 billion. There is not a single specific mention of 
     closing tax loopholes or of ending corporate tax giveaways. 
     The same budget that eagerly reduces funding for our Medicare 
     and Medicaid programs cannot find the courage to call upon 
     the special interests to assume any of the burden of 
     balancing the budget.
       The Republicans cling to the tax breaks--the tax breaks 
     that fuel the reductions in Medicare and Medicaid and divide 
     our great Nation. That is why they and this budget will 
     ultimately fail. And that is not only a tragedy for the 
     departing Majority Leader but for the American people as 
     well.


                                MEDICARE

       The reduction in projected spending for Medicare is still 
     too large. The Republican budget reduces Medicare spending by 
     $168 billion and proposes $10 billion in new spending for a 
     graduate medical education trust fund. Under these 
     assumptions, Medicare spending per beneficiary falls 
     dramatically below comparable private sector growth rates, 
     reducing quality and access to health care for millions of 
     middle-class Americans. Private health care costs are 
     expected to increase by 7.1 percent per beneficiary compared 
     to a 4.7 percent per-person rate in the Republican plan--a 34 
     percent difference. The GOP plan will dramatically cut the 
     purchasing power that seniors have for health care.
       The plan also includes a premium increase for high-income 
     beneficiaries and a $123 billion reduction in Part A. Details 
     on the premium increase are not available. The American 
     Academy of Physicians, the American Hospital Association, and 
     the American Association of Retired Persons concur, however, 
     that the proposal contains deeps cuts in payments to 
     hospitals, which could result in cost-shifting, undermine 
     quality, and threaten the finance viability of many rural and 
     urban hospitals.
       Damaging structural changes proposed by the Republicans 
     will risk turning Medicare into a second-class system for 
     seniors who cannot afford to opt out of traditional Medicare 
     through Medical Savings Accounts. These changes would 
     segregate the sickest and least affluent beneficiaries into 
     in a severely weakened fee-for-service program.
       The President proved you can balance the budget with far 
     less Medicare savings while keeping Medicare solvent and 
     protecting seniors from new costs. The President's budget 
     cuts Medicare by $50 billion less than the Republican plan 
     but maintains solvency for 10 years. The President's budget 
     shows that premium hikes, deep reductions, and damaging 
     structural changes are not necessary to balance the budget 
     and guarantee the life of the Medicare trust fund. By 
     preserving cuts in corporate subsidies for tax cuts for the 
     rich, the Republicans are forced to reduce the growth of 
     programs for middle-class Americans far deeper than the 
     President's plan.


                  REDUCTIONS FROM LOW-INCOME PROGRAMS

       Although the Republican budget does not identify all of the 
     assumptions behind cuts in mandatory programs, more than 42 
     percent of these savings come from programs that help low-
     income Americans.


                                Medicaid

       The Republican budget includes $72 billion in Medicaid 
     cuts. This could translate into total cuts of more than $250 
     billion if states spend only the minimum required to 
     receive their full allocations. If this occurs, spending 
     growth per person would be reduced to a level below the 
     general rate of inflation.
       Recently introduced Republican legislation shows that they 
     have not backed down from their proposal to block grant 
     Medicaid and to eliminate health care guarantees for the 
     elderly, disabled, and pregnant women and children. The 
     Republican bill distributes more than 96 percent of the 
     funding in exactly the same way as last year's Medigrant 
     proposal.
       As the Democratic Governors have pointed out, these 
     Medicaid provisions do not reflect the bipartisan National 
     Governors' Association proposal, because the NGA agreed that 
     States must be protected from unanticipated program costs 
     resulting from economic fluctuations in the business cycle, 
     changing demographics, and natural disasters. The umbrella 
     fund included in the new Republican proposal is not 
     sufficient to achieve that goal.
       Under this proposal, 36 million people will lose their 
     guaranteed access to health care. Those who do receive 
     coverage will no longer be guaranteed a basic level of 
     benefits. States could be forced to deny coverage to millions 
     of children and people with disabilities, and to older 
     Americans who rely on Medicaid to pay for nursing home and 
     long-term care.

                                Welfare

       The Republicans claim to adopt the National Governors' 
     Association's welfare reform recommendations. The Republican 
     budget cuts $53 billion from welfare programs, however, 
     significantly more than the $43 billion in savings attributed 
     to the bipartisan NGA proposal. Recently introduced 
     Republican welfare reform legislation does include several 
     provisions requested by the Governors. But, as the Democratic 
     Governors have pointed out, the Republican plan cuts food 
     stamps more than the NGA proposal, rejects the NGA's work 
     requirements, and includes a 20-percent cut in the Social 
     Services Block Grant, which will undermine states' efforts to 
     make sure that adequate child care will be available. The 
     Republican bill also eliminates the provision supported by 
     the NGA that States maintain their current level of effort in 
     order to receive Federal foster care funding.
       The Republican Medicaid and welfare bill was crafted with 
     no Democratic input. It

[[Page S6173]]

     would appear that the Republicans would rather play election-
     year politics than work toward real, bipartisan reforms that 
     could be signed into law.

                        Earned Income Tax Credit

       The Republican plan includes $18.5 billion in cuts to the 
     Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). The EITC helps low-income 
     working families stay off welfare and out of poverty. The 
     conference report does indicate that the tax credit would end 
     for 4 million childless workers, and states that the EITC 
     would be ``coordinated'' with the $500-per-child tax credit. 
     Most families who receive the EITC, however, would be 
     ineligible for much, if not all, of the child tax credit. The 
     same claims were made last year, but analysis of the final 
     proposal indicated that more than 7 million working 
     households would have had their taxes increased under the 
     EITC provisions in the vetoed reconciliation conference 
     report.


                               EDUCATION

              No Real Investment in Education and Training

       The $1.3 billion by which the Republicans increase 
     education funding from 1996 to 1997 is wholly insufficient to 
     maintain the levels agreed to in the 1996 omnibus 
     appropriations bill. In fact, over 6 years, the conference 
     report is below a CBO 1996 freeze by $11 billion for Function 
     500 (Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services) 
     discretionary spending. It is clear that the Republicans have 
     still not learned that the American people, a majority of 
     Congress, and the President believe that adequate funding for 
     education programs is essential.
       The trivial increase included in the conference report of 
     $2.6 billion over 6 years over the Republicans baseline for 
     Function 500 discretionary spending is shameful given how 
     important education and training is to our Nation. The 
     President's budget, by contrast, invests $59.4 billion more 
     than the Republican budget. In real terms, the conference 
     report reduces education and training spending by $25 billion 
     over 6 years.

                Capping the Direct Student Loan Program

       The conference report proposes capping the Federal direct 
     student loan program, crippling this successful program. (The 
     conference report does not provide a volume amount at which 
     this cap would be set. The House-passed budget resolution 
     eliminated the program, while the Senate capped it at 20 
     percent.) Since schools participating in the direct loan 
     program currently handle nearly 40 percent of loan volume, 
     hundreds of schools will be forced out of the program. This 
     will lead to disruptions and disarray for colleges and 
     universities and considerable headache and uncertainty for 
     students. The Republican majority does not believe that 
     competition and choice belong in the student loan market; 
     they want to assure banks and guarantee agencies continued 
     access to Federal subsidies.
       Even though the Republicans claim outlays savings of $3.7 
     billion over 6 years from their cap on direct lending, their 
     proposal would cost, not save billions, if it were scored 
     under the existing rules of the Credit Reform Act. The 
     Republicans add $5.8 billion in outlays to the deficit 
     through a ``baseline adjustment'' directing the Congressional 
     Budget Office to override the Credit Reform Act in its 
     scoring of student loan programs.


                            THE ENVIRONMENT

       Over the next 6 years, the Republican budget cuts $3.8 
     billion from essential environmental and natural resources 
     programs, a 17 percent cut below the President's level by the 
     year 2002, including a 23 percent reduction for the EPA's 
     enforcement and operations activities and a 36 percent 
     reduction for the energy conservation programs. The 
     Republican plan uses these reductions to let polluters off 
     the hook, to the tune of $5.4 billion, by financing taxpayer 
     spending for Superfund cleanups rather than requiring 
     responsible parties to pay the cost.
       The Republican budget plan also assumes a $1 billion of 
     savings will be achieved from the opening of the Arctic 
     National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil and gas development, 
     putting at risk one of our national treasures. The Republican 
     plan would weaken EPA's ability to protect public health and 
     the environment and lead to further deterioration of the 
     National Parks. The Republican plan jeopardizes 
     administration priorities such as the environmental cops on 
     the beat program, the Partnership for a new Generation of 
     Vehicles, and the Climate Change Action plan.


                           CRIME AND JUSTICE

       The Republican budget, as approved by the conferees, 
     actually decreases the funding level from both the House and 
     Senate budgets for the Administration of Justice function 
     (Function 750). The proposed funding level is $20.9 billion, 
     and is well below the House level of $22.1 billion and the 
     Senate resolution of $21.7 billion, and considerably below 
     the $23.5 billion requested by the President.
       The Violent Crime Reduction Fund (VCRTF) would be funded at 
     only $4.7 billion, which is $300 million below the $5 billion 
     authorized level. The President requested that the Trust Fund 
     be funded at the full $5 billion level. In addition, funding 
     for the VCRTF is not included for the years 2000 and 2001. 
     The President's budget assumes continued funding for the 
     Trust Fund in those years. It is unlikely that our need to 
     commit adequate resources to fighting crime will end after 
     the year 2000.
       At a time when Americans continue to express concerns about 
     the level of violent crime and the need to continue an 
     aggressive war on drugs, this Republican budget would 
     actually spend less money ($20.924 billion) in 1997 than was 
     allocated in 1996 ($20.969 billion).
       The Republicans continually depict the President as soft on 
     crime and not aggressively pursuing the drug war. This 
     Republican budget at $2.6 billion below the President's 
     request, however, clearly demonstrates that Congress, not the 
     President, is placing a low priority on fighting crime and 
     achieving justice in America.


                               TAX BREAKS

       No one should be fooled into believing that the Republicans 
     intend to limit their tax breaks to $122.4 billion, as 
     claimed by the conferees. The Republicans try to hide the 
     size of their tax breaks by not including in their baseline 
     the extension of three expired excise taxes dedicated to 
     trust funds and by counting the cuts over 6 years as opposed 
     to last year's 7 years. The Republicans are not backing off 
     of their huge tax breaks; they are merely disguising them 
     with clever gimmicks. Simply extending the excise taxes will 
     raise the tax cut to $155 billion. House Budget Committee 
     Chairman Kasich claims that the tax breaks will be in the 
     range of $180 billion.
       On its face, this budget does not even pay for the one tax 
     cut it endorses, as the child tax credit costs about $137 
     billion. Unlike the cost of the child tax credit that grows 
     incrementally each year, the Republican tax cut in 2002 is 
     reduced to $16.6 billion from a 2001 level of $22.6 billion. 
     If the child tax credit is indeed the only assumed tax cut, 
     then it must be sunsetted or triggered-off in some way in 
     2002, perhaps by lowering the size of the credit.
       The Republican budget does not call upon special interests 
     to assume any of the burden of balancing our budget. While 
     President Clinton has proposed that $40 billion be raised 
     from corporate reforms and loophole closing legislation, the 
     Republican budget lists no savings from those categories.
       The Republican budget allows for a ``deficit neutral'' tax 
     relief bill that will most likely include capital gains tax 
     breaks and other tax cuts. Chairman Domenici has repeatedly 
     asserted that tax increases can be used by the Finance 
     Committee to offset additional tax decreases. If the past is 
     any guide, the Republicans will soon be proposing to raid 
     pension funds for working families as a way to pay for tax 
     cuts that benefit primarily our wealthiest citizens. As many 
     of the other corporate reform provisions in the Balanced 
     Budget Act have already been promised to pay for other 
     legislation before the Senate, it remains unclear what will 
     be used to offset the costs of any additional tax breaks.
       Experience tells us to be very wary of Republican promises 
     of who will benefit from their tax breaks. Last year's vetoed 
     Republican reconciliation bill devoted 47 percent of its tax 
     cuts to people making more than $100,000. Chairman Kasich has 
     already promised that this year's tax breaks will likely be 
     more of the same.


               NATIONAL DEFENSE AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

       For 1997, the Republican conferees adopt the Senate 
     position and increased defense spending over the Pentagon's 
     1997 request by $11.3 billion. In 1998-2002, the conferees 
     more or less split the difference between the House and the 
     Senate resolutions. This $11.3 billion increase in 1997 tops 
     last year's Republican budget, which increased spending over 
     the Pentagon's request by $6.9 billion. As demonstrated by 
     recent action in the House and Senate authorizing committees, 
     much of this increase will go toward wasteful programs that 
     the Defense Department does no want and did not request. 
     In 1998-2002, the conferees allow the defense budget to 
     grow at a rate slower than inflation, yielding spending 
     levels that are well below the President's request for 
     2001 and 2002. In comparison to last year's budget 
     resolution, this year's effort provides defense with $7.7 
     billion more in real purchasing power.
       For International Affairs, the conference report provides 
     $18.2 billion for 1997, which exceeds what was recommended in 
     both the House and Senate resolutions. Despite this relative 
     increase in funding, this allocation is still $1.0 billion 
     less than the President requested and $260 million less than 
     appropriated last year. For the period 1997 through 2002, the 
     Republican budget provides over $18 billion less than the 
     President requested for International Affairs. These 
     reductions will undermine our global leadership 
     responsibilities and compromise our ability to advance core 
     national interests. Republicans once again talk the talk of 
     being a global superpower, but then refuse to walk the walk 
     by allocating the funds necessary to act like one.


                    PROCESS IN THE BUDGET RESOLUTION

       The Republican budget contains instructions for three 
     different reconciliation bills to try to maximize Republican 
     exposure during this election year.
       The first reconciliation bill addresses welfare, Medicaid, 
     and tax breaks. The resolution moves the tax breaks up into 
     the first bill, which will barely reduce the deficit, if it 
     does at all. The House committee reporting date is this 
     coming Thursday, June 13, and the Senate committee reporting 
     date is June 21. The Senate committees instructed are 
     Agriculture and Finance (both direct spending and revenue 
     reductions).

[[Page S6174]]

       The second reconciliation bill is devoted solely to 
     Medicare. The House committee reporting date is July 18, and 
     the Senate committee reporting date is July 24. The only 
     Senate committee instructed is the Finance Committee, and for 
     only direct spending.
       The third reconciliation bill addresses miscellaneous 
     direct spending and, once again, tax breaks. This way, if the 
     President vetoes the first tax break bill, Congress can send 
     him another. The House committee reporting date is September 
     6, and the Senate committee reporting date is September 18, 
     not even a month and a half before the election! Senate 
     committees instructed for this bill include Agriculture, 
     Armed Services, Banking, Commerce, Energy, Environment, 
     Finance (both direct spending and revenue reductions), 
     Governmental Affairs, Judiciary, Labor, Veterans. Reporting 
     is no longer contingent on passage of the prior two 
     reconciliation bills, as it was in the Senate-passed 
     reconciliation bill.
       You can bet that there will be a continuing resolution--a 
     C.R.--this year. That's because section 307 of the budget 
     resolution--comically named the ``Government Shutdown 
     Prevention Allowance''--provides that the Budget Committee 
     Chairman can boost the allocations to the appropriators and 
     lift the appropriations caps by $1.3 billion in outlays 
     (enough to get to a CBO freeze) if and only if the 
     appropriators report out a C.R. The only question now is, 
     will the FIRST appropriations bill be a C.R.?
       The Republican budget contains a tax reserve fund that 
     allows tax cut legislation to be offset by spending cuts. The 
     types of tax breaks allowable show the Republican priorities: 
     family tax relief, fuel tax relief, and incentives to 
     stimulate savings, investment, job creation, and economic 
     growth--read capital gains--so long as the legislation does 
     not increase the deficit.
       The Republican budget contains a reserve fund to 
     reauthorize superfund. This will allow discretionary spending 
     to be moved off budget to pay for cleanup without holding 
     original polluters responsible.
       The Republican budget contains a provision requiring that 
     asset sales be counted, rejecting the compromise present-
     value language agreed to on the Senate floor.
       The Republican majority has given us another extreme 
     budget, and the Senate should reject it.

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, in view of the fact that we have roughly 10 
minutes left--as I understand it, we are planning to vote at noon, I 
ask the Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. The Senator from Nebraska is correct.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, in order to expedite the proceedings, I ask 
unanimous consent that the final 10 to 12 minutes, whatever time is 
left on the Democratic side, be reserved for use between 11:40 and 
11:55 this morning.
  Mr. GORTON. Reserving the right to object, would the Senator from 
Nebraska make that period of time end at 11:50 so that the Senator from 
New Mexico, as the proponent, may have the last 10 minutes? Can the 
Senator move it forward a little and end at 11:50?
  Mr. EXON. Yes, if the Senator wants that. I agree to amend the 
unanimous consent request as suggested by the Senator from Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. GORTON. Would the Senator withhold?
  Mr. EXON. I withhold.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I regret the absence from the floor of the 
two Senators from North Dakota who just engaged in a discussion of this 
and of other budget proposals. But even in their absence, their 
statements should not go without response.
  At one level, the so-called Social Security argument, the proposition 
that these budgets are not balanced, we are dealing with mere debating 
points, and relatively outrageous debating points at that.
  At a second level, the concerns of the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. 
Conrad, who was a part of the same bipartisan group attempting to reach 
a common ground on that issue, as I was, I wish my remarks to be more 
serious. I think his were more pointed and more thoughtful. I will try 
to do the same.
  More than a year ago, at the time at which this argument about 
whether or not payroll taxes and Social Security benefits should be 
counted when we determine whether or not the budget was balanced, 
Charles Krauthammer, in his column in the Washington Post, wrote:

       In my 17 years in Washington, this is the single most 
     fraudulent argument I have heard. I do not mean politically 
     fraudulent, which is routine in Washington, in a judgment 
     call anyway; I mean logically, demonstrably, mathematically 
     fraudulent, a condition rare even in Washington, and a 
     judgment call not at all.

  Why did Mr. Krauthammer, an outside observer, write about this 
argument in this fashion? For one simple reason, Mr. President. The 
budget deficit of the United States of America, however many billions 
of dollars we are speaking of, is an exceedingly simple concept, 
readily understood by any citizen of this country. It is the difference 
between the amount of money the Government of the United States spends 
every year and the amount of money the United States takes in every 
year.
  Unfortunately, for various and sundry purposes, some good, some not 
so good, we have frequently passed laws that put some of these receipts 
into a particular fund, spend out of that particular fund, and then we 
have gone beyond that process to pretend they are not a part of the 
budget or of the budget deficit. But they are.

  The payroll tax is a tax which the Presiding Officer pays and I pay 
and every other working American pays, just to exactly the same extent 
that the income tax is a tax or an excise tax is a tax. The money spent 
by the Federal Government is a Federal expenditure, however worthy or 
unworthy its purpose, whether it is wasted or spent highly 
constructively.
  When we speak of a balanced budget in the year 2002, we speak of it 
in the sense of how much money we are spending and how much money we 
are taking in. When President Clinton says that he has a balanced 
budget in the year 2002, he speaks of it in the sense of how much money 
we spend and how much money we take in. When the bipartisan group, of 
which the Senator from North Dakota was a part, speaks of a balanced 
budget, it uses exactly that same concept.
  My gosh, Mr. President, by the argument that we received over here, 
we can balance the budget this year. All we have to say is that $150 
billion of money we spend is not on the budget. Let us pass a law. Just 
pass a law. Let us say all the money that we spend on national defense 
is not counted on the budget. Presto, we would have a surplus, and we 
could all go home, and the budget would not be unbalanced.

  Mr. President, obviously, it is not as easy as that. The money we 
spend on national defense does count. The money we spend on Social 
Security does count. The money that comes in our payroll taxes does 
count. When we count everything, the budget is passed.
  Even worse, Mr. President, some Members voted against a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget unless we included in it 
this fiction that payroll taxes for Social Security purposes and 
payments to Social Security recipients did not count. Mr. President, 
that is especially outrageous because by the time the constitutional 
amendment was ratified and became fully effective in this country, it 
would have exactly the opposite effect that the proposal has today.
  Today, the proposal outlined by the two Members from North Dakota 
would say we cannot count as balanced a budget that is, in fact, 
balanced. We have to state there is a $100 billion deficit because in 
that particular year, the Social Security taxes are taking in $100 
billion more than is being paid out in benefits.
  We all know, we have been told, we know inevitably that sometime 
relatively early in the next century, exactly the opposite will be the 
case: The Social Security trust fund will be paying out more money than 
it is taking in.
  So if these Senators have their way, in 10 or 15 years we will be 
able to claim a budget is balanced while the Social Security trust fund 
is going bankrupt and while the country is, in fact, obligated to spend 
hundreds of billions of dollars every year that it does not have. The 
books will say the budget is balanced in exactly the same way that it 
would say that they were balanced today if we just decided to take 
national defense off budget and claim the money we were spending on it 
did not count, for some reason or another.
  It is for that reason, Mr. President, that Charles Krauthammer, a 
year and a half ago, said this was the most fraudulent argument he had 
ever heard in 17 years in Washington, DC. That is not the real issue 
before the Senate, in our judgment, as to whether or not to

[[Page S6175]]

pass this budget resolution. That judgment really rests solely on the 
question, is it time to begin to move honestly toward a balanced 
budget? Is it time to arrest the growth rate of a handful of 
entitlements which each year take a larger percentage of our budget and 
each year contribute more to our budget deficit? Is it time to assure 
that we are going to have enough money for the very appropriated 
accounts about which the Senator from West Virginia was so eloquent, or 
are we going to allow them to be eaten up completely by these 
entitlements to the point which we will have no money for any of those 
purposes--for education, for the environment, for a park system, for 
the Department of Justice, because we are simply unwilling to deal with 
these entitlements?
  In fact, Mr. President, it is true under this budget resolution, the 
deficit in 1997 will be larger, by a small margin, than the deficit in 
1996. The deficit in 1998 will begin to go down, it will be about the 
same as the 1996 deficit, and then it will go down more rapidly 
thereafter.
  Mr. President, if we were to adopt President Clinton's budget, the 
increase in the deficit in 1997 would be even greater, and in every 
single year it would be significantly more than it is under the 
proposal before the Senate now. Why? Because he does not arrest the 
growth of entitlements in the way we do. In the early years, at least, 
he proposes to spend much more in discretionary spending.

  Mr. President, this is what I principally regret about the argument 
of the Senator from North Dakota. The bipartisan budget, which the two 
of us supported, also has a higher deficit using these figures in 1997 
than in 1996. It has a higher one in 1998 than in 1997. Yet, the 
Senator from North Dakota and I both supported it. Why? Because, in my 
opinion, it does a better job in the long-term control of entitlement 
programs. Thereafter, it allows for at least as much in tax relief to 
working Americans as does ours, and allows for more in the way of 
discretionary spending on education, law enforcement and the like. I 
felt it preferable to the one we have before the Senate now, but we did 
not win. This one is infinitely preferable to the proposal of the 
President, and it is infinitely preferable to doing nothing and 
allowing the status quo to continue and engaging in fruitless debate-
point kinds of arguments.
  Mr. President, the job would have been easier had we started a year 
ago. The President's veto of a balanced budget then frustrated that 
goal. It would have been easier still if we had started 2 years before 
that, at the beginning of the Clinton administration, or 2 years before 
that in the Bush administration. For one reason or another, we did not. 
Now we have a series of excuses as to why we should not start now or, 
more precisely, why we should do it differently.
  Everyone is for a balanced budget. Everyone is for a balanced budget, 
Mr. President. It is always a different one. It is never the one they 
have before them. That, accumulated over 30 years, is the reason we 
find ourselves in our present position.
  I believe this resolution is going to pass. I think that will be a 
good thing. I believe the President of the United States is almost 
certain to veto the enforcement mechanisms which would make it a 
reality. That will be a bad thing.
  We are likely to be back here next year, whoever is President, faced 
with the same challenge, but a more difficult challenge. We will be 
further in debt, it will be more difficult to bring these spending 
programs under control, but we will have the same debate once again as 
we do now. It will not be won by debating points. It will only be won 
by a support of something that is actually before the Senate and 
something that will actually work, that this present resolution most 
certainly is.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent it be 
charged equally against both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry, how much time does the minority 
have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority has 10 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. On this side we have how much?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 39 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that any time charged to the 
minority in the immediate past quorum call be charged to the majority, 
because they are very short of time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I voted against the Republican budget 
resolution when it came before the Senate. I told this body my reason 
which distills to one simple truth: It does not reflect the priorities 
of the American people. Sadly, as soon as Members of the House of 
Representatives had their say in the budget, as soon as the influence 
of the Speaker of the House was brought to bear in the conference 
committee, a bad budget was rendered even worse.
  Mr. President, the bill which lies before us is in fact the Newt 
Gingrich budget. After the drubbing the Republican Party took last year 
for holding hostage the Government and those its services help as those 
Republicans sought their scorched Earth budget at all costs, some of 
the rougher edges have been slightly rounded, some of the more severe 
slashes have been moderated. But this is unmistakably a budget without 
a heart, a budget that has no concept of investment for the future of 
our country and its people.
  When we first considered the budget for the next fiscal year, I tried 
to improve the bill by restoring funds for environmental protection and 
conservation efforts, for education--the Gingrich budget marks the 
largest education cut in history--and I tried to trim unnecessary 
defense spending to the level requested by the President.
  But then as now, the Republican Party has moved in lockstep to 
prevent us from providing services that the American people urgently 
need.
  As an alternative, the President's budget continues the sound 
economic and fiscal policy put in place in 1993 which has halved the 
deficit, kept interest rates and inflation low and created more than 8 
million jobs. His budget is the right way to balance the budget.
  But this resolution is shameful. The Gingrich budget continues the 
smoke-and-mirror gimmicks vetoed by the President and rejected by the 
American people. It slashes Medicare, cripples education programs, and 
opens tax loopholes for big corporations. This is the wrong way.
  Despite continuous and strong economic news, American workers feel 
insecure. Working families worry about their economic security; they 
worry about their retirement security. As I travel across 
Massachusetts, people tell me they are worried about their physical 
safety and their ability to afford health care.
  This Republican budget will only exacerbate this pervasive sense of 
insecurity. At a time when we are fearful about the level of violent 
crime and the need to conduct a real war on drugs, the Gingrich budget 
would spend less in 1997 than was allocated in 1996 for crime 
prevention. At a time when Americans believe that their only chance to 
realize the American dream is through education, the Republican budget 
gives education and training funding short shrift--$56 billion less 
than the President's balanced budget. At a time when Americans look 
toward their senior years and see an uncertain future, the Republican 
conference report slashes Medicare spending by $168 billion.
  That is the wrong set of priorities for our Nation, for our economy, 
and for hard-working American families, Mr. President. I reject this 
conference report as I, the President and the American people rejected 
the Republican plan last year, and as I rejected only 2 weeks ago this 
year's Republican plan.
  I hope my colleagues oppose the Republican conference report. We can 
do better for the country and we ought to. I yield the floor.


                        wrong budget priorities

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the budget resolution conference report now 
before us once again reflects the impact

[[Page S6176]]

of what I fear is an extreme conservative agenda that I believe is not 
shared by the majority of my constituents, or indeed of the Nation. I 
cannot support it.
  I note at the outset that I was happy to support the bipartisan 
centrist alternative budget that was offered last month by Senators 
Chafee and Breaux. In my view, the alternative plan took a more 
moderate approach based on a far more reasonable ranking of priorities.
  I should also note that the budget resolution which passed the Senate 
on May 23 was somewhat better than the pending conference report. 
Although I did not vote for the bill, I was pleased that the 
distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Domenici, added $5 
billion to discretionary spending, of which $1.7 billion was earmarked 
for education.
  Unfortunately, that enlightened step was quickly undone by the 
conferees, and the budget now before us resembles all too clearly last 
year's ill-conceived and misguided reconciliation bill that resulted in 
2 Government shutdowns and 13 continuing resolutions. It is dismaying 
to contemplate a repetition.
  The budget before us is all wrong, in my view. It continues the 
preposterous inconsistency of scheduling tax cuts and continuing tax 
breaks while at the very same time purporting to move toward a balanced 
budget. It pads the defense budget by more than $11 billion. And to 
offset these costly steps, it depends on excessive and unwise cuts in 
Medicare and Medicaid as well as in welfare and education.
  I am, of course, most particularly distressed by the cavalier and to 
my mind dangerous treatment of the Federal investment in education, 
which this budget would cut by 20 percent across the board by 2002. The 
impact would be felt at all levels of education, at a time when 
enrollments particularly at the secondary levels are climbing to 
historic highs.
  At the college level, the Republican budget would cut the Pell grant 
program by $6.2 billion over 6 years. An estimated 1.3 million students 
would lose Pell grants, and the value of the maximum grant would 
decline by $400 per student.
  College work study opportunities would be lost by 800,000 students by 
2002. The Direct Student Loan Program would be capped, forcing colleges 
and students out of the program. And national service would be cut, 
denying opportunity to some 40,000 over the 6-year period.
  At the secondary level, in fiscal year 1997 alone, the pending budget 
will have a very harmful effect on several programs of proven merit:
  Cuts in education for disadvantaged children would deny funding for 
math and reading skills for some 344,000 children.
  Safe and drug free school antidrug and antiviolence programs would be 
cut by $30 million next year.
  Cuts in Head Start would deny preschool education to at least 12,500 
children next year.
  Funding under Goals 2000 would be cut for 500 schools helping 250,000 
students meet higher education standards.
  Reduction in funding for bilingual education would eliminate services 
for some 38,000 students with limited proficiency in English.
  Cuts in summer jobs for youth and dislocated workers assistance will 
result in lost opportunities for skill enhancement for some 81,000 
young people.
   Mr. President, these reductions might have been justified if every 
last dollar had been shaved from programs less essential than 
education, or if national defense was seriously at risk or if every 
taxpayer in the country was being taxed to the limit of his ability to 
pay.
  But the fact is that none of these conditions obtain. On the 
contrary, this budget provides tax cuts and tax breaks that may reach 
$180 billion for the wealthiest individuals in the Nation while at the 
same time cutting education programs by $25 billion,.
  This is an unconscionable inversion of reasonable priorities and it 
ought to be rejected out of hand. I can only hope that our successors 
will bring a more enlightened and responsible attitude to the task.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise this morning in strong support of 
the conference budget resolution. I believe it provides us yet another 
opportunity in the 104th Congress to put our Nation's budget on a path 
toward balance, and does so in the spirit of compromise.
  Mr. President, as if we needed any further proof of the difficulty we 
face in balancing the budget after 27 consecutive years of fiscally 
irresponsible behavior, the last year and a half has further 
highlighted the challenges we face in achieving this goal. Even with an 
overwhelming majority in this Congress expressing strong support for a 
balanced budget--indeed, 64 Members of this body even voted for the 
balanced budget amendment just this past week--and a President 
expressing the same support, we have still not enacted the legislation 
necessary to put us on a path to balance.
  If there is anything that we have learned during these past 17 
months, it is that some measure of compromise will be needed by all of 
us in order to get to what we claim to be a shared goal. The Democratic 
Party may control the White House, but they do not control the 
Congress. By the same token, the Republican Party controls the 
Congress, but not with a margin sufficient to unilaterally override a 
Presidential veto. Therefore, with neither side having control 
sufficient to simply make happen whatever they would like, we are 
forced to exercise give-and-take if we truly wish to move forward at 
all.
  Mr. President, I believe that the budget conference report that has 
been crafted demonstrates give-and-take, and is a sincere effort to 
forge a compromise before the 104th Congress adjourns sine die. By 
doing so, this resolution gives us a chance to move the process 
forward. And through continued compromise in reconciliation, 
legislation could then be enacted that would put us on a path toward 
balance in 2002.
  Therefore, I would like to commend the chairman of the Senate Budget 
Committee, Mr. Domenici, and all of the members of the House-Senate 
conference committee for their efforts in crafting this conference 
budget resolution. Their willingness and ability to put together a 
budget that strikes a compromise between the positions taken by the 
President and congressional leaders during months of often acrimonious 
negotiations is a testament to their commitment to balancing the budget 
sooner rather than later.
  Mr. President, during the debate on the Senate budget resolution just 
this past month, I was part of a bipartisan group of Senators that 
offered an alternative budget resolution that split the differences on 
contentious issues such as Medicare, Medicaid, and tax cuts. Although 
that resolution was ultimately defeated by a narrow margin, it proved 
that compromise was possible and that Republicans and Democrats could 
work together and find common ground.

  After the defeat of that bipartisan resolution, I voted in favor of 
the budget resolution crafted by Senator Domenici because I felt it 
offered a sound and reasoned approach to balancing the budget--and 
could also warrant bipartisan support. I regret that none of my 
Democratic colleagues voted in favor of that resolution because I 
believed that it not only offered a fiscally responsible and realistic 
path to achieving balance in 6 years, but it also demonstrated the 
ongoing commitment to compromise by the chairman of the Senate Budget 
Committee, Senator Domenici.
  In an effort to gain support from Democrats as well as Republicans, 
Chairman Domenici incorporated a variety of the bipartisan budget 
group's 7-year savings targets in his 6-year Senate budget resolution. 
Now, following negotiations with the House, the Chairman is again 
presenting us with a plan that contains many of these similar savings 
targets. I therefore give this conference report my support--and am 
hopeful that my Democratic colleagues will reconsider their prior 
opposition to the Senate budget resolution.
  To reach balance, the total level of savings derived in the most 
contentious categories of the 1997 conference report are very similar 
to those contained in the bipartisan budget proposal. Specifically, the 
bipartisan budget assumed $154 billion of savings in Medicare, $62 
billion in Medicaid, $58 billion in welfare and the EITC, and

[[Page S6177]]

cut taxes by $130 billion. In comparison, the conference report would 
slow the growth of Medicare by $158 billion over 6 years, slow Medicaid 
growth by $72 billion, derive savings of $70 billion from reforms to 
the welfare and the EITC programs, and cut taxes by a net total of $122 
billion.
  Mr. President, despite these similarities, I am sure that there are 
those who will criticize this conference budget resolution on the 
grounds that the policies that back the numbers are wrong. I would 
simply remind my colleagues that a budget resolution is a blueprint and 
not a final package of policies for balancing the budget. The policies 
that embrace these targets will be crafted during the reconciliation 
process. We will have ample time to debate the specific policies that 
achieve these targets in the coming months.
  Still others will argue that the savings targets contained in the 
1997 conference report are unrealistic or hurtful. To those I would 
ask: Is it hurtful to save the Nation's Medicare Program from 
bankruptcy? Is it unrealistic to believe that Medicaid and welfare can 
be reformed in a manner that improves the delivery of services to those 
in need--especially the poor and elderly?
  The answer to all of these questions is the same: ``Of course not.''
  One striking example of the unjustified vilifying of this budget 
resolution is in the Medicare program. As we all learned from the 
Medicare trustees this past week, the Medicare trust fund is now 
expected to go insolvent in 5 short years--which is 1 year less than we 
were told just over 12 months ago--and perhaps in as quickly as 4 
years. We have a responsibility and an obligation to make the changes 
necessary to ensure that this program--which provides essential health 
care for millions of our Nation's senior citizens--be preserved for 10 
years.
  Rather than embrace a broad budget goal for Medicare that would allow 
us to craft a package of reforms to preserve this program for 10 years, 
opponents contend that the President's plan --which contained real 
reforms that would only extend solvency of this trust fund for 1 
additional year --should be embraced. We owe it to our senior citizens 
of today--and to those of tomorrow--that this vital program will not be 
imperiled simply because it appeared to be a good ``wedge issue'' for 
an upcoming election.
  By the same token, Mr. President, the entire balanced budget debate 
is not only about today, but also about tomorrow. We must never forget 
that balancing the budget is not merely an exercise in national 
accounting, rather it is about improving the lives of every American 
both now and in the future. Today, a balanced budget would mean 
improved financial conditions for our Nation's workers and families by 
providing for higher growth and lower interest rates. We would 
effectively be putting money in the bank accounts of working Americans 
because they would be paying less interest on their mortgages, less on 
their student loans, and less on their car loans.
  At the same time, balancing the budget is about preserving the future 
by ensuring that our children and grandchildren would not be subjected 
to an 82-percent tax rate or a 50-percent cut in benefits to pay for 
our profligate spending today. Every generation of Americans has sought 
to provide a brighter economic future for the next--but our 
unwillingness to exercise self control today is imperiling this goal 
for the generation of tomorrow.
  I believe John F. Kennedy said it most succinctly: ``It is the task 
of every generation to build a road for the next generation.'' I do not 
believe that building this road for the next generation can be put off 
any longer. I do not believe that we can stand idly by while our 
children's inheritance is squandered.
  This budget resolution provides us with an opportunity. An 
opportunity to forge a compromise now--not after the next election. We 
should not allow the forces of politics to overcome the force of 
responsibility.
  Mr. President, I support this budget agreement.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the finishing touches have been applied 
to the leadership's Presidential election year budget, and as many of 
us on both sides of the aisle feared, the cornerstone of that election 
year budget is not balancing the books but cutting taxes.
  Even the few fig leaves that were carefully placed on last year's 
budget resolution have been removed. The special reserve fund from 
which tax cuts were to be funded only after CBO certified that we were 
on a glidepath to a balanced budget has been removed.
  Instead we have a Rube Goldberg construction of reconciliation bills, 
leading to a massive tax cut which, we are told, totals $122 billion, 
but which might actually be closer to $180 billion if one believes the 
Chairman of the other body's Budget Committee.
  If anything, the conference version of the budget resolution provides 
even more opportunities for enacting a tax cut before the budget is 
balanced. As I understand the conference report, Congress can now 
consider tax cuts as part of the welfare-Medicaid reconciliation bill, 
or as part of a separate tax cut reconciliation bill. It is readily 
apparent that the goal of this year's budget resolution is not to 
balance the budget in 7 years, in 6 years, or even sooner.
  The goal is to pass an election year tax cut.
  Mr. President, the goal, and thus the budget as a whole, is entirely 
political--a defect that is not unique to this budget resolution. The 
tax cut bidding war that has been heating up for the past 2\1/2\ years 
is now white hot. The President is proposing tax cuts. The Republican 
congressional leadership are proposing tax cuts. The GOP candidate for 
President is about to propose tax cuts. Even the bipartisan coalition 
of Senators proposed a significant tax cut as part of their own budget 
plan, though I think many in that coalition would have preferred no tax 
cuts at all until we balanced the budget.
  Mr. President, every time you turn around you bump into somebody 
about to propose a tax cut. Last week, the President proposed a $1,500 
education tax credit, and there are reports that he may propose a tax 
break for first-time homebuyers. The Republican congressional 
leadership is pushing a gas tax cut, and has also proposed an adoption 
tax credit and a series of business tax cuts. And the Republican 
Presidential nominee is expected to propose a significant tax cut, 
reportedly as much as a 15-percent across-the-board cut in income 
taxes, a cut that would cost about $90 billion a year according to one 
report.

  Mr. President, we may need an environmental impact statement 
reviewing the loss of all those trees that will be used to make the 
paper for this blizzard of tax cut bills. The Washington Post took both 
Presidential candidates to task for their election year tax cut 
proposals. That June 4 editorial noted that ``both men know better,'' 
and went on to say that ``the candidates are moving, both of them, 
against what we persist in regarding as their own better instincts 
toward a bidding war on taxes.''
  Mr. President, I think that is a fair characterization.
  I respect both President Clinton and Senator Dole, and I think they 
both know better than to engage in this bidding war on taxes. It is 
driven purely by political winds. With continuing budget deficits 
facing the Nation, our focus must remain on balancing the budget, not 
on cutting taxes.
  This is true not only for the Federal budget as a whole, but also 
within the budget in areas such as Medicare. The recent report of the 
Medicare trustees came as no surprise. We have known for some time that 
the Medicare trust fund would be insolvent in a few years, a projection 
that has been all too common over the past 25 years.
  We need to devote our economic resources toward stabilizing that 
trust fund in the short term, and ensuring its solvency in the long 
term. I regret that the path of this budget resolution is instead to 
further undermine that trust fund by putting tax cuts ahead of both 
balancing the Federal budget and the long-term solvency of Medicare.
  Mr. President, the bipartisan budget plan that was debated here last 
month also had this fatal flaw. That plan, which held much promise in 
so many areas, was fatally flawed by having to provide funding for a 
tax cut that was neither politically necessary nor fiscally 
responsible. That it used as its funding source an across-the-board cut 
in Social Security COLA's not only frustrated the rest of the plan, it 
also may have jeopardized efforts to reform

[[Page S6178]]

the Consumer Price Index which so many respected authorities maintain 
overstates the cost of living. Making a case that the CPI needs to be 
modified will only suffer if the savings realized from reform are used 
to cut taxes rather than to secure the fiscal stability of Social 
Security.
  Mr. President, there was absolutely no need for that bipartisan plan 
to include a tax cut, and I very much hope that any future bipartisan 
actions which may flow from that important effort begin by dumping 
those tax cuts and focusing every last dime of savings on balancing the 
budget.
  Mr. President, I regret that so many have been infected by this tax 
cut fever. Its symptoms seem to cloud the mind. Even those who persist 
in believing the thoroughly disproven voo doo economics of the early 
1980's can find little on which to launch their arguments for a so-
called pro-growth tax cut.
  As some have noted, whether or not the ``pro-growth'' set believe in 
those discredited policies, there is little doubt that the Federal 
Reserve and the financial markets do not, and the effects of any tax 
cut that might be enacted would be countered in short order with an 
offsetting rise in interest rates.
  Mr. President, we can barely cut taxes and balance the budget on 
paper, let alone actually putting such a plan into effect. Maintaining 
the fiscal discipline needed to eliminate the deficit is hard enough 
for Congress. Adding a tax cut on top of that goal is fiscally 
irresponsible.
  Mr. President, this budget resolution invites mischief. It provides 
multiple opportunities to stray from what must be our most important 
economic goal, namely a balanced budget. And by opening up these new 
fronts, it further escalates a tax cut bidding war that is already 
getting out of control.
  Mr. President, we can expect a long, hot summer of tax cut proposals 
flying back and forth.
  Mr. President, it may have appeal in some quarters, but the great 
bulk of the American people would much rather be dealt with honestly 
and responsibly. They know that you cannot balance the budget and cut 
taxes at the same time. You have to choose one road or the other.
  Mr. President, let us choose the road to a balanced budget.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as I come to the floor today to speak on 
this budget conference report I am reminded of the immortal words of 
Yogi Berra: ``It feels like deja vu all over again.''
  Because, contrary to my colleagues' protestations of moderation, this 
conference report repeats the same mistakes of last year's failed 
budget process, which twice shut the Government down. Last year's plan 
gutted Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment and was 
soundly rejected by the American people and this conference report 
seems to be no different.
  Frankly, I'm amazed that after the lessons of last year the 
Republicans would try to hoodwink the American people into thinking 
that they have changed their stripes. But this budget does just that by 
presenting the thin veneer of compromise and moderation, while at the 
same time maintaining draconian spending cuts in America's priorities 
and tax cuts for Americans who don't need them.
  But the American people will not be fooled. They learned long ago 
that when it comes to the Republican's budget-cutting efforts, ``All 
that glitters is not gold.''
  Unfortunately, the only thing that shines in this budget is the 
repetition of the same mistakes that gave us 13 continuing resolutions 
and 2 Government shutdowns last year.
  For example, on Medicare this conference report calls for cuts of up 
to $168 billion. These reductions would leave seniors with an 
increasingly second-class health care system. The enactment of the 
accompanying profound policy changes would leave the sickest and 
poorest Americans in a weakend and toothless Medicare program.
  This conference report also represents a $123 billion reduction in 
part A. These cuts would limit beneficiary access to hospital health 
services and limit payments to hospitals. These reductions could result 
in cost-shifting, affect quality and leave in serious jeopardy the 
continuing viability of many rural and urban hospitals.
  But, Republicans don't stop with Medicare. Medicaid, too, would be 
gutted by $72 billion in cuts and block grants that would threaten this 
Nation's guarantee to provide health care for children and the poor. In 
fact, under the Republicans' block grant approach, these Medicaid 
reductions could total $250 billion if States spend only the minimum 
required.
  If this conference report were enacted, more than 36 million Medicaid 
beneficiaries, including 18 million children, more than 6 million 
people with disabilities and millions of older Americans who rely on 
Medicaid, would lose their guarantee of adequate health care.
  But these Medicaid costs are an integral part of a conference report 
that finds more than 42 percent of its savings by cutting priorities 
that affect low-income Americans. Is this any way to balance the 
budget--on the backs of America's poorest citizens while at the same 
time including sizable tax cuts for wealthy Americans?
  Additionally, I hear a lot of rhetoric from across the aisle about 
moving Americans from welfare to work and making the opportunity of the 
American Dream available to millions of Americans. Maybe one of my 
Republican colleagues could explain to me how we are supposed to do 
that when we're taking away the tools to make those dreams a reality?
  In my opinion, there is no better example of the Republicans' 
insensitive attitude to the working poor than their proposed cuts in 
the earned income tax credit. [EITC].
  Here we have a program that benefits millions of America's working 
poor that in the past has had sweeping bipartisan support and that 
provides an essential lifeline for those Americans trying to escape 
poverty.
  But, while most Americans would look at the earned income tax credit 
and say ``Here's a Government program that works,'' my Republican 
colleagues look at the EITC and say, ``Here's a place to save money.'' 
This is akin to raising taxes on the working poor.
  At at time when growing wage inequalities threaten to segregate 
Americans by economics, it is beyond my ability to understand how my 
Republican colleagues could pass a conference report that raises taxes 
on the working poor while cutting taxes for wealthy Americans. But, it 
seems those kind of skewed priorities have become the norm is this 
body.
  Additionally, this budget continues the Republican assault on 
education and job training. The overwhelming desire of the American 
people to see Congress maintain our national commitment to education 
has led my Republican colleagues to increase funding. But, Americans 
won't be fooled by these hollow increases.

  In real terms,this conference report would mean $25 billion less in 
education and training spending over the next 6 years. On the other 
hand, President Clinton understands the need for maintaining our 
commitment to education and job training. That's why his budget 
includes nearly $60 billion, more than the GOP budget, in new 
investments in priorities such as Head Start, Goals 2000, Pell grants, 
school-to-work, summer jobs, and dislocated worker training.
  The President's budget also maintains our national commitments to the 
environment and to crime fighting, which suffer serious blows under the 
GOP conference report.
  For example, the Republican budget cuts nearly $4 billion, from the 
President's request for environmental priorities such as energy 
conservation and EPA enforcement and maintains the GOP commitment to 
open up one of America's last great environmental treasures, the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge, to oil and gas drilling.
  On the crime front, while Republicans like to portray this President 
as soft on crime, it is Republicans who are actually cutting money that 
helps keep our streets safe from the scourge of drugs and violent 
crime. For example, the Violent Crime Reduction fund would see serious 
cutbacks and the total funding for the Administration of Justice 
function would be cut by more tan $2.5 billion than the President 
requested.
  Yet, at the same time they're cutting money for crime, education, the 
environment and job training, this conference report still finds enough 
money

[[Page S6179]]

to provide $11.3 billion more in defense funding than the Pentagon even 
requested.
  This additional, unrequested funding, along with another $60 billion 
boondoggle for a Star Wars missile system serves as a vivid reminder of 
where the priorities of my colleagues across the aisle lie. And to be 
honest with this much in additional spending it's hard to take 
seriously Republican assertions that they truly want to balance the 
budget.
  There's an inherent hypocrisy in suggesting that on one hand we need 
to balance the budget--even amending the Constitution if need be--while 
on the other hand calling for additional, unrequested defense spending 
and a repeal of the gas tax, which will only drive up the deficit.
  What's more, these spending increases come on the heels of 
Republicans' continued insistence that this Congress pass tax cuts for 
wealthy Americans who don't need them. Last year's budget devoted 47 
percent of its tax cuts to people making more than $100,000 and there 
is little reason to believe that this year is any different.
  Stop me if this agenda sounds familiar. As one of the 11 Senators to 
vote against the 1991 Reagan budget plan that cut taxes, raised defense 
spending and plunged this Nation into deeper and deeper debt the 
similarities are all too familiar.
  It was that plan that brought this Nation to the point we're at 
today. If we hadn't exploded the deficit during the 1980s this debate 
would not necessary. But, it seems some people never learn.
  If my Republican colleagues were truly intent on balancing the budget 
in a fair and equitable manner they might want to look down 
Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House.
  President Clinton has presented a budget that puts our fiscal house 
in order while protecting our values and priorities as a Nation. But, 
it seems Republicans are more intent on playing politics with this 
issue, rather than taking up the President's offer to continue the 
negotiations.
  This conference report puts us in the wrong direction toward 
compromise, but more importantly it puts us on the wrong path toward 
making a better future for our children. It is my intention to vote 
against this conference report and I urge all my colleagues, Democrats 
and Republicans, to reject it as well.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my disappointment 
that the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution alters my sense-of-the-
Senate amendment in a way that completely changes the intent of the 
amendment agreed to by 57 Senators.
  In February I introduced legislation that would create a dedicated 
trust fund for Amtrak. As chairman of the Finance Committee, I reported 
out this legislation with the support of my colleagues on both sides of 
the isle. On the budget resolution I offered a sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment that expressed support for this legislation--for direct 
funding for Amtrak--and it was overwhelmingly approved by the Senate.
  While my sense-of-the-Senate amendment received strong support in the 
Senate, my amendment was drastically changed while in conference with 
the House. My amendment was supported by 57 Senators who voted for 
direct funding for capital improvements to Amtrak. My legislation would 
have been offset according to the budget rules, therefore, it would not 
have had an affect on the deficit. It would fund Amtrak without raising 
taxes, without increasing the deficit, and without cutting funding for 
other forms of transportation.
  Unfortunately, my amendment was modified in conference. The modified 
version of my amendment would only create an authorization, with no 
direct spending for Amtrak. These are two different amendments with two 
different meanings. However, only my amendment was voted on by the full 
Senate and only my amendment received overwhelming support from this 
body.
  Mr. President, the 57 Senators that voted in favor of direct spending 
knew what they were voting on. These Members know that if Amtrak is to 
survive, it will need direct spending to make the needed capital 
improvements and upgrades to equipment and shops. They also know that 
another authorization will not help Amtrak secure the money needed for 
long term capital investments.
  What Amtrak needs and what the Senate voted on is direct funding for 
capital improvements. I conclude by expressing my profound 
disappointment that the conference report for the fiscal year 1997 
budget resolution does not reflect the will of the Senate on this 
issue.
  Let me also point out that my preference for the overall budget 
resolution would have been the lower discretionary levels as contained 
in the House-passed version of the budget resolution.
  Thank you Mr. President and I yield the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I know there is a lot of redundancy in 
what we all say around here, and certainly I have tried to make these 
points before, but we had quite a discussion this morning debating the 
budget resolution. During that time, I guess one of the most eloquent 
Senators in the history of this body, Senator Byrd from West Virginia, 
had some comments that I want to respond to.
  One was he commented on the mistake that he made when he voted for 
tax cuts back in the 1980's. I suggest that there is a basic difference 
in philosophy. I hope it came out. I think people have to weigh this on 
their own.
  I can remember, in 1992, a quote I attribute to Laura Tyson, the 
chief economic adviser to President Clinton, who said, ``There is no 
relationship between the level of taxation that a nation pays and its 
productivity.'' I think that is the crux of where we are now in our 
debate, whether it is about the balanced budget amendment or just a 
balanced budget. If you really believe that, then I can understand why 
people would not want to have tax cuts and why they would vote the way 
they do.
  But I have to remind the distinguished Senator that there is no 
period of time in history when we had greater tax cuts than there was 
in the 1980's. That is when we had our marginal rates coming down so 
dramatically. In 1980, the total revenues for Government were $517 
billion. In 1990, it was $1.03 trillion. It doubled in that period of 
time. During that period of time, we had the greatest tax decreases of 
any 10-year period in America's history. The revenues from marginal 
rates went, in 1980, from $244 to $466 billion.

  That is where the basic difference of opinion is. People want to have 
more of their money to invest. For each 1 percent increase in the 
economy, it develops an additional $26 billion of new funds.
  The distinguished Senator from West Virginia said--and this is a 
quote, I wrote it down--he said, ``The people of America are going to 
wake up and say we are tired of cutting domestic discretionary 
programs.'' I think that is a basic difference of opinion among many of 
us here. I think perhaps the majority of us do not believe that. We 
think the people of America are not tired of cutting domestic programs. 
They are tired of tax increases. They are tired of deficit increases. 
They are tired of having their children and their grandchildren born 
into an environment where they immediately inherit a $19,000 debt, and 
if we do not do something to change it, they will end up having to pay 
82 percent of their entire lifetime income just to support Government.
  Another thing that was said was said by the distinguished Senator 
from North Dakota, who again used the ``S'' word, I call it, star wars. 
I have to say, and I firmly believe it--I am on the Senate Armed 
Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee and I was on the same 
committees over in the House of Representatives--I believe there is a 
greater threat facing America today than there has been, certainly, 
since World War II, maybe since the Revolutionary War: the 
proliferation of nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction, and the 
lack of defense against delivery of those weapons. As the distinguished 
Presiding Officer knows, because he is on the same committees I am, we 
are in an environment where we have had slashes in the military budget 
for 12 consecutive years. So now we are essentially where we were in 
buying power in 1980 when we could not afford spare parts.
  So I think it is doing a disservice to the American people to use 
such terms as star wars. When you realize it is not

[[Page S6180]]

$70 or $80 or $90 billion, we are talking about an investment that the 
American people have made in national missile defense today of about 
$50 billion. Just take the Aegis ships, 22 Aegis ships, already paid 
for, already floating, that have launching capability, all we have to 
do is spend about $4 billion more to give them the capability of 
getting into the upper tier to give us the defense system that we have 
to have.
  We have rogue nations, as James Woolsey said, some 25 to 30 rogue 
nations, nations that have weapons of mass destruction, not the obvious 
ones of Russia and China and North Korea, but Iran, Iraq, and all the 
other nations, Syria, Libya. I think about the war that took place, the 
Persian Gulf war, where Saddam Hussein said, ``If we could have waited 
for 5 more years before we invaded Kuwait, we would have been able to 
have the missile capability of delivering a weapon of mass destruction 
at the United States of America.'' This is coming from a guy who 
murdered his own grandchildren, so we are not talking about normal 
people who think like we do.
  So I would say I wanted to respond to those two statements made by 
those two very distinguished Senators from West Virginia and from North 
Dakota.
  Mr. DOMENICI. 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. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished chairman of our committee.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
at this point an article in the Wall Street Journal of June 6 entitled, 
``A Tax Cut Trap,'' by the distinguished journalist Albert R. Hunt.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Wall Street Journal, June 6, 1996]

                            The Tax Cut Trap

                          (By Albert R. Hunt)

       [No matter how many consultants told him to make his 
     message more upbeat . . . no one could ever convince Dole 
     that deficits would simply ``grow away.'' Bobby Joe Dole grew 
     up in Russell, Kansas. He saw people die from debt.--From 
     ``Bob Dole,'' a 1992 biography by Richard Ben Cramer.]

       Bobby Joe Dole is on the verge of an epiphany on huge tax 
     cuts aimed at helping the federal budget deficit simply grow 
     away, according to Republican bigwigs who are prodding him in 
     that direction. Running 16 points behind President Clinton, 
     they want their nominee to return to those salad days when 
     the GOP won elections by promising to cut taxes for 
     everybody.
       If a tax exists, Sen. Dole is being urged to cut it, 
     ranging from lower capital gains rates to bigger write-offs 
     for personal savings and donating to charities that help the 
     poor. Overlaying this would be the big ticket: either an 
     across-the-board 15% reduction in income taxes or a flatter 
     income tax with only a few politically necessary exemptions.
       The total tab over seven years could reach three-quarters 
     of a trillion dollars, or three times as much as the huge 
     GOP-drafted tax cut that played such a pivotal role in 
     unraveling the Republican's budget plans this Congress.
       Sen. Dole, who undoubtedly will propose a major tax 
     reduction plan, probably in July, is more cautious than those 
     giving him advice. And for good reason; skeptical voters may 
     spot the fallacies in this supposed free lunch:
       (1) It would be sayonara both to the centerpiece of the 
     Republican revolution, a balanced budget, and to deficit 
     cutting, a hallmark of Sen. Dole's 36-year congressional 
     career (which is slated to end next Tuesday).
       The Kansas Republican's contempt for supply-side tax 
     cutters in the 1980s was legendary. In 1992 he assailed a 
     proposed Bush tax cut as ``bad medicine,'' and last year he 
     was quoted as saying that in the 1980s the tax cutters said, 
     `` `Everything's going to be fine.' Well . . . it wasn't. You 
     see how the debt went up during those years.''
       Dole advisers insist he'll accompany tax reductions with 
     spending cutbacks, likely to include tax loophole closings 
     too, and they note there'll be some stimulus effect of the 
     massive tax cuts. But a quick glance at last year's budget 
     battle shows just how tough this is. To finance a $245 
     billion tax cut the Republicans had to propose politically 
     unpopular cutbacks in Medicare and slash so many social 
     service programs that cumulatively their plan amounted to an 
     assault on the poor. The conservative House Democrats, the 
     so-called Blue Dogs, have proposed a federal budget that 
     would balance in six years with no tax cut.
       (2) The economic rationale for these cuts is full of snake 
     oil. Proponents contend that the 1981 Reagan tax cuts 
     produced a surge in revenues--rising, in real terms, an 
     average of 3.8% a year from 1982 to 1989--and that the 1993 
     Clinton-engineered tax increase was a disaster.
       Tax revenues did rise in the 1980s for one primary reason: 
     Payroll taxes were boosted six times during that period, and 
     rose an average of 4.8% from 1982 to 1989. Individual income 
     tax revenues rose only an average of 2.2% and most of that 
     was after passage of the 1986 tax reform act.
       Since the 1993 act, tax revenues have risen 4.8% a year. 
     Back in 1993 Republicans warned of the dire consequences of 
     that deficit reduction/tax hike legislation. Newt Gingrich 
     said it would ``lead to a recession . . . and will actually 
     increase the deficit.'' Rep. Dick Armey (R., Texas) called it 
     a ``job killer.'' Sen. Phil Gramm (R., Texas) was even more 
     apocalyptic.
       Here are the facts: The unemployment rate today is 5.4%; 
     three years ago it was 7.1%. Since August 1993, seven million 
     new jobs have been created, and the budget deficit has been 
     more than cut in half to $130 billion. The Dow Jones 
     Industrial Average has soared more than 2000 points, with 
     relatively low inflation and interest rates.
       (3) Under the proposed tax plans, the GOP can forget about 
     emphasizing income inequality or the lagging middle class, 
     issues that featured so prominently in the early primary 
     contests.
       When Sen. Spencer Abraham (R., Mich.) and others complain 
     that individual taxes have risen 25% under the Clinton 
     administration, they omit some pertinent particulars. The 
     1993 tax increase raised tax rates for only the wealthiest 
     1.2% of Americans. That legislation also included a tax cut 
     for 15 million poor workers and their families. The average 
     federal income tax rate for the typical family of four today 
     is lower than it was four years ago, and lower than during 
     much of the Reagan administration.
       The Republican tax proposals being urged on Bob Dole--
     despite some window dressing--would amount to a considerable 
     redistribution of income to the more affluent. If the 
     Republican nominee opts for a flatter, two-tier tax, remember 
     he already has vowed to retain the home mortgage deduction, 
     charitable write-offs and deductions for state and local 
     taxes. Thus he is left with three choices: (a) adopt rates so 
     high that his plan loses any political appeal; (b) bust the 
     budget; or (c) sock it to the middle class. More than 47% of 
     the benefits of a 15% across-the-board cut would go to 
     individuals making over $100,000 a year; less than 8% would 
     go to people making less than $30,000.
       Yeah, some Republicans counter, but the Republican nominee 
     is so far behind he needs to try something audacious: 
     Moreover, they relish the idea of switching the political 
     terrain to a fight with President Clinton over tax cuts. One 
     example: Privately, Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin--once a 
     towering figure on Wall Street--is telling the president the 
     evidence is that a capital gains tax cut would do little to 
     stimulate the economy. Political strategist Dick Morris--with 
     no experience in either tax policy or economics--is 
     whispering it could undercut the Republicans and appeal to 
     contributors. The Republicans figure the president will side 
     with the politics and then they can outbid him.
       But the GOP confidence that the tax issue always works to 
     their advantage may be outdated. It may be more like generals 
     who are always fighting the last war, even in the face of 
     changing circumstances. Few voters love paying taxes, but 
     polls suggest taxes are not a high priority for the vast 
     majority of Americans.
       Bob Dole hopes to capitalize on the character issue. Yet 
     he's about to present a whopping tax cut that would be 
     antithetical to much of what he has championed for years. 
     This may gain Mr. Dole some previously skeptical converts, 
     but he risks losing something far more valuable in this 
     contest: his credibility.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I have been so frustrated in trying to 
get the truth out. I am not amazed that colleagues on the floor differ 
with my views on a tax cut, but my frustration has been with the 
media's coverage of this issue. When I find the truth I want to include 
it in the Record, and this is not only a very, very good analysis of 
the false promise of a tax cut, but also outstanding advice for our 
distinguished friend, Senator Dole.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Hollings' time be charged to the majority.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes of our time.
  I am not sure I am going to have a chance, just before the vote, to 
thank people, but I want to thank Senator Exon. His last budget 
resolution and conference agreement is this one. Members of the Budget 
Committee come and go, but he has been a member since the 96th 
Congress, January 1979, when it was then chaired by Senator Muskie.
  I want to recognize other departing members of the Budget Committee:

[[Page S6181]]

 Senator Bennett Johnston, who has been a member of the committee since 
January 1975, the 95th Congress, when it was under the chairmanship of 
Senator Muskie--19 years on the committee; Senator Simon of Illinois, a 
member of the Budget Committee since the 100th Congress, January 1987, 
when Senator Chiles was chairman, and a member on the House Budget 
Committee, also, when he served there; and, finally, Senator Brown from 
Colorado, a dedicated member of the committee who has been on this 
committee for a short period of time, comparatively speaking, during 
all his tenure with us in the Senate. His tenure began in the 102d 
Congress, in January 1991.
  I thank each of the Senators for his distinguished service and hard 
efforts with reference to the budget.
  Senator Exon, in your absence I had extended my congratulations and 
appreciation to you and including other members who are leaving the 
Budget Committee in my congratulations.
  I understand, Senator Exon, that you have 10 minutes remaining. We 
have essentially 20 minutes at this point. I am trying to find out if 
Republicans are meeting, in which event I will leave for a while, but 
we will try to arrange the last 20 minutes in some kind of sequence. I 
have not had a chance to talk to our leader, but I am hopeful since you 
would have 10 of that 20, we would at that point presumably have 10, 
that we might divide it up in some kind of equal proportions, with the 
majority obviously being entitled to the last 5 minutes of any such 
arrangement. I am unable to do that for a while, but I hope you 
understand that is my intention.
  Mr. EXON. Will the Senator yield for a question? We certainly want to 
accommodate all parties as best we can. We had earlier assumed that we 
would have a vote at 12. Is that still the intention?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Absolutely. I think that is the unanimous consent 
agreement.
  Mr. EXON. Therefore, as I understand it, we have 10 minutes left and 
we are to use that 10 minutes under the unanimous consent from 11:40 to 
11:50, and then you, the majority, would have the last 10 minutes, is 
that the understanding?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I do not know if that is the consent agreement. We can 
ask the Presiding Officer. What does the consent agreement says in 
terms of the allocation of the last 20 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Exon will have from 11:40 to 11:50, 
under the previous unanimous consent.
  Mr. DOMENICI. What we are trying to do is do you a little better than 
that. When I get hold of Senator Lott, if there are four speakers who 
want to wrap up, I am hoping to have them speak for 5 minutes each, not 
the full 10 first, but 5 from you and 5 from us.
  Mr. EXON. We have no objection to that whatever. I thank my colleague 
from New Mexico. All these years we have worked on the committee 
together we have had an exceptionally fine relationship. He has always 
been kind and understanding before he was in the leadership position, 
and he has been even more kind and more understanding since he has been 
my chairman of the Budget Committee. I thank him for his fine remarks.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and 
ask the time be charged to the majority.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I propose the following unanimous 
consent request. I ask unanimous-consent that at 11:40, Senator Exon be 
recognized for up to 5 minutes, to be followed by Senator Domenici from 
New Mexico for up to 5 minutes, to be followed by the Democratic leader 
for up to 5 minutes, with the majority leader recognized for the final 
5 minutes prior to the vote on the adoption of the conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. EXON. We have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, 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. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak as in morning business for up to 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the budget resolution 
conference report advanced by our Republican colleagues. I do so, not 
because I object to implementing plans for a balanced Federal budget. 
My commitment to that objective remains unshakeable. I oppose this plan 
because it is tied to a political agenda, not a substantive one, and 
because it opens the door to huge tax cuts even before we make and lock 
in the tough principled choices necessary to actually balance the 
budget. The sad truth about this plan is that its proponents know it 
will be vetoed by the President, and budget gridlock will continue. 
This whole exercise is not about balancing the budget, which I have 
done everything I can to advance on a bipartisan basis. It's about 
political positioning for this fall's election. I know of no precedent 
under either party's control of Congress for the present course we are 
following.
  This budget proposal has split up the reconciliation process into 
three different bills. The first bill will encompass both Medicaid and 
welfare reform. While the President has indicated his willingness to 
enact a welfare reform bill this year, this budget resolution calls for 
the attachment of a Medicaid reform plan that our Republican colleagues 
know the President will veto. By combining these elements into the same 
package, the Republican majority precludes any chance for positive 
action on welfare reform this year.
  The second reconciliation bill is directed at reform of the Medicare 
Program. Given the recent report of the trustees, action is clearly 
needed to address the finances of the program. While the Republicans 
deserve credit for tackling this issue head on, the fact of the matter 
is that the actions they have proposed for shoring up Medicare's 
finances threaten the effective delivery of the very health care 
services to our seniors that they say they want to preserve.
  Mr. President, the bottom line is that the proposed reductions in 
Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare wouldn't have to be as large if they 
weren't needed to finance a large tax cut at a time we're trying to 
balance the budget, and their refusal to consider an adjustment to the 
consumer price index in order to spread the burden of deficit reduction 
more equitably across the entire Federal budget may be good politics 
but it's not good policy.
  Not only are the reductions in Medicare, Medicaid, and welfare 
programs unneccessarily large in this budget proposal, we are going to 
have to vote on discretionary spending levels in this resolution which 
are both unwise as a matter of policy, and unattainable politically. 
While the conference committee has attempted to provide a sufficient 
amount for fiscal year 1997, not a single appropriator, from either 
side of the aisle, can tell you how those out-year numbers can be 
achieved which means that the pressure of future Congresses to ignore 
the proposed restraints will be overpowering--and most of the savings a 
sham.
  Mr. President, the events of the past year have confirmed that the 
only way to solve our major fiscal problems, both short term and long 
term, is on a bipartisan basis. The difficulty is that enacting a 
credible, fair, and bipartisan budget proposal will require tough 
medicine for both sides. Republicans will have to come down on their 
demands for tax cuts, and Democrats will have to be more willing to 
confront entitlment reform, including Social Security.
  Mr. President, I have been fortunate this past year to work with a 
group of bipartisan Senators, dubbed the centrist coalition, to produce 
a credible balanced budget proposal--a proposal with a realistic 
discretionary spending

[[Page S6182]]

pattern, one with significant entitlement reform which continues to 
protect our most vulnerable citizens, and one which makes a justified 
modifcation of the consumer price index. This plan, offered as a 
substitute during the consideration of the current budget resolution, 
was the only proposal to receive significant bipartisan support this 
year, garnering 24 Democratic votes and 22 Republican votes.
  While I cetainly understand the inability to move this proposal this 
year given election year politics, I am hopeful that it will provide 
the seeds for an effective compromise early in the next Congress since 
the budget resolution before us does not move us any closer toward 
long-term balanced budgets than we are today.
  Mr. President, I am very frustrated by the process that we are 
engaged in at the moment. We have an opportunity, if we can work on a 
bipartisan basis, to advance the cause of a balanced budget and fiscal 
responsibility, and we are missing that opportunity.
  I, for one, am prepared to make substantial reductions in spending in 
the entitlement areas--in Medicaid, in Medicare and in Social Security. 
I am also prepared to address the very politically sensitive area of 
adjustments to the Consumer Price Index to more accurately reflect 
inflation. But at this point, we are not going to do that.
  The current resolution is designed to split the reconciliation 
process into three different pieces. The most objectionable part, from 
my point of view, is we put tax cuts right up at the front so that we 
undermine any public confidence that we are really serious about 
deficit reduction.
  We are making bigger reductions in the projected spending in some of 
the entitlements than we need to because we are planning to put that 
money into a tax cut before we have actually locked in the tough, 
principled choices that are going to be necessary if we are going to 
achieve the stated objective of a balanced budget.
  This resolution also substantially reduces the chance of ever getting 
any meaningful welfare reform in this Congress by linking Welfare 
reform with a Medicaid reform package that the President is committed 
to vetoing.
  It seems to me that we ought to be able to get together; indeed, 24 
Democrats and 22 Republicans found common cause with respect to a 
budget resolution that was submitted earlier. If we are serious about 
solving this particular problem, the Resolution before us is not the 
way to do it.
  So, Mr. President, I regret very much that I am going to have to vote 
against the pending measure, notwithstanding my long-term commitment to 
deficit reduction and a balanced budget.
  For the opportunity to express my views, I thank the Presiding 
Officer and I thank the ranking member of the Budget Committee for 
suggesting this approach for getting my views on the record.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is controlled by the Senator from 
Nebraska, and under the previous unanimous consent agreement, he is to 
be recognized now for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be 
allowed to speak as in morning business for 6 minutes.
  I make a unanimous-consent request I be allowed to speak as in 
morning business for 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I spoke yesterday on 
the budget, and I will not reiterate that. I wanted to make a very 
brief statement about two issues.

                          ____________________