Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 87 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)

[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.

____________________