[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 31 (Wednesday, March 12, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2166-S2171]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               THE BUDGET

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we wanted to come to the floor today 
because we have watched for a number of weeks a discussion on the floor 
of the Senate about changing the United States Constitution to require 
a balanced budget. In fact, for a good many weeks we had a stack almost 
5-foot tall of books. Apparently they represented budget books and 
budgets that were submitted by Presidents to Congress and described 
various budget deficits over many years. And that 5-foot stack of books 
resided on the desk over there for I think 3 or 4 weeks in the Chamber. 
The discussion was: ``Let us change the Constitution to require a 
balanced budget.'' We had that vote. Those books are now gone. Now, of 
course, comes the real work. Altering the Constitution of the United 
States is one thing. Balancing the budget by writing a yearly budget, 
which the Congress is required to do following the submission of a 
budget by the President, is quite another thing. I made the point 
during the debate on the constitutional amendment to balance the budget 
that we could alter the Constitution at 12 o'clock noon that requires a 
balanced budget and at 12:01 there would be no difference in either 
Federal debt or Federal deficit. Why? Because that is required to be 
done in the individual yearly choices of taxing and spending decisions 
here in the Congress.
  I do not see anybody out here on the floor on the other side with 
nearly as much energy on the proposition of writing a budget that will 
really balance the budget. In fact, no one is here now, and there 
hasn't been for some long while anyone here to address the question of 
will there be a budget brought to the floor of the Senate? The deadline 
for the Budget Committee to act on a budget is April 1. That is not 
very many days away. The deadline for the adoption of a budget 
resolution by the Congress is April 15, about a month away. That leaves 
only 7 working days here in the Senate between now and the deadline by 
which the Budget Committee shall have acted to comply with its 
responsibilities. And it is only 14 working days in the Congress to 
actually pass a conference report on the floor of the Senate and the 
House to comply with the requirements of the budget act. But, contrary 
to 5 feet of documents when we discussed altering the Constitution, you 
can't find a single page scavenging anywhere in this Chamber. Not in 
the darkest recesses of the deepest drawer in these Senate desks will 
you find a page that explains what the plan is for actually balancing 
the budget--not altering the Constitution; the plan for actually 
balancing the budget.
  We say we are ready. We want a plan to balance the budget. The 
President has submitted a plan. Now let's see the alternatives, and 
talk about them and describe the choices and what are the priorities.
  Why do we not see a plan? And why do we see so little energy on this 
issue of actually dealing with the budget on the floor of the Senate?
  I want to hold up a chart that describes why I think we are in this 
situation. The Joint Tax Committee disclosed to us that in the first 5 
years of the coming budget the cost of the proposed tax cuts by the 
Republicans here in Congress will mean $200 billion in lost revenue but 
that in the first 10 years the lost revenue will be $525 billion. In 
other words, you lose a couple hundred billion dollars in the first 5 
years, and then much, much more than that in the second 5 years; in 10 
years, nearly half a trillion dollars.
  What does that mean? It means, if you have that much less revenue--
and, incidentally, most all of this tax cut

[[Page S2167]]

will be borrowed and will be added to the Federal debt--every dollar of 
tax cut proposed before the budget is balanced is going to be borrowed. 
But the point is when you are proposing very deep cuts in your revenue, 
then what happens? You have to make deeper and deeper and deeper cuts 
in some of the programs that people rely on. Then you have to answer 
the question that people in this Chamber ask and people around the 
country ask. What does this mean in terms of the programs that affect 
me, such as the Medicare Program? What does it mean in terms of the 
investments in education? What does it mean in terms of building and 
repairing highways and roads? What does it mean in terms of funding of 
the National Institutes of Health?
  Those are the questions that you have to ask in order to construct a 
budget that will balance the budget, and those are the questions that 
are not being asked. I guess the reason is there are not answers.
  So we come to the floor of the Senate today to say we are 7 working 
days in the Senate away from the requirement in law that the Budget 
Committee act on a budget resolution. It appears no such action will 
take place. The majority leader on the other side of this Capitol said 
they may act on some kind of a plan in May. He was unclear about that. 
That is not what the law requires. The law doesn't require anything 
other than that on April 1 a budget resolution be adopted by the Budget 
Committees and by April 15 adopted by the Congress.

  As I said previously, it is easy enough to come to the floor of the 
Senate and breeze on about altering the Constitution of the United 
States, apparently allowing some people to believe that, if you can 
alter the Constitution, you would have balanced the budget. Of course, 
nothing could be further from the truth. Altering the Constitution will 
not alter the deficit by 1 cent. That will be done by making individual 
tough choices in taxing and spending decisions. Why are those choices 
not now being made? Why does there appear that there is no preparation 
on the part of those who anguished so hard to change the Constitution? 
Why does there seem to be no preparation on their part to anguish as 
hard and toil as long to create a budget that will actually balance the 
budget? Because I think that they have with their cans and brushes 
painted themselves into a corner promising tax cuts to the tune of $200 
billion in 5 years, and $500 billion in 10 years; tax cuts undoubtedly 
that are popular but tax cuts that they know will require them to make 
enormously deep cuts in a wide range of programs that are very 
important in this country.
  I believe they simply don't want to describe what those cuts will be 
and which programs those cuts will come from.
  Mr. President, I would be happy to yield such time as may be consumed 
to the Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from Illinois is 
recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleague for 
yielding, and I join him in this statement this morning.
  For the last several weeks we have listened to the Republican leaders 
standing next to stacks of budget books in full-throated pride for 
balanced budgets, the key to America's economic future, the rallying 
point for this Nation to come together to balance the budget.
  Their call for a constitutional amendment did not pass. It failed by 
one vote. I voted against it. And what I said then I will say now. The 
job before us is not to amend the Constitution but to balance the 
budget. And the two are not the same. Amending the Constitution is no 
guarantee that we will have a balanced budget tomorrow or the next day. 
The only guarantee that we can offer the American people is to our 
actions, actions in this Chamber and the House coming together with the 
President and reaching an agreement.
  Many years ago, there was a Senator from Illinois whose name was 
Everett McKinley Dirksen. He served with my colleague from West 
Virginia. Senator Dirksen, in the early 1960's, made a momentous 
decision and decided to support civil rights legislation for the first 
time in his career. When Senator Dirksen was asked why, after years of 
resistance, he came to the point where he supported this legislation, 
he said, ``There is nothing more pregnant than an idea whose time has 
come.''
  If the idea of a balanced budget has come, the obvious question is 
why the Republican leadership in control of the Senate and the House 
has not met their responsibility under the law to put together a 
budget, to bring it forward so the American people can see what their 
priorities are. Why in the name of all that is holy would they hold 
back from this responsibility?
  I can tell you why. It is fairly clear. They have a serious problem. 
The Republicans have overpromised. They have promised tax cuts that 
create serious problems in balancing the budget. These tax cuts that 
have been promised by the Republicans this year are in excess of the 
tax cuts promised in the heralded Contract With America, which was 
presented for 2 years before Congress. Do you remember that scenario? 
At that time, the Republicans came forward and said, in the Contract 
With America, we are going to make the following tax cuts. And in order 
to pay for those tax cuts, we are going to cut programs.
  When you took a close look at those tax cuts, you realized that they 
primarily went to wealthy people. A lot of us on the Democratic side of 
the aisle said, now, is that fair, to propose a package of tax cuts at 
a time when we are trying to balance the budget, when the tax cuts go 
to the wealthiest people in America? Then we took a look as well and 
said, well, how will they pay for them?
  The proposals coming from the Republican side suggested deep cuts in 
Medicare, in Medicaid, in environmental protection programs, and 
college student loan programs, to name but a few. The President said: I 
will not buy it; it is not fair; we have to balance the budget, but we 
cannot do it at the expense of these critical programs like Medicare 
and college student loans and protection of the environment. So the 
President vetoed their bill.
  They said, if that is what the President wants, we will close down 
the Government, and they did--two separate occasions, the longest 
shutdowns in the history of U.S. Government occasioned because of the 
inability of Democrats and Republicans to reach an agreement on 
balancing the budget.
  After that experience came an election, and the American people, I 
thought, were given one of the clearest choices in our history--on one 
side, the Dole and Gingrich approach, and on the other side the 
Clinton-Gore approach and that supported by many of us as Democrats.
  I think those were two sharply contrasting views of the world, and I 
expected the American electorate to speak in one voice and say, given 
this fork in the road, this is the course we want to travel.
  The American people made a decision in the election last November, 
and they decided they wanted both. They wanted to preserve the 
Democratic leadership in the White House with the President, but they 
wanted to preserve Republican leadership in Congress.
  Now this odd couple comes together, a Republican Congress and a 
Democratic President, trying to divine exactly what is the message sent 
by the American people. I think the message is easy to divine, and here 
is what I think it is. Balance the budget. Be fiscally responsible. But 
do it in a way that does not harm the most important programs to 
American families.
  I do not think that is an unreasonable request, and I think it 
reflects where most Americans stand when they look to our future. Now 
the President has stepped forward and met his share of the burden. He 
has produced a budget which comes to balance by 2002, a budget which 
makes cuts and makes changes that he believes and I believe will reach 
balance without cutting important programs, and the President adds a 
safety valve. If he is wrong, if 5 or 6 years from now he has guessed 
wrong and we end up out of balance, the President has a trigger 
mechanism that comes in and makes an across-the-board cut to reach 
balance. Even the Congressional Budget Office, which has not been 
friendly to many Democratic proposals recently, has had to concede that 
is a way of balancing the budget. It is a trigger mechanism which will, 
in

[[Page S2168]]

fact, make certain that the budget comes to balance.
  So the President put his proposal on the table, and if you follow 
recent history, in the natural course of events it is now the turn of 
the Republican leadership in Congress to come forward with their 
proposal. As was said by my friend from North Dakota, after viewing for 
weeks stacks of budget books that were viewed with derision by those 
who supported a constitutional amendment, we cannot find a single sheaf 
of paper on the Republican side suggesting how they will reach a 
balanced budget.

  The reason? They have painted themselves in a corner. They find 
themselves in an impossible position. They have overpromised on tax 
cuts for wealthy people, even more than in the Contract With America, 
and they cannot figure out how to pay for it and balance the budget. So 
they have stepped back, removed themselves from the fray, and have 
basically said to the President, give us another budget now. You gave 
us one. Let us see a second one.
  I am sorry, but the legislation that we have passed involving the 
budget and the history of these institutions suggests the President has 
met his responsibility and now it is the responsibility of the 
Republican leadership to come forward. They understand that if they are 
going to protect and preserve the tax cuts they have called for, it 
will force even deeper cuts in Medicare, even deeper cuts in college 
student loans, even deeper cuts in environmental protection than they 
suggested 2 years ago. They are in that corner and do not know the way 
out.
  Let me suggest there is a way out. Reduce these tax cuts to those the 
President has targeted to help working families, make certain they are 
tax cuts we can afford, make certain as well that we preserve basic 
programs like college student loans and environmental protection. Let 
us work together in a bipartisan fashion to chart a course for Medicare 
that will bring it not only solvency but stability for years to come, 
and we can come up with this balanced budget. But it is time for the 
Republican leadership to step forward and to meet their responsibility.
  Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to yield to my colleague from 
Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague for yielding. I wanted to make some of 
the same points. I see my colleague from California here as well.
  There has been a lot of discussion about budgets, Mr. President. 
There has been an additional request now that the President submit yet 
another budget. Let me just suggest that I think the reception of the 
President's budget was, initially, encouraging. Our Republican 
colleagues can be commended for not declaring it ``dead on arrival,'' 
as we have seen all too often in past budgets. But as has been pointed 
out, year in and year out there is a dual responsibility not only for 
the executive branch to submit budgets, but also for those of us in the 
coequal branch of Government, the legislative branch of Government, 
which has control over the purse strings, to respond. We must respond 
in a way that gives the American public an opportunity, one, to either 
endorse what the President has suggested or, two, to offer alternatives 
that can be identified and seen so comparisons can be made.
  I hope at this juncture the majority here would demonstrate 
leadership. The Budget Act requires that budgets be sent to the full 
Congress; that we then submit a budget, have our own budget here, that 
either duplicates the President or offers some alternatives so that we 
can then debate out the process and move in the direction that I think 
all of us have endorsed regardless of where anyone stood on the 
proposed constitutional amendment. I didn't hear a single Member of 
this body indicate anything but strong support for achieving a balanced 
budget as soon as possible, hopefully by the year 2002, for all of the 
very obvious reasons that the distinguished Senator from West Virginia 
and others articulated during that lengthy debate. Our colleague from 
Illinois has already pointed out--and these charts here, I think, give 
some indication of what we are looking at--the tax breaks that are 
being proposed. They are actually even larger than last year's 
proposals.

  There are Members who endorse last year's proposals and I presume are 
in favor of having even larger ones. But I think the American public 
ought to know what the implications are. As it is right now, over the 
next 5 years we will be looking, here, at additional tax breaks that 
are relatively large even over the first 5 years, but then move up 
considerably over a 10-year period. That ought to be a concern to 
everyone here. Because, obviously, if we find ourselves again in a 
deficit situation, even a larger one than we were in the past 10 years, 
then we will be right back again debating, I presume, constitutional 
amendments and the like. So we have an obligation to be fiscally 
responsible.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield on that point?
  Mr. DODD. Of course. The Senator has the floor.
  Mr. DURBIN. Naturally, every politician wants to propose a tax cut. 
Is there anything that draws more applause in a town meeting than the 
line that ``we want to cut your taxes''?
  Mr. DODD. Of course not.
  Mr. DURBIN. But think of what happened when Senator Dole proposed a 
substantial tax cut as the keystone of his campaign. It fell flat. The 
American people are skeptical. They want to make sure we keep our eye 
on the ball, and we have to move toward balancing the budget. Tax cuts 
are important, but if they are at the expense of balancing the budget, 
or at the expense of important programs, the American people say, 
``Wait.''
  Mr. DODD. My colleague is absolutely correct. They not only say 
``wait,'' but they also ask the basic question that we all have to ask. 
If I were to stand here before you and suggest spending increases of 
$200.5 billion in the first 5 years, and spending increases of $525.8 
billion over 10 years, the words would not be out of my mouth before 
one of my colleagues, either on this side or the other side, would ask 
me the very fundamental question, the steely-eyed question we are all 
asked to address today of, ``Senator, how do you intend to pay for 
this?'' And, if you cannot answer that threshold question, then you 
have to go back to the drawing boards.
  All we are suggesting here is to put our constituencies and the 
American public on notice of what we are looking at here, that 
comparing these numbers over the next 10 years, the requests are even 
larger than they were before, and that we ought to be asking that 
question, without getting into the specificity of particular tax 
proposals here, how do we pay for them so we do not find ourselves in 
the situation that we have been placed in over the last 10 or 15 years 
with huge deficits?
  Let me draw my colleagues' attention as well to this next chart which 
lays it out exactly. These numbers, by the way, are prepared by the 
Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Tax Committee. They are not 
prepared by some partisan group. This is a nonpartisan analysis, a 
bipartisan analysis. It says, if you took these tax cuts and carried 
them out to the year 2007, given the baseline deficits already 
projected, that you are looking at these huge new deficits. This year 
it is about $120 billion. But if unchecked and unpaid for, those 
deficits rise to $348 billion, exceeding by almost $50 billion the 
high-water mark for deficits in the last year, 4 years ago, of $290 
billion. So those deficits continue to climb. By the year 2007, or 
before, we will be right back in the situation we were before. So, I 
draw the attention of my colleagues to that because I think it needs to 
be addressed.
  How do you pay for these? Again, Members can offer their own 
solutions. But we are not talking about small change here. These are 
huge items. Obviously, if you look at the budget, where are the big 
ticket items that could pay for those kinds of proposals? It has been 
suggested that Medicare, Social Security, health, education, training, 
veterans, agriculture, infrastructure--these are the big ticket items, 
particularly up in this part of the bracket, the Medicare, Social 
Security, natural resources, health and education. Those are the larger 
items--veterans as well. Defense could fall into this area, obviously. 
So we ought to be addressing those issues that are before us.

  So we raise this today because we think it is important that we 
engage in

[[Page S2169]]

this debate. We are a legislative body. It is deliberate, it is slow, 
it can be ponderous. But we are trying to prepare, now, a budget, in 
the wake of the proposed constitutional amendment to try to get us into 
balance, to keep those interest rates down so businesses can grow and 
expand and hire people. We have enjoyed 6 years of sustained economic 
growth now, in no small measure because we collectively have made 
progress. And I will not engage in the finger-pointing about who 
deserves credit or who is responsible--but the fact of the matter is, 
we have brought those deficits down, now, from $290 billion to $120 
billion, actually down to $107 billion at one point. And we ought to be 
doing everything in our power to see to it we continue on that 
glidepath so those interest rates do not spike up again, costing 
American families and this Nation the burdens those increases would 
bring.
  So we are suggesting here today, let us begin work on these. Making a 
request of the President on a daily basis or hourly basis, ``submit yet 
another budget, yet another budget, yet another budget'' is not 
productive. We bear the responsibility as legislators, those who 
control the purse strings, to respond to the budget the President has 
sent to us, either by rejecting it and submitting our own, or by 
proposing, in a clear way for the American public to see, exactly what 
the priorities will be and how you will pay for them.
  Whether it is a spending increase or a tax expenditure, the American 
public wants to know the simple answer to the question: How do you 
intend to pay for this? So we are here today to urge our colleagues, 
who are in the position to most specifically respond to these matters, 
that in the coming days, rather than spending time by issuing press 
releases challenging the President to submit yet another budget, to 
fulfill our constitutional obligations here and to step forward and 
explain to the American public exactly what our proposals are.
  Let me just conclude by saying there are a number of these tax cut 
proposals that are being suggested which I support. I am not opposed to 
them. Just as there are spending proposals of which I am in favor. But 
whether it is a spending proposal I am in favor of or a tax cut I am in 
favor of, the same question must be asked of either point: How do you 
pay for them?
  So, whether it is capital gains tax cuts, estate tax cuts, or child 
care credits--there are all sorts of things people are proposing. 
Whatever it is, what the bulk of it is, the question must be raised: 
How do you pay for it? If, in fact, these tax cut proposals, as some 
have suggested, would drive us back into the very situation we found 
ourselves in only a few short years ago, then I think we have to meet 
our responsibility, that has not yet been met, of following our 
legislative mandates and responsibilities.
  With that, I see my colleague from California here. I will leave 
these charts here for her to peruse, and for others who may want to 
come over and take a look at them. I know she shares similar concerns 
and thoughts, coming from the largest State in our Union, a State which 
has contributed much to the general welfare and health of our country. 
Obviously, whether you live in a small State like mine, Connecticut, or 
a large State like California, people on the respective coasts and 
everyone in between in this country want to know the answers to these 
questions.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, before the Senator from Connecticut leaves 
the floor, I just wanted to thank him, because we are really running 
into some statutory deadlines here, and, as he pointed out, because we 
do sit on the Budget Committee together, these are not just written 
down for fun. They are serious.

  By April 1, the Budget Committee is statutorily required to vote out 
a budget. On April 15, the Congress is statutorily required to vote out 
a budget. We, on this side of the aisle, do not control the agenda 
around here. That is one very strong power of the majority. And believe 
me, we are sad that we do not have the ability to move an agenda, 
because if we did, we would have this budget on the floor today. We 
would be debating it.
  Why do I say that? It is because the budget of the United States of 
America is, in fact, the priorities of this Nation. What we spend on 
really says to us what we are about as a country. Do we invest in 
education? The President in his budget says yes.
  Do we make sure that our seniors are protected from deep, deep cuts 
in Medicare and Social Security? Yes, we care. The President cares.
  Does the President think we should do more to clean up the toxic 
waste sites and enforce environmental laws? Yes, he does.
  Does he think we ought to invest in NIH, the National Institutes of 
Health, so we can find cures for diseases, be it breast cancer or 
prostate cancer or Alzheimer's or scleroderma, all of these things 
which cry out for attention? The President says yes.
  The President says we should put more police on streets into 
community policing. That is all in his budget.
  A budget reflects the priorities of a nation. It tells the country 
who we are, what we think is most important, and, by the way, all in 
the context of a balanced budget, so certified by the Congressional 
Budget Office. So the President has put forward his effort. It is 
certified by the Congressional Budget Office to balance in 5 years. We 
have it in writing. We have the letter.
  Now we are saying to our Republican friends who control this--they 
have 55 Senators, we have 45; they are in charge--that it is their 
responsibility now to bring to the Budget Committee their budget. They 
do not like the President's budget. They have criticized the 
President's budget. They have done it day after day. Where is their 
budget? They are playing hide and seek with their budget, and I think 
it is time for show and tell. Show us your budget. Where are your 
priorities?
  We only know one thing from Republicans. We know that they want to 
institute a huge tax cut. The President has a tax cut proposal, and it 
is modest. It is $98 billion over 5 years. That is what it costs, and 
it is paid for. What does he do? He calls for tax relief to help 
middle-income Americans. He calls for a $500 tax credit for dependent 
children, a $10,000 deduction for post-secondary education, and a 
proposal to allow married taxpayers to exclude from capital gains taxes 
up to $500,000 in gains from selling a home. Single taxpayers could 
exclude up to $250,000. This would exempt about 99 percent of home 
sales from capital gains taxes. These are the President's tax 
proposals.
  The Republicans have said they want to do $200 billion of tax-cut 
proposals. So we are saying, ``How are you going to pay for it? Where 
are your priorities?''
  There are two ways to do it in the Budget Committee. One way is for 
the Republicans to offer their own budget. They have talked for weeks 
about a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Where is their 
balanced budget? They want an amendment to the Constitution, but where 
is their actual budget? They don't have it. We don't know what it is. 
We only know they want to cut taxes over 5 years by $200 billion, over 
10 years by $500 billion. Are they going to go back to the big cuts in 
Medicare, big cuts in education that we fought off last year? Remember? 
The Government shut down over these very proposals because President 
Clinton and the Democrats in Congress said, ``Absolutely not, we're not 
going to do that to benefit the very wealthy.''
  A recent study shows that the top 1 percent of taxpayers would get an 
average tax break of more than $21,000, and that is extraordinary--the 
top 1 percent.
  Mr. President, I reiterate that right now, the Senate has only 7 
working days prior to the April 1 deadline for the Budget Committee to 
bring a budget to the floor--7 working days--and the Budget Committee, 
on which I am proud to serve, does not even have a markup scheduled. 
Why is this? The President put his budget forward. The CBO has 
certified that it does reach balance in 5 years. June O'Neill signed 
the letter. I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:


[[Page S2170]]


                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                    Washington, DC, March 4, 1997.
     Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
     Ranking Member, Committee on the Budget,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: You asked whether the alternative set of 
     policies proposed by the President in the event that 
     Congressional Budget Office projections are used in the 
     budget process would achieve unified budget balance in fiscal 
     year 2002.
       As we described in our March 3 preliminary analysis of the 
     President's 1998 budgetary proposals. ``the alternative 
     policies proposed by the President were designed to fill 
     exactly any size deficit hole that CBO might project under 
     the basic policies.''
       I hope that this answer meets your needs.
           Sincerely,
                                                  June E. O'Neill.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, the President has submitted a balanced 
budget. In that balanced budget, he protects Medicare and he protects 
Social Security. He moves forward with an investment and commitment in 
education and the environment and health research and transportation 
and putting more community police on the streets. This is a good 
budget, and if the Republicans don't like it--and I don't expect them 
to like it, that is why there is a difference in the parties here, we 
know we have different priorities--let them come forward with a budget 
instead of playing hide and seek.
  We only know one thing they want, and that is tax breaks to the very 
wealthy. They have put that out there. The President calls for $98 
billion of tax cuts over a 5-year period. Those are targeted to the 
middle class so that when you sell your home, you will not have to pay 
capital gains taxes; so if you send your child to college, you can 
write off $10,000; so if you have children, you can exercise tax 
credits. These are modest tax breaks for the middle class.
  The Republicans, on the other hand, have a tax break that is so huge 
that it is going to cost $200 billion. A recent study shows the top 1 
percent of taxpayers would get an average tax break of more than 
$21,000 while 99 percent of the rest of us do not get that benefit. So 
it seems to me we are going back to the battle that we had last year 
when the Government shut down.
  But this is even worse. They will not show us their budget. Where is 
it? We know the tax cut part. Where is the spending part? Where are we 
going to get the money to balance in the year 2002 to pay for those tax 
cuts? Are you going to do what you did the last time, take $200 billion 
out of Medicare? I hope not. That brought the Government to a shutdown.
  So I just am very confused. I can understand why my Republican 
colleagues would not like the President's budget. I can understand 
that. Frankly, I think the budget the President put forward is an 
excellent product, and it makes the investments we need to make while 
protecting our priorities. It has tax breaks for the middle class. It 
balances by 2002. I think it is a budget that the American people will 
get behind. But I know that my Republican colleagues criticize 
everything this President does, and they are going to find some things 
in that budget they do not like. It is fair. It is absolutely fair for 
them.
  But I will tell you what is unfair. It is unfair for them to point 
the finger at this President, by the way, and tell him to go back and 
redo it. That is what they are telling him to do. ``Go back and do a 
second budget,'' they say, when they have not even put a first budget 
forward. Let us see their first budget. Let us see their first budget. 
Maybe if they do a first budget, they will have some authority to say 
they want a second budget from the President.
  But the President has put his best case forward, certified by the CBO 
to balance, that protects Medicare, protects Medicaid, invests in our 
children, invests in the environment, invests in health research, puts 
more cops on the beat. And it is being ridiculed and criticized, and 
they say, go back and do it all again. Look, it is irresponsible at 
this point that we do not have a markup of a budget.
  If they do not want to produce a budget, I have another scenario. Let 
them take the President's budget, which they do not like, and amend it.
  If they want to make the tax cuts bigger, make the tax cuts bigger. 
Offer an amendment to make the tax cuts bigger, and show us how you are 
going to pay for it.
  You want to cut education? Have the guts to do it. Write an 
amendment. Tell the American people you do not think it is a priority.
  You want to cut out Environmental Protection Agency enforcement? Have 
the guts to offer an amendment.
  You want to spend less on health research, transportation? That is 
fine. That is your right. But what I do not think is your right is to 
criticize and point fingers at the President, tell him he has to go 
back and write a new budget before you even put your budget out there, 
all but your tax cuts--all but your tax cuts.
  Well, that is the easy part, folks. I love to talk about the tax cuts 
in the President's budget because I have to think they are very helpful 
to our society. But at the same time we have to make some tough choices 
in the budget, some tough choices all the way across the board. And 
that is what the President has done.
  So we have 7 working days to meet the April 1 deadline for the Budget 
Committee. We have only 14 working days before the deadline for final 
congressional passage. And the Republicans have no budget, or if they 
have a budget, it is in somebody's pocket or it is in some back room. 
It has not been brought out yet. I just think we are asking for 
trouble. We are going to miss these deadlines and are not going to do 
our work.
  As I said when I listened to the debate on the balanced budget 
amendment, I believed that people on both sides of that issue wanted to 
balance the budget. They had disagreements over whether you need to put 
it in the Constitution, but I surely believed once we disposed of that 
issue, we voted on it, we would get to the hard business of balancing 
the budget. But it is awfully difficult to do it when the only one who 
has put out a balanced budget is President Clinton, and the other side 
is poking holes at it, pointing fingers at it, telling him to go back 
and do it again. They have yet to come out with a budget. This is not a 
level playing field around here. It just does not make sense. It is not 
fair. And I think the American people will understand.
  There is a lot of time around here to dedicate yourself to lots of 
other issues--finger pointing and all the rest on campaign 
contributions and all of that. And I say, campaign finance reform is 
very important. We ought to bring that to the floor, too. That would 
probably be a real step forward for the American people. Bring forward 
the budget debate, bring forward the debate on campaign finance reform, 
two issues that are important to the country. But I do not see either 
of these headed for the Senate floor. I think that is most unfortunate.

  There is lots of time for other things, but not the things that I 
believe are very pressing matters. Certainly the most pressing is the 
budget, because the budget is what our priorities are about.
  When you sit down with the family and go over the monthly 
expenditures, you make some very important decisions, don't you? If we 
buy a new car, how much do we need to set aside for that car payment? 
Gee, maybe we should put that off a year and do something else. Maybe 
it is time that the family took a family vacation. So you decide to put 
off the new car, take the family vacation. We make these decisions in 
our families.
  The American family needs to make its decisions, and it is called a 
budget. It is where we make the very important decisions. How much do 
we need to defend this country against all enemies foreign and 
domestic? How much do we need to get our children ready for that work 
force?
  Today, we had a wonderful east-west initiative, a very bipartisan 
initiative. It included Senator Hatch, Senator Faircloth, Senator 
Kennedy, Senator Murray and myself; Massachusetts, California, Utah, 
Washington State, and North Carolina. This was a great bipartisan 
initiative. It is about job creation, and it is about our working 
together to make sure that in this country we make the investments we 
need in new technologies, we make the investments we need in education, 
we make the investments we need at the FDA so new drug approvals move 
swiftly. These are the issues that Republicans and Democrats alike came 
together around today.

[[Page S2171]]

  I will tell you, if we do not get moving on a budget, Mr. President, 
if we do not come together as Republicans and Democrats and work 
together, we are just going to come to a dead stop because out in the 
real world they meet deadlines--they meet deadlines.
  If you have a new product and you have to get it out to the 
marketplace, you better not have delays, because if you have delays in 
getting that product out to market, you can go bankrupt.
  Well, around here, statutory deadlines do not seem to mean much. 
Maybe I am wrong. Maybe my budget chairman right now is preparing to 
offer the Republican budget. He will lay it down next to the Democratic 
Clinton budget. We will look at the similarities. We will join hands. 
We will look at the differences. We will fight those out. We will look 
at the tax cuts. We will come together and move on.
  But I would say--and the reason several of us came over here today to 
talk about this--that time is moving, the clock is ticking. We have not 
seen the budget. We know what your tax cuts are. Where are your cuts? 
What are your priorities?
  I just hope that we can get back to why we were sent here. I mean, 
everybody said after this election it is time to put behind the rancor. 
But I think there is rancor when you point the finger at the President, 
in spite of the fact that the CBO said his budget balances, and tell 
him first, it does not balance, and second, do it again, when you have 
not even put your product on the table, except for your tax cuts, which 
benefit 1 percent, the top 1 percent of the people in this country 
instead of the middle class.
  We have a lot of work to do. I look forward to seeing the Republican 
budget, finding those areas of agreement, working on those areas of 
disagreement, getting this budget down to the floor by the statutory 
deadline and moving forward.
  Mr. President, I have the honor of not only serving on the Budget 
Committee but serving on the Appropriations Committee. This is, really, 
an extraordinary opportunity for the Senator from California to have 
both those assignments. I have an opportunity to debate the large 
priorities and then get it down to within those priorities--what is the 
most important investment to make, and in the context of a balanced 
budget, I might add. And I voted for several of those, one that Senator 
Conrad wrote, and one that former Senator Bill Bradley wrote.
  I am ready to make those tough choices. I like to believe my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are ready to make those tough 
choices. We should come together. The clock is ticking. So, we should 
do it, Mr. President. I hope we will back off this finger pointing at 
the White House. I hope we will look at this President's budget. I hope 
the Republicans will present their budget and we proceed to mark it up 
and proceed down the path of bipartisan cooperation so this country has 
a budget which is, in fact, our priorities.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  (Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The galleries will refrain from any 
demonstration of clapping, please.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair for calling the attention of the Senate 
rules to the galleries.

                          ____________________