[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 39 (Monday, April 7, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2779-S2781]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       CRITICAL ISSUES TO ADDRESS

  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, we have 7 weeks between now and the 
next legislative recess, a period within which a great deal of work 
must be done. This has not been our most productive Congress so far. 
There are a lot of reasons why we have not been as productive as we 
would like it to be. I hope now as we get into the very critical months 
of April and May that we spend as much effort as we can to bring about 
the consensus we must have on a series of issues that this Congress 
must address. Some of them have deadlines. Some of them do not. But all 
of them are of extraordinary importance to this body and to the 
American people.
  There are two with deadlines that I hope we can begin work on in 
earnest this week. First and foremost, the Chemical Weapons Convention. 
There is no doubt we are facing the prospect that the United States 
could miss its opportunity to become a full-fledged member of the 
international convention responsible for bringing about the elimination 
of chemical weapons. If we fail to ratify the convention by the 29th of 
April, we will miss the opportunity to commit ourselves fully to the 
obligations of that convention and to the international community. We 
are told that enrollment of the convention requires at least 10 days, 
which means we only have until the 19th. In other words, we have fewer 
than 14 days within which all of the ramifications of that important 
convention can be addressed here on the Senate floor.
  This has been the subject of extraordinary debate, countless 
deliberations, numerous hearings, and efforts on both sides of the 
aisle to resolve the differences that still exist.
  It is my understanding that we are not that much closer today than we 
have been for several weeks. If that understanding is inaccurate, then 
I hope someone will come to clarify the current set of circumstances.
  Madam President, we simply cannot wait. We must deal with this 
convention. Time is running out. We are not inclined to support any 
other legislation or the movement of any other bill until such time as 
we have some appreciation of where we are with regard to this 
convention and when we can expect it to come to the Senate floor. I 
give great credit to the majority leader for his efforts in attempting 
to do that. He has been patient and diligent, but, so far, I think it 
is fair to say that none of us have been successful. So while our 
approach has always been to try to work through this and to give 
everyone the benefit of the doubt in the hopes that, ultimately, we can 
come to a resolution, the bottom line is that time is quickly running 
out. When time has run out, the last laugh may be on us.
  Madam President, the stakes are too high, the issue is too important, 
and the consequences are too severe for us to ignore this important 
deadline. We must confront it and we must recognize that this must 
occur this week. Hopefully, tomorrow must be the day we finally come to 
the conclusion about when it is this important treaty will come to the 
U.S. Senate for ratification. Anticipating failure, I don't think we 
have any other choice but to do all that we can to hold off on taking 
any action on any other piece of legislation until such time as we can 
anticipate success.
  So, Madam President, I am very hopeful that tomorrow we can resolve 
whatever remaining procedural questions there may be in an effort to 
deal with this issue directly.
  Second, let me just say that we are also running up against another 
deadline, and that deadline involves the budget. We already missed 
April 1. That was the deadline that the Budget Committee was supposed 
to have reported out its budget resolution. Now we have the important 
deadline of April 15. That is the deadline under the law for the Senate 
to pass a budget resolution.
  I didn't hear the distinguished majority leader this morning, but I 
am told that he had indicated that they are waiting for the White House 
to take additional steps and to make an additional effort. I must say, 
Madam President, I have heard that excuse now for too long. The fact is 
that the President has taken the action that is required of him under 
the law. He has presented a budget on time. He has presented a budget, 
by the way, that balances by the year 2002, using CBO figures. So, 
Madam President, as far as I am concerned, the President has done what 
he is required to do. The question now is, can we? And will our 
Republican colleagues take the leadership that comes with being in the 
majority and meet the April 15 deadline?
  I hope that we will no longer rely on excuses. I hope that we can 
come together, Republicans and Democrats, in the Budget Committee 
first, and second on the floor, and meet the obligations proposed by 
law, with no more excuses about who has acted under what circumstances. 
While the negotiations are not going well enough, the time has come to 
act now, and the time has come for us to come together, to work in the 
regular order under the budget process, through the Budget Committee, 
and get the job done.
  So there is an array of pressing issues, Madam President. As I 
indicated, some have deadlines--the Chemical Weapons Convention and the 
budget. Time is running out. Excuses are getting old. Let's get on with 
the work and get the job done.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I assumed the minority leader was speaking 
on his own time.
  Mr. DASCHLE. That is correct.
  Mr. CRAIG. Apart from the debate on the nuclear waste bill.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the motion to proceed 
on the bill.
  The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, before I speak in relation to the motion to 
proceed on S. 104, let me only say to the minority leader of the 
Senate, with due respect to him--and I do respect Senator Daschle--the 
Senate and the leadership of the Senate and the House, for well over a 
month and a half, deferred to the President and the responsibility of 
the President in submitting a budget to Congress. I sat on the floor of 
the U.S. House of Representatives and listened to our President refer 
to the submitting of a balanced budget; 12 times in the State of the 
Union address our President spoke of a balanced budget. We received 
that budget. No one chose, in their own good form, to criticize it. In 
fact, we sent it off to be analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office. 
And it came back.
  I must report to the minority leader that it was not a balanced 
budget, and we all know that now. It was well out of balance by nearly 
$100 billion for the 4 years of this President, with the inclusion of a 
major tax increase and some tax cuts. And then, of course, the year 
after this President leaves office, the tax cuts go away, the tax 
increases stay, and a major cut in programs or a major increase in 
revenue. That is why we haven't dealt with the budget, because we were 
willing to give this President the benefit of the doubt. Certainly the 
Senator knows that, and it was a fair willingness on our part.
  Now that that day has passed, the Senate is beginning to work its 
will on the budget. We first wanted the President to have a fair and 
uncriticized opportunity, and that is exactly what he got. But in all 
fairness, the public now knows that this President's budget includes 
major spending increases and major new Federal programs and no real 
commitment to balance, not in the context of the political reality that 
certainly the minority leader operates in and that we operate in. No 
Congress has made those kinds of dramatic cuts, nor, frankly, have they 
raised that much revenue as the President is proposing, because while 
he appears to give on one hand, he rapidly takes away on the other.
  In all instances, his program spending wraps up, a major increase in 
1 year of $25 billion of new domestic spending in this country. That is 
what we are wrestling with. Certainly, this Senate is going to deal 
with the budget, and they are going to deal with it in a very timely 
manner. What I hope we can do is something that I know the minority 
leader will appreciate and that is to deal with it in a bipartisan

[[Page S2780]]

way. That we can accomplish and we should accomplish. Already, moderate 
and conservative Democrats are speaking up and saying they can't deal 
with the President's budget, not in the context of our commitment. Our 
commitment was that if we would not support a balanced budget amendment 
to the Constitution, we could produce a balanced budget without it.
  Now, the Senator knows how disappointed I was that he worked so hard 
to destroy the vote on a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution, 
because I worked a long time to get that because I think that without 
it we won't get a balanced budget. But all the while he was working to 
change that vote and worked with the administration to do so, there was 
a constant drumbeat of promise to get us to a balanced budget by the 
year 2002.
  I know that the Senator was sincere in that commitment. We are 
committed to that commitment. But we cannot get there with the 
President's schedule of new spending, and we cannot get there with the 
President's new tax increases, and we cannot get there with doing all 
of the cuts and all of the changes in the fifth year after this 
President has left office. It must start now. It must ramp its way 
toward the year 2002. Let it be said--and I think it is important that 
it be said--that for the last 2 weeks, with the President's commitment 
and with the leadership's commitment, meetings have gone on. I think 
the only problem is that everybody has been sitting around at those 
meetings talking about how delightful it is that they are meeting, 
instead of time lines and commitments to the American people meeting 
what we have said to the American people we would give them, and that 
is, of course, a balanced budget by 2002.

  We need to start this year, not 4 years out. We don't need major tax 
increases to get there, and we can do so with reasonable responses to 
our domestic spending, not major new programs, but reprogramming, 
giving the priorities where it ought to be. Many of those is where the 
President knows he wants them, and we are willing to participate in 
that. So the budget process is now well underway. But it took a month's 
detour, with the commitment that it would allow the time for the 
President's budget to play out. That has now played out. We now need to 
get on to the real budgeting that is the responsibility of the 
Congress.
  I would be happy to let the minority leader comment, if he wishes, 
before I go on with my discussion on the nuclear waste bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank my colleague from Idaho for his comments. I 
appreciate very much having the opportunity to hear them just now.
  Let me respond with four specific points. First of all, I don't know 
of a time when the Congress required the President to submit a budget 
that we were in total agreement with. That isn't what we do here. We 
are not waiting for the perfect document to come from the White House. 
That isn't what we did in past Congresses. It isn't what we did with 
Republican or Democratic Presidents.
  The President submits a vehicle, the President submits a budget, and 
we either accept it as the vehicle and mark up the vehicle and provide 
a budget that will allow the consensus to work its will, Republicans 
and Democrats, or we present an alternative. My argument this year is 
that, so far, the Republicans have done neither. They have said we 
don't like the Democratic budget, but they have not proposed one 
either.
  As I said in my comments a moment ago, time is running out. April 15 
is soon to be here. We don't have many more days, legally, for the 
Republicans and the Democrats to do what my friend suggests we do--work 
together to come up with some resolution. That is No. 1.
  No. 2, June O'Neill, the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, 
sent a letter directly, I think, to all members of the Senate Budget 
Committee reaffirming CBO's analysis of the President's budget, that 
indeed it does reach balance by the year 2002. Now, the Senator may not 
subscribe to the triggers used by the President to assure that we reach 
CBO figures and balance the budget by the year 2002, but there is no 
doubt whatsoever that the President did what he said he was going to 
do--present a balanced budget--and he uses a mechanism that will allow 
us to do that, which has been embraced wholeheartedly by Republicans 
and Democrats in past budgets, including the Republican budget in the 
last Congress.
  No. 3, there will always be differences between Republicans and 
Democrats on priorities. We have no doubt that, ultimately, whether or 
not we get a resolution, our differences may or may not be bridgeable. 
We feel very strongly about the need to commit resources to education 
beyond that which was committed in the past. We feel that if we lose 
the opportunity to educate the next generation, we lose the kind of 
freedom and greatness this country aspires to.
  So, Mr. President, there will be differences, and we will have our 
debates about those. But that is really what the debates ought to be 
all about, those fundamental differences on our priorities. I will 
argue for whatever length of time we have that investments in 
education, health care, housing, and investments in the people of this 
country in ways that will make them stronger and less relying upon 
Federal programs are in our long-term best interest regardless of what 
form they may take.
  Mr. President, No. 4, I believe that all too often in this country we 
get hung up on whether or not a given budget is going to achieve 
everything that we had hoped it would. You know, the funny thing is 
that we never find out, because the Congress, in all of its wisdom, 
oftentimes never gets to that point where we can pass a budget 
agreement that allows us to move on through the process of 
reconciliation and appropriation and the whole process here.
  I want to say that I think there are Republicans and Democrats who 
have come to a point of asking whether or not an annual budget 
resolution makes a lot of sense. That is a debate for another day. 
Someday I hope that we can have a good debate about whether annual 
budget resolutions make sense. My personal preference is to have a 
biannual budget resolution because I think it would allow us a lot more 
opportunities to cope with all of the circumstances involving the $1.5 
trillion budget that we have to consider on an annual budget today. But 
that is the law right now, which takes me back to the first point. The 
law says that regardless of how we may feel about biannual budgets in 
the future the law requires an annual budget today. The President has 
fulfilled his obligations under that law. Now it is time to fulfill 
ours, working together to meet that April 15th deadline to do exactly 
what the President proposed that we do--balance the budget by the year 
2002.
  Mr. REID. Will my friend yield for a question?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I do not have the floor. The Senator from Idaho yielded 
to me.
  Mr. CRAIG. I would be happy to yield briefly to the Senator from 
Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I ask the Democratic leader, is it not true that last year 
was the fourth year in a row in which we had a declining deficit, and 
the first time in a row since before the Civil War?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in response to the Senator from Nevada, 
the answer to that is yes. We have made great progress to reduce the 
deficit by 60 percent. OMB and the Congressional Budget Office fought 
aggressively over past budget projections. But OMB has been more 
accurate than the Congressional Budget Office in the last 4 years. That 
has brought about economic strength that we didn't anticipate as we 
wrote this budget. So we have exceeded our target. We ought to continue 
to do that. We are prepared to use the Congressional Budget Office 
figures even though OMB is more accurate because the Congressional 
Budget Office tends to be more conservative, and that is fine when it 
comes to economic projections. But the bottom line is that we have come 
more than halfway already. Now it is time for us to complete the job.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I also ask my friend, the Democratic leader, 
is it not true that inflation and unemployment have been at a 40-year 
low, and economic growth is at a 40-year high, and we have 300,000 
fewer Federal employees than we had 4 years ago?
  Mr. DASCHLE. That is correct. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. REID. Have they led to a general surge in economic viability of 
this country?

[[Page S2781]]

  Mr. DASCHLE. There is no question about it.
  Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, regaining my time, we are certainly going 
to have ample time to debate the budget and budget issues. But I did 
think it was important to respond to the minority leader as it relates 
to his overall statement today and what we have done here in the last 
month that I think was an effort to accommodate this President. Now it 
is the job of the Congress to get on with their business, and they 
will, and those priorities will be well spelled out, and we will 
continue our efforts toward a balanced budget and a reduced deficit 
which the President did not honor in his commitment of his new budget, 
although what the Senator from Nevada has said certainly is a valid 
statement. The Congress has participated jointly in that.

                          ____________________