[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 44 (Tuesday, April 15, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3154-S3159]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       BUDGET RESOLUTION DEADLINE

  Mr. DURBIN. April 15, we all know that date; 40 percent of the 
American taxpayers file their returns within the last 48 hours as the 
closing day comes for filing personal income tax returns. This year, 
for about the third year in succession, I did my own tax return. I do 
not know how many of my colleagues in the Senate and House do that. But 
I think it is a good educational experience. Perhaps we should pass a 
law that every Member of Congress should complete their own income tax 
returns. It might urge us on to reform the system and make it simpler 
so that families across America will have a little easier time of it in 
paying their taxes and meeting their responsibility to this Nation.
  When it comes to responsibility, there is also a responsibility in 
this Senate Chamber. April 15 is another deadline. April 15 is a 
deadline for passing a budget resolution. By this time we are required 
by law to have passed a budget resolution and started the 
appropriations process.
  I have been on Capitol Hill, I guess this is my 15th year, and I do 
not think I have ever seen happen what has happened this year because 
now April 15 will come and go without even so much as a real debate on 
a budget resolution. The President sent his version to Capitol Hill. I 
disagreed with some parts of it. But everyone had to concede that his 
approach to balancing the budget would in fact balance the budget. He 
met his obligation. He started the process. Of course, when it comes to 
Congress, that is not under the President's control, nor should it be. 
That is the control of the Republican leadership in the House and the 
Senate. The ball is on their side of the net. It is their time to put 
together a budget resolution and to spell out for the American people 
in very specific terms how can we reach a balanced budget.
  Just a few weeks ago we spent 2 weeks, maybe 3, perhaps 4 weeks, in 
the Chamber here debating an amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States, an amendment which said Congress has no choice; it must 
balance the budget. I voted against it.
  I did not think we needed to put into our Constitution an obligation 
which we all know we must accept. So many people on the other side, my 
friends on the Republican side, and a few Democrats stood up and said, 
``No, no, no, we need to have a constitutional imperative to force us 
to act.'' Little did I know that just a few weeks later they would 
prove themselves true. The Republican leadership has been unable or 
unwilling to come forward with their offering about balancing the 
budget.
  The other night at the radio/TV correspondents' dinner the President 
had an interesting observation about how slow the pace is on Capitol 
Hill and, frankly, how boring it becomes as we go in, week in and week 
out, in the House and Senate, without addressing the real issues. The 
President said that the pace on Capitol Hill is so slow that C-SPAN, 
the television network which covers our hearings, has decided to play 
reruns from the previous Congress so people will keep up their interest 
on Capitol Hill.
  It is an amusing observation. I do not believe it is necessarily 
true, but it does reflect on the fact that for some reason we cannot 
get started up here this year. For some reason, Republican leadership 
has been unable to come forward with their offering for a budget 
resolution. Why would that be? Why would a party that is so dedicated 
to a constitutional amendment to force a balanced budget have such a 
difficult time meeting its statutory obligation to produce that budget 
resolution on the floor?
  The answer is fairly obvious: Because they have set up certain 
conditions for a balanced budget which they themselves cannot meet. 
They have suggested we should include tax cuts in any kind of balanced 
budget scenario. Coming out for tax cuts on April 15 may be the most 
popular thing a politician can do. But let's be very honest about it, 
as Senator Dole learned in the last campaign, just promising a tax cut 
is not enough. The American people have to understand it is attainable, 
it

[[Page S3155]]

is reasonable, it will not in fact blow up our efforts to balance the 
budget. I think that is the problem that the majority, the Republicans, 
face here--how to meet the obligation of satisfying all of their 
rhetoric about tax cuts and still meet their obligation to balance the 
budget. Unfortunately, it does not work.
  They found 2 years ago when they were pushing a tax cut package even 
smaller than this one, they had reached such a crisis stage that we 
shut down the Government. We shut down the Government for the longest 
period of time in our Nation's history. That worries me, because I am 
afraid we may be on that same road again.
  I have the Durbin plan for dealing with Government shutdowns. There 
are two parts to it. The first part is a piece of legislation which 
says, ``No dessert until you clean your plate.'' Remember when Mom and 
Dad used to say that? I think we ought to say that when it comes to the 
business of Congress. Here is what I am driving at. I do not believe 
that we should consider the appropriation to keep Congress running on 
Capitol Hill until every other appropriation bill is passed. So, if 
there is going to be a Government shutdown of any agency, it will 
necessarily also shut down Congress. I think that will focus our 
attention on the fact that we cannot abide by a Government shutdown or 
impose on innocent Federal employees that sort of scenario.
  Second, the last time there was a shutdown under the leadership of 
the 104th Congress, three of us, I believe, in the House of 
Representatives said as long as the Government is shutting down, we are 
not going to take a paycheck, and we did not. If every other Member of 
the House and Senate would hew to the same standard, I will guarantee 
you will never see another Government shutdown.
  But, now, where are we? Where are the Republicans headed? What is 
their plan for balancing the budget? Will they stick with this massive 
tax cut package they cannot pay for? Will they turn around and try to 
cut Medicare again, as deeply as they did last time? Will they make 
cuts in educational programs like college student loans? Will they cut 
environmental protection efforts, like toxic waste cleanup? I hope they 
are not on that course. But I do hope they are on the course of meeting 
their statutory obligation to produce a budget resolution, as they were 
required to under the law, today, April 15, tax day.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield to my colleague from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I will be brief. But I just wanted to thank the Senator 
from Illinois for, in his very direct way, putting this issue before 
the American people. The Senator and I served on the Budget Committee 
in the House of Representatives for many years. And I serve here on the 
Budget Committee. I have never seen a situation like this before. The 
Senator talked about the no budget no pay legislation. While he was 
fighting for that in the House, I was here in the Senate fighting for 
that as well; and some of us over here gave our pay to charity during 
that period.
  I know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not want 
to have another Government shutdown. As a matter of fact, some of them 
are going to introduce legislation to pass a permanent continuing 
resolution and avoid such a shutdown. Frankly, I am glad they are 
thinking along the lines of avoiding a shutdown. But that really begs 
the question of the day. That is the cowardly way out. If we cannot get 
our act together, we admit it now, we are introducing legislation to 
just keep the Government going at the old rate even though, by the way, 
things are changing and we need to react to what the people want. But 
they will continue it going to avoid the heat of a Government shutdown.
  The fact is, where is the budget? Tonight, late at night, there will 
be a rush at mailboxes all across this country of people mailing in 
their tax returns. They have to get an extension if they do not meet 
the deadline. Where is this extension? I have yet to see a budget.
  In my closing remarks to the Senator from Illinois, I say to him, 
does he remember anything quite like this? I know some deadlines have 
been missed in the past, but in my memory, that does go back a ways. At 
least we had a budget out there. We may not have dotted all the i's, 
crossed all the t's, and come to a conclusion by this time, but we 
always had that budget document out there.
  Where we stand today is the President has a budget document out 
there. It balances by the year 2002, according to the Congressional 
Budget Office. The Republicans do not like that budget. Fair enough. 
That is why they are Republicans. They have different values. They do 
not want to see the increases in education. They do not want to see the 
increases for the environment. They want to give tax breaks to the very 
wealthy while the President is targeting those tax breaks to middle-
class people who need help sending their kids to college, and so on. So 
that is fair game.
  But now I want to see their budget. That is what they have to do. 
That is their responsibility. They keep saying they want a balanced 
budget amendment, as my friend said. That did not do anything to 
balance the budget. It was just a lot of rhetoric, and some of us said 
that at the time. Where is your plan? The fact is, without one 
Republican vote we have seen this deficit go down from $290 billion to 
what is it now projected to be, $91 billion? That is an extraordinary 
record of accomplishment.
  So all we are saying here in our own way, it seems to me, and what 
the Senator is saying--and I would ask for his comment --is we have 
never seen a situation where the majority party was so afraid to offer 
a budget; we have never seen a situation where they did not have the 
courage to lay down their priorities. I wonder if my friend agrees, if 
this is really an unprecedented situation?
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank my colleague from California. She and I served 
together on the House Budget Committee, and I agree with her. In 15 
years, I have never seen anything like this. For some reason, the 
Budget Committee is on vacation when it is supposed to be on the job. 
The statute says get moving by April 15, give us a budget resolution. 
We have an appropriations process to get started in the House, to move 
forward on in the Senate, and it cannot get started until we figure out 
what our priorities in spending are going to be. That is a very 
difficult thing to do with the high-flying rhetoric. The Republicans 
ran for the House and Senate saying, ``Let us lead.'' And these steely-
eyed, styptic-hearted conservatives said, ``We know how to balance a 
budget. Out of the way, bleeding-heart liberals. Give us a chance. 
We'll get rid of all this red ink. We'll get you on the straight and 
narrow.''
  Where is the budget? I don't see it. What do we have to do? As the 
Senator suggested earlier this morning, do we have to send out dogs to 
sniff out this budget? Where is it? Where on the floor? Is it in one of 
the committee meeting rooms on Capitol Hill? In one of the think tanks? 
Does the Heritage Foundation have a budget they want to send up here 
for us to take up? What are we waiting for? The American people met 
their obligation today. Some of them are sitting down right now saying, 
``Oh, my goodness, I have to finish this 1040 form. I have a legal 
responsibility to do it. My family is going to meet its legal 
responsibility.'' When is this Congress going to meet its legal 
responsibility to find and prepare a budget resolution which keeps up 
with the rhetoric which we have heard now time and again in this 
Chamber and across the Nation?
  I thank the Senator for her leadership. I think the President has at 
least given us a starting document. Now, to my friends in the majority, 
on the Republican side, it is certainly your turn.
  Mr. DORGAN. I wonder if the Senator will yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. One of the reasons we do not have a budget brought to the 
Senate on time--and today is the date it is supposed to be here--is 
because, frankly, the proposal they would offer does not add up, and 
they know it. They are proposing very substantial tax cuts, the 
majority of which will go to the upper-income folks in this country, 
and you cannot balance the budget with the kind of tax cuts they 
propose, especially the kind of tax cuts that will go to upper-income 
folks.

  This morning, on NPR, a Republican commentator said something. I 
would

[[Page S3156]]

like to read it to my friend from Illinois and my friend from 
California, because I think it is important. He is talking specifically 
about the capital gains tax cut, and the Citizens For Tax Justice 
provide a chart to show who gets what from the tax cuts offered by the 
majority party. The top 20 percent get nearly 80 percent of the tax 
cuts, the bottom 60 percent get about 8 percent of the tax cuts.
  But here is what Kevin Phillips had to say this morning. He said:

       It's time to put [this issue] on the table--the argument 
     that because Congressmen and Senators want capital gains tax 
     cuts as a payoff to their big contributors, that's a good 
     reason to block it as a powerful beginning for reforming 
     campaign finance.

  This is a Republican, Kevin Phillips, who says this morning:

       Think about it. The experts say that two-thirds of the 
     benefit from the Senate Republican leadership's cap-gain cut 
     proposal would go to the top 1% of Americans income-wise. 
     That's exactly the same crowd that gives big [campaign] 
     contributions. Anybody who believes that linkage is a 
     coincidence probably believes in the tooth fairy, too.

  It is not me speaking. This is Kevin Phillips, a Republic 
commentator. Let me continue.

       Let me stipulate. The deficit-cutter case against the cap-
     gain cut is overwhelming, too, because it's such a huge 
     boondoggle. Over the next ten years, the Senate's proposed 
     reduction would cost the government some somewhere between 
     133 billion dollars and 237 billion dollars [in lost income]. 
     The 133 billion dollar estimate comes from the conservative-
     run Joint Congressional Committee on Taxation and the 237 
     billion dollar estimate comes from the liberal-run Citizens 
     For Tax Justice. The truth is probably somewhere in the 
     middle, which would be about 185 billion dollars over ten 
     years, which would have to be paid for--literally--with 
     massive cuts in programs for ordinary Americans or with 
     deficit spending.

  Again, Kevin Phillips, a Republican commentator, says this morning on 
NPR:

       Worse still, it's not a worthy outlay. It's just pork for 
     fat-cat political donors. The rate reduction [from capital 
     gains] obviously isn't needed to encourage more investment. 
     The last six or eight years have seen enormous amounts of 
     money invested under the present tax rate. And experts have 
     scoffed at claims in which hired economists say the cuts are 
     badly needed for capital formation. Even Herbert Stein, a 
     former Republican Chairman of the President's Council of 
     Economic Advisers, argues that only economic activity that 
     could be counted on from a cap gains cut would be more 
     activity by accountants and lawyers in converting other 
     income into capital gains.

  Again, Kevin Phillips continuing. He says:

       Cutting the capital gains rate across the board, for every 
     kind of quick-buck tax ploy, isn't policy, it's pandering. It 
     isn't serious legislation, and Congress knows that; it's a 
     payback to big contributors. Relief for small businessmen, 
     like for homeowners, may justify giving every household a one 
     or two hundred thousand dollar lifetime capital gains 
     exemption. But tens of billions of dollars worth of cap gains 
     cuts for the people who've just flooded the Republican and 
     Democratic parties with hundreds of millions of dollars worth 
     of record-level 1995-96 campaign contributions would be the 
     political equivalent of bribery. Blocking that pork feast, by 
     contrast, would send an important message: a message that 
     reform of campaign finance is already underway.

  Again, this is a Republican commentator. Incidentally, his last 
suggestion is one that I authored as a piece of legislation. I said, 
let us take, for every American--every American--let us give them an 
opportunity for a $250,000 capital gains income, if they have held the 
asset for 10 years, to be taken with zero tax liability; a quarter of a 
million dollars during one's lifetime, zero tax liability if you hold 
the asset 10 years. But let's not go back to the full-blown capital 
gains approach, where you hold a share of stock for 6 months and 1 day 
and sell it and pay half the tax someone who works all day pays. It's 
the same old approach by those in this Congress, and there are plenty 
of them, who say: Let us have a tax system that deals with different 
groups in different ways. Let us decide that those who invest shall pay 
no tax and those who work shall pay a significant tax. In other words, 
let us have a tax on work but not a tax on investment.
  What kind of sense does that make? Let us tax work but not tax 
investment? There are a lot of streams of income in this country. Guess 
who has most of the investment income? Most of the folks at the upper 
level, the same folks who are giving the campaign contributions.
  That is why these plans that say, ``Let's go ahead and tax work and 
we will exempt investment,'' and when they exempt the tax on 
investment, what they do is propose plans that give the bulk of the tax 
benefits to a very small group of upper income taxpayers, and the 
result of that is, of course, the budgets do not add up.
  If the budget does not add up to a balanced budget, then you cannot 
meet the budget deadline of April 15 and bring a budget to the floor 
that completes what you said you were going to do, and that is balance 
the Federal budget. The only people in the Senate who have done what is 
necessary to take this country on a road to a balanced budget are those 
who, in 1993, stood up here in the face of opposition and in the face 
of criticism and said, ``Count me in, this is a deficit reduction 
package. I am willing to vote for it and it is tough medicine because 
it cuts spending and does increase some revenue, but count me in, 
because I am for reducing the budget deficit.''
  I was one of those who voted for that. The easiest vote by far would 
have been to say, ``I'm AWOL, I'm out of here, don't count on me for a 
vote. All I want to do is talk about balancing the budget, and when it 
is time to do something about it, I am gone.''
  I did not do that, nor did the majority of my colleagues. We passed 
that bill by one vote. We did not get one vote from the other side of 
the aisle. Those who talked the loudest about balancing the budget did 
not offer one vote to reduce the budget deficit. It has been reduced 
well over 60 percent. Now we need to do the rest of the job.
  Today is the day by which the budget is supposed to come to the 
Senate to do the rest of the job. Why is it not here? It is not here 
because the majority party cannot bring a budget to the floor of the 
Senate that adds up that reaches balance. Why can they not do that? 
Because they are proposing very large tax cuts that go, in most cases, 
to the largest income earners in this country.
  The Washington Times had a piece the other day from which I want to 
read a couple of paragraphs:

       Major donors told the national committee chairman, Jim 
     Nicholson, they are fed up with the party's congressional 
     leadership and the party can forget about more money from 
     them unless the GOP lawmakers enact tax cuts.

  Shorthand for that: Give us our tax breaks, and we will give you more 
money. This comes from something called ``Eagles,'' corporate eagles 
who give $20,000 a year and individual eagles who give $15,000 a year. 
What they are saying is, ``Give us our tax cuts, we'll give you some 
money. Withhold the tax cuts, we'll withhold the political 
contributions.''
  It is kind of an interesting and dismaying piece, it seems to me. But 
the fact is, a budget cannot be put together that proposes the kind of 
tax cuts the majority wants and, at the same time, shows that we are 
balancing the budget. That is the dilemma.
  Job one in this country, in my judgment, is to balance the budget. I 
do not happen to think one side is all right and the other side is all 
wrong; they have no answers, we have all the answers. That is not the 
case at all. But we spent a month and a half in this Chamber talking 
about amending the Constitution of the United States to require a 
balanced budget. I pointed out then if the Constitution were altered 1 
minute from now, 2 minutes from now there would be no difference in the 
Federal deficit, because changing the Constitution does not change the 
deficit. The only way you change the deficit and reach a balanced 
budget is the individual taxing-and-spending decisions. That is why 
asking the majority party who controls Congress and controls our agenda 
to bring a balanced budget to the floor today on April 15, which is the 
deadline in law for them to do so, is an important and right thing for 
them to do.
  Mr. President, I yield to my colleague, Senator Conrad, who has 
comments on this same subject. I yield him as much time as he may 
consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today is an important day for Americans. 
April 15 is the deadline for all Americans to file and pay their 
individual taxes. I know that, I was signing my returns yesterday to 
make sure they were sent

[[Page S3157]]

off. I had to write a check--not as big a check as last year, I was 
glad for that, but, nonetheless, had to pay some additional tax in 
addition to what was withheld. All across America, people are engaged 
in that last moment of frantic scrambling to make sure they file their 
taxes.
  Today is another deadline as well. Today is the deadline for the 
Congress of the United States to pass the budget for the year. And that 
gives rise to the question that I put on this chart: Where is the 
budget? We are not going to pass a budget for the next year here today. 
There is not even one before the U.S. Senate. But it is even worse than 
that, because the Budget Committee had a deadline of April 1, and we 
have not even considered a budget in the Budget Committee.
  I am a member of the Budget Committee and have been a member for 10 
years. There is no budget that the Republicans--who control the U.S. 
Senate and the U.S. House, and, as a result, they control the budget 
committees--have put before us. We have the budget from the President 
which they have criticized, but we have no budget from them. Mr. 
President, it is time for those on the other side of the aisle to come 
forward with their budget proposal.
  What we have heard from them is endless proposals for tax cuts aimed 
at the wealthiest among us. We have heard the Speaker even assert that 
we can eliminate capital gains taxes and eliminate estate taxes and 
have a major tax cut for children, but he does not put forward a plan 
that shows us how this would all add up.
  Where would the cuts be to not only eliminate the deficit, but to pay 
for the tax cuts? There is no plan. It is easy to talk about things we 
would all like to have if you do not ever have to make it add up. The 
difficult part of the budget process is to try to come up with a plan 
that will balance the budget. All of us know that requires spending 
cuts. Spending cuts are painful. We also know that there is a need for 
tax reduction in the country.
  I have supported a plan. We had the centrist coalition last year, 10 
Democrats, 10 Republicans, that worked together for hundreds of hours 
and put together a plan that was a consensus of our group on a 
bipartisan basis. We brought that plan to the floor of the Senate, and 
we received 46 votes, about evenly divided between Democrats and 
Republicans. Frankly, that is what it is going to take again this year. 
But when I hear our friends on the other side of the aisle assert that 
it is this side of the aisle that is responsible for budget deficits, I 
think we then have to talk about the record and talk about the facts.
  Here is the record and here are the facts. If we look at the last 
three administrations and look at the record on the deficit, it is very 
clear who has performed and who has talked.
  This is the record during the Reagan administration. He took office 
in 1981. The unified deficit for that year was $79 billion. It promptly 
shot up to over $200 billion and largely stayed that way through the 
Reagan administration.
  Then the Bush administration came into office and started with a 
unified deficit of $153 billion. By the time the Bush administration 
was finished, they had a deficit of $290 billion.
  Then President Clinton came into office, and the first year, the 
unified deficit was $255 billion, and each and every year, the deficit 
went down: $203 billion the second year of the Clinton administration, 
$164 billion the third year, and this chart shows $116 billion, but it 
actually wound up somewhat better than that. The deficit came in at 
$107 billion.
  All of that occurred because we put in place a budget plan in 1993 to 
cut spending and, yes, raise revenue on the wealthiest among us. The 
wealthiest 1 percent of this country were asked to pay somewhat more, 
and we cut spending about $250 billion over a 5-year period. Over 10 
years, that deficit reduction package reduced the deficit $2.5 
trillion. That is an extraordinary record of deficit reduction. In 
fact, now we are told that the unified deficit this year, the year that 
will end on September 30, will come in at about $91 billion. That will 
be 5 years in a row of deficit reduction.

  I just think if we are going to have a serious debate here over who 
has done what, then we ought to look at the facts, and we ought to talk 
about who, in fact, did have the courage to stand up and vote for that 
1993 budget package, which the other side said would crater the 
economy. They said it would increase the deficit. They said it would 
increase unemployment. They said it would reduce economic growth.
  They were wrong on every single score. It reduced the deficit every 
single year. It reduced unemployment. We have had nearly 12 million 
jobs created in the United States since we put that plan in place, and 
we have had a large economic expansion in this country. That is the 
record. Those are the facts.
  If we are going to finally achieve closure of this and actually 
balance the budget, then it is going to take both sides working 
together, because the Republicans control the Congress, the Democrats 
control the White House, and nothing is going to happen unless we work 
together.
  Last year, those of us who participated in the centrist coalition 
that involved Democrats and Republicans on an equal basis found the 
effort one of the most rewarding we have engaged in while we have been 
privileged to be part of this body, because we did work together. 
Nobody was running out and holding press conferences attacking the 
other side. Nobody was trying to get over on the other side. There were 
no raised voices. There was calm reasoning to try to achieve a result 
that we all understood was important for our country.
  Why is it important for the country? Mr. President, what is at stake 
here is the economic future of the country. This chart shows our 
children's economic position in the year 2035 in terms of the gross 
national product of the United States. This is on a per person basis.
  Very recently, the Congressional Budget Office issued a report and 
told us this: If we fail to act, the per capita size of our economy 
will be $33,200 in the year 2035. But if we would balance the budget on 
a unified basis--and I do not consider a unified balance a true 
balancing of the budget, but at least it is a step in the right 
direction--then the per capita size of our economy would be $40,900 in 
the year 2035. We would have much more income per person in this 
country if we moved toward balancing the budget. That is the message of 
this chart.
  Why is that the case? It is the case because if we are not deficit 
spending, we are not eating into the societal savings account. The more 
savings you have, the more investment that is possible. The more 
investment you have, the stronger the economic growth. That is the key 
to the future of America's economy, and it is why it is critically 
important to actually balance the budget. It is not just some abstract 
idea. It is critically important to the economic future and health of 
America.
  Mr. President, we hear some on the other side saying they are going 
to cut this tax, that tax, we are going to cut all taxes. On our side, 
we say we ought to have targeted tax relief. Middle-class families need 
tax relief. We are in favor of that. When we start talking about 
reducing taxes that primarily are paid by the wealthiest among us, it 
really does not make sense to do that and jeopardize balancing the 
budget. Why not? Because the biggest help that we can be to this 
economy is to balance that budget.

  Let me just indicate that when people start talking about what will 
help promote growth in this economy, they look closely at the benefits 
of balancing the budget. Balancing the unified budget is expected to 
reduce interest rates by about 1 percent. In an economy with $14.5 
trillion in nonfinancial sector debt, a 1-percent reduction in interest 
rates means an $145 billion boost to the economy in 1 year. That dwarfs 
any of the tax cuts that are being talked about in terms of providing a 
lift to the economy.
  So the truth of the matter is the best tax cut that we can give, the 
best tax cut, the most effective tax cut, is one that leads to a 
balanced budget. The only way we do that, obviously, is to cut spending 
that has contributed to the budget deficit, and have a revenue stream 
that balances with the spending. That is how you balance a budget. It 
is not just spending. It is the combination of spending and revenue 
that has to be in balance.
  So those who talk about massive tax cuts will have to come down here 
at some point with a plan that shows how

[[Page S3158]]

it adds up. They have not done it. They did not do it by April 1 in the 
Budget Committee which was their responsibility. They have not done it 
by today, which is by law their responsibility. So we are waiting. We 
are asking the question, where is the budget? When they come with a 
budget plan, it needs to add up. That is in the long-term interests of 
the United States.
  Mr. President, I will yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me ask the Senator from North Dakota a 
question. Senator Conrad is on the Senate Budget Committee and, as he 
indicated, the legal date for the completion of work on a budget by 
Congress is April 15. In fact, a couple of years ago, we heard some 
folks here on the floor of the Senate and in the House say, ``The 
President is irrelevant. We control the Congress. We will write a 
budget and we will ram this thing home. It does not matter what the 
President thinks.''
  Now we hear the story, ``What the President thinks matters to us. We 
will not do a budget unless the President comes to the table.'' The 
President submitted a budget, but my understanding is that the Budget 
Committee in both the House and Senate have not moved forward to say, 
``Here is what we in Congress think ought to comprise a budget.''
  Again, my notion is that it was not done because there is not any way 
to add this up. If you want to give giant tax reductions, most of which 
will go to the upper income folks, and say that is what we promised, 
but we also promised a balanced budget, the best way to avoid the 
conflict of a budget that does not add up is to not submit one, do not 
show your hand.
  Is that what is happening in the Budget Committee?
  Mr. CONRAD. I am afraid it is. The law says: ``Before April 15 of 
each year, the Congress shall complete action on a concurrent 
resolution on the budget for the fiscal year beginning on October 1.''
  We are not just supposed to have completed the budget in this 
Chamber. The entire Congress is to have completed the budget plan by 
today. We have not even started. We have not even started in the Senate 
Budget Committee to consider a plan. I fear the reason is that our 
colleagues on the other side and all over America in the last campaign 
promised they would cut this tax, that tax, and every tax, and when 
they came back here to try to see how it would add up, they find, wait 
a minute, it does not add up. In fact, the only way you can get it to 
add up is to have cuts that are even deeper than the ones they proposed 
last year in Medicare, education, and environmental protection.
  So our friends on the other side have a real problem. The problem is 
their rhetoric does not match reality. The problem is they do not have 
a plan that adds up. It does not balance.
  As I said in my statement, what is critically important is that we 
work together to get a plan that does balance. That will be the best 
thing we can do for American taxpayers and the American economy. It 
will mean greater economic growth. It will mean a stronger economy. As 
I indicated, a 1-percent reduction in interest rates, which is what the 
economists tell us we will get if we balance the budget, will save 
those who have debt--corporations, individuals, families--$145 billion 
in a year. That will provide more lift to the economy. That is the best 
lift we can give this economy of anything that we could do.

  We favor targeted tax relief to middle-income folks that, in fact, 
are under a lot of economic pressure. That makes sense. Some of these 
tax schemes the people have floated that give the overwhelming weight 
of the tax reduction to the wealthiest among us, and then do not permit 
you to have a plan that adds up, does not make any sense. It is not the 
right course for the country. I think that is why they really have not 
come up with a plan. They have not begun to come up with a plan because 
most of those who have tried to get these numbers to add up know that 
they do not.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask the Senator, did the Senator hear my reading of the 
Washington Times story in which the Eagles from the Republican Party 
said to the party chairman, look, we are not going to contribute more 
money if you do not give us some of these tax breaks. We are tired of 
contributing money and getting nothing for it. That is not quite the 
way they said it, but it is how it reads.
  It reminds me of the movie ``Jerry McGuire,'' toward the end of the 
movie the fellow is knocked out of the end zone, laying there holding 
the football, and gets up and rushes around the stadium. If you 
remember his chant during the entire movie ``Show me the money, show me 
the money.'' That is what that message was in the Washington Times 
report from the Eagles, ``Show us the money.''
  The dilemma here is you cannot cut $500 billion or $550 billion in 
taxes and promise everything to everybody and then come to the floor of 
the Senate and say, ``By the way, here is our plan to balance the 
budget.'' Cut your revenue by half a trillion dollars and then balance 
the budget? No, what you do is create a giant hole and increase the 
Federal deficit.
  We had a fellow named Laffer who constructed the Laffer curve, used 
in the early 1980's. It turns out to be a ``laugher.'' He said, ``You 
can cut the taxes, especially for those at the top, because we believe 
in trickle down, where you pour in at the top and it all trickles down 
to help everybody else.'' Some of us believe in the ``percolate up,'' 
give something to the bottom and it percolates up. Nonetheless, the 
Laffer curve would have substantial cuts, and somehow you balance the 
budget.
  What happened was the largest deficits in the history of this 
country. Double the defense budget--that was the Reagan recipe, double 
the defense budget--cut taxes, and you end up with very large deficits. 
That does not come from me. That comes from David Stockman, who did it, 
who wrote a book afterward and said what a terrible thing to have done, 
and then we bear the results of that.
  But those of us who in 1993 cast tough votes for a plan that said do 
what is necessary to march down the road to really balance the budget, 
we have taken tough steps to do this. We have marched in the right 
direction, but we are not there. We get there when we have balanced the 
budget. Senator Conrad is talking about the requirement to do that.
  I personally would like to see us essentially say, balance the budget 
first, and then talk about the Tax Code. There is plenty wrong in the 
Tax Code to the extent the upper income folks do not pay what they 
should or to the extent $30 billion that corporations ought to be 
paying, they are not. That means working people are paying higher taxes 
than they should. We ought to relieve them of that burden.
  What I would like to do is balance the budget and then turn to the 
Tax Code and make the right decisions about the Tax Code. The right 
decision is not to say those who invest shall be tax-exempt and those 
who work shall be taxed. In effect, saying as they do every day, tax 
work and exempt investors. Gee, that sounds pretty good for those 
folks, because guess who supports them? The investors. They are saying 
exempt the folks who support us, and tax all the working folks. What 
about exempting workers? Capital gains cut--what about a workers' gains 
cut? Is there not a workers' gain when you have a circumstance where 
you have an increase in productivity but you have inflation that 
devalues some of their earnings? What about a workers' gains cut? Why 
is it always capital? They say no, tax work and exempt investors. What 
a wrongheaded approach. Yes, help investors, but you do not help 
investors by saying, ``By the way, you are a privileged group of 
people. You get to be tax-exempt,'' because they are so intending to do 
that in such a significant way there is not any way to add this up.

  There is only one arithmetic book, and you start when you are young. 
Adding is simple. One plus one equals two, two plus two equals four, 
and I can go further than that because I went to a pretty good school, 
but it does not add up.
  Today is April 15. The budget is supposed to be here by law. Tonight, 
every newscast will show there is a traffic jam at the post office 
because people are pushing to file their return for April 15, but the 
deadline to bring a budget to this floor of the Senate is not going to 
be met.
  Guess what? The folks that run this place will be sleeping at 
midnight. They will not be in the post office or

[[Page S3159]]

driving around looking for a mail drop. They will be sleeping. Why? 
Because their plan does not add up.
  Mr. CONRAD. Maybe they ought to have to file for an extension.
  Mr. DORGAN. Maybe we should ask before the 12 o'clock postmark is 
necessary, maybe at least they ought to file for an extension today.
  Mr. CONRAD. If I could just add, I think one of the things that gets 
lost is why balancing the budget has so much merit. If we balance the 
budget and the economists are correct that that would reduce interest 
rates by 1 percent, that would mean on a typical mortgage, a savings of 
$900 a year. Over 5 years it would be over $4,500 in savings for a 
homeowner. On a car loan, that would be savings of $400, and 
approximately $1,000 a year in savings to the typical North Dakota 
farmer because of interest savings.
  I think we have to keep our eye on the ball here. The first and most 
important step we can take is to balance this budget. That will reduce 
interest expenses on nonfinancial sector debt by $145 billion. That 
will provide enormous lift to this economy. That is really the single 
best thing we could do for the country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time controlled by the minority will 
expire at 11:30, so you have 2 or 3 minutes. You can extend that by 
unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. DORGAN. I had asked unanimous consent at 10:45 when we began to 
begin the hour allotted to the majority leader, and that was my 
intention in the unanimous-consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Chair apologizes.
  Mr. DORGAN. I yield the remaining time to the Senator from South 
Carolina, Senator Hollings.

                          ____________________