[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 67 (Tuesday, May 20, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4716-S4724]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now proceed to the consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 27, 
the concurrent budget resolution, and I might indicate that we 
conferred with the ranking minority member and he concurs in this 
consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 27) setting forth the 
     congressional budget for the U.S. Government for fiscal years 
     1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the resolution?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the 
concurrent resolution.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
presence and use of small electronic calculators be permitted during 
consideration of the fiscal year 1998 concurrent resolution on the 
budget and any conference report thereon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for full floor 
privileges be granted to the following members of the Budget Committee 
staff: Austin Smythe and Ann Miller.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. That is for the duration of the discussion on the 
resolution.
  I ask unanimous consent that the staff of the Senate Committee on the 
Budget including congressional fellows and detailees from the executive 
branch named on the list I now send to the desk be permitted to remain 
on the Senate floor during consideration of Senate Concurrent 
Resolution 27 and any conference report thereon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The list is as follows.

           Senate Budget Committee--Majority Staff Title List

       Scott Burnison, Budget Analyst.
       Amy Call, Communications Assistant.
       Jim Capretta, Sr. Policy Analyst.
       Lisa Cieplak, Sr. Analyst for Education and Social 
     Services.
       Kay Davies, Legislative Counsel.
       Kathleen Dorn, Administrative Director.
       Beth Smerko Felder, Chief Counsel.
       Alice Grant, Analyst for International Affairs.
       Jim Hearn, Sr. Analyst for Government Finance and 
     Management.
       G. William Hoagland, Majority Staff Director.
       Carole McGuire, Assistant Staff Director, Director of 
     Appropriations Activities.
       Anne Miller, Director of Budget Review.
       Mieko Nakabayashi, Staff Assistant.
       Cheri Reidy, Sr. Analyst for Budget Review.
       Ricardo Rel, Sr. Analyst for Agriculture and Natural 
     Resources & Community Development.
       Karen Ricoy, Legal Assistant.
       Brian Riley, Sr. Analyst for Transportation and Science.
       Michael Ruffner, Sr. Analyst for Income Security and 
     Veterans.
       Andrea Shank, Staff Assistant.
       Amy Smith, Chief Economist.
       Austin Smythe, Assistant Staff Director, Director of Budget 
     Process and Energy.
       Bob Stevenson, Communications Director.
       Marc Sumerlin, Fellow.
       Winslow Wheeler, Analyst for Defense.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I note the presence of Senator 
Lautenberg in the Chamber and I wonder if he might join with me in at 
least discussing with the Senate how we might try together to be as 
helpful to fellow Senators yet move this resolution along as 
expeditiously as possible.
  From my standpoint, I do not believe my opening remarks and the 
opening remarks of any Members that I am aware of who want to speak in 
favor of the resolution should take any longer than 1 hour. I am not 
holding anyone to that but just sort of indicating to

[[Page S4717]]

the Senate that is the way I kind of see the time elapsing, to be 
exchanged side by side, one on the Democrat side and one on ours. But I 
think we need about 1 hour in that regard. Does the Senator have any 
idea in reference to that side?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Budget 
Committee for the way in which cooperation has taken place. Both of us 
and our staffs have worked cooperatively together to get this done, and 
we now arrive at the point before giving our formal statements where we 
are about to begin the debate that counts the most, going beyond the 
discussions we have had within the committee.
  I have had several requests for people who would like to make opening 
statements. I think I probably need 20 to 25 minutes on my own. I do 
not know how long the distinguished chairman of the committee is going 
to take for his statement, but I would think that an hour might be on 
the short side of things.
  So, Mr. President, I hope that we could give enough of our colleagues 
a chance to air their views. It is my fervent hope we will be able to 
conclude our business before the full 50 hours are used. I also hope 
that we can get this budget agreement passed. We have a historic 
opportunity to work together on something that I think the American 
people want to see, a bipartisan effort to reduce our annual deficit to 
zero. I think we accomplished that, and I hope the amendments will be 
those we can discuss honestly, having votes where required and move on 
with the business of the country.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me try this. I know that in our conference the 
leader, Senator Trent Lott, suggested we will be voting tonight and 
that we will be in here late and that is because we expect amendments. 
There may have to be a window of a couple of hours from 6 to 8 because 
of some event on that side of the aisle and likewise tomorrow night 
some window but we do intend to stay in late. I would be willing to 
accommodate Senators in any way possible, but we need Senators to begin 
to bring amendments down as soon as possible.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Absolutely.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am going to suggest if a Senator has amendments ready 
to go, even if we have not finished our opening remarks, other than the 
Senator's and mine, we ought to welcome them to the floor and proceed.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. In response to the need to get business done here, 
our leader asked at the caucus that people get their amendments up 
early this afternoon, at least let us know what amendments are coming 
so we can deal with them, and move on with the business. Meanwhile, I 
have alerted my colleagues on the Democratic side to the fact that we 
will be accepting opening statements this afternoon and those who want 
to make them are welcome to do so, I think under the structure of our 
understanding.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, first I thank my friend, Senator 
Lautenberg, for those remarks. Fellow Senators from either side of the 
aisle, if you have amendments, it would really be helping the Senate 
with its work if you would let us know about your amendments. We have 
about five or six already that we are aware of, and we will start 
sharing those with the Senator from New Jersey so that he will know 
about them. If the Senator will do the same with us, it will be very 
helpful.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We have reason to believe there are about a half a 
dozen presently listed. We will confirm that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. All right.
  Mr. President, I want to thank and compliment a few people before I 
proceed to my substantive remarks. First and foremost, I thank Senator 
Trent Lott, the majority leader of the Senate. He has exhibited a rare 
determination and real dedication and commitment to trying to get a 
bipartisan budget resolution through so that the Congress could do the 
work of the people this year and do as much of it together as we 
possibly could.
  I thank the Democratic leadership, at least the Democratic leadership 
in the Senate, for their work in behalf of this resolution. Senator 
Daschle has been extremely helpful. On the Democrat side, Senator 
Lautenberg, Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, has been extremely 
helpful. He has worked hard. And together we intend to get this budget 
resolution out of here as close as possible to the form approved by the 
committee yesterday afternoon, by as overwhelming a vote as we could 
expect, 17 to 4, and I believe this morning the vote finished up at 17 
to 5. So there were 17 Senators from both sides of the aisle and 5 
against.
  I thank President Clinton and his negotiators, the President 
personally for his insistence we stay with it and for his early 
determinations made to this Senator and to Senator Lott that he wanted 
to proceed to try to do this.
  Obviously, there are many other people who were very important. I am 
not going to name them all here now but in due course we will try to do 
that.
  Let me say to those listening today that 2 weeks ago we announced in 
the rotunda that Republicans and Democrats had reached an important 
agreement on a bipartisan budget plan. That announcement represented a 
crucial step in both sides coming together to produce a budget in the 
best interests of the American people.
  Yesterday, the Senate Budget Committee took the next step and 
approved this bipartisan plan, and I sincerely hope this body will 
follow suit and pass this agreement within the next day or two at the 
most.
  Because the real winners in this budget are the American working 
families, this budget will lead to reduced Federal spending, the 
largest tax cut since 1981, and ultimately to lower interest rates that 
will mean more and better paying jobs.
  Moreover, this agreement responds to the American people who clearly 
sent a message in the last election, tough elections for many Members 
with many issues, but I believe there was one unmistakable resonance 
through that campaign across America. I think the people said work 
together when the interests of the American people are at stake, work 
together when the issues are American. Do not fight all the time. So we 
have done just that. A year will find this Congress on opposite sides 
in the best tradition of debate, disagreeing with each other. 
Ultimately, parts of the implementation of this budget will find us 
disagreeing, but the truth is we have taken, yesterday afternoon, the 
first real step in saying to the American people we accept your 
request, in many cases your desire and your begging us to work 
together, and we have done just that. And in doing so we have produced 
a compromise that I believe will improve the lives of families today 
while providing a better future for tomorrow.
  It will mean, when it is all finished, the first balanced budget in 
30 years. It will mean $135 billion in gross tax relief over 5 years. 
Included in this will be a capital gains tax differential, obviously a 
child tax credit, and other things that both sides have talked about. 
Clearly, it will include some of the President's tax requests with 
reference to education, higher education and some of the ideas he has 
enacted.
  Now, a budget resolution does not tell anybody precisely what these 
are. The committees that have to write the law will do that. But what 
we do give them is a flow of taxes over the years saying how much they 
can cut each year, and at the end of 5 years they will have a gross 
revenue number of $135 billion in new tax cuts. We have also agreed, 
the leadership has, that over 10 years just in the normal sequence of 
things that body of new taxes will amount to $250 billion in permanent 
reductions over a 10-year period.
  I believe those two are pretty good propositions that many Americans 
would support, but we do not want to stop there. We have made 
adjustments to the trust fund for senior citizens under Medicare such 
that it will be solvent for about 10 years. That provides Americans, 
American leadership with ample opportunity to permanently reform the 
Medicare system. It also without question provides more options for the 
Medicare plan which can be adopted as part of this agreement by the 
Finance Committee and its counterpart in the House. Ten years of 
solvency for Medicare while providing more choice is, indeed, 
accomplishing something significant.
  Entitlement reforms over the next 10 years including those that will 
be found in Medicare amount to about $630 billion over the next 10 
years. Some of these might be challenged by Members and we are willing 
to debate

[[Page S4718]]

them. But it is obvious that the entitlement package we are used to in 
our country will grow far less because of this budget resolution than 
if we had left everything alone. Funding for White House and Republican 
domestic priorities and Democratic priorities including education, 
transportation, housing, environment, crime control, and science 
programs have been provided for.
  All of those will be in the ascendancy, and all of those will be 
deemed priorities so that the Appropriations Committee will have the 
full support of the leadership in funding these items at a higher 
level, including, if I did not mention, the basic environmental 
protection funding for the United States.
  (Mr. KEMPTHORNE assumed the chair.)
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, passing this Balanced Budget Act of 1997 
will force the Federal Government to finally live within its means. It 
makes permanent change that will reduce Government spending by some 
$320 billion in the next 5 years and more than $1 trillion over the 
next decade.
  The agreement will also give families relief by cutting gross taxes, 
as I have indicated before, by $135 billion in the first 5 years and 
gross taxes by as much as $350 billion over 10 years.
  Seniors can be assured that Medicare will remain solvent, ensuring 
this solvency for 10 years by enacting reforms that slow the growth of 
spending while providing seniors with more choices, which is what we 
need in the Medicare system. But nobody should assume that this budget 
resolution, and I would be prepared as one who knows a bit about budget 
resolutions, neither this nor any budget resolution will be the vehicle 
to provide permanent, long-term major reform of the Medicare system 
which is going to be needed within the next 5 to 6 to 7 years to meet 
what everybody understands is a very, very large population increase, 
where the demographics begin to change dramatically because of the baby 
boomers. We do not have a plan. This budget is not a plan to make 
Medicare solvent for that kind of change. Anybody who thought it should 
be has a mistaken understanding of what you can do in a budget 
resolution. But we did a lot, because it is done on a bipartisan basis 
and with the President.
  This overall plan will shrink Government, making most of the programs 
leaner and more efficient. Medicaid, Federal retirement, housing, 
veterans, student loans programs are just some of those that will be 
targeted for reform and savings, while overall spending will be 
reduced, as I have indicated, over 10 years by an excess of $1 
trillion. We have added money to protect priorities, and so those 
priorities that I have mentioned find themselves this time in this 
budget resolution, and the agreement that attends it finds modest but 
necessary increases for education, transportation, anticrime, 
environment, and science.
  Contrasted with other budget resolutions, wherein these kinds of 
ideas would be nothing more than telling the Appropriations Committee 
what we hope would happen, we have entered into a very major bipartisan 
leadership agreement, which I will hold up here, and eventually it will 
be made a part of the Record, entitled the ``Bipartisan Agreement on 
the Budget,'' dated May 15, between the President and the leadership of 
Congress. It contains the summary tables, the description of agreements 
by major category, both in the discretionary programs and the mandatory 
and budget process reforms that have been agreed to that will have to 
work their way through the various bills, Mr. President, as they find 
themselves reported by the various committees.
  There are also two letters pertaining to the taxes which were 
executed by the Republican leaders of the House and Senate directed to 
the committee chairmen and the President indicating the situation 
regarding the tax cuts. Once again, I know those listening would like 
for those of us who write a budget to tell them exactly what the 
capital gains tax will be. We don't know that. We know it will be 
significantly reduced. Exactly when the $500 child care credit will be 
totally implemented we cannot tell you, but it will be, because, with 
all of the tax proposals, it may be that some have to wait a little bit 
and others will start more quickly, but that will be done. Some 
education tax relief for middle-income Americans who are sending 
children to college as part of the President's request is included in 
the letter of agreement as to what our committees will work on as they 
carry out and implement this budget.
  It should be pointed out that this is the first time we have ever had 
such an agreement, and that means that those of us in the bipartisan 
leadership and those who worked on this committee, my Democratic 
counterpart and I, have a very serious responsibility to see we try to 
carry out on the floor of the Senate not only the budget resolution, 
but the terms of the agreement as it applies to the budget resolution. 
We will try that, yet we will have the Senate working its will in its 
normal manner for the next couple of days.
  I am sure there will be many very, very difficult votes. I myself 
believe the budget is about as good as we are going to get it. It is 
now agreed to by Democrats and Republicans and the President. I believe 
before we finish, it will receive an overwhelming vote of support, and 
we will just have to wait and see whether that prediction is true or 
not.
  We have also agreed in two areas to deal with some problems in 
society that needed some attention, and let me address the two in a 
general way.
  First of all, it is obvious that even with Medicaid, which should 
cover many of our children, poor children, there are a lot of American 
children who have no health insurance. We have agreed to put money into 
two programs, and in the basic agreement that we have with the 
President, it is spelled out that over the next 5 years, $16 billion 
will be spent in an effort to cover all children in America who are not 
covered. There is a lot of leeway on the part of the committees to 
write that, but it is obvious that there will be added moneys for 
Medicaid so that they can pick up many of the children who are not 
covered. There are additional resources in there for a program that 
will go back to the States, a partnership arrangement, where the States 
will receive our money and match it and try to cover other children in 
their own way as they manage the programs in the best possible way.

  That is one area that we agreed needed coverage, and I am pleased to 
say my own polling of Republicans, not a whip check or anything, 
indicates there are many of them who want to do that. The question 
remains, how do we do it best and what will it ultimately cost? But we 
have provided the $16 billion that goes to the committee of 
jurisdiction to do the very best job they can.
  We also found in the U.S. Senate not too many days ago on an 
appropriations bill presented by Senator Stevens that the Senate voted 
by a huge margin to continue coverage for a group of legal--legal--
residents of the United States who happened to come here as immigrants 
in a legal manner and remain here legally but are not American 
citizens. They come under an American program of generosity, which 
permits family reunification. Many of them come here as grandparents 
and parents. The program has broken down because the sponsors who are 
supposed to take care of them have not taken care of them, and the law 
intended to do that has not been enforced for years. As a result, there 
are more than a few thousand disabled senior Americans who are here as 
legal immigrants who are getting an SSI check every month. This budget 
resolution says we are providing sufficient funds so that those people 
will not drop off the rolls automatically on a date certain as 
contemplated under last year's law but will continue coverage so long 
as they live.
  We have also said if there are Americans of the same condition that 
are here under the same circumstance that I described, if they reach 
the time when they are both senior and disabled, they would be entitled 
to SSI. But that ends the pool. In the future, any newcomers under 
these rules will have to rely upon their sponsors, and we wrote strong 
laws last year to make the sponsors more responsible.
  Those are the two major areas of additional expenditures that we have 
put in place and agreed with the President on.
  I will just make a few comparisons by dollars and show those who are 
paying any attention what we are talking about.

[[Page S4719]]

  While some accounts are protected, as I indicated, the emphasis in 
this plan is clear: For every new $1 added to the budget, it is reduced 
by $15. For every new $1 in spending, there is roughly $3.50 in tax 
cuts.
  This displays in a very vivid manner what happens to the deficit. 
Without the agreement is the red line; with the agreement is the green 
line. We think that is as simple as we can show it. The deficit will be 
going up from 90 and not coming back down significantly, according to 
the best estimates. And under these estimates, the green line 
represents how we will get to balance and, in fact, have a slight 
surplus by 2002, a pretty important and very-easy-to-understand chart.

  This simple chart is nondefense discretionary spending. In our 
national budget, we have essentially three kinds of expenditures. One 
batch is called discretionary, which simply means we appropriate it 
every year. I am not one who thinks that is the greatest idea. I am 
hoping we can change that and appropriate for 2 years at a time. Part 
of that is defense, which is appropriated every year. It is a 
discretionary account annually done, and then all the domestic programs 
that are appropriated every year are called the nondefense 
discretionary program.
  The sum total of those amount to about $540 billion plus, about 37 
percent of the budget. Some people think it is the whole budget, but it 
is about 37 percent.
  This shows under the greenline, spending without this agreement, for 
the discretionary domestic part of this budget, and under the red line, 
it shows what will happen. There were some a few weeks ago who were 
saying this budget agreement was one that was just throwing money at 
the discretionary programs instead of trying to get some frugality and 
some better performance.
  This redline indicates that the entire discretionary piece of our 
Government for the domestic programs will go up, Mr. President, one-
half of 1 percent a year. In the prior decade, it went up 6 percent on 
average. For some, that is bad news. For others, that is good news. The 
fact that the President of the United States has agreed to that and 
that we have and said even while it is adjusting at such a low rate of 
growth, we want to have some priorities like roads, like in education, 
to me seems to be the kind of thing the public would like us to do.
  Share of the total outlays of our budget has changed dramatically, 
and I will just show that quickly and summarize my remarks very 
quickly.
  When John Kennedy was President of the United States, the budget of 
the United States was broken up into two parts and went something like 
this. The interest on the debt was small, Mr. President, so let's leave 
that aside. It was about 67 percent discretionary spending for defense 
and domestic programs, those annual ones we do every year, and the rest 
of the budget, which would be about 33 percent, were what we call 
mandatory or entitlement programs. That means a program that spent out 
on its own, unless Congress changes the law--a Social Security check, a 
Medicare benefit payment to a hospital.

  All the other programs, pensions, and the like, and I guess I would 
summarize them this way, any program that the U.S. Government has that 
if they failed to pay it to a citizen or an institution that is 
entitled to it, they can prevail in getting their money from the 
Treasury of the United States direct through a court of law.
  It turns out from President Kennedy's time to ours, it has flipped on 
its head, and 67 percent of the budget is now on automatic pilot, 
running on its own, mandatory programs which we can only control if we 
change the underlying law by a vote of the Congress and the signature 
of the President. The balance of 33 percent makes up all of the 
expenditures for defense and domestic programs.
  So it seems to most of us that we know where the area of growth is 
and the areas that cry out for reform if we are going to bring this 
Government's fiscal policy under control and not have to look at taxes 
skyrocketing 15 years from now and the bill that our children must pay 
getting bigger and bigger and the credit card that we kind of take from 
them without representation. If ever there was taxation without 
representation, it is the deficit you impose on kids where they do not 
get to vote. It clearly means they are going to have to pay taxes in 
order to pay these bills that they were not even around to vote on.
  So I believe when you look at what we have done and add three other 
things, we will enforce this program. The discretionary caps, the 
discretionary programs that I have described for domestic spending, we 
will have a cap on them for each year at a dollar number agreed to in 
the resolution. That dollar number is the one that moves this one-half 
percent growth we spoke of. That will be a cap that says, at the end of 
a year if you spend more than that, by operation of law, every program 
in the Government will get cut by the percentage needed to bring it 
back to that cap.
  It has been the only effective tool we have had. It has worked twice 
because we have only breached it twice. That is set to expire. We need 
to reput that in the law for another 5 years. That is provided for 
here.
  We also preserve budget points of order against those caps. I will 
not go into that, but that is a second remedy to make sure we are doing 
what we promised and what we say here.
  In addition, the deficit comes down each year starting in 1998, 
albeit not as much as we would like in the early years because, 
remember, we are cutting taxes in those early years and the entitlement 
program savings grow in the outyears. But essentially it will not go 
back up and down in spurts; it will be at a level and gradual road and 
path downward.
  We used conservative economics in this budget. There is some 
confusion about that. But if one wants to check them, we use the 
economic assumptions of the Congressional Budget Office as to growth, 
unemployment, and those basic ingredients, those basic pieces of the 
economy that we measure.
  This budget is conservative. So when somebody says you have not 
provided for a recession, I ask, have you ever seen a budget presented 
by a President or Congress that anticipates specifically a recession 
and says in 2 years we have a recession and therefore things are 
changed? Obviously, nobody does that. But when you use the conservative 
numbers that the Congressional Budget Office says should be used, they 
say built within it over time is the conservativeness that would permit 
you to be much safer in case of a recession, that your numbers will not 
be very much out of kilter, because of the conservatism of the economic 
assumptions.
  Now, later on, if a Senator wants to talk about the revenues that we 
assume will come into this budget, I will be pleased to do that. We 
were confronted midstream with a change in the revenue expectations, 
but I would be pleased to discuss that with anybody who chooses during 
the next 2 days.
  Suffice it to say that we hope--we found out the revenues were going 
to be up, and the Congressional Budget Office, heretofore very 
conservative in that regard, had decided that their estimates were too 
low. We spent only about $30 billion of their $225 billion, and that 
was done for very specific purposes, and the rest stayed in there as 
deficit reduction.
  So I believe for the future of our country and in particular for the 
future of our children, the time is now to pass this budget rather 
intact and get on with implementing it.
  Mr. President and fellow Senators, this budget has the best chance of 
reaching the reality that is predicted within the four corners of this 
resolution of any we have produced, because this is not one party's 
budget resolution, and that party being in Congress, and another 
party's President being in the White House with a different idea. Since 
we have something that is agreed to by both, it would seem to me that 
its implementation has a much better chance of being achieved rather 
than just fought over and reach stalemates because we cannot agree.
  That is why last year as I finished doing our Republican budget, I 
said, I hope I do not have to do one that is just Republican again 
unless we happen to have a Republican President, because it would seem 
to me you have to take into consideration the President and his wishes 
to some extent. And I

[[Page S4720]]

believe we have done that. And he has taken ours into account to some 
extent. And that is the final product.

  So, fellow Senators, that is my best explanation. I will answer 
anybody's questions and go into as much detail on any parts of it that 
anyone wants. But for now, again, if you can give us ideas about 
amendments you intend to offer, it will be greatly appreciated.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, first, I start by issuing the plea 
also that Senator Domenici, the distinguished chairman of the Budget 
Committee, started with; that is, to our fellow Senators, get your 
amendments down here. Do not cause a jam up at the end when you may not 
be able to get the floor. You may not be able to have a full 
explanation of that which you are interested in.
  We want to move the process. This is no longer a time for delay and 
bickering among ourselves. We are obliged to move it because it is the 
right thing for America.
  First, let me say that I am pleased to join my colleague, the 
chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, in urging support 
for this budget resolution.
  For the past several weeks, Senator Domenici and I, along with 
representatives of the administration and the House Budget Committee, 
have been working long hours and arduously to reach a budget agreement. 
It has been a long, difficult and occasionally a painful process. But 
in the end I am pleased to say that we succeeded in our mission.
  Today, for the first time in many, many years, we will be considering 
a budget resolution that is truly bipartisan. This resolution, Mr. 
President, is historic. It will lead to the first balanced budget since 
1969. It calls for the largest investment in education and training 
since the Johnson administration. It combines tough fiscal discipline 
with a strong commitment to Medicare, the environment, transportation, 
and other national priorities.
  Beyond its substance, Mr. President, I am hopeful that this agreement 
represents a turning point in contemporary American politics. For many 
years, Congress has been dominated by partisanship and immobilized by 
gridlock. This constant infighting has undermined our standing around 
the country. It has made it more difficult to solve our Nation's 
problems. And we all hope that a sense of comity that now seems to be 
here during these budget discussions will prevail here in Washington. 
This agreement marks a major step in that direction.
  The agreement shows Democrats and Republicans are ready to put aside 
partisan differences, rise above petty bickering, and make the hard 
decisions that our people across the country want us to do. That is 
what we are delivering.
  Mr. President, this agreement comes before us at a time when our 
economy is remarkably strong. Over the past 2\1/2\ years the stock 
market has skyrocketed by more than 80 percent; unemployment is at its 
lowest point in 24 years; inflation is at the slowest pace in 31 years; 
new investment has soared at a 9 percent annual rate over the last 4 
years, a welcome change from the performance over the preceding 8 
years; and real wages have started to rise again after years of 
stagnation.
  The tremendous strength of our economy is a tribute to President 
Clinton and the Democratic Party. When President Clinton came into 
office, the budget deficit was $290 billion and it was expected to 
explode to more than $500 billion by 2002. Since then, just the 
contrary has happened. The deficit has been cut by 63 percent, falling 
4 years in a row to $107 billion in 1996. This year, the deficit is 
estimated to be falling to $67 billion.
  This, Mr. President, is remarkable progress. We want to continue that 
progress, and this budget agreement will get it done.
  People tend to think of budgeting as a zero sum game in which one 
person's win is another's loss. But this budget agreement is a win-win-
win all around. It is a win for our economy. It is a win for ordinary 
Americans who are working hard to raise their families and keep their 
heads above water. It is a win for the future of our country.
  Mr. President, both parties should be pleased with this bipartisan 
achievement. But I want to take a few minutes to explain why I think 
Democrats deserve to be especially proud.
  Throughout this process, we Democrats have insisted on an agreement 
that imposes real fiscal discipline that builds on President Clinton's 
tremendous success in reducing the deficit, and that balances the 
budget in a real, credible way. And the American people have won.
  Democrats have insisted that we make education a top national 
priority. We have demanded that middle-class families get tax relief to 
help pay for college, and that all Americans get assistance in 
affording further education and job training. And the American people 
have won.

  Democrats have insisted that Medicare be protected. We have demanded 
that the solvency of the Medicare trust fund be extended, that senior 
citizens not be asked to bear unfair burdens, that the quality of their 
health care not be put at risk, and that new preventative benefits be 
added. And the American people have won.
  Democrats have insisted on targeting tax relief to the middle class. 
We have demanded that when Congress cuts taxes, much of the relief must 
go to struggling families who need help the most. And the American 
people have won.
  Democrats have insisted that uninsured children be provided with 
health insurance. We have demanded that millions of kids get the health 
care they need and deserve. And the American people have won.
  Democrats have insisted on fairness for people who come into this 
country legally, who have obeyed the law, and paid their taxes and who 
then suffer from a disability. We have demanded the elimination of 
extreme laws that punish people because they get hit by a bus or lose 
their eyesight. And the American people have won.
  Democrats have insisted on maintaining our commitment to 
environmental protection. We have demanded more funding to clean up 
hazardous waste sites while resisting schemes to gut the Environmental 
Protection Agency. And the American people have won.
  Democrats have also insisted on investing in transportation. We have 
demanded that transportation be made a priority and that funding be 
increased substantially over the levels originally proposed earlier 
this year. And the American people have won.
  Mr. President, my point is not that Democrats are the sole winners 
here. That of course is not true. This is a fair and balanced 
agreement. The Republicans have won on many of their most cherished 
priorities. Some of those wins have been bitter pills for me and for 
many Democrats, but I say to my friends on this side of the aisle, the 
fact is that we do not control either Houses of the Congress. And we 
have to respect the will of the American people. So there is no way to 
solve our Nation's problems without compromise. It is the only way, and 
painful though it may be for some, it is the right thing to do.

  Mr. President, let me turn to some of the specifics in the budget 
agreement, some of which have been mentioned by the distinguished 
chairman of the Budget Committee, but I think are worthy of repetition.
  First, and perhaps most fundamentally, this agreement will balance 
the budget by the year 2002. Beginning next year, when the agreement 
first goes into effect, the deficit will decline every year until we 
reach balance. Balancing the budget will require real fiscal 
discipline. This agreement calls for $320 billion in savings over the 
next 5 years. More than half of those savings will come from 
entitlement programs and other mandatory spending. More than $75 
billion will come out of the military budget. While important domestic 
priorities will be spared the meat cleaver, nondefense discretionary 
spending, which encompasses many of the programs that the people across 
the country are interested in, will be reduced in real terms by $61 
billion, or about 4 percent. As I said, some pain comes.
  Will all of these savings really balance the budget? Mr. President, 
any

[[Page S4721]]

budget projection must rely on economic assumptions. But the 
assumptions in this budget are on the conservative side. They are based 
on economic projections of the Congressional Budget Office which have 
proven to be far from reality for the past 4 years. They have missed 
the targets. They have overestimated some poor results.
  Consider that just a few months ago, CBO, the Congressional Budget 
Office, estimated this year's budget deficit would be $124 billion. 
That was only in January. In March, CBO, 2 months later, revised its 
estimate down to $115 billion from $124 billion. Now, in May, there are 
reports that the deficit could be as low as $67 billion.
  Think about that, Mr. President. We are talking about the current 
fiscal year which ends in less than 5 months, and in just that same 
length of time, the projected deficit has shrunk by 45 percent from 
$124 billion to $67 billion.
  At this rate, some have suggested the best way to balance the budget 
would be for Congress to sit down, keep quiet, and go home. Who knows, 
they may be right. If they are, this agreement will produce significant 
budget surpluses, a result unimaginable not long ago.
  My point, though, is simply that in using CBO's economic assumptions, 
we are using projections that have consistently proven to be too 
pessimistic. This budget does not rest on unrealistic rosy scenarios, 
as have past budget agreements, so it is very likely that we will 
actually reach balance or a surplus before the next 5 years is out if 
we can get this agreement enacted into law.
  Mr. President, this budget resolution establishes without question 
that both political parties are now firmly committed to fiscal 
discipline. For years, Republicans have run for office by accusing the 
Democrats of being tax-and-spend liberals, unconcerned about fiscal 
responsibility. This agreement puts these charges to rest once and for 
all. It is now clear that Democrats and Republicans are both committed 
to a balanced budget. We disagree only about the means to that end and 
how the burden of the deficit reduction will be distributed.
  Fortunately, this budget agreement is more than an accounting 
exercise. It will set our country on a firm course into the 21st 
century by empowering our people, by investing in them and ensuring 
they are ready to compete in the years and decades ahead.
  As I noted earlier, this agreement includes the largest investment in 
education and training since the administration of Lyndon Baines 
Johnson. The agreement moves us toward a day when every 8-year-old 
child can read, every 12-year-old child can log in on the Internet, and 
every 18-year-old can go to college. Those are the goals that President 
Clinton committed to when he addressed us earlier this year, and they 
are the right goals for America.
  Mr. President, I grew up the son of working-class immigrants, but was 
able, because of my service in World War II, to attend Columbia 
University, thanks to the GI bill. I want all Americans to have the 
same opportunities I had, because education is the key to prosperity 
and security and because, like I, not only will they learn important 
subjects, but maybe their horizons will be less limiting. My horizons 
were developed because I saw my parents standing behind the counter 
making sandwiches, washing dishes, working from 6 o'clock in the 
morning until 11 o'clock at night, typically, 7 days a week, just to 
grind out a living to take care of my sister and me. They could not 
give us much more than the comfort of interested parents, and goals to 
which they wanted us to aspire. That is the way it ought to be, Mr. 
President.
  The opportunity came along for me to have an education that never 
would have come my way. It changed my perspective totally, and enabled 
me, without being too immodest, to start a company that started an 
industry--the computing industry--that is today larger than the 
hardware industry. That is on the service side, software--everybody now 
is familiar with software--outsourcing services. The company has 29,000 
employees. I am a member of something called the ``Information 
Processing Hall of Fame,'' all of that because I got a boost from my 
Government, from my fellow citizens, for something that I did.

  All Americans, no matter how rich or poor, should have access to that 
American dream. My parents never thought that I would have the 
opportunity to serve in the U.S. Senate, to be given the honor of 
serving the American people, but, again, it happened because a start 
was given to me at just the right time in my life.
  Toward that end, Mr. President, toward access to the American dream, 
this agreement includes the largest Pell grant increases in two 
decades. Four million students will receive a grant of up to $3,000 for 
higher education. These grants, we hope, will open the doors of 
opportunity and help lead our country in the next century. Our entire 
Nation will reap the reward.
  The agreement also will provide significant tax relief to those who 
want to attend college. It endorses the objectives of President 
Clinton's HOPE scholarship proposal, which would provide a $1,500 
annual tax credit for higher education. This extra money would 
encourage millions of young people to go to college.
  The agreement also endorses the objectives of the President's 
proposal to give a $10,000 tax deduction to help cover education and 
job training costs for young people in the family. This proposal is 
critical to ensure that Americans are able to train and retrain 
themselves throughout their lives, not just upper level managers, but 
each and every American.
  There are several other education initiatives that are guaranteed by 
this agreement. For example, it guarantees funding for a child literacy 
initiative such as the President's America Reads proposal. This program 
would provide individualized after-school and summer help for more than 
3 million children in kindergarten through the third grade. More than a 
million tutors would be involved.
  The budget agreement also will fund a technological literacy 
initiative. The President has proposed to connect every American 
classroom to the Internet and to ensure that all teachers are trained 
to work with this latest in technology. His proposal would help schools 
integrate the technology into their programs so that no American child 
is burdened with computer illiteracy.
  The budget agreement also calls for significant expansion of Head 
Start. This widely praised program has had tremendous success in 
preparing very young children for their education and for their 
futures. This agreement will help move us toward President Clinton's 
goal of increasing Head Start enrollments to 1 million children by the 
year 2002.
  Mr. President, the combination of increased Pell grants, the tuition 
tax credit, the education training deduction, the children literacy 
initiative, the technological literacy program, Head Start, and many 
other educational initiatives, make this agreement a truly historic 
commitment to education, and it is reason enough for Democrats and 
Republicans alike to support this agreement.
  I want to move on to some other important features of the budget 
resolution. It will ensure that up to 5 million uninsured children are 
provided with health coverage. The resolution includes $16 billion 
toward that end, and it will be up to the committees of responsibility 
to decide whether to use Medicaid expansion or a grant program to 
States or another approach, but the commitment and the resources are 
there to get the job done. In the end, that will mean that more 
children of working families will have health insurance.

  This budget agreement also will strengthen and modernize our Medicare 
Program. The agreement first would extend the solvency of the Medicare 
trust fund for at least 10 years. Senator Domenici made mention of the 
fact that during that time we will have to look to the longer term 
problems often associated with Medicare while carrying on the 
wonderful, very positive benefits that have resulted. It makes positive 
structural reforms which will bring Medicare more into line with the 
private sector while preparing it for the baby-boom generation.
  The agreement extends the trust fund solvency in part by reforming 
payment systems for hospitals and doctors. In addition, it gives the 
seniors more choices. It increases the number of health plan options 
such as preferred provider organizations and provider-sponsored 
organizations. It also gives beneficiaries comparative information

[[Page S4722]]

about their options such as now provided Federal employees of the 
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.
  Additionally, the agreement provides funding for several very 
significant new preventive benefits. These include expanded mammography 
coverage, coverage for colorectal screening, coverage for diabetes 
self-examination, and vaccinations. Beyond investing in education and 
protecting and improving Medicare, this agreement will provide 
significant tax relief to millions of American families.
  In addition to the education tax cuts that I mentioned earlier, the 
agreement includes a $500-per-child tax credit. This will be of real 
assistance to many Americans who are working hard and struggling to 
make ends meet. The agreement also will allow the Finance Committee to 
cut capital gains and estate taxes, as well as expand IRA's and make 
other changes to the Tax Code. These changes will benefit many small 
businesses and farmers, goals which Republicans and Democrats strongly 
agree upon.
  However, there is real concern, Mr. President, among many Democrats 
that these tax breaks will go disproportionately to the wealthy and 
will explode the deficit in the long term. Frankly, I share those 
concerns. In a time of scarce resources, it seems wrong to be handing 
out huge tax breaks to people who do not need them.
  The bottom line is we would not have a budget agreement if Democrats 
were not willing to accept some of these tax breaks. This was the main 
win that the Republicans demanded. Though it is a bitter pill for some, 
in my view, it is a pill we have to swallow for the benefits of a 
balanced budget, education investment, health coverage for 5 million 
children, restoration of disability benefits for desperate legal 
immigrants, and other positive parts of this agreement.
  I do want to assure my colleagues, however, that the agreement 
includes significant constraints in the tax area that will help prevent 
a redo of the kind of economics that created the deficit problem in the 
first place.
  First, there are firm limits on the size of the tax cuts--the 
agreement states that the net tax cuts shall be $85 billion in the 
first 5 years, and no more than $250 billion through 2007. Second, 
Leader Lott and Speaker Gingrich have given their firm commitment--in 
writing--that tax cuts, and I quote ``shall not cause costs to explode 
in the outyears.''
  For those who are not satisfied with that commitment, I would point 
out that President Clinton has made it clear that he will not tolerate 
a tax bill that imposes huge costs in the future. And while he has 
agreed to a significant capital gains and estate tax cut, he has not 
signed away his right to veto extreme legislation that violates our 
basic understanding.
  I also want to assure my colleagues that the size of the tax cuts in 
this agreement are very small compared to the enormous breaks that were 
approved in the early 1980's. The tax cut of 1981 cost $2.8 trillion 
over 10 years, in today's dollars. By contrast, this agreement would 
allow tax cuts of $250 billion--less than 10 percent of those that were 
proposed 17 years ago.
  Mr. President, Republicans may have won in their insistence on tax 
breaks for wealthier Americans, but they did abandon radical plans to 
completely gut domestic priorities, and undermine the basic functions 
of Government. Over the next 5 years, this agreement calls for $355 
billion more in domestic discretionary spending than Newt Gingrich 
demanded in the infamous Contract With America. And it includes $189 
billion more than in last year's Republican budget resolution.
  Mr. President, lest anyone has the impression that Government is 
going to be growing over the next 5 years because of these increases in 
some of the discretionary funds, it won't be. Nondefense discretionary 
spending will be cut from baseline by 4 percent overall, and by 10 
percent in real terms in 2002. And when you consider that priority 
programs will be spared, the real cuts in other programs will be 
significant.
  Still, in nominal terms, available resources for basic Government 
functions will increase overall, if only modestly. And we will trim 
Government with a scalpel, not a meat axe cleaver. Under the 
circumstances, that's a major victory.
  Let me now move on to another part of the budget agreement, which 
deals with Medicaid.
  Mr. President, this agreement preserves the Medicaid Program in two 
major respects. First, it preserves the guarantee of health coverage 
for our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. Second, it rejects the 
administration's proposal to establish a per capita cap on Medicaid 
payments. I want to publicly thank my fellow negotiators for both of 
these decisions.
  I think it would have been a poor way to administer the Medicaid 
Program. We shouldn't be adopting a scheme that jeopardizes the quality 
of health care for millions of children, seniors, and other vulnerable 
Americans.
  At one point, I was in a distinct minority in the negotiating room in 
my opposition to the per capita cap, and I am very pleased that the 
proposal was rejected in the end. In my view, at a time when the growth 
in Medicaid spending has dropped dramatically, we should not be 
adopting risky schemes that could jeopardize the quality of health care 
for millions of children, seniors, and other vulnerable Americans.
  Mr. President, the agreement does include a cut in payments for 
hospitals that serve a disproportionate share of Medicaid and uninsured 
patients. I have real concerns about this. Clearly, some States have 
abused the program, and we should be able to find savings by reforming 
the program. But we must be very careful not to hurt children's 
hospitals and others who are very reliant on this funding. I look 
forward to working with my colleagues on the Finance Committee to 
ensure that this does not happen.
  Mr. President, let me turn now to another important element of this 
agreement, the provisions that will roll back some of the more extreme 
provisions in last year's welfare reform bill.
  First, this agreement will restore Medicaid and disability benefits 
for many disabled legal immigrants. These are people who have come to 
this country legally, who have worked and paid their taxes, and who 
suffer from a serious disability.
  Mr. President, it is wrong to punish these people for getting hit by 
a bus, or losing their eyesight. Many of them are desperately poor to 
begin with. Now they may be confined to bed or a wheelchair, with 
nowhere to go and nobody to turn to. They can't work. And they need 
help to survive. Providing basic assistance is the right thing to do.
  This agreement also will provide relief to some individuals who would 
lose food stamps because they are unable to find work. This was another 
provision of the welfare reform bill that simply went too far. The 
agreement will permit States to exempt 15 percent of those who would 
lose benefits because of the law's very strict time limits, and would 
fund additional work slots for individuals subject to those limits.
  In addition, the agreement includes $3 billion to help people move 
from welfare to work, something that all of us want to see happen.
  Mr. President, let me now turn to an area of special interest to me, 
transportation.
  Mr. President, as most of my colleagues know, I believe strongly in 
the value of investing in transportation, because I'm convinced that it 
yields tremendous benefits for our people and our economy. For years, 
our Nation has underinvested in transportation. And we are paying the 
price for that--in deteriorating roads, in snarling traffic, and in 
crumbling bridges and deteriorating rail systems.
  Mr. President, when you compare transportation to other functions 
within the Government, this agreement treats transportation relatively 
well. I pushed hard in the negotiations for additional resources, and 
we were able to find over $8 billion more than the President's request 
over the next 5 years. That was a major increase from where we began.
  Is it enough? No, it's not. But the bottom line is that there just 
aren't enough resources to balance the budget while doing everything 
we'd like. Compared with most parts of the Government, transportation 
does very well in this budget. And I'm hopeful we can identify even 
more resources as the legislative process moves forward.

[[Page S4723]]

  Let me turn briefly to another area of particular interest to me, the 
environment. This budget agreement confirms that the environment is a 
priority. It commits the congressional leadership to fully fund 
environmental protection and natural resources. And it specifically 
protects the President's funding requests for operations of the EPA and 
the National Park Service's operation of the National Park System and 
the Everglades. In addition, the agreement reserves funds for cleaning 
up hazardous waste sites, assuming we can reach an agreement on policy 
issues concerning Superfund, which I expect will happen. Finally, the 
agreement provides an additional $700 million for priority land 
acqusitiions and exchanges.
  Mr. President, before I close, let me once again say how much a 
privilege it has been for me to work with the distinguished chairman of 
the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici. We have spent many, many hours 
together over the past several weeks. And the more I have gotten to 
know him, the more I have come to respect and like him. He is an 
honorable man who genuinely cares about our country, even if we often 
disagree. And he is a strong negotiator.
  I also want to take this opportunity to publicly thank the other 
negotiators who have worked so hard to make this agreement a reality. 
First, Congressmen John Kasich and John Spratt, men of totally 
different styles who share a common commitment to hard work and serious 
policymaking. And Frank Raines, John Hilley, and Gene Sperling of the 
administration, all of whom did a tremendous job in pulling this 
agreement together. The President has put together a very impressive 
team.
  I also want to acknowledge the many contributions of Democratic 
Senators on the Budget Committee who have worked with us on this 
agreement.
  Senators Hollings, Conrad, Feingold and Johnson have all been vocal 
and effective advocates for truth in budgeting, and for a plan that 
makes real progress in addressing our long-term deficit problems. They 
have held our feet to the fire, and deserve real credit for that.
  Senator Sarbanes has taken the lead to ensure that the burdens of 
deficit reduction are distributed fairly. I know he still has some 
concerns about the resolution, but I want to thank him for his input as 
the process has moved forward.
  Senators Boxer and Murray have been outspoken advocates for our 
children. They have demanded that we do a better job of covering our 
uninsured young people, and that we not make dangerous changes in the 
Medicaid Program that could jeopardize health care for our Nation's 
most vulnerable citizens. Their efforts will touch the lives of 
millions of Americans.
  Senator Wyden has been unrelenting in his demand that we modernize 
Medicare, that we provide additional health care choices for senior 
citizens, and that we protect the long-term solvency of the Medicare 
trust fund. No Senator has been more devoted to the future of this 
critical program, or more determined to make it work.
  Last but not least, Senator Durbin has in many ways been the 
conscience of our efforts in recent weeks. He has demanded that 
ordinary Americans, especially those with modest incomes, be treated 
fairly as we reduce the deficit. And he has helped lead the fight to 
restore critically needed protections for legal immigrants and 
children.
  Mr. President, I know that many of my fellow Democrats have been 
frustrated with the process that led to this agreement. And I share 
that frustration. This was not the process that I wanted. But we have 
done our best under the circumstances to maximize consultation with 
committee members, and with all Senate Democrats. And I am optimistic 
that, in the end, most of my colleagues will be pleased with the end 
product.
  Finally, I want to congratulate President Clinton for his leadership 
in this effort. We are here today on a bipartisan basis only because 
the President decided to make it happen. He deserves enormous credit 
for that. And I think his commitment will be appreciated and 
acknowledged for many years to come.
  Mr. President, let me close this way. I don't think there's anyone 
who is entirely happy with this agreement. But while nobody sees it as 
perfect , everyone should see it as a good compromise. It's fair and 
it's balanced. And it will serve America well.
  It will balance the budget. It will invest in education and training. 
It will provide tax relief to the middle class. It will protect 
Medicare and Medicaid. It will provide health care coverage to millions 
of children. It will throw a life vest to disabled legal immigrants. It 
will invest in transportation, and in environmental protection. And it 
will make life better for millions of ordinary, working Americans.
  I close, Mr. President, with saying my thanks and appreciation to my 
staff who worked so hard on the Budget Committee--Bruce King, Sander 
Lurie, and Sue Nelson--and all of the members of the staff of the 
Budget Committee for their effort. We all did what we thought was right 
for America. I am proud to have been a part of it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I inquire of the number of 
Senators present on the floor--which pleases me to no end. Normally at 
this hour at this stage of the budget resolution nobody is interested. 
Senator Dodd was here first. Might I inquire what he intends to do, so 
we kind of know?
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman. My intention was to 
offer an amendment at the appropriate time. I thought if I got here 
early, I would be high on the list, if not first, to offer my 
amendment. I will defer any comment on the bill itself and reserve time 
to offer an amendment favorably on the budget agreement that was 
reached. That is my purpose.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Sarbanes?
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, it was my intention to offer a statement 
about the bill.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Byrd? I am not trying to limit or anything of 
this sort.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I expect to 
speak about 20 minutes. It will not be on the budget resolution.
  Mr. DOMENICI. We will take the time off the resolution.
  Mr. BYRD. Very well, if you will allow me.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Indeed.
  Senator Wellstone?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. It is my intention to speak on the bill in general and 
to try to analyze the overall agreement. I will in all likelihood join 
with Senator Dodd in his amendment later.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I think we have established in the 
beginning that we would go from side to side in recognition. If it is 
all right with my colleagues, I would like to give Senator Byrd the 20 
minutes that he has asked for and permit him to speak as he wishes at 
this juncture.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the Senator from West Virginia 
yield to me for just a moment?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am going to leave Senator Gorton in my stead here in 
a minute or so. Whatever rights have been designated to me by the 
leader I designate to him under the statute. I am not going to try to 
make any further allotment. But if there are no Republicans forthcoming 
after Senator Byrd, then I will have no objection to whomever you 
choose next, and I will ask you to hold the amendments until some of 
these speeches are finished. Then we can kind of pile some of those up, 
and that is what people would like to do. I shouldn't use that word. 
That carries with it some resonance that is not so nice. We will try to 
stack them like beautiful lumber.
  Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. SARBANES. Do they grow lumber in New Mexico?
  Mr. DOMENICI. They grow anything you like in New Mexico. It is all 
sweet, aromatic, and beautiful.
  Mr. President, I want to make a few points.
  First of all, I am very glad, even though I did not intend to during 
this budget debate, to go through a litany of what Republicans have 
stood for and what we have accomplished, nor do I intend at this moment 
to go through all of the things the President asked

[[Page S4724]]

for that he didn't get. I would like to make just a couple of comments.
  First of all, I believe that I should be very proud of being a 
Republican because I don't believe without Republicans pushing for a 
balanced budget this President would ever have gotten to the point 
where he would have been for a balanced budget, much less negotiating 
one with us. I think history will reveal that. It was very hard to get 
him to come to that point.
  I am not now offering this as a critical thing but merely saying that 
Republicans--since my friend Senator Lautenberg chose to have a great 
litany of Democratic things the Democratic Party has done--I am very 
pleased to be part of the party that actually pushed this country and 
its leaders to get a balanced budget.
  Second, I would like to say I am unabashed in talking about tax cuts.
  Mr. President, there is no question that our philosophy and our idea 
is that tax dollars don't belong to the Government, that they belong to 
the people who earned it, and that the Government ought to take from 
the people only that minimum amount needed leaving the people as free 
as possible.
  I believe that before we are finished, many middle-income families 
will be receiving some of their money back. We will not be saying that 
we are refunding taxes to them. They will be keeping some of their 
money, which we are hopeful as time passes they can keep more and more 
of as we make Government more and more efficient.
  The country with the most individual freedom is the country that is 
going to achieve the most. And one measurement of that over time is 
going to be the level of taxation that the Government chooses by virtue 
of which they take from people rather than leave money with people.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized 
for 20 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank the two managers 
for yielding time.

                          ____________________