[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 67 (Tuesday, May 20, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4725-S4744]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the concurrent 
resolution.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, as we are going back and forth, I will 
take a very few moments and then yield to one of my Democratic 
colleagues, so I yield such time as I may use.
  Mr. President, the parentage of this successful budget resolution is 
ardently sought by many. Only failure is an orphan. In this case--I 
hope not to drive the metaphor too far--I believe that many properly 
may claim parentage of the resolution that is before us here.
  In the decade and a half during which I have served in the U.S. 
Senate, this budget resolution marks two firsts. It is the first 
resolution that genuinely will yield us, when passed and enforced, to a 
balanced budget, to a situation in which we will no longer be piling 
debt upon debt on the backs of our children and our grandchildren. It 
is also, remarkably, the first budget resolution during that period of 
time that seems likely to pass with significant majorities in favor of 
it from both political parties.
  As I look back on the history that has led to this point, I reflect 
on the fact that members of the Democratic Party and the President of 
the United States can claim some credit in moving in this direction for 
the highly controversial resolution that they proposed and passed 
without any support from the Republican Party some 4 years ago. Our 
predictions that that resolution would have dire consequences did not, 
in fact, turn out to be the case. We may still believe that a different 
course of action would have had even better results, but, obviously, at 
this point we cannot prove that. The Senator from New Jersey has 
already spoken to that proposition.
  At the same time, 2 years later, when the Republicans became a 
majority in both the House and in the Senate, we passed and attempted 
to enforce a budget resolution more dramatic even than the one that is 
before us today, with its reform of entitlement programs, its securing 
of Medicare for many, many years to come, and in the tax relief that it 
provided for the American people.
  Ultimately, the enforcing mechanism for that budget resolution was 
successfully vetoed by President Clinton, but, nonetheless, it charted 
a new and different course of action for the American economy and 
especially for the way in which the Congress and the President 
determined spending and taxing priorities.
  Before the President vetoed the results of that budget resolution, he 
had, for the first time, committed himself to balancing the budget. I 
think, again, many Members of this side discounted that commitment, as 
we believed that it was not carried out by the policies that he 
recommended pursuant to his commitment to a balanced budget. But 
nevertheless, the debate then became not whether to balance the budget 
but how. That debate, a debate separating the two political parties, 
continued until just a short few weeks ago.

[[Page S4726]]

  At that point, the President, the leaders of the Republican Party in 
both the House and the Senate, with the assent of much of the 
Democratic leadership, reached an agreement, not only on the ultimate 
goal but on the means by which to reach that goal, and it is some of 
the details of that agreement which, after further negotiation, are a 
part of the budget resolution that is before us this afternoon.
  The Senator from New Jersey has outlined many of the elements of this 
budget resolution which he believes meet the agenda of his party and of 
the President of the United States. Ours on this side may be fewer, but 
we think they may be more profound. We have reached the goal we have 
sought without wavering and without compromise: of a resolution that 
would, in real terms, promise a balance to the Federal budget with 
lower interest rates, with a fiscal dividend that that would bring with 
it. And we are now right at the edge of meeting that goal.
  We have succeeded in crafting a budget resolution and getting 
agreement to a budget resolution which will provide real genuine tax 
relief for the American people, for American families with children, 
for farmers and small businessmen, and estate tax relief, for investors 
and for job creators in the realm of capital gains, and we have also 
succeeded, at least modestly, in getting agreement to the beginnings of 
certain reforms in the entitlement programs, which are almost 
exclusively responsible for spending increases each and every year for 
decades that outpaced both inflation and the growth of our economy.
  Government will not grow as a result of this resolution at anything 
like the rapidity it would have grown without it. The distinguished 
chairman of the Budget Committee, the Senator from New Mexico, has, in 
this illustration, shown what happens with respect to the budget 
deficit, even including the tax relief that is an integral part of this 
resolution today.
  So we will have more modest spending than would otherwise have been 
the case. We will have tax relief for the American people. We will have 
a balanced budget due to the diligence of the distinguished Senator 
from New Mexico and the broad support he has from his own party, due to 
the eloquence and hard work of the majority leader, the Senator from 
Mississippi, and the wonderful relationship he and the Senator from New 
Mexico created for one another, due to the hard work of many members of 
the Democratic Party and of the President and his advisers, and perhaps 
not least in all of the credit that should be given here in the 
parenting of this budget resolution would go to those outsiders led by 
the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee] and the Senator from 
Louisiana [Mr. Breaux] who last year created a bipartisan budget 
resolution, with all of the elements that this one has--some to a more 
dramatic extent than this one has--and came within four votes of 
carrying that resolution on the floor of this U.S. Senate, even though 
they were opposed by the leadership in both parties and by the 
President of the United States. Many of the elements of their proposal 
are included today, but they blazed the trail for a degree of 
bipartisan cooperation that had not previously existed.

  So for my part at least, Mr. President, I am delighted to give credit 
where credit is due and to say that credit is extremely widely spread. 
I trust that after listening to the debate today and tomorrow--I hope 
not longer than that--that the resolution that is before us will not 
have been significantly changed by amendment, that it will be passed by 
a very substantial bipartisan majority, a majority of both parties, and 
that it will then be properly carried out and properly enforced by all 
of those who have supported it, for which the Congress and the 
President will deserve credit and thanks from the people of the United 
States, both for their responsibility and for having created the 
opportunities for greater economic growth and greater prosperity for 
the people of the United States.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield so much time as the Senator 
from Maryland wants to use to make a statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the distinguished Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. President, in 1993, just 4 years ago, in order to reduce the 
deficit, the Congress, by a narrow margin, enacted a budget resolution 
which curtailed programs and increased taxes. The increase in taxes 
primarily impacted those at the upper end of the income scale.
  This combination of spending restraint and revenue increases 
represents a logical way of dealing with the deficit issue. When you 
are trying to reduce and then eliminate the deficit, the logical way to 
do it is to restrain spending and to seek additional revenues. That 
combination, presumably, will result in lowering your deficits.
  This approach has worked in a most impressive way. A flourishing 
economy has brought unemployment below 5 percent for the first time in 
24 years. This chart shows the unemployment rate going back to 1971. As 
you can see, with one exception, the unemployment rate now is the 
lowest it has been in this period. Back here, in 1973, is when it just 
dipped below 5 percent. It has now gone below 5 percent again.
  While unemployment is at a 24-year low, inflation is at a 31-year 
low, as is shown by this next chart, which shows the inflation rate 
from 1966 to 1996.
  I do not know what better proof one can offer of a strong economy 
than the low unemployment rate and the low inflation rate we are now 
experiencing.
  As a consequence of this flourishing economy, the deficit has 
declined on a steady basis since fiscal year 1992. In fiscal year 1992, 
the deficit was at $290 billion. And it has come down in each 
succeeding year, to $255 billion in 1993, $203 billion in 1994, $164 
billion in 1995, and to $107 billion in the last fiscal year, the year 
that ended this past September 30. It is now expected to be below $70 
billion for the current fiscal year. In other words, we will have gone 
from a $290 billion deficit in 1992 on a straight downward trend, and 
we are expecting a deficit under $70 billion for the fiscal year in 
which we now find ourselves.
  As a percent of the gross domestic product, the deficit has declined 
in a most impressive way, from 4.9 percent in 1992 to 1.4 percent for 
the fiscal year that ended this past September 30. As you can see from 
this next chart, it declined from 4.9 percent in 1992 to 4.1 percent in 
1993 to 3.1 percent in 1994 to 2.3 percent in 1995 to 1.4 percent in 
the fiscal year ending September 30, and it is now anticipated that the 
deficit as a percent of gross domestic product will be less than 1 
percent for the current fiscal year, the lowest percentage since 1974.
  So you have the best unemployment rate in 24 years, the lowest 
inflation in 31 years, the lowest deficit as a percent of GDP in 23 
years.
  By way of comparison, the Maastricht Agreement of the European 
Community, which established what are regarded as tough requirements 
for the member nations, has as its goal the bringing of deficits down 
to under 3 percent of GDP--3 percent. We, at the end of this year, will 
be down to less than 1 percent.
  In fact, just comparing the United States with the other major 
industrial countries, we see from this chart that our deficit as a 
share of GDP is 1.4 percent. Japan is at 3.1 percent, Germany at 3.5 
percent, Canada at 4.2 percent, France at 5 percent, the United Kingdom 
at 5.1 percent, and Italy at 7.2 percent.
  Now, by any measure, this is a most impressive economic performance, 
and certainly a very impressive deficit reduction performance.
  Given this performance, one would think that the wise policy would be 
to stay the course and finish the job. I mean, this is a spectacular 
course that I have outlined here that we have been following. So one 
would assume that the wise policy would be to stay the course and 
finish the job. Instead, the budget resolution before us combines 
spending restraint with tax cuts--I repeat, spending restraint with tax 
cuts.
  Obviously, spending restraint, as in 1993, works in the direction of 
deficit reduction. As I said at the outset, that is logical. You are 
trying to bring the deficit down. Spending restraint works in the 
direction of deficit reduction. But tax cuts work against deficit 
reduction. And the tax cuts contained in

[[Page S4727]]

this budget agreement will grow over time in a way that may well 
jeopardize the goal of reaching and staying--and staying--in budget 
balance.
  The capital gains, inheritance, and IRA tax cuts, all of which are 
provided for in the tax portion of this budget agreement, carry with 
them the potential for substantial increases in future years.
  In fact, this budget agreement recognizes such a trend line by 
providing for $85 billion net tax cuts in the first 5 years, 1998 to 
2002, and almost double that, a net tax cut of $165 billion, in the 
next 5 years, 2003 to 2007. No agreements were made as to the following 
decade. But obviously, if we are concerned about the future strength 
and viability of the economy, it is important to look to the out years, 
to have some sense of where these trend lines may be taking us.
  The budget agreement itself, in the tables accompanying the text of 
the agreement, projects that in the 10th year of the agreement--in 
other words, at the end of the period when we are to have a total of 
$250 billion in tax cuts--the tax cuts would be $42 billion. Now this 
represents a rising trend line with respect to the tax cuts. In fact, 
the projections are that the tax cuts will increase by $5 billion in 
each of the last 2 years of the 10-year agreement on which this 
resolution is based, that is from 2005 to 2006, and from 2006 to 2007.

  If you are at $42 billion in the 10th year, then one can anticipate 
two scenarios for the following decade, from 2008 to 2017. If in fact 
the cost of the taxes stayed at $42 billion a year for each of those 
years, in other words, plateaued--a most unlikely assumption given the 
trend line--you would then project $420 billion in tax cuts over the 
next 10 years. If, however, the cuts continued to increase according to 
the trend line established through the first 10 years, in other words, 
increasing by $5 billion a year through 2017, you would have tax cuts 
of $700 billion in the following decade.
  So we have a situation here where it is almost certain that the tax 
cuts that are part of this agreement will carry with them a rising 
trend that will, in effect, undercut the deficit reduction effort. And 
I ask, is it not imprudent, indeed irresponsible to commit to such tax 
cuts before we have actually achieved budget balance and before we have 
a more accurate and realistic view of whether it can be sustained?
  We are talking about responsibility here. Yet we are undertaking in 
this resolution to commit to tax cuts before we have actually achieved 
budget balance and furthermore before we have a realistic and accurate 
view of whether budget balance can then be sustained.
  I believe that the tax-reduction side of the budget agreement carries 
with it the potential for undermining the deficit-reduction effort. 
Furthermore, the combination of program curtailment on the one hand and 
tax reduction on the other represents an inequitable allocation of the 
burdens of deficit reduction.
  The impact of a reduction in programs will be felt by ordinary 
working people primarily. The tax reductions, by contrast, will 
primarily benefit those at the top end of the income and wealth scale.
  Consider that 75 percent of the benefits of the capital gains tax can 
be expected to go to those making over $100,000 a year, the top 5 
percent of the population. The inheritance tax cut would benefit an 
even smaller percentage of the population. Yet this resolution that is 
before us imposes additional burdens on working people through program 
reductions.
  In fact, the projections are that domestic discretionary programs 
will be 10 percent below--10 percent below--the current service level, 
namely, the level adjusted for inflation, in the year 2002. At the same 
time that we have a 10-percent cut in programs, substantial tax 
reductions will be given to those at the apex of the income and wealth 
pyramid. This is not fair or equitable.
  A budget agreement should undertake equitable deficit reduction, 
namely, apportioning the burdens in a way that it is reasonably spread 
across the entire society, as was done in 1993, when ordinary working 
people made their contribution through program reductions and those at 
the top end of the income scale made their contribution through tax 
increases.
  But in this instance, we have working people bearing a burden through 
program reduction, but we can anticipate tax reductions which markedly 
benefit those at the upper end of the income and wealth scale, and 
impose no burden on these individuals.
  Thus, this budget fails the equity test. A budget agreement should 
also lead to lasting, long-term deficit reduction. As I have indicated, 
I am most apprehensive about this agreement because I foresee that we 
will not be able, even if we were to reach balance in 2002--and there 
is some serious doubt about that under this agreement--to sustain that 
balance in the subsequent decades. Thus, this agreement also fails the 
long-term deficit reduction test.
  In short, this budget agreement does not have either of the two 
essential attributes of a budget: equitable deficit reduction and 
lasting, long-term deficit reduction. Because of that, I do not support 
it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask Senator Allard, do you want to offer an 
amendment?
  Mr. ALLARD. I do have an amendment at the desk, but I understand that 
Senator Dodd is going to offer an amendment before me.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, that means we are going to have 
Senator Wellstone give his general speech because we are going with 
general speeches ahead of amendments.
  Is that all right with the Senator?
  Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank all of my colleagues for their 
courtesy.
  Let me first of all start out by saying I associate myself with the 
remarks of Senator Sarbanes, the Senator from Maryland. Senator 
Sarbanes talked about equitable deficit reduction. I emphasize the 
equitable part of that formulation.
  Mr. President, those on both sides labored very hard. People make the 
decisions they think are the right decisions. I do not rise to point an 
accusatory finger at any of my colleagues. As I look at this agreement, 
I do not see that equitable deficit reduction.
  To give but one example, I see very little of the shared sacrifice, 
and I think to be shared sacrifice we would have to extend part of the 
deficit reduction burden onto large and wealthy corporations and zero 
in on what has been called corporate welfare. That means some of our 
large multinational corporations--oil and gas, mining, pharmaceutical, 
health care conglomerates, and others--who now reap benefits of huge 
loopholes in our Tax Code, who are fed, if you will, at the trough of 
unjustified tax giveaways, would, in fact, be required to pay their 
fair share toward deficit reduction. They are the heavy hitters, the 
well connected. They are the players. That is not a part of this budget 
agreement. I do not think what we have here is equitable deficit 
reduction.
  I know a number of my colleagues, as they look at some of these 
loopholes and deductions or as they make the case for across-the-board, 
what I call kind of a scatter-gun approach to cuts in capital gains or 
estate tax, make the argument this will bolster the economy by boosting 
savings and investments.
  I cite a report by the Republican staff of the House Budget Committee 
from just a few short years ago:

       Whether aimed at increasing efficiency or growth, many so-
     called ``growth enhancements'' backfire. This is due to two 
     factors. First, few incentives are very powerful, and simply 
     do not result in large increases in output. Second, they 
     typically lose revenues, increasing government borrowing as a 
     consequence, and thus reducing the accumulation of private 
     capital as a result.

  My friends say to me, ``But we are balancing the budget.'' I smile 
and say, ``We will see.'' My guess is, as I look at those who are in 
control of the committees and especially are going to be dealing with 
the tax legislation, it looks to me like we go toward indexing capital 
gains. It looks to me that we will have across-the-board cuts in 
capital gains in estate not targeted to family business, not targeted 
to middle

[[Page S4728]]

income, with the lion's share of benefits going to the very top of the 
American population.
  Mr. President, studies have shown consistently that households with 
incomes of over $100,000 a year receive approximately 75 percent of the 
capital gains income. If the goal is to provide relief to middle-income 
taxpayers, that is one thing, but what is happening here is the vast 
majority of the benefits go to those at the very top.
  At the same time, as we look at capital gains or estate tax, if you 
talk about family farmers or small businesses, fine. But I think that 
under the cover of the problems of small family farmers and small 
business people we are seeing in this budget agreement massive tax 
breaks to those who least need it.
  This estate tax goes to some of our families. Some of the families 
that will benefit are Cargo Co., a family-owned company, or Mars Candy 
or Continental Grain. I suggest to you that the multinational 
corporations hardly need more by way of more tax breaks.
  Mr. President, I think many Democrats are going to vote for this 
budget agreement but with far less enthusiasm than their public posture 
suggests. They are hoping when the reconciliation bill fills in the 
blanks on the budget and it comes to the floor this summer, we will not 
explode the deficits, and in addition, the critical investments in 
health care and education and children and all the rest that we believe 
in will, in fact, be there.
  As I look at the record of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle over the last couple of years, I have seen a defeat of efforts to 
go after corporate welfare. I have seen outrageous tax giveaways. I 
have seen a relentless attack on those in society least able to protect 
themselves, and I have seen very little standard of fairness when it 
comes to deficit reduction. I have seen deficit reduction based upon 
the path of least political resistance. Cut the benefits for those who 
are weakest --for children, for legal immigrants, for low- and 
moderate-income people, but when it comes to the subsidies for large 
oil companies or big insurance companies or some of the multinational 
corporations, big grain companies, no; they need more by way of 
benefits.
  I agree with my colleague from Maryland, I fear, and I think there is 
every reason to believe this based upon the pronouncements I have heard 
so far, that when we get to the tax part of this package we will see 
backloaded cuts, indexing, and cuts in capital gains and estate taxes 
that will explode the deficit as we move into the next millennium, at 
the very time, I might add, Mr. President, that many of us baby boomers 
come of age and we will have precious little by way of investment.

  Mr. President, I have several amendments that I will propose. I will 
start out joining with my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd. But 
I just want to highlight a few things I want to focus on.
  First let me talk a little bit about child nutrition. The School 
Breakfast Program, currently 6.5 million children participate. That is 
barely half of the children that are eligible. In the reform bill 
passed last year, all in the name of deficit reduction, we eliminated, 
wiped out grants for schools to start up the School Breakfast Program.
  Anybody who understands anything about education, anybody who 
understands anything about children, anybody who spends any time in 
schools will certainly acknowledge the fact that children who come to 
school hungry and cannot participate in school breakfast because we cut 
the funding for this program, are not going to be able to do as well in 
school as children who do not come to school hungry.
  Where is the standard of fairness?
  Mr. President, we also have a Summer Food Service Program, not real 
well known. As a matter of fact, only 2 million out of 14 million 
children participate because we do not adequately fund it. But do you 
want to know something, Mr. President? These children that really are 
so dependent upon school lunch and school breakfast, where it is 
available, during the summer they are malnourished and do not have an 
adequate diet. We are able to fund only 2 million out of 14 million 
children. Mr. President, in my amendment I will call for increasing the 
funding for this program.
  Finally, I want to talk a little bit about school construction. My 
friend Jonathan Kozol wrote a book called ``Savage Inequalities.'' He 
traveled all across the country and reported on what he observed.
  Mr. President, let me just make the point, I will not give specific 
examples, but let me say to my colleagues, we have too many children 
who go to rotting schools. What kind of message are we conveying to 
children in this country when they go to schools that are dilapidated, 
with rotting infrastructure, toilets that do not work, cold in the 
winter, too hot in the summer, crumbling buildings, decrepit? What kind 
of message are we conveying to these children? Are they not all God's 
children? Is there not some need for investment in infrastructure?
  The General Accounting Office reported in 1994, that over all, it 
would be about a $112 billion investment, and we want a $5 billion 
investment by way of a start as we move into the next century?
  Mr. President, have I not heard before speeches given, the talk about 
the importance of building a bridge to the next century? If we are not 
going to invest in rotting schools, if we are not going to invest in 
the infrastructure of the schools our children attend in this country, 
if we are not willing to invest a little bit more in child nutrition 
programs, if we are not willing to invest in some of what Senator 
Dodd's amendment, an amendment I want to join in and I know others will 
join, Head Start and Early Start, if we will not invest in children in 
these very critical early years of their lives, how can this budget 
agreement be a blueprint or a bridge for moving into the next century?
  My amendments will just simply say, take it out of corporate welfare 
and invest it in Head Start, child nutrition programs, and invest in 
the infrastructure of schools in America for our children.
  I have another amendment that will focus on some of the tax cuts that 
will say scale down the capital gains tax cut, scale down the estate 
tax cut, target it to middle-income people, target it to small business 
people, and target it to family farmers. Frankly, these large 
multinational corporations do not need it, nor do the top 1 or 2 
percent of the population. Instead, invest in children. Invest in 
children.
  Mr. President, my final point, because I know we want to go on with 
the amendments, my final point, we have in the last several months been 
reading in Time magazine, in Newsweek magazine, there was a White House 
conference on the importance of early childhood development and the 
argument that is made is that the neuroscience evidence tells us if we 
do not do well for these children from the very beginning of their 
lives, if we to not do well with a mother expecting a child, in the 
very early years up to age 3, many of these children will never come to 
school ready to learn, and many of these children will never be 
prepared for life.
  One out of every four children in America under the age of 3 are 
poor. And one out of every two children of color in America under the 
age of 3 are poor.
  Mr. President, it is a scandal. It is unconscionable that we do not 
yet even fully fund the programs that we know work--Head Start, to give 
children a head start, nutrition programs so they do not come to school 
hungry, investment in infrastructure so the schools are inviting places 
as opposed to being decrepit and so demoralizing for children.

  Mr. President, my amendments will say invest in these areas and take 
it out of the subsidies of these large multinational corporations or 
scale back these tax giveaways that go mainly to the top 1, 2, or 3 
percent of the population.
  To my colleagues, all of us have to make our own decisions, but for 
my own part, I think this is a budget without a soul. Quite frankly, I 
say to Democrats in particular, I think there comes a point in time 
where there are certain values and there are certain principles we hold 
dear. I think there comes a point in time when we cannot keep giving 
the speeches about the importance of children, the importance of 
education, the importance of equality of opportunity, the importance of 
each

[[Page S4729]]

and every child having the same opportunity to reach his and her full 
potential. We cannot keep giving those speeches if we do not match the 
legislative lives that we live with the words that we speak.
  I will join with Senator Dodd in his amendment, and I will have other 
amendments on the floor, and I will raise this issue over and over and 
over again. I will raise this question over and over and over again.
  I do not believe this is a budget that calls for equitable deficit 
reduction. I do not believe this is a budget that is a bridge to the 
next century. I do not believe this is a budget that gives children in 
our country, every child--they are all God's children--the same 
opportunity to reach their full potential.
  I do not think this is a budget that invests in our future, because 
this budget, as opposed to being a new deal for too many children in 
America, is a raw deal for too many children in America, and that makes 
this budget unfair and that makes this budget wrong and that makes this 
budget not the best that we can do for children in America. Therefore, 
I will oppose this budget agreement.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, as previously agreed, Senator 
Dodd was to be recognized for 10 minutes to offer an amendment.
  Mr. DODD. If I could, I have discussed this with my colleague from 
Colorado, and we will defer at this moment and let my colleague from 
Colorado go first and I will follow.


                           Amendment No. 293

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate about the Federal debt and 
  that the President should submit a budget proposal with a plan for 
                     repayment of the Federal debt)

  Mr. ALLARD. I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Allard] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 293.
       At the end of the budget resolution add the following new 
     section:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON REPAYMENT OF THE FEDERAL 
                   DEBT.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) Congress and the President have a basic moral and 
     ethical responsibility to future generations to repay the 
     Federal debt, including money borrowed from the Social 
     Security Trust Fund;
       (2) the Congress and the President should enact a law that 
     creates a regimen for paying off the Federal debt within 30 
     years; and
       (3) if spending growth were held to a level one percentage 
     point lower than projected growth in revenues, then the 
     Federal debt could be repaid within 30 years.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the provisions of this resolution assume that--
       (1) the President's annual budget submission to Congress 
     should include a plan for repayment of the Federal debt 
     beyond the year 2002, including the money borrowed from the 
     Social Security Trust Fund; and
       (2) the plan should specifically explain how the President 
     would cap spending growth at a level one percentage point 
     lower than projected growth in revenues.

  Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, I would like to begin by commending the 
chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, in fact, the entire 
Budget Committee, Senator Lautenberg, the ranking member of the 
committee, for their hard work and diligence in crafting the budget 
resolution.
  While I am pleased that we have a budget resolution before the 
Senate, I believe that this document is not without faults and that 
improvements can be made.
  The people of Colorado elected me on the premise that I would utilize 
all the tools at my disposal to balance the budget. This is a promise 
that I made to my constituents and a commitment that I do not take 
lightly.
  In this light, I am pleased that the current budget debate is focused 
on not ``if'' we are going to balance the budget, but ``how'' are we 
going to balance the budget. I believe that this is in and of itself a 
moral victory for those of us who preach fiscal responsibility. Yet, we 
must now begin the process of balancing the budget by 2002. The 
framework provided within the budget resolution is an excellent 
starting point on which we can improve.
  The sense-of-the-Senate amendment talks about what we are going to be 
doing today. The economy is strong. People have jobs. And the stock 
market is surging. History tells us, however, that this is not always 
the case. Unfortunately, the budget resolution assumes economic growth 
over the next 5 years that is unmatched in this country's history. I am 
a veterinarian. I am not an economist. But I do know that the document 
before us today must be able to account for a future that is not 
necessarily as rosy.
  On the sense-of-the-Senate resolution, we are talking about the years 
that are following after 2002. Let us say that we have eliminated the 
deficit. Then what is the next step in the Congress? We need to begin 
to address the problem of the debt.
  This amendment is a resolution that was adopted on the House side. It 
says that in order to continue to move forward on the fiscal soundness 
of this country, we need to begin to pay down the debt, and we do that 
by spending less than what we bring in in revenues. The amount that I 
suggested in the sense-of-the-Senate resolution is to spend 1 percent 
less than what comes in in revenues.
  For example, if we have 5 percent in revenue that comes in in any one 
of the years, then we would spend out 4 percent. One percent would be 
moved toward paying down the debt. If the Congress, both the House and 
the Senate, will commit themselves to this type of plan to pay down the 
debt, we can balance the budget and pay down the debt by the year 2023.
  The debate so far in both the House and the Senate has been 
concerning deficits that have been accumulating, and now we must move 
toward paying those down. I am comfortable that the direction of 
deficit spending is moving down. But once we eliminate deficit 
spending, then I think we have to begin to look at paying down the 
debt.
  The debt is reflected in this budget by the interest that we are 
paying on the debt, which is running somewhere around $245 billion a 
year, about 15 percent of our total budget. That is almost as much as 
what we pay for defense.
  So we put ourselves at considerable liability as we move through the 
years after 2002 because we do not know what the interest rates are 
going to be. We do not know whether they are going to be 2 percent, or 
6 percent, and heaven forbid if they ever get into the double-digit 
inflation rates and interest rates that we had in the late 1970's.
  The purpose of this amendment is to begin to pay down that total debt 
so we don't have that unknown liability that this country will be 
facing year after year. The sense-of-the-Senate resolution is to point 
out to the Senate that there is a potential problem.
  So I am asking that this amendment be adopted so that we can begin 
considering a plan that says that we will begin paying down the debt by 
spending 1 percent per year less than comes in in revenues, which would 
eliminate our debt around the year 2023, which would indeed put this 
country on a very sound fiscal and financial basis.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, we are prepared to accept the 
amendment and yield time back off the amendment, if the Senator from 
Colorado agrees with that.
  Mr. ALLARD. I yield the remainder of my time.
  Is there any reason to ask for the yeas and nays? Is the floor 
manager ready for the yeas and nays?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, it was my understanding that this 
amendment was going to be offered and dealt with on a voice vote. As 
far as I know, there is no further debate required. If that is the 
case, then I suggest that we move in that direction.
  Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, if the Senator from New Jersey will 
yield, I agree to a voice vote and ask for a voice vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. To my colleague, the manager at the moment, we will 
accept this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Colorado.
  The amendment (No. 293) was agreed to.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by 
which the amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page S4730]]

  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Under a previous agreement, Madam President, I 
yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, unfortunately, it is our obligation 
to yield time to our people.
  So, is the Senator from Connecticut ready?
  Mr. DODD. Yes, Madam President.
  If my colleague will yield, I would like to take a few minutes to 
discuss the budget proposal generally, and then I will be offering an 
amendment on behalf of myself and the Senator from Vermont [Mr. 
Jeffords] and others. We have not reached any agreement on time, but I 
am sensitive to the needs of the committee to move along. I don't 
intend to take a long time on the amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. With that understanding, Madam President, I would 
certainly be willing to yield as much time as the Senator from 
Connecticut requires.
  Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I would like to spend a few minutes on the 
overall budget agreement. I know several of my colleagues have talked 
about it earlier today.
  I had the privilege of serving on the Budget Committee for a number 
of years with the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator 
Domenici, and my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, and my 
colleague from South Carolina, whom I see on the floor, Senator 
Hollings, and others.
  It was involuntary servitude, I would say. Serving on the Budget 
Committee was not a position that I sought at all. I was asked to go on 
the committee and I served there for a number of years. I enjoyed my 
service. But it can be a thankless task in many ways to be on the 
Budget Committee.
  So, I begin these brief remarks by commending the chairman of the 
committee and the ranking Democrat, Senator Lautenberg, for their 
tremendous effort. It is not easy to put these agreements together, 
this year in particular. Over the last several months, we have seen a 
major effort here to come up with a budget agreement that would bring 
the Federal budget into balance over the next 5 years. I commend them 
for their efforts.
  I must say that despite reservations that we all have, I don't know 
of a single Member of this body who wouldn't have written a different 
agreement had they been king or queen for a day.
  So I begin by complimenting my colleagues and endorsing their work 
with reservations. I will offer an amendment to do a bit better for 
Head Start, Healthy Start and child care issues.

  I support this agreement. Obviously, I am going to watch what happens 
in the amendment process and reserve final judgment. I respect, as 
well, my colleagues on both sides who will have strong feelings about 
this agreement. But, as it stands today, I think the authors have done 
a pretty good job with this budget agreement.
  In 1981, I voted against that budget agreement. In my view, that deal 
went way too far. As has been pointed out already, this agreement is 
vastly different from the 1981 agreement that created such huge 
deficits from which we still are recovering. In many ways, today's 
agreement is an effort to really try to solve the problem that began 
back almost 16 years ago with that vote and the problems which were 
created by that legislation.
  David Stockman, who many may have forgotten, was the Director of the 
Office of Management and Budget at that time. He has since written a 
wonderful book about that agreement, ``The Triumph of Politics,'' which 
I strongly urge my colleagues to read if they want to know the history 
of what happened in 1981 when this earlier agreement was reached 
causing the deficit to reach the magnitude that we have seen in the 
last number of years.
  So this agreement I think needs to be seen in a broader context. It 
is the culmination of a 4-year effort by the President and supporters 
in this body and the other to try to come up with a budget that would 
protect American families, that would allow us to reduce that deficit 
and reduce interest rates, which are like a tremendous tax people pay 
when they buy homes or automobiles. Obviously, as we have seen over the 
last several years, the declining deficit has contributed significantly 
to the growth and expansion in this country.
  When the President came to office 4 years ago we had an annual 
deficit of some $290 billion. That annual deficit has been reduced to 
$67 billion, a major achievement over the last 4 years that has brought 
significant prosperity to this country. We have seen 12 million new 
jobs created, the lowest average inflation since John F. Kennedy was 
President; median family income rise over $1,600, and the list goes on 
and on of effects of the improved economy in this country.
  Without this progress, obviously, we would never have what we have 
today, and that is the first credible chance in a generation to 
actually eliminate the deficit completely. I believe that we must take 
advantage of this chance, and that is why I will support this 
resolution, provided that it is not amended beyond recognition. It is a 
good framework for a budget that achieves real balance while protecting 
our Nation's most important priorities. It is, of course, as I said 
only a framework. We will have to see what the details will be before 
ultimate passage.
  Obviously, there will be two sets of debates, the one that we will go 
through on the outlay side, and then, of course, on the tax-cut 
proposals, the specifics of which we will not see until the fall, and 
that will be another debate. I myself am going to be interested, as my 
colleagues will be, to see the details of the tax plan that is passed 
by the Finance Committee.
  Any final tax bill should be designed, I think all of us would agree, 
so that its cost in the out years is limited. And I listened very 
carefully to the remarks of my colleague from Maryland, Senator 
Sarbanes. I know my colleague from South Carolina will address this 
issue in part. Their concerns should not go unheeded because there is a 
legitimate concern about what happens at the end of this process. And 
if we end up where we were at the end of the 1981 process, with an 
explosion in the deficit, obviously, we may look back on this agreement 
and wish we had done otherwise.
  But nonetheless, I think it strikes a good balance here with tax cuts 
in the education field. I for one might reserve any tax cuts until we 
actually got down to zero. I think there is a lot of legitimacy in that 
argument. But I accept the notion that that is not going to happen, 
that we are going to have some tax cuts here, and some, like the 
postsecondary education tax cuts, can actually be helpful to many 
families.
  I would note as well that in addition to these tax cuts, there are 
large increases in discretionary spending on education. For instance, 
the Pell grant is increased to a historic high of $3,000 a year. Many 
of us have fought for this program, which we think is tremendously 
important, for years. There also is real progress in the area of 
children's health insurance. Obviously, we will have a chance with the 
Kennedy-Hatch proposal tomorrow to do even more in that regard. But 
nonetheless, I would be less than honest if I did not commend the 
budgeters for doing a lot in moving in the right direction.
  Madam President, I think the budget agreement is pretty good and one 
that I think is going to help the country. This has not been an easy 
process. There have been weeks and weeks of discussion. I respect that. 
I also respect the fact that each and every one of us here as 
individual Members of this body have the right certainly and obligation 
where we disagree to offer some changes to this agreement.
  And so for those reasons I will be offering an amendment that will 
increase funding for Head Start, Healthy Start, and child care. These 
are three issues that I have spent a good part of my entire career in 
this body working on. In fact, the Presiding Officer and I, in years 
past, worked on a number of issues together, as I have with a number of 
my colleagues here. I never would have passed the original child care 
development block grant legislation if it had not been for my colleague 
from Utah, Senator Hatch, who joined in bringing that bill together.

  On the issue of Head Start, there have been a lot of people here who 
supported the efforts over the years to do

[[Page S4731]]

more. I noted in this budget, there is a determination to serve 1 
million children by 2002 in Head Start. That is certainly progress; it 
is an increase of 200,000 over where we are today. But I think we can 
do better over 5 years. We should ensure that all eligible children are 
served. We know it works so well and makes such a difference in 
children's lives. Particularly now with welfare reform, we are going to 
have so many more families that are going to need to have child care or 
Head Start. It is clear we are coming up short in this area. Serving 1 
million children in Head Start is a laudable goal--but it is far short 
of what is needed. With this amendment over 1.4 million children 
eligible and in need would receive Head Start services.
  In addition, this amendment would triple the size of the Early Head 
Start Program, which serves that critical zero to 3 group. We see so 
many of these families now that have these new infants, with Early Head 
Start, we can make a real difference in these children and their 
families to provide them a safe, quality environment where these 
infants will be while the parents go to work.
  Welfare reform is all about getting people off welfare and into jobs. 
However, we know, and the Governors tell us, there will be tremendous 
need in the child care area. If we are going to move these families off 
welfare and public assistance into a working environment, there must be 
someone to care for these children.
  I do not know of anyone who disagrees with that. No one wants to see 
children wander neighborhoods or in makeshift baby-sitting operations. 
In every State, there are horror stories of what has happened when 
parents have left children unattended and uncared for. We have had 
dreadful stories in my State in the last year alone; some five deaths 
have occurred in these settings that are far from high quality. I am 
not suggesting you are going to solve every one of those problems, but 
at a most basic level, none of us here could come to work each day if 
we had a child that we did not have someone to care for. We would miss 
votes, we would miss committee hearings, if it were a question of 
placing our child in a unsafe environment. And there is not one of our 
constituents who would disagree with that. We would be indicted 
publicly for irresponsibility.
  This is a fine agreement, but we can do better in this area. This 
amendment would provide Head Start to 400,000 more children, it doubles 
the size of the child care development block grant and addresses infant 
mortality. When we are talking about $85 billion in tax cuts--and I do 
not disagree with that--do not tell me we cannot find over 5 years less 
than $15 billion to deal with Early Head Start, Head Start, Healthy 
Start, and child care so that these kids and families can really have 
the kind of support they need in their lives.
  That is the intent of this amendment that I am offering on behalf of 
myself, Senator Jeffords, Senator Murray, Senator Bingaman, Senator 
Well- 
stone, and Senator Landrieu to this resolution. We think it is a modest 
request to make. It is not as if we do not respect the work of the 
Budget Committee. I also feel we can do a bit better here.
  I support the hard work of those who put this agreement together, but 
let us not suggest somehow that this is totally inviolate. Some 
suggestions we might offer here would make this a better bill in our 
view. I think quality child care is one of those issue. I know very few 
of my colleagues who disagree with that. I know of no one who disagrees 
with Head Start, the work its done, and the Early Head Start Program. A 
few more dollars here, shaving off a bit on one end to provide a bit 
more on the other is really not too much to ask to make this agreement 
that much more worthwhile.


                           Amendment No. 296

 (Purpose: To improve funding of critical programs to assist infants, 
 toddlers and young children by increasing the discretionary spending 
caps by $15.752 billion in outlays over five years and offsetting this 
               effort by closing corporate tax loopholes)

  Mr. DODD. So with that, Madam President, I will send this amendment 
to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for himself, Mr. 
     Jeffords, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Wellstone, and Ms. 
     Landrieu, proposes an amendment numbered 296.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 3, line 4, increase the amount by 2,006,000,000.
       On page 3, line 5, increase the amount by 2,820,000,000.
       On page 3, line 6, increase the amount by 3,991,000,000.
       On page 3, line 7, increase the amount by 5,766,000,000.
       On page 3, line 12, increase the amount by 2,006,000,000.
       On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by 2,820,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by 3,991,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by 5,766,000,000.
       On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by 2,533,000,000.
       On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by 3,481,000,000.
       On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by 4,993,000,000.
       On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by 7,305,000,000.
       On page 4, line 13, increase the amount by 2,006,000,000.
       On page 4, line 14, increase the amount by 2,820,000,000.
       On page 4, line 15, increase the amount by 3,991,000,000.
       On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by 5,766,000,000.
       On page 21, line 25, increase the amount by 1,013,000,000.
       On page 22, line 1, increase the amount by 643,000,000.
       On page 22, line 8, increase the amount by 1,951,000,000.
       On page 22, line 9, increase the amount by 1,335,000,000.
       On page 22, line 16, increase the amount by 3,453,000,000.
       On page 22, line 17, increase the amount by 2,458,000,000.
       On page 22, line 24, increase the amount by 5,755,000,000.
       On page 22, line 25, increase the amount by 4,224,000,000.
       On page 23, line 15, increase the amount by 20,000,000.
       On page 23, line 16, increase the amount by 13,000,000.
       On page 23, line 22, increase the amount by 30,000,000.
       On page 23, line 23, increase the amount by 23,000,000.
       On page 24, line 5, increase the amount by 40,000,000.
       On page 24, line 6, increase the amount by 33,000,000.
       On page 24, line 12, increase the amount by 50,000,000.
       On page 24, line 13, increase the amount by 43,000,000.
       On page 26, line 14, increase the amount by 1,500,000,000.
       On page 26, line 15, increase the amount by 1,350,000,000.
       On page 26, line 22, increase the amount by 1,500,000,000.
       On page 26, line 23, increase the amount by 1,463,000,000.
       On page 27, line 5, increase the amount by 1,500,000,000.
       On page 27, line 6, increase the amount by 1,500,000,000.
       On page 27, line 13, increase the amount by 1,500,000,000.
       On page 27, line 14, increase the amount by 1,500,000,000.
       On page 41, line 7, increase the amount by 5,766,000,000.
       On page 41, line 8, increase the amount by 15,752,000,000.
       On page 43, line 21, increase the amount by 2,533,000,000.
       On page 43, line 22, increase the amount by 2,006,000,000.
       On page 43, line 24, increase the amount by 3,481,000,000.
       On page 43, line 25, increase the amount by 2,820,000,000.
       On page 44, line 2, increase the amount by 4,993,000,000.
       On page 44, line 3, increase the amount by 3,991,000,000.
       On page 44, line 5, increase the amount by 7,305,000,000.
       On page 44, line 6, increase the amount by 5,766,000,000.
       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       It is the sense of the Senate that funding should be 
     increased for vital programs serving the youngest children. 
     Head Start should be funded at a level necessary to serve all 
     eligible children. Funding for the Child Care Development 
     Block Grant should be doubled to support the working poor and 
     new resources should be dedicated to addressing issues of 
     quality and supply in areas such as infant care and care 
     during non-traditional work hours. The Healthy Start should 
     be expanded to improve maternal and infant health. These 
     initiatives should be funded through by changes in the tax 
     code such as the elimination of the runaway plant deduction, 
     the billionaire's loophole, the exclusion of income from 
     Foreign Sales Corporations and other changes as necessary.


[[Page S4732]]


  Mr. DODD. Let me, if I can, briefly describe what the amendment does. 
I see my colleagues here who have come to the floor. I note the 
chairman standing. Is he looking for a time agreement? When a chairman 
stands, it usually means he is looking for a time agreement. Is my 
colleague from New Mexico looking for a time agreement?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I wanted to just--excuse me. I yield on my time.
  Mr. DODD. I will yield to my colleague.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I just wanted to sort of suggest to those in the 
Chamber who I see--I see Senator Dodd has an amendment, and I assume 
that is what the Senator from Minnesota is going to speak to.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, my colleague from New Mexico is 
correct. I join with him on his amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I understand Senator Hollings has an amendment, and I 
do not know how long the Senator intends to speak to it, but I plan 
sequentially to call on the distinguished Senator from Colorado, Mr. 
Allard, who has an amendment.
  I was wondering if we might just at least be considering for our 
fellow Senators that we might finish the debate on those amendments by 
somewhere around 6: 15. It is 5:30 now. And then we try to stack these 
three so people after that could have a little time for dinner while we 
continue debating here. We would eventually ask those votes be 10-
minute votes. I am just wondering, does that make any sense?
  Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield, I don't know how many Members 
want to speak on this, and there may not be that many. So rather than 
trying to spend the time negotiating an agreement, why not let it roll 
a little while on the bill; we just got underway, and see how it comes 
out. We may not need a time agreement. There is probably going to be 
just on this amendment 45 minutes, just the three of us on the floor 
who I know are sponsors of the amendment, and I presume Senator 
Jeffords is coming over, and there may be a couple of others. So we 
will try to move quickly. It is not my desire--I understand what the 
chairman wants to do, and we will try to move as fast as we can.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Smith is in the Chamber in my stead and 
whatever parliamentary privileges I have under the bill, I designate to 
him until I return.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I do not want to cut off the debate, but I wonder, 
because I deferred to my colleague from Connecticut to present his 
comments on the amendment, whether there is--can we ask the people who 
want to speak, I ask the Senator, whether the Senator from Minnesota 
and the Senator from Washington would be able to conclude their remarks 
in 5 minutes. Would that be asking too much?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, if I could respond to my colleague 
from New Jersey, I think it would be difficult to do so. I think it is 
a very important amendment. I did not go into the specifics of what 
this amendment was about earlier because I thought we would have a 
chance to speak to it. I think it speaks to a fundamental question of 
priorities. I could not cover this in 5 minutes. I certainly will do 
whatever I can to stay within a reasonable limit but 5 minutes would 
not be a sufficient time. I do not know about Senator Murray.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator from Washington has requested 5 minutes. 
And we will take the rest of the time as needed. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator.
  Madam President, the amendment I have sent to the desk that is under 
consideration basically says I think we can do a little bit more here. 
That is basically what it comes down to. As I said earlier, it is not 
to be offered to undo the budget agreement that has been struck by the 
committee along with the President. I respect and support that 
agreement.
  I think we can do a bit more when it comes to investing in our most 
important resource. Statements are made over and over on the floor of 
this Chamber, about America's children. I do not know anyone who would 
list a higher priority than doing what we can to serve the most 
innocent in our society, who have the most in front of them. There is 
no lack of people expressing an interest in the subject matter today.
  I recall going back some 15 to 16 years ago when Senator Specter of 
Pennsylvania and I formed the first children's caucus of the Senate. We 
had a difficult time, but we tried to convince people over the years 
that this was a worthwhile endeavor in which to engage on child care, 
on the issue of Head Start, and family and medical leave. No one would 
believe it today, but back then we had to fight hard just to form a 
caucas. Fortunately, we were successful in that effort as well as in 
the effort to pass critical legislation on issues affecting families 
and their children.
  Today, few argue against these initiatives. Most people agree in our 
society, as we look to the 21st century, that we want to give our 
children the best start they can possibly have. We cannot guarantee 
them success. No one can be guaranteed that in our society. But we want 
to guarantee them an opportunity.
  What we are talking about with Healthy Start, Early Head Start, Head 
Start, and quality child care is trying to give children a good start, 
the best start we can so they will at least have the opportunity for 
success.
  In that regard, the amendment I am offering increases funding for 
three children's programs that strike at the very heart of the most 
basic needs of children in our Nation: Head Start, Healthy Start, and 
child care. These three programs truly are sound investments and, I 
think, time tested. These are not new ideas. They have been around now, 
in the case of Head Start, a generation. We have had the benefit of 
analyzing the programs and know they work.
  In the case of child care, it has been over a decade, and Healthy 
Start, almost as long. We know from recent scientific findings that 
creative, positive environments for children in their earliest years is 
an investment that yields tremendous returns in the long term.
  We are now engaged in the process of laying out this Nation's 
priorities for the next 5 years. In addition to numbers, we are laying 
out where are our priorities, where do we believe the most important 
things that need to be addressed over the next half decade are. We 
managed to find $85 billion in tax cuts intended to spur investment. 
While I do not necessarily disagree with that, I think it can be 
tremendously helpful and important. But I believe we can certainly find 
an additional $14.6 billion over the next 5 years to improve the 
investment of children, and that is what I am talking about.
  This amendment would provide for full funding of Head Start by the 
year 2002. The President's budget and the budget agreement take a 
positive step in this direction by committing, as I said, to serve 1 
million children over the next 5 years. That is up from 800,000 
currently to 1 million in 2002, 200,000 additional slots. I think we 
can do better. This amendment would ensure that all eligible children 
who need Head Start will get it. By increasing funding to $11.2 billion 
in the year 2002, Head Start could reach over 1.4 million children. 
That is 400,000 more who would be reached than under the budget 
agreement.
  As my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, related the other 
day, in Albuquerque, NM, they have a staggering number of children 
waiting to get into Head Start and were unable to because the resources 
were not there. I am sure that story can be repeated in every State in 
the country, where parents are trying to get their children into the 
programs.
  Going from 800,000, where we are today, to 1 million, 1.4 million 
over the next 5 years ought not be an impossibility for us to achieve 
in this country.
  This amendment would also triple funding for Early Head 
Start programs to $560 million by the year 2002. This program, which my 
colleagues certainly recall, provides high-quality child development 
for infants and toddlers ages zero to 3. Again, I am

[[Page S4733]]

preaching to the choir here, I presume, because of the tremendous 
amount of new information on this 36-month period that occurs in a 
child's life, to see to it that they get the quality care and 
development they need.

  This amendment that I have offered on behalf of myself and Senator 
Jeffords, along with others, would also make an investment in quality 
child care. It would double the size of the child care development 
block grant to $2 billion annually and provide an additional $500 
million each year to help increase quality and meet supply shortages in 
critically underserved types of care, including infant care and 
nontraditional hours.
  I heard my colleague from Minnesota speak on the need for child care 
during nontraditional hours. Most people think of people working from 8 
to 5. However, there are a vast number of people in our country who do 
not work traditional hours because of time shifts and so forth. We have 
very few child care slots for the nontraditional hours. We need to be 
doing everything we can as people are struggling to hold their families 
together economically to provide for that quality child care.
  Again, I say to my colleagues, when Senator Hatch and I initially 
offered the Child Care Development Block Grant Program 10 years ago, we 
made the point over and over again how important it is to working 
people that their children are in quality child care. The block grant 
provides vital assistance to working families as they struggle to meet 
these needs. But it is not enough; it is sorely underfunded. The 
Congressional Budget Office has estimated that in the wake of welfare 
reform, there will be a $1.4 billion shortage in assistance for child 
care. This amendment provides an additional $1 billion for supply and 
another $500 million to address issues of quality and supply in key 
areas such as infants and the nontraditional hours. Again, as we move 
people from welfare to work, it is going to be critically important 
that we have these quality slots out there for people. So that is the 
second part of this amendment.
  The additional $140 million is for the Healthy Start Program. Let me 
just remind my colleagues, I think all of us, I hope, have had an 
opportunity to visit Healthy Start programs. These programs offer to 
at-risk mothers prenatal care and other services that have been 
tremendously successful in seeing to it that new infants and their 
mothers get the proper care. Again, the studies show how critically 
important this can be for children's cognitive and emotional 
development.
  Overall, this effort dedicates an additional, as I said, $14 billion 
to meeting the most basic needs of our youngest children. Healthy 
Start, Head Start, and quality child care are all about the earliest 
days. Obviously, the quality child care can spill over to school years, 
to after school programs, but nonetheless, the bulk of it goes to the 
earliest days of these infants' lives to see to it they have the best 
possible beginning. I realize $14 billion is not an insignificant 
amount, but over 5 years, that is less than $3 billion a year to fully 
fund Head Start, to double quality child care, and to provide more 
resources for Healthy Start. If we can find the $85 billion over 5 
years, isn't it possible to find $3 billion less than that a year to 
make a difference in the lives of children from zero to 5 years?
  So tonight, as we begin this process, this very first amendment that 
will be voted on in this budget debate, to say we have done a good job 
here and we can do a bit more. In my view, this agreement must serve 
the children who we talk about endlessly, who we debate and discuss at 
every meeting. Here is to reset our priorities for children with just a 
few more dollars. We know it is going to be hard. We realize there are 
other problems we are faced with, but when it comes to our children, 
this Congress, this Senate will stand up and say we can find the 
resources to see to it that these children get the proper kind of 
beginning that they deserve.
  But don't look in the faces of innocent children and tell them we 
can't do a bit more. I know we are going to do a lot for people in the 
upper income levels, I understand that. If we can do that, we can do 
this and still balance this budget by asking for a little less in some 
areas for children, even though they don't vote, don't have political 
action committees, and don't participate in this process. With all the 
speeches that are given over and over again, this is the time to let 
rhetoric become a reality.
  Madam President, at the proper time, obviously, I will ask for a 
rollcall vote on this amendment and urge my colleagues to join Senator 
Jeffords and me in this bipartisan proposal. Senator Jeffords is the 
chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee and has worked on a 
number of these issues over the years. He has joined with me, as 
Senator Coats did, on family and medical leave and Senator Hatch on the 
child care legislation.
  With that, I yield the floor and invite my colleagues' comments.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Madam President, I yield myself 5 minutes. I 
would like to respond to the Senator from Connecticut.
  I think there are many on my side of the aisle who care a great deal 
about issues with respect to children. I am one of those who has kind 
of bucked the tide in my party and signed up as a cosponsor, with 
enthusiasm, to the Hatch-Kennedy bill, which raises the tax on tobacco 
to provide expanded Medicaid to children. I also have great sympathy 
for many of the points Senator Dodd is making. I believe we should 
fully fund Head Start. I am told it takes $10 billion to do that, not 
$14 billion----
  Mr. DODD. Eleven billion dollars.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I am interested in that, but I am not interested 
in breaking this budget agreement, if it means that we are breaking our 
promises to the American people. Republicans and Democrats alike--
neither side, frankly--are thrilled with every provision of this 
budget, but the truth is, a lot of promises are being kept with this 
budget.
  Ultimately, it comes into balance, but in addition to that, we are 
protecting essential programs, we are cutting taxes, and we are 
balancing budgets. I think that is what America expects. I think that 
is what they want, and overriding all of our individual little 
concerns, I think they want us to keep our word on balancing the 
budget. In defense of this Congress, I think it is important to point 
out that since 1990, funding for Head Start has tripled. It ought to do 
better, but it ought not to do so at the expense of the promises we 
have made to cut the tax burden on the American people.
  In addition, children's programming is a priority in this budget. We 
have funded Head Start at the President's requested level of an 
additional $2.7 billion over 5 years. We provided $1 billion for this 
program last year and an additional $4.5 billion for child care through 
the welfare reform bill. So it is not like we are insensitive to this. 
In fact, many of us would like to do more. It is just the vehicle being 
chosen, and this vehicle, the Dodd amendment, will, frankly, in the end 
violate this bipartisan agreement, and that we cannot do, because to 
get a majority, we need to keep this promise to ourselves, to our 
constituents, and keep faith with the leadership and with the White 
House.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, let me respond to the Senator from 
Oregon. I appreciate his remarks, but I want to point out that this 
amendment says that the offset comes from corporate welfare, as I 
understand it. Some we are looking at. The Joint Tax Committee and 
others have carefully studied hundreds of billions of dollars of tax 
loopholes that usually go to some of the largest corporations and some 
of the wealthiest individuals in the country.
  We are saying, can you not take a little bit from that, and instead, 
wouldn't you invest this in Head Start? And wouldn't you invest this in 
affordable child care? And wouldn't you invest this in Early Start? And 
wouldn't this make much more of a difference in children's lives? And 
wouldn't this better represent the standard of fairness of the people 
in the country?
  So, Madam President, this is not about breaking any deficit reduction 
plan. This is about whether or not this budget agreement reflects the 
priorities of people in this country.

[[Page S4734]]

  With all due respect to my colleagues, I think that if the choice for 
people in this country is between eliminating some of these egregious 
loopholes and deductions and instead investing more in children, and 
especially investing in this critical area of early childhood 
development, I say absolutely we ought to be doing that.
  Madam President, I would like to talk just a little bit about these 
programs and a little bit about the sort of overall context of this 
amendment.
  First of all, I have heard it so stated--and I say to my colleague 
from Oregon I will be willing to be critical of my own colleagues. I 
actually say this in a scrupulously, if you will, nonpartisan way. We 
talk about how we are expanding Head Start and, therefore, we are going 
to serve an additional 1 million children. But are we doing enough to 
reach the 2 million children who are not now participating?
  My colleague from Connecticut points out that in addition there is 
going to be some early Head Start funding, frankly, above and beyond 
the 1 million children who still are not receiving any assistance; that 
is, Head Start 3 to 5.
  If I was to include early Head Start, which is very consistent with 
very compelling scientific evidence that these are the really critical 
years, you know, right after birth, 1, 2, up to age 3, we are not 
coming even close to providing many children in this country with a 
head start. I far prefer to do that than to continue with a variety of 
different loopholes and deductions and breaks for some of the largest 
corporations in this country and wealthiest individuals who do not need 
it.
  I mean, I would be more than willing to lay out this proposition for 
people in the country over and over again and say, you know, whose side 
are you on? Cargo Continental Grain Co. or vulnerable children who are 
just looking for a break by way of Head Start to get them prepared for 
school or good child care or, as I was talking about earlier, though 
not in this amendment, adequate nutrition? That is what this is all 
about. That is what this amendment is all about.
  So the issue is not whether or not Senators are going to vote against 
this amendment because they are opposed to a budget agreement. I think 
my colleague from Connecticut and I may have different views on the 
overall budget agreement. I do not know yet. I guess he reserves final 
judgment. But you can be for the budget agreement and vote for this 
amendment because this amendment still keeps us within this path of a 
balanced budget. It just says: Couldn't we do a little bit better for 
children?
  I am aware of the fact that colleagues feel some time constraint, and 
I promise not to take more than a couple more minutes, but this is, I 
think, such an important amendment. I am proud to join in with the 
Senator from Connecticut and Senator Jeffords from Vermont and Senator 
Murray from Washington.
  Another way of looking at this for just a moment, with all due 
respect--and this is my hard-hitting point; I might have said it before 
on the floor of the Senate but it just feels right to say it at 10 to 6 
on Tuesday evening--a real heroine to me--she is no longer alive--was a 
woman named Fannie Lou Hamer. She was a share cropper from Mississippi, 
an African-American woman. She once said, ``I'm sick and tired of being 
sick and tired.'' She was a great civil rights leader.
  I just get a little sick and tired of everybody who says they are for 
children and investment in children and we are now going to build a 
bridge going to the next century and we are all for these children--
except when it comes to investment.
  On the one hand, we say it is so important that children who come 
from really difficult circumstances get a head start. I mean, that is 
what we try to do. We do what the name of the program suggests, give 
these children a head start. And we talk about how unfair it is that so 
many children do not have this head start. And then we seem to be so 
comfortable with the fact that we still are not providing enough 
funding for 1 million children who are not going to receive it, ages 3 
to 5, and God knows how many more children under the age of 3.

  Can't we do better? Can't we do better? Can't we have just a little 
bit less by way of tax breaks, loopholes, deductions, whatever you want 
to call it, for large multinational corporations? I mean, Lord, we are 
just talking about $15 billion out of studies that have talked about 
hundreds of billions of dollars. Can't we just provide them with a 
little less so we can provide a little more for these children?
  Second point. It will just be the last one, which is the child care 
piece. I believe my colleague from Connecticut, in this overall over 5 
years, $15 billion, is saying we can do better. I think many of my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle agrees with this.
  You look at the child care picture, and whether or not you want to 
talk about family-based child care or center-based child care or figure 
out ways you can have child care available for parent or parents at 
place of work, however you do it, however you do it, Madam President, 
it is just amazing, it is stunning how little we have done and how much 
we have to do.
  David Packard, who was Deputy Secretary of Defense under President 
Reagan, and his wife Lucile Packard have a foundation. They issued a 
report this past summer, and they talk about child care. They make the 
point, look, it is not just nutrition, it is not just health care, but 
in addition, if these children do not get the kind of nurturing and 
intellectual stimulation that affects the way the brain is wired, that 
affects whether or not they are going to have a chance.
  So many families--if we want to talk about working families, this is 
not just a poor people's issue. So many working families, so many of 
our children of parents in their thirties with two small children 
themselves, you look at their salaries, they cannot afford really good 
child care.
  What Senator Dodd is trying to do is at least expand some funding for 
good developmental child care. This is critical. This is the critical 
time.
  If the medical evidence is so compelling, if it is so irreducible, if 
it is irrefutable, and if we know we have to do this for children, why 
cannot we in this budget agreement take a little bit away from or have 
a little less by way of tax breaks, loopholes, deductions, you name it, 
for large multinational corporations and wealthy people at the top of 
the economic ladder in our country and instead do a little better by 
way of investment in children, so each and every child can finish this 
way, each and every child?
  I think we should be able to get good, strong bipartisan support. 
Each and every child in America, regardless of color of skin, 
regardless of income, regardless of religion, regardless of rural or 
urban, regardless of whether they be in Oregon or Connecticut or Maine 
or New Jersey or Minnesota, each and every child, regardless of 
religion, should have the same chance to reach her full potential, have 
a full chance to reach his full potential.
  That is the essence of the American dream. That is the goodness of 
our country. That is what we believe in. This amendment takes us just a 
little bit--but, boy, it really matters to many children in many 
families--takes us a little bit further in that wonderful direction.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. How much time does my colleague from Washington need?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Five minutes.
  Mr. DODD. I yield the Senator from Washington 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, thank you.
  We are at a historic time in our Nation's history where we have 
before this body a balanced budget agreement that purports to balance 
this budget by the year 2002. I think many of my colleagues feel, as I 
do, that we have worked long and hard to reduce the deficit and we are 
finally getting there and we feel good about it.

  But what we also know is that this economy is doing very well. We 
know that unemployment is down. We know that those people on Wall 
Street are doing well. We know that our college graduates are getting 
jobs that were not available to them 5 or 10 years ago. And there is a 
lot of hope and opportunity out there.
  Madam President, it seems to me that this is the right time to take a

[[Page S4735]]

look and say, Who are we missing in this budget? And when we know that 
one out of four children in this country live in poverty, despite the 
fact that our economy is doing well and that things are looking really 
good, we ought to take this opportunity now, as we put this balanced 
budget agreement together, to make sure that this country focuses its 
resources on a place where it can really make a difference.
  I come to you today as a mother, as a preschool teacher before I was 
in the Senate, and as a U.S. Senator to tell you that I can think of no 
place that we can invest money better than in the young children of 
this country.
  I want to thank Senator Dodd for his work on this issue over many 
years and for all the time and energy he has put in to make sure that 
that group of people who do not have a voice do have a voice on the 
Senate floor.
  His amendment before us today, that I am delighted to be a cosponsor 
of, addresses the current needs of today's young children in a way that 
this budget does not and should.
  I can tell you from personal experience that Head Start makes a 
difference, and it makes a dramatic difference for those kids who are 
not in Head Start today. I taught preschool. I know that when you have 
a child in your classroom and when they are 3, 4 years old and they 
learn cognitive skills and they learn, in their beginning time, to get 
along with other children and they learn child development in a healthy 
way with a good teacher and with good equipment and with good adults 
around them, they will enter our schools ready to learn. It makes an 
incredible difference.
  But it makes an incredible difference in those families as well 
because that mother or father has to bring that child to your classroom 
every day, and as a result they begin to learn how to deal better with 
their own young children. The result is a rippling tide. You have the 
child in your classroom, you have the siblings of that child, and you 
have the parents of that child really focusing on family. This is about 
creating good, strong families in this country. There is nothing we can 
do better than to devote our resources to Head Start for the families 
across this country and for the children in this country.
  The child care development block grants have been spoken eloquently 
to. We know, as welfare reform goes into effect, that as women and men 
on welfare go into the work force, who is going to be left behind at 
home is their children. If we do not do everything we can to provide 
child care at those odd hours when a mother is working the night shift 
at the grocery store, that we are going to have infants and children 
who are not well cared for.
  The results of that are going to be dramatic on those young children 
as they are not paid good attention to. But it will have an even more 
dramatic impact on those welfare moms when they are at work, because I 
can assure you that just like every other parent today, if I know that 
my child is being taken care of, whether they are at school or whether 
they are in child care, I do a better job when I am at work.
  We need to make sure that the child care is available out there so 
that every working adult can be the best and most competent they can be 
at work and so that those children grow up feeling secure. I am tired 
of having young children say to me today that they do not think adults 
care about them in this country. If we leave them home alone without 
child care, it sends that message strongly. Those children end up on 
our streets, they end up in gangs, and they end up disillusioned as 
American citizens. We have to invest time and money and energy into 
child care through the child care development block grant so that we 
can raise a healthy generation of adults.

  Finally, on the Healthy Start, we know when we take care of children 
and their health when they are young, that it will pay dividends in the 
future. One out of four children live in poverty. One out of four 
children are not getting the health care they need, not being taken 
care of. Guess where they will be when they grow up?
  Madam President, it is essential that as adults on the floor of the 
Senate, we take the time and the energy and the resources to send our 
country in the right direction when we have the time and energy to do 
that. And that is now.
  I applaud the Senator from Connecticut and the other cosponsors, and 
I urge this body to do what needs to be done. Those children were not 
in on the budget agreement. They were not there. They were not 
available to be there for the handshakes. We have to be on this floor 
to speak for them and speak loudly. I urge your support of this 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I am going to shortly yield the floor as 
well to my colleague from New Mexico, who is also a cosponsor of the 
amendment.
  Let me just address the issue of how does this get paid for. We are 
not allowed specifically here to target revenue sources, but I have 
tried to lay out in the amendment where the revenues will come from.
  One source is the foreign sales corporation, which most of my 
colleagues may be familiar with. This was set up back about 1981 or 
1982, in fact, part of another budget agreement, done in a conference 
report. These are basically paper companies with very few employees, if 
any, in some cases that enabled American companies to exempt export 
income from U.S. taxation. That is about $24 billion over 5 years. The 
cigarette tax is another source here.
  I cannot dictate a specific revenue source in this amendment--I am 
prohibited from specifically directing the Finance Committee. But it 
would certainly be my intention, as we stated here, to take the $14 
billion over 5 years from those sources. If you took a little bit from 
the foreign sales corporation--you do not have to take all of it--some 
from the cigarette tax increase, it would be easy to pay for this 
amendment to provide for full funding for Head Start, child care, and 
Healthy Start programs.
  My colleague from New Mexico is here, and I yield, Madam President, 5 
minutes to my colleague from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak 
on behalf of this amendment by the Senator from Connecticut.
  I think, to put this in context, at least as I see it, this budget 
resolution is a blueprint for taking us into the next century. It sets 
out our priorities as a nation as we go into the next century, what we 
think it is important to spend our resources on, and what can we 
justify to the people who elect us in our States for spending resources 
on.
  I believe very strongly that we can justify to our constituents, to 
those who vote for us and those who vote against us, we can justify to 
any of them the additional expenditure for the Head Start Program that 
the Senator from Connecticut is recommending here.
  I look at my home State and the inadequate funding that we have for 
Head Start there, and it is a great concern. Let me give you a few 
specifics. In a State like mine, New Mexico, for example, 16 percent of 
the eligible children under age 5 are enrolled in Head Start. That is 
in the 1995 fiscal year. The national average is around 20 percent; in 
my State, it is 16 percent. There are only 1,000 of the 8,000 eligible 
children that are being served by Head Start in our principal city of 
Albuquerque, NM, which is about 12 percent of the eligible children in 
Albuquerque being served. I had the good fortune of visiting a Head 
Start center and was impressed by the opportunities being offered to 
those young people, but for them to tell me there are 8,000 eligible 
students or eligible children who are not able to participate in 
Albuquerque, I think, is a real concern.
  Despite the clear need and several proposals to obtain funding that 
received higher ratings, my State has no early Head Start programs. The 
early Head Start programs are for the students that are less than 3, as 
I understand it, and there are some of those around the country but 
very few. We will have another amendment later on in the budget debate 
here about the importance of early childhood education and the 
tremendous impact of trying to work with children from the age of birth 
until 3 years old. Early Head Start programs provide, fill a need

[[Page S4736]]

there, and we are doing too little. In my State, we have no, absolutely 
no early Head Start programs.
  Increasing Head Start participation to 1 million children by the year 
2002, as has been proposed in the resolution, would only increase 
participation by about 200,000 children, as I understand it. We need to 
add 1 million children to Head Start, not reach the total of 1 million 
by the year 2002.
  For these reasons, I am glad to cosponsor the amendment of Senator 
Dodd, and glad to speak on behalf of this amendment.
  Let me say we need to recognize here on the floor, we have a lot of 
talk about what we can afford and what we cannot afford. We are the 
wealthiest nation in the world. We have the largest economy of any 
nation in the world. We are able to afford what we determine is a 
priority in our country.
  Unfortunately, we have not determined that it is a priority to fully 
fund Head Start. This amendment would correct that very major defect in 
this budget resolution. I strongly support it. I urge my colleagues to 
vote for the amendment.


                   Modification of Amendment No. 296

  Mr. DODD. I send a modification of my amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The amendment is so modified.
  The modification is as follows:
       On page 8 on line 13 after ``loophole,'' insert ``increases 
     in the cigarette tax,''.

  Mr. DODD. Briefly, Mr. President, the modification, as I pointed out 
a moment ago, obviously, under the way the budget agreement is struck 
here, we cannot dictate to the Finance Committee where revenues--that 
is up to the committee to decide. I listed various tax cuts that might 
be modified or increased to pay for the amendment. You have to offset 
it. I have listed a number at the end of the amendment. I have added 
the cigarette tax as one that could also be considered, obviously. So 
that is the modification I sent to the desk. I listed a couple of those 
already.
  As I said earlier, I think this agreement is a pretty good agreement. 
I began my remarks in offering the amendment by suggesting that I 
thought the members of the Budget Committee and others have done a good 
job, certainly, in this process, and the reason we are debating and 
voting is we have to offer our own ideas to it. My colleagues may 
reject the idea or accept the idea.
  I happen to believe that by doing a bit more, a little under $3 
billion each year over the next 5 years, in Head Start, in child care, 
in Early Start, in Healthy Start, is in the best interests of our 
country. By doing so, by adding a bit more to the cigarette tax or 
lopping off some of the foreign sales corporation, a program that I 
think, in fact, we voted on, the billionaire tax cut I listed, 96 
Senators voted, 1.6 billion it would bring in. Many times we voted on 
it. It is there. There are resources that would not in any way get to 
the issue of middle-income tax cuts that are also included as part of 
this agreement which I would support.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, there is no issue of greater importance to 
our country than the education of our citizens. The budget before us 
calls for modest new investments in education over the next 5 years by 
increasing resources for education and training programs. In addition, 
the budget provides tax credits and deductions to middle income 
families to help pay for post-secondary education as outlined in the 
budget resolution. I fully support those initiatives. However, I 
believe we can and must do better.
  Several years ago I read a report by the Committee on Economic 
Development. This is a group of CEO's from some of our Nation's largest 
companies and they called on us to fundamentally change how we think 
about education. They said education is a process that begins at birth 
and that preparation must begin before birth. They called on the 
Federal Government to make additional investments in early intervention 
activities such as Head Start. I believe we should heed their words.
  The pending amendment makes these investments to ensure the readiness 
of all children and I want to commend Senator Dodd for his leadership.
  Last month, at my request, the Labor, Health and Human Services 
Appropriations Subcommittee held a hearing focusing on the importance 
of early childhood education. That hearing was on the eve of the White 
House conference on early learning and the brain which highlighted this 
most significant issue of the education of our youngest children.
  Over the past several months we have been reading a great deal about 
research on the brain and the implications for the education and 
development of young children.
  The research provides the scientific evidence which validates what 
many parents and children's advocates have been saying for years--the 
greatest potential for learning happens during the first years of a 
child's life. Therefore, we need to make sure that all children have 
rich learning experiences during that critical time.
  The first National Education Goal states that by the year 2000, all 
children will start school ready to learn. I strongly support all of 
the goals, but believe that the first goal is essential for achieving 
the rest of our national goals. Without a strong foundation in the 
early years, children, particularly children from low-income families, 
start school behind their peers school and often find it very difficult 
to catch up.
  Early intervention also makes good economic sense. Studies tell us 
that each dollar invested in high quality early childhood education 
programs such as Head Start saves $7 in future costs by increasing the 
likelihood that children will be literate and employed rather than 
dependent on welfare or engaged in criminal activities. However, less 
than half of the 2.1 million children eligible for Head Start 
participate. With the additional resources provided by the Dodd 
amendment, Head Start will be fully funded in 2002. That's a goal that 
is long overdue.
  The most perplexing problem for working families is the availability 
and affordability of high-quality child care. In Iowa, 67 percent of 
children under the age of 6 have all parents in the labor force. The 
cost of child care overwhelms the modest budgets of most working 
families since the care for one young child can cost as much as $4,000 
per year. Availability of subsidies for working families are vital to 
helping many of these families stay off of welfare and the pending 
amendment provides an additional $7.5 billion over the next 5 years for 
this purpose.
  Finally the amendment increases funding for the Healthy Start 
Program. This initiative provides grants to areas with high rates of 
infant mortality to decrease the incidence of infant deaths. The 
additional will help sustain the gains made in those places and help 
disseminate information on successful interventions for other areas.
  Mr. President, we must not lose sight of the importance of 
investments in the education of young children. After all, high quality 
educational activities during a child's first years often alleviates 
the need for more expensive interventions later in life. I hope that we 
will be able to work together to create the infrastructure which truly 
redefines how we view education--as a process that begins at birth, 
with preparations beginning before birth.
  This amendment significantly increases investments for these vital 
early intervention initiatives and pays for these investments by 
closing several tax loopholes.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Dodd amendment and yield the 
floor.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Harkin 
be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Would the Senator from Connecticut call for the 
yeas and nays?
  Mr. DODD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. DODD. Reserving the request, I withhold, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I ask all time be yielded back from our side.

[[Page S4737]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Connecticut yield back 
time?
  All time is yielded back.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. The Dodd amendment is not germane. Pursuant to 
section 305 of the Budget Act, I raise a point of order against the 
amendment.
  Mr. DODD. This is not in line, I do not believe, on this particular 
amendment. There are no budget increases in the first year. I changed 
the amendment, and my colleagues may not have been aware of it, to 
comply.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. It is my understanding from the Parliamentarian 
that----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion. There is 1 hour 
equally divided.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. This will take 60 
votes to waive the nongermaneness, will it not?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The Senator from New Mexico 
is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Unless you need further time, we do not need time. We 
can have the vote.
  Mr. DODD. My point was, I say to my colleague from New Mexico, to try 
to avoid a point of order is the reason we modified the amendment. I am 
happy to make this a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, and I think that 
would then get us away from the point-of-order issue, and I would so 
modify my amendment to make it a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, in 
which case we can avoid.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I do not believe he can amend, can he?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would take unanimous consent to modify.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent if I can modify it 
to make it a sense of the Senate.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the 
status in the regular order at this moment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to waive the 
Budget Act. The Senator from New Mexico has 20 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Have the yeas and nays been sought on the motion?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No. They have not.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the sponsor 
of the bill would like to--and the manager of the bill on this side 
with the consent of Senator Lautenberg on the minority side--propose to 
the Senate a solution to this problem which would expedite the matter.
  We would like to proceed--and I ask unanimous consent that we do 
this--that we vitiate the motion and we vitiate the germaneness 
statement; that the Senator be permitted to modify his amendment; that 
we will not make a germaneness point of order; and that we will proceed 
after about 5 minutes--and I will say who gets the 5 minutes--to move 
to a motion to table the amendment; and the yeas and nays will be 
ordered on that, and the first vote will then be on the motion to table 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, I apologize to my colleague 
from New Mexico. What was the last part?
  Mr. DOMENICI. That when we rid ourselves of the germaneness and the 
motion to waive it, we will be back on the amendment of the Senator 
from Connecticut. And I will then move to table it, and the Senator 
from Connecticut will ask for the yeas and nays, which we will grant, 
obviously, and we will vote on a tabling motion to the Senator's 
amendment without a germaneness defense being asserted.
  Mr. DODD. There will no other points of order raised. I will just 
offer the amendment as proposed with the modification.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I think we are just permitting the Senator from 
Connecticut to make it as it is and not raising the germaneness issue.
  Mr. DODD. I accept that. I would prefer we didn't have a tabling 
motion. But I respect my colleague.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest that we ought to have 3 or 4 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. Let me have a quorum call so that I can make sure we have 
the modification correctly.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, perhaps as the amendment is being 
reworked, maybe I can comment very briefly.
  This is one of those very difficult circumstances that I am sure the 
majority leader and I are going to find ourselves in throughout this 
debate. I am very enthusiastic about the subject matter, about the 
issue, about the amendment. I would in any other set of circumstances 
be a cosponsor of it. I applaud the Senator for raising the issue.
  But because it falls outside the parameter of the agreement of this 
budget I am going to oppose this amendment under these circumstances.
  Again, I regret that I have to do that. But that is the agreement 
that we have enjoined, and I am going to try to adhere to that 
agreement throughout this debate.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Democratic leader 
for making that statement at this time. I intend to do the same thing 
as we go forward.
  When we have amendments that change the basic content of the budget 
agreement, as this one does, which would provide for changes in the tax 
provisions, to have tax increases in the code, and move that over into 
funding programs at a level above what was included in the budget 
agreement, we think that would be outside the agreement. And, while 
there are a number of Senators led by the Democratic leader who see an 
attractiveness in it, I think this is the right thing to do.

  We were trying to be cooperative by not going through the waiver of a 
point of order. But we will have the vote on the motion to table.
  It would be my intent to take the same position when amendments are 
offered of this nature from our side of the aisle.
  I think it is important that the two leaders on both sides make it 
clear that we are going to try to stick with this agreement as we go 
forward in the next 2 days.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.


                Modification No. 2 of Amendment No. 296

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send the modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The modification No. 2 is as follows:

       On page 8, line 5 after ``that'' add ``the assumptions 
     underlying the budget resolution assume that,''.

  Mr. DODD. I think this modification of the amendment conforms with 
the conversation that I had with the Parliamentarian.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Has the modification been accepted?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The modification has been accepted.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, a brief moment: That is to say, with 
great reluctance I am going to oppose the amendment offered by the 
Senator from Connecticut. He has a long and distinguished record on 
matters affecting children and their well-being.
  I have also been a supporter of those programs that protect America's 
children to try to help them develop into functioning citizens.
  But we do have an agreement that was hammered out, if I can use the 
expression, in great pain with a great pain in many cases over many 
weeks of hard work.
  I just make the point that I commend the Senator for his interest, 
his continuing interest in the well-being of our children in the 
country, and that I again acknowledge regretfully that in my position 
here I am going to be opposing the amendment.

[[Page S4738]]

  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask that I be permitted to speak for 2 
minutes after which we will vote, unless the Senator wants a minute.
  Mr. DODD. I will take 30 seconds.
  I respect immensely both my leaders, the chairman and the ranking 
member of the Budget Committee, and their positions on all of this. I 
understand their positions. I understand as well that, as Senators, we 
all have a chance to modify this resolution, hopefully without doing 
damage to the underlying agreement.
  This resolution is a 5-year commitment to our country. I thought it 
should also be a stronger 5-year commitment to our children.
  It seems to me that in the midst of everything else going on here, 
shifting around a little bit to accommodate those needs is very little 
to ask for America's kids.
  I understand again the leadership position on it. I respect it. I 
offered the amendment. I am one who supports this agreement, by the 
way. I am not out here to undo it. I simply want to make it better with 
this amendment.
  I regret that the leadership will oppose this amendment. But I 
respect that position, and urge my colleagues to support the amendment 
when the tabling motion is made.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, because there will be a lot of people 
supporting my motion to table, I do not want them to feel the least bit 
embarrassed about doing that because, as a matter of fact, this 
agreement that is before us contains every single nickel that the 
President of the United States asked for in terms of Head Start--$2.7 
billion. That is what he asked for. It is a priority item. It must be 
funded. And you can't do better than that.
  We have a good record in the U.S. Congress in terms of child care. 
Mr. President, $1 billion was added last year, and $4.1 billion in the 
welfare bill.
  So those who support my motion are, indeed, doing that with the full 
cognizance that the U.S. Congress and the President have done right by 
these programs over the last 2 years, and intend to do even better by 
them without the Dodd amendment when it is tabled tonight, because we 
are going to leave that $2.7 billion in. It is in the agreement right 
now.
  With that, Mr. President, I move to table the Dodd amendment, and I 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from New Mexico to lay on the table the amendment of the 
Senator from Connecticut.
  On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 61, nays 39, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 72 Leg.]

                                YEAS--61

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Ford
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--39

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Sarbanes
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 296) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to propound ask a unanimous-
consent agreement now which would say we would not have any more 
recorded votes until 7:45, but we would have two at 7:45.
  So I ask unanimous consent the next two amendments in order to Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 27 be an amendment to be offered by Senator 
Allard and an amendment to by offered by Senator Hollings, that no 
amendments be in order to either amendment, and at 7:45 this evening, 
the Senate proceed to vote on or in relation to the Allard amendment, 
to be followed by 2 minutes for debate, to be followed by a vote on or 
in relation to the Hollings amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I further ask all time between now and 7:45 p.m. be equally 
divided between the two amendments in the usual form, with Senator 
Allard's amendment being offered first.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. For the information of all Senators, it would be the 
intention, I believe, of the managers of this legislation, to proceed, 
then, to continue to work on some other amendments that would be voted 
on in the morning. But, for now, these would be the two votes stacked 
at 7:45, and they would be the last recorded votes tonight.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from 
Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I request order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will please be in order in the Chamber.


                           Amendment No. 292

 (Purpose: To require that any shortfall in revenues projected by the 
     resolution be offset by reductions in discretionary spending)

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Could we please have order in the Chamber? The 
Senator is proposing an important amendment and deserves to be heard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Allard] for himself and Mr. 
     Inhofe, proposes an amendment numbered 292.

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title II, add the following:

     SEC.  . OFFSET OF REVENUE SHORTFALLS BY DISCRETIONARY 
                   SPENDING REDUCTIONS.

       (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate 
     to consider any concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 1999, 2000, 2001, or 2002 that provides a revenue 
     total for any of those fiscal years below the levels provided 
     in this resolution unless the discretionary budget authority 
     and outlay totals in that resolution are reduced to offset 
     the amount by which revenues are below the levels provided in 
     this resolution.
       (b) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the 
     Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
     Members, duly chosen and sworn.
       (c) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of 
     the Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be 
     limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and 
     controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the 
     concurrent resolution, bill, or joint resolution, as the case 
     may be. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of 
     the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the 
     Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a 
     point of order raised under this section.
       (d) Determination of Budget Levels.--For purposes of this 
     section, the levels of new budget authority, outlays, new 
     entitlement authority, and revenues for a fiscal year shall 
     be determined on the basis of estimates made by the Committee 
     on the Budget of the Senate.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time on the amendment is limited to 
approximately 25 minutes.

[[Page S4739]]

  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I again thank the chairman of the Budget 
Committee and the ranking member of the Budget Committee for their hard 
work in putting together this agreement. I still have one overriding 
concern. I think there are a number of Members in the Senate that share 
my concern about what happens if the revenues we are projecting do not 
hold up over the years.
  Mr. President, I share the concern that as we move through our 
economic cycles, the projected revenues in this budget agreement may 
not hold up. So I think it is a very legitimate question for us to ask 
ourselves, what happens if the revenues do not hold up to this 
agreement? Potentially, we could find ourselves back at the negotiating 
table, working hard to reestablish those priorities set up in the 
original agreement because the revenues were falling short.
  Mr. President, I ask you bring the Senate to order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Can we please have 
order in the Chamber?
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I think it is important that we move 
toward our goal, that we continue to eliminate the deficit by 2002. The 
amendment that I am offering considers that if the revenues do not come 
in as projected, then there will be an automatic adjustment that would 
occur through the procedure set forth to hold down spending and keep 
the deficit from increasing.
  We all recognize that the economy goes through cycles. As a member of 
the House Budget Committee several years ago, I felt the figures coming 
out of the Congressional Budget Office, built on the first 2 or 3 years 
prior to that, were good numbers. But I have a feeling that we are 
reaching the top of our economic cycle and that at some point in time 
we will be forced to address the problem of not meeting our projected 
revenues.
  This amendment tries to address that problem. Today, the economy is 
strong. People have jobs and the stock market is surging. History tells 
us, however, that this is not always the case. Unfortunately, the 
budget resolution assumes economic growth over the next 5 years that is 
unmatched in this country's history.
  The Congressional Budget Office has provided Congress with a series 
of revised revenue forecasts, all pointing to future economic growth. 
In fact, balancing the budget is $629 billion easier now than last year 
at this time. If these revenues do not materialize, then all of our 
hard work will be lost to increasing deficits. I do not want this hard 
work to be lost. That is why I have introduced my amendment today.
  The concept behind my amendment is simple: Provide a means to reduce 
spending within this budget agreement if real revenues fall short of 
those projected. This amendment will decrease discretionary spending in 
proportion to the revenue shortfall. This would help ensure that the 
budget remains on the glidepath to balance by the year 2002.
  I am well aware of the historic nature of this agreement and would 
like to back the resolution with my undivided support, but I cannot 
mortgage the future of my children and grandchildren on Congressional 
Budget Office revenue forecasts. We should make sure that the document 
before us today has a mechanism to secure deficit forecasts. I do not 
believe that this change alters the intent of the agreement, but rather 
enhances its ability to react to changes in the economy, changes we may 
never see. But we cannot be shortsighted in this matter. If we are 
going to craft legislation to blueprint the next 5 years, let us be 
smart enough to realize that we cannot see into the future. Let us be 
smart enough to include language that allows this agreement to react to 
future changes.
  I believe we can and should do more. We should do more in the form of 
tax relief for the American family, more in the form of tax relief for 
the family farmer, more in the form of reducing waste and duplication 
within the Federal Government. But I also believe that we can do more 
in future budget debates.

  My amendment is not to serve as a protest, but rather a constructive 
improvement to a realistic budget compromise. I served on the Budget 
Committee in the other body and realize how difficult it was even to 
get to the point where we are today. But this cannot preclude us from 
holding true to our commitments. This amendment locks in nothing but 
our commitment to balance the budget.
  My greatest fear is that reduced future revenues will unravel this 
agreement, just as we have seen with similar resolutions in the past. 
This amendment allows for future economic changes and would only 
strengthen the budget resolution.
  The people of Colorado sent me to Washington to balance the budget 
and, in the process, make sure that any budget agreement keeps the 
Federal budget on a glidepath to balance. I ask that my colleagues hold 
true to balancing the budget and support this amendment.
  I yield my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Is the manager opposed to the amendment?
  Mr. DOMENICI. The manager is opposed to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Then the manager controls time in opposition.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Then I yield to Senator Lautenberg as much time as he 
wishes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the manager. I think, just to ask a 
parliamentary question, when there is time for an amendment, that time 
is automatically divided between the two sides regardless of which side 
is being spoken for?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. When an amendment is proposed, half of the 
time is controlled by the proponent of the amendment, the other half is 
controlled by the majority manager if he is in opposition, and if he is 
not in opposition, then the minority manager will control that time.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, now that that is resolved, this 
amendment would force a cut in discretionary programs, if I read the 
amendment correctly, if projected revenues fall. That means that we 
would be putting national security at risk as well, because we would be 
taking it from defense as well as from discretionary accounts. That 
hardly seems the way, in my view, that the country ought to be doing 
business.
  There may be circumstances that we cannot possibly imagine at this 
juncture, and apart from the basic rule of saying, look, this falls 
outside the understanding that, again, was negotiated at length, this 
means that if the economy falters, critical programs, in addition to 
defense, would be cut. It might be a time when, if things suddenly 
start turning tough, you might want to make other decisions. This would 
tie our hands and not enable us to consider these things as expected, 
and there are many other conditions that might be considered.
  Would the Senator from Colorado suggest, if revenues fall short, that 
taxes ought to be increased? I hardly think so. I will not bother the 
Senator for a response to that; I will answer for him, taking that 
liberty. I just want to make the point that an agreement has, again, 
been negotiated, considering all prospects--revenues, expenditures, 
firewalls, protection of defense, development of discretionary 
accounts--again, through long, arduous discussions. While I think there 
are probably a number of people who would like to change the agreement, 
the fact is this represents a consensus point of view, and we are going 
to oppose the Senator's amendment and hope that the manager will agree 
with us that the amendment is going to be opposed. I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, yes, I do oppose the 
amendment, and let me tell the Senate why. First of all, I think 
everybody should understand that revenues are not the only thing we 
estimate in the budget. We estimate the economic growth, we estimate 
the inflation, we estimate the unemployment, and, frankly, all of them 
are estimates. We also estimate the amount of revenues that are coming 
in.
  Might I suggest, it is very interesting, during this recovery, which 
is not an enormously high recovery in terms of gross domestic product 
growth, it

[[Page S4740]]

has been an enormous yielder of revenues. Revenues have been coming in 
for 4 successive years at much higher than the Congressional Budget 
Office ever assumed, and, frankly, we have been saying the OMB is too 
generous, it has even been coming in higher than they have assumed.
  On the other hand, the economic growth, the gross domestic product, 
has come in higher than estimated by either OMB or CBO. Now, the best 
you can do in a budget resolution is get the information regarding 
those factors that you do not have control over, how much revenue is 
coming in, how fast are we going to grow, what is the inflation rate 
going to be, how much unemployment are you going to expect and the 
other myriad of indicators of economic significance to the country.
  Why we would just take one, revenues, and say if revenues do not meet 
the expectation, that we would then set about to do what? To cut the 
appropriated accounts.
  Let me remind everyone, the appropriated accounts are now about 33 
percent of the budget, and guess what they are, Mr. President? Half of 
them are defense--about half, almost split in the middle--and half are 
all the rest of the domestic programs. But how about this? What about 
the 67 percent of the budget that are the entitlements and mandatory 
programs and all the other things?
  It would seem to me if you are going to have some kind of automatic 
adjustment--we tried this before and it has never worked--but if you 
are going to have one, then you ought to do it to everything. Why would 
you pick out defense, and it essentially is going to get half the cut 
if such is necessary? I do not think that is fair. Right off the bat, I 
would oppose this amendment on that alone.

  There are others who say, ``If you only do defense, we will support 
you, Senator from Colorado, and leave out the domestic.'' But the point 
of it is, you are not going to be absolutely accurate when it comes to 
estimating. You are not going to be absolutely accurate. You do the 
very best you can, and then you make the alterations year by year if 
such are required.
  I have even reached the point where I think you ought to make the 
alterations every 2 years. That is what I think about estimating. 
Having to go through budgets and appropriations, I think it ought to be 
every 2 years rather than one.
  I do commend the distinguished Senator from my neighboring State of 
Colorado. He is a new Senator, and he knows a lot about putting budgets 
together. He knows a lot about putting reserve funds in place so that 
you come out right, because he has told me about them in his State of 
Colorado, a good conservative State that knows how to budget.
  Frankly, it is very difficult to be that accurate with our National 
Government's budget the size it is, since we have so many programs 
that, if you change the economic growth just a little bit, then the 
unemployment compensation goes up a whole bunch and we have a lot of 
indicators, a lot of things that are related to this estimating that we 
cannot be certain of, other than look back after we have done it.
  Incidentally, we have even done that. We have even said that, if that 
is the case, let's look back and correct it retroactively. I am not for 
that either. I am for being conservative in the estimating, and we have 
been as conservative as you can be in this budget. We have used the 
economic assumptions of the Congressional Budget Office in terms of 
growth, in terms of all the other important indicators, and I believe 
that that is among the lowest and most conservative set of estimates 
out there. I think blue chips' is higher than that. I think OMB is 
higher than that. Most of the major companies who do it have higher 
ones than we do. I think we are protecting the integrity of this budget 
as best we can by using that approach.
  Once again, I commend my friend and colleague and neighbor for being 
genuinely concerned and targeting some of the issues that we might look 
at more carefully and try to handle in a better way.
  Let me suggest that the only other amendment after my good friend 
from Colorado completes his argument is Senator Hollings' amendment. I 
kind of made a mistake. I thought we were going to have a full half 
hour, starting at 7:30, for Senator Hollings, but it looks like we are 
going to vote at a quarter of. So I hope if somebody can get hold of 
him and get him here earlier--I will not use much time in opposition to 
his amendment, so he will have all the time once he gets here until the 
vote. I yield the floor.
  Mr. ALLARD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I again compliment the chairman and 
ranking member. I know they have worked hard with the best figures they 
had. I come from a State, the State of Colorado, that has a balanced 
budget amendment. I have been involved in the legislative body in the 
State of Colorado when we went through good years and bad years. During 
those good years, you look back and you build your budget based on what 
you think is going to happen at some future point in time.
  The fact is, we do go through economic cycles, and despite the best 
of intentions and how valid our figures are today, those cycles are 
unpredictable. I think at one point in time we will have an economic 
downturn. This Congress needs to be prepared to address those 
unforeseen circumstances.
  The point of my amendment addresses when those unforeseen 
circumstances do happen, when revenues coming in do not meet what was 
forecast and we have a spending level up here and maybe the revenues 
are coming in lower than expected, we just bring down the spending 
level and say that we need to adjust our figures in the baseline so 
that our budget reflects the change in economic conditions in this 
country. I think it is a commonsense type of amendment, and I ask the 
Members of the Senate to vote yes on this amendment. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Is the Senator finished?
  Mr. ALLARD. I yield the floor, and if the Senator from New Mexico is 
willing to yield back his time, I will yield back my time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator from Colorado should not yield his time 
because we might get back to his amendment for a little bit. We are 
waiting for Senator Hollings, and if the Senator doesn't mind, Senator 
Durbin would like to speak in opposition for a couple minutes.
  Mr. ALLARD. That will be fine.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Not being a high priest on the Budget Committee, I am not bound by 
sacred oath to the agreement, but I stand in opposition to this 
amendment. I believe that the Senator from Colorado has raised an 
important issue.
  We can see the fact that the economy has moved forward very nicely 
over the last 4\1/2\ to 5 years. Those on the Democratic side take 
particular pleasure in saying that, but regardless of the reason, we 
are happy the economy has moved forward. As the Senator from New Mexico 
has mentioned, it has generated more jobs, more revenue and, in fact, 
more economic growth than even some of the experts suggested.
  If I follow the suggestion of the Senator from Colorado, he is saying 
that if at some future date the economy has a downturn, revenues to the 
Federal Government decrease, he would want us to cut spending programs 
to match those cuts in revenue. I stand in opposition to that for one 
very obvious reason.
  Since the late 1940s, we have noticed a very positive occurrence in 
the economy of America. As we have gone into recessions, we have not 
seen those deep spikes that we had in years gone by. The recessions 
have been milder, there has been less unemployment, less dislocation by 
businesses and families. It is no accident. It is known as automatic 
stabilizers, things in our Government and in our economy that step in 
in times of recession to try to bring us back into a time of economic 
expansion.
  For instance, if we have a recession and a business lays off workers, 
there are Government programs available to help that working family get 
back on its feet. We have training programs, we have education 
programs, we have safety net programs, whether it is food

[[Page S4741]]

stamps or unemployment compensation, to make sure that family doesn't 
fall even deeper, but rather to keep them in a position and poised 
ready for retraining and reemployment, and it has worked.

  With these automatic stabilizers and this Government spending, we 
have managed to moderate recessions. The Senator from Colorado has 
suggested we remove the stabilizers. If you have a recession, if you 
have a downturn, if your Government revenues have been reduced, then 
cut spending. Well, what about the family that needs a helping hand? 
``I am sorry, there is not enough Federal money to go around.''
  We are more determined to balance the budget than recover from a 
recession under the Senator's amendment, and I think that is a mistake. 
We do not want to see a downturn in the economy become a recession. We 
certainly do not want to see a recession become a depression. The 
Senator's amendment would make economic circumstances even worse for 
the families out of work, worse for the businesses that have had to 
close, worse for the family farmers who have had to give it up.
  I would think that the Senator would want to go in the opposite 
direction. We would want to get the American economy moving forward 
again, help those families back to work, help that business back on its 
feet, help those farmers, if we can, and the ranchers as well. But the 
Senator's amendment would have exactly the opposite effect. As a 
recession hits, revenues go down, the Senator would say spend less and 
bring the economy back to its feet. I think that is the wrong, wrong 
medicine.

  As important as a balanced budget is, it is more important for 
America to have an expanding economy, to recover from a recession, and 
to have the wherewithal to do it. So I respect the Senator for his 
suggestion, but I respectfully disagree with his point of view.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. ALLARD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado has 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. ALLARD. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to respond to the comments 
made on the floor about our economy and what happens if we go through 
an economic downturn.
  First of all, I think the biggest burden that the farmers and small 
businesspeople and the average American family has to deal with in 
today's world is this huge Federal debt that we are facing. When you 
look at the amount of interest that we are paying on that debt and the 
potential liability to the budget, I believe--and this is a fundamental 
difference being discussed here on the floor of the Senate--but I 
happen to believe that the most important thing we can do to help our 
economy, to help the farmers of this country, to help the small 
businesses and help the homeowner, to help the family businessperson, 
is to get that burden off their shoulders.
  If you are born today, you are born with a $20,000 debt which each 
individual in America burdens. How did we get to this point? We got to 
this point because of the very arguments we just heard on how we need 
to continue to spend more and more believing that it is going to help 
our economy. But inevitably we are going to have to pay the price.
  If we do not make the decisions today, the tough decisions today, we 
are going to have to make them tomorrow. If we do not make those tough 
decisions, then our children and grandchildren are going to have to pay 
the price. And I think that is unforgivable. I think it is morally 
wrong to pass those tough decisions off to the next generation.
  I happen to feel that this is an important amendment because it is 
holding the Congress accountable, both the House and the Senate. I am 
saying that if revenues do not measure up, we reduce spending. We have 
some flexibility in there to protect the most needed programs. I think 
it is a commonsense amendment. I think it holds true to the agreement 
generally and the fact that we will hold our priorities together that 
were agreed upon between the President and the Congress. I think it is 
a good amendment, and I ask for an aye vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired on the amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Has all time expired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. For both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Both sides.
  Mr. DOMENICI. This vote will not occur at this time.
  Parliamentary inquiry. May I move to table it at this point?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may make that motion now, and the 
vote will occur at 7:45.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to table the Allard amendment and ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to 
be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendment is set 
aside, and the Senator from South Carolina is to be recognized to offer 
an amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senator Hollings is the one we have the 
consent for. He is not here, but he is coming.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I understood from the distinguished 
chairman of the Budget Committee I have 30 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, we vote at a quarter of. You have 
the time from now to a quarter of.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. You said vote at 8 o'clock when I left the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The leader asked for 7:45.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent that I have 30 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will not object.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 295

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk and ask 
the clerk to report it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 295.
       At the appropriate place, insert the following: 
     ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, all 
     function levels, allocations, aggregates and reconciliation 
     instructions in this resolution shall be adjusted to reflect 
     elimination of tax cuts of $85 billion from baseline levels 
     and elimination of Presidential initiatives of $31.2 billion 
     and interest savings of $13.8 billion for a total saving of 
     $130 billion over five years.''

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this amendment does away with the 
sweetheart deal that will continue to increase the deficit instead of 
decreasing the deficit that current budget laws allow. We have had 5 
years of decreasing deficits. This amendment continues the decrease of 
the deficits and actually puts us on a steady path of a balanced budget 
with no deficit whatsoever by the year 2007.
  I measure my comments and words because we have been engaged in an 
outrageous charade for 15 years now. I speak advisedly having been on 
the Budget Committee since its institution and as a former chairman of 
the Budget Committee. That is one of the reasons I wanted to try to 
cooperate with the distinguished chairman because he has a tremendous 
burden of moving this bill along. It was not my intent to hold the 
legislation up, but to bring into sharp focus the situation we have 
created for the American people.
  I supported and worked on a balanced budget in 1968 with the chairman 
of the Senate Appropriations Committee. We did not have a Budget 
Committee. We called over to the White House to ask President Lyndon 
Johnson if we could cut another $5 billion so that we could make sure 
that we had a balanced budget. And he said, ``cut it.''
  Mind you me, Mr. President. We had the war in Vietnam: guns. We had 
the Great Society: butter. Guns and butter. President Lyndon Baines 
Johnson was

[[Page S4742]]

awfully sensitive about paying the bill. Wherein, we have no idea in 
this particular budget resolution of paying the bill. It is a 
sweetheart resolution, much like we had back in 1985.
  In 1985, the Republicans, to their credit, brought former Senator 
Pete Wilson to the floor in great pain. Senator Wilson had had an 
appendectomy, and they brought him in at 1 o'clock in the morning on a 
stretcher, and they voted to freeze spending, Social Security, and the 
other particular matters at the time.
  We went over early the next morning to see President Reagan. At that 
particular time, President Reagan said, ``Now, gentlemen, before we 
start''--we were all gathered around the Cabinet table --he said, ``I 
want to tell you, I had a little visit from the Speaker last evening, 
Speaker O'Neill.'' And we went outside there, you see right underneath 
that tree, and we had a little toddy, and we talked along, and we 
finally agreed. The Speaker said, ``I'll take your defense if you take 
my Social Security entitlements.''
  I can see Senator Dole now. He threw down the pencil on the Cabinet 
table and he said it was a whole waste of time.
  We faced the fire. We did the job that was necessary. So did Senator 
Domenici. He remembers it. So there was a swap.
  Now, here 12 years later in 1997, we have a swap. President Clinton 
says, ``I'll take your tax cuts if you take my spending increases.'' 
And then everybody races around and hollers ``balanced budget.'' But 
folks, there is no balance in this budget.
  Like Patrick Henry might have said, ``But as for me, give me either a 
balanced budget or give me a freeze.''
  Let me show you exactly what is going on here. What we have here are 
the actual budget realities. And underneath budget realities you can 
see, Mr. President, the budgets for every President, from Truman right 
on through President Clinton.
  You see the United States budget, the borrowed trust funds in this 
particular column, what they call the ``unified deficit,'' which is the 
greatest deception of all. For years we have been acting like 
``unified'' meant ``net.'' Necessarily, the Government has income. It 
also has spending. And the inference is this is a net deficit after you 
take it all in. Absolutely false.
  The real actual deficit is really listed in this column, because this 
one here borrows the money and loots the trust funds.
  We have been looting the Social Security trust fund, as of last year, 
$550 billion; by 1997, the end of this fiscal year, September 30, it 
will be $629 billion; and under this budget resolution they take 
another practically $500 billion, half a trillion bucks to $1.095 
trillion.
  They say, ``Oh, watch out here in the next century with the baby 
boomers. The baby boomers are coming. We used to have five or six 
workers per recipient or retiree. We're only going to have one worker 
per retiree.''
  Do not watch the baby boomers in the next century. Watch the adults 
on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Watch the adults that are looting the 
fund. We are causing the deficit. And it is not any charismatic formula 
that changes now or in the next century. Incidentally, I voted and will 
continue to support Senator Kerrey on doing something about 
entitlements. I am not messianic that you cannot touch entitlements. I 
voted already with the Danforth-Kerrey solution last Congress.
  But be that as it may, we are using $1.095 trillion from the Social 
Security trust fund. We have been looting it. After 5 years, the 
military retirees fund will owe $173 billion and the government will 
say they ought to start contributing more. If there is any military 
retiree within the sound of my voice, watch out, because they are 
already doing this with civilian retirement funds. We have a full $422 
billion surplus, and they are saying we have to increase the 
contribution. Why? If you increase the contribution it goes to the 
deficit, not civilian retirement.
  It is the same with unemployment compensation and the highway trust 
fund. We are using $40 billion from the highway trust fund. I have been 
trying to get funding for a bridge in South Carolina. You can build a 
bridge in every one of the 50 States with the money we are using to 
reduce the deficit.
  We are going to continue the airport tax to make way for a net tax 
cut. So we continue this tax for all the air travelers, but this money 
does not go to airports. It goes to reduce the deficit. It takes 
unmitigated gall to extend the airport tax, and then put it toward the 
deficit. In fact, you don't put it all toward the deficit. Some of it 
is put toward a tax cut for inheritance taxes or capital gains taxes. 
And everybody traveling in an airplane wonders why the planes are 
bumping into each other in the sky and the airport radar is broken down 
and communications go out and everything else--remember that we are 
solving the deficit in Washington. We are giving them a unified deficit 
instead of an actual deficit.
  So turning to the resolution itself, Mr. President, I want you to 
show me in this document I hold in my hand--Calendar 55, Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 27--where it says the budget is balanced. Do not 
give me this nonsense about the conversation that is in the committee 
report. That is a farce. Look at the actual law, the actual resolution 
that we are going to pass. If you can find in here, by way of language 
that there is a balanced budget by the year 2002, I will jump off the 
Capitol dome. I made that particular charge 4 years ago with the 
chairman of the Budget Committee, and I have not had to jump yet. Why?
  Just turn to page 2, line 23, under the heading of deficits. ``For 
purposes of the enforcement of this resolution'' it says, deficit for 
fiscal year 2002--$108.7 billion. Then turn the page and get the actual 
deficit. That only counts under the law of section 13301 about Social 
Security. But you see, you have all of the other trust funds in there. 
Anytime you want to add up the annual deficit, just subtract the annual 
increase of the debt from the present year. In other words, you go here 
to page 5 and you will find that we have a debt of $6,301,200,000,000 
in 1997 but then for the fiscal year 2002 the debt has gone up to 
$6,473,500,000,000, a deficit of 172 billion bucks.
  Why did they have to borrow? Because that is what the deficit is. Now 
you can see from this other chart that the deficit this year is $180 
billion. That is after 5 years of deficits going down. Under this 
budget resolution, deficits go up in 1998, 1999, and the year 2000. 
They go way up. They do not go down. Just look at the figures.
  So after 5 years, instead of a deficit of $180 billion, we will have 
a deficit of $172 billion. That is, if everything goes right. And then 
it is still back-end loaded, Mr. President. 72 percent of the spending 
cuts occur in the last 2 years. It is back-end loaded, as usual, and 
the back-end loaders will say that those Congresses can do it in the 
year 2001 and 2002. In any event, the deficit comes out $172 billion. 
That is according to the Committee's facts and figures.
  What we have to do--and that is why I proposed this amendment--is see 
if we can just take the entire spending cuts and tax increases and just 
eliminate them. I want to be realistic. I would like to do away with 
the so-called spectrum auctions. These are totally out of the question. 
We got somebody to come in last year--and it was verified by the 
Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission--and say that we can 
get $2.9 billion from this spectrum auction. We had a spectrum auction 
6 months later and we got $13.1 million. This is the kind of extreme 
exaggerated figures we are dealing with.

  But aside from that, take all the figures in the work of the two 
Budget Committees and the agreement they have made. Eliminate the tax 
cuts and eliminate the spending increases--the Presidential 
initiatives--and steady as you go. If we can do that--that is what my 
amendment calls for--then you actually get a balanced budget. 
Government on a pay-as-you-go basis in fiscal year 2007. An honest 
budget. Truth in budgeting.
  Mr. President, we have had conscience. That is why we came back after 
the Reagan deal with Tip O'Neill. We came back in here and we passed 
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. I got it through over on this side over the 
objection of the majority leader, the majority whip, and the chairman 
of the Budget Committee. I got 14 votes up and down, the majority of 
the Democrats joined with the Republicans, in

[[Page S4743]]

1985, for that initiative. We could develop that kind of initiative 
now, instead of this sweetheart deal.
  What good really has occurred as a result of the 1993 vote? Give 
President Clinton credit. And give this side of the aisle credit, 
because we could not get a single vote on that side of the aisle. They 
said they were going to hunt me down in the street and shoot me like a 
dog. Majority leader Dole said it would cause a recession and the world 
would end. I wish we had time to read those particular statements made 
by opponents of the 1993 plan.
  Be that as it may, it worked. And that is the first President that 
has come around here in the past 15 years, since we started that 
Reaganomics, and has lowered the deficit.
  To President Clinton's credit, he lowered the deficit in 1993, 1994, 
1995, 1996, and we are in the fifth year of lowered deficits, and this 
particular instrument asks us to go turncoat and start increasing 
spending so that we can give the rich a tax cut. Inheritance taxes, 
capital gains taxes, and all of these other things. Somewhere, 
sometime, Mr. President, we have to tell the American people that we in 
the Congress have been giving them over 200 billion bucks a year in 
Government that we are not willing to pay for. We have been buying 
their votes.
  They are talking about campaign finance reform: it starts on the 
floor of the U.S. Senate here this evening. If you really want campaign 
finance reform, quit using the subterfuge to the taxpayers of America 
and offloading the debt to future years and vote to do away. Keep us on 
a steady course, because that is exactly what we need to do.
  We are moving this deficit over. I do not know if you can see this on 
the chart, come up here to President Kennedy. We had already had all 
the wars under President Kennedy, except the closing days of the war in 
Vietnam. We had Korea, the world wars, the Revolutionary War and 
everything else, and we only ran up a debt that cost us $9 billion in 
interest costs. Now, it is projected by CBO to be $359 billion. So you 
can see where we have come.
  We are spending $360 billion more--for what? For waste. The crowd 
that came to town to do away with waste, fraud, and abuse has caused 
the biggest waste of all. That $360 billion more we are spending is the 
biggest spending item; it is like taxes. It is almost $1 billion a day. 
We are sitting around here giving each other the good government award 
saying, ``heavens above, balanced budget, balanced budget, balanced 
budget,'' when we are increasing taxes, or the same as taxes, interest 
on the national debt, of $1 billion a day.
  Now Mr. President, let me just emphasize exactly the duplicitous 
conduct here of the Congress up here in Washington. Bob Reich, the 
Secretary of Labor, retired the other day and he wrote a book. I saw 
him on TV. He was proud of two things. He said, ``You know, we passed 
the Pension Reform Act of 1994, the Pension Reform Act of 1994.'' He 
said, ``In addition to getting the minimum wage, I am most proud of 
that Pension Reform Act because corporate America has to fully secure 
their pensions so the workers of America moving from one place to 
another are not going to lose their rights and their entitlements.''

  Now what happens? Mr. President, I refer to the New York Times here 
just 10 some days ago, May 8, page 26: ``Former Star Pitcher Is 
Sentenced to Prison.''

       Denny McLain, the former star pitcher for the Detroit 
     Tigers, was sentenced today to eight years in prison and 
     ordered to pay $2.5 million in restitution for stealing from 
     the pension plan of a company he owned.
       The two-time Cy Young Award winner, who was the last man to 
     win 30 games in a season, and his business partner were 
     convicted in December on charges that they had stolen $3 
     million from the pension fund of the Peet Packing Co., then 
     used the money for company debts. . . .''

  We make sure you get a criminal charge and a sentence, and a prison 
sentence if you steal from the fund, but up here in Washington, the 
same crowd that passed that, whoopee, there it is. We get the good 
government award. It is a wonderful thing. You can just steal from 
these funds; the money is there. I do not see how you could in good 
conscience come around here with this budget without getting ashes in 
your mouth. To say balanced budget when you know the instrument itself 
says we have a deficit of $108 billion. Look on page 4, you can see 
down there on line 23, the actual amount of $108 billion. Then you can 
see where they list the debt for each year. As it increased, you can 
find that the actual deficit in the fiscal year 2002 is 172 billion 
bucks.
  So after all of this work, we have come from $180 billion--Mr. 
President, I see the distinguished ranking Member looking at the chart. 
The actual deficit according for this year according to CBO is $180 
billion, not $70 billion. They are bragging about $67 billion. They 
gave us a figure of $70 billion a couple days ago because we use $110 
billion of the trust funds. We steal that money and give it to 
ourselves, saying we have the deficit down to $70 billion and it is 
actually $180 billion; and after 5 years under this resolution, by 
their own figures, it is estimated to be $172 billion.
  So, Mr. President, we have to stop the destruction of the economy of 
this country. It is a 1 percent drag on economic growth when you run 
these deficits and pay out all of this money when you don't pay for the 
Government you have. Here they have 12 million new jobs, low inflation, 
low interest rates, and the finest growth for 5 years in a row. If we 
can't stop look, listen, sober up, and begin to put this Government on 
a pay-as-you-go basis tonight and this week in Washington, DC, in this 
U.S. Congress, it is never going to happen. And somehow, somewhere, we 
have to get the free press, the media, to report the truth, because 
they continue to report misleading figures. They don't quote the actual 
deficit. All they have to do is read this bill. Find in here where they 
say they balance the budget in the year 2002.
  On the work sheet, they had the figures down here, Mr. President, of 
a $1 billion surplus. But when they put out the actual resolution, that 
is not the case. They hide that in the descriptive language.
  That is the way the system works. It is a cancer. We are spending 
more money on waste. Interest payments cannot build a school, a 
highway, and not 1 hour of research. There is no medical treatment. 
There is nothing for the children of America that we are all concerned 
about. There is nothing for Head Start, nothing for WIC, nothing for 
school construction. We could build all the new school buildings all 
over the country for $360 billion.
  That is how much we have increased our national interest payments 
with this extravagance and this charade. It is a fraud on the American 
people. The free press is supposed to keep us honest. They, as co-
conspirators, unindicted, joined with us to defraud the American 
people.
  I hope we can vote for this amendment of mine this evening and stop 
the fraud and get back to truth in budgeting. It is not too traumatic. 
Everybody is doing fine this year.
  Just the other day, the Senate said rather than shut down the 
Government we could take this year's budget for next year. The mayor of 
any city in this situation would say, ``Let's not fire the policemen 
and firemen. We will just take this budget for the next year.'' A 
Governor of any State would say, ``Let's just take this year's budget 
for next year.''
  We can save $50 billion by doing it. But we don't want to do that. We 
play this game. We exact this fraud on the American people. Somehow, 
somewhere it has to stop.
  I yield the floor, and I thank the distinguished chairman of our 
Budget Committee and our ranking member.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we are due to vote, as I understand 
it, pursuant to the last unanimous-consent agreement at 10 minutes to 
8.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I know that the manager, the chairman of the Budget 
Committee, wants to say something. I would like to make a quick 
comment, if I might.
  Few have the knowledge of the budget that the distinguished Senator 
from South Carolina has. He understands it thoroughly, and he has been 
a consistent purveyor of the alarm to be aware and to make sure that we 
do the right thing.
  It would be an ideal situation if we had the trust funds off budget, 
if we could deal with that in a quick moment like this. But the reality 
is that

[[Page S4744]]

we just can't do it, Mr. President. We have hammered out a budget. I 
used the term before. ``Hammer'' suggests the arduous effort that the 
budget agreement took to get 5 million children covered under health 
care, to make sure that impoverished seniors aren't further burdened by 
additional premiums because we have moved the home health care from 
part A to part B.
  There are a whole series of things. There are tax cuts for the middle 
class. There are tax cuts for education. This bill was put together 
with a lot of work and a lot of giving by many people, people who do 
not like every part of this budget. I am one of them, I must tell you, 
but I am determined that we see that we pass this budget.

  I say to the Senator from South Carolina, a dear friend to many of us 
here, that we ought to take a couple of these issues and work on them.
  I agree with him on the trust funds on Social Security. I really do. 
I think we ought to take the time now--because we will be dealing with 
a more solvent situation in several of the trust funds--to deal with 
that. But it is not going to happen, I say here and now.
  I will, unfortunately, be forced to vote against what the 
distinguished Senator from South Carolina is proposing. I intend to do 
just that, to vote against it.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Could I ask the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina still has 3 
minutes left.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President. The distinguished chairman said in an 
ideal world that trust funds would be off budget. We live in an ideal 
world with respect to Social Security. Section 13301, in accordance 
with the Greenspan commission recommendation--President George Herbert 
Walker Bush signed legislation on November 5, 1990 that put Social 
Security off budget.
  That is why, instead of a surplus in this document, you have a 
deficit of $108 billion. We didn't get the rest of the trust funds off 
budget like we should have. We should get the highways, airport, 
retirement trust funds, Medicare off budget. But this document uses the 
money on the deficit. You are allocating it to the deficit. So the 
ideal world would be truth in budgeting.
  I thank the distinguished Senator.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Has the Senator yielded back the remainder of his time?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I do.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will use just 2 minutes.
  Mr. President, there has been a lot of talk about trust funds. But 
let everybody understand that the amendment has nothing to do with 
trust funds. The amendment has to do with just two things.
  One, it strikes all of the tax cuts provided in this budget 
agreement, hammered out with the President and the Democratic leaders 
and the Republican leaders of both Houses. That is No. 1. Strike them 
all.
  Second, it says that the $31.2 billion over 5 years of new 
initiatives that we have hammered out with the President--and we cut 
his initiatives almost in half to get there--but it says those 
initiatives are gone, too.
  So essentially the President got $31 billion in initiatives on 
covering the little kids and things like that that most of us want. He 
would take that out of this agreement, and at the same time, take out 
all of the tax cuts.
  I don't intend to argue the substantive issue, which I think is 
totally wrong for America today. I just suggest that nothing could more 
basically attack the agreement than this, for the fundamentals of the 
agreement are gone if this amendment passes.
  I yield any time I may have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded.
  Under the previous order, the Hollings amendment is set aside.


                           Amendment No. 292

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question recurs on the motion to table the 
Allard amendment, No. 292. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the 
clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 70, nays 29, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 73 Leg.]

                                YEAS--70

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Hagel
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--29

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Brownback
     Burns
     Coats
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Thomas

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Harkin
       
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Regular order, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will please come to order.

                          ____________________