[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 69 (Thursday, May 22, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4994-S4999]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the
additional $700 million appropriation for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund [LWCF] included in the balanced budget agreement.
While I commend the President and congressional leadership for
recognizing the importance of the LWCF, I have concerns that this
additional appropriation will not be spent on the priorities for which
the LWCF was established.
I urge congressional appropriators not to use this additional LWCF
money on a handful of large projects, including the acquisition of
Headwaters Forest in California and the New World Mine in Montana.
Those projects were identified as priority land acquisitions by
politicians, not by Federal land managers. Rather, I urge the
appropriators to spend this additional LWCF money as the Land and Water
Conservation Act directs on the hundreds of priority land acquisitions
and local recreation projects identified by Federal land management
agencies and the States.
As originally envisioned, the administration planned to acquire the
Headwaters and the New World Mine through land exchanges. Now, under
the terms of the budget agreement, these lands would not be acquired by
land exchange but by purchase.
Mr. President, this change sets a horrible precedent. It is bad
public policy, and the Congress should not be a partner in this land
grab, as now proposed. I also fear that these land grabs, which do not
involve public participation and which are inconsistent with land
management plans, may become the norm as opposed to the exception.
Recently, the President announced the creation of the 1.7 million
acre Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah. He made the
same sort of promises from Arizona that he made in Yellowstone when he
spoke about the controversy surrounding the New World Mine. The Utah
National Monument lands contain 176,000 acres of school trust lands
that contain approximately 1.54 billion dollars' worth of coal deposits
which, if extracted, would fund the Utah school systems. The President
indicated that other Federal lands in Utah would be made available, and
the schoolchildren in Utah would not be hurt by the creation of the
National Monument. There are apparently no plans to complete land
exchanges in Montana or California, and the taxpayers are going to take
another hit for Presidential promises. One only has to wonder what we
are going to do to make the schoolchildren of Utah whole. If we begin
by fully funding the acquisitions at Headwaters and the Mine, how do we
ignore Utah when the President decides to just buy them out. This is
not how Congress intended for the Land and Water Conservation Act to be
used.
Over 30 years ago, in a remarkable bipartisan effort, Congress and
the President created the LWCF. The LWCF provides funds for the
purchase of Federal land by the land management agencies--the Federal-
side LWCF program--and creates a unique partnership among Federal,
State, and local governments for the acquisition of public outdoor
recreation areas and facilities--the State-side LWCF program. The LWCF
is funded primarily from offshore oil and gas leasing revenues which
now exceed $3 billion annually, and has been authorized through the
year 2015 at an annual ceiling of $900 million.
However, LWCF moneys must be annually appropriated. And, despite the
increase in offshore oil and gas revenues, the LWCF has not fared well
in this decade. Expenditures from the LWCF have fluctuated widely over
its life but have generally ranged from $200 to $300 million per year.
In the 1990's, total appropriations to both the Federal and State sides
of LWCF steadily declined from a high of $341 million during the Bush
administration to $149 million in fiscal year 1997.
Most significantly, all of the fiscal year 1997 appropriation was for
the exclusive purpose of Federal land acquisition. In 1995, Congress
and the President agreed to shut down the State-
[[Page S4995]]
side LWCF program. For fiscal year 1998, the President has requested
$165 million for Federal land acquisitions and only $1 million for
monitoring previously funded State-side projects. The President did not
request any funds for new State-side projects.
Mr. President, I believe the additional appropriation provided for in
the budget agreement presents a significant opportunity to right those
misguided decisions on the use of the LWCF.
The State-side of the LWCF has played a vital role in providing
recreational and educational opportunities to millions of Americans.
State-side LWCF grants have helped finance well over 37,500 park and
recreation projects in all 50 States, including campgrounds, trails,
and open space.
The availability of these outdoor recreation facilities is critical
to the well-being of Americans. People who participate in outdoor
recreation activities, whatever the activity, are happier and
healthier. Recreation is an important component of our economy.
Moreover, while trips to our National Parks create experiences and
memories which last a lifetime, day-in and day-out, people recreate
close to home. In fiscal year 1995, the last year for which the State-
side LWCF grant program was funded, there were nearly 3,800
applications for State-side grants. Unfortunately, there was only
enough money to fund 500 projects. The demand for those local
recreation resources is increasing.
That is why stateside LWCF grants are so important. Stateside LWCF
grants help address the highest priority needs of Americans for outdoor
recreation. At the same time, because of the matching requirement for
stateside LWCF grants, these grants provide vital seed money which
local communities use to forge partnerships with private entities. In
the absence of the grants, I fear local park and recreation services
will fail to meet the ever-growing demands of the American public, and
the Federal Government will be asked to fill the void--a role the
Federal Government cannot, and should not, play.
At the same time, the Federal land management agencies have
identified, through their planning processes, the lands they would like
to purchase for inclusion in the Federal estate. Again, the purchases
would be made with LWCF moneys. The lands often are in holdings in
national parks or forests. Or, they may be lands with unique
characteristics which the Federal land managers believe should be owned
by the Federal Government. Interestingly, neither Headwaters Forest nor
the New World Mine meet these criteria. Rather, both the Headwaters
Forest and the New World Mine, have been labeled as Federal land
priorities according to the politicians, not to the professional land
managers.
The budget agreement, as interpreted by the Clinton administration,
would ignore hundreds of prioritized projects and focus on a handful.
The $315 million the President would like to spend on Headwaters Forest
and New World Mine could be spent on hundreds of park and recreation
facilities throughout the Nation. Would the American people rather own
5,000 acres in California and a mine in Montana, or park and recreation
facilities Americans can enjoy on a daily basis?
Why should Congress bail out the administration because it could not
fulfill the terms of deals it made on its own for the acquisition of
Headwaters Forest and New World Mine?
Once again, when he announced each of those deals, the President
promised the lands would be acquired through land exchanges. We stand
ready to work with the President on land exchanges to accomplish his
priorities in Montana and California. But this should be a process
where the President and Congress work together. Instead, those who have
been waiting for years for the Government to acquire their lands, as
they were promised when we incorporated private lands into national
parks and forests, will just have to wait. Moreover, children
throughout urban America may not have a park to play in or bike trail
to ride on because their money was spent on the old growth redwoods in
California and the New World Mine in Montana
We have held no hearings on the New World Mine. There have been no
hearings on Headwaters. Congress has not been a participant in this
process. In fact, most of us know little about the two proposals. On
the other hand, we know quite a bit about the stateside of the LWCF.
All of our constituents and all of our States have benefited from new
greenways, trails, scenic pathways, bicycle trails, parks, recreation
facilities, ball parks, open spaces, and the list goes on and on and
on.
Mr. President, I encourage my friends on the Appropriations Committee
to seriously evaluate the President's proposal in light of the priority
projects that could otherwise be funded under the LWCF. We have an
opportunity to save and enhance a program that has proved to be
beneficial to all Americans. Let us weigh the pros and cons, and be
mindful of the dangerous precedent we will set if we just swim merrily
along with the President into his ocean of land acquisition.
Unfortunately, the majority of city kids will never see the
Headwaters or the site of the New World Mine. But a majority of city
kids will see and be able to experience the results of the LWCF if
properly applied. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, during my tenure in the Senate, I have
long been concerned about our Nation's economic fundamentals and long-
term competitive and economic vitality. During the 1980's, budget
deficits roared upward as both spending increased and major tax cuts
were enacted. As Senator Hollings mentioned here last night, it can be
an intoxicating combination to slash taxes for constituents while
pumping up spending. This is what we did in those years. In a way, we
just stole from the future, from our childrens' future and from the
strength of the economy that they will live in.
Fortunately in 1993, we turned this trend around. Since passage of
the 1993 budget, our Nation has shaved $2.5 trillion off of our budget
deficit. This is a stunning turnaround for our country, and we are on
the verge of achieving the kind of balance and fiscal responsibility
that I have been fighting for these many years. If the truth be told,
this balanced budget resolution, which we are debating now, is rather
modest and only cuts another $207 billion off during the next 5 years.
This is a tenth of what we accomplished in 1993. However, this
resolution is vastly better than the draconian and unfair budget
package the Republican majority tried to pass in 1995.
Our fiscal prudence has brought down interest rates, helped increase
investment and business activity, and increased our employment levels
dramatically. Continuing this trend makes sense for our Nation and
makes sense for New Mexico.
Balancing the budget is an important component of fiscal health--but
we would be making a great mistake--to think that this solves all of
our economic problems. We need to know the details of the tax
framework, which we will soon debate, to fully understand how this
budget will impact the lives and quality of life of our citizens. New
Mexico is still trailing much of the Nation, and has a long way to go
before my State will share as it should in the growth of this economy.
New Mexicans have the lowest level of pension coverage in the Nation;
the lowest level of health care coverage; the highest poverty rate in
the Nation and the only State in the Nation to worsen its poverty level
during the last 2 years; we also have the highest unemployment levels
west of the Mississippi.
New Mexico is not expecting large hand-outs to improve its
situation--but we need to be sure that the budget framework we are
debating here--and the follow-on tax bill, which represents the small
print at the bottom of the contract--impacts New Mexico fairly in
relation to other parts of the Nation. I want to make sure that we
invest in education, which provides the best chance for the people of
my State to get ahead. And I want to make sure that any tax cuts we
provide are responsible, equitable, and reward the hard working
families in New Mexico and across the country.
While I support this budget, we need to be honest about the fact that
this budget does not deal with the looming challenge of increased
Social Security and Medicare entitlement spending caused by the aging
of the Baby Boom generation. Also, we are not incorporating any
structural changes in our
[[Page S4996]]
defense spending. In fact, it is hardly reflected in this budget that
the Soviet Union has dissolved and that strategic threats to our Nation
have dramatically decreased. Our defense strategy seems to be primarily
the product of inertia.
Although the details of the accompanying tax bills are not yet clear,
there are some items that concern me greatly. First, I am concerned
that the $500 per child tax credit is not clearly specified as
refundable. If this is not refundable, it means that low-income working
families in New Mexico will not significantly benefit from this
provision and will largely help those who are already better off in our
society; 45 percent of the tax filers in New Mexico have adjusted gross
incomes below $15,000; 70 percent have income levels below $30,000.
This means that the majority of those in my State--and probably
others--will not benefit much from this per child tax credit unless we
make this credit refundable.
In the areas of capital gains relief, inheritance tax exclusions, and
IRA tax cuts, I see something very dangerous brewing that we must not
allow to happen. While I don't want to see Medicare cuts made just to
put money in the pockets of the wealthy, I can support reasonable tax
cuts--as long as they do not come at the expense of achieving real
balance in our budget or at the expense of improving our schools or
environment. But in this deal, $85 billion in cuts is pledged during
the first 5 years of the agreement--and nearly double that amount, $165
billion, is pledged in the following 5 years, 2003-7. Given that the
tax cuts are priced at $42 billion in the 10th year of this program--
and are increasing at a rate of $5 billion a year during the last 3
years--we can logically anticipate tax cuts in the vicinity of $500
billion or more, or over half a trillion dollars, during the next 10
years 2008-17.
What is alarming about this is that if the numbers I just cited are
believable, then all of this celebration on balancing the budget could
be premature. The effect of a tax package with these characteristics
would be to reduce taxes on well-off Americans by half a trillion
dollars, while leaving middle and lower income working Americans with
very little relief. A half trillion dollar reduction in our Federal
revenues could throw our budget again into substantial deficit. And
just at the time that we have discovered that we are once again living
beyond our means, then the crushing entitlement costs of retiring Baby
Boomers will hit us.
I hope we can develop a tax bill that will avoid this result--and
I am confident that this budget resolution can be complied with in a
fiscally responsible manner.
Education
As others have said before me, this budget resolution and the
balanced budget agreement should be applauded for including many key
education programs, including provisions such as increases in Pell
grants to $3,000 per student, a new $35 billion program to help more
students attend college, and substantial increases in funding for
education technology, Goals 2000 grants to States, and other programs
to help improve elementary and secondary education.
Despite these important elements, however, I believe there are at
least two key remaining issues we should address if we hope to make
this resolution a blueprint for a more effective system of public
education.
The first of these education issues is school construction. Our
schools' need for funding for school repair and construction is perhaps
the most obvious and compelling need that is ignored in this
resolution.
With a student population that is 47 percent rural and a significant
portion of the Nation's BIA schools, New Mexico is facing a school
construction problem that exceeds that of many other States. Over 90
percent of New Mexico's schools need to upgrade or repair onsite
buildings; 44 percent of districts report having at least one building
in need of serious repair or replacement. And as one of the fastest-
growing States in the Nation, over 70 percent of our high school
students are forced to attend schools that are as large or larger than
the 900-student maximum at which student achievement begins to
deteriorate.
For this reason, I am an original cosponsor of the Moseley-Braun
amendment to restore $5 billion in funding to help local school
construction efforts.
A second educational issue we need to address is rigorous standards
for students receiving tuition tax deductions. Now that the President
and the leadership have agreed on the need to develop a new $35 billion
program to help more students go on to college, it will be essential to
ensure that these students are prepared to succeed once they arrive.
For the proposed $10,000 tax deduction, we need to find uniform and
rigorous measures of academic preparedness to ensure that these funds
are being used effectively.
A clear measure of academic preparation is necessary because it is
increasingly clear that fewer and fewer of those enrolling are
receiving adequate preparation to meet the challenge of college-level
work. And as a result, more and more students are dropping out, taking
remedial courses, or struggling academically.
However, linking eligibility for these tax benefits to a student's
grade point average--whether it be in college or in high school--
ignores the fact that grades are not a sufficiently uniform or rigorous
measure, given the decentralized nature of our schools and colleges.
We need to consider more uniform measures, including widely used
examinations and adaptations of other assessments for high school
students that may be available. Without taking reasonable steps to
ensure the academic readiness of students, this new investment to
encourage more students to attend college could be a cruel and
expensive hoax.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to address this issue
when the tax bill is being considered later this year.
Mr. President, I will support passage of this budget resolution and
am glad that we are finally closing in on a balanced budget and the
kind of fiscal responsibility that benefits our Nation and our people.
But I support this resolution somewhat concerned about the implementing
language. If we are not careful, we could adopt legislation which
institutionalizes a disparity between what we raise and what we spend.
I pledge my best effort to see that the end result of all these
efforts is of benefit to working families in my State and it is the
hope that we will arrive at such an end result that causes me to vote
``Aye'' on the resolution.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I am pleased that this budget agreement
includes my proposal to give Amtrak a capital fund. My proposal creates
an Amtrak reserve fund which would give Amtrak the capital funds that
it needs to survive. Amtrak is currently borrowing to meet payroll and
if additional capital funding is not provided, Amtrak President Tom
Downs, has testified that the company will not survive beyond mid-1998.
Let me be clear. This reserve fund is not my first preference. Amtrak
today needs funding that I would prefer to do through direct spending.
However, this reserve fund language is a compromise with the chairman
of the Budget Committee to ensure that the Appropriations Committee
will continue to have complete control over the funding of Amtrak.
Our compromise language would allow spending caps for passenger rail
to be raised by the amount of revenue raised in the Senate Finance
Committee. It is the first step, and a very critical step, for ensuring
that Amtrak would be able to receive the capital funds, subject to the
appropriations process, it needs to survive.
This provision does not create a trust fund nor ensure the creation
of a trust fund for Amtrak. It is merely a placemark in the budget
which provides that should money be raised for Amtrak, the spending
caps would be raised by that amount.
Three more steps are required if Amtrak is to see a capital fund:
First, legislation must be enacted to create a fund; second,
legislation must be enacted which pays for the fund; and finally, once
all these steps have been accomplished, the appropriators must act to
fund Amtrak. Let me reiterate, that the fate of Amtrak will continue to
be in the appropriators' hands.
Again, this is the first significant step to allow for a creation of
a fund for Amtrak this year. This provision is
[[Page S4997]]
necessary so that the creation of such a fund would not be in violation
of the Budget Act. It merely creates room in the budget to allow
spending from the rail fund, provided money is raised to finance this
fund.
Let me also say that this provision does not in any way put funding
ahead of legislative reforms for Amtrak. Many Senators supporting this
provision also support legislative reforms. I believe Amtrak must be
able to operate like a business. Amtrak needs these reforms and they
must be enacted this year. Senator Hutchison has recently introduced a
major reform package which I generally support. I believe any
additional capital funding must be done in conjunction with this reform
package. This Amtrak reserve fund would not prevent this from
happening. Again, the provision we are debating today merely says that
should a trust fund be created and funded, there would be room in the
budget.
Also, this provision does not rely on the transfer of a half-cent
from the 4.3 cent per gallon motor fuels tax. It has nothing to do with
the 4.3 cent per gallon motor fuels tax. This reserve fund would be
financed without such a transfer. My goal, however, would be that total
capital funding for Amtrak would equal the revenues derived from a
half-cent.
Mr. President, we cannot lose our national passenger rail system. If
something is not done to give Amtrak the capital funds it needs, Amtrak
will not survive. This is not an idle threat. GAO has testified before
my committee that this is the case. Amtrak President Tom Downs has
testified that the company would not survive past 1998. Amtrak's
financial report proves it. The question before us is whether or not we
want this country to have a national passenger rail system. If we want
a national system, we must give Amtrak a secure capital funding source.
This provision is the first step in creating such a fund.
Mr. President, all major modes of transportation have a dedicated
source of capital funding, except for intercity passenger rail. Amtrak
needs a similar capital funding source to bring it's equipment,
facilities and tracks into a state of good repair. Much of Amtrak's
equipment and infrastructure has exceeded its projected useful life.
The costs of maintaining this aging fleet and the need to modernize and
overhaul facilities through capital improvements to the system are
serious financial challenges for Amtrak. This provision is the first
step in helping to reverse these problems and give Amtrak the resources
necessary to meet its capital investment needs.
Mr. President, GAO, Amtrak, and the National Commission on Intermodal
Transportation have called for a secure source of capital funding for
Amtrak. I believe that now is the time for this Congress to reverse our
current policy that favors building more highways at the expense of
alternative means of transportation such as intercity passenger rail.
Despite rail's proven safety, efficiency, and reliability in Europe,
Japan, and elsewhere, intercity passenger rail remains severely
underfunded in the United States. In fact, over half of the Department
of Transportation's spending authority is devoted to highways and
another quarter to aviation; rail still ranks last with roughly 3
percent of total spending authority.
Last year we spent $20 billion for highways while capital investment
for Amtrak was less than $450 million. In relative terms, between
fiscal year 1980 and fiscal year 1994, transportation outlays for
highways increased 73 percent, aviation increased 170 percent, and
transportation outlays for rail went down by 62 percent. In terms of
growth, between 1982 and 1992 highway spending grew by 5 percent,
aviation by 10 percent, while rail decreased by 9 percent.
A problem that is going to increase is the congestion on our roads.
Between 1983 and 1990, vehicle miles traveled increased nationwide by
41 percent. If current trends continue, delays due to congestion will
increase by more than 400 percent on our highways and by more than
1,000 percent on urban roads. Highway congestion costs the United
States $100 billion annually, and this figure does not include the
economic and societal costs of increased pollution and wasted energy
resources.
Air travel is equally congested. Commercial airlines in the United
States presently transport over 450 million passengers each year. A
recent transportation safety board study revealed that 21 of the 26
major airports experienced serious delays and it is projected to get
worse. Again, the costs are enormous. A 1990 DOT study estimated the
financial cost of air congestion at $5 billion each year, and it
expects this number to reach $8 billion by 2000.
Congestion is a problem and it must be addressed. However, the
current path we are on directs more money for highways and airports.
For us in the Northeast, building more roads is simply not an option.
We do not have the land nor the financial resources to build more
highways or more airports. For these reasons, we must provide more than
just good roads but a good passenger rail system as well.
Adequately funded passenger rail can successfully address highway
gridlock and ease airport congestion. Passenger rail ridership between
New York and Washington is equal to 7,500 fully booked 757's or 10,000
DC-9's. Between New York and Washington, Amtrak has over 40 percent of
the air-rail market.
Improved Northeast rail service will also have the same positive
impact on road congestion. The 5.9 billion passenger miles were taken
on Amtrak in 1994. These are trips that were not taken on crowded
highways and airways. Improved rail service in the Northeast is
projected to eliminate over 300,000 auto trips each year from highways
as well as reduce auto congestion around the airports.
Improved rail service will also have a positive effect on rural
areas. Twenty-two million of Amtrak's 55 million passengers depend on
Amtrak for travel between urban centers and rural locations which have
no alternative modes of transportation.
Mr. President, now is the time to invest in our rail system.
Opponents of this language say that we should stop subsidizing
Amtrak. Amtrak needs to be self-sufficient.
I would like to see that happen, but to date, I am not aware of any
transportation system that supports itself without Federal assistance.
Further, I am not aware of any transportation system that supports
itself through user fees. According to the Department of
Transportation, in fiscal year 1994 nearly $6 billion more was spent on
highways than was collected in user fees.
In fiscal year 1995 nearly $8 billion more was spent on highways than
was collected in taxes. Transit which is exempted from the motor fuels
tax, received $3 billion in revenues in motor fuels revenues last year.
I repeat, no mode is self-financed.
If we want a national passenger rail system, we must fund it
properly. This provision is an important step to give Amtrak the
capital funds it needs to survive.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I have made the decision to vote in
favor of the budget resolution before us to achieve a balanced budget
and invest in key priorities for the country. This is not a vote to
claim that this budget plan is perfect or a replica of the specific way
I would best like to see the budget balanced and my own State's needs
addressed. However, as a result of President Clinton working with
Congress to reach this agreement, this plan represents a responsible
course for completing the job of deficit reduction and launching
essential steps for our future.
This budget plan is also a victory against the dangerous and reckless
efforts we have seen over the past 2 years in the name of balancing the
budget, reforming Medicare, and other attractive but misleading labels.
I am extremely proud and now relieved that some of us succeeded in
defeating the extreme cuts proposed in the budget plans offered by
Republicans that would have done such grave damage to Medicare,
education, infrastructure, and other priorities. The Republican plans
literally raided Medicare to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy, and
would have put crushing burdens on working families and our communities
that were totally unnecessary and wrong.
This budget plan now before us is possible because of the tough
choices and hard work done by President Clinton, with the sole help of
Democrats and not a single Republican vote, in 1993 to enact a historic
package of deficit reduction and economic growth
[[Page S4998]]
measures. Instead of the horrors predicted by opponents, that 1993
budget and economic plan cut the deficit from $290 billion to $67
billion. Over the past 4 years, we have watched the economy grow
steadily, interest rates come down and stabilize, inflation remain low,
and unemployment reach record lows.
Some of the critics of the bipartisan budget agreement before us now
seem to be upset because this plan doesn't hurt enough. Since when is
pain or sacrifice the goal of a Federal budget? The goals should be
fairness, balance, priority-setting, and investment as we hammer out a
budget that also adheres to fiscal discipline. And the reason we can
now proceed to finish the job of balancing the budget is because some
of us have been hard at work over the past years to limit spending, set
priorities, and make the real choices.
This budget agreement is a plan with the necessary spending cuts and
reform to balance the budget, with investments in urgent needs that
Americans want us to address. This means accepting tradeoffs and
limits. In fact, I have been obligated to vote against certain
amendments in the past few days to increase spending in areas that I
have a strong commitment to, from childrens programs to highway
spending. But in order for this agreement to go forward, and enable us
to fill in the details and even work out revisions, I feel a
responsibility to help the bipartisan leadership maintain the fabric of
this agreement.
Mr. President, I am especially pleased that this agreement includes
$16 billion for expanding health care coverage for children. My hope is
that this will translate directly into enacting the legislation
introduced by Senator Chafee and myself, with broad, bipartisan
support, to use the Medicaid Program to insure up to 5 million children
with the most urgent needs. Our approach would build on a foundation
that serves children and families well, in a cost-effective and
targeted manner.
As the former chairman of the National Commission on Children, I view
this budget agreement as the bipartisan commitment needed to fulfill
other parts of the agenda we recommended to make children a higher
priority in deeds, not just rhetoric, in America. With the education
tax cuts promised for families, a children's tax credit, and more
investment in early childhood and education, along with the childrens
health care initiative promised, we can make sure this country prepares
more of the next generation to be ready for the incredible challenges
ahead of us.
Mr. President, while I generally support the provisions of the
balanced budget resolution, I want to make a special point of the fact
that I take strong exception to the proposed funding for veterans. It
is my view that veterans, who have sacrificed for this country, are
carrying a disproportionate share of the burden to balance the Federal
budget.
As the ranking member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, this
part of the budget is the area that I have a special responsibility to
review in great detail. In addition, it affects West Virginians in
countless ways. It is a sad statement that spending for veterans was
not included in the list of protected programs by the President or
congressional leadership. The result is that veterans benefits and
services have been cut. In fiscal year 1998, discretionary veterans
programs covering medical care, construction, and general
administrative expenses will be decreased by $132 million in fiscal
year 1998. To me, this represents a serious cut in veterans programs.
Veterans groups and their advocates have agreed over the years to pull
their weight in a concerted effort to balance the budget. However, this
agreement does not reflect a sense of fairness. Aside from the deep
cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and receipts from spectrum sales,
veterans face the largest cuts in programs, and this is unacceptable.
The budget resolution effectively flatlines the Department of
Veterans Affairs' [VA] medical care appropriation to $16.959 billion
over the next 5 years, and in an attempt to supplement this funding
shortfall, builds in a new revenue stream.
For the first time, VA will retain all third-party payments collected
from insurance companies, and the budget agreement assumes that these
fees will be available to support discretionary spending for VA medical
care. In policy, I have always supported retention of these so-called
Medical Care Cost Recovery [MCCR] collections on the basis that these
collections would enhance medical services for veterans. Unfortunately,
even with these new funds--$604 million in fiscal year 1998--the
resulting level of funding would not be sufficient to support current
services in fiscal year 1998. Projected outyear medical care spending
would rise by less than one-half of one percent, while at the same
time, the number of unique patients VA treats is projected to rise at
an average annual rate of over 3.5 percent. If this same growth rate
were applied to Medicare, America's seniors would rightly be marching
on the Capitol.
Mr. President, I want my colleagues to know that when we speak of the
funding level for VA medical care, we are really talking about such
concerns as the long-term care needs of our World War II and Korean war
veterans, the health care needs of ailing Vietnam and Persian Gulf war
veterans, specialized services provided to veterans who are
catastrophically disabled, and basic health and preventive care
services provided to all our veterans.
Under the budget agreement, veterans seeking medical care from the VA
would be dependent upon uncertain funding, including a base
appropriation which is $54 million less than the previous year; an
untested plan to secure funding from insurance companies; and another
controversial proposal, Medicare reimbursement, which will require
congressional approval. I believe that the Government can be fiscally
responsible and reduce the Federal deficit and debt, and still fulfill
our commitment to our Nation's veterans. Asking veterans to rely upon
tenuous funding mechanisms for their medical care does not meet this
basic criteria.
This proposed level of funding will also be particularly troublesome
in those areas of the country which are losing VA health care funding
as part of VA's new resource allocation model. Those facilities which
are already slated to lose resources, including the Clarksburg VA
Medical Center in my home State, will be hit even harder by the low
level of fiscal year 1998 funding.
Mr. President, some have viewed this budget agreement as a victory
for veterans. This is simply a misunderstanding of the facts. Veterans
groups know and understand that a frozen appropriation coupled with
cuts in other programs will translate into a reduction of services and
benefits, and I understand that they will be opposing the resolution. I
will be working throughout the appropriations process to assure that
these cuts are diminished. In sum, the appropriators will have to do
better if we are to honor our commitment to veterans.
Before concluding, I also warn my colleagues who are such strong
proponents of capital gains and estate tax relief that these
requirements are going to be subject to intense scrutiny by Americans
who have every right to ask some tough questions. When working families
struggle as hard as they do to make ends meet and give their children
opportunities to succeed, they want to see a Federal budget with
priorities that make sense.
Every year, when faced with the budget process and debate, I have to
weigh the various principles and goals that guide me in all of my work
as the Senator of West Virginia. I have fought certain plans and
proposals strenuously, because of their tilted and unfair approaches.
In the case of the budget agreement before us, I believe it is an
effort that should go forward. It is a work-in-progress, and I will be
working hard to improve it. But at the same time, it captures the basic
goals that the people of West Virginia and the country are asking us to
pursue. We need to complete the job of balancing the budget. We also
need to take new steps to address the opportunities and needs of
Americans, in education, health care, research, and other key areas.
With a bipartisan budget agreement resolved to pursue these goals, I
will vote to get the job underway.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this is a notable occasion.
We are adopting a bipartisan budget plan, an uncommon event, made
even more exceptional because that plan outlines a path toward
achieving balance in the unified budget.
[[Page S4999]]
As others have noted, this budget resolution is not perfect.
No one of us would have proposed precisely the same combination of
provisions we have in this resolution, that is the nature of political
compromise.
The result, however, is a package of provisions that does provide the
opportunity to reach balance.
Mr. President, balancing our budget has been my highest priority as a
Member of this body.
I ran on that issue in 1992, and I am pleased that we will enact a
budget outline that puts us on track to achieve that goal.
Mr. President, it is important to note that this agreement would not
have been possible without the President's deficit reduction package
enacted in 1993.
Some now estimate that package achieved approximately $2 trillion in
deficit reduction between 1993 and 2002.
By contrast, the deficit reduction achieved in this year's budget
outline is much smaller, but it is still an important accomplishment.
Mr. President, I think it also needs to be said this important
accomplishment was achieved without amending our Constitution.
Indeed, I am convinced that the lack of a constitutional amendment
pushed both sides to get the job done right now.
No one was able to say to their constituents: ``Well, we passed a
constitutional amendment to balance the budget, now it's up to State
legislatures.''
Mr. President, we still have a ways to go.
This budget resolution is only the beginning; we still have to enact
the necessary spending cuts to reach balance.
More importantly, our longer-term budget prospects need much more
serious work.
In fact, my biggest concern is that the agreement leaves enough room
for either or both sides to push tax or spending policies that worsen
our longer-term budget prospects.
I am particularly concerned that while the tax cut agreement may look
sustainable in the budget resolution, it may become entirely
unsustainable in the long-run, and only aggravate the serious budget
problems we know we will face with the retirement of the baby boomers.
We all must continue the bipartisan commitment reflected by this
budget agreement to ensure the resulting tax and spending legislation
does not undermine either the immediate goal of that agreement--
balancing the unified budget--nor our ability to take the next critical
steps--enacting necessary entitlement reform, balancing the budget
without relying on the Social Security trust funds, and beginning to
reduce our national debt.
Mr. President, while many can be congratulated for the work done to
produce this budget, I want to note especially the work done by our
Budget Committee Chairman, the senior Senator from New Mexico [Mr.
Domenici] and our ranking member, the senior Senator from New Jersey
[Mr. Lautenberg].
I joined the Budget Committee this past January, and this is my first
experience as a member in working on a budget resolution.
To say the least, Mr. President, it has been a remarkable first
experience.
We all realize that reaching this kind of settlement is not simply a
matter of finding policies on which there is agreement.
The character and good will of the negotiators makes an enormous
difference, and both sides of the aisle were well represented in this
regard.
Mr. President, understandably, we often find ourselves focusing on
the developing details of the agreement as the negotiations proceeded,
and we all have specific matters to which we pay special attention.
All of that is appropriate.
But we often lose sight of the big picture, and the big picture here
is that this budget resolution gives us the opportunity to actually
achieve balance in the unified budget by 2002.
That is an historic achievement, and a great deal of the credit for
that achievement should go to our chairman and ranking member.
I am proud to serve with them, and delighted to be a member of the
committee they oversee.
I look forward to working with them next year on a budget resolution
that takes the next important steps: enacting necessary entitlement
reforms, achieving true balance without using the Social Security trust
funds, and reducing the national debt.
____________________