[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.

                          ____________________