[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 76 (Thursday, June 5, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5326-S5338]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998--CONFERENCE
REPORT
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee on
conference on the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 84), establishing
the congressional budget for the U.S. Government for fiscal year 1998
and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 1999,
2000, 2001, and 2002, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the concurrent
resolution (H. Con. Res. 84) having met, after full and free
conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to
their respective Houses this report, signed by all of the
conferees.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to
the consideration of the conference report.
(The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the
Record of June 4, 1997.)
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to bring to the attention
of the Senate a typographical error contained in the statement of
managers to accompany the conference report on the fiscal year 1998
budget resolution. During the course of the conference some language
was worked out to include in the statement of managers with respect to
the section 8 housing allowance--which is set out in section 203 of the
conference report. This language was mistakenly included in the
description of section 203 of the Senate amendment rather than in the
description of section 203 of the conference agreement. The language at
issue reads as follows:
The agreement creates an allowance of $9.2 billion in
budget authority with an associated, but unspecified, amount
of outlays to be released by the Budget committees when the
Appropriations committees report bills that provide for
renewal of Section 8 housing assistance contracts that expire
in 1998. The conference agreement assumes that the amount of
the allowance to be released (estimated to be $3.436 billion
for outlays) will not be reduced to the extent that the
appropriations and authorizing committees produce Section 8
savings that were proposed in the President's 1998 budget.
Mr. President, the conference report on the concurrent budget
resolution of the budget for fiscal year 1998 now before the Senate,
represents the first major legislative step--in what will be a number
of steps--to implement the bipartisan budget agreement announced by
President Clinton and the bipartisan congressional leadership almost
exactly 1 month ago today.
As those in this Chamber will understand, but maybe not as obvious to
those watching this debate, this conference agreement is the blueprint
that will guide the building and enforce the adjustments to legislation
throughout the summer. When the legislation is finished following this
blueprint, and when it is sent to the President and signed, we will
have built a house that is fiscally strong for the future.
So today's vote on this conference agreement should be identical to
the 78 to 22 vote taken in this Chamber just before the Memorial Day
recess. And that is as it should be, because the conference agreement
is based on the Senate-passed budget resolution and the House-passed
budget resolution which both followed the agreed on budget levels of
the announced bipartisan budget agreement. In other words the aggregate
numbers in the two Chambers' resolutions were almost identical,
resulting in hardly any need for a conference.
In fact, it wad initially felt that since both resolutions followed
the agreement, there was not even a need or a conference. It was held
by our joint leadership that merging the two resolutions--because of
the normal differences in House and Senate committees of jurisdiction
under the reconciliation instructions--that this could have been done
by simply adopting a House amendment to the Senate amendment, a
procedure clearly authorized under the Budget Act. However, this
procedure would have put us in the posture of possibly having
amendments to that House amendment, the leadership concluded we should
expedite the process by simply having a conference meeting and avoiding
possible amendments.
So on Tuesday afternoon when the House returned from the Memorial Day
[[Page S5327]]
recess, they appointed conferees and Tuesday evening the conference
met. As I indicated, since the two resolutions were almost identical in
the numbers, the only issues to conference were related to some
procedural reserve fund mechanisms, and nonbinding sense-of-the-Senate,
sense-of-the-House, and sense of-the-Congress resolutions.
Yesterday these minor issue were resolved and last evening the
conference agreement and accompanying statement of managers was filed.
The House of Representatives just acted on the budget resolution
conference agreement by a vote of 327 to 97, almost identical to the
vote when it first passed the House on May 20. The House-passed budget
resolution passed on a vote of 333 to 99. Today, nearly 90 percent of
the House Republicans voted for his conference agreement, and almost
two thirds of the House Democrats voted for it. Clearly this is a
bipartisan budget agreement as reaffirmed in this vote today in the
House.
And now the Senate is about to follow suit. If you voted for the
Senate-passed budget resolution on May 23, then you have no reason not
to vote for this conference agreement on June 5.
For the record, through it is probably unnecessary, I might remind
the Senators and those watching what this blueprint for a balanced
budget means. It means that when our fiscal house is finished following
this blueprint, the Federal deficit, which would have topped $150
billion in 2002 if nothing was done, will be balanced. And if the
policies that get us to balance in 2002 are continued unchanged beyond
2002, we will reduce spending over the next 10 years almost $1.1
trillion.
The blueprint for the balanced budget agreement before us this
afternoon means that spending which would have grown at 4.4 percent
annually over the next 5 years will now grow at slightly over 3
percent, about the rate of growth in the overall economy.
The blueprint for the balanced budget agreement means that the size
of the Federal Government will decline. Federal spending which today
represents 20.8 percent of the economy today, will decline to 18.9
percent in 2002.
The blueprint for the balanced budget agreement means that the
Medicare part A program will remain solvent for nearly a decade and
that the spending on all of Medicare that is now projected to grow at
nearly 9 percent annually over the next five years, will be reduced to
a more manageable growth rate of about 7.5 percent annually.
The blueprint for the balanced budget agreement means that Federal
taxes will be reduced on hard working American families with children
and on small business and farms. Taxes will be reduced by $85 billion
over the next 5 years, and if these tax cuts are extended over a 10-
year period, total tax reductions not exceeding $250 billion will be
given to the American public.
We are going to let them keep their money. It is their money.
Finally, the blueprint does assume that some additional resources are
needed for high priority Federal programs in education, environment,
justice, transportation, children's health, work welfare reform, and
some safety net programs. But I would remind the blueprint critics that
the some $33.6 billion in additional resources spent on these priority
programs represent less than 0.37 percent of the total $9.0 trillion in
total Federal spending we expect over the next 5 years.
This is a good blueprint. Like all blueprints, as the building
actually begins in the committees of jurisdiction these next few weeks,
it will require some adjustments in the actual building phase and from
time to time, as has already begun, there will be disputes as to how to
read the blueprint. In those cases, I am long with my ranking member
and the bipartisan leadership will work with the committee chairman to
insure that we are making a good faith effort to stick to the
agreement. But today the design is clear and the builders can go to
work.
In closing let me say that the passions of the Federal budget debate
lie at the very essence of our free, democratic governmental system.
The questions of the role of the Federal Government, how much of our
national wealth should be spent on the public good and who should pay
for it, are questions that date back to the beginning of this great
republic.
In recent years, however, the obstacles to the Federal budget have
been primarily a question of finding a working consensus between the
executive and the Congress. Today we have a consensus on this issue. Of
course, each of us alone might have designed the plan differently, but
then we might not have had a consensus. Yes, I personally think we
should have done more in entitlement spending programs that still
threaten the foundation of this house we build today, but for today we
must do what we can. And I ask you to vote as you did on May 23 and
adopt this conference agreement. Then we will be one step further on
the road to the future of restoring the American dream for the young
people of our country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I am pleased to join the manager of the Budget
Committee in supporting the conference report on the budget resolution.
Perhaps it is unnecessary to recall what constitutes this agreement, a
consensus agreement. Consensus is a fairly simple word with very
dramatic meaning. It is the majority view--not the unanimous view but
the majority view--of the participants in an agreement in a debate.
And I want to just take a moment to remind everybody about the fact
that this is a consensus agreement. Those who are looking for total
victory are not going to find it here and those who are looking for
total defeat are not going to find it here. A consensus view, the
majority view is what we strove for. I am unhappy with some things, and
I am sure my colleague on the other side of the aisle is also unhappy
with some of these things. But we struck an agreement in good faith. We
worked very hard. We worked hard to get it through the conference and
we thought that we had a continuation of the understanding that was
arrived at when we shook hands a few weeks ago and presented the Senate
side of the budget understanding, the budget resolution.
As I said in my first remarks, I fully support this agreement. That
doesn't mean I support it enthusiastically, but it means that it has my
commitment because we worked so hard and we got so many good things in
this budget resolution. What I am concerned about--if there seems to be
evident a note of reluctance or wariness in my comments, it is true. It
is true because what I have heard already, and I have read in the
papers, as it is said, is that there are those who want to reinterpret
what it is that we agreed upon when we concluded this Senate budget
resolution, what we agreed upon when we had the conference concluded;
those who are saying, well, not this many immigrants are going to be
taken care of; or not this proposal on containing the tax cut, $250
billion over the 10-year period; or not making certain that the
investments in the principal passenger railroad in this country are
going to be made, as it was understood by me and others sitting there.
So I want to throw out that word of caution. This is, as I think
everyone knows, nonamendable. It is a budget conference report. There
is no room for amendment. There is no opportunity for amendment. The
conference report before us is very similar to the budget resolution
that the Senate approved on May 23, by a vote of 78 to 22. It provides
a framework to get our fiscal house in order while protecting critical
national priorities. Last fall, the American people spoke at polling
booths. They elected a Democratic President and a majority of the
Republicans in both Houses. Yet, despite this divided Government, they
have been clear about what they want. They want the gridlock to end.
They want the bickering to end. They want us to get to work. They want
us to do the best we possibly can to get this house in fiscal order and
get on with the business of our country.
At the same time, Americans asked that Washington focus on the issues
that matter most to us: Education, Medicare, children's health,
environment, fighting crime, and other Government responsibilities that
make a difference in the way people live. I believe the conference
report before us keeps our trust with the people. It is not, as I
earlier said, a perfect agreement. It is not exactly as I would have
written it. But I consider it an enormous step forward. It will, as we
see it now, relieve future generations of having to continue to pay for
borrowing that we have done or that we are doing now. But it is going
to stop in 2002--that's my belief and that's the belief of those who
negotiated in good faith to get this agreement done. It calls for the
largest investment in education and training since the Johnson
administration. It is phenomenal. It says we are going to put money
into our children. We are going to prepare for the future. We are
agreed on that. And with that, it combines tough fiscal discipline with
a strong commitment to Medicare, environment, transportation, and other
national priorities.
Throughout this process, President Clinton has insisted and I have
agreed that an agreement that imposes real
[[Page S5328]]
fiscal discipline, that builds on President Clinton's tremendous
successes in reducing the deficit, and balances the budget in a real,
credible way, is the way we have to go. The President has insisted and
I have insisted that we make education the priority that it is.
I strongly supported some amendments that were dropped in the process
of discussion, like the Dodd amendment. I commend the distinguished
Senator from Connecticut for his leadership. His was the amendment that
said that we would not go beyond $250 billion worth of tax cuts over
the 10 years. A point of order could have been raised against any of
the tax cuts in the bill and that point of order could have been waived
only with the votes of 60 Senators. But it was dropped in the
conference.
Instead, there is a commitment that says that $250 billion over the
next 10 years, $85 billion in the first 5 years and $165 billion in the
second 5, is the most that can be had by way of tax cuts. There are
letters supporting it. There are letters from the chairman of the Ways
and Means Committee in the House, there is a letter from the chairman
of the Finance Committee in the Senate, there are letters from the
Speaker of the House, and there is a letter from the distinguished
majority leader here, that confirms the position that we took. So,
while there is some disappointment that the language that we originally
anticipated would be in there is not part of the record, but it is
indirectly recognized. It is there.
I ask unanimous consent that a copy of letters from the Speaker and
Senate majority leader and the letter from Senator Roth and Congressman
Archer be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, May 15, 1997.
Hon. William J. Clinton,
President of the United States,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: We would like to take this opportunity
to confirm important aspects of the Balanced Budget
Agreement. It was agreed that the net tax cut shall be $85
billion through 2002 and not more than $250 billion through
2007. We believe these levels provide enough room for
important reforms, including broad-based permanent capital
gains tax reductions, significant death tax relief, $500 per
child tax credit, and expansion of IRAs.
In the course of drafting the legislation to implement the
balanced budget plan, there are some additional areas that we
want to be sure the committees of jurisdiction consider.
Specifically, it was agreed that the package must include tax
relief of roughly $35 billion over five years for post-
secondary education, including a deduction and a tax credit.
We believe this package should be consistent with the
objectives put forward in the HOPE scholarship and tuition
tax proposals contained in the Administration's FY 1998
budget to assist middle-class parents.
Additionally, the House and Senate Leadership will seek to
include various proposals in the Administration's FY 1998
budget (e.g., the welfare-to-work tax credit, capital gains
tax relief for home sales, the Administration's EZ/EC
proposals, brownfields legislation, FSC software, and tax
incentives designed to spur economic growth in the District
of Columbia), as well as various pending congressional tax
proposals.
In this context, it should be noted that the tax-writing
committees will be required to balance the interests and
desires of many parties in crafting tax legislation within
the context of the net tax reduction goals which have been
adopted, while at the same time protecting the interests of
taxpayers generally.
We stand to work with you toward these ends. Thank you very
much for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Newt Gingrich,
Speaker.
Trent Lott,
Senate Majority Leader.
____
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, May 15, 1997.
Mr. Erskine Bowles,
Chief of Staff to the President,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Bowles: We are writing to express our desire for
continued cooperation between Congressional staff and the
staff of the various Administration agencies during the
development of the current budget agreement.
Much of the most difficult work in connection with the
budget agreement will involve the development of the revenue
provisions that will satisfy the parameters of the agreement.
Historically, the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation
has provided technical legal and quantitative support to the
House and Senate. The Budget Act requires the use of Joint
Committee on Taxation revenue estimates. Ken Kies and his
staff are committed to facilitating our work on the tax
provisions of this budget agreement. You can be assured that
they will cooperate with Administration counterparts in
receiving Administration input as they carry out their
statutory responsibilities.
The revenue estimating staffs of the Joint Committee on
Taxation and the Office of Tax Analysis at Treasury have a
long history of cooperation and communication among analysts.
It is our understanding that steps have already been taken to
insure that the cooperative efforts of these two staffs will
be intensified during the current budget process. It is also
our understanding that the professional staffs at the Office
of Tax Analysis at Treasury and the Joint Committee on
Taxation will consult and share information necessary to
understand fully the basis of their revenue estimates and to
minimize revenue estimating differences. The proposal shall
not cause costs to explode in the outyears.
Now that we have agreed upon the overall parameters of this
significant agreement, an inordinate number of details
concerning specific provisions must be drafted and analyzed
by the JCT and the committee of jurisdiction. We look forward
to working with the Administration.
Sincerely,
Newt Gingrich,
Speaker.
Trent Lott,
Senate Majority Leader.
____
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, June 4, 1997.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Senate Budget Committee,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John R. Kasich,
Chairman, House Budget Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Pete and John: Our Committee will soon begin marking
up tax legislation to meet the reconciliation directives of
the 1998 Budget Resolution. We will meet the Resolution's
instructions of reducing revenues by $85 billion over the
five year period 1998-2002 and by no more than $20.5 billion
in 2002.
Furthermore, we can assure you that, consistent with the
May 15, 1997 letter from the Speaker of the House and the
Majority Leader of the Senate to the President which stated,
``It was agreed that the net tax cut shall be $85 billion
through 2002 and not more than $250 billion through 2007,''
the ten year net revenue loss in the tax reconciliation bill
will not exceed $250 billion.
Sincerely,
William V. Roth,
Chairman, Finance Committee.
Bill Archer,
Chairman, Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I note also that this resolution does include the
sense of the Congress resolution that again reaffirms that $250 billion
10-year tax limit on tax cuts is clarified, in a way. I just want to
remind everybody what it says here:
The 10-year cost of the tax reconciliation bill resulting
from this resolution shall not exceed $250 billion and any
revenue loss shall be certified by the Joint Committee on
Taxation in consultation and cooperation with the Office of
the Tax Analysis of the Department of the Treasury.
To make the point by continuing to emphasize it, I don't think anyone
should have any doubts that the tax cuts in the reconciliation will be
limited. We are not going to suffer a repeat of exploding deficits that
flowed from the disastrous policies of the Reagan era. We will not go
down that road again.
So as we wrap up our work on this budget resolution, I congratulate
the President for his leadership in this effort. We are here today on a
bipartisan basis, only because the President decided to lead the effort
to make it happen. He deserves enormous credit for it. When we look
back at the results of the legislation that the President wanted to put
forward some years ago, in 1993, and we see the incredible results, we
see reports by a publication like Fortune magazine saying this is one
of the greatest economies that this country has ever had, you can sense
the strength of the economy, you can sense the confidence that the
people have in their ability to take care of their families and to
provide, hopefully, with the programs that we are outlining here today,
education for their children in the future, security for the aged, to
make sure that these investments will produce job opportunities and a
better quality of life for all our people. That is what we want to see.
[[Page S5329]]
So, I yield the floor and I say to my colleagues, even if there is
some disagreement, even if there is some question, I hope we will get
the fullest support that we can obtain for this agreement. It does,
once again, put the fiscal house in order. It maintains the important
priorities that we all, I think it is fair to say, would like to see.
I am sure if I talk to my colleague to my right here, if we talk
about education for our children, he will say we want to invest in
education for our children.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I will.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. We want to have Medicare more secure. Our approaches
might be slightly different, but the fact is we want the same
objective.
So, I yield the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator from Iowa is
recognized.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I would like to have my fellow manager
enter into a unanimous-consent agreement, if we could, so every Member
can plan on when we would be able to speak; that we would do what we
traditionally do, to have one Republican and one Democrat, then back to
the Republican, back to the Democrat, to yield for speeches in that
way?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a question? In the
unanimous-consent agreement, which I think makes all the sense in the
world, will the Senator be kind enough in the rotation, since we have
Senator Faircloth here and Senator Hollings, and I am pleased to follow
Senator Hollings, could we be listed in order right now, since we are
here?
Mr. GRASSLEY. And then, beyond that, it will be one Republican and
one Democrat--I would agree to that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. OK. I think it was understood we would yield now to
Senator Faircloth. I yield to Senator Faircloth such time as he might
use.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Madam President, I take the floor to rise to discuss a
serious issue, and my concern is this. The ink isn't even dry on this
budget agreement and I have heard nothing, yesterday and today, but
rumors that there are plans to change radically and have a major tax
increase put into this agreement. Specifically, there is much talk, and
it is far beyond rumor, of increasing the tobacco tax from 21 cents to
50 cents per pack, which would raise $15 to $30 billion a year.
The problem is, of course, the tax cut in the budget plan is too
small. But that is not news to anybody; it was always too small. The
Republicans wanted to cut taxes by $188 billion. We now have a net tax
cut of $50 billion, and that is to cover several initiatives such as
capital gains, estate tax, and child credit. As I view choices, we
should live by the budget agreement we passed in the Senate, and the
one we want to pass. Now, if we can't do that, if there is some reason
we cannot do that--and we want to cut taxes further, which I agree to--
then there is a simple choice that it would be a wonderful thing if
this body could learn--to cut spending, to spend less money. That is a
wonderful alternative that we need to know about. Not every time we are
short of money, raise taxes.
If there is intent on the part of some of those who are having this
discussion to change the budget agreement, I wonder why we are even
having a budget resolution. What else are we going to change? Are we
going to expand the deficit? Are we going to expand spending?
Apparently we are. Is a deal not a deal? We either agree not to raise
taxes any farther or we do not agree, and it looks like we do not
agree. But I think it is an outrage that it is even under consideration
at this point in the negotiations.
When I came to the Senate I said I would never vote for a tax
increase. I never have and I never will. We have plenty of money. We
are spending it in too many places.
We do not need a tax increase. Taxes are already too high. The
average American works until mid-May to pay his or her taxes now. One-
third of the money the average citizen earns goes to pay taxes. A tax
increase of any kind is the last thing the working men and women of
this country need now. What they truly need is a tax cut.
But we say we are going after the tobacco industry, which really
doesn't count, but when we drive the tobacco industry into bankruptcy,
what product do we want to attack next? To each Senator, what product
from your State will we decide to drive into bankruptcy? This is a
Government that has an insatiable appetite for tax money--money of any
kind, borrowed, taxes, there is never enough.
The net tax cut in the budget resolution is only 1 percent of
revenues over the next 5 years, a pretty minuscule amount. It is hardly
a windfall. Yet, here we are before we even get the resolution passed
and we are considering raising taxes.
Again, I have to ask, what is the budget agreement for? Why do we
even call it an agreement, if we fully intend to come back and rewrite
it in the Finance Committee? Why debate it and argue over it on this
floor when the real decision is going to be made in the Finance
Committee? It is a waste of our time.
The agreement is not worth the paper it is written on if we are going
to haul it over into the Finance Committee and they are going to make
the decision.
Madam President, I can give every assurance that if the Finance
Committee intends to raise taxes beyond what is called for in the
budget resolution, passing this bill is going to be extremely
difficult. I will say now, we are heading into dangerous territory in
raising taxes. There is not support for it, even if it is on tobacco.
This isn't a case of reading anybody's lips. We don't have to read
lips. We can read the budget resolution. We don't need new taxes. I
will forcefully oppose any kind of effort to increase them. Frankly,
given that this is going on and has been for 2 days, I think the Senate
is wasting its time on a budget resolution that will be rendered
meaningless within a week.
I thank you, Madam President, and I yield back any time I might have
remaining.
Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, let me talk to a very, very important
point other than taxes and the increase thereof.
What we have is the jargon of ``I'm against taxes, I'm against taxes,
I'm against taxes,'' but now we have reached the point where we are
increasing spending, because we are not paying our bills. We are
increasing spending by $1 billion a day. That is the interest cost on
the national debt.
When Reaganomics commenced in 1981, the interest costs on the
national debt were $74.8 billion. We had less than $1 trillion debt,
and the interest cost was only $74.8 billion. So looking at it in a
historical sense, for 200 years of our history, with the cost of all
the wars, we had never reached a $1 trillion debt. We had paid for the
Revolution, right on up through World War I, World War II, Korea,
Vietnam, and yet, in the last 16 years, without the cost of a war, we
have jumped to a $5.4 trillion debt. And it is all because you wouldn't
pay the bill. You were against taxes, and you were against paying the
bill. It is wonderful to go home with that singsong and continue.
I have a chart right here to show exactly what I am talking about.
There is the $74.8 billion in interest costs at the time of President
Reagan. This has all the Presidents since Truman, the actual deficits,
the actual debt and thereby the forced interest costs, which I call
interest taxes. You know, they say death and taxes can't be avoided;
neither can interest costs on the national debt. So beware of the
colleague who comes and says, ``I am against taxes, and I'm never going
to vote for taxes,'' like this is a luxury we all can afford. I would
love that. I can just come here and join in the spending. We would
never have any taxes and we would all get reelected, but the country
would go broke because you have to pay, as this debt goes through the
ceiling, the interest cost.
It is now, as shown here by the CBO figures, at 359 billion, and this
chart is somewhat outdated by several weeks. Its actually higher now.
Still, there is no question it is $1 billion a day we are spending for
nothing. I know my distinguished colleague from North Carolina is
interested in highways. So is the
[[Page S5330]]
Senator from South Carolina. This $1 billion doesn't pay for a single
road or a single bridge. It doesn't engage us in any research. It helps
us not with health research at the National Institutes of Health. It
doesn't pay for defense. It doesn't give foreign aid. It doesn't do
anything but represent waste, and we are determined to continue this
waste.
Let me get right to the point about this particular budget resolution
because, Madam President, I say advisedly, if there ever was a fraud,
this particular budget resolution is a fraud. I say that advisedly to
my colleagues in the Senate. The distinguished Senator from Iowa gets
up and says, ``This is bipartisan, this is bipartisan, and it just
passed the House with 350 votes.'' Then our distinguished ranking
member on this side of the aisle on the Budget Committee said, ``This
is consensus, we had to get together, we got a consensus,'' and thereby
is the sizzle that is supposed to sell this steak when the truth of the
matter is it is one piece of meat that is an outrageous fraud.
Let's go to the partisan resolution that we passed in 1993. If you
want to see frauds, it is when they get together. When they don't get
together, you are getting nearer the truth in budgeting. Back in 1993,
Madam President, we cut some 250,000 Federal employees off the payroll.
We came in and we created savings, spending cuts of $500 billion, and,
yes, we increased taxes. We taxed beer, we taxed gasoline and, yes, we
taxed Social Security.
I can see my colleague on the other side of the aisle talking about
that Social Security tax increase that the Senator from South Carolina
voted for and, pointing over to this side, the distinguished Senator
said, ``Ah, they will be hunting you down like dogs in the street and
shooting you.'' The chairman of the Finance Committee was willing to
bet everything on it. He said he would bet his home and everything
else. Of course, the poor gentleman is not here anymore, but he was
going to bet it all.
Another distinguished Senator said, ``Wait a minute, these tax
increases, they'll take the money and spend it, it won't be allocated
to the deficit.'' And they went down the list deriding, if you please,
the partisan budget of 1993, that budget plan.
What has it given us, without a single Republican vote? The partisan
budget is what I want to talk about. This morning, I was listening to
early morning TV. I turned on CNN at 6 o'clock, a little before 6, and
they had the chief economist for Bear Stearns, and he said this economy
is the strongest that he had ever experienced in 24 years. We have the
lowest unemployment in those 24 years. We've got inflation down to its
lowest point in 35 years. We have created 12.1 million jobs. Business
investment is up to the highest point since World War II. The stock
market has doubled and, ah, deficits, Madam President, deficits, the
deficits for the first time are really starting to increase. I was with
President Johnson here in the Senate when we balanced the budget back
in 1968 and 1969. Since that time, deficits have been going up, up, and
away; the national debt is up, up, up, and away; interest cost spending
for nothing is up, up, up and away. But, Madam President, under
President Clinton's plan of 1993, deficits have been declining each
year, every year, for 5 years.
Heavens above, what does this instrument do? I hold in my hand the
conference report. On page 4, I looked for the word balance. Instead,
you see the word deficit. If you want to know what the actual deficit
is, all you need do is go to the public debt. For fiscal year 2001, it
is $6,307,300,000,000. For fiscal year 2002, instead of balance, it
goes up to $6,481,200,000,000. So the actual deficit is
$173,900,000,000. Here is the figure, here is the document, here is the
truth. And while the Senator from South Carolina cries fraud, we have
this so-called bipartisan consensus, where we say ``I'll take your tax
cuts if you take my spending increases and we'll all run around on the
floor of the Congress hollering balance, balance, balance.'' Everywhere
man cries balance, but as for me, give me balance or give me staying
the course. I wanted staying the course, but here is what they did
instead.
I hope they get ashes in their mouths, that media crowd, when they
say ``balance,'' ``the balanced budget plan,'' ``the balanced budget
resolution that passed,'' ``the balanced budget.'' It is time we stop
lying to the American people and tell the truth and show the page. I
dare them to refute it. I have the document right here right now.
So what has happened? Instead of staying the course, Madam President,
we have gone off the wagon.
President Clinton put us on the wagon. We stopped drinking that old
deficit whiskey, but now we are taking the bottle back up and we are
going to start drinking again. And we are going to get drunk on the
wonderful balance--balance, 200-proof--excuse me, $173,900,000,000-
proof. That is what we have to drink here this afternoon.
And how do they do it? It is similar to another time, back in 1990,
when I was on the Budget Committee trying to hold the line on Gramm-
Rudman-Hollings, with the automatic spending triggers across the board.
They abolished them at 1:45 a.m., October 21, early in the morning. And
I raised a point of order. They voted me down. That is when I asked for
a divorce from Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. It was supposed to be a solid
boost toward fiscal responsibility, not a shield they started hiding
behind.
But, again, what they do is take unrealistic savings or spending
cuts. We have it over in the Commerce Committee. I talked to the
distinguished chairman this morning. You are not going to find $26
billion in spectrum auctions.
What we did back in 1990 was to revise the economics. We did the same
thing again this year. What we did here is, we found $225 billion the
day before they made the agreement. That was convenient, wasn't it?
They found $225 billion.
And they came again with backloading, just as they did in 1990. I
looked at this particular instrument here, the 1997 conference report,
and saw that 72 percent of the spending cuts occur in the last 2 years.
They backload it. Unrealistic--not going to happen.
But worst of all, they go again and start looting the trust funds of
America--looting the trust funds, the pension funds, to the extent
where we now owe, in 1997, $1.484 trillion. Under this particular
resolution, by the year 2002, we will owe just under $2 trillion--
$1.992 trillion.
Now, here is how they do it. They use Social Security moneys. They
use the military retirees' money, civilian retirees' pension funds, the
unemployment compensation moneys, the highway trust funds--and we are
not building highways--and the airport moneys. That is scandalous.
Right to the point, Madam President, they are going to continue the
tax increases that the Senator from North Carolina talks about. They
will continue the airport and airways tax on passenger taxes that we
pay as airline travelers. But that is not going to airlines. That is
going to give you an inheritance tax cut or capital gains tax cut. That
is outrageous, scandalous. That is a breach of trust.
If you want to talk about a breach of trust, I was reading Bob
Reich's book. Former Secretary of Labor, Secretary Reich, said, ``I'm
proud of two things: One, during my 4-year tenure I got a minimum wage;
and the second thing, I passed the Pension Reform Act of 1994.''
And what did that provide? All of us in the Congress said,
``Corporate America, you have got to fully fund your pensions so the
employees can count on it. You can't use it, you can't raid those trust
funds, those pension funds.''
Madam President, guess what? Just 3 weeks ago, Denny McLain, the all-
star championship pitcher for the Detroit Tigers, was sentenced to 8
years in prison because, as head of a corporation, he used the pension
funds to pay a corporate debt.
Here we are using trust funds to pay the Government debt. In private,
outside-the-beltway America, you get a prison sentence for this. Here
in the wonderful Congress, heavens above, you get the ``Good Government
Award,'' you get consensus, you get bipartisanship, you get one grand
fraud. It is time we stopped lying to the American people.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The Senator from Minnesota is
recognized under the previous agreement.
[[Page S5331]]
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I see my colleague from Alaska. I say,
I will try to stay under 10 so he will have time to speak. We had an
agreement, those of us here earlier, if that would be OK. I will try to
be quite brief, because we have been through a tremendous amount of
this debate.
Mr. President, first of all, let me just say that I appreciate the
work of my colleagues. I know that my friend from New Jersey is
committed to many of the same issues that I am. Whatever he does, he
does in good faith. I think this budget agreement is a profound
mistake. I have said I think it is a budget without a soul. I believe
that very honestly and truthfully.
I worry about so much of these cuts in capital gains and estate taxes
going to the very top of the population, those that really do not need
any assistance. Mr. President, really, I hate the tradeoff. I think it
is a budget without a soul. And I think it is a profound mistake as a
blueprint for our country for the following reasons.
First, let me just start with the justice, just by raising the
question of simple justice. In the last Congress, all in the name of
deficit reduction, in the welfare bill we made huge cuts. Almost all of
the cuts we made were targeted to low-income people. We made cuts
totalling about $26 billion in food nutrition programs, food stamp
programs. We do not restore any of that by way of a blueprint in this
budget agreement. Then we made cuts in benefits for legal immigrants.
Now, my colleague from New Jersey expressed some of his dismay about
what is going on in the House side, in the House Ways and Means
Committee. And I am quite in agreement with him. But I also just want
to say I guess it is how you look at what is progress.
The fact we restored some benefits for legal immigrants who are
elderly and disabled, that is a good thing. And the fact that we
restored some benefits for children, that is a good thing. But the fact
of the matter is, if you are elderly, if you are 80 years old and you
are not disabled, you are just old and poor, you are elderly and poor,
your benefits were not restored in the budget agreement. I do not think
that is enough.
The fact of the matter is, for children who need food nutrition help
or for elderly people, there was no restoration of funding for food
nutrition programs. I do not think that is enough. Just as a matter of
elementary fairness, we should have done much better.
Mr. President, my colleagues have talked about our priorities. I
guess I will be honest. I really understand that everybody votes in
good conscience--and I know this budget agreement is going to get a
good vote--but to have tax cuts, and I think my colleague from South
Carolina is on the mark, to backload it, and with enormous revenue
loss, the vast majority of the benefits going to those people who least
need it, and what is the tradeoff? The tradeoff is what is
unacceptable. This is a budget without a soul.
Mr. President, we had an amendment that would have at least restored
the $5 billion in investment in dilapidated school infrastructure. It
was voted down. Why are we doing tax cuts for wealthy people and we are
unwilling to invest in rebuilding our schools?
Mr. President, I had an opportunity to go to Delta, MS. I visited a
school. There is going to be some renovation now, but the ceiling was
just practically caving in. The toilets were so decrepit, no child
should ever have to go into a bathroom like this. You could not wash
your hands after going to the bathroom because there was no running
water in the sink.
Now, that is not just in the South. These schools exist in the North
and the Midwest and the West. These are the schools that too many of
our children go to every day. And we did not invest one penny in
rebuilding these schools for America's children, for some of the
poorest children in America. I just think that this is unacceptable.
And I think that this budget is a budget without a soul.
Mr. President, we have talked so much about early childhood
development, and we have been reading all these reports, all the
neuroscience evidence. It is so compelling. The evidence is irreducible
and irrefutable that if we do not invest in the nutrition--and I could
talk about each one of these areas at great length--if we do not invest
in the health care, if we do not invest in really good child care,
really good child care, if we do not get it right for these children,
that by age 3 they are not going to be ready for school and they will
never be ready for life.
Mr. President, with all due respect, what are we doing with cuts in
capital gains and estate taxes, disproportionately going to the very
top of the population, not even targeting that, and at the same time we
make a pittance--I am sorry--a pittance of investment when it comes to
the most critical years that affect whether children are going to do
well in education, and those are in the very early years?
We have White House conferences that talk about the development of
the brain. We have speeches that are given. And yet, when it comes to
where the rubber meets the road, when it comes to what are our
priorities, we have a budget agreement here that does not make the
investment in these children, does not make the investment in early
childhood development, barely scratches the surface. It is not even a
baby step.
How much longer are these children going to have to wait? Everybody
keeps talking about how we have to balance the budget for the sake of
our children, our children's future. How about these children right
now? And let us go ahead and balance the budget. But, first of all, why
do we have these tax cuts that go to some of our wealthiest citizens?
Why are we backloading it? Why are we eroding our revenue base? Why are
we building here a straitjacket which will prevent us from making any
of these investments in rebuilding rotting schools, in health and
nutrition and child care for children at a very early age?
This is a budget without a soul. I think this budget as a blueprint
for our country is a profound mistake. It is a profound mistake for
America.
Mr. President, one final point because I promised to be brief. I
could go on and on, but I have spoken on these issues before.
There was a cut in this budget--and really, it was not very well
publicized--in veterans health care, $2.3 or $2.7 billion. I just want
to make it very clear to my colleagues that when we got briefings from
the White House--and everywhere else nobody talked about this. We had a
flat-line budget we were worried about, but $2.3 or $2.7 billion--a
couple different figures are out there--over the next 5 years in
veterans health care.
Dr. Ken Kizer, who runs those health care programs, was out in
Minnesota. He did not know about it. I do not think Secretary Jesse
Brown knows about it. And I will tell you something, the veterans
organizations, all of the organizations I know that I have had the
honor of working with, are really indignant about this. They are angry
not only about the substance of it, but also the manner in which it was
done. So I will have an amendment and I certainly hope my colleagues
will join me to restore that funding for veterans health care. I think
it is critically important.
Mr. President, let me conclude. I do not understand why we have
accepted this tradeoff of tax cuts disproportionately benefiting the
people on the top, not even targeting them to middle income or small
businesses, and at the same time not investing in rebuilding our
schools, not investing in early childhood development, not investing in
making sure that every child has a head start, not investing adequately
in veterans health care.
I just think that this tradeoff is unacceptable. Yes, let us have an
agreement. But what is the price? The price of this agreement is that
we have, as a Senate, I think--I know some colleagues disagree with me,
I know many do, I know most do--I think we have abandoned a principle
that has been so important to our country. I think it has been a
principle which, in many ways, has led to our resilience as a nation.
It is a principle that has to do with the very meaning of our Nation,
it is the principle of justice, it is the principle of expanding
opportunities for our citizens, and it is that American dream that
every child--no matter color of skin, no matter income, no matter boy
or girl, no matter urban or rural, --that every child will have the
same chance to reach his or her full potential. We have not met that
standard in
[[Page S5332]]
this budget agreement. We are nowhere near that standard. That is why,
again, I will vote no.
Mr. DODD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. I want to begin by commending our colleagues from New
Mexico and from New Jersey, Senator Domenici and Senator Lautenberg,
for their herculean efforts on this budget process. This is a very
difficult task.
I had--I say guardedly--the privilege of serving on the Budget
Committee for a number of years, and it is more of a sentence than a
duty in many ways, considering the laborious task day in and day out of
going through the number-crunching process. I feel a special sense of
appreciation for the work of those who serve on the committee, and for
those who lead the committee in the case of the chairman and the
ranking Democratic member.
I would like to take a few moments if I could to discuss just one
aspect of this budget resolution, one that has already been addressed
by Senator Lautenberg, the ranking Democratic member of the committee.
It is a provision that started out as a rather innocuous suggestion
that was adopted unanimously by this body as part of the budget
resolution and then became the source, Mr. President, of some
controversy over the last several days. But the issue has been
resolved, due to the efforts of Senator Lautenberg, Senator Domenici
and others, to the satisfaction of everyone, including the author of
the original provision, and that is myself.
The budget agreement, as we all know, was reached by the President
and the Congress and includes a number of provisions designed to
protect the priorities that Americans care about while ensuring that
the budget would reach balance in the year 2002 and thereafter.
One of the stipulations of the budget agreement specified that the
cost of the tax cuts would be a net $85 billion over 5 years and a net
$250 billion, one-quarter of a trillion dollars, over 10 years. There
was a letter, in fact, signed by the majority leader of the Senate, Mr.
Lott, and the Speaker of the House, Speaker Gingrich, and sent to the
President. I quote it here: ``It was agreed that the net tax cut shall
be $85 billion through the year 2002 and not more than $250 billion
through the year 2007.''
As I say, this letter was signed by both leaders. I was surprised,
however, Mr. President, when the budget resolution came to the floor
more than 2 weeks ago with no mention whatever of the cost of the tax
cuts over 10 years. The resolution fulfilled the first part of the
agreement by instructing the tax-writing committees to craft
legislation that would cost no more than $85 billion over the first
five years. But when it came to the understanding on the $250 billion,
that had been left out of the resolution, entirely. That is a large
amount indeed, a quarter of a trillion dollars.
Mr. President, in my view, again, I think this budget resolution is a
good resolution. I offered amendments to shift some of the priorities
here. I lost in that effort. I wish we had done more in the area of
early childhood development, Healthy Start, Head Start, child care. I
will still make those arguments from time to time. But there are
improvements clearly in many important areas of this budget.
Even though I disagreed in part with it, I think it is a good
resolution. But the provisions on tax cuts left me with a great deal of
concern because you could write the tax cut part of this budget
resolution, much of which I agree with, in such a way that for the
first 5 years the revenue losses would be limited to $85 billion. But
we all know how to write these in such a way that the second 5 years
they could blow totally out of proportion and we end up where we were
in the mid-1980s, again looking at a huge deficit. I might add that
even with my language, there is no guarantee that that will not happen
after 10 years. But at least over the first 10 years with the agreement
we have reached here, we are left with an assurance that that is not
going to happen in the short term, and future Congresses will have an
opportunity to examine how these tax cuts are working.
So this new language that will be included in the agreement, I think,
will be a major step forward.
I should tell my colleagues what happened procedurally. My amendment
to put in place a cap of $250 billion over 10 years was accepted on a
voice vote. The distinguished Senator from New Mexico and my colleague
from New Jersey agreed with the amendment. It was adopted. In fact,
Senator Lautenberg enthusiastically supported the amendment. It ended
up in conference, but there was no similar language in the House
version. But then John Spratt, the distinguished Congressman from South
Carolina, went to the floor on the House side and instructed the House
conferees that my amendment should be adopted. To the credit of many of
the Republican Members of the House, as well as Democrats, they agreed
with John Spratt. So he carried overwhelmingly in a House vote to
accept my amendment.
So we were left with a situation where the House instructed conferees
to take the amendment that had been accepted on a voice vote here, but
for reasons that I will allow them to explain, the majority decided on
our side that they could not continue to hold this amendment. Instead,
they offered a compromise. That was a sense-of-the-Congress resolution
that would limit the tax cut to $250 billion over 10 years, and require
that the Joint Tax Committee and others would certify that we had not
broken that ceiling of $250 billion over 10 years. In addition, a
letter has been signed by our colleagues Senator Roth, the chair of the
Finance Committee, and Congressman Archer, chairman of the Ways and
Means committee. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Roth
and Archer letter be printed in the Record at this point.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, June 4, 1997.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Senate Budget Committee, Washington, DC.
Hon. John R. Kasich,
Chairman, House Budget Committee, Washington, DC.
Dear Pete and John: Our Committees will soon begin marking
up tax legislation to meet the reconciliation directives of
the 1998 Budget Resolution. We will meet the Resolution's
instructions of reducing revenues by $85 billion over the
five year period 1998-2002 and by no more than $20.5 billion
in 2002.
Furthermore, we can assure you that, consistent with the
May 15, 1997 letter from the Speaker of the House and the
Majority Leader of the Senate to the President which stated,
``It was agreed that the net tax cut shall be $85 billion
through 2002 and not more than $250 billion through 2007,''
the ten year net revenue loss in the tax reconciliation bill
will not exceed $250 billion.
Sincerely,
William V. Roth,
Chairman, Finance Committee.
Bill Archer,
Chairman, Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. DODD. Let me read from that letter:
Furthermore, we can assure you that, consistent with the
May 15, 1997 letter from the Speaker of the House and the
Majority Leader of the Senate to the President which stated,
``It was agreed that the net tax cut shall be $85 billion
through 2002 and not more than $250 billion through 2007,''
the 10-year net revenue loss will not exceed $250 billion.
This language confirms the agreement made by the President, the
Senate, and the Congress, as well as the sense-of-the-Congress
resolution and the certification.
Some may argue you have given up, it is not exactly law. I do not see
it that way. I am satisfied people have made their commitments, and
those commitments have been confirmed. This letter has been signed by
the two chairs of the committee, and that ought to be satisfactory
enough for people that we mean what we say in these resolutions. What
good is it going to be to have a budget in balance by the year 2002
that goes immediately out of balance in 2003 because we did not keep an
eye on the tax expenditure side of this equation?
So, with this new language that Senator Lautenberg and Senator
Domenici worked on here, I am very satisfied this is a good resolution.
I believe that those of us who have been concerned that this
resolution, while balanced in the initial stages, could end up out of
balance very quickly, have seen our concerns eased by this progress.
So I want to thank once again the leadership of Senator Lautenberg,
[[Page S5333]]
Senator Domenici, Senator Roth and Congressman Archer, as well as
Congressman Spratt, for their work in this regard, and lastly just
point out, Mr. President, I know that there are legitimate issues that
have been raised by those who say, ``Well, what happens in the second
10 years? You can craft the tax expenditure provisions so they could
end up pushing us out of balance in the second 10 years.'' I cannot
argue with that. That could happen. We will have to look at it very
closely. Obviously, the economy could change dramatically in 10 years.
We may have to come back and revisit parts of this.
So there are no reassurances for the second 10 and there are those
who will lay out for you scenarios that show there is significant
ballooning, if you will, of those tax cuts in the second 10 years. We
may have to come back and revisit that. But by putting in the net cap
of $250 billion over the next 10 years, I think we have done a great
deal to avoid the kind of problem that occurred in the early 1980's
when no such caps were put in place and we saw as a result of the 1981
tax program a major deficit created in this country.
I voted against that 16 years ago. I am glad I did. I think I was
proven correct by what happened. I think we have avoided any likelihood
of that occurring, certainly in the short run, here, and we will have
plenty of opportunities in the Congress to respond if for whatever
reason that begins to happen later on.
I thank the leadership and my colleague from New Mexico and the
Senator from New Jersey for this agreement and look forward to
supporting the resolution.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Budget Resolution assumes reductions
in spending of $290 billion over the next 5 years. To accomplish this
goal we, of course, must adopt changes in federal programs.
The Governmental Affairs Committee has received reconciliation
instructions requiring $4.8 billion in savings over a 5-year period be
obtained from programs under our committee's jurisdiction. Most of this
committee's programs involve Federal employees and retirees.
In March, the President sent his budget proposal to Congress in which
he recommended $6.5 billion in savings from Federal employee and
retiree benefit programs. Included in the President's proposal was $1.7
billion to be saved by delaying annual cost-of-living adjustments for
Federal retirees. As chairman of the Subcommittee with jurisdiction
over this subject I opposed that proposal, and so did the chairman of
the full Committee, Senator Fred Thompson.
The President's Federal employee-related proposal had four basic
components:
First, the President proposed delaying the receipt of civilian
Federal retiree cost-of-living adjustments from January until April
through the year 2002, which would have cost the typical Federal
retiree $726 over the next 5 years.
I thought the proposal was unfair since it singled out Federal
civilian retirees for this change. No other group of retirees was
treated this way.
Most Federal retirees are not wealthy people. Most are like other
Americans who have retired from private sector jobs and are just barely
making ends meet. The average yearly income for a Federal retiree--
after taxes and out-of-pocket costs of health care and life insurance
premiums--is $14,864. This hardly allows for a comfortable lifestyle,
considering the average Federal retiree faces annual living costs of
$22,098.
Our subcommittee opposed the singling out of Federal civilian
retirees for a COLA delay, and this position was adopted by
Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Thompson in his Annual Views
and Estimates report submitted to the Senate Budget Committee. I was
very pleased that Budget Chairman Domenici agreed with us and not the
President.
Second, the President's budget also assumed a savings starting in
January 1999 be achieved by requiring employees to pay a greater share
of their health care premiums.
Under current law, the Government pays, on average, 71 percent of the
premiums of the health insurance plans in which Federal employees and
retirees enroll. That calculation is based on 60 percent of the average
premium of the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program's Big Six health
insurance plans.
In 1990, Aetna--one of the Big Six high-option plans--dropped out of
the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program. In order to prevent
enrollees' share of the premium from rising, Congress enacted
legislation establishing a proxy plan. The President's budget proposal
allowed for the expiration of the proxy plan, thereby shifting
approximately $4 billion of health care premium costs from the
Government to the employee over 5 years.
The Federal Employee Health Benefit Program, unlike Medicare, is not
facing a fiscal crisis. In fact, it works so well, I believe we should
use it as a model for future health care reform. However, I do not
think the President's willingness to simply accept conversion to a Big
Five-based formula by default, thereby lowering the government's share
of the premium to about 67 percent, is equitable. Doing so would not
only shift substantial costs to enrollees but it would allow for the
continued use of an outdated formula. As subcommittee chairman, I
intend to propose a new formula-- possibly based on a weighted average
of all plans--which will maintain the current rate of contributions to
the FEHB plans by the government and its employees.
Regardless of any change in the FEHBP formula, it is possible health
insurance premiums will increase over the next year due to medical
inflation and federally mandated increases in basic coverage. Congress
should not aggravate the situation by shifting an additional $4 billion
in costs onto enrollees.
Third, the President's budget plan also increased Federal agency
contributions to the retirement fund for civil service retirement
system employees by 1.51 percent beginning October 1, 1997 and ending
September 30, 2002. Currently, agencies match employee contributions of
approximately 7 percent.
Fourth, the President recommended an increase in Federal employee
retirement contributions--0.25 percent of base pay in 1999, another
0.15 percent in 2000, and a final 0.10 percent in 2001--adding up to a
total of 0.50 percent increase. The higher contribution rate would
expire on December 31, 2002.
I believe the President's proposed Federal employee budget package
goes far beyond fairness. President Clinton has advocated a
disproportionate contribution by those who have been asked to give
again and again over the past several years. Federal employees and
retirees across the country know there is no justification for the
President's proposed package of changes--and it does not serve the
interest of fairness to the Federal workforce.
The Federal Government may be the largest employer in the Nation, but
it is far from being a model employer. You might ask, what is the
Federal Government offering its workforce in order to attract and
retain qualified personnel who can respond to the challenges of
providing efficient, effective service to the American people? Federal
employees have witnessed the slow erosion of their pay and benefit
package over the last several years.
Because of the requirements of the budget resolution some changes
must be adopted. As we work toward the goal of achieving the $4.8
billion in savings required of our committee, Federal employees will
have to share the burden of deficit reduction, but they will not be
singled out to accept burdens not imposed upon other Americans.
Without question, public employees play an important role in our
society. The hope is that by offering a balanced and fair compensation
package, we can continue to attract and retain a talented and skilled
workforce to deliver federal services. The reconciliation package which
I will work to develop will have that as a goal as well as deficit
reduction.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the conference report on
the budget resolution and to say that I am pleased that this year is
shaping up to be a historic year in the fight to balance the budget.
Democrats and Republicans have worked together to fashion a bipartisan
agreement that is projected to balance the unified budget in 5 years,
in the year 2002.
I will support this budget plan because it will help maintain the
superb
[[Page S5334]]
economy we are now enjoying. The budget plan will build on the 1993
deficit reduction bill, which has cut the unified budget deficit by 77
percent. The budget plan also makes room for priorities that are
important to the American people, such as middle-class tax relief,
greater funding for education, more attention to our environment, and
health care for the young and the elderly.
We have been able to agree on a balanced, commonsense package--one
that avoids extreme cuts to programs that Americans depend on and
includes some tax cuts. This agreement is balanced because it builds on
the economic gains that America has made since 1992.
the best economy in 30 years
We need to remember how far we have come since 1992, when this
country was in the depths of a recession. In the past 5 years, we have
had so much economic growth and so little inflation that the experts
are describing today's economy as the best in 30 years. Let me briefly
describe some of these gains--gains that have made a budget agreement
possible today.
Unemployment has fallen from 7.5 percent in 1992 to an annual rate of
4.9 percent. The last time unemployment was at 4.9 percent or less, it
was 1973.
For the first 3 months of this year, inflation ran at an annual rate
of 1.8 percent. The last time inflation was this low, it was 1965.
The economy has created 12.5 million jobs since President Clinton was
first inaugurated.
There were nearly 1.5 million housing starts in 1996, the most since
1988.
The economy grew at an annualized rate of 5.6 percent in the first
quarter of this year. This is truly a stunning rate of growth at this
point in our economic recovery.
The economy has responded beautifully to the economic plan that
Senate Democrats passed in 1993--without one Republican vote. The
measure of our achievement is that today's economy is the best economy
America has had in 30 years.
building on democratic deficit reduction
However, the 1993 bill didn't just spark our economy into recovery.
It also cut the unified deficit by 77 percent.
Let's recall when the real heavy lifting occurred with respect to
deficit reduction. It was only Democrats who voted for President
Clinton's deficit reduction bill in 1993. And what has that bill done
to the deficit since? The unified deficit has fallen dramatically, from
$290 billion in 1992, to $255 billion in 1993, to $203 billion in 1994,
to $164 billion in 1995, and $107 billion last year.
Most importantly, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the
deficit for 1997 will be only $67 billion.
That's a cut of 77 percent in the unified deficit. Under President
Clinton, for the first time since the Civil War, we will slash the
deficit 5 years in a row.
Let's put it another way. The budget plan we are voting on today will
provide $204 billion in deficit reduction over the next 5 fiscal years.
In contrast, the 1993 bill provided 5 times that amount of deficit
reduction. If you compare the actual deficits for fiscal years 1994 to
1998 to what CBO in 1993 expected those deficits to be, you realize
that the 1993 bill achieved $922 billion in deficit reduction for the
years 1994 to 1998.
Let's put it yet another way. If you calculate the improvements in
the deficit from 1994 through 2002, you realize that the 1993 bill cut
future deficits by $2.4 trillion. Again, if we do get to a balanced
budget in 2002, Democrats will have done the heavy lifting.
So there's some justice, Mr. President, in the fact that this
balanced budget deal contains Democratic priorities and protects
Democratic programs that Americans depend on. We today are standing on
the shoulders of the Democratic Members of Congress who voted to cut
the deficit in 1993.
budget plan protects America's priorities
Besides the economic record of the past 5 years and the dramatic
deficit reduction that Democrats have achieved, the third thing that
makes this agreement possible is that it allocates resources to the
priorities that the American people care about: education, the
environment, health care, and middle-class tax relief.
On education, this budget plan includes the President's budget
proposal for Head Start, which puts us on the road to enrolling 1
million children in Head Start in 2002. Only 714,000 kids were enrolled
in 1993. In addition, the budget would fund a child literacy
initiative. The more we learn about education and child development,
the more we realize that early intervention is vital to enabling a
child to gain the skills and knowledge that are vital in today's
economy. That's why Head Start and the literacy initiative are so
important to our Nation's future.
At the higher education end, this budget would fund the largest Pell
Grant increase in two decades. Four million students could receive
grants of $3,000 a year, which is $300 higher than the current annual
grant. The plan also includes $35 billion worth of higher education tax
cuts, including a credit and a deduction. In total, this will be the
largest increase in higher education funding since the G.I. Bill in
1945. These resources are sorely needed today. As every American knows,
college costs have been spiraling upwards, putting college out of reach
for too many families. I am pleased that this budget plan will address
this issue.
The budget plan will also devote resources to preserving our
environment. This agreement would provide $3.4 billion in 1998 for the
Environmental Protection Agency, which is a 9 percent increase over
last year's level, for its research and enforcement work to protect the
public from environmental threats. The agreement would enable the
expansion of the Brownfields Redevelopment Initiative to help
communities clean up and redevelop contaminated areas. And it could
double the pace of Superfund cleanups, leading to 500 additional sites
being cleaned up by the year 2000.
With respect to health care, this budget plan is a marked departure
from the extreme budget plans we saw here in the Senate back in 1995.
In 1995 the majority tried to slash $270 billion from Medicare in order
to provide $240 billion in tax cuts for the rich. Fortunately that plan
never became law. This bipartisan agreement would cut projected
Medicare spending by $100 billion over the next 5 years, but those cuts
will largely come from health care providers. And these savings will
extend the life of the Medicare trust fund for at least a decade. The
agreement would also provide 4 major new preventive Medicare benefits:
mammography, colorectal screening, diabetes self-management and
vaccinations. What a far cry this plan is from the plan 2 years ago.
I would also like to mention that the budget plan contains a major
new initiative to provide health care for kids. It would provide $16
billion over the next 5 years to cover 5 million children. This
coverage will take the form of either improvements to Medicaid or a new
mandatory grant program to the States in order to supplement their
efforts to cover uninsured children in working families.
Lastly, I remain hopeful that this budget agreement will cut taxes
for America's hard-working families. We do not know the details of the
proposed tax legislation yet, but the Republican leadership has assured
us that the tax bill will include a $500-per-child tax credit to make
it easier for families to raise their kids. It will contain $35 billion
in higher education tax credits to make college more affordable. It
will expand the tax advantages of individual retirement accounts.
I have some concerns about the eventual shape of the tax bill, but
this budget plan does not specify the distribution of the tax cuts. It
does not specify the details of the estate tax or capital gains tax
cuts. Those details may well be controversial. But I will wait to see
the tax bill before I make that judgment.
further deficit reduction needed
Besides the eventual shape of the tax cuts, I want to raise one other
concern about this budget plan. Many of my colleagues are describing
this budget as a balanced-budget agreement, and indeed it does balance
the unified budget, as I have said. However, as I made clear during the
debate on the balanced budget amendment, I do not think the unified
budget accurately portrays our fiscal situation. This budget plan is
projected to balance the unified budget, but the unified budget counts
the Social Security surplus, which is estimated to be $104 billion in
2002, in order to reduce the deficit.
[[Page S5335]]
Congress has recognized that it is not appropriate for us to count
the Social Security surplus in this way. And we have said so in the
law. Section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 forbids us
from doing it. So if you look at the text of this conference report,
which is about the only place where we actually observe section 13301,
you will find a revealing statistic. The conference report lists the
projected budget deficits in each fiscal year. And guess what? In 2002,
if you take out the Social Security trust fund surplus, we will have a
deficit of $108 billion.
So, Mr. President, in my view the Congress still has some deficit
reduction left to do if we are to truly balance the budget. And I am
pleased that the final version of the budget plan contains my
amendment, which the Senate approved when I offered it here 2 weeks
ago. My amendment simply says that we should continue to work to reduce
the true deficit, so that we can balance the budget without relying on
the Social Security trust fund.
a balanced agreement
However, Mr. President, I do not intend to make the perfect enemy of
the good in our budgeting. In general, I believe this budget agreement
meets America's expectations and addresses America's priorities. That
is why I will vote for it, and why I will work to see the budget deal
implemented this summer in a way that carries out the bipartisan
agreement that we have achieved this spring.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, as we are now within 1,000 days
of the new millennium, we need to begin to think about what our Nation
should look like in the next 1,000 years. For in the last 1,000 years
we have discovered new continents and new planets, we have conquered
deadly diseases and created new technology. As we stand at the
threshold of the next century we need to take the steps to prepare the
Federal Government and all Americans for the path that lies ahead.
This budget resolution is based on principles which are reasonable,
credible, solution-oriented, and are based on common sense. It is
because of those principles, Mr. President, that I rise today to
support this bipartisan balanced budget resolution. For today we begin
the process to bring fiscal security and greater economic opportunity
to our children.
For over 25 years, the Federal Government has been unable to balance
the budget. We now owe more than $5.3 trillion. Therefore, we spend
over $900 million on interest every day. We send more to our
bondholders in 3 days than we do to every man, woman, and child in
Vermont over the course of an entire year.
The interest payment on our national debt is five and half times more
than we spend on all education, job training, and employment programs
combined. If one was to ask the question what should be the Federal
priorities of this Nation? Should we spend more money on education for
the future of this Nation, or more money on interest? Well, it is clear
what our choice would be--education. Yet, we have precisely reversed
our priorities because we have been imprudent with our fiscal policy.
Balancing the budget is what we need to do to ensure a brighter
future for America. Lower interest rates will allow American families
to purchase their first home, send a child to college, and buy a new
automobile. The real benefits of a balanced budget will be realized in
the increased standard of living for each American family.
Mr. President I would now like to take a moment to speak about some
of the provisions in this agreement.
Medicare serves a 37.5 million elderly and disabled individuals in
this country. For several years the trustees of the Medicare program
have continued to send notice to Capitol Hill that steps needed to be
taken or this program will go bankrupt. This budget resolution keeps
this program solvent for the next 10 years. We now can take the steps
to make fundamental changes to preserve and strengthen Medicare for the
current recipients and future generations.
Through the effort of several of my colleagues, children's health was
put in the forefront during these first few months of the 105th
Congress. Senators came up with different proposals due to one
fundamental thing--the need to provide health insurance to the
estimated 10 million low income children. I commend both the
administration and the leadership for realizing the importance of this
issue and to providing the needed resources for these children.
In many families today, both parents need to work in order to get by.
They work in order to give their children a chance at a better future.
Dinner tables in the past were filled with lively conversation.
Conversation centering on discussions of values and goals and the other
important issues which bring a family together. These tables are now
silent. Empty tables due to the fact parents come home from work just
too tired.
It is time for we in Congress to take some steps to provide relief
for the American family. The tax reduction package is not going to
solve all the problems that each family faces in this country. But what
it will do is leave some additional dollars in the pockets of our hard-
working Americans in order for them to spend those funds on their
family needs. As a member of the Finance Committee, I look forward to
working with Chairman Roth on the specific provisions dealing with tax
relief.
One of the reasons I first got involved in public service was to make
a difference in the educational system of our Nation. As chairman of
the Labor and Human Resources Committee I feel that it is important
that we continue to improve our school system. We have all read stories
about children who go to class but just don't learn. Each day is a lost
opportunity to shape and prepare these children for the future. A
generation is leaving high school unable to meet the challenges that
lay ahead.
When a high school graduate is unable to read, what we find is that
we sent an individual into the world who will live a life of missed
opportunities. Every year America becomes a more technological country.
Distances which used to be measured in the time it took for a plane
travel across this country are now measured in the time it takes for a
signal to be bounced off a satellite. Children need to graduate from
high school not just able to read but to understand the changing nature
of the workplace.
Over my many years in Congress, I have championed educational
opportunities for our children. This budget provides additional funding
for programs that will help students throughout this Nation prepare for
the future. Even though, for every dollar of increased spending for
certain specific programs, this budget has made a $15 reduction in
spending. Today we begin to prepare our students with greater
educational opportunities and our Federal Government will lower deficit
spending, both which will help meet the demands of a global economy.
Mr. President, in closing, the American people in 1996 sent a message
to our Nation's Capital. They wanted an administration and Congress of
different political parties to work together to solve common problems.
Though this agreement is not perfect, and there are some in this
Chamber that feel that we have gone too far and some who feel we have
not gone far enough, it is an important step forward. This is not a
budget based on party, or one that was written exclusively in the Halls
of Congress or in the Oval Office, this is a budget of compromise. This
is a first step toward a new millennium. A time where America is going
to need the ability to meet the challenges that lie ahead.
I want to commend Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici and
Majority Leader Lott for their determination, their hard work, and
their vision in putting together this historic budget resolution. This
is the first step to ensure a brighter tomorrow for our nation.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the conference
report on the fiscal year 1998 budget resolution, which puts us on a
path to a balanced budget by the year 2002. As a member of the Budget
Committee, I am proud to have been a part of the process that created
this agreement. While I recognize that it is not perfect and that the
real work is still ahead of us, I still believe that it represents a
legitimate and fair plan to ensure that we achieve a balanced budget.
This agreement builds on the historic and successful deficit
reduction package enacted in 1993, which resulted in a
[[Page S5336]]
real reduction in the Federal deficit. This 1993 package not only
brought the deficit down from a high of $290 billion in 1992 to an
estimated $70 billion for 1997, but it has achieved real economic
growth and expansion.
The agreement before us today is another step in making sure that our
fiscal house is in order. Developing this agreement was not an easy
task, and required some tough choices, but the bipartisan approach
succeeded.
Throughout the process, significant improvements were made to the
original agreement. I believe that some of these improvements are
essential to protecting the integrity of the agreement. I am pleased
that most of these improvements remained in agreement throughout the
conference process.
One of these improvements is an amendment that I offered to ensure
that in meeting the deficit reduction target for Medicaid, the
authorizing committees will not look to a per-capita cap as a mechanism
for savings or for controlling future spending. I believe that this was
an important message to send; a per-capita cap is not an acceptable
mechanism for controlling Medicaid costs and could seriously jeopardize
the quality of care for millions of children, senior citizens, and the
disabled.
Along these same lines, I was pleased to join with my colleague from
Missouri, Senator Bond, in support of an amendment that expresses the
sense of the Senate, that any changes in the Medicaid disproportionate
share hospital payments not jeopardize the ability of hospitals,
especially children's hospitals to serve the most neediest and the most
vulnerable. We have to be absolutely sure that the numbers do not drive
the policy. If savings can be achieved through reforming DSH without
jeopardizing access to quality health care for the most needy than
these policy changes should be considered. But, if the motive is simply
a number and develop the policy around the cut, than this is
unacceptable.
Working with my good friend from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, we
were successful in including the family violence option amendment to
the Senate resolution. This amendment simply recognizes the need to
properly clarify the ability of the States to include a family violence
option as part of their welfare reform plans without facing any
penalty. During Senate debate on welfare reform in the 104th Congress,
Senator Wellstone and I included this option as guidance to the States.
Unfortunately, there is now some dispute as to congressional intent.
The family violence option amendment that Mr. Wellstone and I offered
to the budget resolution is intended to address this confusion. The
amendment is simple: It allows the States to waive work or training
requirements for victims of domestic violence and abuse without being
forced to count these individuals as part of the 20 percent hardship
exemption. Proper implementation of a family violence option guarantees
that women who have been victims of domestic violence or abuse do not
become victims of welfare reform. Placing barriers to welfare simply
means that these women and their children are trapped in a violent and
in some cases, life threatening environment. For many, welfare is the
only way to escape the violence.
While I believe that this agreement is a major step forward, I am
deeply concerned that efforts already underway would ignore the
agreement. In developing the reconciliation bills, we must adhere to
the goals and principles of this agreement. I am hopeful that there
will be no effort to ignore the policy assumptions in this agreement.
We must also be absolutely sure that any tax cut proposal is fiscally
sound and does not explode the deficit. Not only would this be
unethical, but it would be economically foolish.
I want to thank both Chairman Domenici and Senator Lautenberg for
their efforts in bringing this conference report together and for
working with me to improve the final agreement.
children's health initiative
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to clarify for the
record, a procedural point in the budget resolution. The budget
resolution conference report currently before the Senate includes
language which would permit the chairman of the Budget Committee, with
the concurrence of the ranking member, to revise the reconciliation
instructions to the Finance Committee and to adjust other budget
resolution levels in amounts which are intended to reflect the
children's health initiative. In this regard, I would direct the
attention of our colleagues to the children's health section of the
bipartisan budget agreement, which provides that the $16 billion in
funding ``could be used for one or both of Medicaid (provisions) * * *
and a program of capped mandatory grants to States.'' The agreement
further provides that other possibilities for implementation of the
child health initiative may be considered if mutually agreeable. Would
the chairman of the committee agree that the budget agreement therefore
requires the concurrence of all parties to the agreement--the majority
and minority in Congress and the President--before other policy options
may be considered?
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, I concur with the Senator from New Jersey that
agreement of the President and the majority and minority leadership in
Congress are necessary to consider children's health options beyond the
specified Medicaid and capped mandatory alternatives.
highway reserve fund
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with
the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee regarding the
highway reserve fund in the conference agreement on H. Con. Res. 84.
Mr. President, as my colleagues know, I strongly support increased
Federal infrastructure spending. This budget resolution, while
providing for increased transportation spending, does not provide as
much infrastructure spending as I would have liked. During floor
consideration of this budget resolution, I offered an amendment to
provide for a reserve fund for highways that would allow for increased
spending on highways above the amounts called for in the budget
resolution so long as appropriate offsets are found. I believe that,
once the Senate begins debate on the reauthorization of the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act or ISTEA, there will be strong
interest on the part of many Members on both sides of the aisle to find
additional resources to produce a highway bill that is balanced and
meets the transportation needs of all regions of the country. As such,
I am very pleased that the conference agreement on this budget
resolution includes a highway reserve fund that is effectively
identical to the one provided for in my amendment.
I wish to thank the distinguished Chairman of the Budget Committee
for his cooperation on this matter and ask if I am correct that the
main purpose of this reserve fund is to accommodate higher contract
authority and outlays for highway programs if this additional spending
is offset by direct spending reductions or revenue increases?
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, the Senator is correct. We have provided $8.5
billion in outlays above the President's budget request for
transportation. Even more critical, the bipartisan budget agreement and
this budget resolution has as one of its primary discretionary
assumptions that Congress will spend all of the highway trust fund
receipts over the next 5 years. This will allow for increased highway
obligations by the Appropriations Committee of $9.3 billion over the
President's budget request for highways between 1998 and 2002.
Mr. BYRD. Would the Chairman also take a moment to describe how the
reserve fund would be used to create this additional deficit-neutral
spending for highways?
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia
for raising this issue and would be happy to explain the operation of
the reserve fund. As the Senator knows, the authority to fund highway
programs is split between the Environment and Public Works Committee,
which provides budget authority through contract authority, and the
Appropriations Committee, which controls outlays of the highway program
through annual obligation limitations.
The bifurcated funding nature of these programs made it difficult to
design a reserve fund to allow for additional funding. I appreciate the
Senator from West Virginia's assistance in crafting the highway reserve
fund.
The highway reserve fund in this resolution has separate components
to allocate funding from additional savings to the Environment and
Public Works
[[Page S5337]]
Committee for additional contract authority and to the Appropriations
Committee for additional outlays for highway programs.
The first provides a mechanism to increase budget authority levels in
the budget resolution to accommodate additional highway contract
authority. If legislation is reported to the Senate, or an amendment is
offered on the Senate floor, that reduces nonhighway direct spending or
increases revenues above the levels contained in the budget resolution,
these savings will be made available for highway spending.
The savings would be captured by adjusting the budget resolution's
levels to ensure these savings are not spent for other programs. Next,
the budget authority levels in the resolution would be adjusted upwards
to accommodate higher contract authority for highways. In order for the
Budget Committee to determine how to adjust budget authority levels,
the provision of the bill or the amendment must either provide the
contract authority for highway programs or dedicate the savings in some
fashion for highway programs.
These savings must be either direct spending savings--a reduction in
mandatory spending--or an increase in revenues. Other changes, such as
a reduction in an authorization of appropriations or the diversion of
revenues from the general fund to the highway trust fund, will not
qualify. In addition, the savings will qualify only if the committee of
jurisdiction from which the savings are found is already within its
section 602 ceiling. Savings cannot be used for additional highway
spending if the Senate committee of jurisdiction has already used such
savings to meet its reconciliation targets.
The second component of this reserve fund allows for these savings,
once they have been enacted, to be reserved for future appropriations
bills to accommodate additional outlays that would result from an
increase in the obligational ceilings for highway programs.
When the legislation that generates the direct spending savings or
revenue increases is enacted, I, as Budget Committee chairman, will
submit to the Senate a document that will reflect the revisions to the
budget resolution levels to ensure these savings are not spent on other
programs. This document also would provide the amount on a year-by-year
basis of the outlay adjustment that could be made to the discretionary
caps for additional highway spending.
As with the adjustment for budget authority I have just discussed,
these additional savings must be in addition to the budget resolution
savings. It is my belief this reserve fund will allow for a deficit-
neutral way of providing additional infrastructure resources.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chairman. Am I correct then, that an amendment
on the ISTEA reauthorization bill or other legislation that makes the
necessary savings and provides additional funding for highways in the
manner you have described will not be subject to a Budget Act point of
order in the Senate?
Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct. The reserve fund ensures that budget
levels are adjusted to accommodate such legislation and avoid Budget
Act points of order for exceeding committee allocations or budget
aggregates.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Chairman for taking the time to
clarify this very important issue and I look forward to working closely
with him to provide additional highway resources for our Nation during
the reauthorization of the ISTEA or other legislation.
Mr. KENNEDY. I would inquire of the Senator from New Jersey and the
ranking Democratic Senator for the Budget Committee, as he knows, on a
vote of 51-49, the Senate passed the Coverdell amendment to the budget
resolution, increasing aggregate budget authority in the year 2000 by
$2.539 billion and function 500 budget authority in the year 2000 by
the same amount. The stated purpose of the amendment was to permit
States and local education agencies to create voucher programs that
would take Federal dollars away from public schools and divert those
Federal dollars to support private schools and religious schools. It is
my understanding that the entire Coverdell amendment has now been
dropped. Is that correct?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator is correct.
Mr. KENNEDY. Is there anything in the budget agreement or this budget
resolution or the report, that reflects any language similar to the
purpose of the Coverdell amendment?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. No, there is not.
Mr. KENNEDY. Does the final budget resolution include any of the
numbers that were included in the Coverdell amendment?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. No, it does not.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator for his response. Obviously, any
such voucher program would be highly objectionable because of its
serious harmful effects on the Nation's public schools. It's the wrong
education priority, and I hope it will continue to be rejected by
Congress and the President.
Food Stamp Program
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, before we pass the final version of the
budget resolution, on behalf of myself and the ranking member, Senator
Lautenberg, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished
chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture Committee.
Mr. President, the final budget resolution contains an unusual
reconciliation instruction to the Agriculture Committee. Unlike the
other committee reconciliation instructions, it calls for an increase
in direct spending of $1.5 billion over 5 years. This instruction is
designed to fulfill the bipartisan budget agreement between the
President, the Speaker of the House, the Senate majority leader and the
Senate minority leader. These parties agreed to add $1.5 billion in new
spending for the Food Stamp Program for increased work slots and
expanded waiver authority in the jurisdiction of the Agriculture
Committee. The specific details of the bipartisan budget agreement can
be found on page 89 of the committee print that accompanies Senate
Concurrent Resolution 27.
Mr. President, I would therefore ask the chairman and ranking member
of the Agriculture Committee about their intentions regarding the
bipartisan budget agreement's provisions of $1.5 billion in new food
stamp spending consistent with the details that can be found on page 89
of the committee print that accompanies Senate Concurrent Resolution
27?
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I would respond to the distinguished
chairman of the Budget Committee by saying that I intend to work with
the ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, Senator Harkin, to
craft a bill that will comply with the bipartisan budget agreement's
food stamp provisions.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks of the
chairman of the Agriculture Committee.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chairman and ranking member for these
responses.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am very pleased to hear the
distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Agriculture Committee
commit to fulfill the bipartisan agreement's food stamp provision.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, section 6005 of the conference agreement
on H.R. 1469 contains a substitute for the original Senate prohibition
on the expenditure of funds to advocate certain policies with respect
to the recognition, validity, or management of rights of way
established pursuant to section 2477 of the Revised Statutes (43 U.S.C.
932), more commonly referred to as R.S. 2477.
Section 6005 establishes a commission to recommend a long-term
solution to the administration and Congress. The commission is
bipartisan--6 Republicans and 6 Democrats--plus a retired Federal judge
selected by the other 12 to chair the commission. The commission has
representatives from the administration, Congress, and the States.
The commission is cost effective--the only new cost is the salary of
the retired judge. All other members are Federal, State, or
congressional employees who would serve on the commission within the
scope of their existing duties. The Secretary of the Interior is
responsible for payment of the chairman's salary and expenses, and for
providing, and paying for any necessary staff, office space, and
expenses out of existing funds provided for the Department of the
Interior.
Based on concerns raised by the administration, the provision waives
the
[[Page S5338]]
Federal Advisory Committee Act to avoid lengthy procedural delays.
However the commission's hearings are open to the public, and a public
record is required to be kept of those hearings. In addition, the
commission must keep a record of its deliberations.
The commission is tasked with recommending changes in law to
expeditiously resolve outstanding right of way claims under R.S. 2477.
Those recommendations are to be made in consultation with the governors
of affected States. It is my hope that working together this commission
can reach consensus on this difficult issue.
This commission must make its recommendations by March 1, 1998, and
must include with their submission any comments they receive from
governors. The Secretary of the Interior must approve or disapprove the
recommendations in their entirety by March 31, 1998. If the Secretary
approves the commission's recommendations, then a fast track procedure
is provided in Congress to ensure those recommendations are considered.
If the Secretary does not approve the commission's recommendations,
then the fast track procedure is not available. Under the fast track
procedure only relevant amendments are allowed in the Senate during
floor consideration of the bill, and any message from the House on such
a bill.
The conference agreement leaves intact the permanent prohibition on
the issuance of final rules or regulations on R.S. 2477 without express
authorization of such rules or regulations by a subsequent act of
Congress, and specifically states in section 6005(b)(5)(A) that this
provision does not constitute such express authorization. Section 6005
does not repeal or modify any existing law, and takes no position
regarding the legitimacy of the R.S. 2477 policy announced by the
Secretary of the Interior on January 22, 1997.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, as we finish our work on the
conference report. I want to express my appreciation to Jodi Grant, who
has provided invaluable assistance to me and my staff. Jodi served as
counsel to the Democratic staff before leaving us recently to work on
the leadership staff of the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts,
Senator Kerry. However, she has taken time from her busy schedule to
give us the benefit of her special expertise on budget matters. I very
much appreciate her assistance, and thank her for her willingness to
help.
____________________