[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.

                          ____________________