May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6853

percent, we end up balancing the budget without cutting one Federal program and without reducing one Federal

program by merely putting caps on.

So I think we have to ask ourselves a

question, Mr. President, not should we

do this this week or next week, but

what happens if we do not. Are we

going to have another opportunity in

the U.S. Senate or the other body to

actually come up with a balanced budget? And we have to ask the question:

Where will our children be if we do not

vote properly?

I know there are well-meaning people

on the other side of this. They say we

want a balanced budget, they want to

do something by the year 2002. I would

like to do it sooner. Most of us would.

But talking is one thing and doing is

another thing.

It is not going to be easy, but I suggest to you, Mr. President—I know

that my time is up and morning business up—I suggest to you, if we do not

do it this time, we will probably not be

able to do it in our lifetimes.

I yield back the remainder of my

time.

CONCLUSION OF MORNING

fBUSINESS

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning

business is closed.

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON

THE BUDGET

fThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Under

the previous order, the Senate will now

proceed to the consideration of Senate

Concurrent Resolution 13, which the

clerk will report.

The legislative clerk read as follows:

A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 13)

setting forth the congressional budget for

the United States Government for the fiscal

years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002.

The Senate proceeded to consider the

concurrent resolution.

Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I

have been authorized by the chairman

to speak, and the time to come off the

resolution.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

CAMPBELL). The Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr.

President.

I feel somewhat privileged to be the

first person to speak on this historic

resolution that has just been laid down

by the U.S. Senate. It is, in fact, a historic moment for this Chamber that we

are going to finally come to grips and

face and look straight in the eye the

future of our country and the children

of our country and say we are now prepared to act on your behalf. We are

now prepared to take the tough stands

and to weather the beatings that we

will be getting from the press and from

the other side to stand up for the future generations of Americans so we

can, like my grandfather who came

here as an immigrant and my father

who came here as a immigrant, try to

leave the country better off and with

more opportunities than their generation had.

We have stopped doing that in America, and this is a chance to start over,

to start anew, to give us the opportunity right here on this Senate floor

to move forward, to move this country

forward into a new millennium with

sound fiscal policy and with opportunity available to every American.

That is what this is all about.

This is not about the minutiae that

you are going to hear on the floor of

the Senate about, ‘‘Oh, well, we’re

going to cut this program and as a result of the program’’—listen, a Government program, a Government program

which most people know, most Government programs, big administrative

costs, do not necessarily target the

way they are supposed to, but we are

going to cut a Government program

and there will be hundreds of them discussed in the next 50 hours.

We are going to take a Government

program and that program itself will

jeopardize our future so greatly that it

is more important to preserve this little bit more funding for this program

than it is to balance the Federal budget and to preserve the long-term future

of this country. That argument in itself just fails; it is ridiculous. There is

nothing we do in Washington, DC—

nothing—no individual program that

stands above providing future generations the opportunity to succeed in

America. Nothing.

So when you look and you hear all

the debate about all the minutiae that

you are going to discuss, all the little

programs that somebody likes to scare

people with that we are going to abolish or cut or whatever, remember the

big picture. The big picture is: We balance the budget in 7 years, we provide

fiscal sanity for future generations

and, frankly, for this generation with

several programs, and that is what we

have to focus on. That is what the issue

is.

You are going to hear a lot about, as

I was hearing a few minutes ago, tax

cuts for the rich paid for by cutting

working middle-class programs, so we

are going to take money away from

working Americans, working American

families for tax cuts for the rich. I do

not know about you, but as far as I understand the Tax Code, you get taxed if

you work, you get taxed if you make

money. So if you are cutting taxes for

people who work, I do not know how

that is hurting working American families, particularly since the biggest

item in the tax cut proposal that is

being proposed is a tax cut of $500 for

families, a credit of $500 per family.

Now, how is that hurting families?

The only families that could conceivably hurt are those that do not have

children and those who do not make

enough money to pay taxes. But to say

that you are cutting programs for taxpaying families, yeah, OK, but then we

are giving it back to them where they

can spend the money where they want

to spend it. They get all of it, not siphoned off from Washington with the

administrative costs and the overhead

and the direction of what we think is

best to spend money, but they get the

whole pot.

I see the majority leader is here, so I

will cease my comments because I

know he is really the proper one to

lead this off. But I am telling you, this

is going to be a great day in the U.S.

Senate. It is a day that we should be

very, very proud, as all Members of the

Senate, that we are having this discussion. It is unfortunate that the President of the United States has chosen

not to participate in this discussion,

that he has chosen to sit on the sidelines and throw either confetti or darts

from the stands and not participate

and get involved in solving the No. 1

problem of this Nation by presenting a

budget that is balanced.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader, Senator DOLE, is recognized.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank my

colleague from Pennsylvania. I commend him for his forthright statement.

This is going to be a very important

debate, in effect, for everybody in

America, I believe for the better if we

can keep it on that plane. I certainly

look forward to Senator DOMENICI’s

opening statement, and I will follow

with my budget statement after Senator DOMENICI.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I assume we will follow the typical process

and procedure that we have in the past.

As the majority leader of the bill, I will

have some opening remarks and I, obviously, will quickly yield to the Senator

from Nebraska who will have his opening remarks. I would like the Senate to

know that as we read the budget law,

there is up to 4 hours for discussion of

economics and the macro effect of the

budget and the like. Some Senators on

our side would like to speak during

that period to what they consider to be

a historic event, a redefining event for

America. So we are going to let as

many of them as possible do that without in any way violating our comity

with the other side. As soon as we can,

we will get into a rotation on amendments.

The Senator from New Mexico will

try sometime this evening to offer the

first amendment. It should come as a

shock to no one. It will be the President’s budget. The President’s press

secretary suggested yesterday that it

would be a much better starting point

to start with the President. So we will

accommodate and put that budget before the Senate and see what they

think about it. Then we will go to the

Democrat side for their amendment

and we will move back and forth.

I am permitted by the majority leader pursuant to his instructions to talk

about the fact that we are going to be

in next week late. If the full 50 hours is

going to be used, obviously we are
S6854 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 18, 1995

going to have to take a couple days and

work very long hours. The majority

leader has indicated we are going to do

that. We would like to finish Wednesday, as I understand it. And I am going

to do my best to be accommodating.

Everybody knows that there is a limitation on how long you can speak on

amendments and how much you can

speak on amendments to amendments,

all of which is by law, not by recall.

That is the way the budget law was

written. We are going to work closely

under that. With that, I will have a

couple of procedural unanimous-consent requests, Mr. President.

First, as I understand it, you have already read the budget resolution by

title, is that correct?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous

consent that the following staff of the

Senate Budget Committee be permitted to remain on the Senate floor

during the consideration of Senate

Concurrent Resolution 13.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

objection? Without objection, it is so

ordered.

The list of staff is as follows:

MAJORITY STAFF

Bilton, Karen.

Cieplak, Lisa.

Hearn, Jim.

Hennessey, Keith.

Hoagland, William.

McQuire, Carol.

Miller, Anne.

Phillips, Roy.

Ramonas, Denise G.

Reidy, Cheri.

Rel, Ricardo.

Riley, J. Brian.

Ruffner, Mike.

Selfridge, Barbara.

Smith, Jennifer.

Smythe, Austin.

Stevenson, Bob.

Taylor, Peter.

Vuksich, Greg.

MINORITY STAFF

Abraham, Amy.

Blocker, Annanias.

Dauster, Bill.

Dimock, Kelly.

Dresden, Tony.

Duncan, Meg.

Grant, Jodi.

Greenwald, Matt.

Huffer, Joan.

Klumpner, Jim.

Mays, Daniela.

Nelson, Sue.

Slominski, Jerry.

Strumpf, Barry.

Williams, Dave.

PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Susan Ross, a Presidential management intern, and

Nancy Harris, a J.J. Pickle Fellow, be

granted floor privileges and be permitted to remain on the Senate floor

during consideration of the budget resolution.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

AUTHORITY TO USE CALCULATORS ON SENATE

FLOOR

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous

consent that the presence and use of

small electronic calculators be permitted on the floor of the Senate during the consideration of the 1996 fiscal

budget.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I

yield myself as much time as I need for

some opening observations, and then I

will yield to Senator EXON. And then I

understand the Republican leader

wants to speak immediately following

that. I will be yielding as quickly as I

can to him.

Mr. President, today, we begin a discussion of great significance. As I see

it, we are discussing today the future

of the United States of America. Over

the next few days, we will have the debate that so many of us have said we

want—a debate to balance the budget

of the United States. Earlier this year,

we had another debate. That debate

had to do with a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. At that

time, many of my colleagues declared

that we did not need a constitutional

amendment, Mr. President. ‘‘We do not

need a constitutional amendment,’’

many said, ‘‘to balance the budget.’’

All we needed was the courage to do it

ourselves.

While I wanted a balanced budget

amendment because I wanted it there

for the long-term future, I voted for it.

Today, I am responding to all of the

Senators from both sides of the aisle,

which is an overwhelming number who

have said the United States of America

should balance the budget.

Many Senators on the other side who

did not vote for that balanced budget

amendment—and I am not here arguing

with them today—many of them stood

up on the floor of the Senate and said,

‘‘We do not need the balanced budget

amendment. Just let us exercise courage, and we will get a balanced budget.

We will do it ourselves.’’

This is a do-it-ourselves balanced

budget. We have an opportunity to test

that proposition of courage. Do we

have the courage to do what is necessary to achieve a balanced budget?

Just 55 session days ago, I say to our

majority leader who was present at

that time, on February 10, this same

Chamber overwhelmingly, 87–10, voted

in favor of an amendment directing the

Senate Budget Committee to report

back to the Senate at the earliest possible date, how do we achieve a balanced budget without increasing or reducing the disbursements under the Social Security fund.

In other words, the instructions

were—87–10—bring the Senate a balanced budget, and the only thing that

shall not be touched is Social Security.

Today, Mr. President, fellow Senators, the Senate Budget Committee

has reported back to the U.S. Senate.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 13 now

before the Senate achieves that mandate and that directive from the U.S.

Senate, 87–10. That is the number that

said, ‘‘Do it.’’

We will now have an opportunity to

openly and fairly debate our vision of a

brighter fiscal future, a better America

for our children and our grandchildren,

a brighter America where we pay our

bills instead of asking our children to

pay our bills.

Today, my colleagues on both sides

of the aisle, to all of them, this will be

a very important debate. It will be

heated from time to time. However, it

is an essential debate. America’s future, for the young and the old alike,

will be shaped right here on the Senate

floor during the next 5 to 6 days.

Let Senators, throughout this debate, try to remain focused on what

our ultimate goal is —a country unsaddled with debt on our children.

Because the numbers do not lie, our

deficit is out of control, and our current state of Federal expenditures versus receipts is unacceptable.

In the 1960’s, deficits were averaging

$16 billion a year; in the 1970’s, they

averaged $38 billion a year; in the 1980’s

they averaged $156 billion a year; and

so far, Mr. President, in the 1990’s they

have averaged $259 billion a year.

This year we will borrow 11 cents of

every Federal dollar spent. Our budget

deficit this year stands at $175 billion,

and is growing relentlessly at the rate

of $335,000 a minute, $20 million an

hour, $482 million a day.

All of this debt is, plain and simple,

mortgaging our children’s future. Experts estimate that a child born today

will have to pay an additional $100,000

in added taxes to pay just the interest

on the debt which will accumulate during the next 18 years.

The burden is not just on future generations. Our gross Federal debt is so

large—$4.9 trillion—that it is seriously

harming our standard of living. Every

American now owes $18,500. Every single, living, breathing American, from

the smallest child to the most senior

American, owes the staggering amount

of $18,500.

And by 1999, Mr. President, the President’s proposed budget will change

that number dramatically. I wish I

could say it would come down. Each

American will owe $23,700 as their

share of our profligacy, of our inability

as adult leaders to say we ought to pay

for what we give to people by way of

government.

The New York Federal Reserve Bank

estimates that the deficit spending between the years 1978 and 1990 reduced

the gross domestic product by 5 percent. That means that the sum total of

all our acts in terms of growth and

wealth is 5 percent less during that

decade because of the deficit we have

accumulated.

The bipartisan Concord Coalition reveals that our debt and the deficit

spending have lowered the income of
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6855

American families by $15,000 a year. As

we see, it does matter how much we

borrow, how much we owe, and how

much interest we must pay to those

who have lent and loaned and committed money to our Government to pay

our bills.

Yet, if this proposed budget is any

barometer, the President is doing little

to avert a fiscal train wreck for this

country. If we pass his proposed budget, the problem will just get worse, because the President’s proposed budget

abandons deficit reduction and succumbs to the status quo, adding another $1.12 trillion to our national debt

by the year 2000, bringing the growth

deficit to $6.7 trillion.

President Clinton’s budget promises

$200 to $300 billion deficits as far as the

eye can see, a Medicare system that

will go broke in 7 years, and a crushing

tax burden on America’s young people

just starting out in life. That is the

promise of the President’s budget.

Even the Washington Post editorial on

Tuesday labeled President Clinton’s

budget as ‘‘weak and directionless.’’

The budget reported by the Senate

Budget Committee—and I am very

proud of the 12 members who voted to

report this budget resolution last

Thursday evening—that budget may be

called many things, but one thing opponents cannot accuse it of is lacking

direction. The Senate Budget Committee’s resolution direction is straightforward. It is toward a balance.

Frankly, I must comment that my

good friend, former chairman of the

House Budget Committee and currently Chief of Staff of the President,

said we should let policy direct our

budget, not our budget direct our policy.

I disagree. I disagree. The policy that

should direct our spending is a balanced budget. That, too, is a policy I

say to the White House and to those

who advocate the President’s budget.

Indeed, a balanced budget is a policy,

and it is a policy with a future. It is a

policy for the future.

The budget reported by the Senate

Budget Committee clearly has direction, has a purpose, and has a tremendously effective and much needed public policy of balance for the first time

in almost three decades.

Now, there is a chart up behind me

here that I think ought to be the focus

of the early, early hours of our debate.

It is very, very simple.

It is very, very simple. The President

would have us believe that his budget

is an attack on deficits, that he has

even made enough of an attack on deficits that he can cut taxes. The Congressional Budget Office is, according

to our President, the really official,

honest disseminator of budget facts.

This yellow line is the President’s

budget for the next 5 years according

to the Congressional Budget Office.

You see the bragging occurs here, at

somewhere between 150 and 200—176,

that is where it is. But that is the lowest it ever gets. And look at the line

and look at it climb.

Now in just 5 years it is perilously

close to $300 billion. I am positive, although we have not done the numbers,

that one could now put the line like

this, and by 2002 it would probably be

up here. But the Senate Budget Committee changed the course of economic

history for America and their budget

line is this. It is more than symbolic

that it is in black, because for the first

time, in 2002 the Federal Government

is in the black.

Look at the difference. This is the

difference. The President’s budget goes

on up, getting close to $300 billion

when the Senate budget is less than

$100 billion and then to zero while the

President’s skyrockets and goes on up

to three-and-a-quarter, $350 billion.

That is not complicated by any ideas

about percentage of gross domestic

product and the like. It is just plain

dollar numbers.

So the budget resolution before the

Senate today has a vision. It has a vision of solvency of this country, and a

American dollar that gets out of the

doldrums and has a real chance of remaining the currency for the world.

I know people do not quite understand, sometimes, what this low, low,

low American dollar might mean. I will

not even put the numbers down because the fact frightens me. But if the

American dollar would become weak

enough—what might happen to America if the Saudi Arabians decided they

do not want to be paid in American

dollars anymore? Has anybody thought

of that? I say to Senator DOLE, if the

Saudis said we do not want American

dollars, we want to be paid in yen, you

would see the most significant, gigantic leap in inflation in the United

States, exceeding even the 18, 19 and 20

percent inflation of the Carter days.

Because oil prices would of necessity

go up two or three times just because

of the value of the currency that we

would have to buy up and then pay out.

So we have before us, not a blueprint

as some have said, but an enforceable

blueprint, for it tells the Congress of

the future what they can and cannot do

about spending for the next 7 years. It

does not ignore the problem that everyone agrees exists. It recognizes a

simple notion, that our Government

simply cannot go on spending our children’s money and that by balancing

the budget we can ensure a brighter future for our country and our children.

The budget resolution before the Senate today wants to change the way our

Government works, to make it efficient, responsive, and less expensive.

Like a family gathered around the

kitchen table, the committee members

who voted to report this resolution

Thursday past have made difficult

choices. But those are choices we needed to make to protect and strengthen

the future. We have been thorough and

we have been fair. This budget resolution is designed to return our Nation to

reality in terms of the spending of the

tax dollars of the American people. It

is directed at preserving this country

as a land of opportunity, for this and

future generations, because opportunity comes when a society gives a

citizen a real chance to accumulate

wealth and earn good pay. The more we

go in debt, the less the chance for opportunity.

In short, it is a reflection of our commitment to responsibility, to generating economic growth, creating familywage jobs, and protecting the American dream for our citizens, whether

they are young or whether they are

old. This is not just rhetoric. It is

based on many studies and I will cite

just an a couple.

The economic forecasting firm of

DRI/McGraw-Hill, that firm estimates

that if we balance this budget America’s yearly output will increase by an

extra 2.5 percent over the next 10 years.

Minimum, they say, 2.4 million new

jobs. So, in the debate that follows

when we talk about less Government

and what it might do, less debt and

what it might do for those who would

like to continue to borrow money, we

have to also put into that calculation

that we might get 2.5 million new jobs.

Which has to be set up against some of

the things that people will say have to

be restrained, reformed and cut in the

budget.

Further, a recent GAO study suggests

that the average family income will increase by as much as $11,200 over the

next 30 years as a result of balancing

the Federal budget. Interest rates will

decline, say they, by as much as 1.7

percentage points by the time we are in

balance. These are not my estimates.

They are not hopes. They are not

dreams. They are what the best people

in America are estimating the positive

effect of balance to be. There is a reward for balancing the budget. The reward is a better America, more jobs,

more opportunity, lower interest rates,

less debt for our children. Add them all

up and every adult leader in America

should be willing to stand up and say

that is was we really ought to do.

This resolution restores equilibrium,

fiscal equilibrium. The blueprint, the

enforceable blueprint in this resolution

will for the first time in 3 decades result in a balanced Federal budget. I believe this because I truly believe it will

be enforceable and it makes the very

tough decision to address the fastest

growing areas of Federal spending and

the Federal Government’s commitments. It is a budget which reflects the

unequivocal goals expressed by the

American people and a majority of the

Members of Congress. It will balance

the budget by 2002. It will not touch

Social Security. And it will do so by

ratcheting down the deficit by slowing

the growth of Government.

Let me emphasize, Government

spending will continue to grow over the

next 7 years; but rather than having

Government growing faster than wages

and salaries, as has been the case for

the last three decades, wages and salaries will grow faster than Government

spending—something very important
S6856 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 18, 1995

for the working people of our country

and those who will come along in the

future to join that work force.

This resolution before us envisions

Federal Government growth at 3 percent a year over the next 7 years.

Wages and salaries are estimated to

grow by 5 percent—marvelous. If we

can keep that going, keep that going

for two or three decades our standard

of living would be back where it ought

to be. It is as budget which will reverse

the tide of 50 years of power flowing

from the rest of the country to Washington. We want to provide more freedom and opportunity to people at the

local level so they might have more

control over their own destinies, and

their own decisions on programs that

affect their lives, their communities

and their children. Key changes are

proposed to shrink the Federal bureaucracy. We assume the termination

of over 100 programs, commissions,

boards, including the gradual and orderly phaseout of the Department of

Commerce. And we recommend the

elimination of program duplications,

consolidation of Federal programs to

improve efficiency and prioritize the

limited resources we have.

This resolution begins deficit reduction right here in our own backyard. It

establishes a freeze on congressional

salaries and pay, as a suggestion to the

appropriators, a $200 million cut in the

legislative branch this year with more

to come. It assumes a 12.5-percent reduction in the Senate support staff,

and a 15-percent reduction in committee staff, 25-percent reduction in the

Government operations, GAO, and termination of the Office of Technology

Assessment. We may do more. But

Americans should know we want to

start right here. Since we are asking

for less government, we ought to have

less money to spend on these institutions also.

However, the budget recognizes that

Government does provide needed services to our citizens, and we have been

painstakingly careful to preserve a

safety net for those in true need. Moreover, we support programs aimed at

keeping the American people safe, safe

in their homes, in their schools by

funding needed crime programs fully.

While this budget assumes a series of

reforms of our welfare system that

saves nearly $80 billion over the next 7

years, let no one say that we have ignored those basic human needs. It provides $192 billion for food stamp programs; AFDC, and child welfare programs, we funded over $130 billion; SSI

will be funded over $230 billion. The

earned-income tax credit, which we

will hear a lot about, will continue to

grow, and will expend $155 billion.

This resolution does not in its current form recommend school lunches

be changed. The WIC Program would

not decrease. It could go up. Section 8

housing would continue, and expiring

contracts could very well be funded.

So the committee reported a resolution that does not cut funding for

major education programs targeted at

the disadvantaged, such as Head Start,

chapter 1, special education, Pell

grants, community service block

grants. Check it. That is the way we

put it down. That is the way we recommend it. It will all be up to the committees. But they will all be bound by

a dollar number.

On Medicare, first and foremost, we

have taken heat for the April 3 Medicare trustees report. Here it is. ‘‘Status

of Social Security and Medicare Programs,’’ April 3. This was issued by six

people, four of whom are appointed by

the President, or work for him, and

two private citizens. They state that

this fund is in near collapse. The hospital fund for seniors in terms of

money available to pay the bills will be

bankrupt in 7 years. It will be unable

to pay any bills. We cannot allow this

to happen. And we have taken steps in

this budget to ensure that it does not.

Our budget will slow the growth of

Medicare generating savings needed to

put Medicare on a financially sound

footing for the next 7 years while Congress and, hopefully, the President

work together to develop a long-term

solution to a serious crisis of the solvency gap for Medicare over time.

Saving Medicare from insolvency is

an issue of immediate importance. It

will require all of us, Republicans and

Democrats alike, to work toward a solution. Therefore, our budget calls

upon our congressional leadership

without delay to establish a bipartisan

commission to develop recommendations on how to maintain the solvency

of the Medicare system. This commission will be required to report back to

Congress by July 10 so that these

short-term recommendations can be

considered by our appropriate committees before final passage of the laws

changing the direction of our country.

So let us also be clear about taxes in

this budget. The budget resolution does

not raise taxes. Later on, Mr. President, as we are told we should not balance the budget this way, that there

ought to be another way—although I do

not think we will see another way—but

we will suggest that maybe there are

some who would like to balance the

budget by raising taxes. So we will give

everybody an estimate of how many

billions of dollars in taxes would have

to be imposed on the American people

to balance the budget by raising taxes.

In fact, we will tell you for your Coloradans, Mr. President, how many billions they would have to pay in new

taxes if we do not want to restrain

growth and cut programs. If we do not

want to do that, restrain growth in

some of entitlements and change the

way we spend money, if we do not want

to do that, then we will tell you how

much taxes the State will have to pay

to the Federal Government to come

into balance. Because I take those at

their word who said they want a balanced budget. They may not want it

our way. So we are trying to explore

which way.

Let me in closing say that it is my

sincere hope that, as we move through

this process, we can start working together. I wish that Republicans and

Democrats could respond to the wishes

of the American people in harmony and

in unison and end this crisis of deficit

spending. I understand full well, however, that this may not be possible. In

the end, however, we must pass a budget and direct our policies toward balance.

Last week the committee began its

deliberation on the budget. We observed a great hallmark in American

history, the 50th anniversary of V–E

Day, or Victory in Europe Day. As I

told the committee as we began that

debate on V–E Day, it was a day we all

proudly recall. We recall how Americans rallied together, persevered, and

eventually conquered an extraordinary

threat to the future. But 50 years later

our Nation faces another threat. That

threat is severe enough that we should

declare war on it and defeat it. One crisis that is less obvious but is just as

sinister—one of the great leaders from

that great struggle 50 years ago, Winston Churchill, said and I quote:

The price of greatness is responsibility.

We in Government shoulder that responsibility, Mr. President. We actively seek it by running for public office. I believe the time has come to

stop shrinking but to shoulder our responsibility and enact an honest Federal budget and stop squandering our

economic future. As we begin this historic debate, I would ask that we all,

especially those of us who are elected

to lead, consider our service to this Nation. Let us not lose sight of the big

picture, but let us focus on these policies that will carry this country into

the next century strong and hopeful

with an economic future for everyone.

How will future generations view our

efforts on behalf of America? Did we

work to protect it, strengthen it, improve it, or did we consume its vitality

and leave our children with fewer opportunities and a lower standard of living than their parents? I know what I

want to do. I am very hopeful that a

compelling majority of the Senate

wants to do the same thing.

So let us begin the debate. It is one

that should be in full in the open to the

American people, and we are very

grateful that we live in a society that

will permit both sides to be heard. I understand and respect those who may

disagree as to particulars in this budget. But I am sure that whatever the

outcome of this debate Members from

both sides of the aisle must conclude

that our country’s future cannot be

strong if we fail to control spiraling

debt and continue into the next century with it unchecked. It will not

work unless we make some fundamental changes today and early next week.

So I think the time is now. The opportunity is before us today. Let us

show the courage and do what is in the

best interest of our country.
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6857

I thank the Senate. I thank the Presiding Officer.

I yield the floor at this time.

Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

KYL). The Senator from Nebraska [Mr.

EXON] is recognized for his opening

statement.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, to begin

with, I first want to salute once again,

as I have in the past, the distinguished

chairman of the Budget Committee for

all of the work that went into the production of this Republican budget. I

commend him, too, for making the

type of hard choices that are necessary

if we are to balance the unified budget

by the year 2002.

Most of us on this side of the aisle

share the goal of a balanced budget. It

is an article of faith, I suggest, for this

Senator. I have a long history of fighting for responsible budgets. Our dedication to fiscal responsibility, therefore,

cuts across party lines. We are willing

to work with the Republican majority

to shape a budget that will reach balance on a unified basis by 2002. I hope

we can come together to fashion out of

the Domenici initiative a true bipartisan compromise. I will outline today,

and during the budget debate to follow,

some fundamental concerns that I feel

must be addressed.

Of course, none of this will be easy.

To a Senator, we know the enormous

challenges that lie ahead. All of us

must recognize that we have to make

some tough choices, and this Senate

has demonstrated in the past I am willing to do that. But no person or party

has all of the answers. We should seek

to build a consensus on balancing the

budget. Brute force is not the answer.

We cannot be dictated to or ignored.

Minority rights and views must be recognized and weighed. House Budget

Committee Chairman KASICH recently

said, and I quote, ‘‘Democrats have no

standing to say anything about what

we are doing in the House and the Senate.’’ This brash rhetoric does not

serve the process well. Whatever they

do in the House certainly has no place

in the Senate.

Earlier this year, I held out the hope

for a bipartisan budget. However, we

parted ways on key issues, such as tax

cuts and the distribution of spending

cuts. Soon after, the trench warfare

really began. The Republican majority

in the Budget Committee took a combative crouch during our markup.

Their budget was carved in stone and

we in the minority could not remove

one period or comma. Not a single

number could be changed, even in the

smallest amount. That is not the approach to take if we truly desire to

work together to produce a unified balanced budget.

On numerous occasions, I have offered a hand of friendship and an invitation to reason on the budget. My purpose is not to thwart the Republican

budget, but rather to recast some of its

priorities to better reflect our Nation’s

needs. My purpose is to make recommendations and offer amendments

which I believe will make the cuts fairer and evenly distributed. My purpose

is to put some balance in this budget.

During the next 50 hours, we will

hear a lot about this budget. This

budget, once shrouded in secrecy, has

been in full view for a little more than

a week. As it was unveiled, the budget

was attended by the usual fanfare: the

grand statements of vision, the quotes

from Thomas Jefferson.

That day, we heard a lot of promises,

too. As we sat down to mark up the

budget, those promises kept cropping

up again and again and again. As we

started to peel away layer after layer

of the budget, many of the promises did

not jibe with the numbers I saw.

The Republicans promised to make

dogged choices over and over again, but

tax cuts are the tail that wags this

budget. The Republicans promised to

protect the elderly but asked for a

king’s ransom in Medicare cuts to foot

the tax cuts. The Republicans promised

a brighter future for our Nation but

cast a bleak shadow upon rural America and our children.

Although there have been protests to

the contrary, there is a tax cut tucked

away in this Republican budget. No one

should be fooled by the mirrors that

are used to hide this fact. It has been

thinly disguised as a $170 billion contingent fund, but it is a tax cut nevertheless. In fact, this could be the mother lode of tax cuts for the wealthy. And

what the Republicans do not tell the

American people is that the $170 billion

tax cut could balloon to $356 billion

over 10 years.

The budget before us does not dictate

what tax cuts are forthcoming, but we

know what is being discussed by the

other side of the aisle. The news is not

comforting. For example, more than

half of the tax breaks in the Housepassed Contract With America tax bill

benefit those families with incomes of

over $100,000. That is the top 12 percent

of the income distribution, and even if

we disregard Republican plans to increase taxes for those eligible to receive the earned income tax credit,

families with incomes below $10,000

would get an average tax cut of $20.

Compare that, if you will, with families

with incomes over $200,000 stand to receive a $11,266 tax cut bonanza. That is

wrong.

True enough, the Senate Budget

Committee adopted a nonbinding

sense-of-the Congress amendment

sponsored by Senator BOXER that

states that 90 percent of any tax cut

should go to the middle class.

But no one should be fooled into believing that the plans of the majority

have changed. Senate proponents of tax

cuts have publicly stated their support

of the House-passed tax provisions in

the Contract With America. If ever

there was a Contract on America, this

is it. One Senator has vowed that he

will offer a tax cut amendment on the

Senate floor, and it will not be limited

to the middle class.

The tax cut centerpiece of the Republican budget is fueled by cuts in Medicare. The Medicare reductions in the

Republican mark total $256 billion over

the next 7 years. That is the largest

Medicare cut in history. This is the

single most important part of the Republican plan. This is the key to the

entire deal. This is the cornerstone of

the Republican budget, and we intend

to change it.

Yet, it comes without a single specific proposal beyond the formation of

a commission. On this point, there is

no plan. On the largest, most significant part of the Republican budget,

there is not plan—period.

Although we have no details, it is

clear that at least half the cuts will

fall on beneficiaries. The only Medicare

cut publicly supported by Chairman

DOMENICI would increase the part B

premium to 31.5 percent of program

costs, adding nearly $500 a year to outof-pocket payments by the year 2002.

By the year 2002, the average beneficiary will pay $900 more a year in outof-pocket health care expenses. These

cuts will have a devastating impact on

the most vulnerable citizens: our frail,

our sick, our poor, our seniors.

Republicans promised, too, that their

budget would protect Social Security.

But the GOP Medicare cuts will require

the elderly on fixed incomes to use

most, if not all, of their Social Security COLA to pay for health care. For

the one-in-four who rely on Social Security for their entire income, this is

an enormous hardship.

Cuts in providers are often passed

along to other payers, as we know from

the past and as we know from the debate that we had last year in an attempt to revise the whole health care

system.

I would point out that if only onethird of these cuts were shifted to

other payers, businesses, and families

would be forced to pay a hidden tax of

$40 to $50 billion between now and 2002.

Provider cuts would have a particularly devastating impact on rural

areas. Nearly one-quarter of all Medicare beneficiaries live in rural America

where there may be a single hospital

serving an entire country or more. Significant cuts in Medicare could increase the number of hospitals in rural

areas that will be forced to close. Since

rural hospitals are often the largest

employer in their communities, pulling

the plug on these hospitals will result

in job loss and, most important and

devastating, physicians leaving these

communities.

Cuts in Medicaid would also cause

the elderly to suffer severe and needless pain. Nearly 67 percent of Medicaid

spending is for the elderly and disabled.

The Republicans cut Medicaid by $175

billion over 7 years, or 30 percent by

the seventh year.

More than 800,000 elderly and disabled people are likely to lose coverage

under this proposal. Between 5 and 7

million children could tumble through

the safety net. And half of the children
S6858 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 18, 1995

served by Medicaid come from working

families. Medicaid is also the only

major Federal source of funding for

long-term care, serving 1.6 million people in nursing homes in 1993, while 1.1

million people receive home health

care.

While the cuts in Medicare and Medicaid are onerous, I am also extremely

troubled by the new 20-percent cut in

mandatory agriculture spending contained in the Republican budget. It is a

harvest of shame for rural America.

Agriculture has become a scapegoat

for our inability to balance the budget.

You have heard all the fictions. Agriculture programs drive the deficit. Agriculture gets a free ride. Agriculture

makes no contribution to balancing

the budget. The truth is in shorter supply.

The real deficit problem does not lie

in agriculture. We should give credit

where credit is due A hard look at the

projected growth of entitlement spending from 1993 to 1999 demonstrates that

agriculture spending shrinks while

most of the other programs show substantial growth.

In fact, after a peak in 1986, agriculture spending has declined substantially. The Congressional Budget Office

projects that total costs for farm price

support programs run by the Commodity Credit Corporation will decline

from the $26 billion high-water mark in

1986 to less than $8 billion by the year

2000. This is due primarily to program

reforms, including those enacted as

part of the 1993 deficit reduction package.

Over the next 5 years, agriculture

commodity program spending is projected to decline from $10.3 billion in

1996 to $7.8 billion in the year 2000. As

a percentage of total Federal outlays,

Commodity Credit Corporation outlays

have declined from a peak 2.4 percent

in the late 1950’s to a projected fourtenths of 1 percent by the late 1990’s.

In spite of this downward trend, this

budget contains an additional 20-percent hit on agriculture. Let me repeat

that. In spite of this downward trend,

this budget contains an additional 20

percent hit on agriculture. The effect

of that cut is startling in its magnitude. It pulls the rug out from under

rural America. To reach such a number, the Agriculture Committee will

need to take draconian action, such as

increasing unpaid base acreage from 15

percent to approximately 35 percent.

If that happens, I suggest that we are

going to see a flight of our farmers in

the United States of America.

Moreover, these cuts will strangle

our ability to craft a rational farm bill

this year. When added to the deep Medicare cuts that will close rural hospitals, I am deeply concerned that this

budget will sound the death knell for

any semblance of quality existence for

rural America. To partially address

this, I offered an amendment to reduce

by $8 billion the scheduled $12 billion

cut in government agriculture programs during the budget markup. My

amendment was defeated on straightline, never-swerving, solid-Republican

volley of noes—no to agriculture and

no to rural America.

The cuts in the Republican budget go

deep and far afield to finance the tax

cut. Funding for income security programs is cut $118 billion over 7 years.

Food stamps and other nutrition programs are cut by $30 billion over 7

years. Some 17 percent of households

receiving food stamps have elderly

members.

The Republicans also take a

chainsaw to the earned income tax

credit. The earned income tax credit

helps keep working families off of welfare and assists middle-class families

who have sudden losses of income. If

the chairman’s mark, however, is enacted into law, the earned income tax

credit will be cut by $21 billion over 7

years.

The Republicans say they will shield

the Veterans Administration’s medical

system from cuts. This is not a shield

I would want to stand behind. The Republican budget increases the veterans’

contribution for GI bill education benefits. It increases the copayment for

prescription drugs for higher income

individuals. Let us be clear. By funding

the VA’s medical system at the 1995

level for the next 7 years, the Republicans are dramatically cutting access

to health care services for veterans all

over this country.

During markup, Democratic Senators

on the committee made numerous attempts to soften the blow upon Medicare and other programs critical to

working American families. We stated

that any fiscal bonus that may accrue

from balancing the budget should not

be spent on tax cuts. Rather, this

money could go a long way to alleviate

some of the hardship that would be imposed by the cuts in the Republican

budget, or to further reduce the deficit.

Democratic Senator after Democratic Senator offered amendments to

get our priorities straight and put this

budget back on track. Let me stress—

let me stress, Mr. President—that not

a single Democratic amendment would

have resulted in an unbalanced budget

in 2002.

I will go through the entire list of

Democratic amendments. But let me

give my colleagues a flavor of what the

Republicans found so hard to swallow.

We tried to get an agreement to use

the tax cut bonus to ease the cuts on

Medicare, Medicaid, education, agriculture, and the earned income tax

credit. We tried to eliminate the millionaire expatriate tax loophole. That

is the one that allows those who have

benefited most from our country to

avoid millions in taxes by renouncing

their American citizenship. We would

have used those revenues to hire more

officers for community policing and to

offset the cuts in veterans programs

and the earned income tax credit. We

stood up for impact aid educational

programs. We tried to prevent children

eligible for Medicaid from losing their

coverage. Not a one of these amendments passed.

It is a sad commentary on our times

that during the markup of the Republican budget, we did not have a bipartisan approach toward a common goal.

We recognize that doing so will take

painful, but necessary cuts and we are

willing to call for the sacrifices that

will be necessary. They will hurt and

they will be painful.

It is not the goal, but the distribution of the cuts in this resolution that

is so troubling to this Senator and

those on this side of the aisle. At a

time when so many Americans are

being asked to sacrifice to balance the

Federal budget, I cannot and will not

condone a budget that contains a tax

cut that is a sop to the wealthiest

among us.

I cannot support a budget that makes

misguided cuts in Medicare and other

programs that improve the lives of millions of American families merely to

underwrite this extravagance.

I cannot support a budget that would

lay waste to rural America and its

fragile economy.

In closing, let me say that it is my

hope that during the upcoming debate

on the Senate floor, my Republican

colleagues will give serious and due

consideration to the amendments that

will be offered to alleviate the unfair

distribution of those cuts, and to reverse the course on the tax cut.

Then, and only then, will we have a

budget that can be supported, not only

by Democrats and Republicans, but all

of us here working together on the

common problem that has been so well

enunciated by the chairman of the

Budget Committee: the ever-increasing

deficit and the ever-increasing national

debt.

We want the American people to

know and understand that we want to

cooperate and will cooperate in a

means to the end, but it must be done

in a different fashion than has been detailed in the Republican budget.

If we can do that, then we will have

a budget that is whole. We will have a

budget that could lead to an eventual

reconciliation bill that I could support

and authorize an appropriations bill

that would follow, that I could recommend to the President that he sign

and not veto.

Yes, Mr. President, the Republican

majority should realize that they may

have the 51 votes to pass their bills,

but they do not have, nor will they

ever muster, in my opinion, the 67

votes to override a veto. I respectfully

suggest that this is the time to start

on the road to compromise and the

road to reason so that we can come out

of this debate on a course of bipartisanship on the budget that we are going to

pass.

I yield the floor.

Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, in the past

few years, this Chamber has been the
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6859

scene of historic debates on major issues of our time. In January 1991, we

spoke of war and peace as we gave our

approval to the use of military force

against Saddam Hussein.

Last summer, over the course of several weeks, we conducted a nationwide

seminar on health care as we discussed

President Clinton’s proposal to turn

our health care system over to the Federal Government.

In my view, both of these debates

brought out the best in the Senate and

both captured the attention of the

country. It is my hope today that

America is watching and listening very

carefully because I believe that no debate is more important to our Nation’s

future than the one that began today

in the Senate and the one that began

yesterday in the House of Representatives.

I believe that no votes we cast will

make more of a difference to our children and our grandchildren than the

ones coming and the ones we will make

in the next few days.

The Senate and our country is fortunate this debate will be led by the Senator from New Mexico. No Senator has

spoken with more courage and more

conviction on budgetary issues than

Senator DOMENICI. All Senators can

probably find something in the Senate

Budget Committee’s proposal that we

would change. For example, I will say

right up front I believe that while we

balance the budget, we can also provide

America’s families with tax relief and

our business communities with incentives to invest and create more jobs.

But no Senator can disagree with the

historic nature of the Budget Committee’s proposal or with the fact that

Senator DOMENICI’s leadership has

truly transformed this debate. To

some, it may seem the debate is all

about numbers. And some very big, almost unimaginable numbers will be

thrown around in the week ahead. We

will hear talk of $200 billion yearly

deficits as far as the eye can see, which

is what is contained in President Clinton’s budget proposal. And we will hear

the number $4 trillion again and again

and again which is, of course, our national debt—$4 trillion. But I believe

the most important number is the one

everyone can understand and the one

that Senator DOMENICI mentioned.

That number is $18,500. The fact is that

every American now owes $18,500 as

their share of the national debt.

How will Americans pay this bill? It

will be paid through fewer jobs and

lower wages. It will be paid through

higher interest rates when they take

out a loan to buy a car or buy a home,

and it will be paid through higher

taxes. In fact, the Joint Economic

Committee estimates all children born

this year will pay $187,000 each—every

child born this year will pay $187,000

each—in taxes over their lifetime just

to pay their share of interest on the

debt—just to pay their share of interest on the debt. This is the future that

faces our children and grandchildren,

and it is a future that is within our

power to change.

In the final analysis, however, this

debate is much, much more than a debate about numbers. It is a debate

about people, people we know in our

hometowns and our home States, people we know all across America. It is a

debate about what kind of people live

in America today, and it is a debate

about what kind of America we will

pass on to the people who live here tomorrow—again, our children and our

grandchildren and their children and

their grandchildren.

In the coming days, America will

hear two very distinct and dramatically different viewpoints on these

questions. One viewpoint is that of

President Clinton and the Clinton administration. Candidate Clinton

pledged to balance the budget within 5

years, and President Clinton, in his inaugural address, spoke of ‘‘cutting our

massive debt.’’ And he also spoke about

‘‘sacrifice.’’ In fact, within hours of the

President’s inauguration, I said, ‘‘I was

pleased to hear the President use the

word ‘sacrifice,’ a word that strikes

fear in the hearts of many in this

Chamber. But President Clinton is absolutely right. If we are to put our economic house in order, if we are going to

do right by our children and grandchildren, then we must deal with our

national debt.’’

That is what I said shortly after his

inauguration. That was January 20,

1993. But, unfortunately, the President’s actions have not matched his

words of that day. The President is

making no attempt to balance the

budget. As we know, his proposed budget would give us $200 billion deficits,

and more, as I said earlier, for as far as

the eye could see.

The President is making no effort to

cut our debt. As we know, under his

own proposed budget another trillion

dollars will have been added to our Nation’s debt by 1997, not a balanced

budget but another trillion dollars in

debt. The President is making no effort

to preserve and protect Medicare for

our children and grandchildren. He

washed his hands of the report of the

Medicare board of trustees, which included three members of his Cabinet.

This was not Senator DOMENICI’s, or

Senator KYL’S, or Senator GRASSLEY’s

report. This was the board of trustees’

and the President’s own Cabinet members’ report. ‘‘Medicare will be broke

within 7 years,’’ they said. If that happens, you cannot pay anybody’s doctor

or hospital bills. I believe we ought to

fix it.

Senator DOMENICI will recall that in

1983 we had the same problem with Social Security. That was 12 years ago.

Then Ronald Reagan, the Republican

President, Speaker O’Neill, a Democrat, and Howard Baker, the majority

leader in the Senate, put together a

commission. I was honored to be on

that commission along with Senator

MOYNIHAN, Senator Heinz, and other

Members of this body, Members of the

House, members in the private sector,

and members of organized labor. After

weeks and weeks, we put together a

rescue package for Social Security.

That was in 1983. It was bipartisan. It

passed by big margins. So Social Security, as far as I know, according to the

trustees, will be in good shape until

2017. That was a 34-year fix. Not bad.

We want to do the same in Medicare.

That is what is proposed by the Senator from New Mexico.

The President called it a gimmick.

Well, Speaker O’Neill did not call it a

gimmick, Ronald Reagan did not call it

a gimmick, and we got the job done.

We rescued Social Security from bankruptcy in 1983 in a bipartisan effort in

this body and in the other body and in

the White House, because the trustees

said at the time that it was going to be

broke in a very short time. They are

saying the same thing today about

Medicare. I do not recall then Ronald

Reagan or any Democrat, as far as I

know, getting up and railing about,

‘‘We are going to destroy Social Security,’’ as the Democrats are doing now

about Medicare, saying we are going

after seniors, because everybody understood what the trustees had told us. If

we did not fix it, it was going to go

broke. The same is true here.

If we do not fix Medicare, it is going

to go broke. That is all the Senator

from New Mexico and that is all this

budget proposes, to fix it. We are not

using any Medicare savings for tax cuts

for the rich, as I hear all my Democratic friends state. Some of them are

rich, come to think of it. Now, the

President’s administration has apparently concluded Americans are nothing

more than a series of special interests

who focus on only living for today,

uncaring of what will happen tomorrow. But the Senate Budget Committee

resolution has a different view of what

kind of people Americans are. I have a

different view of what kind of people

Americans are. Maybe it is because of

what I have seen in my lifetime. I have

seen Americans risk and lose their

lives to protect freedom. I have seen

them sacrifice and sacrifice and sacrifice to win the cold war. The words of

Winston Churchill to the British people

during the dark days of World War II

can also be used to describe Americans:

We have not journeyed all the way across

the centuries, across the oceans, across the

mountains, across the prairies because we

are made of sugar candy.

I do not believe the American people

have come all this way only to allow

their country to drown in a sea of red

ink. That is what America is all about.

That is what the American people are

all about. Nobody wants to give up

anything, unless we understand how

critical it is. So the Budget Committee

resolution offers America a liferaft. We

offer the American people, regardless

of party, regardless of background,

wherever they are from, whatever

State, a liferaft. It sets a course for a

balanced budget by the year 2002. It reverses the tide of half a century of
S6860 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 18, 1995

power flowing from our citizens and

States to Washington, DC. In effect, it

dusts over the 10th amendment, which

I carry in my pocket. It is only 28

words in length. It says that the power

which is vested in the Federal Government ought to go to the States and to

the people. That is what this budget

does. That was a radical theory 200

years ago. That is how old the 10th

amendment is. It is part of the Bill of

Rights and is 28 words in length. You

ought to read it.

For the last 50 years, the power has

been shifting to Washington, and we

think it is time to shift it back. We

trust our Governors—Democrats and

Republicans—in any State of America.

We trust our State legislatures. We believe that many times they can make

better decisions, because they are closer to the people, than we can here. We

do not suggest by that that the Government does not do a lot of good

things. The Federal Government does a

lot of good things and we understand

that. We are going to preserve that.

If the past few days are any indication, the President is going to do his

level best in the coming weeks to scare

the American people, particularly seniors who only have Medicare or Medicaid and Social Security. That may be

all the income they have and all of the

protection they have. The President is

going to try to frighten these people.

He is going to try to frighten people

with children. He will accuse us of

being heartless. He will say we are out

to get Social Security and Medicare.

But it is off the table here. He will say

we are slashing programs that help

seniors, the children, and the poor. The

liberal media will, of course, report

these accusations, and many Americans will be led to believe it. But in the

end, I believe there is a weapon stronger than scare tactics, and that weapon

is the truth.

One thing about the Senator from

New Mexico: You can expect the truth

from PETE DOMENICI. He will tell it like

it is, even when it hurts. The truth is

that this budget does not slash Government spending. It simply slows its rate

of growth. It does not slash Government spending. It simply slows the rate

of growth.

As Senator DOMENICI said, rather

than having Government growing faster than wages and salaries, which has

been the case for the last three decades, wages and salaries will now grow

faster than Government spending.

The truth is that this budget does

not touch Social Security. It does not

touch Social Security. But that does

not mean the President will not say it

does not touch Social Security. It does

not mean it is not going to be reported

that it does, but it does not touch Social Security. I assume the Senator

from New Mexico would give a reward

if one could find anything that touches

Social Security in the budget.

Mr. DOMENICI. We ought to put a

new incentive in. That will be something we ought to give to people.

Mr. DOLE. Right. If you find something about Social Security, there may

be a reward for you.

Mr. DOMENICI. With reference to

Medicare, we even suggest that in any

reform measure, people at the low end

of Social Security are held harmless.

That is figured into savings. They do

not suffer a loss in their Social Security check. That is even built in, in addition to Social Security being off the

table.

Mr. DOLE. It is not a benefit or advantage to seniors.

The truth is—and this should all be

about the truth, not about what is reported—that this budget will shrink

the Federal bureaucracy, beginning

right here in Congress, with a 7-year

freeze on congressional salaries and a

$200 million cut in the legislative

branch budget. This reaches out to

Americans in need. For example, we

will spend $534 billion on Medicaid over

the next 5 years, reflecting a 20-percent

increase over that period.

The truth is that this budget begins

the process needed to preserve, improve, and protect Medicare. This

budget acknowledges that we must

take action to save Medicare by slowing its annual growth rate.

But let there be no mistaking about

what we are proposing. Let the Senate

be very clear about it. Over the next 5

years, we will spend over $1 trillion on

Medicare. That is an increase of $178

billion. Let me repeat: We will spend

over $1 trillion on Medicare, an increase of $178 billion over what we

would have spent if we froze Medicare

expenditures at today’s level.

Despite the overheated rhetoric coming out of the White House, we are not

talking about cutting Medicare. Later

in the debate I think the Senator from

New Mexico will have a very interesting chart that ought to make Senators’

eyes pop out. The statement made by

President Clinton not long ago.

We are not even talking about freezing Medicare. We are simply suggesting

we must find ways to slow the rate of

growth. Slow the rate of growth. It is

not about paying for tax cuts, it is

about saving Medicare. This is a fact

and that is the truth.

I do not care how many people stand

on the floor on the other side, and

there will be a storm of rhetoric on the

other side about cutting Medicare for

taxes for the rich. Not true. It is not

true. We are trying to save Medicare,

just as we saved Social Security in

1983. We will do it.

If they want to stand on the sidelines, and the President wants to be

a.w.o.l., absent without leadership as

he is almost every day, that is all right

with us. The American people will remember who was carrying the heavy

water up here. As my friend, Senator

GRAMM says, ‘‘Who was pulling the

wagon?’’ They are not going to pull any

wagons on the other side. We will have

to pull the wagon. It will be uphill. It

will not be easy.

I might add here that the President’s

rhetoric about Medicare rings especially hollow given the fact that his

own health care plan included a $180

billion reduction in Medicare and Medicaid spending. We do not hear much

about that on the other side. We do not

hear much about that in the White

House.

In last year’s health care bill, it was

there—$180 billion in Medicare and

Medicaid spending reductions. Now, the

President said at the time, that is not

a reduction. Again, I will leave that up

to the Senator from New Mexico to explain at a later time.

The fact that Mrs. Clinton said in

testimony before the Senate Finance

Committee, ‘‘We feel confident * * *.

We can reduce the rate of increase in

Medicare without undermining quality

for Medicare recipients.’’ That was not

anybody speaking but Mrs. Clinton,

who was in charge of the Governmentrun health care plan advocated by

President Clinton. Fortunately, it

failed. In her own testimony before the

Finance Committee, ‘‘we can reduce

the rate of increase in Medicare without undermining quality for Medicare

recipients.’’

Now, what has happened in a year?

Nothing has happened. So if they were

right then, and we are right now, I

guess we are both right. And the President ought to go back and read his own

statements and read statements others

in the administration have made.

I would take the President’s budget

rhetoric a little more seriously if he

would offer the American people an alternative, besides his status quo proposal that Senator DOMENICI said even

the Washington Post called ‘‘weak and

directionless.’’ Believe me, that was in

the Washington Post, and they do not

often criticize Democrats for anything

in this town. That was in the Washington Post, believe it or not.

Mr. President, we can and must do

much more than simply maintain the

status quo as the President has proposed. We can and must set the course

to a balanced budget. And we can and

must reduce the tax burden on America’s families.

Mr. President, I believe that long

after we are gone, future historians

will look back at this moment, the rest

of this week and part of next week,

look back at this debate and say,

‘‘Here’s where the course was set.

Here’s where the dye was cast.’’

It is up to Congress to determine

what their conclusion will be. Will they

conclude that here were the people who

blew the last chance to change the status quo? Is that what they will write in

30, 40, 50 years? Or here were the people

who ensured that the America of the

21st century would be one of low wages,

high taxes, and fewer opportunities? Is

that what they will write? Will they

look back to 1995 and say, ‘‘Here’s

where the American dream died, right

here, right in this Chamber. Right in

this Chamber, because we did not have

the courage to do what the American

people want us to do, or have the courage to do what we know we should do.’’
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6861

Are they going to say all those

things? Are they going to look back in

10, 20, 30, 40 years and say, ‘‘Here were

the men and women of courage. Here

were the people who made tough decisions and ensured that America’s best

days are yet to come. Here were the

people who ensured nothing less than

the survival of the American dream.’’

The choice is ours, and the time is now.

Mr. DOMENICI. I understand the distinguished Senator from Tennessee,

Senator FRIST, would like to speak.

Senator DOLE, I might say I greatly

appreciate the remarks, and I think

the American people would know what

the majority leader said here today is

very, very important, and part of our

efforts to get this budget resolution

passed. I am very appreciative of this

help.

The leader commented on the Senator from New Mexico, and he has been

very supportive, as clearly indicated.

We have a job to do and we want to get

it done. I am most appreciative.

Let me just say a couple of things

very, very quickly. The budget resolution before the U.S. Senate does not

have any tax cuts in it until the budget

of the United States is balanced, and

until it is certified to be balanced by

the Congressional Budget Office.

So, whatever the talk about cutting

taxes versus how we balance the budget, the truth of the matter is we balance this budget and we do not cut

taxes in doing that. We change programs. We alter and reform programs.

We get to balance. Then there is a dividend, an economic dividend, that in

this budget resolution is directed to be

used by the appropriate committee for

tax cuts, and tax cuts only.

Then it is interesting, people are

talking about tax cuts for the rich.

Frankly, we passed overwhelmingly—

but for one vote, everybody else voted

aye—a Boxer-BROWN resolution in that

committee that said 90 percent of any

cuts that were forthcoming after we

are in balance would go to people with

$100,000 or less.

We will hear a lot about other things,

but the truth does not lie. The budget

resolution is there to be looked at, and

that is the way it is.

I yield Senator FRIST 15 minutes.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I have

been in this body for a little over 5

months now. It is very clear to me

where the problem lies. As P.J.

O’Rourke has said, ‘‘Giving power and

money to Congress is like giving the

car keys and whiskey to teenage boys.’’

The problem is that this Federal

debt, the cost of increased Federal

spending, year after year, has grown

out of control. The debt is approximately $4.9 to $5 trillion by the end of

1995, and it will grow to $6.8 trillion in

the year 2000. If we do nothing, $8 trillion in the year 2010.

They are big numbers. In individual

terms, what do they mean? They are

even more frightening. A family of four

currently pays $440 per month just to

pay the interest on the national debt.

A child born this year will pay over

$187,000 in interest alone on the national debt over his or her lifetime. By

the year 2000, the debt will reach $6.8

trillion, nearly $100,000 for a family of

four.

The reason for the problem is this excessive, wasteful spending. In Washington, unlike the private sector from

whence I came just 6 months ago, people use this word ‘‘cut,’’ and when we

reduce spending in the Federal Government from 5 percent to about 3 percent,

people say this is a huge cut. The

American people do not look at that as

a cut. They know that it is slowing the

increase in spending.

It is almost as if a person went in and

asked the boss for a raise of $500 per

month, and he said I will only give

$450, and then the employee would call

that a cut in salary. The American people are too smart for that.

Mr. President, while we must listen

to the American people in working

through the best way to structure arriving at a balanced budget and looking at this Nation’s spending priorities,

we must, over the next 5 days, maintain our resolve to put the long-term

interest of this country over the shortterm special interests that will likely

become prominent in this debate.

I intend to vote for this budget because it and it alone will achieve balance by the year 2002. And what is the

cost of doing nothing? The President of

the United States has put forward a

budget which we will be discussing

which does nothing, which continues

$200 billion deficits next year, the year

after that, the year after that, the year

after that, adding each of these years

up to a huge additional $1 trillion to

this debt. These are ballooning deficits.

We cannot continue these endless

mountains of debt again and again. It

is not common sense. It is not what

Tennesseans told me again and again

as I traveled to the 95 counties of Tennessee this past year.

If you need further proof, look at the

outside independent analysts. Look at

the GAO, the CBO, the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform. Again and again they state the

obvious, that present trends are clearly

unsustainable. The General Accounting

Office in ‘‘The Deficit and the Economy,’’ in April 1995 says, ‘‘Continuing

current spending and taxation policies

unimpeded over the long term would

have major consequences for economic

growth.’’

And the Bipartisan Commission on

Entitlement and Tax Reform says:

Absent policy changes, entitlement spending and interest on the national debt will

consume almost all Federal revenues in 2010.

In 2030, Federal revenues will not even cover

entitlement spending.

Yes, in just 15 years, spending on

Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, on Federal pensions and on interest on the Federal debt, will make no

money available for Government, for

roads, for education, for defense. Now

is the time to balance the budget.

The Congressional Budget Office

says:

Current fiscal policies literally cannot remain unchanged indefinitely: At some time,

action will have to be taken to bring Government borrowing under control or servicing

the Federal debt will require unsustainable

tax rates in future years. Prompt action

would limit the damage that occurs when

Federal debt crowds out capital investment,

putting upward pressures on interest rates.

It would also limit the size of the needed

changes in fiscal policy.

Let us talk a minute about what all

these statistics mean to the average

American in this country. Americans

are currently paying almost 2 percent

more in interest rates than they would

if we had a balanced budget. What does

that mean to the typical American? It

is as extra $1,248 per year on a $75,000

mortgage at an interest rate of 8.75

percent. It means an extra $900 per

year on a car loan of $15,000 at an interest rate of 9.75 percent. Again, with my

background as a physician, coming to

the U.S. Senate from the private sector, what amazes me most is that Medicare will be bankrupt in the year 2002

unless we act; bankrupt—part A, hospital expenditures for our senior citizens and individuals with disabilities.

We will talk a lot about Medicare over

the next several days but the bottom

line is that in just 7 years, unless we

act, seniors will not have hospital insurance in the United States.

We are going to continue to lose the

war on poverty unless we act, and this

budget does act. The Federal Government currently runs over 75 interrelated and overlapping means-tested

welfare programs. Between 1964 and

1994, welfare cost the taxpayers $5 trillion in 1993 dollars. Yet the official

poverty rate is 15 percent, nearly 4 percent higher than the all-time low experienced in 1973, a low of 11.1 percent.

If we do nothing, we will continue to

have a Government that is too big, and

the American people want a smaller,

less intrusive Government. Our Government is too intrusive in our daily

lives. It is a Government that strangles

economic growth and innovation. If we

look at spending on regulatory agencies, Federal regulatory agencies, it totaled $14.4 billion in 1993. Increased

spending on the Federal bureaucracy in

recent years has allowed the Federal

Government to regulate nearly every

aspect of our daily lives.

There are numerous other examples.

The Food and Drug Administration has

grown from 4,400 employees in 1970 to

over 9,000 employees, yet we still hear

again and again that pharmaceutical

agents and drugs that are finally approved in this country had been approved on the average about 6 years

earlier in other countries.

The President himself, in speaking to

the AARP last week, said, ‘‘I cannot

support the status quo and neither can

you.’’ And that is what this balanced

budget is all about. Yet that is what he

has done, support the status quo. He

has offered no budget to speak of. And

I look forward on this floor to hearing
S6862 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 18, 1995

the debate on the proposed budget, the

budget as proposed by the President.

He has made no effort to balance the

budget, yet the American people call

every day for a balanced budget. The

American people recognize that only

by a balanced budget can we restore

the American dream.

You can see if the Democrats, the

other side, cannot see fit to cut spending sufficiently, the only answer will

be a tax increase.

So what is our solution? It is the

budget laid before you today, the Republican budget. And Republicans will

tell the truth. Yes, there will be some

restructuring and there will be adjustments associated with this budget. But

they are nowhere near—nowhere near—

the distortions that others are spewing

forth. Let us examine some of the

claims and then tell what the facts are.

Bureaucracy. Some say the Government bureaucrats will lose jobs and the

economy as a whole will suffer because

of reduced Government spending. People say we cannot go that fast.

The budget proposal today put forward shrinks the Federal bureaucracy,

eliminates more than 100 Federal departments, agencies and programs. The

budget put forward today abolishes unnecessary bureaucracy, eradicates, gets

rid of, Government waste, terminates

duplication, and consolidates Federal

programs to improve efficiency and

priorities. And that is what the American people want. They recognize we

need to pull back. But they want us to

prioritize appropriately.

Not only will this be good for the

Federal budget but it will be good for

the recipients of Federal benefits

today, who are out there trying to do

their best to make sense of the maze of

regulations before them. There is no

doubt this budget will result in greater

economic growth.

On Medicare, some people say Medicare cuts are going to devastate our

seniors and our entire health care

spending. It is not true. As pointed out

by the majority leader, we will be

spending over $100 billion more in Medicare in the year 2002 than we do today.

And with regard to the social safety

net, Social Security is put on the side.

It is outside of this budget. We do nothing to attack Social Security. But then

some people come forward and say we

will leave children homeless and starving in the streets. In truth, our budget

provides a safety net for those truly in

need. It provides transforming new programs to empower the underserved, the

poor, the indigent. This budget moves

power and money out of Washington

back to people, and that is what the

American people are calling for. It does

it by working toward block grants for

Medicaid, block grants for welfare,

child care, and other social services.

The bottom line is that we empower

communities, empower citizens to

make decisions over their lives. The

cruelest thing we can do to the poor, to

the underserved, is to continue to fund

certain assistance programs today

without serious reform. Over half of

the AFDC families today remain on

welfare for 10 years or more.

One in three children today in the

United States is born out of wedlock.

In some low-income neighborhoods it is

8 out of 10 children, and those children

are three times more likely to end up

on welfare.

In 1960, nearly two-thirds of households in the lowest income group were

headed by people who worked. By 1991

that figure had plummeted from twothirds to only about one-third, and

only 11 percent of welfare household

heads were working full time year

round.

Yes. The collapse of work and family

has spawned crime, drug use, violence

in schools, and other social ills. The

people who suffer the most today are

our children.

So we all know that the rhetoric we

will hear over the next several days

will be about hurting children. In truth

that is just a smokescreen, a smokescreen to hide the fact that our big

Government solutions have failed. I am

confident by turning over our welfare

assistance programs in large part to

the States will result in innovation,

creation of new ideas which can be

adopted similar to those of Governor

Thompson of Wisconsin, Governor

Engler of Michigan, and Governor

Weld. No longer will welfare be a way

of life with regard to dependence on

others.

In closing, the Republican budget has

its benefits. We will hear about those

again over the next several hours.

Lower interest rates: Lower interest

rates which will affect nearly every

American, allowing him or her to participate in the purchase of a new home

or a new car for less money. Lower interest rates to make it easier to start

a business, to keep a family farm in

business, or for existing businesses to

make new investments. And new investments result in more workers, and

more workers mean more jobs.

Yes. We will see greater economic

growth, greater economic growth that

will result from a greater amount of

capital available for borrowing. Right

now, the Government is using our Nation’s capital, capital that businesses

and individuals could be using to invest

in new ventures. New ventures mean

more jobs with higher incomes.

And in closing, a balanced budget by

the year 2002 will result in a stronger

America today, and a stronger America

tomorrow means that all Americans

will benefit.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.

Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who

yields time?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, before

I yield, let me thank Senator FRIST for

his marvelous remarks.

Let me suggest that the Senate is

very, very well served in the decision

that this eminent surgeon made to get

into politics. From my standpoint, I

kind of wondered why because he does

heart transplants for little children, an

expert in the field. It made him very

renowned. But I am very pleased he

made the decision. He adds a lot of

credibility, sincerity, and knowledge to

our debate on health care. And we look

forward to using him in the debate

when Medicare comes up with some additional time. I am very appreciative of

his remarks.

We understand Senator GRASSLEY

was going next because there were no

Democrats here. If they would let us do

that, then we will yield to two Senators on that side for two consecutive

ones.

How much time does Senator GRASSLEY desire?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Twenty-five minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 30 minutes to

Senator GRASSLEY.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I

want to first commend the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee for his leadership in putting

this budget together. But in addition

to saying those few words, I want to

say to the American people that a lot

of times an individual wonders whether

one person can make a difference. As

far as this budget debate is concerned,

the person of Senator DOMENICI and his

leadership as chairman, and the responsibility that goes with that, demonstrates clearly what we all know in

America. If an individual puts their

mind to it, that one person can make a

difference.

So I thank the distinguished chairman.

Mr. DOMENICI. Might I, without interrupting after this, just say I thank

Senator GRASSLEY very much. I very

much appreciate that.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the chairman for his leadership again.

Because their budget represents a vision, it also represents a plan on how

to get there to carry out that vision.

This budget is conspicuous in that it is

the only plan before this body that will

have a real vision, and will have credibility in the process. The hallmark of

this budget is that it balances presentday needs with long-term needs. That

is quite a balancing act. But it does it

well because it does it for children, it

does it for senior citizens, it does it for

the needy, and it does it for the forgotten taxpayers of America. This does

not forget the taxpayers. It is not just

a bottom line in the year 2002 that we

are talking about, because that is balanced. But it also is balanced between

our long- and our short-term needs of

society.

I do not think that any Republican

who voted for this in committee, including the chairman himself, however,

thinks that or makes a claim that this

is a perfect document. There are elements in here that each one of us dislike. I will mention a couple for myself
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6863

because I am not going to speak on the

negative aspects of this. But I do think

that we ought to make it clear that

there might be some things we would

rather have differently.

For me, representing an agriculture

State, I suppose I could say I am not

satisfied with the agriculture numbers.

However, I had a chance to address this

in committee, and I did it with a senseof-the-Senate amendment to limit the

savings from commodity programs. We

farmers know agriculture must contribute toward deficit reduction because we know that people in agriculture, including the family farmers,

will benefit greatly from the lower interest rates that result when you have

a balanced budget.

I also do not like Medicare numbers.

But the issue there is to take important steps to keep this bankrupt program solvent, and of course viable both

in the short term as well as the long

term. The point, Mr. President, is balance, and this budget has balance.

It also contains some very important

national goals, and I want to begin my

remarks by pointing out some of them.

It provides a vision. That vision is to

preserve opportunity and the American

dream for future generations. We intend with this budget to stop the practice of allowing their generation to live

high on the hog and have the next generation pay for it. That, Mr. President,

is a moral issue.

Next, this budget is balanced. This is

a goal shared, as you may know, by

more than 80 percent of the American

people. Yet, however, there is only one

party that has delivered a plan to balance the budget; that is, this side, the

Republican side, of the aisle. It is very

clear that the Democrats cannot put

one together because that party it

seems happens to be the party of the

status quo. It is the party of business

as usual. I have no doubts in my mind

that they do not propose a balanced

budget because they are the party that

was roundly rejected by the voters in

the November election last. Those voters, those very same voters by an 80

percent majority, want our budget to

be balanced and the sooner the better.

Next, our budget confronts in a very

responsible way the Medicare crisis.

The other side of the aisle is running

away from the challenge of shoring up

the Medicare program, running away

from the fact that the Medicare program is bankrupt. They happen to be

doing it on Medicare just like they are

running away from the challenge of the

deficit. Instead of being responsible,

and instead of offering constructive solutions to ensure the viability of Medicare, not only for this generation but

for future generations, they are engaging in a campaign to scare the senior

citizens of America and to scare the

wits out of them.

It is somehow like a campaign staff

has taken over the policy staff. This is

a completely irresponsible posture on

their part.

I just stated the broad goals of our

budget, Mr. President. But there are

others that are reflected in this plan. I

want to state them but more briefly. It

moves money and power out of Washington and back to the States, the citizens, and our communities. It substantially reduces corporate welfare spending. It provides for maximum crime

control to keep Americans safe by protecting funding for the Drug Enforcement Administration and the FBI. It

provides a safety net for the truly

needy with emphasis upon children.

It protects Social Security. It protects our national security. It protects

the school lunch and school breakfast

programs. And it adds $2 billion for

supplemental food programs for WIC. It

eliminates over 140 agencies, programs,

and commissions in the downsizing of

government, including the Cabinetlevel Department of Commerce. It

eliminates bureaucracy, waste, duplication, and overhead, and it consolidates many Government functions,

privatizes many others, and improves

Government efficiency.

Now, Mr. President, it does all this

while allowing spending to grow by 3

percent per year instead of the projected 5 percent. Government spending

will still grow by 3 percent.

Now, there are a lot of people listening who are going to be irritated because Government spending is going to

grow by 3 percent. I run into this when

I meet with Iowans in town meetings

because I overhear concerns that 3 percent growth is irresponsible when you

have a $4.7 trillion deficit. These responsible constituents are greatly concerned about the future of their children and grandchildren because—do

not forget—the most important thing

that we can do for today’s children, the

most important thing we can do for today’s children is to not leave them trillions and trillions of dollars of debt to

pay off.

If you are really concerned about

children, we must denounce policies

that are based upon a philosophy of

materialism today and to heck with tomorrow. We cannot go on borrowing

money today at the expense of tomorrow’s needs. We must find a balance,

and that is what this budget does—a

balance between today’s needs and our

responsibilities for tomorrow.

Mr. President, that is the good news

about this budget. But all of these positive elements seem to get lost in the

rhetorical barbs launched by the other

party and in the news coverage of this

budget reported to the American people. I think I know why. That is because, as we have been reading recently, the media have a penchant for

delivering the most negative of news.

And the other party, quite frankly,

knows this and plays to it. And it

makes very great TV. But how responsible is it?

There is one other important aspect

of this budget that has not been talked

about much, and it should be. And that

is this. There is no pay raise in this

budget for Members of Congress. There

is no pay raise for Members of Congress

for the next 7 years until this budget is

balanced, until we have earned a pay

raise.

There are also changes in the Members’ retirement system to bring it

more in line with private sector retirement systems. This pay freeze is important for two reasons. First, it ties

Members’ pay to our performance in

attacking the deficit. It says, ‘‘Don’t

even think about a pay raise until you

get the budget balanced.’’

The second reason is even more important, and I wish to commend again

our distinguished chairman for the implicit leadership in what this pay freeze

states. It says, in effect, we are leading

by example. We are leading the way toward a balanced budget by denying

ourselves any more pay over the next 7

years. And as a result we are not asking Americans then to do what we are

not willing to do for ourselves. When

people come into my office and ask

why we are slowing the growth of their

benefits, I can look them in the eye

and say we are denying ourselves any

growth as well. As a result, this Republican budget, in my view, earns the

moral authority to ask everyone, to

ask everyone to pitch in and to help

balance the Federal budget.

So, Mr. President, the Republican

balanced budget contains a positive vision for present-day America but also

for future generations of young Americans. We balance present-day needs

with the need to preserve future opportunity. Meanwhile, there is no alternative vision proposed by the other

side. All they seem to offer is business

as usual.

By definition, the absence of a bold

vision is the continuation of business

as usual. If Americans ever wondered

which party is a party of the status

quo, let there be no doubt now.

I wish to describe this symptom, the

symptoms of defenders of business as

usual. They use half their ingenuity to

get us into debt and the other half they

use to avoid pain—paying it off. Their

philosophy is live within your income

even if you have to borrow to do it.

They simply refuse to reconcile their

gross habits with their net income.

What does a budget look like that

subscribes to this philosophy? I think,

Mr. President, that we have a very

good example of this budget. If you

look at this budget, you see the President’s numbers here. You see a budget

that is never balanced into the future—

not only not balanced but the deficits

go up and up and up.

Now, Mr. President, you look at the

Senate budget that we are debating

right now and you see it gradually

going down and by the year 2002 it is in

balance. This zero here represents no

more accumulation of debt. But if you

look at the difference between this

budget and this budget, the space in between, you see the accumulation of $1.5

trillion of debt. That is on top of the

$4.9 trillion debt we have this very day.
S6864 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 18, 1995

This chart shows it very simply. It

shows two directions into the future.

That top line is business as usual, and

it spells disaster for our children. The

bottom line, the Domenici budget, the

one that is balanced, that is the only

alternative. It presents only vision for

the future. That happens to be our

plan, the Republican plan, the plan

that was approved last week by the

Senate Budget Committee.

You see from the chart the President

abdicated his leadership this year in

the budget process. My Democrat colleagues in this body now have to decide

a simple question. Do they follow their

leader in abdication and risk being the

party of abdication or do they offer the

country their vision in the form of an

alternative? That is the question. It is

easy to say what you are against, but

what are you for? The American people

want to know. The American people

have a right to know.

During deliberations in the committee, I read a number of quotes from the

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD that were uttered by Democrats on the Budget

Committee. They spoke those words on

the Senate floor during debate on the

constitutional amendment to balance

the budget.

I am not going to read those quotes

today because I do not intend to embarrass anybody, but I have those

quotes right here if anybody wants to

know what they are. In sum, they said

this during February: ‘‘We don’t need a

constitutional amendment to balance

the budget. We should do it in the

Budget Committee.’’

So, they implied, let us just roll up

our sleeves and get to work on a balanced budget by the year 2002. But

when it came to the Democrats voting

on a motion by the chairman expressing the desire for a balanced budget by

the year 2002, all but one brave soul

from the other side of the aisle retreated, sounded retreat and voted

against it.

Again, Mr. President, that begs a

very important question: What is their

plan? What is their vision?

This is then an issue of credibility.

You cannot talk the talk until you

walk the walk. And all we hear is sniping and wailing about what they are

against. It is real easy to pick out a

program in isolation and attack the

whole Republican plan for a balanced

budget. But until you put it in the context of your own balanced budget alternative, your concerns ring hollow and

there is no credibility. If you want to

snipe about the Republican budget and

if you want to have credibility in doing

so, you have to have an alternative balanced budget plan.

You might ask: Why do they have to

have a balanced budget? Well, it is simple. The public is demanding one, and

because it is our duty and obligation to

this country’s future and, of course, to

the future generations of Americans.

And not the least reason of which is

that the other side said during the February debate that they wanted a balanced budget. They said that during

the debate on the constitutional

amendment.

Or, of course, they can choose the

President’s path, and they can put

business as usual on automatic pilot.

So I say to them: Show us your vision. Show us how you get us there.

Show us how you get there in 7 years,

just like you said on the floor in February. If you do not do that, you will

be all talk and no action. You will be

following your leader in the White

House in abdication of responsibility

and then you risk becoming the party

of abdication.

Now, I think I can claim for myself,

this Senator from Iowa, that I have

worked closely with the other side over

the years for more deficit reduction

than the leadership of their party or

even our party maybe wanted.

Last year was just one of the latest

examples. I happened to join my good

friend, Senator Exon from Nebraska,

the Democratic leader of the Budget

Committee, in sponsoring the ExonGrassley amendment. That saved the

taxpayers $13 billion. I am the only Republican on the Budget Committee who

can claim to have voted for a Democratic budget resolution in getting a

budget to the floor.

I joined the other side those times

because they were responsible, fair, and

tough on the deficit. I did so even when

it meant criticizing the President of

my own party.

My colleagues on this side know full

well that I have been willing to criticize past Republican Presidents. And I

now make this same charge against

this President for the budget that he

submitted this year. It had no credibility regarding deficit reduction. He

punted to the Congress. He took a vacation on reducing the deficit.

What I am saying now is—and I believe I have sufficient credibility to say

it—if you do not offer a credible balanced budget alternative to Chairman

DOMENICI’s mark, you Democrats risk

becoming the party of abdication as far

as the public’s desire for a balanced

budget is concerned.

You might even come up with a plan

that I could support, as I have done in

the past. That is, if it were balanced. I

want it balanced in the year 2002 if you

want me to vote with you Democrats.

But until you walk the walk, the credibility will not be there.

Mr. President, these are new times.

These are times that require a vision.

These are times that require a plan to

get where you are viewing. You have to

find a way to balance your present day

priorities with long-term needs to preserve the future for coming generations.

Mr. President, we—not just the Members of the Senate—we—not just people

inside the beltway—we—you, all the

people of America, this generation—

cannot live just for today. We have to

live for today and we have to live for

tomorrow.

We on this side of the aisle have presented a vision and we have presented

a plan to get there. The question now,

Mr. President, is: ‘‘Where’s theirs?’’ I

want to repeat: ‘‘Where’s theirs?′′

I yield back the remainder of my

time and reserve it for the Republicans.

Mr. EXON addressed the chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

ABRAHAM). The Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, in answer

to my good friend and colleague from

the State of Iowa, ‘‘Where’s theirs?

Where’s theirs?’’—I assume we are

going to be hearing that over and over

again—‘‘Where’s theirs?’’ was enunciated by this Senator in the remarks I

made in opening this debate.

What we are trying to do, I advise my

friend and colleague and oftentimes associate, is to simply say that we are offering a series of amendments to the

Republican budget that has been offered, frankly, in a spirit of cooperation.

We will be doing here essentially the

same thing that we did in the budget

markup. And that is simply to reach

out the hand of friendship and understanding and hopefully reach some

kind of a bipartisan compromise by not

rejecting the budget offered by the

chairman of the Budget Committee.

But, as I said in my opening remarks,

I salute the hard work that had been

done.

‘‘Where’s theirs,’’ it should be understood very clearly by the Senator from

Iowa and everyone else, that ‘‘Where’s

theirs?’’ is simply the situation that

we are trying to recognize that in some

instances you have done a good job.

And ‘‘Where’s theirs?’’ is that in good

faith we are trying to get you on that

side of the aisle to quit knocking down

and rejecting every suggestion that we

have made.

And I think that anyone who looked

at the amendments that we offered

would have had to say that at least

they were in good faith and debatable.

Basically what we did, time after time

on a whole series of amendments, was

to say, we believe that there are some

good, overall parameters offered by

Senator DOMENICI, the chairman of the

Budget Committee, in his mark. But

we happen to feel that some of the cuts

on veterans programs, on Medicare, on

Medicaid, and others that we have announced and enumerated—and I talked

about most of them in my opening remarks—simply take money out of the

money that is reserved for the tax cut

that is clearly indicated in the budget

in the House of Representatives and

the $170 billion that is in the Domenici

mark and reserved only for tax cuts.

What we are saying is, why can we

not reason together? Why can you not

give up on the tax cut, that you want

to help out and cut down to some extent, a considerable extent, the hit

that we think is being unfairly taken

by Medicare, Medicaid, by farm programs, by taking away earned-income

tax credit, by the cuts in education and

others?

We just say, give us a little bit.

Maybe we can go along.
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6865

I yield 15 minutes to the Senator

from California.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank

the good Senator from Nebraska for

yielding. I want to, before I begin my

formal remarks, identify myself with

his statements to the Senator from

Iowa. The Senator from Iowa made a

very strong speech. ‘‘Where’s theirs?’’

Well, that is a lovely slogan. The fact

of the matter is you are going to have

a chance to see what we have in mind,

just as you did in the Budget Committee, where I proudly serve with my

friend from Iowa.

The fact of the matter is, we are

going to be offering a series of amendments that take that Republican budget that we think, frankly, is a retreat

from the American dream and try to

fix it and try to fix it the way we think

the vast majority of Americans would

fix it.

So my friend from Iowa will have a

chance to find out what the Democrats

think is important. He is going to find

out, and if he acts true to course, he

will vote against everything because

those Republicans do not want to

touch the $170 billion they have reserved to give tax cuts to the wealthiest. Those over $350,000 will get $20,000

back each and every year, while the

drastic cuts in programs that my

friend from Iowa says, ‘‘We’re doing it

for the children,’’ cause nothing but

pain for the children.

As we offer up our amendments, they

will not change the date in which this

budget is in balance. It will be kept at

2002. That will not change by one 1

minute or 1 day. But what will

change—what will change—are the priorities of this Nation, and that is why

I so relish this debate on the budget

and why I was so honored to go on the

Budget Committee of the U.S. Senate.

I served on the House Budget Committee as well, because what could be more

important than what we spend taxpayers’ money on? What could be more

important than that? When you read

the preamble of the Constitution—and

I recommend that you do it as often as

possible—you will find out that we do

have to establish a system of justice,

that we do have to provide for the common defense, that we do have to promote the general welfare and make

sure that the blessings of this great

country are endowed on future generations. That is the function of the U.S.

Government.

Now, we can argue around the edges,

but it is our responsibility to fulfill

that very solemn pledge we take when

we raise our right hand and we swear

to God that we will, in fact, uphold this

Constitution from enemies both foreign

and domestic. I take that oath very seriously. I think that the budget of the

United States of America is where we

lay out for the American people how

we hope to do that.

Mr. President, I believe this budget

resolution, this Republican budget resolution is a cruel retreat from the

American dream because it, among

other things, will take money out of

the pockets of working people, college

students, senior citizens and place it in

the pockets of the wealthy. It is Robin

Hood in reverse. It is just what we

should not be doing.

When I listen to some of the debate

and I hear my colleague, Senator

GRAMM from Texas, and I have heard

him say it many times, he says, ‘‘What

I want to do as a Republican is take

the money out of the pockets of the

Government and put it in the pockets

of the people.’’ Well, if he believes that,

he will not support this Republican

budget, because this Republican budget

takes money out of the pockets of the

seniors, out of the pockets of the students, out of the pockets of those who

work so hard and earn $28,000 a year or

less, and what does it do? It puts it in

the pockets of the wealthy. That is

wrong. That is wrong, and that is what

has been hidden in this debate and that

is why I relish this debate.

When I say that this budget is a cruel

retreat from the American dream, I

know what I am talking about because

I am a product of the American dream.

I am a first generation American. My

mother never graduated from high

school. Both sides of the family escaped from oppression, and it was

America that gave us the dream. If

there is anything that I am going to

do—anything that I am going to do in

the Senate—it is to make sure future

generations of Americans have the

same chance that I had as a little girl

growing up in a tiny little apartment.

In this great Nation, my father could

get an education, the first child in a

family of nine to go to college, and he

went at night and worked hard, and he

worked by day. Then later, when he

had a couple of children, he worked

hard and he went to law school at night

and became a professional. He did it because of America. They were able to

save and send their children to college.

One is a professor and another is a U.S.

Senator. That is the American dream,

and this budget is a cruel retreat from

the American dream.

What really riles me is that Republican after Republican will get up and

say, ‘‘We’re doing this for our children.

This is a gift to our children.’’

I will tell you what kind of gift it is.

Imagine you are a little kid and you

get a big box for your birthday and it

is wrapped in a beautiful ribbon and

you open it up and nothing is in it.

There is nothing in this budget for

children—nothing.

Children are attacked in this budget.

Education is slashed in this budget,

and I am looking forward to working

with my colleague from Illinois, who

you will hear from soon, and with Senator KENNEDY, and with Senator HARKIN to restore those cuts in education

and, yes, I say to my friend from Iowa,

we will make that amendment revenue

neutral. It will not change your balanced budget one bit. But you will have

to walk the line and send a message to

the children. Do you really care about

their education? Do you care about the

fact that in your budget there will be

550,000 fewer children in Head Start;

that the average college student will

have to pay nearly $5,000 more for a

loan, and if they are a graduate student, between $3,000 and $6,000 more for

a loan.

We are going to fix that in the context of your budget. If you want to vote

against it, that is fine, but do not tell

us that we are not acting responsibly,

because we are going to give you

amendment after amendment. We are

going to give you one on Medicare. We

are going to soften the hit.

In California, we have over 3 million

people on Medicare. Let me give you a

portrait. The average woman of Medicare age today has an income of $8,500

a year. Think about that. In the Republican budget, that elderly woman, that

grandma or great-grandma will have to

pay $900 more a year out of her pocket

for medical care, and the care will be

worse and her choices will be taken

away. So do not tell her that she is getting a gift in this budget. She is getting hit.

When I was growing up, my mother

and father taught me to respect the elderly. That is not respecting the elderly, to take that money out of her pocket and put it in the pocket of someone

who earns $350,000 a year. Forget it

from this Senator. I will fight that as

long as I have life in me. That is disrespect. And we talk about V–E Day. I

heard the chairman of the Budget Committee talk about V–E Day. I want to

talk about V–E Day, because I had uncles who went to war, World War II.

And I have friends who fought in Vietnam and in Korea. What is the gift to

them in this budget? We cut out veterans benefits, and for those men who

fought, we cut their Medicare. Oh, that

is a great gift for our elders to celebrate V-E Day. This is a cruel budget,

and it does not have to be. As my

friend from Nebraska said, you just

take that money that you squirreled

away in your little lock box there very

cleverly—but it is there—and you back

off that, and let us talk business. Let

us ease the burden on our veterans. Let

us ease the burden on our children. Let

us ease the burden on our seniors, and

we can do it in a fiscally responsible

way.

I want to talk a little bit about some

of the investments that we are walking

away from in this budget. And before I

do, I want to make one more point

about how this budget hurts those

making $28,000 a year or less—families

making $28,000 a year or less, working.

Under Ronald Reagan we started the

earned income tax credit. He said it

was the best antipoverty program he

had ever seen. What does it do? It says

to those hard-working Americans who

earn under $28,000 a year, we are going

to ease the burden of your payroll

taxes and we are going to allow you to
S6866 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 18, 1995

pay fewer taxes. What does this Republican budget do? It pulls back on that

program, and it will mean $1,600 more

over seven years to those hard-working

families—$1,600 more in taxes for those

people. I cannot understand it. We are

raising the taxes of people who earn

under $28,000 a year, who work mightily hard for that money, and we are

lowering the taxes of those who make

over $350,000 a year.

There must be some symmetry here.

I told you before how we are hurting

those students who have student loans.

It is going to cost them much more

over their lifetime. Do you know what

it costs to go to a private college

today? It is $15,000 to $20,000 a year.

After the Republicans get through with

this budget, only the wealthy will be

able to go. They are getting $20,000 a

year back. So if they have a student in

their family, Uncle Sam just paid the

way. But if you are middle class, look

out, it is going to cost you almost

$5,000 more a year, middle-class students for undergraduate, and between

$3,000 and $6,000 more for graduate

school, at a time when we know we

must be the best educated in order to

compete in the world. This Republican

budget is an embarrassment to the values of America.

I want to talk about another shortsighted area. National Institutes of

Health. These are the scientists that

get grants, who do the science to find

the cures to diseases. You think about

the disease in your family that you

have seen, or among your friends, be it

heart disease, high blood pressure,

AIDS, cancer, or be it Alzheimer’s,

Parkinson’s, cystic fibrosis, you can

name them. Everyone has been touched

by something in their lives. The NIH,

National Institutes of Health, gives out

grants to scientists, and we have created Nobel Prize winners and they are

finding the cures for disease. I had a

meeting with Dr. Varmus who heads

NIH in my office yesterday, and this

budget is even worse than I thought.

Under current funding, for every four

grants that are approved—in other

words, if scientists come forward with

a good possibility of finding a cure for

a disease, one in four of those applications is approved. I wish we could approve and fund all four. We can fund

one in four. Under this Republican

budget, we will be lucky to fund 1 in

100 new applications—1 in 100. Now, you

do not have to be too smart to know

that this is shortsighted. We are one

plane ride away from disaster. You

have read about this ebola virus. We

are one plane ride away from disaster,

and we are unilaterally disarming our

scientists in this country.

Now, I have to say this. I believe if I

went up to one of my constituents who

earned $350,000 a year and I said, ‘‘What

would you rather have, a tax break, or

you could take that money and you

could bring home a cure for cancer?’’ I

honest-to-God believe they would say,

‘‘My goodness, Senator, if you could

promise me that, certainly I would give

that tax break up.’’

So what are we doing in this budget?

We are retreating from the American

dream, we are walking away from

science, we are giving up in the face of

international global competition. And

what for? My friends will say that it is

all worth it. It is all worth it—hurting

the seniors—although they will say to

you, ‘‘We are not cutting Medicare, we

are just lessening the increase.’’

Let me tell you about that myth.

When more people turn 65 and older, it

is going to take more money to cover

those people. And, guess what, we are

living longer and do we not like to

have our grandmas and grandpas

around? With better technology, it

costs more for the Medicare Program. I

do not think we want to deny our

grandmas and grandpas the best technology. I know I do not.

So they are going to tell you that the

Democrats are exaggerating the pain of

this budget. We are not exaggerating

the pain of this budget; we are telling

you the truth, and we are telling you

the only reason you are being asked to

take this pain—the children, seniors,

veterans, the scientists, education, and

the rest—is to give big tax breaks to

the wealthiest among us. I say this

budget should be defeated. We should

argue the facts. We should bring the

facts to the American people, and I

hope they wake up and participate in

this debate and engage in this debate

and let their leaders know this budget

is not a blueprint for the future, it is a

blueprint for disaster.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who

yields time?

Mr. EXON. I yield 15 minutes to the

Senator from Illinois.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.

Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thank

my colleague for yielding and I thank

him for his leadership. It is not easy

leading a group of Democrats who wander all over the place on these issues.

Senator EXON has done an admirable

job. I also commend Senator DOMENICI

for moving toward a balanced budget

here. I think he has shown courage and

the kind of leadership that is needed. I

heard Senator GRASSLEY say, ‘‘What

can one person do?’’ I think Senator

DOMENICI has contributed.

I am concerned. I wish this were

backed up with a balanced budget

amendment for two reasons. One is

that the reality from all of the econometric studies is that interest rates

would really come down if we had this

backed up with a balanced budget

amendment. The financial markets do

not know whether this is going to stick

even if it stopped it. And I think there

is good reason to believe it may not

stick.

Our history—and I see the Senator

from Washington on the floor, who was

here when we voted for Gramm-Rudman—is that we keep legislative solutions for a balanced budget about 2

years, and then they become too politically awkward and we give them up. If

we had a constitutional amendment,

we would have, at a minimum, another

$170 billion that could be available for

education and Medicare and other

things.

One of the ironies is that the AARP,

which understandably is concerned

with what is happening in Medicare,

was opposed to the balanced budget

amendment which could, today, make

more money available for Medicare.

I am also concerned, and I mentioned

this in the Budget Committee, that our

atmosphere has become more partisan

than it should be. We really ought to

be working together on these things.

I am not blaming either party. This

thing has just kind of grown over the

years. I do not think it is helpful to either party or to the Nation.

I voted for Senator DOMENICI’s resolution to have a balanced budget by the

year 2002. I voted against the final

package because I believe the priorities

are wrong. I think they are wrong for

the reasons I will spell out here.

First of all, they assume that there

will be a tax cut if we have some interest savings. This is not the time we

should have a tax cut. I face a choice of

giving myself a little bit of a bonus—I

do not like paying taxes any more than

the Senator from Michigan or the Senator from Nebraska or anyplace else—

giving myself a little bit of a bonus, or

giving my three grandchildren a bonus

and making life better for them.

I do not think Americans have any

hesitancy in saying, ‘‘Let’s get that

deficit down. Let’s not give ourselves a

tax cut.’’ The tax-cut premise is wrong.

I know Senator DOMENICI had to fashion a compromise here. Our colleague

from Texas is going to offer an amendment to specify more clearly a tax cut.

I hope his amendment is resoundingly

defeated.

Second, I am concerned what is happening to education. My friend, Senator GRASSLEY, mentioned this is a

choice between their budget and the

status quo. Well, in the field of education, status quo would be appreciably

better than cuts in the field of education.

Every study—I do not care whether it

is by a conservative think tank or a

liberal think tank—every study that

questions how we build a better America says we will have to invest more in

education. Yet this budget goes in the

opposite direction.

Title I, which helps poor kids, and

has done some real solid things, the reality is that if this is adopted, young

people in Chicago, East St. Louis, Detroit, Omaha, Seattle, and other places

represented in this body, will see some

cuts. Head Start is going to be cut

back. The student loan—part of this

bill is that there will be rescissions

that the Labor and Human Resources

Committee has to make. The Presiding

Officer sits on that committee. That

committee will have to make $14.7 billion worth of savings on student loans.
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6867

Now, the document talks about cutting back on graduate education. If we

totally eliminate assistance for graduate education, we save $2 billion. That

in itself, I think, is wrong. But that

leaves $12.7 billion that we still have to

get. That means, clearly, we will have

to charge interest while students are in

college. That will make it tougher for

them when they get out of school, and

I also think will discourage some from

going to school.

I think it moves the country in the

wrong direction. This is the kind of

issue where, frankly, instead of devising a partisan document, I have enough

confidence in the Senator from New

Mexico, the Senator from Washington,

and the Senator from Michigan, that if

we could have been able to sit down in

a bull session and say what really are

the national priorities and forget

whether the Democratic or the Republican Party can benefit from it, I do

not think we would have been cutting

back on education.

I heard Senator BOXER talk about

cutting back on NIH, the National Institutes of Health, in the research area.

I remember Senator HARKIN speaking

on this floor, mentioning that we have

spent as much in the last 7 years on

military research as we have spent on

health care research since the beginning of the century. I have never

checked out that figure, but it was a

startling figure. It is probably close to

accurate, if it is not completely accurate.

I saw my father die of leukemia. So I

have been interested in what has happened in leukemia research. I have

seen great progress. My father died in

1969. Today he would have a real

chance of living. I see the progress that

is being made, and I want to continue

that progress so that humanity can

benefit. I think that is what people

want.

Just today in the town meeting every

Thursday that Senator CAROL

MOSELEY-BRAUN and I have for our Illinois constituents, the multiple sclerosis Father of the Year was there with

three fine young boys and his wife.

Just a marvelous family. He is a lawyer by background, struggling just to

walk. How I would love to see some

kind of a breakthrough that could help

him and his family. But it will take

dollars to do it. When we cut back on

dollars for research, we are preventing

breakthroughs that we need.

Now Medicare and Medicaid. I do not

suggest that they do not have to take

some hit. The growth is clearly excessive. But the kind of hit we are talking

about is going to hurt a lot of people.

While we have talked primarily about

Medicare, I am concerned on Medicaid,

too. Half the people on Medicaid are

children—poor children. I do not think

the American people want to cut back

on health care for poor children. Yet

that is what happens.

Then I heard Senator GRASSLEY say

in the Budget Committee, accurately,

he said there is only one sacred cow in

this—I am not talking about agriculture here, Senator EXON—there is

only one sacred cow in this budget.

That is defense.

I do not think there is any question

that that is accurate. Yes, we have cut

back defense spending some. But relative to what other nations have done,

we have not done it much. We are

spending more than the next eight nations combined are spending on defense.

We are continuing to spend money on

B–2 bombers. What is the purpose of a

B–2 bomber? To penetrate Soviet radar.

There are only two problems. There is

not any Soviet Union and there is not

any Soviet radar. They are useless. We

could not use them in Desert Storm.

We do not use them in Haiti. We do not

use them in the practical problems

that we face. We are spending money

for yesterday’s war. We can cut back

and do better.

There are a number of other things

that I think are wrong in this budget,

including one small one. I was pleased

to have Senator BOND from your side of

the Budget Committee vote with me to

restore this. This is the antifraud compliance group that will save $5 for

every $1 we put into it. The estimate is

if we have this antifraud compliance

group in, the IRS, we will save $9.2 billion over a 5-year-period, I believe the

estimate was. And we are talking

about a 7-year budget. So it would be

significantly more than that.

I understand when people say we

should not have any tax increases,

though frankly I think we should be

more candid with the American public

that, of the 224 industrial nations, we

are 224th in the percentage of our income that goes for taxation. We have

the lowest taxes on gasoline, for example, of any country outside of Saudi

Arabia. You go through a whole series

of things like that.

But for people who say we do not

want any tax increases, I understand. I

do not understand why, when so many

of us pay taxes and comply with the

law, we do not want to go after those

who are cheating. That is what that

amendment does. Senator GLENN and I

will have an amendment on the floor to

deal with that.

Finally, I would like to deal with

Senator GRASSLEY’s question, What are

we for? First of all, you will see in a series of amendments that we will be proposing what we are for in terms of

shifts. Senator EXON will have at least

one amendment. Senator KENNEDY will

have an amendment. Others will have

amendments. But there will also be an

amendment that some of us will offer,

a more comprehensive amendment. I

do not know how many votes we are

going to get. I hope there will be people

on the other side of the aisle who will

look at this carefully. I think the priorities are wrong here.

That we should move toward a balanced budget, absolutely. PETE DOMENICI is to be commended for moving us in

that direction. But that we should have

priorities that hurt the most vulnerable in our society, I do not think that

makes sense. I do not think that is

what the American people are for.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder

of my time back to Senator EXON.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank my

colleague from Illinois and my colleague from California, who spoke before him, for their excellent presentations and the direct way that they

tell what we are trying to do to be constructive on this side of the aisle. I

very much appreciated the dedicated

work of both of them on the Budget

Committee. They have been extremely

helpful, very helpful in the markup

process. I thank them for their excellent remarks to set the record straight

about the constructive posture we are

trying to take on this side of the aisle.

I yield 15 minutes to the Senator

from the great State of Wisconsin.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I

thank the ranking member. As the

Senate begins its debate on the concurrent budget resolution, I would like to

offer a few comments also on the work

of the Budget Committee, and especially on a subject about which I have

had a particular concern, and that is

the subject of the tax cut; whether it

makes sense to have tax cuts at this

time part of the budget resolution.

The first thing I want to do is praise

the Senator from Nebraska, not only

for his work on the Budget Committee

but for the fact that he was one of the

very first Members of this body to

point out—and to join me in my efforts

to say—we really cannot consistently

say we are trying to reduce the deficit

and have tax cuts. So I appreciate his

leadership on that. He has done that

consistently throughout the Budget

Committee process.

I also want to commend the whole

Budget Committee and its chairman,

the Senator from New Mexico, for the

work that was done on the concurrent

budget resolution. As the debate

unfolds on the concurrent resolution,

there will be a lot of opportunities to

criticize the particulars of the document and proposed changes to it. I expect to do both of those things. That is

the nature of the legislative body and

the consequence of the diverse priorities that are represented here. Before

that debate, though, Chairman DOMENICI should be lauded for his effort. I was

especially pleased with his ability to

keep the budget deliberations in committee clearly focused on the issue of

reducing the deficit.

We have different approaches to how

we get there, but there has to be a unified, bipartisan commitment that at

the end of this budget resolution we

will have a resolution that calls for a

date certain—and I think it should be

the year 2002 or earlier—for a balanced

budget to be achieved.

Those who are serious about deficit

reduction have to make tough choices

about where and how much to cut, and

I think we have to make those choices

right now. When I ran for the Senate, I
S6868 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 18, 1995

proposed a specific plan that would

have provided for a balanced budget by

the year 1998. I still think that would

work. But at this point, given the realities, if we can get this done by the

year 2002, I think it would be a very

significant achievement.

But as chairman of the Budget Committee, the Senator from New Mexico,

faced not only the same tough choices

the rest of us had to face, his choices

had to achieve a consensus out of the

committee so he could get a majority.

I will add that the ability of the Budget Committee to craft a document that

at least the majority party argues

achieves a balanced budget by the year

2002 does underscore my belief that we

do not need, and did not need, a constitutional amendment to balance the

budget.

How can this process even be unfolding if we need a balanced budget

amendment? The line was they simply

will never get down to business if we do

not change the Constitution. But the

product of the Senate Budget Committee proves that we did not have to mess

around with the Constitution, we just

had to get together in committee and

on the floor and do the job now.

I think that is very important because people lose sight of the fact that

we devoted a month out here to discussing the balanced budget amendment. I think we did the right thing

when we defeated it.

But now we have the opportunity to

show not only that it was not necessary, but that we did not have to

wait for the States to ratify it and sort

of get started on the project late in

this decade, but that we can do it right

now. We can do it this very year

through the budget process. I know it

is tough. I know some Budget Committee members are on record supporting

significant tax cuts. Obviously every

Member of the Senate would love to be

able to vote for tax cuts.

But the chairman of the Budget Committee rightly decided that the first

priority of the committee is not tax

cuts but deficit reduction. The Senator

from New Mexico is absolutely right

and, given the political pressures he

faced in this regard, I think he deserves

credit for his efforts. He tried. He tried

very hard. He came up short, but he

improved the House version, the version of the other body, which provides

for even more enormous tax cuts.

So that was progress. I wish I could

say, though, that those efforts spelled

the end of the push for tax cuts. I regret that even the Senate budget resolution itself leaves the door wide open

for tax cuts. Do not let anyone tell you

the Senate budget resolution does not

contemplate tax cuts within this 7-year

period. It does and they would be very

large; to the tune of, apparently, at

least $170 billion.

That document creates a special

budget surplus allowance dedicated

solely for tax cuts. Although I certainly think an excellent job was done

in many respects, that special fund is

an invitation for trouble if we are

going to reduce the Federal deficit and

eliminate it. The $170 billion tax cut

fund is a cookie jar. It is a special fund

put away that could be used for deficit

reduction, or to restore the Medicare

cuts and the student loan cuts and the

agriculture cuts that are a part of this

document.

I have to reiterate, we could get more

deficit reduction or we could still have

a completely balanced budget by the

year 2002 and not do those very harsh

cuts to the tune of $256 billion to Medicare. We need to eliminate this kitty,

this cookie jar for the tax cut. Not

only is it $170 billion but the special

fund will almost certainly lure proposals to enact even more significant tax

cuts. I do not think that is the chairman’s intent. In fact, I think it is just

the opposite. But I think that is what

will happen. And once the focus of our

work is shifted from deficit reduction

to tax cuts, I think it will be a very

short route to another tax-cut bidding

war.

If we have that war it will undo the

progress we made in the 103d Congress

and the further progress I think the

Budget Committee is trying to make

with regard to reducing the deficit. In

fact, it was just that kind of tax-cut

bidding war in the 1980’s that got us

into this terrible mess in the first

place.

A major tax cut is not only fiscally

imprudent; it may undermine the public confidence we have to have to pursue the painful cuts necessary to balance the Federal budget. The tax cut

may be the crown jewel of the Republican contract, but it is really a lump

of coal for the children and grandchildren of our future who get stuck

with the debt and paying interest on

the debt because we did not have the

guts to eliminate the tax cut today.

If the American people believe we are

playing it straight with them, that the

cuts we enact are fair and honest, then

they will support the work product and

make the sacrifices needed for a balanced budget willingly. If, however,

they believe that this process is nothing more than politics as usual, that

we are enacting a fiscally irresponsible

tax cut for the sake of a political agenda, then they will rightly question the

sincerity and fairness and prudence of

the cuts in the budget package, and

any hope for progress on this will be

dashed.

Inclusion of any type of a major taxcut measure in this year’s budget resolution sends us in the wrong direction.

Deficit reduction has to be our highest

priority, not tax cuts. Enacting tax

cuts at a time when we are still fighting the deficit could well hurt those

families whom the tax cut is supposed

to help.

It is the middle class who will bear

the brunt of the higher interest rates

that could be triggered by a tax cut,

and their children who will bear much

of the burden of the continually escalating national debt.

Mr. President, this should not be, and

I do not think this really is a partisan

issue.

For my own part, I have opposed the

tax cut proposals that Members of both

parties have offered.

Last November, I opposed the tax

cuts included in the Contract With

America. But I also opposed my own

President’s tax cut plan on the day he

announced it.

Since then, some of both parties have

advanced tax cut proposals. But I am

happy to say that Members of both parties have joined me in challenging the

wisdom of these proposals. The momentum in this body is against a tax cut.

The momentum was begun by the good

work of the Budget Committee which

at least relegated the tax cuts to this

cookie jar. That was the first step. The

whole Senate should finish it off. Let

us get it off the table, and make this

budget about one thing and one thing

only; and, that is, getting rid of the

Federal deficit once and for all so the

people in this country can get rid of

that sick feeling in their stomachs that

the people out here in Washington are

not responsible with their tax dollars,

so that kind of bipartisanship is encouraging, not only the issue of tax

cuts, but also on the issue of deficit reduction in general.

The growing bipartisan opposition to

the tax cut stems from a belief that

deficit reduction is the higher priority,

that the savings generated by these

very, very tough spending cuts have to

be used for deficit reduction and not

tax cuts. In that common belief we

ought to be able to find the common

ground that can be the basis of a truly

bipartisan budget resolution.

Mr. President, as I said, before, I

stand ready to participate in such an

effort, and I am sure that many of the

people on our side of the aisle share

that view.

Because the actual work of reducing

the deficit requires hard choices, it is

so very easy to stray away from that

chore.

It becomes even more tempting to

avoid that responsibility when something as highly charged and politically

appealing as cutting taxes competes for

our attention.

For this reason, the chairman of the

Budget Committee again should be

commended for keeping the primary

focus of his work and his committee’s

work on deficit reduction instead of

reckless tax cuts.

So, though I have a number of significant differences with the chairman’s proposal, and especially a taxcut cookie jar, I did want to take this

opportunity to thank him for his work.

At the end of the day let me conclude

by saying that you cannot have it both

ways. You cannot say we absolutely

must make big cuts in Medicare and

farm programs, student loan programs,

you cannot say that you have to get

this done by the year 2002, or we will

have a terrible fiscal mess, and then

turn right around and say we have
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6869

plenty of money for $170 billion or $300

billion of tax cuts. You cannot have it

both ways. As we say back home, you

cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Mr. President, I would suggest you cannot have your deficit reduction and eat

it, too.

I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

THOMPSON). The Senator from New

Mexico.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am

going to yield to Senator GORTON as

much time as he desires. I wonder before he speaks if he would yield me 1

minute.

Mr. President, I want to make it

clear once and for all. The budget that

we put before the Senate is a deficit reduction budget. It is a zero deficit in

the year 2002, no games, no smoke, no

mirrors. The first actions of the U.S.

Senate when they implement this will

be to get to a balanced budget. For

anyone talking about tax cuts prior to

balancing the budget, just get hold of

the budget resolution and read it. If

there is anywhere in there that you can

find that, then obviously I will not

only come here and apologize but

clearly, clearly it will be a budget that

I did not produce. So somebody put

words in that I do not understand, that

I did not know were there. That is

point No. 1.

Point No. 2: The way this budget is

structured, you will get to balance.

You will have all the laws changed that

get you to balance. That is frequently

called a reconciliation bill, a big bill

that will change the entitlements permanently.

You will then ask the Congressional

Budget Office. Is it balanced? When

they say yes, and only then is the 170,

perhaps 170. It might be a different

number, depending upon the Congressional Budget Office evaluation of our

path. There will be an economic bonus.

The American people are entitled to

an economic bonus, and we say give it

to them in tax cuts. But only then, and

we also pass the resolution that the tax

cuts, 90 percent of them, have to be for

people earning $100,000 and less. All of

the rest of the talk about tax cuts, I

would hope everyone understands you

are talking about something that is

not before the Senate. And I am not

suggesting you cannot talk about it or

you should not. But I hope everybody

knows that is not the case in this budget. Balancing the budget is the primary

responsibility.

For anyone who wants to balance the

budget, and then turn around and say

now that you have it balanced, start

spending again, it is balanced, you

have it in balance, there is an economic dividend, start spending it

again—have at it.

I just do not believe the American

people believe that, for they will say

that is just the same old thing. That is

spending again. We say when you get

to balance give the American people a

break.

I now yield to Senator GORTON, and

he will manage the floor for a while.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator

yield for one unanimous-consent request?

Mr. GORTON. Certainly.

PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I

ask unanimous consent that staff people, two fellows, Danielle Rose and

Lauren Ewers be granted privileges of

the floor during the debate on the

budget resolution.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator.

Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

Mr. GORTON. Would the President

notify me when I use 15 minutes?

Mr. President, I must start by saying

that perhaps some of the criticisms of

the position of the Democratic Party

that have been levied in the last few

days, and even here this afternoon,

may be a little bit overstated. It has

been our position that the opposition

to this budget resolution are totally

defenders of the status quo, that they

do not wish to make any changes whatsoever, that they do not care about a

balanced budget. But several of them

have already told us that is not true,

that everything they propose will continue the balance and the resolution

produced by my distinguished friend

and colleague from New Mexico. Mr.

President, if that is the case, the Domenici budget is already a landmark of

progress for this country. And I fervently hope that those statements do

turn out to be true, though I may be a

skeptic until I see it proven.

Under those circumstances, the accusation of the defenders of the status

quo will be appropriately directed only

at the White House and at the administration.

My friend from Iowa earlier this

afternoon pointed out that this yellow

line describes the budget deficit for the

next 5 years under figures provided by

our Congressional Budget Office if we

are to pass the President’s proposed

budget. This is what happens under the

President’s budget, and the proposal

that was presented by Members on the

other side when they offered us a huge

tax increase 2 years ago to lower the

budget deficit. Well, in all 5 of those

years we will have that huge tax increase in place. But the budget deficit

will go up each and every year.

That, Mr. President, is the status

quo. That was what the administration

proposed to us. That is what was defended for at least a couple of months

by Members on the other side of the

aisle while we strove mightily to come

up with something that would put this

country on this line, a line ending in a

balanced budget in 7 years, exactly as

promised in the constitutional amendment defeated by only a single vote.

So perhaps we have made a huge degree of progress. We have the other

party repudiating this line and accepting this line.

My colleague from New Mexico has

invited any Member of the other party

during the course of the day to propose

the President’s budget, so that we all

may vote on it and determine whether

or not there is anyone in this body who

wants to do this. And I hope and I believe that if no one from the other side

of the aisle makes such a proposition,

we will put it out here for debate and

for a vote ourselves because its repudiation will show that great progress has

been made in agreeing at least on the

desirability of balancing the budget.

But, Mr. President, my skepticism

remains because at the same time we

are told that all of the amendments

will do nothing but redistribute various functions but will continue this

line, we are told, no, no, we do not have

an alternative budget—not here. Now,

that political party in the House of

Represenatives has an alternative

budget to what is proposed in the

House. Do you know what it is, Mr.

President? It is essentially the Domenici budget. It looks good over on the

other side of the Capitol but not here.

No, they say, what we will do is propose individual amendments, each of

which will maintain this balance.

Now, what, Mr. President, is the difference between going at it that way

and making an overall budget proposal

which continues us on this line? Well,

it is very simple. You can use the same

money over and over and over again.

Each time an amendment is defeated

that would cut the defense budget in

order more generously to fund one of

their favorite programs or would go

into the reserve fund to fund one of

their favorite programs, each time

such an amendment is lost, you can do

it over again. You can use the same

money for a different spending program.

Between the first two Senators who

spoke on that side, there were eloquent

demands for more money for education,

for veterans, for health care, for the

National Institutes of Health, less of a

slowdown in the outrageous growth in

the earned income tax credit, and more

money for agriculture.

Now, Mr. President, there is no possibility that they could produce a budget

that did all of those things in half the

amounts outlined by the Senator from

California without a huge tax increase.

But if they do it one amendment at a

time and lose one amendment at a

time, they can use the same money

over and over again. And perhaps, Mr.

President, my skepticism is fed a little

bit by the fact that that is exactly

what they did in the Budget Committee. I kept notes as a member of that

committee, and 14 amendments from

that side proposed increased spending;

6 of them proposed actual tax increases

over the present level; 5 used the reserve fund, there for the possibility of

tax cuts if we do our job right; 2 others
S6870 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 18, 1995

reduced those proposed tax cuts, and 3

reduced expenditures for defense below

the President’s proposals which themselves already call for reductions, real

reductions in every year covered by his

budget.

That is what we will get here, Mr.

President. The one uniting factor over

there is a total anathema with respect

to the remote possibility that someone’s taxes somewhere in the United

States might be reduced.

Now, as the Senator from New Mexico said, we do not propose a tax cut directly in this budget. We propose to get

to this zero figure on the deficit, and

we are told that if we do so, not just in

a budget resolution but by passing actual binding laws which change spending policy so that we can get to this

point, the economy will react. Interest

rates will be lower. We will find 170 billion more dollars because of a better

economy over the course of the next 5

years.

And incidentally, Mr. President,

those reductions in interest rates will

knock into a cocked hat all the statements about student loans made by the

Senator from California. They are

based on what interest rates are going

to be if you adopt the President’s budget. That is the set of circumstances

under which interest rates like that

will be charged someone, young people

or others.

So we say that if we go through this

exercise, if we balance the budget, if we

improve the economy, if we lower interest rates, perhaps the American people ought to get a dividend.

Now, why is it difficult to come to a

compromise in cases like this? Because

of the way that it is characterized. The

Senator from California and others,

when they talk about tax cuts, say a

tax cut is taking money out of the

pockets of the poor and putting it in

the hands of the rich. That stems from

an attitude that all the money in the

United States of America belongs to

the Government, and if we are good little children, maybe it will give us back

something that we earned ourselves.

Our position is that the American

people, when we have done our job,

ought to be allowed to keep and determine the spending habits of a little bit

more of the money they have earned

and have less of it taken away from

them and handed to someone else, and

that is a very, very profound difference.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, will the

Senator from Washington yield for a

question?

Mr. GORTON. I certainly will.

Mr. GREGG. To the Senator from

Washington, is it not my understanding that this budget resolution brought

forward by the Republican Senate

Members on the Budget Committee, for

which no Democrats voted, has in it

language which says that to the extent

there is this tax cut as a result of the

bonus that would occur to the American people by getting to a balanced

budget, the dividend occurs as a result

of interest rates coming down, this $170

billion tax cut—and as the Senator

points out the actual bonus to the

American people would be lower interest rates on everything, and it would

represent billions and billions of dollars in savings to the American people.

But if that happens, does this resolution state that 90 percent of this tax

cut, to the extent it is instituted,

should go to people with incomes under

$100,000? And is that the new definition

of wealthy from the other side of the

aisle, people with incomes over

$100,000?

Mr. GORTON. The Senator from New

Hampshire is 100 percent correct. It is

interesting that in its initial form that

proposal was made by one of the Senators on the other side who already

this afternoon in the Chamber has

talked about these huge tax cuts for

the wealthy. Yet, it was that Senator

who, with our help, earmarked any reduction that we do get for middle-class

working Americans. We felt that was a

good amendment, and we felt that

those middle-class, hard-working

Americans ought to be allowed to keep

a little bit more of what they earn and

determine how to spend it themselves.

The Senator from New Hampshire’s

comments lead me to another point.

When we speak about $170 billion in

this period in savings in interest on the

national debt, which we then can return to the people in the form of lower

taxes, but which the other side wants

to spend before we have even earned

it—they are spending this dividend,

and in every one of the amendments we

get they will be spending this dividend

before it is ever earned.

But that is only the savings on the

interest on the national debt, on the

Government’s debt. There are hundreds

of billions of dollars more that will be

in the pockets of individuals because

they will have paid lower interest rates

on their mortgages, on their installment credit, on the money they use to

begin new small businesses and the

like. That is the purpose of the budget

which we seek.

And I want to return to my first comments. I think we have already had a

tremendous triumph. I suspect we are

not going to get anyone on the other

side coming in and giving us an amendment to pass this budget, and I suspect

when they vote on it, they are going to

end up voting against that budget. But

we have already triumphed. We have

already come to an agreement that we

ought to be on this road here, the road

to a balanced budget.

The differences will be that, with all

of these huge amounts of spending,

trillions of dollars in this period of

time, we hope that 1 or 1.5 percent of

it, if we do do our job, might be left in

the pockets of middle-class working

American citizens at the end of this entire debate. We think they can do a

better job of spending it than can the

Government of the United States.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the

Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I

yield myself such time as I need to

make my presentation. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to do

that.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President,

with this resolution, we begin a new

phase in the debate over the Federal

budget.

I am sorry that the distinguished

Senator from New Mexico, the chairman of the Budget Committee, is not

on the floor, because I want the

RECORD to reflect not only my admiration but my respect for that leadership

that he has provided in the Budget

Committee and, in fact, though we may

disagree with several parts of the budget resolution that was produced, it was

the intention of the Budget Committee

chairman to do as efficient a job as he

could, and I commend him for it.

The debate about whether we should

move toward a balanced budget is over.

There is a consensus that we should do

just that. It crosses the aisle that divides us. We Democrats are committed

to a deficit-reduced balanced budget in

the interest of the financial stability of

our country. And we have no less credentials to do that than our friends on

the other side of the aisle. I hope that,

during my comments, we will be able

to make a clear distinction about how

we get to that point.

There are differences about whether

we balance the operating budget or

whether we include Social Security in

the budget calculation, which, astoundingly, on the Republican side it has

been part of a structure to include the

balances from Social Security, the surplus—and I talk to senior citizens

across this country—to use their trust

funds, sacrosanct, committed, reserved

for the time they need it. No, we are

going to do some funny accounting to

get to the point that we want to.

I come from the corporate side of the

business world, as do many of my colleagues. I know one thing: If I were to

project sales and earnings for my company over the next 5 to 7 years and I

said, ‘‘We are going to make lots of

money and here is how much we are

going to make, we are doing this in

revenues and here is how much we are

going to do,’’ and I failed to tell the

public that I am going to include the

employees’ pension fund that my company does not own—it is the employees’—in the figures—and I said this in

the Budget Committee—you would be

led out with a raincoat over your head

and hands tied behind your back, escorted by U.S. marshals.

So, first of all, we get to a balanced

budget using some smoke, some mirrors, and some significant gimmicks.

We try to remove the Social Security

balance and say, let us fight for a balanced budget without that. Oh, no,
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6871

that could not happen. So there are

some differences.

Americans, however, want to reduce

wasteful spending in both parties,

Democrat and Republican, have got the

message.

So, as we work on this resolution, the

budget issue has changed. Now the

issue is not whether we reduce spending and move toward a balanced budget. The issue is: How do we do it?

Whose benefits will be cut? Who will

win? Who will lose? Because this is

somewhat of a seesaw. As long as we

stay within the parameters of balance,

when one side goes down, the other side

goes up. And, most fundamentally—and

I put this board up—the question is:

Whose side are we on? Whose side is the

Government on?

This is the issue that, unfortunately,

continues to divide our two parties. We

Democrats believe that Government

must stand on the side of ordinary,

middle-class families, on the side of

senior citizens who worked to build

this country, who presented us with

perhaps the best half century or four

decades that this country has ever

seen, not by just their participation in

World War II, Korea, the other wars

that have come by, but at the same

time building this country’s fundamental structure.

The other part is children. Two sides:

One is to take care of the future, invest

with and in our children, but at the

same time not forgetting our obligations to the senior citizens; and on the

side of those who really must struggle

to survive.

But the new majority has a very different philosophy, and a different constituency. The Contract With America,

as it is commonly called, is a contract

with the most powerful, wealthy members of our society. It would provide

huge benefits to millionaires and special interests, and it would force the

ordinary American to foot the bill.

Perhaps nothing illustrates the differences between our two parties more

than the Republican proposal for massive Medicare reductions to pay for tax

cuts for the rich. I think it is outrageous. And I intend to fight it as

hard as I can, just as I did during the

Budget Committee’s deliberations.

Mr. President, the average Medicare

beneficiary has a rather modest income

and, conversely, at that stage in life,

typically, they have very high medical

expenses. Seventy-five percent of those

folks have incomes under $25,000—75

percent, incomes under $25,000. Not

much to live on, especially if you live

in higher cost areas. Thirty-five percent have incomes under $10,000.

These folks cannot afford massive

cost increases. And they should not be

forced to give up their own doctor or to

sacrifice the quality of their care.

Over the past 2 weeks, Republican

leaders have tried desperately to justify huge Medicare cuts by pointing to

projected shortfalls in the HI trust

fund. But the argument is bogus. If we

need to shore up the trust fund, that

does not mean that we need to take a

whack at Medicare recipients.

There are other places in the budget

to find savings. It is only a question of

priorities.

These are my priorities. Before we

burden more of our struggling seniors,

we ought to go after special interest

tax breaks, we ought to eliminate funding for the space station, we ought to

terminate unnecessary weapons systems, we ought to abolish special subsidies for the timber industry, the oil

industry and the gas industry and the

ranching interests, and we ought to

eliminate an array of other wasteful or

low-priority spending.

Of course, Mr. President, there can be

debate about the specifics, but there

should be no disagreement about this

priority, this principle. I enunciate, we

should not be cutting Medicare just to

fund tax cuts for the rich.

In the Budget Committee, I offered

an amendment to shift funds from tax

cuts for the wealthy to restore funding

for Medicare and Medicaid. My amendment was defeated when every Republican opposed it, without exception. We

just heard from our distinguished colleague from Washington who said that

there was not a Democrat that joined

the Republican majority when the

Budget Committee denied amendments

and passed this budget resolution. But

I ask, if the same speech that is made

on the floor of this Senate would be

made in a town meeting back home in

whatever the town and whatever the

State, and look in the faces of the senior citizens and say, ‘‘Listen, we’re

going to make it easy for you by adding more expense to your already burdened budgets in hopes that if we give

a tax cut to the rich, if we give a guy

earning $350,000 a year a $20,000 tax reduction that he is going to invest it in

some way that will stimulate our economy.’’ We just have to hope he does not

put it in some dormant tax-exempt

bonds, or something like that, because

that is not going to help.

To justify their opposition to some of

these things, the Republicans, once

again, said, ‘‘Oh, no, not us, that’s not

what we want to do.’’

So I pointed out that the Republican

leadership in both the House and the

Senate did support such cuts and did

support the House bill that essentially

was in the works. This was no secret.

The House had passed the bill giving a

$20,000 tax break to those earning

$350,000 in a year.

I went a step further. I said, ‘‘OK, if

you’re really not going to cut Medicare

to pay for tax cuts for the rich, let’s

put it in writing and make it enforceable.’’ So I offered an amendment that

would have made it out of order to consider any bill that cut Medicare or

Medicaid to pay for tax cuts for the

rich.

Under the amendment, I suggested it

would have taken a supermajority, 60

votes, to take up that kind of a proposal. Simple enough to say that if you

wanted to offer tax cuts and decided to

cut Medicare or Medicaid, that it

would take this supermajority 60 votes

to do so. What do you think? Every Republican on the committee voted

against that, too. Why? I do not know.

Obviously, they think tax cuts for the

rich are more important than other

priorities, the thing we were discussing

on the floor here.

Mr. President, it should be obvious to

everyone that the Republican Party

really does plan to cut Medicare, to cut

Medicaid to pay for tax cuts for the

rich. But they go out of their way to

obscure what is really going on. So we

have developed a nomenclature for the

reserve that CBO is likely to put up

once this budget is believed to be balanced. It is called an economic dividend. It is called a fiscal dividend.

They do not say that it is for tax cuts.

Just a wink of the eye. Everybody

knows it.

We have heard some of our colleagues

from the Republican side who have declared their intention to run for President demand that tax cuts be included.

One suggested that a filibuster would

be in order on the floor of the Senate

to make sure that tax cuts are in place.

Our distinguished majority leader did

say in a speech that he made that tax

cuts are in order in terms of a budget

resolution. So we ought to call it like

it is. Make no mistake, the fiscal dividend is really disguised, but down deep

it is simply a tax cut for the rich.

There should be little confusion

about this. We know that CBO will

score the indirect benefits to the Government of reconciliation. We know

that these benefits can only be used

under this resolution for a tax cut, and

we know that the House already has

passed a bill giving a $20,000 tax break

for wealthy individuals in a year.

This is what it looks like. The Republican budget. The winners: The

rich—$20,000 tax break, corporate subsidies protected and tax loopholes

saved. The fix is in. There is a tax cut

for the rich in this resolution. It is a

huge tax cut financed by drastic reductions in Medicare, or increases in Medicare costs and Medicaid subsidies. Do

not let anybody fool us.

Mr. President, I go back now to the

larger question posed by this budget

resolution. This debate, like few others, is about to force each of us to

make a very fundamental decision, a

decision about what we stand for, a decision about whose side we are on.

I want to take a look for a minute at

who wins and who loses under the Republican proposed budget. The winners:

The rich—$20,000 tax break, corporate

subsidies are protected, tax loopholes

are saved. The winners are clear: Rich,

corporate interests and their lobbyists.

Meanwhile, let us see who loses under

this resolution. First, there are the

Medicare cuts. It will cost an average

couple over the 7 years proposed to get

us to a balanced budget $6,400, and in

the last year of the 7-year cycle, we are

looking at an $1,800 cost for that couple. These, by the way, are people who
S6872 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 18, 1995

already pay a substantial out-of-pocket

sum for health care. It is estimated

that it runs about 21 percent. So if the

average beneficiary is getting $16,000 a

year, it costs them $3,000 more for medical care, for health care.

On top of that, there are education

cuts proposed. On top of that, there are

tax increases scheduled for hard-working American families. That is a substantial one, too. By eliminating the

earned income tax credit, the Republicans not only will increase taxes on

working Americans, but they will reduce needed incentives for people to

move from welfare to work. It does not

make sense. It really makes one wonder, Mr. President, how can the Republicans cut taxes for the rich, on one

hand, and with the other hand turn

around and increase taxes for working

Americans, people making $28,000 or

less?

That may be the Republicans’ perspective of fairness, but it is not mine.

It is just plain wrong.

But one thing is becoming quite

clear, and that is the sharp difference

between the two parties’ perspectives.

The Republican Party is willing to lay

down for high-income special interests,

while we stand up for the working people in this country.

So, yes, Mr. President, we are going

to do a lot of fighting about this budget resolution. In most of these fights,

we Democrats are going to be joined

together in the fight, because while we

disagree with each other about a lot of

things, there is one thing that unites

us; that is, our commitment to serving

ordinary people, middle-class families

who work hard, who struggle to keep

their homes together, who struggle to

keep opportunity available for their

children, who struggle to take care of

the elderly and the disabled—the people without lobbyists, the people without the big bank accounts and without

the connections.

Most of us came to the Democratic

Party because we believe that Government should stand with these people. I

point out, Mr. President, immodestly

perhaps, that I came out of the business sector and helped create an industry as well as a company. I am one of

the people who was fortunate to be perhaps in some of the higher income

brackets. But I believe that my security as a citizen, that my family’s security, my daughters’, my son’s, my

grandchildren’s, that my security depends on the stability of our country,

not on how much more money I give or

leave my children. It depends on

whether or not we have a society that

believes we are all together and does

not feel like the largest part is left out

of the loop. So I would rather invest in

our people, invest in the children who

are going to lead this country tomorrow, provide the skilled work force

that we need to have in order to complete; that is why I came to the U.S.

Senate.

Perhaps our party has lost its way in

recent years, and we can admit that up

front. We were reminded about that

very sharply last November. But now

the chips are down. We know where the

public stands. We know what people

are concerned about. We know they are

worried. The battle is now beginning in

earnest. And there is no question—I

said it earlier—about whose side we are

on. That is what this debate is really

about. I wish it were not so. But when

you get right down to it, this budget is

designed to decide who is going to be

on the side of the working people and

who is going to take care of those who

already have a lot. It is a direct assault

on ordinary Americans and a sop to the

most wealthy and powerful interests in

our Nation.

That is not what I stand for, it is not

what the Democratic Party stands for,

and it is not what America needs now.

In conclusion, we Democrats may not

have the votes to win in this battle. We

probably do not. But we are going to

try and we are going to insist that the

votes that take place here will reflect

how each one of our friends on the

other side, as well as on our side, feels

about whose side they are on, and

whether it is the veterans, or the disabled, or the women concerned about

breast cancer, about research for Alzheimer’s, or AIDS, we are going to be

deciding now whether or not those

funds that are freed up as a result of

the schedule to balance the budget go

to tax cuts for the rich, or whether we

continue to serve the interests of the

ordinary people. At least since the debate will be conducted here, the American people will have a chance to see us

discuss it, to look at the RECORD after

the votes are cast, to be able to say to

their Senators and their Congress people when they go back home, ‘‘What

did you vote for?’’ ‘‘Why did you do

it?’’ and ‘‘Whose side were you on?′′

I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I think we

have been moving along quite well in

total cooperation. I believe Senator

ABRAHAM would be next under the

usual ruling. I have several Senators

on this side who have been waiting and

are not asking for any other consideration other than some time.

I ask unanimous consent that we

would now go to Senator ABRAHAM, and

following him, we would go to Senator

ROCKEFELLER, who wants 12 minutes,

followed by Senator KENNEDY, who

wants 15 minutes. Is that agreeable so

that we could have everybody know the

flow?

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, we

would agree to that if we can then have

Senator HATFIELD, who would like 15

minutes, and Senator GRAMM who

would like 10 minutes.

Mr. EXON. That would be satisfactory.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

objection?

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I

yield myself such time as I may need.

Earlier this year, the Senate failed

by one vote to support a constitutional

amendment requiring a balanced budget. At the time, opponents told the

Senate that balancing the budget did

not require amending the Constitution.

All we needed, we were told, was to

make the tough choices and cast the

hard votes.

Mr. President, the hard choices are

here. The budget resolution before us

makes those choices and balances the

budget by the year 2002—without raising taxes and without gutting national

security. It accomplishes this task by

slowing the growth of Federal spending

from 5 percent per year to a more reasonable 3 percent per year. In dollars,

that means Federal spending, under

this budget, will increase from $1.6 trillion next year to $1.9 trillion in the

year 2002.

Let me repeat that. Federal spending

will increase from $1.6 trillion to $1.9

trillion over 7 years.

Only in Washington would a $300 billion increase in spending be called a

cut. Clearly, while the budget presents

us with tough choices, allowing spending to increase 19 percent is not an impossible or even unreasonable goal.

Nevertheless, some do not agree with

this objective. As Labor Secretary Robert Reich said on Meet the Press earlier this year, balancing the budget is

not a priority of the Clinton administration. The subsequent budget proposal only serves to reinforce that admission. According to CBO, deficits

will rise under Clinton’s budget from

$177 billion to $276 billion in the year

2000. Under the Clinton budget the national debt will grow by $1.2 trillion

over the next 5 years.

Mr. President, what does this neglect

mean to future generations? Consider

the consequences of adopting President

Clinton’s budget for fiscal year 1996.

Under that budget, by the year 1999,

the total debt will hit $6.4 trillion, or

$27,700 of debt for every man, woman,

and child in America.

In the year 2000, interest payments

on the debt will be $305 billion—more

than we spend on defense, more than

we spend on all other discretionary

programs combined, and more than we

will spend on Medicare.

In the year 2010, entitlements plus interest will consume all Federal tax revenues, which means we must either

slash spending, print more money, borrow more money, or enact draconian

tax increases. In my judgment, they

are all bad options.

In the year 2030, spending for entitlements will consume the entire Federal

budget. That means nothing will be left

for defense or any other discretionary

program, including those targeted at

children and the poor, and it means we

would not even be able to finance the

interest payments on the debt.

On the other hand, balancing the

budget is not just an exercise in good

government. Eliminating the deficit

will pay big dividends to Americans in

the form of lower taxes, lower interest

rates, higher economic growth, and the

bottom line, a higher standard of living. Here are some of the projections:
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6873

Most economists agree that balancing the budget will result in significantly lower interest rates, thereby

saving the average homeowner up to

$500 per month on their mortgage payments.

According to the CBO, these lower interest rates will result in a so-called

fiscal dividend to the Treasury of

around $170 billion between now and

2002. I believe that this dividend should

be returned to the American people in

the form of tax cuts. I will support efforts on the floor to do so.

Finally, according to the GAO, if we

balance the budget by 2002, the average

American will enjoy a real growth in

their incomes of 36 percent by the year

2020.

Given the costs of doing nothing and

the benefits of taking action, I believe

it is obvious that balancing the budget

is in everyone’s interest. That leaves

the question of how we get there. The

budget before us shows the way.

At the beginning of the budget process, I set out five priorities that I

hoped would be embraced by the Senate budget resolution:

First, privatize; second, eliminate

waste and duplication; third, return

the operation of various Government

functions to the States with block

grants; fourth, eliminate outdated programs; finally, fifth, reduce Government bureaucratic overhead. I am

pleased to say this resolution includes

all five.

First, it assumes we will privatize

those areas of Government that are

better left to the private sector, including the naval petroleum reserve, the

Uranium Enrichment Corporation, and

the Alaska Power Marketing Administration.

The naval petroleum reserve is a

good example of why we need to privatize. The reserve was created to ensure that we had sufficient supplies of

oil in the event of a crisis. As President

Clinton recently acknowledged, however, that is no longer the case. As the

President stated, the reserve’s function

of producing and selling this oil is a

commercial, not a governmental, activity.

Mr. President, there are many other

naval petroleum reserves out there.

This budget identifies them and moves

them out of the Federal Government.

Second, the budget consolidates Federal departments and agencies that are

duplicative and wasteful. The GAO reports that the Department of Commerce alone shares its mission with at

least 71 other Federal departments,

agencies, and offices. In other functions, the Federal Government operates 163 separate job training programs

and has at least 10 agencies devoted to

promoting international trade.

Obviously, there are savings to be

made by ending this wasteful duplication and focusing these efforts. This

budget takes advantage of those savings.

Third, we need to return government

to the States. We need to revive the

10th amendment which says ‘‘the powers not delegated to the United States

by the Constitution, nor prohibited by

it to the States are reserved to the

States respectively, or to the people.’’

In my own State of Michigan, Governor Engler is out in front on important issues like welfare, Medicaid, and

education reform. I know Governors

from other States are equally as innovative.

This budget takes advantage of the

tremendous talents outside the beltway by utilizing block grants, to replace the hundreds of Federal welfare,

housing, and education programs.

These block grants will provide Governors with the resources and the freedom they need to carry out these reforms. Returning these programs to

the States is both an exercise in good

government and a means of reducing

costs and increasing efficiency.

Fourth, this budget eliminates outdated programs. Programs like the

Interstate Commerce Commission, the

honey program, even the Department

of Commerce are targeted. All told, 59

programs, 25 statutory boards and commissions, and 63 agencies are soon to be

terminated under this budget.

Let me just cite some more of the

program terminations assumed in this

budget: The Small Business Administration tree planting program; the

Swine Health Advisory Committee; the

Board of Tea Experts; the Technical

Panel on Magnetic Fusion; the Dance

Advisory Panel; the honey program;

the Fastener Advisory Committee.

Mr. President, some of these programs might be useful, but we simply

cannot afford them, given our exploding national debt.

Finally, we have reduced overhead.

The President stated that over 100,000

Federal jobs have been eliminated toward the goal of trimming the Federal

bureaucracy by 250,000 positions. A vast

majority of the personnel reductions

come out of the Department of Defense. Other areas of the Federal bureaucracy have barely been touched.

This budget addresses this imbalance

by reducing Federal overhead accounts

by 15 percent, eliminating hundreds of

political patronage jobs, and expanding

the ability of Federal departments to

work with less expensive private contractors.

Having focused on what this budget

does, it is just as important to focus on

what it does not. First, this budget

does not abandon Medicare. In their

1995 annual report, the Medicare trustees announced that the Medicare trust

fund will be insolvent 7 years from

now. The trustees conclude that the

‘‘HI program is severely out of financial balance and that the trustees believe that the Congress must take

timely action to establish long-term financial stability for the program.’’

This budget embraces the call of the

trustees to action by addressing both

the short- and the long-term insolvency of the Medicare program. First,

it allows Medicare to continue to grow

at a 7-percent rate per year. This reform enables Medicare to pass the

trustees’ short-term solvency test

while still growing at twice the rate of

inflation.

Second, the resolution includes a call

for a special commission to address the

long-term stability questions facing

Medicare and to advise Congress on

how to keep Medicare’s promise for future generations.

Another group this amendment does

not abandon is the American taxpayers. As I previously mentioned, balancing the budget by 2002 will, according to the CBO, provide $170 billion

‘‘fiscal dividend′′ from lower interest

costs.

Senator DOMENICI has stated that

this dividend will be used to pay for tax

cuts. I believe that we should enact tax

relief for the middle-class working

families of this country and tax incentives for savings and investment. We

can and should balance the budget and

provide American families with real

tax relief.

Mr. President, if we look at Federal

outlays of the span of this budget, the

Federal Government will spend in excess of $12 billion between now and

2002. A significant portion of that

amount constitutes a redistribution of

dollars from those who work and pay

the taxes, to those who are elderly,

sick, homeless, and have low incomes.

Federal programs targeted at the poor

and the needy are the result of a truly

compassionate society, and we should

continue to support them.

I resent the implication that is often

made here on the floor, and made occasionally during our committee hearings, that somehow we are not a compassionate Nation. This budget will

spend $12 trillion largely for the purpose of helping people who are less fortunate in our society. That is 21⁄2 times

the average GDP of America. I think

that is an important investment, and

hardly one to be described as lacking in

compassion.

Now, based on that, it is my opinion

that if, after we go through this process of bringing the budget into balance,

and if, after we go through the process

of spending $12 trillion over 7 years on

so many important programs, that any

fiscal surplus created by this budget

should go to those who have made the

surplus and our compassionate programs possible—the hard-working taxpayers.

Moreover, the surplus or dividend

only constitutes 11⁄2 percent of the $12

trillion we will spend over the next 7

years. To me, it only seems fair to

allow those who pay the taxes to keep

this tiny surplus or dividend so that

they can invest it in their families and

in our Nation’s economic future.

Finally, this budget also avoids the

ever-present temptation to gut defense.

Real defense spending has declined by
S6874 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 18, 1995

37 percent since 1985, and while I believe there are many money-saving reforms possible within the DOD, I believe the savings should stay within defense to provide for our substantial security. No other responsibility of Government is as important.

This budget recognizes the importance of our national security by maintaining the current level of spending

and establishing protections against

using defense cuts for other spending

proposals.

In conclusion, Mr. President, I should

point out that without the assistance

of the minority, Republicans have

stepped forward and proposed the

changes necessary to cap out-of-control

Federal spending. In successfully reporting this budget resolution, the

Senate Budget Committee has taken a

historic step toward reducing the deficit and balancing the budget.

Before the Senate today is a resolution that makes the tough choices,

slows Federal spending and brings the

Federal budget into balance by the

year 2002.

Many people doubted it could be

done, and it is a credit to Senator DOMENICI that he set this goal and stuck

with it. If we are successful in moving

this budget through the entire budget

process, I believe there is no better

present we can give the future generations than a debt-free Government.

The benefits of balancing the budget

far outweigh temporary effects caused

by reducing the growth of Federal

spending. This is truly a long-term approach to fiscal sanity, and I thank

Chairman DOMENICI for giving me the

opportunity to make my first budget a

balanced one.

Mr. President, we will hear much

talk during this debate and the hours

remaining over the winners and the

losers and so on when we debate this

budget resolution. But it is my strong

belief, and as I have traveled through

my State during both the campaign

last year and in the days since the content of our revolution has become a

matter of public debate, I find that

people from one end of my State to the

other believe strongly that what we

have to do here in the Senate is finally

step up to the plate and accept responsibility and handle this budget deficit

now.

They understand that if we continue

to wait, if we continue to say that

every program must continue to grow

at the speed and the pace that has

America $4.5 trillion into debt, we are

not just saddling our children with

even more debt and indebtedness, we

are setting the country on a course

that absolutely will lead to a crisis we

cannot reverse in just a few years—15

years to be specific, according to the

Entitlements Commission.

For that, only, I look forward to

working, certainly, with Senator DOMENICI and with anyone else who is

committed to the notion that we

should bring the spending giant in

Washington under control. I believe it

is the most important thing I can do

for my small children, for the children

of Michigan and the children of this

country.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GORTON). Under the previous order, the

Senator from West Virginia is recognized for 10 minutes. Is that the

amount for which the Senator from

West Virginia asked?

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President,

under the order I believe it was 12 minutes. I was trying hoping to slip it up

to 15 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 12 minutes, and if

he is in control of the floor he can yield

himself additional time.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I

cannot help but note for the Presiding

Officer in the chair, in the last week

even, the bipartisanship which has

reigned on this floor. The Presiding Officer, the distinguished Senator from

Washington, and this Senator and

other Senators from both sides of the

aisle worked together to craft a product liability tort reform bill which was

slim, disciplined, and effective. People

said it could not be done. It was done.

Last night the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator KENNEDY, this Senator, Senator CHAFEE from Rhode Island, Senator DOLE, and Senator PACKWOOD—there was quite a flap about a

very important but not necessarily attention-grabbing subject called Medicare Select; whether it was to be expanded from the present 14 States to

50, for how long, and who would decide

and all of this. And this Senator objected to its being taken further, so

there was a climate of momentary controversy. But then both sides came together and worked out a bipartisan

compromise which was passed. And

that was very heartening. It was important; heartening.

Now we are at a very different stage

and it is saddening to me, but it is terribly real because I do think it has

come to where we define what these

two different parties that sit in this

Chamber stand for.

Mr. President, I will be offering tomorrow, an amendment on Medicare

and long-term care to the Republicansponsored Senate budget resolution.

The amendment will take $100 billion

in funds reserved for tax cuts for the

wealthy and put that money back into

vital health care programs.

The Senate Republicans have proposed the single largest Medicare cut

in the history of the program, $256 billion over 7 years. The House Republicans have proposed an even larger

cut, $288 billion over 7 years. House Republicans need to cut Medicare more

because they have an even larger tax

break for the wealthy that they have

to pay for. The House tax cut totals

$345 billion. Money reserved for the

Senate tax break totals $170 billion.

These Medicare cuts would not be

necessary—would not be necessary—if

Republicans did not need to pay for

their tax cuts. The Contract With

America tax cut would provide a $20,000

tax break to the wealthiest 1 percent of

the population.

The amendment I will offer tomorrow, along with my colleague from New

Jersey, who will join me in that, and

the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator KENNEDY, will take $100 billion out

of the $170 billion the Republicans have

reserved for tax cuts for upper-income

Americans and shift it to Medicare and

Medicaid—very simple. It is a simple

amendment. What is it about? It is

about setting priorities. It says we are

not going to balance the budget by

whacking health benefits that seniors

depend upon. It says we are not going

to increase what seniors have to pay

out of their own pockets ad nauseam

for health care so we can put more

money into the pockets of the rich. It

is simple—clear. The difference between the two parties.

The Republicans have argued—will

argue that the $170 billion they have

reserved for tax cuts is their special

dividend, their own pot of gold. I find

that a particularly offensive statement. It is not their money to spend. It

is the money of the taxpayers. They

want to spend taxpayer money on more

breaks for the rich.

Democrats, through this amendment

and other Democratic amendments

that will be offered later on in the

process, say let us keep our priorities

straight. We have already committed

those dollars to the Medicare Program.

Instead of worrying about the effects

of such tremendous Medicare cuts on

seniors, I was significantly struck by

what Bill Kristol, who speaks for the

Republican Party, had to say earlier

this week. And what he basically said

was that since—not what he ‘‘basically

said,’’ what he said—that since the elderly tend to vote for Democrats, it

just was not a constituency that the

Republicans needed to worry about.

Again, straightforward and simple.

And, again, the difference between the

two parties. Frankly, I find that statement cynical and dangerous but not

surprising from the same person who

advised the Republicans last year to

oppose, sight unseen, any health care

proposal that came from this side of

the aisle.

We have heard a lot of talk over the

past few months from the Republicans

about the solvency of the Medicare

trust fund. Republicans are desperately, in this Senator’s judgment,

trying to disguise their huge Medicare

cuts as a way to save the Medicare Program from bankruptcy. We have heard

a lot about that. They plan to cut $256

billion, by hiking Medicare premiums

and beneficiary cost sharing and cutting reimbursement rates to hospitals

and doctors.

It is a very interesting phenomenon.

I just got off two radio talk shows this

morning where people were phoning in

questions to me. I had five hospital administrators from two States call me. I

only represent one State. They were all
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6875

scared to death about what was being

proposed here because they said the

only way to do that would be to shut

down services. In some cases they

talked about increasing prices, which

of course would exclude some, laying

off people and the rest. All of them

talked about closing the emergency

room.

The Republicans say they are going

to improve trust fund solvency. Yet

there is nothing in this Senate budget

resolution that would guarantee even

one more additional year of solvency.

Over the past 2 weeks we have heard

health experts, health economists, physicians, and hospital representatives

testify before the Finance Committee

about the consequences of putting the

Medicare Program in a budget straitjacket.

Dr. June O’Neill, the new Republican-appointed head of the Congressional Budget Office—why do I say

that? Traditionally it has been a bipartisan appointment. This year it was

not a bipartisan appointment, it was a

Republican appointment. I resent that.

I think it is dangerous for the country,

not because she is a Republican but because it is not bipartisan. Anyway, Dr.

June O’Neill, the new Republican-appointed head of the Congressional

Budget Office said that quality will

suffer. That is what Bob Reischauer

also said before her: Quality will suffer.

She said seniors will have to pay

more to maintain the current quality

of their health care.

Dr. Reischauer disputed Republican

promises headlined in the New York

Times a few weeks ago that, cuts in

Medicare ‘‘will be huge but painless.’’

He testified that cutting Medicare in

the short run is not painless and improvements in quality will be slowed

down.

The president of the American Hospital Association testified that ‘‘Americans believe deeply that Medicare is

Social Security. That sentiment cuts

across all age, income, geographic and

gender boundaries.’’ He is right. Medicare is part of the Social Security law.

Those proposed spending reductions may in

fact be reductions in the rate of growth and

not cuts in the spending, but let us be very

clear. To people who rely on Medicare for

their care and for people who provide their

care, the spending proposals being considered

are very likely to translate into cuts, cuts in

services, cuts in personnel, cuts in quality.

To the people to whom we provide care,

these slowdowns in the rate of spending

translates into real cuts.

Over the past year, during debate on

the balanced budget amendment, and

now on the Senate budget resolution, I

have tried to get my colleagues to

focus on the consequences of budget

cuts. I really do believe in that. I think

budget cuts simply are not done for numerical reasons. They are done for the

condition of the country as a whole,

and within that condition of the country of the whole are many factors to

consider, and some of those are the effects on people. I come from the State

of West Virginia, and I cannot do anything—nor will I ever do anything—

without considering the effects on the

people that I represent.

To think about the people that will

be directly and immediately affected

by these budget actions, we need to

move beyond the strictly mathematical. But for those people who like

math, I have a simple addition problem

for them.

Millie Wolfe lives in Preston County,

WV. She is 83 years old, and she lives

alone. She still drives a car. She lives

on her monthly Social Security check

of $593 a month. She spends $175 a

month on rent, $93 on her medigap policy, $8.30 cents on her heart medicine.

That leaves her with a little over $300

a month to pay her phone bill, her

heating bill, her electric bill, gas and

maintenance for her car, to buy groceries, and any and all other living expenses.

She is worried she may no longer be

able to drive herself to the grocery

store and to the doctor’s office and

might soon need help with transportation. And at 83 she has a right to

begin to worry about that. But she is

very, very worried and very upset

about having to pay $700 to $900 more

per year in Medicare costs as she would

under the proposal that lies before us.

She is already, Mr. President, paying

$1,200 a year out of pocket for her

medigap coverage and her heart medicine, not counting the $46 that is automatically deducted each month from

her Social Security check for her Medicare part B premium.

People who live on fixed incomes like

Millie Wolfe will have to subtract what

they can spend on other essential living expenses in order to pay for the increased costs of health care that will

be required under this budget resolution.

Millie Wolfe lives alone, but she is

not alone in West Virginia. She is not

alone in this country. There are 9 million seniors who live alone in this

country. A lot of seniors in West Virginia live on fixed incomes. Rarely

does one run into a senior in West Virginia, as the Senator from Massachusetts would know, with an income that

might be more than $10,000, $12,000,

$13,000 or $14,000 a year.

Asking those folks to pay more than

they already are paying for health care

in order to save the Medicare trust

fund is, frankly, offensive to me. Why?

Because it directly hurts them. When

you say everybody should pay more, I

take you back to Millie.

Mr. President, over half of the seniors in West Virginia live in rural

areas. That makes them even more vulnerable to the severe consequences of

the Republican budget that is before

us. Rural seniors will not only have to

pay more under the budget resolution,

but they may wind up losing their access to health care altogether. Medicare cuts of this magnitude will severely threaten the solvency of many

rural hospitals, as I have indicated,

forcing many of them to close their

emergency rooms, if they have them,

cut back on other services, and, yes, as

has happened before in West Virginia,

some will shut their doors.

We will hear protests by the Republicans that if we do not act right away,

there will not be a Medicare Program.

Mr. President, I can guarantee you

that if they implement their budget

plan, there really will not be a Medicare program. Benefits will disappear,

quality will deteriorate, and access

will be hard to obtain, or will become

nonexistent for people in my State,

who I will fight for.

One word about Medicaid and I am

finished. They are going to cut $160 billion to $190 billion out of Medicaid. You

see, people do not care as much about

Medicaid because they say that is for

the poor, and, therefore, it does not get

the attention. Well, it gets the attention from this Senator. The likely impact of the budget resolution cuts on

Medicaid, will mean that 5 to 7 million

kids will lose health coverage, 800,000

to 1 million elderly and disabled beneficiaries will lose coverage, and tens of

millions will lose benefits. For example, all preventive and diagnostic

screening services for children, home

health care, and hospice services would

be eliminated as well as dental care if

the $190 billion were cut.

There is a difference between the two

parties. There was not last night.

There was not within the past week as

we worked out our differences. On this

one, our differences are going to be

very hard to work out because there

are fundamental priorities and principles at stake here.

I do not intend to be shy in defense of

the people I represent from the State of

West Virginia. They work hard. They

have had few breaks, and they need

help where help is justified.

I, along, I suspect, with many colleagues from this side of the aisle, and

I expect none from the other side of the

aisle, are going to do everything we

can to help them. I regard this as a

moral issue.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the

floor.

Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under

the previous order, the Senator from

Massachusetts is recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask

before the Senator starts his comments

if I could make one observation. It will

take me 1 minute.

Mr. KENNEDY. I withhold, Mr. President.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.

I note that about 4 years ago, for insurance policies for Americans working

for various companies the premiums

were going up 14 percent a year. Then

they went to 11. And, lo and behold,

today they are down to something like

3.5 percent. I would just ask, for all the

people whose premiums have gone

down because there is competition and

modernized delivery system, I wonder
S6876 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 18, 1995

if they are all out in the streets without health care. I wonder if the hospitals which treat them are closing up

because there is no money to treat

them. I think quite to the contrary.

They are getting the same kind of services they got before. It is just costing

people less for the same kind of services.

I do not know that is impossible for

seniors in America. I hope it is possible. For otherwise we cannot afford

the insurance, and we cannot afford to

cover them in the future. I just lay

that on the record.

We will have a lot more to say about

Medicare. We choose now to let everybody speak, and we are delighted there

are so many on our side. There are

more. We have three listed. If there are

more Senators, start giving us your

names.

I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for yielding.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, my response to my friend from New Mexico

is the premiums are going down, but

what he is not saying is what is happening in terms of the copayments and

the deductibles, because the

copayments and the deductibles are

going up, and the Senator has not commented about the coverage, about

whether there has been a reduction in

coverage.

These are the kinds of issues that we

ought to be talking about, not just

these massive figures, about how many

billions of dollars more we are going to

spend on people. That is the question,

that premiums can go down if your

copayments and deductibles go up, if

you are reducing the kinds of coverage

and the range of services.

So if we are going into full debate

about what is going to happen in terms

of real health care costs, we would welcome that debate and how we are going

to get a handle on it. I would agree

with my good friends from West Virginia and Minnesota, and others that

the only way we are ever going to get

a handle on health care costs is within

the totality of the health care system

rather than just a quarter of the health

care system.

I wish to commend the Senator from

West Virginia and also the Senator

from New Jersey on an excellent presentation on the importance of trying

to preserve the Medicare system in our

country. It is a part of Social Security,

make no mistake about it.

We will have more chances to talk

about it. The direct payments under

part B of Medicare are right under the

Social Security system. When you see

a reduction in terms of the Consumer

Price Index, reduced as in the formula

of the budget, you are going to see further reductions in terms of the recipients of Social Security. We will come

to that at another time.

I commend the Senator from West

Virginia, talking about Medicaid affecting children. Eighteen million children in this country are covered under

Medicaid. Medicaid is primarily for

seniors, long-term care, and people

with disabilities, but there are also 18

million children covered under Medicaid. And as the Senator points out, 5 to

7 million of those will lose under the

proposal of the budget resolution. The

fact is, of the 18 million, half are children of working families. We have

heard all about trying to have a system

that is going to be fair and equitable.

But here you are, saying to the sons

and daughters, the children, we are

going to be cutting back on that program—there is no protection for them

in this program.

The Senator was quite correct in

stating the terms of what is happening.

Never mind the millions of other children, the 14 or 15 million other children

who do not have health insurance. And

the increase, as a Carnegie report has

shown, in the last 15 months of an additional million poor children not covered by health insurance. Those numbers are going up. They are increasing

dramatically.

I wish to ask my friend, just taking a

few minutes here this afternoon, because there are many others waiting,

as we are talking about the whole issue

of Medicare, to review with me exactly

where we are as an institution and

where are our senior citizens. I have a

chart here. We hear the question of

fairness. I am talking now about the

health care for Members of Congress

versus the health care for senior citizens.

The Senator from West Virginia has

pointed out that over the next 7 years,

Medicare couples will pay out $6,400

more, and then that will go up at $900

a year.

Let us look at where we are as a base

as Members of Congress, as the Senator

pointed out. The average senior citizen

is making $17,700. The average Member

of Congress, $133,000. The monthly Medicare part B premium per individual:

here it is $46.10; Member of Congress:

$44.05. So senior citizens are paying

more under Medicare on the part B.

The deductibles: Members of Congress,

$350. That includes the doctors and hospitalization, $350. Theirs is $816—more

than double. These are the people who

are making $17,000 a year. Their deductible is more than double ours. Hospital care: Member of Congress, unlimited. Theirs, the senior citizens, is limited. Prescription drugs: We are covered, small deductible, about $50. They

are not covered. The program does not

even apply to prescription drugs. Any

Member of Congress who goes into any

senior citizen home and asks: How

many of you are paying $50 a month or

more for prescription drugs? Sixty percent of the hands will go in the air.

You ask them how many of you are

paying $25 a month for prescription

drugs. They all laugh. They are

amazed. They wonder why you do not

know that 85 or 90 percent of them are

paying more than $25 for prescription

drugs.

We are covered, Members of Congress

are covered. But they are not covered.

On the dental care, effectively, we

are covered; they are not covered.

On the preventive services,

screenings for cervical and prostate

cancer, some benefits are covered.

And look, out-of-pocket limits: $3,700

for Members of Congress, none for senior citizens.

Does the Senator from West Virginia

and the Senator from Minnesota remember all those wonderful speeches

we heard at the start of this Congress:

We are going to have equity, fairness;

the laws that apply to the country are

going to apply to Members of Congress.

We all lined up and we all said yes.

That was something that was initiated

by the Democrats in the previous Congress, blocked by the Republicans in

the other Congress. We all supported it.

We heard speeches about that.

What we did not hear from our Republican colleagues, all our newer

Members that came to the Senate, ‘‘We

are getting a good benefit package for

health care and we want to make that

available to the American people.’’ We

have not heard that.

We ought to be debating that issue,

but, no, we are talking about making

what our senior citizens pay more equitable, make them more equitable with

the Members of Congress. We are undermining and making their benefits

cost more, $6,400 for a couple—more.

And $900 a year annually after that—

more.

What is the answer that we will hear

for that? Well, Senators, we will hear it

in the course of debate, I expect. Do

you know what we are doing? We are

capping the Members of Congress now,

to go up at the Consumer Price Index

rate. I remember when we were talking

about a cap last year. That was price

fixing. That was the heavy hand of

Government fixing prices and costs.

The Senators from West Virginia,

Minnesota, and Washington remember:

We will never tolerate that; we will not

go along with that.

Nonetheless, that is going to be the

answer. And they are fixing it to benefit us, to protect us. We are basically

putting billions and billions of dollars,

in additional out-of-pocket expenses on

our elderly. For what? For the tax cut.

For the tax cut.

It was going to be difficult enough to

try to bring about some changes in the

Medicare system, to try to encourage

preventive health care, to try to provide prescription services for our senior

citizens, to try to provide home care,

to try to provide community care for

our seniors, and to try to strengthen

the quality of health care. We proposed

some changes and adjustments in the

Medicare system last year. And after

the seniors had a chance to review it,

they basically supported it with its expanded choices.

Not under this program. Not under

this program. And the Members of Congress ought to be ashamed of themselves, to come out here and say we are
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6877

saving the Medicare program by all of

these cuts and at the same time providing and utilizing those savings, or $170

billion of those, in order to provide tax

cuts for other individuals. At the same

time they are not even addressing the

kind of inequity and unfairness that

exists. All of these statements are

being made here by Members of Congress who have their benefit package

all set; we have ours. And we are back

in a regrettable situation where we are

going to administer to people who are

not in this body, the senior citizens of

this country. That is basically wrong

and unfair and unjust.

Mr. President, I would like to be notified when I have 3 minutes left of my

15, if I could, please.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. One of the

things, I would say to my good friend

from the State of Massachusetts, we

heard this constantly during the health

care debate was, ‘‘You can lose your

right to pick out your own doctor.’’

But now what is it that the budget resolution and the whole course of events

is doing for senior citizens in Medicare? We are talking about managed

care, more and more managed care for

Medicare.

And so all of the sudden my colleagues on the other side of the aisle

are saying, this terrible fee-for-service

system which we have for Medicare,

and it is only for Medicare, only they

have a fee-for-service system, so we

have to move to managed care. And

what happens then, of course, is they

do not have the chance to choose their

own doctor. But if they want to choose

their own doctor, then let them pay

more.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator is exactly correct. They will say we are enhancing choices but effectively, given

the financial burden, there will be none

and seniors will be forced into managed

care. The cost for the fee for service

will be so expensive it will be out of

reach. It will not even be there as a

possible choice.

And yet, I am sure, in the course of

the debate, we are going to hear, ‘‘Oh,

well, we are providing these range of

services.’’ It is going to be very important for the American people to listen

and listen carefully about this.

So, Mr. President, it is important, as

we are going to hear all of these

speeches about how we are really doing

our senior citizens a favor, people

ought to be asking—I hope our senior

citizens are going to ask—‘‘Well, just

do for us what you have done for yourself. Don’t do us any other favors.’’

That is a pretty good question.

It always troubles me, when we try

to do that, that our colleagues vote it

down and then take advantage of their

existing coverage. And this coverage,

which is for Members of Congress, and

available to 10 million of our Federal

employees, but is not available to the

senior citizens, our Medicare recipients. And they are the ones that are

going to get shortchanged.

Mr. President, just this final

thought. As we are addressing this

budget, I think it is appropriate for

American people to understand that

working families are paying for the

GOP tax cuts for the wealthy. What we

are going to see, as I mentioned, under

this budget, is some $6,400 more that

they are going to pay over the period of

the next 7 years. That is, effectively, as

has been pointed out, a tax. The working families, will pay some $1,400. That

is the increase with elimination of the

earned income tax credit. Out there,

for men and women who are playing by

the rules every day, going to work, trying to provide for their families, they

will get an increase in their tax. That

is included in this budget. They get a

tax.

And then there are the students of

America. Those are the sons and

daughters of working families that are

going to our schools and colleges. They

are the hope of our future. The way

that program has been reported out of

the Budget Committee will mean anywhere from a 28- to 45-percent increase

in the amount of the interest that they

pay. That is the equivalent of about

$3,000 for those who are going to college. It will be more if they go to graduate school. They are going be paying.

And that does not even get into the

costs of the reductions in Head Start,

the title I programs, or the cutback in

the help and the assistance to local

schools in the area of technology, as we

are going to an information age. It

does not even include those kinds of

programs which are going to be further

attacked.

Mr. President, the first amendment

that will be offered is an amendment

by Senator LAUTENBERG from New Jersey and Senator ROCKEFELLER dealing

with Medicare that just cries out for

support.

We hope that the American people

will pay attention to this debate and to

this discussion, and let us know how

they feel. I believe we are on their side.

We need to hear from them and I hope

they will let us know what their good

judgment is on this issue.

Mr. President, how much time do I

have remaining?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twentyfour seconds.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I see

my friend from Minnesota. I yield him

whatever time I have left.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President,

might I inquire—I am not trying to get

the floor—are we rotating, I ask my

friend from New Mexico?

Mr. DOMENICI. We are rotating, but

not one on one. Your side has had a

number of speakers in succession and

the unanimous consent was—Mr. President, maybe you can say it—I think it

was Senators HATFIELD and BOND on

our side and then back to you.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under

the previous informal order, the next

person who would be recognized who is

now on the floor is the Senator from

Missouri.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI. Do we have only two

Republicans, or three in a row?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There

was no order for how many.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Might I inquire,

do you have any other names listed on

that unanimous consent?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There

are no other names listed at this point.

Does the Senator from New Mexico

yield to the Senator from Missouri?

Mr. DOMENICI. How much time

would the Senator desire?

Mr. BOND. Twenty minutes.

Mr. President, I am happy to yield to

Senator HATFIELD.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, as I

understand it, our informal agreement

was actually that Senator HATFIELD

would proceed if he were on the floor

and then Senator BOND and then back

to the Democrats.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the

Senator from New Mexico yield to the

Senator from Oregon?

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 15 minutes to

the Senator HATFIELD.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I

thank the chairman of the Senate

Budget Committee for yielding for a

few moments of presentation.

I would like to begin today by reiterating some of the remarks that I

made during the debate on the balanced budget amendment. I think the

American people elected the Republican Congress with the expectation

that we would show leadership and a

willingness to make difficult decisions.

In my view, the public shares the point

of view that Government has grown

bloated, ponderous, and too expensive.

The programs of the New Deal and the

Great Society put safety nets in place

for those who are in the greatest need,

but those nets now strangle the Federal Government by tying up precious

funding in a knot of regulations and

poor management.

I believe that a balanced budget can

come only through leadership and compromise. This compromise must come

from each one of us. More importantly,

it must come from those we represent.

In the end, there is no easy answer. If

there is a political will to create a balanced budget, we will create one, and if

there is will to avoid one, we will avoid

it.

Senator DOMENICI, the chairman, and

the Senate Budget Committee members have proven that this Congress is

willing to make difficult decisions and

that there is a political will to balance

our Federal budget. It was an enormous task to construct this budget resolution and I congratulate the Senator

from New Mexico and the committee

for its work, and the work of the extraordinarily competent staff that they

have assisting them.

Like others, I think that the budget

resolution cuts in the wrong places,

targeting programs which are an investment in our future, such as medical research and educational assistance
S6878 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 18, 1995

to our college students. When we look

at the data related to the National Institutes of Health, particularly, we

have convincing evidence that every

Federal dollar invested in biomedical

research yields $13 in cost savings and

productivity to society. Few other Federal programs can claim a similar

track record.

Mr. President, at the same time that

we see substantial cuts in investment

programs, we continue to see other

portions of the budget continue to

grow at alarming rates. In comparing

spending in 1995 with the proposed

spending in 2002, we see that

nondefense discretionary spending will

decrease almost 11 percent, defense

spending will remain flat—and I will

believe that when it happens—and entitlement spending will grow 45 percent.

These numbers show that Congress

must continue to review the entitlement programs of this country to ensure the long-term solvency of the Federal Government.

Let me spend just a moment on the

issue of our national investments. This

budget presents us with a tragedy in

the making regarding our ability to

provide a high quality of life to all

Americans. The Senate budget resolution represents the worst of three terrible options for the future of the National Institutes of Health.

Option No. 1—the President’s budget

request calls for reduction in the NIH

funding by 10 percent, beginning in the

year 2000. I call this death by water

torture.

Option No. 2— the House budget resolution calls for an immediate 5 percent

reduction from 1995 levels for the NIH

for the next year and then level funding for the next 5 years. This is death

by the hangman’s noose.

Finally, option No. 3—the Senate

budget resolution calls for a 10 percent

reduction in 1995 levels for NIH for the

next 7 years, a total reduction of nearly $8 billion, $1 billion in 1996 to begin

with.

In addition, the Senate resolution

protects certain agencies from budget

cuts. In other words, they have seen to

it to exempt within NIH certain programs, the Centers for Disease Control,

the Indian Health Service, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration, and all AIDS-related programs.

These exemptions mean the actual

cuts to all other NIH programs will be

around 16 to 20 percent, not 10 percent.

This is death by the firing squad, and it

means the end of our growing medical

research enterprise as we know it.

Let me give you a couple of examples. We are now halfway through on

the decade of the brain. Mr. President,

we have in the first 5 years of that

commitment spent a proportion of that

time necessary to bring together over

130 great and tested scientists in this

common, integrated, and united effort.

It did not happen overnight. And as a

consequence, if you start taking a 15-

to 16- or 20-percent reduction in that

kind of neurological and brain-related

disease, you are not only reducing the

funding levels, you are destroying the

infrastructure. Let me analyze that.

The Presiding Officer at this moment

is my colleague from the State of

Washington. We both have a very

major timber economy in our States.

You take a small sawmill, or any sawmill, and if there is an interim of no

supply of timber resource, that sawmill

closes. You lose the chief sawer, you

lose the greenchain people, you lose all

these technological people necessary to

make a sawmill function, and then you

get a supply a month later. It will take

an inordinate amount of time to

reconfigure that team of technology

that is required to operate a sawmill.

Now look at what it means in terms

of high technology, the high specialization of a brain strategy to conquer the

diseases of the brain. You lose that

team, you lose that kind of an infrastructure and you do not rebuild it 6

months later or the next budget period.

Bear in mind, I believe that every

dollar we have appropriated for AIDS is

fundamentally required, but we cannot

afford to get into this business of playing one disease against another disease

and which one has the greatest political clout gets the most money. And

that is what we are embarked upon.

Why exempt AIDS? What about cancer? What about heart disease? What

about Alzheimer’s? What about all the

other diseases that we are concerned

about in our overall strategy of war on

disease? It is a dangerous precedent to

make that exemption and start playing

these advocate groups one against the

other.

I think as we move to balance the

budget, we should not randomly cut

programs in our midst. We must cut judiciously, but at the same time safeguard our long-term investment programs. Through the promise of medical

research we will find the treatments

and cures we need to eradicate disease

and disability.

Let me take another example. I

think it is very interesting that Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has been exempt.

These are the services coming out of

the mental health programs and commitments. Mr. President, at the same

time that we are going to continue

these services at presently $2.1 billion,

we are cutting $630 million of fiscal

year 1995 out of mental research. Now

how can you sustain a service program

delivering the best quality of mental

health services if you have cut off the

research part of it or you have crippled

it or you have brought it to such a

place where they lose their personnel,

and so forth?

I think we know that only through

the promise of medical research will we

find the treatments and cures to eradicate disease and disability and reduce

our health care costs. Medical research

is a central mechanism for controlling

the costs of health care in this country. That is, a cure and better treatment. After all, a cure is the ultimate

in cost control.

We found that fluoridation saves the

country approximately $4.5 billion each

year in preventing dental cavities;

psychoactive drugs which actively reduce hospitalization for mental illness

saves us $7 billion a year and allows patients to return to productive lives; a

$20 million investment in influenza B

vaccine resulted in a savings of over

$400 million a year by preventing cases

of childhood meningitis.

In other words, Mr. President, all of

these things concern me so much that

I intend to offer an amendment during

the course of debate on the budget resolution to restore the cuts, at least in

major part, for the National Institutes

of Health.

I expect to be joined by a bipartisan

group of colleagues, all of whom believe that severe cuts in this area are

shortsighted at best. We are not alone

in this task. Public opinion polls have

shown massive public support for making health research the No. 1 Federal

science priority.

At the same time, I think it is interesting that we have frozen at current

levels the research in the energy budget, and that has a major focus on nuclear matters of research.

Mr. President, this gets us down to a

priorities problem again, and a value

problem. I believe it is more important

to protect people from disease by finding the solutions and the preventive

actions to take rather than to protect

our bombs. That may not be the value

system that others hold but, in my

view, I would hate to go home and explain to my constituents how we are

going to cripple the research for spinal

meningitis or for Parkinson’s disease

or for many of the other diseases that

everybody, agewise, will face one way

or the other and say, ‘‘Oh, but we have

sustained our commitment to the research requirements to protect our

bombs.’’

I want to make sure that I add this

point: That any type of restoration of

$1 to this budget resolution has to be

offset, and we are working on a bipartisan level now, working with the chairman of the authorization committee,

the chairman of the Subcommittee on

the Labor-HHS of the Appropriations

Committee, we are working with our

Democratic colleagues to try to come

up with the offsets to deal with the restoration that we seek for the NIH

budget.

I wanted to also say, I know of no

person in this body who has a greater

commitment to medical and health

problems that we face in this country

than Senator DOMENICI, the chairman

of the Budget Committee. I imagine

that he has probably lost more sleep

than any of us at this point in crafting

this budget resolution. So lest anybody

attempt to make a personal matter out

of this disagreement, I want to certainly disabuse them of that. We want

to work with Senator DOMENICI’s staff,
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6879

we want to work with the Budget Committee in proposing this amendment,

but I have to say, we are determined—

we are determined—to save the future

of this Nation’s medical research and

its infrastructure that is required to

find the solutions to these diseases.

As we continue with this debate, it is

important that we remember that

long-term fiscal responsibility should

not only depend upon cuts in spending.

It demands a radical transformation in

the way we do business as a government. I know as an appropriator I will

focus on how the American people can

get more out of fewer federal dollars.

That is the goal of the private sector of

our society, and it should be the same

of the Federal Government as well. I

hope that the authorizers will also look

to the innovators at the State and

local level to see how they are making

limited resources go further. I think

each one of us can look to the local

governments and advocates to glean

ideas of how to make success government’s goal, as opposed to an obsession

with paperwork and feeding the bureaucracy. I hope this Congress takes

the fact of fewer Federal dollars and

turns it into an impetus to allow the

innovators to rise to the top as shining

examples of Government at its finest.

I would also like to take this opportunity to ask my colleagues from the

other side of the aisle to join in this effort in eliminating the budget deficit.

We have all come to the floor time

after time to discuss the impact that

continuing budget deficits have on the

economy and the allocation of Federal

revenue. In 1995, 15 percent of all Federal revenue will go to paying the interest on the debt, and that amount

will continue to grow if this problem is

not addressed. I think many Americans

will be surprised that even if we balance the budget in the year 2002, the

Federal Government will still spend

$279 billion in that year to pay interest

on the debt. Imagine what that amount

will be if we do not make those tough

decisions now.

As a Member of the Senate that believes that the Federal Government

can still play a vital role in addressing

societies’ needs, I can think of a number of ways to allocate that $279 billion

in the year 2002, rather than simply

paying interest on the national debt.

Our Federal budget deficit is a national

problem which deserves bipartisan attention. Bipartisan negotiation, leadership and compromise have been the

cornerstones upon which we have built

all effective decisions on tough issues

since the formation of our government.

I hope the Congress does not miss this

opportunity to address the real issue of

balancing the budget, and that is the

issue which is before us in this Budget

Resolution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the

Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who

yields time?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the

Senator asked if he might propound a

unanimous-consent request. I will be

pleased to listen to it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I

ask my colleague from New Mexico,

might I first congratulate, if you will,

sing praise of my colleague from Oregon. First of all, I very much appreciate his remarks and want to be a part

of this effort.

I know last night my colleague from

Oregon was given recognition that he

richly deserves from the Parkinson’s

community for his work in introducing

the Morris Udall legislation, and as the

son of two parents who had Parkinson’s

disease, I would like to thank my colleague from Oregon for his work and

also for, I think, a very eloquent statement. We want to make sure one group

of people struggling with a disease is

not pitted against another group.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after my colleague from Missouri is finished with his remarks, that

I then be able to speak for 15 minutes,

followed by my colleague from South

Carolina, Senator HOLLINGS, for 15 minutes as well, and then I understand we

will rotate back.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

objection?

Mr. DOMENICI. How much is the

Senator going to use?

Mr. BOND. I will need 20 minutes.

Mr. DOMENICI. So that will be 20

minutes, to be followed by 15 and 15.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

The Senator from Missouri is recognized for 20 minutes.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my

colleague from New Mexico who has

presided over a very difficult, but a

very, very important effort in the Senate Budget Committee. I think the tremendous effort he made deserves a

great deal of praise and thanks not

only by us, but by future generations

and a lot of people who may not really

understand the full impact of what

Senator DOMENICI has led us to achieve

for the health of our economy and for

future generations.

In the next few days, we are going to

have the historic opportunity to move

through Congress a budget plan which

will actually get this Government’s

books to balance. How many times

have we talked about it? Everybody decided that it was the ‘‘holy grail,’’ that

we could never get there. Well, through

Senator DOMENICI’s leadership, we have

come up with a plan. Nobody said it

would be easy. With his leadership and

the willingness of Members to stand up

and vote for action instead of just talking a good game, this Senate can take

that first step.

Make no mistake, the step is a big

one. For the first time in 25 years, the

Congress has an opportunity to pass a

budget which will get us into a surplus

rather than keep adding to our debt.

The budget is tough. It sets priorities

and recognizes that Government cannot do it all. It makes a statement that

the time has come for leaders of today

to start paying attention to the economic devastation that is being created for tomorrow’s generations because we cannot live within our means.

We have heard many speeches about

the need to cut spending, reduce the

deficit, and get our Nation’s books into

balance. Everyone who looks at our

nearly $5 trillion debt recognizes the

need to do something so that we do not

keep piling on that debt for our children and grandchildren.

Over the next few days, the American

people will have a rare opportunity to

see exactly what the political leadership’s visions for our country’s future

are. I have a chart, and you have seen

it before in different colors, with the

same message. The vision of this Domenici budget shown here in blue is

that by taking us from $176 billion on a

glidepath to 2002, we can reach a surplus by 2002. It is a bold plan. It scrutinizes every program in the Federal

budget from agriculture to welfare, and

already the dollar has strengthened because we did something.

The Washington Times reported last

Friday that on Thursday, May 11, the

dollar jumped in its biggest 1-day advance in 4 years. That was the same

day that the House and Senate Budget

Committees approved our plans for reducing the deficit to zero by 2002. It is

no coincidence that the dollar

strengthened the same day we made an

effort to restore fiscal sanity to the

Federal books.

Earlier this year, by contrast, when

the Senate failed, by one vote, to pass

the balanced budget amendment, we

showed that some were willing to sacrifice U.S. global competitiveness for

short-term political gain. The message

was heard loud and clear in the global

markets, and the dollar fell to record

lows against the Japanese yen and the

German mark.

Why is that important? Well, Mr.

President, it is important because the

international monetary markets can

tell a country when it is sick. They

told Mexico it was sick because the

peso started declining and nothing was

done. Mexico got in big trouble. The

international markets were taking a

look at our fiscal policy, our inability

to control our spending and saying

that the United States is sick. And

when we failed to pass the balanced

budget amendment, they recorded their

votes in the way that is most effective.

They placed their convictions with

money behind their views. They said

we are in danger of going downhill.

The dollar devaluation does not just

impact big banks and big industry. It

has an affect on each and every American. The dollar’s low value means that

U.S. assets are less valuable, imports

are more expensive, and that the

threat of foreign competition and lost

jobs is greater than ever.

Passage of this budget resolution,

which would get us to balance by 2002,
S6880 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 18, 1995

is critical to the health of the dollar

and to the American economy. Bold

changes are in store. We have proposed

dramatically to restructure several

Cabinet agencies and the programs

under their jurisdiction. We propose

the elimination of programs, new and

old, which will outlive their purpose or

are too expensive for the supposed good

they do.

We have heard very passionate

speeches, sincere speeches, on this

floor, about how we need to be spending more in all of these areas. That is

precisely how we got into this fix. We

did not get into this fix spending too

much money because we were spending

it on things that were low priorities.

We wanted to spend more on everything. That is what has led us to the fix

that we are in today.

What we are seeing, in essence, in

this budget is that we cannot spend

more on everything. We have to make

some choices and we have to slow the

growth. We have told agencies they

have to buy smarter, travel more

cheaply, and squeeze out the last nickel in their operating budgets.

Let me deal with one particular

charge, or one particular allegation,

that I am afraid was based on misinformation. One of my colleagues, earlier today, was told by NIH that if

funding was cut by 16 percent, the researchers would not get any new

grants. There was talk of the success

rate. Currently, the success rate for

health research is one in four. That

means one out of four new applications

for research gets granted. The NIH apparently told my colleague that under

this plan only 1 out of 100 new grant

applications would get NIH funds. Our

staff looked into it and we found out

that that was totally unsupportable.

First, NIH got the numbers wrong.

The budget resolution assumes a 10

percent cut in NIH; NIH assumed a 16

percent cut. They came up with some

figures that were not the figures we

used and took totally different assumptions. So, No. 1, their overall figure

was wrong.

No. 2, NIH decided, in that classic of

all Washington moves, to ‘‘close the

Washington Monument.’’ They were

going to hit the thing with all of the

cuts that are most important, and that

is the research dollars. The ‘‘Washington Monument syndrome’’ is when any

agency’s budget is cut, they shut down

the most visible thing that they do.

They said, ‘‘That cheap Congress would

not give us the money to keep it operating.’’ So NIH said that 70 percent of

the cut would come from research

grants. If I were a researcher out looking for grants, I would ask the folks at

NIH: How come you do not want to cut

money out of the overhead, the bureaucracy, the buildings, the Washington, DC, efforts? I think that is a pretty good question. In any event, they

gave us that assumption.

Finally, NIH assumed they would

take all the money from new grants.

NIH gets 34,000 requests for new grants

each year, and they assume they would

cut all the money designated for new

grants. In fact, this resolution would

cut NIH funding by $1.1 billion. The

Senate Budget Committee staff asked

the NIH if they distributed that 10 percent cut equally among the bureaucrats, Washington researchers, new

grants and existing grants, what would

they get? First of all, NIH had two responses. They said they would do it differently. That is cause for us to worry.

They said, ‘‘If the cuts were distributed

equally, one in six researchers would

get new grant money’’—in other words,

one out of six instead of the current

one out of four. Not one out of 100.

This, I think, is important to set the

record straight. This budget plan is not

going to gut NIH.

In addition, this budget is going to

say that we are going to save Medicare.

Medicare is broke; it must be fixed.

The public trustees are right. The people who were appointed as public representatives and the President’s Cabinet members said that Medicare, part

A, is on the verge of collapse. It will go

into the red in 1997 and start spending

more money than it takes in and, by

2002, the trust fund will be broke.

If the trust fund is broke, then under

the terms of the law, no more money

can be paid. In other words, the system

shuts down. I do not think it is responsible to walk away from that.

The President has decided to sit back

and make a political game out of Medicare. Worse, he is talking out of both

sides of his mouth and saying, ‘‘You

cannot claim to protect Medicare when

it is cut.’’ But he has no plan for saving

it.

The fact that Medicare part A is on

the death spiral was revealed by the

President’s own Cabinet members. The

President knew back in February when

he said there would not be one penny

cut out of Medicare, that Medicare was

on the path to first insolvency and

then bankruptcy. He set up a status

quo budget with no changes, no plans

for saving Medicare.

We stepped to the plate to fix the crisis, and he says that we are trying to

kill Medicare.

Second, the President conveniently

forgets that he proposed similar cuts in

Medicare himself. When the President,

in 1993, needed to finance his Government-controlled, top-down health care

plan, he proposed spending reductions

in Medicare and Medicaid to pay for

them.

He said Medicare and Medicaid are

going up three times the rate of inflation, and all we propose to do is let it

go up two times the rate of inflation,

and he said that is not a cut. When he

said specifically that is not a cut, how

come it gets to be a cut now when we

propose to save Medicare by doing

about what he proposed to do in 1993?

Mrs. Clinton, the First Lady, has said

that she is confident we can reduce the

rate of increase in Medicare spending

without undermining the quality of

Medicare recipients. We know we can

get savings. That is what she said. Perhaps the best evidence of the political

game that is being played here comes

from the architect of the Clinton

health care plan, Mr. Magaziner, who

said, ‘‘Slowing the rate of growth actually benefits beneficiaries considerably

because it slows the rate of growth of

the premiums they have to pay.’’

It seems to me that those great arguments of a couple years ago cannot be

ignored when they come out and try to

attack our efforts to save Medicare

now.

Under the Senate budget resolution,

Medicare will still be the fastest growing part of the Federal budget. Solvency would be guaranteed for 10 years.

Medicare spending will continue to

grow at more than twice the rate of inflation well into the next century.

That is just the first step.

Let me move now, Mr. President, to

one other example of the kinds of reforms that this budget tackles. That is,

reforming the Department of Housing

and Urban Development. I happen to be

the chairman of the subcommittee that

handles the HUD appropriations. We

are responsible for trying to stop the

train wreck.

This year, we began holding hearings

to get at the funding crisis at HUD.

This is a crisis that not only threatens

the programs which millions of people

depend on for the very roof over their

head, but threatens to squeeze out

needed dollars for other important programs.

We have found in our hearings and in

our investigations that HUD is a dysfunctional agency that requires a complete reevaluation of its mission and a

major reform of its program and program operations.

The Department has grown from an

agency responsible for about 50 programs in 1980 to well over 200 programs

now. It has neither the capacity nor

the political will to administer all

these programs.

Frankly, we have got to make some

serious changes. It is this crisis that

led me to advocate and propose a dramatic restructuring of HUD, which is

to be incorporated in this budget plan.

That is why I argued so strongly for

the passage of the rescission package

which begins the major surgery HUD so

desperately needs.

In particular, the budget anticipates

the creation of block grants for public

housing. It assumes that the actual

projected costs of section 8 contract renewals, that some of this assistance

should be given in block grants to the

States. The States would get broad

latitude to redesign their programs so

that they could use State housing finance agencies to manage their program to contract out the responsibilities and to get that program under

control.

Unfortunately, when the President

indicated he would veto the disaster relief supplemental bill with the rescissions in it, he not only took the money

away from the California earthquake
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6881

and the victims of the Oklahoma City

bombing, it also took over $6 billion in

cuts for future year spending from

HUD.

Let me make this point again. The

bill that we passed out of the conference committee the President said

he would veto provides vitally needed

funding for disaster relief. The House

and the Senate also passed and we

passed by an overwhelming majority in

this body, a measure to cut spending in

HUD so that we will face not quite as

serious a problem next year.

We still have a funding problem for

HUD that is unbelievable. The President’s budget asks for $20 billion in

budget authority and $14 billion in outlay increases for HUD over the next 5

years. Even those first are suspect. We

have to have the rescission bill to cut

off the authority now or we will add

more commitments to HUD that they

will have even greater trouble funding

in the future.

Now, to me, that effort for fiscal responsibility is one of the first and most

important steps we can take. The

President has come out with some kind

of gobbledygook, saying that this bill

that we pass contains pork.

Does he want more cuts or does he

want less cuts? Items that he objected

to in the rescissions bill were items

that had been passed by Congress and

signed by the President in past years.

Now he objects because we have not

cut the right things? What does he

want Congress to cut?

We stepped up to the plate and gave

him some cuts that were carefully

worked out in this body and in conference with the House. He wants to

veto that rescission bill.

Two things happen if that veto goes

through and it is upheld: No. 1, we do

not have the money for the emergencies; No. 2, the money that is not

rescinded, the budget authority that is

not rescinded, will go into effect. We

will be on an even steeper incline in

our rate of spending, and it will be

more difficult.

The President told us back in 1993 he

wanted to see us end the deficit. What

happened? Did he forget what he said

in 1993? He raised taxes to start what

he said was the process. He said the

second step is cutting spending. Where

has he gone?

Frankly, after the President raised

taxes and cut defense, he has decided

that that was enough. So what if the

deficit goes up every year on his budget

reaching $276 billion by the year 2000.

So what if another $1.2 trillion are

added to the debt?

Well, I think there are some serious

consequences. No. 1, it will hurt our

economy right now. It is going to be a

real problem for those who are making

a living in our economy today. We are

going to see the potential of inflation

coming back much more strongly. That

is what happens when the value of our

dollar falls. We are going to see our

costs of goods go up. Most of all, we are

going to see debt added to the credit

cards of our children and our grandchildren.

Can we afford to say that we are for

our children, we are concerned about

children, when we want to walk away

from fiscal responsibility and add another $1.2 trillion to the $5 trillion we

have already put on their backs? Mr.

President, I do not think so.

Mr. President, we have heard a lot of

fancy speeches and we will hear a lot of

fancy speeches, but when it comes

right down to it, this is what we say

back in Missouri: ‘‘Show me’’ time.

Are we for cutting spending? Do we

want to balance the budget? Or do we

want to leave that spending machine

going full throttle? I think we will get

a fairly clear indication, because when

the votes start, we will find out who

really is serious about the financial

stability of our economy today and the

total economic security of our future

generations.

Do we have the political will? Are we

willing to stand up to face the music

and to vote for a tough budget? I believe we will. I will urge my colleagues

to support the effort to get the budget

deficit to zero and move it into surplus

in the year 2002, because it is essential

for our economy now. It is essential for

the well-being of future generations.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

GRAMS). Under the previous order, the

Senator from Minnesota is recognized.

Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if the Senator will yield for 1 minute to the Senator from New Mexico?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased

to.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President and

fellow Senators, I do not want anyone

to think that we already have ruled

out a vote for tonight. Senators asked,

are we going to vote tonight?

Frankly, we have to use 10 hours of

this budget resolution up tonight. We

started at 12 clock and we are working

to see if we cannot accomplish that,

but clearly we would like to enter into

an arrangement where we would vote

tomorrow, at least on a Domenici

amendment and on a Democrat amendment. But I have no agreement, nor

does the majority leader, that we are

not to move one of those up to tonight

unless we can arrange somehow to get

10 hours out of today’s work. Because

we still have 30, and that would be 30

for the days of Monday, Tuesday, and

Wednesday, and our leader has said we

are going to be finished on Wednesday,

which will mean very long hours next

week.

I want to compliment Senator BOND,

not only for his remarks today, which

I think were right on point, but actually you cannot get a budget resolution

out on the floor without a lot of Senators helping you and a lot of Senators

voting for it.

The Senator has been a staunch supporter and formidable proponent of the

balanced budget. I want to thank him

here in front of all the Senate.

I yield the floor and thank the Senator for yielding.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President,

when I come to the floor sometimes I

just like to respond to what my colleagues have said. Sometimes that ends

up being debate. And then sometimes

we come back to it later on.

My colleague from Missouri is a

friend. I think I enjoy working on the

Small Business Committee about as

much as I enjoy working on any committee. But when my colleague said

the attitude in Missouri is, ‘‘Show

me,’’ and he talked about children, I

would remind him and I would remind

my good friend from New Mexico that

we have not had a lot of discussion

about children yet. I am going to have

several amendments on the floor eventually. But in talking about the health

care cuts, there has been more of a

focus on Medicare and less of a focus on

Medicaid.

My understanding—and maybe these

numbers are a little bit off—but my understanding is that with the proposed

Medicaid cuts, we would be capping the

per capita growth rate for expenditures

under that program at about 1.4 percent. That is compared to a growth

rate of about 7 percent projected for

private expenditures? Am I wrong

about these figures?

Mr. DOMENICI. I do not know what

the 1.7 is. I do not know what that is.

Mr. WELLSTONE. The per capita

growth rate for Medicaid expenditures—after the proposed cuts—would

be about 1.4 percent.

Mr. DOMENICI. For Medicaid? I

would not know that. I have not figured it that way.

Mr. WELLSTONE. OK. I ask my colleague, at some point in time during

the debate it would be helpful to get

those numbers.

Mr. DOMENICI. Fine.

Mr. WELLSTONE. The reason I mention that is that there are, I think,

today in our country about 11 million

children who have no health care coverage whatsoever, I say to both of my

colleagues. And, every year since 1987,

employment-based health insurance

coverage has been dropping.

Do you know what has filled the gap?

Medicaid. That is what has filled the

gap. I think in Minnesota—I say to my

other colleague who is presiding—there

are about 200,000 children or thereabouts who are covered by Medicaid. I

have to say, as long as we are talking

about children, when I see these kinds

of dramatic, I think draconian, reductions in reimbursement I have to wonder what the effect will be on those

children. That is my first point.

My second point, and we can come

back to it in debate, but I think it is a

point well worth making because these

statistics all mean something. My colleagues know this. I am not intending

to be self-righteous. I am just saying

we need to understand the faces behind

the statistics.

The second point about Medicaid is

that I have heard some discussion
S6882 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 18, 1995

about the power of the senior citizen

lobby. The majority of Medicaid expenditures in Minnesota, and I am sure

other States as well, go toward nursing

homes, covering nursing home expenses

for elderly people who by definition are

in nursing homes because they are

frail. Many of them are struggling with

diseases and illness. They are hardly

powerful. I would say to my colleagues,

I do not quite know what we intend to

do with the dramatic, draconian cuts

in reimbursement, Medicaid-wise.

I met with a good number of people

from southeast Minnesota last Saturday and there was one man who runs a

hospital nursing home in one of our

smaller towns in southeast Minnesota.

He almost had tears in his eyes. Maybe

this is melodramatic. His question was,

‘‘What is going to happen to these people? Will the State pick up the costs?

What is going to happen to them?’’

That is just a question that I raise.

As long as my colleague from Missouri was talking about children, let

me make another point, and I would

like to commend Senator MOYNIHAN

from New York for his powerful voice

dealing with the issues of race, poverty, gender, and children in America.

As I understand it, in this budget proposal we are talking about something

like $20 billion in reduction for food

stamps. I would not want any of my

colleagues to believe, if they do believe

so, that by going after fraud—and there

are some, I am sure, abuses that take

place—that is how you get a $20 billion

reduction.

I ask my colleagues, Democrats and

Republicans alike, not to be ahistorical

and to understand that we had a lot of

exposes, a lot of studies on these issues. There was a Field Foundation

study. There was a CBS ‘‘Hunger USA’’

documentary. And what did those studies point out? What did we see on television? What we saw was that in the

United States of America there were

children who were suffering from scurvy and rickets, distended bellies, malnutrition, and hunger. As a matter of

fact, the expansion of the Food Stamp

Program, which is one of the really

true safety net programs, led to a dramatic reduction in that malnutrition

and hunger among children in America.

Are we now going to turn the clock

back? I would like to know where the

evidence is that says that we can have

those kinds of cuts in a major food assistance program without having a serious effect on children, the poorest of

the poor in America.

So many of my colleagues keep talking about, ‘‘for the sake of children in

the future.’’ How about the children

now? Every 30 seconds a child is born

into poverty in America. One out of

every four children—poor; one out of

every two children of color—poor.

What about those children now?

I just mentioned two programs with

dramatic reductions, draconian reductions. I know we will have time for debate. I have not seen anybody stand up

yet. I know that we will have this debate and it should be substantive debate. We respect one another. Tell me

how we are going to do that without

harmful consequences to those citizens;

in this particular case I am talking

about children.

We ought not to be doing deficit reduction based upon the path of least

political resistance, that is to say

targeting those with the least amount

of political clout.

Second, and maybe last point, because I only have 15 minutes today.

When I heard my colleague from Missouri—and I am sorry he is not here

now for purposes of debate—talk about

some of the comments that the First

Lady made and Ira Magaziner made

about how we could reduce Medicare

costs, that is true. But that was in the

context of overall health care reform

and cost containment systemwide.

I say to my colleagues, there are not

only consequences to the words that we

utter, the words that we speak, there

are also consequences to the proposals

that we lay out here on the floor of the

Senate.

I can explain very briefly why in fact

the Medicare Program, which is a benefits program passed in 1965, which has

made the United States of America a

better country, and not just for the

senior citizens but for all of their children and their grandchildren, has had

increasing costs. I can explain why.

We have to invest a significant

amount of resources into financing

Medicare because a larger and larger

percentage of our population are over

65, and a larger and larger percentage

of the over-65 population are in their

eighties. With that comes more illness

and higher health care costs. That’s

why it is important to look at per capita numbers when we are talking about

cuts. We finance it as a nation because

it says a lot about who we are.

That is what Senator Humphrey from

Minnesota meant when he said the test

of our country and our society and our

Government is how we treat people in

the dawn of their lives, the children;

the twilight of their lives, the elderly;

and those in the shadow of their lives,

disabled people struggling with illness,

and of course the poor people. I do not

think this budget meets that standard

laid out by the late, great Senator

from Minnesota, Hubert Humphrey.

Mr. President, I heard some reference

to comments of the President and others about health care reform. But the

first thing I would say to my colleagues is this will not work. If you

single out one sector, one group of people, you can talk to any of your providers and they will tell you out front and

up front that they will shift the cost.

They have to. It is a shell game.

We should have learned this in the

debate on health care last time. And by

the way, I say to my colleague who is

now presiding, that in Kings County,

NY, Medicare pays $646 per month per

enrollee to an HMO, whereas in Hennepin County, MN, HMO’s get $362 per

month per enrollee.

What will happen is, if our reimbursement is already rock bottom low,

especially for those States that have

done a good job of keeping the costs

down, then the providers have no other

choice but to shift the cost. They then

shift the cost to the employers and the

private insurance companies that then

raise the costs, and then it gets shifted

back to the employees, and more people are forced to drop their coverage

because it’s unaffordable.

Mr. President, it will not work if we

just shift costs. Talk to people in rural

America, not just senior citizens. Talk

to the care providers, talk to the

nurses, talk to the doctors, talk to the

public health people. It will not work.

Mr. President, the essential problem

with some of these proposals is, A, they

do not meet the standard of fairness; B,

I do not believe that they are fair just

in terms of where the most vulnerable

citizens fit in or do not fit in to this

equation, and on the Medicare front

and the Medicaid front, as public policy, they do not work. Welcome to

health care reform.

Tomorrow, when we have our amendment out on Medicare, we will have an

opportunity to really debate this at

great length.

Finally, Mr. President, as a former

teacher, I really do believe it is extremely shortsighted to make a lot of

these cuts. As a matter of fact, I think

what I might do in the course of the debate is bring out the Kasich budget

which was passed by the House of Representatives so we could have a vote on

that on the floor of the Senate since I

think it does an even more draconian

job when it comes to cutting higher

education. But I would just argue

today that it is myopic, it is shortsighted not to invest in young people

and not to invest in their education.

I could boil it down to the following

kind of analysis in less than 2 minutes,

I hope. If you want to have real welfare

reform: A good education, a good job,

and decent health care. If you want to

reduce poverty: A good education, a

good job, and decent health care. If you

want to reduce violence: A good education, a good job, and decent health

care. If you want to have a stable middle class: A good education, a good job,

and decent health care. If you want to

compete in the international economic

arena: A good education, a good job,

and decent health care. And if you

want to have a representative democracy with men and women who can

think on their own two feet and understand the world, the country, and the

community that they live in, what

they can do to make it a better world

and a better country and a better community, keep your focus on a good education, a good job, and decent health

care.

This budget moves us precisely in the

opposite direction. It is profoundly

mistaken for our Nation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if the Senator will yield for 30 seconds.
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6883

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you very

much. Could I ask unanimous consent

that following Senator HOLLINGS, Senator BENNETT be in order for 15 minutes?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. EXON. I certainly agree to that.

I ask after Senator BENNETT, could we

have Senator MURRAY recognized for 15

minutes?

Mr. DOMENICI. Could we have Senator SANTORUM immediately following

Senator MURRAY? That would give us

five.

Mr. President, I so request.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator

BENNETT, 15 minutes; Senator MURRAY

for 15 minutes; and Senator SANTORUM

for 15 minutes, following the Senator

from South Carolina.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished chairman.

Mr. President, in the brief moment

that I have, I would like to voice a note

of sobriety with respect to this debate,

and to agree for starters about the bigness of Government.

I have played this budget game for 35

years. As Governor 35 years ago, I balanced the budget in the State of South

Carolina, and earned a triple-A credit

rating. Some 27 years ago, in 1968, I

worked with George Mahon, then

chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and we balanced the budget.

Mr. President, when we hear the hue

and cry to get rid of big Government,

we ought to focus on what it is about

government that is really big. In 1968

when President Lyndon Johnson balanced the budget, he faced gross interest costs on the national debt of $14.6

billion. That is after almost 200 years

of history. Through 36 Presidents, Republican and Democrat, the Revolutionary War of 1812, the Civil War, the

Spanish-American War, Mexican, all

the wars, World Wars I and II, and

Korea, a good part of the war in Vietnam, the mandatory spending of interest costs was only $14.6 billion.

If my colleagues listen to nothing

else, let them listen to this fact. According to the Congressional Budget

Office in February of this year, the

mandatory spending of gross interest

costs is estimated at $340 billion.

Oh, boy, has the size of Government

increased. How did it grow? Let me go

right to the heart of the matter and

quote none other than the chairman of

President Reagan’s Office of Management and Budget, David Stockman. I

quote:

The root problem goes back to the July

1981 frenzy of excessive and imprudent tax

cutting that shattered the Nation’s fiscal

stability. A noisy faction of Republicans

have willfully denied the giant mistake of

fiscal governance, and their culpability in it

ever since. Instead, they have incessantly

poisoned the political debate with a mindless

stream of antitax venom while pretending

that economic growth and spending cuts

alone could contain the deficit.

Mr. President, we are watching history repeat itself as Republicans today

make the same mistake of insisting

that the deficit can be conquered

through spending cuts alone.

Lord knows, I have tried. I have

worked in a bipartisan way for a balanced budget. As chairman of the

Budget Committee 15 years ago, I

worked closely with Henry Bellmon,

then the ranking Republican.

In 1980, contrary to what some of the

weekly magazines would have you believe, Senator Bellmon and I presented

a balanced budget. In 1985, Senator

GRAMM, Senator Rudman, and Senator

HOLLINGS presented a balanced budget,

planned over 5 years rather than 7

years. We were supposed to have balanced the budget by 1990, but then Congress pushed back the goalposts and

eventually repealed the fixed deficit

targets.

I worked with Republican Senators

Boschwitz and Danforth on a valueadded tax, 5 years ago. In the Budget

Committee, some eight members voted

for a value-added tax. Why? Because we

needed it. But unfortunately today, the

charade continues.

The truth of the matter is that cutting taxes as they say by some $350 billion over 10 years, actually increases

the interest costs or taxes on the gross

debt. It has been said that there are

two things in life that you cannot

avoid, death and taxes. Actually, there

are three things, death, taxes, and interest taxes on the national debt.

So when they talk in a blasphemous

fashion about cutting taxes, it comes

time for the sober truth. They can try

to get away with this charade, but the

fact is that they are increasing taxes.

Now, there are two-ways, Mr. President, to approach this problem. One is

a balanced plan of freezing spending,

cutting spending, closing tax loopholes,

and increasing revenues.

But the other way, of course, is the

Vietnam approach—destroy the Government in order to save it. It gives

you the image, it gives you the headline, it gives you what they are talking

about, a balanced budget.

But I ask the Members to turn to

page 7 of the Senate budget resolution.

There it plainly says that in the year

2002 we will have a deficit of $113.5 billion. That is just the real deficit. If we

turn to page 9 where the annual increases in the public debt are listed, in

fiscal year 2002 the debt increases $177.7

billion. The distinguished occupant of

the chair on the other side is a very

successful businessman. He knows.

Look at page 9. Fiscal year 2002, the

debt increases $177.7 billion.

So, yes, President Clinton has a

budget where the deficits go up as far

as the eye can see. The Republican

budget now that we have before us, unfortunately, has deficits of $177.7 billion as far as the eye can see. That is

the truth. Those are the facts.

We hear a lot of talk about reducing

the deficit, but if we want to fathom

the true depths of their sincerity, we

ought to turn to page 74 of the resolution.

I am reminded of the story about the

days when we had the literacy test.

Poor black men would come to the

polls to vote and would be given the

Chinese newspaper. They would be told,

‘‘Boy, read that.’’ The black man would

take the paper, look at it one way then

turn the paper around and around.

When he would finally be asked what it

said, the man would reply, ‘‘It says

ain’t no black gonna vote in South

Carolina today.’’

Now, I read this one on page 74, five

little words: ‘‘For legislation that reduces revenues.’’ Do you know what

that means? It means we are going to

allow for a $350 billion tax cut, just

like they are doing over on the House

side.

You have to know the tricks of the

trade. The real problem is that those

tax cuts are going to be written in

stone. The spending cuts will never

occur. Part of them will occur. But the

bottom line will be we will be up, up

and away with deficits and increased

spending for interest costs.

We need to cut out this total fraud

that you can do it with spending cuts

alone. We have to get serious. You

could eliminate all of the nondefense

discretionary programs—all $275 billion

of them—and we would still be in the

red because of the $340 billion that we

have to spend on interest costs. It is

Alice in Wonderland: To stay where

you are, you have to run as fast as you

can. To get ahead, you have to run

even faster.

The ox is in the ditch. We have to get

to work seriously here and cut out the

monkeyshines with Social Security, as

they did during debate on the constitutional amendment, and as they do now.

The provision that John Heinz and I

put in the law, section 13301 of the

Budget Enforcement Act, says: ‘‘ Thou

shalt not use Social Security trust

funds for the deficit.’’ We asked them

to obey it in the Budget Committee

and, to my shock, 12 Republican Senators voted against that law in the

Budget Committee.

Now, if I had Hollings Enterprises as

a business and I went to file my annual

statement to the Securities and Exchange section, and I was using my

pension fund to mask the size of my

deficit, I would be in jail. They would

haul me off to the hoosegow.

We need to stop, look, and listen and

get away from this gamesmanship. Republicans talk now as if they are the

only ones interested in the deficit. Perhaps they have forgotten that President Clinton came to town and cut it

$500 billion through a balanced approach of spending cuts and tax increases. He followed that up with an effort to reform Medicare and Medicaid

that fell upon deaf ears as Republicans

claimed that there was no health care

crisis. Now, all of a sudden they are

sounding the alarm and citing the need

for decisive action to save the HI trust

fund from bankruptcy. How ironic that
S6884 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 18, 1995

the Contract With America calls for

taking $25 billion out of the Medicare

trust fund.

Mr. President, they are playing

games with you. They talk as if they

are so interested in this year’s report

from the Medicare trustees showing

that the fund would be in the red by

2002, but last year the very same report

showed that Medicare would be bankrupt by 2001.

And now they say, ‘‘We never knew

this. We have to go to work.’’ Last

year, they said there was not any trouble with health care; Medicare was

fine.

Can you imagine, $256 billion out of

Medicare? We cut $56 billion the year

before last. The President offered another $125 billion last year which you

called fantasy. And now you come

along with $256 billion and say you

need a commission to find it? That is

what I call passing the buck. That is

punting.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator’s time has expired.

Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator

BENNETT, under a previous order, is

recognized for 15 minutes.

The Senator from Utah.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am

interested in the various references

that are made from time to time on

this floor about business practices;

comments such as, ‘‘Why, if we did this

in a business the way we are doing it in

Government, we would go to jail. We

can’t do that on a filing for the SEC.’’

Mr. President, as you may know, I

have run a business, run several. I have

filled out forms for the SEC. I have

signed 10 Q’s, I have signed 10 K’s. I understand the requirements of honest

accounting. And I assure the Chair and

this Senate that what I am about to

say is honest accounting. I am not trying to mislead anybody as to what we

are facing as a Nation. I am not trying

to make rhetorical points on fine

shavings of definitions within committee language. I am trying to be as direct and straightforward as I know

how.

I will start out with a chart that we

have seen before and we will no doubt

see again but which we need to keep in

front of us throughout this whole debate.

The information, Mr. President, on

this chart comes from the Entitlements Commission which shows that if

we listen to all of the rhetoric that

says, ‘‘Why, you can’t do this. This will

hurt this group. You can’t do that. It

will hurt this group,’’ which ends up

being ‘‘You can’t do anything,’’ the

present trends are simply not sustainable.

I remind the Chair and the Chamber,

once again, that if we do nothing, we

let things go as they are going, within

10 years, by the year 2006, we will be in

a circumstance where the cash outlays

and the cash revenues of the Government comes to the condition that everything we spend as a Government

will have to be borrowed.

That which we do not have control

over in the budget, which is in the red

bar—entitlement spending and interest—we have no control over that. We

are contractually obligated to that.

The entitlements, by law, have to go

out. The interest, by law, has to be

paid. That means everything else—

which includes the Defense Department, includes building highways, includes everything else the Government

does—will have to be borrowed. This is

the reality with which we live. It is

real.

I see the distinguished chairman of

the Entitlements Commission on the

floor. I thank him for his work and his

courage.

This is the situation in which we find

ourselves. Let us not kid ourselves by

saying, ‘‘Oh, this particular phrase of

the budget document does not apply

here and we will look at this.’’ This is

cash outlays.

I have managed a business. I will tell

you the most important way to manage a business is on cash flow. You may

have a balance sheet that says you

have a whole lot of money, but if that

money is all tied in inventory and receivables and you do not have the cash

with which to pay your bills, you are in

trouble. And you can go to the SEC all

you want and say, ‘‘Oh, this is the way

I keep my books.’’ You pay taxes, you

pay wages, in cash. And this is the cash

picture of what happens if we do not do

anything.

Now, we are told, ‘‘Oh, we can’t hurt

this group. We can’t hurt that group.

Look at these terrible cuts.’’

I give you the second chart prepared

by the Budget Committee on the terrible cuts that we are talking about in

this budget.

What are the terrible cuts we are

going to inflict on Medicare? Well, actually, you know, Medicare is going to

go up by $105 billion.

I am a businessman. In my vocabulary a $105 billion increase is not a cut.

I had to come to Washington to learn

the definition of ‘‘cut.’’ It means you

spend more this year than you spent

last year, but you just spend less than

somebody else promised you would in

some previous year. That is the Washington definition of ‘‘cut.’’

All this reference to business; I am a

businessman. This, to me, is an increase. Put it on a per capita basis

right now, Mr. President, and we are

spending per Medicare recipient per

year just under $5,000. That is today’s

figure, 4,900 and-some-odd dollars.

Under the budget proposed by the

Budget Committee, by the time we get

to 2002, that number will be $6,450. So

we are going to punish the Medicare

population by raising their per capita

expenditures from $4,900 to $6,400. That

is how we are going to punish them. To

me, that is not a cut.

Now, we talk about trends. ‘‘Oh, but

the Medicare population is growing.

The Medicare population is so big we

have to spend more than that. That

will not work.’’

As I say, that is a per capita number,

Mr. President, from $4,900 to $6,400 per

capita.

But what is the overall number?

Here is the chart I used in a previous

statement I made on this subject. Medical expenditures, where the distinguished minority leader had said, ‘‘You

know, our problem is that public funds

are growing at the same rate as private

funds,’’ and I said, ‘‘No, that is not

true.’’

I got the information from the Congressional Reference Service of the Library of Congress. Here are the trends.

The dark figures are the percentage of

increase in public expenditures for

medical activity. This is combined

Medicare and Medicaid. The light figures are for the private rate of increase.

Here we are, the worst year, 1990,

public expenditures in health care went

up 13.2 percent that year. The private

rate of increase was 10.6. Still

unsustainable. In the private sector,

they went to work on that, brought it

down, cut it in half the next year, in

1991. Public expenditures came down

from 13.2 to 12.6.

The following year, they could not

hold it down on the private side. It

came up to 9.9, then 7.2, and then last

year, 1994, brought it down to 5.3. The

public expenditures came down from

12.6 to 10.8 to 8.5, and last year, 7.8.

That is the level, Mr. President, at

which this budget calls for it to stay—

a 7-percent annual rate of increase in

Medicare is what this budget is talking

about. We have done it in 1994. Can we

not do it for the next 5, 7 years?

I will say, this combines both Medicare and Medicaid and, therefore, that

overall figure is misleading and it is

not proper for me—I said I am going to

be honest in my accounting—it is not

proper for me to say that applies directly to Medicare because Medicare at

the moment is closer to 10 percent and

Medicaid is the lower figure, and that

is why the average is there.

But that is the target we have to

have, that is the target we do have in

this budget and that is the target I believe we can meet.

The Senator from Wisconsin says,

you cannot do it to our older population, you cannot balance this by attacking one segment of the population,

you cannot single out one sector. And

then he talks about education, you

cannot single out education. And pretty soon, if you follow that logic, you

end up with no sector at all that can be

cut.

I go back to the other chart. I referenced this before strictly on the Medicare side pointing out that we are

talking about a $105 billion increase in

Medicare. We are also talking about

$146 billion increase in Social Security,

a $36 billion increase in Medicaid, a $51

billion increase in other mandatory

programs. The only thing that gets cut

is domestic discretionary spending. Defense remains the same in this budget.

Interest has to go up because the debt

is coming up.
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6885

But what is the total? Nearly $1.9

trillion. I am reminded of the cartoon

that appeared in the paper where the

Republican was writing on the board

the budget for 2002, $1.9 trillion, and

the other person said: ‘‘Is that all?′′

Mr. President, I have been involved

personally in the challenge of

downsizing a company. I grant immediately this challenge is vastly greater,

but the principles are the same. Time

and again, I would say, ‘‘We have to

take something out of the overhead of

this company.’’

People would come in to me and say,

‘‘I agree, we have to take something

out of the overhead, but don’t cut my

department’’ for this reason or that

reason and how vital it was.

Finally, I had to get their attention,

and I said: All right, I won’t cut your

department, I won’t cut anybody’s department. I’ll let everybody walk out

of here feeling comfortable, happy and

wonderful right up to the point where

you file for unemployment, because the

company is going broke.

Oh. Well, now, you explained it to

me. Maybe I can find something in my

department to cut.

That was the company equivalent,

Mr. President, of this chart. This is the

chart I began with, this is the chart I

come back to. This is the situation we

are facing. Do we have the courage to

recognize this is the situation we are

facing and do what has to be done?

Mr. President, we celebrated this

year a number of anniversaries relating

to the Second World War. I am one who

is old enough to remember the Second

World War. I did not fight in it. I was

just a little kid. My brother went over

in the Second World War. He was in

Okinawa when President Truman decided to drop the bomb.

Mr. President, may I inquire, how

much time do I have remaining?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7 minutes 30 seconds remaining.

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you. The

President of the United States came to

the American people and said, ‘‘This is

the situation we are facing. If we do

not do something about it, we are in

serious trouble,’’ and he demanded sacrifices from the American people. He

was up front with them. He made no

bones about the difficulties that we

face.

How disrupting was that experience

in the lives of Americans? Hundreds of

thousands of them lost their lives. Millions had their lives disrupted. They

did it because they recognized that

there was a purpose for doing it and

that their Government was being honest with them.

For far too long in this Chamber, our

Government has not been honest with

our people and, therefore, of course,

they do not want to sacrifice, of

course, they do not want to have their

lives disrupted. I do not want to have

my life disrupted. I want everything to

go on as good as it has been going, but

the time has come to recognize that we

are facing a long-term crisis as severe

as any we have faced, and we have to

be as honest as we have ever been.

So I say, all right, you do not want to

do this by restraining the growth of

Medicare, even though the rate of

growth of Medicare is not sustainable

either in this circumstance or, frankly,

by comparison to what is going on in

health care in the private sector with

this circumstance. All right, you do

not want to do it with that one? What

do you want to do it with?

This budget says we do it with everybody. This budget says we do not single

out a single sector to balance the budget on the backs of any particular

group. We say to everybody, the time

has come to recognize the crisis with

which we are dealing and deal with it

evenhandedly.

I would say to those who are complaining about this budget, then give

us your alternative that is equally

evenhanded that deals with all political groups with the same courage with

which this deals with political groups

and let us get forward. But do not tell

us we cannot adopt this budget because

it disturbs this or that or the other sector in terms of their status quo because

that kind of circumstance, Mr. President, is simply not being honest with

the American people, and the time for

honesty is here.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. DOMENICI. I was here and listened to all of the remarks. I want to

congratulate Senator BENNETT. I believe he made an eloquent statement. I

am sorry that he did not have more

time tonight to talk about the realities

of what we can afford as a people versus the wishful thinking and exaggerated promises that we have been used

to making to the public of America, to

our people.

I compliment him for it and thank

him for his excellence, both in understanding and hard work and knowledge

of matters such as this.

Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under a

previous unanimous consent order,

Senator MURRAY is recognized to speak

for 15 minutes, followed by Senator

SANTORUM, of Pennsylvania, for 15 minutes.

The Senator from Washington.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, when I

first came here, the Federal budget deficit stood at nearly $300 billion, and for

3 years in a row, we worked with common sense and clear purpose to reduce

that deficit. I was not here when this

deficit was run up, but I was not elected to bring home the bacon, and I know

that politics as usual will not sell anymore. We must reduce the deficit. But

I say to my friends, there is a right

way to cut spending, to streamline

Government and to reduce the deficit. I

think the correct path was the one we

started down in 1993.

On the other hand, there are radical

approaches which might be effective at

slashing spending and cutting programs, but we have to ask the question, at what cost?

The American people deserve a sound

budget. They deserve proposals that

meet their urgent needs and reflect

their spending priorities. They deserve

investments in our future. They deserve security for themselves and for

their families, and I firmly believe that

taxpayers deserve to get something

back from the system that they are

paying into.

I look carefully and critically at this

Nation’s budget to make sure that it

adequately deals with investments in

our basic American quality of life. Our

children must be prepared for tomorrow. The health of our citizens must be

secure and our neighborhoods and

towns must be safe.

That is how I begin this process

every year, Mr. President. I start from

the premise that as Americans we have

special rights and responsibilities, and

this body must acknowledge them

both. I believe in personal responsibility. I believe we must take charge of

our own lives and live up to the obligations that citizenship in this country

brings with it. But some Americans,

some members of our society cannot

make it on their own. There is a great

deal of insecurity and a bitter loss of

self-confidence out there. I saw it in

the faces of my friends and neighbors

when I was home in the State of Washington. I would hear it around my

kitchen table every night: The middle

class, average Americans feel that they

are not in control of their own destiny.

Machinists at the Boeing Co. tell me

they feel their jobs are not secure in

these days of corporate downsizing, and

they feel there is nothing they can do

about it.

Parents tell me they are worried

about their kids’ safety and violence in

the streets, and they feel powerless. My

own two teenagers and their friends,

the so-called generation X, our future

leaders, talk with me about poor job

prospects, about never receiving Social

Security, not being able to afford to go

to college, and the sad and unyielding

spread of AIDS. They feel they cannot

make the future brighter.

Today, information flows through

our society at such a rapid pace, technological innovations seem to be outpacing daily life. Average Americans

feel overtaken by it. Bankers and

economists warn me that in our interdependent world the dollar falls to

record lows and derivative investments

threaten our financial security and

soundness. They feel the economic solution is beyond their control. Doctors

and nurses and administrators in hospitals and community-based clinics tell

me that entitlement programs do need

reform. But so does the entire health

care system.

If the severe Medicare and Medicaid

cuts are kept in this budget, they will

not be able to deal with the growing

caseload of those who need help and

have no means to pay for their own

medical care.
S6886 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 18, 1995

Mr. President, imagine the hopelessness of a young family with a newborn

baby diagnosed with cystic fibrosis.

First, one parent has to quit their job

to care for that child and their income

drops dramatically; insurance runs out,

and the young family is forced to spend

down in order to get health care—Medicaid—for their child. That is the family I speak for in this budget process.

That is the family I think of when I remember the simple truth our parents

taught us: ‘‘There, but for the grace of

God, go I.’’

That family could easily be mine or

yours, Mr. President. I am raising two

kids at home. I have elderly parents

who are not always in the best of

health. Like so many Americans, I am

squeezed between my kids and my own

parents. That is why I share with many

Americans the grave concern about the

Medicare cuts. How will the program

be reformed? Many people have come

to me recently and have told me they

are afraid that these cuts will result in

higher out-of-pocket payments for seniors who are already struggling. They

believe cuts will result in limiting

choices for seniors.

My parents have had the same doctor

for years in Washington State; they do

not want to lose their doctor because

of a budget plan imposed on them from

Washington, DC. From the rural eastern part of my State, I hear the rumbling of concern. Many Medicare beneficiaries live in these communities

which often share a single hospital.

These cuts to the Medicare program

have the potential to cause some of the

hospitals to close—or to shift—a great

amount of their costs to local taxpayers.

Mr. President, this brings me to a

major concern. By simply cutting

funds to Medicare, we are passing on

the cost of care for our seniors—our

parents—to the hospitals around the

country, and those hospitals will pass

on the costs to working families across

this Nation.

I refuse to stand here on the floor of

the U.S. Senate and talk about the

budget as if it is just a bunch of numbers. There is a senior citizen and a

child and an American family behind

every number in this budget. I am

afraid that in this time of great uncertainty, in this time of anxiety, we will

be telling average American families,

‘‘You are on your own.’’

We in the Senate have a choice. We

can build self-confidence, we can inspire hope, and we can restore trust in

our Government and its ability to work

for average Americans. And we can do

this at the same time we reduce the

deficit, if we do it with common sense.

That is the right way.

(Ms. SNOWE assumed the chair.)

Mrs. MURRAY. Or, Madam President, we can feed into the Social Darwinist thinking of survival of the fittest. Serving the special interests who

are up here writing legislation. Giving

Goliath an advantage. And that is the

wrong way.

I am hopeful that we will be able to

work on a budget over the coming

days, which keeps us on the right path.

I look across the aisle to Members of

your party, and I see true champions of

certain causes, and I have been pleased

to support many of them in their efforts.

The distinguished chairman of the

Budget Committee, the Senator from

New Mexico, has always been a forceful

advocate for funding mental health

programs, and he has always looked

out for Federal workers.

Madam President, I am proud to

serve on his committee with Senators

who have provided real leadership and

hope to the American people on many

issues.

I know that my friend from Maine,

who is presiding over the Senate at

this moment, has been stalwart on

women’s health issues. Senator GRASSLEY from Iowa has spent years defending the family farmer. My friend from

Missouri, Senator BOND, has displayed

real leadership by keeping programs

like HOPWA from the rescissions axe.

These are my Republican colleagues on

the Budget Committee, and I am proud

to serve with them. I have supported

all of these efforts in the past, and I

will continue to do so in this Congress.

So I hope that some of our colleagues

on your side of the aisle, Madam President, will look with favor on programs

that are important to me, especially

the education of our children, both in

their early years and in gaining access

to college and vocational programs.

For my State, there are other important budget issues before us: The cleanup of Hanford Nuclear Reservation and

the funding of the Eximbank; impact

aid for educating the children of our

men and women in uniform; help for

fishers and timber workers who have

been dislocated, and all programs that

ease anxiety and restore hope.

Madam President, I know firsthand

how much hope is needed out there. I

know firsthand how much harm this

budget will do to average Americans.

I am one of the millions of ordinary

Americans who is worried about her elderly parents. I am one of the millions

of average people who wants her children to be able to go to college. I am

one of the people out there driving to

work every day and just trying to juggle the pressures of everyday life for

myself and my family.

But, Madam President, this budget

adds to the pressure. It does so much

harm to working people—I find it incredible that it cuts the earned income

tax credit so severely. I find it incredible that this budget raises the taxes

on our working families. Let average

Americans make no mistake about it—

Republicans are increasing taxes on

working families.

In Washington State alone, this

budget means an average tax increase

of $1,400 over 7 years on nearly 180,000

working families.

I am a product of the Western United

States. I was born in Washington

State. I grew up there. I am one of

seven children who learned from our

parents that we should always pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps. But

this budget steals our shoelaces.

So I plan to offer amendments on the

floor, Madam President, that move this

budget in restoring some common

sense.

I will offer one amendment on impact

aid, and I will offer another one to protect children from drastic cuts in Medicaid.

And, Madam President, let me make

this clear, these are not frivolous

amendments. They have been drafted

carefully and I hope that they do pass.

It is not my intention to embarrass

anybody. My amendments are sincere

attempts to improve this budget, and

they reflect my highest priorities, for I

believe we have the chance today to

outline clearly our priorities for this

Nation.

Each of us was sent to the Senate to

serve the country and to articulate the

specific concerns of our friends and

neighbors at home.

So let me conclude here with just a

few words of caution. No one doubts

the need to put our fiscal house in

order. But what I fear the most is that

it will be done with an eye only toward

today, without considering the consequences for tomorrow.

Deficit reduction is not an economic

policy in and of itself. And under today’s cut, cut, cut mantra, I cannot

allow us to forget the word ‘‘compassion.’’

I worry that slash and burn politics

will override common sense and fairness, especially for our children.

We are looking here today at the

Wizard of Oz budget: No heart, no

brain, no courage, and no home. And

there is too much at stake.

At a fast and furious pace these days,

polls tell us what Americans believe

about an issue before they have even

had time to really make up their minds

about it.

I caution my friends—before you impose draconian Medicare and Medicaid

cuts on the most vulnerable members

of our society—do not be too hasty to

legislate based on the shifting sands of

current political popularity.

Let us keep things in perspective,

Madam President, and let us remember

the little guy.

Let us talk about priorities and

plans, not just cuts and contracts. Let

us use this budget process to restore

hope, to ease anxiety, and to make the

future brighter for average Americans.

I look forward to this debate.

Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. EXON. Madam President, I would

like to take a moment on my time to

congratulate my friend and colleague

from the State of Washington. Here is

a teacher, a mother, someone that is

really dedicated to the cause that we

are trying to espouse on this side of the

aisle. I thank her for her excellent remarks.

I yield the floor.