May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7459 

taxes too. The Senate budget resolution will ensure that we do both. Any 

fiscal dividend that results from enacting balanced budget legislation will be 

returned to the American people in the 

form of reduced taxes. There are significant differences between the House 

and Senate budget resolutions, and I 

will encourage the Senate conferees to 

increase the deficit reduction achieved 

in this budget to the maximum extent 

possible. If we achieve even more savings, then I will fight to ensure that 

further tax cuts are provided to the 

American people. 

Let me just say to both my colleagues from Minnesota and Michigan 

that I appreciate their willingness 

throughout the last several days to try 

to come to some agreement that would 

provide the relief that they were seeking. This does not quite reach everything they wanted, but I commend 

them for their efforts. 

I think this is a very significant 

amendment that was adopted today on 

the floor, with bipartisan support, I 

might add. And it was due to the efforts of the Senator from Minnesota 

[Mr. GRAMS], and the Senator from 

Michigan [Mr. ABRAHAM]. 

If I can say one word that would follow the statement of the Senator from 

Delaware on the antiterrorism bill, I 

thank Senator HATCH and Senator 

BIDEN for their willingness to try to 

pass this bill. I urge my colleagues, 

particularly on this side of the aisle, to 

help us enter into some time agreements to make it possible. It might 

be—and it may not happen—that we 

can reach a time agreement on a number of amendments and not be in very 

long tomorrow. We will have a couple 

of votes, and we will take it up the day 

we are back. I promised we would take 

up telecommunications on that day. 

Without an agreement, I do not have 

any idea how long it will take if we 

bring up or continue on this bill when 

we come back on June 5. 

I will be working with Senators 

DASCHLE and BIDEN and HATCH. We 

promised the President we would bring 

this up before the Memorial Day recess, and we have done that now. We 

have not completed action, but we have 

had a little debate. Had we been able to 

start on this last night, we may have 

been able to finish it tonight or tomorrow. It may not be possible to do that 

now. I know colleagues have other 

commitments starting early afternoon 

tomorrow, and some have them in the 

morning. I hope that on both sides we 

can have the cooperation of our colleagues working with the chairman of 

the committee, Senator HATCH, and the 

ranking Democratic member, Senator 

BIDEN. 

Mr. BIDEN. While the majority leader is still on the floor, I can say for the 

minority that I am confident we can 

agree on time agreements on all of the 

amendments I am aware of thus far. We 

are continuing to hotline this to see if 

there are any amendments other than 

the ones that I am aware of. 

I doubt whether we can get an agreement on a final passage time. But I 

would suggest that if we can get narrowed down time agreements tomorrow 

on each of the amendments, we should 

do all we can to lock it in. I thank the 

leader for honoring his commitment to 

bring this up. It was a bit beyond his 

control, having 50 some votes in the 

last 2 days. To the best of my knowledge, the House has not acted on this 

at all. Even if we passed a bill tonight, 

we are not in a position to be able to 

send it to the President or even go to 

conference. I do not think there is any 

damage done by not doing that. 

Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized. 

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. 

f 

IMPACT STATEMENTS ON 

FUNDING FOR THE NIH 

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on 

May 18 of this year, the Appropriations 

Subcommittee on Health, Human Services, Education and Labor held a hearing on the funding for the National Institutes of Health, and at that time a 

request was made by the representatives of the various units of the NIH to 

submit impact statements as to what 

the budget reductions would do. A good 

bit of this information was used by me 

in my statement on an amendment offered by Senator HATFIELD. 

I ask unanimous consent that the 

RECORD contain these impact statements. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

A GUIDE TO THE IMPACT STATEMENTS ABOUT

NIH BUDGET REDUCTIONS

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) 

has identified 15 specific areas of research 

that would be severely affected by the cuts 

recommended by the Senate Budget Committee. These are only a representative sampling of the many research activities that 

would be significantly slowed, halted, or 

never started due to the proposed reductions. 

The effects are likely to be especially dramatic and long-lasting for several reasons: 

NIH now funds less than one in four grant 

applications, so that any reduction in support would affect only those investigators already judged by expert peer reviewers to be 

among the best in the nation. 

It is in the nature of medical research to 

find that the most important discoveries are 

made in unexpected places. If funding is reduced to what are deemed bare essentials, 

much of the best research may be eliminated 

because it is not obviously connected to immediate medical goals. 

Over 80 percent of the NIH budget supports 

research at many colleges, universities, medical schools, and institutes in every state in 

the country. These awards are essential not 

only for generating new knowledge; they 

also improve the quality of medical care and 

training, help to recruit new biomedical scientists, and strengthen educational programs. A major reduction in funding will undermine these important aspects of American life; the effect will be felt for many 

years. Bright, young people, recognizing that 

the future for biomedical research has 

dimmed, would pursue other career options. 

The research that NIH supports in the 

areas discussed in our samples is different 

from the kind of work conducted at biotechnology and pharmaceutical firms, where 

a commercial product is the central goal. 

Without the basic knowledge generated by 

NIH-sponsored investigators, our international leadership in the industrial sector 

will be threatened. 

IMPACT STATEMENTS FROM THE NATIONAL

INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

Alcoholism. 

Alzheimer’s Disease. 

Anti-Cocaine Agent. 

Blinding Diseases. 

Breast Cancer. 

Cancer Vaccines. 

Conquering Genetic Diseases (mapping the 

human genome). 

New and Re-emerging Infectious Diseases. 

The Obesity Gene. 

Otitis Media (a serious childhood infection). 

Parkinson’s Disease. 

Prostate Cancer. 

Sexually Transmitted Diseases. 

Sickle Cell Disease. 

Stem Cell Research. 

Stroke. 

Vaccines to Prevent Stomach Ulcers and 

Stomach Cancer. 

IMPACT OF NIH BUDGET CUTS ON PEOPLE’S

HEALTH

Alcoholism: Naltrexone, the first medication approved for treating alcoholism in 

forty years, is a major step forward. 

The Promise: Researchers supported by the 

National Institutes of Health (NIH) have 

shown that naltrexone, an opiate-blocker 

used for treating heroin addiction, is an effective treatment for alcohol addiction. The 

combination of naltrexone and skilled counseling resulted in alcohol-dependent people 

staying sober twice as long as placebo-treated patients. Even if naltrexone-treated alcoholics drank, they rarely ‘‘binged.’’

The Next Steps: Naltrexone is the first 

medication approved for the treatment of alcoholism in forty years. However, that approval is only for three months of use in any 

patient. Further research is needed to make 

this treatment more effective and to exploit 

what insights it may provide into underlying 

biological and behavioral mechanisms. NIH 

is currently studying naltrexone’s longerterm use, side effects, and most importantly, 

how naltrexone—an opiate blocker—reduces 

alcohol craving. 

Improved technologies are also aiding in 

the study of alcohol addiction. New brain imaging systems can actually show what alcohol craving looks like, including blood flow 

changes. Computer-aided design of new drugs 

to treat alcoholism has begun, using recently discovered information on how alcohol affects the surface of nerve cells. And investigators are narrowing in on the genes 

which account for inherited vulnerability to 

alcoholism. 

Effects of a Budget Cut: The clinical trials 

of the longer-term use of naltrexone would 

have to be curtailed or not initiated. Other 

promising leads in alcoholism research 

would either have to be delayed or dropped. 

Alcohol kills over 100,000 Americans every 

year. Some 20 to 40 percent of adult hospital 

beds in large urban hospitals are occupied by 

people being treated for alcohol-caused 

organ damage. Alcoholism and alcohol abuse 

costs the Nation about $100 billion every 

year in medical costs, social costs, and loss 

of productivity. Slowing advances in the 

treatment of alcoholism could cost tens of 

billions of dollars. 

Comment: Alcohol addiction is the number 

one drug problem in the United States. New 

treatments to help alcohol-dependent people 

stay sober are showing positive results, and 

the biological roots of alcoholism are being 

uncovered. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7460 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

Alzheimer’s Disease: Delaying or preventing the onset of symptoms and loss of 

mental capacity. 

The Promise: Just in the last year, scientists working with support from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have: discovered a gene that is a major risk factor for 

Alzheimer’s disease and found ways to detect 

early changes in the brain (by combining 

brain imaging and genetic analysis) before 

obvious symptoms of Alzheimer’s develop 

The Next Steps: Now scientists are ready 

to conduct critical studies to find the direct 

role played by genes in Alzheimer’s disease 

so that they can find ways to prevent the 

disease or at least delay the loss of mental 

capacity that devastates the patients and 

their families. 

Effects of a Budget Cut: NIH’s ability to 

continue these studies on Alzheimer’s disease depends on maintaining a network of 

scientists, patients, and research institutions. A budget cut would cripple this network, delaying the translation of research 

advances to the next step—effective treatments. 

Today, there is no effective treatment for 

Alzheimer’s disease, which affects 4 million 

Americans. If no treatment is developed, by 

the year 2050, there will be over 14 million 

people affected by some form of dementia requiring care and institutionalization. 

Comment: No family is immune from Alzheimer’s disease—that became clear earlier 

this year when former President Reagan 

chose to reveal his diagnosis. 

Total national cost to care for patients 

with Alzheimer’s disease is about $100 billion 

annually. If we don’t find ways to delay, prevent or treat the disease, our health care 

system will be overwhelmed early in the 21st 

Century. The total NIH budget—for all diseases—is a small fraction of those health 

care costs and a small price to pay for the 

hope that Alzheimer’s disease can be conquered. 

Anti-cocaine Agent: To help combat the escalating epidemic of cocaine use, including 

‘‘crack’’ cocaine. 

The Promise: Because of breakthroughs in 

brain and immunology research in the last 

five years, scientists supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are on the 

threshold of providing an effective anti-cocaine medication or ‘‘cocaine blocker’’. 

In the last two years, scientists have: identified the major sites (receptors) where cocaine works on the brain; discovered how cocaine works on the brain; and uncovered 4 biological targets at which to aim medication 

development, with more than 12 compounds 

in the pipeline 

The Next Steps: Medical scientists are now 

ready to study more closely the new, candidate compounds and select the most promising for tests in patients. 

Effects of a Budget Cut: A reduction in the 

budget would freeze this program in its infancy, shut down the pipeline of new candidate medications, and preclude testing in 

patients of even the most promising drugs. It 

would delay by at least 5 years the development of an effective anti-cocaine agent. 

Currently there is no way to treat cocaine 

overdose and there are no medications available to treat cocaine addiction. Large numbers of people die of overdose, and the Nation 

pays dearly for the violence, family disruption, and health care costs that result from 

growing cocaine use. 

Comment: The single most important need 

in this Nation’s battle against drug abuse 

and addiction is an effective anti-cocaine 

medication. Today we have none. Research is 

desperately needed to develop a useful drug 

to help us control the cocaine epidemic. 

Blindness: Finding ways to treat eye diseases causing blindness. 

The Promise: Scientists have recently 

identified a gene related to glaucoma in 

young people. This discovery provides great 

opportunities for early diagnosis and treatment of a disease that is the second leading 

cause of blindness in this country. 

Other scientists have developed micro-surgical techniques in animals to ‘‘rescue’’ degenerated macular cells—cells in the part of 

the eye that allows the clearest, sharpest vision. If this surgical ‘‘rescue’’ proves successful in humans, it would be a major breakthrough in treating macular degeneration, 

the leading cause of blindness of people over 

age 60. 

The Next Steps: Scientists supported by 

the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are 

now ready to capitalize on the genetic discovery relating to glaucoma in young people 

by developing ways to identify at-risk patients early so that effective treatment can 

be begun. 

Other scientists supported by the NIH are 

set to apply microsurgical techniques for 

macular cell ‘‘rescue’’ in humans. Advances 

are desperately needed in macular degeneration, a disease for which, in most cases, no 

treatment currently exists. 

Effects of a Budget Cut: Budget reductions 

would slow scientists’ ability to move these 

two promising early findings into larger 

scale studies involving humans. 

Comment: Blindness from glaucoma is estimated to cost the U.S. more than $1.5 billion annually in Social Security benefits, 

lost tax revenues, and health care expenditures. Macular degeneration, which affects 

one of ten Americans over age 60, will become an increasingly important national 

health problem as the U.S. population ages. 

We need to continue this potentially sightsaving research. 

Breast Cancer: Gene discoveries promise 

clinical advances. 

The Promise: Scientists are on the verge of 

major clinical advances in breast cancer, 

thanks to long-awaited gene discoveries 

made in the last year. BRCA1, a breast cancer susceptibility gene, has been isolated and 

characterized, and scientists are closing in 

on other breast cancer genes, including 

BRCA2. Such breast cancer genes—when inherited in a mutated form—can cause breast 

cancers that strike early and afflict many 

women in the same family through generations. 

These gene discoveries will permit the development of diagnostic tests to identify 

women who are at risk and will speed research to develop effective methods of prevention, early detection, and treatment. 

The Next Steps: Scientists are eager to 

take the next steps: 

Determine the role BRCA1 and BRCA2 

genes play in converting a normal breast cell 

into a cancer cell; 

Develop cost-effective, accurate diagnostic 

tests to identify those women at risk in 

order to intervene early; 

Establish genetic counseling services to 

help women who believe—from family history—they are at risk make informed decisions and cope with the emotional trauma; 

and 

Continue research to fully understand all 

the mutations involved in breast cancer including those involved in the spread of the 

disease (metastasis) in order to improve our 

ability to prevent, diagnose, and treat this 

disease. 

Effects of a Budget Cut: A budget cut 

would slow or even curtail the enormous 

promise of these gene discoveries at the very 

time women are anticipating the real possibility of changing the previously depressing 

outcomes of breast cancer. 

Comment: 182,000 women will be diagnosed 

as having breast cancer in 1995 and 46,000 

women will die of breast cancer. Five to ten 

percent of these woman will be classified as 

genetically prone to early onset familial 

breast cancer through BRCA1 and related 

genes. A diagnosis of breast cancer is most 

dreaded by American women. The widespread 

publicity attendant on the discovery of these 

breast cancer genes has led to optimism that 

this disease may be prevented or cured. The 

women’s health movement would be devastated if this research is curtailed. 

Cancer Vaccines: Strengthening the body’s 

own natural defense against diseases that 

have already developed. 

The Promise: Just a month ago, medical 

scientists working with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) reported that they had 

reversed the course of disease in a 43-yearold woman dying of multiple myeloma, a 

type of blood cancer that is nearly always 

fatal. They accomplished this by immunizing 

a healthy bone marrow donor against the 

cancer and then transferring the immunity 

to the sick woman through a bone marrow 

transplant. Two years later, she is free of detectable cancer. 

Long-term follow-up of cancer patients receiving immunotherapy shows that this approach can bring dramatic response in melanoma and kidney cancer. In addition, last 

year, scientists identified a gene for one of 

the principal proteins that elicits natural 

immunity against melanoma. Potentially, 

this gene or its corresponding protein, could 

be used to produce a melanoma vaccine. 

The Next Steps: In the next few years, this 

and other ‘‘vaccine’’ approaches to curing 

cancer need to be tested. Eight different vaccines for breast cancer and 13 for skin cancer 

(melanoma) are in early stages of testing in 

patients. If these efforts offer promise, they 

could someday be applied to other cancers 

such as prostate, colon, and lung cancer. 

Effects of a Budget Cut: A budget cut 

would curtail or slow the testing of the 21 

cancer ‘‘vaccines’’ already being used in patients. The entire ‘‘vaccine’’ approach to 

cancer treatment would be held back—an approach that offers hope for the thousands of 

cancer patients who die every year despite 

treatment with surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. 

Comment: The American public desperately needs new ways to treat cancer. 

Today many people are cured of cancer 

through surgery, radiation, and the drugs—

thanks to research supported for many years 

by the NIH—but 550,000 die of cancer each 

year and are counting on these vital research 

advances. 

Conquering Genetic Diseases: Jump-started by mapping the human genome. 

The Promise: Creating detailed maps of the 

human genome and understanding the makeup of the estimated 100,000 human genes will 

certainly speed the discovery of the approximately 5,000 genes that cause human disease. 

Discovery of disease genes will dramatically improve our ability to develop tests for 

individuals who are at risk for the diseases, 

and enhance early treatment. 

Scientists supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have already: 

A full year ahead of schedule, created a detailed genetic map of the human genome 

(this provides landmarks along the chromosomes, a powerful tool aiding scientists in 

search of disease genes); 

Nearly completed a physical map of the 

human genome (this provides even more information for the gene-hunters); and 

Discovered 42 disease genes, including 

those for early onset breast cancer, hereditary colon cancer, polycystic kidney disease, 

and Huntington’s disease. 

The Next Steps: Mapping alone will greatly 

increase the number of disease genes isolated. In addition, scientists are now ready 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7461 

to begin‘‘sequencing’’—analyzing the chemical makeup of the genes—a year ahead of 

schedule. The entire sequencing project is 

expected to be completed by 2005 and tremendously speed the discovery of disease genes 

and new avenues for diagnosis, prevention 

and treatment. 

Effects of a Budget Cut: A reduction in resources will mean that large-scale gene ‘‘sequencing’’ will not be started and the project 

will not be completed by 2005, because funds 

are needed to improve sequencing technology. 

Scientists are on the brink of finding genes 

for prostate cancer, diabetes, familial Alzheimer’s, obesity, schizophrenia and manic 

depression. A cut in funding will delay these 

discoveries. 

Comment: If the U.S. fails to follow 

through, Japan, Britain and Germany are 

poised to finish the project themselves and 

they will be first to reap the health and economic benefits. The hopes of many patients 

and families will be dashed. 

New and Re-Emerging Infectious Diseases: 

Changes in microbes and our environment, 

overuse of antibiotics, and increasing global 

travel present new challenges. 

The Promise: One of the triumphs of the 

twentieth century is the conquest and control of many infectious diseases. This conquest was a result of research on vaccines, 

antibiotics, and the basic properties of microbes (much of it conducted by the National 

Institutes of Health). But in the past 15 

years, new and re-emerging microbes and antibiotic-resistant organisms have eroded 

that victory. 

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is 

establishing a ‘‘New and Re-emerging Infectious Disease Initiative.’’ This initiative addresses the threat of new microbes (such as 

Ebola virus and HIV), re-emerging infectious 

diseases (such as cholera and hantavirus), 

and drug-resistant strains of previously 

treatable infections (such as tuberculosis 

and streptococcus). The focal point of this 

initiative will be the development of vaccines, the most cost-effective and dependable 

method to combat new and re-emerging infectious diseases, particularly in light of increasing resistance to virtually all of the 

currently available antibiotics. 

The NIH is uniquely positioned to launch 

this initiative because of its many infectious 

disease research collaborations with the 

World Health Organization, the Centers for 

Disease Control, the Agency for International Development and many individual 

nations. All of these collaborations assist in 

the attempt to identify and to control outbreaks of emerging and re-emerging microbes. 

Additionally the NIH has established: 

Seven U.S. university-based programs 

working in countries where tropical diseases 

are common; 

Three tropical medicine research centers 

located in Colombia, Brazil and the Philippines; 

Four tropical disease research units at 

U.S. academic medical centers; 

An intramural Center for International 

Disease Research which is focused on parasitic diseases; and 

Eight Regional Primate Research Centers 

across the U.S. Non-human primates are the 

natural reservoirs of many emerging diseases. These primate centers facilitate the 

rapid identification, study, and containment 

of these threats to our Nation’s health. 

Effects of a Budget Cut: A budget cut 

would curtail or significantly slow all of 

these efforts, both the launching of the ‘‘New 

and Re-emerging Infectious Diseases Initiative’’ and the continuation of NIH’s network 

of national and international tropical, parasitic and primate research centers. International collaborations are especially vulnerable to budget cuts, but the ongoing crisis concerning the Ebola virus demonstrates 

the obvious need for sustained, stable funding. 

The seriousness of this challenge cannot be 

overstated. Events of the past year have 

demonstrated our increasing vulnerability to 

infectious diseases that may rapidly assume 

epidemic proportions. Many new and reemerging microbes threaten our Nation’s 

health. Vaccine development, continued 

international collaboration, and rapid identification of new strains are our best hope 

for the future. 

Comment: The ‘‘antibiotic holiday’’ is 

over. We need a sustained strategic approach 

to new and re-emerging infectious diseases. 

The Obesity Gene: Revolutionary advance 

providing hope for reducing obesity and its 

complications. 

The Promise: Last year, scientists supported by the National Institutes of Health 

(NIH) discovered a gene in mice related to a 

protein that regulates body weight. A very 

similar ‘‘obesity gene’’ was also found in humans. 

This finding has great potential for developing a totally new kind of agent for regulating body weight in humans. Over 50 million Americans are obese, and the number of 

obese adults has increased by one third in 

just one decade. An effective new obesity 

treatment could also combat the serious 

complications of obesity—heart disease, diabetes, stroke and cancer. 

The current economic costs of the obesity 

epidemic are estimated at almost $70 billion 

annually, to which can be added an estimated $33 billion spent each year on weight 

reduction products and services, for a total 

of $100 billion annually. Thus, the potential 

economic impact of the obesity gene discovery is tremendous. 

The Next Steps: To capitalize on this important discovery, scientists supported by 

NIH now need to: 

Study the protein made by the obesity 

gene to understand how the gene acts on the 

body and prepare an experimental form of 

the protein to learn its biological activity; 

Conduct tests of the effects of the protein 

on obese and normal animals; and 

Initiate clinical studies in humans to determine the potential of the gene product in 

obesity prevention or treatment. 

Effects of a Budget Cut: Decreases in the 

budget would mean that NIH could fund 

fewer new research grants, thus slowing the 

basic, early research steps that scientists are 

eager to begin. Human studies would be put 

off into the future, awaiting the results of 

basic research. 

Comment: The discovery of the obesity 

gene was met with great interest by the scientific community and the public. Research 

should push on to bring the public the benefits of this advance. 

Otitis Media: A serious childhood infection 

in need of a better solution. 

The Promise: Scientists funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have recently been successful in developing a candidate vaccine to combat otitis media (ohTIGHT-iss MEE-dee-ah), a bacterial or viral 

infection of the middle ear common in young 

children ages 3 months to 3 years. 

Further development and testing of this 

candidate vaccine would offer hope that children might be spared the severe pain and 

sometimes serious side-effects of these middle ear infections. A useful vaccine could 

also significantly reduce the estimated 

health care costs of this disease—$1 billion 

annually. 

The Next Steps: Having developed a promising candidate vaccine, scientists are now 

ready to progress into the testing phase, initially in animals and later in children, looking first at safety and in later stages for 

clinical effectiveness. 

Effects of a Budget Cut: It is estimated 

that a reduction in the budget at this time 

would delay development of a clinically useful vaccine by three years. 

Comment: Otitis media is the major reason 

cited for taking a young child to the emergency room or to a physician’s office and is 

the most frequent reason that doctors prescribe antibiotics for children. The disease 

causes little children and their families 

great distress. Each year of delay in the development of a vaccine costs the country $1 

billion in health care bills. Securing a vaccine to fight otitis media would reduce this 

toll on children, their families and the 

health care system. 

Parkinson’s Disease: New treatments for 

degenerating nerve cells. 

The Promise: Parkinson’s disease is caused 

by the degeneration of the cells that make 

dopamine, a chemical messenger in the 

brain. Lack of dopamine produces tremor, rigidity, gait abnormalities, and often changes 

in behavior. Replacement of the missing 

neurotransmitter, dopamine, with L-dopa 

has a limited effect and undesirable side effects. 

Researchers supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have discovered a 

drug, deprenyl, which delays the need for Ldopa therapy in Parkinson’s disease patients, thereby significantly improving their 

quality of life. In addition, possible surgical 

intervention and other new treatment developments—including growth factors—are on 

the horizon. 

The Next Steps: Scientists are ready to: 

Develop new drugs with fewer side effects, 

building on deprenyl; 

Evaluate surgery that restores brain functions impaired by the disease and surgical 

methods to implant dopamine-producing 

cells; 

Assess whether a recently discovered 

growth factor can restore function by protecting dopamine-producing cells; and 

Develop new methods, using biotechnology 

and genetic engineering, to deliver treatments to the targeted cells. 

Effects of a Budget Cut: Budget cuts would 

slow the basic and applied research that has 

led to the first real progress against Parkinson’s in forty years. Clinical trials of promising treatments would have to be delayed 

and the momentum created by the discovery 

of deprenyl would be lost. 

A budget cut would diminish the hopes of 

the approximately 500,000 Americans—one 

percent of those over 50—who suffer from 

Parkinson’s disease. The economic burden of 

Parkinson’s disease, currently estimated at 

$6 billion per year, will only increase as the 

U.S. population ages. 

Prostate Cancer: New discoveries may lead 

to clinical advances. 

The Promise: Clinical advances in prostate 

cancer have been slow in coming, but recent 

new discoveries offer hope: 

Some useful animal models of the disease 

have been found; 

The drug finasteride (Proscar), which is 

useful in controlling a non-cancerous prostate condition that may be a precursor to 

prostate cancer, could offer a way to prevent 

the cancer; 

Male sex hormones have been shown to 

exert a strong influence on the prostate, and 

new reports indicate that mutations occur in 

receptor genes for male sex hormones when 

prostate cancer worsens; and 

Chemical markers—such as the prostate 

specific antigen (or PSA)—show promise for 

diagnosing prostate cancer. 

The Next Steps: NIH-supported scientists 

have recently begun studies of: 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7462 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

The role of oncogenes (cancer-causing 

genes) and suppressor (cancer-blocking) 

genes in transforming a normal prostate cell 

into a malignant cancer cell that can be 

spread throughout the body; 

The roles of the male hormone (androgen) 

and its receptor in the transition of prostate 

cancers from hormone sensitivity to hormone resistance; 

Hormone treatment in combination with 

surgery in an attempt to develop better therapy; 

The drug finasteride (Proscar) to prevent 

prostate cancer in human trials; and 

Diagnosis of prostate cancer using a blood 

test to detect prostate specific antigen 

(PSA) in combination with ultrasound. 

Effects of a Budget Cut: A budget cut 

would curtail or significantly slow all of 

these studies. This will, in turn, inhibit development of new and improved methods of 

prevention, early diagnosis and treatment 

for this very serious disease. 

Comment: Prostate cancer, although it receives less attention than breast cancer, is a 

significant public health problem. New, 

promising leads should be followed so as to 

have an impact on this disease. This year 

244,000 American men will be diagnosed with 

prostate cancer. Some 40,400 deaths will 

occur this year as a result of metastatic disease (the spread of cancer throughout the 

body) due to prostate cancer. 

Sexually Transmitted Diseases: Topical 

microbicides for women could reduce the 

spread of HIV [the AIDS virus] and other 

sexually transmitted diseases. 

The Promise: Scientists supported by the 

National Institutes of Health (NIH) are researching safe, effective ‘‘topical 

microbicides’’ which may be applied by 

women to block the transmission of sexually 

transmitted diseases (STDs). Currently several promising topical microbicides are being 

evaluated that kill the infectious microbes 

that cause HIV and other STDs. The successful development of these products will enable 

women to take control of their own reproductive health and significantly reduce the 

incidence of STDS, including HIV. 

The Next Steps: Evaluation of these promising topical agents requires clinical trials 

to prove that a proposed microbicide is both 

safe and effective. Development of better 

microbicide products based on the results of 

these trials, as well as further basic research 

in the laboratory is also a part of the overall 

research program. 

Effects of a Budget Cut: A budget cut 

would significantly impair the ability of the 

NIH to move these products from the laboratory into clinical trials. This would result in 

a delay in making safe and effective topical 

microbicides available to women, and thereby diminish any impact on the current epidemic of STDs and HIV. The significant cost 

savings and the reduction in illness and 

death associated with STDs and HIV will be 

severely delayed and possibly lost entirely. 

Comment: A sexually transmitted disease, 

including HIV, is acquired each year by an 

estimated 12 million Americans—a disproportionate number of whom are women. 

Adolescents and young adults under 25 account for 63 percent of these cases. STDs account for over $6 billion in health care costs 

alone. Up to forty percent of women with 

certain forms of STDs become infertile. 

STDs contribute excessively to illnesses, 

deaths, and health care costs among women 

as well as among newborns, who can be infected before or during birth. 

Topical microbicides would greatly increase the empowerment of women in the 

prevention of all sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS. 

Sickle Cell Disease: The first effective 

treatment nearly ready for wide application 

The Promise: People who suffer the painful, debilitating effects of sickle cell disease, 

an inherited blood disorder that primarily 

affects African-Americans, can now look forward to a better quality of life. 

After many years of research investment, 

scientists supported by the National Institutes of Health (HIH) this year developed the 

first effective treatment for the disease. 

A drug—hydroxyurea (hy-DROX-ee-urEEah)—relieves the pain and reduces by half 

the number of episodes or ‘‘crises’’ afflicting 

people with sickle cell disease. 

The drug was also proven to reduce the 

number of blood transfusions and hospitalizations for sickle cell ‘‘crises’’, which 

are estimated to cost about $350 million annually. 

The Next Steps: Having proven success in 

treating adults with sickle cell disease, medical scientists are now ready to test the drug 

in children. The challenge is to test whether 

the drug is as effective in children as in 

adults, and whether the drug harms growing 

children. 

Additional clinical studies are needed to 

find the optimal dosage, consider long-term 

effects of the drug, and look at combination 

therapy to improve treatment further. 

Effects of a Budget Cut: A reduction in 

funding would put a hold on the availability 

of this promising treatment for children, because the needed clinical studies would be 

slowed. This would prolong the suffering of 

both the children and their families. The 

likely reduction in health care costs would 

not materialize. 

Comment: Thanks to 20 years of research 

investment, tens of thousands of adults who 

suffer from the excruciating pain of sickle 

cell disease now have hope for relief. We cannot turn our backs on children who might 

also benefit from treatment. 

STEM CELL RESEARCH: A revolutionary 

approach to a variety of diseases 

The Promise: Bone marrow transplantation and gene therapy are currently being 

used to treat disease, but their utility is limited by the availability of blood stem cells. 

Scientists are beginning to understand and 

harness the incredible promise of stem 

cells—cells that give rise to all the different 

cells found in blood. These stem cells may 

make ideal ‘‘universal donor cells’’ because 

they maintain the capability for cell division 

and can accept genes from other cells. 

Recently, scientists have learned how better to isolate these cells, not only from bone 

marrow, but also from umbilical and peripheral blood. They have also learned how to increase the number of stem cells produced in 

animal models and in human volunteers. 

There is great hope that stem cells can be 

used to: 

Improve the prospects for people—such as 

those with aplastic anemia, a serious blood 

disorder—waiting for suitable bone marrow 

donors; the goal is to perform transplants 

from sources other than bone marrow, perhaps from blood itself; 

Re-populate blood cells necessarily killed 

off when cancer patients undergo life-saving 

chemotherapy; and 

Advance human gene therapy for patients 

with genetic disorders, AIDS and cancer. 

The Next Steps: Scientists supported by 

the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are 

eager to move quickly to: 

Search for sources of stem cells and test 

their usefulness for patients; 

Explore potential for using stem cells for 

gene therapy; 

Continue basic research to better understand how blood is formed; and 

Create special facilities needed to isolate 

and grow stem cells under sterile conditions 

so they can be used in patients. 

Effects of a Budget Cut: A budget reduction would mean that the research—both 

basic and clinical—would move more slowly 

and the clinical payoffs would be significantly delayed. A delay would deny the great 

potential of this revolutionary approach. 

Stroke: Preventing stroke and limiting 

brain damage. 

The Promise: Research supported by the 

National Institutes of Health (NIH) has recently provided important new advances and 

insights: 

Surgery to open blocked arteries in the 

neck can prevent stroke or stroke death; 

Aspirin can protect against stroke in certain patients; and 

New treatments to protect brain cells from 

damage during stroke are emerging from 

animals studies 

The Next Steps: Further research could 

show how to prevent more strokes, limit 

brain damage when stroke occurs, and help 

people regain normal life after a stroke. 

Scientists are ready to begin new studies 

in patients to: 

Compare drug treatment and surgical approaches to episodes of bleeding within the 

brain; 

Learn more about differences in stroke and 

in optimal treatment for stroke in different 

racial groups; and 

Refine ways to reduce the occurrence and 

severity of brain bleeding in low birth weight 

infants. 

Effects of a Budget Cut: A reduction in the 

budget would come just as scientists are 

poised to take a new approach by aggressively treating acute stroke to prevent brain 

damage. 

Basic research would be curtained just as 

promising new opportunities are coming to 

light, such as the effects of vitamin supplements, clot-dissolving medications, and 

agents such as calcium channel blockers to 

protect brain cells. 

Comment: Research has brought us a dramatic decline in stroke death in the U.S. in 

the last 25 years, but stroke is still the third 

leading cause of death. Every year, over 

500,000 Americans experience a stroke and 

many are left disabled, costing more than $25 

billion annually for medical treatment, rehabilitation, long-term care, and lost wages. 

These numbers and costs will only increase 

as the U.S. population ages. 

Additional research—capitalizing on scientific opportunities—can help us learn how 

to prevent stroke and limit its damage when 

it does occur. 

VACCINES TO PREVENT STOMACH ULCERS AND

STOMACH CANCER

The Promise: Tremendous opportunity now 

exists for scientists supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to develop a 

vaccine to prevent gastric (stomach) ulcer 

and to create the possibility of preventing 

stomach cancer. 

This opportunity flows from the recent discovery that stomach ulcers are caused by a 

bacterium, H. pylori (pie-LOR-ee), and that 

recurrence of ulcers can be prevented with a 

simple antibiotic treatment. This finding 

can save an estimated $400–$800 million annually by preventing ulcer recurrence alone. 

It is also known that H. pylori is strongly 

linked to stomach cancer, one of the leading 

causes of cancer death throughout the world. 

Today only about 18 percent of patients survive stomach cancer in the U.S., where there 

are 23,000 cases per year. 

The Next Steps: Scientists are now ready 

to: 

Isolate the genes from the bacterium in 

order to develop a vaccine; 

Study how the bacterium might cause cancer; and 

Follow up on preliminary evidence that 

other types of H. pylori may cause other intestinal cancers such as liver cancer. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7463 

Effects of a Budget Cut: A reduction in the 

budget would impede scientists’ ability to 

pursue the many steps needed to develop a 

vaccine against H. pylori, conduct critical 

human trials on ulcer prevention, and understand more fully the role of the bacterium in 

various cancers and how to prevent them. 

A budget reduction would diminish the 

number of scientists working on this important problem. Cuts would delay by years the 

development of a simple vaccine that might 

bring life-long protection from some of the 

most deadly cancers. 

Comment: Recent understanding that 

stomach ulcers, and probably stomach cancers, are caused by a bacterium offers tremendous opportunity to develop a protective 

vaccine. We should not turn our backs on 

this opportunity to have a major impact on 

a serious public health problem. 

Schizophrenia: Identifying the genetic factors involved in the onset of Schizophrenia. 

The Promise: In the past few months, NIHsupported scientists reported and subsequently verified that a specific gene located 

on chromosome 6 is one trigger to the expression, or onset, of schizophrenia. While 

more than one gene is likely to have a role 

in causing this complex disease, this finding 

is of major importance to researchers seeking to develop more effective methods to diagnose, treat, and even prevent schizophrenia. 

The Next Steps: For the first time, because 

of advanced genetic research and the possibility of locating the family of genes that 

underlay the vulnerability to schizophrenia, 

it may be ultimately possible to prevent a 

mental illness. This concept was virtually 

unthinkable 5 years ago. Having located a 

single gene loci associated with schizophrenia, it is vital that we pursue this lead 

aggressively to search for other relevant 

genes. In this manner, the complexity of this 

disease will be delineated and heretofore unknown approaches to treatment and prevention will be elucidated. 

Effects of a Budget Cut: A budget cut at 

this time would have the effect of extending 

by years efforts to devise and apply molecular genetic strategies to the prevention of 

schizophrenia. 

Comment: Schizophrenia, the most devastating mental illness, affects approximately 2 million Americans annually. Although there is no known single cause, scientists believe that genetic factors produce a 

vulnerability that may be triggered by environmental factors. Most currently available 

medications are only palliative and have severe side effects. In addition to the distress 

and disability caused by schizophrenia, the 

financial cost to society is great: treatment 

costs alone exceed $7 billion per year, and social costs are estimated to be $20 billion annually. 

CHANGE OF VOTE

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, on rollcall 

229 I voted no. It was my intention to 

vote yes. It was a tabling motion. 

Therefore I ask unanimous consent 

that I be permitted to change my vote. 

This will in no way change the outcome of the vote. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

(The foregoing tally has been 

changed to reflect the above order.) 

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in 

strong support of Senate concurrent 

resolution 13, the fiscal year 1996 congressional budget resolution. 

I want to commend the hard work 

undertaken, and the excellent results 

obtained, by the chairman of the Budget Committee, the senior Senator from 

New Mexico [Mr. DOMENICI]. We all 

know that his expertise in budget matters is unequalled and that he has 

great respect within this body and 

without as an opponent of deficit 

spending. I also appreciate how he has 

sought to work with and accommodate 

Senators with a wide variety of concerns. 

This budget is not perfect; but then, 

no document produced by a committee—or a Senate—ever is. It is a 

good budget. More importantly, it is an 

essential budget, because it is a balanced budget. 

My perfect budget would have included instructions for tax relief that 

is pro-family, pro-saving, pro-investment, and pro-economic growth. 

We had a chance to vote on such a 

package yesterday, in the amendment 

offered by Senator GRAMM of Texas. 

That amendment was similar to the 

Contract With America tax relief bill 

passed by the House of Representatives. It was also similar to the CoatsGrams-Craig bill, S. 568, the first bill—

the Family, Investment, Retirement, 

Savings, and Tax Fairness Act. 

I’m disappointed that the Gramm 

amendment was not adopted. But I applaud Senator DOMENICI for designating 

a ‘‘fiscal dividend’’ reserve fund that 

takes the additional deficit reduction 

and surpluses expected under this 

budget, which will come from an improved economy and lower interest 

rates, and dedicates them to tax relief. 

Senators have spent much time these 

last few days debating over this and 

many other budget priorities. This is 

what should happen when we consider a 

budget resolution. But this budget fulfills what is, by far, the single most important priority: 

It sets us firmly on a course toward a 

balanced budget by the year 2002. 

For most of our Nation’s history, the 

moral imperative to balance the budget was considered part of what has been 

called our ‘‘unwritten constitution’’—

those traditions so firmly imbedded in 

the American system, like political 

parties and the actual operation of the 

electoral college that they have the 

status of virtual constitutional status. 

For more than 60 years now, and especially over the last 30 years, this balanced budget rule has been repealed. 

Because Congresses and Presidents 

did not have to set priorities, every 

item of spending has been treated like 

a priority. To qualify, an item needs 

only some well-intentioned supporters. 

We all know what has happened as a result: 

The sum total of these individually 

pleasant programs exceeds the capacity or the willingness of the American 

people to pay for all of them. 

Without a binding requirement, or at 

least an extraordinary commitment, to 

balance the budget, there is no constituency to limit spending to the 

amount the American people are willing or able to pay in taxes. 

This dynamic has become a systemic 

problem, a fundamental flaw, in how 

our Government operates. It has led us 

to the point where the Government has 

saddled its citizens with almost $5 trillion in debt. It has put the economic 

security of every American on a collision course with catastrophe. 

This isn’t just one Senator or one political party talking. The realization is 

bipartisan. The status quo is the least 

tolerable alternative. The experts 

agree: 

The General Accounting Office’s 1992 

report, entitled Prompt Action Necessary to Avert Long-Term Damage to 

the Economy, said, ‘‘[I]naction is not a 

sustainable policy. * * * [T]he Nation 

cannot continue on the current path.’’

The Bipartisan Entitlement Commission’s Final Report, issued in January 

of this year, said, ‘‘The present trend is 

not sustainable.’’

DRI/McGraw-Hill, one of the world’s 

leading economic forecasting firms, in 

testimony before the Senate Budget 

Committee in January, said, ‘‘[T]he 

current economic strength is not sustainable. * * * A balanced budget 

would be a major boost to the longterm growth of the U.S. economy.’’

This is the year, and this is the budget, in which Congress finally makes 

that extraordinary commitment necessary to balance the budget. 

By definition, an extraordinary commitment is not permanent. That’s why 

we still will need to return to, and 

pass, the balanced budget amendment 

to the U.S. Constitution. 

When we debated that amendment on 

the floor of the Senate earlier this 

year, opponents said, ‘‘You don’t need 

a constitutional amendment; all you 

need is the political will.’’ They also 

raised the taunt, ‘‘Where’s your plan? 

Show us which way you’ll balance the 

budget.’’

Well, the first Republican Congress 

in 40 years is showing the professional 

skeptics in Washington, DC, and the 

people across America that it has the 

will and the way. 

This budget resolution is a blueprint 

for hope, full of promise for current 

and future generations. This budget is 

the one that will restore opportunity 

and growth. This is the budget for 

America’s future. 

My colleagues know, and it is important to remind others watching, that a 

budget resolution is just a blueprint. 

The details will be filled in during the 

coming weeks and months by the Appropriations Committee and the various authorizing committees. I, for one, 

look forward to carrying this process 

forward within my assignments on the 

Agriculture, Energy, and Veterans Affairs Committees. 

There’s been plenty of blame to go 

around for not balancing the budget. 

That blame has extended, for years, to 

both political parties and both the legislative and executive branches of Government. With today’s vote, we will see 

if the solution is bipartisan, as it 

should be and as I hope it is. 

In the coming weeks, we will see if 

the President is willing to become part 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7464 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

of the solution. I was sad to see the 

President become a conscientious objector to the war on deficit spending 

when he submitted his official budget 

this past February. 

The law said the President had to 

submit a budget, so he did. But that 

budget dodged responsibility, dodged 

deficit reduction, and declared unconditional surrender to bigger deficits 

and more debt as far as the eye could 

see. In contrast, the budget before us 

today enlists, fights, and promises to 

win the war on the deficit. 

The President still will have the 

chance to choose whether to be a fiscal 

freedom fighter or a member of the status quo resistance. Congress will give 

him that chance in the coming weeks 

as we send him 13 appropriations bills 

and a budget reconciliation bill. Those 

bills, taken all together, will enact 

into law a 7-year plan that finally, in 

fiscal year 2002, for the first time in 33 

years, and only the second time in 42 

years, will balance the budget. 

It’s very tempting to make the perfect into the enemy of the very good. 

And probably not one Senator thinks 

this budget is perfect. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 

have come to the floor to say how 

much they are for balancing the budget. Then they add that one little word, 

those three little letters, that cause so 

much mischief in this town: ‘‘B-U-T.’’

We keep hearing, ‘‘I’m for a balanced 

budget, but * * *.’’

Maybe they think 7 years is too soon. 

Or too late. Or they say it’s not really 

balanced unless you don’t count Social 

Security. Or they want to take interest 

savings that aren’t officially counted 

yet and use that for more social spending. Or they don’t want to rescue and 

reform a Medicare System that is on 

the verge of bankruptcy. Or they demand the cart come before the horse 

and they want Medicare to be completely overhauled before we assume in 

a budget blueprint that it’s going to be 

overhauled. Or they do want to reform 

Medicare, but not without the Federal 

Government taking over everybody’s 

health care, or the list goes on. 

The easy thing is to vote no and say 

you wished someone had given you 

something on which to vote yes. There 

are always excuses available, if you 

want to say you’re for a balanced budget but you want to vote against the 

real balanced budget. 

Mr. President, the only balanced 

budget that counts is the one that 

passes, the one that can be translated 

into binding law as the budget process 

continues this summer. 

A balanced budget is not an abstract 

goal or a political sound bite. It’s an 

absolute necessity. 

The vote that counts today is a ‘‘yes’’

vote on final passage of Senate Concurrent Resolution 13. I’m proud to cast 

that vote. I’m proud of the Budget 

Committee for writing a fair, reasonable, balanced budget resolution. I expect to be proud of the Senate when 

the vote is complete, and I believe the 

American people will feel the same 

way. 

Mr. President, I spoke briefly on 

Monday about what I consider the top 

ten reasons why the budget must be 

balanced, as it will be under this resolution. I would like to reiterate some 

of those points now, and expand on why 

this conclusion is inescapable. 

THE TOP TEN REASONS TO PASS SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 13 AND BALANCE THE

BUDGET

10. THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE

A vote for the balanced budget resolution is the vote consistent with the 

will of the American people that the 

Federal Government get its house in 

order: 70 percent in some polls, 80 percent-plus in others. 

9. REASONABLE GLIDEPATH

Under this budget resolution, overall 

spending still increases 3 percent a 

year through 2002, compared with the 

current rate of 5.4 percent a year. 

The real dividend comes after a successful glidepath to balance. After fiscal year 2002, all it takes to keep the 

budget balanced is to match future 

spending growth to revenue growth. 

That would again allow more than 5.2 

percent a year growth in spending after 

2002, based on CBO projections. 

It is critical to keep in mind: balancing the budget will be easier now 

than it will be later. 

In the mid-1980’s, a glidepath comparable to that in Senate Concurrent 

Resolution 13 would have produced a 

balanced budget within 2 to 4 years. 

Now, it will take 7 years. The longer 

we wait, the harder it will get to balance the budget ever. Anyone who has 

any experience with debt accumulation 

understands why. Anyone who understands the explosive growth in Federal 

programs under current trends understands why. 

This year, fiscal year 1995, 

The $175 billion Federal budget deficit is 11.4 percent of total outlays, 12.9 

percent of revenues, and 2.5 percent of 

gross domestic product. 

Total revenues are enough to cover 

all entitlement spending plus interest 

payments plus 68 percent of discretionary spending, in other words, 

enough to cover 88.5 percent of outlays. 

Total Federal outlays are 21.8 percent of GDP. 

According to the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform, 

under current trends, by the year 2030: 

The deficit will be almost 50 percent 

of outlays and almost 19 percent of 

GDP. 

‘‘Projected spending for Medicare, 

Medicaid, Social Security, and Federal 

employee retirement programs alone 

will consume all tax revenues collected 

by the Federal Government.’’ That is, 

revenues will cover barely 50 percent of 

all outlays. 

Total Federal outlays could exceed 37 

percent of the economy. 

This is why a number of us have said 

during this debate that this is not only 

our best chance of passing a balanced 

budget—it may be our last. 

8. PRESERVING FLEXIBILITY TO ADDRESS

PRIORITIES

Families and businesses understand 

that, if you have discipline in the short 

term, if you forego instant gratification, you will have more later, more 

money and more options. 

The increasing share of the Federal 

budget consumed by interest payments 

on the debt means a decreasing share 

which Congress controls, ever-higher 

taxes, or both. 

More debt means more interest payments on that debt. Interest costs 

squeeze other spending priorities and 

threaten to swallow the options of our 

kids and grandchildren. 

Already, by fiscal year 1994, net interest payments were five and one-half 

times as much as outlays for all education, job training, and employment 

programs combined. 

GAO’s 1992 report found that, if current policies continue, Congress may 

be forced to enact one-half trillion dollars in deficit reduction each year just 

to hold annual deficits to a constant 3 

percent of GDP. 

According to the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform: 

If current trends continue, by the 

year 2030 net interest payments will 

consume 30 percent of the Federal 

budget—double the rate of today. 

Under current trends, net interest 

payments on the Federal debt will 

more than triple as a percentage of 

GDP. Net interest is currently 3.3 percent of GDP and is projected at more 

than 10 percent of GDP by 2030. 

Beyond the deficit reduction already 

built into this budget resolution, CBO 

has acknowledged a possible $170 billion ‘‘reserve fund,’’ or ‘‘Domenici dividend,’’ in debt service savings and increased revenues from economic 

growth. This could result in an additional $170 billion in deficit reduction 

and surpluses over 7 years, which frees 

up more money for other budget priorities, such as tax relief. 

DRI/McGraw-Hill went even further, 

saying that, by 2002, half of all the $1 

trillion in spending restraint necessary 

to balance the budget could come from 

interest savings alone. 

7. STOPPING THE REGRESSIVE/OVERSEAS

TRANSFER OF WEALTH

Interest on the Federal debt is largely a transfer from middle-income taxpayers to large institutions, wealthy 

individuals and foreign investors. 

In fiscal year 1994, 22.8 percent, $44.5 

billion, of the interest on debt held by 

the public was paid to foreign investors. Also in fiscal year 1994, 33.9 percent—$62.6 billion—of the dollars borrowed from the public came from overseas. 

Interest on the Federal debt is actually the biggest foreign aid program in 

history. In fact, these payments 

amount to more than twice the amount 

spent on everything in the international affairs budget function, $17.1 

billion in fiscal year 1994, $18.9 billion 

in fiscal year 1995. 

I do not mean to imply here that 

there is anything wrong with being 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7465 

wealthy, a lender, or investor. To the 

contrary, these persons supply the capital that creates jobs, raises living 

standards, and legitimately finances 

the Government in time of war or dire 

emergency. 

But it is unfair to taxpayers, and bad 

for the entire economy, for wealth to 

be arbitrarily and artificially redistributed through interest payments on a 

growing and excessive debt that has 

been accumulated over the decades, 

merely because spending and borrowing 

was the course of least political resistance. 

This actually was one of the reasons 

why the original Jeffersonian Republicans were so opposed to Government 

indebtedness. The Republicans, representing them, as now, farmers, merchants, and other working Americans, 

did not want to see the fruits of their 

labors taxed excessively to pay interest 

to the monied class, represented by the 

big-government Federalists. 

6. INTEREST RATES AND INVESTMENT

Lower interest rates and greater economic growth, of course, do not benefit 

only the Federal budget, but all Americans. 

In an appendix to its April ‘‘Analysis 

of the President’s Budgetary Proposals,’’ CBO discussed the drop in interest rates that could result from balancing the budget, noting: 

Good arguments exist for * * * a range of 

from 100 to 200 basis points. A drop of that 

magnitude from CBO’s baseline forecast 

would leave real long-term rates at between 

1 and 2 percent—lower than they have been 

since the 1950’s—and real short-term rates 

close to zero * * * (R)eal short-term interest 

rates have already been as low as zero. 

One widely used model, developed by Data 

Resources, Inc. (DRI), predicts an exceptionally large drop in interest rates as the deficit 

falls, nearly 400 basis points * * *. 

We know what these interest-rate 

drops mean to American families: buying a house, buying a car, or financing 

a college education would be more affordable than today, by hundreds and 

even thousands of dollars. 

DRI/McGraw-Hill says that balancing 

the budget could result in nonresidential investment increasing 4 to 5 percent by 2002, over what it would be 

with today’s $200 billion annual deficits. 

5. ECONOMIC GROWTH

Balancing the budget means preserving, in the near term and especially for our children, the American 

dream of economic opportunity. The 

damage being done by the borrow-andspend status quo must be stopped. A 

study by the Federal Reserve Bank of 

New York showed that America lost 5 

percent growth in GNP—and 3.75 million jobs—from 1978–89 because of deficit and debt. DRI/McGraw-Hill estimates that balancing the budget by fiscal year 2002 would raise real gross national product by about 2.5 percent. 

That means putting about $1,000 a year 

into the average household’s pockets, 

at today’s prices, by 2005. 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has 

cited a Laurence H. Meyer & Associates study showing that economic output would rise between 1 to 1.6 percent 

within 5 years after balancing the 

budget. 

Even the Congressional Budget Office, using a more cautious model, 

projects a GNP in 2002 that is 0.8 percent—almost 1 percent—higher than in 

its baseline projections. 

The idea that balanced budgets 

produce economic growth is not a new 

one. More than 160 years ago, President 

Andrew Jackson said: 

Once the budget is balanced and the debts 

paid off, our population will be relieved from 

a considerable portion of its present burdens 

and will find not only new motives to patriotic affection, but additional means for the 

display of individual enterprise. 

4. LOWER TAXES

Balancing the budget and keeping it 

balanced will remove pressure for future tax increases. Since every dollar 

borrowed today has to be repaid eventually, with interest, the status quo 

promises ruinous levels of taxation in 

the future. 

According to the National Taxpayers 

Union Foundation, for every year in 

which the Federal Government runs a 

$200 billion deficit, the average child of 

today will pay $5,000 in additional 

taxes over his or her lifetime. The status quo and the Clinton budget show 

deficits that large and larger for as 

long as the eye can see. 

President Clinton’s fiscal year 1995 

budget included a section on 

‘‘generational accounting.’’ It projected that failure to change current 

trends will force generations to face a 

lifetime net tax rate of 82 percent to 

pay off the current generation’s bills, 

counting taxes at all levels of government. 

3. PROTECTING SENIORS

The debt is the threat to Social Security, Medicare, and the economic security of seniors on fixed incomes. 

Gross interest payments on debt are 

the second largest single spending item 

for the Federal Government, and under 

the status quo or the President’s budget, would overtake Social Security 

within a few years. 

Growing interest payments crowd 

out other spending, regardless of 

whether an item is off-budget or onbudget or financed through a trust 

fund. When the Government faces the 

need to make good on its obligations, 

its ability to do so is going to be affected by the total debt load it is carrying. 

More debt and a bigger chunk of the 

budget going for interest payments ultimately threatens the Government’s 

ability to pay for anything else. 

This becomes more obvious and more 

true when we remember that, under 

current trends: Medicare goes into deficit in 1996 and runs out of money in 

2002; and Social Security taxes no 

longer cover benefits in 2013, the system goes into deficit in 2019, and it 

runs out of money in 2029. 

2. JOBS

DRI/McGraw-Hill projects that balancing the Federal budget can create 

2.5 million new jobs by 2002. 

The last Federal balanced budget was 

in 1969. According to Investor’s Business Daily, unemployment from 1970–

1990 averaged 6.7 percent as compared 

to the post-war period as a whole which 

was 5.7 percent. In the first three decades of this century, before deficit 

spending was the rule and not the exception, unemployment averaged 4.5 

percent. 

1. OUR CHILDREN

The future for our children and 

grandchildren depends on the future of 

the economy. 

The General Accounting Office, in its 

1992 report, showed gains in standard of 

living of between 7 percent and 36 percent in 2020 resulting from balanced 

Federal budgets. More recent economic 

and budget developments would still 

keep projections well within this 

range. 

In fact, remembering the late 1970’s, 

there’s every reason to believe that the 

borrow-and-spend trends of the status 

quo and the President’s budget would 

provoke a return of high interest rates 

and make GAO’s ‘‘no action’’ scenario 

positively optimistic. 

We all have become familiar with 

Thomas Jefferson’s admonition in this 

regard: 

The question whether one generation has 

the right to bind another by the deficit it 

imposes is a question of such consequence as 

to place it among the fundamental principles 

of government. We should consider ourselves 

unauthorized to saddle posterity with our 

debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves. 

Now is the time to act on that principle, by passing Senate Congressional 

Resolution 13, the balanced budget resolution. 

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I 

would like to preface my remarks by 

commending Senator DOMENICI for his 

efforts to help tame the Federal Government’s runaway deficits. 

As you know, Mr. President, under 12 

years of Republican administrations, 

the Federal debt quintupled. In 1980, 

when Republicans took over both the 

White House and the Senate, the Federal debt stood at about $800 billion. 

After 12 years of Republican leadership, 

the debt stood at roughly $4 trillion. If 

it were not for the almost $200 billion 

in interest that we pay each and every 

year on the debt that was amassed 

under successive Republican administrations, we would already have a balanced budget. In 1993, in order to begin 

to tackle the problems posed by this 

mountain of debt, Congress passed the 

largest deficit reduction passage in history. We did this without a single Republican joining in the effort. 

Time and time again, I have stated 

that we cannot gain control over the 

Government’s fiscal crisis with gimmicks. No amendment to the Constitution will ever balance the budget. No 

rosy projections about economic 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7466 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

growth and supply-side impacts will 

balance the budget. Only strong and 

consistent leadership will balance the 

budget. If we want to restore the Federal Government to fiscal sanity, we 

cannot abrogate our leadership responsibilities or refuse to join the debate 

for fear of the political consequences of 

tough decisions. Instead, we must act 

decisively to continue to move toward 

a balanced budget. 

We could adopt a ‘‘scorched earth’’

approach to balancing the budget, 

slashing and burning everything which 

gets in our way. But what good have we 

done for our children if we reduce their 

debt burden but deny them a decent 

education and adequate health care? 

How much have we improved our workers’ ability to compete in the world 

economy if we deny them the funding 

necessary to improve their skills? 

Presenting numbers which add up to 

a balanced budget is one thing; deciding how to reach those numbers is an 

altogether different task. It is in deciding how to reach those numbers—deciding what our priorities really are—that 

we reveal who we are as individuals 

and what we stand for as a nation. So, 

Mr. President, while I am pleased that 

the proposed budget resolution moves 

us toward a balanced budget, I am concerned about the means used to achieve 

this end. 

Mr. President, the Republicans’

choices distort the principle of shared 

sacrifice. They have balanced the budget on the backs of children, students, 

families, and seniors. They have chosen 

to cut programs for those most in need 

in our society, while asking little or 

nothing of large corporations and the 

wealthy. 

Mr. President, no matter how the Republicans phrase their assault on Medicare, it’s just that—an assault. Their 

cuts will force millions of seniors to 

suffer drastically reduced benefits, a 

much lower quality of care, and significantly higher medical bills. We desperately need Medicare reform, but we 

cannot simply let seniors free-fall until 

these reforms take place. 

The Republicans’ Medicare cuts mean 

that, on average, seniors will have to 

find an additional $3,447 to pay for 

their health care over the next 7 years. 

For the majority of seniors, this will be 

no easy task. In 1992, the median income of seniors in this country was 

only about $17,000 a year, and about a 

quarter of elderly households had incomes under $10,000. These seniors already spend more than $1 of every $5 on 

medical care. For the millions of seniors across the country who live on 

fixed incomes, finding an additional 

$3,447 will mean sacrificing something 

else which is important to them. It has 

been stated that each month millions 

of American seniors are forced to 

choose between food and necessary 

medication. I can’t help wondering how 

many more will be faced with this horrible choice once the proposed cuts are 

put into place. 

In addition to higher costs, seniors 

are likely to have fewer choices. In 

many cases, financial limitations will 

leave them with no choice but to join a 

managed care plan. Doctors, hospitals, 

and others providers are all likely to 

face even lower reimbursement rates. 

As a result, many health care providers 

may no longer be able to afford to accept Medicare patients. Those that can 

will be forced to shift even more costs 

onto their privately insured patients, 

creating a hidden tax on employers and 

individuals. 

Mr. President, that’s just Medicare. 

This budget proposal also cuts Medicaid by $175 billion. Again, I think it is 

important that we all understand exactly who these cuts will affect. Medicaid now insures about one of every 

four American children. It helps to pay 

for roughly one of every three births in 

this country. It also provides aid to 

over three-fifths of the people who need 

long-term care services, either in nursing homes or at home. Most elderly recipients of Medicaid are people who 

spent their whole lives as members of 

the middle class. But when faced with 

nursing home costs averaging almost 

$40,000 a year, it doesn’t take long for 

their entire life’s savings to disappear. 

Once they reach this point, these people have nowhere else to turn. Thankfully, Medicaid has been there to provide a safety net for them. 

This resolution caps Federal Medicaid spending at an average annual 

growth rate of 5 percent. We all know 

that Medicaid spending is expected to 

grow faster than that in the future. By 

setting a 5-percent cap, the Federal 

Government is essentially saying to 

the States: ‘‘It’s all your problem now. 

We can’t figure out how to deal with 

the growing number of uninsured and 

the rising costs of health care, so you 

do it. We wash our hands of any responsibility to help you deal with these 

critical needs.’’ But, if we are honest 

with ourselves, we must admit that 

States can’t cope with these problems 

alone. 

So, Mr. President, let me tell you 

what is expected to happen once these 

proposed Medicaid cuts go into effect. 

By the year 2002, the number of uninsured children in America is predicted 

to rise by more than 6 million. By that 

same year, there will be an additional 

3 million persons who need, but will 

not receive assistance with, the costs 

of long-term care. These individuals 

will not be able to obtain nursing home 

care, despite the fact that they will 

need more care than their family and 

friends will be able to provide. For 

those individuals who will be able to 

enter and remain in nursing homes the 

picture will not be much brighter. Medicaid now pays significantly less than 

the private sector for long-term care. 

When Medicaid cuts these payments 

even further—as it will have to do in 

response to the budget cuts—nursing 

homes will have to do even more with 

less. This means that staff will be 

stretched even thinner, and each resident will receive even less personal attention. The proposed cuts will mean 

that the quality of life of nursing home 

residents will deteriorate even further. 

There is no doubt that Medicare and 

Medicaid have taken the brunt of the 

proposed cuts. But they are not the 

only examples of shortsighted cuts contained in this budget proposal. Consider the cuts to the earned income tax 

credit and education funding. The EITC 

provides tax relief to lower income 

working families. By proposing to cut 

the EITC, this budget deals a strong 

blow to the working families. While I 

strongly believe that sacrifice is needed to balance the budget, I have to ask: 

Is it fair to ask working families to 

make a sacrifice of this magnitude at 

the same time the Republican budget 

proposals contemplate tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest Americans? 

At the same time, this budget significantly cuts funding for student loans. 

We all recognize that we must balance 

the budget so that our citizens will be 

able to compete successfully in the 

next century. While I agree with the 

need to prepare for increased global 

competition, it is difficult to understand how we will become more competitive without the skills and knowledge that an education provides. 

At the same time that this budget 

makes drastic cuts in critical programs, it completely ignores the billions of dollars we spend each year on 

special-interest tax loopholes. The tax 

code provides special exceptions that 

will total over $480 billion in 1996, more 

than double the entire Federal deficit 

and nearly one-quarter of total Federal 

spending. Because many of these tax 

code provisions single out narrow subclasses for benefit, the rest of us must 

pay more in taxes. 

Balancing the budget will not be 

easy. It will require significant sacrifices. However, how can we argue 

that we are fairly balancing the budget 

when we raise taxes on working families and make dramatic cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and education, yet continue to spend billions each year in tax 

pork? 

Mr. President, to help correct many 

of the problems contained in the Republican budget proposal, I have offered a substitute balanced budget proposal. In fact, under my proposal, the 

Federal Government would have a significant budget surplus by the year 

2002. 

The main difference between the proposals the Republicans and I have offered is in the priorities that they set. 

I believe that our Nation’s future success will depend on the choices we 

make today. To ensure this success, I 

believe that our priorities must be 

placed on our children. The most important step we can take to build a better life for our children will be to balance the budget, which my proposal 

would do. However, in our efforts to 

put the budget in balance over the long 

run, we cannot ignore the needs of our 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7467 

children today. Therefore, my proposal 

would fully fund the education and 

child nutrition programs cut under the 

Republican proposal. 

At the same time we are attempting 

to create a better future for our children, we cannot ignore the legitimate 

needs of older citizens today. To ensure 

that the elderly and the least well off 

in our society are not forced to bear 

the bulk of the sacrifices that balancing the budget will require, my proposal restores $100 billion in Medicare 

funding and replaces $75 billion in Medicaid cuts. 

I would also repeal the Republican 

tax increase on those families that are 

trying to work their way out of poverty. Although we need to balance the 

Federal budget, it would be shortsighted to do so on the backs of America’s working and middle-class families. In the face of declining real wages 

and Republican proposals to cut important aid programs, more and more 

American families are facing increasingly tough times. These are working 

families who need every penny of the 

wages they earn just to make ends 

meet. We simply should not tax these 

families into poverty by cutting the 

EITC. 

My budget would pay for these 

changes by reducing defense spending 

by just $5 billion below the current 

baseline, cutting $15 billion in wasteful, pork-barrel spending, eliminating 

$46 billion in unnecessary agriculture 

subsidies, and raising the tobacco tax 

by $1 per pack to restore much of the 

funds lost in the Republican Medicare 

cuts. 

I would also close $197 billion in special-interest tax loopholes. My budget 

explicitly provides that individual tax 

rates will not be raised and that the deductions for mortgage interest, charitable contributions, and State and 

local taxes will not be affected. Instead, these savings will be realized by 

simply slowing the rate of growth in 

special-interest loopholes enjoyed by 

corporations and the very wealthy. 

Left unchanged, between now and the 

year 2002, the Federal Government will 

spend roughly $4 trillion on tax subsidies; my proposal would affect less 

than 5 percent of this amount. 

Rather than reducing the deficit by 

singling out children, working families, and the elderly for especially 

harsh treatment, I would offset a portion of these potential cuts by setting 

specific targets for eliminating tax 

loopholes. I believe that this approach 

would allow us to balance the needs of 

the many with the desires of the few. 

Mr. President, I expect that some 

will attempt to mischaracterize my efforts to close special interest tax loopholes as a tax increase. If there was a 

special tax credit for Members of Congress, and we closed that loophole, no 

one would claim that we were raising 

taxes. However, when we attempt to 

close tax loopholes for the oil and gas 

industry, the agricultural industry, or 

other industries, we hear the champions of these special interests claim 

that we are trying to raise taxes. 

Tax loopholes give some individuals 

and corporations a special exception 

from the rules that oblige everyone to 

share in the responsibility of our national defense and protecting the 

young, the aged, and the infirm. The 

only way to let everyone keep more of 

what they have earned is to minimize 

these tax expenditures so that we can 

reduce the burden of the national debt 

and bring down tax rates fairly, for everyone. 

Finally, if, by balancing the budget, 

we realize additional savings, my budget provides that these savings may be 

used to provide a middle-class tax cut. 

This tax cut would not be available 

until after we have achieved the savings necessary to put us on a path toward a balanced budget. It is my 

strongest hope that we will have these 

savings in order to provide much needed tax relief to working families in 

New Jersey and across the country. 

Frankly, Mr. President, I do not expect my budget proposal to pass. By 

asking the Defense Department, the tobacco industry, agribusiness, and other 

special interests to share in the burdens of balancing the budget, my proposal takes a small bite out of a number of sacred cows. As a result, I anticipate that my budget proposal will raise 

a good deal of organized opposition. 

Unfortunately, unlike defense, tobacco, 

and the wealthy, most Americans cannot afford high-paid lobbyists to protect their interests. So, in all likelihood, my budget proposal will be defeated, average Americans will be left 

bearing the burden of balancing the 

budget, and special interests will continue to enjoy all of their same benefits at the expense of the rest of us. 

Mr. President, fundamentally, my 

budget proposal is about setting priorities. There’s no serious disagreement 

between Democrats and Republicans on 

the need to balance the budget. In fact, 

my proposal would reduce the deficit 

by even more than the Republican proposal. However, the real question that 

my proposal raises is how we should 

balance the budget. Either we can balance the budget by raising taxes on 

working families and cutting needed 

assistance for children and the elderly—as the Republican proposal would 

do—or we can spread the burden for 

balancing the budget more fairly—as 

my proposal would do. 

I am very pleased that our Republican colleagues have chosen to join 

the fight to eliminate budget deficits. 

Again, I commend Senator DOMENICI

for introducing a budget resolution 

which seeks to achieve that goal. At 

the same time, however, I have serious 

concerns about many of the specific 

proposals contained in this budget. I 

am deeply concerned for our Nation’s 

children, families, and seniors. And, I 

am concerned that many of the cuts in 

the Republican budget proposal are 

necessary because of a refusal to simply slow the rate of growth in special 

interest loopholes. 

Mr. President, America needs a balanced budget. But it deserves a much 

better balanced budget than that proposed by our Republican colleagues. 

The budget I have proposed will balance the budget without losing sight of 

the obligations we have as a nation to 

our children, families, and seniors. 

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, 

today, by voting for the amendment offered by Senator CONRAD, I voted to 

balance the Federal budget by the year 

2002. I was pleased to work with Senator CONRAD in recent days on his 

amendment, and I am particularly 

pleased that it restored funds for education, economic growth, job training, 

and environmental protection. Senator 

CONRAD’s amendment would have balanced the budget by making tough 

choices: it drastically slowed the increase in spending on Medicare and 

Medicaid; it froze discretionary spending, meaning no real growth in spending over the next 7 years; it closed tax 

loopholes and eliminated wasteful subsidies. 

I did not agree with every detail of 

this amendment, but it came closest to 

my priorities in terms of what we need 

to preserve and what we need to reduce 

or get rid of to reach the goal of a balanced budget. It balanced the budget 

without harming our Nation’s defense 

or reducing our fight against crime. It 

did so without slashing Government’s 

commitment to helping businesses create jobs, helping children receive a 

good education, and helping protect 

our environment from pollution. 

I am sorry that the amendment did 

not pass, but I do not regret my decision to support it, because I believe 

achieving a balanced budget is essential if we are to keep our economy 

strong and keep hope for a brighter future alive for our children. 

After careful consideration of the 

budget offered by Senator DOMENICI, I 

decided to vote against it. I have great 

admiration for what he has done: he 

brought a serious balanced budget to 

the floor and shaped a historic debate 

over the direction of our country. Senator DOMENICI deserves much credit for 

putting us on the path toward a balanced budget. 

But I concluded the path his budget 

takes to achieve that goal is too 

strewn with policies that I do not support. The worthy end does not justify 

the harsh means. I decided to oppose 

the Budget Committee’s budget because it: reduces government’s key role 

in promoting education, research, technology, and trade promotion, all of 

which are crucial to our children’s economic future; turns back the clock on 

environmental protection, threatening 

to foul our waters and beaches and pollute our lands; and increases the tax 

burden on working families by canceling the expansion of the earned income tax credit. 

I could not reconcile the Budget 

Committee’s balanced budget with the 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7468 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

steps taken to achieve that balance. If 

there were no other way to achieve a 

balanced budget, I would have had no 

choice. But the Conrad Amendment 

proved that there is a better way. 

One final point: this has been, for the 

most part, a sober, substantive debate 

over a serious, precedent-setting budget resolution. But too much politics 

was being played by both parties. Unfortunately, some Democrats used this 

occasion too frivolously by simply 

sniping at the Budget Committee’s 

plan for short-term, partisan gain. As a 

consequence, they have helped reinforce an image of our party as reflexively committed to spending and the 

status quo. I also regret that the leadership of the Republican party failed to 

reach out to those of us on the other 

side of the aisle who share a genuine 

commitment to a balanced budget to 

fashion a budget that could have won 

substantial bipartisan support. By acting alone, I believe they have gone too 

far. 

This is the first step of a long process, however, and I hope we can begin 

to work together so that, in the end, 

we can pass a bipartisan balanced 

budget. 

THE BUDGET RESOLUTION

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, America 

has three deficits—not one. And we 

have to address all three if we are to 

solve our fiscal and social problems. 

We have to cut the budget and reduce 

the fiscal deficit, but, as I have said before, we also have an investment deficit and a spiritual deficit that require 

our collective commitment to retool 

and rebuild our communities, our politics, and our culture for the next century. 

This budget, Mr. President, is wrongheaded and misdirected in concept as 

well as in substance. It is at best myopic and at worst destructive. 

I have come, once again, to the floor 

to talk about the three American deficits, not one about a commonsense approach to the budget and about fair 

cuts. These things seem to have eluded 

my friends on the other side of the 

aisle, and I submit that this budget 

proposal, Mr. President, proves it. 

I have to say, first, I think the American people are looking for an honest, 

truthful budget that tells them what 

really is being cut and who will bear 

the burden. 

Mr. President, we all want to eliminate the deficit. It is bankrupting this 

country, but to cut Medicare and break 

a generational compact with American 

mothers and fathers who are retired 

and struggling to make ends meet in 

order to pay for tax cuts for the 

wealthiest among us is not the way to 

do it. 

I was both troubled and in a way 

amused to see, Mr. President, that the 

Republican cuts in Medicare actually 

take ‘‘choice’’ in health care away 

from senior citizens. They will not be 

able to chose their own doctors. That is 

exactly what my friends on the other 

side complained about last year when 

they rejected the President’s health 

care plan because working Americans 

would not have a choice of doctors. 

And now, here they are doing what 

they said was wrong for workers last 

year, but in their minds is apparently 

right for senior citizens this year. 

Mr. President, this is the height of 

hypocrisy. We saw television commercials that played on those fears, and 

here we are today with those same Republicans doing what they claimed a 

year ago was dead wrong. 

If that is not a flip-flop on the fundamental issue of health care reform, 

then I don’t now what is. 

Let me say a few things about Medicare, Mr. President. 

Medicare was a Democratic compact 

and I—for one—will not trade it for an 

ill-conceived attempt to score political 

points. 

It is a bedrock program that provides 

adequate health care to one out of 

every seven Americans—that’s 38.3 million people—38.3 million Americans 

who worked hard, played by the rules, 

and made plans based on our contract 

with them, and we won’t break it. 

Without these benefits many if not 

most of our seniors would have limited 

access to adequate care, and in many 

cases no treatment at all. 

Mr. President, when it comes to 

Medicare, turning our back on our 

commitment to the elderly and disabled by asking them to pay almost 

$900 more per year in premiums, $1200 

for home health services, and $100 more 

per year to meet their deductible may 

be what the Republicans think they 

need to do to keep their promise to 

protect the wealthiest and the strongest in this society, but it is not part of 

the Democratic commitment to protect average, hard-working Americans. 

That is not to say that Medicare 

doesn’t need to be fixed, but this is not 

how we ought to fix it. 

Mr. President, I find it very interesting that the proposed cuts in the 

Medicare program under this Republican plan virtually equal the total 

amount the Republicans have budgeted 

for a tax cut for the wealthy. 

They have to break a promise to millions of Americans who live on fixed incomes and have made careful plans 

based on our commitment to them to 

achieve their goal. 

It is absolutely outrageous. It is fundamentally unfair. And it’s just plain 

wrong. 

We need to fix the system, Mr. President, but fixing it does not mean using 

it to balance the budget or win some 

ideological points. 

The system is, indeed, costly. This 

year’s estimated Medicare expenditures will be 10.4 percent higher than 

last year. But that is not the function 

of government largesse. It is the function of a number of factors: including a 

rapidly aging population resulting in 

more beneficiaries, increases in the 

costs of medical procedures, inefficiencies in the utilization of medical services, and the costs of new technologies 

for increased medical care. 

For all these reasons, Mr. President, 

Democrats supported comprehensive 

health care reform last year, and my 

colleagues on the other side took a 

walk on it; and now I am amazed to 

hear my colleagues demanding that the 

Democrats should take the lead on the 

budget and do something about health 

care costs. 

We did, and they said no. Now it is 

time for them—now that they are in 

the majority—to stand and deliver. 

The truth is that the President’s proposals to accomplish this last year 

were shot down by the Republicans 

without their offering even a single alternative—and despite all the publicity 

of the Contract With America, it has 

not produced even the beginnings of a 

broad health care reform proposal, 

much less a comprehensive plan this 

year. 

Mr. President, it has been my belief 

that we must gain control over the increases in Medicare costs. But it should 

be done in the context of comprehensive reform of our health care system, 

not by willy-nilly cutting benefits to 

the elderly. 

The problem with Medicare is nothing new. It has been articulated by the 

trustees, and by every responsible government official. For this reason, Mr. 

President, when this latest political effort to trade Medicare for tax cuts is 

over, I anticipate that this Congress, 

Republicans and Democrats, will support a broad range of bi-partisan reforms that will make the Medicare 

trust fund solvent—just as we did for 

Social Security in 1981. 

I do not support dumping those problems on the States, or thoughtlessly 

cutting eligibility for these programs 

or the services they finance for the elderly. 

And I am not for cutting reimbursement rates to providers so deeply that 

they leave the program, go out of business, or simply shift costs to individuals who pay for their care directly or 

with private insurance. 

Mr. President, I will support only 

thoughtfully-devised approaches designed to address these six basic reforms to Medicare: eliminate unneeded 

care and treatment; put a stop to paying for ineffective treatments; increase 

inefficiency of the entire medical care 

delivery system; emphasize preventive 

rather than remedial care; emphasize 

outpatient rather than inpatient care; 

and implement financial reforms that 

build-in disincentives to excessive use 

of medical services without inhibiting 

needed preventive care. 

Any plan that addresses these six 

basic areas will represent the kind of 

comprehensive reform we need. 

But, Mr. President, we must approach reform intelligently and compassionately with a deep and abiding 

regard for the promises we’ve made to 

elderly Americans who have reached 

the age of 65 and have planned on Medicare benefits. 

Medicare needs to be fixed—not raided. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7469 

Having said that Mr. President, I believe that Medicare is hardly the only 

problem with this proposed budget. 

I have said on this floor, and I will 

say it again, that we face an enormous 

fiscal deficit and I am prepared to 

make the cuts necessary to reduce the 

deficit and avoid bankrupting our children and grandchildren, if they pass 

the fairness test and the common sense 

tests. 

But I want to discuss how this budget 

fails to address the two other American 

deficits. 

Yes, we face a growing fiscal deficit, 

but we also face a growing investment 

deficit and a growing spiritual deficit, 

and this budget is wrongheaded in not 

understanding or appreciating the significance and interrelation of the three 

American deficits that are ruining this 

nation. 

As much as we need to reduce the fiscal deficit we also need to increase living standards, create jobs, educate our 

children and our workforce, and preserve and protect the quality of life 

that generations of Americans have 

come to expect. 

I believe the budget debate should 

focus on attacking all three of these 

deficits: 

The first is the fiscal deficit. The national debt has more than tripled since 

1979 and will soon top $5 billion. Just 

the interest payments on the debt affect every other budget decision we can 

make. We know that. 

We know that if we let this continue, 

we will be crowding out all the other 

choices we can make: how much we can 

spend on national defense and on essential social programs like drug treatment and prevention. 

The second deficit is the investment 

deficit. We need to find ways to invest 

in our infrastructure as well as in our 

people. A nation that does not invest is 

a nation that has given up hope for the 

future. We are not such a nation. 

And let me tell you, we are a nation 

that has always found a way to build 

and grow—re-tool and re-invest in education, in business, in the arts and 

sciences, in our culture and in our families. We need to remove unnecessary 

regulations so business can create jobs 

while, at the same time, we maintain 

the health and safety of every American. 

The third deficit is the spiritual deficit. Values, my friends, do not come 

from laws and speeches. They come 

from families, teachers, and churches. 

There are millions of young Americans today who no longer have significant contact with any of these sources. 

If this country is going to have children having children; if families are 

going to continue to erode—then our 

ability to reach these kids is essential. 

If that means investing in community 

organizations with a track record of 

success, then we should do it. 

So, I submit that this budget debate 

needs to go beyond the political rhetoric about our fiscal deficit. We all 

agree that we need to downsize and 

streamline government, but we must 

not lose sight of our obligation to reinvest in our people and in our nation 

to keep both strong. 

Mr. President, let me quote from an 

editorial on this budget debate in the 

Washington Post on Tuesday by E.J. 

Dionne. I think he asks an important 

question that must be addressed. 

He asks, ‘‘Will Democrats be bold 

enough to question the Republicans’

core assumptions about government? 

The issue in this debate,’’ he said, 

‘‘should not be whether to reduce the 

deficit, but how that can be done in 

ways that will increase living standards and average wages, which have 

been dropping for two decades.’’

Now, Mr. President, I am challenging 

those core assumptions of the Republicans because I believe they are shortsighted and wrong. And I believe that 

we will not be in an economic position 

to increase living standards until we 

have a budget that addresses the three 

American deficits simultaneously. 

In fact, Mr. President, I submit that 

if we pass this budget we will dramatically increase our investment and our 

spiritual deficits because we will not 

have committed ourselves to creating 

opportunities and jobs. We will not 

have committed to preserving the fundamental structural integrity of our 

nation—whether it’s our roads, railroads, and bridges, or our values and 

our belief in citizenship and in the concept of community. 

This budget, Mr. President, is, therefore, wrong-headed, misdirected. It 

doesn’t make any sense. It fails the 

common sense test. It fails the fairness 

test. 

This budget disinvests in people and 

makes us less competitive. 

It cuts Medicare by $256 billion; it 

cuts student aid by $14 billion; it terminates AMTRAK by the year 2000—

terminates it. 

Do you know that we are 34th in the 

world in our commitment to our rail 

system which industry and commerce 

rely on. We are behind Ecuador and 

just ahead of Bangladesh. And the Republicans now want to cut all support 

for the railroads. 

The proposed budget decimates environmental programs and cuts all the 

crime prevention programs we passed 

last year. 

It cuts $34 billion from food and nutrition programs. 

It cuts unemployment compensation, 

SSI, and other programs under the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee by 

$66 billion. 

But this so called revolution doesn’t 

stop there. It disinvests in our infrastructure by cutting $3 billion for airports, highways and school improvements. 

It disinvests in job training for young 

people by cutting $272 million. It 

disinvests in summer jobs for kids by 

cutting $871 million. It even disinvests 

in safe drinking water with a $1.3 billion cut in grants to the states to keep 

our water clean. 

These are not just draconian cuts 

that go to the heart of our ability to 

address the three deficits we face. They 

are the symbol, Mr. President, of a 

wrong-headed political philosophy that 

does not represent the mainstream of 

America. 

So, I submit that this budget is fundamentally flawed in its concept and is 

designed simply to achieve the political goals of a minority of anti-government zealots who are blind to the real 

needs of this nation. They cut what we 

need and keep what we don’t. 

Let me conclude by saying, Mr. 

President, that I am emphatically for a 

balanced budget. I voted for the Bradley and Conrad alternative budgets because, though they are not perfect, 

they better protect Medicare, Medicaid, education, and other critical 

government services and they make 

better choices than the Republican 

leadership’s budget. 

What the Bradley and Conrad alternatives prove is that we can balance 

the budget in less than ten years without increasing income tax rates for 

lower- and middle-income Americans. 

They prove in some what different 

ways that we can balance the budget 

without pillaging or eliminating key 

government services on which tens of 

millions of Americans depend and 

which are critical to keeping our nation competitive and our people 

healthy, happy, and safe. 

Both of these alternatives balance 

the budget in a fairer fashion than the 

Republican leadership in both the 

House and the Senate has tried to persuade the American people is possible. 

Mr. President, until my Republican 

colleagues understand that this budget 

is about people and their future and 

the future of our nations, and that 

there are three deficits we face as a nation—until they change their core assumptions about what we must preserve as well as what we must cut, then 

they will have failed, as the majority 

party, to legislate in the best interest 

of the people who have entrusted them 

with the fundamental process of this 

democracy. As I oppose this Budget 

Resolution, I commit to continue 

working to place us on a different 

course that will permit us to realize 

our potential as a nation. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1150

OIL AND GAS LEASING IN THE ARCTIC NATIONAL

WILDLIFE REFUGE

Mr. KERRY. Yesterday the Senate 

voted on an amendment sponsored by 

Senator ROTH which removed from the 

budget all savings attributable to enactment of legislation to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to 

oil and gas leasing. The Arctic Refuge 

is often referred to as America’s 

Serengeti because of its outstanding 

wildlife, beauty and recreation opportunities. ANWR serves as the staging 

area for thousands of migratory birds, 

denning habitat for polar bears, and 

calving grounds for the 160,000 member 

Porcupine Caribou Herd. Moreover, the 

Refuge plays an integral part in the 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7470 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

lives of the Gwich’in people, whose 

members depend upon the seasonal migrations of the caribou for both survival and cultural identity. The biological heart of this pristine wilderness 

is the 1.5 million acre coastal plain. 

The fate of ANWR has been the subject of a complex and highly contested 

debate for more than a decade. That is 

why I am deeply saddened that the 

Budget Committee would use this back 

door approach via the budget process 

to try to open one of the Nation’s last 

great wilderness areas to oil drilling. 

Under current law, receipts generated from assets sales and leases cannot be used for deficit reduction. I fear 

using the anticipated $1.4 billion proceeds from opening ANWR to drilling 

for deficit reduction may signal the beginning of a ‘‘fire sale’’ of natural resources such as the ANWR. For many 

Americans, trading the Arctic Refuge 

wilderness for a one-time budget reduction, and the possibility but only the 

possibility of finding oil, is simply not 

worth it. The environmental costs of 

opening the Refuge to leasing are not 

worth the estimated benefits, especially when the oil—estimated to supply only a 200 days supply of oil for the 

nation—is not needed because small 

gains in energy conservation could provide both more energy and more job 

creation than developing all of the potential for oil available in ANWR. It is 

very ironic that, while taking the first 

step towards opening up ANWR for exploration for petroleum, this budget 

will cut funding for energy conservation programs that could decrease our 

dependence on petroleum and create 

more U.S. jobs. A national energy efficiency program would create, on average, ten times the number of jobs that 

might be produced from Arctic Refuge 

drilling. 

All Americans have a stake in our 

national wildlife refuges and parks. 

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is 

the crown jewel of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Refuge is a 

wilderness area unique not only in the 

United States but in the world. The 

words of the renowned naturalist, 

George Schaller, say it all: 

Based on my experience, I conclude that 

the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in all its 

magnificent diversity, from mountain range 

to coastal plain, is unique and irreplaceable 

not just on a national basis, but also on an 

international basis. It is sometimes thought 

that there are still many remote and untouched wilderness areas in which the 

earth’s biological diversity will be protected 

. . . Most remote ecosystems, both inside 

and outside reserves, are rapidly being modified. The Refuge has remained a rare exception. It represents one of the last and true 

large wilderness areas left on earth, an area 

unspoiled, its biological systems intact. Our 

civilization will be measured by what we 

leave behind. The Refuge was established not 

for economic value but as a statement of our 

nation’s vision. There are certain places on 

earth that are so unique that they must be 

preserved without compromise . . . Such 

places include the Virunga Volcanoes with 

its mountain gorillas, the Serengeti plains, 

the Chang Tang of Tibet—and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 

Mr. President, I voted for the Roth 

amendment primarily because I believe 

it is unconscionable to allow the degradation of the ‘‘biological heart’’ of 

the only complete arctic ecosystem 

protected in North America without a 

thorough and substantive debate undertaken in full view of the American 

public. I terribly regret a majority of 

the Senate did not vote the same way 

and that we moved one step closer to 

what I believe is an unacceptable outcome. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield 2 

minutes to the Senator from North Dakota. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized. 

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. I 

thank the ranking member. 

I wish to commend the chairman of 

the Budget Committee and commend 

the ranking member for really an exceptional effort. The chairman of the 

Budget Committee has been truly dedicated to balancing the budget and deficit reduction for as long as I have been 

a Member of this body, and I wish to 

pay respect to that commitment. 

The goal is absolutely right. This is 

precisely what we must do for the 

country’s future. I think all of us who 

have worked on the budget understand 

that we must rein in the growth of entitlements, we must look at freezing 

defense spending and domestic discretionary spending if we are going to 

have a chance to do what is the right 

economic policy for this Nation’s future. It will mean a better future for 

America if we achieve a balanced budget. 

Mr. President, I do not believe the 

specifics that we have in this plan are 

yet a fair sharing of the burden of deficit reduction. 

It seems to me that the middle-class 

children and the elderly have been ordered into the front lines, but the 

wealthiest among us have been ushered 

to the sidelines. More than that, they 

have been put at the head of the line 

for additional tax preferences, tax 

breaks, and tax loopholes. 

Mr. President, I do not think that is 

right. A group of us offered an alternative. We called it the fair share plan 

because we think it had a more equitable distribution of the burden of 

reaching a balanced budget, and we 

reached a balanced budget in the year 

2004 without counting the Social Security surpluses. We had more deficit reduction in the year 2002 than the plan 

we will vote on momentarily. 

But perhaps the most interesting 

irony is that as part of our plan, we 

proposed closing tax preferences and 

tax loopholes. Yesterday, the other 

side said that was a tax increase. But 

interestingly enough, the last vote 

that we had on an amendment offered 

by a Republican Senator was to do precisely what we advocated. 

The Senator from Maine offered an 

amendment to restore funding to education priorities and do it by closing 

tax preferences and tax loopholes. I am 

glad they have put it on the table. It 

got 67 votes, when that was the last 

amendment adopted because that is 

precisely what direction we ought to 

take to reach a fair conclusion when 

we vote on reconciliation. I hope we do 

that, Mr. President. I hope we do that. 

Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who 

seeks recognition? 

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield 

me 2 minutes? 

Mr. EXON. I yield 2 minutes. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 2 minutes. 

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, we have 

reached an important point in dealing 

with the budget deficit. The Senator 

from New Mexico has proposed a deficit 

reduction budget that is real. The Senator from Nebraska and the Senator 

from the State of North Dakota and 

Senator BRADLEY and I, although they 

are different plans, have introduced 

proposals that are real, genuine reductions in working on a balanced budget 

and moving to a balanced budget within 7 years. 

But there is a big difference here. I 

believe the one we are about to vote on 

is simply not fair. We can get there 

from here fairly. There is a fundamental difference in the approach 

taken by Senator BRADLEY and myself 

and the Senator from North Dakota, 

and others, and the Republican proposal, and that is, we put a lot less burden on the elderly, a lot less burden, or 

no burden, on college loans, a lot less 

burden on middle-class folks. We increase the burden on other elements of 

society. The point is, we do look at and 

do play a major part in dealing with 

closing tax loopholes. 

It is a big difference. It is a fundamental difference, but this is only the 

first round of the fight. This is a budget resolution that does not mean a 

darn thing other than as it guides us. It 

is not a law. It does not change anything. The President does not get to 

veto it or sign it. We now get into the 

hard stuff, the hard part. 

I am confident that as the American 

people understand the commitment on 

both sides to move to a balanced budget, they are going to be able to begin to 

weigh what the real costs are, and they 

are going to make a judgment whether 

or not cutting Medicare and Medicaid 

by $400 billion is a better way to go 

than closing $176 billion worth of tax 

loopholes. They are going to make 

those basic judgments. I think we will 

be back at it again. I compliment the 

managers of the bill for their diligent 

effort. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who 

seeks recognition? 

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 1 minute to 

Senator THURMOND. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

President pro tempore of the U.S. Senate is recognized. 

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, we 

have the greatest nation in the world. 

It has given us more freedom, more justice, more opportunity and more hope 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7471 

than any nation has given its people in 

the history of the world. If we are 

going to keep it free, though, and enjoy 

freedom and democracy, we have to do 

at least two things: We have to keep a 

defense that is strong to protect us 

from our enemies. And the other thing 

is, we have to take steps to handle our 

finances correctly. We have not balanced this budget but once in 32 years, 

eight times in 64 years. We cannot keep 

on like this. 

I want to commend Senator DOMENICI, the chairman, for the great job he 

has done. I also commend the able Senator from Nebraska for how he has 

handled this bill on the floor. In addition I commend Senator DOLE, for the 

leadership he provides. 

Mr. President, we must take steps to 

take care of our finances. If we do that, 

and protect our defense, we can continue as the greatest nation in the 

world. I hope we will take a step tonight toward putting our fiscal house 

in order, and pass this Budget Resolution. I thank the chair and yield the 

floor. 

Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished majority leader. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, it is my 

understanding both the distinguished 

minority leader and the majority leader each have 5 minutes of the allotted 

40 minutes. How much time is remaining? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There 

are 9 minutes left for the Senator from 

New Mexico and 2 minutes left for the 

Senator from Nebraska. 

Mr. DOLE. I wonder if I might inquire of the Democratic leader, will he 

speak following the Senator from New 

Mexico? 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the order, I 

thought, was I would speak, Senator 

DOMENICI would speak, Senator 

DASCHLE, and then Senator DOLE. That 

is what we tentatively agreed to. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I 

yield myself 41⁄2 minutes so the Senator 

from Kansas can make the final remarks on our side. 

Mr. President, there are so many people to thank. I do not believe I am 

going to try to thank them name by 

name, because I am going to forget 

some. But I must say, there are 11 Senators that I must thank very personally and very specifically. 

Senator DOLE, on January 6, assigned 

the Budget Committee and I was its 

chairman. As I looked at the Senators 

that were assigned and the Senators 

that were left from previous years, I 

wondered how would I get 12 Senators 

to vote together. 

Maybe to those on the outside they 

would not understand this, but let me 

just read off the names as I thank them 

individually and share with our leader 

how difficult and daunting I thought 

the chore was on January 6: 

Senator GRASSLEY, Senator NICKLES, 

Senator GRAMM of Texas, Senator 

BOND, Senator LOTT, Senator BROWN, 

Senator GREGG, Senator GORTON, Senator SNOWE, Senator ABRAHAM, and 

Senator FRIST. That is a very diverse 

group of Republican Senators. 

But let me say to the American people, a very significant event is going to 

occur tonight when we vote on this balanced budget. And as it is recorded and 

as we look back on it, while many deserve credit, none deserve the credit 

more than these 11 Senators who joined 

with me in producing what I am absolutely convinced is a fair budget, is a 

good budget and will, indeed, protect 

today and tomorrow. It is a budget for 

today and a budget for tomorrow. 

The tomorrow part is shown right 

here behind me. I am not going to go 

through each one. Here are five little 

children and a set of twins. 

Mr. President, if you look at those 

big numbers on each of these including—let us pick whatever you want, 

Sam and Nicholas. You can guess about 

how old they are. You see that $151,000. 

Mr. President, I say to my fellow Senators that $151,000 is what those children will pay out of their income to 

pay the interest on the national debt if 

we were to adopt the President’s budget and stay at current law. 

Mr. President, I say to my fellow 

Senators, we can talk all we want 

about who this budget helps and who it 

hurts. But I want to tell you, for one 

thing, you cannot continue to do that 

to our children or there will be no 

America, there will be no future. For 

what will young people have to work 

for if they work for us to pay our interest on our debts which we adult leaders 

refuse to pay? 

Frankly, what we are saying today is 

a very simple vision. For the first time 

in 25 years, the grown-up leadership of 

America is going to say we are going to 

pay our own bills. If we want to give 

citizens of the United States benefits, 

if we want to have programs that we 

herald across America, we are going to 

pay for them or we are not going to 

have them. That is what this budget 

says, 7 years from now, not tomorrow, 

for some would say, is it not too quick? 

How quick is too quick? Twenty-five 

years in deficit and 7 more in deficit—

that is 32, I say to my friend. When is 

it enough? Mr. President, let me suggest that Senator EXON has been a 

marvelous ranking member, and I 

thank him, his great staff and my 

great staff. But I do not believe it is 

fair to say that there was no room for 

cooperation. It is now many, many 

days since we put forth a comprehensive budget that everyone that has 

looked at it says not only is it fair, but 

it is filled with integrity. It is honest, 

it has no smoke and mirrors, and, if 

implemented, its probability for a balance is very, very high. We cannot do 

much better for our people than to 

produce that. 

Now, frankly, I have not seen any 

real serious effort to try to address the 

issues that we put before the Budget 

Committee or here on the floor. Frankly, in the committee they have an argument. The first couple of days they 

did not know enough about it. Even 

after they found out about it, the 

amendments all went to spending more 

money but taking it out of the reserve 

fund. 

I close today saying to my fellow 

Americans—young, old, seniors, military men—you all ought to be proud of 

the Senate tonight because we will 

vote about 56 or 57 strong to preserve 

today and make sure that we are 

strong and powerful in the future and 

that our children live in a land of opportunity. 

I yield the floor. 

Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

Democratic leader is recognized. 

Mr. DASCHLE. How much time remains? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four and 

a half minutes to the Senator from 

New Mexico, 2 minutes to the Senator 

from Nebraska. 

Mr. DASCHLE. I will use additional 

leader time, if I must, to accommodate 

whatever time is required for my remarks. 

Mr. President, let me begin by commending the distinguished chairman of 

the Budget Committee and the ranking 

member for what I consider to be an 

outstanding job. They have led this 

Senate in the last several days in a 

very good-faith effort, and I applaud 

their work, and I applaud the staff, especially, for what has been an extraordinarily arduous and extremely meaningful project for which we can all be 

very proud. 

Let me also say there is absolutely 

no disagreement with what the chairman said about those children. There is 

no disagreement about how concerned 

we are about the debt they are incurring. There is no disagreement whatsoever about their futures and how important it is that we address this budget. The only disagreement is how we 

got the interest amounts that were 

designated under each picture. The 

amounts those children have to pay, in 

large measure, were run up in the 

Reagan and Bush administration years, 

and everyone understands that. 

The question now is: How do we get 

out of it? Because for the last couple of 

years, that is what this administration 

has given us the opportunity to do—to 

begin making the downpayment on a 

balanced Federal budget. 

So this debate is about priorities. It 

is not about goals. Everyone understands the importance of the goal. We 

agree on the need for a balanced budget. We agree on the need for a date certain by which the budget should be balanced. We agree on the tough choices 

that have to be made. 

We offered over 50 amendments to 

this budget resolution and not one—

not one, Mr. President—would have increased the debt. Not $1. Only one 

moved back the date, because it was 

honest, because it did what we said a 

couple of months ago we had to do, and 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7472 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

that was to exclude Social Security. In 

fact, this budget resolution does not 

bring about a balanced Federal budget 

by the year 2002 as touted. On page 7, 

on line 21, it shows that we will still 

have a $113 billion debt, money borrowed from the Social Security trust 

fund to make the budget appear balanced. 

Whether or not Social Security is included, let me reiterate that this debate is about priorities. This debate is 

about what is important. With or without Social Security, we agree on the 

goal. 

When it comes to those priorities, 

this budget resolution, in the opinion 

of most Senators on this side of the 

aisle, is fundamentally flawed. We have 

many substantive disagreements, but 

most of them boil down to one core difference—the Republican majority has 

insisted on tax cuts for the wealthiest 

1 million Americans, and they have 

made that the highest priority above 

everything else. As a result, this budget takes the side of the privileged few. 

It virtually abandons ordinary Americans, families, students, veterans, seniors, and children. It demands deep sacrifice from America’s middle class, 

while it showers tax cuts on the elite. 

We knew the Republicans had the 

votes to pass this resolution. That was 

never in doubt. What Democrats have 

tried to do is to reveal the truth about 

this budget and to try as best we can to 

improve it. 

Without increasing the debt, Mr. 

President, our priority was to ensure 

that millions of older Americans have 

access to health care, by taking $100 

billion in tax cuts for the most prosperous among us and investing in the 

health of senior citizens. The Republicans said ‘‘no.’’

Without increasing the debt, we tried 

to help millions of young Americans by 

investing $40 billion in education and 

averting the largest educational cuts 

in our Nation’s history. The Republicans said ‘‘no.’’

Without increasing the debt, we tried 

to assist 12 million working Americans 

by repealing a $21 billion tax increase 

by slightly reducing the huge tax 

breaks going to the 1 million wealthiest among us. The Republicans said 

‘‘no.’’

Without increasing the debt, we tried 

to invest a small part of the tax cuts in 

science, technology and research. The 

Republicans said ‘‘no.’’

We tried to use the tax cuts to reduce 

the deficit. The Republicans said ‘‘no.’’

With our amendments—and without 

increasing the debt—we tried to help 

seniors, to lower the heavy burden on 

students, to attempt to be fair to veterans and to farmers and to small businessmen and to families, to reduce the 

deficit. And on virtually every occasion, the Republicans said ‘‘no.’’

We even tried to ensure that the middle class would be the beneficiaries if 

we had a tax cut, and that 90 percent of 

the benefit would not go to the 10 percent of us who are the most well-to-do. 

And again, the Republicans said ‘‘no.’’

Time after time, amendment after 

amendment, the wealthy won and the 

middle class lost. 

Fairness and equal sacrifice were 

great goals, but they were lost to the 

higher Republican priority—a tax cut 

we simply cannot afford. 

This budget is fundamentally flawed, 

Mr. President. It does not strengthen 

America; it weakens it. It does not 

bring us together; it moves us apart. 

The ‘‘haves’’ will have more and the 

rest will have less. 

It is not what the American people 

would have as their priorities, not 

when you put tax cuts for the privileged ahead of seniors, students, families and deficit reduction. 

But this is a long process. It is only 

the beginning. Today is the easy part. 

When the American people understand 

whose side this budget is on, I believe 

they will demand that we change it. By 

the time the committees confront the 

hard choices in reconciliation, the public will understand who is sacrificing 

and who is benefitting. This budget 

will be altered, or it will not become 

law. 

Democrats remain committed to balancing the budget. We remain open to 

working with Republicans to fashion a 

bipartisan budget. But it must be a 

budget that asks equal sacrifice and 

does not exclude the privileged few. 

It must be a budget that invests in 

America, even as we reduce spending, a 

budget that pulls Americans together, 

rather than divide us. We can do that, 

Mr. President. It is not beyond our 

reach. And the American people expect 

no less. 

I yield the floor. 

Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, like most 

Senators, I have lost track of the meetings I have attended. But a few years 

back, I was in a meeting that I will 

never forget. 

These people were not presidents or 

prime ministers. They did not run big 

businesses. In fact, most of them did 

not even have a job. 

Who were they? They were high 

school seniors—100 of them—one boy 

and one girl from each State. 

The reason why I will never forget 

that day is because of what they 

taught me—and what they should 

teach all of us. 

Sometime during our meeting, one 

young man stood up and said, ‘‘Senator, it seems like every group of 

Americans is represented in Washington. Everyone has somebody who 

speaks for them.’’ ‘‘But who speaks for 

us?’’ He asked me, ‘‘Who speaks for the 

future?’’

It was a good question then. And it is 

a good question now. 

And for far too long, the answer has 

been that ‘‘No one speaks for the future.’’ Instead, we have piled deficit 

upon deficit, mortgaging our children’s 

future for the temporary convenience 

of the present. 

But today, the Senate will make a 

statement, and we will make history in 

the process. 

We will finally begin to unpile the 

deficits. We will finally begin to speak 

for the future. And we will do it with 

one word—leadership. 

Harry Truman was right when he 

said: 

Where there is no leadership, society 

stands still. Progress occurs when courageous leaders seize the opportunity to 

change things for the better. 

And let us be frank. When it comes to 

reducing the deficit, Congress has 

stood still—frozen in place year after 

year after year, as our debt grew bigger 

and bigger and bigger. 

But in November 1994, Americans 

voted to change all that. For the first 

time in 40 years, they gave control of 

Congress to the Republican Party. And 

with that control came a responsibility. 

A responsibility to do what we promised—a responsibility to act courageously—a responsibility to change 

things for the better. 

And under the leadership of Senator 

DOMENICI that is exactly what we have 

done. We have accepted the responsibility of leadership. We have made the 

tough choices. We have put a plan on 

the table that will result in a balanced 

budget within 7 years. 

This budget is based on the underlying principle that we simply cannot 

go on spending our children’s money. 

In fulfilling that principle, those bureaucracies and programs counting on 

their usual big spending increases must 

learn to make do with less—$961 billion 

less over the next 7 years, to be exact. 

And we begin right here in Congress, 

as this budget reduces legislative 

branch spending by some $200 million. 

Those who are used to more and more 

power flowing to Washington, DC, will 

have to adjust to a new tide, where 

power is carried back to the States and 

to the people. 

And we will have to learn how to 

make do without the Department of 

Commerce, and its more than 140 Federal departments, agencies, and programs. This Senator is confident that 

we will do just fine, thank you. 

And despite the rhetoric coming out 

of the White House, this budget also 

recognizes that Government has certain responsibilities. 

Responsibilities like taking the steps 

necessary to preserve, improve, and 

protect Medicare, which three of the 

President’s Cabinet members tell us 

will go bankrupt in 7 years if we do 

nothing. We do this by slowing the 

growth rate of Medicare—while still allowing Medicare spending to increase 

by $1.6 trillion. 

This budget also recognizes that 

there are those in need who depend on 

Government programs, and who often 

have nowhere else to turn. 

Therefore, it provides for an additional $36 billion in spending for Medicaid. 

It increases funding for the Women/ 

Infant/Children Program by $2 billion. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 25, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7473 

It increases funding for food stamps, 

for aid to families with dependent children, for supplemental security income. and for the earned income tax 

credit. 

Is the budget perfect? Of course not. 

Some of us would have reduced spending in other programs than the ones 

chosen. Some of us would have increased spending in others. And some 

of us—including this Senator—would 

have dedicated more funds to reducing 

the tax burden on Americans. 

But make no mistake about it, this 

budget does provide tax relief. 

The $170 billion fund this budget creates must and will be devoted to tax reductions that will help America’s families, stimulate savings, increase investment, create jobs, and promote economic growth. 

Family tax credits, spousal IRA’s, estate tax relief for family businesses, 

and a capital gains rate reduction are 

some of the actions I will promote as 

Senate majority leader, and as a member of the Finance Committee. 

Additionally, it’s no secret that when 

the House and Senate return from conference on our respective budgets, we 

are likely to to return with a budget 

that will dedicate even more funds to 

tax relief. 

Mr. President, when Republicans 

drew up our plan to reach a balanced 

budget, we also drew a line in the sand. 

And we said that those who are serious about balancing the budget will 

cross that line and work with us, or 

propose an alternative. 

And those who are not serious will 

stay on the other side of the line and 

offer no leadership. I regret to say that 

President Clinton has never come close 

to crossing that line. 

While he says we have the wrong 

plan, he never comes close to saying 

what the right plan is—except one that 

gave America $200 to $300 billion deficits well into the next century, and 

that would have added $1.2 trillion to 

our debt in the next 5 years. 

Thankfully, that plan was defeated 

by a vote of 99–0. 

Instead of leadership, the President 

offers fear. And he casts his net far and 

wide. Seniors, children, the so-called 

middle class, the needy, farmers, students, the list goes on and on. Each 

day, the President tells them they 

should be afraid of our budget, they 

should be afraid of Republicans. 

Let me again quote the words of 

Harry Truman. Truman said: 

America was not built on fear. America 

was built on courage, on imagination, and an 

unbeatable determination to do the job at 

hand. 

So, Mr. President, we will win this 

vote today. We will take our budget to 

conference. We will work with the Republican majority in the House. And 

we will return with a plan that will 

balance the budget in 7 years. We will 

do it with the help of the American 

people—people who have always exhibited courage, imagination, and an unbeatable determination to do the job at 

hand. 

I conclude where I began. With 

speaking for the future. And I conclude 

not by quoting Harry Truman, but by 

quoting another President. 

Somewhere at this very moment, another 

child is born in America. Let it be our cause 

to give that child a happy home, a healthy 

family, a hopeful future. Let it be our cause 

to see that child reach the fullest of their 

God-given abilities. 

Those words were spoken by Bill 

Clinton in 1992, as he accepted his party’s nomination for President. 

And with passage of this budget, Republicans will turn those words into 

action. Because somewhere at this very 

moment, another child is born in 

America. 

And that child comes into the world 

already owing $18,500 as his or her 

share of the national debt. 

That child comes into the world with 

the knowledge that he or she will pay 

$163,300 in taxes during his working life 

just to pay off interest on the debt. 

That child comes into a world facing a 

future of fewer jobs, fewer opportunities, and higher interest rates. 

Today, with this vote, we begin to 

change that child’s world for better. 

Today, we begin to speak for all the 

children born today and in the days to 

come. 

Today, we begin to speak for the future. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the Senate 

proceed to consideration of Calendar 

No. 115, the House budget resolution. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The clerk will report. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

A concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 67) 

setting forth the congressional budget for 

the United States Government for the fiscal 

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there 

objection to the immediate consideration of the concurrent resolution? 

There being no objection, the Senate 

proceeded to consider the concurrent 

resolution. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that all after the 

resolving clause be stricken and the 

text of Senate Concurrent Resolution 

13, as amended, be substituted in lieu 

thereof, and that the Senate amendment be adopted, and that all time on 

the resolution be yielded back. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The question is now on agreeing to 

the concurrent resolution. 

Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized. 

Mr. DOLE. I ask for the yeas and 

nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

CHANGE OF VOTE

Mr. HATFIELD. On rollcall vote No. 

231, I voted ‘‘no.’’ It was my intention 

to vote ‘‘yea.’’ Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to 

change my vote. This will in no way 

change the outcome of the vote. This 

has been cleared by the two leaders. 

(The foregoing tally has been 

changed to reflect the above order.) 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the concurrent resolution, as amended. The yeas 

and nays have been ordered. The clerk 

will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk called the roll. 

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Ms. MIKULSKI] is 

necessarily absent. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? 

The result was announced—yeas 57, 

nays 42, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 232 Leg.] 

YEAS—57 

Abraham 

Ashcroft 

Bennett 

Bond 

Brown 

Burns 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

DeWine 

Dole 

Domenici 

Faircloth 

Frist 

Gorton 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Helms 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Jeffords 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kerrey 

Kyl 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Murkowski 

Nickles 

Nunn 

Packwood 

Pressler 

Robb 

Roth 

Santorum 

Shelby 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

NAYS—42 

Akaka 

Baucus 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Byrd 

Conrad 

Daschle 

Dodd 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Glenn 

Graham 

Harkin 

Heflin 

Hollings 

Inouye 

Johnston 

Kennedy 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murray 

Pell 

Pryor 

Reid 

Rockefeller 

Sarbanes 

Simon 

Wellstone 

NOT VOTING—1 

Mikulski 

So the concurrent resolution (H. Con. 

Res. 67), as amended, was agreed to. 

(The text of the concurrent resolution will be printed in a future edition 

of the RECORD.) 

(Applause.) 

Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished majority leader. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to 

reconsider the vote by which the concurrent resolution was agreed to. 

Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the Senate insist on its amendment and request a 

conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and 

that the Chair be authorized to appoint 

conferees. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7474 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 25, 1995 

Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized. 

f 

MORNING BUSINESS 

Mr. DOLE. I want to ask that there 

be a period for the transaction of routine morning business for about the 

next 10 minutes or so. There are a couple of people who want to speak. Then 

we will turn to the terrorism bill. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for the 

transaction of routine morning business with Members permitted to speak 

for not more than 5 minutes each, and 

that at 6:45 the Senate then turn to the 

consideration of Calendar No. 192, S. 

735, the antiterrorism bill. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

GRAMS). The Senator from Vermont is 

recognized. 

Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Chair. 

(The remarks of Mr. JEFFORDS pertaining to the introduction of S. 856 are 

located in today’s RECORD under 

‘‘Statements on Introduced Bills and 

Joint Resolutions.

f 

’’) 

HEARINGS ON TERRORISM 

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the 

Subcommittee on Terrorism of the Judiciary Committee was scheduled to 

have hearings on terrorism today. 

Those hearings could not be held because the Senate was in session continuously from 9 a.m. with rollcall 

votes of 9 minutes. So those hearings 

had to be postponed. They are going to 

be held on Thursday, June 8. 

A good many people came from substantial distances. I expressed our regrets that we could not hold the hearing. But it was not possible to do so. 

But I did tell them that the statements 

which had been submitted would be put 

in the RECORD at this time so that 

their prepared statements could at 

least be read by Members of the Senate 

or those interested in reading them. 

At this time, I ask unanimous consent that the statement of attorney 

John W. DeCamp, the statement of Mr. 

Norman Olson, the statement of Mr. 

Leroy Crenshaw, and the statement of 

the Militia of Montana be printed in 

the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the statements were ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

Memorandum from: Senator John W. DeCamp, Atty. 

To: Sub Committee on Terrorism, U.S. Senator Judiciary Committee. 

Re: Testimony to Committee. 

To paraphrase an old saying. . . . ‘‘Five 

months ago I couldn’t spell ‘Militia’ and now 

I represent one.’’

It was five months ago I agreed to PROVIDE LEGAL ASSISTANCE TO the leaders 

of the Montana Militia on a dozen felonies. 

Why? I felt the felony charges involved open 

and shut first amendment issues of freedom 

of speech, assembly and right to petition 

Government issues, and have learned a 

wealth of information since that time—particularly in light of the Oklahoma bombing 

and the anti-militia movement. 

Before I go too much further, let me give 

brief background on myself and let me answer the first questions that press and your 

staff asked of me. 

Question: Are you a white supremacist? 

My wife is Vietnamese—one of the 

Boatpeople. Our four home made 

AMERASIAN children are the four most 

beautiful and talented mixed race children 

on the planet. My business partner is African-American. My Comptroller is Indian 

from Bombay & my legal associates over the 

years have been mostly Jewish. You make 

your own conclusions. 

Question: Are these militias dangerous? 

Absolutely yes, and absolutely no. 

First, the media and MOST OF US have 

made the same fundamental error (‘‘Cat Bagging’’ I call it) as was made during the 

McCarthy Era, during the Vietnam War Protest Movement, and during Watergate. 

That is, we lump all the Militias, the So 

Called Patriot groups, and Tax Protesters 

and Free Men & Survivalist Groups together 

as identical cats and then put them all into 

one bag. 

Second, we SELECT An individual or entity that is simply off the spectrum in their 

beliefs, one not tethered to reality and attribute those horrible characteristics to all 

the militias. In short, we ‘‘demonize’’ them. 

Quickly, they are all labeled as white supremacist, racist, anti-government, paranoid 

revolutionaries fixing to blow up the world. 

The truth is that there is as much diversity among these groups as there is among 

religious groups. As a young boy, I remember 

sitting in the front pew and hearing the 

Priest in my small town of 1,800 people explain why the Protestants were all going to 

hell. And, on Monday morning at school my 

best friend, a Protestant kid named Jimmy, 

would explain to me that his preacher had 

told him the same thing about us Catholics 

the day before. 

It has been my observation that many of 

these groups—particularly the ones I considered not tethered to reality—are a bit like 

the Priest and the Preacher * * *. That is, 

much of their effort is devoted to explaining 

to their members why the other group are 

not real patriots, or why Bo Gritz or John 

Trochman are really C.I.A. agents. 

In truth, most of the militia groups—Montana Militia, Oklahoma Militia, New Hampshire Militia—could be classified as middle of 

the road among hard conservatives. What do 

I mean? 

Ten, twenty and thirty years ago they are 

the individuals who were clamoring for ‘‘Law 

and Order.’

I suppose it is ironic, some might say poetic, that what many of them sought, ‘‘Law 

and Order’’ has now come to pass in a FORM 

they deem to be excess * * * that is too 

much oppressive law and abuse of the Constitution. And ‘‘order’’ has become what they 

fear to be ‘‘a new world order.’’ And thru 

speaking out, they want everyone to know 

this attitude on their part and their fears 

and concerns. 

But are they dangerous? 

They are a political movement. All political movements are dangerous to some other 

political movement they run counter to. 

That is how our system of government 

evolves * * * thru political conflict and wars 

fought with words instead of bullets and 

fought in the press and from the bully pulpit 

instead of on the battlefield. 

Ultimately, that is the only truly distinguishing feature separating our 200-year-old 

political system from all others that went 

before it. Namely, the ability thru verbal 

conflict and battle for our system to reverse 

itself (revolution) and go in an opposite direction without the necessity of a violent 

revolution. 

But are they physically dangerous or a 

threat to our Government or our Constitution? 

You judge * * * but do it on the facts, not 

on innuendo or the words of the natural enemies of these militias, namely, other political groups opposed to their philosophy. 

To the best of my knowledge, there are no 

reported incidents of any significance of militias being involved in any of the following: 

1. Drive by shootings. 

2. The drug trade. 

3. Use of children for pornography, 

pedophilia & drug couriers. 

4. Gang wars. 

5. Auto theft. 

6. Murder, rape, robbery, trafficking in illegal arms. 

If militias are involved in these somebody 

is not reporting them. And I doubt that. 

For benefit of those who might differ with 

me on this, I would point out that in each of 

the incidents you might be familiar with, 

Gordon Kahl, Radny Weaver, Waco, the 

events were initiated by the Government in 

an attempt to serve usually misdemeanor 

warrants on contested tax matters using 

overwhelming force and what in hindsight 

seems rather poor judgement. 

In short, an analysis by you will show that 

the militias themselves have been the victim 

of violence rather than the perpetrator or 

initiator. 

As an example to prove my point, I challenge this committee to examine the most 

notorious & deadly event in American history involving U.S. marshals * * * namely, 

the Gordon Kahl shoot-out 12 years ago in 

which about a half-dozen marshals were 

shot, and Kahl escaped resulting in the largest manhunt in American history. 

Have the courage to OBJECTIVELY examine this event—same with Waco—, and you 

will begin to understand the origins of the 

militia movement, their disenchantment and 

fear of law enforcement and Government. 

Whether you believe Kahl was the most notorious and crazy tax protester in American 

History or whether you believe he was a 

martyr responsible for triggering the militia 

movement, it is only by understanding this 

case in depth that you can understand the 

origins of the Militia movement. 

Question: Are you, John DeCamp, a member of a militia? 

Sure, about twenty-five years ago I was a 

member. We called it the United States 

Army. We had training sessions and exercises in a place called Vietnam. I was an Infantry Captain there specially assigned to a 

man named Bill Colby. Bill subsequently became my friend, Godfather, advisor and 

Legal Associate on a case or two. Bill was 

the individual who insisted I write the book, 

the Franklin Coverup—which book resulted 

in some of the Militias asking me to represent them. You may remember Bill as the 

former head of a group called the C.I.A., Central Intelligence Agency. 

So, since Colby told me to write my book 

the Franklin Cover-up; and since the book 

resulted in my representing the Montana militia and being here today, I suppose I’m here 

because of the C.I.A. just kidding. . . . 

My Militia leader, a chap named McNamara, told us in Vietnam that we were winning; that our government was sincere . . . 

and a lot of other nice things that inspired 

us to get our heads blown off. Then a couple 

weeks ago, I understand Mr. McNamara told 

the world that he was only ‘‘funnin’’ us when 

he told us those things during the war. 

McNamara said that he or our other leader 

Lyndon knew all along that they were lying 

to us. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS