May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6887

UNANIMOUS CONSENT

AGREEMENT

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I ask

unanimous consent that prior to the

close of business today, Senator DOMENICI be recognized to offer a substitute amendment, the text of which

is President Clinton’s budget; that no

other amendments be in order during

the pendency of the Domenici amendment; that a vote occur on the amendment at 10:45 a.m. on Friday, May 19,

1995, without any intervening action or

debate; and that the time between 10:15

a.m. and 10:30 a.m. be under the control

of Senator EXON, and 10:30 a.m. and

10:45 a.m. under the control of Senator

DOMENICI.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there

objection?

Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to

object, Madam President, and I will not

object, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may state the inquiry.

Mr. LEVIN. If the substitute offered

by Senator DOMENICI is agreed to, is

the resolution as amended by the substitute further amendable?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Only

with the amendments that are mathematically consistent.

Mr. LEVIN. So that the numbers may

be changed.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is

correct.

Mr. LEVIN. I have no objection.

Mr. DOLE. I add further, if the substitute is adopted, I will be out of

work.

Mr. LEVIN. Was that a parliamentary inquiry?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I further ask that following the disposition

of the Domenici amendment, Senators

LAUTENBERG and ROCKEFELLER be recognized to offer an amendment relative

to restoring the Medicare funds; that

no amendments be in order to the

amendment; that no amendments be in

order to the language proposed to be

stricken; and that a vote occur on the

amendment at 3:15 p.m. Monday, May

22, without any intervening action or

debate.

Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right

to object, and I will not, do I understand that neither of these consents

waive any Senator’s right to make a

point of order?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is

not correct. They would indeed waive

the right to make a point of order.

Mr. DOMENICI. On either?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On either.

Mr. DOMENICI. I do not know whether there would be a point of order, but

I usually make this proposal before

every amendment, and I just forgot

this evening. Nobody is waiving the

right to the point of order. It is not

that urgent, let it go.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DOLE. I thank the Senator from

South Dakota for his cooperation.

Let me just explain to my colleagues,

then, the Senator will lay down the

amendment tonight, and it is my understanding at the end of the day there

will be 40 hours left in today’s session.

Then hopefully tomorrow we will be

in long enough to take 10 more hours,

and after tomorrow there will be 30

hours left. So we start Monday with 30

hours. We would like to complete action on this bill on Wednesday so we

can take up the President’s request on

the antiterrorism bill and pass that before the recess.

So there will be one vote tomorrow.

And first vote on Monday will be at

3:15. There may be votes after that vote

on Monday.

So I urge my colleagues to not leave

on the assumption that there will only

be one vote on Monday. There could be

several votes on Monday. I assume

after the disposition of the LautenbergRockefeller amendment, there will be

an amendment offered on this side. I

assume we are going to rotate back and

forth.

So there could be several amendments, because again we will be in session at least 10 hours on Monday,

maybe longer.

Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Chair recognizes the minority leader.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I

share the understanding of the distinguished majority leader with regard to

the schedule for the next couple of

days. Even though there is only one

rollcall vote tomorrow, we have a very

important debate that will begin immediately after that vote. It will be on

the issue of Medicare. And I urge my

colleagues to use this time to the fullest benefit. That time will be lost, if we

do not use it tomorrow. It is very important that all of our colleagues appreciate the time that we have available to us tomorrow and Monday to debate this important issue.

So I encourage our participation, and

certainly hope that you will take full

advantage of the hours that are available to us following the disposition of

the first vote at 10:45 in the morning.

We will have another vote on Monday. It will be on the Medicare amendment, and between now and then I

would hope that all of our colleagues

will fully avail themselves of the opportunity that we now have to debate

this amendment to the fullest extent

possible.

So I think this is a good agreement

that gets us off to a good start. I would

certainly hope that between Friday

morning and Monday afternoon we

have no quorum calls, and that we use

every moment available to us to participate in the debate on the Medicare

amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. EXON. Madam President, I ask

unanimous consent that following the

conclusion of the remarks by the Senator from Pennsylvania that the Senator from Kentucky, Senator FORD, be

recognized on this side for 20 minutes,

and then we will continue the usual

process of going back and forth.

I do not know who is scheduled. Senator LOTT will be scheduled after that

for 15 minutes. Following the conclusion of the remarks by the Senator

from Kentucky, Senator LOTT will be

recognized for 15 minutes. Following

that, Senator BUMPERS on this side will

be recognized for 20 minutes. And then,

if there is a speaker on that side, they

will be next following Senator BUMPERS on this side, and Senator KERREY

will be recognized after that for 15 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if the distinguished minority leader might just

engage in a little discussion with me

about amendments.

We already are asking Senators on

our side to submit amendments to me

as floor manager to just see where we

are. I know for many it seems early.

But, frankly, time is going to be really

moving. I think it would be helpful to

all of us the sooner we knew. I am not

asking for details. But the sooner we

know, more or less, where we are, we

will finish at a point certain, at a time

certain. Everybody knows that. If

there are amendments that we have debated, they will get a vote, if they

want one. But there will be no discussion. The sooner we know maybe the

sooner we might accommodate in some

realistic way the Senators who desire

to have a little time to speak.

Mr. DASCHLE. If the Senator will

yield, the Senator is correct. I think it

would be very helpful for all Senators

to share with us their intentions with

regard to amendments as soon as possible. We already have a list we are

compiling. We would be happy to share

it with you. I think it is our intention

following the amendment relating to

Medicare to offer an amendment relating to education, and following that an

amendment relating to the EIPC.

There will be an amendment relating

to Medicare, and EIPC, and education.

So the order for our side will be that,

and we will be able to give you more

information as we go through the list.

Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you very

much.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized

for 15 minutes.

Mr. SANTORUM. I had the opportunity, Madam President, to be on the

floor for just a few minutes when the

resolution was laid down, and spoke

about what a historic time this was for

our country, and that a majority of

Senators from the House and from the

Senate—the House having passed their

budget resolution earlier today—had

the courage to come forward and

present a budget resolution that

brought our Federal budget into balance.

That is not an easy thing to do. If it

was an easy thing to do, it would have
S6888 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 18, 1995

been done at least 25 times over the

last 25 years, but it has not been done

once.

I give a lot of credit to the Senator

from New Mexico for his tremendous

work on crafting the legislation; the

Congressman from Ohio, JOHN KASICH,

for the work he has done on the House

side; and to all of the Republicans who

are standing shoulder to shoulder to

push this effort forward for the future

of this country.

This is a historic time. This is a

great opportunity for America as a

country to face the realities of the future, to stop the endless political

games of promising what we cannot deliver on, and letting other generations

of Americans pay for our political expediency.

I am excited. I am excited to be here

during this time. I think this will be

one of the great debates in history. I

think this will be one of the great defining moments of our time.

It is just unfortunate, it is truly unfortunate, that at one of these defining

moments where the country can really

face the future, it is going to be done

without the Chief Executive Officer of

this country. He has decided that he is

going to take absence without leadership, AWOL on this issue. He has decided that he does not want to participate in the process. He has decided in

debates with himself that he is not relevant to this process, and that he is

going to sit on the sidelines and throw

whatever he can at those who are trying to move this country forward to

balance the budget.

It is a great disappointment to me

and I know to many Americans that

the Chief Executive Officer, the President, has decided to take this course.

What I have decided to do is to remind everyone here of the President’s

action or inaction on this effort. Starting today, the first day in which the

budget resolution was laid down here

on the Senate floor, I am going to

bring this chart to the floor every day

between now and October 1 of this

year, when the next fiscal year starts,

and going to tell the American public

how many days it has been since the

Republicans laid down a balanced budget resolution to get this country to balance, and how many days it has been

since Bill Clinton has decided to leave

town when it came to this issue.

The Senator from Massachusetts, in

the last election for President had the

rallying cry of ‘‘Where’s George?’’ Well

the question today is ‘‘Where’s Bill?’’ I

guess on day one, the answer is, as the

Senator from Kansas the majority

leader has said, he is AWOL. Absent

without leadership.

Today is day one. I suspect, although

I hope it is not the case, that over the

next 135 days between now and the end

of September, that I will be putting up

day after day, numbers on this chart to

show that the President truly is not serious about leading this country, about

moving forward in a direction that will

preserve this country’s not just financial future but future as a society.

I am actually fairly sad to have to

come here and do this. I think it is in

a time of great courage that we are

seeing in the Congress, a very sad state

of affairs that we have a President who

has decided not to participate.

By the way, this is the same President who in 1993 he and his budget directors and many on the other side of

the aisle, were clamoring about how

the Republicans were not putting up

their plan.

Where was their plan in 1993 to reduce the deficit? We are not talking

about just reducing the deficit here. We

are talking about getting to a balanced

budget. Something which the President’s plan does not do.

I want to quote the President in February of 1993. The President’s demand

to the Republicans in Congress, ‘‘Not

hot air, show me where.’’

Well, Mr. President, ‘‘Not hot air,

show me where.’’ If the President

wants to lead, lead. That means the

President has to propose, just for some

instruction. The President has to propose something in order to lead somewhere.

The situation is the President being

absent from this debate is not unusual

when it comes to the budget this year.

We have a President who has refused to

put forward a balanced budget resolution, has refused to put forward anything that is going to reduce the rate

of growth in the deficit. In fact, according to the numbers of the President,

modest numbers he wants us to use, his

deficit goes up over the next 7 years up

to $267 billion by the year 2002, according to the nonpartisan Congressional

Budget Office of which the President

said we should use in determining his

numbers.

And his first chance this year, his

first chance this year to put a downpayment on the deficit, is a $16 billion

rescissions bill, which yesterday in the

Washington Post he said that he was

going to veto; a $16 billion rescissions

bill.

There is a President who simply

wants to preserve the status quo, and

all you will hear over the next 5 days

are people who created this Government here in the Congress and who

want to defend every program, and if

we touch a hair on one of them, the sky

will fall, the Earth will erupt, and life

will never be the same again here.

Well, let me just suggest that, if we

do not touch some of these programs,

literally thousands and thousands of

programs, if we do not start consolidating, eliminating, reducing the rate of

growth of some of these programs,

truly the sky will fall and the Earth

will open up because we simply will not

have a future for our children. We will

leave nothing for them.

So I would suggest that when you

hear the gnashing of teeth that you

will hear, you will hear about how

hopeless things are in America—the

previous speaker was talking about,

the Senator from Washington, talking

about how hopeless people are if not for

some Government program that is

going to help them through their hopelessness, or how fearful people are, if it

was not for the Government to take

care of them.

I would just suggest that our job here

in Washington is to provide opportunity and hope for people, to give

them the chance to succeed.

I will tell you the best way that I believe you can give people a chance to

succeed is by letting them keep the

fruits of their labors, but not taking all

of it from them, and when I hear this

debate, it absolutely blows my mind. I

do not know what budget they are

working on. I hear all of this debate all

day long, and from the White House

how we are cutting Medicare, cutting

all of these programs to pay for ‘‘tax

breaks for the rich.’’ I know a lot of

you heard this. A lot of you have heard

this.

Let me tell you what the budget resolution says. This budget resolution—I

do not know what budget resolution

they are talking about. It is not this

budget resolution. It is not this budget

resolution. In this budget resolution is

a provision that 90 percent of all tax

cuts must go to people under $100,000;

90 percent.

I do not know. We may be redefining

wealthy in America; and, that is, that

people under $100,000 are wealthy. People who make under $100,000 are

wealthy. Those are wealthy. But when

you have 90 percent of any tax cut provision in this budget as it appears on

the floor of the Senate today, going to

under $100,000, I do not know how you

make that statement. I do not know

how you make the statement the Senator from South Carolina made a few

minutes ago that they are going to cut

taxes now, and the spending cuts will

not come until later. I do not know

what budget he is looking at.

This budget, almost all of the cuts in

taxes that occur come the last 3 or 4

years after we have shown that we can

get on a glidepath, after we do cut

spending first. Why does that come

about? Why do we get this $170 billion?

It is a very important point. Why is it

that the Congressional Budget Office

gives us a bonus of $170 billion? Let me

explain why. It is very simple.

Because they believe, as I am sure

every economist in this country would

believe, and you can see it by what is

happening already to the dollar and

how the dollar is rebounding since we

have introduced this resolution, how

interest rates are coming down since

we have gotten serious about balancing

the budget here in this Chamber—the

Congressional Budget Office believes

accurately that, if we have in place a

mechanism to balance the budget over

the next 7 years, interest rates will

come down; therefore, the cost to refinance the debt will come down, inflation will come down, and the economy

will grow faster.

Those are all assumptions the Congressional Budget Office made in calculating this bonus of $170 billion of
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6889

which we were going to take that

bonus and return it to the people who

work very hard to pay those taxes.

Think about this. Getting to a balanced budget will create more growth.

That means more jobs. That means for

opportunity, lower interest rates,

which means lower payments on mortgages, more affordable housing, and

other programs, lower debt costs which

means lower deficits. This is what we

are focused on, growth, low inflation,

low interest rates. But that is a pretty

good plan. That is how we get the deficit even further reduced.

What we are saying is that once we

have established the plan to get us to

zero, if we do get that bonus, if we do

get that savings, then we are going to

give you the dividend. You, the taxpayer of America, boy, I will tell you.

By the way, 90 percent of that will go

to people under $100,000.

I do not know, folks. I do not know

what budget they are reading over

there. But if that is cutting Medicare

to pay for tax breaks for the rich, tell

the Congressional Budget Office because that is getting it right, balancing

the budget, causing positive effects on

the economy and letting people who

work their tails off in this country

keep some of the money they worked

hard for.

You would think that the only people

who care in this town are people who

want to take your money and give it to

somebody else to help them; that those

of us who believe caring sometimes can

mean letting you keep some of the

money you worked hard for. No. That

is not caring. That is tax breaks for

these bad people who work; or these

people who succeed.

I happen to think that rewarding

people for doing what we all, everyone

in this Chamber, want people to do in

this country—work —is a good thing. It

is a good thing.

So when you hear about these nasty

things that we are going to do about,

you know, helping the wealthy, substitute every time you hear ‘‘wealthy’’,

substitute ‘‘taxpayer.’’ If you are a taxpayer, you are the one they are after.

They do not want to give you any relief

up there. No, no, no. Those of you who

pay taxes, you are bad. We have to

make sure that you give us the money

that you worked hard for so we can

spend it, where we, of course, know

best. That is just absurd. It is even an

absurd statement here in Washington

DC.

This is a good budget plan. This is a

fair budget plan. I will talk over the

next few days about how we are doing.

I went to town meeting after town

meeting after town meeting in the last

4 or 5 years. I was in Congress before

being in the Senate this year. And

every place I went, the comment I got

was whether you want to get to a balanced budget but do not single out anybody, do not single out any group,

spread it around. You know. Make it

fair. We are willing to take our share.

We understand we have a problem. We

are willing to pitch in. This is America.

When we have a crisis in this country

we are willing to step up to the plate.

We are not going to run and hide. ‘‘Oh,

no don’t hurt us. Don’t touch us.’’

That is what the other side would

have you believe. We have a bunch of

people who are not willing to sacrifice

or put forward their piece to solve the

problem. Of course, they are. Of course,

you will. Do not let these people appeal

to your weaker side. Appeal to the better angels of your nature. Appeal to

the side that says America is a great

country, if we all pull together and we

stand shoulder to shoulder to solve

problems.

That is what this budget does. It

bridges us all in, everybody. It says let

us all pull together. And we are not

talking about radical stuff here folks.

We are not talking about enormous

pain here.

We are not talking about enormous

pain here. We are talking about Government growth at 31⁄2 percent a year,

increasing at 31⁄2 percent a year. Under

this budget resolution, spending goes

up 31⁄2 percent a year. Some pain. Three

and a half percent a year, that is just

draconian; it is horrible. Again, the

sky is going to fall if the Government

only goes up 31⁄2 percent a year.

This is the right medicine. It is absolutely crucial medicine. It is absolutely crucial that we pass this resolution and that we move forward to put

this country back to where my grandfather, who came to this country back

in the 1920’s, before the Depression—he

lived in a company town, in the hills of

Appalachia, in Pennsylvania. He was a

coal miner. And he came here not because he did not have a good job. He

had a great job in Italy. That is where

he came from. He had a great job. But

he left there because he wanted freedom. He wanted to be able to collect

the fruits of his labor, and most importantly he wanted to leave his sons and

daughter better off than he was.

That has been the dream of every

American who came on our shores.

They came here because they wanted

to leave the next generation better off

and with more opportunities than they

had.

We are sitting here and standing here

as Members of the Senate, and we are

looking at a future that will do just

the opposite if we do nothing. If we

fail, the next generation will not have

what we have, will not have the opportunity to succeed. As I look around and

see people in the gallery with their

children, I know their one hope is that

those children will be better off than

them; that they love them so much.

Well, folks, love them enough to do

the right thing. Love them enough to

set this country straight and balance

this budget so they can have a better

future.

I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.

Under the previous order, the Senator has 15 minutes.

Mr. FORD. I think we are swapping

back and forth. I have 20 minutes and

then the Senator has 15 minutes. I

think that is correct.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under

the previous order, by a unanimousconsent agreement, the Senator from

Kentucky is recognized for 20 minutes,

and then the Senator from Mississippi

for 15 minutes.

The Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. FORD. Madam President, while

the Senator from Pennsylvania is still

in the Chamber, I would like to make a

couple remarks.

I have been in this Senate for 21

years now. In all of the hot debates, in

all of the effort that is made here, I

have never heard or seen the office of

the President of the United States degraded like it has been here today.

Never in 21 years have I heard Gerald

Ford called Jerry, Jimmy Carter called

Jimmy, Ronald Reagan called Ron,

George Bush called George, and I have

never heard a First Lady called by her

first name. I think it is time we have

some respect for the office if we do not

have respect for the individual who

holds it.

Now, when the Senator says ‘‘Bill’’

here, we have never done that. The

Senator can smile if he wants to, but

there is some decorum by people who

have been here for a long time. This is

an institution that has respect for the

office if not for the individual. I would

hope that the Members on the other

side would be a little careful about the

remarks they make and how they put

forward their effort in this debate.

So I just call attention to the Senate

that I hope from now on it would be

‘‘the President.’’ I have never heard the

majority leader in the Chamber refer

to his party’s President by his first

name. I never heard him refer to the

Democratic Party’s President by his

first name. It has always been ‘‘the

President.’’ So I would hope that we

would refrain from using the First

Lady’s first name in the Chamber and

that we be very careful about that.

Madam President, I hope that I say

this constructively because I do respect

the office of the President, even though

another party from my choosing would

be the occupant. I felt it important

that I say that.

Madam President, what a difference 6

months has made. And I go back to November 6, 1994. ‘‘President Clinton and

Vice President Gore are resorting to

scare tactics, falsely accusing the Republicans of secret plans to cut Medicare benefits.’’

That was from the majority leader of

the U.S. Senate, quoted in the Washington Post of November 6.

The outrage, as far as I am concerned, is

the Democrat’s big lie campaign that the

Contract With America would require huge

Medicare cuts. It would not.

Haley Barbour, Republican National

Committee Chair, CNN’s Late Edition,

November 6, 1994.

The GOP budget speaks for itself.

The GOP Senate budget plan includes
S6890 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 18, 1995

$256 million in Medicare cuts. We go

back to what the chairman of the Republican Party said, and he has been in

the meetings here. He has attended the

meetings when this budget was developed and the statements were planned.

He said it is a big lie campaign. Six

months later, it was the truth.

The GOP House budget plan includes

$286 billion in Medicare cuts, and the

House budget includes and the Senate

budget provides funds for GOP tax cuts

that would give $20,000 a year to the

wealthiest Americans.

I heard the distinguished Senator

from Pennsylvania say that this will

reduce interest rates; that things are

going to get better.

Well, in 1993, we struggled, and if I

recall, after we passed that budget bill

without a Republican vote, 50–50, in the

Senate, and the Vice President broke

the tie, the Fed had to increase interest rates six or seven times in order to

cool off the economy because we reduced the deficit by $600 billion. We reduced or eliminated 300 programs. And

how many Republican votes did we get?

None. Zilch. Zip. None. And we did

pretty well.

When you say that we have not done

the right thing, I think you have to go

back and look at the 1993 votes. And if

you also want to say something about

6 months later, there was a Congressman in the House that said it very

well. ‘‘If we had come out with this

budget in our contract, they wouldn’t

have voted us in.’’ You would not have

been elected. At least, he was honest.

He was honest in making his statement.

Madam President, last year, the Census Bureau reported the widest richpoor gap since the Bureau began keeping track in 1947. Business Week magazine suggested that ‘‘If this trend persists, it could tarnish America’s image

as the land of opportunity.’’ In fact, it

was a Republican strategist who said,

‘‘This stratifying starts to make us

into a different country. It goes to the

American notion of fairness.’’

And that is exactly why, when Democrats hammered out an economic plan

last Congress, we made sure it not only

dramatically cut the deficit, but also

helped create an environment for

strong growth, proven by the interest

rates that we were called on to pay and

increased by the Fed. We provided resources so all Americans—and I underscore ‘‘all’’—could obtain the skills

necessary to compete in a global economy. We accomplished those goals

amidst the first investment-led recovery with low inflation in 30 years.

Today, Senate Republicans have put

forth a budget that also looks to eliminate the deficit. But the similarities,

Madam President, stop there. While

Democrats sought to put in place an

economic plan to further empower the

hard-working families of this country

and their children, the Republican plan

appears to be driven almost entirely by

the desire to cut taxes for America’s

most well off.

Middle-class Americans understand

that balancing the budget requires the

Henry Clay tactic—compromise, mutual sacrifice, negotiated hurt, as

Henry Clay would have said. But while

they are being forced to accept the biggest rate hike in Medicare history,

those Americans making $300,000 or

more are walking off with a $20,000 a

year tax cut, low-income Americans

are being forced to pay more taxes.

While low-income Americans are

being forced to pay more taxes when

the earned-income tax credit is

slashed, those millionaire Benedict

Arnolds spit on the flag, renounce their

citizenship in the United States—we

tried to prevent it and we could not because the votes on the other side would

not let us—so they can get out of paying U.S. taxes. As we say down in western Kentucky, ‘‘Something about that

ain’t right.’’

And while middle-class Americans

are being forced to pay thousands more

to send their children to college, loophole after loophole remains intact for

America’s richest.

There is not a single Senator here

who supports the status quo—not a single Senator. But on this side of the

aisle, we do not want to see America’s

image as the land of opportunity tarnished. We want a budget that is balanced, not one that sends middle-class

Americans home emptyhanded so that

the richest Americans can pocket a

$20,000 a year goody.

While the 1 percent of Americans are

trying to figure out how to spend their

extra 20,000 bucks, middle-class Americans are trying to figure out how to

care for their elderly, sick parents

when Medicare is slashed by over $250

billion. While the 1 percent of Americans are trying to figure out how to

spend their extra 20,000 bucks, middleclass Americans will be trying to figure

out if their dreams to send their children to college are impossible to obtain. And while the 1 percent of Americans are trying to figure out how to

spend their extra 20,000 bucks, those

hard-working families struggling to become middle class will try to figure out

how to do so now that the earned-income tax credit that they enjoy is

slashed and their taxes are raised.

Medicare: What are the cuts really

for?

Madam President, there are 585,000

Medicare beneficiaries in my State of

Kentucky. I hope many of them will

follow this debate, follow it closely, so

we can consider the Republican proposal to cut Medicare by $256 billion

over the next 7 years. I hope many of

them will try to figure out what those

cuts are really for. Why are they in

this budget? Why $256 billion?

There are $170 billion in proposed tax

cuts in this Republican budget, although they have tried to hide them in

something called a tax reduction reserve fund. If these tax cuts are anything like we have seen from the House

of Representatives, we know that they

will primarily benefit well-off Americans with high incomes.

Our colleagues on the other side of

the aisle deny that Medicare cuts are

being used to offset these tax cuts for

upper income Americans. They have

suggested that the Medicare trust fund

is going broke and that we have a crisis. They have also suggested they do

not know what specific steps should be

taken to make the trust fund solvent,

and that we should set up a commission—a commission—to recommend

changes in the Medicare program to

make it solvent.

I hope Republicans are prepared to

answer the questions the 585,000 Medicare beneficiaries in my State have for

them.

First, if we cut Medicare by $256 billion, how much longer will the trust

fund be healthy? Answer that. We have

yet to hear the answer. If we are truly

reacting to a crisis, then what will $256

billion in cuts do to affect the crisis? If

the proponents of these $256 billion in

cuts do not know the answer, this

would appear to be further evidence

Medicare cuts are being made to offset

tax cuts for upper income Americans.

Second, and more puzzling, if Republicans are cutting Medicare to avoid a

crisis in the trust fund, and if Republicans do not know yet what specific

steps to take until a commission tells

us, then how do they already know the

specific amount to cut? If we need a

commission to tell us how to make the

trust fund solvent, do we not need to

add up the changes they recommend

before we know the total amount of

cuts?

How can we know that $256 billion in

cuts are needed to make Medicare programs solvent? It sounds suspicious to

me and a lot of Americans. Either Republicans already know what Medicare

changes they will make and they will

not tell us, or $256 billion is simply the

number they needed to offset the tax

cuts.

I hope the 585,000 Medicare beneficiaries in my State will hear answers

to some of these questions. Madam

President, we have a Medicare crisis

today and we had an even greater Medicare crisis in 1993 and 1994. The Medicare beneficiaries in my State want to

know where the Republicans were then.

In 1993, the Medicare part A trust

fund was projected to go broke in 1999,

only 6 years out. Let us not forget how

tough some of those decisions in the

1993 deficit reduction package were.

More than $1 out of every $5 in deficit

reduction in 1993 went to shore up Medicare. We cut $56 billion in spending for

Medicare over 5 years in the 1993 deficit

reduction package. These cuts included

$23.3 billion in payments to hospitals,

$15.7 billion in payments to doctors,

$9.1 billion in payments involving both

hospitals and doctors. These were

tough cuts, and we did not get a vote

from the other side of the aisle to

make those cuts.

We also lifted the cap on wages subject to the payroll tax which funds
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6891

Medicare part A, and increased the

amount of Social Security benefits

subject to taxes on those making over

$44,000 a year. A tough choice, but we

dedicated every penny of increase of

revenues to Medicare. They went to

Medicare. These were painful changes,

hard votes. We made them; they did

not.

Consider together they shored up the

Medicare Program by more than $100

billion over 5 years, and how many Republican votes did we get to help shore

up Medicare? Not one. Zilch. Zero.

In 1993, when Medicare was projected

to run out of money by 1999, how many

Republicans said, ‘‘There’s a Medicare

crisis?’’ Not one. Zilch. Zero.

In 1994, when health care reform was

being considered and Medicare was projected to run out of money by 2001, how

many Republicans said there was a crisis in Medicare? None.

In fact, last year, many went out of

their way to stress that there was no

crisis—no crisis—in health care. More

than $1 out of every $6 spent in this

country in health care comes from

Medicare. In fact, over 40 percent of

health care expenditures nationwide

comes from the public sector, and this

is primarily Medicare and Medicaid.

When the Medicare trustees’ report

came out earlier this year, it actually

extended by 1 year the projections of

when the Medicare trust fund would

run out of money.

Yet, my Republican colleagues, none

of whom recognized the Medicare crisis

in 1993 and many of whom denied the

existence of any health care crisis last

year, seized upon the trustees’ report

to justify now a crisis, a crisis worthy

of $256 billion in Medicare cuts.

I have 585,000 Medicare beneficiaries

in my State. They should look behind

these numbers. There are a lot of unanswered questions. How do we know

from reading the trustees’ report that

$256 billion in cuts are needed?

Let us take a look at what the report

says. Part A pays for inpatient hospital

care, skilled nursing facility care,

home health care, and hospice care.

Most Americans 65 or older are automatically entitled to part A protection. There are over 36 million beneficiaries nationwide, and Medicare part

A is financed by the Federal hospital

insurance trust fund. According to the

trustees’ report, at the end of 1995, the

part A trust fund will have an all-time

record balance of $134 billion, which

will grow slightly in 1996. However, the

balance will decline, thereafter, to the

point where the fund becomes dangerously close to being insolvent by

the year 2002.

The trustees also reported on Medicare part B. Part B of Medicare is voluntary. It pays for doctors’ services,

other medical and health services, like

laboratory and outpatient services, and

some home health care services not

covered by part A. Part B is financed

by the supplemental medical insurance

trust fund.

According to the trustees’ report,

this part B trust fund will have a balance of $26 billion in the year 2002, even

larger than the balance today and an

all-time record. So if there is a trust

fund crisis, it is in part A.

Yet, we do not know where the $256

billion in Medicare cuts in the Republican budget will come from. Do our

Republican colleagues view a crisis in

part B, as well? How will the $256 billion in cuts be allocated among part A

and part B?

Madam President, I do not know

what we need a commission for, but if

we are to have one, this raises even

more questions:

What will the instructions to the

commission be? Could the Medicare

crisis commission recommend tax increases, raising the current payroll tax

used to fund part A? If so, are our Republican colleagues saying they will

support those tax increases? What if

the commission recommends less than

$256 billion in Medicare cuts? Will Congress be required to cut $256 billion

from Medicare anyway to offset the tax

cuts for the very rich and the Benedict

Arnolds in the Republican plan?

Madam President, how do our Republican colleagues know that $256 billion

in Medicare cuts are needed?

They are very precise in this budget.

They are very precise. Our Republican

colleagues tell us Medicare is in a crisis. They tell us it needs to grow by 7.1

percent per year—not 7 percent, not 8

percent, but 7.1 percent per year.

They tell us we need to cut Medicare

exactly $12 billion next year, then $22

billion, then $27 billion, then $36 billion, then $44 billion, then $53 billion

and, finally, $62 billion in the year 2002.

These are very precise levels of Medicare cuts year by year, yet we need a

commission to tell us what to do about

Medicare.

Let me talk a minute, if I have any

time left, about education.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator’s time has just expired.

Mr. FORD. I was pretty close to it

then, was I not, Madam President? I

will have another day and another

time, and I want to talk about education and the cuts in that. I hope I

will be able to have maybe 10 minutes

then just to talk about what the Senator from Pennsylvania was talking

about, our children. We want our children to be educated, and if they are not

educated, they will never make the

middle class.

So I yield the floor, and I thank the

Chair for her patience.

Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi. Under the previous order, the Senator is recognized

for 15 minutes.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I am

very pleased to rise in support of the

concurrent resolution on the budget for

1996, and I would like to begin by congratulating the distinguished chairman

of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator DOMENICI, of New Mexico, for all

the hard work he has done and all of

his staff work that has been involved in

putting this package together.

It is large, it is complex, and it is a

very complete document. Also, I want

to commend the Budget Committee

members because there were a lot of

meetings, a lot of discussion, a lot of

give and take. But in the end, we came

together, worked together, and produced a budget resolution that, in my

opinion, is a very critical document.

It will take the Federal Government

to a balanced budget by the year 2002.

Frankly, I had my doubts that we

would ever bring a budget resolution to

the floor of the Senate that would do

what we said we would do, and that

would be to get us to a balanced budget. But this document does it.

Is it perfect? Probably not. There

never will be such a thing. Obviously, I

would like to add some additional tax

relief for the American people into this

budget resolution. But this budget resolution does take us to a balanced

budget in the next 7 years.

Let me respond just a little bit to

some of the comments we have heard

in the last few moments.

First, I think we should emphasize

that it does not matter which party

presents a balanced-budget plan, as

long as it is done. The American people

want us to get on with the job of controlling deficit spending and, some day,

some day maybe even deal with the

debt of this country. They want us to

think about the future of our children

and the future of our country. They understand that we cannot continue to

have this profligate spending forever,

without somebody paying the price,

and they know that somebody is going

to be our children.

Now, we have tried it other ways. I

have been in Congress for 22 years. I

have seen Republican Presidents, Democrat Presidents, Democrat Congresses,

lots of those, and a Republican Congress, finally. Well, both parties have

failed in allowing these deficits to go

up year after year after year. But it is

time for us to bring that to a stop.

(Mr. FRIST assumed the chair.)

Mr. LOTT. The American people do

not want the status quo. They want us

to get the budget under control. I will

say this: This budget resolution shows

the fundamental differences between

the two parties. Oh, yes, we had a budget resolution in 1993 that not a single

Republican voted for that the Democrats passed. Do you know what that

budget resolution was? It was little

more than monstrous tax increases.

This is a budget resolution that gets

us to a balanced budget by cutting

spending and by controlling the growth

of programs throughout the Government. Surely, that is the preferred way

to do it. The American people do not

want us to raise taxes on them anymore. They want us to control the

growth of Government, control spending—and, by the way, even let them

keep a little bit of their hard earned

tax money—their money. In Washington, when the people are allowed to

keep their money, it is called a tax expenditure. The Government is giving it
S6892 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 18, 1995

away. Well, to the people that is their

money that is being taken away by the

Government.

One of the things that happened in

that 1993 budget that I still have not

gotten over—and the distinguished

Senator from Kentucky mentioned it a

while ago—was that it had a provision

that raised taxes on Social Security recipients, and not just the wealthy. At

one point, I think it was all the way

down to $19,000. We forced it back up to

a little higher level. It raised the Social Security earnings threshold on

people who are not wealthy, middle-income retirees, and moved the money

over into other programs. The explanation was that this would help fund

the inadequacies of Medicare.

Well, my colleagues, we all know

that Social Security and Medicare are

not the same. They are two different

programs. When you raise the taxes on

Social Security, it ought to go for Social Security if it is taxes are to be

raised—and they should not be raised

at all. At least the money should not

be moved over and put into other programs.

The point was made in the past few

minutes here about this terrible richpoor gap. Well, why has something not

been done about it? The party of the

Senator who was speaking has been in

control of the Senate for all but 6 of

the last 40 years. Their party has been

in control of the Congress. Obviously,

their programs have not worked. They

have failed. The rich-poor gap is there,

it is bad, and we need to do something

about it. But what we have been doing

has not worked. It has failed. It is time

for change. That is what this budget

resolution will help move us toward.

One final thing. Gripe, gripe, gripe.

Not this, not that, not mine, not yours,

nobody’s, do not cut this or that. I

have heard everything about this budget resolution. You cannot cut this, you

cannot touch that. We do not like your

budget. I have been through that Kabuki dance before. We have been guilty

on occasion where we have said, ‘‘We

are not going to offer our budget resolution; we will just attack yours and

offer amendments.’’ And we were made

fun of by the other side. Sometimes,

though—and last year we did it—we

were challenged and asked, ‘‘Where is

yours?’’ Even while in the minority we

said, ‘‘Here is what we will do.’’ And it

was a tough, good budget.

Here is what I have to say now to

those that are whining about what is or

is not in this: Where is yours? Put it

up. Let us see what your approach is.

Well, we know. It is just to raise taxes.

Well, we tried that and it does not

work. It just makes the gap between

rich and poor worse.

Now, Mr. President, what I really

wanted to address today—except I got

so fired up from what I heard from the

previous speakers that I got a little off

my plan—was why we need to do this

resolution, hopefully in a bipartisan

way. Why are we making these tough

choices? I think it is because we really

need to do it. We need to do it for our

country, for our economy, and we do

need to do it for our children. We have

serious problems hanging out there

that we cannot ignore.

Now, we have come up with a plan

here to balance the budget, without

touching Social Security or raising

taxes. We limit growth in spending and

cut needless Government waste.

We limit growth in spending. I keep

emphasizing that. We have found a

tough, but fair, course that takes us toward zero deficit. When I go home, people say, ‘‘When are you guys going to

get that deficit under control,’’ or

‘‘When are you going to do anything

about the debt?’’ Well, this does it.

If you look at this chart that I have

here, spending versus revenues, 1974

through the year 2004, as a percent of

gross domestic product, you can see

that we have had a chronic problem of

what we spend exceeding what we take

in. This cannot continue. Yet, it will

unless we do something. The gap between what we are taking in and what

we are spending is going to continue to

grow. Every businessman, every individual, rich, poor, middle class, you

cannot live like this—not even the Federal Government. This is the problem

and this is what we are trying to address.

We must balance our books. It is that

simple. This should be at the top of our

agenda, along with returning resources

and power back to the States, communities and families, ending useless programs, and fixing those important programs that need fixing.

Now, I know you are going to hear,

‘‘You could have cut some of these programs out in the past.’’ Yes, maybe we

could have or should have, but we did

not. Now we have another chance. This

is a time we should come together and

make the difference. The problem is

overspending that saps our country’s

strength and harms our families. If we

do not stop spending, the problem will

get worse. This budget resolution is the

way to fix the problem. It will stop the

Nation’s slide into insolvency and preserve the American dream for us and

our children.

We are in the last generation—and

maybe this is the last Congress for a

while—that can really make the

changes we need to make. It has been a

generation since this country has had a

balanced budget. In the 1960’s, deficits

averaged about $6 billion a year. In

1969, I think almost by accident, we

had a balanced budget. In the 1970’s,

deficits averaged $38 billion a year.

Now, in the 1990’s, deficits are averaging $259 billion a year. Again, we have

gone from zero balance to hundreds of

billions of dollars in the red within a

generation.

Why do we have this problem of deficits? What is the Government spending

all this money on? It is not defense. We

are going to have a tremendous debate

on that. ‘‘Cut defense more; that is the

solution.’’ No, defense has been cut.

Defense spending has been halved—cut

in half—over the last 30 years and has

been going down every year for the last

10 years. Domestic discretionary spending has declined, too. It is not foreign

aid. A lot of people think we can cut

some of the foreign aid and solve the

problem. There is not enough there. We

do need to cut back on it even more,

but it is a minuscule part of the budget.

The culprit—the culprit—is the Great

Society programs—overblown, costly

programs and bureaucracies that too

long have been resistant to helpful

change. These are well-meaning programs. They were at the time, and

many of them still are. They are just

not well-run. Many have outlived their

usefulness and are bloated, inefficient,

and they do not serve the people as

well as they could or should and, without change, they will destroy our future. It is uncontrolled bureaucracy. I

am talking about spending frivolously.

These programs, combined with interest rates on the national debt, are a

major part of our budget. This part is

getting bigger, while everything else is

shrinking.

In 1963, entitlements and interest

were just 24 percent of the budget. Now

they comprise over 56 percent of the

budget.

If we do not slow the rate of growth

of these programs and interest payments, Great Society spending and interest on the debt will take up 69 percent of the budget by the year 2003.

And it gets worse.

Around the year 2011, all Government

revenues will be taken up by just five

things: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Federal retirement benefits, and

interest on the debt. All the revenue

would go for just those programs.

That means no money for anything

else. Our borders would be unprotected,

our children untaught, our roads

unrepaired, there would be no school

lunches, food stamps, or farm programs. We have to get this under control. Even these five programs I mentioned will be in trouble if we continue

to run deficits.

Clearly, we are heading down the

wrong road. So we face the possibility

if we do not change of only having

enough money to pay interest on a

huge national debt. We will not have

enough money for much of anything

else.

This might seem far-fetched. It

might seem like we are using scare tactics, and I know we will hear a lot of

scare tactics in the next few days. We

do not need to make up stories to

frighten parents and working people.

The facts are scary enough.

We want to get the facts out to show

the American people that we must

change. The people said they wanted it

last year. The President of the United

States ran on that, and was elected in

1992—change. Now, we have a chance to

really get it.

This budget resolution begins the

change. If we look at this next chart,

Federal budget deficits, President Clinton’s budget versus Republican budget,
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6893

we see that the budget resolution I am

discussing will get to a balanced budget in 7 years, while the President’s

budget runs up deficits in the range of

$200 billion as far as the eye can see.

Here is President Clinton’s budget

proposal for the year. It goes out to the

year 2001. And here is the budget we are

talking about here on a steady decline

down to a balanced budget by the year

2002.

Now, the administration paints too

rosy a picture. As we see in the next

chart, Federal budget deficits, Clinton

budget versus Republican budget, the

purple line shows the Clinton budget

actual, and then here is what he is

claiming, and here is what the budget

we are talking about here does.

The Congressional Budget Office revealed that the Clinton budget will actually lead to annual deficits of almost

$300 billion. This, of course will lead to

bankruptcy, and I mean soon.

Now, that is gloom and doom talk, I

admit. But deficits do have an effect on

our lives today, too, not just in the future. Some people will say, what do

they really mean? These billions and

billions of dollars seem unreal. Deficits

seem like something in Washington

that those guys talk about and worry

about.

Here is what it does: The Nation’s

debt hurts personal living standards

now. Each American’s share of our $4.9

trillion debt is $18,500. That is what it

means for each one of the American

people. According to the President’s

budget, this debt will rise by 1999 to

$6.4 trillion or $23,700 a person. That is

what every American will owe if we go

with the President’s budgets.

Deficits have lowered family incomes. A Concord Coalition study revealed that if the United States did not

have deficits or a large national debt,

average family income would be $50,000

instead of $35,000. Let me say that

again. If we did not have these big

debts, the average American family

would be making $50,000 instead of

$35,000.

That is what it means to individuals.

I am trying to bring this down to numbers that we deal with on an everyday

basis, not the big $1 trillion debts. Because we have not controlled spending,

each family in this country has lost

$15,000 smokes.

Deficits raise interest rates, too,

making buying a home or a car more

expensive for all Americans. If we balance the budget, the prestigious Wharton School of Economics says interest

rates would drop 4 percent. The average homeowner would save $500 per

month on their mortgage payments. So

we are talking about savings on interest.

Deficits cost Americans jobs. Maybe

this is the cruelest part of all. We have

lost 3 million jobs due to deficit spending over the last 10 years. Not putting

that on either party, it is just a fact.

Most importantly, deficits put a penalty on our children. Our children are

another reason and the main reason for

reducing this deficits. The National

Taxpayers Union found that a child

born today will have to pay over

$100,000 in extra taxes.

Mr. President, if my time is expiring

could I ask for an additional 5 minutes

of time?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I

yield 5 minutes to Senator LOTT.

Mr. LOTT. That is $100,000 in extra

taxes over the course of his or her life,

just to pay the interest on the debt.

Also, every new $200 billion in deficit

spending, and President Clinton has

that or more every year, in the budget

a child has to pay an additional $5,000

in taxes to pay the interest costs. Children would have to pay 90- to 100-percent tax rates to pay this kind of deficit spending.

We cannot do it. It is not right for

our children to face these deficits for

what we have not done. So, now it is

time for us to really do something.

What we are talking about is slowing

the rate of Federal growth. This is how

it really works. We do this, by the way,

by 2002, without touching Social Security. We ratchet down the deficit by $30

billion a year by slowing spending to 3

percent overall from 5 percent.

Spending will actually grow 3 percent

a year. We just slow it down 2 percentage points. Spending will actually increase $1.9 trillion in the year 2002. I

have had people ask me why do we not

do it sooner? Why are we waiting so

long? Why do we allow all the spending

to go up? The point is spending will

continue to go up even though we are

controlling the rate of growth.

In this budget, we shrink bureaucracy, over 100 departments, programs,

and agencies are prudently eliminated.

We consolidate, terminate, and improve efficiency, and we do protect our

senior citizens by preserving the Social

Security COLA and saving Medicare.

I would like to allow senior citizens

between 65 and 75, who would like to

continue to work if they make under

$30,000 a year, without having the earnings test kick in and take part of the

money away from them.

This budget returns America to fiscal

reality and will bring back prosperity

and embolden, I think, the American

people.

Let me digress by saying I think that

the most egregious fear tactic I have

heard employed so far on this was the

suggestion that Republicans want to do

damage to Medicare. Actually, the reverse is true. We want to preserve and

improve and protect it. I have heard

speeches on the floor that sound like

speeches of a captain on a sinking ship,

begging the passengers stay on just a

little while longer, saying nothing is

going wrong, knowing all the time

Medicare has problems we have to deal

with. There is a lot of hot rhetoric in

this particular area.

Medicare will be bankrupt in 7 years

if we do not do something about it. The

President’s own Medicare board of

trustees have said this. And on that

board are Cabinet Secretaries Reich,

Rubin, and Shalala. The President’s

own people say that Medicare cannot

sustain its spending growth of over 10

percent a year. It is growing at 10 percent a year or more.

The care that senior citizens count

on will not be there in 7 years unless

we do something. Workers will have

higher taxes, providers will be reimbursed less, seniors have to pay higher

premiums and they get fewer benefits.

This will happen if we listen to the

other side and do nothing. Do nothing.

We want to preserve Medicare. What

we will do is to call for reforms, and we

would slow the growth to 7-percent a

year. Still, more than twice the rate of

inflation.

So instead of growing at 10 percent a

year, through honest reforms that

would make the program better, I

think, and give some more options to

our senior citizens, they would still

have a 7-percent growth. And we can

save Medicare by doing that.

We have identified the problem. Deficit spending and debt. We know what

will happen if we do not change—bigger

debts, less prosperity, and national

bankruptcy. We have identified a solution. Slowing the spending growth

starting with this budget resolution.

It does not matter which party does

it as long as we do. We should fix it

without so much finger pointing. We

should balance our budget. We have a

chance to do it. Many people then will

be the beneficiaries if we will get away

from the status quo.

So, Mr. President, I want to conclude

by saying that I urge my colleagues on

both sides of the aisle to look seriously

at this budget resolution. Let us come

together and support it. We have a

unique opportunity, one that I have

not seen in 20 years or more. If we let

this opportunity go by, we will not

have another one probably for 10 or 20

years, and the damage will be devastating. This is about our future. It is

about our children. I worry about my

own mother, 82 years old. She depends

on Social Security and Medicare. I care

about her. But I worry more about my

27-year-old son and my 24-year-old

daughter. Will these programs be there

when they need them? If we do not pass

this budget resolution, if we do not

know what to do, what needs to be

done today, then the answer is no.

These programs will not be there.

We have this golden opportunity, and

we should seize it.

I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, first I

want to pay tribute to my good friend

from New Mexico, Senator DOMENICI,

chairman of the Budget Committee,

who has indeed made a monumental effort to bring a balanced budget to the

floor of the Senate. I consider Pete DOMENICI a good friend. We seldom vote

together, but we banter back and forth

in a friendly way. And what he did in

bringing this budget to the floor was

not easy.
S6894 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 18, 1995

If you ask the American people, ‘‘Do

you understand this budgeting process?’’—the answer would be no. It is a

very arcane procedure. People in the

U.S. Senate do not understand it, let

alone the 260 million people in America. But if you would also ask the people of America, ‘‘What do you want

more than anything else?’’—they would

say, ‘‘We would like to hear a lot less

partisan bickering between Democrats

and Republicans. We would like to see

those two parties hold hands for a

change and provide a final budget.’’

That is a nonnegotiable demand by the

people of this country, and it is a legitimate demand.

But we have two parties. The reason

we have two parties is because we do

not agree.

I consider this budget to be a virtual

assault on the most vulnerable, exposed people in America. It is an assault on education. It is an assault on

working people. And above all, it is an

assault on the elderly people who depend on Medicare, and who are terrified. When they hear us continue to

talk about it, they wonder: Do they

have a future? Is their health care

going to be provided for, or is it not?

Before I go any further, Mr. President, I want to also say something to

my friend, the junior Senator from

Pennsylvania. I have never, in the 20

years I have been in the Senate, heard

a Member of the U.S. Senate say,

‘‘Where is Bill?’’ ‘‘Where is George?’’

‘‘Where is Ron?’’ I consider that to be

the exemplification of the growing incivility of the people in this country

towards each other, the lack of respect

that people have for each other. Nobody could have disagreed with Ronald

Reagan more than I did, and I stood

right here in this spot. But you never

heard me say, ‘‘Where is Ron?’’ The

President of the United States deserves

the respect of everybody. The office

and the man who holds it deserve our

respect. And, above all, he deserves not

to be called in a denigrating way by his

first name on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

He has been a good friend of mine for

20 years, and I might occasionally say

‘‘Bill Clinton.’’

But it would benefit all of us to show

more respect for the Presidency of the

United States.

Mr. President, I might also say to the

Senator from Pennsylvania, who was

saying, ‘‘Where is Bill?’’—Where was

the Senator from Pennsylvania when

he was a Member of the House of Representatives in 1993, when President

Clinton was cajoling, begging, pleading

with both Houses of Congress to cut

the deficit by $500 billion which, incidentally, turned out to be a $600 billion

cut? Where was the Senator from Pennsylvania? Where was every single Republican in the House of Representatives and every single Republican in

the United States Senate? Well, to coin

a phrase, AWOL. You could not find

them with a search warrant.

They said, ‘‘You are raising taxes.’’

Everybody jumped under their desk on

that side. And the Vice President had

to come and cast the deciding vote.

Every single one of the 44 Republican

Senators voted no.

Do you think I enjoyed voting for a

tax increase? I did not even enjoy voting for the budget cuts. But had it not

been for the courage of President Clinton and the Democrats in this body and

the House of Representatives, we would

be here not debating a $1 trillion cut

between now and the year 2002; we

would be debating a $2 trillion cut.

Where were they?

Here we have this draconian budget

which, as I say, is an assault on the

most vulnerable people in America:

Our youngsters who want to be educated, lower-class working people, and

the elderly. Even Medicaid. Of the

roughly 25 million people in this country who are eligible for Medicaid, 10

million to 12 million of them are blind,

disabled, and elderly.

Oh, yes, and the Republicans are lining up the votes to cut those programs.

Why? To preserve the Contract With

America, in the House, which would

cut taxes by $371 billion by the year

2002, and in the Senate bill, $170 billion

very carefully set aside for a tax cut

for the wealthiest, not for the people

we are assaulting, but for the wealthiest in America, those who do not need

our help.

We are always hearing what the

American people want. Here is a poll

by USA Today taken December 20, 1994:

‘‘If Congress is able to cut spending,

where should it go?’’ Seventy percent

say deficit reduction, 3 times more people than say they want a tax cut. It

just shows you the American people

are not selfish. They want a balanced

budget. They would like a tax cut, of

course. But given an option between

the two they will take a balanced budget every time.

I heard the same arguments in 1981

that I have heard here all day today. In

1981, they said we will balance the

budget by cutting spending, cutting

taxes, and raising defense spending.

And I said about an hour before we

voted on that, ‘‘You pass this and you

will create deficits big enough to choke

a mule.’’ And I was wrong. They were

big enough to choke an elephant.

Senator BRADLEY of New Jersey, Senator HOLLINGS of South Carolina, and

yours truly were 3 of only 11 Senators

who voted for the spending cuts and

against the tax cuts.

Mr. President, we would be sitting

here tonight enjoying not only a surplus but drawing interest on it if 51

people in the Senate had voted that

way. The herd instinct was flowing

through this body like I have never

seen it before. And so what happened?

We voted to double defense spending.

We voted to cut all other spending. We

voted a massive tax cut, most of which

again went to the wealthiest people in

America. And here is what happened,

the deficit exploded.

At the time we debated the 1981 resolution, the deficit was $65 billion. And

the Republicans said that if we would

just adopt their resolution, in 1983, no

later than 1984 or 1985, we will balance

the budget.

That was the promise. That was $3.5

trillion of indebtedness ago. The deficit

went completely out of sight. And so

today we have a $4.6 trillion debt because that siren song was irresistible.

The Democrats have been criticized,

and with some legitimacy, for not offering an alternative. We could offer an

alternative. It would not pass. It would

be defeated. But we have four important amendments. I will make an offer

to that side of the aisle. You adopt our

four amendments, which will still give

us a balanced budget by 2002, and I will

vote for your budget resolution. I will

vote for that resolution. Put that $170

billion that is very carefully set aside

for a tax cut, and put it back in Medicare, Medicaid, student loans, and the

earned income tax credit, and I will

vote for it. And I will worry about reforming everything else later on. Now,

if that is not a fair proposition, I do

not know what is.

I heard a Congressman the other day

say we are going to give welfare recipients a chance to become productive

citizens by cutting them off. You tell

me how you make productive citizens

out of the 20 percent of the people in

this country who are on welfare and

who are dysfunctional, unemployable.

You think you have a lot of homeless

people in Washington, DC, right now?

Wait until you pass this budget. Wait

until you pass welfare reform as it is

being proposed here. It is a death sentence for a lot of people.

These Medicare cuts, what do they

do? They fall on the people who are totally dependent on Medicare. They fall

on the rural hospitals in my State,

which are totally dependent on being

at least adequately reimbursed. And

they fall, Mr. President, on the doctors

who are also going to have to assume a

good piece of the hit.

We all know Medicare reform is necessary. Everybody knows Medicare is

going to have to face up to reform. But

to cut Medicare to make room for tax

cuts is absolutely heartless. Look at

the capital gains tax cuts that have

been passed in the House; 76 percent of

the cuts go to people who make over

$100,000 a year. Is that what we believe

as a people in this country, that 76 percent of a tax cut should go to people

who make over $100,000 a year?

Look at this chart. Here is the average tax cut per household by income

category. If you make between zero

and $30,000 a year in a family of four,

you get a whopping $124 a year. That is

a pizza every third Friday night. If you

make over $200,000 a year, you get a

tidy little sum of $11,266. Who here believes that is what America is all

about?

Somebody once said that a progressive tax was something Karl Marx

dreamed of. Unhappily, they did not
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6895

know about Teddy Roosevelt. He was

the person who gave us a progressive

tax system. You want me to vote for a

bill that provides that kind of relief to

people who make over $100,000 a year

and $124 a year to people who make

$30,000 a year and in the process take

away the earned income tax credit

from them?

I am not going to embarrass anybody

by reading quotes, but the last two Republican Presidents and the majority

leader of the Senate today have all said

the earned income tax credit is the

best program ever invented to keep

people off welfare.

Do you want to save the Government

$21 billion? Raise the minimum wage to

$5.15 and you can cut a lot of that investment tax credit out. But this is a

tax increase on people who are making

$28,000 a year or less, while we give a

cushy $11,266 a year to people who

make $100,000 a year or more. It is

heartless.

Education will take the biggest cut

in its history. I would not be standing

here, Mr. President, if I had not put in

3 years in World War II and gone to

school on the GI bill. My father could

not have afforded to send my brother

to Harvard Law School, a classmate of

the distinguished Senator from Rhode

Island, who is standing in the Chamber

tonight. He could not have sent me to

a prestigious law school where the tuition would have been totally out of the

question. So I am a champion of student loans and Pell grants.

The managers of the bill say, well,

this does not cut student loans; this

does not cut Pell grants. What does it

say? You will cut a certain amount of

money in these functional areas. And

when you analyze that requirement,

student loans and Pell grants are the

only places you can find that amount

of money within a particular functional area. CBO has said if you borrow

the maximum of $17,000 for undergraduate studies on student loans, your fees

and interest rates will probably cost

you an additional $5,000. Mr. President,

kids who have borrowed money to go to

school are so saddled with debt they

cannot breathe. Now we are going to

sock another $5,000 on them.

What else does this bill not do? This

bill says you may not touch defense.

There is $255 billion next year that is

off limits. It does not make any difference how much of it is squandered.

Every person in the Senate read the

lengthy article last week saying that

for the past 15 years the Defense Department has spent billions and billions without knowing where it went

and cannot until this day be traced—

overpaid contractors without knowing

what they were paying for. One of the

saddest things I ever read in my life.

We are not talking about $700 coffee

pots and toilet seats. We are talking

about checks written that should never

have been written, people being overpaid, nobody knows what for.

So what will this budget do? It will

cut school lunches. It is going to cut

AFDC payments for the poorest of the

poor, eliminate the investment tax

credit which is an effective tax increase on the lowest income people in

America, and there is a firewall around

defense. You cannot take a penny. No

matter how lousy a weapons system

may be, you cannot kill it and put that

money into student loans. You cannot

put it in school lunches. Of course, if

you want to put it in some other weapons system, that is just Jakey.

A House Member last week was

quoted as saying he was not going to

vote for any more foreign aid. You

want to hear applause? Just say you

are opposed to foreign aid and you will

have people applauding. Most people

just think if we eliminated foreign aid

and welfare, we could balance the budget. Foreign aid is less than 1 percent of

the budget. But the House Member said

we give this money to Third World

countries and they buy weapons and

starve their own people. What are we

doing, focusing attention on foreign aid

when it is less than 1 percent of the

budget?

What else did we not touch in this

budget? Why, the space station. The

biggest single boondoggle in the history of the world. We have spent over

$11 billion on the space station as of

this moment, headed for $100 billion—

yes, $100 billion—while we cut student

loans, student lunches, AFDC, investment income, raise the taxes for people

who make $30,000 or less by reducing

the earned income credit, and we leave

the space station fully intact. The senior Senator from Texas was quoted in

the paper the other day as saying,

‘‘Yes, I am going to go for a tax cut. I

am going to offer an amendment to cut

taxes in the Chamber.’’

We have not even begun to cut as

much as we need to.

The other day I said to the junior

Senator from Texas that I am not

going to offer an amendment to kill

the Space Station on this bill. But do

not get too comfortable, because I am

going to offer it later.

Mr. President I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield an

additional 5 minutes to the Senator

from Arkansas.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator could keep it to a

couple of minutes.

Mr. BUMPERS. I say to the Senator,

he has not waited nearly as long to

take the floor as I did.

Mr. CHAFEE. You go ahead.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. BUMPERS. So the space station,

which costs $160,000 per job, is safe and

secure. It is only the most vulnerable,

the elderly, the blind, the disabled, and

the children, they are the only ones

who bear the brunt of this.

What else was not touched? Why,

mining laws. In 1988, I started trying to

revise the mining laws of this country

to keep the U.S. Government from selling billions of dollars worth of gold for

$2.50 an acre and here it is 1995 and

they are still selling America’s land for

$2.50 an acre that has billions of dollars

worth of gold and platinum under it.

And what do the taxpayers of America

get out it? Zip. Not a penny.

Whoever is tuned into C-SPAN in

America tonight would not believe

that. It is a fact.

The Secretary of the Interior as recently as 6 months ago was forced by

the courts to deed $11 billion worth of

gold to the Barrick Mining Co. for the

princely sum of $9,000. It is not mentioned in this budget. You talk about

corporate welfare.

I can remember 3 years ago when the

mining companies would say, ‘‘We

might be able to afford a 2 or 3 percent

net royalty,’’ even though to private

land owners that they mine on they

pay 18 percent. They might find it in

their heart to voluntarily pay 2 to 3

percent on Federal lands. That was

when gold was $333 an ounce. That was

when platinum was $354 an ounce.

And in this day, 1995, gold is $384, $51

an ounce more than it was then. Platinum is $427, almost $75 an ounce more

than it was when they said they would

pay 2 to 3 percent.

Today, guess what the argument is?

They will still go broke if you impose

a royalty on them.

Mr. President, that is the worst,

egregious form of corporate welfare I

have ever seen in my life. And yet I

never get more than six Republicans to

vote with me to stop the most outrageous practice going on in America.

The people who are assaulted by this

budget cannot afford $1,500 for a ticket

to Washington, DC fundraisers. Do you

know who they depend on because they

cannot afford the 1,500 bucks? They depend on me. They depend on you. They

expect you to be concerned about

them. They expect you to see that they

are treated fairly.

Why do we not drop this $170 billion

nonsense called the tax cut for the

middle class which goes to the wealthiest people of America and keep faith

with the people who sent us here to do

their business?

I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under a

previous order, a Republican Senator

was to be recognized next.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask for 1

minute.

I just wanted to take a minute’s time

to compliment the excellent remarks,

right on the point, by two of my best

friends in the U.S. Senate with whom I

have had the opportunity to serve with

as a former Governor of Arkansas and

a former Governor of the State of Kentucky. Governors, who have been

through these difficult decisions of balancing budgets, should be listened to

more than they are sometimes.

I just want to say to my friend from

Arkansas and my friend from Kentucky, well done, well stated, and I

hope that the American people are listening.
S6896 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 18, 1995

I thank you, Senator, and I thank

you, Senator FORD, who will be back on

the floor in a very short period of time.

I yield the floor.

Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I yield

3 minutes of my time to the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island,

Senator CHAFEE.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank

the distinguished Senator from Wyoming for yielding me 3 minutes.

Mr. President, the challenge facing

the Senate over the next few days is

whether we will be able to muster the

courage—there has been a lot of talk

about courage out here tonight—but

the question is whether we will have

the courage to pass a budget resolution

that, for the first time in three decades, 30 years, will bring the Federal

budget into balance. It is a monumental debate involving the single

most important step we can take this

year to markedly improve this Nation’s future.

We cannot continue on the path we

are currently on, which is spending

more money than we take in and sending the bill to our children.

Think of it. Of every dollar the Federal Government spends, 13 cents is

borrowed. That is what is going on

right now in this Nation of ours. Our

current deficit, what we are budgeted

for this year, is $200 billion more—$200

billion more—spending than we are

going to take in. And this debt, this

deficit, unless we take dramatic steps,

will not stay at $200 billion a year. It

will grow to $400 billion a year 10 years

from now.

Because of the horrendous $5 trillion

debt our Nation has, 15 percent of our

budget is solely devoted to paying the

interest on the debt. Fifteen percent of

all the expenditures, taxes, that are

raised in this Nation go to pay the interest on the debt. Not a penny of that

for principal, all of this for interest.

Interest currently constitutes the

third largest expenditure in our budget. First is Social Security, second is

defense, and third is interest on the

debt. And that last item, interest on

the debt, is going up steeply.

The resolution before us represents a

fundamental shift in the manner in

which the Federal Government is going

to run its finances. Seven years from

now, as a result of this budget, if it is

adopted, we will end the practice of

pushing the cost of today’s Federal

spending onto the backs of our children

and our grandchildren. They are the

ones that are going to have to pick up

the tab.

I commend the chairman of the

Budget Committee, Senator DOMENICI,

for what he has done and for his excellent work. This budget does what he

said he was going to do. It balances the

budget by the year 2002, in 7 years.

There is nothing dramatic about steep

declines. We have 7 years in order to

bring this thing into balance. Senator

DOMENICI has done this without resorting to any tricks or gimmicks. The

Senate and the whole country owe Senator DOMENICI a deep debt of gratitude.

And I want to congratulate him for

standing firm against any tax cuts.

There has been a lot of talk, the Senator from Arkansas was talking about

the cuts, tax cuts that we are providing.

In this resolution, there are no tax

cuts. This budget provides a mechanism which allows us to consider tax

cuts only after we have enacted a viable and enforceable balanced budget.

I personally believe we are in too

deep a hole to even think about embarking on any sizable tax cuts. If we

do realize an economic benefit that

comes from balancing this budget—in

other words, there is going to be lower

interest rates in the future; if, and

most economists agree, this budget is

adopted, that will occur—then we

ought to use that to pay back our debt.

Why use it for a tax cut, in my judgment, of any sizable nature? Instead,

use it to reduce the debt.

Mr. President, I support the resolution that is on the floor that the Budget Committee has brought to us. Do I

agree with every aspect of it? No, I do

not. No one does, but it is very, very

good in its totality. I obviously have

grave concerns about the level of the

Medicaid cuts that might have to occur

if we adopt the rules, the duties that

are imposed upon the Finance Committee. I am concerned about the cuts in

Amtrak, for example.

But for those on the other side of the

aisle who criticize what we are doing,

come up with a better proposal. Do not

just criticize what we are suggesting.

Do something better.

When we debated and voted on the

constitutional amendment on the balanced budget, they all said: ‘‘We do not

need it; the true test of deficit reduction is our resolve. All we need to do is

balance the budget if we have the courage.’’

Well, this side is showing the courage

to do it, Mr. President. Here we are. We

are taking these steps that are long

overdue, and I am just happy to be part

of this effort. I hope when all is said

and done that this budget, or something very close to it, will be adopted

by this Senate.

I want to thank the distinguished

Senator from Wyoming for letting me

proceed.

Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

SMITH). The Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I

thank my colleague from Rhode Island.

At the end of this very first day of debate on the budget resolution, I come

to the floor to offer a few observations.

I do not think any one of us on either

side of the aisle exaggerate when we

say that we have the deepest respect

for Senator PETE DOMENICI. I have

heard my good friends on the other side

say just that. We have a great mutual

respect for him.

I go on to say that the budget resolution crafted by my respected friend

could well turn out, in my mind, to be

one of the most historic and important

and statesmanlike measures voted on

during my 16-year tenure here in the

U.S. Senate.

The chairman of the Budget Committee is one remarkable legislator. We

here have long known him for his expertise, his integrity, and his dedication to lessening the burden on posterity—our children and grandchildren. So

it is a pleasure to see so many here and

out in the land giving a long overdue to

this man and his work, and he is one of

the most hard-working men I have ever

met in my time in this place.

So the measure he presents to us

would bring the annual deficit of the

United States down to zero by the year

2002. People say, why 2002? I answer, because we may never, ever have another

chance to do this.

In the future, we could see a war, God

spare us, or a recession, and then the

retirement of the baby boom generation. That is where the hit comes, the

identifiable hit. If we cannot balance

the books during this fleeting window

of opportunity, I feel very deeply that

it will never be done again. We would

simply be consigning our children—

‘‘kids’’ is the phrase used here all day,

those kids everybody is always talking

about on the other side and our side all

day long, the kids—the kids will receive nothing. We will not have to

worry about cuts. There will not be

anything. We will be consigning those

kids to mounting deficits, crushing interest rates, and payments of fiscatory

tax rates, payroll taxes. You talk

about balancing something on the

backs of someone, their backs will

break from the tax load that comes if

we cannot get this done.

Earlier this year, we voted on a balanced budget amendment, a very exciting debate, vigorous, spirited. Over and

over in this Chamber, I heard the opponents of that amendment say, some in

high-pitched endeavor, that we did not

need an amendment to the Constitution of the United States; all we need is

some political courage, some guts to do

the job. Oh, magnificent speeches, they

ring in my head.

And guess what? Now it is time to do

the job, and now we shall see who has

the political courage. Oh, indeed, we

shall. I cannot wait for the debate.

I am very proud that the majority

party in this body is coming forward

and proposing a solution to this growing crisis. If you want a good definition

of business as usual in Washington, DC,

I would say it was the practice of assuming that the public will punish us if

we did what was right and then pulling

our punches accordingly.

The strategy on the other side seems

to be to assume that business as usual

will still prevail, to sit on the sidelines,

chuckle, do high-fives, and criticize

and whoop it up and hope, and, more
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6897

importantly, pray that our earnest effort to solve this problem will be punished by a furious and angry electorate.

That is a depressing and cynical view

of the American citizenry, I believe,

and I, for one, do not ascribe to it. We

Republicans are, indeed, making a historic gamble. We are betting that if we

do what is right, unheard of in itself in

this city, if we, indeed, move toward a

balanced budget, that the shrieking,

and wailing and howling of the various

special interests will be drowned out by

the chorus of praise—yes, praise—from

the vast majority of at least thoughtful Americans who are sick and tired of

seeing the burdens of debt pile higher

and higher and higher on them and on

their children.

And who did it? We did it; we in Congress did it. Do not blame it on Ronald

Reagan. Do not blame it on George

Bush. Do not blame it on Jimmy

Carter. Do not blame it on Bill Clinton.

Blame it on us. We have performed superbly for the last 50 years. We have

acted like pack horses in dragging the

money back to our districts and preening our feathers to tell our constituents: ‘‘What did you want? We heard

you and we went and got it for you,

even though now it is 5 trillion bucks

worth of debt.’’

Columnist George Will, a very bright

and articulate man, made a rather telling observation, I think it was Sunday

before last, on a national television

performance. He noted there seems to

be a key in the word processors in the

Democratic offices on the Hill that

automatically types: ‘‘We will not balance the budget on the backs of,’’ and

then you just leave the blank. ‘‘We will

not balance the budget on the backs

of,’’ and then you fill in the blank: Senior citizens, the children, veterans,

farmers, teachers, welfare recipients,

‘‘Masterpiece Theater.’’ You name it, if

it is affected by serious deficit reduction, and every form of spending must

be, then the Democratic Party will oppose it. Guess what, folks; that is exactly why we have $5 trillion in debt.

I am one who is going to balance the

budget to get the debt off the backs of

the children and the grandchildren. Curious adventure. I think that is what

we should do when we are talking

about what is on or off the backs. The

debt will crush them. Washington must

really be the last place in the world

where it is realized if you want to get

out of debt, you simply can keep spending more and more and more. Washington is also the only town in the world

where you cut spending and it gets bigger.

I come from Wyoming. We must simply use a different language out there.

We call it English. In that language, a

reduction means something gets smaller, not bigger. So anyone who is watching this debate needs to remember that

when we are attacked for savage cuts,

we are indeed talking about increases

in spending only. Only increases, however, that are not as big and as demanding of your hard-earned money as

those or some of those in the other

party would like.

Earlier today, I saw a chart brought

out by the Senator from Massachusetts, my old friend, Senator TED KENNEDY. He and I do a little facing off

every day. We do not get paid for that.

It is purely a nonprofit activity. We do

not agree on all things, but I enjoy him

very much. He brought out a chart—a

powerful chart—that said ‘‘working

families pay for tax cuts for the

wealthy’’—a sinister preparation. Very

interesting, and especially so, since

there are no tax cuts in this budget

resolution submitted by our colleague.

There is not a tax cut in a car load, nowhere. The President, however, still

wants $63 billion in tax cuts, and we do

not hear too much about that.

So all that we have done is said that

if we succeed in balancing the budget,

and if this produces a dividend perhaps

in the form of declining interest rates,

then that money should go to the taxpayers and not for us to spend.

Now, I have personally come out very

strongly to say ‘‘no tax cuts’’ until the

budget is balanced. But I find it extremely odd that Democratic detractors believe that tax cuts are irresponsible even if the budget remains balanced. That is the most curious view of

budgetary responsibility that I know.

But it is historically so with some of

them. But here are the facts about the

budget before us. With this budget, we

achieve a balanced budget by the year

2002. In which category in this budget

does spending grow the fastest? In Medicare. In the budget Senator DOMENICI

is presenting to this Senate, the largest growing item of spending in this

budget is Medicare; 7.1 percent per

year, going from $178 to $283 billion. No

other program in the entire budget is

dealt with more generously than Medicare.

It is astonishing that even this huge

rate of growth is greeted as ‘‘not

enough’’ by the detractors. This is a

measure of how serious and debilitating the addiction to spending has become. Under this budget, we are the

toughest on the appropriated spending

matters. Shrinking it not just relative

to inflation, but shrinking it outright—$548 billion in 1995 and $518 billion by 2002. This is the kind of budget

discipline that America seems to have

been crying for.

On the other hand, huge increases

could still occur and will still occur in

Social Security—$334 billion in Social

Security going to $480 billion; and in

Medicare, $178 to $283 billion. And in

Medicaid, from $89 to $125 billion, and

all other mandatory spending which includes Federal retirement, welfare, agricultural subsidies, and all the rest

grows, continually grows from $146 to

$197 billion. And remember, we all took

Social Security off the table. I did not.

The Senator who is standing across in

the Chamber did not either. The two of

us have presented to the American public seven bills to bring solvency to the

Social Security system, and we will

present that and we will have hearings

on that, and we will proceed with that.

It is very difficult to do what we really

have to do, and it would be so much

simpler. Yet, we did it out of political

terrorism, that we not touch the item

of the budget which is $383 billion a

year revenue. I am going to leave the

details of that. I do not know what my

colleague from Nebraska is going to

say. But I can tell you this: Senator

BOB KERREY is a very courageous person, and he has faced up to these problems before by being chairman of the

Entitlements Commission, the bipartisan Entitlements Commission. That is

why it is a great privilege and an honor

for me to join him in a bipartisan approach to bring some eventual sanity

to a system which goes into terminal

decline in the year 2013 and then goes

bankrupt in the year 2031, and that is

the Social Security system. I do not

want my remarks on that tied with

this budget resolution or any part of it.

Sever that. But I, as a Member of the

Senate, will be proceeding to do something about that system.

So we cannot do better than to repeat this over and over and over again.

The rapid detractors succeed in portraying these as cuts. If the American

public really swallows that, maybe the

detractors are right. Maybe then the

public deserves exactly what it gets—

permanent deficits and poverty for our

descendants, all out of political terrorism, or, as my old friend Gary Hart

used to say, ‘‘mow-mow politics.’’

I join Senator DOMENICI and the distinguished majority leader, BOB DOLE,

in thinking better of the American

public. I believe that though the special interests will cry out, the keening

wail will sound like wolves in the Yellowstone with a full Moon—the keening wail of the special interests. But I

think the vast majority of Americans

want this job done and now—or at least

for us to start. They want everyone

who is benefiting from Federal largess

to take a hit. It will not be easy, and

there will undoubtedly be sacrifices

that will be called for from every sector of society. I also believe they have

grown tired of Washington telling them

that no sacrifices are necessary. We do

not have to touch senior citizens or the

children or anyone else to get this job

done. When you take that approach,

spending never slows. Always up.

(Mrs. HUTCHISON assumed the

chair.)

Mr. SIMPSON. It is incredible to me

that our President and some on the

other side of the aisle have chosen to

ignore all responsibility in this challenge. AWOL—absent without leadership.

I certainly do not intend to include

some others on the other side of the

aisle. As I have mentioned, Senator

KERREY has faced these problems alone

and in an election year before. That

takes real guts. But it astounds me,

and I am sure my colleague, that given
S6898 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 18, 1995

everything we know with absolute certainty through the work of this commission and from the trustees of Social

Security telling us about these things

and the future of Federal spending,

that the President would submit a

budget that makes not even the slightest attempt to approach or deal with

the problem, or to accept one word of

the recommendations of the commission that he appointed, and then drop

all reference to generational struggles

that are coming in this country in the

years very soon ahead.

Earlier this week, the President announced plans to veto a rescissions

package of $16 billion. That is less than

1 percent of the budget, and it was too

much for the President to end. How in

the world are we going to make the

tough decisions on entitlements and

other sensitive spending if we cannot

even cut 1 percent of the budget?

That rescissions package contained

various unauthorized appropriations,

various GSA construction projects—

true pork—and we all played that one.

Certainly, there must have been spending in there the President favored, but

I find it impossible to believe that this

spending is so important that he would

delete even the headway we would

make on 1 percent of the budget.

It is a terribly strange way to take a

stand, to defend every last bit, even

that last 1 percent of pork-ridden discretionary spending. And we were all in

that one. But that is not my idea of

leadership.

There are many examples of what

have been presented and what will happen. Let me tell you one exaggerated

one, and I am going to wind up. Others

are here, too. I was thinking how someone maybe in this administration

might have conducted themselves in a

cabinet meeting or something at various previous periods in our history—

perhaps if in office at the time of the

secession of the Southern States in

1861, can almost hear advisors turning

to the President and saying, ‘‘Now,

Americans might get upset if we ask

for sacrifices, so better let the Congress institute a military draft and

then we will criticize them for it because that would be better politically.’’

That is obviously a little exaggerated

example, to be sure, but I think some

appropriateness there.

This is a historic tune for this President to be the President who led the

Nation out of debt and on the path of

responsibility and solvency, again. He

has a Congress also, even eager to do

the job, but the best he can do is to

hope that there will be a political cost,

a deep political cost associated with

the effort.

Let me say to the detractors, there is

still the opportunity to contribute to

this effort and to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem. I

have heard criticism from some Democrats that this budget does not really

balance the budget by 2002 because it

only balances the unified budget, the

one that includes Social Security.

Very well, then. Democrats wish to

offer an alternative budget, balances

the budget without counting Social Security, I would consider giving my support to that. While we have yet to see

such a budget presented, criticism from

the other side is about several million

cubic feet of hot air.

We Republicans took a lot of guff last

session because we did not vote for the

President’s budget. Of course, events

since then have vindicated Republicans

because the President’s own budget

forecast $200 billion deficits as far as

the eye can see. Clearly, that budget

did not do the job, just as we said it

would not.

At least at the time we proposed our

own alternative budget to do the same

job, that alternative reflected our differences with the President. We would

have done it via spending cuts instead

of tax increases but we did present an

alternative.

Those of the other faith appear to

have forgotten that. They have no alternative to offer that does the job as

thoroughly as our own budget. The

President’s budget does not even try. It

just allows deficits to climb and the

debt to pile up ad infinitum.

I do not believe that that is good politics for the minority party. But do not

take that advice from me. Undoubtedly, there will be political opposition

to the measures we have to take to balance the budget, but once we do, I

think Americans will see, once we do it

they will see that the benefits will be

coming to them. Declining interest

rates, they will see the benefits of restored confidence in the market, in the

investment in our economy, in the dollar itself. They will come to congratulate Members for the work we have

done.

Perhaps even more importantly, we

will then have a fighting chance to deal

with the retirement of the baby boom

generation when it does begin. There is

absolutely no way we will be ready for

that if we are still running the deficits

in the hundreds of billions that those

on the other side seem to advocate.

So we have a moral obligation to

pass a form of this balanced budget

this week. Future generations will not

look kindly on Members if they fail.

We should reach together on reaching a

consensus on the best form of a balanced budget resolution. I pledge to do

that.

I know my colleague from Illinois is

here on the floor. I am yielding the

floor in just a moment, but will say

that I thoroughly enjoyed working

with her, Senator CAROL MOSELEYBRAUN, on the Entitlements Commission. It was a great eye opener for all

Members.

I wish, in many ways, I had not been

on it because it reminded me of that

old movie, ‘‘The Man Who Knew Too

Much,’’ because we learned too much.

We learned where we are headed. Had a

lot of good people from both sides of

the aisle helping. If we can get through

this necessary political posturing,

which I am doing a good bit of myself,

and we all have to do this. This is very

therapeutic. Then we will settle down

and get something, because we all

know what the stakes are, and we all

know what the numbers are.

That has never happened before. It

has happened because the Entitlements

Commission and the great work of Senator KERREY and Senator DANFORTH. It

has happened because the Social Security trustees have said exactly what is

going to happen to the systems of Medicare, which will go broke. That is not

something that floated in from the

west coast. That is the Social Security

trustees saying it. The Social Security

trustees are Donna Shalala, Robert

Rubin, Robert Reich, the Commissioner, and Democrat and Republican

citizens of America saying it will go

broke.

In the year 2016, the disability insurance fund will go broke. In 2031, the Social Security system will go broke.

That doomsday date used to be 2063. It

is now 2031. It moves up 3 to 5 years

every year.

There it is. Fun and games all we

want. I am ready to play it. I love it.

So does the senior Senator from Nebraska who came here with me, and in

who there is no more spirited and engaging men than Senator JIM EXON,

and the Senator in the chair, and the

Senator from New Hampshire.

We will do this, and then we should

sit down after the shot and the shell

and the smoke, because there is no

smoke and mirrors in this budget. Everyone who has been here as long as I,

16 years, 10 years, 15 years, now know,

no smoke, no mirrors. All hard tough

votes. I cannot wait for the debate. We

never needed a balanced budget amendment. Just need to cast those tough

votes.

Well, hop in and get wet all over.

Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I

thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. SMITH pertaining to the introduction of S.J. Res. 34

are located in today’s RECORD under

‘‘Statements on Introduced Bills and

Joint Resolutions.’’)

Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

SMITH). Under the previous order, the

Senator from Nebraska is recognized to

speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. KERREY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, first of all, let me

begin this by saying that I believe that

the Senator from New Mexico, Senator

DOMENICI, chairman of the Budget

Committee, has made a good-faith effort to produce a budget resolution

that frankly few predicted was likely

to occur. It reduces the deficit over the

next seven years by $961 billion, reduces spending, and at the end of that

7-year period, if you exclude Social Security, you have a balanced budget.

It results in a significantly smaller

Government. It gives us the potential

of having lower taxes as well. I must

say, Mr. President, again, I believe this

is a solid and a good-faith effort. I regret, as I have listened to the debate
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6899

today, that it has been considerably

less than the sort of civil debate that I

would have thought was possible given

some discussions that are going on

right now between a number of us on

the Democratic side that would like to

participate in supporting this budget

resolution.

And I say that because what has happened is the dynamic has really

changed. We are engaged in looking at

an alternative that we I hope can get

consideration to, I suspect sometime

next week by the time it is all done.

And we begin with somewhere in the

neighborhood of $700 billion of cuts

over a 7-year period. That is a substantial shift. The President’s budget, as

has been commented on several times,

contains no significant deficit reduction. Suddenly, you have under the

leadership of the distinguished Senator

from New Mexico and the distinguished

Senator from Nebraska, the ranking

Democrat on the Budget Committee, a

big shift in the Senate and I think

large numbers, well in excess of 60, who

would vote for a budget resolution that

got us to a point 7 years from now

where the deficit would be zero.

I have come here this evening to

identify a couple of problems, and I

hope I identify the problems in a constructive fashion because, as I said, I

would like very much and hope very

much that the Republican chairman

and Republican leadership will favorably view, as I said, a significant number of us who would like to participate

in voting for a resolution that does approximately what the distinguished

Senator from New Mexico is attempting to accomplish.

Let me say for those who doubt the

power of deficit reduction, the most

impressive number in all of the 7-year

forecast is that net interest stays the

same. Net interest has been the most

rapidly growing line in our entire budget, and under the budget resolution before us net interest would flatten out.

As an expenditure, Mr. President, it

certainly benefits bond holders, but it

does not benefit American taxpayers at

all. It is a payment that goes out, that

buys us nothing other than the capacity to service these bonds. It is the

most impressive number and one that I

think we should pay attention to as we

look to try to develop some alternatives.

I begin in describing some concerns

that I have about this sort of evaluating its impact upon me. Earlier today,

I heard the distinguished senior Senator from Iowa talking about the fact

that this budget resolution freezes congressional salary over, I believe, a 7-

year life of the budget. I am impressed

that that is in this budget resolution,

but, Mr. President, I do not really feel

for someone in the $136,000 or whatever

it is plus salary that is a comparable

shared sacrifice. I am not one who

comes to this floor and says that the

problem in America is that rich people

are somehow manipulating and abusing

poor Americans.

I do not believe that at all. But I do

believe if we are going to have $1 trillion worth of deficit reduction over a 7-

year period, it should be shared sacrifice, and it is reasonable to look at

some alternatives, whether it is capping the deductions at 28 percent,

which the Entitlement Commission

recommended would get $80 billion or

$90 billion over a 7-year period, or have

me and others with incomes over

$100,000 having to pay a little bit as a

consequence. Some would come up and

say, oh, gee, that is a big tax increase.

I do not view it that way at all. It is

just an attempt to say we ought to pay

a little bit in order to get this thing to

go away.

It is not, Mr. President, just because

there is a need for shared sacrifice, at

least from my standpoint. It is also a

consequence of coming and saying I am

a little bit troubled, looking at some of

the things that we are asking Americans to do because it seems to me, at

least from my standpoint, I as one individual American am saying, well, gosh,

now that I have mine, I want everybody else to do things that I did not

have to do when I was in trouble or

needed help. I have perhaps more than

most kind of a schizophrenic attitude

toward government. I have had it save

my life. I have had it save my business.

I have had it almost take my life and

almost take my business. It can do

both, Mr. President, but I have to say

in the main, if I look at the 51 years of

my lifetime the Government of the

United States of America, though it

can be a menace from time to time, has

enable me to do an enormous amount.

Yes, individual initiative is important and my family has been important

and my friends have been important,

but there are many key points along

my lifetime, Mr. President, where I

have been given a great deal of help

and I have been given opportunity in

education, been given opportunity in

health care, been given opportunity in

my own business, and I cannot in good

conscience come to the floor and say

that as a consequence of my own experience I feel that I am participating

very much in the shared sacrifice needed, that we are all conscious of what is

needed in order to get this deficit

eliminated.

So I begin with that, Mr. President. I

hope again that the Republican leadership and the distinguished chairman of

the Budget Committee will look to

those of us who intend, if we can, to

reach agreement, which is not easy to

do. If we get an alternative, I hope it is

given good, solid consideration. I hope

the chairman of the Budget Committee

will say that this is a big victory; we

started off the year, nobody believing

we could get much in the way of deficit

reduction, Democrats really not very

enthusiastic about it, according to at

least what you would read, and now all

of a sudden we have Democrats moving

a long ways in our direction willing to

accept—I think we will end up with

close to $700 billion over 7 years in real

cuts, asking only that we look to ways

for all of us to share a little bit in this

thing over the course of the budget.

There is a second problem, Mr. President. I do not know if it can be done in

this budget resolution. I recognize the

constraints of the Budget Committee

and the Budget Enforcement Act really

does not perhaps allow the Budget

Committee to deal with these issues

and maybe it has to be dealt with later

on in the year. Earlier, the senior Senator from Wyoming [Mr. SIMPSON] commented upon it. But the Entitlement

Commission—and I have heard a number of people talk about it—has identified what I think is a serious problem.

I am actually borrowing a chart from

Senator BENNETT, the Senator from

Utah, who had this chart up. But this

really does describe the problem that

the Entitlement Commission identified

which is that mandatory spending and

net interest are growing so rapidly

that sometime around the year 2012,

something like that, it is consuming

all revenue that the Government of the

United States is taking in. That revenue has stayed relatively flat. It is

about the only thing that has stayed

constant. We have collected about 19

percent of the GDP except in World

War II and Vietnam; during those

times it went higher. Most of the time

it stayed about 19 percent. And unless

we change that pattern of growth what

happens is domestic discretionary continues to get squeezed down.

I appreciate the fact that Social Security was not addressed or retirement

not really addressed in this budget resolution. I think it needs to be, not because there is a short-term budget

problem. I am not arguing that we

ought to look at retirement because it

contributes to deficit reduction in the

short term. But it unquestionably contributes to deficit reduction in the long

term.

That is the problem we have. Some

may say, gee, that will be good news, if

we can get rid of all Government functions and turn the Federal Government

into an ATM machine. I do not think

that is good news. I believe not just in

defense but as I hope I indicated earlier

all of those things that have helped me

have been in the domestic discretionary account. Everything I have received from the Government has come

from domestic discretionary, unless

you count the U.S. Navy, which was an

enormous benefit to me as well. I leave

out the world’s largest and most powerful Navy. That was a wonderful experience, too.

All of the rest I have benefited from

have come from this domestic account.

I am troubled by the budget resolution

because it allows that mandatory account to continue to grow. It slows it

down somewhat, but the mandatory accounts continue to grow and continue

to take larger and larger percentages

of domestic discretionary. It must be

understood the budget resolution improves the current trend, makes it

somewhat better, but I do not believe—
S6900 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 18, 1995

and I must say honestly I have not extended it out beyond the 7 years, so I

do not know exactly what it looks like

out there 10, 15, 20, 30 years from now

but looking at the 1996 and 2002 trend

line, that appears to be the case. For

emphasis, the one big change that has

occurred is that net interest has flattened out, and that is a huge benefit to

us.

So to solve this problem of mandatory spending, we have to look at the

long-term situation, not the short

term.

That is why I say it maybe that the

Budget Committee, in looking at a

budget resolution that deals with a 7-

year period of time, may not have been

able to address this mandatory problem.

Senator SIMPSON and I today introduced a piece of legislation that would

complement the Budget Committees

work. Maybe it cannot be considered as

a part of this resolution, but it certainly, I hope, gets consideration. And

I suspect, whether it is 54 Republican

votes or whether the Republicans accept the alternative and we end up

with Republican and Democratic votes,

I do not know, one way or the other, we

are going to get a resolution that requires committees to do a lot of reconciliation.

There are two things that I hope get

considered. The first is one that Senator SIMPSON and I introduced today.

What we say with Social Security,

again, is that we have a long-term

problem. The Social Security trust

fund builds to 2012, then it goes down

to about 2029 when it is completely depleted.

You may say, what is the big deal?

Well, the big deal is our generation, the

baby boomer generation, starts to retire around 2008, the largest generation

in the history of the country, reducing

the number of workers per retiree from

about five down to about three. And we

have big problems out there. The adjustments we would have to make are

rather substantial if we postpone it,

unlike what would have happened in

1983.

What Senator SIMPSON and I do is we

change, for the most part, future benefits. We make some adjustments to CPI

minus 5. I think the budget resolution

is CPI minus 2. In the House resolution, we adjust it by .6 on the House

side. We make the COLA more progressive with the cap reduction. We do

some other things in our proposal that

are short term. But most of them, including the extension of the normal

eligibility age and the early eligibility

age, most of those are pushed off into

approximately the year 2030.

Those changes strengthen Social Security, Mr. President, because what it

does, it says to all generations, every

living American—every living American is a Social Security beneficiary at

some time; they may not be eligible

today, but they will be at some time.

So you have a 20-year-old and they

look at the current situation. They

scratch their head and say, ‘‘Gee, I

don’t think there is going to be anything there for me.’’ Under the legislation Senator SIMPSON and I introduced

today, they would look at the thing

and say, ‘‘There will be something

there for me,’’ because we bring the Social Security balance up to 350 percent

of the annual payment and stabilize it

there for 75 years. So every generation,

every American would say, ‘‘OK, we

now know that Social Security is going

to be there for us.’’

The second thing that we do—and it

has a big impact, I think, on this whole

debate. One of the things we very often

forget is that the deficit reduction action, one of the most powerful things

about it is that it increases national

savings. Deficit financing is an act of

dissavings. Deficit reduction is an act

of savings.

It is a fair argument to make that

the distribution of it may not be terribly equitable. That is one of the reasons I am concerned about, as I said,

what I am having to pay in this budget

resolution and what I am required to

contribute, because there is great inequity when you do deficit reduction.

It does not necessarily benefit all

Americans equally. You have to understand that.

If I own stocks and bonds, the deficit

reduction looks pretty good to me. But

if you do not own stocks and bonds,

you may say, ‘‘Gosh, in the sort short

term, there is not a lot of good there

for me.’’

The second part of the Social Security proposal that we made today

would also increase national savings,

as does the Deficit Reduction Act, by

establishing a 2-percent account for all

Americans. It reduces the employee

payroll tax by 2 percent, a $40 billion a

year tax cut, Mr. President. But not

just a tax cut, a tax cut with the purpose of establishing for all 137 million

American workers a real personal investment plan, similar to what we have

in the thrift savings plan for Federal

employees. It would increase saving

over a 9-year period in excess of $1 trillion, matching this deficit reduction.

This Deficit Reduction Act increases

savings by almost $1 trillion over 7

years. Our proposal would add another

trillion to that, but not just add a trillion, it would add a trillion in savings

spread across 100 million American

households.

So the next thing that must be done,

in addition to addressing retirement, if

you want to control the cost of mandatory spending, if you are not troubled

by the fact that we are squeezing domestic discretionary—Mr. President, I

ask unanimous consent to speak for 5

additional minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. KERREY. The next thing you

have got to do—and this gets, I know,

right back into last year’s argument

—you have to reform health care.

Now the budget resolution addresses

Medicare and attempts to begin the

process of health care reform but, Mr.

President, I do not believe it does

enough. In particular, it does not get

at that long-term structural problem

that will continue to plague us even if

we were to bite the—I would not call it

a bullet. I would call it more of a howitzer round of this budget reduction.

But even if you bite this howitzer

round, you are still going to be left

with pretty substantial increases in

health care costs when the baby

boomers retire. So there is still going

to be a need for us, if you want to control the cost of entitlements and stop

this rapid increase, there is still going

to be a need to get at health care reform and do more than this budget resolution would allow.

Again, I hope very much that it is

possible for those of us on the Democratic side that would like to vote for

a budget resolution to get full consideration by Republicans to have shifted

the argument of full consideration to

two facts. One, we are not really sharing the burden. It really is not an equitable sharing of the burden.

All you have to do is ask yourself, as

a Member of Congress at $136,500, or

whatever the number is, ‘‘Gee, what is

it going to do to me over the next 7

years?’’ The only thing you can really

say is it has frozen your salary for 7

years. And I do not think you would

really get an audience out there paying

more for Medicare, getting less for

Medicaid, having college loan restrictions, and many other things going in

this budget, I do not think you will get

a lot of sympathy from Americans saying, ‘‘That’s right. You guys have really put your shoulder to the wheel here

and shared the burden of sacrifice.’’

That is No. 1. I think that there are

ways for us to make it much more equitable, much more fair, if you do not

mind using that word.

And, second, Mr. President, I believe

whether we do it in this budget resolution or we do it after the budget resolution, we still have a problem of mandating spending. We still have a problem of mandating spending, that if you

do not want to convert the Federal

Government into an ATM machine,

you have to address retirement and

you have to address health care and

you have to do more than just reduce

the size of the deficit and increase national savings, as a consequence.

Mr. President, as I indicated, I

watched the early part of this debate

and it seemed to me to be going in the

wrong direction. It was very uncivil

and very partisan and very unfortunate. I do not mean that about the distinguished Senator from New Mexico

or the distinguished Senator from Nebraska. I thought their opening comments were, you know, quite calm and

quite reasoned. But it deteriorated in a

hurry into accusations from that side

of the aisle, from some who say, ‘‘Gee,

you Democrats don’t want to do anything.’’

Not true. There are a lot of us who

are willing to do an awful lot.
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6901

And I heard on this side, as well,

some accusations that Republicans are

heartless and they are trying to cut the

heart out of the American family, on

and on and on. I think, in fact, our

rhetoric was in excess as well.

I do not know, Mr. President, if we

are going to be able to reach a point

where we have a Republican and a

Democratic resolution here. I sincerely

hope that we are able to do it, because

I will predict to my Republican friends

on the other side of the aisle, once we

get to the tough task of reconciling

these numbers, you are going to say,

‘‘Oh, my gosh, will you guys help us?

Will you stand with us and lead this

country in the right direction?’’

Because it will not just be a vote, Mr.

President. We have got a lot of leadership to exert if we are going to take

this country in a different direction

than the one that it is currently headed.

So, again, I thank both the Senator

from New Mexico and the Senator from

Nebraska, who I think have made a

good-faith effort. Both of them I know

are deeply troubled by the deficit financing this country is doing. I sincerely hope that between now and

Wednesday or whenever it is that we

vote on final passage that we are able

to reconcile the obvious differences

that we have between our two parties

and put together a bipartisan budget

resolution.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. JEFFORDS). Who yields time?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I yield 5 minutes

to Senator FRIST.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, my message is a brief one. If we are to restore

the American dream, we must change

the way Washington does business, and

we can change the way Washington

does business by passing the first balanced budget plan in almost 30 years.

The plan has been laid out over the

course of today, and it is before us

here. This chart shows Federal budget

deficits by year—1995, 1996, out to the

year 2002. In red is the Clinton budget,

approximately $200 billion in 1995, increasing every year to the year 2000 to

over $250 billion. Yet we have a choice,

and that choice is the Domenici balanced budget plan put before us today.

That balanced budget plan results in a

decrease in the deficit every year, 1995

to 1996, 1997, down to the year 2002,

where the budget will be balanced; we

will have zero deficit.

We heard a lot about children today.

Mr. President, I want to talk just a

minute about why the Republican

budget, the Domenici balanced budget,

is the most compassionate thing we

can do for our Nation’s children. It is

the most morally responsible thing

that we can do for our Nation’s children.

Today, we are asking impossible

things of our children. I am the father

of three young boys, Harrison, 12; Jonathan, 9; and Bryan, 8. Many people—

even today—ask me why would you run

for the U.S. Senate? And my answer is

very clearly, I ran to now serve in the

U.S. Senate because I was concerned

about the future of their generation, a

future in jeopardy because of the projected Clinton budget deficits to increase year after year.

But today, we have a choice. We expect today’s young people to finance

Federal deficits of staggering proportions. A young child born today is born

into this world and given a bill of

$19,000, a bill that he or she did not ask

for. We give that young child—and it

could be your child or my child or a

grandchild or a neighbor’s child—we

give that child a lifetime tax rate

today, unless we act, of 82 percent. We

give that child today an obligation to

pay over $187,000 in taxes over that

young child’s lifetime just to pay interest on the Federal debt, and that child

did not ask for this Federal debt. We

have given it to him or her.

At 7 years of age, when that child

would start elementary school, Medicare is going to be bankrupt unless we

act, and act today. When that young

child is 17 years of age, when he or she

graduates from high school, spending

on Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, Federal and military pensions, and

interest on the debt will consume the

entire budget, leaving no money for defense, education, roads, or any other

purpose.

We are asking that young child today

to pay for a health care system in the

future whose projected costs are running out of control. But the Domenici

balanced budget plan will reverse that

trend. We are trying hard to stop the

repeating and ongoing flow of Government red ink, and like a family gathered around the kitchen table, Republicans have made difficult choices

needed to protect our future.

Mr. President, this budget plan will

benefit our children by building a more

prosperous tomorrow, a tomorrow of

greater opportunity. The Congressional

Budget Office reports that each percentage point of growth will result in

600,000 new jobs, and that same budget

office has said that balancing the budget will result in additional growth of 2

to 3 percent a year. This means greater

opportunity for our children, greater

possibilities. They will be able to find

better jobs and they will be able to

work, and someday they will be able to

support their own children.

Lower interest rates will help them

in everything that they do. The CBO

has told us that interest rates will

come down by as much as 2 percent,

and this means that they will have to

pay less to buy their first home. It will

cost them less to finance their cars, to

finance their education, to be able to

start—even start—their own small

businesses if they want to. Lower interest rates will have a ripple effect

throughout their lives.

Mr. President, the Concord Coalition

has told us that the average family income would be not $35,000 but $50,000 if

that family was not burdened by the

massive Federal debt.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator’s 5 minutes have expired.

Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent

for an additional 3 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is time

yielded?

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes, I yield an additional 3 minutes to the Senator from

Tennessee.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.

Mr. FRIST. The GAO predicts that if

we balance the budget by the year 2002,

the average American will have a real

growth in income of 36 percent by the

year 2020.

Mr. President, the best thing we can

do for our children is to increase productivity. That will bring higher incomes. The American dream is fading

for the generation of my young sons

unless we act. During their lifetime, incomes for our young people, those

under 24, have fallen by more than 15

percent. A balanced budget will reverse

those trends. It will restore the American dream.

So I close by saying that we, indeed,

have a moral obligation to do this for

our children. We must leave them a

world of expanding opportunities, a

world where they can achieve their

American dreams. Enacting the Republican balanced budget proposal is the

responsible thing to do. Now is the

time to do it.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the

Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who

yields time?

Mr. EXON. I yield whatever time is

needed to the Senator from Illinois.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.

Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, thank you very much. I thank

the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. President, according to some of

my colleagues, this debate is about

whether this Congress should set out a

framework for balancing the budget

over the next 7 years. They argue with

great fervor that the choice before the

Senate is a choice between a budget

submitted by the President of the United States that does not balance the

budget anytime in the foreseeable future, or the resolution now before us.

That, however, is a false choice. The

real issue is not whether to begin the

task of restoring fiscal discipline. The

real issue is how. The real issue is

whether this budget resolution, in its

current form, is a blueprint that this

country can and should follow.

The first step toward answering that

question involves asking another; is it

fair? Unfortunately, the answer to that

question is no.

This resolution is not fair to the

working poor. American families with

incomes of under $28,000 would see an
S6902 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 18, 1995

effective increase in their taxes of

$1,400 over the next 7 years under the

changes in the earned income tax credit [EITC] this resolution proposes.

It is not fair to seniors. It will likely

cost retired Americans about $900 per

year in higher premiums, copayments,

and deductibles—$3,200 over 7 years.

For a senior couple, that totals an

extra $6,400 in out-of-pocket costs. And

yet, there is nothing in the resolution

that will do anything about the inflation in medical costs that is one of the

principle factors driving the increases

in Medicare spending.

It is not fair to students. Four million college students could see their

costs go up by as much as $4,920. Perhaps as many as half a million or more

children would be denied access to preschool education, and two million more

elementary and secondary school students would see their math and reading

funding cut.

It is not fair to maintain sacred cows

like defense, which seem immune from

reexamination even though we have

won the cold war and the Soviet Union

is no more.

And it is not fair to the American

people to propose cutting taxes by $170

billion in a budget that shreds the social safety net and decimates needed

investments in our future.

This budget resolution cannot be

fair—and it can not work—because it

does not accurately portray the Federal budget, and because it does not accurately reflect the interests of the

American people. This budget resolution is all about numbers—$256 billion

in Medicare cuts, $14 billion cut from

the EITC, $190 billion cut from welfare,

nutrition, retirement programs, and

other mandatory spending—and on and

on and on. But the numbers do not add

up—and they are not guideposts to the

future we can count on—because they

reflect an abstract accountancy approach to the Federal Government,

with little or no understanding of what

the numbers really represent. One

number represents the opportunity for

young children to participate in Headstart, so that they can enhance their

chances to succeed in school, and,

therefore, to succeed in life. Another

number represents access to health

care. Yet another represents retirement security for older Americans. Yet

another protects the ability of family

farmers to stay on their farms. And

others are about opening the doors of

economic opportunity by creating incentives to work and to save.

What is behind the numbers are the

American people—their lives, their opportunities, and their hopes for the future. People are not economic abstractions, and we cannot afford any budget

that treats people as mere numbers. Instead, we need to think about budgets

the way American families think about

them.

When a family decides to cut its

budget because they owe the bank or

the credit card company or the car

dealership, they sit down at the kitchen table with a calculator and talk

numbers. They also talk about what is

important to them, what their actions

will mean for their children, for their

parents, for them when the retire. That

family at the kitchen table decides to

spend money on some things and not

others. They decide to pay off their

debts a little more slowly so that they

can continue to pay for what is essential to their well-being.

They may talk about why it is important to cut spending in the first

place, so that everyone in the family

understands their situation, and why

they have to act, so they can all agree

that it is a priority. They try to have

all the facts about how their money is

actually spent, so that each person understands where the money is going.

They discuss priorities, talking about

expenses they need to continue to

meet, and activities they can afford to

cut back. They think and talk about

how the proposed changes in family

spending will affect each member of

the family. And they budget with the

future in mind, so that they can meet

critically important long-range goals,

like ensuring that the children in the

family are educated, that there is

money for things like braces, and that

they have the cash they need to make

a downpayment on a home. They look

at how their choices will affect them

and their grandchildren on down in the

future.

Establishing family budget priorities

often involves some very tough decisions. Families could decide to risk

their future to support vacations or a

new car, or a big-screen TV. The family

could stop paying medical insurance

premiums. The family could take their

kid out of college. They could even sell

their house. The family could decide to

divest themselves of all of their savings

and net worth.

But the American family realizes

that keeping their daughter in college

is important to her achieving the

American Dream. And they want to be

sure that grandmother has adequate

healthcare and that she can enjoy her

retirement years. They know that not

having health care coverage means

risking a catastrophe. Having a car to

go to work and a house to live in are

also critically important to families.

After all, without a car, there are no

jobs to support the family, and without

a home, they are out on the street. The

American family, therefore, would not

make cuts that would endanger their

ability to secure what is really important to them, their own piece of the

American Dream: Health care, transportation, education, jobs, housing—

these are the essentials.

To deal with the Federal budget, the

American family—all of us, together—

must sit down and decide what is important. What it is we need to save,

and what it is that can be cut. As a nation, we must do what any sensible

family would do to get themselves

back on their feet financially. We must

come together; we must look at the

numbers, and most importantly, we

must consider what each of the numbers means for people, and for our individual and collective futures.

I. IMPACT OF BUDGET DEFICIT ON ALL

AMERICANS

We all know that the budget deficit

has an impact on all Americans. The

national debt has quadrupled since

1980, growing from $1 trillion to over

$4.7 trillion, as it is increasing as a

share of our overall economy as well.

These debts are crippling our ability to

meet important national priorities,

like education. They are jeopardizing

future economic opportunity for our

children, and the generations that will

follow.

The budget deficit put pressure on interest rates. Higher interest rates

make it more costly for Americans to

buy homes and cars, and to educate

their children. Consider what a change

in interest rates can mean to the ability of Americans to buy their own

homes. If a family buys a house for

$100,000 and the interest rate is 9 percent, that family is paying $9,000 per

year in interest alone. If we balance

the budget interest rates should fall. If

interest rates drop even 1 percent, that

would put an extra $1,000 in the pockets

of the family that bought the house.

On the other hand, if we do not act, and

interest rates go up, that takes money

right out of that family’s pockets—or

makes it impossible for them to buy

the home at all.

Persistent deficits not only affect the

costs of homes, it also creates inflation

pressure. And inflation disproportionately affects moderate and low-income

Americans. Since 1980, for example the

average price of a home has tripled in

the Midwest. But the incomes of Illinoisans did not even double. What that

means is that more and more Illinoisans—and their counterparts in every

other state in the union—are being

priced out of the American Dream.

II. WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT WE ARE SPENDING

MONEY ON

Americans know that, for all too

many of them, the American Dream

seems to be slipping out of reach. And

years of discussions of big government

have convinced many of them that the

Federal Government’s profligacy is a

big part of the reason why. Seemingly

endless debates on ‘‘pork barrel’’,

waste, fraud, and abuse, and foreign aid

have many Americans convinced that

is where the Government spends its

money. The truth, however, is that foreign aid is less than 1 percent of the

budget, and that appropriated spending, whether ‘‘pork barrel’’ or essential, is shrinking both as a percentage

of the Federal budget and as a percentage of the economy. The truth is that

the major increases in Federal spending are not due to ‘‘pork barreling,’’

but to increases in what is called entitlement or mandatory spending.

By the year 2012, unless appropriate

policy changes are made, spending for

the major entitlement programs—Medicare, Medicaid Social Security, and
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6903

Federal retirement, together with interest on the national debt—will

consume every single dollar of Federal

revenue.

By the year 2002, unless there is

change, the Medicare trust fund will go

broke, and by the year 2029, Social Security will not be able to meet its obligations.

III. RESOLUTION MUST BE CAREFULLY CRAFTED

With problems like this looming in

the not too distant future, it is clear

that we must balance the budget. The

thing is, we must keep the interests of

all American families in mind when we

craft a deficit reduction package. How

we make the cuts is as important as

the numbers that we are cutting.

IV. MEDICARE

The Republican plan seeks a $256 billion cut in Medicare funding. If this cut

is implemented, all States will suffer.

In Illinois for example, over 1.6 million

Illinoisans who are covered by Medicare would have to pay an additional

$2,770 over 7 years, and an additional

$784 in 2002 alone in out-of-pocket expenses. On an overall basis, Illinois

would lose $9.3 billion in Medicare

funds over the next 7 years, $2.6 billion

in 2002 alone. Other States face similar

cuts.

Now, changes need to be made so

that the Medicare trust fund will not

go bankrupt by 2002. But the changes

should not be made at the expense of

healthcare access. And changes that do

not focus on the real Medicare problem—health care inflation—make no

sense at all. The costs of obtaining

quality health care are on the rise.

Cutting the Medicare budget by an arbitrarily chosen $256 billion is not the

answer to this problem. It does nothing

to deal with the overall inflation of

health prices or the fact that many

more people are becoming eligible for

benefits each year.

The budget resolution does not really

propose anything to reduce health care

inflation. Rather, all it does is raise

the cost of health care to older Americans—83 percent of Medicare users have

an annual income of under $25,000—or

reduce their access to health care. Last

year’s health care debate was all about

improving access to health care. This

year’s budget resolution is all about

decreasing access to health care. Seniors will have to pay more or go without healthcare. This is not right. We

cannot retreat from our commitment

to ensuring that elderly Americans

have access to high-quality, affordable

health care.

Cutting Medicare does not only impact on elderly Americans, these cuts

will have direct impacts on all American families. Families will have to

shoulder increasing costs for insuring

that their loved ones receive proper

care if Medicare does not cover the expenses. Cutting Medicare by such a

record setting amount is essentially

equivalent to a tax increase since families will have to pay more for adequate

health coverage.

V. EDUCATION

As we work to ensure that all Americans have access to adequate health

care, we also have to work to ensure

that all Americans have opportunities

to pursue the American Dream. We

have an obligation to our youth to provide them with the education to attain

the American Dream. The budget resolution, however, seeks to stifle that

dream, with changes such as more costly student loans. In Illinois, for example, almost 200,000 students would see

their monthly student loan payments

increase by 18 percent. If the goal of

balancing the budget it to reduce the

debt burden on future generations,

what sense does it make to increase

the debt burden on future college graduates?

In fact in a study cited in Sunday’s

New York Times, the Census Bureau

for the Federal Department of Education found that increases in workers’

education levels produce twice the gain

in workplace efficiency as comparable

increases in the value of tools and machinery. The findings are based on

interviews with about 3,000 businesses

owners and managers. It found that a

8.6 percent increase in productivity

could be had from a 10 percent increase

in educational attainment. These kinds

of statistics demonstrate once again

how important education is to our

economy’s productivity, and overall

success. Making it more difficult for

our children to obtain proper training

and education will only hurt our nation in the long-run.

VI. EITC

Not only does this budget resolution

seek to increase the debt burden on our

future college graduates, it also scales

back the earned income tax credit for

working families. The EITC is a refundable tax credit for working families

with low incomes. The goals of the

EITC are first, to encourage families to

move from welfare to work by making

work pay and second, to reward work

for working families so parents who

work full-time do not have to raise

their children in poverty—and families

with modest means do not suffer from

eroding incomes. By providing an offset

against other Federal taxes, the EITC

increases disposable income for workers and their families.

The EITC has long enjoyed bipartisan

support; it has been viewed as a nonbureaucratic way to make work pay

better than welfare. President Reagan

called the EITC ‘‘The best antipoverty,

the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of the Congress.’’ So why is it being cut?

The Senate Budget Committee would

reduce EITC by $13 billion between fiscal years 1996 and 2000 and by $21 billion between fiscal years 1996 and 2002.

About 7.8 million EITC recipients—

nearly half of the EITC recipients with

children—would be affected by this proposal. On average their EITC would be

cut by $270. Families with two or more

children would be hit hardest by this

proposal. In Illinois 500,000 working

families’ taxes will be essentially increased by $1,520 over the next 7 years

due to the EITC cut.

Our goal should be to encourage families to move from welfare to work, not

the opposite. As the minimum wage

has not kept pace with inflation, lowincome families need all the help they

can get to make ends meet. From every

added dollar a low income worker

earns, payroll taxes take 15.3 cents

while food stamp benefits decline by 24

cents. For a low-wage family with two

children, the EITC fully offsets these

effects by providing a 40-cent credit for

every dollar earned.

American families are the key to our

country’s success. It is our duty to especially help those families that are

working hard yet have trouble making

ends meet. By helping them succeed we

make them stronger and in turn our

country stronger.

VII. TAX CUTS

If the budget resolution’s goal is to

reduce the deficit to make our country

stronger, it does not seem fiscally responsible to be discussing cutting

taxes. This is the wrong time for cuts.

Right now our priority should be deficit reduction. Tax cuts now would only

hinder our ability to reach a balanced

budget. If a family was facing financial

problems, they would not voluntarily

give up a part-time job or turn down

overtime just when they desperately

need the extra income. Providing a tax

cut now just when our country needs to

address our financial problems is the

wrong thing to do.

VIII. OBLIGATION TO OUR FUTURE

The budget debate is really about our

obligation to the future. We need to

open the door of economic opportunity

for all Americans. We need to invest

now in areas like education on which

our future success will ultimately depend, and we have an obligation to be

honest.

AFDC for example, cost $4 billion in

1970 and served 7.4 million people. In

1993, it cost $22 billion and served 14.1

million people. That sounds like a big

increase, does it not? When you adjust

for inflation, however, benefits are not

higher than they were in 1970, they are

actually 47 percent lower. So when we

talk about reducing the rate of growth

of Medicare from 10 percent to 7 percent, we must acknowledge that the result of that kind of change may mean

significant increases in out-of-pocket

costs for Medicare beneficiaries, 83 percent of whom have incomes of $25,000 or

less. We cannot pretend that is not so.

We also have an obligation to try to

open the door to economic opportunity

to Americans who are now locked out.

It is the right thing to do, and it is the

smart thing to do. If we can use all of

the talents of all of our people, we are

all better off. That means we need welfare reform designed to bring welfare

recipients into the mainstream of our

economy, not just welfare reform designed to cut spending in the short run.

That means we need job training, and

housing, and nutrition reforms that
S6904 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 18, 1995

make sense, and that we need incentives to boost jobs and investment in

communities that continue to suffer

unemployment levels above those last

seen nationwide in the Great Depression.

IX. TIMEFRAME TO ACHIEVE BALANCED BUDGET

As we go forward, it is worth keeping

in mind that there is no magic associated with the idea of balancing the

budget in 7 years. We could balance it

in 9 or 10 years if we are really committed to change. If we are honest and we

give up gamesmanship and tell the

truth to the American people, adding a

couple of years to the timeframe will

not undermine our ability to achieve

the objective. What is important is

maintaining our priorities and not retreating from our obligations to American families.

X. CONCLUSION

We have to keep in mind that what is

at stake is our future. We are all in

this together. We need to make our decisions together, like an American

family would. We need to base our decisions on the truth and the fiscal realities that we face. When we sit down at

the kitchen table and begin to look at

what needs to be done, we need to consider our core priorities —education,

housing, and quality health care for all

and we ought to make certain that in

any event the balance is achieved in

the burden sharing, and that the shared

sacrifice is fair to everyone.

We can only make those decisions if

we keep in mind our core priorities.

That is what common sense dictates

and that is what I hope this budget debate will give us an opportunity to do.

That is what any sensible family

would do to get themselves back on

their feet financially. And that is what

we need to do.

I hope that we can come together in

the spirit of bipartisan cooperation to

do what Americans expect of us. Both

parties need to tell the truth about

what is actually in the budget and

what the changes will mean for the

American people. We need to use honest numbers and economic assumptions

and put everything on the table. Unfortunately this budget resolution looks

only at the numbers, and not at the

people. For that reason I can not support it in its current form.

But we have to always be mindful

that in the final analysis these abstract numbers and the figures that get

thrown around in the millions and billions of dollars really have very real realities for very real people. And we will

not rest easy if the result of the work

of this body is to encourage the pain or

to put the burden on small groups of

Americans at the expense of to the benefit of everybody else.

A balanced budget based on an unbalanced burden is a disservice to the

American family.

Mr. President, I thank you very

much.

I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might need.

I wish to first thank my friend from

Nebraska for his comments on the

budget, and also the excellent comments just made by my friend and colleague from the State of Illinois for

keeping these things in proper perspective, which we are trying to do. I appreciate very much the constructive,

thoughtful remarks by my colleague

from Illinois and my colleague from

Nesbraska. I hope that we can continue

to move forward.

As I said when I started out the debate this noon, I think possibly we

could still work out a bipartisanship

approach to this. I certainly hope and

encourage all to keep an open mind as

best we can.

I would just like to finish up the first

day of debate, which I think generally

has been an informative one, by emphasizing once again the very hard hit

that the Medicare cuts proposed in the

budget that I think must be alleviated

as we have maintained all day long.

I would like to read a letter into the

record from the Nebraska Association

of Hospitals and Health Systems. This

letter was written to me by a man that

I have known for a long time, Mr. Harlan Heald. Harlan is the President of

the organization known as the Nebraska Association of Hospitals and

Health Systems. I think his letter,

which is not a very long one, really

sets up the major concerns that all of

us who have, and rural areas in our

States should be particularly concerned about.

The letter is dated May 10. It is addressed to me. He said:

On behalf of the 94 acute care hospitals in

Nebraska, I wish to call your attention to a

serious potential problem.

Clearly, the United States must work its

way out of debt. To do that, Federal spending must be cut. It is my understanding that

the Senate Budget Committee Chairman’s

mark is set at an overall reduction of $1.5

trillion by the year 2002. I further understand

that in order to achieve a savings of that

magnitude, Medicare is targeted for $256 billion reduction in spending over the same

seven-year period.

Here’s the problem. For fiscal year 1993

(FY ’93) (the most current completed year),

Nebraska hospitals had a net operating margin of ¥7.5 percent for care rendered to Medicare recipients. Based upon the Chairman’s

mark for Medicare spending, in the year 2000

Nebraska hospitals would have a net operating margin of ¥23 percent for Medicare patients. This figure is expected to improve by

the year 2002 to a net operating margin loss

of only 14.5 percent, because the reductions

are ‘‘front loaded.’’

Putting this into financial terms, in FY ’93

Nebraska hospitals lost $383 per case caring

for Medicare patients. Based upon the Chairman’s mark, in the year 2000 they would lose

on average $1,339 per case and in 2002 they

would lose $983 per case caring for Medicare

patients. This is all compounded by the fact

that Nebraska is a state with a higher proportion of elderly citizens in its population.

How can hospitals respond to the cuts of

this magnitude? Hospitals are caught in a

catch-22. They can: (1) shift more costs to

the private sector—this is no longer a viable

option in today’s managed care environment;

(2) slash wages and lay-off employees; (3) cut

back on the scope of services provided—all of

which threatens the quality of care, will

close rural hospitals and restrict access. It is

a lose-lose situation for community hospitals. Reimbursement reductions of this

magnitude in a state with a disproportionate

share of the elderly population, a state in

which Medicare patients account for 60 to 70

percent of hospital admissions, clearly

threatens the health care system upon which

all of us depend.

Medicare needs to be fixed. There is an opportunity for Congress to change Medicare,

but the change must be driven by sound

health care policy, not budgetary or political

imperatives. The Senate Budget Committee’s proposed Medicare reductions would

crush Nebraska hospitals.

As always, Nebraska’s hospitals look to

your leadership.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the

RECORD.

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

RECORD, as follows:

NEBRASKA ASSOCIATION OF

HOSPITALS AND HEALTH SYSTEMS,

May 10, 1995.

Hon. J. JAMES EXON,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR EXON: On behalf of the 94

acute care hospitals in Nebraska, I wish to

call your attention to a serious potential

problem.

Clearly, the United States must work its

way out of debt. To do that, Federal spending must be cut. It is my understanding that

the Senate Budget Committee Chairman’s

mark is set at an overall reduction of $1.5

trillion by the year 2002. I further understand

that in order to achieve a savings of that

magnitude, Medicare is targeted for $256 billion reduction in spending over the same

seven-year period.

Here’s the problem. For fiscal year 1993

(FY ’93) (the most current completed year),

Nebraska hospitals had a net operating margin of ¥7.5 percent for care rendered to Medicare recipients. Based upon the Chairman’s

mark for Medicare spending, in the year 2000

Nebraska hospitals would have a net operating margin of ¥23 percent for Medicare patients. This figure is expected to improve by

the year 2002 to a net operating margin loss

of only 14.5 percent, because the reductions

are ‘‘front loaded.’’

Putting this into financial terms, in FY ’93

Nebraska hospitals lost $383 per case caring

for Medicare patients. Based upon the Chairman’s mark, in the year 2000 they would lose

on average $1,339 per case and in 2002 they

would lose $983 per case caring for Medicare

patients. This is all compounded by the fact

that Nebraska is a state with a higher proportion of elderly citizens in its population.

How can hospitals respond to the cuts of

this magnitude? Hospitals are caught in a

catch-22. They can: (1) shift more costs to

the private sector—this is no longer a viable

option in today’s managed care environment;

(2) slash wages and lay-off employees; (3) cut

back on the scope of services provided—all of

which threatens the quality of care, will

close rural hospitals and restrict access. It is

a lose-lose situation for community hospitals. Reimbursement reductions of this

magnitude in a state with a disproportionate

share of the elderly population, a state in

which Medicare patients account for 60 to 70

percent of hospital admissions, clearly

threatens the health care system upon which

all of us depend.
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6905

Medicare needs to be fixed. There is an opportunity for Congress to change Medicare,

but the change must be driven by sound

health care policy, not budgetary or political

imperatives. The Senate Budget Committee’s proposed Medicare reductions would

crush Nebraska hospitals.

As always, Nebraska’s hospitals look to

your leadership.

Sincerely,

HARLAN M. HEALD,

President.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, we are

going to be finishing I believe debate

very shortly. The distinguished Senator from Texas I know has some remarks. I know of no other speakers

seeking recognition on this side. I have

been advised likewise by the Senator

from Texas.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

I yield the floor.

Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the

Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr.

President.

Mr. President, this is the end of a

long day. It is the end of a very important day for this country. We have

heard so many arguments. The numbers are running in people’s heads.

They are conflicting. One person says

there are cuts. The next person comes

in, and says they are not cuts, they are

just fewer increases. But in fact, it

really comes down to the basic commonsense arguments that the people of

America understand.

The debate today is for the soul of

America. It is for the future of our

children. And what we do over the next

50 hours is going to determine whether

our children and grandchildren in fact

will have the right to inherit the same

kind of America that we have been able

to grow up in and for which we have

known such great advantages.

The House of Representatives tonight

has taken the first bold step. They

have passed a budget resolution that

will balance the budget by the year

2002. The Senate is starting on the road

that will have the same result.

I was talking to a group of leaders

from all over the world today. They

really had one basic question. Does

America have the guts to balance the

budget? Will they really do it? Do they

really have the guts to set a course

over the next 7 years that will be very

tough but will make the difference in

the economy for our country, and for

the whole world? And I said emphatically the answer is yes. We do have the

guts. We do have the courage. We do

have the will. And we will set on the

course.

Will it be easy? No. But we are going

to do it because the people of this

country made a statement in November 1994. They asked for courage, and

we are going to give them the courage

that they had in the vote they made

last November, and that they deserve

from the people they elected and put

their faith in.

We have heard so many statements

on this floor that I think we must try

to correct, as best we can, some of the

misstatements that were made.

First of all, it was said that this

budget resolution has tax cuts for

those making $200,000 a year. Well, the

fact of the matter is this resolution

does not have tax cuts at all. This

budget resolution does not speak to tax

cuts. But it does have a sense of the

Senate that, if there are tax cuts that

result from cutting spending, they will

be targeted and focused to people making under $100,000. There are no tax

cuts for the rich in this resolution.

That is a smokescreen. That is put out

by people who do not want us to pass a

balanced budget. Then there was the

talk about defense spending. There was

ranting about the firewall put up for

defense spending so that we would have

domestic spending and defense spending. Well, in fact, there is a firewall,

Mr. President. Thank goodness there is

a firewall. People talk as if, when the

cold war was over, the world was a safe

place.

I am on the Armed Services Committee, and I am on the Senate Select

Committee on Intelligence. I am scared

to death about the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons

all over the world right now. We have

as much danger in the world today as

we did when Russia was at the height

of its strength.

It is a different kind of problem. It is

a different kind of terror we are seeing

in the world today, but nevertheless

the greatest superpower in the world is

not going to let down.

We are going to have to understand

what happens when sarin gas is let out

in a subway killing people before our

very eyes, and when you can make

bombs from fertilizer and fuel oil, and

we see the loss of over 100 lives in our

own country, and when we see the capability to produce missiles that could

take these gases, the biological and

chemical weapons and the nuclear

weapons anywhere in the world. You

bet we have a firewall in this budget

resolution. Thank goodness we do for

the defense spending, because I think

the defense cuts are too much in this

resolution, and I hope we can fix it because I wish to be on the leading edge

of technology.

When our young men and women give

their lives to protect our freedom in

our armed services, you bet I want

them to have the tanks and the fighters and the bombers they need to make

sure that they do it as safely as possible for themselves and with the

strength they need to protect us.

So, yes, there is a firewall. Thank

goodness there is. And I hope that we

can correct even right now in this

budget resolution what, I think, is a

woefully inadequate amount for defense. But we are not going to pass a

resolution saying we increase defense

spending without looking at the priorities and saying where is it going to

come from and making those priority

judgments. That is what we are here to

do.

Does this resolution cut school

lunch? No, it does not cut school

lunches at all. That is an absolute

smokescreen.

Does it cut the earned income tax

credit? No. In fact, the earned income

tax credit will remain. That is a good

program. It is a program for the working poor. For someone making $20,000

or $18,000 a year, that has one or two

children, they do get a tax rebate in

this budget resolution just as they do

today, and in fact that amount increases by the year 2002 because we

want to encourage people who are helping themselves. So there is no cut in

the earned income tax credit. There are

only increases. It is important that we

set the record straight on that.

Now, it has been said that Medicare

is going to be cut. Once again, Mr.

President, that is not true. Medicare

spending will increase 7 percent a year

in this budget. Does that mean Medicare is going to be the same as it has

always been? I hope not. I hope we can

get efficiencies that make Medicare

more cost conscience because it has

been increasing at a much greater rate

than 7 percent per year.

We are not cutting Medicare. We are

going to try to put some innovative solutions in Medicare so that our seniors

who need Medicare will have it available, and they will have other options,

and there will be incentives for them to

save money, incentives that they will

earn for themselves and for the taxpayers of America. We are going to

have some innovative solutions, but we

are not going to cut Medicare. We are

going to try to save Medicare. That is

going to be one of the key missions of

this budget resolution, to save Medicare, so that when our future generations grow old it will be there for them.

The President’s own cabinet officers

who sit on the Medicare trust fund

board have said it is going bankrupt,

and it will be bankrupt by the year 2002

if we do not take steps right now to

save it. And that is one of the key purposes of this budget resolution.

Now, it has been said that the space

station has not been cut. I wish it had

not been cut, because I do think the

space station is one of the technologies

that is going to provide jobs for our future, but it is cut. It takes its fair

share. It is cut $3.5 billion over the

next 5 years. It is taking its fair share

of cuts. It is going to be more efficient,

just like everything else in Government, and hopefully we will have a

space station that will provide the new

technologies and the new industries

and the new jobs for our future. But everything is going to have to be more efficient, and it is going to have to meet

a number of tests to make sure that it

is right for the taxpayers and for our

future generations.

There is a test that I have, and I am

going to use it on everything that we

vote on when we come to appropriations bills in the next few months. It is

going to be the $100 test. If you take

$100 and you put it on the kitchen table
S6906 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 18, 1995

and you say, now, would you like to

have this wonderful program that is

going to cost $100 for your family?

Most people would probably say, yes, I

would like to do good things. Sure, I

would like to have that program. But if

the choice is for you to keep the $100

on your kitchen table and spend that

money for what you want to spend it

for for your family, what is going to be

your choice? Are you going to send the

$100 to Washington to spend on a program that sounds very good or are you

going to want to keep that $100 to

make the decisions for your family

yourself. We are going to try to keep

that $100 on the table for your family,

so that you can decide what your priorities are rather than letting someone

in Washington, DC, you have never met

make those decisions for you.

Two economists developed a model

for the future called generational accounting. This model calculates how

much short-term budget policies will

cost future generations. It looks beyond 5-year budget projections and was

developed from the help of the President’s Office of Management and Budget.

These two prominent economists

have produced some shocking forecasts. On the day a child is born, that

child owes $19,000 in Federal debt.

When that child’s sibling is born in 4

years, the baby brother or sister will be

$24,000 in debt. There will be fewer jobs

available for that child. And when it

comes time to take out a personal loan

to buy a new car or to own a home, our

children that are being born today will

find that Federal deficits have driven

the interest rates up 2 percent. But

borrowing money for a home will be

just a dream for those children. If we

continue at the rate we are going right

now, what we are really going to give

our children is not the ability to buy a

home at all. They will not be able to

buy a home because their tax rate will

be 82 percent—82 percent is what we

will be giving to our children and

grandchildren if we do not take steps

right now to correct the runaway

spending that this Congress has had for

the last 40 years.

And yet, this administration has refused to abandon the practices of Congresses for the last 40 years. In fact,

this administration has dealt itself out

of this debate. The President submitted

a budget but it does not balance. It

does not balance in the year 2000 or the

year 2002. The President abdicated that

responsibility and has left it to Congress.

Now we are going to get a chance to

vote on the President’s budget that

does not balance. In fact, the President’s press secretary said on Tuesday

that that will be a good place for us to

begin.

In fact, Senator DOMENICI has decided

that that is indeed a good place to

begin. So, when I finish my remarks,

on behalf of Senator DOMENICI, I am

going to submit the President’s budget.

That will be the first vote of this budget debate and we will get a chance to

see if people want to vote for a budget

that may have fewer decreases than increases, but does not balance at the

end. We will see who is willing to cross

the line that will be drawn in the sand

to say, we will take the responsible

course for this country and we will do

what the people asked us to do last November.

In fact, we are in the toughest debate

that we may ever have. No one, probably even Senator DOMENICI, agrees

with everything in this budget resolution. I do not agree with everything in

it. Not one person in this country probably agrees 100 percent with everything

in it. Because, you know, Senator DOMENICI compromised. He tried to work

with people and their priorities. He

may not have liked everything that is

in this resolution even though he is the

prime author of the resolution. But we

are going to rise above our small differences. We are going to try to set the

priorities. We are going to have amendments.

We may vote for some of those

amendments, but in the end, Mr. President, the people who are doing what is

responsible for this country are going

to vote a balanced budget out of the

Senate just as they have done in the

House today. And we are going to make

history. We are going to begin to turn

the ship of state that started going in

the wrong direction in the 1930’s when

we started building up spending and big

Government until in 1994 the people

said, ‘‘I know I’m going to have to sacrifice. I’m ready.’’ The people of this

country said that. They understood

what they were doing.

And when I go home, people say to

me, ‘‘You hang tough. Don’t back down

now.’’

This is our chance to save our country. And if we miss it, the people of

America know that we will not have

this chance again maybe ever but certainly not in the near future.

There is a new spirit in this country.

The spirit of the Americans who went

to the polls in 1994 and caused a revolution in the way that our Founding Fathers provided them to have a revolution. And that was the ballot box. The

people had a revolution and they took

their Government back. They have experienced the right of democracy. And

now the people of America have said,

‘‘We want you to do what is right. We

understand that it will be tough. We

understand that we will have to sacrifice. But we are ready. We are ready

to do what is right for our children and

our grandchildren.’’

Mr. President, it is time for us to

look to the future, not to the next election.

If we do what is right, everything

else will take care of itself and we will

create the jobs and the future for our

children and that is what we are going

to do.

AMENDMENT NO. 1111

(Purpose: To propose the President’s budget)

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, on

behalf of Senator DOMENICI, I send to

the desk the President’s budget and

ask that the President’s budget be put

on the table for consideration beginning tomorrow morning on Friday so

that we will be able to have our first

vote on the President’s budget and we

will see who wants to balance the budget and who is willing to take the steps

that are necessary to do it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

The clerk will report the amendment.

The assistant legislative clerk read

as follows:

The Senator from Texas [Mrs. HUTCHISON],

for Mr. DOMENICI, proposes an amendment

numbered 1111.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I

ask unanimous consent that reading of

the amendment be dispensed with.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection it is so ordered.

(The text of the amendment is printed in today’s RECORD under ‘‘Amendments Submitted.’’)

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I

ask unanimous consent that when the

Senate resumes the concurrent budget

resolution on Friday there be 40 hours

remaining for debate under the statutory time limit.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I

MORNING BUSINESS

fask unanimous consent that there now

be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted

to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

REPORT ON THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH IRAN—MESSAGE

fFROM THE PRESIDENT—PM 49

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message

from the President of the United

States, together with an accompanying

report; which was referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and

Urban Affairs.

To the Congress of the United States:

I hereby report to the Congress on

developments since the last Presidential report on November 18, 1994,

concerning the national emergency

with respect to Iran that was declared

in Executive Order No. 12170 of November 14, 1979, and matters relating to Executive Order No. 12613 of October 29,

1987. This report is submitted pursuant

to section 204(c) of the International

Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50

U.S.C. 1703(c), and section 505(c) of the

International Security and Development Cooperation Act of 1985, 22 U.S.C.

2349aa–9(c). This report covers events

through April 18, 1995. It discusses only