May 19, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S6963 

woman, and child who is working today 

to pay for programs that we insist on 

spending their money for even though 

they are not even around to be consulted, they are not being asked, and 

they may not even know that they are 

being taxed without representation. 

Because, indeed, we just continue to 

borrow money and say, ‘‘You pay for 

it.’’ This budget says, ‘‘We’ll keep borrowing money. Kids cannot complain 

anyway. Children cannot vote anyway. 

Children are not even going to be heard 

on this budget. But we are going to 

keep on taxing them by taking away 

their standard of living, by making 

them have to work ever harder and 

ever longer to pay for this budget and 

the programs that we refuse to restrain, reform, make relevant, or get 

rid of duplication.’’

This budget says the Government of 

the United States can continue to 

grow. Our responsibility to millions of 

Americans will continue. This budget 

says, make Medicare solvent. This 

budget says we want Medicare not only 

for the current seniors but for seniors 

yet to join and need it for their health 

care. This budget says we want to help 

the poor in our States who need health 

care because we are going to have a 

program that can be sustained, that we 

can afford. 

This budget says to keep on paying 

for a Medicaid Program that we cannot 

afford. Sooner or later, 2, 3, or 4 years 

from now, we will have to say to the 

poor people that get Medicaid, ‘‘We 

can’t afford it anymore.’’

This budget says start fixing it right 

now. 

So, fellow Senators, let me suggest 

that we hear a lot about our senior 

citizens. And we say to them, ‘‘When 

all of this is over, you will have a Medicare Program. It will be as good or better than the one you have now.’’

We say to the poor, who are getting 

health care from Medicaid, ‘‘You will 

have a program and it will be better 

than the one now.’’ And, yes, we will 

say in one loud voice, ‘‘There is a future with an increased standard of living and opportunity,’’ if you adopt this 

budget, the Republican budget, and fail 

to adopt the President’s budget which 

is pending before us today. 

Many comments have been made 

today about various programs. We do 

not have an opportunity to answer 

right in the middle of these speeches, 

but before you pass judgment on education and what reforms we have recommended on Medicare, Medicaid, and 

on the earned-income tax credit—

which, incidentally, will grow at 40 percent while some are talking about it 

being cut—wait for the details. We will 

discuss them one by one with the 

American people. 

But, for now, we have an opportunity 

to reject a status quo budget, a budget 

of the past, and set in motion the budget of the future. 

I yield to Senator STEVENS, who 

wants to make a unanimous-consent 

request. 

I yield to the majority leader whatever time I might have remaining. 

Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska. 

f 

VISIT TO THE SENATE BY MEMBERS OF THE BRITISH-AMERICAN PARLIAMENTARY GROUP 

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that our guests, 

who are members of the British-American Parliamentary Group, be permitted to remain on the floor during 

the period of this coming vote. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. STEVENS. I want to introduce to 

the Senate the Right Honorable John 

MacGregor, who is the chairman of the 

British group; Derek Conway, a Member of Parliament; the Right Honorable 

Sir John Cope, a Member of Parliament; the Right Honorable Lord 

Rees, who is Queen’s Counsel; Joe Benton, a Member of Parliament; Judith 

Church, a Member of Parliament; 

Roger Godsiff, a Member of Parliament; and Roy Hughes, a Member of 

Parliament. 

All of these people are guests for this 

weekend for conferences on matters of 

mutual concern to the British Government and our Government. 

Please welcome them. 

Thank you. 

f 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON 

THE BUDGET 

The Senate continued with the consideration of the concurrent resolution. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may use 5 minutes of my leader’s time. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, first let me 

quote from what I consider to be a fairly reliable source. 

The budget which came from the President 

said, ‘‘I’ve given up; that as long as I am 

President of the United States there will 

never be a balanced budget.’’ That is an astonishing statement. 

That quote came from former Senator Paul Tsongas, Democrat of Massachusetts, cochairman of the bipartisan 

antideficit Concord Coalition. 

Another quote from our former colleague, Senator Tsongas: 

Let me say as a Democrat it’s very easy for 

Democrats to poke fun at what these two 

people [Senator PETE DOMENICI and Representative JOHN KASICH] are doing because, 

unlike our party, they’ve decided to really 

address this issue. And the fact is, they’re 

prepared to put a balanced budget amendment on the table. The balanced budget 

amendment died because of the Democrats—

not because of the Republicans, not because 

of the vote in the Senate, and we Democrats 

are equally responsible to our kids. 

That was not a statement by BOB

DOLE or anybody on this side of the 

aisle. That was a statement by Senator 

Paul Tsongas, who used to grace the 

Senate Chamber. He was seated on the 

other side of the aisle. I think he 

speaks volumes in just these two statements. 

Along with Senator DOMENICI, I was 

on the House floor yesterday for that 

historic vote when they adopted the 

resolution that will put us on a path 

for a balanced budget by the year 2002. 

It was a very exciting moment, and 

we hope to repeat that moment in the 

Senate sometime in the early afternoon next Wednesday. 

We will be here late, late, late Monday night and late, late, late Tuesday 

night, so we can finish sometime midafternoon on Wednesday. 

After the vote in the House yesterday, the President issued a statement, 

saying, ‘‘There is a right way and a 

wrong way’’ to reduce the deficit, and 

the House plan was ‘‘The wrong way.’’

Americans have a right to ask, if the 

House plan was the ‘‘wrong way’’ and if 

the Senate budget resolution is the 

‘‘wrong way,’’ then just what does 

President Clinton define as the ‘‘right 

way’’ to reduce the deficit? 

He would not even let us save $10 billion in the rescission package. He 

threatened to veto that because it does 

not meet his standards of higher spending. 

Well, the only evidence we have of 

what he believes is the right way is 

what he proposed, and that is the question now before us. 

As Senator DOMENICI said, he asked if 

any Democrats wished to offer the 

President’s budget as an amendment 

and they declined, so he did it to make 

a point. The point is the President does 

not have a plan, a credible plan. And 

the point is, the Democrats do not have 

a credible plan. 

Their plan is to attack Republicans, 

attack Republicans, attack Republicans—we are out there cutting Medicare; cutting everything to help the 

rich. That effort has been tried for 

years. It is called class warfare. It was 

tried in 1994—and we liked the results. 

And maybe it will be tried again in 

1996. 

I assume the President was serious 

about his budget plan when he proposed it. We learned a number of things 

about what the President apparently 

believes is ‘‘right.’’

The President believes that, as Senator Tsongas said, the status quo is 

right. 

The President believes it is right to 

take no action and let the deficit continue, $200 billion a year as far as the 

eye can see, well into the next century. 

The President believes it is right to 

allow entitlement spending to consume 

57 percent of total spending by the year 

2000. 

The President believes it is right to 

ignore his own trustees’ warning of the 

impending bankruptcy of the Medicare 

Trust Fund, and to take absolutely no 

action to preserve, improve, and protect Medicare. 

And, Mr. President, I have a suspicion of something else the President 

has proven he believes is right. He said 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S6964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 19, 1995 

yesterday he is ‘‘Eager to work with 

Congress’’ to reduce the deficit, and 

since his budget refused to do that by 

reducing the growth of Government 

spending, that can leave only one possible answer: Tax increases; tax increases. 

Are we going to be told by the President, ‘‘Well, we have to balance the 

budget. This is the wrong way. The 

right way is to do what I did in 1993, 

have a big, big $255 billion tax increase’’? I have not heard any other options. We have to conclude something. 

The only conclusion I can reach is 

the President does not want to balance 

the budget, does not want to cut spending, does not want to preserve, protect 

and improve Medicare. So it seems to 

me we have been waiting now 11 days 

since we proposed our balanced budget 

plan. We have not heard a word from 

anybody on the other side of the aisle. 

We have not heard a word from the 

President, and the deficit has increased 

$4.9 billion since we submitted our balanced budget plan. 

Is our plan perfect? No, but it is an 

honest effort to transform Government 

to make it smaller, to make it smarter, 

to make it more sensitive, to make it 

more responsive, to make it less expensive and to reverse the 40-year tide of 

power to the Federal Government. 

Let me say, we look forward to next 

week. I guess you could say we are prepared to make the tough decisions, the 

President will not make any decision. 

That is a clear difference in party philosophy: Do not make any decisions, 

come to the floor and complain about 

what happens to senior citizens, children, veterans, farmers and everybody 

else, but do not worry about the next 

generation, do not worry about your 

grandchildren, do not worry about your 

young children. It will all be taken 

care of by red ink, as the Senator from 

Maine, Senator SNOWE, just pointed 

out. 

It seems to me that if we want status 

quo policies, I guess we can have those, 

if the Democrats prevail. But what we 

need to do right now is defeat the 

President’s budget and then have serious debate on the balanced budget proposed by the distinguished Senator 

from New Mexico, Senator DOMENICI. It 

is not because it is good political theater, as some have suggested, but I 

think it is time to do the right thing. 

I think the President, in his inaugural address, used the word ‘‘change’’

11 times. Apparently he is out of 

change. He does not want any more 

change. He wants the status quo: ‘‘Do 

not cut farm subsidies, do not do this, 

do not do that, do not cut anything 

until after I am reelected in 1996.’’

I do not believe that will sell. I believe the American people are ready—

they have been ready for leadership on 

the budget. We have had a lot of leadership on the other side over the years on 

the budget, and I am still hopeful we 

will still have leadership on the other 

side on the deficit. 

We ought to be in this together. But 

this is the first step. This is the first 

vote. This is a defining vote, and I urge 

my colleagues to vote against the 

President’s budget. 

I ask for the yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

f 

ORDER FOR RECESS TO GREET 

VISITING PARLIAMENTARIANS 

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that following the 

announcement of the results of this 

vote that the Senate stand in recess for 

3 minutes in order that Members of the 

Senate may greet the parliamentarians 

who are on the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON 

THE BUDGET 

The Senate continued with the consideration of the concurrent resolution. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under 

the previous order, the hour of 10:55 

a.m. having arrived, the Senate will 

now proceed to vote on amendment No. 

1111. The question is on agreeing to the 

amendment. The yeas and nays have 

been ordered. The clerk will call the 

roll. 

The legislative clerk called the roll. 

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from California [Mrs. BOXER] is 

necessarily absent. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

SHELBY). Are there any other Senators 

in the Chamber desiring to vote? 

The result was announced—yeas 0, 

nays 99, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 172 Leg.] 

NAYS—99 

Abraham 

Akaka 

Ashcroft 

Baucus 

Bennett 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Bond 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Brown 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Burns 

Byrd 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Conrad 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

Daschle 

DeWine 

Dodd 

Dole 

Domenici 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Faircloth 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Frist 

Glenn 

Gorton 

Graham 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Harkin 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Heflin 

Helms 

Hollings 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Inouye 

Jeffords 

Johnston 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Kyl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Mikulski 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murkowski 

Murray 

Nickles 

Nunn 

Packwood 

Pell 

Pressler 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Roth 

Santorum 

Sarbanes 

Shelby 

Simon 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

Wellstone 

NOT VOTING—1 

Boxer 

So the amendment (No. 1111) was rejected. 

DEFENSE AND BUDGET ISSUES 

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I 

yield myself 10 minutes off the bill to 

speak on the budget issue and the defense issue. 

Mr. President, next week some time, 

I presume it would be Senators from 

both sides of the aisle, but I am sure it 

will be led by some Senator from my 

side of the aisle, we will discuss the 

issue of increasing the Senate Budget 

Committee’s numbers for defense. 

I do not want to speak directly to 

that point, but I want to set the stage 

for my position that I think is very unwise to do that. I will want to say in 

connection with some of the remarks I 

am going to say that there is an article 

in the Washington Post today on the 

Federal page where it refers to Senator 

GLENN, and I agree totally with Senator GLENN. 

He was holding a hearing on the bad 

accounting practices of the Defense Department. It refers to Senator GLENN

this way: 

GLENN, who held hearings this week on the 

subject, lamented the fact that while his colleagues worry about budgetary restraints, so 

few of them have been interested in the Pentagon’s wasteful financial practices. 

Senator GLENN spoke about the 

wasteful financial practices. I have 

spoken on that subject many times. I 

thank Senator GLENN for his leadership. 

I want to take a few moments to express concern abut a new policy that is 

being pushed by the comptroller at the 

Department of Defense, Mr. John 

Hamre. I think, basically, Mr. Hamre is 

trying to do a lot of good but he is running into a cement wall on many of the 

things he is trying to accomplish. 

His plan undermines the case for 

pushing up the defense budget. Mr. 

Hamre is proposing just to write off—

just write off—billions of dollars of 

unmatchable disbursements. Now, 

unmatchable disbursements are expenditures that he says he cannot link 

to supporting documentation, so he is 

really ready to throw in the towel and 

to write them off the books. 

The Armed Services Committee held 

hearings, and I refer to Senator GLENN

on this and related matters. The defense appropriations subcommittee is 

going to hold similar hearings next 

Tuesday. 

Not being a member of either committee, I am unable to participate in 

those discussions. 

But because of my intense interest in 

the subject, the chairman of the Defense Subcommittee, my good friend 

Senator TED STEVENS, invited me to 

submit a statement for the record. 

So, I would now like to share my 

thoughts on this issue with my colleagues. 

I think the issue has a direct bearing 

on the proposal to pump up the defense 

budget, which will be an issue next 

week, I think. 

I am deeply troubled by Mr. Hamre’s 

proposal. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS