May 23, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7225 

would discover oil. The last time I remember people standing on this floor 

saying there is no oil was when we 

were considering legislation to allow 

leasing on the North Slope of Alaska, 

when they said that it would only 

produce about 1 billion barrels at the 

most. Mind you, that would have been 

the largest deposit on the North American continent. But, as a matter of 

fact, we have already produced 10 billion barrels. Ten billion barrels came 

out of that bill that came before the 

Senate. The argument went for days. 

Finally, the tie had to be broken by the 

Vice President of the United States. 

Now, we are in the same situation 

here. Mr. President, you are going to 

see more wildcats coming across this 

floor when ANWR is brought up than 

anything you have here. They have 

more things they can warn the public 

of. Look at that. They say we are trying to sell the Statue of Liberty. It is 

absolutely ludicrous again I say. I have 

never heard an argument stretched to 

that point. 

This resolution does not authorize 

the sale of anything. All the President 

wants to do is count the money when it 

is authorized to lease or to sell something, and there already are a series of 

things authorized. The President is 

going to send up a bill to authorize the 

further sale of some of the assets on 

the Presidio at Monterey in California. 

As a matter of fact, it has already been 

leased. Do you know who it is leased 

to? Former Senator Cranston and the 

former leader of the Soviet Union, Mr. 

Gorbachev. They have leases there in 

the Presidio already. 

Now, when you look at it, all the 

President is saying is that in the process of acquiring money from the sale or 

lease of assets that are authorized by 

law, we ought to count them in the 

budget process. This amendment would 

deny the President that right. It would 

mean that he could not count the $1.4 

billion that will come in the first 4 

years of the leasing of ANWR. 

I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his courtesy. 

Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas. 

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me 

say to the Senator from Alaska, my 

amendment does not stop the leasing of 

ANWR. That is not what this amendment is all about. You can go ahead 

and lease ANWR. But do not score it in 

the budget. That has been the law of 

the land for 10 years. 

All of a sudden we get this budget 

resolution presented to us and they say 

we are going to change the rules. If you 

can get $2 billion for Presidio, count it, 

score it. You have $4 billion in here, 

and next year you may not have $4 billion in asset sales so you are going to 

have to find it elsewhere. Why, I say to 

the Senator, you might even have to 

pay royalties on hard rock mining next 

year. 

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator 

yield for just one question? We are 

closing almost 50 bases in the United 

States. Why should we not count as income those portions of the bases we are 

going to sell? This amendment would 

not allow that. 

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, there 

is not a Governor in the United States, 

including the person sitting in the 

chair at this moment, who is a former 

Governor, in my opinion, that will take 

an asset sale or one-time windfall and 

put it into his operating budget. My 

amendment does not prohibit the sale 

of those bases. It just says, let’s not 

change the budget rules to mask the 

deficit by scoring the revenues derived 

from these asset sales. 

I yield the floor. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how 

much time does Senator BUMPERS

have? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twentyone seconds. 

Mr. BUMPERS. I yield back the remainder of my time. 

Mr. DOMENICI. How much time do I 

have, Mr. President? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two 

minutes. 

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair 

very much. 

Mr. President, let me suggest there 

really are two arguments here. I think 

the paramount one is to get rid of any 

authority that the Energy Committee 

might have in its reconciliation instructions to direct that we begin leasing of ANWR. While asset sales generally seem to be the subject matter, I 

think that is the prime focus. 

And let me suggest for a minute a bit 

of arrogance about the United States, a 

bit of arrogance about those who think 

we can just continue to lock up our assets because we are so wealthy it does 

not matter. How does $180 billion worth 

of American assets called ‘‘oil’’ sound 

to average Americans—$180 billion 

worth? We will buy it from other countries because we think we are so 

strong, so powerful, so economically 

self-sufficient we can just throw away 

our assets—$180 billion. 

Now, I know that people do not like 

to think of America as being arrogant 

about anything; we are humble people. 

But I submit, Mr. President, it is arrogance to think that we can throw away 

$180 billion and say we will buy it from 

the Saudis. After all, it was only ours 

so why not just lock it up. 

Now, if there was harm coming to 

ANWR, many who will vote against 

Senator BUMPERS would vote with him. 

But that argument about how much 

damage is going to be done there just 

will not play too much longer. 

Now, let me make a second point. Let 

me make a second point on this issue. 

Mr. President, what happens if we fail 

to balance the budget and the American dollar keeps coming down? Do you 

know what might happen, I say to the 

Senator from Alaska? The Saudi Arabians may say, ‘‘Pay us in yen.’’ How 

does that strike you? ‘‘We do not want 

your American dollars. They are not 

good enough.’’

Mr. STEVENS. For oil. 

Mr. DOMENICI. For oil. Pay us in 

yen. We will pay them in yen and guess 

what will happen. Oil prices go up 300 

percent in America. 

Why should we not use our own rather than depend totally upon them? 

I yield the floor, and if we have no remaining time, I assume we are finished 

with this amendment and it will be appropriately stacked tomorrow by our 

leader. 

f 

RURAL HOUSING GUARANTEED 

LOAN PROGRAM 

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wish 

to engage in a colloquy with Senator 

DOMENICI, the distinguished chairman 

of the Budget Committee, with respect 

to the rural housing guaranteed loan 

program. 

In reviewing the report accompanying the Fiscal Year 1996 Concurrent Budget Resolution, I note that the 

Senate Budget Committee recommends 

‘‘the reduction or elimination of certain subsidies provided by the federal 

government for a range of credit programs in the Small Business Administration, the Federal Housing Administration, and the Rural Housing and 

Community Development Service.’’ Am 

I correct in understanding this to mean 

that the Budget Committee assumes no 

savings from the Rural Housing and 

Community Development Service’s 

Section 502 unsubsidized guaranteed 

loan program over the next seven 

years? 

Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator from 

Rhode Island is correct. 

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President. I will oppose the Roth amendment which takes 

a meat-ax approach to eliminating federal jobs. The administration has made 

laudable progress by downsizing the 

government by more than a quarter of 

a million workers by the end of the 

year. Under the leadership of Vice 

President GORE, careful evaluation, 

systematic studies, and cost-benefit 

analyses have been used to shape a 

leaner more effective Federal workforce. Because it is not based on such 

studies and analysis, the Roth amendment, by contrast, could result in the 

slicing away of essential jobs, such as 

those needed to get out the social security checks, staff the veterans’ hospitals, or to protect federal facilities 

and workers from another terrorist incident. Also, the Roth amendment, according to its author, assumes the 

elimination of the Department of Commerce, an action with which I do not 

agree. 

AFDC

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I intend to propose an amendment that 

will enable us to improve our welfare 

system rather than dismantle it. Under 

my amendment, Aid to Families With 

Dependent Children will remain a Federal entitlement program. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7226 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 23, 1995 

The amendment I propose will, over 7 

years, restore $55 billion to income security programs, including Aid to Families With Dependent Children, Supplemental Security Income and Unemployment Insurance under the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. 

My amendment is deficit neutral. It 

is financed by using part of the fiscal 

dividend that will accrue to the Federal Government if we balance the 

budget. 

The budget resolution reported out 

by the Senate Budget Committee reserves the fiscal dividend for tax cuts. 

I fail to understand how we can justify tax cuts at the same time that we 

are, for example: withdrawing the Federal guarantee of support for dependent 

children; reducing government programs like Medicare and Medicaid by 

over 15 percent; and threatening an end 

to vital public services through the 

elimination of subsidies for AMTRAK. 

As I stated on introducing the Family Support Act of 1995 last Thursday: 

It is beyond belief that in the middle of the 

Great Depression in the 1930’s, we provided 

for children a minimum benefit to keep them 

alive, and in the middle of a successful 1990’s 

with a 7 trillion dollar economy we’re going 

to take that away. 

Senators who have been following the 

subject of welfare policy will recognize 

the bill I introduced last week as a successor to the Family Support Act of 

1988, which was adopted in this Chamber just this side of 7 years ago, on September 29, 1988, by a vote of 96 to 1. 

When President Ronald Reagan 

signed the bill in the Rose Garden on 

October 13, he thanked those who, as he 

said, shared the credit for ‘‘this landmark legislation’’, including Senator 

DOLE, Senator PACKWOOD, and Senator 

Bentsen, as well as Representatives 

Rostenkowski, HANK BROWN, Michel, 

Frenzel, and Downey. 

These members of Congress will be 

remembered, President Reagan said; 

for accomplishing what many have attempted, but no one has achieved in several 

decades: a meaningful redirection of our welfare system. 

It will seem unimaginable to us 

today, but the Family Support Act was 

not a partisan political measure. 

Together Republicans and Democrats 

passed a bill that was based largely on 

what we had learned during the 1980’s 

about how to get welfare recipients 

into work. A number of States had 

used the flexibility we gave them in 

1981 to do this, and there had been 

careful evaluation of their efforts. The 

Family Support Act of 1988 recognized 

a mutual obligation. The Government 

would provide training and child care, 

and help the parent find a job. But the 

parent had an obligation to do what 

was required. 

The proposal that is envisaged in this 

budget resolution is vastly different. It 

gives up entirely on a national commitment. 

We have a problem in this country 

that we share with most of the rest of 

the western world, and that is the problem of the breakdown in family structure. As recently as 1960 the percentage 

of children born to single parents was 

about 5 percent. A manageable problem. It is now about 33 percent. The 

same trend is happening in Canada. 

The out-of-wedlock birth rate in the 

United Kingdom and France exceeds 30 

percent, very close to ours. 

And we do not know what to do about 

it. 

Dr. Lawrence Mead, professor at New 

York University, now visiting professor 

at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton, testified before the Finance Committee on March 9 of this year. He 

asked: 

Can the forces behind growing welfare be 

stemmed? Conservative analysts say that 

unwed pregnancy is the greatest evil in welfare, the cause not only of dependency but 

other social ills. On all sides, people call for 

a ‘‘family policy’’ that would solve this problem. 

But we have no such policy. The great fact 

is that neither policymakers nor researchers 

have found any incentive, benefit, or other 

intervention that can do much to cut the 

unwed pregnancy rate. 

What we do know is that the program 

we enacted in 1988, the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training [JOBS] 

Program, can have a modest, but important effect. 

Dr. Mead told the committee that: 

A tough JOBS program appears to be one 

reason why Wisconsin has reduced its welfare rolls, despite generous welfare benefits. 

Very likely, JOBS has operated to restrain 

welfare growth nationwide. 

Lawrence Townsend, Director of the 

Department of Public Social Services 

of Riverside County, CA, who runs 

what is recognized as one of the most 

successful JOBS programs in the country, spoke to the Finance Committee 

on March 20: 

* * * of the importance of the existence of a 

Federally mandated, properly focused, and 

adequately funded JOBS program. If designed properly, the JOBS program can be 

one of the best vehicles for assisting those 

who are AFDC-dependent to successfully traverse the road to self sufficiency. 

The Family Support Act of 1995 

builds on what we know. Evaluation 

confirms that the JOBS program 

works. As a result of evaluation we are 

learning how programs can perform 

better, by increasing participation requirements, and placing more emphasis 

on actual work. 

States need more flexibility to test 

new policies. My bill allows States to 

set their own rules for assets and to design their own rules for eligibility for 

the Unemployed Parent program—welfare benefits for 2-parent families. It 

says that a decision on a waiver will be 

made within 90 days. 

And we can fulfill our obligations to 

our Nation’s children and still balance 

the budget in a reasonable timeframe if 

we eschew tax cuts. 

Faced with a huge budget deficits I 

have consistently opposed tax cuts in 

any shape or form. 

As I indicated 10 days ago on ‘‘Meet 

the Press’’: 

I dropped (the President’s) tax cut plan the 

moment I heard about it. 

I oppose the tax cuts advocated in 

the Contract for America. The Contract for America’s tax proposals were 

incorporated into the House budget 

resolution—a resolution that would 

eliminate the Federal guarantee on 

AFDC for dependent children while 

providing funding for a 7-year $354 billion tax cut. 

And I am opposed to the tax cuts implicit in the budget resolution now before the Senate. You may make the tax 

cuts appear costless by stipulating that 

tax reduction will be financed with the 

so-called fiscal dividend—estimated by 

CBO to be about $170 billion. 

But why should the fiscal dividend be 

reserved for tax cuts? 

Who can have a greater claim on our 

conscience than poor children. I am 

simply asking the Senate to adjust less 

than one-half of 1 percent of total 

spending provided for in the budget resolution in favor of impoverished children. Have we really come to the point, 

at the close of the 20th century, when 

that is too much to ask? 

In a series of speeches in February of 

this year I opposed the constitutional 

amendment to balance the budget. I 

stated then, and still believe, that we 

can and will balance the budget without a constitutional requirement. 

I noted the progress that had already 

been made as a result of a $500 billion 

deficit reduction program enacted in 

1993—enacted I might add without one 

Republican vote in either the Senate or 

the House. As a result of deficit reduction measures enacted in 1993, the deficit has declined for three straight 

years—from $290 billion in fiscal year 

1992 to an estimated $175 billion for the 

current fiscal year. 

Let us proceed with good cheer knowing that we can get a balanced budget 

without ending an entitlement for dependent children. 

MEDICARE/MEDICAID CUTS

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, this debate is about priorities, fairness and 

choices. We agree on the bottom line. 

We agree on balancing the budget and 

bringing this deficit down. But we part 

company on how to get there. 

I say we should get to the bottom 

line without putting our seniors, our 

students, our farmers, and our working 

families in the firing line. 

I say we should choose quality health 

care for our seniors over unnecessary 

tax breaks for those who need it the 

least. 

In the last couple of weeks I have 

heard my Republican friends say that 

their budget resolution does not cut 

Medicare. They say, ‘‘Only in Washington would someone say that reducing the rate of growth from 10 to 7.1 

percent is a cut’’. 

Well, to this I respond with the following: Only in Washington would they 

say to a senior citizen—We’re not cutting your Medicare, just hand over $900 

more out of your pocket each year to 

pay for it. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 23, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7227 

But, while we’re doing it—remember, 

it’s not a cut. 

Only in Washington would they propose the largest insurance rate hike on 

senior citizens in our country’s history, at the same time they hand over 

a new $20,000 tax break to those making over $350,000 a year. 

But, remember, it’s not a cut. 

Only in Washington would we propose soaking our seniors while we continue to needlessly funnel billions into 

the bloated, wasteful Pentagon. 

But, remember, it’s not a cut. 

Mr. President, a constituent from 

Dubuque, Iowa hit the nail right on the 

head when she wrote me last week. 

‘‘How can they reconcile these cuts,’’

she said, ‘‘and give tax cuts to the 

more affluent * * * meanwhile nothing 

is being cut from the Pentagon.’’

Today, we spend five times more on 

our military than all of our potential 

enemies combined. If you couple that 

with what our allies spend—today, we 

are outspending our enemies ten to 

one. The United States and our allies 

spend about $510 billion a year. While 

our potential enemies spend about $54 

billion combined. 

And we can’t find one thin dime to 

cut from the military? In fact, this 

budget increases the Pentagon by $25 

billion. 

Mr. President, let us call this what it 

is. This is an assault on our senior citizens. A $256 billion assault. By far, the 

largest Medicare cut in history. 

We have a moral responsibility to 

bring down the deficit and balance the 

budget. But it is morally wrong to 

promise a huge tax cut to the wealthy 

at the same time we ask seniors to 

take a cut in their health care. 

It is morally wrong to give a $20,000 

gift to the wealthy while we cut benefits for seniors who live on less than 

$20,000 a year. 

I hear a lot of talk about the Contract With America. What about our 

Nation’s contract with senior citizens? 

What about keeping that commitment? 

Medicare and Medicaid are a basic 

part of America’s contract with seniors. And we ought not to break that 

contract to pay for a tax break to 

those who need it the least. 

These cuts will hit Iowa particularly 

hard. Iowa ranks first in percent of 

citizens over age 85 and third nationally in percent of the population over 

age 65. The health care system in rural 

Iowa is already on the critical list—we 

have too, few doctors, nurses and other 

health care professionals and many of 

our rural hospitals are barely making 

it. 

And, Iowa hospitals, doctors, and 

other health professionals depend heavily on Medicare payments. In some 

rural Iowa hospitals, as much as 80 percent of total patient revenues come 

from the Medicare system. 

Iowa hospitals are financially 

strained and 75 percent of all hospitals 

lost money on patient revenue in 1993. 

But, according to a recent study conducted by Lewin-VHI, under the Republican plan, Iowa hospitals will lose on 

average $1,276 for each Medicare case in 

the year 2000. And rural hospitals 

throughout the United States stand to 

lose $866 per case in the year 2000—Iowa 

rural hospitals will lose even more. 

But rural hospitals are not the only 

ones to lose. As rural hospitals go, so 

goes the rest of the health care system, 

so goes quality and access to care provided to all Iowans, and so goes our 

rural economy. 

If the hospital closes it often means 

that the doctor’s office closes, the 

pharmacy closes, and the nursing home 

goes. Pretty soon so does the local 

economy. It is a domino effect. 

Listen to what a doctor in Sibley, IA, 

had to say: 

In Sibley, we have a very viable, small 

rural hospital that gives total patient care. 

We are able to manage most patients efficiently and effectively. But with the proposed cuts in Medicare that the current 

budget is envisioning, we can see this as a 

terrible drain on our hospital’s economy. 

The proposed cuts would put our hospital in 

a losing situation. Further cutting in the 

funding could certainly endanger the existence of this hospital. In Sibley, the Osceola 

Community Hospital is the only hospital in 

a 20-mile radius. This could certainly be a 

hazard to the health of the general area. 

But Medicare is not the only item on 

the hit list. What about Medicaid? 

What about long-term care? 

Instead of improving the system, the 

Republicans are proposing a $175 billion 

cut in Medicaid. That will deal a heavy 

blow to the 6 out of 10 people in nursing 

homes who are receiving help from 

Medicaid. 

These people have used up whatever 

savings they had before they qualified 

for Medicaid. They are hard working 

middle-class families that, because of 

an illness in the family, have lost their 

life savings. 

They are not looking for an easy way 

out or handout. They continue to share 

in the cost of their care—they use their 

Social Security and pension income to 

pay as much of the bills as they can. 

But the Republican budget resolution 

would cut an estimated $299 million in 

long-term care spending in Iowa 

through the year 2000—a 15.3 percent 

cut in long-term care spending. 

Under these cuts, an estimated 5,300 

Iowans are expected to lose their eligibility for Medicaid long term care benefits in 1996—and that could grow to 

28,500 by the year 2000. That’s a 48 percent reduction in the number of longterm care recipients by the year 2000. 

I also hear a lot about our children in 

this budget debate. What about kids? 

This budget resolution places the 

health care of millions of children at 

risk. Thirteen percent of Iowa’s children are covered by Medicaid and many 

of these children are very sick or have 

severe disabilities. 

These cuts are going to hurt hard 

working Iowa families. Let me give you 

just one example. 

Deb and Doug live in Lake View, IA, 

and in 1982 their son Jon was born en 

route to the hospital—2 months premature. Jon spent 6 weeks in intensive 

care in Blank Children’s Hospital in 

Des Moines. When Jon was 9 months 

old he was diagnosed with severe cerebral palsy and severe developmental 

delays. Today, Jon is doing great. He is 

growing up in rural Iowa with his dad, 

mom, and big brother. 

Both Deb and Doug work—Doug during the day and Deb at night so one of 

them can always be home to care for 

Jon. But, Jon is able to stay home because Medicaid help pays for Jon’s 

health care and other services that will 

help him become an independent working adult. 

Deb says that Jon would not be the 

happy healthy kid he is today if it 

wasn’t for the help he received through 

Medicaid. Under this budget resolution 

there are no guarantees that Jon, or 

others like him, will continue to received the health care services that he 

needs to live a full life. 

The budget resolution before us 

means that fewer children in working 

families and children with severe disabilities will have access to health 

care. Last year, 82 percent of the people who lost their health care coverage 

were children. Our children deserve a 

chance. Our children are our future and 

if we don’t take care of them now we 

will pay later—in lower productivity 

and greater health and education costs. 

Mr. President, I will end where I 

began. This is a debate about choices 

and the future. The future for not just 

the next generation of children, but 

this generation, too. 

Let us work to cut the deficit without cutting the future for seniors, 

working families, students, and kids. 

Let’s make the right choice. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1123

Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, during my campaign, I promised the voters of Michigan to both oppose any effort to raise their taxes and to support 

badly needed tax cuts—especially for 

the hard working middle-class families 

in our State. While not perfect, I intend to support the amendment before 

the Senate because it first provides for 

a balanced budget and also provides 

significant tax relief primarily targeted at American families. Indeed, I 

plan to support any reasonable proposal for middle-class family tax relief 

brought to the Senate until some form 

of family tax cut is adopted. 

Although I support much in this 

amendment, there are certain provisions which I would change given the 

opportunity. For example, while I support restraining the growth of mandatory spending, the underlying resolution already slows the growth of Medicare as much as most Governors are 

willing to support. 

Furthermore, while I agree that it is 

possible to reduce discretionary spending further than the pending budget 

resolution provides, I do not think it is 

advisable to do so on a proportionate 

across-the-board basis. Rather, I believe additional program eliminations 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7228 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 23, 1995 

and consolidations in targeted areas is 

the proper course to follow. 

Given these reservations, I intend to 

work to see that other spending reductions—focused primarily on corporate 

welfare—are used to help pay for tax 

cuts in the event this amendment 

passes. 

A final concern I have is with the 

overall distribution of benefits resulting from this amendment. I disagree 

with those who would set up a quota 

system for tax cuts, measuring the 

value of each provision by how uniformly it distributes its benefits. At 

the same time, it is easy to forget that 

it is middle-class Americans and their 

families who pay most of the taxes the 

Federal Government consumes, and I 

believe they should be the primary 

beneficiaries of tax cuts. Thus, if this 

amendment or any other tax reduction 

proposal is adopted, I intend to work 

with the Finance Committee to ensure 

that middle-class Americans are made 

the focus of any tax cut passed by the 

Senate this year. 

POSITION ON VOTE

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, due to 

an unfortunate miscommunication, my 

vote on the Harkin amendment to restore education funding, which was the 

second of two back-to-back amendments, was not recorded. There is no 

one in the Senate who is a stronger advocate for education programs than I 

am, and I am disappointed that this 

error occurred. If it had been recorded, 

my vote would have been ‘‘yea.’’

RAISE TAXES ON WORKING FAMILIES TO PAY FOR

TAX CUTS BENEFITING THE WEALTHY? THAT’S

THE REPUBLICAN PLAN

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in the 

Republican budget resolution, there is 

only one explicit tax provision. It is 

not, as many Americans might guess, a 

measure to provide tax relief. Rather, 

it is a tax increase, and an egregious 

one at that. It is egregious because it 

targets those on the lowest rungs of 

the economic ladder, the families that 

are working harder than ever and yet 

are still struggling to support themselves and their families. 

This provision would reduce payments under the Earned Income Tax 

Credit [EITC] by $17 billion over 7 

years. More than 12 million low-income 

working families would see their tax 

bills go up by more than $1,500—and the 

money they have left over for food, 

housing, clothing and medical care go 

down. 

Make no mistake, however. The Republicans do plan further action on 

taxes. They plan to take the savings 

they achieve from cutting tax credits 

to low-income working families, cutting education, cutting Medicare—and 

use those savings to fund a tax cut 

which will largely benefit the wealthiest members of our society. 

Some of my Republican colleagues 

have argued that they are not raising 

taxes on low-income workers, that 

they are merely reducing the rate of 

growth in the EITC program. This semantic exercise does not change one 

simple fact—this budget resolution will 

mean fewer dollars in the pockets of 

these workers. 

As we debate the proper level of funding for the earned income tax credit, 

we should remember that the number 

we set will have a very real impact on 

millions of American families and over 

31,000 families in my State. I’d like to 

introduce you to two South Dakota 

families to illustrate my point. 

Karen Olson and Paul Lovestrand are 

a married couple who live in Rapid 

City, which is located in the western 

part of my home State. They have 

three small children—aged 4 years, 2 

years, and 7 months. Paul works 60 

hours per week as a baker at the Sixth 

Street Bakery and Deli, Karen works 

two part-time jobs—catering for the 

same deli and cleaning a dentist’s office. 

Despite their hard work, Karen and 

Paul do not have any savings. They 

have qualified for the EITC for the past 

2 years, receiving $600 this year. Karen 

and Paul relied on their EITC payment 

to cover the cost of a needed plumbing 

job and a repair to the steps of their 

house that was required by their insurance company. Without the EITC, they 

would have had to cut back in other 

areas to pay these repair bills. 

Nancy and Ted Lewis also live in 

Rapid City. They are married with two 

small children—aged 3 years and 6 

months. Both Nancy and Ted are college-educated, but they have had trouble finding work since moving to Rapid 

City nearly 3 years ago. Ted holds 

down two jobs—he teaches English at 

Western Dakota Technical Institute 

and works at a sign-making store. 

Nancy is trained as an art teacher, but 

cannot find work that would pay more 

than the cost of child care. 

For the past 3 years, Nancy and Ted 

have qualified for the EITC, receiving 

the maximum amount this year. They 

have relied on their EITC payments for 

major car repairs, children’s clothing 

and overdue bills. The EITC also allowed them to repay a loan they took 

out when Ted was between jobs and 

rent money was scarce. 

Karen and Paul and Nancy and Ted 

are playing by the rules. They are 

working hard and raising their children 

in a stable family environment. But 

even though they are doing everything 

right, their wages are not high enough 

to provide for all of their families’

needs. 

For years, Democrats and Republicans have agreed that the Federal 

Government should give families like 

Karen and Paul’s and Nancy and Ted’s 

a helping hand. By lessening their tax 

burden, the EITC makes it a little easier for them to make ends meet. In 

other words, the EITC rewards those 

who choose work over welfare. 

But now my Republican colleagues 

have decided that the EITC program is 

out of control and fraught with fraud 

and error. These excuses are being used 

to justify a cut in funds for the program that President Ronald Reagan 

called ‘‘the best antipoverty, the best 

pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of the Congress.’’

A quick look at these arguments 

shows they are without merit. First, 

the program is not out of control because it is growing at the rate set by 

the Congress. In 1993, an expansion of 

the EITC was approved. Once this expansion is fully phased in next year, 

the rate of growth level out so as to 

correspond to the rate of inflation and 

population growth. Indeed, the credit 

will decline as a percentage of GDP beginning in 1997. 

Second, the claims of some Senators 

that a whopping 35 to 45 percent of all 

EITC payments by the IRS are made 

erroneously are simply not true. It is 

true that an IRS study of 1,000 returns 

filed electronically in January 1994 

found that approximately 25 percent of 

the EITC benefits claimed were in 

error. The IRS concluded that many of 

these errors were unintentional but 

that some significant fraud also existed. 

What the critics will not tell you, 

however, is that the Clinton administration has acted swiftly and aggressively to correct this problem. Specifically, 12 measures to simplify the EITC 

and reduce erroneous or undeserved 

claims have already been adopted. The 

critics conveniently leave out another 

very important fact. The study that 

they rely on was conducted before any 

of the administration’s anti-error provisions were put in place. 

Mr. President, there can be no justification for this rollback of the EITC, 

other than a desire on the part of my 

Republican colleagues to find ways to 

pay for their tax cut plan, which will 

largely benefit the wealthy. Putting 

the burden of paying for that ill-advised plan on low-income families is 

simply inexcusable. 

Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, 

when I was elected to the Senate in 

1992, I came to Washington committed 

to taking bold action in order to balance the Federal budget and eliminate 

the national debt. I knew that the 

tough decisions necessary to reach 

these goals would require tremendous 

political courage by individual Members of Congress. Frankly Mr. President, it was not until the Republican 

Party assumed control of the Congress 

last November and Senator DOMENICI

assumed the chairmanship of the Budget Committee that I began to see the 

sort of courage necessary to put America’s financial house in order. 

Despite having control of the White 

House and both chambers of Congress 

from 1992 to 1994, the Democrat Party 

failed to offer a plan to balance the 

budget. Instead, President Clinton gave 

America its largest tax increase ever 

and proposed a government takeover of 

health care. This is just the type of behavior which voters have come to expect from President Clinton. When 

faced with an impending financial disaster his administration offered this 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 23, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7229 

Nation higher taxes and bigger government as the solution. Well, with the 

support of his congressional allies, 

President Clinton got his tax increase, 

but his big-government approach to 

health care crashed and sank on the 

rocks of old-fashioned American common sense. 

That was the last Congress. What 

plan has the President offered during 

the 104th Congress to balance the budget? In the words of Senator DOLE, 

President Clinton has been AWOL on 

the budget—‘‘absent without leadership.’’ I just don’t understand it. Every 

time that President Clinton stares a 

balanced budget in the eye, he blinks. 

First, he actively fought against the 

balanced budget amendment, and then 

he refused to offer his own plan for 

bringing the Federal budget into balance. Moreover, when his cabinet informed him that we are facing an imminent Medicare crisis, the President 

did nothing. Perhaps, that is what he 

does best: nothing. 

When President Clinton does meekly 

act to fulfill his constitutional responsibilities, such as proposing his own 

budget plan, even his own party cuts 

and runs. Last week the Senate rejected the Clinton budget by a vote of 

99 to 0. No one voted for the Clinton 

budget. No responsible Member of Congress would dare vote for a budget 

which would have increased the deficit 

from $176 billion this year to $276 billion in the year 2000 by which time we 

would have added $1.2 trillion to the 

national debt. And yet this is what 

President Clinton proposed. 

President Clinton may be content to 

sit in the Oval Office at the other end 

of Pennsylvania Avenue and blithely 

ignore the current budget crisis and 

the daily mounting debt, but I for one 

did not leave 45 years of hard work in 

the private sector to come to Washington and turn a blind-eye to our Nation’s fundamental problem. That is 

why I have come to the Senate floor 

today to assure my colleagues that I 

am wholeheartedly committed to 

working with them to balance the 

budget, and go beyond that to paying 

down the principal on our $4.7 trillion 

national debt. 

A child born today would have to pay 

$187,500 over his or her lifetime just to 

pay interest on the national debt. For 

those concerned about the impact of 

the proposed budget on children, this 

per child cost imposed by the national 

debt should be the real focus of our 

concern for children. 

We all know that the steps necessary 

to balance the budget will not be easy. 

It will require each of us to summon up 

the courage to cut or eliminate government programs which in times of a 

budget surplus we might otherwise support. 

I recognize that such questions about 

government programs are difficult, but 

as the national debt continues to grow 

out-of-control at a rate of $20 million 

per hour, the questions only become 

more difficult. That is why last week I 

introduced a welfare reform bill which 

addresses the root causes of welfare dependency and runaway welfare costs. It 

is also why I agreed to co-chair the 

Senate Task Force on the elimination 

of federal agencies which today will announce plans for abolishing the Department of Commerce. Plans for eliminating the Departments of HUD, Energy and Education are in the offing. 

We must not lack the courage to act 

together to take bold actions such as 

limiting the growth in welfare spending, abolishing unnecessary agencies, 

and reforming Medicare. To do otherwise, will be to tell our children and 

grandchildren that the generation 

which fought and won World War II and 

the cold war has now chosen to abdicate its generational responsibility. A 

legacy of debt is grossly inconsistent 

with the self-reliant pioneer values 

which have built this great nation and 

made it the world’s lone superpower. 

When debate time on the budget resolution has expired and the time for voting occurs, the eyes of the world and 

our children will be focused on the 

United States Senate. They will wait 

to see whether, like the House of Representatives, Members of the Senate 

possess the courage and vision to support a resolution which provides for a 

balanced budget. 

We have already seen the reaction of 

the world’s financial markets when the 

balanced budget amendment died in 

this Chamber not long ago. If we repeat 

that profile in cowardice we will no 

doubt reap the whirlwind. We will signal to the rest of the world and more 

importantly to our children that nothing has changed in Washington—the 

business as usual spending spree continues and we have no intention whatsoever to make serious spending cuts. 

I commend Chairman DOMENICI for 

his outstanding leadership in drafting a 

long overdue plan to end our Nation’s 

experiment with fiscal irresponsibility. 

In my short career in the Senate, I can 

think of no vote more important than 

this one. Our votes on this budget resolution will clearly define where each of 

us stands on the most important issue 

facing our Nation. I intend to stand 

with those who want to balance the 

budget by 2002. I intend to stand with 

those who believe that America’s families are desperately in need of tax relief. 

The people of North Carolina who 

sent me here expect and deserve no 

less. 

Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the 

Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho. 

f 

MORNING BUSINESS 

Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I 

now ask unanimous consent that there 

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

to speak for up to 10 minutes each. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

TRIBUTE TO COL. JOSEPH W. 

CORNELISON 

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I rise to 

recognize the dedication, public service, and patriotism of Col. Joseph W. 

Cornelison, U.S. Army, on the occasion 

of his retirement after 26 years of 

faithful service to our Nation. Colonel 

Cornelison’s strong commitment to excellence will leave a lasting impact on 

the vitality of our modern war fighters, 

commanding admiration and respect 

from his military colleagues and Members of Congress. 

Colonel Cornelison, a 1969 graduate of 

the U.S. Military Academy, is serving 

his last day of a 21 month assignment 

as the special assistant for Environment and Installations, Office of the 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs. 

He holds a master’s degree in public 

service from Western Kentucky University, and has his juris doctorate from 

Georgetown University Law Center. 

From April 1970 to August 1971, Colonel Cornelison was a forward observer, 

fire direction officer, and artillery liaison officer, 173d Airborne Brigade, Republic of Vietnam. He ensured the effective delivery of direct artillery support to an infantry unit in combat. He 

then served as battery commander, assistant division personnel officer and 

assistant battalion operations officer 

for 101st Airborne Division [Air Assault] in Fort Campbell, KY. As commander, he conducted a tactical 

standdown of a field artillery battery 

in Vietnam and redeployed its personnel and equipment to the United 

States. In the personnel position, was a 

key player in the assignment of several 

hundred officers and undertook review 

of an array of regulatory requirements 

to identify those that could be eliminated because of redundancy, obsolescence or insufficient value. He also organized and executed an advanced 

training program for newly assigned 

personnel. 

From August 1977 to July 1978, Colonel Cornelison was the law clerk to the 

Hon. Oliver Gasch, judge of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. He assisted the judge in management of his civil docket which included 

hearings, researching and briefing 

issues and drafting opinions. He then 

served as trial counsel, chief of administrative law, and officer-in-charge of 

Bamberg Branch Office for the 1st Armored Division in the Federal Republic 

of Germany. In these three positions, 

he progressed from serving as prosecutor in criminal trials to providing 

legal support on issues associated with 

command to serving as city counsel to 

a major military community. 

Colonel Cornelison went to serve as 

assistant to the General Counsel, Office 

of the Secretary of the Army, Headquarters, Department of the Army, 

Washington, DC from June 1982 to December 1983. He developed improvements to debarment and suspension 

procedures and increasing emphasis on 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS