Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be deemed read the third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Robb be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to tell my colleagues of the death of a good friend and colleague, Congressman Bill Emerson, who, until Saturday night, represented southeast Missouri's Eighth Congressional District. Bill Emerson was, I believe, well known to many in this body, certainly to many around this city, and was loved by the people of southeast Missouri. He had a long and distinguished history of service in the U.S. Congress. Bill Emerson was a 15-year-old congressional page in 1954 when a Puerto Rican nationalist sprayed gunfire on the House floor. Bill helped carry a wounded Member off the House floor on a stretcher. After high school and graduation from Westminster College, he served as administrative assistant to Representative Bob Ellsworth of Kansas, and then to Senator Charles ``Mac" Mathias of Maryland. Subsequently, he served in various legislative relations positions with Fairchild Industries, Interstate Natural Gas, Federal Elections Commission, and TRW. In 1980, it was a new day. Bill was elected as a Republican Congressman in the Eighth Congressional District, the first Republican to win that seat in 52 years. Bill Emerson was from that district. He knew the district. He spoke to the hearts and minds and souls of the people of that district. They returned him again and again, very strongly each time he ran. Bill always served his constituents. He was an expert in agriculture affairs. Had he lived, he would have been the Republican chairman of the House Agriculture Committee. He was well known for his work in agriculture, including being a strong advocate of food donation programs. He had worked with the late Congressman Leland on many of the food programs that they shared a common interest in. One of his legislative priorities this session was a bill that would make it easier for food unused by restaurants, supermarkets, and other private businesses to end up in food pantries and shelters, rather than in garbage cans and dumpsters. Bill Emerson was also in touch with the needs of his constituents in southeast Missouri on transportation and other infrastructure improvement issues. He worked for levies, for highways, and most recently, a bridge--a bridge which he fought hard to get Federal funding from the Federal Highway Administration for. It took several years, but Bill's persistence paid off. The groundbreaking for the new Cape Girardeau bridge will occur this summer. It is estimated to be completed in the year 2000. He commanded great respect on both sides of the aisle in both Houses, and was well known and well respected by the media. In honor of Bill Emerson, I now send to the desk a bill to designate the bridge estimated to be completed by the year 2000 as the Bill Emerson Memorial Bridge. I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I point out the mark of respect to Bill Emerson is the fact that I introduced this bill on behalf of my colleague, Senator Ashcroft, and we just started to work on the bill last night, and the cosponsors include Senator Lott, Senator Daschle, Senator Inhofe, Senator Jeffords, Senator Smith, Senator Akaka, Senator Craig, Senator Coats, Senator DeWine, Senator Dorgan, Senator Thomas, Senator Gregg, Senator Simon, Senator Mikulski, Senator Brown, Senator Snowe, Senator Mack, Senator Kyl, and Senator Campbell. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished President pro tempore, the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, be added as a cosponsor as well.

Mr. BOND. I am happy to yield.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise today to pay a special tribute to Mr. Stanley O. Brown. It is a great pleasure to recognize Mr. Stanley O. Brown for his 36 years of loyal service to the Missouri League of Savings Institute and its members. Mr. Brown joined the Missouri League of Savings Institute in Jefferson City, MO, on February 1, 1960. Since then his dedication and constructive counsel to the State's savings and loan industry have made an invaluable impact on the State of Missouri and our Nation's banking institutions. His inestimable contributions and respected professional experience will be sorely missed when he retires from his position as vice chairman of Missouri League of Savings Institute on June 30, 1996. Prior to his vice chairmanship of the Missouri League of Savings Institutions, Mr. Brown served as president of the Staff Leadership Conference and was a member of both the Missouri League's Legislative Committee and the Missouri League's Insurance Trust Committee. It is an honor to congratulate Mr. Stanley Brown on his long-lasting commitment to the Missouri League of Savings Institutions and to the State of Missouri. I wish him the best of luck in all his future endeavors and continued good health and happiness.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Madam President, as co-chair for the National Guard Caucus I rise to object to this amendment. The Senate, in the past years, has voted to appropriate necessary military construction funds to offset the neglect of administrations in order to make sure that the defense infrastructure would be adequately funded. As we have discussed on the floor before, the National Guard has traditionally been the neglected stepchild of the executive branch and the Department of Defense. They neglect the Guard because they know we will take care of it. We must. Who do we look to for every disaster? Who receives the call in every domestic emergency? And who continues to serve and implement military and foreign policy the world over? The National Guard. The military construction bill funds these mission essential and housing projects which were designated as critical by each State's adjutant general. I ask Senators to support the men and women of the Guard and support the Guard's ability to carry out its missions and vote against this amendment. Active Forces infrastructure has traditionally been adequately funded with the Guard forces traditionally underfunded. Why has it been this way, many have asked. And the answer which is whispered through the Halls of this building is that the Congressmen and Senators will take care of it. And we have and we do and we will because we care about the welfare and readiness of the National Guard and Air National Guard. The administration this year funded the Army Guard to the tune of $7 million; $7 million for the entire Army Guard infrastructure. For all 50 States and Puerto Rico; $7 million for the entire Army Guard force. If the Senators here respect our citizen soldiers, then they must rectify this shoddy treatment of those who protect us. My colleagues on the committee have done just that and they have done it with strict adherence to a rigorous set of standards for these necessary quality of life and readiness projects. The committee considered each of the programs added to this year's military construction bill for its executability in fiscal year 1997, its being of the highest priority for the base commanders and National Guard tags, its inclusion in the FYDP, and its overall criticality to quality of life and readiness. To vote for this amendment is to turn your back on your National Guard personnel. Currently, this is the only venue we have to maintain infrastructure readiness and quality of life. We are trying to get the administration to acknowledge the Guard's requirements, but let us not hamstring our Guard for the administration's shortsightedness. Do not let this amendment pass.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, when Congress passed legislation last year transferring the authority to review proposed rail mergers from the former Interstate Commerce Commission to the Surface Transportation Board, a major issue of concern in the Senate was whether or not the Board should retain exclusive jurisdiction over ensuring that healthy competition is protected before any proposed merger is approved. That congressionally imposed responsibility is indeed important and its first major test will be seen soon when the Board issues its decision on the proposed merger of the Union Pacific and Southern Pacific Railroads. Never before has such a large consolidation of control over rail traffic been proposed and never before have so many expressed such strong reservations about the dangers to competition posed by such a merger. The Board must discharge its responsibility to protect competition and in this case to do so, it must condition approval of the proposed merger with mandatory divestiture of the parallel lines created as a result of the merger to an independent rail competitor. This condition is essential to approve the proposed merger. Granting trackage rights alone is not sufficient to protect competition. In reviewing this question, the Board should consider the following: First, the proposed merger would leave two railroads in the West, the combined UP-SP and the BN-Santa Fe, with control of 90 percent of the rail traffic in the West, resulting in reduced competition, higher shipping rates, and reduced service. Second, the proposed merger will cause many shippers to go from three carriers to two, and many more from two carriers to only one. The Department of Justice's review estimates over $6 billion in shipping traffic would be affected by this reduced competition. Third, oddly enough, the competitive harm in this proposed merger is two times the competitive harm of the proposed Santa Fe-Southern Pacific merger proposed and rejected in the mid-1980's. It is not surprising that numerous shipping groups have publicly opposed the merger in its present form and favor divestiture to solve the competitive problems. These groups include the Society of Plastics, the NIT League, and the Gulf States of Texas and Louisiana. The American Farm Bureau, National Grange, and National Farm Bureau are among the many agriculture groups opposed to the merger and requesting conditions other than the BNSF-CMA agreement. Divestiture of parallel tracks and facilities will result in preservation of competitive options for all shippers who would otherwise see reduction in competition from two carriers to one, and for a significant number who would go from three to two. Mr. President, last fall I joined with the chairman of the House Small Business Committee, Congresswoman Jan Meyers, in convening a joint session of our Small Business Committees, to hear from small shippers who have been affected by mega-mergers like this in the past and who know what the consequences of this proposed merger, if approved in its current form, will be for them in the future. They were unanimous. They know that only actual, real competition protects them from the serious consequences of being captive to a single shipper. They have come out in droves to voice their fears in their public filing to the Board. Their interests collectively must be protected. Because of the intense interest in these parallel lines by competing carriers, divestiture would not force the applicants to sell any of these lines for less then their market value. Divestiture allows the merger to go forward and gives the UP and SP the benefits of end-to-end efficiency and the administrative-corporate consolidation that they want while protecting competition for shippers. Unfortunately, the trackage rights solution to these serious threats to competition will not resolve the problems. Even with added access, competitors operating over lines controlled by an aggressively competitive owner are inferior to the owner of the line who uses control of access to place the competitor at a serious disadvantage. Trackage rights alone do not constitute available competition, only access to actual moving traffic does. That can be achieved only by mandatory divestiture of parallel lines. The Departments of Justice, Transportation, and Agriculture oppose the current proposed merger due to these competitive problems. Numerous shippers groups and many of the affected States have voiced concerns as well. Mr. President, I believe Congress wants the Board to discharge its duty to protect competition. We will see this decision as the crucial test whether it will or will not. Congress explicitly recognized divestiture as a viable condition available to the Board when it passed the ICC Termination Act creating the Surface Transportation Board. Congress specifically wrote divestiture into the new law with this need in mind. Divestiture to the highest bidder certainly promotes free-market competition. The Board clearly has this authority and should use it to protect competition.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. I thank my colleague from Georgia. I particularly commend my good friend from Texas for pointing out what we in the Midwest, as well as the Southwest, feel so strongly about, which is that when you raise fees on people who use highways, it is not pleasant. But when they go to highways, we can understand what they are being used for. If you raise fees on people who generate hazardous waste, if it goes to clean up hazardous waste, that is a reasonable argument. But when it goes to the general revenue fund, permits spending and overspending in many areas, it is a real problem.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the reason I rise today, I want to address a couple of related subjects, things that we are working on, and they have to do with some of the debates that have been going on about the nominees for the Federal Reserve. I have the pleasure of having as one of my constituents a fellow Missourian, Dr. Laurence Meyer, who has been nominated to the Federal Reserve Board. When we get to the discussions of the Federal Reserve nominations next week, I want to make the case very strongly that Dr. Meyer has justly earned a reputation as a leading economist. He has played a key role in the development and expansion of the economics department of Washington University. He has been recognized repeatedly by faculty, students, by the public at large, and by his own colleagues as a leader in these fields. His is an excellent nomination. I also say that we are very fortunate that the President has proposed renomination and he has agreed to accept the current Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Chairman Alan Greenspan. During his 8-year tenure, economic performance through administrations, Republican and Democrat, has been outstanding because inflation has been kept under control. Again, I want to address more of Chairman Greenspan's accomplishments later on. But I want to straighten out a couple of misconceptions that have been raised by others on this floor yesterday in their debates about the Federal Reserve. They seem to think that growth in this country is slow because of the Federal Reserve. Mr. President, the Federal Reserve job, as the chief monetary regulator, is to deal with monetary policy. Monetary policy can be a brake or an accelerator, but it is not the essential engine that drives the economy of this country. That is fiscal policy and the opportunity for this economy to grow. We have had a major hit to the engine of our economy. It is a hit that has happened over the years in terms of running up the deficit. This deficit has been out of control. We have raised $5 trillion worth of debt that sits on the backs of our children, our grandchildren, and future generations, and it serves as a great drag on the economy right now. In addition, in 1990 and 1993, we put heavy burdens of taxes on the productive sector--taxes on savings and investment, taxes particularly that hit the small businesses that I have the pleasure of serving on the Small Business Committee. Yesterday, you would have thought that taxes and deficits did not matter, that slow growth was the only burden that was the legacy of the Federal Reserve Board. Well, that is not true. The Federal Reserve has kept inflation under control. We need to deal with the deficit. Then we need to deal with taxes that discourage investment and savings. That is why the third nominee for the Federal Reserve is important. Dr. Rivlin is currently the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. She has presented, on behalf of the President, a measure, the budget of the President of the United States, so that when the Congressional Budget Office scores it and applies a trigger the Congressional Budget Office said is necessary to get to a balance in 2002, they can claim that under the Congressional Budget Office scoring and applying the trigger that the budget will get to balance in 2002. The problem is, as I have outlined on this floor before, I, in the role as chairman of the appropriations subcommittee, have asked the agencies that would be forced to make those cuts in future years how they plan to make them, and they have been advised by the Office of Management and Budget that they are not serious about it. Mr. President, as I have pointed out, we have addressed letters to Dr. Rivlin, questions as to whether the administration is serious about balancing the budget. Do they have a second set of books that has cuts in a lot of other agencies? The Veterans' Administration has told us they are exempt; EPA, NASA, the agencies that I have spoken to have said the cuts are not going to fall on them. Where are they going to fall? Are we serious about the deficit? We are waiting to hear whether the Office of Management and Budget honestly believes it can implement and will begin planning for the reductions in spending necessary to balance the budget. That, in my view, will depend upon how I vote, at least for one, on the confirmation of the Budget Director to be a Member of the Federal Reserve Board. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. That is correct.

Mr. BOND. I will be happy to yield to the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee.

Mr. BOND. I thank the majority leader and join my colleagues in offering congratulations and tell him that we are delighted to have his leadership. We look forward to working with him, and I also appreciate your comments about this measure. Mr. President, I am here today to commend our chairman of the Budget Committee, and the staff who worked together to put an honest budget together which will get our budget to balance in the year 2002. It is an honest budget, and, therefore, it makes some tough choices. Some people do not like it because it makes tough choices. It makes those tough choices honestly. I think it is a fair subject to debate. We have had those debates in this body. They had it on the other side, and we are now going to act on a conference report. I am a strong supporter of this budget even though it does have to make some tough restrictions on our spending. Because I believe we have a solemn commitment to our constituents, to future generations of Americans to bring our budget in balance. I have been very disturbed in the last several weeks to hear our budget attacked in comparison to a budget submitted by the President which is far more generous in election years and then purports to get to a balance by the year 2002 by making some draconian cuts in many discretionary spending programs. In addition to serving on the Budget Committee I have the privilege of serving as chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that deals with the Veterans' Administration, HUD, and independent agencies. As my colleagues know, we have a number of very large and very important entities that are funded in that budget. So I have been holding hearings in the appropriations subcommittee over the last several weeks knowing how important budgets are for planning, and for implementing our fiscal decisions down the road. I have been asking the administration officials who have come before me how they plan to handle the large cuts proposed by the President's budget for the years 1998 to 2002. We do not have to emphasize the fact that 1998 comes after the current election cycle. Apparently, some people may think that the heat will go off and they will not have to be quite so accountable. Mr. President, I have been asking questions in the appropriations hearing as one who has dealt with budgets and agencies for many years. How can you cut 23 percent out of the Veterans' Administration medical care without some plan in place to close hospitals; to consolidate or switch to outpatient care? If you intend to continue the care that we owe to our veterans and you believe, as the administration purports to recognize in its budget--this document published at great expense at the cost of many, many trees which shows that there will be almost $13 billion cut out of the Veterans' Administration in the next 6 years-- how can this be done? I was so concerned about it that I asked Secretary Brown how they planned to live with the 23-percent reduction. Imagine my surprise when the Secretary told me that he had no plan; that in fact he had no intent of creating a plan because he had been assured that the cuts were not going to happen. Mr. President, this book is what we are supposed to be operating from. This book is what we are supposed to be comparing as the administration's budget plan versus the plan that will be before us for a vote we hope later this week. The numbers in the President's budget show that VA medical care drops from an annual appropriations of $17 billion to $13 billion over the next 4 years. But the VA Secretary tells me that those are not real, that the President's budget is not what he really proposes to do, that he would be shocked if it were actually to happen. So why are the numbers in the budget, in this booklet, if they are not the President's plan? I did not have an opportunity to listen. But I have seen the transcript of the President's comments in his Memorial Day radio show which seemed to be geared along the same lines as was stated by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. He did not follow the line and warn the veterans on Memorial Day that he would be proposing cuts that would shut down one-quarter of the VA medical care system, hospitals, clinics, and nursing homes at a time when the veterans population is rapidly aging and in need of services. The President said in his Memorial Day message: Even as we balance our budget, my administration is working to keep our solemn commitment to America's veterans by improving the health care they receive. So a fair question, I think, would be, Whose budget is that he is talking about? Which budget is he talking about? Is there another budget that perhaps has not been printed up that we have not seen? I thought perhaps it was just the Veterans Administration which was suffering from these mixed signals and maybe they were confused or maybe they thought the best way to avoid the potential political consequences of calling VA medical care unnecessary or a low priority was to issue confusing statements to the veterans by saying, ``Don't worry about it, it won't really happen.'' So the next agency that came before our committee for a hearing was that of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I asked the NASA Administrator Dan Goldin how he was going to plan for the over $3 billion cuts in the 6-year plan for NASA, because they have already taken very serious cuts. I commended Administrator Goldin for having done a very responsible job in downsizing that agency. It seems to me those cuts were unduly harsh and would, perhaps, imperil the mission of that vital agency. Much to my amazement, the NASA Administrator told me that OMB had told him not to worry about the outyear cuts either. Wait a minute, what is going on? Let me stop just for a moment and explain why this matters. The cuts I was asking about are those which the President needs and which he sets forth in his budget to be able to claim to the public he has presented a balanced budget proposal. We need to have these budget plans, not only for what we expect to happen in the future, but how we plan to appropriate money for this year. If, for example, there is a way to eliminate $12.9 billion out of the VA Administration budget and not harm veterans medical care, then maybe we ought to be looking at that plan right now so we can make sure that we meet all our commitments for housing for low-income people in this country, because we are going to be very mightily squeezed to achieve the necessary funding that we need for our ongoing commitments. The President's budget asked for a couple of new hospitals. How is he going to build new hospitals when he is looking at a 23-percent cut that is going to wind up shutting down at least one-quarter of the institutions now in the VA system? That makes the cuts on other facilities even greater. There is no way responsibly you can be building new hospitals and planning for an increase this year if you are going to take a 23-percent cut immediately thereafter. It does not make any sense. What appears to be going on here is that there are two sets of books. One is what the President talks about whenever he wants to say he has a balanced budget, because there are a lot of people--I know, I have talked to a lot of people in my State who say we have to balance the budget, we have to cut spending, and I agree with them, because we are mortgaging our future and threatening our children's security by spending more than we take in. On the other hand, the President has another set of books whenever he wants to tell them that he is protecting their priorities and not causing any political pain. It is truly breathtaking to see the ease with which the President shifts effortlessly back and forth between the two sets of books. Using this set of books, he is a tough budget cutter. Now, in the next speech, when he gets on the radio and talks to veterans on Veterans Day, he is the mainstream protector against those extremists, Republicans and other budget cutters, who are gutting these favorite programs, cutting programs that are vital for the services we must provide. My question very simply is, Mr. President, which set of books are we to believe? That is why I, along with several of my colleagues on the Budget Committee, have written a series of letters to OMB Director Rivlin asking for clarification and the details on which budget is going to be followed. We have also written to several agencies asking them what actions they are taking to plan for the outyear cuts. We want to know from the Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Highway Administration, the Under Secretary of Agriculture for the School Lunch Program and WIC Program how they would work with those cuts. Then, in a hearing before our committee, I asked the EPA Administrator Browner what their plans would be for handling the reductions. The Administrator of EPA told me that EPA was a priority. She was absolutely sure that EPA would not face the 10-percent cut in 2001 and an additional 18-percent cut in 2002, as prescribed in this book. Then I joined another subcommittee on which I serve to question the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary Donna Shalala, about the cuts that are being planned in her agency. Secretary Shalala told me that in her budget, she was absolutely convinced that NIH would not be cut, Indian Health Services would not be cut, HCFA administrative costs would not be cut, Head Start would not be cut, the Ryan White AIDS Program would not be cut, and there may be others as well. So far, what I am getting back is, we see these drastic cuts proposed, but nobody is going to be cut. That has to be the best of all possible worlds. You are going to balance the budget with cuts, but you are not going to cut anybody. I received an interesting followup, a response--actually, it was addressed to Senator Shelby who had joined with me in the letter I sent to the Food and Drug Administration. We sent a letter to Dr. Kessler asking how the FDA would handle their cuts. Well, they must have placed a high priority on our request, because it was signed by the Acting Associate Commissioner for Legislative Affairs, and she wrote back with this very clear statement: FDA is moving ahead with Agency budgeting plans for the immediate future based on the budget authority by function and program as contained in the health function forecasted to the year 2002 of the President's fiscal year 1997 budget. Let me interpret. As best I can understand, that means that the FDA is planning on a budget that reflects the figures in the initial book presentation prior to the triggered cuts. In other words, the figures in this book show spending that would be about $81 billion out of balance. The only way the President gets to balance is to employ a trigger mechanism to make 10 percent cuts in 2001 and 18 percent cuts in 2002. So it appears that the FDA is planning on smooth sailing. They are going to sail along in the out-of-balance budget because they, too, apparently do not plan on making any cuts. So no one is being cut, yet somehow the budget is being balanced. Let us get at the truth. Which set of books is the real Clinton budget? Now that the cat is out of the bag and we know that there are two sets of books, what is the administration's response? Well, this is really interesting. I have just seen a Monday Associated Press article, I believe it was printed June 11 in the Washington Times. It says: In an unusual public admission, two top Clinton administration officials say the White House will not necessarily pursue some cuts in veterans and space programs. Then they went on to say that the comments by the people who had testified before my committee were politically awkward. . . . another official said privately that Mr. Brown and Mr. Goldin would be talked to. That means somebody in the administration is going to talk to VA Secretary Brown and NASA Administrator Dan Goldin. They are going to be talked to? Talked to about what? About telling the truth that the administration has no intention of balancing the budget? That their budget is a sham, exposing the second set of books to the light of day? Or does that mean they are going to be told to go back and start planning on making those very serious cuts in their Agency? Somehow, Mr. President, I do not believe they are being told they have to go back and make those cuts. Now, I may be wrong. I am from Missouri, and you can show me. If the Veterans' Administration comes in with a set of figures that shows how they take $12.9 billion out of their budget in the next 6 years, then we will take a look at it. But that is why I have said recently that we want some honest answers to the questions we have posed to OMB Director Rivlin: Where will the $67 billion in triggered spending cuts fall? Are certain programs exempt from cuts as claimed--education, environment, law enforcement? Are the numbers in their budget real for VA? Is Secretary Brown wrong or right in his claim that the President assured him the cuts proposed would not happen? And if the VA numbers are not true, what else in the President's budget should we disbelieve? If none of these programs are to be cut, are there really other cuts that are going to be made in the administration's implementation of their budget? Too often in Washington, no one is accountable, but this issue is too important to be treated as if it were business as usual and it does not really matter. A Cabinet Secretary and an agency head have apparently let the cat out of the bag, and for their candor, they are being talked to. The administration officials who keep playing the Clinton budget game, described in a column by David Broder on Sunday, have been talked to. But what are the creators of the two sets of books designed to fool the public into doing? Are they being talked to? Only those two officials who happen to tell Congress and the public what is actually going on, they are the ones to blame, according to this news article. That is wrong. Until we get some answers to the basic simple questions of which set of books is the real set, I will continue to pursue these questions. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article from the Monday Associated Press and the article by David Broder be printed in the Record.

Mr. BOND. I am delighted to yield.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I have been authorized to allocate myself such time as may be required from the time allocated to the majority on the conference report.

Mr. BOND. I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for that very important clarification.

Mr. BOND. That is what happens when you establish priorities. If that, in fact, is his priority that he wants to put veterans that far down on the list, then we ought to be debating it. And we did have a debate on this floor. The Republicans voted to amend the President's proposal by taking additional savings out of welfare. Even my Democratic colleagues, who did vote for that proposal, had voted for another one that restored those cuts. Nobody agrees with those priorities that the President has proposed.

Mr. BOND. The cuts in the Veterans' Administration begin precipitously in 1998, even under his OMB assumptions. Even using the rosy scenario, he would still chop that Veterans' Administration budget by 23 percent prior to the time that the triggering budget cuts would have to be implemented in 2001 and 2002. So regardless of which set of assumptions he uses, even under his favorable budget, the favorable budget that he set up originally that did not have the triggered cuts in it, he slashes VA by 23 percent, and that was the first thing that tipped us off that maybe there was another set of books that we had not seen. He had apparently convinced the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Veterans' Administration, that those cuts, even the ones he had in his OMB-approved numbers beginning in 1998, were not going to happen. That is why we cannot make an honest comparison between the numbers that the Senator has presented and the numbers that the Clinton administration claim come to a zero deficit in the year 2002, if we are being assured by all of the agencies that they do not have to plan for these cuts. They have no intention of making these cuts because the President and OMB have told them, ``Don't worry about making the cuts.'' Something is amiss here.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, it is actually worse than that. It is actually worse than that. It is not just the triggered cuts that fall very heavily on the veterans. But let me say, earlier in my remarks, I came to the floor to say that the Senator from New Mexico, under his leadership, has produced a balanced budget, an honest balanced budget that makes some very difficult choices. People do not like it because it is an honest budget, and it has had to make some difficult choices. But the President has submitted a budget which he claims is in balance, but he has told his people not to worry about it. Now the cuts in the Veterans' Administration are not just the result of the triggered cuts.

Mr. BOND. That is correct.

Mr. BOND. Frankly, if it did not matter what we are going to spend in the outyears because we would negotiate it anyhow, we would not present multiyear budgets. We have to do that as part of a responsible plan process, Mr. President, so we know if we are on a path to get our Federal spending machine under control. When we see a budget presented that claims to have significant cuts, but the people who would be affected have been assured by the President and OMB that those cuts will not be made, we can only conclude that either there is a very secret second set of books which eliminates programs we have not been able to identify, or the President and his Office of Management and Budget are not serious about balancing the budget and making the limitation in cuts in discretionary spending to achieve that balance. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, would the Senator----

Mr. BOND. Is the distinguished Senator from Delaware ready to respond to a question?

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today we pay tribute to a man who has served his country ably and well for well over 50 years, and who will be remembered for his leadership of an institution that is not easily led. From his humble beginnings in the town of Russell, KS, Bob Dole has taken seriously, and has exercised responsibly, his call to serve. While those of us who have served with him in this institution are disappointed to see him go, and will miss him, he has greater challenges and rewards ahead. I believe Bob Dole will go on to engage this Nation in a critical debate over the next few months about where America is headed as we approach the turn of the century. The United States, and the office of the Presidency, need Bob Dole's leadership desperately. The words ``noble'' and ``man of integrity'' are not often used to describe the current occupant of the White House. Yet they are words that come to mind immediately to describe Bob Dole. Bob Dole did not shirk his responsibility to fight for his country during World War II. He accepted it, fought bravely in Italy, and nearly paid the ultimate price--his life, for his country. Bob Dole is now willing to sacrifice his political career in order to meet the challenge of defeating Bill Clinton, restoring fiscal sanity to American Government, and restoring honor to the office of the Presidency. Bob Dole has been well prepared through 27 years of Senate service to assume the Presidency. He has led Republicans through long years in the minority, and has more recently led us to some significant accomplishments in our effort to roll back Government and ever- increasing Government spending. Bob Dole's skills are not well known to most Americans, because many Americans are unfamiliar with what it takes to make this side of Congress work. The Founding Fathers set up the U.S. Senate as an institution to protect the rights of the minority. This is a place where, in fact, a Senator adhering to minority viewpoint has much greater power in many ways than a Senator whose view reflects the will of the majority party. One Senator can hold up landmark legislation simply by taking to the floor and refusing to relinquish it. A significant minority, 41 Senators of 100, can thwart the will of the majority party simply by refusing to cut off debate. Bob Dole understands these challenges. As minority leader for many of the 9 years I have been in the Senate, he used the rules effectively to protect the rights of a significant minority. This was referred to in the media as gridlock, but it is really the way the institution was designed, to protect the Nation from the passions of the moment and to provide for reasoned, reflective debate. Since assuming the role of majority leader, he has managed to overcome challenges raised by the Democratic minority, and hold his troops together to pass significant legislation. Under his watch, the Senate has passed and sent to the President the first balanced budget in a generation, meaningful welfare reform, the Congressional Accountability Act, legislation preventing unfunded mandates on State and local entities, and regulatory relief. The President has vetoed the two most significant of these initiatives: namely a balanced budget and welfare reform. The speeches we give today in honor of Bob Dole sound a lot like eulogies, but they are in reality reminiscences of a stage in Bob Dole's life. He will go on to do even greater things. He will continue his long and distinguished career of service to country by holding its highest office, and will restore to that office the respect and honor of the American people.