Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will use my leader time for as much time as I may consume. I did not hear all of the remarks of the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, but let me respond to what I did hear. I know that the Senator from New Mexico has had the opportunity to serve under many Presidents, and he has seen Republicans and Democrats in the White House. He knows what the record is for the 1980's and early 1990's. Frankly, I think there is a difference between talking and doing. We heard a lot of talk in the 1980's about the importance of a balanced budget, but the fact is we rolled up a deficit five times what we had prior to the time a Republican President took office in 1981-- five times, from $800 billion now to almost $6 trillion. So there is a difference between talking and doing. The Senator from New Mexico did not mention that the United States has the lowest deficit of any country on a per GNP basis, any industrialized country except Norway. We are lower now than every other country. Why? Because the President showed some courage, showed some leadership, was able to convince the Congress in 1993 to take the single biggest step toward deficit reduction that we have seen in decades. And what happened? We have the best economic growth. We put 7.5 million people to work. We have actually seen a downward trend in the deficit now for 3 years running. That has not happened since the 1940's. So I hope everyone understands what the record is here. This amendment says we want to continue building on what the President has done for the last 3 years. We recognize that we have to go further. We recognize the job has not been finished. We recognize that we have to set [[Page S 17177]] a time certain, and if you want to insist on 7 years, we have no problem with that necessarily. But we also want to recognize that the fundamental investments that this country has made in better health, in better economic opportunities be protected. That is all we are saying; that it is not an either/or; that we can balance the budget, but we do not have to do it on the backs of senior citizens who need health care. And if we are going to do a tax cut, we do not have to give it to those who do not need it. That is really what this amendment is saying. We want to balance the budget. We want to continue to work with our Republican colleagues, even though we did not get much help in 1993 when we committed to that plan. We want to make it work now. But we also strongly believe that it is important to commit to the kind of protection, the kind of security, the kind of opportunity that American people now have had since 1965. This amendment is very simple, and, frankly, I do not know how people could vote against it. If you support a 7-year budget and if you support this concept of not using Medicare to pay for a tax cut, and if you support tax cuts but recognize the need to ensure some economic equity, then you will want to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is absolutely correct. I thank the Senator and I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senator is absolutely correct. This makes it very clear that it is not our desire to oppose a 7-year balanced budget amendment necessarily. What I said this morning holds this evening. It is our desire to ensure that we have to have some better understanding of what we are talking about here. We will support a 7-year budget resolution if we know that Medicare is not going to be used to pay for tax cuts; if we know that any tax cuts incorporated into the legislation will be targeted to those making less than $100,000 per year. Those kinds of things are fundamental to our enthusiasm, our level of support for whatever else may have come from the negotiations during reconciliation.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is correct. There is a way to balance the budget by the year 2002. The Senator from Nebraska has voted for it. The Senator from South Dakota has voted for it. Many of our colleagues have voted for it. If you do not have a tax cut, if you use reasonable economic projections about what will happen in the next 7 years, there is a real possibility that you could achieve a meaningful balanced budget in perhaps even less than 7 years. But it is the Republican insistence on a tax cut, it is the Republican insistence on economic growth projections that go way below what we have experienced historically, for at least the last 25 years, that make many of us very skeptical about whether it is achievable in 7 years.

Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator for his comments. I yield to the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator is right. We may have taken it out of the last continuing resolution. It was dropped from the CR, but it is in the budget reconciliation bill. It is in the permanent legislation. It is in the language that we are going to be voting and debating beginning tomorrow, in all of its detail, spelling out exactly how deeply they are going to cut into the Medicare and Medicaid programs. We will see it tomorrow. We know it is there tonight. We know that there is a huge cut in Medicare. We know that is the pool of resources from which they will pay for the tax cut. That much we know. All the other details we still do not know.

Mr. DASCHLE. As I understand it, there will be no second degree amendments.

Mr. DASCHLE. Yes, 40 minutes, I think, is adequate time to consider this amendment.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me explain. I know it is certainly the intent of colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work through this process and to accommodate what we all want here, and that is an agreement on a continuing resolution at the earliest possible date. It is also my personal view, and the view of most of our colleagues, that the best way to do that, of course, is to send a clean resolution to the President. I offered the point of order in the hope that we could strip away the extraneous matters and get back to what we tried to do this morning, which was to offer a clean continuing resolution. [[Page S 17171]] It appears, however, that that would entail a good deal of parliamentary discussion and negotiation and procedure that, in my view, would be counterproductive, frankly, because it would take us at least through another day. It was not my intent to surprise the majority leader. I thought we had an understanding about the point of order, and there was some misunderstanding. For that reason, as well, I think it is propitious at this point to pick up where we left off prior to the time the point of order was offered. So I have discussed the matter with the majority leader, and I am prepared to offer our second amendment, as we had agreed to do earlier today. This would expedite our consideration of the continuing resolution and will allow us to get the bill down to the President, allow us to continue the negotiations in good faith, and to find, at an earlier date rather than a later date, some resolution. I have no doubt that if this bill goes to the White House, the President will be required to veto this one, as well. So we will be back to where we were prior to the time we offered this. So I am looking for, and the majority leader is looking for, a way in which to find some resolution. It is in that good-faith effort that I have asked for the unanimous consent. Amendment No. 3057

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment and raise a point of order that the bill violates section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry, are we back on the continuing resolution?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the point of order be vitiated.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, this is acceptable to our side. I think, also, the foreign operations bill is prepared to be sent. So we are making progress on some of these bills. I think it is important that we get as many done as we can. Some of them are going to be vetoed. This may be one of them. I think it is important to keep the process moving along, and this will accommodate that need. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield the floor. Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, subject to the majority leader's intention, as I understand it, we may set this bill aside. But given the informal agreement we had this morning, I now send the second Democratic amendment to the desk--I guess it is the third Democratic amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I yield to the Senator from Nebraska, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, because it is directly relevant to the Senator from Alaska's question. Perhaps he can explain the chart.

Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from North Dakota was seeking to ask a question. I yield to him.

Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to answer both questions of the distinguished Senator from Alaska. And they are good questions. The first question: I think it is fair to say our confidence has been shaken a little bit when any Government agency happens to make, in a 2- year timeframe, a $100 billion mistake--$100 billion. We said, ``We're going to listen to you, but I hope you're going to be right. And if you are not right, would it not make sense to go back and find whether or not there is a better way to calculate whether, as we make one of the most important decisions regarding our spending for the next 7 years, that we not use numbers that are more accurate?'' If we are off $100 billion in 2 years, what is that calculated for 7? How much more off are we going to be in 7 years? So that is the first question. He assumed they could calculate, that they could give us an accurate assumption of what we were going to be experiencing for 2 years. But to be off $100 billion, that sounds like another governmental agency that needs some work. The answer to the second question is, yes, absolutely we have got to solve the Medicare bankruptcy problem, the problem involving the trust fund. But nothing we are talking about here does that. If we are going to solve the problem with regard to the trust fund, we have only got to deal with part A, and for that we need $89 billion. And, of course, the distinguished Senator from Alaska has read the same trustees' report that we have. The trustees say, ``You're going to need $89 billion.'' That begs the question, why in the Republican budget do we need $181 billion more than the $89 billion? Why the $270 billion? We know why the $270 billion, because $181 billion of that $270 billion is going for the tax cut, to pay for $200 billion-plus in handouts to those that do not need them. Those are the best answers I can give to the distinguished Senator from Alaska.

Mr. DASCHLE. Well, we will work that out.

Mr. DASCHLE. Because of the time agreement, I understand, I will yield such time as he may require to the Senator from North Dakota. As I indicated, it is not our desire to monopolize the floor. There have been people waiting on both sides. I yield to the Senator from North Dakota for a question.