J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, before I yield the floor, I will simply advise the Senate that we were ready to take up a bill that came out of the Justice Department, and I think through misunderstanding it was temporarily delayed. I simply say that the previous matter before the Senate that was temporarily set aside has now been cleared for action-- the pipeline safety bill, with amendments. As the manager on this side on that bill, I am prepared to move ahead, if that is the will of the majority. I thank the Chair.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Will the Senator withhold that? Mr. President, has he offered a manager's amendment? We have it here now. It is his amendment. You must have it. We approve it as drafted. Therefore, I suggest if the Senator will go ahead and offer that, we can probably pass the bill. Modifications to the Committee Amendment

Mr. EXON. Have we adopted the manager's amendment?

Mr. EXON. It was my hope, Mr. President, that we were ready to pass the bill. It was my hope that we would pass the bill in wrap-up last night. That was not possible. It was my hope that we would wrap it up and pass it earlier today at noon. That was not possible. It was my hope, Mr. President, that we could wrap it up now. I am advised that is not possible, and the responsibility at this time is on this side of the aisle, I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle. The measure is open to amendment, and if anyone ever wonders why it takes so long to get anything done in the U.S. Senate, after endless hours of consultation, double consultation, this is a typical case in point. Therefore, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank my friend from South Dakota for those kind remarks. I simply say to him that I was misinformed. I will check into this. I will see who in the world it is that wants to make an amendment to this measure but is not here to do it in an orderly fashion. I will report back to the Senate and to my friend from South Dakota as soon as I am able to get that information, if I can get the information.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the provision in this legislation with respect to cost-benefit analysis is unique to the Office of Pipeline Safety. It is not my intent, nor was it ever suggested by any member of the committee that the standard we use in this bill, be applied to the regulatory process of any other Federal agency. Cost benefit analysis for pipeline safety is straight forward and largely quantifiable. Assessing the effects of pipeline safety ruptures is not as uncertain as health-related analyses, such as lead exposure levels or other long-term exposure to toxics. Pipelines are fixed facilities in known locations that carry finite quantities of specific products. The consequences of different types of ruptures or problems is therefore very quantifiable. The costs of various proposed requirements is usually also very quantifiable as most proposals seek to use existing procedures, processes, or tools with which pipeline operators have actual field experience. This makes cost and benefits more readily identifiable regarding pipeline safety regulations.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak as in morning business.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, last week, I delivered the first of a number of speeches on the fiscal follies of the Dole economic plan. I gave a brief history of voodoo economics in the Reagan-Bush years, its failure, and the economic carnage it left in its wake. I hope that I was able to shed a little light on an issue of great concern to all Americans. Today, I ask the American people to look at the Dole economic plan-- advanced voodoo economics, if you will. And if it wasn't for all of the harm it would cause, the Dole plan would be pretty amusing to this Senator who has worked on the budget for a long, long time. I must say that Bob Dole's supply-side plan reminds me of a 17th century scientist by the name of van Helmont who actually had a formula for making mice out of old underwear. At its heart, that's the Dole plan: taking bits and pieces of discarded economics and turning them into something unrealistic. Last week, I had the privilege to join with Democratic colleagues at an important forum on the Dole economic plan. Benjamin Friedman, professor of political economy at Harvard University, warned, ``The Dole-Kemp proposal is a reprise of a gamble that failed.'' Former Budget Director Charles Schultze concluded, A reasonable and prudent person would have to question severely the wisdom of repeating what the country did 15 years ago--enacting a large tax cut before budget balance is well in hand. The Dole plan is mired in the same specious supply-side arguments and optimistic assumptions that made up the economic quicksand of 15 years ago. The original trickle-down economics delivered mediocre economic performance and a mountain of debt. Is there any reason to believe it will be different this time around? The answer is a resounding, ``No.'' Like the original voodoo, the Dole voodoo II relies on bogus assumptions to hide its disastrous deficit consequences. It's a Whitman's Sampler of candy-coated scenarios. The Dole plan includes a $254 billion fiscal dividend for cutting the deficit; a $147 billion growth dividend for expanding tax breaks; and an $80 billion revenue dividend from projecting out a short-term blip in revenues. It hides the cost of back-loaded tax breaks and massive, unspecified spending cuts that no one believes will happen. As Mr. Dole ups the ante on his economic plan, he raises questions about its credibility. In spite of the truth nipping at his heels, candidate Dole assumes that he if he says nonsense enough times it will be believable. He's wrong. The latest New York Times: CBS poll shows that 64 percent of the electorate does not believe that Mr. Dole will be able to deliver the promised tax cuts. True to form, the Dole plan postulates that tax cuts largely pay for themselves through economic dividends. The Dole dividends are doubly implausible because most of the tax cut consists of items that have nothing to do with the economy's longrun capacity to grow. Most will do little or nothing to stimulate savings, investment, or work effort. The Dole tax cuts' effects on the economy are likely to be worse than the lackluster performance posted during the Reagan-Bush years. The first supply-side gamble was taken at the trough of the 1981-82 Reagan recession, the deepest since World War II. Not surprisingly, the 1981 across-the-board tax cut did boost the economy by stimulating spending, and not savings--boosting demand in the economy, not supply. As a consequence, much of the employment growth during the Reagan years resulted merely from people getting back jobs they lost during the recession. Unlike the early 1980's, when the unemployment rate reached 10.8 percent, strong job growth over the last few years has brought our current jobless rate down to 5.1 percent. A shot of demand stimulus now would risk overheating the economy, push up inflation and interest rates, and do little to improve the already tight labor market. Any benefit from a trickle-down tax cut now would have to come from improvements in the economy's long-run capacity to grow. The prior experience with Reaganomics is not reassuring, since growth slowed to its previous longrun pace once the economy's slack had been taken up. The Dole plan also assumes that an unexpected jump in revenues this year will persist forever, even though CBO in its latest Economic and Budget Update argues that this blip may well be temporary. In fact, it could be worse. I am deeply concerned about the effects of the Dole tax cuts beyond the year 2002. There is no cutoff point; they keep growing and growing. The farther out the tax cuts are projected, the less coherence the Dole plan has, and the wider the deficit projections become. Like his supply-side predecessors, who stretched credibility like taffy, candidate Dole promises to balance the budget despite tax cuts totaling $550 billion. This would require spending cuts far more extreme than those that the Republicans failed to pass over the past 2 years. And remember too, the number of programs that Dole has put off- limits: Social Security, Medicare, defense, veterans, interest on the debt, the New Mexico labs, military retirees, and the list keeps growing every day. Even George Bush's Budget Director, Richard Darman, said that the Dole plan was not realistic politically. In most cases, the Dole plan leaves these huge spending reductions unspecified. In those instances where they are specific, however, the Dole campaign's own figures imply that some programs, like the Energy Department, should be cut by more than 100 percent. At least we can all agree that that will be a difficult task indeed. As I have said, the Dole plan will merely build the current mountain of debt to new heights. And history does not provide much comfort to those of us concerned about this horrible monument of fiscal irresponsibility. If past is prolog, we are in for more debt. Some have incorrectly claimed that President Reagan would have balanced the budget in 4 years as promised, save for the fact those Democrats were in control of the legislative branch. For three-fourths of the time that President Reagan was in office, he enjoyed the support of a Republican majority in the Senate. The record clearly shows that President Reagan failed to use the ultimate and readily available authority he had--the veto to cut spending. He clearly had more than sufficient votes to sustain a veto. Furthermore, neither Presidents Reagan nor Bush submitted a balanced budget certified by the Congressional Budget Office. So what's the bottom line on the Dole economic plan? In the September 2, 1996, New Republic, Matthew Miller writes ``It's a fraud, covered up through deception and double counting.'' That's pretty harsh but I have to agree. Bob Dole shouldn't gamble away the future of our Nation with a farfetched, losing proposition that in the end will only end up with more spending. I simply say that the authority that the President has to cut spending should be used and the veto pen should always be their. It seems to me, Mr. President, that we should realize and recognize that we have had four straight reductions in the annual deficit of the United States. It seems to me that we should not go hellbent for election with an economic plan that this Senator believes is doomed to failure. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON

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

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to proceed for not to exceed 10 minutes as in morning business. And if we need to, I will be glad to yield the floor back.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, as the Democrat leader on the Senate Budget Committee with a long and established record as a fiscal conservative, as Governor of my State longer than any other in its history, and proud of continuing that record for 18 years in the Senate, I begin today a number of statements on sound budgeting. These will be based on fact and proven or provable economic theory, or just common sense, in a hope that I might divert America from careening again down a path that will certainly lead our Nation to new irresponsible depths--new depths indeed--of national debt, if not depression. Alarmingly, the latest ``Follow The Yellow Brick Road'' path of wizardry blends $550 billion in tax breaks, unspecified spending cuts, and rosy economic scenarios into one shameless political ploy. When the unsuspecting Dorothys of the world pull back in wonderment the curtain, they discover a huffing and puffing candidate Bob Dole as the wizard. This is the same wizard who for the first 72 years of his life foreswore such economic nonsense. Bob Dole's transformation from a deficit hawk into a carrier pigeon for supply-side economics is a great loss and disappointment to fiscal conservatives of both parties. In my 18 years in the Senate, I often stood shoulder to shoulder with then Senator Dole. Although we have had different priorities when it came to spending cuts, we were both strong advocates of a line-item veto, a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, and a no- nonsense approach to economic policy. But as Senator Bob Dole became Presidential candidate Bob Dole, fiscal responsibility was turned on its ear. Irresponsible tax cuts became his fetish. Listening to the advice of the campaign consultants and pollsters instead of using common sense, Bob Dole, I am afraid, has lost his moorings. And to pay for his folly, he would have us fall into a deeper pit of deficits and debt. Mr. President, we cannot allow that to happen to the American people a second time. We cannot allow the 1980's gibberish of supply-side economics to go unchallenged again. As a freshman Senator, I supported it, as did Senator Dole. In retrospect, I acknowledge it was the worst vote that I ever cast, in the Senate. To understand the terrible gamble Bob Dole is taking with our future, the American people should understand the history behind it. I would like to spend a few moments today describing the fiscal carnage of the 1980's, or as George Bush once christened it, ``Voodoo Economics.'' And there is no magic to it. It is just misery. During the 1980's, the American people got their first taste of the supply-side mumbo-jumbo. It was the Reagan-Bush feel-good, no-fuss, no- muss way to reduce the deficit and grow the economy. There was only one catch: It simply did not work. Enacting huge tax cuts and increasing spending without balancing the budget, was a ghastly experiment gone terribly awry. Fed by a quick shot of high-octane tax cuts, the economy revved up and then sputtered. The promised revenues evaporated and the deficit exploded with a big deficit bang. A small hill of debt became a mountain. The supply-side economics of the 1980's was a classic example of the difference between promise and performance. Supply-side tax cuts were supposed to boost the private sector's economic performance. In fact, the economy put in a mediocre showing only, during the Reagan years. For example, private-sector job growth was 3.3 percent per year in the Carter years, compared with 2.3 percent under Reagan and 0.4 percent in the Bush years. It finally rebounded to 2.9 percent during the Clinton administration--but without, and I repeat, without supply- side economics. Private investment, which also was supposed to receive a boost from supply-side tax cuts, slumped during the Reagan years. Real business fixed investment, which had been growing at a 7.1-percent annual clip during the Carter years, slowed to a 2.6-percent pace under Reagan, and came to a screeching halt under Bush. During the Clinton administration, business investment has soared at a 8.4 percent rate, the strongest showing since World War II. With both private-sector employment and business investment suffering under supply-side policies, it is not surprising that private-sector gross domestic product also posted an inferior performance, by any measure. The growth of the private-sector slowed from a 3.5-percent pace under Carter to a 3.0-percent rate during the Reagan years. Having registered a meager 1.3-percent showing under Bush, private-sector growth now currently has averaged 3.2 percent during the Clinton administration. We are often told that the Reagan tax cut led to a doubling of tax revenue by the end of the 1980's. That is merely a manipulation of the facts. Total revenue doubled during the 1980's but income tax revenue fell far short of doing so. Revenue from Social Security taxes, however, more than doubled as a direct result of a major Social Security tax increase in 1983. That tax increase, incidentally, was passed when Republicans held a majority of the U.S. Senate and Senator Bob Dole was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. Having failed to deliver on its economic promises, it should not be surprising then that supply-side tax cuts also failed to deliver the declining deficits promised by the Republicans. In March 1981, the Reagan White House predicted that the deficit would shrink from its $79 billion level and the budget would be balanced by 1985. Instead, the deficit widened dramatically, hitting $212 billion in 1985--when it was supposed to be zero--and topping out at $290 billion in 1992. A year later, the Reagan administration could see the red ink rising. President Reagan told the Nation in 1982, and I quote, One area of justifiable concern is the deficit. And believe me, we take it as seriously as any problem facing us. But let's recognize why such a huge deficit is projected. It is not, as some would have you believe, a product of our tax cuts. I am here to tell you and the American people that it was because of the tax cut. But do not just take it from me. More than 10 years after President Reagan made that famous speech, his OMB Director, David Stockman, said his boss was wrong. The deficit was caused by the huge tax cuts that were the hallmark of President Reagan's first year in office. In an article on the deficit in the March 1993 issue of New Perspectives Quarterly, Mr. Stockman wrote, and I quote, The root problem goes back to the July 1981 frenzy of excessive and imprudent tax cuts that shattered the Nation's fiscal responsibility . . . It ought to be obvious by now that we can't grow our way out [of the deficit]. Mr. President, the huge deficits of the Reagan years have left taxpayers with a gargantuan burden of debt and debt service. When President Reagan took his oath of office, the debt was under $1 trillion. When he left, our national debt was over $2.6 trillion, a debt expanded over fourfold since President Carter to over $4 trillion by the time President Bush left office. If it were not for the interest payments on the debt built up during the last two Republican administrations, the Federal budget would now be in surplus. The Nation has paid a terrible price for the mistakes of the 1980s, and we are still paying for them. Supply-side economics left an economic radioactive fallout that pollutes the economy for years to come. We still do not know its halflife. I feel as though I have spent most of my Senate career trying to clean up the mess, and many of my colleagues have joined in that work, but the job is still unfinished. We in the Senate spend a lot of time talking about the legacy we will leave our children and grandchildren. But if we are indeed concerned about mortgaging our children's future, we cannot and we must not resurrect supply-side economics. We clearly made a horrendous mistake economically in the 1980s. To duplicate it in the 1990s would be unforgivable. Neither Dorothy nor any self-respecting munchkin would or should forgive us.

Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Although there are many important things the U.S. Senate is in the process of doing right now, I want to pause for just a moment, if I might, to bring to my colleagues attention that yesterday, history was made at the U.N. General Assembly. After nearly 3 years of intense negotiations at the 61. Nation Conference on Disarmament, the world community reached an agreement on a treaty to ban nuclear weapons testing. This Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, strongly supported by all five declared nuclear states, was overwhelmingly adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on a vote of 158 to 3 with 5 abstentions, clearing the way for world's nations--actual and potential nuclear states alike--to sign the agreement later this month. After over 40 years of nuclear weapons testing and more than 2,000 detonations, this valuable tool in stemming nuclear weapons proliferation is finally within reach. In order for the treaty to enter into force, each of the world's 44 nations identified as possessing nuclear weapons or the research capability necessary to develop them must sign the comprehensive test ban agreement. As my colleagues are aware, India has led a high-profile campaign to prevent this from happening and frustrate the will of the world community to close the nuclear weapons Pandora's box. This temporary setback should not diminish, however, the significance of yesterday's truly historic vote. I am confident that India will see the wisdom of halting the spread of nuclear weapons and sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty before too long. In the meantime, mankind can celebrate the fact that for the first time in history, the world's superpowers have agreed to end the testing of nuclear weapons forever. Many of our allies played critical roles over the past 3 years in making passage of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty a reality. But I wish to take this opportunity to praise President Bill Clinton for his leadership on the issue of the Test Ban Treaty and nuclear weapons proliferation. The United States has been a world leader in halting the spread of nuclear weapons technology during the tenure of the Clinton administration. The earlier extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and now the completion of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty are important milestones in the history of arms control, and the President deserves a great deal of credit in making it happen. In addition to lauding President Clinton's dedication to this important aspect of our national security, I wish to praise the efforts of Secretary of State Warren Christopher, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency head John Holum, and U.S. negotiator to the conference on disarmament Stephen Ledogar. I wish also to single out the tireless dedication of Senator Mark Hatfield to the cause of a verifiable Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. As my colleagues know, Senator Hatfield will be leaving the U.S. Senate at the conclusion of this session, ending 30 years of distinguished service to his country. I can think of no more fitting way to highlight the last few months of his career than yesterday's treaty approval. Four years ago, I joined him and former majority leader George Mitchell in authoring a law phasing out American nuclear weapons testing and jump-starting international negotiations designed to achieve a permanent test ban. It is, therefore, with a great deal of pride that I herald the action of the General Assembly and look forward to the treaty signing ceremony later this month. I remind the Senate, with Senator Mitchell gone and Senator Hatfield and myself leaving come January, the continued leadership in this area falls to Senator Levin and others to take up the challenge. Mr. President, I thank the Senate and I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, many of my colleagues have given very thoughtful and rigorous descriptions of the economic growth of our Nation under the dedicated leadership of President Clinton. Much of that growth is due to the deficit reduction in the President's 1993 budget that we passed with strictly Democratic votes, and not a single Republican vote in either the House or the Senate. The Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, agrees. He said, earlier this year, that President Clinton's budget was ``an unquestioned factor in contributing to the improvement in economic activity that occurred thereafter.'' Mr. President, we have been on the right course since we passed the 1993 deficit reduction plan. At that time, dire predictions were made on that side of the aisle. If anybody is interested in those, I would be glad to supply the doomsday forecast if that became law--which it did--from that side of the aisle. In 1992, the deficit was $290 billion, the highest dollar level in history. Today, thanks to the President's budget, it has been cut more than in half, to $117 billion. That is living up to both your promises and the promises that have been emphasized so often in debate here. I don't customarily use charts, but I want to put up a chart that may have been used before, which drives this point home. I suggest, Mr. President, that this may be the best kept secret in America. In 1980, when President Carter was President of the United States, we had a deficit of $74 billion for that year. That was an awful lot of money. I remember how concerned we were about that. Several years later, after 1980, in the intervening 12 years of Republican Presidents--first Ronald Reagan and then George Bush--and supply side economics, that deficit loomed from a high $74 billion, we thought, to $290 billion. When President Bill Clinton became President of the United States, look what has happened since then under his leadership. That deficit has been more than cut in half, to the 1996 projection of $117 billion. I don't know what tells the history of success in this particular area more than a chart like this, which is factual. I ask anyone to challenge it. The Republicans like to carp a lot about the President's 1993 budget. A distinguished Republican said that President Clinton's taking credit for deficit reduction is like a rooster crowing very loudly at sunrise. I say to my Republican friend that the President has every right to crow, if you want to use that word. He has every right to lay claim to reducing the deficit, because that he has done. That enormous fiscal egg laid by the previous two Republican administrations had to be attacked by someone, and President Bill Clinton did the job. Facts are facts. He has cut it more than in half. As much as I am gratified by the economic and fiscal performance of the current administration, I am deeply concerned with what is being said by the Republican campaign to challenge this administration. The same folks who were part of the fiscal wrecking crew in the 1980's, and who voted against the only real deficit reduction plan in the 1990's, are now ready to sabotage the 21st century with billions of dollars in new tax cuts, which they don't pay for. That is more of the supply-side economics that got us into this mess in the first place. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues here, and I ask the people of the United States, why on Earth would Bob Dole change his mind from a strict and sound fiscal conservative and become the Willy Loman of supply-side economics and perhaps destroy the economy by going back on this track? Mr. President, the lessons learned in the 1980's through the 1992 period are very clear: You can't grow your way out of tax breaks of this magnitude. That is why President Clinton came into office, saddled with a $290 billion deficit. Supply-side economics, or so-called dynamic scoring are, at best, a toss of the dice. To gamble the fiscal integrity of our Nation on such speculation is totally irresponsible. It is shameless. It is truly shameless. Only it is a way of disguising the true costs of tax cuts. How did they make up for them with the supply-side economics, or voodoo economics, to use a Republican phrase, from the period 1980 to 1992 that caused this? Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said, ``We must avoid resting key legislative decisions on controversial estimates of revenues and outlays.'' We sure did that from the period 1980 to 1992. I find it curious, Mr. President, that the advocates of supply-side Dole tax cuts seem to be trying to cash two fiscal dividends at the same time. And it will not work. On the one hand, they want to take credit for the fiscal dividend that the Congressional Budget Office said we will get from the conservative fiscal policies needed to balance the budget. On the other hand, they want to simultaneously take credit for a fiscal dividend that would come from the stimulative fiscal policies of a tax cut. We have a record to show what happens when you go down that road. I hope the American voters will find out quickly what the Dole medicine show is really trying to sell. It is pure poison, and it hurts. The American people reject out of hand the heartless reductions, indeed, in the latest Republican 7-year budget plan. I tell my fellow Americans that these needs pale in comparison to what may lie ahead if we follow their lead to supply-side economics once more. Those reductions from real need will be twice as bad if we have to pay for the total tax breaks that are about to come. That is right, Mr. President. That is right, and all should understand that President Clinton cut the deficit in half, as evidenced by this chart. Bob Dole wants to double the amount that the Republicans are taking from ordinary Americans to pay for his $600 billion or so in tax breaks for the wealthy. The American people know and the American people understand who is heading in the right direction, and it is President Bill Clinton. Mr. President, an important part of all of this--to keep the promises that were made during the campaign--is the matter of the welfare reform bill that is presently before the body. Mr. President, the conference report that is before us in the Senate today is not the best possible welfare bill, but it may be the best welfare bill that this divided and weary Congress can pass. I salute my good friend, the chairman of the Budget Committee, for doing his able best, and he did a lot to smooth over the rough edges of the House measure, and there were many. I also want to compliment the tenacious and effective work of the Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee, in the conference committee. This is a better bill for their efforts. Throughout the consideration of this bill, my primary concern has been with our Nation's children. A hungry child should be an affront to all men and women of good will. I am at a loss to understand why the Republican leadership felt it necessary to force their caucus to vote against allowing States to provide noncash vouchers for children's food and clothing under the State's block grant. The conference report allows States to use another program for that purpose, but provides no additional funds, and has even reduced that program by 15 percent below the baseline. It is certainly not the intention of this Senator to throw more children into poverty, or to create more want in our land of plenty. Should this legislation become law, I would hope that we monitor its effects very carefully. We are giving the States more powers and flexibility; with that will come new responsibilities. A midcourse correction may be needed 2 or 3 years hence, if the critics are right and the number of children living in poverty swells. I am heartened, however, that the conference moderated some of the very worst of the welfare bill and retained many of the improvements added by the Senate. For example, there was the Kasich food stamp amendment that was cruel and heartless in the extreme. It limited unemployed people without kids to only 3 months of food stamps in their adult lifetime. Thank goodness cooler heads prevailed. Eligibility has now been modified to 3 months for any 3-year period, with an additional 3 months if one is laid off. I was also most gratified that the conference retained the Chafee amendment maintaining current eligibility standards for Medicaid, as well as the Conrad amendment eliminating the food stamp block grant. These two amendments were critical to this Senator's support of the conference report. Removing them would have been tantamount to pulling the keystone from an arch. Bipartisan support for this bill would have collapsed. I and many of my Democratic colleagues will vote for this conference report today. We do so with some misgivings, but also with the sincere hope and desire that we are helping our fellow citizens to reclaim the dignity and pride that comes from work and providing for one's family-- no matter how humble the calling. I hope our efforts prove worthy of both those we are trying to help and the American people who have asked for reform. I hear a great deal these days about ending welfare as we know it. But to this Senator, that does not mean ending our responsibility to our fellow man. It does not mean just cutting off the welfare check, and then cutting and running on our poor. Mr. President, our responsibilities do not end with this bill. Quite the contrary. As we ask those who have been in welfare's rut to become breadwinners, it is our responsibility to provide them with a living wage through an increase in the minimum wage. Since few minimum-wage jobs offer it, we must also help them find affordable, available, and accessible health care, especially for their children. We must assist too with education and job training to help them get and hold better jobs. Mr. President, one final observation. I believe that this will be the sole reconciliation bill of the three promised by the Republican majority to make it to the President's desk. Their grotesque Medicare and Medicaid bills are being locked up in the attic, out of sight of the electorate. The tax breaks may, however, be a different story. We hear rumors that, if Bob Dole's numbers plummet any further, we may see some tax breaks shoot up to the front of the legislative agenda. I am deeply concerned that the Republican majority may try to use the welfare savings we achieve today to justify their tax breaks. Some things never change. Other things certainly have changed. Senator Bob Dole once scorned supply-siders, but Candidate Dole is now a fellow traveler. He has jettisoned the hard, dirty work of cutting spending, and now peddles comforting tales about tax cuts that pay for themselves. They did not pay for themselves in the 1980 to 1992 period, and they will not pay for themselves between now and the turn of the century and thereafter. These policies that they are trying to invoke once again evidently broke the bank in the 1980's. We will repeat this foolhardiness again under the new name of dynamic scorekeeping and supply-side economics. A rosy scenario is a rosy scenario by any name. I pray for the sake of our children and grandchildren that the Republican majority reclaims its wits. The bill before us today asks those who receive a helping hand to take responsibility for their lives and to find work. I will vote for the bill. In the same vein, I ask those who have been entrusted with the fiscal responsibility of the Nation not to fritter it away. Face up to your responsibilities. Do not pander. Do not promise what cannot be delivered. Do not hide behind economic fairy tales. It will take hard work to balance the budget. It is high time that we get back to work with the rest of America and do our job right. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, one further item for insertion into the Record. The President yesterday delivered a statement indicating he would sign the welfare bill when it is presented to him. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, may I inquire from the Chair, are there 2 hours left on the Republican side? I thought when I inquired a half an hour ago, at that time there were 2 hours on the Republican side and 2 hours 20 minutes on our side. Now I understand that the Chair said the Republicans had 2 hours 15 minutes left.

Mr. EXON. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair.

Mr. EXON. Senator Bradley. I have 8 or 10 other speakers. I do not have a scenario beyond Senator Bradley.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I yield 1 more minute to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, per a previous agreement that I understand has been entered into, at this time I would like to set aside 1 hour of the 5 hours allowed to this side of the aisle on the debate on the welfare conference report to talk about some other economic matters that several Members on this side of the aisle, including this Senator, would like to address. So if it is convenient and agreeable to those on that side of the aisle, we would like to proceed in that fashion at this point.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I have only asked that he be recognized at 1 o'clock. We did not know of the agreement.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I yield the time remaining between now and 1 o'clock plus 15 minutes off the bill to the Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I yield 2 minutes on our side to the Senator from Kentucky.