Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I have no objection.

Mr. FORD. Reserving the right to object. At 1:30, do you intend on going out?

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I agree with my friend from Mississippi that the recess probably will be important where we can, as the President said, take a deep breath, step back, and look at where we are. Mr. President, we talk about the veto by the President of the United States of the welfare reform bill. Well, I think the Democratic leader said very emphatically today that the 25-percent maintenance level where the Senate had voted 80 percent maintenance level by the State was an important factor that was changed. The President said when we passed the bill on welfare reform in the Senate that he would sign that bill. Well, I have been around here a few years and usually when you cannot get together and you find something that can be signed and you are not too far apart, then I think we can come back to the table and work it out. Instead of putting all the blame on one place--the Democrats in the House, the Democrats in the Senate, the Republicans in the Senate, are all in favor of one item; and we wind up that there is a group in the House that will not let us move forward. So I think that becomes the stumbling block. Even in the House an amendment was put on one of the bills where you were sending the block grants back to the States that none of this money could be used by the States to build roads. That gives you some idea. I happened to have been a Governor when we got an avalanche of money. President Nixon pigeonholed the money after we overrode his veto. Then they went to court, and the court released 2 years of appropriations. We were the beneficiary of that. I understand Federal money coming into States. I understand the matching money. I understand what the States can or cannot do. I also understand the pressure on a Governor in a State by his constituents and what they would like to have him do. We talk about big interstate highways. We call it, down in the States, get-to-it roads. The interstates are fine, but if you cannot get to it, then you cannot ride on it. So they want us to build get-to- it roads. And so therefore there will be pressure to use this money to build get-to-it roads.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, let me just make two points. I think we have maybe a couple minutes left. Two points. One, for the last 3 years the deficit, under President Clinton, has been reduced by 50 percent. There will be fewer Federal employees, 272,000 under that proposal that was passed and signed in 1993. And today, we have about 200,000 fewer employees than there were 3 years ago. There is no question to what the President and the Democrats have agreed to, that we want a balanced budget and, two, that it would be in 7 years and, three, it would be certified by CBO. The President has laid two budgets on the table, one, balance the budget in 7 years, as certified by CBO. Last evening, the second was put on the table to balance the budget, approved by CBO. The only difference here now is whether we give a huge tax cut or not. My friend from Mississippi says that they have cut it to a $177 billion tax cut. My figures are, when you put it together, that it is $203 billion they are still holding on to and clinging to, which would be the tax cut they want to put in. If you look at the coalition in the House, they do not want to give any tax cut. It is zero. We hear a lot about the Blue Dogs in the House. Their tax cut is zero. The bipartisan group's over here is somewhat higher. But there is $87 billion that the President has agreed to in tax cuts and $203 billion that the Republicans want in tax cuts. We feel like this is not the time to give the huge tax cuts, and that we ought to try to be compassionate and take care of the elderly. We do not need to cut Medicare or increase the premium on part B of Medicare. We do not need to increase the deductible on part B in order to give the tax break. Mr. President, the budget is not balanced under the Republican balanced budget because if you look on page three of the reconciliation bill, it is $108.4 billion of money used from Social Security. I put into the Record last week two things--one statutory and the other in the law--relating to Social Security. You cannot use that money other than what it is collected for. So we have a lot to work on. But the work is only between $87 billion and $203 billion, and where you cut more or less and who gets the tax break. The hour of 1:50 has arrived. I yield the floor.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. We can get by with 10 minutes on this side as of now, I say to my friend.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I will not object--could the distinguished Senator give us some idea of what the schedule will be for the rest of the evening?

Mr. FORD. As I understand it, will they be coupled together en bloc, or will we be able to work on them one at a time?

Mr. FORD. That is the one that directs the President for a continuing resolution if he lays down a budget that is certified by the Congressional Budget Office and the Speaker of the House.

Mr. FORD. I thank the Senator. I have no objection. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD. We still have some others that are yet to be passed that we are to receive tonight, I understand.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. It was just a disagreement on how we are going to get to the balanced budget. I thank the Chair and the Senator for giving me an opportunity.

Mr. FORD. I am going to take time.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, may I join in. I do not want to leave the impression that I do not feel the same way about the Senator from New Mexico that the Senator from Virginia feels toward him----

Mr. FORD. Personally, his effort, the long hours and how hard he works. It is just like the distinguished Senator in the chair has indicated: We have a difference, and we need to let everything else go on while we settle that difference. And I thought--and I still sincerely believe it--that there was an offer to move toward you. The Senator says no. I say yes. And that seems to be the budget problem here. But I do want people to know I like him personally. He is my friend. He works hard, and we are very close to being together. So I did not want the Senator to leave and the people viewing to think we had anything personal.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question, a serious question?

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Every once in a while you worry about whether you remember things right or not, and so you have to go back and check on it to be sure. The distinguished Senator from Idaho and I were debating. I was speaking, and I said something about this budget that the Republicans had offered was not balanced in the year 2002 by $108 billion unless you used Social Security. And he asked me, had not Democrats used that before, and I told him I had not known that, but for 12 years we had Republicans who were President and they signed or vetoed legislation. So now I have a little information I wish to put into the Record, or at least read into the Record, Mr. President. In response to Senator Craig on the use of Social Security trust funds, and more importantly for future reference I think, the following points I think are relevant. It is the law--and let me underscore that now--it is the law. Both the Social Security law--it is attached to title XLII, section 911--and the Budget Act, title II, section 3631, mandate--and I underscore mandate--that ``the social security surplus shall not be counted in budget deficit calculations by the Congress.'' That is why the budget resolution passed earlier this year showed a deficit. You talk about honest figures. I have heard honest figures held out in front of me until it dripped. That meant my figures were dishonest. I do not particularly like that. But it showed a deficit of more than $100 billion under the Republican plan. The Senate Democrats did--and I want to underscore did--offer a budget plan to balance the budget without using the Social Security Trust Funds, and not one that the Republicans supported. It was a 9- year budget, Mr. President, but we did not use the Social Security funds. Just take a look at the budgets submitted by Presidents Bush and Reagan, all calculated with on-budget and off-budget deficits. We will not have an honest balanced budget until the on-budget deficit is zero. So the budget that we are being told about here tonight is not an on-budget deficit, so therefore it is not a balanced budget in the year 2002 without using $108 billion of Social Security surplus. Let me read the Budgetary treatment of trust fund operations. That is under Section 911(a)(1). The receipts and disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund, and the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and the taxes imposed under section 1401, 3101, and 3111 of Title 26 shall not be included in the totals of the budget of the United States Government as submitted by the President or of the congressional budget and shall be exempt from any general budget limitation imposed by statute on expenditures and net lending (Budget outlays) of the United States Government. Under our budget act--I want to read that. I will just read one paragraph into the Record. The concurrent resolution shall not include the outlays and revenue totals of the old age survivors, and disability insurance program established under title II of the Social Security Act [42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 401 et seq.] or the related provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in the surplus or deficit totals required by this subsection or any other surplus or deficit totals required by this subchapter. Let me make one more point. The conference report on the budget that people have been beating their chest about around here tonight that is a balanced budget, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1996 and the conference report--all my colleagues have to do is just look on page 3. Look on page 3 and see how you get a balanced budget. In the year 2002, the year it is supposed to be balanced, you are using $108,400,000,000 out of Social Security Trust Funds in order to balance that budget. I have heard enough about ``honest figures, honest figures.'' The CBO is just as honest as they can be, I am sure. But OMB is too. I think about the private people out there that give industry an analysis of the future. Are those dishonest figures? I do not think so. I think they are honest people giving their honest best projection. So, Mr. President, I wanted in the Record tonight that we have been hearing a lot about the balanced budget, but on budget the Republican budget is not balanced. The on-budget deficit must be zero to have a balanced budget, and not use $108,400,000,000 out of the Social Security Trust Funds to balance the budget in the year 2002. I yield the floor. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Happy to yield for a question.

Mr. FORD. Not for the last 12 years.

Mr. FORD. It is awful hard to address through the Chair. Here on December 15--Mr. President, we talk about never wanting to offer anything. What bothers me is that on December 15, the President offered some numbers based on a budget he had submitted previously. He eased toward the Republican side on December 15; the Republicans eased toward the President on December 15. They moved closer to each other on discretionary cuts, on Medicare, on Medicaid, on welfare and EITC. I thought that was negotiation. That was on December 15. Mr. President, we have agreed to a 7-year balanced budget. We have agreed to the CBO certification. Now let us get down to trying to figure out how we help our young kids and give them an education. They talk about increasing the Pell grants. Sure they did, but they forget to tell you they cut off the bottom half. It is the way you use the words. So you increase Pell grants by $100, but you cut off from $600 down. A lot of people get by on $600. That is all they need. That is all they should be given. But if they do not need more than that, they do not get anything. They want to get an education; just need a few dollars. So this is the kind of budget that the President of the United States has said no to, has said no to. So, I hope we will just leave this rhetoric behind us and look at where we need to work, and that is Medicare, that is Medicaid, that is education, that is the environment; and that we put a face on it instead of the numbers and we put a place instead of the numbers. And once we decide the faces we want to help and the places we want to secure, then we can put the numbers with them. I think then we will have a budget. But the President, in my judgment, is trying to protect those people who are being hurt so severely by the Republicans saying ``We won't give.'' It is not here, it is over on the other end of the Capitol Building, but ``We won't give unless we get the $245 billion tax cut.'' In April the Speaker of the House said, ``We're going to shut Government down.'' Lo and behold, it did. But we have had bills vetoed before under Republican Presidents and we have offered a continuing resolution, we have continued Government while we sat down and negotiated those things that were objectionable to the Republican Presidents and we finally arrived at something that could be sent to the President that we agreed upon and he could sign. That is where we ought to be now. I yield the floor.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I was interested in listening to my good friend from Idaho. And, you know, the devil is in the fine print. I have heard that earlier in my life: The devil is in the fine print. You can talk about the CR that comes over here. That is the continuing resolution that pays employees. I hope that we will put Federal employees back to work. Well, that is fine. I want them to go back to work, too. I do not think anybody likes to pay people for not working. That was what the majority leader said the other day, that he grew up in Kansas, and he felt like if you worked you got paid, if you did not work, you did not get paid. So I support his position. But in this continuing resolution that is coming over here we are going to pay the employees retroactively, and we are going to pay them for coming to the office. But we are not funding the necessary ingredients for them to work. They talked about the DEA agent. They had a drug bust, and he wanted to go. They needed him--several of them. They did not have any money to buy gasoline to put in the car under this continuing resolution. That does not make sense to this country, boy, that you say, ``Go back to work. We're going to pay you, but you can't do anything.'' Look at the schedule of the leadership in the next 25 days: Iowa, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Texas, Florida, all over the country. I do not think that is working here, trying to work out the budget. Let us just be sure that the American people understand what this continuing resolution does. It sends Government employees back to the office. It pays them retroactively, to sit there and do nothing. Employees cannot make a long-distance phone call, cannot buy gasoline for a car, cannot do the things that the American people would like for them to do, that they have been shortchanged in the last 21 days. In my opinion, I have never heard so much of a continuation of the same thing, same thing, same thing. I watched the House as they spoke this afternoon, and all the President has to do is agree to a 7-year balanced budget with CBO figures and everything will be all right. Well, the President has agreed to a 7-year budget, balanced budget in 7 years. He has agreed to that. No. 2, he has agreed to CBO figures. There is no problem with that. Now, what is the problem? The problem is, how do you get there? My Republican friends want to cut or reduce--however you want to say it--Medicare by $270 billion. We think that is wrong. They want to reduce Medicare, want to reduce education, want to reduce the environment. To do what? To get to the point of giving a $245 billion tax cut. That is the whole fight--to give a $245 billion tax cut. Now, who is going to get it? If you owe taxes, as I understand it, and you have children under 18, you can get a credit. But if you do not owe any taxes, you do not get any refundable tax. Therefore, you do not get anything. If you make too much money--hopefully, we will give some kind of tax break to those under $100,000. We stood here on the floor not too long ago and asked if you would put a limit in the bill giving a tax break to those that made a million or less. We even lost that. Now, when you send the budget to the President, when he has agreed to balance the budget in 7 years, to be using CBO figures, but to get to a $245 billion tax cut, you put 80 percent of the cuts on 20 percent of our population, the lowest 20 percent, and you give 80 percent of the help to the upper 20 percent of income, Mr. President, as we say down in my part of the country, something about that ``ain't'' right. I want to tell you, the so-called middle income--I know a family where the man worked for the railroad. He retired. They shifted that to a Social Security payment rather than a railroad retirement payment. He had a few thousand dollars in the bank, had a house with no mortgage on it, and Social Security checks coming for he and his wife. He thought he was in pretty decent shape. Lo and behold, he and his wife both had to go to a nursing home. They had too much money to draw Medicaid. So they kept paying and kept paying and kept paying, and finally they had nothing left. Nothing. They had to go on Medicaid. Now, in this budget that the Republicans are attempting to pass and say the President ought to accept, it says to their children, ``You use up all your money to pay for mom and dad before we trigger in Medicaid.'' A lot of people around this country, Mr. President, that are making $35,000 to $45,000 a year, they have children, they are trying to educate them and all that, and lo and behold, their parents are in the nursing home, they are drawing Medicaid, they get the Social Security check. You take about all of it, with the exception of $10 a week for personal items, which is all the individual has left out of the Social Security check. You say to them that your kids have to pay, and they are trying to educate their children, trying to make ends meet, trying to pay a mortgage on the house and all that--the Republican budget did that. To get to what? For a $245 billion tax cut that will go to the upper 20 percent of income. If that is the kind of budget that you want the President to sign, then I hope he never does, because there are too many people out there that would be hurt by this type of budget. I represent Kentucky, born and bred there, and proud of it. We had a Senator that came here that made quite a mark. His name was Henry Clay. Henry Clay was called ``the Great Compromiser.'' He knew how to compromise. But Henry Clay said that compromise was negotiated hurt-- negotiated hurt. If you are going to hurt a little bit, let everybody have a little bit of hurt instead of some having a whole lot and others not having any. Negotiated hurt--let everybody hurt a little bit. I do not think you would have any objection to that. Just take the farmers in the next 5 years. The Senator from Idaho understands farming very well. But the President has offered a $4 billion cut and the Republican budget takes about $14 billion. Just take $10 million off of the tax cut, you still have $235 billion; instead of taking a $270 billion reduction in Medicare, just take the $89 billion that the President offered. Talk about real numbers, let us put real numbers in front of real faces and real places. That is how you are going to understand the numbers. It is all numbers. It is all dollars. What will you do to the individuals and the families, the young and the elderly, by just looking at numbers? There are faces and places behind those numbers, and we have to have that part of the discussion when we come to talking about the budget. When you talk about real numbers, let us talk about real people. Let us talk about real places. Let us talk about real hurt. Let us talk about being fair. Let us talk about being compassionate. That is the kind of country we are. That is the reason we are strong. We reach out not only to our own but to others. That has made us the leader of the world. To come in here and say we are going to say to the President that we will give him a clean CR when he sends us a budget that is certified balanced by CBO and signed off by the Speaker of the House, I know what Senator Dole would say if he was President of the United States, and a Democrat Speaker over there--I know what he would tell him. I think you do, too. So let us look at the budget that the Republicans gave us. If you were not using Social Security, you would be $106 billion short--$106 billion short--in the year 2002. But when you dig in and use the Social Security numbers, you get down to--I do not want to answer any questions.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. So therefore that piece of your unanimous-consent agreement will not go to the President, but it will stay here?

Mr. FORD. I thank the leader. I will not object. Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of this latest version of a continuing resolution, and I commend the Majority Leader for his diligence in trying to bring an end to the budget impasse. It's long past time to send government workers back to work, and ensure they receive full pay on time. We can wait no longer for the President to make good on his promise to submit a 7-year balanced budget. It's clear he never intended to honor this commitment. But we simply cannot hold our Nation's elderly, who depend on Meals on Wheels; our veterans, who depend on their monthly benefit check; those who need passports to travel; children, who depend on federal assistance; or federal workers, to name a few, hostage to the President's refusal to carry through on his commitment. As chairman of the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, my patience with this administration has completely expired. The White House has shown no willingness to negotiate in good faith to resolve their concerns with the VA-HUD bill. While I have expressed my willingness time and again to negotiate a compromise, the White House does not seem to understand the art of compromise. Last month, OMB prepared a list totaling $1.9 billion which at the time represented the administration's list of what they wanted in additional spending for the VA-HUD bill. Earlier this week, I saw a new list which OMB had prepared, which had grown to almost $2.5 billion. Mr. President, this doesn't represent a good faith attempt to resolve the current budget crisis! The size of the list is going in the wrong direction!! Let me highlight just a few items on the administration's so-called ``wish list'' for the VA-HUD Subcommittee which would make the bill ``acceptable'' to the President. The list contains several pork barrel projects, including $62 million for the first phases of two brand new VA hospitals--at a time when the veteran population is declining, VA's existing 173 hospitals are underutilized, and GAO says these facilities are not needed. The list includes $50 million for a new $280 million EPA laboratory, a project we just cannot afford at this time. The list includes $1 million for the obsolete Office of Consumer Affairs, when we have 2 other consumer agencies which can take over OCA's activities at far less expense. While the President has said he's for streamlining and eliminating duplication, when the time comes to actually do it, he refuses. For EPA's environmental technology initiative, the White House says we must put in another $62 million--despite the fact that this program has been a complete waste of taxpayer dollars and there is nothing to show for the millions we've already spent over the past 2 years. For Boston Harbor, the White House says we need another $75 million, in addition to the $25 million included in the VA-HUD bill and on top of the $530 million already appropriated over the past several years for this pork barrel project. I say to the President, enough is enough! It's time to get real and begin good faith negotiations. While my frustration with this administration is mounting even as I speak, I do not believe it's right to allow the American people, who depend on services provided by their Federal government, to be the victims of the President's intransigence. Therefore, I support passage of this continuing resolution, returning workers to their jobs, and providing full year spending authority for such critical activities as veterans benefits, Meals on Wheels, child welfare programs, passport and visa services, and locally financed operations of the District of Columbia. As chairman of the VA-HUD subcommittee, I'm particularly pleased that this continuing resolution will enable the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide payments to needy and disabled veterans in a timely manner. It will enable VA to pay its hospital workers--who have been working without pay for the past 3 weeks--and pay those who supply medicine, food, and other critical supplies to its hospitals. This is extremely important and I strongly support the inclusion of this provision in the continuing resolution. Let me make clear that while I support this measure, it is in no way a solution to the budget stalemate. There are many, many activities which will not be carried out even if this legislation is enacted. For example, while VA can begin processing new claims again, VA will not be able to make payments to new beneficiaries. EPA Superfund cleanup contractors will not get paid. FEMA's emergency food and shelter program will not receive funds--meaning that hundreds of people who find themselves in need of temporary housing assistance will not get help. And States will not receive grants to run their environmental protection programs or for the construction of wastewater treatment plants. Mr. President, this measure also will not address a major problem with contractor provided services, particularly those provided by small businesses which typically have limited financial resources with which to weather-out delays in payments. This is a very large problem because over the last decade the Federal Government has emphasized contracting out of activities which could be more efficiently carried out by the private sector. Many activities which formerly were conducted by Federal employees have been converted over to the private sector. The employees of these contractors have been furloughed just like the Federal Government counterparts, but under the terms of this bill, they won't be returning to work. And, even when they do return to work, it won't be with the assurances of reimbursement that Federal employees are being given for their lost pay. As Chairman of the Small Business Committee, I am particularly concerned over the adverse impact this budget impasse is having on cash poor small business contractors. These businesses cannot draw readily upon pre-existing lines of credit or cash reserves that large corporations usually have available. So even where the Federal Government has determined that a function carried out by a contractor is critical or related to health and safety, the Government's inability to make timely payments jeopardizes the very existence of these small businesses. While the VA-HUD bill Congress passed in December would have funded every one of these activities, the President decided the bill was not good enough and he vetoed it. He vetoed it because we could not breech the budget constraints and appropriate another $2 billion. If he had signed it, he could have sought supplemental funds in negotiations with the Congress and all of the hardships his veto caused could have been avoided. But we are left with no choice but to enact this stop-gap measure. I urge the President and his advisors and all those involved in negotiations on the budget, to work in good faith to come to an agreement as soon as possible. In conclusion, I again commend the Majority Leader for his hard work on this matter, and I urge its expeditious adoption.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I need some explanation because of the resolution. Am I correct in my understanding that the so-called clean CR that has the proviso that says that when the President sends or submits a balanced budget in 7 years with CBO figures and is certified by the Speaker, then the clean CR would be released, that that legislation stays here and does not go to the White House until such time as the President submits that budget?