T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I understand that the distinguished senior Senators from West Virginia and Arizona wish to be heard on this issue, and I understand that each wishes that we have a recorded vote. Accordingly, I ask for the yeas and nays on the conference committee report.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, during the past 6 months the Northwest congressional delegation and the Clinton administration have spent a great deal of time in an attempt to control the costs imposed on the Bonneville Power Administration's ratepayers by the Endangered Species Act mandating recovery of certain salmon runs of the Columbia and Snake River systems. The threat of a financial collapse of the Bonneville Power Administration and the reality of exploding fish recovery costs borne by the region prompted this attention. The Bonneville Power Administration bears many financial burdens to threaten its ability to remain competitive. The entire electricity industry is being rocked by fierce winds of change that were not anticipated when the Northwest Power Act was passed by Congress in 1980. The most immediate and increasing burden on BPA and its ratepayers arises out of Endangered Species Act-mandated salmon recovery costs. Until just a few weeks ago, Clinton administration officials at the National Marine Fisheries Service estimated that BPA's share of salmon recovery costs for fiscal year 1996 would exceed $600 million. As a consequence, the Clinton administration decided, quite correctly, that neither a collapse of BPA nor huge rate increases in salmon costs would be tolerated by the people of the Pacific Northwest, and so the administration announced that BPA's salmon recovery costs would be administratively capped at $435 million for the year. That agreement is incorporated in this bill. The Clinton administration also made the political calculation that the President could not afford to anger national environmental organizations by supporting any legislative efforts to control salmon recovery costs borne by Northwest ratepayers. After all, earlier this year, this administration enraged those organizations by signing a rescission bill that included provisions on salvage timber and Northwest timber harvest programs. So the administration, aware of this slow-burning anger among its environmental constituents, decided that it could not support a legislative remedy that would help the ratepayers of the region because that action would further outrage a vital political constituency. The only positive aspect of the resulting agreement is that it represents the first acknowledgement on the part of the administration that there is an economic limit on Columbia and Snake River salmon costs. But this agreement, while it represents our acknowledgement of fiscal reality, is severely flawed and incomplete. The agreement is flawed because it is so vague. First, we have not seen any paper outlining the agreement. Second, without legislation, there is no real legal protection for BPA, or for the investment already made by the region's ratepayers. Without such protection, BPA said that many of its customers would leave the system and purchase power from cheaper alternative sources. BPA said that letting its salmon costs escalate uncontrollably would push it to the brink of financial ruin. It was, in my view, no idle threat. But the best that BPA can now tell its customers is that the administration promises that $435 million a year from BPA should be enough for fish and, if not, there will be a pool of $325 million in Federal dollars if costs exceed that $435 million. Mr. President, if the BPA is on the verge of financial ruin, how can a promise from the administration to not spend more than $435 million provide the certainty that BPA says it needs? What confidence can we have in an agreement that can be broken if an administration official decides next year that BPA should spend more than the $435 million? The answer: no confidence. And what happens if a Federal judge is asked to decide whether the $435 million was derived by political science rather than biological science and finds that number insufficient to meet the Endangered Species Act? Answer--the cap will be broken. What happens if that Federal judge issues orders that require BPA to spend more than the $325 million in taxpayers' dollars made available by the agreement? Answer--taxpayers and ratepayers will pay more. This agreement provides little, if any, assurance to BPA customers that they--or the Federal Treasury--will not be forced to pick up the tab for ESA-mandated salmon recovery. In short, this agreement, with all of its what ifs, increases the likelihood that the BPA will soon be right back where it started--on the brink of financial ruin because of rapidly escalating salmon-recovery costs. The agreement is also incomplete. This agreement does nothing to provide any certainty or predictability for other economic interests along the Columbia and Snake Rivers system. BPA gets short-term relief from this agreement with the administration, but no certainty. Other rivers system users--ports, PUD's, irrigators, agriculture, private utilities, non-Federal hydroelectric projects, recreational, and commercial users--are left with even less protection from Federal decisions to drawdown reservoirs, spill water over dams, increase water flows or even order dam removal. Arguably, this agreement by the administration to limit BPA fish costs, while not changing Federal salmon policy, increases the chances that fish costs will be shifted onto other economic entities in the region. Clearly, these entities are not disinterested spectators. They are affected greatly by the vagaries of BPA policies and NMFS decisions about how the water from the Columbia and Snake Rivers will be used. The characteristics of this administration's environmental policies are inherent all across this agreement--environmentalists are listened to, but working people do not count. This agreement is flawed because it fails to deal with the root of BPA's and the region's problem. The root problem is not how much BPA and its ratepayers spend on fish recovery. The root of the problem is that this administration has used the ESA to craft a salmon policy that forces the most expensive possible measures for the least productive returns. Despite BPA's agreement with the administration, the necessity to control BPA and the region's fish and wildlife costs is hardly resolved. Many will use this agreement as an opportunity to declare victory and go home. but if this agreement accomplishes anything, it illustrates the need for dramatic action now on legislation fundamentally to change salmon restoration and conservation practices on the Columbia and Snake Rivers system. This agreement is unlikely, in the long term, adequately to stabilize BPA's financial position. And, despite the claims of an administration cabinet member that this agreement will recover the species, it clearly will do little to restore an abundant Northwest fishery. Why? Because this agreement perpetuates the status quo, a status quo that has accomplished little if any salmon recovery. Presently, I am typecast as an enemy of salmon. I would like to dwell upon this typecast for a moment. Our last great regional natural resource debate was, of course, over the extent of measures to protect the northern spotted owl. I will make a confession. While I do not desire the extinction of that bird, I do not worry overly about its survival. I believe that it will survive, regardless of Federal policies designed to protect it, but more fundamentally, I don't worry because I don't believe that that bird is vital to the human condition or to life on this planet--while I believe that families and people are. I believe that preserving a reasonable amount of owl habitat--our old growth forests--is important, but, in truth, if you wish to portray me as opposed to the proposition that owls are more important than people, you are not far off the mark. I see salmon in a completely different light. I am committed to conserving and restoring an abundant Northwest salmon fishery. My legislative proposal to accompany the energy and water appropriations conference report would have locked into place a $500 million a year commitment to Columbia and Snake Rivers river salmon recovery. But ensuring a healthy salmon resource in the Northwest is not a broad enough goal for the Columbia and Snake Rivers system--we must also consider anadromous and nonana- dromous fish, and resident fish populations. I will support Federal legislation that provides that consideration and also assures comparable proportionate commitments to salmon runs in other Northwest river systems. I am convinced that, within reason, Northwest citizens will make large investments to restore the region's fishery. I believe that the region is committed to such an unprecedented environmental investment because salmon are important to our Northwest economy--they are important to our society, our culture, our lives. Let me emphasize this point. I will support Federal legislation that requires electric ratepayers in the Pacific Northwest to pay for salmon recovery. I believe that people of the region are committed to this goal and are willing to pay for it. I ask only two conditions in return: First, that the level of expenditures be reasonably predictable, and second, that the expenditures be for scientifically credible measures to strengthen the overall fishery. While it is inaccurate to claim that I am antisalmon, it is definitely true that I disagree profoundly with the administration's salmon management policies. What exactly is the current Federal salmon management policy in the Northwest? Beyond spending a lot of money, I'm not sure anyone can honestly tell us what's been accomplished, or even what the goal of the recovery plan for Columbia and Snake Rivers salmon is. This is a plan that only a bureaucrat could develop and understand--it's easy to write a plan like this when there is no political accountability, and you are spending someone else's money. That's what the Federal recovery plan for salmon boils down to. Today, Federal management of the Columbia and Snake Rivers system is driven by the ESA and it concentrates on the weakest salmon runs for recovery. Fact: This administration's ESA strategy on the Columbia and Snake Rivers does not even propose to restore a vibrant Northwest fishery in any reasonable period of time. Fact: this recovery plan does not say that our national goal is to have the Columbia and Snake brimming with millions of fish. Instead, the ESA requires the region to focus on saving weak salmon runs--not full species of salmon, not even subspecies of salmon but only on what are called distinct population segments. There actions may mean increasing the number of one listed run of Snake River sockeye from 10 in 1994 to 50 by 2000 forty individual fish. Despite the protestations of NMFS biologists, and inside-the-beltway theorists, these recovery measures for sockeye salmon have no connection to an abundant salmon resource. NMFS states that recovery of the listed salmon runs will require 50 years, and acknowledges that a century of extraordinary measures is probably necessary. To those involved in tribal, commercial, and recreational fishing, I warn that NMFS, empowered by the ESA, is planning for a century with no fishing. Do not misunderstand, people in the Northwest do care about conserving and enhancing wild salmon. Wild salmon are valuable. But they are valuable because their survival and enhancement can play a large role in the recovery of an abundant and healthy resource. We have learned that some degree of genetic diversity is important to healthy salmon stocks. The problem with the current law is that it empowers Federal regulators to spend unlimited amounts of money to save genetically distinct salmon runs as a goal in itself and not as a measure to a broader goal. The goal of Federal regulators is not an abundant fishery, nor is their goal connected in any way to economic reality. Federal policy-- driven by saving one genetically distinct run--is in conflict with rebuilding an abundant fishery. A fraction of the dollars the Federal Government is taking from the Northwest economy, dedicated to recovery of there specific fish populations, would produce a infinitely greater return if focused on fish populations throughout the system, including saveable salmon runs and some wild stocks. I make these points about current Federal salmon policy because the agreement arranged by the Clinton administration and BPA does nothing to change what is wrong with current Federal fish management policies and practices. This agreement literally papers over the problems inherent in poor Federal policy with dollars--dollars paid by Northwest ratepayers and U.S. taxpayers. But in the end, this flawed Federal policy will not be papered over. As long as Northwest salmon recovery measures and costs are dictated by the Federal Government and the EPA we will court failure. We will have higher costs and little, if any, increase in the number of salmon to show for it. It is time to change the direction of our salmon recovery policies and the agreement by this administration and BPA does nothing to do so. Northwest salmon policy should be changed so that it is directed at three goals. First, we must restore an abundant fishery resource. Second, we must enhance the fishery with the least possible economic dislocation. Third, we must give the authority over decisions for salmon recovery back to the region. Mr. President, I have my own views about effective salmon recovery measures, but I will fight hard to see that Federal law is changed so that nobody in Washington, DC--including me--will make the decisions on how best to conserve and enhance fish populations in the Northwest. The region must be given the freedom itself to make those decisions. If our region, after an inclusive and thoughtful process, decides to spend $500 million a year to restore one weak run of salmon--I will almost certainly disagree--but as a U.S. Senator, I would defend, absolutely, the region's authority to make that choice. I often disagree with our Northwest Indian tribes on issues of public policy but our Northwest tribes should be heard on how best to restore an abundant fishery. I often disagree with Washington State's representatives on the NW Power Planning Council, but I believe that the Council should be involved in helping to make these decisions. The heads of Northwest fishery agencies and our best scientists should have a significant voice in this process. The region should decide which salmon runs to enhance--not D.C. bureaucrats. Northwest salmon management measures should be decided by the people, local governments and interests in the Northwest. Today, the region is barred from making these decisions because of Federal law. Federal law grants to one agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, nearly total control over our Columbia and Snake Rivers systems. I want to dramatically alter this miserable status quo--I want the people of the region to make their own decisions on these issues. Mr. President, our country is now in a state of revolution over the excessive role the Federal Government plays in our daily lives. The proposition that we should take power from the Federal Government and put it in the hands of local people is driving the debate on issues ranging from education to telecommunications to transportation to welfare. In the opinion of this Senator, the revolution should not stop there. It shouldn't stop there because these aren't the only fields in which a revolution is occurring. Another is clearly underway in the way our country delivers energy to families and businesses. In the Northwest, this requires a thorough review of BPA and the Northwest utility marketplace. Our region is just beginning to explore what to do in the face of changes that will dramatically reshape the region's energy marketplace. Over the next few months, I will be seeking the opinions of all who are concerned about what the future holds for Northwest energy policies. We will need to ask questions--tough questions--that don't merely tinker around the edges but delve deeper in order to create more competition and less reliance on government subsidies. In a word--overhaul. In this process our region will also explore what to do about ESA- mandated salmon recovery measures and how to pay for them. I intend to participate in this process. Questions of energy policy, the role of the Northwest Power Planning Council and salmon recovery and its cost will come before Congress in the next several years. I believe that residents of the Pacific Northwest will not continue to tolerate exploding costs in the name of salmon recovery, when the immediate benefits are so slight and the promised benefits are esoteric and distant. Much of the Northwest was built based on a model of Federal answers to regional needs. Those decisions were appropriated at one point in time because our region could not, without Federal aid, have developed and grown. But current salmon recovery measures still reflect the old faith in centralized Federal answers to regional problems. Now, however, like nearly every issue before the Congress, the answer to the problems of the last 50 years may not be the answers to the problems of the next 50 years. Policies that assure centralized Federal control of energy and salmon policy demand careful review and dramatic change. The status quo is not the answer to the region's problems.

Mr. GORTON. Yes.

Mr. GORTON. I will yield to the Senator.

Mr. GORTON. I suppose I would take about 10 minutes. I think the way in which the question could be answered, I suppose, would be to have the vote tomorrow.

Mr. GORTON. I think I can probably complete in that period of time.

Mr. GORTON. I will not put my statement in the Record. I do wish to make it.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I was going to say, under those circumstances I am perfectly willing to allow the vote to take place now and make statements afterward, if that will help the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, before the last vote, I had the floor and I was asked shortly after I began my remarks under this bill to allow the vote to take place so that various people can go home. I ask unanimous consent that the remarks I am about to make be consolidated with those I made before the vote and be printed in the Record before the vote.

Mr. GORTON. Approximately 10 minutes.

Mr. GORTON. Was my unanimous-consent agreement to have the speech consolidated before the vote?

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I join my colleagues, Senator Jeffords, Senator Cohen, Senator Snowe, and Senator Leahy, as a cosponsor of this amendment. Mr. President, the Senate Agriculture Committee has eliminated dairy price support purchases for butter and nonfat dry milk, and retains such purchases for cheese. The dairy farmers in my State support this provision, but only if a farmer funded class IV export program is established. The Agriculture Committee failed to address export sales of butter and nonfat dry milk to the world market. Our amendment addresses this issue and according to CBO will save an additional $233 million in the next 7 years. These savings are in addition to $1 billion, the Government will save during the same 7 years by the elimination of dairy support for butter and nonfat dry milk. This farmer funded class IV export program has the support of many, including; Darigold--80 percent of all Washington State producers, National Milk Producers Federation, Mid-America Dairymen, Milk Marketing Inc., AMPI, American Farm Bureau, Kansas Dairymen Association, Utah Dairymen Association, NE Council of Farmer Cooperatives, Michigan Milk Producers Association, Florida Dairy Farmers Association, Dairlylee Cooperatives, United Dairymen Association, Western Dairymen Cooperatives, and a legion of other farmer cooperatives and dairy farmers across the country. In closing, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I believe that it is important constantly, during the course of this debate, to return to fundamental principles, to the broad policy goals which we as a nation ought to seek for the betterment of our society and for a brighter future for those who follow us. In returning to those fundamental principles, there is no better place to start than with this fundamental principle enunciated by Thomas Jefferson almost two centuries ago. And I quote our third President: The question whether one generation has the right to bind another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as to place it among the fundamental principles of Government. We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts and morally bound to pay them ourselves. The staff notes I have here with me this morning have, at one place, the notation ``they,'' that is to say the opponents to this resolution, ``do not wish to balance the budget.'' But I do not believe that to be true. I have not heard any argument at any time this year from a Member of this body that has not included in it at least lip service to the concept of a balanced budget. But, of course, there are three ways to that goal, or at least three kinds of oratory which give lip service to Thomas Jefferson's principle. The first is to state the principle but always to have an objection to any course of action which will make that principle a reality. And that is the common approach of those who oppose the resolution we have before us today. The second way, a way that seems to have very little support on the other side of the aisle but clearly actuates the President of the United States, is to define the problem out of existence. I will come back to that in just a moment. The third way, the hard way, the difficult way, is actually to make basic changes in our laws and in our spending policies, that will in fact lead us to a balanced budget. To return for a moment to the President's approach of defining it out of existence, I would also like to quote him. Just a little more than 2 short years ago, the President of the United States said: The Congressional Budget Office was normally more conservative about what was going to happen and closer to right than previous Presidents have been. I did this so we could argue about priorities with the same set of numbers. I did this so that no one could say I was estimating my way out of this difficulty. I did this because, if we can agree together on the most prudent revenues we are likely to get if the recovery stays and we do the right things economically, then it will turn out better for the American people than we said. In the last 12 years, because there were differences over the revenue estimates, you and I know that both parties were given greater elbow room for irresponsibility. This is tightening the reins on Democrats as well as Republicans. Let us at least argue about the same set of numbers so the American people will think we are shooting straight with them. In those eloquent words the President said let us all agree that we will use the projections of the Congressional Budget Office. That was then. This is now. Earlier this year the President presented a budget to us which never, in his own terms, included a deficit of less than $200 billion. Later, when it turned out that Republicans were serious about balancing the budget, the President said, ``Me, too. I can do it. And I can do it without pain. I can do it without changing any major policies in the United States. I can do it by defining it out of existence. I will abandon my allegiance to the Congressional Budget Office. I will simply estimate that interest rates and inflation will be lower and revenues will be higher, and without any major changes at all we can balance the budget.'' So he defined the problem out of existence. The day before yesterday in this body we had a straw poll, as it were, on whether or not the President's approach was acceptable. And it lost by a vote of 96 to nothing. The other side of this aisle, quite properly, rejects that approach. But it also rejects the approach of any significant changes. So, at this moment, nominally we are debating education. They do not want any changes. Previously we were debating Medicaid. They do not want any changes. Before that we debated Medicare. They do not want any changes. In fact, you can go down a litany of spending programs, and they do not want any changes. But they would like to have a balanced budget. It just is not a high enough priority. Mr. President, to return to the Congressional Budget Office, we now know that we are not simply engaging in a game of whether or not it is appropriate to balance the budget. We know what the positive results of balancing that budget will be. The Congressional Budget Office says that if we actually change the laws appropriately interest rates will be sufficiently lower and economic growth will be sufficiently higher so that the Federal Treasury will be $170 billion better off by the time the budget comes into balance in the year 2002. That is only the Federal Treasury. That is not the other hundreds of billions of dollars which will be in the pockets of the American people because they have better jobs and higher wages. That is what this exercise is all about, a better break for America. So what are we proposing to do? We are proposing to say to the Americans, if we go through this process, if we make these changes, we are going to give that $170 billion back to you in lower taxes on working Americans, and a little more besides because we have been responsible enough to balance the budget. So when we get right down to it, Mr. President, that is what this debate is all about. First principles--the moral duty not to load our spending on the backs of our children and grandchildren; and the economic benefit--an economic benefit I suspect Thomas Jefferson did not suspect--of acting in a responsible fashion, both because we will create more opportunity for our people and because we can appropriately lower our taxes. That is the difference between the two parties. That is the difference between a yes and a no vote on this resolution.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator from Michigan. Madam President, we are at the beginning of a debate over the most important piece of legislation that this body has considered during the course of the last decade. We have before us a proposal which will lead the United States to its first balanced budget in 26 years. Yes, Madam President, 26 years. That proposal includes with it a plan to preserve, to protect, and to strengthen Medicare to see to it that the Medicare trust fund or hospital insurance does not go bankrupt; fairly to distribute the costs of Medicare part B, fees for physicians and for medical care across the course of the population; to provide our seniors with a greater degree of choice than they have at the present time and the selection of the way in which they receive their health care, one which will allow the expenses for Medicare to increase in each and every year during the time during which we are balancing the budget; a plan, a budget which will also ultimately include in it genuine welfare reform, reform of a system which has actually made worse the very conditions it was designed to alleviate in the first place, a welfare reform which will emphasize work, families, and hope for the future; and finally, but not at all incidentally, Madam President, tax relief for the hard-working American families in the middle class, those who are working and contributing to their society, those who are providing for their families and for their future. Madam President, in the almost 13 years during which I have served in this body, we have never previously had an opportunity to do correctly and well any one of these things, much less all four of them together. It is not as though we were presenting one alternative vision of the future and the opponents were presenting another valid, arguable vision of the future. We are presenting a plan, an idea, a course of action, and the other side is defending the status quo. They do not wish to propose an alternative. The President of the United States has, in vague and general terms, proposed an alternative budget, a budget based not on projections made by our Congressional Budget Office, the office the President himself said should be the common ground of all proposals on future spending and tax policies. No, the President's proposal is based on his own figures, taken almost out of thin air, but, nonetheless, it is a proposal, Madam President, a proposal which was rejected by a vote of 0 to 96 in this body earlier this week. The President's party in this body does not propose to follow the course of action that the White House has outlined. It simply proposes to vote no on all of the changes which we have advanced in this reconciliation bill. But perhaps most significant, I believe, in connection with this debate is the estimate, the projection that our Congressional Budget Office has made conditioned upon our adopting these spending reforms and passing a statute which will lead to a balanced budget even 7 years from now in the year 2002. The Congressional Budget Office has said that if there is in law a realistic and effective set of statutes, which it and independent economists can say with a high degree of confidence will balance the budget even after the turn of the century, then, in its view, the economy will grow sufficiently to provide an additional $170 billion in revenue as a result of a growth of the economy itself and as a result of lower inflation and lower interest rates--$170 billion, Madam President, for the Government of the United States. But that figure is not the total of the benefit to the people of the United States; it is only the share of the Federal Government. The total benefit--roughly four times that--will approach $1 trillion. Where will the balance over that $170 billion be? It will be in the pockets of the American people in the form of higher wages, in the form of lower interest payments on the homes that they purchase, in the form of better jobs because of greater opportunity that the society will create. That is the reward--the cautious and conservative reward--that this country and its economy and its people can and will receive from a balanced budget. That is an argument which has been almost totally overlooked in this debate over specific programs and precise benefits, tax breaks, and the like, that simply by engaging in this action we will provide Americans with a brighter and a better economic future. Of course, Madam President, that $170 billion of additional resources for the Government of the United States represents, itself, the overwhelming bulk of the tax relief which is contained in this proposal, and is conditioned upon this proposal becoming law in a way that will in fact balance the budget. When you add to that the closure of various corporate loopholes, the overwhelming majority of the tax reductions have as their source either those loophole closings or the fiscal dividend--the $170 billion dividend we get--simply because we will have balanced the budget. And it is our firm view that that dividend ought to be returned to the American people in the form of lower taxes and not retained by the Government for its programs. As I said, Madam President, we do not have an alternate vision; we have an alternate set of criticisms. No, we cannot do this. No, we dare not do that. No, we cannot reduce that program and, above all, we do not dare reduce taxes on the American people. That alternative course of action is one which says, essentially, that the status quo is the best we can do; that whatever we have done in the past, we ought to continue to do in the future; that we can afford to ignore almost completely, but not quite, all of the challenges and problems of the most rapidly growing of our major entitlements--Medicare; that we can and should continue to say that the overwhelming bulk of the cost of Medicare should be paid by today's working people, even when that means that hard-working, middle-income Americans are paying for more than two-thirds, almost three-quarters, of the health expenses of wealthy, retired Americans--millionaire retired Americans. No, we cannot make these reforms. We should not make any changes. Everything that Congress has done in the past, all of the programs it has passed in the past should and must be continued. Well, Madam President, I must say that the choices are relatively easy choices. With all of the difficulties and with all the changes in direction, with all of the groups with genuine or imagined concerns, we have a plan, we have a vision that will lead to a stronger America. Our opponents do not. It is time for us to move ahead, to do what we committed ourselves to do during the course of last year's election campaigns--to pass this proposal, to settle our differences with the House, and then, from a position of strength, to persuade the President to keep the commitments that he has made at one time or another, which, of course, included all of these elements--a reform in our Medicare system, a balanced budget, changing welfare as we know it, and a tax cut for middle-income Americans. Every one of these four elements in our program is something that the President of the United States has promised or committed to at some time in the past and has since, to a greater or lesser degree, repudiated. We want to keep our commitments; we want to keep his commitments. The only way we can do so is by passing this reconciliation bill. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the pendency of S. 1322, the only amendment in order be one substitute amendment to be offered by Senator Dole and others. I further ask that following the disposition of the above-listed amendment, the bill be advanced to third reading and, at 11 a.m. on Tuesday, there be 30 minutes of time remaining to be equally divided in the usual form, with 10 minutes under the additional control of Senator Byrd, with a vote to occur on passage of S. 1322, as amended, at 11:40 a.m. Tuesday, and that paragraph 4 of rule 12 be waived.

Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator. Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, a few hours ago this afternoon the Senate Budget Committee reported to the Senate the reconciliation bill for 1996 through the year 2002. We will soon begin to debate that bill-- perhaps the most momentous debate that this Senate will engage in this year or perhaps any year during the course of the last decade. The design of that bill is, of course, to see to it that the budget of the United States is balanced in the year 2002, precisely the time at which the constitutional amendment on a balanced budget would have required such a balance, had it been passed and submitted to the States by this Senate. Hidden in the debate over the budget, however, is one vitally important proposition. That is, that this budget does not lead us to balance on the basis of figures submitted by my distinguished friend, the chairman of the Budget Committee, by the majority leader, by a party caucus, or by any other such partisan individual or organization. The certification that this budget will be balanced comes from our Congressional Budget Office, an office set up literally decades ago in order to provide us with the most objective advice possible with respect to the budgetary implication of our actions. In fact, just 2 short years ago, the President of the United States reported that we ought to end debate over assumptions and projections and all operate off baselines provided by the Congressional Budget Office. I regret that the President has abandoned that salutary course of action. It is not relevant for the purposes of my argument here this evening, Mr. President. What is relevant is the fact, first, that the Congressional Budget Office has said to us, if you pass this bill, if you follow these policies, you will, in fact, reach balance by the year 2002. As a result, we, the Congressional Budget Office, can tell you that the economy of the United States will be healthier, much healthier, as a result of adopting those policies. The figure the Congressional Budget Office gives in this regard is that we will have a dividend of $170 billion in increased revenues from our present tax system as a result of the fact that we are going to balance the budget, increased revenues that come because the economy will grow more rapidly because interest rates will be lower. These will be reflected in the budget itself. Of course, it is this $170 billion dividend, together with changes which close corporate loopholes--corporate welfare as it were--that provide the great bulk of the $245 billion tax cut for middle-income and working Americans, which is an integral part of this reconciliation bill. The dramatic differences which will be debated later on this week have to do with whether or not we want that dividend, whether or not we want to adopt difficult and tough policies that will result in a stronger or better economy, or whether we prefer the status quo at a slower rate of growth, a higher interest rate, and a higher rate of inflation. It is just that simple. Now, Mr. President, in addition to repudiating the ideas that were causing this dividend to take place, Members on the other side of the aisle do not want to give a tax break to middle-income Americans under any set of circumstances. They would much prefer to continue the policies of the past--slow growth, no tax reductions, no balanced budget now or ever. The President's budget, by contrast, according to the same Congressional Budget Office, will never result in deficits significantly below $200 billion a year. Finally, Mr. President, we will have, during the course of the debate over this reconciliation bill, a paradox. The President, the official line is that these spending reductions are too great, that we should not give working Americans tax reductions. We simply ought to continue the status quo. Grace notes from some on the other side in connection with this debate will be that we really have not balanced the budget at all, we have not gone far enough, we should not be using a unified budget, we should ignore all of the taxes collected under the Social Security system and paid out under that Social Security system. Implicit in that argument is that we have not gone far enough, that we have [[Page S 15494]] not cut spending sufficiently. There will be a great deal of confusion on the part of the American people when they hear on one side the argument that we have not gone far enough because we do not bring the budget to balance in the year 2002, in spite of the words of the Congressional Budget Office--without any suggestion, I may say, as to how we should do so--and, on the other side, the argument we are simply going to far. I hope this debate will be worked out during the course of, simply, the balance of this week. But the bottom line is that this Senate, the majority in this Senate, are going to vote for a budget which not only brings us into balance as quickly as a constitutional amendment would have brought us into balance but will also pay off $170 billion less in deficits than would otherwise take place. That $170 billion is itself only the tip of the iceberg above water. That is how the Federal Government benefits. The people of the United States will benefit two, three, four times as much, in higher incomes, in better jobs, in a brighter future and in more opportunity. So I commend my friend, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, for his work in getting us to the verge of this great success and look forward to a significant and vitally important debate in this Senate on the future of this country.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for not to exceed 10 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, one habit or custom that the President and I have in common is that we are runners--I know I can say in my case, I believe in his case, not particularly gifted or particularly fast, but nonetheless we are runners as a method of keeping in good physical condition. I believe that the President, as I have, has on some occasions run in these rather large races where there are a large number of people and one tests oneself against the clock. We always will attempt to beat our previous best time in a given race, but at least in this connection, we never attempt to do so by saying, ``Gosh, I just can't break 45 minutes for 10 kilometers, so I'll shorten the race. I'll shorten it to 8 kilometers, but I'll call it 10, and then I will have broken 45 minutes.'' The President of the United States would not consider doing that in a road race, but that is precisely what he has done with respect to our dispute over a balanced budget. Shortly after Mr. Clinton took the Office of the Presidency of the United States, he sought to lay to rest a dispute, which the Presiding Officer will remember, as I do, over economic assumptions. Through all of the Reagan administration and all of the Bush administration, we on this side of the aisle were criticized for using assumptions about the future state of the economy that were too optimistic, too rosy and, thereby, underestimating the challenge presented to us by continuing huge deficits in the budget of the United States. Almost without exception, those budget assumptions in the Reagan and Bush administrations presented by the administrations were more optimistic than those presented to us by the Congressional Budget Office. So President Clinton, on taking office, said, ``Let's end this dispute. Let's all agree that in the past, the Congressional Budget Office has been both more cautious and more conservative and more accurate and we will debate substance in the future. We will all work off the same set of projections. We will all work out of the same books.'' I think everyone, both Republicans and Democrats, took that as a statement of good faith and a significant step forward, because the motivation to overestimate growth in the economy on the part of an administration and, thus, to make its budgeting job easier is not limited either to Republicans or Democrats. There is always an easy way out. Unfortunately, Mr. President, when push came to shove, the President abandoned that salutary way of making estimates and has gone back into exactly what he criticized his predecessors for--estimating or projecting his way out of difficulties. And so while this Congress, both in the Senate and in the House, has accepted without reservation the economic projections of the Congressional Budget Office and has proposed to balance the budget within 7 years, under the rules which the Congressional Budget Office has set out, as difficult as they are and although as a consequence we, in order to bring the budget into balance, have been forced to propose relatively drastic changes in policies which would reduce the growth of spending in the United States across the broad spectrum of all of the items which the Government of the United States funds, we find a President saying, well, there is not really much difference between us. The President says: I want to take a little longer, 9 or 10 years to balance the budget, while the Republicans want to do it in 7. We can easily reach an agreement or an accommodation on those two goals, they are so close to one another. [[Page S 15202]] But the President gets there by cooking the books. He gets there by abandoning his commitment of 1993 and doing exactly what he criticized others for doing and getting more than 50 percent of the way to a balanced budget simply by saying, ``I do not think we are going to spend as much as the Congressional Budget Office says. I think interest rates are going to be lower, and I believe that the tax system will take in more money.'' It amounts to a tremendous amount of dollars, Mr. President. President Clinton simply estimates $55 billion more in Medicare spending savings, without changing Medicare at all; he estimates that Medicare will cost $68 billion less; he estimates that farm programs, pension programs, and other welfare programs, will cost $85 billion less; he estimates that we will save $70 billion more in interest costs because interest rates will be lower; and he estimates that we will take in $175 billion more because the economy will grow more rapidly, for a net of $475 billion between now and the year 2002--a trillion dollars over the next 10 years, Mr. President. Well, he could just as easily have made these estimates a little bit more optimistic and we would not have any deficit problem at all. It would go away without doing anything. That is the great difference in the debate which we are about to begin. Are you willing to look realistically at the future of our economy and the growth in our spending programs and do something about them as a matter of substance? Or, on the other hand, Mr. President, do you just say times are going to be good, the problem will go away by itself? That is the difference. Well, if the experience of the last 15 years holds true, the problem will not go away by itself. We need to begin from a common basis. The President is simply wrong in overestimating the strength of the economy and telling the American people that no sacrifices are needed, no changes in policies are needed. All we need to do is reestimate the economy and everything comes up smelling like roses. Now, Mr. President, I started speaking about 10 kilometer versus 8 kilometer races. I must admit that there is one difference, one with respect to that analogy, that does not work. Neither of us, those of us who depend conservatively on the Congressional Budget Office nor the President, can be precisely certain that that side is correct. Economic projections are notoriously difficult to make even a year in advance, much less 7 years in advance. And we must admit that it is clearly possible that the President might be right in spite of the experience of the last 15 years, just as he, I suspect, if he were forced to answer the question, might be willing to admit that perhaps he is wrong and that the Congressional Budget Office projections are better. But what are the contrasting consequences of being wrong in this case, Mr. President? Well, if President Clinton is wrong and we are correct, the budget deficit will never be less than $200 billion a year. In the next decade, another $2 trillion will be added to the burden of debt imposed on the people of the United States, money which we spend, the bills which we send to our children and to our grandchildren. That would be the consequence, Mr. President, of President Clinton being in error. The problem of the budget will never have been addressed if we accept his policies. By contrast, Mr. President, what would the consequences be if we are wrong, if we are too conservative, too cautious, and if in fact the economy does grow as rapidly as the President predicts in his easy- does-it budget? Well, Mr. President, the budget might be balanced in the year 1999 or 2000 rather than in 2002. Is that a horrendous consequence? No, Mr. President, that is exactly the goal we seek with our conservative projections and with the very real policy changes we propose. We only claim we will get to balance by the year 2002. But even that claim carried out by changes in policies will, from the perspective of almost every economist, itself build a stronger and better economy, provide more opportunities for generations looking for those opportunities in the future, lower interest rates, lessen the burdens of Government on not only this generation but the next generation and the generation after that. And if we do better than we thought, that burden will be even lighter and we will get rid of the deficit even earlier. So if we are wrong and too cautious, we reach the goal all of us share more quickly. If President Clinton is wrong, we never reach that goal at all, and we continue to add to the burden of debt on our children and on our grandchildren. Mr. President, both from a policy standpoint and from the point of view of having an intelligent debate, the rights and wrongs of which the American people can understand, and from the moral point of view of bringing to an end this huge addition to the burden of debt on future generations, we must and we should agree on the starting point, on the projections we are going to use. What better way in which to start that part of the debate, Mr. President, can there be than to have President Clinton keep the commitment that he made 2\1/2\ short years ago. We are not going to debate the projections. We will take the projections of the neutral objective Congressional Budget Office and work our debate. We will work our debate off of them. If we do that, we will see clearly how necessary the budget is that we have already passed, the reconciliation bill which we will debate in the next 2 or 3 weeks in order to enforce it. Mr. President, we should start from a common ground and make that common ground the ground the President of the United States himself stood on 2\1/2\ short years ago. We should not try to shorten the race and pretend we are running faster.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the clash between ideas, which is evidenced in this amendment, is a difficult one, because there are valid points to be made on each side of that argument. On the side of the Senator from New Mexico is the obvious proposition that it is an important priority for society to provide access to the courts in civil litigation or in civil claims for those who are too poor, who do not have the economic wherewithal, to hire their own lawyers. We, as a society, wish to see that justice is done. We do not wish to deny that justice to people simply on economic grounds, and we know of large numbers of people in many classes who need the kind of assistance which they can get, not solely but frequently, almost alone from an organization like the Legal Services Corporation. On the other side is the argument that lawyers of the governing body of the Legal Services Corporation have misused the money and the authority that they have been given by Congress to bring lawsuits designed primarily to meet social or political ends of those lawyers or of that governing body in which the poor plaintiffs are not much more than nominal parties, to use that money often for political or ideological ends which may clash not only with conservative thought but with any administration, no matter how liberal that administration may be. In that clash, Mr. President, it seems to me that the Senator from New Mexico has the better of the argument because he preserves that first social goal of seeing to it under many circumstances the poor can be represented in court while attempting, and I think attempting with a large degree of success, to prevent the misuse of this Federal money. It is rightfully not only annoying but regarded as an outrage by many people in our society that they, as employers or as landowners or as individuals, are sued by use of their own money. May I have another minute from Senator Domenici?