Alan Simpson

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I did not want to speak directly to previous remarks made by my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Bob Kerrey. I want to highlight them because of the very constructive things that he has said--even, unfortunately, in opposition. Unlike Senator Kerrey, I am very willing and eager to vote for the balanced budget plan before us as it currently stands. This plan represents the result of months of work and negotiation. It is not necessarily the plan that I would have designed working alone, but we do not have the luxury of working alone. This is the plan before us that has the support of a majority of both Houses of Congress, it's an honest plan, it will do the job, and it is right now our only realistic hope of getting the job done, and reducing the debt burden that is being piled high on the backs of our kids. I do want the Senate to mark what Senator Kerrey has said, because as always, he diagnoses accurately much of what ails us, in the fiscal sense. And I am fully sympathetic with many of the choices he would make to bring our fiscal house back into order. That is why I am pleased to work with him on drafting legislation that will help save our country from insolvency in the long run. He and I see eye to eye on this. I do fervently wish that it were possible to make all the reforms suggested by Senator Kerrey in the context of this budget plan. But the existing rules do not work in our favor. For example, the Byrd rule forbids any changes in Social Security, even good and necessary ones. I fully agree with Senator Kerrey that a five-tenths-of-1-percent correction in the CPI is necessary and appropriate. to my mind, it is a ``no brainer''--a simple ``technical correction.'' It makes no sense to perpetuate an error which we all know exists. The Senator from Nebraska is so absolutely right about that. But my attempts to include the CPI correction were frustrated by the fact that it would affect Social Security, and thus violate the Byrd rule. I do not like it, I think we should change it, but that's the way it is. We should, in my view, change the rules to permit such reforms in the future. But for now, we have to work within the rules as they are. Similarly, we ought to address the problem of population aging. We ought to make further shifts upward in eligibility ages for Social Security and Medicare, and for all programs which give benefits to the elderly. But under our current rules, long-term reforms that only produce savings outside the 7-year ``budget window'' are considered extraneous. I do not like it, I think it's wrong, but those are the limitations in the current budget process. I mention these things not so simply express disappointment and to ``howl into the wind'' in the manner of King Lear, but to point out to my colleagues that this is something we can and should change--in the future. Senator Kerrey and I have a bill to require 30-year budgeting, estimates of the 30-year effects of legislative changes. In my view, we have to be able to plan further down the road when we are dealing with retirement programs, ``safety-net'' rules that might affect how people plan for their own time in retirement. In order to be fair, changes must be announced well in advance. The fact that we only deal with the short-term truly handicaps us as we attempt to make policy that is fair and reasoned. I do hope my colleagues will listen closely to Senator Kerrey and to me as we discuss the need for ``30-year budgeting.'' Because, the rules under which we operate very much determine the results. I believe that this budget is perhaps the best attainable given the existing budgetary rules. But I also believe that we must consider changing the rules to force us to look further down the road--and to examine Social Security solvency, and to stop fooling our countrymen and women. This budget before us is hardly ``harsh'' or ``severe.'' This is a sparrow belch in a typhoon. If we cannot get this done, we will never do anything.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, that is the way the budget process works. Each year, every single agency head submits his or her own budget request for that particular year. The budget process starts in the fall of the year. The agencies submit their budget requests to the Office of Management and Budget. After some considerable back and forth, the budget of the administration comes to us. When the Secretary says that he'll have a chance to ask for more next year--or that the President promises to treat this veteran constituency fairly in the future, I am tempted to say: ``So what. No big deal.'' Those are the very same rules by which every agency operates. And indeed, I would imagine that the President has committed to each of his Cabinet officers the very same thing saying: ``Present your best budget to me, and I'll package that for presentation to the Hill.'' One notes in this form of articulation that there are no promises made. And really there can't be. The budget environment in which we are operating, to balance the budget as I personally would hope we do by the year 2002, or the budget proposed by the administration which would, under assumptions that are at the very best questionable, balance the budget over a 10-year period. Either way, there are limits on spending programs, and those limits will, of necessity, affect every single agency of this Government. Indeed, Secretary Brown's criticism of the Congress assumes a straight line freeze of the VA medical care budget. While, in fact, both the Senate and House have approved significant increases. Secretary Brown tells us the President will think about an increase next year. Well, I remind him again. The Congress has delivered one this year. The true fact is, no country on this earth has been more generous with its veterans than has ours. The very fact that the budget of the VA goes up some $4 billion over the next 7 years, while the population of veterans will decline by 3 million, seems to be a pretty powerful indication of our continuing commitment to veterans. In this climate, other agencies are suffering actual cuts. Many of those agencies have worthy constituencies as well. But the budget of the Department of Veterans Affairs is not being cut. It continues to grow, and indeed grow at a generous rate as it has each and every year since my arrival here in the Senate in l979. It was $20 billion then. It is almost $40 billion now. Not a cut in a carload. Madam President, would that the Secretary could simply acknowledge that basic fact and then work with us to assure that the funds appropriated for the worthy purposes pursued by his Department were best utilized. Unfortunately, he has taken the President's tack on this. He is churning out the political message of the day as it is set forth by the White House in anticipation of the tough 1996 election year. And he is doing it in various ways that I consider to be wholly inappropriate. It has recently come to my attention that part of this political caper is done through the use of dedicated career civil service employees of the Department who are directed by the Secretary's political underlings and henchmen to craft his message. Does one really believe that those messages flickering on the VA computer screen every morning are the work of the Secretary himself? I do not think so. They are cranked in his Office of Public Affairs, as are the drafts of the myriad political stump speeches he and his underlings deliver around the country. I'm learning fast on that too--by having my fellow veteran friends out there listening to those speeches. Those are often outrageous. One VA employee has raised a concern with me regarding the fact that he has been asked to further the White House political message line-- although it has nothing whatsoever to do with veterans. Instructions to just send the political appointees out in the land--at Government expense--with a canned speech in tow that could have been written by the White House itself. And do always attack the Republican Congress and any budget it proposes. Do whatever you will--as long as it is consistent with the White House media message of the week. I too am a taxpayer, and I am offended. Indeed, this Nation's veterans are taxpayers as well, and they should be similarly offended that their tax dollars are being used in this way. I have nothing whatsoever against a Secretary extolling the splendid virtues of America's veterans, exhorting his fine professional staff to ever higher levels of service to those who fought for this country, or generally informing both segments of society of information they need to effectively participate in this political process. What grievously appalls me is the blatant partisanship here exhibited. Doesn't seem to bother Jesse though. Mr. President, Secretary Brown has referred to my criticism of him and of his message as outrageous. Jim Holley, his media spin-master spokesman, has called it ironic as it would appear to be a criticism of the Secretary based on his advocacy for veterans. Mr. Holley, surely misses the entire point. There is a difference between advocating for our veterans, and pouring out rank political partisanship. What we see here is the latter. Mr. President, I have no intention of holding back in my criticism of the Secretary on this matter. As I have said before, I believe what he is doing is plain wrong. I do not condone that, nor should veterans. It is unacceptable for political agencies to lobby. We have statutes that prohibit that. It is equally inappropriate for an agency such as this to encourage its employees and its constituency, albeit by implication, to do that which they cannot legally do directly. And I shall keep expressing that message loud and clear.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this measure. I think Senator Hutchison has well described what we are trying to do. It seems extraordinary to me we would even be in this position. The President could have had every opportunity to extricate himself from the position. I think the reason it has come to pass is a very simple one, and that is the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, a Cabinet post, Secretary Jesse Brown, is acting and continues to act in an exceedingly and purely partisan mode. On November 3, I rose in this Chamber to speak to an issue of particular concern to me. At that time I spoke of what I feel to be the wholly inappropriate use by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs of Government computers and the VA employee pay stubs to convey a blatantly partisan political message to his 240,000 employees. The consistent message Secretary Brown has been conveying has been one of doom and destruction. Were one to listen to the Secretary, one would believe that the whole system of veterans' benefits was in grave jeopardy--a system put in place by a grateful Nation for those who fought and sacrificed that she may remain free. Indeed, in his morning message to employees that greeted them when they booted up their computers on the morning of November 9, he said no less. That is just plain wrong. For it is simply not true. The budget proposed by this Congress--these evil Republicans--provides for a growth, that is, increase, of nearly $4 billion over the 7-year time period during which we seek a budget balance. That hardly smacks of the elimination of veterans' benefits as we know them. And during this time in which the budget for veterans will rise more than 10 percent, the number of veterans will be steadily falling from the 26.1 million currently living to approximately 23 million. Resources continue to increase. The number of beneficiaries continues to decline. How anyone can refer to that as the same draconian cut Secretary Brown keeps mentioning truly amazes and eludes me. I want to say I have served as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and have been a member of it for some 17 years, since 1979. Since that time I have seen many good, able men at the helm of the Veterans Administration, now the Department of Veterans Affairs. When I arrived, Max Cleland, that very spirited, brave young man, who had lost three of his limbs in combat in Vietnam, was the Administrator under a Democrat President. Following him, under the Reagan administration, Bob Nimmo, a committed decorated bomber pilot of World War II, served in that position. Then West Pointer and ``Lonesome End,'' Harry Walters was in that position. Then steady and reliable Gen. Tom Turnage. With the elevation of the VA to Cabinet status my old friend the affable and effective Ed Derwinski took the helm, and following Ed, the exceedingly bright and conscientious former staff director, Tony Principi. Never, during all of those years, and they include both Democratic and Republican Administrators, have I ever seen the role of Administrator of Veterans Affairs or Secretary be used--and being used is the word I want to use here--for such blatant partisan political purposes, and being used in a way I would consider to be wholly embarrassing and demeaning. In my remarks on November 3, I stated that the budget approved by the Congress was substantially more advantageous to veterans than the President's own. In an interview with Ruth Larson of the Washington Times published on November 8, Secretary Brown himself acknowledged as much saying: ``He's (meaning me) absolutely right.'' Then he goes on, with an apparently straight face: ``No problem. The President said I can come back and ask for more next year.'' I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of that article printed in the Record, if I may.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I will continue to observe this process very clearly and express my objections at every possible occasion. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Times, Nov. 8, 1995] VA Chief Terms ``Outrageous'' GOP ``Cheap Politics'' Charge (By Ruth Larson) Veterans Affairs Secretary Jesse Brown said he will continue telling his employees about the effect of congressional budget proposals, despite congressional Republicans' objections that he was engaging in ``cheap politics.'' ``It's outrageous to suggest that the VA shouldn't tell its 240,000 employees that as many as 61,000 jobs are at risk, or that 41 veterans hospitals may close,'' Mr. Brown said in a telephone interview yesterday. Sen. Alan K. Simpson, Wyoming Republican and chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, on Friday blasted Mr. Brown's use of VA computers and employee pay stubs to criticize congressional budget proposals and warn of massive layoffs at the department. He accused Mr. Brown of using government resources to send out partisan misinformation. Mr. Brown countered: ``I hope someone tells me that it's not going to happen--that they're not going to lock in our funding at 1995 levels for the next seven years. If somebody would tell me that, I'd apologize--sure, I would,'' Mr. Brown said. Asked about Mr. Simpson's assertions that veterans would suffer more under the Clinton administration's proposed budget than under congressional plans, Mr. Brown said, ``He's absolutely right.'' But he was quick to explain that statement. He said that during the budget process, he'd gone to Mr. Clinton three times to tell him that the administration's government-wide cutbacks ``would have the same effect as what the Republicans are proposing.'' Mr. Clinton assured him that he would be able to negotiate the budget every year. ``I'll be sure the veterans are treated fairly,'' he quoted Mr. Clinton as saying. ``We aren't getting the same commitment from Congress. There is no flexibility,'' Mr. Brown said. Rep. Bob Stump, Arizona Republican and chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, criticized Mr. Brown for ``intentionally misrepresenting and needlessly scaring vulnerable veterans'' about Republican budget proposals. He said in a statement: ``The real hypocrisy lies with the Clinton 10-year budget plan which takes nearly three times as much from veterans' programs without balancing the budget.'' The Washington Times reported yesterday that some VA field employees had complained that Mr. Brown's messages represented ``political propaganda.'' Mr. Brown said he had sent out hundreds of daily messages on a variety of subjects to his 240,000 employees. ``Out of those hundreds of messages, [Mr. Simpson] chose three.'' Mr. Brown said he routinely runs the messages by his general counsel ``to make sure they don't violate any laws or ethics requirements, and they've all passed,'' he said. ``We wouldn't do it if it weren't legal.'' Administration officials often defend the legality of their actions by saying they stop short of urging employees to contact members of Congress. For example, in one of his messages, Mr. Brown cautioned, ``I am not calling on you to act.'' ``No, not much,'' Mr. Simpson chided him on Friday. ``It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that many employees might take that as a pretty good hint to take some action.''

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this measure. I think Senator Hutchison has well described what we are trying to do. It seems extraordinary to me we would even be in this position. The President could have had every opportunity to extricate himself from the position. I think the reason it has come to pass is a very simple one, and that is the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, a Cabinet post, Secretary Jesse Brown, is acting and continues to act in an exceedingly and purely partisan mode. On November 3, I rose in this Chamber to speak to an issue of particular concern to me. At that time I spoke of what I feel to be the wholly inappropriate use by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs of Government computers and the VA employee pay stubs to convey a blatantly partisan political message to his 240,000 employees. The consistent message Secretary Brown has been conveying has been one of doom and destruction. Were one to listen to the Secretary, one would believe that the whole system of veterans' benefits was in grave jeopardy--a system put in place by a grateful Nation for those who fought and sacrificed that she may remain free. Indeed, in his morning message to employees that greeted them when they booted up their computers on the morning of November 9, he said no less. That is just plain wrong. For it is simply not true. The budget proposed by this Congress--these evil Republicans--provides for a growth, that is, increase, of nearly $4 billion over the 7-year time period during which we seek a budget balance. That hardly smacks of the elimination of veterans' benefits as we know them. And during this time in which the budget for veterans will rise more than 10 percent, the number of veterans will be steadily falling from the 26.1 million currently living to approximately 23 million. Resources continue to increase. The number of beneficiaries continues to decline. How anyone can refer to that as the same draconian cut Secretary Brown keeps mentioning truly amazes and eludes me. I want to say I have served as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and have been a member of it for some 17 years, since 1979. Since that time I have seen many good, able men at the helm of the Veterans Administration, now the Department of Veterans Affairs. When I arrived, Max Cleland, that very spirited, brave young man, who had lost three of his limbs in combat in Vietnam, was the Administrator under a Democrat President. Following him, under the Reagan administration, Bob Nimmo, a committed decorated bomber pilot of World War II, served in that position. Then West Pointer and ``Lonesome End,'' Harry Walters was in that position. Then steady and reliable Gen. Tom Turnage. With the elevation of the VA to Cabinet status my old friend the affable and effective Ed Derwinski took the helm, and following Ed, the exceedingly bright and conscientious former staff director, Tony Principi. Never, during all of those years, and they include both Democratic and Republican Administrators, have I ever seen the role of Administrator of Veterans Affairs or Secretary be used--and being used is the word I want to use here--for such blatant partisan political purposes, and being used in a way I would consider to be wholly embarrassing and demeaning. In my remarks on November 3, I stated that the budget approved by the Congress was substantially more advantageous to veterans than the President's own. In an interview with Ruth Larson of the Washington Times published on November 8, Secretary Brown himself acknowledged as much saying: ``He's (meaning me) absolutely right.'' Then he goes on, with an apparently straight face: ``No problem. The President said I can come back and ask for more next year.'' I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of that article printed in the Record, if I may.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, that is the way the budget process works. Each year, every single agency head submits his or her own budget request for that particular year. The budget process starts in the fall of the year. The agencies submit their budget requests to the Office of Management and Budget. After some considerable back and forth, the budget of the administration comes to us. When the Secretary says that he'll have a chance to ask for more next year--or that the President promises to treat this veteran constituency fairly in the future, I am tempted to say: ``So what. No big deal.'' Those are the very same rules by which every agency operates. And indeed, I would imagine that the President has committed to each of his Cabinet officers the very same thing saying: ``Present your best budget to me, and I'll package that for presentation to the Hill.'' One notes in this form of articulation that there are no promises made. And really there can't be. The budget environment in which we are operating, to balance the budget as I personally would hope we do by the year 2002, or the budget proposed by the administration which would, under assumptions that are at the very best questionable, balance the budget over a 10-year period. Either way, there are limits on spending programs, and those limits will, of necessity, affect every single agency of this Government. Indeed, Secretary Brown's criticism of the Congress assumes a straight line freeze of the VA medical care budget. While, in fact, both the Senate and House have approved significant increases. Secretary Brown tells us the President will think about an increase next year. Well, I remind him again. The Congress has delivered one this year. The true fact is, no country on this earth has been more generous with its veterans than has ours. The very fact that the budget of the VA goes up some $4 billion over the next 7 years, while the population of veterans will decline by 3 million, seems to be a pretty powerful indication of our continuing commitment to veterans. In this climate, other agencies are suffering actual cuts. Many of those agencies have worthy constituencies as well. But the budget of the Department of Veterans Affairs is not being cut. It continues to grow, and indeed grow at a generous rate as it has each and every year since my arrival here in the Senate in l979. It was $20 billion then. It is almost $40 billion now. Not a cut in a carload. Madam President, would that the Secretary could simply acknowledge that basic fact and then work with us to assure that the funds appropriated for the worthy purposes pursued by his Department were best utilized. Unfortunately, he has taken the President's tack on this. He is churning out the political message of the day as it is set forth by the White House in anticipation of the tough 1996 election year. And he is doing it in various ways that I consider to be wholly inappropriate. It has recently come to my attention that part of this political caper is done through the use of dedicated career civil service employees of the Department who are directed by the Secretary's political underlings and henchmen to craft his message. Does one really believe that those messages flickering on the VA computer screen every morning are the work of the Secretary himself? I do not think so. They are cranked in his Office of Public Affairs, as are the drafts of the myriad political stump speeches he and his underlings deliver around the country. I'm learning fast on that too--by having my fellow veteran friends out there listening to those speeches. Those are often outrageous. One VA employee has raised a concern with me regarding the fact that he has been asked to further the White House political message line-- although it has nothing whatsoever to do with veterans. Instructions to just send the political appointees out in the land--at Government expense--with a canned speech in tow that could have been written by the White House itself. And do always attack the Republican Congress and any budget it proposes. Do whatever you will--as long as it is consistent with the White House media message of the week. I too am a taxpayer, and I am offended. Indeed, this Nation's veterans are taxpayers as well, and they should be similarly offended that their tax dollars are being used in this way. I have nothing whatsoever against a Secretary extolling the splendid virtues of America's veterans, exhorting his fine professional staff to ever higher levels of service to those who fought for this country, or generally informing both segments of society of information they need to effectively participate in this political process. What grievously appalls me is the blatant partisanship here exhibited. Doesn't seem to bother Jesse though. Mr. President, Secretary Brown has referred to my criticism of him and of his message as outrageous. Jim Holley, his media spin-master spokesman, has called it ironic as it would appear to be a criticism of the Secretary based on his advocacy for veterans. Mr. Holley, surely misses the entire point. There is a difference between advocating for our veterans, and pouring out rank political partisanship. What we see here is the latter. Mr. President, I have no intention of holding back in my criticism of the Secretary on this matter. As I have said before, I believe what he is doing is plain wrong. I do not condone that, nor should veterans. It is unacceptable for political agencies to lobby. We have statutes that prohibit that. It is equally inappropriate for an agency such as this to encourage its employees and its constituency, albeit by implication, to do that which they cannot legally do directly. And I shall keep expressing that message loud and clear.

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I will continue to observe this process very clearly and express my objections at every possible occasion. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Times, Nov. 8, 1995] VA Chief Terms ``Outrageous'' GOP ``Cheap Politics'' Charge (By Ruth Larson) Veterans Affairs Secretary Jesse Brown said he will continue telling his employees about the effect of congressional budget proposals, despite congressional Republicans' objections that he was engaging in ``cheap politics.'' ``It's outrageous to suggest that the VA shouldn't tell its 240,000 employees that as many as 61,000 jobs are at risk, or that 41 veterans hospitals may close,'' Mr. Brown said in a telephone interview yesterday. Sen. Alan K. Simpson, Wyoming Republican and chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, on Friday blasted Mr. Brown's use of VA computers and employee pay stubs to criticize congressional budget proposals and warn of massive layoffs at the department. He accused Mr. Brown of using government resources to send out partisan misinformation. Mr. Brown countered: ``I hope someone tells me that it's not going to happen--that they're not going to lock in our funding at 1995 levels for the next seven years. If somebody would tell me that, I'd apologize--sure, I would,'' Mr. Brown said. Asked about Mr. Simpson's assertions that veterans would suffer more under the Clinton administration's proposed budget than under congressional plans, Mr. Brown said, ``He's absolutely right.'' But he was quick to explain that statement. He said that during the budget process, he'd gone to Mr. Clinton three times to tell him that the administration's government-wide cutbacks ``would have the same effect as what the Republicans are proposing.'' Mr. Clinton assured him that he would be able to negotiate the budget every year. ``I'll be sure the veterans are treated fairly,'' he quoted Mr. Clinton as saying. ``We aren't getting the same commitment from Congress. There is no flexibility,'' Mr. Brown said. Rep. Bob Stump, Arizona Republican and chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, criticized Mr. Brown for ``intentionally misrepresenting and needlessly scaring vulnerable veterans'' about Republican budget proposals. He said in a statement: ``The real hypocrisy lies with the Clinton 10-year budget plan which takes nearly three times as much from veterans' programs without balancing the budget.'' The Washington Times reported yesterday that some VA field employees had complained that Mr. Brown's messages represented ``political propaganda.'' Mr. Brown said he had sent out hundreds of daily messages on a variety of subjects to his 240,000 employees. ``Out of those hundreds of messages, [Mr. Simpson] chose three.'' Mr. Brown said he routinely runs the messages by his general counsel ``to make sure they don't violate any laws or ethics requirements, and they've all passed,'' he said. ``We wouldn't do it if it weren't legal.'' Administration officials often defend the legality of their actions by saying they stop short of urging employees to contact members of Congress. For example, in one of his messages, Mr. Brown cautioned, ``I am not calling on you to act.'' ``No, not much,'' Mr. Simpson chided him on Friday. ``It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that many employees might take that as a pretty good hint to take some action.''

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I thank the manager for the time, and I thank the Chair. I think the people of America must be getting pretty tired of this by now. My hunch is they are. My hunch is, in real-life America, they are saying, ``What are these jerks up to?'' That means the President, that means the people in Congress, that means all of us. That is what we are looking at. And they must be just numb, as we are sitting here arguing about whether to go 4 or 5 bucks more a month on a program which is called part B premiums on Medicare, which is voluntary anyway. You do not have to belong. I mean, it boggles the mind. One of the fascinating things about coming to the Senate is the experience of living in two realities. There is one that you actually live, and there is another one that you read about in the papers. That is an interesting one, too. Sometimes I wonder if, indeed, there is any possible correlation between the two. A case in point is this current standoff, this Government shutdown. The headlines and the television would indicate that it is nearly-- nearly--the same as Three Mile Island, which was back in 1979. That got a lot of hysteria. The plume was supposed to be floating towards Washington to paralyze us all in our sacks at night. This is the kind of stuff that goes with this business. Any time you have 24-hour-a-day news, you have to find the news to stick in it, and, boy, they stick it in. This confrontation about the budget has inspired the media to new heights of hysteria, about the President bringing the Government to a halt. They say, ``No, no, the President didn't do that; the Congress did that.'' I would like to remind my colleagues about a fact or two, because one can watch all the television, read the newspapers in utter vain until your eyes pop out of their sockets and see the television until you get a migraine, and you will never hear described what has really happened here. What has happened is that the President decided to shut down the Government. I hope you heard that. We in the Congress sent him continuing resolutions, called CR's--you have heard that before--to keep it going. And he said, no, that he was going to shut it down. There are people lobbying the Congress now about this matter trying to pressure us into ``doing something about it.'' Someone does not realize what has happened. We cannot force the President to sign our resolutions to keep the Government operating. I hope you hear that. He does, indeed, have the power to shut the Government down, and he has. It is not something which can be changed by lobbying the Congress. So that is just one little item that seems to have glanced off the simian skulls of many of the Nation's media for reasons quite unclear to me. Here is another one. The President decided to veto our first continuing resolution, he said, because of a necessary measure to maintain Medicare premiums at a constant fraction of program costs. Just a few raw facts about that particular action. Fact 1: The President himself, his very self, endorsed increases in Medicare part B premiums. Has anybody missed this, that the President of the United States has asked for these? And they are within $5 of where Republican budgets have been headed. I hope that everyone will hear that one. Medicare part B, fact 2, was originally structured so the beneficiaries pay 50 percent of the program costs and the general taxpayers the other 50 percent. We have now let it slip to 31 percent, and if we did not take that action to arrest that decline, it would have dipped to 25 percent next year, meaning that we would have raised the effective taxes on the American public up to 75 percent of all of this program cost. That was the action that the President was demanding when he blocked the Medicare provision. He was demanding that we increase the taxpayers' contributions to the program to 75 percent of the overall program costs. That is called raising people's taxes. Guess who is paying the taxes? Thirty-one percent is paid by the beneficiary, regardless of their net worth or their income in a voluntary program. No one can refute that. I challenge anyone. So 70 percent, 69 percent paid by Joe Six-Pack and now the President wants to have Joe Six-Pack paying 75 percent of the premium and doing things for the little guy? The drinks are on me. Fact 3: Taking that action, blocking that measure will vastly worsen the deficit outlook in the years to come, because it would require the Government, that is, taxpayers, and I hope somebody has that figured out, who this Government is, to spend more and more on Medicare part B than it otherwise would. So the President was making a stand here for higher deficits. I guess that is what he wanted to do. Fact 4: The President did not do this to protect Medicare beneficiaries from Republicans--evil Republicans--for he had already endorsed restraints on the growth of Medicare that are almost exactly the same as Republicans have. This President said he wanted a 7.1 percent annual growth limit in his own package, his budget, just assumptions--at least he said 7.1. What do Republicans want to do? Let it go up only 6.4. So we are seven-tenths of 1 percent apart and shutting down the Government. So let us not be bamboozled into thinking that this was some principled stand, if you will, to hold Medicare harmless. Fact 5: The President got his own way. We offered him a clean continuing resolution, no Medicare provision. Yet, he has kept the Government shut down. So what are we and the people to make about all of this? I would opine that the President has forgotten one essential factor needed for a man who intends to stand on principle: There has to be a principle there to stand on. What does he want now? What will convince him to let the Government operate again? We have offered him a clean continuing resolution, if only he will work with us to balance the budget in 7 years. He said he wanted to balance it in 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10--pick one, any one. That, my colleagues, is the sticking point. The administration will not agree to that. The President would sooner keep the Government shut down than to work with us--while stockpiling mountains of debt upon our children and grandchildren--at least until after November 1996. Then there will be lots of scurried action, you bet, patching together a limping Nation, but not until after November 1996. The President is hung up over a couple of requirements. One is that he does not want to agree in advance to a deadline for a balanced budget. That, very simply, is because he simply has no plans to balance the budget. Thus, he refuses to be held to any standard which would require that this be done. The other serious problem he has is that if he refuses to adopt the standards which he himself previously had endorsed--even demanded and required--and that is a certification by the Congressional Budget Office. He well knows that if real numbers are used, if the books are not cooked, then none of his own proposals will be judged to balance the budget and will never see the light of day. And he is out, then, on the statement he made at the State of the Union Address a couple of years ago when he said, ``Let us use CBO numbers, ladies and gentlemen, no more phony numbers. Let us use Congressional Budget Office.'' And everybody cheered. What numbers do we use now? OMB. I know that sounds like inside baseball. I call it deception. That is the problem. The President is saying: Let me cook the books, let me avoid any deadline for balancing the budget, and I will set Government running again. That does not sound like much of a principled stand to me. Let us try to look at this from the President's point of view for a moment. Consider what would happen if he did agree to try to balance the budget in 7 years, using real numbers, without gimmicks and chicanery in the books, and without assumptions and all the stuff we have seen both administrations use for decades; then he would have to agree with the Congress as to making really tough decisions. Then he would have to take a long, hard look at what is really happening in Medicare, and that it is going broke. His own trustees are telling him that--people he appointed, people of the stature of Robert Rubin, Robert Reich and Donna Shalala. He would have to give up the pretending. He would have to give up the posturing and the pretending that he is the great defender of unlimited spending on the poor, the elderly, the veteran, the downtrodden, everybody. He can choose to pose now as their greatest protector because he is held to no standard at all of budgetary responsibility--none. But if the standard is required of him, then suddenly he cannot continue to say what he has been saying, that he can shield these vulnerable folks from evil depredations and balance the books all at the same time. So that is where we are. This whole Government shut down as a result of a gap between the administration's rhetoric. They claimed to want to balance the budget 18 times in one speech yesterday, and they simultaneously claim that no favorite political constituency in this land, not a single sacred cow, needs to be touched. On the other hand, the reality is that some severe, very tough choices have to be made in order to balance the budget. The American citizens know it, and everybody in this Chamber knows it. As soon as the administration is held to an honest standard of accountability, this gap will be exposed. And, politically, the administration simply cannot bear to face that. So they are going to keep the Government shut down. This is a curious version and vision of leadership. The administration will not be able to play this game forever. It will be great for a short period of time. It is going to be a lot of fun. They received a temporary boost from playing the Medicare political card. But I do not think in any long-term way the public will believe that refusal to commit to balancing the budget is any worthy or worthwhile lesson or reason to shut down the Government of the United States for 5 bucks a month on a program that is voluntary, which in any other society would be called an income transfer, because 70 percent of it is paid by Joe Six-Pack, and 30 percent of it is paid by the beneficiary, regardless of their net worth or income. No wonder the people think we are nuts. Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, the Senator mentioned an individual? Was that not your words?

Mr. SIMPSON. I thank my friend from Kentucky. ``No, no, you should not have to pay 50 percent, you are beleaguered, tortured.'' Bosh, it is a voluntary program. It is $46.10 a month; $46.10 a month to people who are floating in a golden parachute. This is absolutely bizarre, when the thing was originally 50-50 and now we have it to 25- 75 and now we want to say 31 is too much? Ask the people who are called ``Joe Six-Pack'' how they feel about paying 70 percent of the premium for somebody who is loaded. This is crazy.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I do not know how much has been covered here, but if ever we are going to get anything done with regard to these programs, this is it. I do not want anyone to forget in this body that when this remarkable program was put together--and, remember, it is voluntary--it was never part of any contract. This is voluntary. This is an income transfer; 69 percent of the premiums on part B are paid by the people who maintain this building and 29 percent are paid by the beneficiaries regardless of their net worth or their income. This is absurd. If we cannot even means test part B premiums, which are simply voluntary, we will never get anything done, period. But here is the key. Remember when this program started, I say to my colleagues--do not miss this--under the 1965 law, this was to be a split of 50-50. Everyone in this body knows it, 50 percent was to be paid by the Government, the taxpayers, and 50 percent by the beneficiary. Everybody who is in this debate knows that. How did it then get to 25 percent? It got to 25 percent by people who knew they could get reelected by simply coming to the floor and saying, ``Oh, you shouldn't have to pay 50 percent of that premium; you should pay 45 percent.''

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, I still would ask the question. It has not yet been answered. Does the Senator from Michigan believe that the presently existing limits on lobbying by 501(3)(c)'s are improper restrictions of use of private funds? That is the question I am asking--not about children or vaccinations or things that I believe in, too. That is what I am asking.

Mr. SIMPSON. There are no restrictions--no new restrictions of any nature. We are simply describing grantees. We are including the phrase ``grantees.'' That is a word of, I think, some substance. A grantee, that is somebody receiving taxpayers' money. And there are no new restrictions, only--the only difference is that Federal grantees, those receiving taxpayers' money, would be subject to the formula governing 501(c)(3).

Mr. SIMPSON. Because individuals are not covered in any way.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan and I know each other too well. I enjoy the spirited energy that he conveys. I want to say that what the Senator is speaking of here and bringing up is what I am intending to do. There is no mystery. You cannot misread two sections. If they spend less than $25,000 they do not have to report. That is what this says. The word ``or'' is there on that line, ``or,'' line 8. They have options. Page 16 just gives the exemption. Page 16 just gives the exemption. It says ``or,'' and then it goes on to say if you spend more, you will estimate it. That is what it says. So, to go back--I can go back into the code. We can do that, as I say, into the night. I am perfectly prepared. I might have to run off and get some light snack or something, but I am ready to do that. The section of the Internal Revenue Code on that section, at the bottom of section 4911(c) page 630(C) of the 1986 Code, subtitle (d), chapter 40 is quite clear. It talks about the exemptions and lobbying expenditures and what they are. Expenditures for the purpose of influencing legislation: The nontaxable amount, the net purpose, the exempt purpose. All of those things are there. It says, simply, in this bill, in sum, if you spent less than $25,000 you just have to say so. If you spent more than that, you have to estimate it. That is sole purpose of the amendment.

Mr. SIMPSON. In fiscal year 1985, we had hung on the CR the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, emergency food assistance, child abuse prevention. In 1986, we had hung on the CR Export-Import Bank, denial of MFN status to products in Afghanistan--that was a ripper; that kept us up for a couple of days--Federal Salary Act amendments, child care services for Federal employees, Ethics in Government Act--that was a riotous occasion. In 1987, the CR--and we were not in power here--we had all 13 appropriations bills tacked in there: Defense Acquisition Improvement Act, Paperwork Reduction Reauthorization Act, human rights in Romania, school lunch and child nutrition amendments, Aviation Safety Commission Act, Metropolitan Washington airports--all of it hung on the CR by those of the other faith. So I just wanted to touch upon that lightly, and as far as I know what is being hung on this CR is one amendment, and we are debating it. And we should. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes, indeed.

Mr. SIMPSON. I yielded the floor to my friend from Idaho. I am glad to yield for a question and have a spirited debate. Let me, if I can, read the language as to what is required. It is very short. Here is what we are requiring of people who get money from the Federal Government. We call them ``taxpayer-subsidized grantees.'' It may not be a term of art, but that is what we call them. They get money from the Federal Government. They use the money to go out and do things with it--lots of times, trying to get more money from the Federal Government for things they strongly believe in. Here is what we would require of them. It is on page 16 of this amendment. We require-- . . . a statement that the taxpayer-subsidized grantee spent less than $25,000 on lobbying activity in the grantee's most recent taxable year, or the amount or value of the taxpayer-subsidized grant, including all administrative and overhead costs awarded, a good faith estimate of the grantee's actual expenses on lobbying activities in the most recent taxable year, and a good-faith estimate of the grantee's allowed expenses on lobbying activities under section 301 of this act. That is all the reporting there is.

Mr. SIMPSON. I yielded to the Senator for a question.

Mr. SIMPSON. I yield to my friend from Idaho.

Mr. SIMPSON. I explained that fully when we started, that there would be a reporting requirement. I said that when I began the debate.

Mr. SIMPSON. Currently, I simply say, Mr. President, all grantees do not, and we think they should.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I have no ability to discern that. The paperwork requirement, however, if we can get this in perspective, is about less than an I-9 form that you would furnish with Immigration. It requires ID, name and amount spent on lobbying. So it is not something they are going to have to hire a battalion of accountants to do or management officials. It is name, amount spent. I can only tell you, I hope some of you will begin to look at some of the forms that the nonprofits file. Some of them are huge. Often the bigger the nonprofit in the (c)(4) area, the more they are done in handwriting. They are not typed, because if you do it in handwriting, it makes you look like one of the little guys. So you do it in handwriting, and you can almost miss the commas. I cite on that one, on the 501(c)(4), the AARP. Their huge report, where they report $314 million in the bank in T-bills, where they get $106 million a year from Prudential life insurance, getting 3 percent of every premium, where they have $26 million in yield on their investments, where they get money from New York Life, Scudder-Stevens, RV Insurance, and all the rest, and get $86 million from the Federal Government. I think any group that can do that and can lease their downtown headquarters for $17 million a year on a 20-year lease, while they are raising bucks from the little people for $8 a pop, do not need Federal funding to do unlimited lobbying. These are the (c)(4)'s. That is who I was after when I started. And their report is done by, I think, ``Edna the Enforcer,'' down in some basement in California. It is written in commas--you cannot tell. You are not to disclose that to anyone. I had to search out that form. And this is a nonprofit organization. I had to search that out. When I received it--and I kept my promise--they said, ``We do not want anyone to have access to this, or the public, to see this report.'' Got that? This does say that, from then on, this will be presented to the public. That is a change in this procedure, in the reporting requirement. They do not have to talk about where they spent it or who gave it to them-- just a total amount spent; the total amount expended, which they are already entrusted, I think, to keep track of. We are not giving them a new item to keep track of. We are using current law definitions for lobbying expenses. I hope that might answer the question. At least that is the intent.

Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I am presented with figures, and remember, [[Page S 16867]] too, that not a single 501(c)(3) is, by our figures, spending more than $1 million on lobbying. Not one. Not one single 501(c)(3) is spending, according to our records, more than $1 million on lobbying, and that is most of the grantees. So I think----

Mr. SIMPSON. Yes.