Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague there is one fundamentally important distinction. The Democrats did not enshrine in the Constitution the potential raiding of the Social Security trust fund. It is that simple. I do not think senior citizens or their children or their grandchildren want us to do that, nor should we do so. I also would say to my colleague, my critique was not restricted to just that one point alone. I argued that this proposal, I think, is flawed in two or three fundamental ways, and then went on to discuss priorities. So that is the distinction. Mr. President, let me just finish up, because I see my colleague from New Mexico is on the floor. There are others who want to speak. I reiterate what I said earlier. This proposal is deeply flawed, I think on policy grounds, structural grounds. There should be an ironclad guarantee that we do not enshrine in the Constitution, raiding the Social Security trust fund. We should make a distinction--I have said this over and over again, I say to my colleague from Utah--between investment and operating budgets. And we ought to be very careful in not tying our hands so that we do not have, through specifically fiscal policy, the ability in times of economic downturn to do what we need to do to make sure that recessions do not turn into depressions. Those are some of the structural arguments. My other arguments have to do with priorities. One more time I will point out to people in the country the politics of this vote. It is transparent. We had the vote before. It is not going to pass. Senator Exon has come to the floor, who has voted for it before, and he said this is just outrageous. The very people who are proposing this now bring out son of star wars for another $70 billion. These are the very people who want to spend $7 billion more than the Pentagon even wants. Now they are talking about what kind of tax cuts they can give. And this just does not add up. It does not add up at all. So it is wrong on basic policy grounds. It is wrong from the point of view of playing politics. And, finally, I have to say, as somebody who has had amendments out here--and a good number of these amendments have not been agreed to, but I actually think these amendments are quite connected to where most of the people in the country are--for the life of me I do not understand why this interest in going forward with this expensive son of star wars system, this star wars system, and at the same time colleagues are so eager to cut into job training programs, educational opportunity programs, Head Start programs, and environmental protection programs and all of the rest. When it comes to going after subsidies for oil companies or tobacco companies or pharmaceutical companies or big insurance companies and a whole lot of others of these tax expenditures, which are giveaways, a big part of the budget, the silence of my colleagues is deafening. They do not want to do it. These are the big players, the heavy hitters. These are the folks who have the clout. When it comes to going after the Pentagon contractors some of my colleagues who are pushing this proposal the hardest want to spend more money than the Pentagon even wants to spend. And they continue with this idea of tax cuts, adding up to a significant amount of money, disproportionately flowing to those people who need it the least, all in exchange for reductions in the quality of health care for senior citizens, children, you name it. These are distorted priorities. So we have two sets of issues going on here, and on all counts this proposal should be defeated. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield for a question, but I would like to keep the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. If I could just finish--that is my first point. My second point is, I must say that when my colleague talks about the past 20 years, I do not have that perspective. Maybe that is the difference. I have not been here that long. I know that in the last 3 years since the President was elected we have halved the deficit. It has gone down. Those facts are irreducible and irrefutable. I know, if we want to talk about the past, there were people here in the early 1980's, starting around 1981--David Stockman has written about this eloquently, as he looks back on those times--who passed what was euphemistically called the ``Economic Recovery Act.'' George Bush, President Bush, once called it ``voodoo economics.'' We were going to have these massive tax cuts. That was great politics. We could say to people in the country, ``We ask you to make a supreme sacrifice. Will you let us cut your taxes so the economy will grow and everybody will be better off?'' And people said, ``Absolutely.'' So we did that; disproportionate money going to those who had the most income. And, in addition, we dramatically increased the Pentagon budget, not to mention the explosion of tax expenditures. By the way, I say to my colleague from Utah, I do not see any evidence that my colleagues here are willing to take that on, all those loopholes in deductions, all those subsidies that go to oil companies, tobacco companies, pharmaceutical companies, you name it. We do not take any of that on. So what did we have, an overall debt that was about $900-and-some billion? Now what is it, $4, $5 trillion, or thereabouts? I must say, yes, I was not a part of that. I was not a part of the claim for trickle down economics. I never made those claims to people. And I know if we were not paying the interest off on that debt built up during the 1980's we would have a balanced budget right now. So I am not arguing--I will finish. I have the floor. But I am not arguing that we not make the tough decisions. I am not arguing that we should not be fiscally responsible. As a matter of fact, I come to the floor with amendments for lots of cuts. What I argue with is some of what I think are distorted priorities. People want to do more and more for the Pentagon. They now have a son of star wars. But for some reason, my colleagues do not seem to believe that a good education is a strong national defense against ignorance, against prejudice, against hopelessness, against despair, against children not doing well, against not having skilled workers. So this is a debate about a flawed proposal, structurally, and about priorities. That is what this debate is about.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Let me just finish if I can. That is my first point. That is, I think, an important reassurance which we must give. My second point is that I am absolutely in agreement with my colleague that when you look to the future, especially around the year 2030 and you get to a ratio of two workers and only two workers or working people to every one retired person--in that sense demography is destiny--we have our work cut out for us. But I think it is a flawed economic analysis to argue, well, the way we do that is in fact through a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. The way we do that is in a lot of different ways, but one of those ways is to make sure that we have an economy that is producing enough living-wage jobs, that is to say, jobs that people can count on that pay a decent wage with decent fringe benefits so that that working generation, which is the way the Social Security system works, is able to contribute to those who are retired, and then when we are retired, we hope that also there will be a successful enough economy so that base will be there. That is a whole different set of issues that have to do with whether or not we are going to invest in job training, that have to do with whether or not we are going to invest in education, that have to do with whether or not we are going to have an economy that produces high value products with a skilled labor force--all of which, I would say to my colleague, has much to do with whether or not we make the right investment decisions in the private sector and in the public sector.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. First of all, I am always more than pleased to hear the analysis of my friend from Utah--a lot of times we say in the Chamber ``whom I deeply respect,'' and it sounds like flattery, but whom I really do deeply respect. There is just no doubt of his ability as a legislator and his expertise in the Senate, but I am in profound disagreement with that analysis on two points. First, if in fact we want to make it crystal clear that we are going to balance the budget by the year 2002 and in no way, shape or form is the Social Security trust fund money going to be used for that, then let us have the amendment out on the floor and let us vote for it.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, my colleague may want to make more comments because I just respectfully--parliamentary inquiry. I have the floor, is that correct?

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is fine.

Mr. WELLSTONE. That is fine.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would be pleased to.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might need. Mr. President, let me, first of all, say that I think this proposal on the floor of the Senate suffers from the same structural problems that have been with it from the very beginning. It is good politics. It is easy for everybody to vote for it, even if they are not serious about balancing the budget. It is painless. But I do think there are a couple of problems that are very important problems to the people in my State of Minnesota. First of all, there are a number of us who would be interested in this formulation about balancing the budget if, in fact, we had an amendment that said there could be no raid on the Social Security trust fund. That ought not to be a part of the equation of balancing the budget. But we cannot get support for that amendment. So, No. 1, I think the talk about a constitutional amendment to balance the budget without the ironclad guarantee, not just to senior citizens, but to their children and their grandchildren, that we will not raid the Social Security trust fund, is a proposal that is deeply flawed. Why are my colleagues so reluctant to support an amendment on the proposition that in balancing the budget between now and 2002, we will not raid the Social Security trust fund? In the absence of that kind of guarantee, I am not going to vote for any amendment, constitutional or otherwise, to balance the budget, unless there is the absolute assurance given to senior citizens and their families. I am so tired of this politics that tries to divide the old from the young, senior citizens from their children and grandchildren. Unless we have that guarantee, this proposal is deeply flawed. There are a number of us who want to vote for that alternative, but we do not get the support for it. People in Minnesota and around the country are not interested in an effort to balance the budget on the backs of senior citizens. They are not interested in an amendment that says we will balance the budget, with no guarantee that we are not going to raid the Social Security trust fund to do it. That is flaw No. 1. Flaw No. 2. People in cafes in Minnesota--I think the cafes are the best place to be; I think this is the best focus group. You sit down and you talk with people. They say, look, we balance our budget at home--and we do. But when we balance our budget at home, here is how we do it. We make a distinction between investment for the future and our daily or monthly or yearly operating expenses. We do not cash flow a car that we buy. We do not cash flow the home that we buy. It is on the basis of a fairly long-term mortgage, and we do not cash flow our children's education, higher education. We make an investment. It is a very good family practice and a very good business practice, a sound business practice, to make such an investment if you know that it will pay for itself over and over and over again. We had an amendment last time that said, look, let us talk about a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, but let us make some distinction between the investment budget, investment we make now-- education, physical infrastructure, or whatnot--which pays for itself over and over again versus our daily operating budgets. That amendment was voted down. Every family in Minnesota and in America knows the distinction between spending money on a vacation during the summer, when maybe you should not do it, versus spending money on your child's higher education. We had an amendment that wanted to make that distinction. I have talked to one of the coauthors, Senator Simon, about such an amendment. But, no, that amendment also is not part of this. So if you are talking about a constitutional amendment to balance the budget and (a) you have to guarantee that this does not lead to a raiding of the Social Security trust fund, and (b) you have no distinction made between an investment budget and an operating budget, you have a deeply flawed proposal. The third point. We can balance the budget--and should. I voted for the President's proposal to balance the budget by the year 2002--CBO scored. I do not think people really know what all this CBO scored means, but I will say it. Actually, I thought that proposal was by no means perfect and that we could do much better. Mr. President, you have a proposal that is flawed on several counts. Then we get to the sort of--as my children would have said it when they were younger--``get real'' phase of this. We do not need this to balance the budget. We can do it. The question is, how? I will tell you one of the things that I find just more than a little bit ironic. At the very time that some of my colleagues, whom I deeply respect, are talking about a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, they trot out a son-of-star-wars proposal. The Pentagon does not want it, the Joint Chiefs of Staff do not want it, and it is $70 billion more on top of what we are already spending on star wars. We do not know whether it will work. It is not proven. Research has not been done. The Pentagon and the military tell us we need to, first of all, do research to see whether or not this would work and to defend our country in what ways. But the very people who are talking about a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, no guarantee we will not raid the Social Security trust fund, who will not pass our amendment that makes it clear that you cannot do that, are the very people that trot out the son of star wars, with $70 billion more for a system the Pentagon itself does not want in this form right now. Mr. President, the very people who are voting for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget have now in the budget proposal voted for $11 billion more than what the Pentagon wants. The first time in my adult life--no, it is the second time; it happened before. This is the second time around. This is the second time in my adult life where the Congress is appropriating more money than the Pentagon says it wants. These are the same people who want to cut financial aid to higher education, cut educational opportunities for children, cut into Head Start, cut into job training, and they want to go $70 billion more for son of star wars, and they want to spend $11 billion more above and beyond that $70 billion than the Pentagon even wants. And the last time around, in the last budget, it was $7 billion more we were going to spend. My friends who say they want to balance the budget want to spend $7 billion more on the Pentagon than the Pentagon wanted, and I came out here with a modest amendment which said, please, could you not take half of that $7 billion, $3.5 billion, spend $3.5 billion less since the Pentagon said it does not need it and put it into deficit reduction, and the amendment was defeated. So everybody understand the politics of today. This proposal was defeated before. It will be defeated probably by a wider margin today. The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon] has come out in the Chamber and said this is absolutely outrageous, because I see what my colleagues are doing here; they want to spend more and more and more and then they want to do a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Well, to use what I think is an old Yiddish proverb, you cannot dance at two weddings at the same time. And people in the country are just getting a little tired of it. That is what this proposal is all about. You have people in the Senate who say we are for balancing the budget by the year 2002, and do not worry, senior citizens; this will not be done on your backs and we will not raid the Social Security trust fund, although that surplus is sitting out there, we can assure you of that. But then when it comes to actually voting for that, these folks will not do that.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Ivan Frank Kardos, an attorney, formerly of Washington, DC, who died in his home in Grove, OK, April 2, 1996, with his family and friends in attendance, after a 2\1/2\-year battle with cancer. He was cremated and his ashes were inurned in a ceremony on May 21, 1996, at Arlington National Cemetery with full military honors. Mr. Kardos, born August 2, 1920, in Budapest, Hungary, was the son of William and Olga Kovacs Kardos, who preceded him in death. The family emigrated to New York City when Frank was 2 years old. He graduated from New York University Law School in 1948. His bar admissions included New York, Maryland, District of Columbia, Oklahoma, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2d, 10th, and District of Columbia Circuits, U.S. district courts for the Southern District of New York, Northern, Eastern and Western Districts of Oklahoma, and for the District of Columbia, U.S. Courts of Military Appeals, U.S. Court of Claims, and the U.S. Supreme Court. His legal career in the public sector included service with the United States Postal Service, United States Army Corps of Engineers in New York and Washington, DC, and Karachi, Pakistan. He was the Principal Deputy to the General Counsel of the U.S. Postal Service, responsible for writing and administering the Department's Code of Ethical Conduct and Conflicts of Interest Programs. He was liaison with the Department of Labor for the Service Contract Act of 1965 and other labor requirements under Federal contracts and was also liaison with the Department of Justice concerning various criminal matters and the Public Information Act, and with the then Civil Service Commission for Inter-Agency Committee for Procurement. He served as a legal advisor concerning equal opportunity employment, and administered on behalf of the general counsel the Release of Information Program under the Freedom of Information Act. Frank's Military service began in the ROTC in 1937. He was on active duty with the United States Army in the armored branch when Pearl Harbor was bombed and served 42 months in the Southwest Pacific theater, including the Philippines and New Guinea. In 1980, he retired from the military with the rank of lieutenant colonel. In addition to his successful professional career in public service, Frank also was generous with his time in the private sector. He strongly believed in giving back to society by being actively involved with such organizations as SCORE, the American Legion, Masonic Bodies, and Literacy Programs. A man of great intellect who lived his life with integrity and honesty, he will be sorely missed by his family and friends. He is survived by his wife, Bettie Crumpler Kardos of Grove, OK; sons Christopher and his wife Sherry and their son Jonathan of Cedar Rapids, IA; Michael and his wife Kay of Austin, TX, Gregory and his wife Brenda with their daughter Kelly and son, Scott of Farmington, NM, and daughter, Pamela Kardos-Gordon and her husband, Wayne Gordon, of Upper Marlboro, MD.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a very brave man, to Deputy John Liebenstein, 40, a nine year member of the Rice County Sheriff's Department in Minnesota. Deputy Liebenstein sacrificed his life on May 3, 1996 in the line of duty. He was killed when a suspect, allegedly driving a stolen car, rammed his unmarked squad car on a freeway exit, following a high speed chase by police over forty miles through three counties. It is a tragedy when any policeman falls in the line of duty. However, Deputy Liebenstein's untimely death had an immediate impact on the citizens of his tightly-knit Minnesota community. John was a fine law enforcement officer who dedicated his life to defending the peace. Therefore, it was fitting when Governor Arne Carlson ordered all state flags to be lowered to half-staff in his honor. Deputy John Liebenstein was also a loving husband, and a wonderful father. I extend my deepest, most heartfelt sympathy to his devoted wife, Jean and his three children. He leaves a rich legacy of protecting the lives and property of his fellow citizens, and we will never forget this gallant man.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, it is not the President's budget, not the last several years. It is a big difference. We just voted 88 to 12 for support of this program. Now we are going to vote for hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts in the outyears. I am delighted my colleague is no longer trying to eliminate the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, but I would remind him that even in States like Arizona, this summer it could be 110 degrees in nursing homes and you might be eligible for cooling assistance. This is important for vulnerable citizens. We should have a strong ``no'' vote.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I defer to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, may I have order?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, no. I want a recorded vote on this amendment because of the struggle over this past year. My understanding is that not until yesterday did we have anything really in writing that the assumptions pointed to this. It has been too big a struggle. Many Senators in cold weather States know that. We know what happened in Chicago last summer. I want to get a strong recorded vote.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, there is strong bipartisan support for this amendment. But last year with LIHEAP, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, it was a nightmare with the stop-and-start-funding. What this amendment just simply says is that we will have at least as much funding next year as we have had this year for this energy assistance program. I believe the chairman believes that is in the assumptions of the budget resolution. If so, fine. I hope we get a resounding vote because we had to fight very hard to keep this program intact this year. That is why I introduced the amendment and why I hope for a strong recorded, positive vote. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I do not object.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague from Nebraska for his remarks trying to protect all Senators, but I have talked with Senator Domenici, and I am pleased to accommodate him on this. Whatever makes more sense is fine. We will wait until the next one.

Mr. WELLSTONE. At least the Senate is on record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. No, Mr. President. I want a recorded vote. I had voice votes before, and it got taken out in conference committee originally. This time I want a recorded vote.

Mr. WELLSTONE. This sense-of-the-Senate simply says that in this budget resolution the Congress shall not enact or adopt any legislation that would increase the number of children who are hungry or homeless, and if in fact that does happen, that we take a look at it. And we would revisit the provisions of any such legislation that would have that effect. I hope I will get a strong vote for this. It was introduced in the beginning of this Congress and defeated. But then it was passed on a voice vote. I think it is important that we have a vote on this and that 100 Senators vote for the proposition that we are not going to take action that will increase hunger or homelessness among children.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, it is self-explanatory. That language which was in my original amendment was wiped out by the second-degree amendment, and it seems there would be consensus on that. Therefore, I would like to have this sense-of-the-Senate amendment, which I propose as a second-degree amendment. I hope to get unanimous support. We said we should fully fund it. We should.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.