Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will shortly call up my motion. I, first of all, just want, in the debate time we have, to respond to some of the words of my colleague from Utah. Mr. President, as far as liberating the people of this country, we have, roughly speaking, a CBO baseline of $1 trillion plus we have to cut to reach a balanced budget by the year 2002. Then for reasons that escape me, there have been proposals to raise the military budget by some $82 billion over 5 years plus--not cut, increase. Then in addition--all of it has to do with, I guess, political popularity-- there has been a bidding war on tax cuts. So what we are saying to people is we are going to balance the budget by 2002, but we are going to increase the Pentagon budget and, by the way, one of the ways we can balance the budget is by cutting your taxes more. That is pretty amazing. But, by the way, Mr. President, this is a foolproof formula for political success in the very short term. That is to say, we can say to people in the country, ``We call on you to sacrifice. What we would like for you to sacrifice by way of deficit reduction is to let us cut your taxes further.'' It is not surprising people say we would be pleased to make that sacrifice. Of course it does not work out that way. That adds to the deficit. So when I hear my colleague talk about liberating people, I want to be clear. This is the credibility gap. We have heard on the other side of the aisle, roughly speaking, about $277 billion of budget cuts, to reach $1.481 trillion worth of cuts. That is a pretty huge credibility gap. Over and over again some of us have tried to get everybody to be honest and straightforward about where these cuts are going to take place. For a while at least a good many of us talked about how our State legislatures should know what cuts are going to be made. I was on the floor with a resolution that came from my State. The State wanted to know how these cuts would impact Minnesota. We talked about: Legislatures should know, people in the country should know. But we do not know. We are voting for this balanced budget amendment without our own Budget Committee laying out any kind of projections. The reason I mention all this is that people may agree in the abstract but not in the specifics. For example, we have no separation of capital budget from operating budget. My family does not cash flow our mortgage. We do not cash flow the car we buy. Families separate capital budgets from operating budgets. Over 40 legislatures do but we do not. Then in addition we were not willing to specify where the cuts would take place. We were not willing to take Social Security off the table in terms of what might be considered deficit reduction. And we are going to raise the we do not want to touch any of the subsidies that go to large oil companies or all the rest. We will see whether people feel liberated. I guess the way we are going to get from $277 billion to $1.481 trillion is to cut Federal child care, school lunch programs, and to cut child nutrition programs. By the way, that is not what people in the country are for. There are a whole lot of other choices we can make instead. So I just want to remind my colleagues I think it is not so simple as it seems. Motion to Refer

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I now call up my motion No. 2, which has been previously filed and is at the desk.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I find the remarks of my good friend from Utah to be very important. I want to come back to a couple of basic points because I really believe that the vote on this motion is a real moment of truth here. First of all, Mr. President, this is not an amendment to the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. That is not what they are voting on. This motion just says that we go on record we will not take any action which will increase the number of hungry or homeless children. It is that simple. I did not say we should balance the budget. I did not say we should not have serious deficit reduction. We have to make choices. It is a question of whether there is a standard of fairness. I want the Senate to go on record. Second of all, Mr. President, my colleague from Utah talked all about the Constitution, and therefore this is no place for a discussion of hunger and homelessness among children, because it is a different order of question. I might remind my colleague that the Preamble of the Constitution says: ``We, the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare.'' I would think that children are a part of how we promote the general welfare. Do not tell me that being on the floor of the Senate and talking about children does not have anything to do with the founding documents of our Nation. We talk about promoting the general welfare, I assume that includes children. The third point, Mr. President, I heard my colleague use the words ``special interest'' more than once. Children are special interests. We are all for the future, and we are all talking about we want to make sure that our children and grandchildren do not have to carry this debt. How about the children now? Now, Mr. President, I do not have such a fancy chart but the facts remain. Every 5 seconds a student drops out of school; every 30 seconds, a baby is born into poverty; every 2 minutes a baby is born at low birthweight; every 2 minutes a baby is born to a mother who had no prenatal care; every 4 minutes a child is arrested for an alcohol- related crime; every 5 minutes a child is arrested for a violent crime; every 7 minutes a child is arrested for a drug crime; every 2 hours a child is murdered; every 4 hours a child commits suicide. I spoke about 100,000 homeless and 5 million hungry children earlier. I hear my colleague talking about our generosity. We cannot talk about our generosity. We have abandoned many children in the United States of America. I might add we devalued the work of many adults that work with those children. That is what these statistics say. And now, rather than investing more in our children, we are cutting programs. Three children die from child abuse; 1 day, 9 children are murdered; 1 day, 63 babies die before they are one month old; 1 day, 101 babies die before their first birthday; 1 day, 145 babies are born at very low birthweight. And I can go on and on. Mr. President, why do we not juxtapose these figures, these statistics about children in America today, with the headlines in the Washington Post, ``House Panels Vote Special Funding Cuts, Republicans Trim Nutrition, Housing''; ``House Panel Moves To Cut Federal Child Care, School Lunch Funds.'' I do not really think my colleagues can have it both ways. Let me get right down to the essence of this motion. We have these figures. We have the Children's Defense Fund which has been the organization most down in the trenches with children. I have State-by- State variations. I could read from every State--Idaho, Minnesota, Utah--about the projected cuts, because we know there will be cuts in these programs. We have to cut somewhere. Now, I came on to the floor of the Senate during the Congressional Accountability Act, and I had an amendment that came from Minnesota that essentially said before we send the balanced budget amendment to the States, let Senators lay out where we will be making the cuts. It was voted down. The minority leader, Senator Daschle, had a similar amendment. It was voted down. My colleagues will not specify where they will make the cuts, but when Senator Feingold and I said how about oil company subsidies, pharmaceutical subsidies, or $425 billion in tax holes, loopholes, deductions, and sometimes outright dodges, would we consider that in how we would balance the budget? No. That was the vote. My colleague from Utah says we have to make difficult choices. That is true. I am for cutting the Pentagon budget. I do not think military contractors are in a position where they cannot afford to tighten their belt. They are not being asked to tighten their belt. Nor deductions, and we have a bidding war on tax cuts. So there we have $1.3 trillion. We will not specify where we make the cuts, but we know what is left. I am saying to my colleagues, we cannot have it both ways. Do not, one more time on the floor of the U.S. Senate, say to me or say to children in this country, that this is just a scare tactic. I wish it were just a scare tactic. Or this is just a political strategy to get people on record. What I am saying to my colleagues is, is it too much to ask that we go on record saying to our Budget Committee, as we go forward with deficit reduction and as we go forward to balancing the budget which we are all for one way or the other, we go on record, we are not going to do anything that will increase hunger, homelessness among children? Know why my colleagues will not vote for this Mr. President? Because that is what we are going to do. The reason my colleagues will not vote for this is because that is precisely what we are going to do. I do not understand for the life of me why I cannot get the U.S. Senate on record on this very fundamental basic question. We cannot go forward with deficit reduction. I do not want to let colleagues say he is just doing this motion because he is not in favor of deficit reduction. That is not true. I voted for huge deficit reduction. I want to see all sorts of cuts. I would like to see the oil companies tighten their belt. I do not hear anything about that. But, no, I do not want to see the most vulnerable citizens being hurt. Mr. President, I have heard a couple of colleagues talk about the last election. And the people voted for change. People voted for change, but not this kind of change. There is too much goodness in the United States of America to cut nutrition programs and school lunch programs and child care programs, all in the name of deficit reduction. That is not where people in the United States of America want to see the cuts. My colleagues need to understand that. So, Mr. President, I come out here determined because I have a real sense of trepidation. I know what is going to happen with these programs. I know the majority leader was out on the floor saying we care as much about children as the Senator from Minnesota. I know my colleague from Utah says that. I now say prove me wrong. Prove now this afternoon that this is just a scare tactic. I want to be wrong. Prove this afternoon that this is just some political strategy. Let us go on record, Democrats and Republicans alike, that we are serious about deficit reduction, we are serious about balancing the budget, because I think we all are. And what we are going to do is go on record this afternoon, not with an amendment to this constitutional amendment--that is not what this is. This is just simply a motion to go on record that when we make these cuts, we are not going to do anything to increase hunger or homelessness among children. I do not understand why I cannot get 100 votes for it. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. The Senator does. I certainly do understand that. That is why I asked the Senator from Utah, who is probably one of the Senators I consider to be a really good friend. Let me ask the Senator, why is this an unreasonable proposition, given the headline ``Republicans Trim Nutrition, Housing,'' what is going on on the House side right now, and given the fear of so many of the people that are working down in the trenches with children, that we both admire, about where these cuts are going to take place? This is not an amendment to the constitutional amendment. This is just a sense of the Senate. Why is it so unreasonable, since we will have the vote on Tuesday--no more delay--why is it so unreasonable for me to ask the Senate to go on record that we will not make any cuts that will increase hunger or homelessness among children? Why does the Senator from Utah not support this, since he cares about this certainly as much as I do, and others? (Mr. KEMPTHORNE assumed the chair.)

Mr. WELLSTONE. But is it not interesting that we do not know what we do not want to know. Why do we not know?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Might I ask my colleague for a moment? I ask unanimous consent that the poem from the 13-year-old daughter of a Vietnam vet suffering from posttraumatic stress syndrome be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to support this amendment proposed by Senator Rockefeller from West Virginia, which would protect the service-connected benefits received by our Nation's 2.2 million veterans from cuts that might be required--or may be required in the balanced budget amendment. We have been hearing a lot about contracts, contracts with America, but we have not heard that much about what is, I think, an irrevocable contract with America's veterans who have often, all too often, risked their lives for our country. Abraham Lincoln, with his characteristic eloquence, laid out the term of this contract with America. It was 130 years ago when he spoke of our obligation: ``to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and for his orphan.'' I might add that President Lincoln did not say that this was an obligation that would or could be subordinated to our need to balance the budget. When Americans from all walks of life have periodically volunteered to serve our Nation, no one ever told them that if they were injured or disabled or they died that their survivors could count on Government assistance only if that funding was not needed to balance the budget. That is what is so important about this amendment proposed by the Senator from West Virginia. Let there be no mistake about it. What this amendment addresses is earned entitlements. Let me repeat that--earned entitlements. These are not mere gifts to be given or withdrawn or curtailed at the whim of the Congress, but entitlements earned with the blood and the sweat and the tears of American service men and women, as well as with the anguish and the pain and the tears of their loved ones. These service-connected programs for veterans and their survivors run the gamut from compensation to injured veterans to health care for service-connected injuries to vocational rehabilitation to burial allowances for those who die from service-connected conditions. I want to speak to one particular group of veterans I feel very close to. By the way, when I hear the Senator from Wyoming--and I have no doubts about his commitment to the veterans in this country, no doubt whatsoever. This is one of those debates where people honorably just have a different perspective. Mr. President, I received a poem that I would like to read from a 13- year-old daughter of a Vietnam veteran suffering from PTSD, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. I wish every citizen in the country knew what it was: For someone to share Is only to care. He was in the war And never opens his door. He lives in a shell And that must be like hell. He used to be my dad But now he looks so sad. If only he knew It makes me feel blue. I know he loves me Why won't he hug me. My mom says ``he's numb.'' What will I become Without my father to guide me. I say to my colleague from Wyoming, this was not a poem written in opposition to the balanced budget amendment. This was not a poem written in behalf of the amendment proposed by the Senator from West Virginia. I do not want to decontextualize this poem, but it was one of those moments we have as Senators that we just do not forget. We have veterans calling in all the time--this is not an exaggeration--especially veterans who are suffering from PTSD. All the time we get calls from veterans saying ``I do not have a place to stay. I am living in the streets.'' They suffer from PTSD and they are not receiving the support, they are not receiving the help. Veterans who call, ``I am going to blow my head off. I am going to take my life.'' They are not receiving the support, the assistance they need. Veterans who call suffering from PTSD who say, ``I have these flashbacks and violent thoughts and I feel like I am going to kill someone.'' They are not receiving the support that they need. I was at the VA medical center in Minneapolis on Sunday. We were able to obtain several hundred thousand dollars more for some additional treatment programs for vets that are suffering from posttraumatic stress syndrome. I have to say, I read the poem from this 13-year-old girl about her dad. She lives in Glenwood, MN. There are some veterans out there who served this Nation who, as a matter of fact, right now are not receiving the kind of support they really need. These are just unmet human needs that cry out, I think, for assistance. These are men and women who served the country, and they deserve the support. So when Senator Rockefeller proposes this amendment that there should not be cuts in needed service-connected programs, I am thinking that the existing programs right now do not meet the need. This is, if you will, a very personal issue for me. It is to obtain more assistance for these veterans that are dealing with PTSS. Yet, we are talking about the potential of all sorts of deep cuts. We know that. One more time. Let me give context. We are talking about $1.3 trillion worth of cuts. We are going to increase the Pentagon budget. We have not talked about decreasing it. We have not talked about decreasing military contractors. In addition, we are going to pay the interest on the debt. We have this bidding war to cut taxes when we say we are for more deficit reduction. Senator Feingold and I had an amendment last week on the floor that said at least consider $425 billion of tax expenditures. These loopholes and deductions quite often are dodges when it gets down to the question of how we are going to balance the budget. That was voted down. We do not lay out where we are going to make the cuts. So once you see what is off the table and then you see what is left, we know there are going to be some deep cuts in veterans programs. That, I believe, is the importance of this amendment of the Senator from West Virginia. That is why I rise to the floor to support this amendment. I really believe that we would be making a terrible mistake if we made cuts in these service-connected programs, especially when we can make a lot of cuts and balance the budget in a whole lot of other ways. In the sense of holding us accountable with an amendment like this, I believe we are going to go back on a very sacred promise that was made to veterans in this country and veterans in the State of Minnesota. I thank the Senator for his amendment. I am very pleased to be an original cosponsor. I certainly hope the U.S. Senate will vote for it.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Wellstone pertaining to the introduction of S. 458 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wonder whether I could ask unanimous consent to speak for 7 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise on the floor of the Senate to introduce a bill which protects the opening of the 1995 season for the hunting of migratory birds. This is a hugely important issue in my State of Minnesota and I believe in some other States as well. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter that I sent to Chairman Roth, as well as the ranking minority member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator John Glenn, be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Let me read the relevant portions of this letter: I am writing to you regarding the regulatory moratorium bill S. 219, to ask for your assistance in eliminating what I believe would be a harmful effect of this legislation. As you are aware, S. 219 would impose a moratorium on governmental rulemaking retroactive to last November. While I do agree that some Federal rules may be needlessly intrusive, I want to bring to your attention the extreme impact this blanket moratorium would have on my State's hunting enthusiasts. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918-- I need to be clear about this, Mr. President-- the hunting season is closed unless the responsible Federal agency opens it by regulation. Each year the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service completes a long, complex rulemaking that opens the waterfowl hunting season and specifies the limits of the hunt. Under S. 219, the USFWS would be delayed in proceeding with this rulemaking and in opening the season in Minnesota this fall. As Minnesota is home to some of America's best waterfowl hunting, I would oppose any legislative measure that would limit or eliminate the annual migratory bird hunting season. As introduced, S. 219 would have the effect of delaying the 1995 migratory bird hunting season for at least a month; such a delay would be tantamount to cancellation of at least part of the season (the ``local shoot,'' when the vast majority of Minnesotans do their hunting), since Minnesota's colder climate means the birds would likely have already migrated south. Now, Mr. President, let me be crystal clear about it. This bill that I introduce today makes it clear that this moratorium on rules would include an exemption for hunting season rules. I am not talking about an exception for agency administration rules. I am simply saying that the Fish and Wildlife Service has made it crystal clear that they have to do the rule making for us to have our hunting season. Best case scenario, it would be delayed too long a period of time for the early, local shoot, and worst-case scenario, we would not have the season. The bill I introduce is very clear: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, notwithstanding a law that imposes a moratorium on the issuance of regulations, or any other law (except a law that specifically refers to this Act), that is in effect or comes into effect on or after the date of enactment of the Act, the Secretary of Interior may issue such regulations as are appropriate under section 3 of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to establish the framework for and to open the migratory hunting season for 1995. Mr. President, some Senators have said there is no problem. But we are lawmakers. And we have to be crystal clear in our language. Sometimes haste makes waste. As I look at S. 219 right now, there is absolutely no provision whatever in this piece of legislation which makes it clear that Fish and Wildlife Service will be able to go forward with the rulemaking so we will have this hunting season. Mr. President, there are at least 100,000 active duck hunt participants each year in Minnesota--100,000. And as many as 170,000 in a good year. And the DNR officials estimate that waterfowl hunting directly contributes between $35 to $40 million each year to the Minnesota economy. Tim Bermicker, section chief of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, summed up this issue better than I ever could: ``Duck hunting is more than just an annual event. It is the cherished way of life in Minnesota, part of the fabric of the State.'' I just say, Mr. President, I fully expect for there to be a debate on this bill. But with some Senators haste makes waste and some may have moved forward too quickly on this blanket moratorium and did not take this into account with their current legislation. I am fully prepared to be a part of this debate. amendment at the markup of this piece of legislation in committee, and there is absolutely on my part as a Senator from Minnesota a commitment to make sure that we get the language to make it clear that the rulemaking goes forward so we have this hunt, so that we have our duck hunting season. Now, other Senators have said there is nothing to worry about. There will not be anything to worry about when we get our language included and make the exemption clear. There will not be anything to worry about when we do our work as legislators. But I will not accept word of mouth assurances, or arguments that all this is scare tactics. What I know is what I read in the legislation. I am a legislator. I understand legislation. And I know right now we do not have the necessary language that will enable the agency to go forward with this hunting season or the necessary language to make sure that Minnesotans will be able to fully participate. This bill I introduced today is extremely important, and it is my fervent hope that the language in this bill will find its way into what happens on the House side and what also happens in the U.S. Senate. This is no small issue, and it is a perfect example of what happens when we are not careful in the legislative work that we do.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, let me just say I appreciate the colloquy. What we are trying to focus on at the moment is how we are going to cut $1.481 trillion, between now and the year 2002. That is the credibility gap. I came on the floor earlier, several weeks ago, with an amendment that came right from the State of Minnesota, where the State senate unanimously--the house of delegates was three votes short of unanimous--and the Republican Governor all signed a resolution saying: Before you send the balanced budget amendment to Minnesota, Wisconsin, or any State, please specify where the cuts are going to take place, and how it will affect our States. Let us do the planning. What kinds of people are going to be affected by this? Step up to the plate and tell us what you are going to do. I still do not hear any of my colleagues on the other side or, for that matter, on this side, that are for this balanced budget amendment specifying how in fact we are going to reach this goal. But, Mr. President, this amendment today is identical to the majority leader's motion to refer. It does not have any real connection to the balanced budget amendment in terms of any conditionality at all. We are simply saying, given the focus on balancing the budget and on deficit reduction, do not take all of these tax expenditures--$420 billion worth--off the table. The motion is very general. It does not target specific tax breaks because we do not think that would be appropriate on a constitutional amendment. The Senator from Wisconsin made that clear and I have made it clear. We simply want to express the sense of the Senate that tax expenditures will undergo the same scrutiny that all other spending goes through. We do not eliminate any expenditures. We do not specify what should be eliminated. We leave that to another day, when we get to the specifics of the budget and the budget reconciliation process. This is a statement of principle today, that as we continue this budget debate in the Congress and in future Congresses, we intend to subject these $420 billion worth of tax expenditures--all too many of them tax dodges--to much closer scrutiny than in the past. My colleague from Utah wants to separate out this notion, this principle, from a debate on balancing the budget. You cannot. This is a basic standard of fairness. I think in many ways this amendment really is a litmus test, because what people in Minnesota and around the country are saying is we want to know where the cuts are going to take place. People are for the balanced budget amendment in the abstract, but when you get into specifics and people hear about draconian cuts, cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, higher education, people say, ``Wait a minute.'' Even if we all understand that we need to continue to invest in people and communities, but we also need to continue down the path of deficit reduction, what we are saying is that the Senate go on record saying we should evaluate these tax expenditures, be necessary but many of which, some say in the General Accounting Office, are outdated, inefficient, unnecessary--and I add, about the huge dodges. Why should regular Minnesotans be asked to pay more in taxes, be asked to sacrifice? I have not heard anybody on the other side--my colleague from Minnesota came out, but there was no response to this amendment. Nor have I really heard a response from my colleague from Utah. Should the Senate go on record that as we evaluate how we are going to reduce the deficit and balance the budget, that we are going to call upon all Americans to be part of the sacrifice? Large corporations, large financial institutions, the wealthiest of the wealthy people in our country, are we not going to ask them to be part of the sacrifice? I will tell you something, Mr. President. I think the Senate ought to go on record that each and every citizen and each and every interest, all interests, ought to be asked to be a part of the sacrifice. Everybody should be asked to sacrifice. There should be some standard of fairness. That is one of the reasons I have so much trouble with the last 2 weeks of this debate. We are asked to vote for a balanced budget amendment without specifying what you are going to do. If I thought there was some standard of fairness, if I was not so sure that there are just going to be cuts that are going to affect the most vulnerable citizens, if I was not sure about what this is going to do to higher education and health care, if I really thought we were going to go after $420 billion worth of tax expenditures and put that on the table, and that we were also going to scrutinize the Pentagon budget and we were going to cut where we should cut, that is exactly the path I want to go down. That is what this amendment says. Subject these expenditures to the same scrutiny that we are putting a whole lot of other programs and expenditures under. How much time do I have, I ask the Chair?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague from Utah. I am prepared to yield back my time.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Because once people understand that some of the programs that have been most important Medicaid, be it Pell grants, be it nutrition programs for children, be it veterans' programs, you name it--are going to be cut and cut deeply--but the Pentagon budget is going up; and, you have all of these loopholes which are flowing disproportionately to large corporations and financial institutions in America with all the clout, without their being asked to sacrifice at all, there is going to be a huge amount of anger. And I would say to my colleague, that is why I think the Senate must go on record today on this. I would say to my colleague from Wisconsin we have a little under a minute left. I would be pleased if he would just conclude for us. It has been a joy working with him and I hope we get a good strong vote.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I would say to my colleague, if I was a proponent of this constitutional amendment to balance the budget, which I am not, I would vote for this amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Is not also true that there is a very direct correlation--and, unfortunately, it is a hidden correlation, unless we are willing to be accountable and open and honest about this--between our failure to even look at--which is all we are asking for today-- these tax expenditures and the kinds of cuts that are going to take place in some of these programs that are so important to people? And, in addition, is it not also true that regular taxpayers end up paying more?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, might I interrupt my colleague to ask him a question?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would say to my colleague, just this past Saturday, I was in southwest Minnesota in a meeting with a group of citizens that are really worried that Pioneer Public Television-- which, in the rural area, is so important; it is a pool of information; economic development, citizenship--is going to be eliminated. They are very worried about that for very good reasons. Certainly when I meet with the elderly or I meet with children or advocates for children, people who work in schools and universities, everybody was very worried about this. What people say to me in cafes is, ``Look, we understand that we have to continue down the path of deficit reduction; we have to be fiscally responsible. We also know that there are crying needs in our community. We want to make sure children have opportunity, that we have to invest in education in our communities. We know it is not done by waving a magic wand, but there has to be some standard of fairness.'' That is what I think we are talking about here today. Absolutely. I would say to my colleague, I would be interested in his response. Let me just put a question to him. I really fell like if we are not willing to go on record today on this motion to refer, which just puts the Senate on record as saying we should just look at tax expenditures and consider whether they should be part of what should be cut. We see cynicism in people in Wisconsin and Minnesota who will say, ``Yeah, of course they will vote against this. Unlike those folks, we don't have the big bucks. We do not lobby everybody. Who do they represent? They don't represent us.'' I think we have to consider these tax expenditures to have credibility. I will ask the Senator from Wisconsin what his view is about it.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am pleased to.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield the floor to the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wisconsin. I want to respond to some of his comments. But I would like to ask how much time remains.

Mr. WELLSTONE. The GAO report of 1993 makes a compelling case for subjecting these tax expenditures to greater congressional and administration scrutiny just as direct spending is scrutinized. The GAO notes that most of these tax expenditures currently in the Tax Code are not subject to any annual reauthorization or any kind of periodic review. And they observe that many of these special tax breaks were enacted in response to economic conditions that no longer exist. In fact, they found that of the 124 tax expenditures identified by the committee in 1993, half of these tax expenditures, half of these special breaks were enacted before 1950. Now, that does not automatically call them into question, and our amendment does not talk about any specific tax expenditure that should be eliminated. But it does illustrate the problem of not annually reviewing these tax expenditures. These tax expenditures should not be treated as entitlements. They should not go on year after year and decade after decade without there being any careful examination. There has been no systematic review of these expenditures. Indeed, the GAO reports that most of the revenue losses through tax expenditures come from provisions enacted during the years 1909 to 1919. Let me repeat that. Most of the revenue lost from these tax breaks--some of them necessary but many of them just blatant tax dodges--must be made up by either regular taxpayers through higher taxes or revenue not there for deficit reduction, comes about from provisions enacted during the years 1909 to 1919. When I looked at the Republican Contract With America, I did not see one single sentence, not one single word in this Contract With America that called upon any large financial interest or any large corporation or, wealthy citizens, to be a part of this sacrifice. Let me just finish up by listing a few provisions, to give a sense of where we could have it. And, again, we call for no specific elimination of any specific tax expenditure. Mr. President, I think actually what I will do for the moment is yield myself the rest of the time I might need but defer to the Senator from Wisconsin for a moment. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From GAO Report 94-122] Tax Policy--Tax Expenditures Deserve More Scrutiny--Executive Summary purpose At a time when the federal government faces hard choices to reduce the deficit and use available resources wisely, no federal expenditure or subsidy, whether it involves outlays (i.e., discretionary or direct spending) or tax revenues forgone, should escape careful examination. Congressional and executive branch processes do not subject existing tax expenditures to the same controls that apply to programs receiving appropriated funds. Congressman William J. Coyne was concerned that a lack of attention to income tax expenditures has allowed them to increase and was interested in how they could be controlled. GAO examined a wide range of alternatives for the review and control of income tax expenditures. This report describes the size of increases in tax expenditures; examines whether tax expenditures need increased scrutiny; and identifies options that could be used to increase the scrutiny of and/or control the growth of tax expenditures, discussing the advantages and disadvantages of each. background Tax expenditures are reductions in tax liabilities that result from preferential provisions in the tax code, such as exemptions and exclusions from taxation, deductions, credits, deferrals, and preferential tax rates. Many tax expenditures are subsidies to encourage certain behaviors, such as charitable giving. A few tax expenditures exist, at least in part, to adjust for differences in individuals' ability to pay taxes, such as deductions for catastrophic medical expenses. Some tax expenditures may also compensate for other parts of the tax system. For example, some argue the special tax treatment of capital gains may in part offset the increased taxes on capital income that result from such gains not being indexed for inflation. Congress sometimes reviews tax expenditures and has limited some tax expenditures by various means, such as by limiting the benefits as taxpayers' incomes increase. Although widely used to describe preferential provisions in the tax code, the term tax ``expenditures'' is not universally accepted. Some observers believe that labeling these provisions tax ``expenditures'' implies that all forms of income inherently belong to the government. However, the concept was developed to show that certain tax provisions are analogous to programs on the outlay side of the budget, and it was intended to promote better informed decisions about how to achieve federal objectives. In using this term, GAO is recognizing that, as a practical matter, tax expenditures are part of the federal budget, and Congress already uses the tax expenditure concept to a limited extent in budgetary processes. Currently, the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance have jurisdiction over both new and existing tax expenditures. These Committees propose the mix of tax rates and tax expenditures to be used to obtain a specified amount of revenue. In reviewing tax expenditures, these Committees have used several techniques to limit individual tax expenditures or groups of them. These reviews, however, are not conducted systematically and may not explicitly consider possible trade-offs between tax expenditures and federal outlay programs and mandates. results in brief Tax expenditures can be a valid means for achieving certain federal objectives. However, studies by GAO and others have raised concerns about the effectiveness, efficiency, or equity of some tax expenditures. Substantial revenues are forgone through tax expenditures but they do not overtly compete in the annual budget process, and most are not subject to reauthorization. As a result, policymakers have few opportunities to make explicit comparisons or trade-offs between tax expenditures and federal spending programs. The growing revenues forgone through tax expenditures reduce the resources available to fund other programs or reduce the deficit and force tax rates to be higher to obtain a given amount of revenue. The three options discussed in this report may help increase attention paid to tax expenditures and reduce their revenue losses where appropriate. First, greater scrutiny could be achieved with little or no change in congressional processes and jurisdictions by strengthening or extending techniques currently used to control tax expenditures. Ceilings and floors on eligibility, better highlighting of information, or setting a schedule for periodic review of some tax expenditures are some possibilities under this option. If controlling tax expenditures through the current framework is considered insufficient, Congress could change its processes to exert more control over them. The second option is for Congress to further integrate tax expenditures into the budget process. One feasible approach would be for Congress to decide whether savings in tax expenditures are desirable and, if so, to set in annual budget resolutions specific savings targets. Savings could be enforced through existing reconciliation processes.A third option is to integrate reviews of tax expenditures with functionally related outlay programs, which could make the government's overall funding effort more efficient. Such integrated reviews could be done by the executive or legislative branches, or both. Act of 1993 (GPRA), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) plans to report information on program goals and key indicators for both outlays and tax expenditures. In January 1994, OMB designated 53 performance measurement pilot projects to begin in 1994. Implementation of GPRA provides a promising opportunity to increase the usefulness and visibility of outcome-oriented performance data. GAO's Analysis Tax expenditures can be a useful part of federal policy. But in some cases tax expenditures may not be the most effective, efficient, or equitable approach for providing government subsidies. For example, it might be less expensive for the federal government to provide assistance to state and local governments through direct payments than through tax- exempt bonds. Because tax expenditures represent a significant part of the total federal effort to reallocate resources, choosing the best methods for achieving objectives, including the most effective tax expenditure designs, could have significant results. (See pp. 23-32). Tax expenditures have been growing but are difficult to measure GAO primarily used Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates to analyze the size and growth of tax expenditures. According to these data, tax expenditures totaled about $400 billion in 1993. Their average annual percent increase in real terms for the period from 1974 to 1993 was about 4 percent, which compares to an average annual real increase for gross domestic product of about 2.5 percent. Tax expenditures are expected to continue growing; however, the rate of growth is uncertain. As experts note, tax expenditure revenue loss estimates are not as informative as the revenue estimates made for proposed changes to the tax code. Whereas revenue estimates incorporate the changes in taxpayer behavior that are anticipated to occur as a result of the change, tax expenditure revenue loss estimates do not incorporate any behavioral effects. Furthermore, summing tax expenditure revenue losses ignores interaction effects among tax code provisions. Because of interactions with other parts of the tax code, the revenue loss from the elimination of several tax expenditures together may be greater or smaller than the sum of the revenue losses for each tax expenditure measured alone. Nevertheless, GAO believes tax expenditure revenue loss totals represent a useful gauge of the general magnitude of government subsidies carried out through the tax code. When trends in these totals are looked at, however, care must be taken to consider the possible underlying causes. Aggregate tax expenditure magnitudes are affected by changes in tax rates, in economic activity, and in the number of tax preferences. An overall growth in aggregate tax expenditures may be due to rapid growth of a few tax expenditures--and some point to the rapid growth of health-related expenditures as a current example. However, no process currently prompts Congress to address these trends and decide whether they warrant policymaking actions. JCT and the Department of the Treasury devote limited resources to estimating tax expenditure revenue losses because decisions are not based routinely on this information. GAO did not attempt to verify either JCT's or Treasury's tax expenditure estimates. (See pp. 33-38.) Processes do not highlight tax expenditures for policymakers Despite their significance, existing tax expenditures do not compete overtly in the annual budget process. Under budget processes, new tax expenditures must be funded as they are created. However, except for a few that are subject to reauthorization, existing tax expenditures, like most entitlement programs, can grow without congressional review. These tax expenditures are indirectly controlled primarily to the extent that revenue targets allocated to the tax committees under the budget process create pressure to decrease their growth. Although tax expenditures are listed separately in the president's budget each year, the lists are not used for making tax expenditure allocations or for comparisons with outlay programs. As a result, policymakers have few opportunities to make explicit comparisons or trade- offs between tax expenditures and federal spending programs. (See pp. 30-32.) Options for greater scrutiny Increased congressional review of or control over tax expenditures could be achieved under three general options, each consisting of several alternative approaches: Option 1: This option involves methods currently within the purview of congressional tax-writing committees. It includes ``program'' reviews of individual tax expenditures that may lead to the redesign or elimination of some that are deemed inefficient or outmoded. Currently available control techniques include placing ceilings or floors on eligibility for tax expenditure benefits, structuring tax expenditures as credits rather than exclusion or deductions, limiting the value of itemized deductions to the lowest marginal tax rate, and limiting the value of deductions and exclusions for high- income taxpayers. To promote debate on tax expenditures, additional information on them could also be highlighted using current processes. For instance, they could be merged into budget presentations with related outlay programs. The methods currently used to review and control tax expenditures also could be used in conjunction with the following two options that would alter somewhat the existing congressional procedures for overseeing tax expenditures. (See pp. 39-56.) Option 2: This option involves further integrating tax expenditures into budget rules. This could limit existing tax expenditures and encourage closer reviews of performance. One approach to further integration that GAO examined--placing an aggregate cap on forgone revenue--probably would not work because technical problems would be difficult to overcome. A second approach--in the form of a tax expenditure savings target--is feasible. Under this approach, in years that it wishes, Congress could specify a fixed amount of reduction in forgone revenue from tax expenditures in the budget resolution, which would be enforced through existing reconciliation processes. To promote greater public accountability, Congress could be prompted to explain in the annual budget resolution the reasons for its decision to either adopt or not adopt a savings target. Definitional and measurement problems, which are exacerbated by an aggregate cap, could be lessened substantially under a savings target. Technical problems would be reduced because--as is now the case in reconciliation--revenue estimates are required only for the subset of tax expenditure provisions under consideration. However, requiring a specific amount of base broadening through the budget process would involve more actors in tax policymaking, especially with respect to expanding the authority of the budget committees. (See pp. 57-70.) Option 3: Joint reviews of federal spending programs and related tax expenditures could be adopted to improve coordination and reduce overlap or duplication among outlay and tax expenditure programs. Joint reviews could be done in both the legislative and executive branches. Joint review of spending programs and related tax expenditures could be accomplished by having program committees hold joint hearings with tax committees. More formally, Congress could adopt sequential jurisdiction for tax expenditure subsidy ``programs'' or establish joint committees in functional areas. Because fewer jurisdictional hurdles would arise, the executive branch annual budget preparation process may offer a more expeditious opportunity to implement such reviews. (See pp. 71-92.)Recent legislation promises better tax expenditure information According to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs report on GPRA, OMB is expected to describe a framework for undertaking periodic analyses of the effects of tax expenditures in achieving performance goals in a May 1, 1997, report to the President and Congress. GPRA thus presents an opportunity to develop better information about tax expenditure performance and to use that information to stimulate discussion and oversight as well as to make determinations as to how the government can best achieve its objectives, OMB indicates that initial discussions have been held on developing output measures for key tax expenditures and that reviews or related tax expenditures and outlays will be done in the future. (See pp. 90-92.) recommendation to congressional committees GAO recommends that the tax-writing committees explore, within the existing framework, opportunities to exercise more scrutiny over indirect ``spending'' through tax expenditures. matters for congressional consideration Should Congress wish to view tax expenditure efforts in a broader context of the allocation of federal resources, it could consider the options of further integrating them into the budget process or instituting some form of integrated functional reviews. agency recommendations GAO makes several recommendations to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget intended to encourage a more informed debate about tax expenditures among executive and legislative policymakers and to stimulate joint review within the executive branch of tax expenditures and related spending programs. These recommendations should result in more informed decisions, by Congress and by the public, about the most appropriate means of achieving federal objectives. GAO envisions that in carrying out these recommendations, OMB would consult as appropriate with the Department of the Treasury and other federal agencies. agency comments In written comments on a draft of this report, OMB and Treasury's Office of Tax Analysis (OTA) expressed support for expanded federal review of tax expenditures by the executive branch or Congress. More specifically, OMB agreed, with certain caveats, that GAO's recommendations to it were reasonable and indicated that the recommendations were consistent with efforts OMB has already begun. Regarding the three options for improved oversight of tax expenditures, OMB agreed that improved information on tax expenditures was desirable and that integrated comparisons of outlay programs and related tax expenditures may provide useful insights. In its recently announced reorganization, OMB promised to undertake joint reviews of related spending and tax expenditure programs during upcoming budget cycles. OMB and Treasury were concerned that the integration of tax expenditures into the outcomes than current processes. Treasury also expressed reservations about whether joint reviews of related spending and tax expenditure programs would provide the benefits anticipated. OMB and Treasury's comments are discussed at the end of chapter 6. (See pp. 99-108.) OMB also suggested a number of useful technical changes, which were included. OMB also obtained reactions on its draft report from JCT, the Congressional Budget Office, and two individuals knowledgeable about the issues discussed in the report. These organizations and individuals made observations on the report message, which are discussed at the end of chapter 6, and offered technical suggestions, which were included as appropriate.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, just to be very, very clear because I believe that all of us, Democrats and Republicans, should be clear about what we are voting on, this amendment does not in any way, shape or form have any kind of conditions vis-a-vis the balanced budget amendment. There is not any language in this amendment that so states. What this amendment says is: It is the sense of the Senate that in enacting the policy changes necessary to achieve the more than $1 trillion in deficit reduction necessary to achieve a balanced budget, that tax expenditures, particularly industry-specific preferential treatment, should be subject to the same level of scrutiny in the budget as direct spending programs. It just simply says that since we know we are going to be involved in a serious effort on deficit reduction and since we know we all share the common goal of balancing the budget, though we may not agree a constitutional amendment is the way to do so, that we ought to make sure that tax expenditures, which Senator Feingold and I are going to explain at some length during the course of this debate, be on the table; that that be part of what we look at; that we look at certain breaks, loopholes, and certain deductions. That is all. There is no condition vis-a-vis the balanced budget amendment. The Senator from Washington is wrong on that point. Second, I might add, that procedurally, this is really identical to the motion of the majority leader dealing with Social Security. It is identical, and I believe that motion was passed by over 80 Senators. So this has nothing to do with your position on the balanced budget amendment one way or the other. Let me go on and explain. Mr. President, this motion will put the Senate on record saying that in our effort to balance the budget, in our effort to go forward with deficit reduction--whether it be by a balanced budget constitutional amendment or otherwise; we are all aiming in the same direction--that we will scrutinize all Federal spending not just, Mr. President, cuts of least resistance. What I am worried about, speaking for myself, and I look forward to hearing the remarks of the Senator from Wisconsin, is that when it comes to deficit reduction or when it comes to balancing the budget, what we will do is make cuts according to the path of least political resistance. That is to say, when it comes to ordinary citizens who do not have the clout, who do not have the lobbyists, who do not make the large contributions, they will be called upon to sacrifice. I think most people in the country are willing to sacrifice. We just want to make sure that there is a standard of fairness and that large interests, large corporations, financial interests, wealthy people, and others who, as a matter of fact, benefit disproportionately by some of the tax breaks which cause other people to pay more in taxes, also are called upon to pay their fair share or to sacrifice. Mr. President, in all of the debate on the balanced budget amendment, in all of the debate about how we are going to essentially have budget cuts of $1.4 trillion or thereabouts there is an enormous credibility gap. Because so far all I have heard on the Republican side is proposals for budget cuts of $277 billion. There is a big difference between $277 billion and $1.481 trillion. In all of the debate so far, whether it be right to know vis-a-vis States saying that the people back in our States ought to have a right to know what the impact would be on them or, for that matter, whether it is our right to know, I still believe that the most important principle of all is that Senators ought to have the right to know what they are voting on, where the cuts will take place, and how they will affect the people. There has not been a word uttered about one particular kind of spending that enjoys a special status within the Federal budget. I am talking about tax breaks for special classes or categories of taxpayers, many of whose benefits go largely to large corporations or the other wealthy interests in our society. I remind you, Mr. President, that when we have these tax breaks and when we have these deductions and loopholes and when certain citizens or certain large interests are forgiven from having to pay their fair share, all of the rest of us end up paying more. Let me make a simple point here that is often overlooked. We can spend money just as easily through the Tax Code through what are called tax expenditures as we can through the normal appropriations process. Spending is spending, whether it comes in the form of a government check or in the form of a tax break for some special purpose, like a subsidy, a credit, a deduction, or accelerated depreciation for a type of investment that is made. These tax expenditures--in some cases they are tax loopholes--allow some taxpayers to escape paying their fair share and thus they make everyone else pay at higher rates. The Congressional Joint Tax Committee has estimated that these tax expenditures cost the U.S. Treasury $420 billion every single year. These loopholes, these deductions cause the U.S. Treasury to lose $420 billion every single year, and this amount will grow on present course by $60 billion to over $485 billion by 1999. Mr. President, these tax expenditures, often they are tax dodges, should be on the table along with other spending as we look for places to cut the deficit. That is our point. That is, by any standard of fairness, what we should do. Just because certain people have a tremendous amount of political clout does not mean they should not be asked also to be a part of this sacrifice. Mr. President, when we begin to weigh, for example, scaling back special treatment, depreciation allowance for the oil and gas industry--and the Congressional Budget Office estimates that eliminating this tax break would generate $3.4 billion over the next 5 years--when we start to compare and measure tax breaks for oil companies compared to cuts we are going to be making in food and nutrition programs for hungry children, we might have a very different answer. We have to make tough choices. And what Senator Feingold, myself, and Senator Bradley want to make sure of is that all of the options are on the table, and that when we make these choices, and we do the painful deficit reduction, we do it according to some basic standard of fairness. What this motion does is simply state the sense of the Senate that we will carefully examine tax expenditures when the Budget Committee makes recommendations as to how we are going to continue on this path of deficit reduction and how we are going to balance the budget. At the moment, these tax expenditures are unexamined. They are hidden. They are untouchable. And, essentially, these are the real entitlements because we do not even examine any of these large subsidies. What we are saying in this amendment is that we ought to at least examine these tax expenditures, we ought to at least examine these subsidies. This motion does not specify what specific subsidies might be eliminated. It just says tax expenditures ought to be a part of our process here in the Congress as we make these decisions about where we are going to make the cuts. As I have listened to this debate--and again I am struck by this figure of $1.4 trillion worth of cuts that would have to be made by 2002 to balance the budget--I must say that I have heard little discussion, first of all, about where we are going to make the cuts, and second of all, I have heard little discussion about any sacrifice from large corporations and special interests who have disproportionately enjoyed all of these breaks, all of these benefits, all of these preferences, all of these deductions that many, many middle-class Americans do not enjoy. And so that is why we offer this motion to refer this amendment to the Budget Committee with instructions to report back a sense of the Senate that these breaks and preferences should be put that on the table when we are talking about how we do our deficit reduction. Now, Mr. President, not all of these tax expenditures are bad. Let me be them serve a real public purpose, providing incentives to investment, bolstering the nonprofit sector, enabling people to purchase a home. That is very important. However, some of them are simply tax dodges that can no longer be justified, but we do not even examine them. What we are saying in this amendment is, let us at least examine these tax expenditures and especially let us get strict and rigorous when we are looking at some of these tax dodges. Mr. President, this motion simply states that if we are going to move toward balancing the budget, tax expenditures that provide this preferential treatment to certain taxpayers should be subject to the same scrutiny as all direct spending programs. That is all we are saying. This is really a matter of accountability. I think it is also, Mr. President, a simple question of fairness. If we are going to make all of these cuts, then we should make sure that the wealthy interests in our society, those who have the political clout, those who hire the lobbyists, those who make the large contributions, those who we call the big players are also asked to sacrifice as much as regular middle-class folks in Minnesota and in Wisconsin; they should be asked to sacrifice as much as anybody else, especially when we know there are going to be deep and severe cuts in programs like Medicare and Medicaid, veterans programs, and education. The General Accounting Office issued a report last year. It is titled ``Tax Policy--Tax Expenditures Deserve More Scrutiny.'' I commend it to my colleagues' attention. I really think that my colleagues ought to read it. I ask unanimous consent that an executive summary of the report be printed in the Record following my remarks.