[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 58 (Thursday, May 12, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: May 12, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995--CONFERENCE
REPORT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 3
o'clock having arrived, the Senate will now resume consideration of the
conference report on House Concurrent Resolution 218 which the clerk
will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Conference report to accompany H. Con. Res. 218, setting
forth the congressional budget for the United States
Government for fiscal years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999.
The Senate resumed consideration of the conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 30
minutes for debate on the conference report, equally divided.
If no one wishes to speak, the time will be equally divided.
In my capacity as a Senator from the State of Washington, I suggest
the absence of a quorum.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, under the previous order, I yield myself
7 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], is
recognized.
Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, there is not a whole lot to say about the
budget that is before us. It has been debated at some length in both
Houses of Congress.
I want to focus my comments today on an opportunity lost. We in
Congress often justify our unwillingness to take tough action on the
budget by claiming that the economy is not doing well, or unemployment
is up, or there is something wrong somewhere that interferes with our
ability to control spending and to reduce the deficit. And so we face a
situation today where 50 cents out of every dollar borrowed in the
American economy is borrowed by the Government, preventing us from
building new homes, farms, and factories. Interest rates, in fact, are
starting to edge back up, in part, because we are doing nothing about
the deficit.
Basically, today, the economy is strong. We have a recovery that
started to take off in the third quarter of 1992. It was in full swing
by the fourth quarter of 1992. And while it has gone up and down, we
have had a fairly strong economy since.
Yet, when you look at the budget before us, the 1995 deficit
projected under our best-case scenario--if everything we hope happens--
the deficit is $175 billion.
In 5 years, the projection of the deficit is $197.6 billion, if the
President's health care plan is defeated. But if the President's health
care plan is adopted, the deficit would be $230.7 billion. That is, the
deficit would rise by almost $55 billion over a 5-year period.
Finally, under the budget as written and projected for the next 10
years, the deficit would grow to $365 billion.
So, basically, my concern is that given a golden opportunity to deal
with the deficit, we are not getting the job done.
I think this budget tells you two things: No. 1, the administration
may be committed to many things, but it is not committed to deficit
reduction. No. 2, neither is this Congress.
We had a big debate over the Grassley amendment, and many will
remember that Senator Grassley proposed cutting discretionary spending
by $26 billion over a 5-year period. I wanted to try to find a way to
explain what that meant, and my trusty staff member came up with this
chart.
What Senator Grassley proposed was that of every $3 we spend over the
next 5 years, we ought to cut those programs by one penny, one penny
out of every $3. As we all know, the Senate adopted the Grassley
amendment, but the House had not. We went to conference, and our
conferees decided that it would be an outrage to cut one penny out of
every $3 the Federal Government spent over the next 5 years. And so now
we are cutting one penny out of every $6, only we are doing it by the
way the Government keeps books. We are cutting one penny out of every
$6 from what we ``would have" spent, not what ``we are'' spending
today.
In fact, under this budget, spending next year goes up by $39
billion. I think it is important to note that while the deficit is
projected to go down for 2 years, it then goes up like a rocket. One of
the reasons for the decline is that we are cutting defense so
dramatically. The last time we balanced the Federal budget--1969--
defense as a percentage of the economy, was taking 8.9 percent. Under
this budget, by the time it is completed in 1999, defense will be
taking 2.9 percent; yet, the deficit will be $200 billion.
Why is that important? Well, it is important because we are going to
be spending less on defense as a percentage of the economy than we were
in 1940; yet, the deficit is going to be $200 billion. We have spent
every penny of defense savings. This budget spends every penny of
income tax increases, every penny of the Social Security tax increases;
yet, it does not bring the deficit down over the 5-year period. In
fact, it goes up.
What are we to do if, in fact, we need to rebuild defense? Having
spent the money we saved when we slashed defense, where are we going to
get the money if we have to rebuild our defenses? That money has now
been spent on domestic programs. Under this budget plan we will have to
either raise taxes or raise the deficit.
So, Madam President, I believe this is a poor budget. I believe this
budget ought to be rejected. We ought to go back and try again. I
believe that we can do better. I believe we need to dramatically reduce
the growth of Government spending.
We also need to reduce the ever-growing tax burden. From 1950 to
1980, the tax burden grew every year, and then under Ronald Reagan, the
tax burden actually declined. Now it is growing again. Tax freedom day,
the last day you work for the Government and the first day you work for
yourself, has grown by an average of 2 days since Bill Clinton became
President. Yet we are still looking at deficits that, after a modest 2-
year decline, are then going up like a rocket. What does this say? It
says to me we need to gain control of spending. We have not done it.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, let me yield myself 2 additional minutes
since we will just run off the clock. Then I will put us in a quorum
call. My dear colleague from New Mexico was in a banking hearing with
me and should be on the way.
Let me just sum up by saying that this is not a terrible budget. This
is not a budget that starts a whole bunch of new programs, but it is a
budget that continues to transfer from defense spending to domestic
programs. It is a budget that, despite the President's stated
priorities to fight crime, cuts prison construction by 40 percent,
reduces the number of people at the FBI and the DEA and in the Justice
Department, and yet ends up spending $39 billion more than this year.
The fact is with the economy in pretty good shape, we have a golden
opportunity to deal with this deficit and deal with it dramatically.
I just want to predict that when the full impact of the retroactive
tax that went into effect on April 15 on small businesses is felt, when
the Social Security tax taxing 85 percent of the Social Security
benefits of our senior citizens who earn over $30,000 a year goes into
effect this coming April 15, we are going to begin to feel some impact
on this economy, and the opportunity to deal with this deficit will
have passed.
My frustration, Madam President, is that we had a chance to do
something about the deficit--I think we could have built a bipartisan
constituency to do it--by controlling spending. We did not get the job
done, and I think it is a tragedy we did not.
I yield back the remainder of my time, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the time will be
equally divided.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, could I inquire with reference to the
time? How much time do we have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. How much does the other side have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirteen minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I think I will reserve my time, since Senator Dole
wants 3 minutes, and see what the chairman wants to do.
Madam President, the chairman has 13 minutes and we have 4. Is he
prepared to use some of his time?
Mr. SASSER. Madam President, a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. SASSER. Madam President, did I understand my friend correctly
that we have 14 minutes?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee controls 13
minutes; the Senator from New Mexico controls 4 minutes.
Mr. SASSER. Madam President, I would like to make just a few
observations here this afternoon prior to voting on this budget
resolution conference report.
I think we have become all too accustomed, in the debates dealing
with the budget in recent years, to hearing claims that are
exaggerated, partial statements of the facts, and on occasion outright
misstatements of facts.
Yesterday's debate, though thankfully it was not acrimonious--many of
these budgetary debates are in that category--was liberally seasoned, I
might say, with budgetary hyperbole, would be the charitable way to
describe some of the observations that I heard yesterday.
Let me take just a moment to set the record straight on a few of the
assertions that struck me as being somewhat most egregious and then on
a couple of lesser statements that I shall call imprecisions.
First, the charge was made that the Congressional Budget Office has
revised its deficit baseline upward by $100 billion and, so this claim
goes, the pending budget resolution is unduly optimistic by that
amount.
Both portions of this charge are simply inaccurate and untrue. The
Congressional Budget Office's April reestimate of the President's
budget contains an upward deficit revision of roughly $30 billion for
1995 through 1999--$30 billion over a 4-year period instead of the $100
billion that was claimed here.
Now, that is clear on page 6 of the CBO report. But, more
importantly, it is the simple fact that the budget resolution before us
incorporates the Congressional Budget Office's April reestimate. There
is no attempt to disguise anything nor has there been.
Moreover, the positive effects of what we did last year are barely
nicked by that revision. We still reduced the 5-year deficit. We have a
5-year deficit projection that reduces the deficit by some $650
billion. Let me repeat that for my colleagues--a 5-year deficit
projection that reduces the deficit by $650 billion over the next 5
years, the largest deficit reduction package in the history of this
country, indeed, I suppose, in the history of any country, probably in
history, period.
Let us move on to a second and related distortion. The bizarre claim
was made that this budget represents a horrible departure from the past
in that it projects outyear deficit problems.
Now, this claim was made with a straight face, that the problem was
that this budget continues to project outyear deficit problems and,
therefore, it was no good and was not like the Reagan-Bush budgets of
the past that always projected a balanced budget by the fifth year.
I would have to say, Madam President, that it has become a melancholy
pass in this Chamber when a fiscal document is damned for failing to
live up to past standards of duplicity, manipulation, and delusion. And
that is precisely what those Reagan-Bush budget projections were in the
outyears.
We all know about the magic asterisks. We know about the rosy
scenarios. We know about the accounting miracles that were used for 12
years to wish the deficit problem away.
Finally, we have a President who refuses to misrepresent the task
before us to the American people and he is taken to task for refusing
to delude us. What have we come to?
Now, Madam President, on lesser charges that were made yesterday: The
contention was made that this budget contains a massive number of
entitlement expansions. Well, I will be charitable and class that claim
simply as an exaggeration.
We have one entitlement expansion of any consequence whatsoever and,
by most informed estimates, it is a needed reform. It is a reform of
the Crop Insurance Program, which has never worked properly. As a
consequence, on an annual basis, we provide disaster assistance to
farmers that we do not pay for in our budget. The argument is made by
the proponents of this reform that we need to fix the system.
This is indeed an expansion. But I am told by people far more
knowledgeable than I about farming programs that it is an absolutely
necessary reform. And it is a reform, I might say, that has support
from both sides of the aisle.
The argument was also made yesterday that the only area of
discretionary spending that has been cut in recent years is military
spending.
Yes, it is true. Military spending has been cut. But a look at the
1994 appropriations bills will disabuse anyone of the notion that other
programs have gotten off scot-free. By my count, those bills cut 342
separate accounts below the 1993 level--51 of them were in defense and
291 of them were in domestic or international accounts. That does not
sound to me as if defense has been the only sufferer here.
Finally, the charge was made about reserve funds in this budget.
May I inquire, Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee controls 4 minutes
and 50 seconds.
Mr. SASSER. Madam President, I will just move on quickly and say that
the budget before us is a solid work product. It is a necessary
continuation of last year's very successful and, I would say, historic
deficit-reduction plan. It contains $13 billion in cuts below the
preexisting discretionary caps. It assumes the President's 300 program
reductions and terminations as well as his investment priorities in
education, child nutrition, health and crime prevention.
It contains the strongest statement yet on record by the Senate in
favor of overall entitlement restraint. More important, it reaffirms
the best deficit path that we have seen in a decade--in over a decade.
As a percent of gross domestic product, the 1995 deficit is lower
than any time since 1979. The 1998 deficit will be $200 billion less
than before we passed last year's plan, and projections for the 1999
deficit have been cut in half.
So, Madam President, the progress is real. The American people can
feel it. They can feel it in an improved domestic economy. They can
feel it in an improved international standing. There is no creditable
policy reason for voting against this resolution, and there are
profound reasons for voting for it.
Madam President, I want to reserve the remainder of my time here
because I think perhaps the majority leader is requesting some time to
speak on this resolution. So I shall reserve the remainder of my time.
I inquire of the Chair, how much time do we have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee controls 2 minutes
and 30 seconds, and the Senator from New Mexico controls 4 minutes.
Who yields time?
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, speaking of hyperbole, I would just
like to cite some of the wonderful prose that the chairman used
yesterday to see if it fits his definition of hyperbole or some kind of
rhetoric. I really thought that it was wonderful.
It is retreating before the relentless assaults that we
have launched upon it over the past year and a half.
Mr. SASSER. Yes, I said that, I say to my friend from New Mexico. And
that is not quite Churchillian.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thought maybe we were celebrating the end of a war or
something.
In any event, I want to put a table in the Record, because yesterday
I spoke of the fact that, since 1991 to this point, there have been no
cuts on the discretionary programs that are domestic, and all the cuts
have come out of defense. In fact, it is a little worse than that. All
the cuts come out of defense, and domestic programs have gone up.
I ask unanimous consent that that table be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
DISCRETIONARY BUDGET OUTLAYS (NOMINAL)
[Fiscal years; dollar amounts in billions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Percent annual
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 change growth
1991-95 rate 1991-
95
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense...................................... $319.7 $302.6 $292.5 $279.8 $271.7 -15.0 -4.0
Nondefense................................... 215.1 233.4 251.0 267.0 273.5 27.2 6.2
------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................... 534.8 536.0 543.5 546.8 545.2 1.9 0.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCRETIONARY BUDGET OUTLAYS (REAL)
[Fiscal years; dollar amounts in billions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average
Percent annual
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 change growth
1991-95 rate 1991-
95
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense...................................... $273.9 $251.6 $236.8 $220.8 $208.7 -23.8 -6.6
Nondefense................................... 184.3 194.1 203.2 210.8 210.0 13.9 3.3
------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................... 458.2 445.7 440.0 431.6 418.7 -8.6 -2.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, fellow Senators, let me just say, I
believe once again this budget sends the wrong signals and is moving in
the wrong direction.
The problem with the fiscal policy of the United States is not that
we are undertaxed. It is not that we must cut more domestic programs
like highways and education and the like, or that we must cut defense
more.
The truth of the matter is, we are going to drown in the red ink of
mandatory and entitlement programs that are growing at an incredible
rate. That means that between the pension programs of our Nation, the
health care programs of our Nation--which are most typical of
entitlements--a statute is written that says people are entitled to
something. Most of the time it is dollars or payment of their bills.
And if they can go to court and sue for it and win, that is a
definition of entitlement. That is currently 55 percent of the budget.
To put this in perspective, when John Kennedy was President, I
believe it was somewhere around 20 to 22 percent. It is growing at way
beyond inflation and yet this budget resolution changes none of that.
As a matter of fact, although not a lot, it increases an entitlement
program, a mandatory one, for crop insurance $5 billion, and it has 12
new allowables where new entitlement or mandatory programs in health
insurance, health reform, welfare reform, and many other programs can
be created. They will just add to the spending side, albeit under this
process they must be neutral in terms of deficit reduction.
So from everything I can tell, we have once again missed the
opportunity to send a real signal to do something of a permanent nature
about fixing the deficit. Instead, we have done the exact opposite.
I want to have this table printed in the Record. I just want the
Senate to see a recapitulation of how the deficit reduction occurs over
the next 5 years. It will be most interesting when people find out that
the Congressional Budget Office says that all we have cut in this $671
billion claim is $56 billion in defense and $69 billion in
discretionary over the 5 years. All the rest are taxes or adjustments
due to the economy.
I ask unanimous consent to have that table printed in the Record so
everybody understands.
There being no objection, the table was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
CBO POLICY DEFICIT ESTIMATES--CHANGE FROM 1993 TO 1994
[Prepared by SBC Minority Staff, May 11, 1994; in billions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 1993 estimate..................... 310 291 284 287 319 357 1,848
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Technical reestimates..................... -59 -30 -41 -17 3 -4 -148
Economic assumptions...................... -(*) -13 -15 -12 -14 -25 -79
Policy changes:
1993 Reconciliation:
Taxes and user fees................... ........ -28 -46 -56 -66 -66 -262
Mandatory spending.................... ........ -4 -6 -12 -16 -18 -56
Discretionary caps.................... ........ ........ ........ -8 -23 -38 -69
Subtotal............................ ........ -33 -55 -83 -118 -143 -432
Other (incl. emergencies)............. 4 12 5 3 (*) 0 25
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal policy changes............. 4 -21 -50 -80 -117 -143 -407
=====================================================================
Total change from 1993.................... -55 -64 -106 -109 -128 -172 -634
---------------------------------------------------------------------
March 1994 deficit........................ 255 228 179 180 192 188 1,222
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Details may not add to totals due to rounding.
(*) Less than $50 million.
Mr. DOMENICI. I wish to offer my congratulations to the chairman, if
he gets the votes today. I sense the majority leader is going to come
down and do his share to see to it the chairman has the votes, Madam
President.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, plain and simple, this conference report
fails to make the tough decisions to reduce the deficit. Even though it
calls for more spending and higher deficits than the plan the Senate
passed earlier this year, it still lacks funding for the President's
biggest new spending initiatives and makes no recommendations about
where the remaining portion of the Exon-Grassley spending cuts should
occur.
Senator Domenici and the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee
deserve a lot of credit. With their leadership, Senate Republicans
developed an alternative budget--a budget that cut the deficit by more
than $300 billion over the next 5 years, a budget that cut President
Clinton's 1999 deficit in half, a budget that made the tough choices
without raising taxes and without cutting Social Security.
Our alternative budget offered a balanced approach to deficit
reduction. All of it comes from spending cuts--60 percent from Federal
entitlment programs, and the rest from nondefense appropriated
accounts.
With this conference report, the President and the Democrat
leadership are sending American taxpayers a clear message--Democrats
want taxpayers to invest in the future by boosting big government.
Republicans offer a different vision for America.
Republicans want to invest in the future by providing tax relief to
working families and children. We want to unleash new investments and
help protect the value of homes, small businesses, family farms,
investments, and other assets from the corrosive effects of inflation
by indexing capital gains.
Republicans want to maintain a strong National Defense. The
administration's defense experts calculate a shortfall of at least
$20 billion in the Clinton defense plan. The President's budget plan
forces our military to eat that $20 billion shortfall. This hidden cut
comes on top of the $127 billion cut the President has already applied.
During this year's budget debate, Republicans offered the only
comprehensive budget plan that provides what the President's own
defense experts say they need.
Mr. President, the conference report displays defense spending at the
President's requested level and lists $30 billion in unspecified
unallocated discretionary budget authority cuts under the allowances
account. Republicans will oppose efforts to allocate any of these
cuts--totaling $6.6 billion in budget authority and $5.8 billion in
outlays in 1995--to defense. In his State of the Union Address,
President Clinton stated that he would oppose additional defense cuts.
Republicans support the President on this important national security
issue. In an effort to help the President make good on this promise, we
will oppose efforts to cut defense below the President's request.
Republicans want to hire more cops, make our schools safer for our
children, put away violent criminals, and slam shut the revolving
prison door. Our alternative budget would provide $22 billion in
funding over 5 years for the Violent Crime Trust Fund.
Republicans are willing to make the tough choices needed to get the
deficit under control. Our alternative budget cut spending first to
reduce the deficit, and it cut spending to fund our priorities like tax
relief for working families, a strong defense and a tough crime-
fighting package.
This conference report fails to make the tough choices. It
essentially calls for $200 billion deficits as far as the eye can see.
Republicans know that we can do better, that we must do better. Our
alternative budget plan would cut the deficit to $99 billion by 1999.
Mr. President, Republicans offered a responsible alternative to the
status quo--one that set new priorities, cut the deficit without
raising taxes, held the line on defense, and funded our priority
initiatives with spending cuts. Unfortunately, 55 Senate Democrats
voted to defeat our budget alternative.
I urge my colleagues to vote against final passage of the conference
report. The American people want us to do better. The Republican
alternative budget is proof that we can.
Mr. SASSER. I say to my friend from New Mexico, all help from any
quarter will be appreciated, including from the majority leader. I
would even solicit the aid of my distinguished friend from New Mexico
if he could find it in his heart to do it when this matter comes to a
vote.
But I want to say this, Madam President.
We have had the same reserve funds in budget resolutions for the last
4 years. They have not been misused to my knowledge. Moreover, several
of the reserves allow outlay cuts to be used to offset tax cuts. In
short, if we were to try to pass the Nickles health bill or the Gramm
health bill--I think a highly unlikely event, but in the event we
should try to do that--or perhaps some versions of welfare reform, we
could very well need to use our reserve funds.
I draw attention to these distortions--large and small--not because
they are particularly damaging in themselves. As I said before, we have
grown sadly accustomed to them.
The problem is that they are used as a foundation for outrageous
claims by some Senators--that this resolution codifies our debt crisis
or that it contains vast amounts of new spending or that it is a
blueprint for disaster.
This resolution is a continuation of the only truly serious and
effective assault on the deficit we have seen since the red ink began
flowing freely in 1981. Last year, we reduced the outyear deficit
problem by roughly half--and that extends into the distant outyears
that my friends on the other side are so concerned about.
In January 1993, we had CBO projections that showed a deficit in the
year 2003 of $655 billion. Subsequent to the passage of last year's
budget, the parent of this one, that projection is down to $343 billion
in the most recent estimate.
The people who make the loudest the outyears almost never refer to
what it would have been absent last years actions. Paradoxically, they
are almost always the very same people who, when the time came to belly
up and cast the tough vote last year, were nowhere to be found.
The budget before us is a solid work product. It is a necessary
continuation of last year's very successful, I would say historic,
deficit reduction plan.
It contains $13 billion in cuts below the pre-existing discretionary
caps. It assumes the President's 300 Program reductions and
terminations, as well as his investment priorities in education, child
nutrition, health, and crime prevention. It contains the strongest
statement yet on record by the Senate in favor of overall entitlement
restraint.
Most important, it reaffirms the best deficit path we have been on in
a decade As a percent of GDP, the 1995 deficit is lower than any year
since 1979. The 1998 deficit will be $200 billion less than before last
year's plan, and projections for the 1999 deficit have been cut in
half.
The progress is real and the American people can feel it, both in our
improved domestic economy and in our improved international standing.
There is no credible policy reason for voting against this
resolution. And there are profound reasons for voting for it. I have
offered the positive reasons for an aye vote, but consider where we are
without a budget resolution.
It must be understood by Senators that, without the discipline of a
budget resolution, we will have a spending-free-for-all during the
appropriations process. There will be no supermajority points of order
to constrain floor amendments that might propose spending on the first
12 bills.
Let us suppose the Health and Human Services bill is coming through
here and someone wants to increase the allocation for a particular
program out at NIH, by a substantial margin. They could do that with
simply 51 votes. And all of these excesses in all of the appropriations
bills pile up as they move here. But it reduces the allocation of the
final appropriations bill that is coming through, and usually that is
the defense appropriations bill.
Pity the poor last appropriations bill--usually the defense bill--
because it will be required to absorb all the debit piled up by the
first 12 or it will have a 60-vote point of order against it. For those
Senators who are worried about our national defense, this should be
cause for alarm. Some Senators have said that they would like to see a
wall reestablished between defense and the other discretionary
programs.
Well, if you are worried about poaching on defense as things are
right now, you should surely want a budget resolution. Because without
one, it is open season.
We do not need chaos on the floor of the Senate. We do need a
reaffirmation of the tough deficit reduction measures we implemented
last year.
We should pass this conference report. The claims made against it are
weak or disingenuous or both. Its virtues are clear and unimpeachable.
It sustains a significantly improved deficit reduction path. It
sustains an overall design that has helped advance our economic
recovery. It provides spending discipline for the remainder of the
year, and it allows us to do our jobs as legislators.
I urge passage of this conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. SASSER. I thank the Chair.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise to commend our budget conferees
and especially the chair of the Budget Committee, Mr. Sasser, for
bringing back at least a partial victory for the Senate and for deficit
reduction.
Of course, each of us would have written the conference report
differently, to reflect our own priorities. As a supporter of the Exon-
Grassley provision in the Senate's version of the budget resolution, I
would have preferred a level of deficit reduction greater than is
specified in the resolution.
However, given the need to produce a budget resolution in a timely
manner, and the mixed and changing views of our own conferees, the
Senator from Tennessee deserves enormous credit.
Madam President, as I noted, the conference report is less than what
passed the Senate. But, it is also much, much more than what passed the
House.
That we will be forced to continue to reduce the deficit--improving
on the beginning made last year--is as important as the level of
additional savings itself.
The House position, essentially to rest on what was achieved last
year, is, for some, a tempting one. It has been difficult to cut
programs, some of them worthwhile in a different context, and we would
need to make additional cuts just to comply with the deficit reduction
mandates of our actions of last year.
With the considerable improvement in our economy and the obvious
progress we have made in reducing the deficit, it would be an
attractive course to declare victory in our war on the deficit, and
proceed to focus on other concerns.
The conference report, though, keeps us off that easier path and on
the course of deficit reduction.
Madam President, thanks to the bipartisan efforts of the Senator from
Iowa [Mr. Grassley] and the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon], we will
be forced not only to continue our efforts, but to build on them to
further reduce the deficit.
As was revealed by the concern it produced during the Senate's
earlier deliberations, the significance of the Exon-Grassley proposal
goes beyond the actual level of deficit reduction it achieved. As I
have noted before, in striving to reduce the deficit, in most
instances, the only time you are really achieving something is when
people complain.
The remarks made during the debate over the Exon-Grassley amendment
revealed that the additional cuts--a tiny fraction of the total Federal
budget--will pinch.
Madam President, this budget pinches. If it didn't, we wouldn't be
doing our job.
I was also pleased that the arguments against Exon-Grassley because
of potential cuts to the defense budget did not prevail.
First, no single area of Federal spending should be held harmless in
our efforts to reduce the Federal budget deficit. We have asked
veterans, farmers, senior citizens, and small business to shoulder a
share of the burden as we reduce the deficit. To immunize defense
spending not only exempts a huge portion of the budget from the kind of
thorough justification we ask of every other area, it will shift that
much more burden on those who already have been asked to sacrifice.
Second, Madam President, the total level of defense spending
continues to reflect assumptions that may not be relevant to our
country's security needs. Though it is true that there have been cuts
made to the defense budget since the spending peak of the mid-1980s,
there is still room for additional savings.
A recent column in the Washington Post by Robert Borosage, director
of Campaign for New Priorities, noted that, in inflation-adjusted
dollars, the proposed Clinton defense budget is actually larger than
those under either Eisenhower or Ford, and a scant $2 billion less than
the Nixon administration budget, all at the height of the cold war.
Madam President, let me conclude by noting that the spending cuts
outlined in this conference report are only a minimum. Nothing in this
agreement will prevent us from going beyond the required spending cuts
to further reduce the deficit, and I look forward to working to find
additional savings.
This was the pattern last year. Under the leadership of people like
the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. Bumpers], we were able to find
significant additional spending cuts in the appropriations bills.
Beyond those individual efforts, I was particularly pleased with the
work done by the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey] and the Senator
from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry] in pulling together several Senators to
produce packages of spending cuts.
I was privileged to participate in both groups, and though the
proposals that stemmed from these two groups have not been adopted yet,
I am convinced that those efforts advanced the cause of deficit
reduction, and helped maintain momentum for a conference report that
goes beyond last year's deficit reduction package.
Thank you Madam President, I yield the floor.
Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, last year, the Congress passed, by the
narrowest of margins, a comprehensive budget plan proposed by President
Clinton. That plan was put forth as a blueprint for economic growth,
deficit reduction, and realignment of Government spending. In reality
what was enacted was the largest tax increase in history and
substantial reductions in defense spending.
That measure included an increase in the individual and corporate tax
rates; a fuel tax; a higher tax on Social Security benefits; new limits
on the deductions for certain business expenses; and a change in
withholding rates for bonuses and commission pay.
The budget resolution for fiscal year 1995 is more of the same. While
this budget resolution does not contain new tax proposals, the
administration frequently floats proposals for new taxes. In the past
few months we have heard suggestions for tax increases on tobacco
products, a gambling tax, taxes on annuities, and an ammunition tax.
What we do not hear is the President's campaign proposal for tax
relief.
The 1995 budget resolution is not a blueprint for reducing the
national debt. Under the budget plan, deficits continue to increase,
from $175 billion in 1995 to $197 billion in 1999. During this same
period the national debt, now nearly $4.5 trillion, grows to over $6
trillion.
With regard to Government spending, the trend is the same, increasing
over 20 percent during the 5-year budget period. There are some
categories of spending reductions, most notably in national defense. At
a time when the world is growing more dangerous, and demands on the
military are increasing, spending for defense has steadily declined.
This has resulted in substantial reductions in force levels, a decline
in readiness indicators, reduced funding for research and development,
cuts in procurements, and base closings. Furthermore, according to
Defense Department officials, the President's defense budget proposal
does not contain adequate resources to support requirements. A
significant shortfall of $20 billion was identified in the
administration's Bottom-Up Review. Additional reductions in
discretionary spending, $30.8 billion over 5 years, will have further
negative impacts on defense funding. Yet, while defense spending is
being reduced, entitlement spending is expected to increase over the 5-
year period by $5 billion.
The Senate was offered an alternative, which it unfortunately
rejected. The Republican alternative budget provided for tax relief,
deficit reduction, and responsible Government spending.
This body must get serious about cutting Federal spending by reducing
or eliminating funding of ineffective programs. If we are to have
sustained economic growth, Government spending must be significantly
reduced. A balanced budget amendment and line-item veto authority would
do much to bring about fiscal responsibility. I remind my colleagues
that earlier this year the Senate failed to pass the balanced budget
amendment.
Madam President, I cannot support the Clinton budget proposal because
it does not meet the needs of our national defense, it fails to control
entitlement spending, and increases the national debt.
Mr. MACK. Not enough. That is the message I am here to give today.
There simply are not enough spending cuts in this budget. No one should
be surprised by this. This congressional process is incapable of making
real substantive cuts.
While this bill contains minor reductions, I hardly believe it is
worth bragging about. The Senate passed a budget with reductions of $26
billion over 5 years. The conferees felt they would not be able to
retain any of this, but after being convinced the budget might not pass
without any reductions, reconsidered, and agreed to cut half the
amount.
My colleagues on the Appropriations Committee may feel hardpressed to
deal with this proposed reduction. Indeed, there are many worthwhile
competing programs. But the simple fact remains that no matter how
tough the decisions are, it is our responsibility to make them.
I know there will be a lot of back slapping over some $13 billion in
cuts over 5 years. But only $500 million of this reduction occurs in
fiscal year 1995. And remember, this is a mere $500 million out of a
$1.5 trillion budget. Simply put, this meager cut over 5 years
disappears in significance when we realize our deficit will grow by
$923 billion over the same 5-year period. Let me repeat, that is a $923
billion deficit versus the best effort of the Congress in achieving
cuts of only $13 billion.
I say again, there are not enough spending cuts. That is why I cannot
support this budget resolution.
It is painfully obvious that achieving a balanced budget is a job the
Congress cannot accomplish by itself. During the debate on the Senate
budget resolution, 56 of my colleagues voted with me in favor of
enacting a Spending Reduction Commission similar to the Base Closure
Commission. The legislation creating the Spending Reduction Commission
has been introduced as S. 1191.
Those who oppose this idea usually argue that Congress doesn't need
to form another commission to do what is a constitutional
responsibility of Congress. And that by pushing this responsibility off
on some commission, Congress is abdicating its constitutional charge to
make appropriations. But that just is not the case.
The Spending Reduction Commission would only be needed if Congress
fails to attain the spending cuts necessary to get to a balanced
budget. The most recent Congressional Budget Office analysis says we
need to get to cut $34 billion each year for the next 5 years to
achieve a balanced budget. If Congress makes those cuts through their
own budget process, the Commission never comes into play.
Moreover, during those years when the Congress only does part of the
job, the Commission only has to make up the difference. And again, it
is the responsibility of the Congress to either vote in favor or
against their recommendations. At no point does Congress abdicate its
power.
I ask my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring S. 1191, a summary of
which follows:
There being no objection, the summary was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Spending Reduction Commission
The Spending Reduction Commission take the best features of
the Gramm-Rudman deficit reduction plan, the Grace
Commission, and the Base Closure and Realignment Commission
to force Congress into making spending cuts to balance the
budget.
Gramm-Rudman was criticized primarily because the sequester
was a meat ax instrument that made across the board cuts
without discerning priorities. Critics said Gramm-Rudman
involved no rational thought, no choices. This Commission is
a 7 member body that will make choices and establish
priorities.
The Grace Commission failed because there was no mechanism
to enforce recommendations. The Spending Reduction Commission
has a specific enforcement mechanism that has been tested and
proven effective through the example of the Base Closure
Commission.
The Spending Reduction Commission, modeled after the Base
Closure Commission, therefore fuses the best features of
Gramm-Rudman and the Grace Commission. We simply extend the
model to governmentwide spending and add a mandated minimum
target of spending reductions the package must achieve.
CBO has affirmed that under current deficit projections $34
billion in spending cuts per year beginning in 1995 will
produce a balanced budget by the year 2000.
Despite numerous deficit reduction initiatives, Congress
has been unable to cut spending first. Remember the 1990
budget agreement? It was hailed as serious deficit reduction.
Since then, the deficit has soared, taxes have increased and
spending has continued to grow out of control.
It's a tragedy Congress can't cut spending, but it's a
reality. The Spending Reduction Commission will force
Congress into making the necessary spending cuts that has
long avoided.
The Spending Reduction Commission will work to achieve a
minimum of $34 billion in spending cuts each fiscal year
until a balanced budget is reached by targeting wasteful
spending based on criteria submitted by OMB. The Commission's
recommendations for savings will come before the Congress in
the form of nonamendable legislation for an up or down vote.
The timetable for the Commission will be as follows:
January 1.--The Director of OMB will publish the criteria
to be used in making recommendations for spending cuts.
January 15.--The President submits to the Congress seven
nominees for appointment, four jointly agreed to by the
majority and three jointly agreed to by the minority.
February 1.--OMB's criteria shall be used unless
disapproved by Congress on or before this date. Any
amendments to criteria must be transmitted in final form by
no later than February 1. Congress has until February 15 to
disapprove.
April 1.--The Director shall transmit to the Appropriations
and Budget Committees and to the Commission its
recommendations for spending cuts.
June 1.--The Director of the Congressional Budget Office
submits to the Congress and the Commission an analysis of the
Directors recommendations and selection process.
August 1.--Congress must have passed their reconciliation
bill. CBO will verify to the Commission whether Congress has
reached the prescribed level of real cuts. If so, the
Commission would not be obligated to send forward further
spending cut recommendations for that year. If the spending
reductions were substantial, yet still short of the
prescribed level, the Commission's minimum responsibility
would be to propose a package making up the difference. The
Commission's recommendations are not to include cuts in
social security.
August 15.--The Commission shall submit to the President
the Commission's recommendations.
Review by the President
September 1.--The President submits his approval or
disapproval to the Congress and the Commission.
(A) If approved, the President shall submit to the Congress
a certification of approval and legislative language
implementing such recommendations, including the
corresponding reduction in spending caps.
(B) If disapproved, the President shall submit to the
Congress and the Commission the reasons for that disapproval.
The Commission shall then transmit revised recommendations by
no later than September 5. The President has until September
10 to approve or the process is terminated.
Congressional Consideration
Such recommendations will be considered in the form of a
joint resolution. It will be a nonamendable privileged
motion. If not acted upon by September 30, then on that day
or the next day of session thereafter, the President Officer
will call up the resolution for a rollcall vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all time has expired
for debate on the conference report. The question is on agreeing to the
conference report.
Mr. SASSER. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference
report.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] is
absent because of illness.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
who desire to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 113 Leg.]
YEAS--53
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boren
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Campbell
Conrad
Daschle
DeConcini
Dodd
Dorgan
Exon
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Glenn
Graham
Harkin
Hatfield
Heflin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnston
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kohl
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mathews
Metzenbaum
Mikulski
Mitchell
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Pell
Pryor
Reid
Riegle
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Sasser
Simon
Wellstone
Wofford
NAYS--46
Bennett
Bond
Bradley
Brown
Burns
Chafee
Coats
Cochran
Cohen
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Danforth
Dole
Domenici
Durenberger
Faircloth
Gorton
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hatch
Helms
Hutchison
Kassebaum
Kempthorne
Kerry
Lautenberg
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Packwood
Pressler
Roth
Simpson
Smith
Specter
Stevens
Thurmond
Wallop
Warner
NOT VOTING--1
Shelby
So, the conference report on House Concurrent Resolution 218 was
agreed to.
Mr. SASSER. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. SARBANES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kerrey). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________