[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 59 (Friday, May 13, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                                 NOTICE

  The remarks of Mr. LOTT in the Record of May 11, 1994, beginning on 
page S5507, relative to his views on the Budget Conference Report, 
contained inadvertent errors. The permanent Record will reflect the 
following correct statement.
  Mr. LOTT. There is no question that in this budget resolution we have 
before us the deficit projections are lower, but are they real? First 
of all, we still have large deficits. But second, I question whether or 
not this is a real, honest budget projection. What is alarming about 
the projections that we have here is that they do not include funding 
for health care. We have heard Chairman Danny Rostenkowski, chairman of 
the Ways and Means Committee in the House, saying the health care 
reform package could cost $40 billion or more. He has suggested not 
once, but repeatedly, that what we need is a new, broad-based tax 
increase to pay for it. But even the President has indicated he 
probably does not want to go along with that, although he did not 
reject the idea of a new broad-based tax increase completely. He just 
said he did not think it would be necessary for health care reform.
  If we do not have the tax increases and we have a health care plan 
passed this year that costs $40 billion, clearly, it would add to the 
deficit. We do not know what that is going to be yet, and I know it is 
hard to project that.
  Additionally, welfare reform is not included. Obviously, welfare 
reform is something we should try to do this year; we need a more 
responsible program. Many of the crime initiatives are not provided for 
in this budget resolution. We are probably going to adopt a major new 
crime conference report this year, and there are going to be costs 
associated with it. Many of these costs are not included in these 
budget projections before us.
  Furthermore, there are no funds for GATT or for Superfund. There is 
also a significant Bottom-Up Review shortfall for the defense of the 
country, and there is no provision for that. We have unfortunately 
experienced a lot of natural disasters recently. While the Federal 
Government has repeatedly offered financial assistance, this budget 
contains no provision for disaster relief.
  I have named a number of major programs that are going to have 
increased costs this year that are not included in these projections. 
So if, in fact, the deficit is projected in this budget to be between 
$175 billion and $200 billion in the next fiscal year, in reality it 
will probably be considerably higher.
  The estimates are that the Federal deficit will decline to an 
estimated $175 billion in 1995, remain unchanged at about $174 billion 
in 1996, and then trend upward to nearly $200 billion, in 1999 under 
the assumptions of this resolution.
  The debt, by the end of fiscal year 1993, was $4.4 trillion. By 1999, 
it will be $6.3 trillion. So for the fiscal years 1994 through 1999, 
the projected growth in the national debt is $1.954 trillion.
  In addition to that, interest rates are continuing to rise. The 
Government's interest rates, and their payments on this debt, will 
increase, raising the deficit and the debt even higher. In fact, the 
gross interest on the debt in fiscal year 1994 is approximately $300 
billion; in fiscal year 1995, it will increase to $311.8 billion.
  So under this budget resolution that is praised for holding down the 
level of increase in the deficit, the fact of the matter is the deficit 
continues to go up and, therefore, the debt goes up every year. So you 
can see what will happen by the end of this decade: There is a steady 
increase every year in the debt and, therefore, of course, the interest 
we pay on that national debt. The red line on this chart tells the 
story, and that is why this budget resolution does not accomplish 
nearly what it should.
  Let me go back and make out some of the points that need to be, I 
think, emphasized as to why this conference report is not the right 
thing to do.
  Spending will grow by 2.4 percent between fiscal years 1994 and 1995 
to $1.5 trillion. The problem is we only have $1.3 trillion in revenue 
estimated to be coming in. So you have the $200 billion gap there.
  When the resolution was considered by the full Senate, we passed the 
Exon-Grassley amendment. It was adopted by the Senate, and it would 
have cut discretionary spending outlays by $26 billion over 5 years. 
You would have thought we were trying to just destroy the Federal 
budget with that amount of additional cuts.
  So, in conference, that was reduced to $13 billion. This is only 0.15 
percent of the total outlays. So the Exon-Grassley amendment just made 
a little bitty scratch on the surface of trying to control spending. 
And I emphasize again, the problem is not insufficient revenue--we have 
$1.3 trillion in revenue--the problem is still too much spending.
  On the discretionary side, the budget increases funding for the Legal 
Services Corporation by 26 percent. It increases funding for the Civil 
Rights Division of the Justice Department by 32.3 percent. It also 
increases funding for the Environmental Law Division at the Justice 
Department by 15.3 percent.
  I acknowledge, as many of the appropriators point out, that the 
deficit is not caused just by domestic discretionary spending. Much of 
it is driven by entitlement increases. But I do feel that we should 
have maintained the Exon-Grassley cuts, and we should not be adding new 
programs.
  As a matter of fact, this budget resolution adds new entitlements. So 
while we say we are trying to control spending--and much of the problem 
is in the entitlement areas--we still find entitlement programs are 
being added. This budget assumes entitlement spending increases of over 
$5 billion relative to the CBO baseline, including additional spending 
for the agriculture crop insurance program, and others.
  So you have significant increases in some of the discretionary 
programs, new entitlement programs, and increases in a number of old 
entitlement programs.
  Another point that should be emphasized about this budget resolution 
is that taxes also go up. There will be an increase, a growth in taxes 
from $1.338 trillion in fiscal year 1995 to $1.630 trillion in fiscal 
year 1999; a 7 percent increase in taxes.
  I want to emphasize with regard to the Exon-Grassley amendment, this 
language should not be applied to defense. Defense has already been cut 
too much, and that point has been raised by the distinguished Senator 
from New Mexico, by the chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the 
Senate, by the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in 
the House, Chairman Murtha.
  The real decisions on the defense budget will likely be made through 
the appropriations bills. The President made a pledge not to cut 
defense below the request he had made. As a matter of fact, if the cuts 
of Exon-Grassley are applied or disproportionately applied to defense, 
certainly that would bring the number down to below what the President 
asked for. I assume the President will resist that very aggressively. 
If the cuts do not come from defense, defense spending will still 
decline from $270.7 billion in fiscal year 1995 to $257.6 billion in 
fiscal year 1999. The President's 1995 request is 35 percent below the 
1985 level and represents the 10th straight year of real cuts to 
defense budget authority.
  There is another thing I found very interesting in this conference 
report. It includes a provision that increases funding in excess of the 
fiscal year 1999 discretionary spending caps for IRS compliance 
initiatives, $405 million in BA and outlay beyond the caps in fiscal 
year 1995. Paying for a program ``off-budget'' under the claim it will 
save money, in my opinion, is certainly a dangerous precedent.
  One thing we do not need is additional IRS agents. It is maintained 
that if we increase the number of IRS agents, we will get more money, 
but this has not been proven true. The IRS has seen an increase of over 
40,000 full-time equivalents since 1982, roughly a 33 percent increase. 
The conference report could constitute an increase of IRS personnel of 
another 4 percent. I really question this procedure and also what 
results we are going to get. I assure you, if you ask the American 
people if they would support the idea of more IRS agents, they would 
strenuously object to it.
  While I do not believe any more IRS agents should be hired period, 
there is no reason that this provision could not have been included in 
the President's budget. We should not pass it ``off- budget.''
  Finally, this particular budget resolution does not contain any 
economic growth incentives, which is the only way to create real, 
lasting jobs. We debated that during the earlier Senate debate on the 
budget resolution. We proposed a $500 tax credit for children and 
incentives for individual retirement accounts. There were many 
provisions in there that would have provided growth incentives and 
created some jobs, but there is nothing in this budget resolution that 
would really help to stimulate the economy.
  The conference report also includes 12 reserve funds. While these 
sound good because they require legislation be paid for, they basically 
pave the way for tax increases.
  You say, how could that be? It is because reserve funds essentially 
exempt legislation that increases taxes to pay for higher spending from 
Budget Act points of order. I think this is a very dangerous procedure 
also. I do think it is a guarantee of one way that more taxes will be 
raised and, therefore, more money spent.
  So there are many problems with this budget resolution. I note that 
in several instances this budget resolution is above what the President 
has asked. It seems that we should at least stay within or under what 
the President has asked. In international affairs, it is above what 
President Clinton has asked.
  I also note that in the energy function, the conference report 
includes $1.6 billion in budget authority and 1.4 billion in outlays 
above what the President has asked. I do not know to exactly what these 
increases would be applied. It may be for good purposes, and I might 
even be inclined to support them. But I do think as a general rule we 
should at least hold spending down to under what the President has 
asked.
  So, Madam President, I will vote against this budget resolution. I 
think there are many problems with it. And if you call this honesty in 
budgeting, I have to say I really have reservations about it because I 
think it is going to lead to tax increases, new entitlements, and more 
spending. I do not think the American people want that in their budget 
resolution.
  I yield the floor, Madam President.

                          ____________________