[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 145 (Friday, October 7, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 7, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
     STATEMENT ON THE APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS AND DEFICIT REDUCTION

  Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, last week we finished with the last of 
the appropriations bills. The appropriations process is always a 
difficult one and this year has been certainly no exception to the 
rule. In many respects, it is very difficult for a Member of Congress 
to vote for these bills, For, with the passage of these bills, we, the 
Congress, guarantee another year of deficit spending, another year when 
the total national debt increases.
  For some time, my concern has been growing about the deficit, about 
the overall level of national debt and the long-term liabilities that 
are created thereby. Not long ago, I commissioned a GAO report which 
articulated the dramatic implications of this debt. This GAO analysis 
predicted that continued deficits of the size experienced in the late 
1980's would, within one generation, reduce all of our real incomes by 
40 percent from what would be the case otherwise, 40 percent--an 
astounding figure.
  It was in part this analysis which led me to support last year's 
budget package as a necessary step. I thought the package would reduce 
the deficit significantly, and I believe it has. However, I also 
concluded that we had to go further in our attempts to cut spending. 
This conclusion led me to offer a series of amendments to 
appropriations bills which actually identified programs that I believed 
to be ineffective, overfunded, or unworthy of Federal support.

  Today, I would like to look briefly at the impact of that effort. I 
would use these experiences to make a point that our spending 
priorities are not locked in stone; that the Congress and the 
appropriations will respond to positive suggestions to cut spending; 
and that, sometimes, even when the votes are not there, the results 
are.
  Last year, I offered a series of amendments to cut what I believed to 
be necessary Federal spending and which the Senate responded to in five 
votes. Only one of the amendments was adopted by the Senate. Only one 
other received more than 40 votes. Not one amendment was supported by a 
majority of Republican Senators. Most of these spending cuts were 
defeated handily.
  While I might make the case that the single victory--which resulted 
in a savings of $10 million--made the overall effort worthwhile, few 
would normally conclude that this effort was a success. Indeed, most 
would interpret this experience as a cynical metaphor for a Congress 
that talks about restraint with no follow through, that reward a status 
quo of special interests and political pressure.

  Let me say that I think that view would be a serious mistake. On the 
contrary, when considered from the vantage point of a year later, I 
believe these amendments had and continue to have a significant impact 
on these programs and their share of Federal spending. Furthermore, I 
hope that this history provides a partial response to those both inside 
and outside the Senate who have found it easy to conclude that big 
spending habits cannot be broken.
  Mr. President, consider the amendments I proposed:
  Last year, I challenged the rationale for the Selective Service 
System. I argued it was out of date, ineffective, and too expensive. 
Since only 40 other Senators agreed with me, my position was not 
adopted. But I believe the effort did not fail. Last year, the 
administration requested $29 million for Selective Service. We gave 
them $25 million. This year, the VA/HUD bill allocates $20 million. The 
trend is obvious. By identifying the obvious inefficiencies in the 
Selective Service System, I believe that my failed amendment will 
result in savings year after year, for as long as Selective Service 
System is maintained.
  I also offered an amendment to delete $2.5 million in earmarked 
spending of Forest Service funding. The amendment lost badly. But that 
spending, which had been included year after year, is nowhere to be 
found in this year's appropriations bills. I think that is progress.

  I offered an amendment to cut $150 million for tactical transport 
aircraft for the Army National Guard. At the time, I noted that I found 
the spending interesting and odd, since neither the Army nor the Army 
Reserve had any aircraft of this type. The amendment lost. But that 
amendment spawned several investigations, both public and inside the 
Department of Defense. And, more importantly, there no funding for this 
equipment in this year's DOD bill.
  Last year, my amendment to shut down the Department of Energy's High 
Temperature Gas Reactor Program was one of very few spending cut 
proposals adopted by the Senate. In conference, the House funding level 
was accepted, and the program has continued. However, when you consider 
this year's appropriations language, you will find that the funded 
amount is about half of what was proposed last year. Last summer's 
amendment did not kill the program as I wished, but I believe it 
resulted in savings last year and savings that continue to accrue.
  My fifth amendment attempted to freeze spending on Federal water 
projects, saving some $300 million. This amendment never stood a 
chance. Nevertheless, in a year's time, the impossible becomes reality. 
This year's funding for these water projects is actually just below the 
spending level called for in my amendment.
  Mr. President, we all know that the budget has to be controlled, that 
we need to spend less and make Government more efficient. We make the 
speeches. We promise to do more, but seldom follow through. One reason, 
I believe, that we do not try to cut programs is because of the 
perception--backed up by some experience--that these efforts are 
doomed.
  I stand here today to refute that view. I urge my colleagues to look 
beyond the scoreboard and the win-loss percentage. We can adopt generic 
cut amendments such as the Exon-Grassley proposal to reduce 
discretionary spending. We need to pursue legislative reforms to the 
budget and appropriations process such as I have introduced this 
Congress. But, just as important, we cannot shy away from the need to 
create real, specific spending cut proposals to guide the Congress.

                          ____________________