[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 11, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S750-S751]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            A PLEDGE TO HELP

  Mr. CRAIG. Thank you, Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Texas 
for yielding for a few moments. I appreciate a portion of her time.
  Let me congratulate the Senator from Tennessee for a very clear 
message about why he came to Washington, reflective of the expectations 
of his constituency to respond to the issue of unfunded mandates. We 
will begin debate on that issue tomorrow, and it is exciting that my 
colleague, Dirk Kempthorne, is the champion of that issue as we begin 
to address why the American public is so frustrated over what we do 
here, and this is one of the most effective ways of curbing it.
  I also recognize my colleague from Colorado in his reintroduction of 
grazing law reform. I will join with him, and I have pledged, with my 
chairmanship of the Public Lands Committee of the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, that we will deal with this issue this year.
  I have also appreciated the cooperation of the Secretary of the 
Interior. We have had several discussions over the last couple of 
months as he brings forth new rules and regulations that he would not 
deal with grazing fees per se and that he would offer some flexibility 
so that the authorizing committee could respond to the grazing industry 
and other interests out there that are concerned about the management 
of our public grass lands and how they will be grazed and under what 
policy they will be grazed.
  For the balance of my brief time, let me suggest that there is a 
tactic underway, Mr. President, that while it may appear to be well 
directed, in my opinion, it is tremendously misguided. That is a tactic 
being used by the Democrat leadership at this moment to try to refocus 
the whole debate on a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution. 
There is that old adage that when you are out in the swamp surrounded 
by alligators, you are forgetting your initial purpose to come to the 
swamp was to drain it. That is exactly the tactic being used at this 
moment by the Democratic leadership in both Houses, to say: ``For the 
next 7 years tell us every budget cut you are going to make. Let us be 
specific right down to the detail. What are you going to cut, and how 
are you going to cut the budget to arrive at a $1.3 billion reduction 
in the budget to get to a balanced budget by 2002?''
  That is phony. It is just as phony as can be to play that kind of 
game. What we have to talk about here is what we want to do first and 
how we want to do it, and then let us proceed down a path that will 
yield a balanced budget by the year 2002.
   [[Page S751]] Mr. SIMON. Will my colleague yield for a question?
  Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. SIMON. I commend the Senator for his comments. If the demands of 
those of us who favor a balanced budget amendment spell out how we do 
it, they are always making speeches how you can balance the budget 
without a constitutional amendment. It seems to me that it is incumbent 
on them to spell this out also. Is that being unrealistic?
  Mr. CRAIG. Well, to my colleague from the other side, and one of the 
primary sponsors of the balanced budget amendment, it would not be 
unrealistic. But what is realistic to talk about is the very thing that 
all of us know who focus on the balanced budget amendment. And how we 
get there by the year 2002 is a simple matter--although complicated and 
very tough to do--of reducing the growth rate of Federal budgets from 
about 5 percent to about 3 percent. When the American public hears 
that, they say to a Senator Simon of Illinois or a Senator Craig of 
Idaho, that sounds immensely reasonable. While it may be tough to do, 
it is a heck of a lot more reasonable to understand that is the kind of 
approach we are talking about. Then, apparently, the game plan, or the 
threat, there is the impending damage that could come from that kind of 
language that would suggest we have to cut $1.3 trillion from budgets. 
What we could also say is that if we do not have a balanced budget 
amendment, by the year 2002 the Federal budget will be $1.3 trillion 
larger, or that the Federal deficit will be $500 or $600 billion 
annually, or that the Federal debt will be $6 or $7 trillion, or that 
interest on the debt will be $400 billion annualized.
  That is not at all what they are talking about. Instead of talking 
about the kind of positive things that can grow and emanate from a 
balanced budget, they are talking about all of the negatives.
  The American public knows exactly what we are saying and they are 
saying very clearly back to us: Do not get weak-kneed. Balance the 
Federal budget. Produce the mechanism that will result in that and give 
us a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that will force the 
kind of fiscal discipline that this Congress has failed to respond to 
for now over three decades.
  Mr. President, this 104th Congress is considering a historic and 
remarkable balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Some partisan 
sparring broke out over the last few days. That's unfortunate.
  Democrats have been asking Republicans, ``Where's your plan?'' 
specifically showing how to balance the budget by 2002?
  Let us stay focused on the central issue. Which do we want: Balanced 
budgets or the status quo? Which do we want: An issue? Or passage of 
the balanced budget amendment? We know which is better for the country.
  Let us remember what has brought us to this point: $4.7 trillion 
Federal debt; annual deficits now in the $160 billion range; and 
deficits projected to shoot toward $400 billion after the turn of the 
century.
  Let us stay above partisanship. Some of my friends on the other side 
of the aisle sincerely support the balanced budget amendment but also 
are demanding to know specific budget cuts. I sympathize with your 
frustration; but don't be distracted.
  Do not be fooled by a partisan tactics on the part of balanced budget 
amendment opponents to simply kill this amendment at any cost. Do not 
fall into that some old trap of trying to score a partisan point today 
at the cost of our children's economic well-being tomorrow. That is 
exactly the kind of shortsighted trade-off we're trying to stop by 
passing the balanced budget amendment.
  The balanced budget amendment began as a bipartisan effort. Let us 
keep it that way.
  Where are the specific cuts? There are literally hundreds of plans 
out there; there's no one way to balance the budget. What's lacking is 
some mechanism to force a consensus. There may be 100 plans in the 
Senate for balancing the budget, but not one of them will get 51 votes 
until we remove the easy alternative of borrow-and-spend.
  Lessons of History: We have had the specific plans before us in the 
past. The way Congress has treated them demonstrates why we need to the 
balanced budget amendment. In the past, one/both Houses defeated 
numerous deficit-reduction plans full of specifics. Most recently, and 
in a bipartisan effort: Kerrey-Brown rescission/entitlement reform 
package (1994) (Penny-Kasich in the House, 1993).
  ``Draconian'' budget cuts required? Contrary to what's being said, we 
know the direction we have to go, and how to get there. For example: 
``Glide Path'' Plan: Federal spending is increasing now at about 5 
percent, or about $75 billion per year. Simply trimming that growth in 
spending to 3.1 percent would balance the budget in fiscal year 2002. 
For those concerned about Social Security: We can trim the growth of 
non-Social Security spending to 2.4 percent and still balance the 
budget by 2002. This will require discipline, but it is a far cry from 
the doom and gloom scenario being portrayed by many opponents.
  Name every budget cut in advance? Opponents of this proposal want it 
both ways. First they say, show them how we would cut the budget. Next 
they say balancing the budget by 2002 would be too painful.
  But this tactic proves our point: The budget won't be balanced 
without passing the BBA first. Democrats want our plan, but where has 
the Democrat plan been? President Clinton did not propose a path to a 
balanced budget--current projections show deficits going way up after 
1995.
  Bad Policy, putting the cart before the horse: When people decide 
they want to be healthier and live longer, they don't plan every meal 
and every workout for the next year. First they commit to do whatever 
is necessary. Then they pick the specific diet and exercise plan. The 
high failure rate for dieters illustrates our point that external 
enforcement is necessary. Specifying all the cuts before we even commit 
to balancing the budget condemns us to failure before we start.
  Will the BBA work or won't it? Opponents cannot have it both ways: 
First, they say it is a fig leaf to cover budget failures in previous 
Congresses, that it's an empty promise; then they talk in terms of 
``slash and burn'' to scare the interest groups into active opposition; 
I think they really do fear this amendment will work and are not 
willing to share the responsibilities.
  Mr. President, I yield back to the Senator from Texas, and I thank 
her for sharing with me some of her time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mrs. Hutchison pertaining to the introduction of S. 
191 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Iowa [Mr. Harkin], is recognized to speak for up to 20 minutes.

                          ____________________