[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 14, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S2596]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         CONCERN ABOUT CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE APPOINTMENT

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank my 
colleague, Senator Dorgan, as well. I think this is a very serious 
matter. The appointment of the head of the Congressional Budget Office 
is supposed to be nonpartisan. This is supposed to be done with both 
sides working together.
  For the first time since I have been in the U.S. Senate, that is not 
what is occurring. Instead, the majority has decided they are going to 
put in the scorekeeper, the person who makes the forecast for the 
Federal Government, for the Government of the United States, and they 
are doing so on what appears to be partisan basis. That is a break from 
the past; that is a break from tradition; that is a break from what the 
law provides.
  Mr. President, I think this is a very serious matter. If we are going 
to work collegially, if we are going to cooperate, if we are going to 
work together, then there has to be a basis of trust. Always in the 
past, part of that basis of trust is the person who is made the head of 
the Congressional Budget Office is somebody of very high professional 
standards, someone who is above being considered partisan.
  I can say, in terms of the Democrats, since I have been here, they 
have had Bob Reischauer, Rudy Penner, Alice Rivlin, all of them broadly 
respected, all of them above partisanship. As a matter of fact, I 
cannot remember a concern that has been raised by the majority side 
while I have been in the Senate about CBO scoring on partisan basis.
  But now, Mr. President, the majority has decided to impose on the 
Congress their choice, without the kind of agreement, without the kind 
of consultation, without the kind of, I think, nonpartisan working 
together that this position requires. And so, Mr. President, what is at 
stake? I can say that I am on the Budget Committee and the Finance 
Committee, and we are very dependent on what the Congressional Budget 
Office says the results of policies will be.
  We now have before us someone, frankly, who does not have a national 
reputation, someone who is not of the stature that one would expect of 
someone appointed to be the head of CBO. And even more disturbing than 
that is that this is someone who has indicated they are willing to 
consider so-called dynamic scoring.
  Well, what is dynamic scoring? It is largely make-believe. It is 
make-believe. It says if you cut taxes, you get more money. We tried 
that back in the 1980's in this country, and it was an absolute 
unmitigated disaster for this country. We saw people saying we could 
cut taxes, we can increase spending, and somehow it would all add up. 
It did not add up. It did not come close to adding up.
  Instead of adding up, we got an explosion of the national debt; we 
got an explosion of deficits that have put this country in a deep hole 
that we have yet to climb out of and now it appears we are about to 
repeat the exercise.
  I understand that this is a matter that should be handled in a 
different way. The appointment of the head of the Congressional Budget 
Office ought to be done together, both sides putting someone in place 
who is of the highest professional reputation, of the highest 
professional standards, and someone who both sides recognize will not 
do forecasts in a partisan, political manner. Unfortunately, Mr. 
President, that is not the suggestion for an appointment that we have 
before us.
  I have joined my colleague from North Dakota in asking the President 
pro tempore that he not go forward with this appointment until and 
unless there is broad bipartisan agreement with respect to the 
appointment.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is their objection to the unanimous consent 
request?
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--and I do not 
object to the Senator's additional 2 minutes--let me amend that to add 
3 minutes for the Senator from Montana and that this additional 5 
minutes does not come off from the total time agreed upon for the Boxer 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, I just want to make sure 
that the vote would now be 5 minutes later, or at 3:35. If that is part 
of the agreement, that is fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would observe that would be 3:37.
  Is there objection? Hearing none, the Senator from North Dakota is 
recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me simply underscore, in my 2 minutes 
remaining, the point that Senator Conrad just made. We are asking the 
President pro tempore of the Senate to withhold action on this 
appointment, to withhold action on this appointment to give the Senate 
and other Senators time to get some answers about this candidate.
  We are not talking about just any appointment or a run-of-the-mill 
appointment or some general candidate being appointed to some office or 
another. The CBO Director is the referee who will score every economic 
decision, every financial judgment that will be made on legislation. 
And when they pick a referee--when I say ``they,'' those who have 
effected this, the congressional majority--when they pick a referee who 
gives me the impression that this referee is on the home team, then I 
say, ``Wait a second. That is not the kind of game we play.''
  We have very aggressive games around here that are played for real 
and for big stakes. We need to have referees who are fair and impartial 
and who do not owe their allegiance to either side.
  This appointment is not--it is not--in the genre of an appointment of 
Mr. Reischauer or Mr. Rudy Penner, as an example, both of whom would be 
considered to have been generally nonpartisan and very well qualified. 
This appointment falls short on that.
  And my interest is not in tarnishing this person. I do not know the 
person. But, based on what I have read, I certainly want to find out 
more about the person before this Senate would decide that this person 
shall become our referee.
  That is the purpose of our making this request to the President pro 
tempore. I hope he and the majority would honor that request so that we 
can understand more about this candidate. And if this candidate does 
not meet the test of fairness, does not meet the qualifications test, 
then I think we ought to find someone who does and who would be 
acceptable on a bipartisan basis to this body. That I think is the fair 
way for us to proceed. I hope the President pro tempore will agree.
  Mr. President, with that I yield the floor.
  Mr. BURNS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.

                          ____________________