[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 64 (Thursday, April 6, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5283-S5286]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                BUDGET BALANCING IS A THREE-STEP PROCESS

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wanted to comment on two things, one which 
has just occurred and one which is about to occur, I hope. We know that 
last night the House of Representatives passed historic tax relief for 
the American people. I want to address that for a moment.
  Second, we know there have been discussions between the majority and 
minority leader on an attempt to reach an agreement on a rescissions 
package which we could conclude before the Easter recess.
  Mr. President, the House of Representatives adopted a rescissions 
package of about $17 billion and the Senate has been working on a 
package somewhat less than that. It is our hope between the majority 
and minority we can come to an agreement on a package which would 
represent our effort to meet the House, if not precisely their figure, 
at least something close to it so that as the House and Senate take the 
recess during the Eastertime, our constituents back home would know 
that both the House and Senate were serious about saving money.
  Mr. President, during the last campaign, as I was running for this 
office, people asked me what it would take to balance the budget? I 
said it is a three-step process.
  The first thing we can do is immediately try to save some of the 
money that the Congress has already appropriated. We know that every 
year there is money appropriated that really cannot be spent very 
effectively. If we could make a head start on balancing the budget by 
just saving some of that money for next year, it would demonstrate our 
commitment to a long-term goal of balancing the budget.
  That is what the rescission package is about. I will come back to 
that in a moment. The second step, of course, is the decisions that we 
make throughout the year for that year's budget. The third step, of 
course, is the long-term balancing of the budget process which I have 
contended can only be done effectively through the adoption of the 
balanced budget amendment, because without the discipline of the 
constitutional requirement to balance the budget I have always felt it 
doubtful Congress would actually develop the willpower and the 
commitment to see that difficult project through.
  Those are really the three steps that I articulate.
  In the second step, what I had said was each month throughout the 
legislative year we deal with legislation that spends money. We can 
make the conscious decision not to spend as much, to limit Federal 
spending. When it comes time to appropriate the funds, we can set 
priorities and we can end passing appropriations bills that limit the 
growth in Federal spending.
  Mr. President, we have heard the figures that if we adopt a tax 
relief plan for the American people we can still balance the Federal 
budget by the year 2002 if we limit growth in Federal spending to 2 
percent a year. We are not talking about draconian cuts, but talking 
about limiting the growth in spending.
  So the first step is to try to save money that we do not have to 
spend next year through a rescissions bill. The second step is to make 
the tough additions each week, each month, as this year goes by, as we 
pass the appropriations bills, to spend less money than we had 
anticipated spending.
  If we do that each year for 7 years, we will have achieved a balanced 
budget by the year 2002, without the need for a constitutional 
amendment.
  We know that would provide more discipline, would give the Congress a 
better ability to control spending, but we will deal with the issue of 
the constitutional amendment later this year and probably next year.
  Let me go back to the first of those three steps, the rescission 
package, because that is what has been before the Senate for the past 
week.
  The idea of rescissions--not a term that the American people would 
necessarily relate to--but the idea of rescissions is to simply not 
spend money that we counted on spending, because we really do not have 
to spend it.
  Here is an example: We appropriate money to the General Services 
Administration to build a building. We say it will cost $2 million, so 
here is the money for it. GSA lets out the bids but none of the 
companies that would bid on it gives the GSA a bid they want to accept. 
The bids do not supply the right kind of construction or architect or 
something.
  So the GSA does not let the bids for the contract, so the contract is 
delayed a year. That $2 million which has been appropriated for next 
year, really, cannot efficiently be spent next year. The construction 
project on which it was supposed to be spent cannot be built.
  Why should we force the GSA to spend that money on something? We can 
rescind the money. We can call that money back, and save it for this 
year, and either decide to apply it to deficit reduction or apply it to 
some other expenditure for next year.
  There are a lot of different programs that we have been talking about 
rescinding money in. The net result has been an agreement that 
somewhere between $13 or $14 billion and $17 billion, we can save the 
American people--taxpayers--that much money in this coming fiscal year 
because we really do not need to spend that money even though the money 
has been authorized to be spent.
  Now we have had some disagreements in the Senate about whether we 
should agree to the House level of $17 billion. There has been some 
disagreement between the Democrats and Republicans as to where to save 
that money.
  I am hopeful that within a few minutes the majority and the minority 
leader will announce an agreement which represents not totally a 
Republican view or a Democratic view but a view that both share, that 
we need to save as much money as possible.
  While it will not get to the $17 billion level that the House of 
Representatives has adopted, it will be close to that. It will be in 
the range of $16 billion, I hope, and that we will then be able to 
quickly adopt that rescissions package, go into conference with the 
House so that as soon as we return from the Easter recess we can send 
to the President savings of between $16 and $17 billion.
  Some people have said, why are we taking time to deal with that 
problem when we have a much bigger problem of developing a budget of 
over $1 trillion? Beginning the process of reducing Federal spending 
over a period of 7 years to reach a balanced budget, perhaps in the 
order of magnitude of $1 trillion over the 7-year period.
  What is $17 billion? Well, we have all quoted Everett Dirksen, who 
use to speak in this Chamber, and who made famous ``A billion here and 
a billion there, pretty soon you are talking real money.'' To the 
American people, $17 billion is a lot of money, and it is a very good 
downpayment on the savings that we have to make in the future.
  Because of the consternation I have seen expressed on the floor here 
about some of the savings even within the $17 billion package, it makes 
it clear to me that it will be a very hard process if we cannot agree 
to some of the things that are in the $16 or $17 billion package, how 
will we agree to something 10 times greater than that or 100 times 
greater than that?
  Clearly, we have to start from the bottom up. Each program has to be 
prioritized, and we have to try and find savings everywhere we can. In 
each line of that Federal budget, there is something to be saved. When 
we add it all up, it adds up to big dollars.
  If we only look to the big programs, then we are forced to look at 
things like Social Security and Medicare and defense. Frankly, most 
Senators understand that there is much about those programs which 
precludes the Senate from making the huge savings that would have to be 
made there if we ignore the smaller programs.
  It is important to start at a level of rescissions. I am very, very 
hopeful that within a few minutes our leadership will indicate an 
agreement on a 
[[Page S5284]] rescissions package of $16 to $17 billion that we can 
adopt, and begin this process of balancing the Federal budget.
  Just one more comment, since I see the Senator from Alaska is here 
and wishes to speak. I wanted to comment on what the House of 
Representatives did last night. It was historic, Mr. President. Never 
in the history of the country has a body as the House of 
Representatives in less than 100 days adopted the sweeping legislation 
that the House of Representatives has now adopted. Nine out of the 10 
points in the Republican Contract With America were adopted, concluding 
last night with the historic $180 billion-plus tax cut for the American 
people. A tax cut which guarantees not to cost in terms of the deficit 
but has added to the deficit reduction planning.
  In other words, the House committed to reducing the Federal budget 
deficit and achieving a balanced budget by the year 2002, and in 
addition, providing for $180 billion in tax cuts for the American 
people.
  This is in keeping with the commitment that many made in the last 
election to our constituents and to the desires of the American people 
expressed to Members in the last election.
  I want to commend the House of Representatives and all of the people 
there who thought it important enough not only to express the intention 
to balance the budget but also to allow American families to keep more 
of what they earn and to allow American businesses to generate the 
capital, to create the jobs to employ the people, to create the kind of 
employment that we know is necessary to bring people out of poverty and 
create a high standard of living for working Americans, for all of 
middle America.
  This is an important commitment that needed to be kept. And it is up 
to the Senate, after we return from the Easter recess, to follow 
through on our part of that commitment. Our tax cut program may not be 
precisely what the House program was. It might be a little bit less, in 
terms of money. We know that there is a little bit different point of 
view here.
  I, for one, would be happy to adopt every penny of the tax cuts 
adopted by the House of Representatives. To me, every one of them is 
justified and I will be urging that we do that here on the Senate 
floor. But even if it is not exactly identical, I think we can be proud 
and we can go back to the American people and say we kept our promises 
to you, we kept our commitment, if we are able to adopt a program of 
tax relief that is close to what the House adopted last night.
  I think it is important for us in the Senate to say to our colleagues 
in the House, ``Job well done. You did what you promised you would do. 
You set the stage for us to come in behind you and to finish the job 
and we are committed to doing that when we return from this Easter 
recess.''
  I think, as we prepare to go back and spend time with our 
constituents, much has been achieved. We should be prepared to talk 
about that. But most important--most important we should be prepared to 
listen to our constituents when we go home now, to listen for 3 weeks 
to what they have to tell us. Have we been doing the right thing? Do 
you want us to continue on this path? My guess is, when we come back, 
we will be energized with the spirit of our constituents telling us to 
carry on, keep on with that fight, balance the Federal budget, save 
this money in rescissions and provide tax relief for American families. 
I think that will be their message to us. I cannot wait to get back and 
hear it.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Faircloth). The Senator from Alaska is 
recognized.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, let me commend my colleague and a 
number of the freshman Senators for their initiative in pursuing 
appropriate action relative to cutting Federal spending. While I have 
been around here a little longer than they have, I think their energy 
and commitment is to be recognized, and I think the spirit of 
leadership in relationship to the tough decisions that have to be made 
are certainly evidenced in this new group that has joined our 
membership.
  I believe we are in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Technically, we have before us H.R. 1158, FEMA 
supplemental appropriations.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask that I may extend my remarks concerning an 
invitation to allow the President of Taiwan to visit the United States. 
I assume under the rescission package before us, unanimous consent 
would be sufficient?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I had intended to offer an amendment to 
the rescission package which would express the sense of the Congress 
that the President of Taiwan, Lee Teng-hui, be allowed to visit the 
United States.
  It is my understanding it is unlikely that I will have an opportunity 
to offer such an amendment. But I intend, at an appropriate time in the 
near future to offer the amendment to another vehicle and request an up 
or down vote.
  The amendment I intended to offer would have been identical to Senate 
Concurrent Resolution 9, which has 52 bipartisan cosponsors, including, 
I am proud to say, both the majority and minority leaders of this body. 
Senate Concurrent Resolution 9 passed the Foreign Relations Committee 
unanimously 2 weeks ago.
  Specifically, that resolution calls on our President to allow 
President Lee of Taiwan to come to the United States, not on a state 
visit but on a private visit. It is an identical resolution to House 
Concurrent Resolution 33, which was introduced in the House by 
Congressmen Lantos of California, Solomon of New York, and Torricelli 
of New Jersey. It passed the House International Relations Committee 
yesterday, I am told, by a vote of 33 to 0.
  Obviously, the support is there. I hope the State Department will be 
sensitive to the recommendations of the Congress.
  We have a rather interesting situation with regard to our relations 
with Taiwan, as well as China, but clearly we should not allow the 
People's Republic of China to dictate who can visit the United States. 
Again, we are not talking about an official state visit; we are talking 
about allowing President Lee to make a private visit. He has received 
two invitations that the Senator from Alaska is aware of. One is to 
come visit his alma mater, Cornell University, where he has been asked 
to make an address. Further, he has been extended an invitation to the 
U.S.-ROC Economic Council Conference. This is an organization whose 
purpose is to promote trade and commerce between Taiwan and the United 
States. That organization will be meeting in Anchorage, AK, my home 
State, in September.
  In both instances, the State Department has discouraged the issuance 
of these invitations and implied that they would not look favorably on 
a request for a visa.
  That is offensive to this Senator. The suggestion of the State 
Department is that allowing President Lee to visit the United States 
would upset relations with the People's Republic of China. I think we 
have to recognize the gigantic strides that have been made by Taiwan 
over the years. They ended their martial law. They have initiated free 
and fair elections. They have a very vocal press. Human rights have 
steadily improved. They have the development of a strong second party. 
And Taiwan ultimately is a friendly, democratic, stable, and prosperous 
nation. They are the 5th largest trading partner of the United States, 
and the world's 13th. They buy twice as much from the United States as 
the People's Republic of China. They are among the holders of the 
largest foreign reserves of any country. They contribute to 
international causes.
  But our country continues to give a cold shoulder to the leader of 
Taiwan, President Lee. It went so far that last May in Hawaii when 
President Lee was in transit from Taiwan to Central America, the State 
Department refused to allow President Lee an overnight visit. The State 
Department continues to indicate that a private visit will not be 
allowed. They suggest that the United States would allow transient 
stops. That means perhaps the airplane can stop for refueling and 
President Lee would be allowed to get off and perhaps spend the night.
  One of the inconsistencies I would like to bring out--and this came 
up on a recent trip I made to both Taiwan and Beijing--is the expanding 
relationship between Taiwan and the People's 
[[Page S5285]] Republic of China. I learned of an organization called 
the Association for Relations Across Taiwan Straits. That is the 
organization in Beijing. On the Taiwanese side, there is the 
organization called the Mainland Affairs Council.
  Although the People's Republic of China is telling the United States 
not to have any relations with Taiwan because it would offend the 
People's Republic of China, there is a relationship between Taiwan and 
the People's Republic of China through these two organizations that 
have been established and that meet regularly. The Association for 
Relations Across Taiwan Straits and The Mainland Affairs Council talk 
about everything but politics. They talk about trade, they talk about 
commerce, they talk about hijacking.
  I think it is fair to say the Chinese business men and women are 
among the best in the world. They are motivated, obviously, by the 
opportunity for trade and commerce. So they are discussing between them 
matters of interest and matters that are beneficial to both. They have 
even announced proposals for direct shipping from Taiwan to the 
southern provinces in China that would bypass Hong Kong.
  Here we have a situation of inconsistency, and it is beyond this 
Senator to understand how the State Department can overlook that. Trade 
and commerce is flourishing between Taiwan and the People's Republic of 
China, yet the People's Republic of China dictates to us that we cannot 
extend a private visit to the President of Taiwan.
  I have a great respect and fondness for their representatives.
  I know the Ambassador. I have had the pleasure of meeting Chairman 
Deng. But the People's Republic of China bellows about virtually 
everything that we do-- United States pressure at the United Nations on 
human rights, world trade organization membership and anything we do 
with regard to Taiwan. That is the litany. It is expected. We should 
recognize it for what it is. But we should not be dictated by the terms 
and conditions which they mandate.
  In my opinion, in the end the People's Republic of China will make 
calculations about when and what to risk with regard to their 
philosophy of doing business and participating in our markets. We 
should simply do the same.
  There is precedent for a visit by Lee. I will be specific. This 
administration has welcomed other unofficial leaders to the United 
States. The Dalai Lama called on Vice President Gore over the 
objections from the People's Republic of China. Yasser Arafat came to 
the White House ceremony. He was once referred to as a supporter of 
terrorism. Gerry Adams has been granted numerous visas over Great 
Britain's objection. In each case the administration, I think, made the 
correct choice to allow us to advance American goals. President Lee's 
visit would do the same.
  I would also call my colleagues' attention to the extended debates we 
have had in this body about most-favored-nation status for China. I 
have supported MFN for China, and most of my colleagues have also 
supported it under the premise that engagement helps bring about 
change. We can bring about greater recognition on human rights if we 
establish a dialog, open trade, and commerce. So we apply it to China. 
But with regard to Taiwan, we will not even invite the President of the 
Republic of China on Taiwan for a visit to the United States. This is a 
private visit. We are not talking about a state visit.
  By the number of supporters on the amendment, 52 bipartisan 
cosponsors, the State Department should get the message of the 
prevailing attitude in this body. As I said when I started, I am not 
going to have an opportunity to offer this as an amendment before this 
body on the rescissions package. But I intend to bring it up later for 
an up-down vote because that is perhaps the only way the State 
Department can understand the prevailing attitude.
  Finally, the U.S.-ROC Economic Council conference is to be held in 
Anchorage in September. Visiting Alaska would not be a political 
statement. We consider ourselves almost another country. We are out 
there all by ourselves and I think it is appropriate that President Lee 
participate in an economic meeting. Lee's alma mater, Cornell 
University, as I indicated earlier, is another completely private 
matter.
  So I call on my colleagues to vote to send a strong signal to the 
administration at an appropriate time when I have an opportunity to 
bring up the amendment.
  I also ask unanimous consent that a letter be printed in the Record. 
This is a letter from David W. Tsai, President of the Center for Taiwan 
International Relations.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                 Center for Taiwan


                                      International Relations,

                                   Washington, DC, March 15, 1995.
     President William J. Clinton,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear President Clinton: I am writing to urge you to 
     demonstrate your Administration's support for global 
     democratization by permitting President Lee Teng-hui of 
     Taiwan to visit the United States. In particular, you should 
     allow President Lee, a distinguished Ph.D. alumnus of Cornell 
     University, to visit his alma mater this summer, where he has 
     been invited to give the prestigious Olin Lecture to over 
     2,000 returning Cornell alumni all over the world. He should 
     also be permitted to address the Economic Council meeting in 
     Alaska as an honored speaker later this year. Such visits are 
     well-provided for within United States policy toward Taiwan. 
     In addition, the Administration should take advantage of 
     President Lee's visit to the U.S. by granting him an audience 
     with yourself.
       President Lee, a political reformer, has significantly 
     advanced democracy in Taiwan. He is committed to the further 
     democratization of the island nation--a process which has 
     been encouraged and prodded along by the United States 
     Congress and six different administrations. He has played a 
     central role in the Taiwan model that so many nations are now 
     seeking to emulate. Today Taiwan is an emerging democracy and 
     an economic powerhouse. Yet while Taiwan has made great 
     strides in response to the calls for reform and has achieved 
     international economic distinction, the United States has 
     continued to treat Taiwan like an international pariah. Many 
     Members of Congress and the American public were outraged 
     last May at the Administration's refusal to allow President 
     Lee to stay overnight in Hawaii en route to a presidential 
     inauguration in Central America. It undercuts American 
     credibility and concern for human rights when a country like 
     Taiwan with its strong democratization record is treated so 
     badly.
       It is in the American national interest to allow President 
     Lee to visit. In so doing, America will reaffirm its 
     commitment to freedom and democracy and to friendship with 
     the people of Taiwan. We cannot continue to let China dictate 
     U.S. policy or determine who can and cannot visit the United 
     States. It weakens the Clinton Administration and compromises 
     the U.S. world leadership to allow even the appearance of 
     taking orders from Bejing or being bullied by China.
       As you know, President Lee's visit has strong bipartisan 
     support in both Houses of the U.S. Congress. Having visited 
     Taiwan three times yourself, you undoubtedly recognize 
     Taiwan's strategic importance to maintaining the balance of 
     power in East Asia. Also, Taiwan is important as a friendly 
     partner of the United States, particularly in trade, 
     education, and diplomacy. Today Taiwan is the seventh largest 
     trading partner of the United States and buys more than twice 
     as many annually from the U.S. as does the People's Republic 
     of China. Both the Taiwanese American community and the 
     American business community will support your favorable 
     decision to permit President Lee's visit. A visit to the U.S. 
     by the President of Taiwan is not only in America's national 
     interest but in line with the democratic traditional values 
     that the United States stands for.
       Congressional and grass roots support for President Lee's 
     visit is building, and I urge you to take immediate steps to 
     welcome President Lee to the United States.
           Sincerely,

                                         David W. Tsai, Ph.D.,

                                             President, Center for
                                   Taiwan International Relations.

       This letter is also endorsed by the following Taiwanese 
     American organizations:
       World Taiwanese Chambers of Commerce (President: Jentai 
     Tsai), N.Y.
       Taiwanese Import and Export Association (President: Wen-chu 
     Huang), N.Y.
       North America Taiwanese Medical Association (President: 
     Bernard Tsai, M.D.), Potomac.
       Taiwanese Christian Church Council of North America (Chair: 
     Rev. David Chen), Santa Ana.
       Taiwanese American Citizens League (President: David D. 
     Tsay, Ph.D.), Houston.
       Society of Taiwanese Americans (Representative: Wilbur 
     Chen), Bethesda.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I see my good friend, the Senator from 
West Virginia, on the floor. I would be happy to yield to him.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I have no 
desire to have the floor. I thank the Senator.
   [[Page S5286]] Mr. MURKOWSKI. I wish my friend a good day and thank 
him.

                          ____________________