[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 83 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6839-S6843]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FRESHMAN FOCUS ON THE BUDGET
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, our freshman focus group continues today
and will continue on through the next week. [[Page S6840]]
I rise today to express my surprise and my disappointment at the
position the administration has taken, and, indeed, the other side of
the aisle, with regard to the budget, with regard to Medicare, line-
item veto, unfunded mandates, the rescission package, and the balanced
budget amendment. In fact, on every issue that has come up since the
beginning of this Congress, we have had the same approach, we have had
the same reaction. And that position is to resist--``obfuscate'' has
been used; that is a new word to me, but I think it means ``don't do
anything''--and oppose with no alternative; to simply say no with no
sign of leadership as to what an alternative solution would be to those
issues.
It is surprising, Mr. President, and disappointing to me that the
President 2 years ago made a great issue out of change. He was going to
bring to this place change, new Democrats, a reinvention of Government,
a more user friendly Government, reduce the size. Great rhetoric.
Except when it comes to doing it, when it comes to the tough part--and
it is tough to change; it is tough to make changes in systems that have
been there; it is tough to make changes in programs that have built up
about them a constituency. And so it is tough.
Talk is easy, but it is not easy to make the change. It is not easy
to come to the snubbing post and really have to do it.
Instead, it is really easy to revert to the old system, and that is
more Government and more spending and more programs. That is the easier
way to go. It is one that makes it less politically volatile and one
that we do.
Never mind that the programs have not solved the problems. Never mind
that nearly everyone I think in this country believes that Government
is too big and too intrusive and too expensive, a Government with
nearly 3.5 million employees, thousands of programs, and literally
hundreds of agencies and advisory groups.
And, of course, even the administration argues for cuts. Secretary
Shalala recently announced a major revision. I think it involves 2,700
jobs--2,700 out of 62,000. That is hardly a major revision.
But now, we do have a chance, Mr. President, to do something
significant. We do have an opportunity for the first time in a very
long time to make some significant changes, not only to reduce the
cost.
The budget argument is not just about dollars, although that is
particularly important and significant. The real discussion and the
real debate and the real opportunity is to take a look at Government
and to examine now what the role of Government will be, to examine
where we want to be in terms of the Government in the year 2000, when
we move into a new millennia, what kind of a new century that we want
to prepare for our children and our grandchildren if we do not do
something by then. If we do not make changes by then, this Government
will be able to afford only the entitlement programs and interest.
We will have this year, in a couple of months, a vote to raise the
debt limit to $5 trillion. And before the next 2 years is over, before
the first Clinton administration is over, we will be having $6 trillion
in debt. Some say, ``Well, that doesn't matter, particularly. Debt does
not matter.''
Debt does matter, as a matter of fact. Debt takes money out of the
economy; money could be invested for other things. Maybe more to the
point, the cost of interest will be soon the largest single line item
in the budget. This year nearly $260 billion for interest alone. So it
is significant.
It seems to me the measure of good Government is to be able to look
at programs and see if, in fact, they are doing the job, to measure the
output, to measure the results.
Unfortunately, I think it is fair to say that Government over the
years in a nonpartisan way, when problems are not resolved by a
program, we say, ``Well, this needs more money.'' And that may or may
not be the case.
The fact is it is more likely that what happens is that you need to
change the program, you need to change the application of the funds.
And to suggest that results will be different if you continue to do the
same thing is kind of a fantasy. It gives us an opportunity to look at
duplication. And there is great duplication. There is redundancy.
There are 160 programs that have to do with moving from education to
work. Now, everybody wants to do that. That is a great idea, and we
should do it. It is a significant effort. But we do not need that many
programs. They continue to add on.
There is a list of them. It is sort of interesting. I think it was in
the newspaper 2 days ago.
Actually literally hundreds of basically advisory committees no one
has ever heard of in the world. Quite frankly, if they disappeared,
none of us would know the difference. So we need to do some of those
things.
Despite the first opportunity in 40 years, what is the strategy? I am
afraid the strategy of the opposition is to object, to resist, to
criticize, to filibuster. Let me say that filibuster is not the old
classic filibuster where you stand on the floor for 72 hours and fall
over from exhaustion. What filibuster is is hundreds of amendments that
pile up so that we do not go anywhere, so that nothing happens, and
that is what is happening around here. And that is too bad. Every issue
this entire year has been handled that way. We do have to do something
about that.
Medicare is an excellent example. I do not think anyone can doubt
that you have to do something about Medicare. It is not a brandnew
idea. We have known it is coming. Medicare was started in the sixties.
I believe there was one point where 19 million people were involved in
the beginning. Now that is doubled. The first year in Medicare, I
think, was a $1.2 billion expenditure. This year it is a $165 billion
expenditure and going up at a rate of 10 percent a year, one that we
cannot maintain.
The trustees, which include three members of the Cabinet, have just
given a report saying that unless we do something, in 2 or 3 years the
program will be calling on the reserves and in 7 years it will be
broke. We cannot let that happen. So we have to make some changes.
The proposal that is being made is to reduce the percentage of growth
from 10 percent a year to 7 percent a year. That is still a pretty good
growth. That is the growth of health care in the private sector plus
inflation.
Some say, ``Well, there are more people.'' The fact is it increases
the per capita spending which takes into account new participants. It
increases the per capita spending from about $4,800 a year to $6,400 a
year, and yet this will be attacked as a cut.
What is the alternative? The alternative is Medicare goes broke. We
can fix it. We can fix it, but we have to change, and we can do that.
Mr. President, the opportunities are great. We are now dealing with a
budget that continues to grow and, under the administration's plan, the
deficit continues as it is as far as one can see. The package grows.
The total package over $1.5 trillion a year grows at 5.5 percent a
year. We are suggesting that we reduce that growth to about 3.5 percent
a year. Hardly a cut.
So we have a great opportunity, and I think the point is that voters
said to us in 1994, and voters have said to us before, we have too much
Government, that Government costs too much, that Government is not user
friendly as it should be, we have overregulation. And that is true.
I do not say those things particularly as criticisms, but just as a
recognition of where we are, but with the happy thought that we can
change that, and that, of course, is what is so remarkable about our
democracy, what is so remarkable about our Government.
Let me tell you that even though the request for change on the part
of voters, on the part of citizens, on the part of you and me is not a
new idea. It has been done for years. In the 1800's and every
generation there was substantial change in Government. Now it becomes
more difficult. Government is larger, there is more bureaucracy, there
is more lobbying, there are more people who are constituents of
programs, and it becomes much more difficult, but not impossible at
all.
As a matter of fact, I can tell you having been home, and going home
every other week, I find my people, the people I represent in Wyoming,
want some change. They know there is going to be some change, there is
going to be some pain as there always is when you make your budget fit
in your business [[Page S6841]] or in your family. And that is where we
are.
I think it is an exciting opportunity. We need to take a look at our
objectives. Our objectives are to make Government more responsive, to
take those areas, such as welfare, where we are committed to helping
people who need help and fix the program so that we help them help
themselves, and that is the way it ought to be.
So we are there. We need to take the bull by the tail and look the
problem in the eye. The objective is to have a solution. We can find
it, taking a look at the role of Government, better ways of doing it,
less Government in our lives, in responsible financial condition. We
can do it, and I think it is a great opportunity. We will be talking
about it this week. I think it is a watershed opportunity. We will make
some big decisions this week over where we will be when the century
changes in 7 years.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
The Budget
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Wyoming. I
must say that his remarks are both compelling and accurate and reflect
the opportunity which we face in the U.S. Senate and for which the
people sent us to the U.S. Senate. A job well done and items well
stated, because they understand what happened here on May 11, just a
few days ago, when Republicans annunciated their view for a brighter
economic future, for financial stability, for fiscal integrity for the
United States of America.
On that day, Senator Domenici, and other members of the Budget
Committee, passed a resolution that would reduce spending over the
course of the next few years by a trillion dollars. It is a budget
resolution that brings our budget into balance by the year 2002. When
this happens, it will be eligible for categorization as one of the
eight wonders of the world. It is one of those things people have said
could not be done.
But free people have the right to shape the tomorrows in which they
live, and if we want to shape a tomorrow in which our children will
live in a constructive way, we will have that kind of discipline which
puts us on a balanced budget path and an enforceable balanced budget
path by the year 2000 which sets us on a path for fiscal sanity and
economic responsibility.
The plan that has been annunciated, the plan brought forth by Senator
Domenici, is a plan for which he and members of the committee should be
commended. I personally want to make that special effort to thank them.
These plans just do not happen in a vacuum. Someone has to make the
tough judgments, someone has to be willing to take the tough stand,
someone has to be willing to make the commitment, and Senator Domenici
has done so.
His resolve, his commitment, his dedication, his courage has not been
matched on the other side of the aisle. What has been the Democratic
response to the Republican plan? Well, we have had ad hominem attacks,
misleading charges, empty rhetoric. At this momentous time in our
history that requires decision, that requires courage, that requires
commitment, the Democratic Party seems committed only to partisanship
and to politics.
So I think it is important that we ask again today where is their
alternative? Where is their plan for a balanced budget? You and I and
other Members in this Chamber endured a balanced budget debate, and we
fell 1 vote short--1 vote short--because many on the Democratic side
changed their votes to vote against a balanced budget this year. They
said over and over again, ``All we need is the will and the courage,
and the determination to balance the budget. We don't need an
amendment.'' Well, now we have Senator Domenici who stands up and
announces with will, courage and determination a balanced budget. And
where are those who would support the balanced budget? They are not to
be found.
They were not to be found in the vote for the balanced budget
amendment, and they are not to be found in the discussion of an actual
balanced budget--except for criticism, except for partisanship. It is
time that we have a united, bipartisan effort to achieve a balanced
budget.
I suggest that critics of our balanced budget plan, brought forward
by Senator Domenici, ought to heed the counsel of the 16th President of
the United States. In Lincoln's words, he put it this way:
Those have a right to criticize who have a heart to help.
You have a right to criticize if you have a heart to help. Well, we
confront a fiscal crisis as great as any threat that we have confronted
in this Nation, any threat we have ever faced, and calls for the
maintenance of the status quo are insufficient. They are, in fact,
irresponsible. Those who would criticize the move toward responsibility
by instituting or institutionalizing the status quo are really saying
they want to embrace irresponsibility. Inaction today will ensure
decline for America tomorrow.
Now, the story of our financial crisis has been told many times on
this floor, but it bears repeating. If we do not act dramatically and
quickly to balance the budget of the United States, we will find
ourselves in a position of bankruptcy. If unreformed Medicare will be
bankrupt in just 6 years, is this the alarmist position of partisan
politicians? No, this is the announced report of the board of trustees
of the fund which supports Medicare. And three members of that board
are members of the President's Cabinet.
There is a crisis in Medicare funding. We will not have the resources
in the hospital trust fund in order to make the payments if something
is not done. Yet, what has been the response of those who have said
they want to balance the budget, but all we need is the will, the
determination and the commitment to do it, and we do not need the
balanced budget amendment? Well, they are just criticizing Senator
Domenici and his report that would provide us an opportunity, a
roadmap, which would carry us to a balanced budget. Medicare will be
bankrupt in just 6 years. There is a real need for commitment and
action.
Without changes, we face a tremendous load of debt, and not only debt
but the interest payments on the debt. In 2 more years, we will be
paying more interest on the national debt than we spend in the entire
defense budget of the United States of America. That seems
incomprehensible, that just the interest on the national debt will be
more than we spend in defending the interests of this country
worldwide. By the year 2000, the national debt will reach close to $7
trillion. We must act now to balance the budget. We cannot continue to
mortgage the future of the children of this country because we refuse
to have the discipline to balance our budget.
Sadly, children who are born this year will end up paying just a
little short of $200,000 in interest on the debt over their lifetime--
each child. The figure, according to the statisticians is $187,150 of
interest that each child will have to pay on the national debt. It is
time for their individual futures and our national future to be saved.
We must act in the coming weeks and months.
Now, through shared sacrifice we can ensure that the coming
generation of Americans will share in the abundant riches and
opportunities of this country if we have the discipline to restrain the
debt. What is the proposal of the Republican Party? How would it affect
America, and how would it change Government therapeutically? How would
it benefit us so we can do what we ought to do on behalf of the
children of this country? What is our plan?
First, freeze congressional salaries, unless the budget is balanced
by the year 2002.
Second, cut foreign aid.
Third, eliminate a number of unnecessary and duplicative programs.
Just yesterday in the Foreign Relations Committee, there was a plan to
consolidate the voices of America, the different representations of
this country around the globe under the Secretary of State, saving
almost $5 billion over the next 5 years.
Abolishing nonessential governmental agencies. Democratic attacks
aside, our plan provides sufficient funds to maintain the health and
integrity of a whole range of important governmental services.
These figures are important because those who would be the speakers
of fear and the sowers of discontent, and [[Page S6842]] would suggest
that our plan will not work, should understand that under the
Republican proposal, Medicare will increase by 59 percent over the 7-
year life of the plan--a 59-percent increase. Medicaid will rise at
over 5 percent annually. And Social Security is totally untouched by
the program between the present and the year 2002. Spending on the
Social Security program is expected to increase by 43 percent, from
$354 to $483.7 billion.
Indeed, Mr. President, the plan we will consider allows spending in
all of Government to grow by an average of 3 percent annually,
increasing by over one-half trillion dollars over the next 7 years the
overall spending of Government.
In this debate over the future of our country, I am reminded of the
philosopher's words: ``They sought to heal by incantations a cancer
which requires the surgeon's knife.''
You cannot heal by just speaking words those things which require the
surgeon's knife. The truth of the matter is that we are in a condition
in this country where the scalpel of surgery needs to be applied to the
cancer of national irresponsibility. We need to have the scalpel of the
surgeon's knife cut out the unwanted and malignant growth which is
taking over and depriving us of the ability to make good decisions
regarding the future of this country.
Mr. President, we are hearing all around us the familiar cries of the
discredited and irresponsible philosophy. But we should not listen to
the cries of those who do not have the will, do not have the
dedication, do not have the commitment, who, while they said we did not
need a balanced budget amendment, they now refuse to face up to the
specific personal responsibility to operate with fiscal integrity.
We were sent here by the American people with a demand and an
expectation. They demand that we make the tough decisions, the same
kind of decisions that are made around every kitchen table in America.
When you sit down to figure out what you can and cannot afford, you set
priorities to guard the vital interests of the family and you do away
with those things that you can get by without. That is what the people
sent us here to do. They demand that we stop business as usual in the
U.S. Senate and that we embark upon something new and different for
Government, and that is Government living within its means, Government
that understands that there are limits. The people want the hand of
Government out of their pockets. They do not want a Government handout.
They expect us to listen and we ought to listen and we will listen.
Well, our budget plan goes a long way. It goes all the way to
balancing the budget on a controlled, understandable, doable,
achievable plan by the year 2002. It is a plan that will not only
benefit the people today, but it will benefit the children. It will
provide for them the opportunity to enjoy the fruits of their labors,
rather than just to try and retire a debt and pay interest for items
that we have consumed. It is an opportunity for Members of this
Congress, it is an opportunity for Members of the U.S. Senate; but more
than an opportunity, it is a charge from the American public, and it is
a responsibility we have to the generations to come.
Mr. President, I yield the floor to my colleague, Senator Grams, from
Minnesota.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, if I may make an inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. The Senator yields the floor to the Presiding Officer,
rather than to another Senator, is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. But I see that my colleague has risen, and I look
forward to his remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. GRAMS. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business
for no more than 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
freshman focus on the budget
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, as the Senate prepares to begin debate on
the budget resolution for fiscal year 1996, I rise with my fellow
freshmen to offer our perspective on the challenge ahead.
Mr. President, the individual Members of this class of freshmen
Senators--11 strong--do not have much seniority. We do not chair
powerful committees. But we do have one thing it seems many of our
colleagues are missing--something far more valuable. We have the pulse
of the people, and we always carry it.
We took the pulse ourselves, during our Senate campaigns last year.
At coffee shops, truck stops, town meetings, we heard from thousands of
average Americans. They talked about high taxes and excessive, wasteful
Government spending. They talked about Social Security and Medicare,
and wondered if it would still be around for them, their children, and
grandchildren.
We listened, and we promised them that if they sent us to the Senate,
we would fight to change things. We are deeply committed to change and
to keeping our promises.
If life in the Senate sometimes reminds me of the barnyard
conversation between the chicken and the pig, as they argued over which
one was more committed to the breakfast meal: ``I give eggs every
morning,'' the chicken said proudly. ``I'm committed.'' ``Giving eggs
isn't a commitment, it's participation,'' snorted the pig. ``Giving
ham, now that's a commitment.''
Sadly, this body too often seems content to deliver eggs when the
people are demanding ham.
Mr. President, this freshmen class is committed to following through
on the promises we made last November. And for the next week, we'll be
focusing our attention on the Federal budget.
Year after year, when they ran things on Capitol Hill, the Democrats
offered up budgets which raised taxes, sent Government spending
spiraling out of control, and created massive deficits.
The voters soundly rejected that mentality in November. They looked
to the Republicans for an alternative, for a budget that could turn
back 40 years of spending mentality and the belief that money will fix
everything, especially if it's your money and Washington can spend it.
Debate on our alternative begins today.
Whatever form it eventually takes, a budget resolution that is truly
serious about America's financial future must accomplish three equally
important goals:
We promised middle-class American families a budget that cuts taxes,
and we will deliver.
We'll deliver for the Smith family, and the Johnsons and the Joneses,
average American families where both parents work, earn $48,270, and
take home $31,664, and end up sending $16,606 or more than a third of
their paychecks, directly to the Government.
Families with children are now the lowest after-tax income group in
America, below elderly households, below single persons, below families
without children.
As one person put it, those who say we do not need a tax cut,
probably do not pay taxes.
Mr. President, it has gotten so bad in my home State of Minnesota
that it took until last Sunday, 134 days into 1995, for my constituents
to finally reach Tax Freedom Day, the day when they're no longer
working just to pay off taxes, and can finally begin working for
themselves. Nearly 20 weeks, over 800 hours on the job just to pay
Uncle Sam.
I applaud the distinguished chairman of the Senate Budget Committee
for his courageous work on the budget resolution, but I part ways with
his blueprint when it comes to tax cuts. I say we had better find a way
to help the Smiths, and the Johnsons, and the Joneses.
The chairman states: ``Balance must first be achieved by reducing the
rate of growth in Federal spending before tax reductions could be
considered.''
That is like holding the taxpayers' money hostage, like calling tax
cuts a dessert that we will share with the American people only after
they have cleaned their plates. Anyone who thinks tax relief should be
saved for the dessert cart has not taken the pulse of the people
lately.
Middle-class American families are paying the vast majority of taxes
in this country, and they are fed up. They are working longer hours,
sometimes even taking on a second job, just to [[Page S6843]] meet
their annual tax obligations while trying to maintain their style of
living. They are still pursuing the American dream, but the ever-
increasing tax burden keeps pushing it out of reach.
The $500 per-child tax credit takes money out of the hands of the
Washington bureaucrats and leaves it in the hands of the taxpayers.
It is truly a tax break for the middle class: nearly $9 out of every
$10 of tax relief goes to families making $75,000 or less. They are the
ones who need our help the most, and we cannot ask them to wait another
6 or 7 years.
Mr. President, I promised my constituents in Minnesota that tax
relief will be my top priority in the Senate, and during the next week,
I will do just that.
The freshman class also promised American families that we would
balance the budget. With or without a balanced budget amendment, we
will deliver.
Now, my good friend, the Budget Committee chairman, and his
counterpart in the other Chamber, have crafted documents the naysayers
said could never be achieved.
The budget resolution we begin debating today, that brings the budget
into balance by the year 2002, is proof that we are serious about
living up to our pledge. Having to live within its means will be a new
experience for a Congress that has only balanced its budget eight times
in the past 64 years, and has not spent less than it has taken in since
1969.
Even the Clinton administration, despite all its rhetoric about
shrinking the deficit, has seemingly washed its hands of the deficit
problem.
Under the President's own budget plan, the deficit would increase
from $177 billion this year to $276 billion in 2002, and add another
$1.5 trillion to the national debt. Only Republicans have offered an
alternative to this fiscal madness. And I hope my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle will find the courage to vote for a balanced
budget. We're offering a plan to balance the budget, and we have done
it without slashing Federal spending, without putting children,
seniors, and the disadvantaged at risk. Most of our savings are
achieved by slowing the growth of Government. Will there need to be
some sacrifices? Yes, although the Government will have to sacrifice
more than the people will. Will belts need to be tightened? Yes. But if
we do not tighten the belts today, they are destined to become nooses
around the necks of the coming generations, who will someday become the
innocent victims of our negligence. Mr. President, as Senate freshmen,
my colleagues and I heard it over and over during our campaigns: the
American people are willing to make those sacrifices, if they believe
their Government is serious about making change.
This Congress is serious.
Finally, we promised that our budget will protect Medicare and Social
Security. For the sake of America's senior citizens, we must protect,
preserve, and improve Medicare, to make sure it is there for the next
generation as well.
The fact is, Medicare is in trouble, in large part due to fraud,
waste, abuse, mismanagement and misuse. By 1997, Medicare will pay out
$1 billion more in benefits than it collects in revenue, and 5 years
later, it will go bankrupt.
Again, in our budget plan, we are working to preserve, protect, and
improve the Medicare System. In fact, Medicare will remain the fastest
growing program in the Federal budget.
Over the next 7 years, we will spend $1.7 trillion to keep Medicare a
healthy and viable health care provider for this generation of senior
citizens.
Social Security must receive the same care, although as a self-funded
entity it will be taken off budget and dealt with separately from other
programs.
Clearly, the Government must honor its contract with our senior
citizens, and the budget that Congress produces this year must ensure
that the Social Security Program will survive and be there for older
Americans. The best way to achieve that is to bring the Federal budget
into balance.
A budget that works for America will meet the needs of all our
citizens, working men and women and their children, senior citizens,
and the disadvantaged, while providing middle-class tax relief,
balancing the budget by the year 2002, and protecting Social Security
and Medicare.
Mr. President, that is what we promised the people, and our promises
were not made lightly. I remember hearing about a commencement speech
given by Winston Churchill toward the end of his life. He sat patiently
through the introduction, rose, and went to the podium. All he said was
``Never, never, never give up.'' Then he sat back down.
Mr. President, this committed class of freshmen Senators has taken
the pulse of the people, and we are not planning to give up on the
ambitious agenda they sent us here to carry out.
Like the latest chapter in the ``Die Hard'' movie trilogy, we will be
here--with a vengeance--to remind our colleagues just what America's
message last November was all about.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, before addressing the matter that brings
me to the floor, may I congratulate the Senator from Minnesota for the
very forceful and, I hope, prophetic statement. The concerns that he
has raised are real. They have been addressed without large consequence
in this Chamber for some 15 years now, as I can attest. And I for one,
and I think many others, welcome the energy and conviction, the
commitment of the freshman class, as he chooses to describe it, that
came to the Senate in January. I look forward to working with him in
the years ahead--months ahead--weeks ahead, to be specific.
(The remarks of Mr. Moynihan pertaining to the introduction of
legislation are located in today's Record under ``Statements on
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under a previous order, the Senator from North
Dakota is recognized to speak for up to 20 minutes.
Mr. DORGAN. Thank you very much. It is my intention to speak for a
couple of minutes at the beginning and then to yield the remainder of
the time to Senator Akaka from Hawaii.
____________________