[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 101 (Tuesday, June 20, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8681-S8682]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               CREDIBILITY GAP IN THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, last week, the President announced he 
would join Republicans in seeking to balance the budget. I, along with 
many of my Republican colleagues, welcomed the President's decision. We 
particularly welcomed the President's recognition that the growth of 
Medicare must be slowed down if we are going to keep that important 
program
 solvent.

  Unfortunately, though, when you look at the President's entire 
budget--and it was looked at by the Congressional Budget Office, and 
this is a nonpartisan scorekeeper--after reviewing the President's new 
proposal, it found that it would not balance the budget. In fact, the 
Congressional Budget Office estimates that President Clinton's new 
budget proposals would maintain deficits of approximately $200 billion 
per year.
  The deficit then under CBO's projections for the year 2005, which is 
at the end of the 10-year period of time the President wants to balance 
the budget, would still be $209 billion deficits. And, of course, that 
is the year in which the President claimed his proposal would achieve 
balance.
  The administration is trying in vain to paper over these huge 
deficits. The President claims that the failure of his new budget to 
achieve balance is due, in his words, to just some slight differences 
in estimating between the CBO and the administration's Office of 
Budget. Of course, we all know that this claim is disingenuous.
  My colleagues need no further reminder than the President committing 
himself to using CBO estimates earlier in his administration to ensure 
that his proposal would be credible, and I would like to quote from the 
February 17, 1993, speech of the President. This was in a speech before 
Congress:

       Let's at least argue about the same set of numbers so the 
     American people will think that we're shooting straight with 
     them.

  The President could not have said it any better. So the President 
stated this in advocating the use of Congressional Budget Office 
estimates instead of any other estimates, including his own Office of 
Budget.
  Now, of course, the President has decided to back away from the 
pledge of [[Page S 8682]] using the nonpartisan CBO to provide 
estimates. He wants instead to use the White House's own numbers. Could 
it be because those numbers are more politically convenient? Of course, 
the answer is yes.
  The President is using OMB estimates because he does not want to make 
the tough decisions and the tough tradeoffs. In addition, the 
President's proposal provides no detail and no policy assumptions--
there is then no there, there. In sum, instead of lowering the deficit, 
the administration lowers the deficit estimate.
  As former CBO Director Dr. Reischauer said the other day, and this is 
a direct quote: ``He''--meaning the President--``lowered the bar and 
then gracefully jumped over it.''
  To the point, the President uses rosy scenarios. By embracing Ms. 
Rosy Scenario, the President undermines both his leadership and his 
credibility. I do not feel that I am carping on this issue, Mr. 
President, because I have walked the walk. I have broken ranks with 
Republican administrations in both the Reagan and Bush years because 
they proposed rosy scenarios and magic asterisks to seemingly lower the 
deficit. Rosy scenarios were wrong then and they are wrong now.
  The President's intentions in joining the quest for a balanced budget 
are known, but his credibility is damaged by his new budget hocus-
pocus. He has not enhanced his relevance in the process merely by 
offering what he says is a balanced budget. What he proposed must 
actually be a balanced budget to have credibility. Only at that point 
then will the President's efforts to balance the budget be real and 
will his part be relevant.
  Again, I do not dismiss out of hand the President's efforts. His new 
budget at least indicates the President's good-faith intentions. In 
that regard, it is a good first step and a recognition that we must 
balance the budget. But if the administration wants to remain relevant, 
it must revisit its budget proposal and take the next very important 
step and make the additional cuts necessary to achieve balance, even by 
the year 2005, at the end of his 10 years, compared to the Republicans' 
7 years.
  In short, I propose the administration go back to the drawing board. 
Such actions would make the administration's budget truly credible with 
the American people to whom he promised a balanced budget proposal. The 
President must amend his proposal if he wants to fulfill his role as a 
leader on fiscal matters.
  Mr. President, in closing, I would like to highlight just one part of 
the administration's budget which I believe the President needs to 
seriously reconsider, and that is the funding for defense. I was 
astounded to find that the President's proposal for outlays for defense 
is higher than that agreed to in the Senate budget resolution drafted 
by Senator Domenici.
  The administration proposes to spend approximately $20 billion more 
on defense than contained in the Senate's budget resolution for fiscal 
year 1996 through the year 2002. And that resolution contained the 
original Clinton defense numbers. Incredibly, the administration's 
proposed defense spending is even higher than that contained in the 
House budget resolution. In the year 2002, the administration proposes 
to spend--can you believe this?--$2 billion more on defense than that 
very high figure proposed in the House budget resolution.
  Now, I am at a loss to understand why the President believes it is 
necessary to increase defense spending by billions. What can the 
justification possibly be? The Soviet military threat has evaporated. 
DOD managers cannot even account for the taxpayers' money they already 
have and have already spent. Any extra money would largely go toward 
buying hidden costs--in other words, paying for cost overruns, not for 
more weapons or equipment.
  At the same time, the President proposes to give more money to the 
generals, he is asking working families, family farms, and the elderly 
to tighten their belts.
  I was also astonished that in the outyears--years 9 and 10 of his 
budget--the administration continues to ratchet up defense spending. 
That is so far down the road that it is not even a credible proposal. 
So what is the rationale?
  Finally, revisiting the President's proposal to increase defense 
spending would be a good place to start--I think it is a good place to 
start--as the administration looks for additional cuts in spending for 
its new budget proposal--cuts that must be provided if the 
administration is to maintain credibility as we work to achieve a 
balanced budget.
  We Republicans thank him for his proposed balanced budget, but we 
want him to use real numbers. We want it to be balanced in the year 
2005, and we do not want to have a $9 billion deficit that is presently 
under the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's calculations, as 
they have reviewed and critiqued his proposal.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warner). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  

                          ____________________