[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 108 (Thursday, June 29, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9325-S9329]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    FRESHMAN THOUGHTS ON THE BUDGET

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, as has been our custom recently, the 
freshman class would like to take some time this morning to talk about 
topics that are of primary interest. This morning we want to talk about 
the budget.
  This is an exciting day. We will pass the budget balanced for the 
first time in 30 years.
  Mr. President, let me yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for 
yielding.
  I think he said it right. This is really a historic day, a day we 
have been waiting for--many Members--for years, since the 1960's, when 
this country decided that the Great Society days were coming in and 
Government would play an expanded role, and that we would be able to 
take care of everyone from birth to death.
  A lot of people realize that this cannot be done. The resources are 
not there. The money was not there, so we borrowed it.
  Over the years, we have established huge deficits and huge debts. 
Finally, today, we will be passing a budget resolution that is going to 
put the United States in a position to balance the budget by the year 
2002.
  In other words, we will be in a position where we will have 
eliminated our deficit at that time, and then can start paying off this 
huge, huge, debt that is out there.
  A lot of things happened in the last few weeks. President Clinton 
submitted a budget to this body. It was a pretty big spending budget 
resolution. It went down by a margin of 99 to 0.
  Then a short while after that, the Republicans came forth with 
essentially what we will be voting on today and passed it. This was a 
resolution that would eliminate our deficit by the year 2002.
  A week after that, the President came with another resolution that 
would have had the effect, he said, of eliminating the deficit by the 
year 2005. Until we started looking at it. The Congressional Budget 
Office looked at it and said, well, wait, in the next 10 years, you 
will be increasing the debt by about $200 billion a year. When I 
multiply that out, that would be a $2 trillion increase in our Nation's 
debt by the year 2005. That is certainly not bringing the deficit under 
control.
  I would like to quote the President. During the speech that was made 
to a joint session, the President came out and talked about what he was 
going to do with the deficit. He praised the Congressional Budget 
Office by saying,

       Well, you can laugh, my fellow Republicans, but I'll point 
     out that the Congressional Budget Office was normally more 
     conservative in what was going to happen and closer to right 
     than the previous Presidents have been.

  Yet it was the CBO that came out and said that it was a phony budget 
resolution, that it did not reduce the deficit. It certainly did not 
reduce the deficit.
  This is an exciting time. We have heard over the last few months of 
debate that this is not a fiscal issue that we will be dealing with 
today. This is a moral issue, in that someone who is born today--like 
young Daniel that was born, and his new father, standing proudly behind 
me, the Senator from 

[[Page S 9326]]
Pennsylvania--young Daniel, in his lifetime, would have to pay 82 
percent of his lifetime earnings if we stayed on the track that we are 
on today to the Federal Government. This is something we are not going 
to allow to happen.
  I am very proud, Mr. President, to be here today and be able to say, 
finally, a historic moment has arrived. We are participating in it. I 
am very proud of the participation of the 11 freshmen, the new Members 
of the U.S. Senate, who participated in putting this together.
  Today is an exciting day. I thank the Senator from Wyoming for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, let me comment just briefly before I yield 
to my friend from Pennsylvania.
  This is, I think, a day to which we have been looking forward. All 11 
freshmen who came to the Senate this year supported the balanced budget 
amendment. All 11 freshmen will support this balanced budget 
resolution.
  I think it is indicative of the fact that we were on the campaign 
trail, probably more than anyone else, because we were seeking our 
first election to the Senate. I think we found among all the issues 
that the idea of a responsibility in budgeting, the idea of 
responsibility in spending, was the issue that most people cared about.
  Through all these years, we have put it on the charge card. The old 
charge card is maxed out, and most people know that. So we have a 
chance, and we will pass a balanced budget today for the first time in 
many, many years.
  Now, I think it is honest and fair to say that passing this budget 
resolution is the easiest part. After this, of course, given these 
parameters, we have to go in and determine where the cuts are 
specifically. Where the additions will be, specifically. How the money 
is apportioned, and what the priorities are. That, of course, will be 
the difficult part.
  The nature of it, obviously, is that each Member in our own program 
says we want to balance the budget but not on my program. We want to 
balance the budget, but we ought to take it away somewhere else. 
Members would be amazed at the number of folks who say, ``We need a 
little more money because it will save money in the long run.''
  Probably true. Nevertheless, next year's budget is what we are 
talking about when we have to do something with it. It does demonstrate 
on the part of this Congress and on the part of the House, and I am 
proud of, some discipline, some concern for the future.
  We had 50 4-H youngsters from Wyoming in yesterday, talking about 
what is going on, about their future. Talked about the fact that if we 
do not do something by the time the 4-H'ers are at their high-earning 
capacity in middle-age they will be paying 80 percent of their income 
in taxes.
  It is not a question of whether we change but how we do it. It is 
difficult. Everyone said in the balanced budget amendment, I am for a 
balanced budget amendment--but. But. We have a dozen reasons we cannot 
do it this way or why we cannot do it in another way.
 We will hear that, of course, all through this debate, ``I want to 
balance the budget, but we cannot do it on the backs of the farmers, 
but we cannot do it on the backs of these people.''

  We have to find a way, and we will find a way. I am delighted the 
President has finally come around to a balanced budget. Even though he 
does it in a different way, the principle is there and, finally, some 
commitment to balancing the budget.
  He said in his letter, which I was a little disappointed in where he 
threatens to veto, ``We share the goal of balancing the Federal 
budget,'' he says, ``but we must do it in the right way.''
  The right way is his right way, of course. Each of us has a right 
way. So it will be difficult, and I understand that. I understand it is 
a great debate. There are bona fide differences in views, how people 
think the Government should function. There are those who have a notion 
that spending more is better; that the Government's job is to collect 
more taxes and spend it out in the right way. That is a legitimate 
point of view. I do not happen to share it. I think the real thrust in 
this country is that the Federal Government is too big and costs too 
much; that is the general notion. But the other view--it is shared by a 
number of people in this Congress--is a legitimate one.
  So it is a great debate. And, of course, people sometimes say, ``Why 
can't you guys get together and pass something?'' There are differences 
of view about it. So it will not be easy, and there will be endless 
posturing going on defending this little group and defending that 
group. But through it all, in honesty, there are different sets of 
priorities. People push those priorities in good faith.
  Let me make just a couple of points that I think are important. One 
is, defense will be one of the areas of great concern. Let me just say 
I do not know the number, I do not know where it ought to be. But 
certainly defense, among all the other functions of the Federal 
Government, is one that is a legitimate one. The Federal Government is 
the only unit that can carry out defense. This is not a peaceful world. 
How much you spend, sure, we can debate that. Should we have a strong 
defense establishment? Of course.
  The other one, which I think is interesting in terms of principle, is 
Medicare. Medicare part A is financed by withholding in Social 
Security. So there is a fund that comes in, spending comes out. That 
fund is going to go broke, according to the trustees, in 7 years. There 
is no question about that. The real issue is, do you take general tax 
revenues and prop up the fund or do you cause the fund to be self-
sustaining, as it should be? Even in part B, where a portion of it is 
paid for by the recipient, the question is do you fund those things out 
of general tax revenues with no control over the spending? Or do you 
seek to fix the program as it is by reducing the spending from 10 
percent a year to 7 percent a year?
  Mr. President, we have a great opportunity to do some things that 
need to be done, some things of principle that must be done. We have 
that exciting opportunity today, and then to move within that budget 
resolution to the appropriations for the remainder of the year.
  I yield at this time to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank my friend, the Senator from Wyoming, for 
yielding, and I thank him for his steadfast effort to come to the floor 
on a regular basis and organize the 11 freshman Republican Members of 
the Senate to come and talk about the important issues facing this 
country today. Obviously, the one on all of our minds is the issue of 
the budget.
  I think the comments of the Senator from Wyoming were right on point. 
We have a great opportunity today to make history, and I believe we 
will do so. It is just the beginning of the process. We have a long way 
to go from passing this budget resolution, which is simply a blueprint. 
This budget resolution does not get signed by the President. It is a 
working document, in a sense, for the Congress to follow, laying forth 
the blueprint as to how we should get to a balanced budget over the 
next 7 years.
  Then it is our job, over the next several months, before the end of 
the fiscal year, by the end of September, to craft a reconciliation 
package that brings in line the spending with the projections made in 
the budget resolution. So we have the actual reductions in the programs 
over the next several months--not just the blueprint as to how you get 
to a balanced budget. That is the tough one. That is where we have the 
disagreement, as the Senator from Wyoming stated, between those of us 
in the Congress and the President, on the ``right way'' to go about 
balancing the budget.
  I will say, I am at least heartened by the fact that the President 
now accepts the premise of a balanced budget. When he submitted this 
budget--this is the President's fiscal year 1996 budget--when he 
submitted this budget back in February, he did not accept the premise 
that the Congress and the President should work together to balance the 
Federal budget, because this budget, according to the Congressional 
Budget Office and his own budgeteers, had perpetual deficits of over 
$200 billion a year for as far as the eye could see, in fact, 
increasing 5 or 6 years out. So his first submission did not accept 
that premise. 

[[Page S 9327]]

  He, also, when he submitted this--and this was during the balanced 
budget debate--suggested that a balanced budget was harmful; a time 
certain set for a balanced budget was a harmful thing for the economy, 
was bad for this country, was bad for people. Now he, surprisingly, has 
flip-flopped and suggested that a balanced budget is a good idea for a 
time certain; that we can do it in 7 years--or he suggests 10 years--
but a date certain to arrive at a balanced budget is not a catastrophic 
event as his advisers and many of the President's close advisers 
suggested during the last several months.
  So we have now seen that he first said a balanced budget was not 
necessary, and now he says it is. He first said we did not need a date 
certain, now he says we can set one. Then we find out the President 
says we should not be attacking Medicare. And now, in the most recent 
budget submission--and by the way, this is it. This is the President's 
new budget. Just to give a comparison, this is the original President's 
budget. This is the new President's budget.
  You might wonder how you condense all of this into this. It is very 
simple. There is not much here, relative to what is here. There just is 
not the specificity, if you look at these pages. It is 20-some pages. 
You have an executive summary in the first four pages or so. Then you 
have six pages, double sided--I will admit that, it is double sided, 
which we save paper on; double sided--of the specifics of the 
President's budget. This is it. This is the entire new President's 
budget.
  All you have heard about is, ``The President submitted and comes to 
the table with this great new budget he talked about.'' It is six 
double-sided pages. Understand this, this is six double-sided pages to 
describe how we are going to spend, over the next 10 years, somewhere 
in the area of $16 trillion; six double-sided pages, $16 trillion. Just 
to put it in perspective a little bit. But this is it.
  The other part here are charts. We always have to have charts. So we 
have charts here at the back that show how he is going to get his 
numbers down.
  He was very critical of the Republicans in their budget that came out 
of the House and Senate, of cuts in Medicare. He was to draw a line in 
the sand. Now with this new budget, in fact, the first thing he talks 
about is reducing the growth in Medicare and contrasts his cuts--which 
he says are modest, necessary and modest--to ours.
  His reductions are around the area of $120 billion over 10--7 years. 
Ours are a little more than double that, $270 billion over 7 years. The 
interesting thing is, Budget Director Alice Rivlin testified before the 
Joint Economic Committee last week, and she went on and just excoriated 
the Republicans for their horrible reductions in Medicare.
  I asked her a very simple question. I said, I look at your budget and 
the budget numbers. I look at the Republican budget numbers on 
Medicare. The Republican's budget asks for more money to be spent on 
Medicare than you do every year. We actually spend more money on 
Medicare every year. She said we spend less. Their cuts are draconian 
and terrible, and ours are not. How does that figure? You say most 
people say how can you spend more money every year on a program and cut 
less? This is how. Here is the rub. The rub is that the President in 
all of his projections projects a slower rate of growth in all of these 
programs. So he assumes that Medicare is not going to grow that much 
and then only cuts from a lower rate of growth. So he cuts less but he 
assumes less growth in the first place, which nobody else by the way 
assumes; just him.
  As a result, we have less cuts but lower numbers which is sort of a 
strange thing. You can argue both sides as to who is being cruel to 
Medicare. Are you being cruel because you have cut more money, or are 
you being cruel because you are spending actually less money per year? 
I would think the people in Medicare would be more concerned about how 
much money you spend as opposed to what you are required to cut.
  We are suggesting more spending on Medicare. But at least the 
President has suggested that Medicare needs to be fixed and that we 
have to do something to reduce the rate of growth of spending in 
Medicare. So he has at least come to the table on that issue. Again, 
that is not where he was a few months ago in railing against the 
Republicans.
  Finally, I will be willing to say that the President still has a tax 
cut in his proposal. So he is in agreement with us that we do need some 
tax relief for middle-income families in America. So there are bases 
for us to be encouraged about some sort of commonalty, even though the 
President has come up woefully inadequate and short in his budget, his 
new budget does not balance even though he says it does. The 
Congressional Budget Office, which is the numbers that we use, the 
minority leader, the Senator from South Dakota, just last week said, 
you know, the President cannot be fooling around with these funny 
numbers. He has to use Congressional Budget Office numbers. This is the 
minority leader, the Democratic leader of the Senate, who says the 
President has to come with a serious proposal that uses the 
Congressional Budget Office numbers, what his trumped-up, optimistic 
assessment that the world, the United States is going to continue to 
grow and inflation is going to be down, all these rosy scenarios so we 
get to balance by not having to cut as much. We have to use the 
Congressional Budget Office. The CBO says this budget, this detailed 
summary here, does not bring us to balance in 10 years like the 
President said. It does not bring us to balance. In fact, by the year 
10 of this budget the deficit is over $200 billion. In fact, the 
deficit stays about $200 billion over the next 10 years.
  So it does not work. This is not a real budget. You hear so much 
about the argument saying your way or my way, and my way is the right 
way. His way is no way. No way does this thing get us to a balanced 
budget. This does not work.
  So while I sincerely give the President credit for coming to the 
table and saying we have to address this issue, we agree on a date 
certain, we agree that we have to balance the budget, we agree we have 
to do something with Medicare, we agree we need to do something with 
tax cuts, you know I appreciate that. It does form a working basis for 
relationship to try to move forward and not end up at a horrible 
confrontation come the end of this fiscal year. I think the President 
has to go back and get real and get real with the numbers, get real 
with what every business person would use, which is, you know, the most 
likely or conservative estimates of growth and things like that. The 
President has not done that.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield to me for a question?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I will be happy to yield in a minute.
  So I have to continue to count the days before the President has come 
up with a balanced budget proposal. He has still not come to the table 
scoring to the Congressional Budget Office numbers we have to use here 
in this place, and that the President agreed in his first State of the 
Union Address he would use. He has not come to the table with a 
balanced budget that is credible. And, as a result, we have to continue 
to do the counting. I think that is unfortunate but I am hopeful that 
the President will come forward.
  I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. I appreciate the Senator yielding.
  I, too, find fault with the President's budget. I have no difficulty 
with the assertion of the Senator from Pennsylvania that there are some 
difficulties with the budget, with the numbers in the budget. I am 
willing to do that.
  I wonder if the Senator from Pennsylvania is willing to take a look 
at page 3 of the budget resolution that he brings to the floor and says 
is a balanced budget. On page 3 the majority party brings to the floor 
a budget document that page 3, paragraph (4), deficits--in the year 
2002, it says the deficit is $108 billion. The speaker before the 
Senator from Pennsylvania, the Senator from Pennsylvania, and I expect 
the speakers after the Senator from Pennsylvania, will continue to 
insist that this budget is a balanced budget in the year 2002. If that 
is the case, why on page 3 does it say in the year 2002 there is a 
budget deficit of $108 billion?
  Will the Senator from Pennsylvania not agree that is what it says in 
this document, and that is what we will have in the year 2002, not a 
balanced budget but in fact a deficit of over $100 billion?

[[Page S 9328]]

  Mr. SANTORUM. All I know is the Congressional Budget Office scores 
this document as a balanced budget. I would defer to the Senator from 
New Mexico as to the specifics of that particular page. This is the 
first time I have seen it. But from all the scoring that we have had, 
this was scored by the Congressional Budget Office as a balanced budget 
according to the Senator from New Mexico. So the Senator's question is 
with him as to what this document says versus what he has represented 
to the Congressional Budget Office has told him. That is all I can 
respond to.
  But I will say that, if, in fact, this budget is not balanced, we 
should go about the process of getting one that does come into balance.
  So I guess I do not know the answer to the question.
  Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield further, and I appreciate his 
indulgence, he apparently has found what I found on page 3. This is a 
condition in the original budget as well. I do not think there is a 
conflict with what the Congressional Budget Office says and what this 
document says. I think if the Senator, following his presentation, will 
check he will discover, as the Senator from New Mexico or Congressional 
Budget Office and with everyone else has, that, in fact, this budget is 
not balanced by 2002; this budget on page 3 says the deficit at 2002 is 
$108 billion. That is a problem.
  Mr. SANTORUM. All I would say is that is a very good question. I 
would like to get the answer. I do not have the answer.
  Mr. DORGAN. My point is I think the Senator from Pennsylvania is 
wrong about the question of whether this budget will balance. That is 
my only point.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I know where the Senator is coming from.
  Mr. DORGAN. My only point is, if this is a balanced budget, zero in 
the year 2002, it does not say zero. It says by the year 2002 there 
will be a $108 billion deficit. I would say that I do not think there 
is disagreement among us about whether or not we ought to be in 
balance. There may be a disagreement about the priorities in spending. 
But there is no disagreement about the need to balance the budget. The 
only reason I come and raise the point is that this does not balance 
the budget. It still remains at a $108 billion deficit in the year 
2002, and much more remains to be done.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I appreciate that. I assure the Senator that I will 
bring this matter before the chairman of the Budget Committee for his 
response to that. I am sure he has a response to that.
  What I will say is that we have put forth an honest effort, according 
to all the numbers that I have seen, that this does bring us to a 
balanced budget in 7 years, and it does so in the way that I think is 
really the only way possible to do it: By containing the growth of 
Government. Under this budget resolution, the Federal Government's 
budget continues to grow 3 percent a year. Growth is continuing in 
Government spending. It does not freeze. The spending goes up 3 percent 
a year. It does not go up as fast as it would had we not changed some 
of the things here in the budget.
  So I am excited about today. I think it is a great opportunity for us 
to do something for--I see some young people up in the audience--to do 
something for the next generation of Americans, and provide some rays 
of hope for them, that we are going to get our economic ship right and 
give them the opportunity for a successful economy so that they can 
seek their dreams and fulfill those dreams in a free and prosperous 
America.
  I thank the Senator from Wyoming. I see the Senator from Tennessee is 
here to speak on this issue. I would be happy to yield at this point to 
the Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I make an inquiry, if I may?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. Is there a prescribed time this 
morning for Senators?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The following are the conditions under which 
morning business was to be conducted: The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. 
Thomas] was recognized for up to 30 minutes. He had yielded time to the 
Senator from Pennsylvania and was to yield time to the Senator from 
Tennessee. The Senator from Alaska was to be recognized to speak for up 
to 15 minutes, the Senator from North Dakota recognized to speak for up 
to 30 minutes, and the Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein] 
recognized to speak for up to 15 minutes. Morning business was to close 
at the hour of 10:30.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair and wish the President good day. I 
yield to my colleague from Tennessee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.


                          A Historic Occasion

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, my fellow freshman colleagues and I are 
here to continue the discussion and would like to close the discussion 
with the importance of balancing the Federal budget and to mark this 
historic occasion for final passage of the 1996 budget resolution 
conference report.
  It was just 18 months ago that I was performing heart and lung 
transplant surgery in the operating rooms at Vanderbilt University, and 
at that point in time I worked taking out enlarged, worn-out hearts and 
replacing them with strong, powerful new hearts that were healthy. 
These operations gave people with heart disease, heart disease which 
had crippled their lives, new hope, a new opportunity, a new chance, a 
new beginning.
  Today, I believe we are doing the same thing for our Government. We 
are reversing the out-of-control spending habits of the past. We are 
instituting discipline over the spending process. We, indeed, are 
reenergizing a tired, worn-out Congress with a strong, healthy one; and 
after 40 years, a new heart is beginning to beat. A new spirit of 
federalism is flowing out of Washington, and this budget sets forth the 
blueprint for returning power to the States and to the American people.
  The budget resolution conference report eliminates waste. It 
consolidates duplicative programs and calls for reform of obsolete 
programs in anticipation of governing in the 21st century. It 
recognizes the need to phase out programs gradually and responsibly, 
still mindful of the ever-mounting interest and Federal debt. Franklin 
Roosevelt once said, ``We can afford all that we need, but we cannot 
afford all we want.''
  Today, the Republicans will complete a dramatic first step towards 
reforming Government so that it provides all that we need and yet does 
not provide more than the American taxpayer is willing to pay for.
  Mr. President, despite ever-changing tax rates, the amount of 
revenues paid to the Federal Government have hovered consistently near 
19 percent of GDP, gross domestic product, for the last 30 years, and 
yet Federal spending has risen from 19 percent of GDP in the early 
1960's to a high of 24.4 percent in 1983, settling at about 22 percent 
of GDP today. It is that 3 percent gap between the amount of Government 
services the American public would like to have and the amount which 
taxpayers are willing to pay for that is really at the heart of the 
matter.
  Republicans never said it would be easy to close this gap between 
Federal spending and Federal revenues, and there really should be no 
misconceptions. This budget makes tough choices. But the American 
people did not send us here last November to shrink from what they knew 
would be a mammoth task, that of balancing the budget and reexamining 
nearly every aspect of modern American Government.
  As President Harry Truman has pointed out, no government is perfect. 
And yet as he said, ``One of the chief virtues of democracy * * * is 
that its defects are always visible and under democratic processes can 
be pointed out and corrected.'' And today, America is correcting one of 
its greatest problems, that is, that of fiscal irresponsibility. And 
tomorrow we will move on to tackle the other problems that plague our 
Nation--crime, decay of the inner cities, and breakdown of the American 
family. The primary step toward solving all of these problems is to 
rely less on the Federal Government, as we have done in this budget, 
and to empower America's citizens once again.
  All of the Members of the 104th Congress can be proud that democracy 
has worked, that we have made great 

[[Page S 9329]]
strides in addressing the Nation's budget deficit. When our founders 
sacrificed so much that America might be independent and free, we 
accepted a trust to preserve this Nation for future generations.
  This conference report is a historic first step, and we must continue 
to stand tall through the entire reform process.
  I will close with a list of 10 points, often attributed to Abraham 
Lincoln that I believe we should be mindful of as we consider reform of 
nearly every government program in the coming months:
  First, you cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
  Second, you cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
  Third, you cannot help small men up by tearing big men down.
  Fourth, you cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
  Fifth, you cannot lift the wage-earner up by pulling the wage-payer 
down.
  Sixth, you cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your 
income.
  Seventh, you cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class 
hatred.
  Eighth, you cannot establish sound social security on borrowed money.
  Ninth, you cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's 
initiative and independence, and
  Tenth, you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they 
could and should do for themselves.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time controlled by the Senator from 
Wyoming has expired.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

                          ____________________