[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 108 (Thursday, June 29, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9333-S9335]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 THE 1996 BUDGET: TRUTH AND PRIORITIES

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today we will consider the conference 
report on the budget. It is interesting that we saw, today, a big chart 
on the floor of the Senate, again, entitled Where is Bill? I indicated 
the other day that if I were someone inclined to do that sort of thing, 
I would bring a chart that says Where is the Bill?
  This budget conference report comes to the floor of the Senate, I 
believe, nearly 75 days after the law required that it be brought to 
the floor. But, frankly, I think that is less important than the 
question of what is brought to the floor. I do not think there is much 
difference here on the floor of the Senate with respect to our desire 
to balance the budget. No one who is thinking very clearly in this 
Senate or in this Congress or in the country could believe that we can 
spend money we do not have very long and remain a strong nation.
  The question is not whether. The question is how do we put our fiscal 
house in order and balance the budget?
  In 1993, I voted for an initiative recommended by President Clinton 
to cut $500 billion from the projected deficits. The $500 billion cut 
in deficits included some very controversial things. It included some 
tax increases that were not popular, some specific spending cuts that 
were not popular. And I understand why a number of people did not want 
to vote for it. In fact, it passed the Senate by one vote. It passed 
the House of Representatives by one vote.
  In the Senate, in fact, we did not even have one Member of the 
minority vote for that resolution--not one. I understand that as well. 
They felt strongly that it was a resolution that did not have the 
correct priorities, so they did not want to support it. Many of us 
voted for it, even though it was very controversial, in order to reduce 
the deficit. We felt it was necessary to do so. Now we have folks 
saying, well, the Democrats do not care about the deficit, and they do 
not want to do anything. The fact is that we had to produce all the 
votes in 1993 on the $500 billion deficit reduction package. We did not 
get help from one Republican.
  But what is past is past. The question is what do we do now for the 
future? The majority party brings a budget resolution to the floor of 
the Senate today. First of all, let me give them credit. I think this 
is the right issue. We need to reduce the deficit. In fact, some were 
critical of the President this morning, and I share that criticism. I 
have indicated to the President that the initial budget he sent to this 
Congress had deficits that were too large, and I assume that is why he 
sent us a supplemental budget recently. I share that criticism. I think 
we have to do this in a manner that is right and real for the American 
people.
  A while ago, I asked one of my colleagues on the floor of the Senate 
to look at page three of the budget resolution. The budget resolution, 
which is on every Senate desk, which we are going to vote on today, 
says on page three, line four, Deficits. It says, ``For the purposes of 
the enforcement of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits are as 
follows * * *'' And then it indicates that in the year 2002 the deficit 
is $108 billion.
  I have been watching people break their arms patting themselves on 
the back this morning, saying that this is a balanced budget. I come 
from a town of 300 people where people talk pretty straight about these 
things. If you look at this and read page three, they would say, wait, 
if you say this is a balanced budget, why in the year you claim there 
is a budget in balance do you have a $108 billion deficit? This is not 
a balanced budget.
  The only way they can claim it is to say: We will reduce this $108 
billion to zero by taking the trust funds in the Social Security 
account for that year, and we will show this as a zero debt. Well, let 
us say a business has lost $100 million. If a business did what this 
budget does, if you told business people to take the money from their 
employees' pension accounts and bring it into their books and claim 
they have lost no money, the folks that did that will be fast on their 
way to jail. This is not an honest way to budget. This budget is not in 
balance. That is point No. 1.
  We need to balance the budget. We need to do it without misusing the 
Social Security trust funds. Those Social Security trust funds coming 
from taxes taken from the paychecks of workers, contributions made by 
businesses, which go, by law, into a trust fund. They are not to build 
star wars, or to offset other kinds of spending in the Federal budget, 
but only for the purposes of funding Social Security. This budget is 
out of balance.
  The only way they can put it in balance--even though on page three it 
says it is a $108 billion deficit in the year 2002, the only way they 
can put it in balance, and the way they come to the floor and claim it 
is in balance is to misuse the Social Security trust funds. That is not 
an honest thing to do; it is not the right thing to do.
  Second, with respect to priorities. Previous speakers today said the 
fact is that we need to cut spending. I do not disagree with that. I 
sent to the Budget Committee recommendations on over $800 billion of 
deficit cuts, most of it spending cuts.
  But this budget comes to the floor with more money for defense. This 
budget comes to the floor with a special accommodation made so we can 
continue to build star wars, SDI, or 

[[Page S 9334]]
ballistic missiles defense, BMD. I happen to think that is a priority 
that is out of whack. There is no disagreement about cutting spending. 
But at this time and place, we say in a budget we are going to make it 
harder for kids to go to college, but it is time now to build star wars 
when the Soviet Union is gone, is that a priority that makes sense, or 
is that going to strengthen or weaken our country? I would switch that 
around and take the billions for star wars and pump it back into 
allowing kids to go to school, allowing kids to get a higher education. 
That is what strengthens our country. In my judgment, that is the right 
priority.
  The budget that is brought to the floor of the Senate today says that 
we need a tax cut. I understand why that is popular. If one were to 
take a poll and say to people, ``Would you like a tax cut?'' the answer 
would be, ``Heck, yes, I would like a tax cut.''
  But the job before us is not first to cut our revenue. The job before 
us is first to get our fiscal house in order and reduce the Federal 
budget deficit. When that is done, then I think we ought to talk about 
trying to relieve the tax burden on middle-income families in this 
country, but only when we have solved the deficit problem. The fact is 
that this budget resolution brings with it to the floor of the Senate a 
$108 billion deficit in the year 2002 and brings with it a $250 billion 
or so tax cut, most of which will go to the upper income families in 
this country.
  Now, I do not have the specifics of a Senate tax cut, but we know 
that this budget is closer to the House tax cut, and we do have the 
specifics of that, as measured by the Congressional Budget Office. It 
shows that the bulk of the tax cut is going to go to upper income 
families. So we are saying that we are going to leave a $108 billion 
deficit in the year 2002, and we are going to embark on the effort to 
provide lower taxes for upper income folks. I do not share that 
priority.
  I understand why calling it a family middle-income tax cut is 
popular. I understand why promising a tax cut is popular. My children 
would love it if I promised them dessert before dinner. The tax cut is 
enormously popular. But the fact is that we have a responsibility to 
cut the budget deficit and balance the budget. That ought to be the 
honest responsibility that is brought to the floor of the Senate.
  I fully understand that the easiest possible political course for 
anyone is merely to be critical, and that is not enough for our 
country. We have, in this country, it seems to me, far too much 
criticism and far too little examples of rolling up one's sleeves and 
doing what is necessary to fix what is wrong in our country.
  We also have too many people who are part of the blame America first 
crowd who get up, as I said the other day, get up crabby and are 
determined to share that mood with the rest of America.
  This is a remarkable, very special country, with very special 
strengths and attributes. We have done a lot of things, a lot of 
wonderful things, which I support.
  We had someone speaking on the floor today about regulations. Boy, I, 
more than most, understand what a pain regulations can be, and some of 
them go way too far. We have folks who work in the permanent 
bureaucracy who say, ``Well, we will impose this regulation despite the 
fact that it may make no common sense at all.'' And it makes people 
angry with Government. I understand that.
  Let me give another side of the same issue so we do not decide 
immediately to get rid of all regulations. Twenty years ago we used 
twice as much energy in America as we do today, yet we have less 
pollution in America today. We have cleaner air now than we did 20 
years ago, and we use twice as much energy.
  Why do we have cleaner air in America today? Because of regulations. 
We said to the captains of some industries, we are sorry, but you 
cannot keep dumping this pollution into our air. It may cost a little 
more to retrofit your smokestacks, and so on, but that cost is worth it 
because America must have an environment in which it is healthy to 
live.
  So we have cleaner air today than 20 years ago. That is not by 
accident. That is because some people had the strength to stand on the 
floor of the Senate and the House of Representatives to say there are 
rules. One rule is you cannot dump chemicals into the streams, cannot 
send pollution up into the air.
  We want a clean place for our children to live. We have cleaner 
streams and cleaner water and cleaner lakes in America today than we 
did 20 years ago. Why is that? We have less acid rain. Why? Because we 
decided 20 years ago that we would require the right things. We will 
say that if you do certain things you have to do them right.
  Not only is production good, creating jobs is important. That is the 
golden goose, there is no question. But the private sector, in creating 
jobs and advancing the standards in this country, also must respect the 
environment. We have said that. Those in many cases are regulations 
that I would not want our country to back away from.
  So, we must do things, it seems to me, in a whole range of areas, 
whether it is regulation, or the budget. We must do things that we 
think represent the economic interests in our country, to advance the 
standard of living in our country, and advance the interests of all 
Americans. That includes the economic interest and it includes the 
interests that we have to live in a country that is not polluted and 
not despoiled. All of those things come to bear in one document. That 
document is the budget.
  None of us will be around 100 years from now. None of us. Not one in 
this room will be around 100 years from now to answer for any of this. 
But anyone, 100 years from now, who is interested in who we were and 
what we felt was dear to us and important to the future of our country, 
can simply search our records or the history of the Senate and take a 
look at a budget document. They can say, at least with respect to 
public resources, here is what that group of men and women thought were 
the priorities for their future. Here is how they decided to spend 
their money.
  This budget document says we are going to spend our money on star 
wars, because star wars must be deployed. And we are going to decide 
that we do not have as much money to send children to college, so we 
make it harder for families to send their kids to colleges. That is 
what the budget says--a priority I do not share.
  We could flip that and we could say, well, the Soviet Union is gone, 
we will not build star wars--it is a gold-plated weapon system we do 
not need--and we well invest for the future. We will make sure that our 
Nation's children can become the best they can be, have the best 
education that their talents will allow them to have.
  Well, that would represent the priority, I think, that is important 
for this country. We can do that all in the context, still, of making 
decisions that have the right priorities that still lead to a balanced 
budget.
  In the aggregate, we only have so much money to spend. The question 
is not whether--it is how we balance the budget. That is the fight 
about priorities.
  I always get a kick when we come to these debates in the Senate, we 
have people, especially people who have been speaking currently in 
recent months, that say, ``Well, we want to balance the budget, the 
other side does not care. Therefore, we are responsible and the other 
side is not.''
  I do not share that view of this body. I think we have terrific 
people all around this body on both sides of the political aisle. I 
think all Members should share a responsibility and a determination to 
try to do what we can to bring this budget in balance.
  There is not any question that we have different priorities about 
what we think is important. The political process is the process by 
which we make those choices. This is a great process.
  John F. Kennedy used to kid, he said, ``Every mother kind of hopes 
that her child might grow up to be President, as long as they do not 
have to get involved in politics.'' But of course, politics is a system 
by which we make choices in America. It is a great system.
  In some cases, I am on a side that loses, in some cases I am on a 
side that wins; but my responsibility is always to fight for the things 
I think are important for the future of this country.
  My kids, and everybody's kids--they are all that we have in this 
country, today and tomorrow and in the future. 

[[Page S 9335]]
The question is, what makes this a better future for America? When I 
look at what our ancestors left us, it is pretty striking and pretty 
remarkable. And the courage and the strength and the determination with 
which they approached life and with which they made decisions were 
really quite remarkable.
  We have been a nation of builders and doers. This country has not 
gotten to where it has gotten in the world stage by deciding to sit 
back and do nothing. We have been out rolling up our sleeves and doing 
and creating. We have led the world in dozens of areas, even in 
pollution control and civil rights.
  If we have a problem, we face it. A lot of countries just push it 
aside because it is too painful. Part of the genius of this country is 
to face these issues and fight about them, and to make public decisions 
in a consensus in our political system about the issues.
  That is what this budget debate is. Nobody ought to be concerned 
about the fact that we are fighting about priorities. That is what this 
is about. That is the political system. It is the genius and the wonder 
of the political system.
  I hope in the end stage of this process, that good will and 
determination expressed by people on all sides of the political aisle, 
and including the President of the United States, will result in 
compromises that really do balance the budget, No. 1, to put our fiscal 
house in order; and, No. 2, do it in a way that advances the interests 
of all the people in this country, so that this country can have a 
brighter and better future.
  How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 3 minutes and 38 seconds remaining.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  

                          ____________________