[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 160 (Tuesday, October 17, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15190-S15191]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           A BALANCED BUDGET

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, earlier this year the Congress had the 
opportunity to pass the balanced budget amendment and put an end to 
chronic budget deficits. As we know, the amendment failed by a single 
vote. A number of those who opposed it did so saying it was not needed, 
that Congress could balance the budget if only it had the courage and 
the will to do so.
  Well, those of us who heard the message that the American people sent 
so loudly and clearly just about a year ago pledged that with or 
without the balanced budget amendment, we would work to balance the 
budget by the year 2002, just as we promised the American people last 
fall. Failing to address the budget problem not only threatens the 
economic well-being of generations to come, but also the ability of our 
Government today to respond to our needs.

  The national debt now amounts to about $18,500 for every man, woman, 
and child in the country. In 1994, every American paid an average of 
about $800 in taxes just to pay the interest on the national accident. 
My new grandson, born just 5 months ago, can expect to pay $187,000 in 
his lifetime just to service the debt, just to pay the interest on the 
debt. I cannot look at him without thinking of that obligation, without 
thinking of our responsibility to every child like him where this 
Congress and the Congresses before us have run up the credit card debt 
and, in effect, as we leave the stage, we will be handing that to our 
children and our grandchildren. It is immoral, Mr. President.
  The gross interest on the national debt will amount to nearly $300 
billion this year. That is $300 billion of lost opportunity now, money 
that cannot be spent on health care or housing for the poor, nutrition, 
law enforcement, and defense--anything else. We cannot afford not to 
balance the budget given these realities.
  A failure to balance the budget means condemning our children and 
grandchildren to a declining standard of living just because we are 
unwilling to pay our bills today.
  Balancing the budget will not only pay dividends to future 
generations in that they will have less in taxes to service the debt 
and thus get more out of their Government for every dollar they pay, it 
will also pay dividends to our generation as well.
  The Congressional Budget Office predicts that a balanced budget by 
the year 2002 would facilitate a reduction in long-term real interest 
rates of between 1 and 2 percent.
  For business, a 2-percent interest rate reduction would result in 
lower investment costs, opening up new opportunities for job creation 
and business expansion.
  A 2-percent reduction on a typical 30-year $80,000 mortgage would 
save homeowners $107 a month, that is $1,284 a year, or over $38,000 
over the life of the mortgage.
  A 2-percent reduction in interest rates on a 4-year $15,000 new car 
loan would save the car buyer $676.
  A 2-percent reduction on a typical 10-year student loan for a 4-year 
private college would save students and their parents nearly $9,000 in 
interest costs, an 8.5-percent cost reduction.
  Critics will not argue these points, but they are not willing to make 
the difficult choices to balance the budget either. They are avoiding 
their responsibility.
  Frankly, as the Senator from Georgia pointed out a moment ago, 
President Clinton has no plan to balance the budget and, therefore, 
must accept key responsibility today. The CBO projects that the 
President's so-called balanced budget plan would result in $200 billion 
annual deficits for the foreseeable future. So that is not an 
alternative.
  Let us put the Republican budget into perspective. This year, the 
Federal Government will spend about $1.59 trillion, a sum of money that 
none of us can really comprehend, Mr. President, but that is 
$1,590,000,000,000.
  In 7 years, by the year 2002, we will be spending $1.88 trillion--
$1,880,000,000,000 that is an additional $300 million, or an increase 
of 18 percent.
  One of the areas of growth is Medicare. Even under the Republican 
budget, Medicare spending will rise from about $178 billion this year 
to $274 billion in the fiscal year 2002, that is an average increase of 
about 6.4 percent per year. Medicare spending will be 54 percent higher 
by the year 2002.
  Mr. President, I was just informed before I came over to the floor 
that my office has begun receiving a lot of telephone calls from 
seniors who have received a bulletin from the AARP warning of a cut in 
Medicare. With all due respect to the people who prepared that 
bulletin, I think we need to assure the senior citizens of this country 
that that bulletin is wrong; that they need not be worried about a cut 
in Medicare because, as I just said, under the budget that is being 
criticized, Medicare spending will rise from $178 billion today to $274 
billion 7 years from now. In other words, we will be spending 50 
percent more in 7 years than we spend today.
  Total Medicare spending will be $1.6 trillion over the next 7 years, 
73 percent higher than what was spent over the previous 7 years. And on 
average, per beneficiary, Medicare spending will increase from about 
$4,800 per person this year to $6,700 by the year 2002. That is a 
$1,900 increase. I think that it is totally irresponsible for any 
organization to be scaring America's senior citizens, asserting that a 
$1,900 increase is a cut.
  The money that we are spending on Medicare is a lot of money, but we 
believe it is necessary to care for our senior citizens. We also know 
that it is necessary to prevent the Medicare Program from going broke. 
The Republican budget will slow the growth in Medicare because the 
Medicare trustees have warned us that without doing so, the system will 
go broke.
  But are we cutting the growth in Medicare in order to pay for tax 
cuts for the rich? No. Revenues in fiscal year 1996 are projected to be 
$1.4 trillion. By 2002, they will total $1.88 trillion. That is 34 
percent more than this year. So revenues to the Federal Treasury are 
increasing, not declining. We are proposing that those revenues just 
not increase quite so much, just like we are proposing that spending 
just not increase by quite so much; that a tax cut is not reducing the 
revenues to the Federal Treasury. They are still going up by 34 
percent.
  Many in the opposition do not want to concede that Medicare spending 
constraint is needed because, frankly, they like big Government--the 
Government that chooses the doctors people see, the procedures that 
they perform. They do not want to see tax relief because it deprives 
them of the revenue to expand Government even further into our lives.
  Let me conclude by talking for a moment about our proposed tax cuts. 
Tax relief is really the dividend we are giving the American people 
from the downsizing of the other parts of the Government: The $200 
million reduction in the congressional budget, which the President has 
vetoed; elimination of the Commerce Department, which he 

[[Page S 15191]]
threatens to veto; reforming welfare to get people back to work, to 
strengthen families and force deadbeat dads to pay support; and 
consolidate and eliminate other programs. So the tax relief is the 
dividend to the American people for Congress downsizing this 
Government.
  Some oppose tax relief because they do not believe the American 
people can make better decisions on how to spend the money that they 
worked so hard to earn. The Republican Party puts faith in the American 
people and the States. I would not be rich but I would be wealthier 
than I am if I had a dollar for every time somebody on the other side 
of the aisle proclaimed that it was necessary for the Federal 
Government to make these decisions because we cannot trust the States.
  Mr. President, you and I know it is a whole lot easier to influence 
directly the people at the State and local levels who are making the 
decisions than it is to get the Federal Government to slow down, to 
change direction and to begin moving in the right direction.
  The opposition's bottom line is, support big Government. They do not 
want to see programs and agencies eliminated. But the bottom line is 
that the Government is the problem. As Bill Bennett, former Education 
Secretary said earlier this year in testimony before the Senate Budget 
Committee:

       We have created a nanny state that takes too much from us 
     in order to do too much for us. This has created 
     inefficiency, sapped individual responsibility, and intruded 
     on personal liberty.

  Mr. President, I could not say it better. It is time for us to take a 
stand. Congress cannot duck its responsibility and neither can the 
President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Tennessee has 15 minutes.

                          ____________________