[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 162 (Thursday, October 19, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15329-S15330]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          BALANCING THE BUDGET

  Mr. INHOFE. I hope that everyone is watching what is going on right 
now. I cannot tell you how long many of us have been working on the 
problem of the deficits in this country. And we are finally to a point 
where we can do something about it.
  It is hard for Americans to understand the obstacles that we are 
facing. There are those of us who really want to do something, really 
want to balance the budget, with the obstacles we face, and not just 
the things that are said that are not true, but the fact that I cannot 
help but believe there are some people who really do not care that much 
about balancing the budget.
  This goes back a long, long time. I can remember, Mr. President, U.S. 
Senator Carl Curtis from Nebraska. I saw the Senator from Nebraska a 
moment ago. I was hoping he would still be here when I talked about his 
home State. He came up with an idea way back in 1972. Carl Curtis said 
the only way we are ever going to get a balanced budget amendment to 
the Constitution is to get something ratified in advance from the 
States to show that there is enough grassroots support to pass it.
  And so he devised this plan. He said, we are going to have the State 
senates and State legislatures throughout America pass and preratify an 
amendment to the Constitution so that will give us the power that is 
necessary and influence necessary to get this thing passed. He came to 
Oklahoma. I was in the State senate at that time.
  I remember back in 1972 the total national debt was something like 
$200 billion. And I remember a TV ad that they had to try to impress 
upon people to quantify how much money this really was. They had $100 
bills that they stacked up and then finally it was up to the height of 
the Empire State Building, which was a tall building at that time. That 
was $200 billion. That was 1972. Well, anyway, I passed a resolution in 
the State senate of the State of Oklahoma to preratify it even though 
technically we know that would not work. And so he came in and we 
talked about it. That is how long we have been working on this.
  Now since that time in my own personal life we have had four 
children. Now they are all grown. Now we have grandchildren.
  We talked on the floor of this Senate as to the significance of the 
discussion that has taken place right now of the fact that we really 
have an opportunity to make a vote, to take a step that the CBO and 
everybody else says is going to balance the budget, is going to 
eliminate the deficit by the year 2002. Many of us would like to do it 
earlier than that. But we are satisfied in knowing that we cannot 
continue on the course that we are on.
  During the national prayer breakfast that took place in February of 
this year I had the honor of participating in that and of talking to 
many groups that came in from foreign countries. One was a gentleman 
who came in from one of the former Soviet Republics. I cannot recall 
the name of which one it was at this time. But they just recently found 
their freedoms in that country.
  He asked me a question in front of a group. This is during a national 
prayer breakfast discussion. He said, ``Senator Inhofe, in your 
country, how much can you keep?''
  I said, ``No. I don't understand what you are saying.''
  He said, ``How much money can you keep?''
  Then after a little while I figured out what he was talking about.
  What he was really saying is how much do you have to give the 
Government in America? He was very proud to announce to us that under 
their new democracy, under their new freedom, that they are able to 
keep 20 percent. In other words, in that particular country, they 
turned around and had to give the government 80 percent of everything 
they earned on a periodic basis like every month or every 2 months. I 
do not remember the exact timeframe.
  And I thought, my goodness, he is so proud of this freedom. Then we 
looked at a study that no one has refuted, and no one in this Chamber 
today will refute it, that if we do not do something to change the 
course that we are on, that by the time someone who is born today, like 
my three grandchildren, during the course of their lifetimes, they will 
have to pay, not 80 percent, but 82 percent of their lifetime income 
just to support the Federal Government.
  Now, that is what we are looking at right now. That is why this is 
significant. That is why we are at a point we cannot say that we are 
just going to be business as usual. The elections of 1994 were very 
specific. They had mandates in those elections. All of the postelection 
surveys have indicated there are about four areas that people want in 
this country. First, they want less Government involvement in their 
lives; second, a stronger national defense; third, punishing criminals; 
and fourth, which actually came out first, they want to do something 
about eliminating the deficit, about starting to cut into reducing the 
debt. 

[[Page S 15330]]

  Now, obviously you cannot do that until you stop increasing the 
deficits. We have a program now, that will accomplish that by the year 
2002.
  I yesterday took to the floor and talked about some of the new allies 
that those of us who really want to do something constructive about 
eliminating the deficit have, some new allies that are coming along. We 
are seeing right now responsible but liberal editorial boards 
throughout America are now saying, ``Look. We have heard enough of this 
lie that is being perpetrated by the leadership of the Democrats in 
both the House and the Senate, trying to draw a connection between tax 
relief and balancing the budget.''
  And I suggest to you that the choice is not taking that amount of 
money that is going to be coming out in tax relief and putting it 
toward the deficit because we know if we are going to be honest with 
ourselves all that would do is go to more social programs which this 
administration wants. They do not want cuts. They do not want freezes. 
They do not want to control growth. They want to increase the social 
programs. They want business as usual.
  Mr. President, the times are changed now. This is not the way it 
would have been 2 years ago or 4 years ago or 6 years ago.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield?
  Mr. INHOFE. I will not yield yet. We are on a timeframe. There are a 
couple things I want to cover first. The Senator will have an 
opportunity to have his 10 minutes.
  Mr. FORD. I just want to ask a question.
  Mr. INHOFE. With this timeframe we are looking at now, it is so 
critical that we ignore the demagogs and those who are trying to ignore 
this problem.
  I suggest, as I did yesterday, that one of these newspapers which has 
always been pro-Democrat, as opposed to Republican, which has been 
liberal in their editorial policy, the Washington Post, had an 
editorial just the other day, September 15. This editorial is called 
``Medagogues.'' In this editorial, they talk about how the Democrats 
are trying to draw a relationship between tax relief and balancing the 
budget.
  I suggest that anyone--and it has been  suggested  in  some  of  
these  editorials,  not  this  particular one, that if anyone was 
opposed to the tax increase of the Clinton administration of 1993--this 
is back when the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate and this 
was characterized as the largest single tax increase in the history of 
public finance in America or anyplace in the world, and that was not 
Jim Inhofe, a conservative Republican talking, that happened to be a 
Democrat on the floor of the Senate talking, that that was the largest 
single tax increase in 1993.
  What did they do? It was a tax increase on, among other people, the 
senior citizens, a 50-percent tax increase in Social Security, raising 
it from 50 to 80 percent. This is something the American people did not 
want.
  So I suggest to you, Mr. President, that if there is anyone out 
there, including Democrats or Republicans, who opposed that tax 
increase, they should be for tax relief now. Essentially all we are 
trying to do is repeal the damage that was done to the American people 
back in 1993.
  ``Medagogues'' is the name of the editorial:

       What the Democrats have instead is a lot of expostulation, 
     TV ads and scare talk.

  They go on and on.

       But there isn't any evidence that they would ``lose their 
     Medicare'' or lose their choice of doctor under the 
     Republican plan.

  This is something that is very critical, because this is an important 
part of the bill that will be considered.
  Ten days later, they came out again, and I think this is the first 
time probably in the history of the Washington Post that they came out 
twice on the same subject taking the conservative side of an issue. The 
last two sentences of this editorial are:

       The Democrats have fabricated the Medicare-tax cut 
     connection because it is useful politically. It allows them 
     to attack and to duck responsibility, both at the same time. 
     We think it's wrong.

  I want to conclude, because my time is almost up. I have to be very 
critical of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. They are 
flooding the airwaves throughout America with propaganda such as this 
one that says: ``Inhofe Feasts on Tax Cut for the Privileged While 
Children Go to Bed Hungry.''
  Just the other day this was sent out to every newspaper in Oklahoma 
characterizing me as some kind of monster abusing the children, abusing 
the elderly. All we are trying to do is protect America for the next 
generation, my grandchildren, which, if we do not do it, will have to 
spend 82 percent of their lifetime income just to support this 
monstrous Government.
  So, Mr. President, this is what conservatives are going up against. 
This is the ridicule we have been subjected to. These are the slings 
and arrows that are happening to us.
  I can tell you right now, the American people understand the same as 
they understood they did not want our health care delivery system 
turned over to Government, they understand this is the last opportunity 
we are going to have in America to actually bring this budget under 
control and, in this case, to eliminate the deficit by the year 2002.
  I will conclude by quoting one of my favorite people, Churchill, who 
said: ``Truth is incontrovertible. Panic may rescind it, ignorance may 
deride it, malice may destroy it, but there it is.'' And the truth is 
going to come through. We are going to succeed in this effort. Thank 
you, Mr. President.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator from Arkansas.

                          ____________________