[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 163 (Friday, October 20, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S15383]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          BALANCING THE BUDGET

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise also to talk about the budget 
because I think the budget is what is on our minds now, and properly 
so. I rise because we have come to a defining time when we will decide. 
And I am very interested in the colloquy that has gone on here. I 
congratulate my friend from Pennsylvania for raising this question 
about the President's budget. This is what we ought to be considering.
  Let me say to my friend from North Dakota that the gentleman is not 
for a balanced budget in any time. We are not going to get a balanced 
budget if we follow that pattern because there is none there. We are 
following the pattern that has been followed.
  Furthermore, I think it is unfair to say this money is being used. I 
do not know of any trust fund of any kind or any annuity which the 
proceeds are not invested. In this case, they are invested in the U.S. 
securities. And the reason they are invested is because the law 
requires that. They are not stuffed in the mattress somewhere. And from 
an accounting standpoint, they do belong to that trust fund. And the 
Senator knows that, of course.
  But I want to talk a little bit about the President's budget.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for 1 minute?
  Mr. THOMAS. Of course.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent that the transaction of morning 
business be extended to 11:15 a.m., under the previous terms.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THOMAS. I certainly would not want to stop this exciting debate.
  Anyway, we do need to talk about where we are going. Now, there has 
been a great deal of activity in the administration going about the 
country saying, ``We have a balanced budget. We balance the budget in 
10 years.'' And so that, then, in our minds is measured against the 
Republican proposal to have a balanced budget and do so in 7 years.
  But there is a substantial difference between the two. One is that 
the Republican budget does indeed balance in 7 years, as certified by 
CBO. The President's budget, what he has talked about for a 10-year 
balance, does not balance at the end of 10 years. So that is really the 
issue. And probably we will become involved in great detail about it.
  But you really start with the question, Are we committed to the 
notion that we need to balance the budget? We have not been committed 
for 25 years to do that. As a matter of fact, we have heard this same 
debate for 25 years, the same excuses for 25 years, the same idea that 
we cannot do it for 25 years. In the meantime, the debt has increased 
to $5 trillion. In the meantime, the interest paid on that debt will 
become the largest single-line item in the budget, larger than defense.
  So we do not really have now a choice. We can talk about the idea of 
Social Security being off-budget. I happen to favor that. The fact is 
that it is not. The fact is that it has not been. And the fact is that 
the folks on that side of the aisle would not balance the budget if it 
is on, let alone if it is off. It would make it much more difficult.
  The President promised a 5-year balanced budget as a candidate. That 
did not happen. Instead, we had the largest tax increase in history in 
the 1993 budget.
  The original budget by the administration this year was brought to 
the floor, defeated 99 to 0. So the administration sent down a new 
budget. It uses OMB numbers, not CBO numbers which the President told 
us a year ago, 2 years ago, that these are the numbers we all ought to 
use. We all ought to be on a level field. And I agree with that. CBO's 
are the numbers.
  So the budget does not balance. There are a number of other problems. 
The proposition backloads cuts. The cuts come in after the year 2000. 
Eighty-five percent of the cuts come in in the next century. That is 
not a very tough approach to budgeting. It leaves the tough work for 
later, increases the deficit by 31 percent during this 10-year period. 
Well, the Republican budget eliminates it. It adds $2 trillion to the 
debt.
  So that is the comparison that we make. We really need to come down 
to dealing with the fundamental changes that have to be made and that, 
indeed, will be voted on in the next 2 or 3 weeks.
  Protecting Medicare--we have to make some changes. There is a trust 
fund there. The trust fund will go broke in the year 2002. The trustees 
say so. You have to make some changes if you want some different 
results.
  Reform welfare--we need to do that. We needed to do it for a very 
long time. We have the opportunity to do it.
  Balance the budget--perhaps the most important. We have an 
opportunity to do that. There is legitimate debate about how you do it, 
legitimate debate about the cuts you make or the reductions you make in 
growth. But there is not really a legitimate debate about whether or 
not you financially and morally are responsible to balance the budget 
of the United States.
  The real question is, what kind of a Government do we pass on to our 
kids? What kind of a financial situation and Government do we hand on 
as the new century comes on us? And those are the decisions we will 
answer in the next 2 weeks.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator in Minnesota.

                          ____________________