[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 163 (Friday, October 20, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15393-S15394]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               THE BUDGET

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to associate myself with the remarks 
made earlier in the day by the Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator 
Santorum, who was addressing the fact that we have heard a great deal 
from the administration on the issue of their budget, and whether or 
not they have a budget which reaches a balanced budget.
  As we all know, we on the Republican side of the aisle have produced 
a budget that reaches a balance, is scored by CBO as reaching balance 
over the next 7 years, and is the first budget to do so in the last 25 
years. It is a budget that does this by reforming--and, I think, 
significantly improving--many of the functions of Government. We end 
for, example, welfare as an entitlement, and say to people in this 
country who seek to receive the support of the Government through 
welfare payments that they are expected to work after a certain amount 
of time on welfare, and they will only have the right to be on welfare 
for a period of up to 5 years throughout their lifetime.
  It also addresses the issue of Medicaid by returning the authority 
for managing Medicaid with the dollars to the States, a major step 
forward in my 

[[Page S15394]]
opinion. For example, in the State of New Hampshire I know that we will 
be able to deliver better health care to our indigent, to our people 
who are in need of health care who qualify for Medicaid, and to the 
disabled, especially young mothers with children, mothers with young 
children, and our young men also, in a much more efficient and 
effective way with probably more dollars in those programs by having 
the State manage that program at the State level and not having it be a 
Federal program.
  We have in our budget reform improved significantly and strengthened 
the Medicare Program. In fact, we have taken the Medicare Program--
which is on the brink of bankruptcy, according to the Medicare trustees 
headed in that direction, and will be there by the year 2002, and will 
begin next year to spend more money than it takes in, and thus starts 
this death spiral toward bankruptcy--taking that program, reform it, 
strengthen it, and will be giving our seniors dramatic new choices 
which they do not have today for alternative forms of health care 
delivery while retaining their right, preserving their right, to 
continue in their pre-Medicare delivery system, if they wish it, with 
their present doctors.
  That Medicare reform and strengthening is done in I think a way that 
is fairly consistent with what is happening in the private sector. It 
is using the marketplace, saying to the senior citizens of this 
country, ``Listen, you should have the same choices those of us in 
Congress have. You should not be limited in your ability to choose 
other types of health care.''
  So we have put forward plans which I believe are very aggressive, 
very effective, and very positive in reforming Government, in 
downsizing the rate of growth of the Federal Government, and in 
delivering a balanced budget.
  Why have we done this? Republicans recognize that, if you do not do 
something about the problems of this country in the area of the 
deficit, we are going to be driving this country into bankruptcy.
  This chart reflects that fact. The red lines represent entitlement 
spending; the blue lines discretionary spending; and, the yellow line 
is interest on the Federal debt. You will note that the green line 
represents the revenues of the Federal Government. You will see from 
this chart that, if we continue on our present path with the present 
rate of growth as a Government, beginning in the year 2010 we will only 
have enough money as a Government to pay for interest on the Federal 
debt and entitlement spending. That means all spending such as defense 
spending, spending on education, and spending on the environment, we 
will not be able to afford.
  Beginning in about the year 2017, we will only have enough money to 
pay for the entitlement spending of the Federal Government, which means 
we will not be able to pay interest on the Federal debt.
  What does that mean? That means we end up like Mexico was about a 
year and a half ago. We will be insolvent as a nation. We will have 
passed on to our children a country that is essentially bankrupt. It is 
not fair, not right, not appropriate, and it is not something this 
Congress is going to allow happen. That is why, as Republicans, we came 
forward with this rather dramatic idea of balancing the budget, and we 
delivered on it. We have produced a budget that is in balance.
  However, the issue is, has the President done the same thing? Has he 
been a substantive player in this process? Has he contributed to it? 
That is the issue raised earlier today by the Senator from Pennsylvania 
when he suggested a sense-of-the-Senate resolution which would 
basically allow the other side, if they felt confident in the 
President's numbers, to put forward the President's budget and say, all 
right, we stand by the President's budget as an approach to balancing 
the budget.
  I have not heard anyone from the other side of the aisle take up the 
Senator from Pennsylvania on that issue, and I do not expect we will 
because, as a practical matter, the President has not come forward with 
anything that reflects any type of a balanced budget.
  CBO, which is the fair arbiter of scoring in this institution, and 
which the President designated as the fair arbiter of scoring at the 
beginning of his term in office in his first address to the joint 
session of the Congress, has calculated that the President's budget as 
sent up in February was out of balance by at least $200 billion per 
year as far as the eye could see, adding $1 trillion of new debt to the 
backs of our children over the next 7 years, and that his most recent 
submission, which was not sent up in budget form but was sent up 
basically in outline form, is also entirely out of balance and does not 
accomplish any sort of cloture on the deficit over that same timeframe 
of 10 years, which he professes as being the period when we should be 
balancing the budget. And so there is no proposal on the table from 
this administration which would lead us to a balanced budget.
  That gets to the core of the issue. When you hear from the other side 
of the aisle, as we heard earlier today from the Senator from North 
Dakota and the Senator from California and the Senator from Minnesota, 
that our budget is insensitive, that we are not caring, that we are 
dastardly individuals on this side for trying to balance the budget 
because it impacts this group or that group--many of which 
representations, by the way, were inaccurate, especially in reference 
to the WIC Program--but when you hear those allegations, you have to 
ask yourself, what is the true insensitivity and unfairness in this 
country today? Is it not really that we as a generation, our 
generation--I am talking now about the postwar baby-boom generation, 
the Bill Clinton generation, of which I happen to be a member--is 
running up a huge debt for our day-to-day expenses, for expenses which 
we incur and enjoy the fruits of today but are not willing to pay for 
today, that we are taking that bill and passing it on to our children?
  Is not the true injustice that is occurring today to the people of 
this country, and especially to the children of this country and to the 
next generation of this country, that if we continue on our present 
course we will be the first, the first generation in the history of 
this great and wonderful country--now, again I am referring to the 
postwar baby-boom generation--the first generation to pass on less to 
our children than was passed on to us by our elders.
  That is the true insensitivity, and so we have addressed it, and we 
have addressed it in a very positive way, I believe.
  Mr. President, I would simply conclude my remarks by saying that I 
believe the President of the United States has an obligation to engage 
in this process substantively rather than politically. He has engaged 
very well politically. There is no question about that. He has managed 
to go to almost every interest group in this country, including one 
group in the Midwest, to this group in the South, to that group in the 
West, far West, and represent that he is on their side in this budget 
issue.
  I suggest that he come to the Congress and make specific proposals 
which do lead to a balanced budget rather than proposals which are 
simply structured for his reelection campaign. If he were to come to 
this Congress with proposals which would lead to a balanced budget, 
which were substantive, where he actually put on the table a budget 
with numbers balanced by CBO, we could close this matter rather quickly 
and, as a result, pass a better opportunity for a good life to our 
children, which is our primary obligation as Members of the Senate.
  I notice the Senator from Louisiana has some guests present, and I 
would be happy to pause in my comments and in fact yield back my time 
so that the Senator from Louisiana can introduce his guests.
  Mr. JOHNSTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend.

                          ____________________