[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 164 (Monday, October 23, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15493-S15494]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             RECONCILIATION

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, a few hours ago this afternoon the Senate 
Budget Committee reported to the Senate the reconciliation bill for 
1996 through the year 2002. We will soon begin to debate that bill--
perhaps the most momentous debate that this Senate will engage in this 
year or perhaps any year during the course of the last decade.
  The design of that bill is, of course, to see to it that the budget 
of the United States is balanced in the year 2002, precisely the time 
at which the constitutional amendment on a balanced budget would have 
required such a balance, had it been passed and submitted to the States 
by this Senate.
  Hidden in the debate over the budget, however, is one vitally 
important proposition. That is, that this budget does not lead us to 
balance on the basis of figures submitted by my distinguished friend, 
the chairman of the Budget Committee, by the majority leader, by a 
party caucus, or by any other such partisan individual or organization.
  The certification that this budget will be balanced comes from our 
Congressional Budget Office, an office set up literally decades ago in 
order to provide us with the most objective advice possible with 
respect to the budgetary implication of our actions.
  In fact, just 2 short years ago, the President of the United States 
reported that we ought to end debate over assumptions and projections 
and all operate off baselines provided by the Congressional Budget 
Office. I regret that the President has abandoned that salutary course 
of action.
  It is not relevant for the purposes of my argument here this evening, 
Mr. President. What is relevant is the fact, first, that the 
Congressional Budget Office has said to us, if you pass this bill, if 
you follow these policies, you will, in fact, reach balance by the year 
2002. As a result, we, the Congressional Budget Office, can tell you 
that the economy of the United States will be healthier, much 
healthier, as a result of adopting those policies.
  The figure the Congressional Budget Office gives in this regard is 
that we will have a dividend of $170 billion in increased revenues from 
our present tax system as a result of the fact that we are going to 
balance the budget, increased revenues that come because the economy 
will grow more rapidly because interest rates will be lower. These will 
be reflected in the budget itself.
  Of course, it is this $170 billion dividend, together with changes 
which close corporate loopholes--corporate welfare as it were--that 
provide the great bulk of the $245 billion tax cut for middle-income 
and working Americans, which is an integral part of this reconciliation 
bill.
  The dramatic differences which will be debated later on this week 
have to do with whether or not we want that dividend, whether or not we 
want to adopt difficult and tough policies that will result in a 
stronger or better economy, or whether we prefer the status quo at a 
slower rate of growth, a higher interest rate, and a higher rate of 
inflation. It is just that simple.
  Now, Mr. President, in addition to repudiating the ideas that were 
causing this dividend to take place, Members on the other side of the 
aisle do not want to give a tax break to middle-income Americans under 
any set of circumstances. They would much prefer to continue the 
policies of the past--slow growth, no tax reductions, no balanced 
budget now or ever.
  The President's budget, by contrast, according to the same 
Congressional Budget Office, will never result in deficits 
significantly below $200 billion a year.
  Finally, Mr. President, we will have, during the course of the debate 
over this reconciliation bill, a paradox. The President, the official 
line is that these spending reductions are too great, that we should 
not give working Americans tax reductions. We simply ought to continue 
the status quo.
  Grace notes from some on the other side in connection with this 
debate will be that we really have not balanced the budget at all, we 
have not gone far enough, we should not be using a unified budget, we 
should ignore all of the taxes collected under the Social Security 
system and paid out under that Social Security system.
  Implicit in that argument is that we have not gone far enough, that 
we have 

[[Page S 15494]]

not cut spending sufficiently. There will be a great deal of confusion 
on the part of the American people when they hear on one side the 
argument that we have not gone far enough because we do not bring the 
budget to balance in the year 2002, in spite of the words of the 
Congressional Budget Office--without any suggestion, I may say, as to 
how we should do so--and, on the other side, the argument we are simply 
going to far.
  I hope this debate will be worked out during the course of, simply, 
the balance of this week. But the bottom line is that this Senate, the 
majority in this Senate, are going to vote for a budget which not only 
brings us into balance as quickly as a constitutional amendment would 
have brought us into balance but will also pay off $170 billion less in 
deficits than would otherwise take place. That $170 billion is itself 
only the tip of the iceberg above water. That is how the Federal 
Government benefits. The people of the United States will benefit two, 
three, four times as much, in higher incomes, in better jobs, in a 
brighter future and in more opportunity.
  So I commend my friend, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, 
for his work in getting us to the verge of this great success and look 
forward to a significant and vitally important debate in this Senate on 
the future of this country.

                          ____________________