[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 166 (Wednesday, October 25, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S15597-S15598]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        THE RECONCILIATION BILL

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, 31 years ago this Friday, Ronald Reagan 
delivered a nationally televised speech that began his career in 
politics. The speech was called ``A Time for Choosing.''
  Ronald Reagan made clear that the choice facing America was not one 
between right or left--rather it was one between up or down.
  More than three decades later, this Congress now faces that same 
choice.
  We can either go down the path of the status quo--a path that will 
lead America into a downward spiral of bigger government, higher 
deficits, more taxes, and a financially bankrupt Medicare system.
  Or we can move America up to a brighter future, a future where our 
children and grandchildren are free from staggering deficits. A future 
where power flows from our States to Washington, and not the other way 
around. A future with a strong and secure Medicare Program.
  Mr. President, I believe the choice is clear.
  For this historic Republican Congress, the vote on the reconciliation 
bills will be a defining moment. It will be the moment when the 
American public will see that we are not business as usual. We are not 
the status quo. Rather, this Congress is one that keeps its promises to 
the American people.

  There will be plenty of debate in the coming days, and I know the 
American people will be listening closely. Judging from what has been 
coming out of the Whit House lately, I know they will hear a lot of 
rhetoric, and a lot of scare tactics.
  But I believe that in the end, they will see through this 
smokescreen, and they will see the truth.
  And the truth is that the Republican budget contained in this bill is 
a realistic, thoughtful budget blueprint for America. The truth is that 
it will ratchet down the deficit by roughly $30 billion a year during 
the next 7 years. The truth is that it will balance the budget in the 
year 2002. And the truth is that it is the only real honest budget plan 
before the American people.
  The truth also is that a balanced budget means a brighter future for 
our children and grandchildren. Our national debt is now so huge that a 
child born in 1995 will pay more than $187,000 in taxes over his or her 
lifetime just to pay their share of the debt. We owe our children a far 
better future.
  A balanced budget will create lower interest rates, which means that 
more Americans will be able to own a house, buy a car, or go to 
college, or to borrow money. Lower interest rates also mean business 
will have more money to invest and hire workers.
  The truth also is that the American people are more able to decide 
how to spend their hard earned money than are Government bureaucrats.
  And with the $245 billion tax cut contained in this bill, millions of 
American families will have more money to spend. Our $500-per-child tax 
credit will mean that over the coming years, families will have 
thousands and thousands more dollars to spend on college tuition or 
braces for their kids.
  We will include in the Record during the debate how such money will 
be coming to each State, such as my own State of Kansas. There are a 
lot of families with children. They are not rich. But a $500 tax 
credit--if you have two or three children, that is $1,500. They can 
spend it better on their families than any bureaucrat I know of in 
Washington, DC, or any Member of Congress, for that matter, on either 
side of the aisle.
  By rewarding those who save and invest, our capital gains tax cut 
will also create jobs and opportunity.
  There is an undeniable truth that the President has tried to ignore 
for months and months. And that is the fact that three of the 
President's own Cabinet members tell us that if no action is taken, 
Medicare will be completely broke by the year 2002.
  This bill makes the tough decisions necessary to preserve, protect, 
and strengthen Medicare. And we have been aided a great deal in this 
effort by the Presiding Officer, the Senator from New Hamphsire, 
Senator Gregg.
  We do it by slowing its rate of growth, and by giving seniors more 
options in selecting their health care.
  And despite the phony talk you may hear of ``cutting Medicare,'' the 
Republican plan will increase Medicare spending from $4,800 per 
beneficiary in 1995 to $6,700 per beneficiary in 2002.
  Let me repeat: The Republican plan will increase Medicare spending 
from $4,800 per beneficiary in 1995 to $6,700 per beneficiary in 2002.
  I know that during the next few days, some of my friends on the other 
side of the aisle will be painting horrible pictures. They will tell us 
that passage of this bill means we are turning our backs on children, 
on seniors, and on the disabled. They will repeat it again and again. 
But no matter how many times they repeat it, it does not make it true.
  Mr. President, I wish all Americans could read the column by budget 
expert James Glassman that was printed in the October 17 edition of the 
Washington Post. Mr. Glassman's column--and I ask unanimous consent 
that it be printed in the Record following my remarks--makes clear the 
falsehoods contained in some of the emotional rhetoric we have been 
hearing.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. Glassman writes that under the Republican plan, Federal 
spending will rise between 1995 and 2002 by $358 billion--or 24 
percent. It is going to rise 24 percent over the next 7 years. Is that 
devastation? Is that cutting programs? No. Only in Washington would a 
$358 billion increase be called a cut.
  The media bought onto the President's spin for the most part; they 
keep talking about it. Turn on NBC, and Katie Couric is talking about 
``big cuts, big cuts.'' She does not know anything about the budget. 
All she is picking up on is the liberal spin which the Democrats have 
been dishing out there with no facts, no effort to save Medicare, to 
balance the budget, or tax cuts; a lot of talk, but that is about all.
  Mr. Glassman makes very clear that President Clinton was absolutely 
off the mark when he said--and I quote--``I will not let balancing the 
budget 

[[Page S15598]]

serve as a cover for destroying the social compact.''
  The truth is, as Mr. Glassman writes, if the budget becomes law, the 
social compact will actually be strengthened, for not only will the 
Government keep its commitments to the elderly and the poor, it will 
also meet an even more important obligation to the public--the 
obligation to spend no more than it takes in.
  Throughout this process, on every major issue contained in this 
legislation, the Speaker and I have invited President Clinton to join 
with us in giving the American people the fundamental change they want. 
Instead of sitting down with us, however, the President has flown 
around the country making speeches, playing politics, taking polls, and 
avoiding the work and making policy decisions. The President apparently 
believes that the American people do not really want a balanced budget. 
He believes that the people are so dependent on the Federal Government 
that they will not tolerate slowing its rate of growth. He believes the 
American people are willing to sacrifice the future of their children 
and grandchildren so that the Government can continue its free spending 
ways, and he is wrong, and he will find out that he is wrong. And one 
of these days he is going to find out how to contact the majority 
leader in the Senate and the Speaker of the House, and when he does we 
are willing to sit down with the President of the United States.
  But right now it is all rhetoric. It is all politics. It is all 
polls. It is all scaring seniors, scaring veterans, scaring children, 
and all a week before Halloween. Maybe by the time Halloween comes he 
will have everybody in a state of frenzy and we will be in that funk 
the President talked about. He said America is in a funk. America is 
not in a funk. They want fundamental change, and we are about to give 
them fundamental change. We would like to do it with the President's 
cooperation.
  I am reminded of the words of Winston Churchill who said:

       We have not journeyed all the way across the centuries, 
     across the oceans, across the mountains, across the prairies, 
     because we are made of sugar candy.

  I say to President Clinton: Mr. President, the American people are 
not made of sugar candy. They are far stronger and wiser than you 
think.
  I also say that this Republican Congress is not made of sugar candy. 
We promised we would balance the budget, and we will. We promised we 
would cut taxes, and we will. We promised we would preserve and protect 
and strengthen Medicare, and we will. We promised we would have welfare 
reform, and we will. October 1995 is a time for choosing, and I invite 
all Senators on both sides of the aisle and all Americans, regardless 
of their party, regardless of their philosophy, to stand with us as we 
move our country up to a future of unlimited hope, freedom, and 
opportunity. That is what this debate is going to be all about.
  There will be some policy differences, obviously--some legitimate 
policy differences, but there will also be a lot of politics, and we 
prepared for that. And I just urge my colleagues on this side of the 
aisle, this is the most historic moment in my memory in the Congress of 
the United States. And I have been here for some time. Never before 
have we tried to bring about such fundamental change. It is going to be 
up to us. We have the majority. It is our responsibility. And we need 
53 Republicans standing together when the final vote comes.
  So I urge my colleagues to pay attention. I know that both Senators 
Domenici and Exon will be explaining in detail all the different 
amendments and their opposition or support for the different 
amendments.

                               Exhibit 1

               [From the Washington Post, Oct. 17, 1995]

                           The No-Cut Budget

                         (By James K. Glassman)

       Despite what you've read and heard, the Republican budget--
     now moving toward passage in its final, ``reconciliation'' 
     form--does not cut total federal spending, nor does it cut 
     tax revenues. Not by a long shot.
       An illuminating way to look at this budget is to take what 
     the government actually spent and raised over the past seven 
     years and compare it to what Republicans propose to spend and 
     raise over the next seven years. The results:
       Spending will increase by $2.6 trillion.
       Revenues will increase by $3.3 trillion.
       These figures may surprise you; they run counter to what 
     you've seen in the press, which continually uses the word 
     ``cuts'' when referring to both spending and taxes. But in 
     the misleading baseline-budgeting nomenclature of Washington, 
     a cut is a reduction from a previously projected increase.
       The real spending and revenue numbers show something quite 
     different: that the Republican revolution is more modest than 
     both Republicans and Democrats claim.
       During the seven years from 1989 to 1995, federal spending 
     totaled $9.5 trillion. During the next seven years, the 
     congressional budget agreement calls for spending of $12.1 
     trillion.
       As for revenues: During the seven years just past, the 
     government collected $7.9 trillion in taxes. Over the next 
     seven years, the Republican plan will raise $11.2 trillion in 
     taxes--even taking into account the $500-per-child credit and 
     GOP changes to capital gains that will reduce expected tax 
     revenues by $245 billion.
       If Congress did not make any changes to the budget, 
     spending would rise by 37 percent and revenues by 44 percent, 
     the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates. But under 
     the GOP seven-year plan, spending will rise by 27 percent and 
     tax revenues by 41 percent.
       Stop and think about those numbers. They seem to represent 
     a reasonable path toward an objective that most Americans 
     share: a zero deficit.
       In the fiscal year that ended on Sept. 30, 1995, the 
     government ran a deficit of $161 billion. If nothing is done, 
     CBO says the annual deficit will continue to rise in 1996 and 
     each successive year, reaching $256 billion in 2002.
       Any business or household facing such a prospect would 
     quickly reduce its spending. But the federal government 
     doesn't have to do that--mainly because the U.S. economy, 
     even growing at a moderate 2.4 percent a year, is so powerful 
     that it will generate vastly higher tax revenues.
       The aggregate numbers I've just cited--1989-95 vs. 1996-
     2002--are probably the best way to look at budget changes. 
     But, in case you think I'm pulling a fast one, let's look 
     simply at two specific years: the one just past (fiscal 1995) 
     and the one in which the congressional resolution requires a 
     zero deficit (fiscal 2002).
       In 1995, federal spending was $1.5 trillion. If current 
     policies were to continue, spending, according to the CBO, 
     would be $2.1 trillion in 2002. That's an increase of $600 
     billion, or 40 percent. Under the GOP plan, spending will 
     rise between 1995 and 2002 by $358 billion, or 24 percent. 
     (That's slightly ahead of inflation if prices increase 3 
     percent annually.)
       Only in Washington would a $358 billion increase be called 
     a ``cut.'' In fact, Republicans who want to sound as if 
     they're making big changes and Democrats who want to frighten 
     the public both say that the GOP budget ``cuts'' total about 
     $1 trillion. This absurd figure is derived by taking the 
     difference between the CBO's projection and the Republicans' 
     proposed spending for each year from 1996 to 2002, then 
     adding all seven numbers up.
       Consider Medicare. Politicians talk about $271 billion in 
     cuts, but actually, under the GOP plan, spending in 2002 will 
     be $86 billion higher than in 1995, an increase of more than 
     6 percent annually.
       The real question for voters assessing the GOP budget is 
     where the additional $358 billion in federal spending in 2002 
     is going. The answer is entitlements: Social Security will 
     cost $146 billion more in 2002 than in 1995, Medicare (for 
     the elderly) will cost $86 billion more and Medicaid (for the 
     poor) will cost $35 billion more.
       Miscellaneous entitlements (food stamps, the earned income 
     tax credit, military retirement, etc.) will rise $63 billion. 
     Add interest on the national debt (there's nothing we can do 
     about that one), and the total additional spending exceeds 
     $358 billion.
       By deciding to preserve and increase these entitlements, 
     Congress had nothing left for increasing the 
     ``discretionary'' side of the budget, where outlays will 
     total $515 billion in 2002, down from $548 billion in 1995.
       Defense comprises most of discretionary spending, and it 
     will be flat at roughly $270 billion. Transportation spending 
     will fall from $39 billion to $32 billion; education and 
     training will drop from $39 billion to $35 billion; foreign 
     aid and other spending on international affairs from $21 
     billion to $15 billion.
       Intelligent folks can differ on where to spend the 
     government's money. Maybe defense should be cut and 
     transportation increased.
       But once the nation has decided to balance the budget, keep 
     Social Security intact and pare back expected tax revenues 
     slightly (and voters made those decisions last November), the 
     choices are pretty limited.
       President Clinton knows this very well, but with a devotion 
     to the first-person singular exceeded only by Sen. Phil 
     Gramm's, he said on Friday, ``I will not let balancing the 
     budget serve as a cover for destroying the social compact.''
       The truth is that, if Congress's budget becomes law, the 
     social compact will actually be strengthened. Not only will 
     the government keep its commitments to the elderly and the 
     poor on health care, it will also meet an even more important 
     obligation to the public that it abrogated 30 years ago--to 
     spend no more than it takes in.

                          ____________________