[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 181 (Wednesday, November 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17050-S17055]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           A BALANCED BUDGET

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I am reminded that Patrick Henry said, 
```Peace, peace.' Everywhere, men cry `peace.' But there is no peace.'' 
Now the colleagues on the other side of the aisle cry ``balanced 
budget, balanced budget,'' but there is no balanced budget.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the Record 
an article entitled ``Polls get in the Way of Washington's Work,'' from 
this morning's Post and Courier.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         [From the Post and Courier, Wednesday, Nov. 15, 1995]

               Polls Get in the Way of Washington's Work

                      (By Sen. Ernest F. Hollings)

       The silent scandal that permeates Washington is the 
     pollster charade. As in Newsweek's Conventional Wisdom Watch, 
     today's Washington is based on who's up and who's down in the 
     polls. Everyone--the president, Congress and the media--
     participates. The result? Nothing gets done and no one really 
     expects anything to get done. Meanwhile, the nation's real 
     needs are ignored. There is no genuine plan to guide us. And 
     plans to put us on a pay-as-you-go basis are simply pollster-
     driven budget schemes fashioned to get politicians past the 
     next election.
       John F. Kennedy started it all 35 years ago in West 
     Virginia. Lou Harris' polls identified hot-button issues of 
     concern and Jack Kennedy played them like a Stradivarius. 
     Political polling immediately became the order of the day. 
     Now even the media wittingly are the engines behind the 
     oppressive reliance on polls. No longer do reporters bow to 
     the who, what, where, when, how and why of fact and accuracy. 
     Instead, they kowtow to pollsters to elicit pithy partisan 
     responses that stem from polls.
       The pollster begins each day with ``divide and conquer.'' 
     Voters immediately are divided into age, sex, race, 
     education, working or retired, married or single, veteran or 
     military, city, suburb or rural. No one is considered an 
     American. They have to be Asian-American, African-American, 
     Irish-American.
       Division is the pollster mentality, but dissembling is the 
     pollster's art. No pollster has served a day in office. But 
     they'll tell you in a minute that you can't break the Sacred 
     Code of the Pollster. If you want to get--and stay--in 
     office.
       Never take a firm position. If you do, you'll divide 
     voters.
     
[[Page S17051]]

       Favoring a proposition will put you at odds with those who 
     oppose.
       Opposing will separate you from those who favor.
       To influence the most voters possible, firmly say that 
     you're ``concerned'' about any issue so you appear 
     understanding and appease both sides.
       Aha! Now any way you slice it, you've identified with the 
     voter. With this kind of soundbite mentality permeating the 
     airwaves, it's easy to understands why there is no leadership 
     in Washington.
       Lee Atwater taught that negative politics is the positive 
     path to political victory. As a result, one of the first 
     ``musts'' for a candidate today is to order negative research 
     on opponents--and himself. Why? To have a prepared answer for 
     any past mistakes or inconsistencies and to be able to unload 
     on an opponent at the end of the campaign when voters finally 
     are interested and there's no time to respond.
       Pollsters also teach both incumbents and challengers to 
     preach change. That's why all candidates sound the same. 
     Republicans and Democrats are all for cutting spending and 
     against taxes; for prisons and against crime; for jobs and 
     against welfare; for education and the environment. And, of 
     course, everyone is for the family. With this emphasis on 
     change and negative politics, the logic of the pollster 
     paradigm is that government is the enemy and problem, not the 
     solution. As such, everyone serving in government must be 
     ousted. Thus, there's the cry for term limits.
       The media's job is to expose this nonsense. But instead of 
     living up to this responsibility, the media have joined the 
     scam. They feast on polls and partisanship. Rather than 
     reporting the news of the day, they make the news with 
     their own polls. Questions by reporters don't delve into 
     an issue but focus on the poll or partisan aspects of the 
     issue. What they want is conflict.
       These days, the pollster charade in the media continues 
     with the ludicrous notion that spending cuts alone can 
     eliminate the deficit. Or worse--that cutting taxes can 
     eliminate the deficit. Nothing could be further from the 
     truth. Since Ronald Reagan's ``voodoo'' that tax cuts could 
     bring in more revenue and eliminate the deficit, the national 
     debt quintupled from less that $1 trillion to almost $5 
     trillion. And instead of eliminating waste in government, we 
     created the biggest waste of all--$348 billion a year in 
     interest costs. Since we can't avoid paying interest costs, 
     we borrow a billion dollars daily, which automatically 
     increases spending a billion, increases the debt a billion 
     and increases interest costs. Every day the cycle starts 
     again.
       Both President Clinton's and Speaker Gingrich's budget 
     plans to get rid of this waste are mere ruses to get past 
     next year's election. But Washington politicians figure--who 
     cares? Who will be around seven years from now? And the media 
     lets them get by with it. Our 1995 budget was $1.52 trillion. 
     The 1996 Clinton budget is $1.63 trillion. The 1996 Gingrich 
     congressional budget is $1.60 trillion. Both budgets increase 
     spending. Neither keeps up with the $1 billion daily 
     increases in the national debt. Over the seven years, 
     spending exceeds revenues by more than $1 trillion. The media 
     know this yet continue to report ``a balance budget by the 
     year 2002.''
       Now comes the bogus proposal to balance the budget by 
     reducing cost-of-living increases for Social Security and by 
     raiding Medicare. By law, Social Security funds are in trust 
     and are not to be used to offset the deficit. Similarly, the 
     Medicare trust funds for hospital costs is in the black, but 
     may go into the red by 2002. In other words, both Social 
     Security and Medicare are paid for and in surplus. What is 
     not paid for this minute is defense, education, farm 
     subsidies, environmental protection, veteran's benefits, law 
     enforcement--general government. We readily increase billions 
     for defense and other programs but are unwilling to pay for 
     it. Thus continues the borrowing, spending and downward 
     spiral that increases the deficit. We have fiscal cancer and 
     nobody wants to talk about it.
       To put a tourniquet on this deficit-debt hemorrhage, we 
     need spending cuts, spending freezes, a closing of tax 
     loopholes, denying new programs and tax increases. But 
     proposals to do this go unreported. As such, the public 
     believes spending cuts alone will do the job. And the media 
     validate bogus plans to cut taxes as serious moves to balance 
     the budget. That we really are broke is ignored.
       Rather than being pollster pawns, the media should serve as 
     an institutional memory to give us perspective. With the Cold 
     War over, it's time to rebuild our economy. More than ever, a 
     strong government is needed--for education, job training 
     research, housing, transportation, technical development and 
     inner-city needs.
       But the media treat government as the enemy.
       In a silent conspiracy with pollsters and Washington 
     politicians, the media masquerade opinion polls as fact and 
     validate the politics that any tax increase is poison. All 
     the time, the rebuilding of America goes wanting and neither 
     the Clinton nor the Dole/Gingrich forces can talk sense. The 
     train wreck is a media production.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. It pretty well explains the reason for our dilemma. Let 
me address comments of the Senator from Montana, and others, who have 
made the argument that President Clinton does not want a balanced 
budget. Those who have the unmitigated gall to come and contend that 
really ought to be embarrassed. They know no shame.
  For openers, we should note that President Clinton came to the 
Presidency having balanced 10 budgets in a row down in Arkansas. Some 
of my colleagues that bellow and scream and whine and cry have never 
seen a balanced budget. But the President did it. That was one of the 
Clinton campaign's clarion calls, that he knew how to put Government on 
a pay-as-you-go basis.
  What did he do when he came to town? He cut spending and put us on a 
path that has led to significant reductions in the Federal budget 
deficit. Even the opposition contends that it cannot be balanced except 
in 7 years. But let me address the issue of responsibility. That is 
what Republicans claim now--that they are responsible and the President 
is irresponsible. I think somewhere, sometime, somehow the record 
should show exactly who caused these deficits and who is not 
responsible for the deficit. You can not accuse President Lyndon 
Johnson of causing the deficit. He left office at the end of 1968 with 
a surplus. Ever heard that word around here? Not just ``balanced,'' but 
totally in the black.
  I say in passing that President Nixon did not cause these deficits 
that we grapple with now. Likewise, President Ford worked his dead-
level best even holding a budget summit to try and bring down the 
deficits. After Ford, President Carter worked to reduce the deficit 
that he had inherited from President Ford.
  Mr. President, it was not until we got to voodoo, Kemp-Roth 
Reaganomics, that we started this nonsense. President Reagan gave us 
the first $100 billion deficit in the history of the land. He gave us 
the first $200 billion deficit in the history of the land. President 
Bush gave us the first $300 billion deficit in the history of the land. 
And at the close of his administration, President Bush was fast 
approaching a $400 billion deficit. That is where the deficits have 
come from.
  I speak advisedly. President Bush voted for every dollar spent during 
his 4 years. Not this Senator. Not the distinguished Presiding Officer. 
But I can guarantee that of the 44 vetoes under President Bush, not a 
red cent of spending was ever vetoed.
  So now we know from whence we came, piling up annual shortfalls until 
they approached almost $400 billion deficits. President Clinton comes 
to town and what did he do? He put together a package to reduce the 
deficit $500 billion over 5 years. That is the one person that cannot 
be accused of causing the deficit--William Jefferson Clinton.
  The distinguished Presiding Officer as well as this Senator from 
South Carolina could be accused. We were here at the time that deficits 
soared up, up, and away. The expression used by my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle is that the President's program leaves us with 
$200 billion deficits ``for as far as the eye can see.''
  Heavens above, President Clinton did not cause it. He was down in 
Little Rock. The first thing he did when he came to town was to say 
that we are going to start balancing the budget. Here was a Democrat 
who said we are going to tax gasoline. We are going to tax liquor. We 
are going to close corporate loopholes.
  And not a peep was heard from that crowd over there. We could not get 
a single vote in the U.S. Senate from our Republican colleagues. We 
could not get a single vote in the U.S. House of Representatives from 
our Republican colleagues.
  Now, having caused the trouble, they act like they never heard of it 
and charge that President Clinton does not want a balanced budget. But 
what did he do? On top of the $57 billion in Medicare cuts that were 
part of his deficit reduction package, he followed up with a proposal 
to cut another $120 billion as part of comprehensive health care 
reform. But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle countered, 
``Why change the best health care system in the world?'' Now they say 
that unless we cut $270 billion Medicare will be broke.
  Let me quote for the Record from the 1994 report of the Medicare 
trustees.


[[Page S17052]]

       The trust fund ratio, defined as the ratio of assets at the 
     beginning of the year to disbursements during the year, was 
     131 percent in 1993 and then under the intermediate 
     assumptions is projected to decline steadily until the fund 
     is completely exhausted in 2001.

  This year the same board says that exhaustion will not occur until 
2002, as a direct result of the deficit reduction package that we 
enacted in 1993.
  President Clinton did that. Not one Republican on the other side of 
the aisle had anything to do with it. They ought to be ashamed of 
themselves, having caused the problem, fussing with the fellow who had 
nothing to do with the problem, who is trying his best.
  And the Republicans say that because he is up in the polls, he will 
not take a stand. He has taken a stand. It is they who would not. It is 
all political applesauce. They have been threatening all year, ``We 
will close down the Government.'' Read this morning's Washington Post.
  The Washington Post editorials say, why do you need the FDA? Forget 
pharmaceuticals. Why do you need the EPA? We can get clean water. That 
is freedom. I never heard such nonsense.
  Close down the Government, they say. And they are reveling in it, 
trying to act now like they are responsible. And every time we meet, 
they have to get the gang of 73 satisfied who came to Government with a 
pledge not to serve.
  They ought to get rid of the entire crowd. They ought to understand 
the charge. The truth of the matter is they have not done a thing to 
help us. We tried in the Budget Committee to show the extreme nonsense 
of having a $245 billion tax cut. Heavens above, we do not have enough 
revenue. That is why we have a deficit.
  When they proposed this in the Budget Committee, we said ``Let's not 
have the tax cut until we balance the budget.'' They all voted ``no.'' 
We said, ``Let's have the economic dividend go to Medicare if that's 
the problem?'' Red-faced, they replied, ``Let's change the subject.''
  The chairman of the Budget Committee constantly says ``Well, that is 
the way they did it before; that is the way they did it.'' Well, I 
thought the election message of last November a year ago was that we 
were going to have change. It is the same act, same scene; same 
players.
  We said in 1981 we were going to balance the budget by 1984. In 1985 
we had a similar document which said we would have a balanced budget by 
1990.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Then in 1990, heavens above, you know what we said? 
They said in 1990 that by September 30, 1995, we would have a surplus 
of $20.5 billion. Look at the budget document.
  And now the chairman of the Budget Committee tries to justify his 
actions by saying, ``Well, that is what you all have done before.'' 
That is the trouble. We keep telling the American people that we are 
getting together on a balanced budget. Then when they finally get 
together they say, ``Oops, something else happened.'' They have no idea 
of actually balancing the budget.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
at this point the budget tables along with my ``Dear Colleague'' letter 
of which each Senator, each Congressman, I sent to them.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     BUDGET TABLES--SENATOR HOLLINGS                    
                      [Dollar amounts in billions]                      
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 U.S.                 Gross             
            Year                budget      Real     Federal     Gross  
                              (outlays)   deficit      debt     interest
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1945........................      $92.7  .........     $260.1  .........
1946........................       55.2     -$10.9      271.0  .........
1947........................       34.5      +13.9      257.1  .........
1948........................       29.8       +5.1      252.0  .........
1949........................       38.8       -0.6      252.6  .........
1950........................       42.6       -4.3      256.9  .........
1951........................       45.5       +1.6      255.3  .........
1952........................       67.7       -3.8      259.1  .........
1953........................       76.1       -6.9      266.0  .........
1954........................       70.9       -4.8      270.8  .........
1955........................       68.4       -3.6      274.4  .........
1956........................       70.6       +1.7      272.7  .........
1957........................       76.6       +0.4      272.3  .........
1958........................       82.4       -7.4      279.7  .........
1959........................       92.1       -7.8      287.5  .........
1960........................       92.2       -3.0      290.5  .........
1961........................       97.7       -2.1      292.6  .........
1962........................      106.8      -10.3      302.9        9.1
1963........................      111.3       -7.4      310.3        9.9
1964........................      118.5       -5.8      316.1       10.7
1965........................      118.2       -6.2      322.3       11.3
1966........................      134.5       -6.2      328.5       12.0
1967........................      157.5      -11.9      340.4       13.4
1968........................      178.1      -28.3      368.7       14.6
1969........................      183.6       +2.9      365.8       16.6
1970........................      195.6      -15.1      380.9       19.3
1971........................      210.2      -27.3      408.2       21.0
1972........................      230.7      -27.7      435.9       21.8
1973........................      245.7      -30.4      466.3       24.2
1974........................      269.4      -17.6      483.9       29.3
1975........................      332.3      -58.0      541.9       32.7
1976........................      371.8      -87.1      629.0       37.1
1977........................      409.2      -77.4      706.4       41.9
1978........................      458.7      -70.2      776.6       48.7
1979........................      503.5      -52.9      829.5       59.9
1980........................      590.9      -79.6      909.1       74.8
1981........................      678.2      -85.7      994.8       95.5
1982........................      745.8     -142.5    1,137.3      117.2
1983........................      808.4     -234.4    1,371.7      128.7
1984........................      851.8     -193.0    1,564.7      153.9
1985........................      946.4     -252.9    1,817.6      178.9
1986........................      990.3     -303.0    2,120.6      190.3
1987........................    1,003.9     -225.5    2,346.1      195.3
1988........................    1,064.1     -255.2    2,601.3      214.1
1989........................    1.143.2     -266.7    2,868.0      240.9
1990........................    1,252.7     -338.6    3,206.6      264.7
1991........................    1,323.8     -391.9    3,598.5      285.5
1992........................    1,380.9     -403.6    4,002.1      292.3
1993........................    1,408.2     -349.3    4,351.4      292.5
1994........................    1,460.6     -292.3    4,643.7      296.3
1995........................    1,518.0     -283.3    4,927.0      336.0
1996CBOest..................    1,602.0     -311.1    5,238.0     348.0 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Historical Tables, Budget of the U.S. Government FY 1996;         
  Beginning in 1962, CBO's 1995 Economic and Budget Outlook. 10/10/95.  

  
                                                                    ____
                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, November 1, 1995.
       Dear Colleague: In 1987, in the Budget Committee, a 
     bipartisan group of 8 Senators voted for a 5% value-added-tax 
     to eliminate the deficit and debt. Like everyone else, these 
     8 Senators abhorred taxes--but there was no other way. 
     Beginning in the 80's, they had tried a spending freeze--then 
     a freeze plus cuts across the board with Gramm-Rudman-
     Hollings--then a freeze, cuts, and tax loophole closings with 
     the Tax Reform Act of 1986. But the debt with increased 
     interest costs was growing faster than these combined cuts. 
     The only way to put a tourniquet on this hemorrhage of 
     spending and put an end to deficit spending was to apply a 
     freeze, cuts, loophole closings and a tax increase. This was 
     8 years ago. Now the problem has exploded. In 1980, the debt 
     was less than $1 trillion--now, quintupled to $5 trillion; 
     interest costs on the debt were $75 billion--now, estimated 
     at $348 billion. To this challenge comes the GOP plan to 
     balance the budget--not with a tax increase but with a tax 
     cut. Ludicrous! Let the facts and figures of the plan speak 
     for themselves:
       1. Each year, spending increases;
       2. Spending increases exceed the increase in revenues for 7 
     years by over $1 trillion;
       3. The debt grows by $1.8 trillion;
       4. Interest costs approximate $500 billion.
       Enclosed you will find the undisputed budget figures of the 
     plan. Remember, in 1981, President Reagan submitted a three 
     year plan indicating a balance by 1984. Then, at the end of 
     1985, President Reagan endorsed a five year plan (Gramm-
     Rudman-Hollings) showing a balance in 1991. In 1990, the 
     across-the-board cuts of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings were repealed 
     and replaced with spending caps and a totally inadequate tax 
     increase. This 1990 plan of President Bush showed a surplus 
     by 1995 of $20,500,000,000.
       Periodically, we Democrats and Republicans conspire to 
     ``balance the budget'' to get by the next election. We know 
     it can't be done without a tax increase but the media 
     conveniently goes along. In the words of our fearless Leader, 
     President Reagan, ``Here we go again.''
       With kindest regards, I am
           Sincerely,
     Ernest F. Hollings.
                                                                    ____



            ``Here We Go Again'': Senator Ernest F. Hollings

             [By fiscal year 1995; in billions of dollars]

Starting in 1995 with:
  (a) A deficit of $283.3 Billion for 1995--
    Outlays.......................................................1,530
    Trust Funds...................................................121.9
    Unified Deficit...............................................161.4
    Real Deficit.................................................-283.3
    Gross Interest................................................336.0
  (b) And a debt of $4,927 Billion
How do you balance the budget by:
  (a) Increasing spending over revenues $1,801 Billion over seven 
      years?

           GOP ``SOLID'', ``NO SMOKE AND MIRRORS'' BUDGET PLAN          
                        [In billions of dollars]                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    CBO       Cumulative
               Year                CBO outlays    revenues     deficits 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996.............................       $1,583       $1,355         -228
1997.............................        1,624        1,419         -205
1998.............................        1,663        1,478         -185
1999.............................        1,718        1,549         -169
2000.............................        1,779        1,622         -157
2001.............................        1,819        1,701         -118
2002.............................        1,874        1,884          +10
                                  --------------------------------------
  Total..........................       12,060       11,008       -1,052
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (b) And increasing the national debt from $4,927.0 Billion 
     to $6,728.0 Billion?

                    DEBT (OFF CBO's APRIL BASELINE*)                    
                        [In billions of dollars]                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  National     Interest 
                     Year                           debt        costs   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995..........................................     $4,927.0       $336.0
1996..........................................      5,261.7        369.9
1997..........................................      5,551.4        381.6
1998..........................................      5,821.6        390.9
1999..........................................      6,081.1        404.0
2000..........................................      6,331.3        416.1
2001..........................................      6,575.9        426.8
2002..........................................      6,728.0        436.0
                                               -------------------------
  Increase 1995-2002..........................      1,801.0        100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Off CBO's August Baseline.                                             


                                                                        

[[Page S17053]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       1996       2002  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debt Includes:                                                          
  (1) Owed to the Trust Funds.....................   $1,361.8   $2,355.7
  (2) Owed to Government Accts....................       81.9      (\1\)
  (3) Owed to Additional Borrowing................    3,794.3    4,372.7
                                                   ---------------------
      [Note: No ``unified'' debt; just total debt]    5,238.0    6,728.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Included above.                                                      


       (c) And increasing mandatory spending for interest costs by 
     $100 billion?
       How? You don't!
       (a) 1996 Budget: Kasich Conference Report, p.3 -$108 
     Billion Deficit.
       (b) October 20, 1995, CBO Letter from June O'Neill -105 
     Billion Deficit.
       --You must fabricate a ``paper balance'' by ``smoke and 
     mirrors'' and borrowing more: Smoke and Mirrors
       (a) Picking up $19 billion by cutting the Consumer Price 
     index (CPI) by .2%--thereby reducing Social Security Benefits 
     and increasing taxes by increasing ``bracket creep''.
(b) With impossible spending cuts:                              Billion
  Medicare........................................................-$270
  Medicaid........................................................-$182
  Welfare..........................................................-$83
       (c) ``Backloading'' the plan:
       --Promising a cut of $347 Billion in FY2002 when a cut of 
     $45 Billion this year will never materialize.

2002 CBO Baseline Budget..........................     $1,874     $1,884
                                                   =====================
This assumes:                                                           
  (1) Discretionary Freeze Plus Discretionary Cuts                      
   (in 2002)......................................  .........      -$121
  (2) Entitlement Cuts and Interest Savings (in                         
   2002)..........................................  .........       -226
                                                   ---------------------
      [1996 Cuts, $45 B] Spending Reductions (in                        
       2002)......................................  .........       -347
  Using SS Trust Fund.............................  .........       -115
                                                   ---------------------
      Total Reductions (in 2002)..................  .........       -462
  +Increased Borrowing from Tax Cut...............  .........        -93
                                                   ---------------------
      Grand total.................................  .........       -555
                                                   =====================
(d) By increasing revenues by decreasing revenues                       
 (tax cut)........................................  .........        245
(e) By borrowing and increasing the debt (1995-                         
 2002)............................................  .........      1,801
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Includes $636 billion ``embezzlement'' of the Social Security Trust   
  Fund.                                                                 

       The Real Problem--
       Not Medicare--In Surplus $147 Billion--Paid For
       Not Social Security--In Surplus $481 Billion--Paid For
       But interest costs on the National debt--are now at almost 
     $1 billion a day and are growing faster than any possible 
     spending cuts
       --And Both the Republican Congress and Democratic White 
     House as well as the media are afraid to tell the American 
     people the truth: ``A tax increase is necessary.''
       --Solution: Spending Cuts, Spending Freezes, Tax loophole 
     closings, withholding new programs (AmeriCorps) and a 5% 
     Value Added Tax allocated to the deficit and the debt.


            ``Here We Go Again''--Promised Balanced Budgets



                                                                Billion
President Reagan (by FY1984) 1981 Budget............................  0
President Reagan (by FY1991) 1985 GRH Budget........................  0
President Bush (by FY1995) 1990 Budget...........................+$20.5
  Mr. HOLLINGS. They ought to put me in charge of the CIA. I know how 
to keep things secret.
  But just as the title of my budget tables say, ``here we go again''. 
Same thing we did in 1981. Same thing we did in 1985. Same thing we did 
in 1990. Here we go again in 1995, saying the budget is balanced when 
their budget is not even near balance and they know it. They know it.
  They spend $636 billion of surpluses in the Social Security trust 
fund. That is not eliminating deficits. That is moving the deficit from 
the general fund to the Social Security trust fund to make it appear 
like we are eliminating deficits. Not so.
  Today, we owe Social Security $484 billion. Spending another $636 
billion under their plan, we will owe over $1 trillion. So we will come 
in the year 2002 and say, ``Oh, what a smart boy am I, I have Medicare 
solvent.'' And then they will look over and say, ``Ye gads, I put 
Social Security into bankruptcy.'' We will owe it $1 trillion. Who has 
the plan to raise $1 trillion in revenues in 2002?
  Mr. President, we are fiddling while Rome burns and they know it. The 
GOP budget is nothing more then a political document to get by next 
year's election--excuse me, next year's election and the election in 
2000. That is how arrogant they are. Avoid the tough decisions to get 
by two Presidential elections.
  Do you know how much they are supposed to cut in spending in the year 
2002? Mr. President, $347 billion. Right now in debating the fiscal 
year 1996 appropriations bills, with all the attention, with the 
Government closed down, we are having difficulty saving $45 billion. 
But in the last year, they have to save $347 billion. The reason that 
this whole charade is transpiring is that they are trying to force-feed 
the President what they cannot pass by a majority vote.
  I am on these committees. I know. Do you think Republicans are 
opposed to legal services? I joined with the distinguished Senator from 
New Mexico to restore the funding.
  Do you think the Republicans really want to abolish the Department of 
Commerce? I know. We joined in to strike that language. We let the 
Senator who was trying to kill the Department make the motion, for some 
kind of political advantage. It was embarrassing, but that is what they 
wanted to do, and I wanted to preserve the Department.
  My point is that Republicans and Democrats are not for all these cuts 
and they know it. That is why 10 of the 13 appropriations bills have 
not passed. And it is Thanksgiving. We have the ``Grinch That Stole 
Christmas.'' Now we've got the Gingrich that is going to steal 
Thanksgiving with this nonsense. That is exactly what is going on. They 
cannot get their bills through the Congress, so they are piling it all 
up in a budget and saying, ``Mr. President, take it or leave it.'' 
Since he does not take it, ``Oh, you are not for a balanced budget.''
  They ought to give it to him in an orderly process, let him veto it, 
and let them get two-thirds. Let us have the democratic process, the 
orderly process of legislation here on the floor of the national 
Congress and stop all this one-upmanship about who is going to win and 
who is going to lose in the polls. It is downright embarrassing.
  They cannot get it through the Congress. That is why they have not 
passed the appropriations bills. They cannot pass those appropriations 
bills because we have right-thinking Members on the Republican side as 
well as the Democratic side who do not want to do away with technology. 
They do not want to do away with the Minority Business Administration.
  I can go down the list of things on both sides of the aisle. They did 
not want to do away with the Department of Energy; with the Department 
of Education.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's additional time has expired.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair.
  Mr. President, I ask to proceed just for a couple of minutes more.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator may proceed.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. My point is they planned this scenario all year long. 
They had no idea of passing any appropriations bills. Last December I 
saw it on TV, and they were going to pass their bills and they were 
going to do this and that. But as we have already seen, they cannot 
pass a defense appropriations bill. Defense has been voted down, right 
over there with the gang of 73.
  I am on State, Justice, Commerce and they cannot get that bill 
enacted. So, not being able to pass them using their own troops, they 
just load them on to a debt bill and a continuing resolution. This is 
really just a terrible shame for Government to be conducted in this 
fashion. All to save that Presidential gang of 73. You see, the 73 
control the Speaker, the Speaker controls Gramm, Gramm controls Dole, 
and Dole controls the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator 
Domenici. I feel sorry for my friend from New Mexico.
  I hear statements that I know he does not agree with. I see votes 
that I know he does not agree with. All of these tricks--changing the 
CPI, back-loading the cuts, using the Social Security surpluses, 
creating a Medicare lockbox--are a bad mistake. I would not vote for 
it. President Clinton ought not to sign it. He ought to veto it. He 
knows that is just a document for the next two Presidential elections, 
to get them in office next November.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Glenn] is 
recognized.

[[Page S17054]]


                            THE DEBT CEILING

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I wish to talk for a few minutes about the 
debt ceiling bill, what happened to it, and an amendment that was on it 
when it came to the floor.
  First, I want to make a couple of comments so that the public will 
understand exactly what this is all about.
  In general terms, we are talking about the balanced budget. There is 
not a soul in this Chamber, elected or otherwise, who would not agree 
that we want a balanced budget. I certainly agree with that. The 
question is, how do we get to that?
  We, on the Democratic side, were concerned about this back 2 years 
ago, in 1993, when we passed the President's proposal for the budget. 
There was a lot of difficulty passing that. It meant the committee 
chairs, of which I was one, had to go through and analyze everything to 
meet the objectives that were assigned as part of the debt reduction 
process.
  We did that. That was in the summer of 1993. The budget deficit at 
that time was running right at $300 billion a year and going up. What 
happened? We passed a $500 billion deficit reduction program and it was 
tough. We passed it without one single Republican vote--not a one. In 
the Senate, it was a 50-50 tie vote and the Vice President broke that 
tie.
  There were all sorts of dire predictions from the other side. I can 
remember some of the debate here. ``We are going to see millions 
unemployed. If this passes, it will be a terrible bill. Everything bad 
is going to happen.''
  What happened? We were running right at $300 billion a year at that 
time. Last year, it went down to $246 billion, and now down to about 
$192 billion. We were on the right path toward a balanced budget.
  For the first time since Harry Truman we have had a reduced budget 
deficit 3 years in a row. So it has been working. We went from $300 
billion to $246 billion to $192 billion. The problem is--and I am 
critical of our own administration and the Democrats and everybody else 
for not taking action that will keep that trend going. Instead of 
leveling off we should be trying to further reduce those annual 
deficits and keep us on the right track. It is not as though we have 
seen things run away in the last 3 years. I think the President 
deserves a lot of credit. He is not getting much from the other side, 
of course. The people over in the House in particular, some of the 
leadership over there just dismiss the fact for 3 years in a row, the 
first time since Harry Truman, we have had declining deficits.
  What has happened now? As part of this so-called Contract With 
America, they want to give a $245 billion tax break as a crown jewel. 
We are giving a $245 billion tax break, and the figures are that almost 
half, a little over half of that goes to people already making $100,000 
a year.
  When I point that out to people back home in Ohio, they are 
incredulous that we could be permitting that to be considered, whether 
the cuts come from Medicare, Medicaid, education, or environmental 
protection. Basically, those are not areas that the American people 
want to give up and say that we are just going to whack with a two-
edged sword, or swing machetes back and forth and whack those programs. 
The American people do not agree with that.
  So we have come to an impasse. We can put up with it for a few days. 
However, I understand that Speaker Gingrich told his staff in the House 
as reported on CNN about an hour and a half ago, that we could look 
forward to maybe 90 days of this.
  I hope that he is not serious about that because, if he is, this will 
get far beyond just being a domestic problem in the United States of 
America. We are the leading world currency. We are the leading economy 
in this whole world. And if ever there begins to be doubt and if ever 
there begins to be lack of trust in the good faith and credit of the 
United States of America around the world by letting this impasse run 
90 days, we are in deep trouble.
  Everybody wants a balanced budget. As I understand it, what we are 
down to now is they said to the President, ``Well, we will agree to 
provide a clean continuing resolution if you will agree to a balanced 
budget over 7 years using CBO assumptions.'' I understand that the 
President agrees that we are going to balance this budget, the real 
question is how.
  The President, as I understand it, made an offer back that said, 
``Well, OK, let's make it 7 to 10 years,'' using mutually agreed upon 
economic assumptions. And they turned it down. He has to come up with 7 
years or else.
  That is just flat ideological blackmail. There is no other term that 
you can put onto it. I think this has gotten to be a bit ridiculous.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for another 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, now to get down to a specific. We had two 
continuing resolution limit proposals yesterday in which we proposed a 
straight, clean spending extension to go to the President--nothing else 
on it, no amendments. Government gets back in operation and away we go, 
and that is it. There was objection on the other side to that.
  The debt ceiling question is very simple. Everyone knows that a debt 
limit extension is must legislation. You have to have it or everything 
else in Government stops.
  So everyone is aware that there is a lot of pressure toward getting 
that through. There is a lot of pressure on the President to sign it, 
and that is why it attracts amendments, because people believe if they 
can just get their pet amendment, whatever it may be, hooked onto this 
thing, it can become law without all the protective mechanisms such as 
hearings, open debate on the floor, perfecting amendments, and 
consideration of all the long-term impacts and all the other things 
that we normally have to consider. So people know that when you have a 
debt limit extension that is must legislation.
  What happened? We have no better example of the contempt with which 
the legislative process has been treated in recent days than the way in 
which the so-called regulatory reform bill was attached to the debt 
ceiling by the House Republicans without any hearings whatsoever, 
without any analysis, without adequate notice to the minority. A 112-
page nongermane amendment was brought to the House floor and attached 
to the debt limit bill--112 pages. It was done with such haste that at 
least three versions of the amendment were circulating Thursday 
morning, November 9, the day of the debate and the vote.
  The day before, on November 8, the chief sponsor of the amendment had 
inserted one version into the Congressional Record. It was that version 
to which my remarks on November 9 were addressed.
  Revisions to the amendment were being made so close to the time of 
introduction on the House floor that the chief sponsors themselves 
misstated an important provision of the amendment. They referred to the 
definition of ``major rule'' and said it was defined in the amendment 
as one costing $75 million per year. In the amendment, the cost is $100 
million. This is not a small point.
  Cost-benefit analysis of major rules is a huge undertaking that can 
result in documents--we were told in testimony before the Governmental 
Affairs Committee--reaching over 100 feet of shelf space just for one 
rule. So this is not something that is lightly considered.
  I do not know which number the House sponsors think is the correct 
one, since $100 million is in the amendment, but $75 million was 
mentioned by both key sponsors. Are their remarks in error, or is the 
number in the amendment a typographical error? We do not know. That 
should not surprise us.
  The night before, on November 8, the bill that was given to the House 
Rules Committee was 132 pages long and defined a major rule with a 
threshold of $50 million. The next day at 10 a.m. it was about 20 pages 
shorter, though still hefty, and defined a major rule with a threshold 
$75 million. That was the second version. Then, the third version 
appeared at about 2:30 p.m. after debate on the amendment had begun, 
and defined a major rule with a threshold of $100 million. No wonder 
the sponsors were confused.

[[Page S17055]]

  But that confusion did not stop the House Republicans from ramming 
the bill through with minimum debate.
  Well, since the President was going to veto the debt limit bill 
anyway, we agreed to let it go through the Senate, and I spoke about 
one version of this amendment on the Senate floor that night. I can 
tell you that if I thought this regulatory reform bill was going to 
become law, I would still be here talking these many days, almost. I 
feel that strongly about it.
  Mr. President, I have now examined the version that passed the House, 
and it turns out that my comments of November 9 require no major 
revision.
  I claimed that the amendment had a supermandate. They changed the 
language, but the supermandate is still there. How do I know that? 
Well, besides reading the language, I have the word of the chief 
sponsor, Representative Walker. In describing the amendment, he stated 
that current statutory standards can be ``superseded--the so-called 
supermandate''.
  Let us be clear about what that means. It means that 25 years of 
health-based environmental standards for clean air and clean water 
could be overturned if this amendment became law.
  Representative Walker also describes his amendment as ``not as tough 
as the House bill, nor as loose as the Senate bill''. That is one way 
of putting it. Here is another. The original House bill, H.R. 9, was as 
reactionary an antienvironment, antihealth, and antisafety legislative 
instrument as I have seen during my entire 20 years in the U.S. Senate. 
The Senate bill referred to is the Dole-Johnston bill, S. 343, which is 
a seriously flawed bill that has failed three cloture motions in the 
Senate this year.
  So, according to the chief sponsor of the amendment, the amendment is 
a cross between the reactionary H.R. 9 and the not-so-moderate version 
of S. 343 that failed on three cloture votes. Is this a moderate 
compromise?
  No, it is not. It is an example of what we can expect in a conference 
with the House on regulatory reform if we go into it with a Senate bill 
like S. 343.
  I think the Walker amendment is extreme. It is reckless, extreme in 
the burden it places on agencies to defend themselves from the 
unlimited litigation that would be unleashed by the judicial review 
provisions of this amendment. It is reckless in the jeopardy that it 
causes our laws concerning health, safety, and the environment.
  We passed it in the U.S. Senate and sent it as part of the debt limit 
bill over to the President. It is a good thing that he vetoed it.
  Mr. President, I am for regulatory reform, but not at the expense of 
the health and the safety of the American people. I worked hard all 
year with both Republican and Democratic colleagues to produce a 
moderate bill, and we came within two votes of passing it. I am still 
interested in producing a moderate bill that provides real regulatory 
reform but owes its provenance to no special interest group, and above 
all protects the American people.
  I am for a balanced budget, too. I am for all the things we are 
trying to do to get the Federal Government on the right track for the 
American people. But this game playing that is going on, that is 
largely coming from the House with literally poor and onerous pieces of 
legislation hooked on as amendments to an essential bill like the debt 
limit; this is something we cannot tolerate.
  The President was absolutely right to veto that bill, and I think we 
can still pass legislation here to benefit all of the American people.
  We can still do that in this Congress but not if the legislative 
process is treated with the literal contempt that has been evinced this 
past week by the way in which reg reform was attached to the debt limit 
bill.
  I thank my colleague for yielding, and I yield the floor.

                          ____________________