[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 181 (Wednesday, November 15, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17084-S17085]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          BALANCING THE BUDGET

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, those who are watching the debate on 
television might wonder why it was that it took us so long to get to 
this point. Actually, this Senator had sought recognition, the Senator 
from Arkansas was about to seek recognition, when we were suddenly cut 
off with the quorum call. I am glad that the Republicans have come back 
and seen the light to allow us at least to discuss a proposition that 
is very vital to America.
  As I understand it, we are awaiting the offer by Newt Gingrich from 
the House of Representatives. It would be a continuing resolution to 
some time in the future, maybe 10 days, maybe 15 days, and stripped of 
all other extraneous matters except--I underline except--the 
proposition that we would have a balanced budget by 7 years using CBO's 
estimates.
  That is exactly what was proposed to us yesterday during a conference 
that I was a part of. I will simply say to you, Mr. President, that 
this Senator is for balancing the budget in 7 years. I voted for a 
constitutional amendment to do that. The record of this Senator in 
fighting for control of spending in the United States and getting our 
budget under control is very clear, if not legendary.
  I would simply say, if we accept the continuing resolution that the 
Republicans have come up with, I would simply compliment them and 
compliment them and compliment them for the fact, after we have been 
pounding this podium now for almost a month, that they have finally 
conceded that they are not going to insist on making cuts in the 
Medicare proposals. At least that would be a major victory for us. And 
I salute them for finally recognizing the failure of their ways in that 
regard.
  However, I would say, Mr. President, that if we accept the continuing 
resolution, then that continuing resolution is essentially what the 
Republicans offered to us yesterday, which was rejected by the 
administration and, I suspect, will be strenuously objected to by the 
majority of the Democrats. This is a shell game that is going on 
because, if we accept this continuing resolution, had we Democrats and 
the White House accepted yesterday this same offer that was offered to 
us in the daylong negotiations, we would essentially be locking in the 
Republican budget that they are trying to force down our throat and 
that of the American people.

  They would essentially have guaranteed the $245 billion tax break for 
the wealthy. They would essentially guarantee a dramatic cut in the 
projected spending of Medicare. They would continue the unfairness that 
is part and parcel of their budget. What this continuing resolution is, 
as I understand it, is another clever means--another clever means--of 
trying to fool the American people.
  I emphasize that this Senator is for a balanced budget in 7 years. 
And as the Democratic leader on the Budget Committee, I am fashioning 
such a program that I will offer at an appropriate time. But I am not 
about to sign on, and I hope none of the Democrats will, and enough of 
the Republicans--to stop it. If they do not, the President will veto 
it, in any event.
  I want to explain what they are doing. They are trying to put into 
law in the continuing resolution the basic unfairness of the budget 
that they are proposing. I would also point out, Mr. President, that 
all during the so-called budget deliberation, the Democrats have not 
been involved. I am a member of a conference with the House of 
Representatives on four matters: the debt ceiling; debt rescission bill 
that we hope to receive sometime tonight that they want us to vote on 
even before we see the numbers; the matter of the line-item veto, which 
I joined with the Republicans in getting passed, but after we passed it 
they wanted to make sure that this President did not have a line-item 
veto until they got their unfair budget bill passed; and I am also a 
conferee on the defense authorization bill, which is a very, very 
important matter.
  I would simply say that in all of these matters, Mr. President, I am 
a conferee, but I have not even been conferenced by the Republicans. 
They have gone behind closed doors, shut out the minority Democrats, 
done what they want, stamped ``Republican fairness'' on it, and sent it 
on its merry way.
  Mr. President, there is so much wrong with the procedures that are 
going on in the U.S. Senate today that I am ashamed, and I would best 
describe it as ``a swamp.'' It is not part of the deliberative body 
that this body has been known for for a long, long time.
  To sum up as best as I have ever seen it summed up was an editorial 
in U.S. News & World Report, that of November 13, 1995, by David 
Gergen. I am going to read that, Mr. President, because I think it puts 
all this in proper perspective. It exposes this once and for all by 
David Gergen, who is now an editor at large with the U.S. News & World 
Report, but is better known as a very prominent Republican who served 
with great distinction in the White House under President Ronald 
Reagan.
  Here is what he has to say in the editorial of the date I mentioned:

                    The GOP's ``Fairness Doctrine''

       Give credit where ample credit is due: True to their 
     campaign promises, Republicans in Congress are forcing the 
     country toward a balanced budget. Only once since the 
     Eisenhower presidency has the nation written its ledgers in 
     black ink. Now, doing what Democrats would not, the new GOP 
     majorities are trying to restore a habit of self-discipline.
       But in the eagerness to satisfy one principle, fiscal 
     responsibility, the Republicans would ask the country to 
     abandon another, equally vital, principle--fair play. This is 
     a false, cruel choice we should not make.
       When George Bush and then Bill Clinton achieved large 
     deficit reductions, we pursued the idea of ``shared 
     sacrifice.'' Not this time. Instead, Congress now seems 
     intent on imposing new burdens upon the poor, the elderly and 
     vulnerable children while, incredibly, delivering a windfall 
     for the wealthy.
       Proposals passed by the House and Senate would rip gaping 
     holes in the nation's social safety net, already low by 
     standards of advanced nations and once considered sacrosanct. 
     Consider how much Congress would extract from projecting 
     spending for key social programs over the next seven years: 
     $169 billion from Medicaid, $102 billion from welfare, $27 
     billion from food assistance, $133 million from Head Start, 
     at least $23 billion from the earned income tax credit--a 
     program enacted in the 1970s that Ronald Reagan called ``the 
     best antipoverty, the best pro-family, the best job-creation 
     measure to come out of Congress.''
       This assault doesn't even count the $270 billion reduction 
     in projected spending for Medicare that is frightening senior 
     citizens and could further squeeze public hospitals. Nor does 
     it include the possible elimination of federal standards for 
     nursing homes--standards signed into law by Reagan to stop 
     rip-offs of the elderly.
       Now consider how our more fortunate citizens make out under 
     these proposals:
       Left largely unscathed are billions in subsidies, tax 
     loopholes and credits for corporations.
     
[[Page S17085]]

       Left largely untouched are many sacred cows--such as the 
     mortgage interest deduction--that benefit middle- and upper-
     income groups.
       And for sweeteners, Congress would throw in $245 billion of 
     tax cuts (especially wrongheaded because well-to-do Americans 
     aren't seeking them while hard-pressed Americans won't 
     qualify for them).
       U.S. News reported last week that internal studies by the 
     executive branch estimate that the lowest 20 percent of the 
     population would lose more income under these spending cuts 
     than the rest of the population combined. At the other end, 
     the highest 20 percent would gain more from the tax cuts than 
     everyone else combined. Republicans are probably right that 
     these estimates, coming from Democrats, are skewed. But no 
     one disputes the basic contention that the burdens and 
     benefits are lopsided. In a nation dividing dangerously into 
     haves and have-nots, this is neither wise nor just.
       Arguments advanced by proponents simply aren't persuasive. 
     States will take over many of the social programs, it is 
     said, and will make the poor whole. Huh? Who believes that in 
     this climate state legislatures will raise taxes to help poor 
     kids? Many of these social programs are broken, it is said, 
     so they must be overhauled. True, there are many abuses, but 
     we should protect the truly needy while we punish the greedy. 
     Sometime tomorrow, it is said, balancing the budget will help 
     everyone in the younger generation. True, but why shouldn't 
     we all share the same sacrifices today?
       Ronald Reagan is often invoked as the patron saint of this 
     revolution. How soon we forget that as president, Reagan 
     insisted that seven key programs in the safety net--Head 
     Start, Medicare, Social Security, veterans, Supplemental 
     Security Income, school lunches and summer jobs for youth--
     would not be touched; now, six of those seven are under the 
     knife. Reagan believed, as he said in his memorable address 
     accepting his party's nomination in 1980, that ``we have to 
     move forward, but we're not going to leave anyone behind.''
       That sentiment should guide upcoming budget negotiations 
     between Congress and the White House. It expresses America's 
     true spirit. We know that government must be changed and 
     respect Republicans for trying when Democrats would not. But 
     Americans also believe in another grand tradition--fair play.

  What we are going to be voting on tonight is another Republican 
trick. It is not fair play. I hope that the debate will follow, and I 
hope that we will be allowed to offer some amendments by the Democrats 
that will be fair.
  I yield the remainder of my time, half of it to the Senator from 
Arkansas and the other half to the Senator from California.
  Mr. SANTORUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized for 10 
minutes.

                          ____________________