[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 183 (Friday, November 17, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17357-S17358]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       TIME TO BALANCE THE BUDGET

 Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I made a pledge to the people of my 
State last year that I would fight hard in the U.S. Senate to limit 
Government spending, reduce taxes, and cut the size of Government. I 
did not say that just to get elected. I did not say it just to 
compromise once I got to Washington. I meant what I said.
  Mr. President, our government has been spending the Nation into 
bankruptcy. It has been taxing our people into mediocrity. By trying to 
do too much for all of us, it has--in the words of former Education 
Secretary Bill Bennett, ``created inefficiency, sapped individual 
responsibility, and intruded on personal liberty.''
  The people of Arizona--the people of the United States--did not send 
us here to split the difference with the President when it comes to 
limiting spending, cutting taxes, or balancing the budget. In fact, 
they tossed out the Members of Congress whose only solution was the 
President's solution: to tax more, spend more, and expand Government. 
They did not send us here for more of the same.
  The American people sent us here to make the difficult decisions to 
put our Nation's fiscal house in order, and they expect us to do it. As 
of this morning, calls and faxes to my office were running 10-to-1 in 
support of our staying the course. The great majority know this is 
crunch time; that it is no time for weak knees and hand-wringing.
  Mr. President, this is the fourth day of the Government's partial 
shutdown, and do you know what? The sky has not fallen. The economy has 
not collapsed. People have not stopped sending their kids to school, 
volunteering in their communities, or doing their part to clean up the 
environment. I suspect that many people haven't even noticed that the 
Government has been shut down.
  Now I know the shutdown has caused hardship and anxiety for many 
Federal employees. We did not ask for that to happen. Congress passed 
legislation earlier this week to keep them on the job and keep them 
paid. The President vetoed that bill and sent them home.
  We passed a second bill yesterday to try to get Federal employees 
back to work--to process Social Security claims and VA widows' 
benefits, to pay our military, and fund educational and environmental 
clean-up activities. The bill will ensure that these employees are paid 
before the holidays, but the President has said that he will veto it, 
too. In fact, President Clinton is threatening to keep parts of the 
Government shut down, ``even if it is 90 days, 120 days or 180 days.'' 
Talk about blackmail: it is the President who is holding the Government 
hostage until Congress gives him more of the American people's money to 
spend.
  If President Clinton is so bound and determined to prolong this 
suspension, maybe we should ask ourselves why he thinks he can get away 
with it. The President's own Office of Management and Budget has 
determined that 67 percent of the Commerce Department's staff was 
``non-essential'' and sent them home. OMB determined that 99 percent--
that is right, 99 percent--of the staff at the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development was non-essential. It determined that 89 percent 
of the Education Department's staff was non-essential. That is 
according to President Clinton's own Office of Management and Budget.
  If the President makes good on his pledge to keep the Government shut 
down for 90 to 180 days, I guess the Nation will have a chance to see 
if he is right that the great majority of his own Commerce, HUD and 
Education workers are non-essential. Maybe we do not need all of those 
people after all. Maybe the President is on to something. We will have 
a chance to examine that later.
  Mr. President, what can it be, though, that the administration 
objects to in the latest spending? President Clinton said he would 
accept no riders. There are none in this bill. There is nothing in here 
about tax cuts, nothing about Medicare, nothing about the environment. 
This is a clean bill that represents a good-faith effort to get 
Government operating in the 

[[Page S 17358]]
short term. Yet, he still says he will veto it.
  I will tell you this, Mr. President. For me, this measure represents 
my bottom line. In return for giving President Clinton the money to 
reopen the Government, we are asking for one simple thing: for the 
President to commit to a balanced budget in 7 years using real numbers.
  That should be easy. It is something he says he wants anyway. Just 
Tuesday of this week, he said: ``Let me be clear: we must balance the 
budget.''
  In 1992, he pledged to balance the budget in just 5 years. Since 
then, he has said he could support a plan to balance the budget in 10 
years, 9 years, 8 years and 7. So, if he really means what he says, he 
should be able to support a balanced budget in 7 years, as we are 
proposing.
  In his State of the Union message in 1993, he promised to judge the 
scope of the problem by the very same criteria that Congress uses, so 
that together we can find viable solutions. Here is what he told the 
American people on February 17, 1993 in his State of the Union message:

       Well, you can laugh, my fellow Republicans, but I will 
     point out that the Congressional Budget Office was normally 
     more conservative in what was going to happen and closer to 
     right than previous presidents have been.

  He went on to say:

       In the last 12 years, because there were differences over 
     the revenue estimates, you and I know that both parties were 
     given greater elbow room for irresponsibility. This [that is, 
     using CBO numbers] is tightening the rein on the Democrats as 
     well as the Republicans. Let us at least argue about the same 
     set of numbers so the American people will think we are 
     shooting straight with them.

  I hope the President will remember his words and how important it is 
to use credible numbers to get to a balanced budget. It is important 
because, according to a recent Wall Street Journal report, his own 
Treasury Department just ``tweaked'' its economic forecasts to show 
$475 billion more in Government revenue by the year 2000.
  Mr. President, tweaks will not get us to a balanced budget. That is 
the same irresponsible approach that has kept the deficit in the range 
of $200 billion for so many years. And it is why the Congressional 
Budget Office projects that President Clinton's so-called ``balanced 
budget'', a budget the Senate unanimously rejected on two separate 
occasions this year--will result in $200 billion deficits for the 
foreseeable future. Let me say that again, President Clinton's budget 
did not get the vote of any Senator, even from his own party.
  Even our Democrat colleague from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan, 
candidly said in this Chamber on October 24 that: ``The President did 
not propose a budget that calls for a balanced budget.'' So, there is 
nothing partisan in recognizing that President Clinton has never 
proposed--never sent to Congress--the balanced budget he claims he 
wants.
  Two days ago, President Clinton appeared on a news program and talked 
about how he would veto the balanced budget because he knows what is 
best for the country. Well, that is the problem, Mr. President. The 
American people do not want Washington--they do not trust Washington--
to decide what is best for them. In a poll just conducted by the 
Behavior Research Center in Arizona, 58 percent of people said that 
they put their trust in the people of their own communities. Only 10 
percent indicated their confidence in the Federal Government.
  The American people know what is best for them. They do not need a 
national nanny in the White House to make every decision for them--to 
decide how to spend the money they work hard to earn. This balanced 
budget is about empowering American families to make their own 
decisions about how to lead their lives and make their communities 
better places.
  A balanced budget will save the average family of four an estimated 
$2,791 per year. It means lower mortgage payments, less money paid out 
on car loans and student loans. It means more jobs. It means that our 
children and grandchildren will have an opportunity to do more than 
just work hard to pay the interest on the debt we are accumulating 
today.
  So this is the bottom line. I supported this latest short-term 
spending bill. But I will not support any further stop-gap measures 
that do not, at a minimum, commit to a balanced budget in 7 years using 
real numbers.
  We can compromise on how to get there, but I will not compromise on 
the fundamental principle of a balanced budget. The Nation's economic 
security is too important to delay any more.

                          ____________________