[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 184 (Saturday, November 18, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17428-S17429]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           THE BUDGET IMPASSE

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am here to talk about the current budget 
impasse in which we find ourselves. There clearly are a number of 
compelling reasons to support a balanced budget: lower interest rates, 
higher economic growth. These have all been discussed in detail on this 
floor over the last several days. But I do not believe that economic 
facts fully explain the urgency of the issue and why the lines have 
been drawn so sharply between these two competing philosophies.
  There is a moral aspect to this debate, a moral imperative that I 
think is important we understand because those of us who are holding 
firm for a commitment to a balanced budget in a fixed amount of time 
with honest numbers are doing so because we are convinced that not only 
are the deficits imposed year after year after year on the American 
public unwise but they are unprincipled.
  They are not just a drag on the economy, not just an impact on 
interest rates, but a burden on our national conscience. It was Thomas 
Jefferson who said nearly 200 years ago--in arguing the question of 
whether one generation has the right to impose on another generation a 
debt burden which is the obligation of those that are currently 
enacting that burden, currently supporting that spending--Jefferson 
said, ``The question of whether one generation has the right to bend 
another by the deficit it imposes is a question of such consequence as 
to place it among the fundamental principles of government. We should 
consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and 
be morally bound to pay them ourselves.''
  So what we have been debating are not just the numbers to compromise 
between the White House and this Congress, what we have been debating 
is a fundamental principle of Government, and I think a fundamental 
principle of society. I doubt that there is anyone on this floor or a 
Member of the Senate that has not at some time in their life sat down 
with their children and explained the principle of deficit spending, 
and whether it deals with a $1 or $2 allowance or whether it deals with 
setting aside money necessary to pay expenses while they are away at 
college, the principle is the same, and, I think, what we all try to 
pass on to the next generation, that is, that we cannot keep spending 
more than we make.
  If you spend more money than you earn, you are going to have only one 
of two recourses: You are going to quickly run yourself unto 
insolvency, or you are going to roll up a debt that will become such a 
burden in terms of payment of interest to maintain that debt that other 
items of expenditures, necessary expenditures, are going to be 
squeezed.
  Many young people have learned the hard way through receipt, as soon 
as they are independent from their family, of a Visa, Master Card, or 
other credit card, how easy and how attempting it is to run to the mall 
and roll up and use that card to purchase items for the moment. And 
then the bills start rolling in, and they notice that they are paying a 
17, 18 percent interest rate on the mounting debt.
  What has happened on a national basis is that debt has been mounting 
at a staggering rate. It took more than 200 years to reach the first $1 
trillion of debt. Now, in just the space of 15 years, we have 
quintupled that $1 trillion debt to the point where this Nation now 
stands at $4.9 trillion of national debt. It is a staggering burden. It 
is a burden that is imposed, I would suggest, on the next generation. 
And therefore, that moral tradition that we have held at the highest 
level in this country of sacrificing for the benefit of future 
generations so that our children might enjoy at least an equal but 
hopefully a better standard of living, better quality of life than we 
have been privileged to enjoy, which was transferred to us by the 
previous generation, this generation has become the first generation to 
violate that trust.

  Every child born in America today inherits $19,000 in public debt, 
and it is going up at a staggering rate. That is a destructive legacy 
of a government without courage. True, it has caused a budgetary 
crisis, but it has done more than that. It has betrayed a moral 
responsibility.
  Now, this moral imperative clashes with a political imperative. The 
political imperative says deficit spending makes sense because it 
allows elected officials and allows Government to please people in the 
present by placing burdens on the future. Interestingly enough, the 
future has no vote in the next election. And so the temptation has 
always been to fund for the moment, to spend for the moment, because it 
impacts positively on those who will go to the polls at the next 
election to perpetuate our existence in this elected body. That is the 
prime reason why I strongly believe in term limits, because term limits 
are the only device that I know of, as imperfect as they are, that 
changes the dynamic of the way we make decisions.
  It is human nature to obviously want to keep your job. It is human 
nature to want to be reelected, to be favored by the people. And the 
political imperative, particularly over the last 30 or 40 years, has 
been to accomplish that purpose essentially by spending money but not 
having the courage to go forth and ask taxpayers to pay for that 
expenditure, but simply to float the debt and pass that payment on to a 
future generation, which, by the way, does not go to the polls at the 
next election.
  So we see these two imperatives, the political imperative and the 
moral imperative, clashing against and struggling against each other. I 
believe the moment has come that that titanic struggle is at issue and 
needs to be decided, where the choice is clear before us. On one side, 
unfortunately, we are dealing with a President supported by many, not 
all, members of his party who seem to be pursuing the political 
imperative; and on the other, I believe we are seeing a commitment to 
the moral imperative.
  The problem that we face is that we have defined a commitment to the 
principle of not imposing additional burdens on future generations 
through an act called the Balanced Budget  Act of 1995, accomplished in 
a defined time period and accomplished with numbers on which we can 
both agree. After all, it was the President--it was the President--who 
called on us to agree on how these numbers would be determined and 
derived so that we would not be arguing over differing assumptions and 
differing sets of numbers.

  Frankly, it was the President who essentially put in play the fixed 
period of time with which to reach the goal of a balanced budget. He 
campaigned on that basis. He said, ``There's a way for me to meet the 
stated objectives, which is a balanced budget in 7 years, with a family 
tax cut * * *'' That is exactly what Republicans have offered the 
President: a balanced budget in 7 years with a family tax cut. It is 
what the President called for. We responded to that. But now the 
President said, ``No, those are not my priorities.''
  This Republican budget has the courage to confront the political 
imperative because we believe that we have a moral duty to the next 
generation.
  Now, my concern, Mr. President, is that as the Senator from Nebraska 
has said, we have allowed rhetoric to get ahead of the facts of the 
situation. I am concerned that the American public is focusing on our 
rhetoric and not the facts. 

[[Page S 17429]]

  Coming in this morning to the Senate, I listened to the President's 
weekend address, and the President was obviously putting the best light 
on his position on the acts of the Congress.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 additional 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COATS. I thank the Chair and my colleague from Texas.
  I was deeply concerned that the rhetoric of the President far 
exceeded the reality of the facts that we are dealing with. The 
President characterized, on about as many occasions as possible in a 5-
minute speech, the Republican effort as an extreme effort.
  Now, somewhere in the process here the President's pollsters, focus 
groups, so forth, have discovered that the American public has an 
emotional, visceral reaction to the word ``extremism.'' So it seems 
everything Republicans are attempting to do all year, whether it is a 
defense bill or whether it is welfare reform or whether it is balancing 
the budget, is labeled as extremist. He used to say it was right-wing 
religious extremists. Then, they found out people of faith resented 
that and that did not go down too well, so now we are down just to the 
word ``extremist.''
  The President and Vice President just incessantly use the word 
``extremist.'' You heard that from the minority leader's speech last 
evening. I think there must be a reward for those who can use the word 
more times within each minute of statement because it seems like it is 
almost every other word.
  Now, I ask the American people and I ask my colleagues to examine the 
rhetoric, and in the light of the reality of the budget, because what 
Republicans are saying is that with this moral imperative and this 
staggering debt, we believe it is important to enact the principle of a 
balanced budget not this year, not next year, not 1999, not by the turn 
of the century, the new millennium, but by the year 2002.
  Over a 7-year period of time, we believe we should make an orderly 
transition from where we now are to a position where we will not spend 
more than we take in. And if we do it over a 7-year period of time, it 
will allow spending to increase at a rate of 22 percent. It will 
increase over that period of time in expenditures such as Medicare at a 
rate of 65 percent; that the Medicare increases will go up at a rate of 
7.4 percent annually.
  One would think, listening to the President and listening to some of 
our colleagues who oppose that--because they use terms such as 
``cutting off at the knees,'' ``throwing children out on the street,'' 
``denying aid to widows,'' ``turning our backs on the disabled,'' 
``gutting the American social compact''--you would think that what 
Republicans are offering are drastic, drastic cuts in the amount of 
social welfare and the amount of expenditures on a whole number of 
programs.
  Medicaid increases will go up 43 percent; welfare spending will 
increase by $100 billion over this time period.
  Republicans find themselves in an unusual position, because a lot of 
people back home say, ``Wait a minute, we thought you were going to do 
more than that. We thought you were going to cut back.'' Well, we are 
slowing the rate of growth, but in no sense can those be characterized 
as cuts from current expenditures. The spending will continue, but it 
will continue at a slower rate and over a 7-year period of time. As our 
economy grows and as expenditures decrease from the standpoint of a 
lower rate than before, those two lines will cross, and, as certified 
by the agency that the President asked us to use to certify those 
numbers, we will reach a balanced budget in 2002.
  As I said, we do this not just because it makes good economic sense, 
but we do this because we believe we have a moral imperative to do so. 
This is a historic piece of legislation. It allows us in the Congress 
to leave some legacy to the future, other than monumental debt--a 
legacy of moral courage and a legacy of responsibility.
  We have waited a long time to get to this point. It has been an 
unusual convergence of events that have led us to this moment. I do not 
know that we will have another opportunity to do this, and so a vote to 
keep our word and keep our faith with the next generation is a vote 
that I hope the President will exercise, as we exercised last evening.
  The President, with one stroke of the pen, can address what I believe 
is the economic imperative but, more importantly, can address the moral 
imperative. The President can address the issue of whether or not we 
will keep faith with the next  generation. He will address the question 
of whether or not this generation, this selfish generation, this me-
first generation, will finally say, ``We have run the course. It has 
been a disaster for the future of America.''

  The economic consequences are untold, and it is time that we drew a 
line and had the courage to do what I think every one of us 
instinctively knows is right.
  Mr. President, I thank you and yield the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of my 
colleague from Indiana. I think he laid out in a lofty and beautiful 
speech exactly why we are here.
  I have read the quote from Thomas Jefferson as well. And, in fact, 
Thomas Jefferson had said he had really two problems with our 
Constitution, and it was nagging in the back of his mind.
  One of those nagging concerns of Thomas Jefferson was that we did not 
have a mechanism that would keep Congress from going into debt, because 
he felt that public debt was not the right of any Congress to make.
  The second thing that Thomas Jefferson was concerned about was that 
we did not have a system to assure rotation in office. Of course, term 
limitations are still a very powerful issue for us in this Congress 
over 200 years after the Constitution was ratified, and I think his 
nagging concerns were two very important ones that I wish he had been 
able to address.
  But then when we look at what the founders of our country did in the 
Constitution, they are certainly to be commended for the foresight they 
had in so many areas.

                          ____________________