[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 185 (Sunday, November 19, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17472-S17473]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               MEMBERS' OBLIGATION TO BALANCE THE BUDGET

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise to share some thoughts with fellow 
Senators with regard to the nature of this problem. I do not think it 
is any mystery to most Members of the Senate why we are here.
  Yet, as I hear this issue discussed in the national media, sometimes 
the real crux of the problem is missed. It can be summed up by taking a 
look at the reference in one of the documents provided in the last 
budget round. Interestingly enough, that document was provided by the 
President of the United States. Included in the information on the back 
page is this figure. It is an answer to a question of what the child 
born today would have to pay in the way of taxes to maintain the 
current programs that we have in place. Mr. President, that figure is 
calculated by a straightforward calculation that assumes there are 
absolutely no new programs added. That has never happened.
  In the last quarter of century we have never had a time where we have 
not added new programs or expenditures. It assumes there are no 
emergencies. Even assuming no emergencies and no new programs, the 
child born today will pay 82 percent of everything they earn in their 
entire life in taxes simply to honor the current programs that are on 
the books.
  Mr. President, let me repeat that, because I think that number must 
astound most people. It astounds me when I look at it. Eighty-two 
percent, according to the President's own numbers, will have to be paid 
in taxes simply to honor the existing programs we have.
  The short answer of why that is true is simply because we have passed 
in prior years programs that are open-ended, that spend out 
automatically what are called entitlements that continue to increase 
automatically, and will take a larger and larger share of our gross 
domestic product.
  We are here today because there is a crisis, and that crisis is that 
Congresses in the past have obligated future generations to a point 
where 82 percent of everything a child earns will have to be paid to 
the Federal Government just to honor existing programs.
  Mr. President, there is no person, liberal or conservative, Democrat 
or Republican, who can look at that figure and imagine that America 
will be competitive with 82 percent of everything we produce being paid 
in taxes. It will destroy incentive. It will destroy our 
competitiveness in world markets. And anyone who comes to this floor 
and fails to recognize the desperate need for us to address these 
programs is simply not taking a look at the facts.
  The facts also show we have the biggest deficit of any country in the 
world. We have the biggest debt of any country in the world--almost $5 
trillion. We have the biggest trade deficit of any country in the 
world. We have one of the lowest savings rates of any major 
industrialized country on the face of the Earth.
  Mr. President, when you look at the facts they are awesome. I hope 
Members of the Senate who have come to the floor and said no action is 
necessary will think again. If America is to remain strong, viable, 
competitive, and provide a future for our children other than 82 
percent of everything they earn paid in taxes, we have to change. All 
the rhetoric cannot hide the fact that our future is dismal unless we 
change it. It is why I think there is such optimism in the country over 
the willingness of Congress to stand fast and insist on changes.
  Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Maine mentioned her 
bill which would place Members of Congress in the same circumstance as 
other Federal employees when we have a shutdown like this. I am proud 
to be a cosponsor of it. I very much hope it passes. When it comes to 
the floor for consideration, I want to add an additional amendment. I 
do not pretend that it will be popular. But I think it is along that 
same line, along the line we treat ourselves like everyone else; and, 
that is this:
  For over a quarter of a century this Congress has passed budgets and 
ignored them. They have come up with phony estimates, and then they 
have overspent the budgets time and time again. Some of the Members who 
talk the loudest and the longest about balancing the budget happily 
turn around and then vote to exceed the budget each year. That is why 
we need an incentive. That is why we need the constitutional amendment 
to balance the budget recognizing the fact that Congress has been 
unable to face the reality that calls for difficult decisions.
  I cannot imagine anyone in private thinking other than the fact that 
we have to have some discipline. And while some Members have shied away 
from a constitutional limitation--as the distinguished Presiding 
Officer recalls, we were one vote away from referring that 
constitutional amendment out to the States--I believe some discipline 
is possible. And it relates to the way private sectors are treated.
  Mr. President, the proposal is going to be simply this: If we meet 
our budget targets in passing the budget this year, our pay stays the 
same. But, if we fail to meet them, for every $5 billion we realize in 
debt that is over that target, we would lose 1 percent of our pay. So 
if it is $10 billion over, we lose 10 percent. If we are $20 billion 
over, we would lose 4 percent. This would cap out at a 30-percent pay 
reduction.

  Mr. President, this will provide the real incentive because it will 
provide that Members of Congress will pay a personal price when they do 
harm to the fiscal soundness of this Nation, and the future of our 
children. We will have a direct financial interest in seeing that we 
meet our budget targets. Is it dire action? Yes, possibly. Is it 
essential? Mr. President, I believe it is essential.
  I do not know whether that measure is going to pass or not. But I do 
know that some discipline is essential, and in a way this treats us 
exactly like the private sector. You see, if a private business does 
not perform, the owners and the employees are penalized in 

[[Page S 17473]]
what they can be paid and what they can earn. There is no reason to 
exempt this Congress of the United States from the real discipline of 
the marketplace. Our major responsibility is to get this country back 
on track.
  I intend to offer an amendment to the measure of the distinguished 
Senator from Maine that would add that incentive for Members to honor 
their obligation to meet budget targets.
  Mr. President, the controversy involves two major questions. I think 
some Americans may be surprised to focus on those because the national 
media have not focused on them perhaps the way we think they should. It 
involves commitment of this country to balance its budget in 7 years. 
And it involves honest real numbers. The President has said that he 
cannot live with the commitment to balance the budget in 7 years. The 
President has said he wants other than the Congressional Budget Office 
figures, ones from his administration, or perhaps others, to be the 
standard for the numbers.
  Mr. President, I simply want to draw Members' attention to one fact. 
While the President now says he finds it unacceptable to be committed 
to a balanced budget in 7 years, when the President himself ran for 
office in 1992 he looked the American people in the eye and promised to 
balance it in 5 years.
  Mr. President, he has never presented a budget that does that. Now, 
not only is he not willing to stand up for a 5-year commitment, he said 
he would veto a continuing resolution--he has, indeed, vetoed a 
previous one--if it insists on a commitment to a 7-year balanced 
budget.
  Most Americans must be surprised at this. It runs directly contrary 
to his promise to the American people when he ran for office.
  The President specifically promised a balanced budget in 5 years. 
Later he said a balanced budget in 7 years, and later in 8 years, and 
later 9 years, and later in 10 years. That is one of the major 
differences of two in the failure of the President to keep his 
commitment to try to balance the budget.
  The second difference is over economic assumptions. I must say I find 
no item more important than realistic economic assumptions. The 
distinguished Democratic leader, for whom I have a great deal of 
respect, has come to this floor and noted for the record that we have 
had assumptions that were not optimistic enough in the last few years. 
It is quite true that prior assumptions in periods of economic upturn 
have proved sometimes too conservative. It is the nature of the 
assumptions. We have had assumptions in the past that follow a general 
rule. They are not optimistic enough when we have an economic recovery, 
and they are not pessimistic enough when we have an economic downturn.
  I submit the judgment and the weight of long-range economic 
assumptions should not just be how they perform in the short term of an 
upswing or a downswing but how they perform over the long term. Here 
the record is very clear. No one should be mistaken about it. The 
assumptions we have used for the last quarter of a century, whether 
they be from the Executive Office or the Congressional Budget Office, 
have been wildly optimistic. They have overstated the revenue that 
would come and they have understated the outgo, the spending of the 
Federal Government. The reality is this has been one of the major 
places of gamesmanship. Economic assumptions have been used to mislead 
the American people.
  All one need to do is take a look at the budgets for the last 25 
years. Every single one of them except for the last couple years have 
suggested, while they would not balance the budget this year, they 
would balance the budget the following year or the year after that or 
the year after that. It used to be we would balance the budget 1 year 
out and then 2 years out and then 3 and then 4 and then 5. No one can 
honestly look at the economic assumptions that have been used in 
calculating our budget and not conclude that they were fraudulent. They 
have consistently overstated revenue and consistently understated 
expenditures. One need only look at the Social Security assumptions to 
see the fraud.
  I do not want to overdo this point, but I think it is critical that 
people understand how important the economic assumptions argument is 
because it goes to the very integrity of the books, it goes to the very 
integrity of whether or not we achieve a balanced budget.
  The President is suggesting that we cook the books. That is what this 
controversy is all about--his refusal to honor his commitment on 
balancing the budget and his unwillingness to live up to realistic 
estimates.
  I do not know how many Members had a chance to look at the details of 
the President's proposal in terms of economic assumptions earlier this 
year. Dr. Laura Tyson defended them before the Budget Committee. One of 
the things I found so extreme in the President's proposal was literally 
the suggestion that they were going to use two rates of inflation, one 
rate of inflation when calculating income and another rate of inflation 
when calculating expenditures.
  I understand how reasonable men and women can differ on the value and 
the content of economic assumptions. To assume different rates of 
inflation when you are calculating the income and expenditures is 
absurd. Could they be off slightly in the way we do the calculations? 
Of course. But there was a significant and is a significant difference 
in the way the President's people calculate inflation. It is absolutely 
fraudulent. There is no integrity in those numbers.

  If we adopt economic assumptions that undercut the integrity of this 
budget process, we will have deceived the American people.
  Men and women can honestly disagree, and we are going to negotiate 
over how much tax cut we should have, and we are going to negotiate how 
much spending we should have. And everyone understands there has to be 
a compromise in those areas.
  There should be no compromise on the integrity of the budget process. 
Congress has compromised the integrity of the budget far too long. It 
is one of the core reasons why we find ourselves in the disaster 
situation that stands before us.
  I hope there is an agreement reached today, but I for one cannot 
agree to destroy the integrity of the budget process. I for one think 
it would be a great mistake if included in that agreement is a 
willingness to accept phony numbers and phony assumptions and false 
claims. It is the road that has gotten us to this problem. It is the 
problem we must address honestly and straightforwardly. I believe, if 
we do, if we use honest numbers and realistic changes, this country's 
economy will blossom in the future as it has in the past.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as if 
in morning business for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________