[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 190 (Thursday, November 30, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17838-S17839]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          THE BALANCED BUDGET

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, obviously the issue of Bosnia has the 
attention of America, as it well should because American soldiers are 
being put in harm's way. We as a nation should equally focus on the 
issue of these negotiations that are going on between Congress and the 
President over how we reach a balanced budget, because as our soldiers 
are in harm's way in the immediate sense, as they move into Bosnia, our 
Nation is clearly in harm's way as a result of the continued deficits 
which we run and the fact that we are putting our children's future at 
risk by presenting them with a nation that is bankrupt if we do not get 
under control our national debt.
  So I think it is important to review where we stand and try to 
reflect on what the two sides present. Where we stand is that about a 
week and a half ago, this Nation's Government essentially came to a 
standstill, stopped, because we could not agree on whether or not we 
should reach a balanced budget.
  The Republicans had put forward a balanced budget bill and we passed 
it. It says that we should reach a balanced budget in 7 years. That is 
not an excessively short amount of time. In fact, it is probably too 
much time. We should probably be reaching a balanced budget sooner. But 
we agreed to 7 years because we felt that was something that could be 
attained and which was reasonable.
  The administration, the President specifically, had said, over a 
period of time, they were for a balanced budget also. He said 
specifically he was for a balanced budget, at one time in 5 years. He 
had said he was for a balanced budget in 6 years. He had said he was 
for a balanced budget in 7 years. He had said he was for a balanced 
budget in 8 years. He had said he was for a balanced budget in 9 years. 
And he had said he was for a balanced budget in 10 years. We chose 7 
years. We thought that was right about in the middle of the different 
proposals he had put forward and we hoped he would be comfortable with 
it.
  As a result of the closure of the Government, there was an agreement 
finally reached and the administration has now stated they are 
committed to balancing the budget in 7 years and that they are 
committed to doing that using, as an independent scoring agency to 
determine the fairness and accuracy of the numbers, the Congressional 
Budget Office. That is a major step forward, obviously, in the process.
  It is unfortunate that it took a shutdown of the Government to 
accomplish that. We, as Republicans, remember, were willing to go 
forward to reach a balanced budget. We had actually passed the 
resolution to accomplish that with specifics, without requiring that 
the Government be shut down. It was the administration which would not 
come to the table until there was a Government shutdown, which would 
not agree to a balanced budget until there was a Government shutdown.
  So, as we move into the process of revising the history books, which 
always seems to occur after events take place, let us remember that 
Republicans had already committed to a 7-year balanced budget prior to 
the shutdown and that the shutdown--the outcome of the shutdown was 
that the administration also agreed to a 7-year balanced budget. So, 
something was accomplished by the shutdown. It was unfortunate it was 
necessary. But what was accomplished was that this administration 
finally settled on a number, 7 years, for a balanced budget. Now we 
proceed with the negotiations as to how we get there.
  I have to say, I have been watching these negotiations, as I suspect 
many of us have--although we have been distracted, clearly, by the 
Bosnia situation--and I have become concerned because, while we have 
put forward a plan, the Republicans have put forward a plan which is 
very specific and which in real terms accomplishes what is necessary to 
get this country's fiscal house in order so we will be passing on to 
our children a nation which is financially solvent rather than a Nation 
that is bankrupt, we have, as yet, seen nothing from the administration 
in terms of specifics.
  Where is their budget plan that gets us to balance? We have ours on 
the table--3,000 pages. In fact, the other side of the aisle had great 
entertainment, making fun of the length of our proposal. It is a 
lengthy proposal because it is a specific proposal and a real proposal. 
What we need to see from the administration are specifics as to how 
they wish to get to a balanced budget. It is very difficult, I suspect, 
for those negotiating in this process to be negotiating without one 
side being willing to come forward and say what they are willing to do.

  So I think it is incumbent on the folks who follow this process, 
recognizing we are all a bit distracted, and rightly so, by what is 
happening in Bosnia and the immediate threat to our American soldiers--
but, even in the context of that I think it is incumbent upon all of us 
in this country to be asking the question, ``How does this President 
intend to get to a balanced budget in 7 years? What are his 
proposals?''
  We saw his budget that he sent up here in June. That was a 10-year 
budget. It did not get to balance. In fact it had deficits of $200 
billion for the entire 10-year period, each year for the 10-year 
period. For this administration to get to balance, they must come 
forward with proposals which slow the rate of Federal spending by 
approximately $750 billion over the next 7 years. We have come forward 
with proposals that do that. Where are the administration proposals? 

[[Page S17839]]

  My sense is that they do not want to come forward with proposals 
because they are not sincere, to be quite honest. I do not believe they 
are sincere. If they were sincere they would come forward with these 
proposals. But the fact that they have not raises serious doubts as to 
their sincerity in their efforts. I hope I am wrong but, as of right 
now, I think the facts show I am right. I think the American people 
should start asking themselves what type of administration, what 
philosophy of Government allows the executive branch to agree to a 7-
year timeframe for reaching a balanced budget but refuses to come 
forward and define how they are going to get to that balanced budget? 
What is the philosophy of an administration that does that?
  I do not believe it is a philosophy that is sincerely committed to a 
balanced budget. I believe it is a philosophy that is more involved in 
the politics of the issue than the substance of the issue. That is the 
problem. We cannot afford, as a nation, any longer to be involved in 
the politics. We need to be involved with the substance of the balanced 
budget. In order to get involved in the substance, we need to have this 
administration come forward and state specifically how it intends to 
get to a balanced budget in 7 years. We have done it. The reason we 
have done it is because we understand that, if this is not 
accomplished, and not accomplished at this time, at this moment in 
history where the opportunity is so ripe, that we may not have a chance 
at any later date to do it again. And, if we do not do it now, if we do 
not put in place now the decisions that are necessary to change the 
spending patterns of this Government in the outyears so we reduce its 
rate of growth--we are not talking about cutting the Federal 
Government, we are talking about reducing its rate of growth. In fact, 
in the Medicare area we are talking about adding $349 billion of new 
spending to Medicare and allowing it to grow at a rate that actually 
exceeds what the President projected in one of his budgets that he sent 
up.
  But, if we do not make the changes necessary to reduce the rate of 
growth in the Federal Government and make those changes now by changing 
the programs which drive spending, specifically the entitlement 
programs, then we are going to end up, as a nation, passing on to our 
children a country that is bankrupt. That is an extremely cynical act 
to have occur at the time when all the parties have formally stated 
that they are opposed to having that occur. That is the irony of this. 
All the parties have now formally stated they are willing to reach a 
balanced budget. Yet one of the parties has been unwilling to state how 
it is going to get there. Thus, you have to question their sincerity.

  The fact is, if we do not do this now, if we do not make these 
changes now which accomplish a balanced budget--and we do not have to 
follow the plan laid out by the Republicans. We would be happy to see a 
plan from the other side of the aisle, specifically from the 
administration, or a joint plan worked out. But we need to have the 
facts from the administration first and the proposals from the 
administration first. If we do not follow such a plan and put such a 
plan in place now, we are not going to be able to accomplish it.
  Mr. President, I ask for an additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. We are not going to be able to accomplish what is that 
overriding, absolutely essential goal which is that we get this budget 
in balance so our children have a nation which is solvent.
  So, as we move down this road, recognizing there is a tremendously 
large amount going on in this world today which distracts the attention 
of Americans, recognizing our first concern and interest must be for 
our soldiers who are going into Bosnia, I do hope we will not lose 
focus on the fact that the future of our children is being decided 
today on the issue of whether we get to a balanced budget. We are not 
going to be able to get from here to there unless this administration 
starts putting forward some honest proposals.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

                          ____________________