[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 190 (Thursday, November 30, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17853-S17854]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          ENTITLEMENT SPENDING

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, 4 years ago at this time, the 
distinguished Senator from Nebraska was a candidate for the Democratic 
nomination for President of the United States. That was an unsuccessful 
quest. But I will reflect on the fact that had that been a successful 
quest, we would not be faced with the challenge or the deadlock with 
which the Congress is faced today.
  The Senator from Nebraska, very clearly, goes much further in his 
recommendations for dealing with entitlements than does the Republican 
budget, which will be vetoed by the President because it does much too 
much for this President with respect to entitlement spending. Each of 
the suggestions that he has made, each of the suggestions that his 
bipartisan organization has made have a great deal of merit. Each of 
them ought to be seriously debated here in the Congress of the United 
States and, for that matter, in the White House. Very bluntly, however, 
they are not because the person who is President of the United States 
essentially sets the agenda, or at least the parameters of the debate 
over matters of this nature.
  So, at this point, we are faced with the proposition that, at best, 
we can do some of the things, take some of the steps toward a reform of 
our entitlement programs and the preservation of Medicare, advocated by 
the Senator from Nebraska and those who worked with him. But that is 
not the nature of the debate today.
  In spite of the fact that the Senator from Nebraska speaks as a 
Democrat, speaks from the other side of the aisle, we are faced today 
with the proposition that this body, this Congress, without a single 
Democratic vote here in the Senate, and with only the tiniest handful 
in the House of Representatives, has, in fact, passed a balanced budget 
in the year 2002, and has in fact, for the first time that this 
Congress really has ever done so, proposed profound reforms in 
entitlement programs, both for their own preservation and in order to 
preserve some ability on the part of the Congress to fund these 
discretionary programs.
  We are faced with the position of at least the vast majority of the 
other party, and certainly the President, that they will not propose 
any alternative which will reach the same goal. We struggled through 
bitter debates on this floor and much difficulty to pass a modest 3-
week continuing resolution just a short time ago, just before 
Thanksgiving, the heart of which, as far as we were concerned, was the 
proposition --which the President signed--that we would come up with a 
balanced budget in the year 2002, using statistics provided by the 
Congressional Budget Office. Now, halfway from the date of that passage 
until December 15, we have no such proposal from the President, or, I 
may say, from the leaders of the party of which the Senator from 
Nebraska is a Member--none whatsoever. We have critiques of various 
elements of our proposal, including the critique of our tax reductions 
from the Senator from Nebraska. Well and good. Such criticisms are 
certainly appropriate within the frame of reference for reaching a 
balanced budget by 2002.

  It would be wonderful to debate whether or not we ought to go further 
and to pass a set of reforms that would last longer and be more 
decisive. But the Senator from Nebraska knows that no such debate of 
any seriousness will go on during this administration.
  So the real parameters are, is there a different way of reaching the 
goal set out in a law passed by this Congress just 10 days ago and 
signed by this President just 10 days ago? Do they want to make some 
kind of adjustments with various spending programs or with tax 
reductions? So far, the answer is, ``no,'' they do not want to play the 
game at all. They are content with the status quo.
  Last night, we were informed by the President of the United States 
that if we would simply pass appropriations bills with the items in it 
that he regarded as priorities, then he would sign the appropriations 
bills. Wonderful. Not a word about reforms in the entitlements, which 
are absolutely necessary in order to have any money left over in future 
years for any of these discretionary programs. Well, of course, that is 
an unacceptable offer. The only way we can determine whether or not 
there is money for any of the programs that we feel important, or that 
the President feels are important, is to operate within the same set of 
parameters, and to have the President submit to us something which his 
party will support and he will sign, which meets that goal of a 
balanced budget in the year 2002.
  It can be as radically different as that which the Senator from 
Nebraska advocates here. That would clearly be a starting point. I 
suspect that if it were a program such as he proposed, he would find a 
great deal of support for many of its elements on this side of the 
aisle. But he knows we are not going to get any such proposal from his 
political party. I hope that he regrets that we have gotten no proposal 
at all that meets those requirements--none at all. We have simply a 
statement that ``we have these priorities and those priorities,'' none 
of which includes balancing the budget. Now, this is not a zero-sum 
game, Mr. President, because built into the proposal which passed as 
part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 is a huge dividend of $170 
billion to the Government of the United States--perhaps half a trillion 
more in income in the pockets of the American people in the form of 
higher wages and lower interest rates, a dividend which disappears if 
we do not reach the goal.

  Almost precisely identical with the date of last year's elections, 
interest rates began to drop in the United States. Almost precisely 
with that time, productivity began to increase in the United States. 
Inflation is lower in the United States, as I read the statements of 
the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, due to anticipation of a 
balanced budget.
  If this deadlock continues--if the President makes no proposal to 
reach that goal, no proposal, not that his own advisers think is a good 
one, but one that will stand the test of time and the financial markets 
of the United States--these improvements in our economy will be 
ephemeral. Interest rates will go up, the number of jobs will go down. 
We will be in a serious situation.
  So I know that those Senators on this side who have heard the remarks 
of the Senator from Nebraska will admire them and in most respects 
agree with them, but the time has come that either he needs to persuade 
his party to adopt his position, or at least he needs to persuade his 
party to respond within the frame of reference that is now the law of 
the United States for the last 10 years, and come up with some 
alternative that reaches those goals using the same set of figures that 
will provide the dividend we have been told will be the dividend 
resulting from a balanced budget.
  Somehow or another we have to get such an answer. We cannot negotiate 
a precise position on one side against no position at all on the other 
side. That is what we have from the President of the United States.
  I return to the beginning of my remarks: 4 years ago the statement of 
the Senator from Nebraska would have been more widely heard in the 
United States, when he was a candidate for President. I do not think I 
would have voted for him against the candidate of my own party, but I 
certainly think the country would have been better off had he succeeded 
in being the Democratic nominee.
  Mr. KERREY. In response to my friend from Washington, let me say that 
I do believe the President started off this year with a budget as 
everybody knows that he submitted, and I do not think there was a 
single vote for it when it came out. He understood he had to change and 
came on with a 10-year plan and, 10 or 14 days ago, agreed now to 
support a plan to balance the budget in 7 years.
  What I was trying to do and am trying to do is not just persuade 
Democrats, but Republicans as well that we have, as we go into these 
negotiations, 

[[Page S17854]]
which is what we are doing now--I am part of a group that the 
Democratic Leader Daschle has put together to discuss and come up with 
a proposal so that we have something that we can try to reach agreement 
with Republicans over.

  I am trying to say to Democrats as we do that, that yes, we should 
defend those things we think are important, make sure that Medicare has 
a sufficient amount of resources, for example, so that we do not have 
to unnecessarily punish particularly rural hospitals, and look for 
ways--I think block granting Medicaid is not a good thing, and rejected 
that.
  We should object to things we do not like in the proposal, but in 
addition to looking for a way to bridge the gap, which if I was going 
to predict I think likely will knock the CPI back by half a point and 
shave the tax thing back by x amount of dollars and put more money in 
Medicare and Medicaid and go home and say we have a deal.
  That is lying there to be done. I do not know if we will have the 
capacity to get it done, but we will now have a move toward balancing 
the budget in the year 2002.
  The only impact we have with our vote is on this year's budget. The 
difficult thing I have is that according to the Congressional Budget 
Office, the proposal that was passed with all Republican votes actually 
increases the deficit next year and increases the deficit the year 
after.
  Why? Because the tax cuts are front-end loaded. Again, if you examine 
the Congressional Budget Office's analysis of the tax cut, it produces 
less economic growth. The CBO is saying that the status quo produces 
more growth than what we have with the $245 billion tax cut.
  Even if you could find a way to bridge the gap and say, ``Use the CPI 
to eliminate the cuts in Medicare and figure out some way to bridge the 
gap,'' we are left with a tax cut proposal that does not promote 
economic growth, which I think ought to be mission No. 1 as we analyze 
our tax system.
  I am merely saying that I am prepared and am in the negotiations as 
we meet on the Democratic side, and I find myself with an unusual 
opportunity with so much morning business--we have had very little of 
that lately. As I find myself with an opportunity to come to the floor 
and talk about this, I just want to waste no moment to stand up and say 
that not only do we need to balance the budget, but we need to change 
these mandatory programs, the laws that govern.
  Democrats who say, ``Gee, I want to spend more money on education; I 
want to put more money in child care; I want to put more money in rural 
health clinics; I think we ought to do more in research and science.'' 
Republicans who say, ``I think we need more law enforcement,'' or 
Democrats the same way--once we decide, and there is a lot of 
agreement.

  This whole diatribe started with praise from the Senator from Rhode 
Island and the Senator from Idaho for their work on the Safe Drinking 
Water Act and I pause to note that the distinguished senior Senator 
from Missouri said quite accurately that we have authorized more than 
we will be able to appropriate for the infrastructure to keep our 
drinking water safe; that a dominant reason we are not likely to have 
the money for those kinds of investments is that we are seeing an 
increase year after year after year of money going to mandated 
programs.
  Mr. President, 34 percent of the budget this year goes to 
appropriated accounts; 64 percent of the budget this year is mandatory 
programs and interest; 36 percent is left over for appropriated 
accounts. At the end of this 10-year cycle we have lost another nine 
points; another nine-point increase in mandatory and interest.
  For all the rhetoric on both sides of the aisle about taxes, the one 
thing I say to taxpayers that has remained constant as a result of 
general success in keeping the economy growing, keeping the environment 
such that investors create the jobs like I mentioned with Steve Jones 
and Jim Clark earlier with Netscape and so forth, the companies that 
are creating wealth and creating more economic activity, that growth 
has enabled us even though we spend more money, the percent of the 
Federal budget of our economy has remained about 19 percent.
  Unless somebody is proposing to increase that beyond 19 percent--that 
is your given--and what is happening is more and more money is going, a 
larger and larger share of that 19 percent, is going for mandated 
programs, leaving less for everything else.
  I hope I persuade Republicans that there is an alternative course 
here for us, to vote to do something that will revolutionize our 
future. And I hope to persuade Democrats, as well, who want to 
collectively invest in education and so forth, that the only way we 
will be able to do that is to get our arms around these mandated 
programs in some more aggressive fashion than is even in the Republican 
budget proposal.
  I appreciate the very kind remarks of the distinguished Senator from 
Washington, and I hope that the kindness begets kindness. I hope we end 
up into the day voting in a bipartisan fashion for something that does 
revolutionize our future, that does move us in a radically different 
direction than the one we are heading right now because, folks, we are 
heading in a direction we do not want to go.
  We will end up in the future saying, why did we not do that when it 
was easy? It is easier today than next year. And it will be easier next 
year than the year after. This is not one where time is on our side.
  As tough as adjusting the CPI by a point looks, as tough as it might 
seem to phase in over a 15- or 20-year period adjustment in the 
eligibility age from 65 to 70, as tough as those things look today, 
every year you wait it gets tougher to do it. Every year you wait we 
will have to impose changes that are more difficult for those Americans 
who have planned on those programs being there for them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from Tennessee.

                          ____________________