[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 193 (Wednesday, December 6, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S18051-S18052]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               THE BUDGET

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I was getting a bite of lunch and noting 
on TV the continued hypocrisy. There is no better word for it. Some in 
the Senate continue to come and blame President Clinton for the 
deficit. They continue to say he does not want to do anything about the 
deficit, which is totally out of the whole cloth. It is good pollster 
politics to try to paint that image.
  But the fact of the matter is, where I could be blamed for the 
deficit because I have been up here for years and others could be, 
President Clinton was down in Arkansas balancing the budgets for 10 
years. He came to this town with a plan in 1993, and it was traumatic. 
It said we are going to cut spending and get rid of Federal 
employees. We are going to cut the deficit $500 billion. We are going 
to tax. We heard that word. We are going to increase taxes on beer and 
liquor and cigarettes and gasoline, and, yes, Mr. President, we are 
going to increase taxes on Social Security--one of the really 
sacrosanct, holy of holies. He insisted on that attempt to cut the 
deficit, and there was not a single vote on the other side of the aisle 
either in the Senate or in the House of Representatives. But that other 
side of the aisle, having done nothing but cause deficits, comes now 
with this pollster-driven message that is developed by a retinue of 
Senators coming to the floor, and now I have to listen to some kind of 
lockbox nonsense.

  Who caused the deficit? I know one who balanced the budget: Lyndon 
Baines Johnson. President Johnson in 1968 and 1969 was very sensitive 
about the charge of guns and butter and not paying for the war in 
Vietnam and his Great Society. So he had a 10-percent surcharge on 
taxes, and he came with spending cuts. At that particular time, the 
entire budget was $178 billion--$178 billion for Medicare, for defense, 
for Medicaid, for welfare. All the things that everyone is talking 
about cutting, President Johnson paid for and ended up with a $3.2 
billion surplus.
  Now, where did the deficit start? Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Carter 
all worked at cutting spending. But it was President Ronald Reagan who 
came to town with a promise of balancing the budget in 1 year. The 
others had not made that promise. They had worked on it. But the actual 
promise in the campaign--and I can show you the document--was, ``We are 
going to balance the budget in 1 year.''
  President Reagan, on coming to town, said, ``Heavens, I didn't 
realize the fiscal dilemma we are in. It's going to take longer than 1 
year.'' And he submitted and we passed in 1981 a budget to be balanced 
in 3 years. In 1985, with Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, we promised a balance 
by 1990. And in 1990, this Congress here, before President Clinton came 
to town, promised not only a balanced budget by 1995 but a surplus of 
$20.5 billion.
  Now, that goes to all of this posturing about the historic effort 
that we are making in closing down the Government and the partisan 
attack that we are the only ones for a balanced budget and the other 
crowd is not. The fact is that for 200 years of history and 38 
Presidents, Republican and Democrat, up until 1981 we had yet to come 
to a national debt of $1 trillion. It was less than $1 trillion. Now 
the deficit has grown over the 15 years of spending over $250 billion 
and the debt to almost $5 trillion.
  The deficit for this year is considered by the Congressional Budget 
Office to be $311 billion. Spending goes up, up, and away, and as we 
look at defense, that has come from $300 billion down to $243, similar 
domestic discretionary spending and others. But the one that has really 
taken off, is interest cost on the national debt--$348 billion, or $1 
billion a day. We have spending on automatic pilot.
  This land has fiscal cancer, and nobody wants to talk about it.
  There was an old limerick, my children, on Saturday morning, on the 
``Big John and Sparky'' program on the radio:


[[Page S 18052]]

       All the way through life, make this your goal: Keep your 
     eye on the donut and not the hole.

  Mr. President, we are looking right at the hole with tax cuts and 
avoiding and evading the donut, which are tax increases, because we 
know--and I am saying we in the budget process who have been working in 
this discipline--and they know it on the other side of the aisle, too. 
I can quote Senator Domenici, who, all the way back in 1985--the 
present chairman of the Budget Committee--said you cannot balance 
without an increase in taxes.
  We tried budget freezes with then-majority leader Howard Baker of 
Tennessee, the Republican leader. We worked in tandem; in those days 
you could work together. We tried not only the freezes but the spending 
cuts across the board, with Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. And then, in 1986, 
we got on our Finance Committee friends--and I see the distinguished 
chairman is present--and we said, look, we might be spending in 
appropriations, but you folks with loopholes are spending way more than 
the Government.
  And so, with the distinguished Finance Committee and its chair, Lloyd 
Bentsen of Texas, we had tax reform in 1986, and we supposedly closed 
the loopholes. And at that time, we had freezes, cuts, and the loophole 
closings. Then in 1987, a studied group within the Budget Committee, 
charged with the responsibility of balancing the budget, agreed that it 
could not be done merely with cuts and freezes and loophole closings; 
that we needed taxes.
  In an informal vote on the Budget Committee, eight of us and two of 
our Republican colleagues, Senator Danforth of Missouri, Senator 
Boschwitz of Minnesota--he did not come up here with a lockbox gimmick. 
He came with a solemn vote for a 5-percent value-added tax allocated to 
eliminating the tax and the debt.
  That was 8 years ago. Eight years ago, we were trying. But they do 
not try now. They come with all the pollster nonsense, running around 
here, getting on top of the message. That is why we are in session.
  I can tell you, if people of common sense would look at the 65 
percent of what has been agreed upon in both budgets, which would 
constitute about another $600 billion in spending cuts, which this 
Senator could support, we could agree on cuts in Medicare--not no $270 
billion. That is out of the whole cloth. We could pare back some on 
Medicaid and the other particular programs. The President was asking 
just this time last week, on Thursday, he said, you have given me $7 
billion; you force-fed me $7 billion, never even asked for by the 
Pentagon or by the administration, but you just heaped it on. Now, just 
give me $1.5 billion so I can take care of technology and children's 
nutrition and health care, environment, education, so we do not have to 
wreck the Government, we can pay for the Government.

  These programs save money, as well as lives, but they would not even 
compromise. Every time they talk, they say, ``Here's our budget. Where 
is yours?''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair would inform the Senator that his 10 
minutes under the unanimous- consent request have expired.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, could I have 2 more minutes? Is there 
objection?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The Senator is recognized for 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I do appreciate the Chair and the indulgence of my 
colleagues. I simply will end by saying that we can easily get together 
on the 65 percent, $700 billion in savings right now. This Senator 
believes we need taxes. Others say, no, you need more spending cuts. I 
know if you could do it in spending cuts, we would have long since done 
it.
  The entire domestic discretionary spending is $273 billion. That is 
for the President, the Congress, the courts, the departments, welfare, 
foreign aid. Just get rid of it all. But you are spending $348 billion 
automatically for nothing in interest costs on the debt.
  You can do away entirely with Medicare. That is only $200 billion. Do 
away entirely with the entire Defense and Pentagon budget of $243 
billion. You have still got a deficit. You cannot do it.
  So you have to get together, men and women of good will, and work 
together to freeze, cut, close loopholes, and get some kind of a 
revenue measure to get on top of this fiscal cancer. It is growing 
faster than we can stop it. I look upon it as taxes because it cannot 
be avoided. The truth of the matter is that we have to increase taxes 
to stop increasing taxes. Spending is on automatic pilot, and nobody 
wants to admit it, and no plan here comes near excising this cancer.
  I thank the distinguished Chair.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous agreement, the Senator from 
North Dakota is recognized for 10 minutes as in morning business.

                          ____________________