[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 201 (Saturday, December 16, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S18775-S18777]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            BALANCED BUDGET

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I had hoped to be in Wyoming, as a matter 
of fact, this weekend, but I had hoped--sincerely hoped--that we would 
be working at solving the problems we have, and we do have some 
problems.
  But I do want to comment a little. On the way in, I heard the 
President speak this morning. Frankly, I was surprised that his tone 
was that he had been offended, as a matter of fact. He indicated that 
the Republicans had shut down the Government. I have to tell you, I do 
not believe that is the case at all.
  Although it does not matter who it is, the fact is he promised 25 
days ago to bring a budget to be balanced in 7 years based on CBO 
numbers and has not done that, and that is the problem.
  Mr. President, it is much more difficult to look into the future and 
seek to give the leadership that is necessary to mold the Government 
into a form that will be useful for generations to come. It is much 
easier to defend the status quo. It seems to me that is the real issue.
  The real issue is the growing Government, the growing debt, the 
growing 

[[Page S18776]]
interest, and the first opportunity that we have had in 25 years to 
change that. Frankly, the President has been the obstacle of causing 
that to happen, and I am sorry for that.
  Mr. President, there is a great deal more to a balanced budget than 
arithmetic, even though that is what is talked about, of course. But it 
seems to me it is the most important issue that we have had before this 
country in a very long time. Not only because of the arithmetic, not 
only because we have a $5 trillion debt, not only because we pay $260 
billion a year in interests, and growing, and because it is the largest 
line item in the budget, that is not the only reason.
  One of the reasons is responsibility. We are coming into a new 
century soon, and I think all of us have some responsibility to give 
some thought to how we want to make the transfer of this Government and 
this country to new generations with debt that will cost a newborn 
$187,000 during their lifetime on interest alone. Is that the kind of a 
country we want to bring forward, the kind of country where we have 
enjoyed the benefits of high spending but have not been willing to pay 
for it, just put it on the credit card of somebody else? The credit 
card is maxed out.
  It also has to do with the concept and the size of the Federal 
Government, how intrusive and how large and how much spending is 
involved. I happen to be one of those who believe the Federal 
Government should be smaller, that we should, indeed, consider those 
things that could be done better by the States, some that do not need 
to be done at all by Government, that should be done in the private 
sector.
  I think we ought to spend a little more time with oversight, taking a 
look at those programs, many of which have been in place for 30 years, 
the Great Society programs, welfare particularly, and evaluate how 
effective it has been in terms of its purpose. We have more poverty 
today than we did when it began. Everyone wants to help people who need 
help and help them back into the workplace, and that has not been what 
has happened.

  So we ought to take a look at making some change, and there is great 
resistance to change, and the President is leading that resistance, I 
think because he has to support the liberal wing of his party, but he 
is absolutely refusing to take a look at evaluating programs and see 
if, indeed, there are some ways we can do this job better.
  So here we are. The administration has produced four budgets, none of 
which has balanced, and has produced a great deal of demagoguery. Even 
the press, the national TV, the most notable one was ``Nightline'' that 
was on Tuesday night, showed clips of where we were, one including the 
First Lady 2 years ago saying what we need to do is reduce the growth 
in Medicare to somewhere between 6 and 7 percent annually. We have to 
do that. The Republican plan is more than 7 percent, and yet the White 
House says we are going to gut the program, do away with it.
  The fact is, the trustees said if we do not do something, it will be 
broke. We know that. Someone the other day, some 40-year-old said, 
``I'm very concerned about Medicare for my mother and Social 
Security.'' He better be worried about himself. His mother is OK in 
that program, but you cannot continue the program as it is.
  So we have a great deal of demagoguery going on. I happened to serve 
in the House with Leon Panetta. He was chairman of the Budget 
Committee, and he came in 4 years ago saying you have to do these 
things, you have to slow down this entitlement growth. He was the one 
who was saying that. Now he says the Republicans are uncaring, have no 
compassion for wanting to do the same thing. Give me a break.
  If we are going to have a country where we can come together with 
public policy, where we can make some decisions based on facts--there 
have to be some facts--I certainly understand and encourage differences 
in philosophy and I have a considerable amount of difference in 
philosophy with some of my friends on the other side.
  Bernie Sanders and I are good friends. Bernie Sanders is from 
Vermont. He is an Independent, but he is a Socialist. That is his 
political philosophy. We did not agree on anything, and I understand 
that, because his idea is the more government you have, the better it 
is; the more money you can take out of the private sector and spend 
publicly the better. I do not agree with that. And the majority in this 
Congress does not agree with that, but it is a philosophy, and that is 
OK. But you ought to balance that philosophy when we make decisions 
with facts--facts.

  The President said that we are shutting down because the Republicans 
would not negotiate. The fact is that the Republicans now have had 
about three different programs that do balance the budget. Their 
proposal yesterday would have added to Medicare, to Medicaid, to the 
earned income tax credit for the working poor, 75 billion dollars' 
worth, and $25 billion more in Medicare. That was the proposal at this 
time. Republicans came to that so there would be legitimate bargaining.
  This comes from the Washington Post--it is not Republican propaganda, 
I do not think. They featured a number of novel ways to balance the 
budget. They are talking about the administration yesterday, who came 
to negotiate. I quote from the paper:

       The White House proposal featured a number of novel ways to 
     balance spending and some traditional ones, such as selling 
     Government assets. This major new savings of $54 billion, 
     however, comes from the use of the more optimistic economic 
     assumptions of OMB.

  The President signed the law 25 days ago to say these negotiations, 
this balanced budget, will be on CBO numbers, Congressional Budget 
Office numbers. I can imagine how tired people are of hearing CBO, OMB, 
and all that. The fact is, though, that as the President said in his 
State of the Union Message 2 years ago, we all need to use the same 
numbers. He chose CBO. He now refuses to use them because they can cook 
the books with the numbers they use at the White House. It is pretty 
simple to balance the budget if you have your own projections of what 
growth is going to be, that there will be no turndown in the economy. 
Of course. Then, furthermore, they said if that does not work, we will 
get more revenue by reducing the tax reduction.
  There are lots of ways to balance the budget, and that, of course, is 
what some of my friends on the other side say. But they say, ``We want 
to do it the right way.'' And they think the right way is to raise 
taxes so you can continue to spend, and that is the way you do it.
  So, Mr. President, we are engaged in a difficult thing here, a 
difficult negotiation. I do not think anyone is happy about the 
Government coming to the brink of another furlough. No one wants to do 
that. But I can tell you that people are pretty dedicated on this side 
of the aisle to the fundamental proposition of balancing the budget and 
making some changes for the first time in 25 years--changes that will 
affect all of us for a very long time.
  So there are some issues--and debt is one--that we continue to go on. 
It was $5 trillion and it is higher now. Even under this balanced 
budget in 7 years, that debt will go up $2 trillion more in 7 years. 
You all are going to pay for that. All of us. The younger you are, the 
more you are going to pay. That is too bad.
  Responsibility? We are responsible to do better than that, all of us. 
Whether you are here or in Cody, WY, whether you are a cowboy, a 
railroader, we are responsible citizens, and a democracy goes with the 
freedom of responsibility. One of those responsibilities is that, if we 
want things collectively, you have to pay for them. This idea that 
somehow we sure enjoy the programs, but we do not want to pay for them 
does not work.
  Change. We are responsible to bring about change. It is easier to 
stick with the status quo and to use Lyndon Johnson's pen and veto the 
bill and say, by golly, we are going to stay with the old Great 
Society. It does not work, but we are going to stay right there.
  The other is all talk and no action. The White House has the bully 
pulpit and cannot do it. The real issue, of course, is an honest 
balancing of the budget, so we reduce spending from the level it is--
and it will still continue to go up at more than 3 percent--but to be 
able to pay for what we say, and do it by real numbers. Some of the 
folks say, ``You guys are in a adolescent food fight back there.'' I am 
sure it looks more petty than pretty, but the fact is 

[[Page S18777]]
that it is a real debate, a real culmination of a year's work, now to 
decide whether we are successful in balancing the budget or whether we 
go on as we have in the past, and that we do it in 7 years. Everyone in 
this place, since I have been here this year, the first thing they do 
is stand up and say, ``I am for balancing the budget,'' and they go on 
to find 100 reasons why they cannot do it. But they want to do it in 
the right way and that is to raise revenues so we can keep spending at 
this level.
  So, Mr. President, there are lots of problems here, but I think we 
need to really come to the snubbing post and say to ourselves we are 
willing to make changes and bring the changes forward that are based on 
real numbers and then vote. If you do not want to balance the budget, 
fine, say so. But let us get some figures out here that legitimately 
say this will balance. Let us not have smoke and mirrors and say we 
have balanced it, but gosh, we have just done it with projections. They 
do not have to do that. We have a set of numbers. They may not be 
right. No one knows whether they will be right. But they are the same 
numbers and we are dealing from the same deck. That is what we need to 
do.
  So, Mr. President, I feel very strongly, as I know many, many do. I 
am offended, frankly, by the opponents of balancing the budget saying 
we just do not have any compassion. We are going to throw kids out in 
the street or not have schools or not have Medicare. That is poppycock. 
That is not true. I am offended at the idea that somehow they have more 
compassion than I do. I do not believe the Federal Government has any 
more compassion than my State of Wyoming. We are as concerned about our 
kids as anyone. In fact, we are more concerned about our kids than they 
are about our kids, of course. So that is not the issue.
  If we want to really talk about compassion, we ought to talk about 
what is going to happen in 15 years when you do not have any money 
except for a handful of entitlements--and that is where we are. 
Everybody knows that. We do not have the leadership or the gumption to 
come up to it to make the decision.
  Mr. President, I hope that happens, and I hope that we will give our 
country a strong future by saying we are willing to make the tough 
decisions and balance the budget and to look out for the future, and we 
are willing to pass on a country that will be better than the one we 
have been involved in.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from Georgia is 
recognized.

                          ____________________