[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 203 (Monday, December 18, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S18805]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           A DEFICIT DILEMMA

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, in this morning's Washington Post, there 
was a very interesting op-ed piece that I cannot refrain from 
commenting on. It is written by Terry Deibel, and it is entitled, ``A 
Liberal Deficit Hawk's Dilemma.''
  Mr. Deibel describes himself as a liberal who believes in Government, 
believes that the Federal Government can and does do wonderful things, 
but that the Government should not ``spend more money to do these 
things than it collects.''
  He then offers us this fascinating solution to our present dilemma 
from his position as a self-styled liberal deficit hawk. And I am 
quoting, Mr. President.

       To be sure, a good deal of budget balancing could be done 
     in a policy-neutral fashion. A simple freeze on outlays at 
     current levels or a small across-the-board cut in 
     everything--all spending, all entitlements, including Social 
     Security--prolonged over several years of economic and 
     revenue growth eventually would do the trick without any 
     allocation decisions.

  I was stunned when I read this. Here is a man who is a liberal, 
describes himself as a liberal deficit hawk who is proposing a program 
far more draconian than anything the Republicans have ever 
contemplated, a freeze, Mr. President, in all spending across the 
board, or even a small across-the-board cut in everything--
entitlements, including Social Security.
  No Republican has dared offer anything that drastic or that 
draconian. What this says to me, Mr. President, is that Mr. Deibel has 
fallen victim to the rhetoric of this Chamber and, if you will, of the 
White House. He has come to believe, as do many of my constituents, 
that the Republicans are calling for drastic cuts in everything, and he 
says let us solve the problem with a simple freeze.
  Let me give you a few numbers, Mr. President. Total Medicare spending 
in 1995 was $178 billion. If this proposal were put in place, that 
means years from now Medicare spending would be frozen at $178 billion 
in contrast to the draconian Republican call for spending of $301 
billion in the year 2002. He is calling for a commonsense, neutral 
position that would freeze the budget at $178 billion but, no, those 
stingy Republicans want to increase it from 178 to 301--a 69 percent 
increase.

  I say to you, Mr. President, he, like too many people, has fallen 
victim to the rhetoric of this debate without looking at the facts.
  On Medicaid--another area where we are being told the Republicans are 
calling for heartless slashes--this man, a liberal, says, no, let us 
take care of Medicaid by simply freezing it at its present level. Its 
present level is $83 billion. Under the Republican proposal, by the 
year 2002, it will reach $143 billion, a 58-percent increase. But we 
are being pilloried for being heartless when common sense tells this 
man we can solve the problem if we just freeze it.
  Again, he is a victim of the rhetoric. He does not realize, as, 
unfortunately, too many people do not realize, the Republicans are not 
saying let us slash these programs. The Republicans are saying the 
programs are legitimate, the programs need to grow, as the needs of our 
people need to grow, but let us let them grow at some kind of 
intelligent rate. But with the rhetoric, even a man of his knowledge 
and understanding--and he is identified in the Washington Post as 
chairman of the Department of National Security Policy at the National 
War College--even a man of his position and understanding has fallen 
victim to this rhetoric. I hope he will understand now that the freeze 
he is calling for as the logical solution is so much more draconian 
than what the Republicans have suggested that if we were to in fact 
embrace his proposal, we would be crucified --I think justly--by both 
the press and, of course, the members of the opposite party.
  Now, I cannot conclude without referring to one specific that he 
talks about which is a further demonstration of the way the rhetoric 
has distorted the reality. He says:

       It is quite possible, after all, to cut corporate welfare 
     or end the great-western-lands-grazing-and-mining free-lunch 
     program, for example, rather than cut poor people's welfare 
     and the school lunch program.

  Once again, if you listen to the rhetoric on this floor, you would 
think that the reason the budget is out of balance is because of the 
tremendous spending in the West on grazing and the reason we are 
heartless is because of our cuts in school lunches.
  I participated in the filibuster that was mounted on this floor to 
prevent the Secretary of the Interior from implementing his increase in 
grazing fees, which we were told would be the way to make everything 
fair.
  The total amount of money that would have come to the Federal 
Government if the Secretary of Interior had been successful in his 
effort to increase those grazing fees is $19 million per year. That is 
million, ``m'' as in ``minuscule,'' Mr. President, $19 million. That is 
less than we spent to put the new subway between the Capitol and the 
Senate office buildings.
  By comparison, his implication is you could pay for school lunches if 
only you did away with the grazing program in the Midwest. In 1995 we 
will spend $7.9 billion on child nutrition, ``b'' as in ``big.'' And in 
7 years, under the draconian Republican budget, spending on child 
nutrition will increase to $9.2 billion a year, a 16.4-percent 
increase.
  I challenge anybody to try to pay for the present program, let alone 
the increased program, by doing something about a grazing plan in the 
United States that is currently, by the Secretary of the Interior's own 
analysis, costing the taxpayers $19 million.
  Before I leave that, however, because $19 million is, after all, $19 
million, I would refer you to the study that demonstrated that had the 
Secretary's proposal gone through, instead of receiving $19 million in 
additional revenue, in fact it would have driven enough marginal 
operators off the range that the actual income to the Federal 
Government would probably not only have been less than $19 million, but 
in fact might have endangered the money that they were receiving from 
the present grazing fees. The revenues could have gone down rather than 
up.
  I will not pursue this any further, Mr. President. I think this is an 
example of what is wrong with our political dialog. The Republicans are 
proposing increases, in many cases very substantial increases, in some 
of our most fundamental programs, and yet the rhetoric around it has 
been so extreme that even a man of Mr. Deibel's position and 
understanding thinks he can improve on the Republican's proposals by 
freezing everything at the present level.
  If there was ever a demonstration of the excess and inaccuracy of the 
rhetoric of this debate, it is Mr. Deibel's op-ed piece in this 
morning's Washington Post.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Helms). The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MACK. Thank you, Mr. President.

                          ____________________