[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 204 (Tuesday, December 19, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S18908-S18910]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          REVIEW OF RESOLUTION

  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, I thought I would take a few moments to 
review the resolution that was offered by the distinguished majority 
leader and objected to by the distinguished minority leader, because I 
frankly did not think it was all that controversial.
  The joint resolution is stated as follows:
       Affirming that budget negotiations shall be based on the 
     most recent technical and economic assumptions of the 
     Congressional Budget Office and shall achieve a balanced 
     budget by fiscal year 2002 based on those assumptions.
       Whereas on November 20 the President signed legislation 
     (Public Law 104-56) committing Congress and the President to 
     ``enact legislation in the first session of the 104th 
     Congress to achieve a balanced budget not later than fiscal 
     year 2002 as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office;
       Whereas Congress has approved legislation that achieves a 
     balanced budget in fiscal year 2002 as estimated by the 
     Congressional Budget Office.
       Whereas congressional Democrats have offered alternative 
     budgets in the House and Senate which also achieve balance in 
     fiscal year 2002 as estimated by the Congressional Budget 
     Office;
       Whereas the commitment to enact legislation in the first 
     session of Congress requires action now in negotiations;
       Whereas the negotiations have no preconditions on levels of 
     spending or taxation, except that the resulting budget must 
     achieve balance by fiscal year 2002 as estimated by the 
     Congressional Budget Office;
       Whereas the Congressional Budget Office has updated its 
     technical and economic assumptions following a thorough 
     consultation with government and private experts; and
       Whereas the Congressional Budget Office has begun 
     consultation and review with the 

[[Page S18909]]
     Office of Management and Budget: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     current negotiations between Congress and the President shall 
     be based on the most recent technical and economic 
     assumptions of the Congressional Budget Office, and that the 
     Congress is committed to reaching an agreement this year with 
     the President on legislation that will achieve a balanced 
     budget by fiscal year 2002 as estimated by the Congressional 
     Budget Office.

  Now, as I understand it, the minority leader objected to this 
resolution being brought up because it did not include, I guess, the 
full text of the language that was passed a month ago, and I must say 
that at this point I do not think I can speak for every Member on our 
side of the aisle, but I think that we are perfectly willing to put the 
complete text in the resolution.
  Again, I do not want to bore everybody, but let me read what the 
additional text would be:

       And the President and the Congress agree that the balanced 
     budget must protect future generations, ensure Medicare 
     solvency, reform welfare, and provide adequate funding for 
     Medicaid, education, agriculture, national defense, veterans 
     and the environment. Further, the balanced budget shall adopt 
     tax policies to help working families and to stimulate future 
     economic growth.

  Now, that is the full text. So again, we are at a point now where we 
really do not know how this will play out tomorrow. The majority leader 
indicated that he certainly was willing to accept the full text. I 
suspect that one of the reasons the full language was not included was 
because, again, it required us to adopt tax policies to help working 
families and to stimulate future economic growth. These two 
requirements may have caused some problems for some people.
  We thought that, by offering the single question about endorsing the 
use of Congressional Budget Office numbers, it would frankly be 
supported easily by both sides of the aisle. Yesterday in the House, 
133 Democrats, in fact, supported this language.
  So maybe tomorrow we will be able to work out this apparent 
disagreement, add the additional language, and be able to come to 
closure, again and finally. We think these negotiations, which may 
begin tomorrow in fact, will be done on a basis in which the 
Congressional Budget Office will be scoring. Everything that will be 
dealt with will be done so by using the Congressional Budget Office 
numbers.
  So, I would say again, in context with what has happened today, I 
have a greater sense of hope that maybe we might be moving towards some 
agreement. Or maybe, without being too hopeful, maybe the way to say it 
is I am under the impression that serious negotiations will begin 
tomorrow.
  I do not see how this would be harmful in stating, once again, the 
commitment that both the Congress and the President of the United 
States made 1 month ago to have a balanced budget, scored by CBO, in 7 
years. So I think that is a fairly reasonable position for us to take.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. MACK. I will be delighted to yield to my friend.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the principles that we agreed to in the 
beginning are excluded from this resolution that was sent over to us 
from the House. I think the majority leader readily agreed that they 
should have been in it, a few moments ago. He even suggested that he 
would accept whatever the Democratic leader might put together as an 
amendment and you could then alter this resolution to accommodate that.
  So, really, I do not know why we are talking about it tonight. 
Everybody is agreeable. Unless you are trying to make a point that you 
made yesterday and the day before and the day before that. And people 
are trying to work things out.
  The principles here, that we had put in there, are the things that 
are very dear to all of us. The majority leader did not object to it. 
In fact, he was very gracious in offering the Democratic leader an 
opportunity to give an amendment which he would modify. So I think we 
will do that tomorrow. So the only agreement is on principle, I say to 
my friend from Florida.
  Mr. MACK. I would pick up on that. It may be that we are, in fact, 
moving towards times where there will be more agreement as opposed to 
disagreement. I think all of us hope that that day will come.
  The other comment you made, that we might again hammer a point we 
have made before, I guess, maybe for the last several days, is a fair. 
Frankly, yes, we do want to make the point that it has now been 1 month 
since the Congress passed a continuing resolution which had, in that 
language, a requirement for CBO to score a budget that balanced in 7 
years and which contained the other items I spoke about a moment ago. 
For 1 month, frankly, the President of the United States has failed to 
produce a proposal that balances the budget in 7 years. The closest the 
President has come is a proposal that came out, I believe a week ago--
actually this past Friday. Actually, I think it was a week prior to 
that, which was scored by the Congressional Budget Office, which said--
let me just finish--
  Mr. FORD. Two weeks with CBO, now.
  Mr. MACK. It was scored by CBO as being $116 billion short of 
balancing the budget in the 7th year. I do not know what the total 
amount would be over the 7-year period, or what our differences were, 
but it was $116 billion over the mark. So, yes, I must admit that one 
of the reasons we do want to have a little discussion about this 
resolution is to make the point that in 30 days the President has 
utterly failed to come forward with a plan that balances the budget.
  Mr. FORD. If the Senator will yield for another question? I just do 
not want to leave him out there without our trying to help our side a 
little bit.
  Mr. MACK. I will yield.
  Mr. FORD. I do not want him to yield. I just want to ask a question. 
Was not part of that delay, 2 weeks that it took CBO to score what was 
offered?
  Mr. MACK. If I can respond?
  Mr. FORD. Yes. Sure.
  Mr. MACK. The President agreed to scoring budgets through CBO. OMB is 
well aware of CBO's----
  Mr. FORD. Senator, that is not what I asked. I asked, did it not take 
2 weeks for CBO to score what the President sent in, offered? That was 
part of the delay.
  Mr. MACK. If the Senator will allow me to respond? I have no problem 
in saying it took 10 days, 12 days, 14 days. But my point is, the 
administration clearly had the ability to put together a budget based 
on the economic assumptions it knew CBO would produce. They refused to 
do that.
  Mr. FORD. No, they did not.
  Mr. MACK. They offered a plan about which they then could say to the 
American people, ``according to the OMB it balanced the budget.'' It 
did not balance according to CBO. And that is the whole point. The last 
plan presented by the President of the United States is $116 billion 
short in year number 7.
  I think it ought to be pretty obvious that that is the case. So, 
again, we have been debating this. We will have an opportunity, I 
believe, tomorrow to deal with this resolution because I am under the 
impression that there will be an agreement to add the additional 
language, which is important, I understand from my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle.
  The additional language in there is very important to us as well, 
especially the tax cut for America's families and the reduction in the 
capital gains tax rate to spur economic growth. That language in 
essence will be included if there is an amendment tomorrow.
  It is interesting to note that what seems to be creating some angst 
here this evening is a resolution that was supported without any 
amendment by 133--I think 133 Democrats in the other body in 
yesterday's vote. So it seemed fairly obvious to me that we could push 
this forward without any major controversy.
  What we hope to accomplish, once again, is to get from the President 
of the United States a budget that is balanced in 7 years, scored by 
CBO, which is to say using real numbers. I do not think that is 
unrealistic. I am hopeful, after what has occurred in the meetings at 
the White House earlier this evening. But I have been hopeful before. 
So I hope my colleagues will excuse me for some degree of skepticism on 
my part.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. 
  
[[Page S18910]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, you are going to move back and forth, is 
that right?
  Mr. FORD. No.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair heard the Senator from Washington 
first.
  Mr. GORTON. I will be happy to listen to my friend from Nebraska.
  Mr. President, I will be happy to listen to my friend from Nebraska. 
I am not in that much of a hurry and he always has wise counsel.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I intend to be here until this discussion is 
over. I was going to ask a question of my colleague from Florida, if I 
could, before he leaves the floor? Will he yield for a question, with 
the understanding he is not losing the right to the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska has the floor.
  Mr. EXON. May I ask my friend from Florida, does he have any idea 
that, if and when we come to a resolution with regard to balancing the 
budget by the year 2002, as to what the chances are, given the $242 
billion tax cut, and if that remains in the final product does the 
Senator from Florida believe that, if the tax cut remains in the 
package, that the budget would remain balanced in the year 2003? 2004? 
And 2005?
  Mr. MACK. I will say to my distinguished colleague, it is my 
understanding that what we are dealing with here is a budget resolution 
that covers the 7-year period. It is my understanding, according to 
CBO's estimate of that, that it would be in balance in the year 2002, 
which is the timeframe that we have established. Yes, you can make the 
reductions in spending, reduce the rate of growth in entitlement 
programs, balance the budget, produce a bonus as a result of balancing 
the budget that will pay for the tax proposals.
  So, I am of the opinion that, in the year 2002, that is correct.
  Mr. FORD. But he is asking about 2004 and 2005.
  Mr. MACK. I understand what he is talking about.
  Mr. EXON. Even if it comes to that, you have not looked beyond that 
to see whether or not it would remain balanced in the year following, 
or the year following that, or the year following that? After 7 years?
  Mr. MACK. Mr. President, if I may respond, it is the opinion of this 
Senator that, again, if we can keep a very significant component of the 
tax proposal intact--that is, the lowering of the capital gains tax 
rate--that when we hit the years numbered 8, 9, and 10, that we are 
going to see that the revenues that are going to be projected in fact 
will increase beyond that because having freed up capital that is now 
locked into old investments, old technologies, it will create the jobs 
and the opportunity in the years ahead to, in fact, create the balanced 
budget in year 8, year 9, and year 10.
  Mr. EXON. I simply say to my friend from Florida, I hope that works 
out that way. But all of the figures I have seen indicate just the 
opposite, and we may have some more information on that in detail form 
in the near future.
  I simply point out to all that this magnificent exercise that we are 
going through should be better understood by all for what it is right 
now. The reason that I am worried about the outyears is that the 
present Republican plan is so heavily loaded with regard to the cuts in 
spending that are necessary to balance the budget in the 6th and 7th 
years--and that happens to be a situation where, under the Republican 
plan, 60 percent of the cuts, 60 percent of the reduction in spending 
that will have to be made to meet that 7-year balanced budget, is done 
in year 6 and year 7. That is a pretty heavy load in years 6 and 7. 
That is called back loading.
  Backloading is one of the concerns that I have about the whole 
proposition. But while we are backloading, where we are going, if this 
deal materializes, we are going to have 60 percent of the cuts made in 
the year 6 and in the year 7. So the first 5 years are not so bad. 
Katie bar the door when you come to those last 2 years. Then on top of 
that, Mr. President, at the same time is when the cost of the $242 
billion tax cut kicks in. That is also backloaded into this program, 
and there the major portion of the money necessary to pay for that $242 
billion tax cut comes in the 7th year and then really escalates in year 
8 and year 9 and year 10.
  What I am saying is that, while I hope this works out, there are lots 
of problems ahead as we move forward. And we have to be realistic.
  I would simply say that I will be here while the rest of this 
discussion is going on. I was very pleased with the report from the 
majority leader and the Democratic leader that things now seem to be 
moving. But, unfortunately, I thought things were moving when we were 
starting detailed specific negotiations for tomorrow afternoon. It 
might be wise if we would all be quiet, you know, tone down our 
rhetoric at a time when we hope our leaders can come to some kind of an 
agreement and not be here on the floor making pontifical statements, 
that we have every right to do, but that I do not believe is going to 
contribute very much to the bipartisan effort that is going to have to 
be made to come up with a balanced budget in 7 years using the 
Congressional Budget Office scoring. There is going to have to be a lot 
of give and take. And certainly the leadership, which is undertaking 
those negotiations at the White House, is going to be under enough 
stress and strain without us on the floor of the Senate trying to take 
partisan shots one against the other.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

                          ____________________