[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 204 (Tuesday, December 19, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S18931-S18932]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               THE BUDGET

  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I would not be on the floor tonight, and had 
not intended to be on the floor tonight, until I saw a bevy of 
Republicans coming on the floor to try and beat up on the President, in 
particular, and the Democratic Party in general. When I heard that, I 
have responsibilities as the lead Democrat on the Budget Committee, and 
I decided to stay here and hear what is going on.
  The Senator from Washington made several statements that I would like 
to take issue with. One thing that the Senator from Washington 
requested was that if I was concerned about the back-loading on the 
Republican budget plan, where 60 percent of the savings in the 
Republican budget plan to balance the budget are put off until the 
sixth and seventh year, did I have any suggestions as to how we could 
eliminate that. Well, I sure do.
  If we would eliminate the $242 billion tax cut that basically 
benefits the wealthiest among us, for the most part, that would be one 
way we could alleviate that.
  I would also like to comment briefly on the several statements made 
on the floor by those on that side of the aisle regarding the President 
of the United States breaking his agreement with regard to the 
continuing resolution that we worked out 2 weeks ago, I guess it was. I 
was there. I was part of that agreement. The President has not broken 
his word. The President of the United States said that he would accept 
a 7-year plan to balance the budget. And he has had a pretty good 
record as President, because under President Clinton, we have had 3 
straight years of reduction in the deficit of the budget of the United 
States of America. That is the first time that has happened since Harry 
Truman. So this President has had some experience in fiscal 
responsibility.
  The President has said in that agreement that he would agree to 
balance in 7 years, and that we would accept Congressional Budget 
Office numbers, with the understanding that CBO would review those 
numbers with the Office of Management and Budget and outside experts to 
make sure that their projections were as nearly accurate as possible.
  He also said the other condition of making that agreement was the 
fact that we wish the Republicans to enter into discussions with us to 
protect programs that the Democratic Party has worked long and hard to 
protect--Medicare, Medicaid, educational programs, veterans benefits, 
agriculture, and others. We did not feel that, rushing to judgment, the 
Republicans had lived up to their part of that agreement. So, 
therefore, I think that there can be legitimate differences of opinion. 
And because that was worded in that manner, I think almost anyone could 
have interpreted that particular agreement as they wanted to.
  It has been mentioned by my friend from Nevada that--and we are 
talking about the appropriations bills--if the President would just 
sign the appropriations bills, that would alleviate some of the 
problems. The appropriations bill should have been passed by the 
Republican-controlled Congress by October 1, 1995, when the new year 
began. Here we are in December, just passing appropriations bills--it 
is very late, almost 90 days late-- and then we say to the President of 
the United States that because it is so late, because we are so late 
getting these to you, of course, you cannot veto them. That would be 
unfair.

  We have also heard said that the President had shut down the 
Government. He has not. The President of the United States, through the 
Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, made offer after offer, which the 
Republicans rejected, regarding a continuing resolution that would not 
have been necessary to have 1 day of shutdown. So I do not think it is 
fair to blame the President of the United States for that.
  I am happy to say that I think, given the circumstances, we are now 
making some progress, as Senator Dole and Senator Daschle earlier 
indicated on the floor. I am not sure that we accomplish a great deal 
with partisan bickering over something that we have placed, for their 
deliberation, consultation, and hope of resolving, in the hands of the 
President of the United States, the majority leader, Robert Dole; the 
Speaker of the House, Mr. Gingrich; the Democratic leader in the House, 
Congressman Gephardt; and our own Tom Daschle, the Democratic 

[[Page S18932]]
leader in the Senate. Those five individuals have heavy, heavy 
responsibilities, and they have very serious differences of opinion on 
a whole series of subjects.

  I just hope that we can in good faith work with them and not bicker, 
at least until after we hear what their results and recommendations 
are. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I will be brief. I apologize for the little 
time that I will take, but there has been so much said here in the last 
10 minutes that needs debunking and refuting, it is all I can do to 
restrain myself.
  I would like to take a bipartisan tone and hope that these 
discussions would be successful, and I wonder why they were not 
completed a week ago, 2 weeks ago, a month more or even longer. There 
are so many inconsistencies being put out that I just cannot stand 
still and not respond to some of then.
  With regard to the 60 percent back end question, that there has been 
a lot of talk how 60 percent of the savings come at the back end, as a 
matter of fact, that is the result of genuine real reforms in the so-
called entitlement programs that we make this year. If we do not make 
them this year, we will never get them. Even if we make them this year, 
the impact builds over the years.
  That is the exact reason why we need these entitlement reforms, 
because if we do not have these reforms, these programs will continue 
to explode out of control, go up at the rate of 10 percent or 11 
percent or more. Medicaid, I think, was going up at one point in the 
high teens. We want to reform these programs to save them.
  What really amazes me is my colleagues say, ``Yes, we want a balanced 
budget. We want to reduce the debt, but we do not want to control 
spending.'' You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say we are not 
going to touch the entitlements, we will not touch welfare, we will not 
touch Medicare or Medicaid, and by the way, we want to spend endless 
amounts on appropriations bills. You just cannot have it both ways. To 
get a balanced budget, you have to agree to some controls or, Heaven 
forbid, some cuts.
  Now, this talk about how the Congress majority this year has not sent 
the appropriations bills to the President. In 1987 and 1988, the 
Democratic Congress did not send a single--not one--appropriations bill 
to the President. In 1987, all 13 appropriations bills were lumped into 
one big wad, with the budget, with the debt ceiling, sent down to the 
President of the United States, President Reagan. The Congress left 
town and said, ``Good luck, Mr. President. Goodbye.''
  Do not give me alligator tears how we have not passed appropriations 
bills. When we pass them and send them to the President and he vetoes 
them and he says the Congress closed down the Government, my goodness, 
all he had to do was to use the Lyndon Johnson pen that has so much 
experience spending the people's money, sign the bill, and he would 
have kept the Government open.
  Why did he not sign them? A couple good reasons: No. 1, this 
President wants business as usual. Spend more money. ``I want more 
money for Interior Department. I want more money for Housing and Urban 
Development. I want more money for State and Justice and Commerce. Yes, 
more money for everything and everybody. And the other thing is, I have 
these little policy questions. I do not like it because you are 
allowing too much timber to be cut in Alaska.'' Give me a break. The 
people in Mississippi think trees are to be harvested. We certainly do 
not want to see the Government shut down by the President because of 
the number of feet of timber we are going to cut in Alaska.

  I am amazed that the President of the United States can go on TV and 
say, ``I am vetoing the appropriations bills, and, gee, I wish Congress 
would not shut down these departments.'' Yesterday, the last 48 hours, 
if the President signed three appropriations bills, 621,000 Federal 
employees would have been at work.
  But look, that is not the big issue. The big issue is what can we do 
to get together to legitimately get a balanced budget. It is time we do 
that.
  Now, I believe--I know it is something that a lot of Members do not 
accept--I believe you let the hard-working taxpayers of the country 
keep a little bit of their money, as a matter of fact, save it or spend 
it, it helps the economy. I know we cannot get dynamic scoring, but 
when you let people keep their money, we wind up getting more money in 
the Treasury, not less.
  I ask the Democrats, do they want to keep the marriage penalty in the 
Tax Code? I assume the answer is no. The only way to get rid of it is 
to do it, and it costs a little money. You call that tax cuts for the 
wealthy? Baloney. That is tax cuts for young people, whom we hope will 
get married and pay not more taxes but at least the same. Do you object 
to spousal IRA for the working spouse in the home? The only people in 
America that cannot have an IRA are working spouses in the home. The 
only way to get it is to give them an opportunity to save in an 
individual account. Capital gains tax cut, I am for. A lot of people in 
Mississippi like that. They have timberlands and do not want 40 percent 
taken by the Government.
  I emphasize this on the floor of the Senate. We really criticize tax 
cuts. Do you know what tax cuts are? This is letting the people that 
pay the taxes keep a little of their money. The American people are 
taxed basically at 50 percent.
  My time is expired. I could go on and on about all of this. I will 
stop at this point. Yes, I would like for us to cool down the rhetoric. 
It is a two-way street. Every time the President gets on TV and just 
lowers the boom on us, are we supposed to stand here and say, ``Gee, 
thank you very much.'' No. We have got to stand up and speak up and 
make sure the American people hear the other side of the story and 
then, of course, that begets a response on the other side. It is time 
we bring this to a conclusion and get a balanced budget. That is all I 
care about. We can do it. We can do it.
  Mr. EXON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. EXON. Did I understand the Senator to say--what year was it--
1987?
  Mr. LOTT. It was at least a couple years in there, 1987 and 1988, the 
Democratic Congress did not pass a single appropriations bill. Put it 
in a big CR.
  Mr. EXON. I do not remember the reasons for that, but 1986, of 
course, we had a Republican-controlled Senate, and I would not want to 
blame them for that.
  Mr. LOTT. I said 1987.
  Mr. EXON. In other words, what you are saying, it was a 
Democratically controlled House and Senate that did that?
  Mr. LOTT. I believe it was, yes, sir.
  Mr. EXON. It probably was 1987 and 1988 because in that time we did 
control both Houses, not 1986.
  I have no further comments, and if we are ready to close, I am ready 
to close.

                          ____________________