[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 3, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S18-S19]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     COMING TOGETHER ON PRINCIPLES

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, as we embark on this new year, I think it 
might do us all well if we were to put aside the rhetoric of 
confrontation and attempt to come together on some principles that so 
many have articulated for so long but have failed to really enact. I do 
believe there might be a handful--and I say a handful--who do not 
believe there should be a balanced budget. I have not identified 
anyone. No one has ever told me they are opposed to that, whether they 
be Democrats or Republicans.
  Over the 15 years now that I have been here, I have seen us work, 
Democrats and Republicans, to attempt to achieve that. I have seen us 
pass Gramm-Rudman in an attempt to bring about a balanced budget.
  On the campaign trail, it is great fodder to say I am for a balanced 
budget, I want that, and yet when it comes to doing the business of the 
people, we have failed to do that. We have failed to achieve it. And 
the reason is because it is not easy. It is difficult. The reason is 
that because the same people, our constituents, who, on the one hand, 
say and demand we do the business of the people, as we should, in a 
responsible manner, that we cut out the wasteful programs, that we 
reform systems such as the welfare system that certainly needs an 
overhaul and should be reformed and turned into a workfare system, when 
it really comes down to implementing what is necessary to achieve a 
balanced budget, the same people in many cases are the first to come to 
us and to beseech us to cut spending, but, by the way, there is a good 
program and it is in education or it is in the arts or it is as it 
relates to transportation or drug treatment, all of these good programs 
that are for seniors and do not cut that program.

  Everybody has a favorite program. That is without even touching the 
area of entitlements that people are afraid to even speak to. The fact 
of the matter is that if you were to reduce or eliminate the spending 
in all of the discretionary programs, eliminate any of the moneys that 
we spend on education, any of the money that we spend on the military, 
on defense, and all of the money that we might spend in housing and 
urban development, in mass transit, eliminate it all, that unless we 
begin to curtail the growth in the entitlement programs, begin to 
reduce that growth in Medicare, in Medicaid, why, then, it makes no 
sense, we will continue to operate with huge deficits.
  That means we are mortgaging the future of our children and their 
children and future generations. I suggest that that is not 
responsible. That is an easy way out. That is what has been taking 
place for far too long.
  So as we embark upon this new year, I hope that maybe we will stop 
being accusatory, one side blaming the other--all of us know that this 
is not going to be easy--but attempt to come together and to say, how 
can we moderate the growth in these programs?
  I have heard friends of mine, Democrats, indeed, at the White House, 
the President, Mrs. Clinton, have talked about slowing the growth in 
these programs. How is it now that that rhetoric has turned so harsh? 
How is it now that those who attempt to implement the same suggestions 
that were put forth by the White House in good faith are now accused of 
attempting to savage senior citizens?
  That is inaccurate. It is not fair. Rather than one side or the other 
being accusatory, why do we not attempt to build on those things that 
we agree on? If we agree there is a need to balance the budget, if we 
agree and we have spoken to doing it within a prescribed period of 
time, if we have agreed that we would use realistic numbers and not pie 
in the sky, why do we not begin to do this?
  It would seem to me that the people of the United States have every 
right to be angered at both the administration and the Congress for not 
resolving these differences in an appropriate fashion by working at it 
and not by delaying and not by taking extended vacations and not by PR 
and not by spin doctors, but by coming down honestly to resolve this in 
a manner that all of us know can and should be done.
  So I do not come to the floor for the purposes of blaming one side or 
the other or pointing a finger toward the administration or saying that 
all that we have put forth in our balanced budget proposals must be and 
should be adopted. But certainly within the bounds of those that have 
been suggested, those suggestions by the administration, and within the 
bounds that have been put forth by the Congress, there is ample 
opportunity, there has been and there is now, that if we exert 
ourselves and exhort ourselves not to try to be one up on the other 
side, one up so we can aggrandize it and claim credit, then why do we 
not take a look at what we owe the people?

  There are suggestions that make sense. It would call for some 
collective coming together and some courage to be demonstrated on both 
sides. The senior Senator from New York, my colleague, Senator 
Moynihan, has put forth as a suggestion looking at the CPI. The CPI no 
longer adequately reflects what the true costs are as it relates to 
goods and products and services and indeed has been estimated as being 
off by as much as one-third--one-third. We say, what is 1 percent? But 
1 percent, if you have a 3-percent increase in the inflation rate, is 
one-third.
  Why not then use legitimate numbers to measure what the cost-of-
living increase is, what the cost for the consumer really is? That 
would take some courage on both parts, on the side of the Republicans 
and the Republican Congress as well as our colleagues on the Democratic 
side, and on the side of the White House. But, my gosh, if it is a 
fact, and if it is true, why do we not come together and say, this is 
the place to start?
  We might be able to save $150 billion. Imagine that. Why can we not 
have the good common sense, again, collectively, Democrats and 
Republicans, both in the Congress and in the administration, the 
Executive, to say this is something we can agree on? If we do it 
together, that together we can go forward and say this is the right 
thing to do, why then, that is what we should be expected to do.
  I do not know that it should even take such great courage. But if one 


[[Page S19]]
side is afraid the other will then run to the various lobbying groups 
and to the seniors and claim that they are trying to cut back their 
increased benefits, then let us do it collectively, let us go forward 
collectively.
  There is $100 billion-plus that can be saved. Should it be saved? I 
suggest that we have an obligation to do that and, again, to do it 
together. I suggest that we are wrong in postponing the inevitability 
of what will take place, which is mortgaging the future and saddling 
future generations with this great burden, which will mean that they 
will lose the opportunities that we had in terms of home ownership, in 
terms of jobs, in terms of creativity that otherwise is going to be 
stifled in this country.

  It seems to me that there are areas that we can agree upon. You 
cannot continue to double the growth of any program every 7 years. It 
is a simple mathematical proposition that if you increase spending at 
the rate of 10 percent per annum over 7 years, you come up with the 
figure of 2. You have doubled whatever that cost is. So in the area of 
Medicare, if you are spending $100 billion now, and you increase 
spending by 10 percent per annum, in 7 years it will be $200 billion.
  Does that make sense? Of course not. So it would seem to me that 
together we should begin to say, how can we moderate the growth in 
various programs? Yes, good programs, necessary programs. Where can we 
achieve savings? How can we do that?
  In the area of taxes and tax relief, does any side really believe one 
side wants to advance the interests of the wealthy over those of 
working people, over those of people who are struggling to make a 
living? It might be good rhetoric politically for one side or the other 
to charge that, but how does that advance the business of doing what we 
should on behalf of the people? We detract, and we detract from 
ourselves. We detract from the process. And people then come and say, 
``We need a change. We need to change what is going on. A pox on both 
your houses.''
  I hope we would begin to address, where can we give tax relief? And 
who is entitled to tax relief? Are working-class, middle-class families 
with children entitled to that relief?
  Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity of putting forth just 
some suggestions in a new year, in the spirit of attempting to come 
together and to do the business of the people. I hope we could all 
reach out together, Democrats, Republicans, legislative and executive, 
to do that business.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bond). Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

                          ____________________