[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 7 (Monday, January 22, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S174-S175]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET PROPOSAL

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I recently returned from my State of 
Alaska, where I had the opportunity to speak to our legislature in a 
joint session and visit constituents in Juneau, Anchorage, and 
Fairbanks.
  Mr. President, what I heard from my constituents was, I think, best 
reflected in their inability to simply understand why we could not 
reach an accord on a balanced budget. We have seen from the 
administration several budgets come before the Congress. I think we all 
recall the first one that came before this body, which did not receive 
one vote, neither Republican or Democrat.
  Subsequently, we have had a series of more than five budgets, until 
the administration has progressed to the point where they claim they 
have submitted a balanced budget. But virtually everyone is aware of 
the reality that the sixth and seventh years are where the Clinton cuts 
occur. As a consequence, I think it is fair to say that virtually 
everyone who analyzes that proposal finds it unrealistic.
  It is unrealistic for two reasons. First of all, in the sixth or 
seventh year, whatever Members are in office clearly are not going to 
have the ability to make those cuts in just 2 years. Those are going to 
be draconian cuts, 

[[Page S175]]
and the political fallout, obviously, will make such cuts unacceptable.
  The other realization, Mr. President, is that regardless of the 
outcome of the Presidential election, President Clinton will not be in 
office when those cuts arrive in 2001 and 2002. Nor will he bear any 
responsibility as a President in office.
  So what the President has sent us is basically a proposal that 
amounts to a charade because, as you and I both know, if you are going 
to be realistic, you are going to have a proportionate reduction in 
each of those 7 years so you can reach a balanced budget in the seventh 
year. It just points up another instance where we will do anything or 
go to any length to ensure that we do not have to make the tough 
decisions up front, take the tough medicine and address the cure up 
front.
  I think it is fair to say we all know from our own personal 
experience if we have a tough situation, you make the decisions early 
and do not put them off. That is just what has happened with the 
President's proposal, where in the 7-year so-called balanced budget, 
all the cuts are basically in the last year.
  Now, Mr. President, we are going into a situation on January 26 where 
we will have to address the merits of reauthorizing the extension of 
Government to operate. And then, by probably in March, we will have to 
face the reality that we will have to increase the debt ceiling.
  As we reflect in the extended debate and discussion in this country 
over the balanced budget on the one hand, and then find that in order 
to keep Government from being in default, when one thinks of the merits 
of that, the Federal Government being in default, by increasing the 
debt ceiling from the current authorization of $4.9 trillion, it really 
marks the reality of the seriousness of the problem.
  Make no mistake about it, Mr. President: We are in dire straits. It 
is one thing to talk about the $4.9 trillion debt, which is the maximum 
debt ceiling; the other is to recognize we will be asked to increase 
that to $5.3, $5.4, or $5.6 trillion.
  That is not the end of it, Mr. President. The realization is we have 
to pay interest on that debt, and the interest, Mr. President, 
currently is more than our annual deficit. Think about that. The 
interest on the $4.9 trillion is more than our annual deficit, and our 
annual deficit is a consequence of spending more than we generate in 
revenue.
  A member of my staff is expecting a child in May. It is estimated 
that this child will inherit approximately $158,000 as his or her 
portion of that accumulated $4.9 trillion. Now, if we do not turn this 
thing around now, Mr. President, at some point in time it will be too 
late.
  I know there are many Members here who feel very strongly that they 
are not going to vote for an increase in the debt ceiling unless there 
is a commitment from the administration to address a balanced budget 
that is attainable and that is real.
  Mr. President, as we enter this week where the President will be 
giving his State of the Union Message, and as we enter this week, 
further, where we are asked to reauthorize an extension of Government 
because the continuing resolution is voted, I point out a few things 
relative to cause and effect, because when I was home there was concern 
about why Government was shut down and who bore that responsibility. 
Some suggested it was the responsibility of Congress alone.
  I remind the President that this body and the House passed a series 
of appropriations bills. About 12 of those appropriations bills were 
passed, and the President vetoed about half of them. In vetoing, the 
President bore the responsibility of basically not funding those 
particular agencies. The consequences of this, Mr. President, are a 
difference of opinion between the administration and the Congress as to 
the adequacy or inadequacy of those various appropriations bills. To 
suggest it was all the fault of Congress is unrealistic. Congress did 
its job.
  When you look at the vote on the welfare reform bill, Mr. President, 
I think it deserves particular examination because many of us assume 
that we have negotiated with the administration to a point that was 
acceptable. I think it passed this body, Mr. President, about 87 to 12. 
It is fairly significant that those on the other side of the aisle felt 
we had a pretty good bill, but the President saw fit, kind of in the 
dark of night, to veto that bill. One has to wonder just what the 
objection of that veto message was. I never did quite understand it.
  Now, we have heard time and time again from the White House that this 
is the fault of an unresponsive Republican-controlled Senate and House 
who are proposing to balance the budget on the backs of the elderly and 
on the backs of the low-income groups, on the backs of children; it 
will affect education and it will affect the environment. Yet, the 
President's own members of his Cabinet, several members of his Cabinet, 
earlier did an evaluation of the Medicare Program and found that the 
Medicare Program would be in default, it would be broke, if it was not 
addressed at this time.
  In 7 years we would not be able to meet our obligations with regard 
to Medicare. After an extended discussion with the leadership of both 
the House and the Senate, negotiations took place, and the only 
alternative available to address the runaway increase in Medicare was 
simply to reduce the rate of Medicare's growth. It had been growing at 
a rate of almost 10 percent. The agreement finally came down to 
reducing that rate of growth from approximately 10 percent to just 
under 6 percent.
  How did the administration respond to this? ``Draconian cuts,'' they 
called it. But it was not a cut; it was a reduction of the rate of 
growth. Those recipients of Medicare would receive an increase this 
year over last year and next year over this year. Yet, the American 
people, the elderly and those dependent on Medicare, I think, were 
frightened by the misleading statements from the White House and the 
inability of the national media to address the alternative, Mr. 
President. The alternative was that if we did not reduce the rate of 
growth, the system would be bankrupt, and then what is the capability 
of the system to meet its obligation for those who are recipients of 
Medicare? That was simply excluded from the discussions, excluded from 
the conversations, and of course excluded from the wire stories, 
blaming the Republicans for this dilemma.
  Mr. President, it has been said time and time again on this floor 
that this is the opportunity to redirect America, to reduce Government 
control, to reduce Government spending, and bring Government back to 
the people.
  Now, the Republicans have dug in and said if we do not do it now, it 
probably will not be done. Our children and grandchildren are going to 
share the increasing burden. At some point in time, somebody will have 
to take that medicine, Mr. President, because as you go back and 
reflect on that 4.9 trillion dollars' worth of accumulated debt and the 
realization that we cannot afford to put this Nation in default, the 
only alternative is to reduce the rate of growth of that debt and that 
simply mandates a balanced budget.
  That is what this is all about. It is redefining the direction of our 
Government to make it simple, to make it smaller, to make it more 
responsive, to put control back where it belongs, back to the States, 
back to the people.
  I urge my colleagues as we address the significance of several events 
taking place this week that we keep our eye on our objective and the 
realization, Mr. President, that if we do not do it now, then the 
question is, When? If it is not now, it may be too late.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Dole pertaining to the introduction of S. 1519 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). The Senator from Utah.

                          ____________________