[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 83 (Friday, June 7, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S5982]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      1997 BUDGET RESOLUTION VOTES

 Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I would like to take this 
opportunity to thank my colleagues for their support of the Kerry-
Simpson-Nunn-Brown-Robb long-term entitlements amendment. My colleagues 
and I were a mere 14 votes away from passing legislation to begin the 
process of changing our entitlement laws. The support for this type of 
long-term reform is unprecedented, due in no small measure to our 
persistence on this matter.
  I am particularly gratified because the reforms we advocated did not 
simply tinker around the edges of our budgetary dilemmas. Our 
adjustment to the Consumer Price Index would have saved the country 
$126 billion over 7 years; the phasing in of the Medicare eligibility 
age to 70 would eventually, by 2030, in 1 year alone save $41.1 billion 
in 1996 dollars; and our provision would have given more than 120 
million working Americans the chance to start accumulating their own 
wealth through personal investment plans.
  Mr. President, the fiscal imbalance of entitlements versus 
discretionary spending threatens our implicit intergenerational compact 
to leave a prosperous and growing economy to the next generation of 
Americans. The great demographic shift that will occur over the next 20 
or 30 years--when the baby boom generation reaches retirement age--will 
largely shape our Nation's future. Accordingly, these changes must be 
met with new assumptions, different rules, and a fresh perspective.
  That is what my colleagues and I offered. With growing support from 
both sides of the aisle and increased public awareness, perhaps soon we 
will get the votes we need to pass long-term entitlement reform. So, I 
am encouraged.
  Accordingly, I would also like to briefly comment on other amendments 
offered to the budget resolution which I chose to vote against.
  Several amendments were offered to the Republican budget resolution 
to restore funding to education, Medicaid, and the environment. While I 
agreed that the spending cuts to these programs in the budget 
resolution, particularly education, were severe and counterproductive--
I could not vote for the add back amendments as they were written. In 
order to balance the budget and according to budget rules, amendments 
which add money back to programs in the budget resolution must be 
offset by cuts in other areas of Government spending. Each of the add 
back amendments I voted against used unspecified cuts to corporate 
welfare to pay for them. I realize that this might look like a good 
idea to the average citizen--cuts to corporations to fund education--
but it's not always that simple.

  ``Corporate welfare'' can be a very loosely defined and overused 
term. The reality is that most of us support--and more importantly 
benefit from--something that someone could call corporate welfare. The 
home mortgage deduction is a prime example. Some people would say it 
qualifies as corporate welfare for the real estate industry. However, 
if Congress ended the program today, we would hear the furious cry of 
the people claiming that we had increased their taxes. The self-
employed health insurance deduction is another example. So is the 
research and development tax credit--and the list goes on. These 
obviously were not the programs my colleagues had in mind. But I felt I 
needed a better sense of what they did have in mind before I joined 
them in support of these amendments.
  Please do not misunderstand, I believe there are many places where 
Government can cut back on spending--including unfair tax breaks for 
corporations. But we cannot use cuts to corporate welfare as a panacea 
to cure all our budget ills. I believe we must examine each program for 
its merits before deciding to eliminate it. Had the add-back amendments 
in the budget resolution been more specific on which items were to be 
used as offsets, my votes may have been cast quite differently.
  Moreover, as I mentioned earlier, the most responsible way to solve 
our budget problems is not to tinker on the edges, cutting slices from 
corporate welfare or discretionary spending. We must address the 
unsustainable growth of entitlement spending if we want to bring our 
budget into long-term balance. The support for our long-term 
entitlement amendment was an important first step to getting us 
there.

                          ____________________