[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 70 (Friday, May 23, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Page S5087]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                    THE CONCURRENT BUDGET RESOLUTION

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, earlier today I supported and the Senate 
passed a budget resolution negotiated primarily by the leadership of 
the legislative and executive branches of our Government.
  I supported this budget resolution, notwithstanding some major 
disappointments with both the process and the result.
  I qualify my support for the final agreement because I believe it 
falls well short of the goals that we should have for a responsible 
fiscal policy to guide our Nation over the next 5 years and beyond.
  But in the end, I recognize that this is probably the best product 
the congressional leadership and this administration could agree on, 
and that we're much better off doing something than doing nothing.
  And reaching this general consensus will free the Congress to get on 
with many of the important matters that continuing gridlock would have 
postponed.
  The commitment to reach a balanced budget early in the next century 
can trace its roots to the hard work done by the President in 1993 and 
the insistence last Congress, by the new congressional majority, that 
we set 2002 as a ``date certain'' to actually reach balance.
  And I think its fair to add that I doubt this agreement would have 
been possible without the bipartisan groundwork laid by the Centrist 
Coalition, a group of 22 Senators evenly divided between both sides of 
the aisle.
  Our budget was the only balanced budget plan introduced last year 
which received bipartisan support.
  Since passing the administration's deficit reduction package in 1993, 
we have brought the deficit down from $290 billion to what most 
forecasters expect will be a $67 billion deficit this year.
  With the aid of lower deficits, low interest rates, and low 
inflation, the economy continues to expand, bringing unemployment down 
to 4.9 percent and filling the Federal Treasury with unexpected 
receipts.
  These fundamentals, which I believe were set in motion with the 
passage of the 1993 plan, have now put a balanced budget within our 
grasp, even if we're relying on some optimistic assumptions about 
revenues on future Congresses making tougher decisions than we are 
making in this budget, and on the Social Security surplus to reach that 
future balance.
  This is not an insignificant event. The last time the Federal 
Government submitted a balanced budget was in 1968--for fiscal year 
1969--and the surplus that year was only $3.2 billion.
  As one who came to the Senate in January 1989 pledging to do all I 
could to eliminate persistent budget deficits, the prospect of actually 
reaching our goal, even 5 years down the road, is certainly a welcome 
milestone.
  As I have already noted, however, this agreement is not all I had 
hoped it would be.
  First, I'm very concerned about the assumptions which underlie the 
plan.
  Less than 3 weeks ago, negotiators were putting the finishing touches 
on this same basic budget outline, with a deficit of approximately $50 
billion in 2002.
  It was only after the Congressional Budget Office revised its revenue 
forecasts that negotiations were able to claim a balanced budget.
  To fully understand the impact of the CBO revision, the deficit 
projections for the next 5 years are now a total of $250 billion less 
than what CBO projected in January.
  If we want to increase the likelihood that we will actually achieve 
balance, it seems to me that we would want to use the most conservative 
economic forecast that we have.
  If we err in our projections, I would rather err on the side of doing 
more deficit reduction than less than what is needed to do the job.
  But even if the more optimistic assumptions come true and we do 
balance the unified budget in 2002, this plan does little to address 
the long-term fiscal challenges we face, and in some ways may 
exacerbate them.
  While the budget calls for some modest steps to restrain the growth 
of entitlement spending, in the areas of Medicare and Medicaid, these 
modest steps do not prevent entitlement spending from taking a larger 
share of the budget.
  Mandatory spending in the form of entitlements and interest on the 
debt will consume over 70 percent of the budget by 2002.
  This represents a complete reversal from 30 years ago when 70 percent 
of the budget went for defense and other discretionary investments.
  And as mandatory spending takes up a greater share of the budget, 
that leaves less room for investments in human and physical capital 
that enhance future productivity and economic growth.
  Not only does this budget not call for significant entitlement 
reform, the inclusion of tax cuts with large out-year costs also 
exacerbates our long-term fiscal problems.
  As all of us know, we face a demographic wave, called the baby boom 
generation, that will double the number of people eligible for Social 
Security, and Medicare, between now and 2030.
  By not addressing the long-term costs of Medicare and Social 
Security, and by failing to adopt an accurate measure of cost-of-living 
changes, entitlements will continue to grow at an unsustainable pace. 
That is at the same time, the tax cuts in this budget plan will take 
away the revenue needed to finance these expenditures.
  The most likely result of this scenario is the continued cutbacks on 
defense and other discretionary priorities in the future or even larger 
budget deficits than what we have faced in the past.
  As a result, I view this budget as more of a missed opportunity to 
address our long-term fiscal challenges rather than the budget 
balancing achievement that many are celebrating.
  Notwithstanding my reservations about this agreement, however, and my 
disappointment in some of its elements, I applaud the President and the 
congressional leadership for their efforts to end the gridlock and 
reach a compromise that both sides could live with, even though the 
deal closers were more spending to satisfy Democrats and more tax cuts 
to satisfy Republicans--tax cuts I might add that are made with 
borrowed money. Less of each would have eased the debt burden we are 
passing on to future generations, and I will work with my colleagues to 
make it a more fiscally responsible plan along the way.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, in order to accommodate several Senators 
who wish to speak, I now ask unanimous consent that the following 
Senators be recognized to speak in the morning period in the order in 
which they are listed: Senator Abraham for 15 minutes, Senator Byrd, 
and then Senator Grams.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  MR. ABRAHAM. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Abraham pertaining to the introduction of S. 810 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Chair and other Members for their courtesy 
today. With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have been asked by Mr. Dorgan to ask 
unanimous consent that following the order recognizing Mr. Grams, which 
has already been entered, that he, Mr. Dorgan, be recognized for not to 
exceed 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have been asked to also ask unanimous 
consent that following Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Gorton be recognized for not to 
exceed 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________