[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 96 (Wednesday, July 9, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7092-S7093]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          BALANCING THE BUDGET

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, several weeks ago I stood at this desk 
during the debate on the budget resolution and offered an amendment 
that I thought was an eminently serious, major, defining amendment on 
that bill. I have been here 22\1/2\ years and I knew perfectly well 
that I was not going to prevail on that amendment. But I had pointed 
out during the course of the debate that in the 22\1/2\ years I have 
been here, probably the most important goal I had hoped to see achieved 
during my tenure in the Senate was a balanced budget.
  I had, on several occasions, voted against a constitutional amendment 
to balance the budget simply because of my reverence for the 
Constitution and for my belief that economic policy has no place in the 
Constitution. I had always argued and will argue until my dying day 
that balancing the budget is a matter of will by the Members of the 
U.S. Congress, and to suggest that the only way we can screw up the 
nerve and stiffen our spines to balance the budget is to put it in the 
Constitution is demeaning in the extreme.
  So that is why in 1993 I voted for the reconciliation bill that 
raised taxes and cut spending. It raised taxes on 1\1/2\ percent of the 
wealthiest people in America and cut spending by $250 billion over a 5-
year period, all of which

[[Page S7093]]

combined was supposed to reduce the deficit from what it would 
otherwise be by $500 billion over the ensuing 5 years. Mr. President, 
that 5-year period is not yet up, but in 1998 on the fifth anniversary 
of the passage of that bill, it will not have saved $500 billion, it 
will have saved $1 trillion and more. That bill is responsible for the 
deficit going from almost $300 billion in 1992 to what we thought was 
$67 billion until today.
  It has been a source of unbelievable satisfaction to me to see the 
deficit in 1993 go from $290 billion anticipated to $254; in 1994, to 
$205 billion; in 1995, $154 billion; in 1996, $107 billion; in 1997, 
anticipated to be $67 billion, and this morning's front page of the 
Washington Post says that because the economy is so good and people are 
paying taxes that the deficit this year will be $45 billion or less. 
That will be the smallest deficit we have had, as we lawyers like to 
say, since the memory of man runneth not.
  The reason I rise to speak, Mr. President, is not just to catalog 
that history with which all the Senators are all too familiar, but to 
point out another item that was included in that Washington Post story. 
It said if we can just get the House and Senate conferees to keep 
bickering for another year and not pass this tax cut, we could easily 
balance the budget in 1998.
  Two weeks ago when I offered my amendment to forgo tax cuts, I said 
we should forgo tax cuts, honor what I consider to be a nonnegotiable 
demand by the American people to balance the budget and balance the 
budget in 2001, maybe even 2000. And now this morning's paper says you 
do not have to postpone taxes to do it in 2001. If you postpone taxes, 
you can do it in 1998. Never, never in modern times have we been so 
close to actually doing what most of us say we want to do, and that is 
balance the budget.
  Now, Mr. President, I got a whopping 18 votes for my amendment 2 
weeks ago. I am not going to call the names of the Senators that voted 
with me, but I hope people will look at the Record and see who had the 
courage, who had the vision and the spine to stand up on the floor of 
the Senate and vote for an eminently sensible proposal to balance the 
budget earlier, much earlier, than the bill we were debating. And 4 of 
those courageous 18 people were up for reelection next year. They 
certainly have my praise and my respect because they believe in the 
American people and they were willing to stand up and vote for a 
reduction of the deficit as opposed to a tax cut.

  If you ask the American people, would you favor this $135 billion tax 
cut over the next 5 years, or would you prefer a balanced budget over 
the next 2 years, I can tell you the answer would be 70 percent to 80 
percent of the people would opt for a balanced budget.
  Mr. President, the 18 votes I got to postpone the tax cuts in order 
to bring about a balanced budget much sooner is the smallest number of 
votes I have ever received on an amendment since I have been in the 
Senate. And it was probably as good, as authentic and courageous an 
amendment as I have ever offered since I have been in the Senate. It 
could have changed the economic course of the country.
  Mr. President, the article in the paper this morning got one thing 
totally wrong. The article stated that neither the Democrats nor the 
Republicans are going to be able to take credit for the balanced 
budget.
  I take strong exception to that as a Democrat. Two of the finest 
Senators we ever had in the U.S. Senate lost their seats in 1994 
because they stood up and voted for the 1993 budget which raised 
certain people's taxes. The House of Representatives fell to the 
Republicans in 1994 when Newt Gingrich became speaker and the U.S. 
Senate went to the Republicans and there was not one Republican in the 
House or the Senate that voted for that bill which has brought about 
this exhilarating chance to actually balance the budget.
  So to say that President Clinton has not been courageous in proposing 
the 1993 budget package is a terrible injustice and it is wrong. It is 
his legacy. It is the legacy of this President that he stood firm on 
deficit reduction in offering that bill, which cost the Democrats 
dearly at the polls the following year. So far as I am concerned, the 
stock market has been soaring ever since that bill was passed in 1993, 
despite the promises of some of the most distinguished Senators on the 
other side, who said that this is going to end the world as we know it, 
and you are going to see people out of work and more homeless people, 
and you are going to see a depression if we pass this bill.

  We passed the bill. The stock market took off because people were 
encouraged and finally believed that the people down here knew what 
they were doing and were finally going to screw up their nerve and give 
them a sound fiscal Government. It has been going on ever since, and 
that is precisely the reason we are within striking distance of 
balancing the budget right now. To say nobody can claim credit for that 
is a real stretch. It was President Clinton. It was not easy. Most of 
you will recall that the Vice President had to come over and sit in the 
chair and break a tie in order to pass that bill. Today, the American 
people are the beneficiaries.
  I hope that the conferees are unable to reach an agreement on this, 
because if they don't reach an agreement, we can balance the budget. If 
they do reach an agreement, Lord only knows what the results are going 
to be. All we know is that the wealthiest people in America are going 
to get a handsome tax cut and the budget is not going to be balanced.
  So, Mr. President, I rise tonight to set the record straight on what 
I think is an extremely important event. I was absolutely euphoric this 
morning to read that the deficit that was anticipated to be $127 
billion this year was then calculated to be about $104 billion, and 
then calculated about 3 months ago to be $67 billion, and this morning 
calculated to be $45 billion. It is beyond our wildest dreams. Why 
would we not seize the moment to forego this tax cut and do precisely 
what the American people want us to do? It isn't too late.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________