[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 45 (Monday, April 22, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2999-S3000]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               WHERE IS THE DEMOCRATIC BUDGET RESOLUTION?

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Monday was April 15. That is the day 
Americans file their income tax return with the IRS.
  April 15 was also the deadline for Congress to complete its work on 
the budget resolution for the Federal government. But, the deadline has 
come and gone and we still don't have a budget.
  It seems the Democratic leadership is reluctant to bring their 
proposed budget to the floor of the Senate for a vote. According to 
recent press reports, they don't know if they have the votes to pass 
their budget.
  What is interesting about the Democratic leadership's inability to 
find enough votes to pass a budget is that the makeup of the Senate 
this year is exactly the same as last year. With this same membership, 
Republicans last year produced a bipartisan budget supported by 65 
Senators, including 15 Democrats.
  After taking a closer look at their budget, I am not surprised they 
do not have the votes. The Democratic budget is a case study in 
contradictions.
  They claim to support the war on terrorism, but they don't fund the 
Presidents' request for defense. They say the President's tax cut was 
too big, but they don't delay or repeal it. They claim to protect 
Social Security and Medicare, but they spend trust fund money on other 
programs for the rest of the decade. In short, the Democratic budget 
says one thing and does another.
  Take a closer look at these contradictions.
  First, according to the Democratic Budget Committee Report, ``the 
budget resolution provides all of the resources requested by the 
President for the Department of Defense for the next 2 years. It 
includes a reserve fund that will provide all of the defense funding 
requested by the President in 2005 through 2012 if it becomes clear 
that the funds are needed.''
  In other words, the Democratic budget funds the President's request 
for 2 years and then cuts it by $160 billion the next 8 years.
  Their so called defense ``reserve fund'' is fraud. Unlike the other 
reserve funds in their budget--for Medicare, health care, and the 
Individuals with Disabilities Act--no money is actually being set aside 
for defense.
  Admittedly, the war on terrorism may not cost as much as the 
President has requested, but instead of honestly setting aside the 
extra money until we know for sure, the Democratic budget spends the 
money on other programs.
  According to the Democratic Budget Committee Report, ``The 
President's budget does represent an appropriate response to the 
September 11 attacks--it provides the resources that will allow our 
armed forces, homeland security personnel, and citizens to respond to 
the challenge posed by terrorists. But--just as last year--the 
President's budget does not respond adequately to the other major 
challenges facing this nation.''
  In other words, the Democratic budget recognizes the potential need 
to fund the President's defense request, but insists other programs 
must come first. Compared to the President's budget, the Democratic 
budget spends $160 billion less on defense and $348 billion more on 
everything else.
  The second contradiction in the Democratic budget is the issue of tax 
cuts.
  The Democratic Budget Committee Report says, ``Last year our national 
leaders were presented with a golden opportunity to set this Nation on 
a course to deal with the challenges facing it . . . But the President 
and Republicans in Congress instead pushed through a plan that had only 
one priority--tax cuts . . . Becuase of the huge tax cut, there were 
not enough resources left to address other challenges . . . The effects 
of this squandered opportunity are being felt this year.''
  So how does the Democratic budget propose to deal with this so called 
squandered opportunity. The Democratic Budget Committee Report states 
``the budget resolution assumes no repeal or delay of tax rate 
reductions that are scheduled to occur in future years under the law 
enacted last year.''
  So if last year's tax cut was such a ``squandered opportunity,'' why 
doesn't the Democratic budget do something about it?
  The reason is simple. They know the American people are overtaxed. 
They know twelve Democratic Senators vote for the tax cut signed into 
law by President Bush last year. They know their Senate colleagues will 
not vote to delay or repeal the tax cut.
  But instead of admitting these facts, the Democratic leadership 
continues its partisan attacks on Republicans for ``squandering'' the 
surplus and ``raiding'' Social Security.
  That brings us to the third and most outrageous contradiction of them 
all.
  The Democratic Budget Committee Report states, ``The budget 
resolution recognizes that it is crucial to return the budget to 
balance without Social Security as soon as possible . . .''
  So how does the Democratic budget propose to do this? It contains a 
so called ``circuit breaker'' that would create a budget point-of-order 
against the consideration of next year's budget if it does not get to 
balance--excluding Social Security--by 2008.
  In other words, the Democratic budget believes it is so ``crucial'' 
to balance the budget without Social Security that it proposes to wait 
until next year. Apparently, ``as soon as possible'' doesn't apply to 
this year.
  During the Budget Committee markup, the chairman explained that he 
was not requiring a plan to protect Social Security this year because 
the economy was still weak and that it is unwise to engage in further 
deficit reduction during our recovery.
  One might be tempted to accept this explanation. But consider what 
the chairman had to say when OMB Director Mitch Daniels testified 
before the Budget Committee.
  The Budget Committee chairman stated, ``I'd be quick to acknowledge I 
could live with [a deficit] in a year of economic downturn and at a 
time of war. But you're not forecasting economic downturn for even 
later this year--you're forecasting economic recovery. And for the rest 
of the decade, you're forecasting rather strong economic growth and yet 
year after year you propose taking money from Social Security, taking 
money from Medicare . . . How do you justify it?''
  Blaming the economy for their failure to make any effort to protect 
Social Security is especially ironic given the Budget Committee 
chairman's view of how the economy works.

[[Page S3000]]

  According to the chairman, the tax cuts reduced the surplus, thereby 
driving up long-term interest rates which have a negative impact on the 
economy.
  If one accepts the chairman's view of the economy, the sooner 
Congress enacts a deficit reduction package, the sooner we can bring 
down long-term interest rates and stimulate the economy.
  But instead of having the courage of his economic convictions, the 
Democratic budget fails to make any effort to reduce the deficit. 
Instead, it just digs the hole deeper.
  The Democratic budget resolution dips into the Social Security trust 
fund and spends $1.3 trillion of the Social Security surplus on other 
programs.
  What is even more ironic about the Democratic budget ``circuit 
breaker'' is that it only applies to Social Security. Last year, the 
chairman of the Budget Committee insisted that it was equally important 
to protect the Medicare trust fund as well.
  Last year during the debate over the Social Security lockbox, the 
chairman stated, ``Some of us believe it is critically important that 
we protect both the Social Security trust fund and the Medicare trust 
fund so they are not used for other spending in the Federal budget.'' 
Apparently, that was then and this is now.
  Now, the Democratic budget proposes to dip into the Medicare trust 
fund and spend $360 billion of the Medicare surplus on other programs.
  The Democratic leadership would like the American public to believe 
their opposition to tax cuts is based on their desire to protect Social 
Security and Medicare. But the budget they have produced this year 
shows that is simply not true.
  Despite what the Democratic leadership might say, their opposition to 
tax cuts has nothing to do with protecting Social Security and 
Medicare.
  If they were so committed to protecting Social Security and Medicare, 
they could have proposed to delay or repeal the tax cut. If they were 
so committed to protecting Social Security and Medicare, they could 
have proposed to reduce other spending. But they chose to do none of 
the above.
  Instead, the Democratic leadership chose to produce a budget that 
increases Federal spending and thereby spends $1.7 trillion of the 
Social Security and Medicare surplus on other programs. That is the 
dirty little secret of the Democratic budget.
  After spending all of last year and the first part of this year 
engaged in partisan attacks on a so called Republican tax cut--that 
passed with the votes of twelve Democrats--they have decided they would 
rather increase spending than protect Social Security and Medicare.
  Now, I believe we all know why the Democratic leadership doesn't want 
to bring their budget resolution to the floor of the Senate for a 
vote--they are too embarrassed. I have to admit, I would be 
embarrassed, too.
  Based on CBO latest projections, including the economic stimulus 
bill, the Federal budget will not have a surplus--excluding Social 
Security and Medicare--until 2011.
  Instead of addressing these long-term deficits, the Democratic budget 
proposes to increase spending by $1.1 trillion.
  ``New Spending'' shows how the Democratic budget would dig the 
deficit hole even deeper.
  The Democratic budget only achieves balance in 2012 by assuming the 
tax cut will expire.
  Between now and 2011, the Democratic budget would spend $1.7 trillion 
from the Social Security and Medicare trust funds--$362 billion from 
Medicare and $1.32 trillion from Social Security.
  The Democratic budget ``circuit breaker'' would require next year's 
budget to get the balance--excluding Social Security--by 2008.
  But this year's Democratic budget proposes to spend an additional 
$428 billion between 2004 and 2008.
  In order to comply with the ``circuit breaker,'' next year's budget 
would have to reduce spending or increase taxes by $424 billion.
  In other words, next year's budget would have to repeal virtually 
every dollar of additional spending provided by this year's budget.
  If the ``circuit breaker'' were expanded to include Medicare, then 
next year's budget would have to reduce spending or increase by $536 
billion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.

                          ____________________