[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 86 (Wednesday, June 28, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6606-S6609]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               THE BUDGET

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I came to the floor a few minutes ago 
when Senator Gregg from New Hampshire was here. Senator Gregg is the 
chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. I listened carefully as he 
talked about a plan to reform budgeting in America. The first thing I 
can recall was the phrase often used by a friend of mine who serves in 
the House of Representatives, Congressman Dave Obey of Wisconsin, who 
frequently chides Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle for 
``posing for holy pictures.''
  I thought to myself, how interesting it is to hear the chairman of 
the Senate Budget Committee coming to the floor preaching for dramatic 
reform when it comes to budgeting. If one were not aware of the history 
of budgeting under this administration and under Republican leadership 
in Congress, you might be able to sell this story. But it is hard to 
sell when you look at facts.
  When President Bush took office, he inherited a surplus. It was one 
of the first surpluses in the Federal budget in decades. It was the 
result of President Clinton increasing taxes and cutting spending, 
determined to reduce the deficit.
  We reached the point where we had surpluses that were being generated 
so they could pay down the debt to the Social Security trust fund, give 
it longer life, make certain that we were moving toward a fiscally 
sound future. President Bush inherited a Federal budget surplus. He 
also inherited a national debt of $5.3 trillion.
  Now where are we today, almost 6 years into the Bush-Cheney 
administration? The national debt in America has risen under the Bush-
Cheney administration from $5.3 trillion to almost $9 trillion. In 6 
years, it is a dramatic increase. During that 6-year period of time 
this administration, with a Republican Congress, has consistently given 
us deficit after deficit after deficit, digging the hole deeper and 
deeper.
  So when you take a look at the situation, you say, clearly, the 
Democrats

[[Page S6607]]

must be at fault in this situation. But with the exception of 1 year, 
these were Republican Congresses generating the spending bills. So how 
many spending bills from Congress did President Bush veto in the 6 
years he has been President of the United States? How many times did he 
say no to overspending by Congress? How many times did he use his 
Presidential veto pen denying earmarks by Congress? None. Not one. 
Zero. In 6 years, never. This President has never used his veto pen to 
stop spending by this Republican Congress, not one time.
  Now comes these Republican leaders, and they say the problem isn't 
discipline. The problem isn't the President's veto. We have to reform 
the system. Now they are talking about this elaborate reform of the 
system.
  If you are a student of political history, you have seen this before. 
When President Reagan's administration brought us the biggest deficits 
in the history of the United States, those who were responsible for the 
deficits were quick to the floor of the Senate, pleading for an 
amendment to the Constitution, a balanced budget amendment to save them 
from themselves. It did not pass, and it should not have passed 
because, as President Clinton demonstrated over 8 years, it isn't a 
matter of a weakness in our Constitution. It was a weakness of 
political will by the Republican side.
  If you will take control of this economy and of this budget, you can 
truly reduce deficits and create a surplus. That isn't just a promise, 
it was a fact under the Clinton administration and evidence of failure 
in the Bush administration they have not come close to a surplus in any 
year. Now, as we face these record deficits and record debt for 
America, what do we hear from the Republican side of the aisle? It 
isn't our fault. We have to change the system.
  No, you don't. The system worked under a Democratic President. The 
system worked to generate a surplus. Now to have them come as political 
sinners posing for holy pictures when it comes to balancing the budget 
is a very thin charade that most Americans will see through.
  We understand what this is all about. It was not that long ago that 
President Bush decided to privatize Social Security. It was an idea 
that flopped across America. The President took his road show out, and 
every time he made a speech about privatizing Social Security, the 
popularity of the idea plummeted. Finally, he gave up on it, as he 
should have. It is a bad idea to cut back on the cost-of-living 
adjustments that people living under Social Security count on. It is a 
bad idea to take money out of the Social Security system, when we know 
we have made promises to future generations that must be kept. And it 
is a fact that the Social Security Administration untouched will be 
able to promise payments every year, with COLAs, through 2030. It is a 
strong system. We can make it stronger, but privatizing Social Security 
is the wrong way to go.
  I urge my colleagues, when Senator Gregg and Republicans come forward 
with this so-called line-item veto, look closely. Line-item veto is the 
privatization of Social Security. America rejected it once. We need to 
reject it again.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator 
from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I come to the floor to respond to 
comments that were made by the chairman of the Budget Committee moments 
go, that I don't think, if he were to have a chance to review what he 
said, would be what he intends to convey.
  The chairman of the Budget Committee moments ago said that our side 
did not offer alternatives to the proposal that he was making to get 
our deficit and debt under control. The Senator knows that is not true. 
That is not accurate. That is not even close to being accurate.
  Let me indicate that I have great respect for the chairman of the 
Budget Committee. He and I have a very good working relationship, 
although we disagree on some issues. We have, I have always felt, a 
respect between us. But for him to say we did not offer an alternative 
is not true. I think, on reflection, he would acknowledge that is not 
the case.
  In fact, the record of the committee shows very clearly that we 
offered a comprehensive alternative to the one he was offering. In 
fact, he said publicly he appreciated the fact that I offered a 
comprehensive alternative.
  Let's get straight, on a factual basis, what occurred in the Budget 
Committee. Here is the alternative I offered. It is an 11-point plan 
that involves a fully comprehensive approach to the explosion of 
deficits and debt. What was our alternative?
  No. 1, we restored a strong Senate pay-go rule and statutory pay-go 
enforced with sequestration.
  That is a lot of big words. The basic notion is pay-go. What is pay-
go? Pay-go simply says, if you want to have more spending, you have to 
pay for it. If you want to have more tax cuts, you have to pay for 
them. This is a discipline we had in the 1990s that worked extremely 
well. Virtually every budget observer of either side said pay-go was an 
essential part of restoring budget discipline.
  The second part of our proposal was to allow reconciliation--a 
special fast-track procedure in the Senate--for deficit reduction only. 
That was the intention of reconciliation when it was put in place. 
Unfortunately, in the last 5 years, reconciliation has been used not to 
reduce the deficit but to increase it. That was never the intent of 
reconciliation, to provide special fast-track procedures, limited 
debate, limited amendments. That was approved for one reason only, to 
reduce the deficit. We ought to go back to that plan.
  Third, we suggest the budget ought to budget for the war instead of 
coming forward with these supplemental appropriations bills with tens 
of billions of dollars not part of the budget. We are over 3 years into 
this war. The President needs to be budgeting for the war.
  Fourth, we reaffirmed the protections for Social Security--they exist 
in current law--ensuring its off-budget status so Social Security funds 
aren't pooled with all the other funds to disguise from the American 
people the seriousness of our fiscal condition. And to prohibit fast-
track changes to Social Security--again, special rules that are outside 
the normal rules of the Senate that could lead to a shredding of Social 
Security and Medicare with very little debate and with virtually no 
amendments. I will get into that in a moment.
  We also have a ``save Social Security first'' provision in our plan, 
a 60-vote point of order against any new spending or new tax cuts that 
increase the deficit until the 75-year Social Security solvency is 
restored.
  We also restore for 2006 the 60-vote point of order against 
considering tax cuts or new spending or debt limit legislation without 
a new budget resolution.
  It is amazing, but our colleagues on the other side last year put in 
place new spending caps as part of the plan that the chairman of the 
committee presented moments ago. Last year they put in place spending 
caps for 2006, 2007, 2008. Two weeks ago, when we passed the 
supplemental, they wiped them out. So when the Senator suggests that is 
the answer to our problems--no, it is not the answer to our problems. 
No process is the answer to our problems, unless there is the will to 
actually do the job of reducing deficits and debt. No process is going 
to solve the problem.
  That is made clear by what happened two weeks ago. Again, I say to my 
colleagues, the Senator comes forward with a whole new package of 
spending caps--fine. Good. I am for spending caps--but spending caps 
that are enforceable and real, that aren't waived the next year when 
they start to pinch. That is what our colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle did week before last. Now they come with a new package of 
spending caps and say that's the answer? Wait a minute. Two weeks ago 
they undid the spending caps they put in place last year. Last year 
they put in spending caps for 2006, 2007, 2008. Then they come week 
before last in the supplemental appropriations bill and eliminate them.
  Last year they put in place a budget point of order that says you 
can't have more tax cuts or more spending or more debt if you don't 
have a budget. Guess what they did two weeks ago--they waived it. They 
said: Well, we weren't really serious about what we did last year. 
Forget it.

[[Page S6608]]

  Forget it. Forget the spending caps we put in place last year. Forget 
the budget point of order we put in place last year. Forget it.
  Now what is their answer? Now they are under pressure in an election 
year. They come out with this ``stop overspending'' plan that rehashes 
a bunch of the tired old things that haven't worked in the past and 
that they paid no attention to when they did put them in place.
  We restore that 60-vote point of order they just waived. We also 
allow Congress to strip earmarks in other items inserted in the 
conference reports.
  There is abuse going on in the Congress, and everybody knows it. 
Matters that are never considered in the Senate or the House are 
inserted in the conference committee in the dead of night, behind 
closed doors, and come out here with a straight up-or-down vote. That 
shouldn't be permitted.
  We require a 48-hour layoff period and a Congressional Budget Office 
score of conference reports because all too often that has been abused. 
We are presented with a 600- or 700- or 800-page bill nobody has ever 
read, and nobody has any idea what is in it. And we are told to vote in 
a matter of hours. No. We ought to have 48 hours to study what is out 
here, and we ought to have a CBO score of any legislation that is 
considered so we know what it costs and so we know what is in it.
  In addition, we require the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint 
Committee on Tax to score longer term revenue and outlays for us to 
enforce the Byrd Rule for reconciliation and to show fully phased-in 
10-year cost of legislation.
  Once again, what is happening is colleagues are coming and they are 
presenting the 5-year cost of something, when they know that right 
behind the 5-year window the cost explodes. That is true of tax cut 
proposals and spending proposals. And we need to put a stop to it.
  Also, in my proposal we enforce the discretionary spending limits. We 
enforce spending caps that in conjunction with pay-go have been 
effective in the past. And we initiate a real bipartisan effort to 
reduce the deficit with the President and with lawmakers.
  Here is the reality. This budget situation has gone totally red. 
These are the biggest deficits in the history of the country in the 
last 4 years.
  Even more serious than the deficit is the growth of the debt.
  Here is what has happened to the debt. After the first year of this 
President, the debt of the country was $5.8 trillion. The chairman of 
the Budget Committee told us in committee we wouldn't have a budget 
this year. There won't be a budget at all.
  But if either the budget proposal that cleared the Senate and the 
separate one that cleared the House were adopted, here is what would 
happen to the debt by 2011. It would be up to almost $12 trillion. The 
consequences of all of this are that our debt is exploding and our debt 
held by foreigners is exploding.
  This chart shows that it took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up $1 
trillion of our debt held abroad; that is, debt held by foreigners. It 
took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up more than $1 trillion in U.S. 
debt held by foreigners.
  This President has more than doubled that amount in just 5 years.
  This is an utterly unsustainable course. It is why I agreed with part 
of the chairman's message that we are on an unsustainable course, and 
we need to address this. But we need to do it in a bipartisan way. That 
is the great flaw in what the Senator has proposed.
  Here is what has happened, a consequence of these massive deficits--
both the trade and budget deficits.
  We now owe Japan over $600 billion. We owe the Chinese over $300 
billion. We even owe Mexico now over $40 billion. Who would have 
believed it?
  What is perhaps most stunning is if you look at the world's biggest 
borrowers, we are in the No. 1 position by far. In the 1980s, we were 
the largest creditor nation in the world. More countries owed us money 
than any other country in the world. We now owe more money than any 
other country in the world and by a large margin.
  If you look at all the money that is available to borrow in the 
world, we are borrowing about two-thirds of it. We are borrowing 65 
percent of the money that is being borrowed by countries around the 
world. Our country alone is borrowing 65 percent of the money that is 
available to borrow. The chairman came out. He has a program he calls 
SOS, ``stop the overspending.'' Who is overspending? His party is in 
control. His party has had control for 6 years. They control the White 
House. They control the House, and they control the Senate. There is 
not one dime of this spending they are not responsible for.
  What has happened to spending? Spending has gone up 40 percent while 
they have had control--a 40-percent increase in spending.
  The chairman comes out with this plan. He says stop overspending. But 
look at it. A big part of this is these spending caps. As I have 
indicated, they put in spending caps last year, which they threw in the 
ditch two weeks ago.
  They have more budget points of order in their plan. They waived the 
budget point of orders they put in place last year. They did it week 
before last.
  If you look at that specifics of the proposal the chairman has made, 
he goes back to the old Gramm-Rudman approach of setting targets. The 
problem was it didn't work then, and it is unlikely to work now because 
all of these targets can be gamed. That is what happened under Gramm-
Rudman. They gamed them. So they meant nothing.
  Here is the dotted red line that shows the first Gramm-Rudman 
targets. Then they changed them to this dotted red line. But the black 
line shows what actually happened to the deficit. These deficit targets 
didn't come within hailing distance of meeting these targets. Why? 
Because they were gamed just like they have gamed the spending caps 
that they themselves put in place last year when they started to pinch. 
They eliminated them.
  That is exactly what happened under Gramm-Rudman.
  It was gamed, and it meant nothing; the great press releases, the 
sound and the fury, signifying nothing.
  This shows that the 1986 deficit, when they started Gramm-Rudman, was 
$221 billion. In 1990, the last year of Gramm-Rudman, the deficit was 
$221 billion. It was supposed to be zero. They made no progress. It 
didn't work.
  The chairman comes out with a package that has Gramm-Rudman all over 
it again. It doesn't have pay-go; wouldn't want to do that. That 
worked. So let us go back to something that didn't work and act as 
though we are doing something when we are doing nothing. The GAO has 
concluded that Gramm-Rudman was ineffective.
  Here is what they said:

       GAO has criticized Gramm-Rudman procedures for leading not 
     to meaningful deficit reduction but rather to a whole 
     generation of off-budget and other misleading practices that 
     hid the true magnitude of the deficit problem.
       When even these practices failed to avoid sequestration, 
     the deficit targets were simply revised and the date for 
     achieving a balanced budget was postponed. Thus, instead of 
     the government reaching a balanced budget in FY 1991, the 
     original Gramm-Rudman target, the deficit reached record 
     levels.

  I appreciate the chairman's good intentions. I do believe he wants to 
do something about these deficits and debt. But the package he has come 
up with is not going to do the job.
  That is why we objected. That is why we offered an entire 
alternative.
  Former Senator Hollings, was one of the original architects of Gramm-
Rudman, said this:

       Instead of using Gramm-Rudman-Hollings to cut back some $35 
     billion in spending each year, we were using it as a cover to 
     increase spending $35 billion each and every year. So I said, 
     Give me a divorce from that. I don't want my name connected 
     with it.

  The chairman's package also includes a biennial budget. Instead of 
budgeting every year, budget every 2 years. I guess we are not going to 
even have a budget this year. So maybe we are on a biennial budget 
without it even being in the law.
  Can you think of any single major organization that just budgets 
every other year? What a bizarre idea. We are paying little attention 
to the budget. So the idea from the other side is let us pay even less 
attention. That is a good idea.
  It takes words away from me. To have the idea that because we are not 
being successful in managing our fiscal affairs, the answer is we only 
budget every 2 years.

[[Page S6609]]

  That would simply lead to more supplemental spending.
  While the President is calling for a biennial budget, and his budget 
for 2006-2007 failed to provide a discretionary spending policy beyond 
the first year.
  For the first time since 1989, this President, when he put out his 
budget, only gave 1 year of detail. Always before they had given 5 
years.
  Why it makes any sense to go to 2-year budgeting is beyond me.
  In addition, they have proposed a line-item veto, even though the 
Supreme Court said it is unconstitutional. In this package, they come 
with line-item veto again. But they have done it in a way that requires 
our colleagues' attention. They have done it with no opportunity to 
amend or to have extended debate on the proposed line-item veto target.
  They also allow the President to cancel new mandatory spending 
proposals, such as those dealing with Social Security, Medicare, 
veterans, and agriculture.
  That is an extraordinary grant of power.
  What if we had a bipartisan agreement to deal with the long-term 
challenges of Medicare and Social Security, and then the President 
would be given the power, under this act, to go undo it based on what 
he wanted to do, forget about the bipartisan negotiations? No, that 
can't be the way we do business around here. We truly need, on a 
bipartisan basis, to get together and deal with our massive deficits 
and debt. We can't engage in a negotiation, a detailed, difficult 
negotiation and then have the President, on his own authority, be able 
to undo the very agreements we have reached. What earthly sense does 
that make? How could we possibly have a negotiation under those terms?
  The CBO Director believes the line-item veto was unlikely to greatly 
affect the bottom line. He said:

       Such tools cannot establish fiscal discipline unless there 
     is a political consensus to do so. In the absence of that 
     consensus, proposed changes are unlikely to greatly affect 
     the budget's bottom line.

  He is right. No President needs the line-item veto.
  This is from the Roanoke Times in Virginia. They said:

       The President already has the only tool he needs, the veto. 
     That Bush has declined to challenge Congress in 5-plus years 
     is his choice. The White House no doubt sees reviving this 
     debate as means of distracting people from the missteps, 
     miscalculations, mistruths and mistakes that have dogged Bush 
     and sent his approval rating south. The current problems are 
     not systemic. They are ideological. A line-item veto will not 
     magically grant lawmakers and the President fiscal 
     discipline.

  They are not alone in that view.
  Here is a conservative columnist, George Will, who believes the line-
item veto will shift too much power to the executive branch. He said:

       It would aggravate the imbalance in our constitutional 
     system that has been growing for seven decades. The expansion 
     of executive power at the expense of the legislature.

  An American Enterprise Institute scholar calls the line- item veto 
proposal ``shameful.''

       Shameful. The larger reality is this line-item veto 
     proposal gives the President a great additional mischief-
     making capability, to pluck out items to punish lawmakers he 
     doesn't like, or to threaten individual lawmakers to get 
     votes on other things without having any noticeable impact on 
     budget growth or restraint.

  He went on to say this:

       More broadly, it simply shows the lack of institutional 
     integrity and patriotism by the majority in Congress. They 
     have lots of ways to put the responsibility on budget 
     restraint where it belongs, on themselves. Instead, they 
     willingly--even eagerly--try to turn their most basic power 
     over to the President. Shameful. Just shameful.

  The chairman of the Budget Committee indicated he has changed his 
proposal so the Commission on Social Security and Medicare would 
require a 60-vote majority in the Senate. That is true. His original 
proposal did not do that. His original proposal had a simple majority 
being able to pass whatever a commission sent back.

  What is wrong with the commission proposal he has left us with? What 
is wrong is, this proposal comes to us on a fast-track basis. In fact, 
the way it is designed, you could have a circumstance in which no 
amendments are permitted. I hope my colleagues are listening. They want 
to adopt a commission process that would permit the following: The 
commission, which has a majority of Republicans, says we want to cut 
Social Security 50 percent, comes up here to the Senate, the majority 
leader gets recognition, which he has the right to do under Senate 
rules, puts in an amendment, offers a quorum call, goes into a quorum 
call for 50 hours, with no amendments, no debate, and at the end of the 
50 hours, we vote on the commission proposal. That is at the heart of 
what is wrong with what the chairman proposed. That is a completely 
unacceptable procedure.
  We are not going to have a circumstance in which the future of Social 
Security and Medicare could be determined in the Senate under fast-
track procedures that deny Senators a chance to amend or debate what 
comes from an unelected, unaccountable commission. Is that what we have 
come to in this country? I don't think so. This is not some 
dictatorship where things come up here and Senators could be precluded 
from their right to amend or debate. That is the genius of the Senate.
  Under the chairman's proposal, that is exactly what could happen. He 
says no majority leader would ever do that. Maybe not. Maybe what they 
would do, using that power, is say: There can only be five amendments, 
or I will use my power to preclude all amendments.
  Have we ever seen a majority leader do that? Yes, I have been here. I 
have seen it.
  I say, as one Member, I will never, ever, go along with something 
that would be so consequential, determine the future of Social 
Security, the future of Medicare, and set up a circumstance in which no 
Senator could offer an amendment except the majority leader of the 
Senate. That looks like not just a fast-track process, that looks like 
a bum's rush.
  The Senator gets a big push back from our side, you bet. He will get 
a real big push back because we are not going to agree to that. That is 
radical. That is reckless. We are not going to go along with that. The 
Senator can say it can never happen, but we all know it could happen.
  I respect the chairman of the Committee on the Budget. I like him. We 
work together well. When he came out here and said we offered no 
alternatives, that is flatly untrue. We gave a detailed, comprehensive 
alternative which he praised publicly in the committee. To come to the 
Senate and say we offered no alternative is just not true. He knows it; 
I know it. The record shows it.
  I am quite certain the Senator was exercised and upset and probably 
mis-spoke. I hope he corrects the record on this question. It cannot 
stand. It does not enhance this discussion or debate for either side to 
say things that are not accurate. He is upset that some of our side 
apparently said the commission proposal would come up here on a simple 
majority. That was his initial proposal. Under my criticism of that 
approach, he did alter that. But he still left us with a fast-track 
process that could preclude amendments and debate on something as 
fundamental as the future of Social Security and Medicare. That is just 
not acceptable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.

                          ____________________