[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 22145-22147]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                    DEBT REDUCTION AND SPENDING CUTS

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, in a few short weeks, it will have been 
two years since the people of Ohio elected me to represent them in the 
United States Senate. One of the main reasons I wanted to serve in this 
body was to have an opportunity to bring fiscal responsibility to the 
nation's capital and eliminate the gigantic debt burden that we have 
put on the backs of our children and grandchildren.
  As my colleagues know, for decades, successive Congresses and 
Presidents spent money on things that, while important, they were 
unwilling to pay for, or, in the alternative, do without. In the 
process, Washington ran up staggering debt, and mortgaged our future.
  Today, we have a $5.7 trillion national debt that is costing us $224 
billion in interest payments a year, and that translates into $600 
million per day just to pay the interest.
  Out of every federal dollar that is spent, 13 cents will go to pay 
the interest on the national debt. Think of that. In comparison, 16 
cents will go for national defense; 18 cents will go for non-defense 
discretionary spending; and 53 cents will go for entitlement spending. 
Right now, we spend more federal tax dollars on debt interest than we 
do on the entire Medicare program.
  As the end of the 106th Congress draws near, I look back with mixed 
feelings at the actions that this Congress has made towards bringing 
our financial house in order. While we have made some strides in paying 
down the national debt, there is a lot more that we could have done. 
For example, we could have done a much better job of reining-in federal 
spending. Regretfully, we have done the opposite.
  What many Americans don't realize is the fact that Congress increased 
overall non-defense domestic discretionary spending in fiscal year 2000 
to $328 billion. That's a 9.3 percent boost over the previous fiscal 
year, and the largest single-year increase in non-defense discretionary 
spending since 1980.
  In an effort to bring spending under control, my friend, Senator 
Allard, and I offered an amendment this past June to direct $12 billion 
of the FY 2000 on-budget surplus dollars toward debt reduction. While 
that amendment passed by a vote of 95-3, the victory did not last 
long--all but $4 billion of that $12 billion was used for other 
spending in the Military Construction Appropriations Conference Report.
  Nevertheless, we have had reason to celebrate some good news. Just 
last year, many of us fought to ``lock box'' Social Security. In spite 
of the fact that many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
defeated the bill, Congress did, though, for the first time in three 
decades, not spend a dime of the Social Security surplus.
  I have to say that I take great offense at the fact that the Vice 
President is out there taking credit for ``lock boxing'' Social 
Security and Medicare. My colleagues--and indeed the American people--
should be aware that, in fact, it was this administration--the Clinton-
Gore administration--that sent a veto threat to the Senate regarding 
the Abraham/Domenici Social Security ``lock box'' amendment that we 
considered in April of 1999.
  Here is the direct quote from that veto threat: ``. . . If the 
Abraham/Domenici amendment or similar legislation is passed by the 
Congress, the

[[Page 22146]]

President's Senior Advisors will recommend to the President that he 
veto the bill.'' I would presume that the term ``Senior Advisors'' 
would include the Vice President.
  Although Congress has agreed by consensus not to use the Social 
Security surplus for more spending, Congress, still has not been able 
to pass ``lock box'' legislation. And because Congress has not passed a 
``lock box'' bill, I am fearful that if things get tight in the future, 
Congress will revert to its old ways.
  Probably the best news from fiscal year 2000 is that despite spending 
roughly $20 billion of the on-budget surplus this past summer, Congress 
did not touch the additional $60 billion on-budget surplus that CBO 
announced in July. In other words, when fiscal year 2000 came to an end 
on September 30th, that $60 billion on-budget surplus had not been 
spent nor used for tax cuts. Instead, it will go towards reducing the 
national debt.
  When on-budget surplus funds are used to lower the debt, it sends a 
positive signal to Wall Street and to Main Street that the federal 
government is serious about fiscal discipline. It encourages more 
savings and investment which, in turn, fuels productivity and continued 
economic growth.
  All the experts say that paying down the debt is the best thing we 
could do with our budget surpluses. Indeed, CBO Director Dan Crippen 
said earlier this year: ``most economists agree that saving the 
surpluses and paying down the debt held by the public is probably the 
best thing that we can do relative to the economy.''
  I would like to say Mr. President, in the last month or so, I have 
had the opportunity to meet with director Crippen in my office a couple 
of times, including, most recently, this morning. He said that the only 
way we were going to be able to deal with the wave of Social Security 
and Medicare benefits that we will have to pay when the ``baby 
boomers'' start to retire, is to reform Social Security and Medicare, 
and most important, we should undertake policies that encourage a 
robust, growing economy. And as far as I'm concerned, paying down the 
national debt is the best way that we can foster a robust growing 
economy.
  Mr. President, in today's Washington Post, columnist David Broder, 
touched on this same theme in reporting about the need to exhibit 
fiscal responsibility. In case my colleagues have not read the article, 
I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1)
  Mr. VOINOVICH. In addition, just yesterday, the Congressional Budget 
Office released its report, entitled ``The Long-Term Budget Outlook.''
  That report states that, ``projected growth in spending on the 
federal government's big health and retirement programs--Medicare, 
Medicaid and Social Security--dominates the long-run budget outlook. If 
current policies continue, spending is likely to grow significantly 
faster than the economy as a whole over the next few decades. By 2040, 
CBO projects those outlays will rise to about 17 percent of gross 
domestic product--more than double their current share.''
  The report goes on to say, `` `saving' most or all of the budget 
surpluses that CBO projects over the next 10 years--using them to pay 
down debt--would have a positive impact on the projections and 
substantially delay the emergence of a serious fiscal imbalance.''
  I believe that each of my colleagues should read this report because 
it might make them consider the consequences of all the spending that's 
going on in this body and help make the argument for more fiscal 
restraint in these last days of the 106th Congress. Therefore, Mr. 
President, I encourage my colleagues to look up the CBO report, ``The 
Long-Term Budget Outlook,'' at the CBO website, www.cbo.gov.
  Mr. President, I am a firm believer in the phrase, ``prepare for 
tomorrow, today,'' and I believe that anytime we have an opportunity to 
enhance our future economic position, we cannot squander that 
opportunity. That is why I am deeply disappointed that the Senate is 
not going to consider the Debt Relief Lock-Box Reconciliation Act for 
Fiscal Year 2001, H.R. 5173. This is a bill that passed in the House of 
Representatives by a vote of 381-3, and which would have taken 90 
percent of the fiscal year 2001 surplus and used it strictly for debt 
reduction.
  As my colleagues know, the Congressional Budget Office has projected 
that in fiscal year 2001, the United States will have a surplus of $268 
billion, including an on-budget surplus of $102 billion.
  Under H.R. 5173--or the ``90-10'' bill as it has been called--$240 
billion of the $268 billion projected surplus would go toward paying 
down the national debt. By using such a substantial amount of the 
surplus for debt reduction, Congress would be officially ``lock 
boxing'' not only the Social Security surplus, but the Medicare surplus 
as well. Thus, some $198 billion--the amount CBO predicts--will be in 
surplus for those two funds.
  In addition to ``lock-boxing'' Social Security and Medicare, the 
legislation would appropriate $42 billion of the fiscal year 2001 on-
budget surplus projection toward debt reduction.
  The remaining 10 percent--or $28 billion--would be divided and used 
to cover whatever tax cuts or necessary and reasonable spending 
increases that needed to be made.
  Even though it is not perfect legislation, I support H.R. 5173, 
because in my view, it is the best chance for Congress this year to 
make another significant payment on the national debt while keeping a 
tight lid on spending. Unfortunately, the ``90-10'' bill has never 
achieved the same kind of support here in the Senate as it did in the 
House, and therefore, the types of controls the bill would have put on 
spending will not be enacted in the Senate.
  Instead, I fear that with the end of session ``rush to get out of 
town,'' Congress and the President are engaged in a spending spree the 
likes of which we haven't seen since LBJ's Great Society. While I am 
concerned that the President wants additional spending, I am 
particularly alarmed at the fact that many of my colleagues are trying 
their hardest to outspend the President. Under this scenario, it's no 
wonder H.R. 5173 never had a chance.
  Although we have not yet passed all of the fiscal year 2001 
appropriations bills, the amount that spending has increased in the 
bills that have been passed is quite disturbing: particularly when 
compared to the Consumer Price Index, which is 2.7 percent.
  For instance, the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water appropriations 
bill that was just vetoed spends 12 percent more than its FY 2000 
counterpart; the FY 2001 Interior appropriations bill represents a 26 
percent increase; and the FY 2001 Transportation appropriations bill 
that we passed last Friday increased its discretionary spending by 
about 25 percent. So far, Congressional spending in fiscal year 2001 is 
on-track to make the 9.3 percent fiscal year 2000 non-defense 
discretionary spending increase look like ``chump change.''
  I would like to say to the citizens of Ohio that there are many good 
things in those bills that I would have liked to support, but spending 
increases of this kind are just outrageous.
  What we should have been doing with these appropriations bills is 
prioritizing our spending and living within the budget resolution that 
we passed in the beginning of the year. Maybe I should ask my 
colleagues, if we are not going to live within the parameters of the 
budget resolution, then why did we spend to much time on it?
  If, when I was Governor, I had ever gone to the Ohio legislature and 
told them I wanted to increase the budget by 25 or 26 percent, they 
would have impeached me. The editorial writers would have said I had 
gone crazy, especially when my mantra when I came into office was, 
``gone are the days when public officials are measured by how much they 
spend on a problem. The new realities dictate that public officials are 
now judged on whether they can work harder and smarter and do more with 
less.''
  And Mr. President I hate to think what the voters would have done to 
me.

[[Page 22147]]

  Many of my colleagues do not seem to consider that each separate 
appropriations bill adds-up. There is no sense of concern that one 
particular appropriations bill increases its spending from FY 2000 by 
20 percent, because it's only $2 billion to $3 billion more than last 
year. Or, some may say we need to spend an extra billion dollars or so 
on this or that program because we have a huge surplus and we can 
afford it.
  In a $1.7 trillion overall budget, I can see how someone may got 
caught up in that logic.
  However, in the words of Everett Dirksen:

       A billion here, and a billion there, and pretty soon you're 
     talking about real money.

  It is all real money--real taxpayer's money. Congress and the 
President have got to admit that we cannot fund everything that we 
want. We have got to make hard choices with respect to spending if we 
are ever going to bring our debt under control.
  The American people know that the spending Congress is engaged in 
right now must be accounted for somewhere, because they know there is 
no such thing as a free lunch. They know that ultimately they are the 
ones paying for what I like to refer to as a Congressional ``feeding 
frenzy.''
  They want us to make the hard decisions and most of all, they want us 
to pay down the national debt. When I go home to Ohio my constituents 
say to me: Senator, we want you to pay down the national debt.
  On one other last note, Mr. President--if you take the 9.3 percent 
increase in non-defense discretionary spending from fiscal year 1999 to 
fiscal year 2000, and the rate of increase projected in the fiscal year 
2001 budget, we are blowing a big hole in the CBO 10 year projected 
budget surplus.
  The 10 year CBO budget surplus is predicated on a 2.7 percent 
increase in Federal spending over 10 years.
  We must remember that the on-budget surplus also includes the 
Medicare surplus, and if we are ever successful at passing Medicare 
``lock box'' legislation, those funds will be off the table for 
spending. Consider also the Medicare giveback which we must have to 
stabilize this country's healthcare system which will also take part of 
the 10 year budget surplus; a prescription drug benefit that everyone 
agrees we must implement which will also take part of the 10 year 
budget surplus; we must spend more money to stabilize and improve our 
national defense which will also take part of the 10 year budget 
surplus.
  If you add up all of the numbers, including appropriations bills that 
have passed and those that are anticipated to pass and include the 
projected $200 billion worth of tax reductions for the next 10 years, 
as well as the additional interest costs generated by Congress' 
spending and reducing taxes, then Congress will have reduced the 10 
year projected budget surplus by some $750 billion. Let's not let that 
happen.
  If Congress intends to spend money on implementing programs, we need 
to tighten our belts on our current spending and not squander our on-
budget surplus on the kinds of wasteful spending included in the 
various fiscal year 2001 appropriations bills. We cannot forget that we 
are facing a Social Security and Medicare funding crisis in the near 
future, and if we can't prioritize our spending now, we will not be 
able to keep these programs solvent at their current level of benefits. 
The young people here who are pages will have that burden right on 
their backs.
  That's why I believe the best course of action we can take is to use 
whatever on-budget surplus we achieve to pay down the national debt.
  For three decades, we borrowed from our children, mortgaging their 
future for our present. And now, when times are good and we have the 
most ideal situation to set things right, we cannot continue down the 
same flawed path as before. Have we learned nothing?
  Our current economic situation is our second chance to pay our 
children what we owe and ensure fiscal solvency for future generations. 
We have an obligation to our children--indeed, a moral obligation--to 
pay down the national debt and rein-in our spending in order to give 
them back their competitive edge. If we do not act now, I fear we will 
not get another chance to do the right thing.

                               Exhibit 1

               [From the Washington Post, Oct. 11, 2000]

                     Heedless of the Deficits Ahead

                          (By David S. Broder)

       On the morning after last week's vice presidential debate, 
     Charles O. Jones, the University of Wisconsin political 
     scientist and scholar of the presidency, remarked that the 
     nation had witnessed ``a great civic event,'' a civil, 
     substantive discussion of serious policy matters between two 
     highly competent public officials, Joe Lieberman and Dick 
     Cheney.
       In fact, Jones said, ``we are having a good election, 
     something you don't often get in good times.'' Contrast the 
     contest being waged by Al Gore and George W. Bush, he went 
     on, with the last race conducted in a healthy economy and at 
     a time when no incumbent president was on the ballot.
       That would be 1988, when the father of the current 
     Republican nominee squared off, as vice president, against 
     Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis. If the winning campaign 
     of 1988 is remembered at all, the enduring images are the 
     flag factories the elder George Bush visited in an implicit 
     challenge to Dukakis's patriotism and the Willie Horton ads 
     his supporters aired. And the hapless Democratic effort was 
     symbolized by Dukakis's tank ride and his lame, emotionless 
     answer to Bernard Shaw's question about how he would respond 
     if someone raped and murdered Kitty Dukakis.
       We've come a long way from that, with the four nominees for 
     president and vice president arguing about such genuinely 
     important topics as defense, education, Social Security and 
     health care.
       But before we get too giddy in celebrating our good 
     fortune, let it be noted that historians are almost certain 
     to remark on the purposeful myopia of the candidates in this 
     first election of the new millennium, their deliberate 
     refusal to acknowledge and discuss one of the biggest 
     realities of our national life: The glorious federal budget 
     surpluses they are happily parceling out for their favorite 
     programs and tax cuts are a short-term phenomenon, soon to be 
     followed by crippling deficits, unless we make some hard 
     choices in the next few years.
       In this respect, the 2000 campaign is reminiscent of 1988--
     but worse. In that year, Dukakis and the elder Bush avoided 
     discussing the savings and that year, Dukakis and the elder 
     Bush avoided discussing the savings and loan crisis both of 
     them knew was around the corner. The reason: There were no 
     easy answers, just bad news and an expensive bailout in 
     store.
       What we now confront is much, much bigger than the savings 
     and loan bailout. Its dimensions were outlined last week in a 
     report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office 
     (CBO)--a report that did not make the front page of any of 
     the papers I read and that was ignored by most of the TV news 
     shows.
       Here's what it said: Assuming that the new president uses 
     the expected surplus in Social Security of $2.4 trillion over 
     the next 10 years to pay down the national debt, as Gore and 
     Bush say they will do, the government may be able to balance 
     its books until about 2020.
       But then the retirement and health care costs of the huge 
     baby boom generation and the shrinkage in the number of 
     Americans working and paying taxes will once again create a 
     serious imbalance--and push us back into debt.
       In the estimate of the CBO, ``If the nation's leaders do 
     not change current policies to eliminate that imbalance, 
     federal deficits are likely to reappear and eventually drive 
     federal debt to unsustainable levels.'' A chart accompanying 
     the report shows the public debt in 2040 rising to 60 percent 
     of the estimated size of that year's economy--creating a 
     burden on the next generation of Americans half again as 
     large as the accumulated debt of the past is on us.
       As The Post's Glenn Kessler noted in his news story, ``The 
     report underscores how campaign rhetoric has become 
     increasingly separated from the budget reality that will face 
     the next president.'' While Bush pushes his trillion-dollar 
     tax cut and tries to keep up with Gore's promises of new 
     prescription drug benefits, 100,000 teachers and 50,000 cops, 
     neither one is preparing the public for the steps that are 
     needed to rein in runaway health care costs--the largest 
     single force driving us back into deficits.
       By 2040, according to the best available data, the 
     percentage of Americans over 65 will rise from 13 percent to 
     almost 21 percent. The share of working-age Americans, 
     between 20 and 64, will decline by 3 points of slightly over 
     55 percent. The ratio of workers to retirees will drop from 
     almost 5 to 1 down to less than 3 to 1. Unless we begin now 
     to reorganize our dysfunctional health care system and take 
     steps to rationalize provisions for retirement income, the 
     demographic wave will sink us.
       Someone has to force the candidates to confront that 
     reality.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.


  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________