[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6033-6035]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                        SENATE BUDGET RESOLUTION

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, just prior to the Easter recess, the 
Senate completed action on the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution. I 
voted in favor of final passage of the budget resolution, recognizing 
that it does not reflect everything that I wanted. However, I am 
thankful the Senate-passed resolution does contain a fair amount of 
what President Bush had originally proposed in his budget plan.
  Nevertheless, it is my hope that when the Senate does go to 
conference with the House--which has passed a more stringent budget 
resolution--the end result will yield a budget resolution more in-tune 
with the President's more responsible package.
  As it was originally put forward, I felt the Bush budget plan 
provided much of the fiscal responsibility I have long sought from 
Washington prior to, and since, becoming a Member of the Senate. 
Specifically, it restrains the growth of spending, reduces the debt as 
fast as is prudent, and allows for meaningful tax cuts. This is what I 
like to refer to as a ``three-legged stool'' approach. For this package 
to work, however, we have to insist on a balanced approach, because 
fiscal responsibility, like a three-legged stool, cannot stand if one 
leg is significantly longer or shorter than the others.
  Unfortunately, if we characterized the Senate budget resolution as a 
three-legged stool, it would be rather wobbly right now since under the 
Senate budget resolution, discretionary spending increases at 8 
percent, and that is double the amount the President suggested.
  People often forget the President's proposal increased spending by a 
modest 4 percent at a time when inflation is approximately 2.8 percent, 
meaning it contains a real increase of 1.2 percent. In contrast, the 
Senate budget resolution, in real terms, results in a spending increase 
of 5.2 percent. That is a 333-percent higher rate of growth than what 
the President proposes.
  These increases may sound like small numbers in the grand scheme of 
things, or in the Senate, but do not be fooled. It adds up to tens and 
hundreds of billions of dollars in more spending over time.
  If we continue to spend money at this rate, we will have less 
resources to address important national needs, such as reforming Social 
Security, reforming Medicare, or providing a prescription drug benefit.
  Indeed, according to calculations by the Concord Coalition, the 
Senate budget resolution includes new and expanded entitlement spending 
that is

[[Page 6034]]

going to cost $600 billion over 10 years, and discretionary spending 
that may total $240 billion over 10 years.
  Coupled with the resulting increased interest cost of $550 billion, 
this package of amendments to the budget resolution could reduce the 
on-budget surplus by $1.4 trillion over 10 years.
  I say to my colleagues, enough is enough. We have to stop this 
rampant spending and, instead, prioritize what we ought to be doing 
with the taxpayers' money. We need to sit down and make some hard 
choices about where to allocate taxpayers' money, where we want to 
increase spending, where we want to make cuts or maybe where we want to 
flat-fund.
  For example, with regard to the National Institutes of Health, the 
President has included a generous increase in the amount of money that 
the NIH will receive in its budget, boosting NIH spending $2.8 billion. 
That is a 13.8 percent increase. The Senate, not wanting to be outdone, 
added an additional $700 million in NIH funding. Therefore, under the 
Senate's plan, NIH funding will be increased 17.2 percent over last 
year. In other words, the Senate wants to boost the rate of spending 
increase some 25 percent faster than the President.
  Do I think we should spend money on important health research? 
Absolutely. But how much is enough?
  The true cost is not just the dollar figure, it is what you give up, 
or what you could have purchased with that money. Economists call the 
concept ``opportunity cost.'' When the Senate thinks about spending 
money on one thing, we need to recognize that we are giving up the 
ability to use the money for other worthy purposes.
  If we follow through with the Senate's budget resolution, that means 
we will have fewer funds to conduct necessary Medicare reform, 
undertake education efforts aimed at preventive health care, provide 
greater access to rural health care, or fully fund the social services 
block grant.
  Think about the social services block grant for a moment. Congress 
promised a funding stream of $2.8 billion for this program, but funding 
has actually eroded $1 billion over the past 6 years. I hear a lot 
about that from our county commissioners in the State of Ohio.
  What most people do not realize is the fact that funds from the 
social services block grant go towards providing health care services 
for children, prenatal to age 3.
  There are tough choices and dilemmas: Do you give more to NIH to 
fight disease, or do you give more money to the social services block 
grant, a program that gives children the nutrition and health services 
they need so they do not develop the diseases that the NIH is trying to 
fight?
  Another thing we need to remember in figuring opportunity costs is 
the fact that we have a number of unmet Federal needs--needs that are a 
Federal responsibility, and which we should address as part of our full 
and balanced approach to the Federal budget.
  Do we spend Federal dollars on school construction, which is a State 
and local responsibility, or do we prevent flood and storm damage from 
ravaging people's lives? As former chairman of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Subcommittee, I personally know we have $39 billion of 
water resources development projects that the Army Corps of Engineers 
needs to fund, and yet we only provide $1.3 billion each year for such 
projects. Let's get serious. We will never deal with that backlog at 
this rate.
  Addressing such unmet needs does not sound important until there is a 
flood situation such as the folks along the Mississippi River are 
enduring right at this very moment.
  In addition, we have serious unmet needs in our Nation's wastewater 
treatment and sewer infrastructure. The costs are going up 
astronomically in the State of Ohio to comply with mandates from the 
U.S. EPA for sewer and water treatment. We have a responsibility to 
participate in helping to alleviate those costs.
  My point is this: We should allocate our financial resources on a 
very deliberate and prioritized basis and make the hard choices instead 
of the reckless last-minute spending that has often characterized the 
Senate over the last 3 years.
  I cannot believe what the Senate has done the last couple of years. I 
cannot believe it. If I as a Governor or as a mayor or as a member of a 
board of county commissioners spent money the way we did during the 
last couple of years, they would have run me out of office very 
quickly.
  I would remind my colleagues that just last year alone, we increased 
non-defense discretionary authority by an astounding 14.3 percent. 
Think about it. This is unsustainable. In my view, we need to stiffen 
our backbones and bring an end to this spending habit. Families need to 
carefully budget their resources. So do cities and States, and so, too, 
should the Federal Government.
  It is one of the reasons I wanted to get two points of order agreed 
to in the budget resolution to prevent further game playing with tax 
dollars. One point of order I offered would have helped stop abuses of 
emergency spending, and another would have prevented ``directed 
scoring,'' a process used to circumvent the budget process.
  I am glad 51 Senators joined me and my cosponsors, Senators Gregg and 
Feingold, in supporting this measure. It is my hope the next time we 
will get the 60 votes we need for adoption.
  I also wanted to offer an amendment that would have extended and 
strengthened the current caps on discretionary spending. Unfortunately, 
that amendment would never have passed muster due to the excessive 
spending in the amendments of the budget resolution. We blew that out 
before I even had a chance to bring it up.
  While the Senate's version of the budget resolution did not do 
enough, in my opinion, to keep spending in check, the silver lining is 
the fact that it provides for two tax cuts. I am hopeful, therefore, 
that we can, first, get this budget resolution to conference and that 
it emerges looking more fiscally responsible and that the conferees 
pare-down the spending; and second, that the Finance Committee begins 
work immediately on developing an $85 billion tax cut which I call a 
``balloon-payment'' approach, using the fiscal year 2001 on-budget 
surplus.
  I suggest this money go toward an immediate fiscal stimulus in the 
form of a cut in marginal rates; a cut that people will see in their 
paychecks directly through a change in their withholding.
  We need to get the money in the people's hands right now. If we are 
serious about getting this reduction in marginal rates done soon, I 
honestly think we could get legislation considered and passed in the 
Senate and the House and on the President's desk by Memorial Day and 
the American people could see the benefits this summer. Let's get it 
done.
  I think we are all agreed that something needs to be done to restore 
people's faith in the economy and bolster consumer optimism. It is at 
the lowest level in my State since 1992. In my view, the balloon 
payment is probably one of the best ways to show the doubting Thomases 
that the money is there and that we are doing something in Congress to 
address the issue. Further, I believe we need to enact a long-term 
marginal rate tax reduction as proposed by the President, which 
economists say will have a tremendous impact on stimulating our 
economy.
  Given our economic situation, we in Congress need to follow a 
balanced three-legged stool approach. If we can control the growth of 
spending, reduce the debt and achieve quick passage of a balloon 
payment and implement both a long-term and short-term marginal tax cut, 
it will give a gigantic boost to consumer confidence and help us return 
to economic normalcy. We can quibble about how to distribute the 
balloon payment. Let's just work it out. The main thing is, get it done 
and connect to it a true marginal rate tax reduction.
  However, there is one thing that I fear could torpedo any recovery 
and that is our inability to address our Nation's energy crisis. While 
we have already seen unprecedented home heating bills this past winter, 
I am concerned the worst is yet to come. Indeed, we are already seeing 
gasoline

[[Page 6035]]

prices move toward the $2-per-gallon range, and it is far from the peak 
summer driving season. What's more, the cost of energy is skyrocketing 
and supplies are scarce or unreliable. We can expect California's 
problems to intensify and likely be duplicated in other areas across 
the Nation.
  It is not as if we didn't see this coming. The storm clouds have been 
brewing for many years. Still, there has been no action on the part of 
Congress to consider a comprehensive energy policy along the lines of 
what Senator Murkowski has proposed in his bill, S. 388. I fear if we 
don't get moving, we will not get that done, either.
  We need to act on these issues quickly. The American people are 
watching to see if we intend to bring this Nation out of our economic 
downturn and back on the road to economic prosperity, or if we are 
going to continue to fiddle around while the country burns. I hear that 
from the folks back in Ohio: ``You are fiddling around in the Senate, 
and you are not getting anything done. Don't you understand how bad it 
is on the street?''
  They want us to make the hard choices about spending. They want us to 
work together to develop solutions to our energy crisis, to pay down 
our debt, and provide quick and measurable tax relief. They want us to 
put aside the partisan bickering and the gamesmanship and act in the 
best interests of the Nation. After all, that is what they think they 
elected us to do.
  We need to act in the spirit of the old Rogers and Hammerstein song 
from Carousel--many remember that--``You'll Never Walk Alone,'' so that 
the American people know that ``at the end of the storm there is a 
golden sky and the sweet silver song of the lark.''
  Now, more than ever before, we have to restore people's faith and 
their confidence in the economic future of our Nation. It is in our 
hands.

                          ____________________