```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 75 (Monday, May 8, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6228-S6229]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                               THE BUDGET

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, section 301 of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 requires that on or before April 15 of 
each year the Congress shall complete action on a concurrent resolution 
on the budget for the fiscal year beginning on October 1 of such year. 
The failure to meet this deadline, however, has no effect on points of 
order under the Congressional Budget Act. In fact, Congress has met the 
deadline only three times since enactment of the 1974 Budget Act; 
namely, for fiscal years 1976, 1977, and 1994. So, it is not unusual 
that Congress, at the April 15 deadline, has yet to complete action on 
the 1996 budget resolution.
  It does seem a little unusual that this year's budget resolution has 
not been reported by the Budget Committee of either House. Perhaps our 
friends on the Budget Committees are finding it somewhat more difficult 
to come forward with a budget resolution which will force Congress to 
make the difficult choices that will be necessary to achieve a balanced 
budget, than it was to sign the mostly empty pledges that were 
contained in the vacuous rhetoric of the so-called ``Contract With 
America.''
  For a while, everything seemed to be going along swimmingly for the 
new Republican majority in Congress. We have been told over and over 
again by the House Republican leadership that they would balance the 
budget by the year 2002, while at the same time they would increase 
military spending, cut taxes by some $630 billion over the next ten 
years, and take Social Security off the budget-cutting table.

     Thus ornament is but the guiled shore
     To a most dangerous sea; the beauteous scarf
     Veiling an Indian beauty; in a word,
     The seeming truth which cunning times put on
     To entrap the wisest.

  It was obvious to all who examined this visionary proposal that it 
amounts to a return to the failed policies of supply-side economics 
undertaken during the Reagan-Bush years. The problem with the Reagan 
plan was that we did the easy part--we massively increased military 
spending and we drastically cut taxes. But when it came to the hard 
part--cutting entitlement spending--everybody balked. We all know what 
resulted from those actions--a string of unprecedented budget deficits 
which were the largest the country has ever seen and which ceased to 
grow only after the election of President Clinton.
  In other words, we went on a national spending spree on credit--not 
paying our bills, but charging them to future generations. As a result, 
the national debt rose from $932 billion on January 20, 1981, when 
President Reagan was sworn in, to $4.1 trillion on January 20, 1993, 
the day that Bill Clinton was sworn in as President.
  Immediately following his election, President Clinton submitted a 
budget that cut the projected Bush deficits drastically and, in fact, 
in 1993 Congress enacted a massive deficit reduction bill, which 
President Clinton signed into law. That package of budget cuts reduced 
the projected deficits over 5 years by roughly $500 billion, and it was 
passed by both Houses of Congress without a single Republican vote.
  The economy has responded well to the deficit reduction that has 
taken place thus far under the leadership of President Clinton. I 
believe that the economy will continue to perform well so long as we 
continue our efforts to whittle away at the massive deficits built up 
over the dozen Reagan-Bush years.
  Tough decisions will be required to balance the Federal budget. I 
know that it will require drastic action. I believe that the American 
people, as a whole, are prepared to face the tough choices that will 
have to be faced in order to balance the Federal budget, so long as 
they are certain that their elected representatives are administering 
the budget cuts fairly across every sector of the country. The budget 
axe should not be wielded indiscriminately. This round of budget 
cutting, to be effective, should involve priority setting; it should 
involve separating out the truly effective and necessary Federal 
Government programs from those that are merely nice to have but not 
truly necessary for the Federal Government to be involved.
  Furthermore, if we are to achieve fairness in our deficit-elimination 
efforts, we cannot ignore the huge tax subsidies that are written into 
the Tax Code from time to time and are never looked at again. These 
kinds of tax expenditures, many of which may well serve a worthwhile 
national purpose, should no longer be allowed to escape scrutiny along 
with every other area of Federal activity.
  We are told by the Congressional Research Service that there are over 
120 separate tax expenditures in current law which will cost the U.S. 
Treasury $453 billion this fiscal year. That figure will rise to $568.5 
billion in fiscal year 1999--unless Congress and the President enact 
changes to eliminate and otherwise cut back the growth in some of these 
tax subsidies. If we fail to do so, then how can we possibly expect the 
American people to believe that we have administered budget cuts 
fairly?
  Incredibly, Mr. President, we have not seen any indication by the 
Republican leadership that they are prepared to even examine these 120 
Federal tax subsidies to see if they are necessary or if they can be 
afforded any longer.
  Instead, we have seen the House pass a massive tax cut bill, which 
will cost $630 billion over the next 10 years. And, who will get the 
benefit of those tax cuts? According to the Treasury Department:
  Nearly half the tax benefits--47 percent--would go to the wealthiest 
10 percent of households. These households all have incomes at least 
somewhat above $100,000, according to the Treasury measure.
  The richest 1 percent of households--1.1 million households--would 
receive 20 percent of the benefits from the tax package, while the 
bottom three-fifths of households--65 million households--would receive 
only 15.6 percent of the total tax benefits, according to the Treasury 
data.
  The average tax reduction for the wealthiest 10 percent of all 
households would be nearly nine times greater than the average tax 
reduction for the middle fifth of households--$4,821 and $555, 
respectively.
  Mr. President, I am totally opposed to tax cuts at this time. I will 
not vote for President Clinton's tax cuts, I will not vote for the 
House-passed tax cuts, or any other tax cuts that may be proposed at 
this time. We need to keep an eye on the target of reducing the Federal 
budget deficit until it is eliminated. From press accounts, I 
understand that Senator Domenici, the very able and experienced 
chairman of the Budget Committee, is planning to recommend to the 
Budget Committee a budget resolution which, if carried out, would 
result in a balanced budget for fiscal year 2002. It is my further 
understanding that Senator Domenici's proposal will not include a tax 
cut. Instead, a tax cut would have to wait until Congress has enacted 
the necessary legislation to achieve budget balance, under CBO scoring, 
by 2002.
  If this is the position of the chairman of the Budget Committee, I 
commend him for his courage and foresight, and for his integrity in 
placing the emphasis in this year's budget resolution 
[[Page S6229]] where it clearly should be--on eliminating the deficit 
rather than on cutting taxes. I have long admired and respected the 
intelligence and wisdom of Senator Domenici. He is a Senator who takes 
his responsibilities very seriously and who works tirelessly to carry 
out these responsibilities.
  In addition to containing no tax cut, Mr. President, it is also 
important that cuts in spending in this year's budget resolution be 
administered fairly and equitably to both entitlement and discretionary 
spending. As all Senators are aware, the discretionary portion of the 
budget is under the control of the Appropriations Committees and 
amounts to just over one-third, or $549 billion, of the President's 
1996 budget. Of the remainder, net interest on the debt will be $257 
billion, or 15.9 percent of the 1996 budget. The other one-half of the 
budget consists of Social Security--which will equal $351.4 billion, or 
21.8 percent of the 1996 budget--Medicare, Medicaid, and other 
mandatory and entitlement programs.
  If Social Security is taken off the table, and if we pay the interest 
on the debt, which we must, then we have removed almost 38 percent of 
the budget from budget cuts. We are told that the budget resolution 
will also not cut military spending, and, in fact, will propose an 
increase in military spending over the next 7 years. If this is done, 
then we will have shielded 54 percent of the budget from cuts, leaving 
only 46 percent, including other entitlements, to undergo budget-
cutting surgery over the next 7 years.
  I ask the American people: Is that a fair way to proceed? Is it fair 
to cut $500 billion over the next 7 years from domestic discretionary 
programs, while increasing military spending?
  The military consumes $262.2 billion in outlays in the President's 
1996 budget. That amount is almost equal to the $265.8 billion that is 
in the budget for all domestic discretionary programs. This includes 
law enforcement, education, infrastructure spending on highways and 
transit, environmental cleanup, clean air and water, research and 
development, medical research, NASA, national parks, the Justice 
Department, the judiciary, the FBI, and the operations of virtually all 
agencies and departments in the Federal Government.
  If we follow the Republican plan, we will cut all of these domestic 
discretionary programs by approximately 35 percent by the year 2002, at 
the same time we increase military spending. Is that fair? It is not 
only unfair, it is pure folly.
  Furthermore, under the Republican budget plan, the elderly will be 
asked to pay dearly. Medicare will be cut anywhere from $259-$333 
billion over the next 7 years. We hear that these cuts are not being 
proposed for deficit reduction but only because Medicare will be broke 
if we do not fix it soon.
  Well, Mr. President, I see no proposal from the Republicans on how 
they intend to fix the Medicare program. All I see is a cut in Medicare 
spending totaling $259 to $333 billion over the next 7 years. Is it 
fair to ask for this level of sacrifice from Medicare beneficiaries at 
the same time military spending will be rising from a starting point of 
$262.2 billion over the same 7-year period?
  Or, is it fair to cut $500 billion from domestic spending on 
education, law enforcement, highways, research, job training, and from 
student loans, and veteran's medical care while, at the same time, 
ignoring the subsidies in the Tax Code that total $453 billion in 1995 
and which, as I say, will grow by a total of $283.9 billion over the 
next 5 years, 1995 to 1999. In 1999 alone, these tax breaks will total 
$568.5 billion, an increase of $115.5 billion over their 1995 cost.
  It is incredible--even beyond belief--that Congress would enact a 7-
year, deficit-elimination package that cuts $500 billion from domestic 
investments and cuts between $259 and $333 billion from Medicare, while 
it cuts nothing from military spending and while we allow permanent tax 
breaks to grow by $283.9 billion! How can we expect the American people 
to accept this approach to budget balancing? It is not only unfair, it 
is irrational.
  What this amounts to is protecting the special interest groups and 
the wealthy. They will get to keep their existing tax breaks, and, to 
make matters worse, they will also get the overwhelming share of the 
tax cuts already passed by the House, which amount to a $630 billion 
drain from the Treasury over the next 10 years.
  On a related matter, there has been speculation that the Republican 
welfare reform package will be included as part of this year's 
reconciliation measure. If these reports are accurate, this should be a 
cause of great concern to all Senators and to the American people. I 
say this not from any partisan perspective. As I stated to the 
distinguished majority leader in a letter dated March 31, 1995, I agree 
that welfare reform is certainly necessary. But I have strong 
reservations about taking up such far-reaching and important 
legislation as part of a reconciliation measure, upon which very 
limited debate is allowed.
  In my view, the reconciliation process was not intended to allow the 
adoption of major legislative proposals, such as welfare reform, under 
conditions where debate is limited. This is not a new position for me. 
I opposed such a tactic on health care reform last year, when both the 
then-majority leader and President Clinton urged my support for 
including health care in last year's reconciliation measure. Major 
proposals of this kind should be thoroughly and thoughtfully examined 
by the Members of both parties on this Senate floor in a free and full 
debate, not under the extremely limited debate that is allowed for 
reconciliation measures.
  I implore the Senate Budget Committee, under the able leadership of 
its chairman, Senator Domenici, and its equally able ranking member, 
Senator Exon, to carefully consider these very important matters as the 
committee marks up the 1996 budget resolution.
  As I have already stated, I do not believe that the American people 
deserve, nor will they support, a deficit-elimination package unless 
its effects are distributed fairly across all segments of the 
population. I do not believe they will support a continuation of 
existing tax breaks along with new massive tax cuts for the wealthy, 
while Medicare beneficiaries are being asked to pony up hundreds of 
billions of dollars over the next 7 years.
  I urge Senators not to attempt to balance the budget on the backs of 
millions of Americans by savaging their health care benefits, while at 
the same time enacting hundreds of billions of dollars in new tax 
breaks which primarily benefit the wealthiest in our society. No amount 
of hollow rhetoric in a so-called Contract With America can hide the 
perverted policies being proposed by those who signed this so-called 
contract which was, after all, fashioned by pollsters for the purpose 
of gaining political advantage.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________
```