```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 84 (Friday, May 19, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7009-S7010]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page S7009]]

                            MORNING BUSINESS

  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent there now be a period for the 
transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up 
to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
  Mr. EXON. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. But I will not object with this caveat, that the Senator 
from Nebraska, when we have finished the wrap-up procedures, would like 
to reserve 2 or 3 minutes as if in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator close the Senate down for us?
  Mr. EXON. I will be happy to, Madam President.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senate Concurrent 
Resolution 13, the fiscal year 1996 congressional budget resolution, as 
reported by the Senate Budget Committee.
  What does this budget resolution do? More importantly than anything 
else, it provides for a balanced budget in 7 years.
  This is the first-ever 7-year budget resolution, with the first-ever 
7-year reconciliation instructions. It will produce, when it occurs in 
fiscal year 2002, the first balanced budget in 33 years. The last two 
balanced budgets were in 1969 and 1960.
  In fiscal year 2002, under this budget, the accumulated national debt 
will be almost $1 trillion lower than under current law--or, less than 
$6 trillion, instead of more than $7 trillion.
  That last fact is sobering--it reminds us that this budget is a good 
start, not the final victory, against the staggering debt load 
crippling our economy and stealing our children's future.
  What does this budget resolution do? It reduces the rate of growth in 
Federal spending. Under this budget, spending still grows an average of 
3-percent a year, down from the current 5.4 percent a year.
  Only special interest groups and liberals inside the Capital Beltway 
can say a 3-percent raise is really a draconian cut.
  Under this budget, total Federal spending in fiscal year 2002 will be 
$382 billion more than this year--fiscal year 1995.
  Only in Washington, DC, does anyone claim that a $382 billion 
increase is really a $229 billion cut.
  What does this budget resolution do? It delivers on the promise of 
the balanced budget amendment and those of us who supported it.
  Back in January and February, some opponents--and a few supporters--
of the balanced budget amendment said they wanted to see a plan for 
exactly how to balance the budget.
  Well, here's our plan: Some of my colleagues may have a different 
plan, and I invite them to bring it forward. This may not be everyone's 
favorite plan, but it gets the job done in a fair, equitable way.
  Now that those who demanded, ``Where's your plan?'' have been given a 
plan. I expect that 67th Senator should come forward and finally help 
us pass the balanced budget amendment.
  What does balancing the budget mean in people terms? It means 
restoring the American dream of economic opportunity, starting now and 
extending to the next generation.
  We're going to hear moans and complaints about budget cuts, but the 
cruelest cut of all is the cut in every American's living standard that 
has occurred because of Government's failure or refusal to balance the 
budget.
  The damage done by the borrow-and-spend status quo must be undone. 
The Concord Coalition estimated that, without the Federal deficits and 
debt run up to date, the average family's income would be $50,000, 
instead of the current $35,000.
  A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York showed that America 
lost 5-percent growth in GNP and 3.75 million jobs from 1978-89 because 
of deficits and debt.
  Balancing the budget by fiscal year 2002 means a better future. The 
econometrics firm DRI/McGraw-Hill said it means: 4 to 5 percent more 
nonresidential investment; 2.5 million new jobs; a GDP that is 2.5 
percent higher, and another $1,000 in the pocket of the average 
household.
  GAO's 1992 report estimated that balancing the budget would raise our 
children's standard of living between 7 and 36 percent by the year 
2020.
  What does this budget resolution do? It fully protects Social 
Security. This budget makes absolutely no changes in the old age, 
survivors, and disability insurance [OASDI] trust funds, consistent 
with a number of current law protections, and consistent with the Dole 
motion passed during debate on the balanced budget amendment and the 
Kempthorne amendment adopted as part of S.1--the Unfunded Mandates Act.
  This budget in no way loots Social Security. It protects it by 
reducing the pressure of future debts, and it strengthens our ability 
to keep promises to seniors.
  It takes us two-thirds of the way to balancing the non-Social 
Security budget by fiscal year 2002. The Committee budget produces 
deficit reduction of $229 billion below current law in fiscal year 
2002; the OASDI trustees project a $112 billion Social Security surplus 
for fiscal year 2002. Getting two-thirds of the way there is a lot 
better than the status quo.
  If we just stay on the glide path established by this budget, we can 
go on to balance the non-Social Security budget by about fiscal year 
2005. That's exactly the timing and the glide path suggested by Senator 
Nunn and others back during debate on the balanced budget amendment.
  What does this budget resolution do? It reforms and rescues Medicare. 
Under this budget, Medicare increases an average of 7.1 percent a 
year--more than twice the rate of inflation. It defies common sense to 
call that a draconian cut.
  Under this budget, Medicare spending will be $105 billion more in 
fiscal year 2002 than in 1995. Where are the slash and burn cuts?
  Nothing here cuts services or drives up needy patients' costs. It 
calls for Medicare reform--that more choice and market competition and 
consumer information will slow down the runaway costs we see now. 
That's an appropriate goal to put in a budget resolution.
  A vote for this budget is a vote to rescue Medicare. Under the status 
quo, that system goes broke in fiscal year 2002. Who says so? The 
Medicare Board of Trustees that includes three of President Clinton's 
Cabinet Secretaries, the Commissioner of Social Security, and two 
public trustees.
  The trustees also said, in their April 3, 1995, report:

       The trust fund does not meet the trustees' short-range test 
     of financial adequacy * * * It fails to meet the trustees' 
     test of long-range close actuarial balance * * * by an 
     extremely wide margin * * * Congress must take timely action 
     to establish long-term financial stability for the program.

  Mr. President, I also rise in strong opposition to the Lautenberg-
Rockefeller amendment that would raid Medicare. The amendment would 
take $100 billion of the $170 billion economic dividend created by 
lower interest rates resulting from deficit reduction and add that back 
to Medicare spending.
  Make no mistake, this amendment is the proposal that would raid 
Medicare. All it does is spend down the Medicare trust fund faster than 
the committee's budget.
  This amendment is another example of status quo tunnel vision. The 
committee's budget assumes that we fix Medicare, reform it. That means 
seniors who need Medicare won't be hurt, they'll participate in an 
improved system.
  This amendment assumes there is no alternative to the current 
policies that are rapidly driving Medicare bankrupt. The House's 
majority whip, Representative DeLay, said it well the other day: It's 
like one side is talking about a cure for cancer and the other side 
can't think about anything but chemotherapy.
  We want Medicare to continue to be there and to start working better 
for seniors today and tomorrow. If we do what's best for Medicare and 
for our seniors, the numbers will come out the way the committee's 
budget says.
  We still need the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The 
budget resolution currently before us provides for a balanced budget in 
7 [[Page S7010]] years. That gives some Members of Congress and the 
special interest groups 6 years and three elections to try and knock us 
off track.
  Can we balance the budget without the balanced budget amendment? The 
first Republican Congress in 40 years is proving we can, but ``can'' is 
no guarantee. If future Congresses continue on the path set out in this 
resolution, the result still will be only one balanced budget in 33 
years.
  Hitting a target once in 33 years that we ought to hit in all but the 
most extreme circumstances, is not an endorsement of life without the 
balanced budget amendment.

                          ____________________
```