May 23, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7237 

budget, came because we will pay less 

in interest on the national debt as interest rates decline, came because the 

economy grew and more people were at 

work at better jobs as a result of what 

we do. 

It is ironic that the President’s chief 

economic adviser, Laura Tyson, is 

quoted as having said recently, 

Any effort to reduce Government spending 

takes a dollar out of the economy which 

means a dollar in reduction in demand in the 

economy so it increases the contractionary 

risks on the economy. 

Mr. President, I think that states all 

too well the views of this administration and of those who oppose this budget resolution. Their view is that the 

only real prosperity comes from dollars 

spent by the Federal Government. In 

fact, that statement by Ms. Tyson is so 

extraordinary that one would expect 

her to suggest to us that we perhaps 

spend another $100 billion during the 

course of this year borrowed from whoever would lend it to us because obviously that is the road to prosperity. If 

we cannot subtract $1 billion because it 

will have a contractionary effect, presumably we add $1 billion or $10 billion 

or $100 billion so we can spend our way 

into prosperity. But that is exactly 

what this administration has been 

doing, and it does not work. 

Not only will this budget benefit the 

economy, not only will it mean more 

dollars in the pockets of individuals as 

they look to purchase their homes or 

start or expand their businesses or look 

for new opportunities, it will also mean 

a discipline on the Government itself. 

Perhaps we will not end up having 163 

different and competing job training 

programs. Perhaps we will not have 

dozens or more of competing specific 

kinds of educational programs or subsidies for one business or group or another. Perhaps—and I am convinced 

this will be the case—we will use this 

budget to reform the Medicare health 

insurance fund so that it will actually 

be there in 7 years for the people who 

need that hospital insurance. Certainly 

this administration has ignored completely the voices of its own trustees of 

the Medicare hospital insurance fund 

who have told us and the administration that something must be done or 

that insurance fund will go bankrupt. 

But that is later; that is in the time of 

another President, another Congress; 

they can worry about it. 

That seems to be the status-quo view 

which we are fighting so diligently to 

change. 

So, Mr. President, it is well worth 

our while, well worth the while of 

those Senators who have chosen to be 

here this evening to take one last opportunity to speak to their colleagues 

and to the country about the radical 

change in direction that we propose, a 

direction of fiscal responsibility, a direction of exercising our responsibilities to future generations, a direction 

which can lead us to prosperity, a direction which can benefit every citizen 

in this country. That, on the one hand, 

and, on the other hand, a passionate 

defense of the status quo: Nothing is 

wrong with this Government; all of the 

programs it has ought to be continued; 

we cannot do anything; we should go 

on automatic pilot. 

That is a disappointing set of criticisms of our society today, Mr. President. It is not what last fall’s election 

was about. I hope that with the help of 

the majority of my colleagues that tomorrow a majority in this U.S. Senate 

will put this country on a different 

path, a path that it has not trod for 

many years, a path to a better America. 

Mr. ASHCROFT addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri. 

f 

WAGING WAR AGAINST THE 

HUMAN SPIRIT 

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, as we 

continue to debate the budget resolution setting the spending levels for the 

next 5 years, we do so with the knowledge that one of our greatest challenges is moving the Nation’s needy 

from governmental dependence to economic independence. 

One of our challenges is to ensure 

that hope and opportunity are defining 

characteristics for all Americans. This 

was the challenge 30 years ago when 

the great movement reshaping world 

politics was the end of colonialism. 

John Kennedy celebrated the ‘‘desire to 

be independent,’’ as the ‘‘single most 

important force in the world.’’ Eventually this movement revealed its power 

from Asia to Africa to South America. 

The problem with imperialism was 

not just its economic exploitation, it 

was its influence on culture. It undermined traditional ways and institutions, and it was inconsistent with 

human dignity. 

Why? Because imperialism rewarded 

passivity and encouraged dependence, 

required citizens to live by the rules of 

a distant elite. It demanded people be 

docile in the face of a system that they 

could not change. It was an attack, not 

just on national sovereignty, but on 

national character. 

What our Washington-based welfare 

system has done, particularly to 

women and children, has been to fashion a new form of colonialism. It created an underclass that is paid to play 

by the rules that lead to dependence, 

rather than act with independence and 

dignity. Our welfare system rewards 

behavior that keeps people powerless. 

It thwarts the efforts of private and religious charitable organizations to care 

for the needy. It discourages the genuine compassion of the American people. Our welfare system has waged a 

war against the human spirit. 

Our goal in welfare should not be to 

maintain an ‘‘underclass′′ in as comfortable as possible circumstances. Yet 

that is precisely what our welfare system has done. Cash benefits anesthetize their suffering. Food stamps relieve their hunger. Health care and 

housing are provided. But the hope, the 

dignity, and the integrity of independence are forgotten. 

Consider, just briefly, what our current welfare system has wrought. The 

numbers alone are enough to numb the 

senses. Since 1965, we have spent more 

than $5 trillion, a cost higher than that 

of waging the Second World War—

fighting poverty. Yet today, there are 

more people, a greater percentage of 

Americans, living in poverty than ever 

before. And our safety net has not 

acted well, the safety net has become 

more like quicksand. 

In 1965, when President Johnson 

launched the war on poverty, there 

were approximately 14.7 million children in poverty. They constituted 

about one in every five children in 

America. But in 1993, there was a 

greater percentage of children in poverty than there were in 1965 when the 

Great Society programs were launched. 

It is pretty clear that the Great Society experiment has not been so great 

for America’s children. 

Of all age groups in the nation today, 

children are the most likely to be poor. 

In 1991, a study of the poverty rates in 

eight industrialized nations revealed 

that American children were almost 

three times as likely to be poor as children from the other nations studied. 

The character of the poverty we face 

today is also a more deeply entrenched 

poverty in which generations of people 

are born, live, and die without the experience of holding a job, of owning a 

home, or of growing up with a father’s 

love and discipline. 

Go to our inner cities—or just a few 

blocks from this building—and you will 

meet a generation fed on welfare and 

food stamps, but starved for nurture 

and hope. You will meet young teens in 

their third pregnancy. You will meet 

children who are not only without a father, but do not know any children 

with a father. You will talk with sixth 

graders who do not know how many 

inches there are in a foot—having 

never seen a ruler—and with first graders who do not know their ABC’s because no one ever took the time to 

teach them. 

The political elites that have spent 

and taxed in recent decades have redistributed wealth beyond the dreams of 

Roosevelt and Johnson combined. But 

in the Government’s war on poverty, 

poverty is winning and the casualties 

are the poor, and the casualties are our 

children. The casualties also include 

the future, because we have piled budget after budget high with debt. Hope 

and opportunity are missing in action. 

Programs and policies that once were 

judged by the height of their spending 

must now be judged by the depth of 

their failure. This is no longer a source 

of serious debate, no longer a matter of 

partisan politics, but it is a matter of 

national concern—it is a concern that 

has been reflected in our news magazines, on the covers of U.S. News and 

Newsweek, and Time. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7238 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 23, 1995 

I have a belief that is confirmed by 

the record of our times, and it is this: 

That the greatest, most insistent 

human need is not the need for subsistence, nor handouts, nor dependence—it 

is the need for independence. Not the 

kind of independence that suggests one 

person can live without another. No, 

quite the opposite. 

The independence of which I speak is 

the independence born of economic 

self-sufficiency and opportunity. The 

independence to dream, to pursue and 

fulfill our deepest wishes and our personal potential. 

This is something, Mr. President, 

that social architects cannot build, 

they cannot plan. It is not structure, it 

is spirit. It is something that our welfare system has lacked for the last 30 

years as we have sought to merely 

spend our way into a new kind of opportunity. But we have spent our way 

past opportunity into peril. 

I believe it is time again to create a 

welfare system that helps, not hurts, 

those it seeks to serve. And such a system would be a major part in controlling the spending which has plagued 

this Nation and now threatens future 

generations. A system that helps rather than hurts. A system that serves is 

the standard by which welfare reform 

must be judged, not just the utopian 

ideal. 

Today, I introduced the Communities 

Involved in Caring Act. We call it 

CIVIC. We do not expect this Act—a 

package of 5 bills—to be the longawaited answer to all of our welfare 

problems by itself. But we do believe 

that it is a significant step toward restoring opportunities of dignity 

through independence and access to the 

world of upward mobility. 

The act is predicated on three fundamental beliefs: 

First, that States need the maximum 

flexibility possible to reform welfare 

systems. 

Second, that our intermediary organizations—especially private and religious charitable organizations—need to 

be utilized in welfare reform. 

Third, that intermediary organizations need not only money, but they 

need volunteers; they need the personal 

participation of individuals to flourish. 

The CIVIC Act which I introduced 

earlier today would block grant Washington’s four main welfare entitlement 

programs—AFDC, Food Stamps, Supplemental Security Income, and Medicaid—to the States. It starts by capping the spending on AFDC, Food 

Stamps, and SSI, and then Medicaid 

would be limited in growth to 105 percent each year—meaning of 105 percent 

of each previous year. Given the fact 

that Medicaid has been growing at well 

over 10 percent a year, this would be 

substantial restraint in the program’s 

growth, but not a cut in the program. 

The programs under the block grants 

would also be extricated from their existing bureaucracies—at HHS, Agriculture, etc.—and turned over to the 

Department of the Treasury to be distributed to the States. The unique feature of this proposal is that the money 

would go directly from the Department 

of the Treasury to the States, and it 

would not be a part of any bureaucracy 

in Washington, D.C. that would consume much of the money before it ever 

gets to the States. 

Mr. President, Treasury’s oversight 

role would be minimal because the 

only qualifications on the block grants 

would be: 

First, that States would be required 

to require welfare recipients to work. 

How best to do that. The nature of the 

work. The level of the participation. 

All of those issues should be and would 

be left to the States to determine; and 

Second, that States that decrease illegitimacy, using existing governmental statistics as a measure, will be 

able to use a portion of their block 

grant for elementary or secondary education or any other purpose they desire. 

The CIVIC Act also provides explicit 

authority for States to contract with 

nongovernmental organizations, including private and religious charitable organizations, and other institutions, in the effort to help solve the 

welfare problem. 

We have all heard the stories of small 

organizations that are hugely successful in helping America’s poor. Unfortunately, many of these programs have 

been constrained from receiving Federal funds because all too often those 

Federal funds would require radical 

changes in their beliefs, their structure, their facilities, their program, or 

their organization—changes that would 

rob these programs of the very characteristics and attitudes that make them 

successful. 

However, under the CIVIC Act, 

States would be able to utilize their 

Federal block grant funds by either 

contracting with these organizations 

directly or by giving welfare recipients 

certificates so that they could choose 

which programs to get involved in. 

The final element of the CIVIC Act 

allows individuals who volunteer at 

least 50 hours per year, or approximately 1 hour a week, to charitable institutions that serve the needy eligible 

for a $500 tax credit for monetary donations to such charitable organizations. 

Just as the welfare recipients should 

work for their benefits, so the citizens 

who want enhanced tax benefits for 

their contributions should also work 

and volunteer in the organizations 

they contribute to. 

Mr. President, it is all about opportunity; it is about working together. 

When he traveled through America 

more than 100 years ago, the great 

French observer, Alexis de Tocqueville, 

was struck by how caring Americans 

were for each other. 

The Americans . . . regard for themselves, 

constantly prompts them to assist one another and inclines them willingly to sacrifice 

a portion of their time and property for the 

welfare of others. 

What the Act I introduced today 

seeks is to undo 30 years of Washington 

discouraging that very basic American 

instinct to help one another. The ideas 

in the Act are not new. They are, in 

fact, old ideas in America. They have 

been tested and found successful. 

About 100 years ago, cities like New 

York were littered with alcoholics and 

addicts. Orphaned children roamed the 

streets. And if all of New York City’s 

liquor shops, houses of prostitution, 

gambling houses, and other low-life establishments had been placed on a single street, they would have extended 

from Manhattan’s City Hall to the City 

of White Plains more than 30 miles 

away. On that street, there would have 

been a robbery every 165 yards and a 

murder every half mile. And in Brooklyn, one out of every ten people got 

food from public storehouses. 

These pathologies met their match, 

Mr. President, in society’s intermediary, nongovernmental, voluntary, 

private institutions of charity and assistance. Their warm-hearted and hardheaded approaches—and you can have a 

warm heart and a hard head when it 

comes to making sure that we change 

such circumstances—helped save 

women and children and men. As the 

historian Marvin Olasky notes, ‘‘The 

solutions these reforms came up with 

forestalled an epidemic of illegitimacy 

and saved thousands of children from 

misery.’’

I believe that as we confront our own 

social pathologies today, we must do it 

the same way—with the ideas that 

have worked in the past and yet with 

new ideas for the 1990’s—even though 

they may have been the standard fare 

of the 1890’s. We must meet our challenges with a greater role for States 

and a greater role for intermediary institutions, nongovernmental organizations, private charities—both larger 

ones like the Salvation Army and 

Goodwill, and smaller ones like Best 

Friends and the Sunshine Mission. 

So while the CIVIC Act begins the 

process of moving welfare from Washington to the States, it also begins the 

vital task of reinvigorating our private, nongovernmental organizations 

which can help meet the deepest needs 

of our citizens, organizations that we 

know will help solve our welfare problems. 

The change that we want to see will 

not occur overnight. Neither will it 

come without hard work or thorough 

debate. The end of colonialism was not 

an easy process either. For independence means risk, the sacrifice of security. 

Well, security, coupled with dependency is a bad bargain. Economic mobility means work; it means hard work. 

But no nation and no people who have 

ever tasted the sweet fruits of freedom 

has ever called for a return to its colonial dependency. 

I believe that if we want to make 

sure that we are free and we remain 

free, we must reform the welfare system. It can be a part of a large reform 

in which we reform the financial integrity of America, for we cannot hold 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 23, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7239 

hostage future generations to the 

spending of the present. 

As we seek to pass the budget in the 

hours ahead in this Chamber, it will be 

a pleasure to do so in a way that not 

only puts us on a footing of sound financial integrity, but establishes us on 

a path toward economic independence 

and opportunity for individuals 

—through a reformed welfare system, 

characterized by block grants maximizing the States’ flexibility and innovation, and characterized by Government joining hands with nongovernmental agencies in order to bring to 

the battle the energies and talents of 

this great Nation’s private citizens. 

Thank you, Mr. President. 

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I 

want to thank the Senator from Missouri. He was a former Governor, so he 

is one of the experts that we are going 

to have in this body when we deal with 

the very, very tough issue of choices as 

we reform the welfare system. 

I think it is really appropriate that 

he has taken a leadership role in this. 

Once again, what we are showing tonight is the tough decisions that must 

be made to balance the budget, which 

the people of America asked us to do. 

So I appreciate the Senator waiting for 

so long and giving that great talk 

about the bill he introduced today and 

the choices that we are going to face 

today and tomorrow. 

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I 

thank the Senator from Texas for her 

kind words. 

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I 

would like to yield to the Senator from 

Wyoming. 

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am 

glad to join my colleagues this evening 

in continuing this discussion. By noon 

tomorrow, we will have had 50 hours of 

talking about the budget. I guess after 

50 hours, your eyes kind of glaze over. 

But the fact is that there is nothing 

more important that we will talk 

about during this Congress. It becomes 

difficult to find something new to say 

about the issue after 50 hours. But 

maybe that is not important. Maybe 

the important thing is to stress those 

things that are necessary, those things 

that are important, those choices that 

we do have. 

It has been 10 days since the Republicans presented a balanced budget 

plan, which America has been waiting 

for. In that time, the deficit has increased another $4.9 billion. It added 

$19 for every American. 

The Republicans are working to end 

Government’s relentless borrowing. 

The Republican plan would balance the 

budget by the year 2002 by slowing the 

growth in the Federal spending from 5 

percent to 3 percent. 

It protects Social Security, saves 

Medicare from bankruptcy, maintains 

a Social Security safety net, reduces 

the size of the Federal Government, 

and moves power out of Washington 

and back closer to the people. 

Republicans want to transform Government to make it more efficient and 

more responsive and less expensive. 

Democrats, meanwhile, are standing up 

for the status quo. They have offered 

no plan to balance the budget. 

Mr. President, this debate has been 

characterized by almost everyone who 

has risen, has stood up and said, ‘‘I 

want to balance the budget but we cannot cut’’—blank—and fill in the blank. 

Medicare, earned-income tax credit, defense, education, whatever. 

So we always say we want to balance 

the budget—but for a million reasons 

we cannot do it. I am confident that we 

shall for the first time in 25 years balance the budget—tomorrow. Starting 

on the path to balance the budget. 

It is awfully hard. These are large 

figures, talking about $5 trillion. Who 

knows what $5 trillion is. I read something the other day that sort of personalizes this. I thought it was interesting. 

Someone asked, how do we identify 

the Federal budget with something 

that is closer to a personal budget? 

This is what the answer was, and I 

thought it was interesting: Suppose 

you have an income of $125,000 coming 

not from work but from contributions 

of all your friends and relatives who 

work. You are not satisfied with what 

$125,000 can buy this year, so you prepare for yourself a budget of $146,000 

and charge the $20,300 difference to 

your credit card on which you already 

carry an unpaid balance of $452,248, 

boosting that to $472,548 on which you 

pay interest daily. Multiply that by 10 

million and that is what our Government did in fiscal year 1994. 

This is clearly the most important 

element of debate for this year. Not 

just because of the dollars, as important as they may be, but because we 

have an opportunity to examine and to 

change and to look at the role of Government, look at those things that 

should logically and legitimately be 

done by the Federal Government, do 

something about those that should be 

done in private sector. To take a look 

at the size of Government. Clearly, voters said last year, Government is too 

large and costs too much. 

So we have a chance to do that. We 

have a chance to make major changes, 

the first really major changes in 25 

years. To do that, and I believe very 

strongly and we have done some of 

this, we have to make some procedural 

changes. We cannot simply continue to 

do what we have been doing and expect 

to get different results. We have to do 

things like line-item veto, which we 

worked on. Have to do something about 

unfunded mandates. I think we should 

do something about term limits. I 

think we should have had a balanced 

budget amendment to the Constitution 

and we will go back to do that. 

We did not accomplish that. We 

failed by one vote in this Chamber. 

Now we have the opportunity to do 

what many opponents of the balanced 

budget amendment said, and that is we 

do not need an amendment, we just 

belly up to the bar and do it. That is 

what we have an opportunity to do. 

The record is not good. Sure, we can 

do it and we will do it. We have not 

done it for 25 years. We will raise the 

debt limit to $5 trillion this summer. 

The administration budget has $250 billion in deficits out as far as we can see. 

The size of Government is growing. So 

for the first time we have an opportunity to do something different. 

Clearly, there are different philosophies about Government. There are different philosophies about what the size 

should be. That is fine. That is the way 

it should be. That is what elections are 

for, so people can make a decision between two choices. 

There are those in this body and 

other bodies and in this country who 

say the Government should be larger, 

the Government should do more. In 

fact, the Government does a better job 

of spending dollars than families do 

and businesses do. That is, I suppose, a 

legitimate view. It is not my view. 

So we do have differences and there 

are differences. The Republicans would 

like to have a smaller Government 

that costs less, that is more lean, and 

efficient. 

Democrats, on the other hand, have 

moved toward more Government and 

more spending. Republicans want to 

transform Government, something that 

is more efficient, to deliver services 

more efficiently. Welfare is an excellent example. Nobody wants to eliminate welfare. We want to be able to 

help people who need help, but to help 

them back into the work sector. We 

want a Government that is more responsive, that is more customer oriented. One that is less expensive. 

The administration, on the other 

hand, and our friends on the other side 

of the aisle, support the status quo. 

There is no plan to balance the budget. 

The President, as was suggested yesterday, is AWOL, absent without leadership, on finding a way to balance the 

budget. No options on how to save 

Medicare despite the fact that the 

trustees have said in no uncertainty 

that if we do not do something, in 2 

years we will be dealing with the reserves, and 7 years Medicare will be 

broke. No welfare reform proposal. 

We have an opportunity to do something. The administration’s track 

record, of course, over the past several 

years has been to raise taxes and expand the Federal Government. The 1993 

budget, the largest tax increase in history, nearly $260 billion. We hear it was 

just on the highest percent—not so. 

Gas tax—my State has probably the 

largest per capita gas tax increase of 

all because of the miles we travel. 

Mr. President, we do have a chance 

to do something. If spending remains 

at the same level for the Government 

programs in order to balance the budget by the year 2002, we would have to 

raise taxes by $935 billion, $7,400 for 

every American taxpayer. That is the 

choice. We either level off growing or 

we raise taxes. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7240 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 23, 1995 

We have a vision of keeping our 

promises to make Government smaller, 

to reject the status quo, balance the 

budget by the year 2002, protect Social 

Security, save and improve Medicare, 

and return power to the communities 

and to our families and the States. 

Mr. President, I am pleased we are 

moving in this direction. I feel confident there will be a positive vote tomorrow, to make these kinds of 

changes. I thank my colleagues for 

continuing to point out the choices 

that we have before the Senate. I urge 

my colleagues to support this budget 

plan. I yield the floor. 

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I 

would thank the freshman from Wyoming, the freshman Senator, for adding 

to this debate. He has really been there 

through all these days, talking about 

the important issues that we are facing 

and the tough decisions that we are 

going to have to make. I appreciate the 

fact that he has just hit the ground 

running in the U.S. Senate, and I am 

pleased he stayed tonight along with 

his wife, to make the remarks that he 

did. We appreciate it very much. 

Now I would be happy to yield to the 

Senator from Iowa for 10 minutes. 

f 

THE PRESIDENTS ‘‘SECRET’’

BUDGET PLAN 

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I 

thank the kind Senator from Texas for 

yielding. 

I want to commend the Senator for 

her leadership in shepherding the services tonight, of making sure that the 

other point of view, the responsible financial point of view, is expressed here 

tonight, when elsewhere in this town 

we know there is a very antipeople probig Government point of view being expressed at a fundraising party for the 

Democratic Party. 

There was a story this morning on 

the front page of the Washington Post. 

I think it has a lot of Members on this 

side of the aisle, and probably people 

across the country, just simply 

scratching their heads. The report says 

that President Clinton now has a secret budget counter-proposal. Do you 

know what? It will balance the budget 

within 10 years. 

Mr. President, if this is true—and I 

suppose I ought to hope it is true because I have been praying for a balanced budget from this White House for 

a long time—it is truly an amazing 

story. First of all, it undercuts all the 

wailing we have been hearing from the 

White House about the effect on the 

economy and the public of setting an 

arbitrary date for a balanced budget. 

That is making fun of us Republicans 

for trying to balance the budget by the 

year 2002. 

It seems that all we have heard for 

the last month out of the White House 

is, ‘‘What is magic about a certain date 

to balance the budget?’’ If you balance 

the budget you would ruin the economy. If you balance the budget you 

would do this to that group, or that to 

another group. Now, all of a sudden in 

the Washington Post, the President 

says that he wants to balance the budget—albeit in 10 years. 

I think even members of the President’s own party and members of the 

President’s party in both chambers of 

the Congress had earlier disagreed 

openly with the White House on this 

point. There was disagreement on what 

to do. Do you know what? The Members of the Democratic Party up here 

on the hill, they look to the President 

for leadership. 

The message they got was to stay the 

course. The President said just keep to 

it, stay the course. That is, offer nothing in rebuttal to the Republican attempt to balance the budget. No vision 

from the White House; no alternative 

from the White House. 

And, do you know what? The Members up here on the Hill were very obedient, listening to their President. So 

they refrained from offering their own 

balanced budget alternative, or any 

other comprehensive alternative to the 

Republican efforts to balance the budget. 

So, the members of the Democratic 

Party stood idly by during this budget 

debate and risked their credibility because they wanted to follow their leader, our President of the United States. 

Now, with this new development that 

the President is for a balanced budget, 

albeit in 10 years, they, the members of 

the Democratic Party in the Congress 

of the United States in both Houses of 

the Congress, also are undercut by 

their President just like members of 

the White House staff have been. Just 

like he undercut the recent arguments 

of everybody on his staff that was trying to defend his position of just stay 

the course. Do not offer an alternative. 

Second, this also says that the Republican vision of a balanced budget is 

right after all, and it is filling a very 

enormous political void. The American 

people know where we stand and they 

do not know where the other side 

stands. The American people know 

what the Republican Party stands for. 

They do not know what the Democratic Party stands for. They do not 

know because for several months, until 

this very day, they were told a balanced budget did not matter. They 

were told that we should not have an 

alternative, as Democrats, to what the 

Republicans were trying to do. 

Also, there is a third aspect to this. 

Because, in filling that void and because the President is now coming 

around to accepting the premise of the 

Republican vision for the future, this 

new development is a powerful demonstration of the President’s lack of 

leadership. Because, you know what? 

The lack of leadership demonstrates 

followership. It leaves a perception of a 

desperate move to be included. The 

President of the United States wants 

to be relevant, finally, in the debate for 

a balanced budget. 

It shows that our Republican call for 

the other side to put up or be silent has 

had an effect. It shows that we have 

opened up a big weakness in the other 

side’s flank, namely its very own credibility. Because you cannot talk the 

talk until you walk the walk. Everyone 

knows that. Everyone outside of Washington. 

Now, obviously the President knows 

it as well. The time to show relevance 

and to show leadership on the part of 

the President was last February. That 

is when the President proposed. The 

Congress is now disposing. The process 

has passed the President by. The ship 

of state has left the dock. 

It is as if the President is trying to 

rush ahead to the next port to catch up 

with the ship. The problem is the ship 

is not scheduled to stop there. And it 

will not. 

Mrs. HUTCHISON assumed the Chair. 

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I 

think it is clear that the leadership, 

the vision, and the direction for this 

ship of state are coming from this side, 

the Republican side of the aisle. It all 

happens to be reflected in the budget 

debate of the last 4 days, the amendments offered by the other side, the absence of a comprehensive balanced 

budget alternative from the other side. 

And I think it will be demonstrated by 

the overwhelming vote for a balanced 

budget tomorrow. 

Now, the President of the United 

States, on the other hand, missed the 

boat. His party is still standing on the 

dock. He stranded them there. He 

asked them to wait there until he 

could catch up with the ship out at sea, 

but it is too late. We Republicans have 

a vision and we have a plan to steer 

this country to the safe waters. 

I ask, where is theirs? Where is their 

comprehensive alternative plan to balance the budget? Where is their coherent vision? Where is theirs? 

It is lacking. I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania. 

f 

THE PRESIDENT’S BUDGET 

Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I 

want to pick up where the Senator 

from Iowa left off. I think he made 

some very good points with respect to 

where the President’s budget is. I noted 

also the same Washington Post article 

today. It suggests ‘‘President to 

Counter Hill Budgets. Plan Would End 

Deficits in 10 Years.’’

This was not released by the White 

House. This was released from a private interview up in New Hampshire 

that was leaked out somewhere, that 

the President is coming up with this 

secret plan to balance the budget in 10 

years. 

It struck me. It tickled my memory, 

that I heard this about this 10-year 

plan before. It was from my first year 

in the Congress. I remember, as a member of the Budget Committee, I was a 

freshman member of the Budget Committee and then chairman of the Budget Committee, Leon Panetta, now over 

at the White House, came up with a 10- 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS