```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 81 (Tuesday, May 16, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6735-S6736]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                         THE BUDGET RESOLUTION

  Mr. DORGAN. In the next several days, we will have on the floor of 
the Senate a budget resolution. This has been much discussed and 
anticipated because we have had substantial debate here in the Senate 
and in the House of Representatives and in the country as a whole about 
the need to deal with this country's fiscal policy problems. No one, I 
think, will deny that our country is off track in fiscal policy. We 
spend more than we have. We routinely charge the balance to our 
children and grandchildren, and we must change priorities and fiscal 
policy to balance the Federal budget.
  The Federal budget that we deal with and the budget resolution coming 
from the Budget Committee is a critically important document. A hundred 
years from now, if historians then could look back 100 years and view 
us, they could evaluate our priorities by what we spent our money on. 
They can look at our Federal Government and look at a $1.5 trillion 
budget and determine what was important to us by how we spent our 
money. What did we hold dear? What did we treasure, value, and what 
kind of investments did we think were important? That is what they will 
be able to tell about us. That is what is in the budget resolution. It 
represents our priorities, values, and what we think is important for 
our country.
  A lot of people view this as just politics, just the same old thing, 
Republican versus Democrat. It is not that at all. It is much, much 
more important than that. It is the establishment of a set of 
principles by which we determine how we spend the public's money. I 
recall a story in the Washington Post, I believe, once where two people 
were quoted from Congress and one said--speaking of some other 
dispute--``This has degenerated into an argument about principle.'' I 
thought to myself, I hope so. That is what this is all about. That is 
what the budget resolution ought to be about.
  I was at the White House this morning with a group of my colleagues 
meeting with President Clinton. He made a point about the budget 
resolution that I happen to agree with, which is that his problem with 
the budget resolution that is going to come to the floor of the Senate 
is that the priorities in that budget resolution do not match the needs 
of the country.
  The budget resolution from the House of Representatives calls for a 
very large tax cut. The benefits of the tax cut will largely go to the 
wealthiest in America. If you take a look at who benefits from the tax 
break by the House of Representatives, the numbers show up like this: 
If you are a family earning under $30,000 a year, you get a tax break 
of $120. If you are a family over $200,000 a year in income, you get a 
tax break of around $11,000. It is pretty clear who benefits from that 
kind of policy.
  In order to pay for a very expensive tax break, the bulk of which 
goes to the most affluent Americans, what do you have to cut in 
spending to do it? Well, they cut Medicare. They make it more expensive 
for someone to go to college. They cut education. They make it more 
difficult for the elderly to get health care. They cut earned-income 
tax benefits for the working poor, which means higher taxes for the 
working poor.
  I happen to think those priorities do not match what our needs are. 
My own view is we ought not at this point have 
[[Page S6736]] a tax cut. I would like to see everybody pay far less 
taxes than they now pay. But the first obligation, I think, for our 
country, is to balance the Federal budget.
  I give credit to the budget resolution and those who framed it 
because it includes some recommendations that I support. There is a 
part of the budget recommendation that comes to the floor of the Senate 
that I think makes eminent good sense, and I support it. I say 
congratulations. I sent 800 billion dollars' worth of spending cut 
recommendations to the Budget Committee. I believe in this. We need to 
balance the Federal budget, and not with smoke and mirrors but with 
real spending cuts in real ways. And, yes, also in some areas with real 
revenue. But I believe in some areas you must balance the Federal 
budget.
  I do not believe, however, with the kind of deficits we have, the way 
to start balancing the Federal budget is to first start talking about 
tax cuts. I understand the Senate budget resolution does not 
specifically prescribe tax cuts, but I also understand it specifically 
sets aside $170 billion to be sent to the Finance Committee 
specifically for cuts. So this budget resolution, like the House 
resolution, will accomplish the same things. It will cut taxes. And it 
will pay for that tax cut by providing less for Medicare, by cutting 
the earned-income tax credit and therefore raising taxes on low-income 
working families, and by slashing spending for education, especially 
the education money available to help young people go to college.
  I think those priorities are wrong. There must be spending cuts in a 
whole range of areas. Will we have to limit the rate of growth in 
Medicare and Medicaid? Yes, I believe we will, in the context of 
reforming the whole health care system in some reasonable way, without 
limiting people's choice. But the fact is you cannot continue seeing 
skyrocketing health care costs across the country without some 
interruption. The Federal budget cannot stand that, the family budget 
cannot stand that, nor can a business budget stand that. So we must 
respond to that problem.
  But we ought not, under any condition, decide to take several 
hundreds of billions of dollars out of Medicare and Medicaid, both of 
them, and do that at least in part so we can give a very big tax cut to 
some of the wealthiest Americans. That makes no sense at all.
  I would say, on the issue of education, to the extent anything is 
important in our country, we must decide as a country to invest so our 
kids can go to school. Investing in education for our children is an 
investment in this country's future. It yields dividends of enormous 
importance to the future of this country.
  So, when we decide we are going to make a trade here and we are going 
to do classic trickle-down economics, and that means we do not have 
enough money to provide for financial help for somebody going to 
college, that is a trade that in my judgment injures our country's 
economy.
  Some people say this is new, that this is reform. This is not new. 
There is nothing new about this. This is 15 years old and it is 50 
years old. It is: run an election, win, write a contract, give tax 
breaks for the rich, and have the rest of us pay for it somehow, with 
less medical care and less help for their kids to go to school and 
higher taxes for the working poor. That is not new. That is Herbert 
Hoover.
  We have been through this before. Trickle-down economics--that is the 
notion where you pour the money in at the top somehow and, if you make 
the top generous enough or affluent enough, somehow it all trickles 
down and rains on everybody else in America.
  Another Member who served in this body many, many years ago described 
trickle-down economics. He said it is the concept that if you feed the 
horse some hay, sometime down the road the sparrows will have something 
to eat--trickle-down economics. That is not a notion that I think makes 
sense for the economy engine of this country. Our goal is not to make 
the comfortable more comfortable. It is to provide working people in 
this country with something to make a good living: jobs, opportunities, 
education. That is what drives the American economy. It is not trickle-
down economics, it is percolate-up economics.
  I think what we ought to do when we bring this budget resolution to 
the floor of the Senate, I would like to see on a bipartisan basis for 
all of us to do something very serious and very quickly. I would like 
to see us decide immediately. The first test is to decide to balance 
the budget using spending cuts. Do that. Debate about the priorities, 
what are the values here, what are the things we hold dear, what should 
we invest in, what about our children--go through that debate. Set the 
tax cuts aside and say, let us not do tax cuts. Let us just deep six 
all that stuff. And then let us do honest, real spending cuts and 
balance the Federal budget.
  Then, when we have done that, we have rolled up our sleeves and done 
the honest work, then we can turn to the other issues. But I think it 
is wrong to engage in a political exercise and balance the budget by 
beginning with a very large tax cut for the affluent, which means we 
must take more from Medicare for the elderly, more from programs to 
help those who want to go to school, more from the working poor by 
scaling back the earned-income tax credit, and so on. That, in my 
judgment, is not the right way for this country to proceed.
  I noted some columnists have said the Democrats in the Chamber do not 
seem to be as ambitious in dealing with the budget deficit as some 
others. I do not think we need to take great instruction from 
columnists about our interest in deficit reduction. Those of us who, in 
1993, voted on the floor of this Senate for $500 billion of deficit 
reduction, some of which was very unpopular, all of which was pretty 
controversial--those of us who were willing to do that without any help 
at all, not even one accidental vote from the other side of the aisle, 
do not need lectures about deficit reduction.
  I believe in deficit reduction. I am glad I voted for it in 1993. I 
will vote for much more deficit reduction offered by either side of the 
aisle. If it is responsible cutting of what represents excesses in the 
Federal budget, count me in and sign me up because I am willing to do 
it.
  Also, as I said, I sent $800 billion in deficit reduction 
recommendations to the Budget Committee, mostly spending cuts, some 
additional revenue increases, saying: Here is a jump start on how we 
ought to do this.
  Much of that is in the mark that will come to the floor by Senator 
Domenici. And I will support those portions of the budget. But I do 
believe the broader priorities, especially the priorities these days in 
something called the Contract With America, are priorities that I do 
not share. We must, it seems to me, understand how to provide decent 
health care for our elderly in this country and we must understand and 
make a commitment to provide health care for those in America who are 
disadvantaged and who are poor.
  That is not something we ought to debate much about. Yes, we can 
debate about how to control costs or how to bring down the rate of 
increase. But we ought not trade off the health care needs of the 
elderly or the health care needs of the American poor with tax cuts for 
the most affluent Americans. That is not a trade that makes sense for 
this country.
  I hope in the coming week, when we resolve this budget issue, that we 
will on a bipartisan basis decide, in a serious, sober, thoughtful, 
reflective way, to honestly cut Federal spending where we are spending 
too much; honestly put this country back on track toward a balanced 
budget, and do that first by spending cuts and not talk about, again, 
tax cuts for the most affluent Americans.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________
```