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

May 23, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7241 

year balanced budget. They worked on 

it most of the fist year that I was there 

and I think released it in about October of the year. It was after the debate. 

This was for the next fiscal year. 

It was interesting. I do not know 

whether the budget the President is 

considering is going to look like the 

budget the Congressman—then Chairman of the Budget Committee—Panetta offered. But at the time, to get to 

a balanced budget—this was in October 

of 1991, I refer to the Congressional 

Quarterly article—at the time Chairman Panetta said that it would take 

$1.3 billion in cuts or tax increases to 

get to a balanced budget in 10 years. 

What we are doing here in the Senate 

today with Senator DOMENICI’s budget, 

the Republican budget, is roughly a 

trillion dollars, not quite a trillion dollars in spending reductions to get to a 

balanced budget. Then we have obviously interest savings which get us the 

rest. 

I had the Budget Committee staff run 

the numbers. If the President is proposing to get to a balanced budget over 

10 years, not 7 years, he will not be able 

to do so by cutting the trillion dollars 

over 10 years. That is the fallacy. You 

cannot just cut $1 trillion over 10 

years, and balance the budget because 

you have to get on sort of a longer 

curve. Your spending cuts do not occur 

early enough. You build up more debt. 

It is a lot more costly to balance it 

over a longer period of time. The Budget Committee told us that it would require $1.6 trillion in spending cuts or 

tax increases to balance the budget in 

10 years, $1.6 trillion. 

The $1.3 trillion in the Panetta proposal of 1991 included deeper cuts in defense, entitlement spending reductions—I remind people entitlements 

are things like Medicare, Medicaid, 

welfare spending, things that are now 

being lambasted by the other side of 

the aisle—a broad cut back in the size 

and cost of government, and $250 billion to $400 billion in new taxes; $400 

billion in new taxes. 

Is this a harbinger of things to come? 

Have we fished out of the files from the 

old Budget Committee in 1991 the 10- 

year budget proposal for the Clinton 

administration to balance the budget 

with a third of the money coming from 

new taxes? But this is just all speculation because we have not seen the 

President’s budget. 

So I have the unpleasant task of returning to the floor to add to the list of 

numbers on my chart of days with no 

proposal to balance the budget from 

President Clinton. Since I had objections from the other side of the aisle 

about using staff to actually put my 

numbers up, I will do the chore myself, 

and put ‘‘day 6,’’ potentially a significant date. 

We might have learned about the secret budget, the existence of this document. We may have learned just from 

some of the detective work I have done 

that there may be a plan out there that 

existed a few years ago that may be 

resurrected because under the democratic rule in the House of Representatives this balanced budget that the 

Budget Committee chairman put together never saw the light of day, 

never was voted on, never was debated 

in committee, never moved past the 

draft stage. 

Maybe we will get it past the draft 

stage this time. Maybe the former 

chairman of the Budget Committee 

will be able to resurrect this handiwork that he did some 4 years ago and 

bring it on the scene as the new budget 

for the President. 

I will tell you that it would be a long 

time coming, not just the 6 days, but to 

provide some leadership out of the 

White House on this very important 

issue to this country. 

I remember during the Republican 

administrations the then-chairman of 

the Budget Committee, Chairman Leon 

Panetta, coming to the floor time after 

time after time making statements 

about how it was the responsibility of 

the President to be relevant to the situation, to not put up these budgets 

that were dead, that had no chance, but 

to be bold and to move forward. 

I quote from March 13, 1986. This is 

Leon Panetta speaking: 

We begin a game of ‘‘budget chicken’’ in 

which we wait for the other side to make the 

tough choices that have to be made to try to 

get our budget in line. It is a lousy way to do 

business; we all understand that. It is what 

gave birth to the Gramm-Rudman approach, 

and it is what creates the frustration that we 

now deal with here. 

The hope is that the President would exercise leadership in presenting a budget to the 

Congress that is realistic and that is serious. 

But instead of pulling together, he pulls 

apart. Instead of providing leadership, he 

plays games. The danger is that we too fall 

into the same trap. This budget is wrong; we 

know it is wrong, and it will fail for several 

reasons. 

Just as the President’s budget came 

to the floor of the Senate. It was 

wrong, and it failed completely, and 

did not get one vote. 

I say that the former Congressman 

from California, Leon Panetta, made a 

good point about that back on May 1, 

1990, talking about a Bush budget. He 

said: 

The fact is that the test of a budget is not 

what it says it does nor even its author. It is 

whether or not you get a majority of votes 

on the floor of the House and in the Congress. That is the ultimate test of the success or failure of any budget. 

The fact is that the test of a budget 

is not what it says or does or even its 

author. It is whether or not you get a 

majority of votes on the floor of the 

House and in the Congress. That is the 

ultimate test of the success or failure 

of any budget. 

That speaks volumes about the President’s budget that he sent up here; 

speaks volumes about how serious the 

President was when he presented his 

budget to the U.S. Congress and in the 

U.S. Senate of which there are 54 Republicans and 46 Democrats. He got no 

votes. 

Then chairman Panetta went on to 

say: 

According to that test, the President’s 

budget is a failure. The failure to offer the 

budget by the President also makes clear 

how tough it is to develop a budget that balances the priorities, that recognizes that we 

have to provide new directions for this country and that tries to achieve a majority vote 

on the floor of the House. 

How things can come back to haunt 

you. We had a chairman of the Budget 

Committee who was pleading for the 

President of the United States to provide leadership, to stand firm, and 

move our country forward in a bold, 

new way. Now that person sits as the 

right hand man of the White House, 

and from all the press reports is advising the President to do just the opposite. I guess it all depends on where 

you sit. 

I must read one more thing that 

Leon Panetta said during his time in 

Congress because my staff gave it to 

me. I actually thought it was something that I had just said the other day 

because I was talking about the fact 

that my father is an immigrant to this 

country and how important it was for 

us to leave the next generation better 

off than the generation that we now 

live in. 

Back on May 4, 1989, CONGRESSIONAL

RECORD, Leon Panetta said: 

We have presented over the last 8 years a 

pleasant message that somehow everyone 

can have a free lunch in this country. That 

is not the case. That is not the message that 

my parents heard when they came to this 

country as immigrants with little education, 

little money, but a great deal of hope. They 

came for the opportunity that this country 

offered and the willingness to make a sacrifice for their children so their children 

could enjoy a better life. We now face a situation where our children may not enjoy a 

better standard of living than we had. That, 

I think, is the worst testament in terms of 

the future that we face in this Nation. 

He is right. That is the biggest question that faces us. What are we going 

do leave to the next generation? He 

was right in 1989. He was right in 1986. 

He was right in 1990, and hopefully he 

will convince the President to be right 

in 1995 to join the debate, to lead, to be 

relevant, to show this country, to show 

this Congress what direction he believes we should take to balance this 

budget. 

I hope this is the last day; I hope that 

day 6 was lucky, that this little inkling 

that we got about this secret budget 

might come out somewhere, that there 

is a plan, and that we will be able to 

know this plan. I do not want to be up 

here for the next 129 days between now 

and the end of the fiscal year talking 

about why the President has not come 

to the party and express his vision for 

the future of this country. 

I am confident tomorrow we will pass 

the balanced budget resolution. I hope 

it is bipartisan because I know there 

are many on the other side of the aisle 

who also would like to see this budget 

brought to balance. 

I wish to commend the Senator from 

New Mexico for his fine work on this 

budget. I wish to commend the Presiding Officer for the tremendous job 

she 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7242 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 23, 1995 

has done every day of this debate in 

rallying the forces to come here to the 

floor to talk about the positive aspects 

and how meaningful it is to get to a 

balanced budget for this country and 

not just the next generation. A lot of 

the talk is just for the next generation. 

When we talk about Medicare, it is not 

the next generation. It is this generation of Medicare recipients. When we 

talk about economic growth, it is this 

generation that is going to benefit 

from lower interest rates and higher 

growth rates. 

This balanced budget is for everyone. 

As the Senator from New Mexico said 

in answering the question Senator 

LAUTENBERG posed: Whose side are you 

on? We are on America’s side. We are 

on the side of all Americans. That is 

the beauty of a balanced budget. It is 

good for everyone. It is not about class 

warfare. It is not about picking winners and losers. It is about giving everyone opportunity. 

I yield the floor. 

Mr. FRIST addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized. 

(Mr. SANTORUM assumed the chair) 

f 

INCREASING AMERICAN 

PRODUCTIVITY 

Mr. FRIST. I rise to commend my 

distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, the Presiding Officer, and especially the chairman of the Budget 

Committee, Senator DOMENICI, for the 

outstanding work that has been shown 

over the last several days as we have 

presented a budget that will be balanced by the year 2002. 

I would like to turn to answer a simple question, and that is who will benefit from the balanced budget plan proposed by the Republican majority this 

week. The answer? The American family. 

The debate over the past week has 

been fascinating. We have heard a lot 

of rhetoric, especially from the other 

side of the aisle, about how cutting 

spending will hurt our children, affect 

our seniors, and hurt the middle class. 

My colleagues on the other side of the 

aisle would have us believe that the entire Government is going to shut down 

and that disaster is imminent with our 

budget. 

But what they will not tell you is 

that the Republican budget will have 

tangible positive benefits for whom? 

The American family. Benefits that the 

American family will see in their 

checkbook, in their family budgets, 

and in their overall standard of living. 

According to economists, one of the 

most significant benefits of a balanced 

budget is increased productivity. What 

does that mean? Let us talk a little bit 

about what productivity means to that 

individual family, that typical family 

in America. Increased productivity, a 

product of this balanced budget, means 

that Americans will produce more in 

the same amount of hours. There will 

be more produced for a given amount of 

work. And why do we have increased 

productivity from balancing the budget? Why does increased productivity result from spending no more than we 

take in each year? 

Because, very simply, the Government, we, will borrow less, and that 

leaves more for investment by the private sector, by individuals, by individual businesses, and greater investment by those businesses and individuals results in better technology and 

better working conditions. It is this investment that allows our workers to 

produce more in the same amount of 

time. And so what does this concept of 

increased productivity which clearly 

stems from a balanced budget mean to 

the individual family, to you, to me, to 

our children, to our grandchildren? 

From this first chart, the first thing 

that increased productivity means is 

greater income for the American family. If we accomplish more while we are 

at work, increased productivity, we 

will make more money to buy homes, 

to send our children to school, to buy 

clothes for our children, to provide for 

our own retirement. 

According to the Commerce Department, median family income fell last 

year under President Clinton’s watch 

by 1.9 percent. In contrast, over the 

next 10 years, by balancing the budget, 

the General Accounting Office says 

that earnings would be increased by approximately an extra 2.9 percent. That 

would mean an extra $1,200 per year for 

each American family by passing tomorrow this balanced budget proposal. 

Under a status quo budget right now, 

income of the average family in 2025 

without a balanced budget, for example, under the President’s proposal 

would be $35,900. Under the Republican 

proposal, that same income of the average family in 2025 but with a balanced 

budget would be $48,200, a difference of 

over $12,000 by having a balanced budget. 

Yes, increased incomes for the American family mean greater economic security for us, for this current generation, and for that next generation. 

With $12,000 more a year, our families 

will be able to save more for their own 

retirement rather than having to rely 

on the Government today, as so many 

people do today. They will be able to 

pay for their own health care, and they 

will be able to pay for education for 

their children. The investment of this 

kind of extra money for the American 

family can only mean great things for 

our economy and for our people. 

Let me turn to the second chart. Are 

there other benefits of increased productivity which will result from the 

balanced budget? Mr. President, if we 

are accomplishing more during work 

hours, we will actually have to work 

less to accomplish the same amount. 

This means more time at home, more 

time with our families, more time with 

our children, our grandchildren to play 

baseball, to go to a guitar recital, to 

read a book. 

Indeed, a typical family workday is 

81⁄2 hours. Increased productivity 

means that workers can provide the 

same level of output in fewer hours 

leaving more time for family, more 

time for leisure. In traveling the State 

of Tennessee, I know that Americans 

feel they are working hard to get 

ahead, and today they are not making 

progress. The median income is declining today. It is tough on families. It is 

tough on moms and dads who struggle 

to keep the house clean, food on the 

table, and the family running, and it is 

tough for those individuals. As we balance this budget and make this proposal, they worry: Will times be better? 

The message that we must get out is 

yes, with a balanced budget, there is 

increased productivity, increased time 

to be with one’s family. 

The Republican budget, when you 

break it down, will actually ease that 

burden through increasing the efficiencies of our businesses and our 

workers. 

Let me turn to the third chart, Mr. 

President. Probably the most tangible 

benefit that we will see from balancing 

our budget is lower interest rates. The 

Congressional Budget Office has told us 

that interest rates will be lower by almost 2 percent if we balance the budget. Other economists, such as the independent forecasting group from DRI 

McGraw-Hill, predict lower interest 

rates of up to 2.5 percent, lower than 

they would be with a budget which is 

not balanced. That translates very directly into lower costs for typical purchases by the American family. 

The examples are depicted. It means 

when lower interest rates take effect, 

that on the $75,000 30-year mortgage to 

this family, there will be a savings of 

$1,246 if we have a balanced budget. 

Or that same family will save $1,000 

over the life of a loan on a $15,000 car 

if we pass this balanced budget proposal. 

And that same family will save $36 

per year on an average balance of $1,800 

on a credit card if we pass this balanced budget proposal. 

And that same family can save $1,128 

over the life of a loan on a small business or on farm equipment or on this 

typical tractor. 

Mr. President, these are the kinds of 

savings that are very real that will affect every household in this country if 

we are successful in passing the balanced budget plan tomorrow. There is 

absolutely no question that the Republican budget, yes, will be tough. It will 

be tough, and everybody is going to 

have to sacrifice for it to take effect. 

But there is no question that this Republican budget does provide real, tangible benefits for all Americans and all 

American families. 

Increased incomes, less work time, 

lower interest rates—all will contribute to a much higher quality of life 

for the American family. 

I urge all of my colleagues on both 

sides of the aisle to consider these positive beneficial effects to the family as 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS