Dale Bumpers

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this is an amendment which keeps the deficit from soaring next year. This year's deficit is going to be $67 billion. This budget takes the deficit next year to $97 billion. In the year 2000 it is $97 billion. It starts coming down the last 2 years only because of the economic assumptions. You are assuming in this budget that the economy is going to stay as hot the next 5 years as it has been the last 5 years. And if that proves to be a false assumption you are going to see the deficit start soaring. I say strike while the iron is hot. In 1981 we bought into this same proposition, and in 8 years had a $3 trillion debt to show for it. Here we are back at the same old stand--cutting taxes and balancing the budget. That is the good old five-chocolate-sundae-a-day diet. It didn't work in 1981. It isn't going to work now. So I am saying balance the budget in the year 2001, not 2002. Postpone the tax cuts until 2002 and honor the American people who say they want a balanced budget a lot worse than they want a tax cut.

Mr. BUMPERS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. How much time is left on the bill?

Mr. BUMPERS. I have an additional amendment at the desk, I think 332, and I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to withdraw that amendment.

Mr. BUMPERS. My first amendment simply says that the Finance Committee must come up with offsets of $115 billion to offset that amount which is the cut in Medicare. I think it would be unseemly and extreme if we have to go home and tell our people that we cut Medicare by $115 billion to make the system more solvent and at the same time tell them the only way we could cut taxes under this budget agreement was to cut Medicare by $115 billion. So, Mr. President, I earnestly ask my colleagues to seriously consider voting to simply say to the Finance Committee, do not force us to go home and tell our constituents that we cut Medicaid by $115 billion and we used every dime of it--every dime of it--to offset all these tax cuts, many of which go to the wealthiest people in America. It is indefensible. It is inexcusable. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator can inform the Senator how much time is left on the bill?

Mr. BUMPERS. I am finished on this one.

Mr. BUMPERS. I am hoping we can get back home and tell people how great it is.

Mr. BUMPERS. I am prepared to yield. I wish Senator Specter was here so we could get something going.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, my second amendment is one I feel strongly about--both of these--but I want you to listen to this. It would delay the tax cuts that are provided in this budget resolution. We are going to face all of this later on in the reconciliation bill. I know that. But what we ought to do is delay the tax cuts until the year 2002. All I do in this amendment is I strike the first $63.3 billion of tax cuts over the years 1998 to 2001. You know what that does, Mr. President? It does not balance the budget in the year 2002. It balances the budget in the year 2001. Now, why would we not, after reading the paper this morning and seeing that the Treasury Department reaped a gold mine in April--the surplus in April of income versus expenditures was $97 billion. CBO has now said that the deficit could be as low as $65 billion come September 30. That is a remarkable achievement. On this floor in August 1993, we passed a bill called the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. I regret, Mr. President, not one single Republican voted for it. You know what the effect of that was? I told the President as far as I am concerned that is going to be his legacy. All these other things he is trying to accomplish, they are all laudable. I have no quarrel with them. But 5 solid straight years of real budget deficit reduction is going to be his legacy. But I will tell you how that legacy can be destroyed. That is to proceed with a budget that we have right here which cuts taxes by $135 billion for the wealthiest people in America, and revenues go down every single year--every single year. If we were to postpone these tax cuts until the year 2002, we could balance the budget in the year 2001. Let me tell you something else. If we do not strike while the iron is hot, we are going to regret it. I promise you, the assumptions in this bill that our economy is going to be as hot as these assumptions say it will be over the next 5 years is a very dicey situation. We have already had an unbelievable prosperity for the past 6 years. Nothing looks like it since Eisenhower was President. To assume it is going to continue another 5 years is the height of folly. You cannot depend on this budget to balance anything unless you agree with those economic assumptions, and I do not. I have spent 22 years in the Senate standing in this aisle, screaming my head off about budget deficits. In 1981, when Ronald Reagan was riding the crest the likes of which has never been seen since Franklin Roosevelt, the herd instinct swept through this body and all my screaming was for naught. It did not do a bit of good. I said--and I will send anybody a copy of the speech that would like to see it--you pass this budget and you are going to create deficits big enough to choke a mule. You cannot cut taxes, increase defense spending and balance the budget any more than you can lose weight on five chocolate sundaes a day. That is the five-chocolate-sundaes-a-day diet. And that is exactly what we are coming back to. What does it take to educate this body? If you do not learn from past experiences, what are you going to learn from? When Ronald Reagan left office 8 years later, the national debt--which at that time was $1 trillion and took 200 years to get to $1 trillion--when he left, all his 8 years later, it was $3 trillion. He had tripled the national debt because of the folly, the political folly, the political herd instinct that swept across this body in 1981. I am proud to tell you, Mr. President--a little self-serving--I did not vote for it. There are only 11 Senators who voted against the tax cuts. There were only three Senators who voted against the tax cuts and for the spending cuts. We could have balanced the budget by 1985 easily if everybody had voted the way those three Senators voted. So here we are, back at the same old stand: It did not work before, but it'll sure work this time. We will cut taxes, are going to cut taxes, going to increase spending, and bring you a balanced budget. While the deficit goes from $67 billion anticipated this fall, the fifth straight year, from $290 billion in 1992--$290 billion--to $67 billion this year, 5 straight years of deficit reduction, what does this budget do? Why, it takes it back up to $97 billion next year and $97 billion the following year and $83 billion the following year and $50 billion the following year. Then the following year a $1 billion surplus. I have some great land in the Everglades I would like to sell you if you believe that is going to happen. Mr. President, all we have to do is vote very simply to postpone the tax cuts. I am not saying do not ever cut taxes. But you are either for cutting taxes or for balancing the budget, but you cannot be for both and be economically sound in the process. So I am asking my colleagues to say, postpone the tax cuts until the year 2001 and balance the budget at the soonest possible date. Then you can argue all the other economic nonsense. But our first priority is to balance the budget. You are not going to do it with this budget. If you assume that the economy is going to stay like it is right now for the next 5 years--I do not know whether I will be here or not. I would just like to be around at the end of 5 years so I can say, I told you so. I yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. BUMPERS. So anyway, Mr. President, the budget resolution calls for a $115 billion cut in Medicare, ostensibly to provide some solvency in the Medicare trust fund. The Finance Committee, in my opinion--in my opinion, we should not go forward with this budget and allow the people in this country who depend on Medicare for their very lives, we should not allow them to believe, as they have a perfect right to believe, that we are cutting $115 billion out of Medicare and, make no mistake about it, they will suffer. We say we are going to take it out of providers', hospitals', and doctors' hides. They are going to take it out of the patients' hides and the patients are going to get fewer services. So I do not want to go home and face my constituents and have them say, ``You cut $115 billion out of Medicare, and that's all laudable as long as it goes into the trust fund to make the thing more solvent. But did you do that, did you put this on the deficit?'' ``No.'' ``Did you put it on child health care?'' ``No.'' ``Did you put it into education?'' ``No.'' ``What did you do with it?'' ``We gave it to the wealthiest people in America in tax cuts.'' That is the accusation that every Senator should be prepared to face up to when he goes home this fall and in the election year next year. So what I am saying is, it is a laudable thing to try to make the Medicare trust fund solvent, but what we are doing here is using that $115 billion to provide $135 billion in tax cuts. We say, ``Well, we're going to make up $50 billion of that; the net tax cuts will only be $85 billion.'' What I am saying in my amendment is we require the Finance Committee to come up with a total of $115 billion in offsets to offset what we are cutting Social Security by. Otherwise, we stand fairly accused of using Medicare funds to cut taxes for the wealthiest people in America. Look at this chart. Here is the Medicare savings--$115 billion. That is the cut in Medicare. What we are going to do is we are going to use that as an offset to accommodate $135 billion in tax cuts. That is undeniable, unarguable, unassailable. We are using $115 billion of Medicare cuts to provide tax cuts. So what I am saying is, let us instruct the Finance Committee not just to put the airline ticket tax in at $32 billion over the next 5 years, but come up with enough additional offsets to offset the entire $115 billion in Medicare savings. That is not hard to understand, Mr. President. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment.

Mr. BUMPERS. If nobody wishes to debate that amendment further, I would like to call up amendment No. 330. I do not want to do this while the chairman's attention is diverted.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple, and I will not belabor the Senate's time. It will just take me 4 or 5 minutes to explain it. I have two amendments, incidentally, 331 and 332. I hope we can dispose of both of them right now. Under this budget agreement, we assume $135 billion in tax cuts over the first 5 years of this budget. And of that $135 billion, $115 billion is in Medicare cuts. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished floor manager.

Mr. BUMPERS. Certainly I will accommodate the Senator any way I can. Is Senator Specter here ready to go?

Mr. BUMPERS. I hope to dispose of mine before he even gets here.

Mr. BUMPERS. I will proceed. If he comes, I will lay my amendment aside.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 331.

Mr. BUMPERS. I say to Senator Domenici, I will follow up with my other amendment and debate it right now unless you wish to speak on the one I just offered.

Mr. BUMPERS. I am prepared to use my time.

Mr. BUMPERS. Yes.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I wonder if--I am sorry. The leader made that request, and I was not paying close enough attention. I would like to reverse my two amendments and bring up 331 first and then 330 second. I ask unanimous consent that we do that.

Mr. BUMPERS. How many following mine?

Mr. BUMPERS. Of additional time. If I may, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Robb], as a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I will be happy to reserve 2 minutes.

Mr. BUMPERS. I wonder if the Senator, while we are in this colloquy, can tell us what to expect for the rest of the evening after these votes, and tomorrow.