Fritz Hollings

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to make a brief comment on the Dole amendment which the Senate agreed to today by a vote of 87-10. I voted against this amendment and was tempted to call it a fig leaf. But upon reflection, I think the Dole amendment is more accurately an octopus amendment: It squirts out dark ink and obscures what's really going on. The plain language of House Joint Resolution 1 constitutionally requires that the revenues in the Social Security trust fund be included in the sum of total receipts. Neither a report from the Senate Budget Committee nor any other legislative fix can override this constitutional mandate. The Reid amendment would correct this problem by changing the language of the constitutional amendment and removing Social Security from deficit calculations. Mr. President, if Members wish to see how a balanced budget can be achieved without raiding Social Security, they should not wait on a report from the Senate Budget Committee, but instead should examine the table that I have included in the Congressional Record on January 24 and February 7 of this year. We know that we can balance the budget without looting the Social Security trust fund, but no amount of wishing will allow us to override the Constitution if the Reid amendment is rejected. the prospect of stability, 1993-95 in opposition to h.j. res. 1: the balanced budget amendment

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. You can still go in and change the age if you wanted to or raise the FICA tax. I do not want to.

Mr. HOLLINGS. But I think the Reid amendment is very clear. It states that the receipts, ``including attributable interests and outlays of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund used to provide old age survivors and disability benefits shall not be counted as receipts or outlays for the purpose of this article.'' It does not say that you have to have a trust fund. They can go in and repeal the 1935 Roosevelt Social Security if they wanted to.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Senator from Delaware. I yield the floor.

Mr. HOLLINGS. No, taking it off-budget is the only way to protect it. That is the only way that we can be sure that Social Security funds are not being used to mask the size of the deficit.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague. It should be noted that the law in the Constitution is being cited not only by the distinguished Senator, but by a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Alabama, Senator Heflin. He has studied the law and legal precedence--particularly constitutional provisions. I compliment him for speaking out on this particular occasion. It is not my intent to belabor the point, but I certainly want to emphasize that there is no alternative other than including the Reid amendment. Why do I say that? Section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act, says, thou shalt not use Social Security funds with respect to receipts, outlays, or concerning the deficit. That law passed this particular body on a vote of 98-2, in 1990, and was signed into law by President George Walker Herbert Bush on November 5, 1990. It is the law, and it has been reiterated again and again. On Monday of this week, Mr. President, it was cited by the distinguished majority whip--the distinguished Senator from Mississippi. When asked about specific cuts, he said: Nobody--Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, moderate--is even thinking about using Social Security to balance the budget, to pass the joint resolution for the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. They are not thinking about it, they are doing it. You actually repeal section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act that says: Thou shalt not use Social Security trust funds for deficit purposes. Why is that, Mr. President? It clearly states in section 7 of the resolution: Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government, except those derived from borrowing. The Social Security receipts in the Social Security trust fund is included in deficit calculations under this definition. Some on the other side have said, ``Do not worry, we will legislate later.'' But I recall that none other than President George Washington, in his Farewell Address, said: If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this is one instance of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The Father of this Country knew that you could not change the Constitution by statute. I have been in favor of balancing the budget. I helped the distinguished Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] in 1982 when the balanced budget amendment received the two-thirds required, the 67 votes. We tried again with my distinguished senior colleague, Senator Thurmond, in 1986 but we did not get two-thirds required. of the Senator from Illinois [Senator Simon] but again failed. We have been in the vineyards working on this particular problem, but part and parcel of the problem is another contract with America--the contract we made with the senior citizens of America back in 1935. We felt so keenly about honoring that contract, that we raised taxes in 1983, under the Greenspan commission, to keep the program fiscally sound and to maintain that solemn trust. To maintain that contract with our senior citizens--not for defense, not for welfare, not for foreign aid, not for other Government programs--but for the Social Security trust fund. If you had said at that time that we were raising taxes for welfare, foreign aid, defense or other spending, I would have voted no and other Senators would have voted no. But instead, we said, ``This is a trust fund and we must continue to keep that trust.'' Like the Senator from Mississippi has said, no one is thinking about violating that trust, but yet we are constitutionally dissolving it by including revenues from the Social Security trust in the definition of total receipts. Legislative fixes will not work. As George Washington said, you cannot amend the Constitution except as the Constitution itself designates. I am a reasonable man--as Rex Harrison said in ``My Fair Lady,'' an ordinary man--just trying to get along on the floor of the Senate, certainly supporting a balanced budget, but feeling compelled to take issue here having established a record in protecting Social Security. In the Budget Committee in 1990, I proposed the Social Security Preservation Act. It stipulated that Social Security trust funds should not be used in calculating the deficit. It was reported out 20 to 1, and on the Senate floor passed by a vote of 98 to 2. And still, I see administrations, Republican and Democrat; I see Congresses, Republican and Democrat, violating the law. Unfortunately, it does not surprise me. Former Senator Harry Byrd shepherded his own statute through the Congress which said, in essence, ``Thou budget shall be balanced.'' It was the law, and yet we never adhered to it. I do not know how we get away with this thievery. But I know that something is amiss when honest public servants say that no one is considering using Social Security to balance the budget when, on the face of the legislation, it would require it. At that point, I have to speak out. As a result, I have written a letter to all the Senators to put to rest ideas about changing it by legislation later on. You cannot amend the Constitution by legislation. You have to get a joint resolution, have three readings in the Senate, and have an affirmation of 37, or two-thirds, of the sovereign States of America. So even if I wanted to protect Social Security by statute, I could not do what they say can be done. I will read the letter. This is to every one of my colleagues in the Senate. In 1983, the Congress made the Social Security fund fiscally sound by programmed tax increases. Naturally, the Congress would never have supported these tax increases if the monies were to be used for foreign aid, defense, welfare or the deficit costs of government. But violating the truth- in-budgeting principle, the Administrations and Congresses continued to use the Social Security trust fund to obscure the size of the deficit. Annoyed with this violation, the Budget Committee voted nearly unanimously in 1990 and the United States Senate with a vote of 98-2 joined the House in the now formal statutory law of the United States in section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act, forbidding by law the use of the Social Security fund for the deficit. The violation continues. Now comes the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution requiring that, ``Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing.'' Left alone, this provision would repeal Section 13301 and constitutionally endorse the violation. The Reid amendment presently under consideration corrects this unintended repeal by stating that the Social Security trust fund, ``* * * should not be counted as receipts or outlays for the purpose of this article.'' John Mitchell, the former Attorney General was known for the axiom, ``Watch what we do, not what we say.'' It should be made crystal clear that we mean what we say. If you want to continue to use the trust fund and breach the trust, vote against the Reid amendment. There it is clear and simple, so everyone understands. If you want to maintain the trust--the Contract with America made back in 1935--then please support the Reid amendment. If this Reid amendment is allowed, there is no misunderstanding that we will maintain the trust. If the Reid amendment is defeated, we will be taking $636 billion away from the trust fund in order to obscure the size of the deficit.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Delaware and former chairman of the Judiciary Committee knows it well. He is a constitutional expert, and is right on target as to the practical result. We see several Senators trying to avoid the problem and not engage in truth in budgeting. We have truth in packaging and truth in lending, but we do not have truth in budgeting. It was not in the Contract With America and it is not in the current version of this balanced budget amendment.

Mr. HOLLINGS. There can be no legislative fix. Constitutionally you are mandating Social Security receipts as part of total receipts. If the distinguished majority leader wants to put in a separate constitutional amendment, that may be different. I am not trying to tear down House Joint Resolution 1, the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I voted for it three times. I would like to vote for it a fourth time, but I cannot in good conscience repeal my own statute.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes. Committee, and this legislation came out of the committee, I, along with Senator Feinstein and others, argued for this amendment in the committee. One of our senior Republican colleagues was very blunt about this issue. He said, along with former Senator Tsongas of the Concord Coalition, who came in to testify, the following: That if you take Social Security out of the mix here and set it aside so it is not covered by a constitutional amendment, we are not likely to do anything to fix it. What they mean by ``fix it'' is change Social Security; that is, either raise the retirement age, cut the benefits or increase the taxes, because everybody knows that by the time--I am 52--by the time it comes time for me to collect Social Security, there are not going to be enough of your children and my children to pay for my Social Security benefits. So something is going to have to be done. Unrelated to the balanced budget amendment and the impact of the Reid amendment on the balanced budget amendment or the impact of the balanced budget amendment on Social Security, unrelated to the balanced budget amendment, just Social Security all by itself, does the Senator from South Carolina see any way in which Social Security can be protected from significant change if, in fact, it is included as part of the balanced budget amendment?

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me compliment our distinguished colleague from Utah. He certainly attracted my attention when he spoke of the Mormon Church. I had the distinct pleasure, with a group of Senators, of visiting with his revered father, former Senator Wallace Bennett, to the Mormon Temple here in Washington, DC. Various members of my staff have been members of the Mormon Church. Their dedication and hard work have been a tremendous inspiration to me. A female staffer of mine was making good money, but left to fulfill her 2-year commitment to the church by going overseas. She paid for her own transportation and, at a very young age, solicited membership for the church for 2 years. I would have hesitated allowing my daughter to do that, but she did and did it with courage and commitment. So I have the greatest respect for the comments of the Senator from Utah, but I do find them in some measure strange. For example, when he claims that the Reid amendment creates a loophole by allowing Congress to redefine the word ``survivor.'' If that is true, can't we change what is an ``outlay,'' what is a ``receipt,'' what is an ``estimate,'' what is ``appropriate legislation''? These phrases are already in House Joint Resolution 1, the joint resolution proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. All of the terms in the underlying joint resolution can be changed. There is no question about that. The balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is really proposed as a sort of gun to the head of the Congress to bring about discipline. As experience has told me and much to my dismay, Mr. President, it brings about creativity. This morning at the Budget Committee I had the pleasure of questioning the distinguished Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Dr. Alice Rivlin. I noted that Dr. Rivlin, as the Director of our Congressional Budget Office, had been the one individual who more than any other gave integrity and credibility to the budget process. She did an outstanding job then, and I think she is doing an outstanding job in the Clinton administration. But I noted that even with her watchful eye, there is a penchant in budget process for creativity. For example, in the President's budget, the majority of proposed tax cuts are paid for by cuts in discretionary spending. Under existing budget law, tax cuts can only be offset either by tax increases or by entitlement cuts. Thus, the President's budget would cause OMB to initiate a sequester. Additionally, the President's budget counts the sale of assets as receipts. Under procedures that the Congress uses in scoring, using assets sales to comply with pay-as-you-go laws subjects a budget resolution to another point of order. Third, the President's budget artificially adjusts the discretionary caps upward for inflation and then claims savings by lowering the caps to their existing levels. In contrast, the Congressional Budget Office in the past has not interpreted the law in this way and may not recognize these savings. Lastly, the reestimation of Medicare and Medicaid outlays in the President's budget seems overly optimistic. In fact, their estimate by 2000 is $54 billion less than the level projected by CBO. In raising these issues, I am not trying to criticize the President's budget, I am merely trying to talk about the slippery game of budget estimates from a standpoint of experience. When the distinguished Senator from Utah cites Jefferson, it brings to mind another quote by James Madison in The Federalist Papers. He said: greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. Thus, 207 years ago, Madison saw the very evil that brings us to the floor of the Senate today. We are out of control. I congratulate my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Nevada, Senator Harry Reid. He brings up an important and absolutely necessary amendment to this joint resolution. As Governor of South Carolina, I had to struggle to balance the budget. I knew in the early days that industry was not going to come from New York and invest in Podunk unless our fiscal house was in order. We had to pay the bills. I put in a device which was the forerunner of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings whereby expenditures had to be within receipts with quarterly reports to the Governor. If we failed to meet these targets, we would cut straight across the board. With this discipline, I got the first AAA credit rating of any State, from Texas right on up to Maryland. Since then I have continued to work in the vineyards. In 1984, I ran for President on the ``Fritz freeze,'' as many called it. My colleague, Senator Alan Cranston, ran on the nuclear freeze. We had to tell him that down home in South Carolina, they thought that the nuclear freeze was a dessert. The people of America know what is needed in our land. If you talk to your pollster, they scream: ``Oh, don't bring up deficits. The people don't want to hear about it. It is confusing. There's no story. They're not interested.'' Thus, we have tax increases that no one wants to speak about--a tax increase of $1 billion a day on automatic pilot. The debt has gone up to $4.804 trillion. Before long, it will be $5 trillion. The gross interest cost for 1995 will be $339 billion and by next year will surpass $1 billion for every day. There are two things you cannot avoid. One is death and the other is taxes. As far as this Congress and this Senate and this Government goes, you cannot avoid those interest costs. They are the first thing off the table that we spend. Incidentally, I might well mention that the gross interest cost in 1981, when President Ronald Reagan was elected, pledging to balance the budget and put us in the black in 1 year, was $95 billion. As I said earlier, it is now in excess of $339 billion. If you subtract it, you have $244 billion added to the interest costs. The deficit this year has been scheduled for $244 billion. Thus, without this tremendous overhang of debt, the Federal budget would be in balance. The Republicans talk about promises. If the distinguished former President had carried through on his promise, we would not be in this pickle. He came to town and said: ``Whoops, I never realized it was as bad as this. I cannot do it in a year. It is going to take 2 or 3 years.'' that is how we moved from 1-year to 3-year budgeting. Gramm- Rudman-Hollings pushed us out to 5-year budgets. And now, you ought to talk about creativity. Now, in the balanced budget amendment we are talking about 7 years. The next Congress will talk about 10 years. Mister President, Harry Reid, the Senator from Nevada, has a very, very important provision here--one that sheds some light on the enormous challenges we face in balancing the budget. I started down this road of a balanced budget amendment with the distinguished Senators from Texas and New Hampshire in Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. That was a balanced budget amendment. We got a majority of the Democrats on 14 up-and-down votes to go along with the Republican leadership at that time in 1985. We reduced the deficit in the first full year of Gramm- Rudman-Hollings from $221 billion down to $150 billion. We were supposed to reduce the deficit further by increments of $36 billion. But then, we began to stray from the targets until in 1990 we did away with fixed targets. Likewise, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution does not give discipline; it gives creativity. That is the hard experience of this gentleman. Now, I wish to yield. I wish to hasten along because really the authority on the subject of Social Security, none other than our senior Senator for New York, Senator Moynihan knows the subject intimately. He has a tremendous sense of history, which I admire. He and I realized that many were tempted by the tremendous surpluses in the Social Security trust fund. So the distinguished Senator from New York authored, even though I offered it as an amendment, in the Budget Committee and in later in the Chamber, what we called a Social Security Preservation Act--take it off budget. In 1990, we had a vote in the Budget Committee, and the vote was 20 to 1, the 1 being my leader under Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, Senator Gramm from Texas. I can say advisedly I was not surprised, because I went to Senator Gramm in the initial stages of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings when his initial proposal was to cut all entitlements including Social Security. I said, wait a minute. No. 1, you are cutting the program that we just voted the taxes to pay for. It is paid for and is in the black. No. 2, it breaches the trust that we created in 1935 and that we have represented to the senior citizens of America. I am not going to breach that trust, and furthermore, you will not get a single Democratic vote to sequester Social Security. We got him to change his tune on that point. But when he voted against my amendment in the Budget Committee, and when he introduced his own legislation to balance the budget, he went back to his former position. On February 16, 1993, he introduced legislation which, in one pertinent section, read: Exclusion From Budget, Section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, as amended, by adding at the end thereof the following: ``This subsection shall not apply to fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 2001.'' He had taken the section that I enacted into statutory law by a vote of 98 to 2 and attempted to change it in order to use the trust funds to lessen the chore of balancing the budget. We act like we are not the Government. It is like the San Francisco 49ers coming into Miami, running up into the grandstand, and hollering, ``We want a touchdown, we want a touchdown.'' It is incumbent upon them to get down on the field and score the touchdown. It is incumbent on Members of Congress to stop the charades. So, when the distinguished majority whip, the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, just 2 days ago says, and I quote, ``Nobody-- Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, moderate--is even thinking about using Social Security to balance the budget.''--I say, respectfully: False. The experience of this Senator is Members of Congress will try to find a way to use these funds. If you do not include this amendment in the balanced budget amendment, you have effectively voided the Hollings statute. That is the statute on books this minute. But I have found out the hard way now, after 5 years, that it is sometimes easier to get a statute on the books than to get people to follow it. It is like old John Mitchell, the Attorney General, used to say, ``Watch what we do, not what we say.'' That is the situation we are in. So I would say to my colleagues that I strongly support the Reid amendment. It is very simple. It is very clear. We have a contract, as of 1935. It is an original contract predating Speaker Gingrich's Contract With America. We have one of Roosevelt's contracts for America, back since 1935, that we must honor. Before I close, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this document, including the different cuts, spending cuts and receipts and all for the 7-year budget.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Utah to come forward, or any Senator to come forward with a 1-year budget that puts us on a glide path to zero. Earlier today, Republicans were berating Dr. Rivlin, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget for her lack of budget cuts in the President's 1996 budget. But back on December 18, when they were feeling real bullish, Mr. Kasich, the distinguished chairman of the House Budget Committee now, said: ``In January we will really spell this out. In January I am going to bring to the floor a revised budget resolution.'' Further down he says: ``We will provide spending savings. You already have outlined them. In the menu list we already have two or three budgets.'' They did not care about President Clinton or what the Director of the Office of Management and Budget was even thinking about. And then he continues: When that is done * * * at the same time we are going to move on the glidepath to zero * * * We will take the savings by cutting spending first and we are going to put them in the bank so nobody across the country, nobody on Main Street, no one on Wall Street is going to think we are going to do is we're going to give out the goodies without cutting government first. So I look in the bank, in the lock box. And there is one thing I find, Mr. President. I have the lock box that the chairman of the Budget Committee referred to. But the only thing it contains so far are a pile of Social Security IOU's. Mr. President, let us do like Madison admonished, let us begin to control ourselves. We can begin. As President Reagan said: If not us, who? If not now, when? I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair. Madam President, there is an old axiom in the court of equity that is he who seeks equity must do equity; he who comes into the court of equity must come with clean hands. We have Members to submit a balanced budget. Two weeks ago, with that equitable axiom in mind, I did exactly that. I felt that I lacked standing in this so-called court of the U.S. Senate to demand that my colleagues submit a budget blueprint that I had not submitted myself. Two weeks ago, I included it in the Record and attempted to highlight certain realities of our present fiscal situation. The reality is that balancing the budget in a 7-year period requires $1.2 trillion in spending cuts. The other reality was that the savings from entitlement reform would not be enough to balance the budget. Clearly, we must try our best to slow health costs and reform our welfare system. Likewise, we can save some Federal dollars by reviewing supplementary security income as Mort Zuckerman suggested in last week's U.S. News and World Report. But putting these reforms in place costs money. Anyone who argues that they can set up a work program for welfare recipients, care for their children, and reap large savings is whistling Dixie. Likewise, in reforming in health care, our focus has been on slowing the growth of overall spending rather than cutting back on existing funds. President Clinton's commitment to health care reform has already led to marketplace reforms in my own State of South Carolina. In fact, not too long ago the chairman of the board of one of the largest employers in my State said, ``Fritz, you keep on debating that health reform package up there, because whatever happens is healthy. Rather than seeing increases, I am now getting a 10 percent decrease in premiums for coverage of my employees.'' So while the President has done a magnificent job in encouraging the marketplace to make reforms, we are still a long way from getting on a realistic path to a balanced budget. In short, to stop the hemorrhaging in interest costs, spending cuts as well as taxes are necessary. I ask unanimous consent, Madam President, to include once again in the Record this particular document which lists the budget realities and a potential list of discretionary spending cuts.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Here is a list of the kinds of nondefense discretionary spending cuts that would be necessary now as a first step to get $37 billion of savings and put the country on the road to a balanced budget: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nondefense discretionary spending cuts 1996 1997 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Cut space station................................. 2.1 2.1 Eliminate CDBG.................................... 2.0 2.0 Eliminate low-income home energy assistance....... 1.4 1.5 Eliminate arts funding............................ 1.0 1.0 Eliminate funding for campus based aid............ 1.4 1.4 Eliminate funding for impact aid.................. 1.0 1.0 Reduce law enforcement funding to control drugs... 1.5 1.8 Eliminate Federal wastewater grants............... 0.8 1.6 Eliminate SBA loans............................... 0.21 0.282 Reduce Federal aid for mass transit............... 0.5 1.0 Eliminate EDA..................................... 0.02 0.1 Reduce Federal rent subsidies..................... 0.1 0.2 Reduce overhead for university research........... 0.2 0.3 Repeal Davis-Bacon................................ 0.2 0.5 Reduce State Dept. funding and end misc. activities....................................... 0.1 0.2 End P.L. 480 title I and III sales................ 0.4 0.6 Eliminate overseas broadcasting................... 0.458 0.570 Eliminate the Bureau of Mines..................... 0.1 0.2 Eliminate expansion of rural housing assistance... 0.1 0.2 Eliminate USTTA................................... 0.012 0.16 Eliminate ATP..................................... 0.1 0.2 Eliminate airport grant in aids................... 0.3 1.0 Eliminate Federal highway demonstration projects.. 0.1 0.3 Eliminate Amtrak subsidies........................ 0.4 0.4 Eliminate RDA loan guarantees..................... 0.0 0.1 Eliminate Appalachian Regional Commission......... 0.0 0.1 Eliminate untargeted funds for math and science... 0.1 0.2 Cut Federal salaries by 4 percent................. 4.0 4.0 Charge Federal employees commercial rates for parking.......................................... 0.1 0.1 Reduce agricultural research extension activities. 0.2 0.2 Cancel advanced solid rocket motor................ 0.3 0.4 Eliminate legal services.......................... 0.4 0.4 Reduce Federal travel by 30 percent............... 0.4 0.4 Reduce energy funding for Energy Technology Develop.......................................... 0.2 0.5 Reduce Superfund cleanup costs.................... 0.2 0.4 Reduce REA subsidies.............................. 0.1 0.1 Eliminate postal subsidies for nonprofits......... 0.1 0.1 Reduce NIH funding................................ 0.5 1.1 Eliminate Federal Crop Insurance Program.......... 0.3 0.3 Reduce Justice State-local assistance grants...... 0.1 0.2 Reduce Export-Import direct loans................. 0.1 0.2 Eliminate library programs........................ 0.1 0.1 Modify Service Contract Act....................... 0.2 0.2 Eliminate HUD special purpose grants.............. 0.2 0.3 Reduce housing programs........................... 0.4 1.0 Eliminate Community Investment Program............ 0.1 0.4 Reduce Strategic Petroleum Program................ 0.1 0.1 Eliminate Senior Community Service Program........ 0.1 0.4 Reduce USDA spending for export marketing......... 0.02 0.02 Reduce maternal and child health grants........... 0.2 0.4 Close veterans hospitals.......................... 0.1 0.2 Reduce number of political employees.............. 0.1 0.1 Reduce management costs for VA health care........ 0.2 0.4 Reduce PMA subsidy................................ 0.0 1.2 Reduce below cost timber sales.................... 0.0 0.1 Reduce the legislative branch 15 percent.......... 0.3 0.3 Eliminate Small Business Development Centers...... 0.056 0.074 Eliminate minority assistance, score, Small Business Institute and other technical assistance programs, women's business assistance, international trade assistance, empowerment zones 0.033 0.046 Eliminate new State Department construction projects......................................... 0.010 0.023 Eliminate Int'l Boundaries and Water Commission... 0.013 0.02 Eliminate Asia Foundation......................... 0.013 0.015 Eliminate International Fisheries Commission...... 0.015 0.015 Eliminate Arms Control Disarmament Agency......... 0.041 0.054 Eliminate NED..................................... 0.014 0.034 Eliminate Fulbright and other international exchanges........................................ 0.119 0.207 Eliminate North-South Center...................... 0.002 0.004 Eliminate U.S. contribution to WHO, OAS, and other international organizations including the U.N.... 0.873 0.873 Eliminate participation in U.N. peacekeeping...... 0.533 0.533 Eliminate Byrne grant............................. 0.112 0.306 Eliminate Community Policing Program.............. 0.286 0.780 Moratorium on new Federal prison construction..... 0.028 0.140 Reduce Coast Guard 10 percent..................... 0.208 0.260 Eliminate Manufacturing Extension Program......... 0.03 0.06 Eliminate Coastal Zone Management................. 0.03 0.06 Eliminate National Marine Sanctuaries............. 0.007 0.012 Eliminate climate and global change research...... 0.047 0.078 Eliminate national sea grant...................... 0.032 0.054 Eliminate state weather modification grant........ 0.002 0.003 Cut Weather Service operations 10 percent......... 0.031 0.051 Eliminate regional climate centers................ 0.002 0.003 Eliminate Minority Business Development Agency.... 0.022 0.044 Eliminate public telecommunications facilities, program grant.................................... 0.003 0.016 Eliminate children's educational television....... 0.0 0.002 Eliminate National Information Infrastructure grant............................................ 0.001 0.032 Cut Pell grants 20 percent........................ 0.250 1.24 Eliminate education research...................... 0.042 0.283 Cut Head Start 50 percent......................... 0.840 1.8 Eliminate meals and services for the elderly...... 0.335 0.473 Eliminate title II social service block grant..... 2.7 2.8 Eliminate community services block grant.......... 0.317 0.470 Eliminate rehabilitation services................. 1.85 2.30 Eliminate vocational education.................... 0.176 1.2 Reduce chapter 1, 20 percent...................... 0.173 1.16 Reduce special education, 20 percent.............. 0.072 0.480 Eliminate bilingual education..................... 0.029 0.196 Eliminate JTPA.................................... 0.250 4.5 Eliminate child welfare services.................. 0.240 0.289 Eliminate CDC Breast Cancer Program............... 0.048 0.089 Eliminate CDC AIDS Control Program................ 0.283 0.525 Eliminate Ryan White AIDS Program................. 0.228 0.468 Eliminate maternal and child health............... 0.246 0.506 Eliminate Family Planning Program................. 0.069 0.143 Eliminate CDC Immunization Program................ 0.168 0.345 Eliminate Tuberculosis Program.................... 0.042 0.087 Eliminate Agricultural Research Service........... 0.546 0.656 Reduce WIC, 50 percent............................ 1.579 1.735 Eliminate TEFAP--administrative................... 0.024 0.040 Commodities............................. 0.025 0.025 Reduce Cooperative State Research Service 20 percent.......................................... 0.044 0.070 Reduce Animal Plant Health Inspection Service 10 percent.......................................... 0.036 0.044 Reduce Food Safety Inspection Service 10 percent.. 0.047 0.052

Mr. HOLLINGS. I will not read it all. I want to be accurate: The GOP plan: Accepts the President's proposed reductions in the medicare program and indexes the current $100 annual Part ``B'' deductible for inflation. Total medicare savings would reach $80 billion over the next five years. And then: Achieves $64 billion in medicaid savings . . . So you see, that was $144 billion in savings that the President did not stand over them for to ride on. I saw my distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee on the House side throw a duck fit. Cover it. Oh, no. He got caught off base. He was the one in December, I say to the Senator from Utah, who said: ``We are on a roll. I have to meet the press, right here.'' He said: ``We have three budgets now. When that is done, Alan''--he is talking to Alan Murray. He says, ``at the same time, we are going to move onto the glidepath of zero now.'' Who is taking a walk? That was December, one for January, one of three budgets; we are moving, we are going, and where is his? That is what the Senator from West Virginia wants. That is what this Senator wants. I put up mine. We ask that they put up theirs. This rings in my ears when they say take a walk, when they talk about the largest tax increase in the history of the Government. We are suffering from the largest tax increase. That is why, with all the spending cuts, even in entitlements, on the SSI, some of the programs, and domestic discretionary, try it on for size. You are going to need tax increases in order to get on top of this monster. You are going to need tax increases. I recommended a 5-percent value added tax. I disagree with President Clinton. I think the need of the hour is just that, to get physically sound, put us on a pay-as-you-go basis and a Marshall plan for the United States. We have 40 million in poverty. We have 10 million homeless, sleeping on the streets of America. We have 12 million hungry children. We have the cities, dens of violence and crime; the land is drug infested. And we have the biggest deficit in the balance of trade. That age group between 17 and 24, 73 percent of that age group cannot find a job out of poverty. They are the hope of the land. We need now, with the fall of the Wall and the sacrifices to occur in order to keep the alliance together, to sacrifice for ourselves. We need a 5 percent value added tax; $180 billion could start paying down the deficit, the debt, take care of health costs, and get the country moving with respect to women and infants feeding, Head Start, and title I for the disadvantaged. Biotechnical research at NIH, they are do not believe in dismantling the Government. I got the first triple A credit rating of any State from Maryland around to Texas. So I have been down the road. We know how to pay our bills. I have said time and again we need more South Carolina-led Government than Washington Government in South Carolina. So I go along with my Republican colleagues on that particular score. But when they come around here now and they say, about welfare and pulling the wagon--that is another one. Pulling the wagon. The idea is, of course, that we here are pulling the wagon and the welfare people are all squatting in the wagon. We are all in the wagon and nobody is pulling it, except maybe the Japanese who are buying the bonds. Yes. Get trade policy, and try to go against Japan. If the Chinese want to get out of this soup that they are in on CD's, tell them to buy a few Treasury bills and the Secretary of Treasury will come over and say, ``I am sorry. We didn't mean to talk. We have a special relationship.'' We are in the hands of the Philistines because we have to sell those bonds to finance this debt. That is what is going on. They all know it. We are all in the wagon to the point of $1 billion a day, and nobody is pulling it. So let us get away from that particular expression. But they do not want Government and everything else. Another thing, then I will close. But I have to refer to this because I have the greatest respect for, and I have worked very closely with the distinguished Senate majority whip, Trent Lott of Mississippi. Senator Lott said, ``Nobody, Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, moderate, is even thinking about using Social Security to balance the budget.'' Absolutely false. They are not thinking about it; they are working on it. When I was buddied up with the distinguished Senators from Texas and New Hampshire in Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, I talked to Senator Gramm, and the first page he gave me was an across the board cut entitlements including Social Security. I said, ``Phil, I can tell you now that is a nonstarter. You will not get a single Democrat, including me, that is going to vote for that one.'' So, we exempted Social Security and split it in half with entitlements and discretionary spending on one side and defense on the other. I knew he was particularly anxious to cut Social Security. I am particularly unanxious to cut any kind of Social Security because it pays for itself. If you want a contract for America, let us pull out the 1935 contract for the senior citizens of America. As a result of that agreement, taxes are paid, put in a trust fund, and they want to violate it. On July 10, I offered the Social Security Preservation Act before the Budget Committee. There were 20 yeas with the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] voting nay. Then, the distinguished Senator from Texas came along last year and introduced his Balanced Budget Implementation Act on February 16, 1993, at page S1635, and I read: ``Exclusion from budget. Section 13301(a) of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: This subsection shall apply to fiscal years beginning with fiscal year 2001.'' I put section 13301 into the Budget Enforcement Act because I did not want to use the Social Security funds. We put it into statutory law by almost a unanimous vote on this floor. There were only two dissenters, but we had 98 others who supported it. But the Senator from Texas, in his own budget there, is proposing it. Madam President, it is against the law to cite the deficit using the Social Security trust funds, but Members of Congress and the White House violate it at every level. I cannot get them to enforce the law. I do not want to go along with any constitutional amendment that violates that law, because I am talking about truth in budgeting. That is how we passed Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. I could go on, Mr. President, but I want to yield. I will tell you, this off-Broadway show generalities and percentages fails to tell the American people the true facts about the fiscal crisis we face. I challenge them, or anyone on this side of the aisle, or on any aisle in any House, to give me a 1-year budget that only grows by 3 percent. Republicans can continue to give us the gamesmanship and the percentage arguments, but let us cut out this blame game. There is one thing we cannot charge William Jefferson Clinton with and that is the responsibility for the deficit. He came up with a plan to cut it $500 billion during his first year. The second year he has proposed terminating 131 programs and consolidating 271 programs into 27. He has not left much for ``President'' Dole, if he ever takes over this budget in Government. I do not believe in dismantling the Government. I think we live in the real world and we have to come out here and quit dancing around the fire. Let's end the argument and provide the American people with a 1- year budget that has only a 3-percent increase and puts Government in the black. They cannot do it without taxes. I thank the Senator from Minnesota for yielding time, and I thank the Senator from Utah.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I quote: The biggest tax increase in post-World War II history occurred in 1982 under President Ronald Reagan. Because when you cut all the revenues on the one hand and then you increase all the spending on the other hand, rather than growth, growth--``growth.'' That is what they are trying to come up again with. It is the same act, same scene, same players, same disaster, in this Senator's opinion. When they come up with that growth, instead of growing out of the deficit, we have grown into the worst deficit and debt, saddling us with interest costs. Madam President, in 1981 the gross interest cost on the national debt with President Reagan--of course, he had nothing to do with that one because incidentally, President Carter cut the deficit that he received from President Ford, and President Lyndon Johnson gave us a balanced budget. So I have been around when we have been cutting deficits and when we balanced the budget in this Government. But President Reagan came to town and he was elected on the promise that, ``I am going to put this Government on a pay-as-you-go plan.'' He said, ``I am going to do it in a year.'' When he got to town, he said, ``Oops. This is worse than I ever thought. It is going to take 2 to 3 years to do it.'' He cut back, and never increased that interest cost of $95.5 billion. I am listening to the other side of the aisle and the blame game on President Clinton about what he said and what he is doing. President Reagan said that he was going to balance the budget in a year and not add to the interest costs. Rather, he has the interest up to $339 billion, according to CBO, and that does not take into account the increase by Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve, here this past week. So it is going to be about $350 billion, $352 billion--$1 billion a day. That is what it is. The interest cost cannot be avoided. It has to be paid. There are two things in life: Death and taxes. It has to be paid. But interest cost is interest taxes. You get absolutely nothing for it. The deficit this year is only conceived to be $176 billion by CBO. We would have a $67 billion surplus if President Ronald Reagan had not given us that birthday present of the biggest tax increase. So here they come to town and talk about ``taking a walk,'' ``white flag of surrender,'' and on ``life supports.'' I know Speaker Gingrich gives out to the troops the right expressions around here to make on the 7 o'clock news. But that does not take over the facts. The facts remain that we are in one heck of a fix financially, and you cannot do it without taxes. On that score, do not blame President Clinton. President Clinton came and struggled in his first year as a freshman President for a $500 billion cut in the deficit, and there was not a soul talking about taking walks. They squatted, sat in the chair fixed, on both sides of the aisle, and would not move, would not give a vote. Then after he did that, he went about health care reform. And in health reform, yes, he recommended Medicare cuts. But he said, ``I have to get health reform with it.'' Now they blame him. Do you know why they blame him, Madam President? It is very interesting. Because they put out the alternative budget, the ``GOP Alternative: Deficit Reduction and Tax Relief.'' This was last year. You cannot get anything out of them this year except the blame game and the catchy phrases they are putting out here, and now the ``white flag of surrender'' and ``taking a walk.'' ``GOP Alternative: Deficit Reduction and Tax Relief; Slashing the Deficit, Cutting Middle Class Taxes.'' I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thought you completed your comments. I will wait.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, we have heard a lot in recent days about a simple way to balance the budget--the so-called 3 percent growth approach--which the Senator from Texas spoke of last week. But let's look at the facts. According to CBO, by $94 billion. Thus, if you plan to cut that in half to 3 percent growth, that is $46 billion. But wait, we all agree Social Security is off the table and will grow by $18 billion next year. Similarly, we will have to pay the interest costs on the debt which will increase by $25 billion next year. Kick in the last $3 billion to try and hold the line on defense spending and you quickly see that there's not much left of that 3 percent. While seductively simple, this approach fails to spell out the impact on the American people. If the 3 percent is used up, what is the effect on Medicare and Medicaid programs, education, and law enforcement? The glidepath that I have put before the Senate requires $37 billion in spending cuts for the first year. It meets that target by listing some 80 spending cuts that I do not think for a minute would ever pass on the floor of the Senate. In addition to cuts in discretionary programs, I also included a list of possible entitlement programs to pick and choose from that was circulated earlier this year by Senator Gregg of New Hampshire. We tried such budget cutting exercises before. Give credit to Senator Domenici, who was chairman of the Budget Committee in 1986, when he offered an amendment to adopt President Reagan's budget cuts. Do you know how many votes they got? Fourteen, fourteen votes. Last year, on the House side, Congressman Solomon corralled together a list of cuts that had been recommended by various groups. He put them all together and came up with $700 billion in cuts over 5 years. Do you know who voted against it? Congressman Kasich. Do you know who voted against it? Speaker Gingrich. Do you know how many votes they got? Seventy-three out of four hundred and thirty-five. Madam President, you have to face the realities and I think one stark reality is the one stated by the House majority leader who feared that coming forward with specific spending cuts would cause members knees to buckle. That is the truth. I have come to the floor this afternoon to say a word about those who are blaming President Clinton for not doing anything about the deficit. If there is one fellow who had nothing to do with this deficit, it would be President William Jefferson Clinton. He came from Arkansas up to Washington, and he inherited fiscal chaos. I do not mean to sound rude. I mean to sound factual and to give you the reality of the situation. Yesterday, we honored our distinguished past President, President Reagan, on his birthday. We gave him a birthday present but he has given us a birthday present. That birthday present is an increase in taxes of a billion a day. It is the biggest tax increase in the history of this land. I constantly hear about the largest tax increase. We were there, this particular Senator, and Senator Mathias on the other side of the aisle at the birth of Reaganomics. Eleven of us voted against the massive tax cuts that some called a riverboat gamble. President Bush called it voodoo economics. But the fact of the matter is this Senator voted against the tax cuts of Reaganomics and for the spending cuts. Only three Senators who voted against the tax cuts but for spending cuts: Senators Bradley, Mathias, and myself. So we have positioned ourselves with some kind of credibility on trying to balance the budget. When they talk about the biggest tax increase in history, we only have to refer very quickly, Madam President to--and I was going to at length, but I only just refer to it--the article by Judy Mann in the Washington Post entitled ``Fiddling With the Numbers.'' I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS. I have been enjoying it.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I would like to include in the Record an article by Jack Valenti that appeared Lyndon B. Johnson. Mr. Valenti enumerates many of President Johnson's accomplishments, including his fight for civil rights and voting rights for all Americans, the initiation of the Medicare and Head Start programs and the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which helps provide Federal loans, scholarships, and grants to all American college students. Indeed, President Johnson's accomplishments are many. And I would emphasize one more, which no President since has matched. Lyndon Johnson not only balanced the Federal budget, but gave Richard Nixon a surplus. In this era of a $4.8 trillion debt, that is one heck of an accomplishment. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to read this article and ask that it be printed in its entirety in the Congressional Record.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, as I passed through the Chamber and heard the distinguished majority leader, I remembered the words of John Mitchell, the former Republican Attorney General. He said, ``Watch what we do, not what we say.'' As I heard the distinguished Republican leader, he asked that we not resort to class warfare. Yet almost in the same breath, he waxed eloquently about the ``Contract With America'' and sank into the very game he indicted. Yes, President Clinton has put forward a proposal to cut middle-class taxes. But let us not forget that an important part of the Republican ``Contract With America'' is none other than a middle- class tax cut. It is ironic, if nothing more, that Republicans would attack the President for something they themselves have done. Having said that, I feel strongly that the formulation of public policy should not be based on class, or age, or race, or anything of that sort. We are Senators for all the people, in our State and throughout the entire country. Unfortunately, we too often fall into the trap of conducting politics by poll numbers and forgetting that fact. We need to get out of that habit and start doing what is best for the American people. Otherwise we end up admonishing each other about lobbyists on the one hand, and then accepting contributions from them on the other, as might the distinguished majority leader when he establishes his committee for the Presidency. In the end, we haven't done anything, and the electorate simply grows angrier and angrier. We should not resort to demeaning the Government. That is what I heard in the majority leader's speech today and in the President's last night. Sometimes I feel like Republicans and Democrats are in a footrace to see who can demean the Government the most, to which I take strong exception. After all, we are never going to work together and be effective, if we are always finding fault and pointing fingers. Mr. President, let me briefly turn to another subject, namely, the crisis in Mexico. I shall have more to say on this issue at a later time, but let me make a few brief points. It is my opinion that the risk subsidies which the administration is seeking on the $40 billion in loan guarantees would require the Mexican Government to pledge some of its oil revenues. While that may be a good business decision to secure the loan guarantee, my fear is that we will be taking the wherewithal from the Mexican people to recover as a country. In essence, in a year or two, the United States of America will not be seen as a friend, but as an enemy. In Furthermore, the President should not be obligated to get Democrats together. It is a Republican program to bail out the billionaires. Former President Salinas was given tremendous credit for privatizing. But if you look at Forbes magazine last year, you will see that of the 24 to 25 billionaires, 22 were created under the Salinas administration. What we saw was the good old boys system where the newly privatized companies were farmed out to political allies. If the Mexican Government really needs money, they should tell that crowd to give some of the money back. The people need it badly down there. But what we don't want is to get into a situation where we bail out Wall Street and the billionaires in Mexico but breed resentment from the Mexican people. Supporters of the loan guarantees have taken pains to stress that it does not cost the United States anything. While that may be true on paper, I immediately recall the $7 billion we guaranteed to Egypt, the $14 billion to India, and the $2 billion to Poland. I do not mean to question the need for that assistance, but I merely raise that point to illustrate that when this crowd in Washington says it won't cost anything, it is the taxpayers who ends up holding the bag when loan forgiveness occurs. Mr. President, I did not intend to talk at length. I only wanted to comment on the tone of today's political discourse which paints Government as the enemy. It isn't new. I heard the same singsong when I was a member of the Federalism Commission under President Reagan. ``Get rid of the Government.'' Indeed, 15 years ago, President Reagan came to town pledging to slash Federal programs and send Government back to the States. Five years later, what we slashed was the funding by eliminating revenue sharing. That is what has caused the dilemma that brings this bill before the Senate today. It is time for elected officials to quit blaming the Government in Washington and acting as if we were not part of the Government. Instead, we need to get down on the floor of the Congress and do the job, which the distinguished Senators from Ohio and Idaho are attempting to do. I thank them for their courtesy in yielding.

Mr. HOLLINGS

Mr. HOLLINGS. Go right ahead and then I will yield to Senator Dodd.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I understand I have 6 minutes left. I want to divide it between the distinguished Senator from North Dakota and the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, unless they can yield some time to our distinguished friend from Wisconsin. Let me just make a few brief points. One, we are on the unfunded mandates bill which argues that the Federal Government should consider the costs imposed on State and local governments up front. The Senator from New Mexico in his opposition seems to say, ``Do not consider the cost up front on the biggest unfunded mandate,'' namely the Federal budget. Two, I am not so sanguine about the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I remember the 18th amendment was passed and people kept on drinking. I think this crowd in Washington could delay and cook up plenty of ways to avoid the discipline of a balanced budget amendment. Three, President Bill Clinton has already given us the downpayment by offering a plan that will reduce the deficit over $500 billion in 5 years. It's time now to finish the job. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota and 3 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the path that I have outlined would include $406 billion in spending cuts over a 4-year period. In reality, I doubt that the Congress could cut $406 billion. I doubt that you could cut $37 billion in the first year to put us on schedule. But as my list of cuts shows, even if that were done, we would have to make additional cuts in the second year, and the third year, and so on. Moreover, after all these cuts we will still need a 5 percent value- added tax to bring us into the black by 1999. But wait, there's more. Having gotten into the black, we will still be spending $368 billion in interest costs on the gross debt. In short, we will be on automatic pilot for increased spending of $1 billion a day. The only way I know to get off of this binge is to start talking honestly about the budget. Some of the elected officials in this town act like they are not part of the Government. It is like going to the Super Bowl and watching the Forty-Niners and the Chargers run into the stands hollering, ``We want a touchdown. We want a touchdown.'' But to do that, they've got to get out of the bleachers and onto the field. Let us get down on the field and balance the budget. Mr. President, David Stockman, the Republican Director of the Office of Management and Budget, said 10 years ago: The root problem goes back to the July 1981 frenzy of excessive and imprudent tax cutting that shattered the Nation's fiscal stability. A noisy faction of Republicans have willfully denied this giant mistake of fiscal governance, and their own culpability in it ever since. Instead they have incessantly poisoned the political debate with a mindless stream of anti-tax venom while pretending that economic growth and spending cuts alone could cure the deficit. That ought to be obvious now that we cannot grow our way out of it. That is what we are getting here, 1995. It is time to stop this charade today. I retain the balance of my time.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President it is my hope that in this amendment we can sort of burst the bubble of false hope that permeates the Government in Washington with so-called contracts. All around town we seem to hear ``The Government is the problem; let's get rid of the Government.'' Unfortunately, both sides participate in this charade. We will be fighting all year to bring reality into the picture. Specifically, let me refer, to an amendment that I introduced on the Senate floor in 1990, an amendment that is now the solemn law of the land. It says: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law receipts, disbursements and Federal aid, survivors' insurance trust fund, and the Federal disability insurance trust fund shall not be counted as new budget authority outlays, receipts, deficit, surplus, for the purpose of the budget of the U.S. Government as submitted by the President or the congressional budget or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act. In reality, the administration and the other side continue to use surplus funds when they refer to the size of the deficit. When Vaclav Havel was inaugurated as President of Czechoslovakia, he said: For 40 years we have been lied to, and for 40 years we have grown sicker because we have been saying one thing and believing another. I assume that you did not elect me President to continue this 40 years of lying. We have to deal with our problems. Nobody else can solve our problems but us. That goes double for the problems that confront this Government at this hour. We have, as the President speaks tonight, some 10 million Americans laying on the streets homeless, 12 million children hungry, and 40 million in poverty. Mr. President, we need to be candid with the American people. All this resolution asks Congress to do, is to tell the American people up front the truth about our fiscal situation. Specifically, the deficit right now is not $176 billion; we spend on domestic discretionary programs against the $283 billion projected deficit and readily see that we could eliminate Government and still be in the red. My point is that in addition to spending cuts we will need to increase revenues. I ask unanimous consent at this point to include in the Record a chart outlining one possible path to balancing the budget along with a list of approximately $37 billion in nondefense discretionary spending cuts.