The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I rise to express my strong support
for adequately funding federal education initiatives.” mentioning the Federal Reserve System was published in the Senate section on pages S3391-S3399 on April 4, 2001.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I rise to express my strong support for adequately funding federal education initiatives.
``Education is,'' as historian Henry Steele Commager said,
``essential to change, for education creates both new wants and the ability to satisfy them.'' In this ever-changing world, it is vitally important that we make sound investments in education. The investments we make today will count every day in our kids' lives.
We have a real opportunity to greatly assist our schools by providing them with additional resources to help them meet the challenges they face. In my home state of Montana, schools are faced with declining enrollments, teacher shortages, rising energy costs, and substantial infrastructure needs. These are real needs that we as a nation can help address.
Providing additional resources to help schools educate students with special needs, to recruit the best teachers, to repair or renovate buildings, and to educate disadvantaged students will greatly help educators in Montana and around the country concentrate on delivering the best education they can to our students.
Senator Harkin's ``Leave No Child Behind'' Amendment goes a long way towards providing for these needs, making comprehensive investments in education programs from pre-school to college.
This bill will help ensure that all children start school ready to learn by investing additional resources in Head Start programs. In Billings, Montana, the Head Start facility is inadequate for the number of students it serves. In fact, they can only keep their doors open through April, when most Head Start programs are able to stay open throughout the school year. Providing additional Head Start funding will help give more kids in Billings a chance to start school ready to learn.
This bill also provides for full funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Providing this additional funding, a share that we have repeatedly promised to states and schools, would free up local and state education funds that are currently used to cover the cost of educating students with disabilities. With this additional federal support, schools and districts will be able to better address local education priorities.
This bill also substantially increases funding for professional development opportunities for teachers, allowing them to enhance their knowledge and skills. Providing teachers with these opportunities will help teachers help be even better teachers and will let them know that we care about their personal education needs.
Montana schools and teachers have had to do too much with too little for too long. I want to make sure I am doing all I can to help Montana schools overcome their challenges and focus on providing the best possible education to our students.
The price may seem high. But the price we're paying by not investing in our education system--by not equipping our students with the skills they will need to be successful--will be one we'll have to pay year after year.
There can be no doubt that our education system plays a pivotal role in establishing our quality of life and the quality of life our children will enjoy.
John F. Kennedy once said, ``Our progress as a nation can be no swifter than our progress in education.'' Strengthening our education system is a responsibility all of us share--as individuals and as a nation. Let's call on each other to offer our resources as we build a better, stronger country through our commitment to our education system.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Specter and Senator Harkin in sponsoring this important amendment to provide the National Institutes of Health with the resources it needs to continue its lifesaving mission. In a historic vote in 1997, the Senate pledged to double the funding of the NIH over the next five years, and Senator Specter's amendment represents the fulfillment of that pledge for the coming fiscal year.
The resources we devote to NIH are a basic investment in a healthy future for all Americans. Biomedical research supported by NIH has given us medical miracles undreamed of by previous generations. An irregular heartbeat once meant a lifetime of disability. This condition can now be corrected with a pacemaker so small that it can be inserted under local anesthetic using fiber optic technology. New drugs now allow many seniors to live a full and active life who once would have been disabled by the terrible pain of arthritis. Transplants save the lives of thousands of patients who once would have died of kidney failure.
Even more astonishing discoveries will be developed in the years to come. New insights into the genetic basis of disease will allow treatments to be developed that are custom-made for an individual patient's genetic signature. Microscopic cameras are now being developed that can be swallowed by patients to give doctors an accurate view of the patient's internal organs without the need for risky surgery.
I'm proud that Massachusetts is leading the way to this remarkable future. Our state is home to many of the nation's leading biomedical research institutions and receives more than one out of every ten dollars that NIH spends on research, or over $1.5 billion last year alone. NIH grants support essential research all across the Commonwealth. In Boston, researchers supported by NIH discovered a link between the immune system and the brain that may lead to better treatments for diseases like Parkinson's and multiple sclerosis. In Worcester, NIH funds are helping to build a new center for cancer research that will become a leading center in finding a cure for that dread disease.
Investment in research is the foundation on which the state's thriving biotechnology industry is built. There are more than 250 biotech companies in Massachusetts that give good jobs to thousands of professionals across the state. These companies are an important partner in the nation's commitment to promoting the health of all our citizens.
The future of biomedical research is bright, provided that we continue our strong national investment in discovery. Senator Specter's amendment will give NIH the resources it needs to turn the breakthroughs of today into the cures of tomorrow, and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I have a unanimous consent request I would like to propound to see if we get agreement. I believe Senator Domenici and Senator Conrad are familiar with it and are prepared to proceed on this basis.
I believe we have all signed off on this.
I ask consent a vote occur in relation to the pending amendment at 3 p.m. today, and the time between now and then be equally divided, and no other amendments be in order prior to the vote.
I further ask consent that the next four amendments in order to the substitute be the following in the following order: Specter regarding NIH, Landrieu regarding defense, Collins regarding health--home health, and Conrad or designee regarding debt reduction.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, if I could say to the leader two things. One, we have a slight problem. The fourth amendment will be a Democratic amendment. We will let you know what it is; we have a couple we are kicking around--a Democratic amendment.
Mr. LOTT. Let me make sure I understand what you are saying. This indicates Conrad or designee amendment regarding debt reduction. Are you now saying it may not be about debt reduction?
Mr. REID. It may not be. There is a small universe. We will let you know what it will be.
Mr. LOTT. If I can then modify my consent, that we line up the next three and we confer further on what the next couple will be after that?
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, again for clarification, I believe that we have worked it out so we can go back to the original request identified as Specter on NIH, Landrieu regarding defense, Collins regarding home health, and Conrad or designee regarding debt reduction.
Of course, these amendments would be subject to the usual rules, and second-degree or some other agreement as to how they would finally be disposed.
Mr. REID. Madam President, Senator Dorgan has been waiting here literally all afternoon. If we could give him 15 minutes, since he has been waiting since 12:30 today to speak.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I am not sure exactly who we may be trying to accommodate. But I feel compelled to want to make some remarks out of leader time, if I have to. I think the best way to do it is to extend the time to 3:15, with the time equally divided.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DORGAN. Reserving the right to object, I don't mind extending and dividing it. I only intend to have an opportunity to speak for a sufficient amount of time. If that accommodates my interest, I ask my colleague from North Dakota, it is fine with me. If it doesn't, I will object.
Mr. LOTT. I think it accommodates your interest.
Mr. DORGAN. I am asking the Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Let me say, as I understand it, that we would then have less than two 2 minutes left. I ask the Senator from North Dakota how much time he would like.
Mr. REID. How about 3:20?
Mr. CONRAD. And have it equally divided.
Mr. LOTT. Absolutely, Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I will try to set the example of not speaking at great length hoping others will follow. I am hoping that maybe the points I make will be sufficient without it being at great length.
My colleagues, I haven't spoken about the budget resolution because we are dealing with a lot of different issues and I have been meeting with foreign dignitaries and because I have such ultimate confidence in the managers of this legislation. Senator Domenici doesn't need a speech from me or help from anybody. But we are here to be helpful.
I want to make two or three points that I am really worried about.
Are we fiddling around here while Rome is beginning to burn?
Today, and during the last couple of days, I have been talking with people who are watching the stock market. Who knows what causes the stock market to move around? But I have also been talking to financial service managers from companies that watch very carefully what is happening in the country and in the economy. I have been talking to representatives of manufacturers. They are telling me that the economy is perhaps in more trouble than any of us want to acknowledge.
I ask the question: OK, what do we do about it? Obviously, one thing is for the Federal Reserve System to do more. That is one of the places where I have over the years quite often agreed with Senator Dorgan in my exasperation sometimes with the Federal Reserve System. I am not an economist. I wouldn't presume to try to give advice to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board or any others.
But it looks to me as though instead of being overly focused on the possibility of inflation, we are entering a period of deflation--
deflation. We need the Fed to give us a little more of a hand while we bring in the cavalry with some additional help.
The only two things to do when you are having sluggishness in the economy is change monetary policy or change fiscal policy. Give it a stimulus--i.e., tax relief.
Everybody on both sides of the aisle has been saying: yes; let's do more. Let's do more now. Let's do it this year. Let's make sure it is going to have a greater impact in the next 2 or 3 years so the people will have confidence, and so they can keep more of their money safe and invest it, and do something about the economy.
We have two choices. The Federal Reserve can do something and/or we can do something.
I think it is time that we pay a little attention to trying to find a way to give this tax relief, give this fiscal boost, and do it quickly.
That is my greatest concern and why I feel compelled, as I watch what is happening even today with the NASDAQ, what is happening with manufacturing jobs, and what is happening with deflation beginning to creep up on us, to say I think we have to do more.
Two other points: The pattern is clear. I have been in Congress for 28 years--the same number of years as the distinguished Senator from New Mexico. Only I spent a few years--16 years--on the other side of the Capitol.
What we are going to have now is amendment after amendment after amendment on both sides to add more spending--there is nothing new about that--and in areas about which I believe very strongly. Mississippi is a State with agriculture that is very important.
I have always thought of myself as a heavily laden hawk when it comes to defense. But I also like to think of myself as a cheap, heavily laden hawk.
We can all say we voted to spend more here or more there. That is the point.
We are on the verge of everybody saying let's spend more. Let's have more for defense, education, home health care, NIH, health care in general, you name it. We get very comfortable when we start raising the level of spending.
But there is an added problem to it now. One amendment after another says: Oh, and by the way, we will pay for it by taking hard-working people's money away from them, bring it to Washington, and keep it here and decide how it is going to be spent. We are taking from millions of laborers the bread that they have earned and bringing it up here.
What is new? We have been doing this for years. Spend more, raise taxes, or in this case reduce, and pretty soon, if we passed every amendment that has been offered to cut the tax bill, it would be a tax increase.
What is happening? I hope we will think about that and try to stop it.
The amendment before us would reduce the tax cut by $448 billion and increase spending for education, and supposedly accumulate cash. But the fact is, once again, the tax relief would be reduced and more moved into education.
I am not going to take a back seat to anybody when it comes to education. I am the son of a schoolteacher. I went to public schools all my life. I worked for the University of Mississippi in four different capacities before I began practicing law.
I believe in public education, and quality education across the board; not just public education but choice. There is lots of variety in my area. Some of the best schools are Catholic or Episcopal schools.
I feel strongly about education. But the question is, How much is enough? How can we do it all at once with a 25-percent increase, as the Senator from New Mexico was just saying?
The President is asking for an increase. We are going to come back after the Easter recess, and we are going to go to an education bill which may be the most bipartisan bill of the year and which is going to have more spending in it. It is going to be thoughtful. It is going to have reform, accountability, teacher training, and all the different components. Yet here we are once again. Oh, yes, we will take out money for agriculture and from the tax relief. We will take out money for education.
My colleagues, it is the same thing we have been doing over all of the years. It is time to stop it.
This is the worst time to be talking about cutting down or eliminating tax relief.
I spoke this morning to the heads of a couple of major companies--
J.P. Morgan and Dean Witter. I don't know what the current names are because they are so long. We talked about what we can do. What can we do? They said we support the tax relief and the sooner the better.
I oppose this amendment because I think if we don't do it, we will wind up with no tax relief at the worst possible time, and we will wind up spending the entire surplus. This is a balanced package. It reduces the debt. It provides increases for defense, education, agriculture, and it provides tax relief for working Americans.
There is the sign of good government in this budget resolution. Remember this: We get all overwrought about this. This is just the whistle at the beginning of the game. This allows us to go forward and decide how much we are going to put in appropriations for Interior, for Agriculture, and also the tax relief package. This allows us to just go forward to give the President a chance to have his program considered.
I express my support for this package, express my appreciation to Senator Domenici, and urge the defeat of this amendment and all amendments that are going to keep trying to increase spending while cutting tax relief for working Americans.
Thank you. I yield the floor.
Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I remind the majority leader that we offered, last week, to spend this week on a stimulus package. That is the offer we made. We said: Look. We believe we ought to spend this week doing a stimulus package. Don't hold it hostage to a 10-year budget plan. Let's do it now. Let's provide some lift to this economy now. And it was rejected on the other side.
Now they come on to the floor, and all of a sudden they are for taking immediate action on a stimulus package. Where were they on Friday when we made the offer to spend this week on a stimulus package? That is what we should have done. That would have been the right course for the economy. That is what we proposed and they rejected.
Second, on the notion that this President somehow proposed a 25-
percent increase for education, that is not so. The chart of the chairman of the Budget Committee shows very clearly the President proposed a 5-percent increase--not a 25-percent increase, a 5-percent increase. Some of us do not think it is enough to deal with the education challenge facing this country.
Third, the majority leader is using language very loosely, and that is a dangerous thing to do. He is suggesting that somebody out here is talking about a tax increase. No one is talking about a tax increase--
no one. What we are all talking about is significant tax reduction. We have even agreed on an amount of tax reduction for this year to provide stimulus. But we do believe that over the 10 years in the future the President's tax cut is too big; that it threatens to put us back into deficit; that it threatens to raid the trust funds of Medicare and Social Security. And that is no longer just a worry; that has become a reality.
The two amendments that have been adopted out here--to increase spending on prescription drugs and to increase spending on agriculture--because of the way they were done, raid the Medicare trust fund in the years 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008--and it is all in their numbers, and it is just as clear as it can be. They are into the trust funds already, exactly what we said would happen.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, the Senator from North Dakota is next, and he is yielded 12 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 11\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, would the distinguished Senator yield to me for 3 minutes?
Mr. CONRAD. I cannot, I say to the Senator, because we have the prior agreement. Senator Dorgan has been here for 2\1/2\ hours.
Mr. BYRD. But I wanted to ask the majority leader a question while he was on the floor.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, this is a very interesting debate. You never know when you come to the floor of the Senate whether you are going to be informed or entertained. And sometimes it is a portion of both.
I want to respond to a few things that my colleague from New Mexico said recently. I have great respect for him. He does quite a remarkable job steering the budget on that side of the aisle.
A couple things. One, this surplus for 10 years, if you listened to the Senator from New Mexico, and did not know it, you would believe that surplus was in a bank across the street. Why, that is money that is already here. That is locked in. We have that surplus handled.
The fact is, that surplus represents estimates by economists, some of whom cannot remember their home address, but they know what is going to happen 2, 5, 10 years from now. We know better than that.
My colleague mentioned Alan Greenspan. Ten months ago, Alan Greenspan increased interest rates 50 basis points. Why? Because he was worried our economy was growing too fast. Now he is worried we might be heading toward a recession. He could not see 10 months ahead. We can't see 10 months ahead. I do not know, now maybe there is a Ouija board or tarot card or palm reader someone got ahold of someplace that gives them more confidence than the rest of us about what is going to happen in the future.
I hope we have 10 years of surplus, 10 years of economic growth, but I sure would not bank on it. We would be smart to be reasonably conservative in the way we deal with these estimates.
But I want people to understand, when they listen to this debate, it is as if this surplus is in the bank, and it is not, and those who seem to allege it is know that it is not. That is No. 1.
No. 2, my colleague said: We are going to collect $27 trillion in the coming years; we surely can provide a reasonable tax cut out of that.
I do not think he meant to include $27 trillion. Madam President, $9 trillion of that belongs to Social Security and Medicare. The people who pay that in, pay it in to a trust fund with the expectation that those who handle it will do so responsibly; that is, not spend it for other things but to save it in a trust fund.
I do not expect that the Senator, or others, intend to say that $9 trillion is available to be discussed with respect to a tax cut, and yet they do. It is not right. They know that.
Then the issue of debt. I want to talk about the education issue in a moment. I would like to ask my colleague from New Mexico a question. And I would ask my colleague from North Dakota a question.
What I show you is a description of what President Bush sent us from the Office of Management and Budget. And this is the budget resolution we have on the floor. On page 5, line 19, it says: Public debt. Public debt grows from fiscal year 2001--that is the year we are in--$5.5 trillion, to fiscal year 2011, $6.7 trillion.
Let me show what it looks like on a graph.
Now I will ask a question, if someone would come to the floor from the other side so we can examine why they say you can't pay down additional debt: If during the 10 or 11 years of their budget resolution the gross debt is increasing, and if they say it is not, go to page 5, line 19 of their resolution.
In fiscal year 2011, they say that gross public debt is going to be
$6.7 trillion. Is gross public debt increasing or is it decreasing?
We know the answer to that. No one will come to the floor to talk about it. I hope my colleague, Senator Conrad, will allow us some time when perhaps our colleagues are on the floor--the Senator from New Hampshire, who spoke on this at some length earlier, or the Senator from New Mexico, who said we can discuss this.
There is not enough debt out there to repay? Maybe we can find some on page 5 of your resolution. Maybe we ought to start paying a little on that. Because your debt is increasing.
We will talk more about that when someone will show up to answer a question. I hope we can have a discussion about that.
I happen to think, when we talk about values, that one of the values we ought to think important is that if during tougher times you run up a debt, during better times you ought to try to pay it down. And debt is not just debt held by the public; it is all debt incurred by the Federal Government, all of the Federal Government's liabilities. And this, on page 5 of their own resolution, describes an increase of over
$1.2 trillion in indebtedness or liability by the Federal Government.
Let me turn to this amendment because we are obviously not going to have a discussion about this at the moment. The question of whether
``Leave No Child Behind'' is a bumper sticker, a political slogan, or public policy, is what we will answer in this Chamber. Perhaps there are some who embrace all of that. There are some who certainly would use it as a bumper sticker; some as a political slogan.
How many are there in this Chamber who will embrace ``Leave No Children Behind'' as public policy? That is the question. We can all describe our experience with education. And for those who trash our education system--and there are many who do it all the time--I ask them, how do you think the United States of America came to this moment in history? How do you think we arrived at this moment? Might it not have been because we have a universal system of education in which we have a public education system that says every child in America--no matter from where they come, no matter how fat or thin the wallet of their parents, no matter their circumstances in life--can be whatever their God-given talent allows them to be as children of this great country? Isn't that perhaps what has given us this opportunity to arrive at this moment in history?
Do we have challenges in this system of education? You bet we do. Should we fix them and address them? Absolutely. Can we do that just by talking? No. No. It takes some money to keep good teachers. It does take some money to reduce classroom sizes so kids are in a classroom of 15 or 18 students, not 30 or 35, so they are in a school that is well repaired, not in some sort of a trailer outside the school, in mobiles that are ill-equipped.
We need to do right by our children. That is what this debate is about. My colleagues have offered an amendment I intend to support. I am happy to support it because it moves us in the right direction. You can't talk about these issues without understanding a requirement to address them boldly.
It is interesting; all the debate on this is about spending. If you don't believe that investment in our children is an investment in this country, then you don't understand anything about the management of money. There is a difference between spending and investing. When we do right by our kids, when we strengthen America's schools, we invest in this country's future. It is just as simple as that.
Some say this is a tradeoff, this is an offset issue; it is between tax cuts and education. We will have a debate about tax cuts at some point. I happen to think we should have a tax cut. My colleague just described our offer to use this week for an immediate tax cut to provide some fiscal stimulus. The other side didn't want to do that. Now we have heard they would like some fiscal stimulus. We offered that, but they didn't want to do that.
We will have a tax cut. We ought to do it in a way that is fair to all taxpayers. We ought to do it in a manner that gives this economy a boost. It is not a circumstance where every single dollar is offset to make a choice between a tax cut or education. There are some of us who believe that if you add the payroll taxes paid by individuals and the income taxes paid by individuals and if the top 1 percent of the American people who have done very well--and God bless them--paid 21 percent of that, and the majority party says, we want to give 43 percent of the tax cuts to them, we say: Wait a second. That is not something we ought to do. That is not a fair tax cut.
We are going to have that debate at some point. But we ought to be able to provide a tax cut and also do right by our children and strengthen America's schools.
The Harkin amendment has $225 billion for education and also $225 billion for debt reduction because he also values not only investing in our kids by strengthening our schools but addressing this issue as well.
My hope, I say to my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, and also the distinguished chair of the Budget Committee, is that we can have a good discussion about this issue of debt, the increase in the gross Federal debt. I don't know that we can have it at this moment because we are headed towards a vote.
I would like very much to spend some time understanding how one rationalizes the increase in debt and the increase in liabilities in the Federal budget as outlined on page 5, line 19, of the majority budget--an increase of $1.2 trillion in indebtedness--how one rationalizes that with this notion that we have $27 trillion, according to them, in income.
We have surpluses that are almost locked in a bank, and they have the key in their pocket, and they have apparently used a Ouija board to discern what is going to happen in the coming 10 years. I would like to understand the rationale of all of this. I think it is time to talk straight about all of these things in terms of what we have available, do it conservatively, and then make cautious judgments about what will strengthen and improve this country. Yes, a tax cut will; I support one. Yes, paying down the Federal debt will, and I support that. And yes, investing in America's schools will strengthen this country, and I believe we ought to do that as well.
Madam President, this will be an instructive debate, and it will be an opportunity, as we vote, for people to tell us, is ``Leave No Child Behind'' a bumper sticker or is it real public policy this Senate embraces.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I believe I have 5 or 6 minutes remaining; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes remaining.
Mr. DOMENICI. We then go to a vote under the UC, as it exists.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. So Senators should know that that is about the time we are going to vote. I want to make sure they know that because they have been waiting.
First of all, I think we ought to be careful about accusing the other side of speaking loosely. I can see about 10 examples in my mind's eye of saying they spoke loosely. I choose to say they spoke what they believed and we speak what we believe. I don't think it is loosely; I think it is very deliberate, and it is very thoughtful on both sides.
I have a rough estimate, so the American people will know. We are going to spend $44 billion on education this year, the National Government. We are going to spend $500 billion over the next decade. That is half a trillion dollars. So the point of it is, while some may not think that is enough--and maybe I would even join in saying we ought to do more--I think we are on a pretty good growth path for education. And everybody should know that over the next decade we are a small contributor to education. That is the way it has been. We are between 6.5 and 7.5 percent of public education. So everybody will know the dimension of our involvement.
Nonetheless, we are going to spend half a trillion dollars. It will be growing substantially each year. The point I am trying to make is, at some point you have to raise the level of the concern for the taxpayer to an equal level with those who would increase spending from what is already a very high level of spending. So the American people should know we are spending a lot on education. It is going up each year. I just showed how much. And it is going to continue going up. Should we not at some point in time bring the taxpayer into this and say: OK, Mr. and Mrs. Hard Working American, would you like to get some of your tax dollars back or would you like for us to take every program that sounds good, no matter what the level of spending nationally, and let's add some more to it, and then we will consider you later on? I don't think that is what the American taxpayer wants.
In fact, I think they want a fair break out of this, and a fair break is over the next 10 years giving them back 6.4 percent of what they pay in in taxes. That is what we are talking about. When we get away from the big numbers and get into 6 cents out of every dollar, we are talking about 6 percent, giving 6 percent of the tax taken from the taxpayer back to the taxpayer over the next decade when we are running very big surpluses.
Frankly, I will answer one further insinuation. The insinuation is that the Senator from New Mexico is talking about these surpluses as if they were there tomorrow. I believe they are as good estimates as we are ever going to get, and there is a high probability that they are going to be right. But if the estimates are not any good, then they ought not to be any good to add spending based on them either.
So if you have something down here where you want to spend half that tax money on new programs, you ought to be thinking, maybe the tax surplus is not real. We don't want you to think it is real because we don't want you to use it for tax dollars, but we would like to use it for something else.
With that, I yield back any time I might have.
Mr. CONRAD. Is there any time remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The vote is to occur at 3:20 by previous order.
Mr. CONRAD. I ask that Senator Harkin be given the last 2 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I object. I don't know why we ought to do that. Then I get 2 minutes, too. You have been arguing for about an hour more than we have on this amendment. I just think, being fair, we are finished. I yielded back my time. That is why we still have some time left. I could have still been talking.
Mr. CONRAD. All right.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 185.
Mr. CONRAD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:
YEAS--53
AkakaBaucusBayhBidenBingamanBoxerBreauxByrdCantwellCarnahanCarperChafeeClelandClintonConradCorzineDaschleDaytonDoddDorganDurbinEdwardsFeingoldFeinsteinGrahamHarkinHollingsInouyeJeffordsJohnsonKennedyKerryKohlLandrieuLeahyLevinLiebermanLincolnLottMikulskiMurrayNelson (FL)Nelson (NE)ReedReidRockefellerSarbanesSchumerSpecterStabenowTorricelliWellstoneWyden
NAYS--47
AllardAllenBennettBondBrownbackBunningBurnsCampbellCochranCollinsCraigCrapoDeWineDomeniciEnsignEnziFitzgeraldFristGrammGrassleyGreggHagelHatchHelmsHutchinsonHutchisonInhofeKylLugarMcCainMcConnellMillerMurkowskiNicklesRobertsSantorumSessionsShelbySmith (NH)Smith (OR)SnoweStevensThomasThompsonThurmondVoinovichWarner
The amendment (No. 185) was agreed to.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was just agreed to. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion has been entered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, Senator Byrd has indicated he would like to have an exchange, a colloquy. This seems a good time to do it. I might say also, it would be our hope and intent now that we would go on to the next amendment. Senator Specter is ready with an amendment on NIH. So I hope we can--I talked to Senator Daschle about that--go ahead and proceed with the next amendment that was in order.
I would be glad to respond to a question or a comment Senator Byrd might have.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader for his making possible an inquiry at this point.
As Senators know, I am, I think, the Senator who has had more of a part in writing the Budget Reform Act than any other Senator who today serves in the Senate. I believe, with all my heart, that the reconciliation instruction process was never meant to be used as a procedure for cutting taxes. It has been my belief, from the beginning, that the purpose of the reconciliation process is to reduce deficits. And the process has been useful in that regard over a period of several years.
I am very concerned that the Senate is about to use the process in a way for which it was not intended. I think a point of order, if made, would nail in the precedent that it is quite all right to use the reconciliation process to cut taxes. So I do not want to do that. If, and when, that time comes, I prefer to just vote up or down and let the chips fall where they may.
So I have a couple of questions I wish to ask of the distinguished majority leader. One would be in light of the fact that we only have, I believe, about 30 hours remaining.
Mr. REID. That is true.
Mr. BYRD. And I feel sure the majority leader is concerned about this as much as I am because I have already heard him say some things today that would lead me to believe that.
My question would be--and he might not want to answer it at this point--but when are we going to get to the reconciliation vote on this concurrent resolution on the budget? When are we going to get to it? When we reach that point, we need some time to debate it. I would like to speak at least 45 minutes or an hour on that subject.
Our time is being eaten up. I am not complaining about that except to say we are not going to have enough time to debate the most important question that will come before us unless we get to that matter soon.
Another question which I wish to propound to the distinguished majority leader, I think it is very important that the Senate have before it the President's budget before the Senate votes on final passage of the concurrent resolution on the budget. I think if we can see what is in the President's budget, we will see that some programs, that are very important to Senators on both sides of the aisle, are probably going to be reduced in order to make way for the tax cut. I think Senators should know these things before they vote on this resolution that is before the Senate.
I will not proceed further to make that case. I think it is a solid case, and I think there is every reason why Senators ought to have the budget at their fingertips before they cast that final vote. That has been my hope all along.
The President had earlier indicated, I believe, that he would submit his budget to the Congress on this past Monday, and then later changed his mind to say it would be sent up on the 9th, which will be next Monday.
I must say, earlier I had thought, Mr. Leader, of using some dilatory tactics in order to put the Senate over to Wednesday. I watched the debate on the natural gas bill in 1977, at which time two Senators--Mr. Metzenbaum and Mr. Abourezk--kept this Senate from reaching a decision 13 days and 1 night and still had hundreds of amendments and just as many dilatory actions available as ever.
I know it can be done. I know how to do it. But it was decided in the Democratic Caucus that we would not do that. We do, however, still need to see that budget. I think there is every reason the American people should know what is in the President's budget before their elected representatives in this body cast their votes in connection therewith.
Consequently, I ask this question: Would it be possible--this will be a matter for both leaders, not just the majority leader, but mainly the majority leader--would it be possible to put this matter over until next Wednesday, which would allow Monday for the President to send his budget up to the Congress and then would allow the Senate Tuesday and Wednesday in which to amend, to debate, and to make a final decision on the concurrent resolution on the budget? In the meantime a decision could be made with respect to the reconciliation resolution as well. It might very well be that a time agreement could be worked out, and the majority leader has been interested in that. I have been interested in it. Mr. Gramm and Mr. Domenici have expressed some interest in it. Mr. Nickles has expressed interest, and others.
I think there is every good reason why it might be wise to do that. A unanimous consent request hase been under consideration. The majority leader discussed this again with me briefly last night at the time of the reception the Senate was having in honor of the spouses of the Senators. Would it be possible to delay final passage of the budget resolution until next Wednesday? I know it would inconvenience some Senators. But what is more important? The inconvenience to the Senators, or wisdom and the proper judgment when it comes to casting our votes for those whom we represent?
I don't think there is a Senator here who would disagree with my statement that, yes, there will be inconveniences, perhaps some trips would have to be canceled, but that is all in a day's work. We get paid for our work. We have a responsibility to our people. Perhaps there will be no more important vote that will be cast by the Senate than the vote on this concurrent budget resolution and the vote with respect to the reconciliation process.
That ends my question.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe there were actually several ideas or questions propounded there. I will try to respond as directly and as briefly to them as I can so we can go forward with the next amendment that is pending.
First of all, as to when to take up the issue of reconciliation and the process for giving working people tax relief to be able to keep a little bit more of their money at home, I think clearly it needs to come relatively shortly, I assume tomorrow, in whatever form it might be so that there will be ample time to discuss it fully. I know that Senators on both sides of the aisle will want to be heard on that.
I must say that if we start down this trail of spending all the money, there won't be anything left for tax relief anyway so we won't need this reconciliation process. I think clearly to have tax cut in reconciliation is something that we would like to have considered and would be prepared to act on it. But as the Senator knows, we would be willing to consider doing it another way, doing it the way it was done even back in the 1980s. We have offered an idea, a unanimous consent agreement to Senator Byrd, and I have discussed it with Senator Daschle. Senators on this side have looked at that. I thought perhaps we could get something worked out on that, and we could get that done.
We would have to consult with the chairman of the Finance Committee and the ranking member on the Finance Committee, make sure everybody understood how that would work and make sure that it would give us some of the important benefits that reconciliation gives you, even though it wouldn't do it that way.
We will be glad to continue to work with you and with others on the possibility of doing it through a unanimous consent agreement. I have discussed this with Senator Domenici and with Senator Grassley. They are interested, willing to work on it. They just want to make sure they know what is in it, and I think everybody on both sides wants to do that.
As far as the President's budget, we have the outlines of the main categories that the President is suggesting. I guess if we waited later on, we would get line by line by line. I don't think that is what a budget resolution does. A budget resolution sets the broad categories and then we go forward. Then in the Appropriations Committee, for instance, they decide how much they are going to put in there for Interior or Transportation. I don't believe the President dictates that. We have acted before when we didn't have the President's budget.
As far as the idea of postponing it, there would be two or three problems with that. We had not indicated that we were thinking about doing that. We would have to check on both sides with 100 Senators to make sure that their schedules could be changed to that effect. I suspect there would be a lot of resistance to it. We would have to check with both sides of the aisle on that. Worst of all, in my opinion, we need to move forward. We need to move forward with this budget resolution--good, bad, ugly. We ought to move it on into conference and see if we can get an agreement there and then come back and vote on it so we can get on with the substantive business. This just gives us the outlines of how we can proceed and then we get into the details: What we do on Medicare, what we do on defense, and what we do on tax policy.
I think we ought to go ahead. I spoke earlier about my concern about the economy and the need for us to get this process on down the road so that we can be looking at taking some action on tax policy and on substantive issues, too.
I see Senator Domenici. As chairman of the Budget Committee, I don't want to try to respond to all of this. Some of it being in his jurisdiction, would he like to comment on this, too?
Mr. DOMENICI. I surely don't want to use much time. You have answered with the authority of the majority leader. I just wanted to say to you, Mr. Leader, and to you, Senator Byrd, I never in my wildest dreams thought we would finish this budget resolution without your spending an hour on a subject you think is most important; namely, reconciliation. We have already spent a lot of hours debating. Frankly, in my opinion, although the debates were luxurious, I think it would have served us well if you would have already taken an hour and I would have taken an hour and Senator Conrad taken an hour and we discussed reconciliation. I don't intend to get finished without that hour of debate about what it is all about and what it means taking place. As soon as we can, I would be for working it out. Our leader thinks we should work it out on an issue that is formulated before the Senate.
I do want to comment, since you have indicated two things. One, we should have the President's budget first. That is OK. That is a good wish. I would suggest that when we had a new President named Bill Clinton, we didn't have a budget before we approved the budget resolution, including the conference report on the budget resolution. Then we got a budget. I think there is precedent for a new President for us to proceed.
Secondly, I think you did do more than, as much as anyone present here, of course, in drafting this 25-year old Budget Impoundment Act. Frankly, you have one version about reconciliation that the Senator from New Mexico, who has now used your product you developed with others--I have used it as chairman or ranking member or member for 25 years. So while you drew it, I have watched it implemented.
I will present to the Senate my strong conviction that there is nothing in this act that precludes using reconciliation for a tax decrease bill. I just wanted to make sure I amplified to that extent.
Mr. BYRD. I don't want to take a lot of time. Let me just say this: We can argue back and forth as to what has been done in the past. I think we have to deal with what is in the present. We have here ``A Blueprint for New Beginnings.'' My problem with this is that it is kind of a peekaboo budget. You see just a little of the budget. But what I see is disturbing. For example, with respect to the research in fossil fuel, that is going to be cut. That is important to the energy resources of this Nation, particularly at this time.
Now we have the clean coal technology program, for which the President has said he supports a $2 billion increase. That is well and good. But the problem is, as I look through this peekaboo budget, I find that much of the money he is going to put into clean coal technology is going to come out of fossil fuel research. That is important to coal, oil, and gas. That is just one thing of which I got a little glimpse. I think we will find the word ``redirect'' in this blueprint a number of times.
I noted in the Washington Post of Sunday, April 1, that the Community Policing Service Program, COPS, would be cut by 13 percent, from $1 billion to about $850 million. I noted also in the New York Times--I believe, of yesterday--well, I don't seem to have it at my fingertips, but some programs are going to be cut. I think Senators should know what programs are proposed to be cut in the President's budget before they vote on final passage of this concurrent resolution on the budget before us.
I am going to take my seat soon, but for these reasons, which could be debated at considerable length, I hope it will be possible to have the President's budget before we take the final plunge on the concurrent resolution on the budget. It seems to me it isn't too much to ask that that final action--perhaps the final 10 hours, if it could be worked out that way--be put over until next Tuesday or Wednesday.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BYRD. If I have the time, yes.
Mr. REID. I say to the Senator, I appreciate very much directing his attention to this. I think we would be better off putting this off until we got back from the break. I think we have 30 hours left. Everybody is trying to finish this bill by tomorrow. In the back room, I say to the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, we have over 120 amendments just on our side. You know, unless we have some time to work this out, there is going to be a big vote-athon. We need to do this with wisdom and discretion and have a document before making a decision.
I think the Senator is right on the ball, right in the direct line in which we should be going. This is so important, I would be willing to cancel what I have next week in Nevada and do this. But if people are unwilling to do that, let's do it after we come back, set it at a certain time and have a unanimous consent agreement that we can complete this thing in a matter of a day or two. People would feel better about it. We can sift through the 120 amendments and get to what really needs to be done.
Senator Conrad has done a wonderful job of managing this bill. I don't know of anybody who has ever managed a bill better than he has. But with these time constraints and big things such as debt reduction, defense, reconciliation, his hands are tied to manage this bill properly. I certainly think the Senator from West Virginia is headed in the right direction.
Mr. DOMENICI. If the Senator will yield to me for a moment, and I understand the ranking member wants to speak. What I have here is also a peekaboo budget, but it is not President Bush's, it is President Clinton's. It is a peekaboo budget, borrowing your expression. It is
``A Vision of Change for America,'' but it is not a budget.
Mr. BYRD. That is right.
Mr. DOMENICI. This was sent up here on February 17, and in a marvelous show of support for the new President, before any budget was forthcoming, a budget resolution was adopted based on this peekaboo budget.
Mr. BYRD. That is a peekaboo budget.
Mr. DOMENICI. It went to conference for him, and it came back as a conferred-upon bill. So we are kind of used to looking at what you all do, and then when you are doing something really borderline spectacular, we say we would like to be a mimic. You did it in such a great fashion for him, we wanted to do a little bit for President Bush.
Mr. BYRD. I wish the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, however, had had a markup in the committee, as was the case when that peekaboo budget was sent up here in 1993.
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
Mr. BYRD. The Senator will admit, will he not, that the Budget Committee did, in that instance, 1993, have a markup in the committee and then reported that measure out of the committee with a report? And I assume the minority was allowed to publish its views. Would the Senator respond? Was that not the case with that 1993 peekaboo budget?
Mr. DOMENICI. Indeed, it was.
Mr. BYRD. In the case of that 1993 peekaboo budget, did the committee, in that instance, report out a bill? Did it mark up the bill?
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, it did.
Mr. BYRD. If it did, why doesn't the Senator, who admires that role model, wish to have a markup in the committee and report out a concurrent resolution on this budget?
Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, I tried to explain the difference. You had the luxury of a majority here in the Senate. In fact, you had three votes more than a majority. We went in the Budget Committee not even stephen. Everybody already made up their minds. You had a majority of Democrats willing to vote out a Presidential budget when Republicans didn't want it. So it is the same thing I had, except it turns out 11-11, an equal number. So there is a very big difference.
Mr. BYRD. There is a difference, but, with all due respect, that is no reason not to have a markup. Just because the people saw fit to make it 50/50 in this Senate, that is no reason to avoid having a markup in committee. We have a responsibility to the people who send us here to have a markup in the committee.
The point I am trying to make is that we ought to see the President's budget. It would not be asking too much of all of us, I don't think, to hold over until next Tuesday or Wednesday to complete action on this concurrent resolution on the budget. Let us see the President's budget.
While I have the floor--and then I will sit down--I have the New York Times of Wednesday, April 4. I will read the headline: ``Bush Budget on Health Care Would Cut Aid to Uninsured.''
That is one example of why I think the Senate ought to have the President's budget. We don't know what is in it.
Mr. CONRAD. Would the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BYRD. I am glad to yield.
Mr. CONRAD. Isn't it true that while President Clinton had not submitted a full budget, he had submitted sufficient detail so the cost of his budget proposals could be estimated by the Committee on the Budget, the CBO, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and so the Senate, acting in 1993, had all of the reestimates done that told us the cost of his proposal?
Mr. BYRD. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. CONRAD. And is it not true as well that President Bush has not submitted sufficient detail for the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation to do the reestimates that were done on the previous President's budget, so we do not have those reestimates; isn't that true?
Mr. BYRD. The Senator is preeminently correct.
Mr. CONRAD. I will go on, if I can, when we look at the level of detail that has been provided by President Bush versus President Clinton, there is a very stark and glaring set of differences. For example, the Clinton document had tables that provided year-by-year budget numbers for 68 specific proposals to reduce discretionary spending.
The tables also included the year-by-year numbers for 90 specific proposals to cut mandatory spending.
The budget also provided year-by-year detail for proposed increases in spending.
The Bush budget does not provide any year-by-year numbers for specific proposed changes in discretionary spending; is that not the case?
Mr. BYRD. Oh, absolutely; no question about it; absolutely.
Mr. CONRAD. So to compare 1993 to this year does not really stack up, does not hold up under much scrutiny because, as the Senator from West Virginia has made so clear, we had full reestimates then of the cost of the President's tax-and-spending proposals, sufficient detail for the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation to tell us what those costs were. We do not have it now. And we had a full Budget Committee markup then. We do not have any Budget Committee markup now.
The fact is, we do not have sufficient detail from the President to have the kind of objective independent analysis done to inform the Senate of the cost of the President's tax-and-spending proposals.
Mr. BYRD. Absolutely. Moreover, that was a budget for 5 years. That was a 5-year plan in 1993. This is a 10-year plan. Additionally, the resolution was used in that instance to reduce deficits, not to increase them.
Finally, my good friend from New Mexico speaks of that 1993 budget as a role model. Not one of the Senators on that side of the aisle voted for it. Not one Republican in the House voted for it.
What did it do? It put the Nation on the course for reduction of the deficits and for the accumulation of huge projected surpluses. Whether they ever materialize or not is another question. But what are we so afraid of? Why is this Senate afraid to see the President's budget?
Mr. CONRAD. We were promised the President's budget, were we not? We were promised it was going to be here on April 2 before we took up a budget resolution on the floor. And presto disto, the next thing we know, there is no budget until April 9 when we have completed action. It is a very unusual circumstance.
If we are going to be fair and objective about comparing 1993 to now, we will see there are very significant differences. Most significant, we have had no budget markup in the committee, and there was sufficient detail on what President Clinton sent us that the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation were able to give us an objective independent analysis of the cost of the President's spending-
and-tax proposals which we do not have here. We do not have them.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the very able majority leader for his courtesy in calling attention to the inquiry I had previously indicated I wanted to make, and for his listening to it. I am sure he will give some consideration to it. I hope he will. And I hope all Senators will be willing to consider the request to go over until next Tuesday or Wednesday so that we might have the benefit of having the information that is in the President's budget.
I am sure it is not very far away. It is probably on the printing presses within three blocks of this Chamber right now. If they plan to have it up here next Monday, it is available somewhere right now.
I thank the majority leader for entertaining my request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania is going to go next. I did not want to keep burdening Senator Byrd with my statements. He has made his. I want to make mine.
I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the introduction of the President's revenue proposals by the Joint Committee on Taxation, March 8, 1993.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Introduction
This pamphlet, prepared by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, provides a summary of the revenue provisions included in the President's budget proposal, as submitted to the Congress on February 17, 1993.
The provisions summarized in this pamphlet are those revenue proposals contained in the Department of the Treasury document, Summary of the Administration's Revenue Proposals, February 1993 (``Treasury document''). The pamphlet also summarizes three other revenue proposals included in the Office of Management and Budget document, A Vision of Change for America, February 17, 1993 (``OMB document''), that would amend the Internal Revenue Code: taxation of social security benefits; increase of inland waterways fuel excise tax; and use of Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund amounts for administrative expenses.
The pamphlet descriptions of the President's proposals are taken without modification from the Treasury document and the OMB document. The pamphlet summary description includes present law and a reference to any recent prior Congressional action on the topic and whether the proposal (or a similar proposal) was included in recent budget proposals (fiscal years 1990-1993). Part I of the pamphlet summarizes the revenue-reduction proposals from the Treasury document; Part II summarizes the revenue-raising proposals from the Treasury document; and Part III summarizes three additional revenue proposals from the OMB document.
The Treasury document's introductory statement indicates that ``[t]he descriptions included in this report are not intended to be final. Many of the proposals will be revised in the process of finalizing the Administration's fiscal year 1994 Budget. The descriptions are also not intended to be comprehensive. Numerous details, such as rules relating to the prevention of abusive transactions and the limitation of tax benefits consistent with the principles of the proposals, will be provided in connection with the presentation of the Budget and upon submission of legislation to implement the Administration's plan.''
Further, the Treasury document states that ``[i]n addition to the proposals summarized in this report, the Administration also supports initiatives to promote sensible and equitable administration of the internal revenue laws. These include simplification, good governance and technical correction proposals.''
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, that is the Joint Committee's introduction on President Clinton's tax package that was considered, voted on, passed, went to conference with the House and passed, and this is all they could say about what the President submitted:
The Treasury document's introductory statement indicates that ``[t]he descriptions included in this report are not intended to be final. Many of the proposals will be revised in the process of finalizing the Administration's fiscal year 1994 Budget. The descriptions are also not intended to be comprehensive. Numerous details, such as . . . limitation of tax benefits consistent with the principles of the proposals, will be provided in--
And it goes on.
I want everybody to know, according to the tax Web site, no tax revenue tables were available with reference to President Clinton's budget until way past the time the budget resolution was considered. As a matter of fact, the first tax tables were not made available to the Ways and Means Committee until May 4 of 1993, the second tables on June 17, 1993, and we had already produced the budget resolution in both Houses, gone to conference, and adopted it.
I do not care to go on forever. I believe we ought to treat President Bush, as well as Republicans and Members of the Senate, as President Clinton was treated when he was a so-called brand new President.
We will proceed, and I want the Record to show, and I will put the letter in tomorrow, that every member of the Budget Committee on the Republican side asked the chairman, this chairman, not to consider markup because they said it would not yield any fruitful results. While that is my decision, I want everybody to know I did not make it singularly. I had a pretty good backing from Republicans who did not think it would amount to anything other than long, protracted debates and nothing positive would be accomplished.
Before we proceed and I yield to my friend from Pennsylvania, I was asked by the majority leader to propose what I assume is a usual consent request.
____________________
