[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 58 (Wednesday, March 29, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4784-S4789]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


               EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I have an amendment which I will eventually send to 
the desk. I believe Mr. Hatfield was going to propose a time limit on 
the amendment. When he returns shortly, I am sure that, if it is still 
his disposition to do that, I would be agreeable to doing it.
  I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Mr. Hatfield, Mr. Exon, 
and Mr. Domenici and Mr. Kohl.
  Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished chairman for the purpose 
of getting that time agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member of the 
committee.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to the consideration 
of the Byrd amendment, on which there will be 90 minutes of debate with 
time equally divided in the usual form; further, I ask unanimous 
consent that there be no second-degree amendments in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished chairman.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any other Senators who 
may wish to become cosponsors of the amendment do so. I have already 
indicated that I offer the amendment on behalf of myself, and following 
chief cosponsors: Senators Hatfield, Exon, Domenici, and Kohl.


                 Amendment No. 423 to Amendment No. 420

  (Purpose: To reduce the discretionary spending caps to ensure that 
     savings achieved in the bill are applied to deficit reduction)

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself, Mr. 
     Hatfield, Mr. Exon, Mr. Domenici, and Mr. Kohl, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 423 to amendment No. 420.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the pending amendment add the following:

                      TITLE   --DEFICIT REDUCTION


         downward adjustments in discretionary spending limits

       Sec.   01. Upon the enactment of this Act, the Director of 
     the Office of Management and Budget shall make downward 
     adjustments in the discretionary spending limits (new budget 
     authority and outlays) specified in section 601(a)(2) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for each of the fiscal years 
     1995 through 1998 by the aggregate amount of estimated 
     reductions in new budget authority and outlays for 
     discretionary programs resulting from the provisions this Act 
     (other than emergency appropriations) for such fiscal year, 
     as calculated by the Director.


  prohibition on use of savings to offset deficit increases resulting 
              from direct spending or receipts legislation

       Sec.   02. Reductions in outlays, and reductions in the 
     discretionary spending limits specified in section 601(a)(2) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, resulting from the 
     enactment of this Act shall not be taken into account for 
     purposes of section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the clerk for reading the amendment.
  Mr. President, my amendment is unambiguous and straightforward in its 
intent and in its effect. It will require the Director of the Office of 
Management of Budget to lower the discretionary spending limits, for 
both new budget authority and outlays, for each of fiscal years 1995 
through 1998, by the amount of budgetary savings that will result from 
the enactment of this act. This will mean that the savings, which will 
result from enactment of the pending legislation, will go to deficit 
reduction only.
  The savings cannot be spent on other programs. They cannot go for tax 
cuts. If my amendment is adopted the savings enacted in this bill will 
really be savings, not fodder for tax goodies to the favored few or 
part of some shell game designed to save with one hand and spend with 
the other. We need to reduce the deficits and my amendment will make 
sure that the savings in this bill will do just that.
  The exact amount of deficit reduction that will occur from this 
measure cannot be determined at this time. That will depend on the 
outcome of the conference with the House on this bill. We do know, 
however, that the House-passed bill, H.R. 1158, contains a total of 
$17.4 billion in rescissions and other reductions in spending. We also 
know that the committee substitute before the Senate contains $13.5 
billion in rescissions and other reductions. If the bill which passes 
the Senate retains the $13.5 billion in spending cuts, and if the 
conference splits the difference--as it sometimes does--in rescissions 
between the two bills, the final conference agreement will result in 
deficit reduction of somewhere around $8.8 billion. That amount of 
deficit reduction will occur, even after paying for the FEMA 
supplemental. That is a substantial amount of deficit reduction, 
particularly, when one considers that these rescissions are being made 
half way through the fiscal year. This is not to say that I agree with 
every rescission contained in the committee substitute. There will 
undoubtedly be amendments offered to restore a number of the proposed 
rescissions. I may vote for those amendments. But, whenever these cuts 
are made, one thing is clear and that is that we must do everything we 
can to reduce the deficit at every opportunity if we are to reach the 
goal of budget balance early in the next century. Therefore, if I 
support amendments to restore cuts in the bill, I will only do so if 
those amendments have full offsets.
  Senators should be aware that, without my amendment, the spending 
cuts made in the bill will not go to deficit reduction. If the 
discretionary spending caps are not lowered, as my amendment will 
require, the savings in this bill can simply be respent somewhere else. 
Or, as we have heard so much about, the savings could be used to help 
pay for tax cuts or even for increases in direct spending. It is true 
that to use the savings in this act for tax cuts, would require a 
change in the Budget Act. But, that, Mr. President, is precisely what 
has been proposed by 
[[Page S4785]] the House leadership. In fact, I am advised that today, 
Wednesday, March 29, the House Budget Committee will report a measure 
which would waive the pay-go requirements of the Budget Act in order to 
allow reductions in the discretionary spending caps to be used to help 
pay for the folly of all follies--tax cuts at this time.
  To my mind that is an outrage. Here we are ready to cut Head Start 
Programs, child care programs, money for computers in the classroom, 
money for scholarships, and funds for safe and drug-free schools, all 
cuts that will impact on programs designed to assist our young people 
with getting a better start in life like a good education, better 
nutrition, adequate learning tools, assistance in the fight against the 
scourge of drugs, and, yet, there are some who want to take these 
dollars from our young people and parcel them out in tax cuts to the 
favored few. Well what is wrong with that? There are several things 
wrong with that approach. First, we just went through a lot of agony 
and hand wringing, and heard a lot of passionate rhetoric about how 
critical it is for this Nation's overall well-being to get these 
deficits down. The balanced budget debate and the line-item veto debate 
were about getting these deficits down.
  For weeks we have had the wringing of hands and the gnashing of teeth 
over the need to reduce deficits. There was virtually no disagreement 
about getting the deficits down. The disagreement was about what method 
should be employed to accomplish that goal. Now, to come right along 
behind that debate and blow all the savings in this bill like sailors 
on leave to pay for tax cuts makes a mockery of all the hot rhetoric on 
deficit reduction, and certainly further undercuts the American 
public's view of the sincerity of the Members of this body.
  Second, any tax cut proposal at this time is just plain foolish. We 
must not squander our budget savings on tax favors. I like to vote for 
tax cuts. That is the easiest vote I have ever cast in 49 years in 
politics, and in serving in legislative bodies at the State level and 
at the national level. It is the easiest vote of all. Whoopee. We all 
like to vote for tax cuts. It is different to vote for tax increases. 
But any tax cut proposal at this time is just plain foolish. To do so 
is tantamount to simply running on a treadmill--working up a sweat, but 
going virtually nowhere.
  The Bible says ``to everything there is a season,'' but this is not 
the season for a tax cut. It is common for politicians to try to be all 
things to all people, try to make everybody happy, claim deficit 
reduction to some, but hand out tax cuts to others. But, this is the 
season for coming to grips with the hard reality of our day. The time 
for feel-good politics is over, and instead of making everybody happy 
with phoney placebos, our duty is to make everybody perhaps a little 
unhappy in the short run for the good of all people--make the cuts and 
get the deficits down as we have promised.
  The third thing wrong about tax cuts is that, in the case of this 
bill, unless we lock in these savings we will be paying for tax 
giveaways on the backs of our children and grandchildren. All the tears 
we have just shed on this floor over our children and grandchildren in 
the balanced budget debate will have amounted to nothing more than 
theatrics if we are willing to take from programs that assist our young 
people and, instead of using them to reduce the deficit, pass them out 
like party favors on tax cuts for the well-to-do.
  Mr. President, I am aware that the President of the United States has 
proposed a middle-class tax cut. I am also aware that the so-called 
Contract With America calls for a much larger tax cut--of 
something like $630 billion over the next 10 years. That is the cost of 
the bill that has been reported out of the House Ways and Means 
Committee. Furthermore, after all of the provisions of the House tax 
cut bill are phased in, the revenue losses every year will total more 
than $110 billion--for each year thereafter.
  And who will get the lion's share of the benefits from these tax 
cuts? Will it be the average American family, where often both parents 
have to work in order to make ends meet? Or, will these tax breaks go 
instead to upper-income households and large corporations?
  According to a Treasury Department analysis, less than 16 percent of 
the benefits of the fully phased-in tax provisions as passed by the 
House Ways and Means Committee would go to 60 percent of all families 
with incomes below $50,000. The top 1 percent of families with incomes 
of $350,000 or more a year would receive 20 percent of the tax 
benefits, while more than half of the tax goodies would go to the top 
12 percent of families--those with incomes over $100,000 per year.
  Also, according to an analysis by the Treasury Department, over half 
the benefits from the House Ways and Means Committee's capital gains 
provisions would go to the wealthiest 3 percent of families who have 
incomes over $200,000, while three-fourths of the benefits would go to 
the top 12 percent of families who have incomes over $100,000 a year.
  Mr. President, I cannot imagine a more perverse policy than one that 
calls for paying for tax cuts for the wealthy through cuts in programs, 
such as the ones contained in the bill now before the Senate, which 
provide education and other forms of assistance to the Nation's 
neediest children and families. I urge my colleagues to reject such an 
approach by supporting my amendment. In so doing, we will at least have 
ensured that the savings from the painful and difficult cuts that are 
being made in this bill will go only toward deficit reduction. Such an 
approach will benefit all Americans, not just the wealthiest among us.
  Mr. President, to me this is a moral issue. It has to do with 
truthfulness; it has to do with fairness; it has to do with conscience.
  And unless this amendment is adopted, I cannot support this 
legislation.
  I cannot be a party to making these difficult cuts, without the 
assurance that these reductions will only be used to reduce the 
deficit.
  I will not indirectly cast my vote for tax breaks for the wealthy by 
voting for painful cuts that, without my amendment, may be used to 
finance subsidies for the rich.
  I urge us not to make a parody of the recent serious debate just held 
on this Senate floor on the line-item veto and the balanced budget 
amendment. We have promised the American people we will reduce this 
deficit and do it we must. Today we make our first serious downpayment 
on our pledge with the adoption of this amendment. I urge that it be 
adopted by a strong vote so that the Senate, at least, will put its 
money where its mouth is and keep its commitment to the American 
people.
  I am against a tax cut at this time. I do not care who advocates it, 
whether it be President Clinton or whether it be in the so-called 
Contract With America. It is the wrong time. It is the wrong thing to 
do.
  Mr. President, as an additional cosponsor, I ask unanimous consent 
that Mr. Harkin's name may be added.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I shall ask for the yeas and nays. I reserve 
the remainder of my time.
  How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Approximately 32 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  I understood that Mr. Exon wanted to speak on this amendment. If 
there are other speakers, I would like to know. Otherwise, I shall not 
use any more of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator yielding the floor?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I ask 
unanimous consent that the time be equally charged to all sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The absence of a quorum having been suggested, the clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S4786]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thompson). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Exon].
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. I thank my friend and colleague from West Virginia and I 
thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by 
the distinguished Senator from West Virginia.
  I commend the Senator for his thoughtful and timely amendment. Some 
of our colleagues talk a good game of deficit reduction. Yet, when it 
comes to taking action, they sometimes get cold feet.
  I would like to point out that, even though the distinguished Senator 
and I were on opposite sides of the fence when it came to the balanced 
budget amendment and the line-item veto, we are, nevertheless, united 
when it comes to deficit reduction. We proved that in 1993 when we 
worked hand-in-hand to pass the largest deficit-reduction plan ever, 
and we prove it again today. I am proud to stand with my friend, 
Senator Byrd, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia.
  Herein lies a lesson for all of our colleagues. No party has a 
monopoly when it comes to deficit reduction. No individual has all of 
the answers. We can hold different views, but when it comes to specific 
spending cuts and real savings, we should be one body dedicated to a 
common cause--getting our fiscal house in order.
  Mr. President, in spite of the relentless drumbeat from the other 
side of Capitol Hill to cut taxes, the American people have their 
priorities in order. And I hope the House and the Senate will listen. 
Of course, they want lower taxes, but they want a balanced budget 
first.
  The American people are not selfish and certainly they are not 
foolish. They want to get Government spending under control. They know 
you cannot run with the rabbit and hunt with the hounds. They want to 
protect their children's and grandchildren's future.
  They certainly question the Contract With America when that contract 
goes so far as to deviate from common sense.
  The American people are willing to accept the sacrifice that comes 
with creditable deficit reduction. They are willing to accept the pain 
of deep spending cuts, but only if those cuts go toward balancing the 
budget, and not spending elsewhere in the form of tax decreases. The 
American people know you cannot have it both ways. There is the rub and 
there is the root to this frustration.
  I believe that the Byrd amendment takes head-on that proposition by 
saying that the savings that we made in this legislation will go for 
deficit reduction--deficit reduction--and nothing else.
  What confounds the American people are the complex rules that go 
along with our budget process. In the never-never world of the budget, 
a spending cut is not always a spending cut. It is like a lizard's tail 
that comes off in your hands. We cut program after program, but cuts 
often become new spending and the deficit continues to grow.
 The lizard grows another tail, and on and on and on we go.

  Mr. President, we could slash the space station. We could eliminate 
another 100,000 Federal jobs. We could cut every discretionary program 
by 10 percent. However, those savings mean nothing unless we make the 
cuts permanent and specifically apply them toward deficit reduction.
  I am convinced that is what the vast majority of the American people 
want, and I know that the Byrd amendment now before us does exactly 
that.
  Fortunately, the Senator from West Virginia is right on top of the 
issue. The emergency spending bill before the Senate today could be 
fertile ground for spending mischief. The appropriators propose to cut 
$13.5 billion and will spend $6.7 billion in relief for last year's 
earthquakes in California. But what about the difference? What about 
the difference, Mr. President, the $6.8 billion in supposed savings?
  Without the Senator's amendment that we have just referenced, that 
money could be spent elsewhere, and might be. But the Byrd amendment 
puts a lockbox around these savings and prohibits the money from being 
spent. The savings are dedicated solely to reducing the deficit. It is 
that clear, it is that simple, and it is that necessary.
  In fact, this is a safe within a safe. We need the extra safeguard 
because the bill before us deals with emergency spending which is not 
counted against the deficit. In the absence of a lockbox, the cuts made 
to pay for earthquake relief could be spent later this year on 
something entirely different. Adopt the Byrd amendment and eliminate 
that possibility.
  So, once again, I commend the Senator from West Virginia for offering 
this important amendment. Anyone who is serious about credible deficit 
reduction should support it. Some cynics may say that $6.8 billion is 
merely a drop in the bucket when it comes to the deficit that will grow 
to $299 billion by the year 2000, if we believe projections.
  However, the Byrd amendment demonstrates how we will reduce the 
deficit by making specific cuts in spending and locking away those 
savings for deficit reduction and for no other purpose.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment offered by the Senator 
from West Virginia. It makes sense from every aspect, and I will be 
keenly disappointed unless the Senate recognizes the wisdom of this 
amendment and adopts it overwhelmingly.
  I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will be very brief.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield such time as the Senator may 
require.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I did not realize we were under a time agreement. I ask 
for a couple minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield as much time as the Senator needs.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I rise to ask unanimous consent to be 
added as a cosponsor of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I do so because I believe what the 
distinguished Senator from Nebraska has just said is absolutely 
correct. If, indeed, we are serious about doing what we have said over 
and over again over the course of the last several months with regard 
to deficit reduction, we need this amendment.
  We need this amendment because, indeed, we say by adopting this 
amendment that we are serious, that we recognize that the first and 
really only purpose of a rescission is to ensure that we can cut 
spending and dedicate the savings to deficit reduction. We know that 
over the course of the next 7 years, we may have $1.8 trillion of 
deficit reduction work ahead of us. We must begin with this bill. We 
must continue in a budget process that will allow us a blueprint to 
ensure that between now and the year 2002 or the year 2003 that we have 
accomplished again what we have indicated we want to do.
  So this is the first step. It is a step with regard to process, but 
it is a step with regard to demonstrating our true intention that, 
indeed, we are determined to reduce the deficit; indeed we are going to 
take the tough decisions we made with regard to this rescission and 
turn them into budget savings; indeed we are determined to do all that 
we can, collectively, to ensure that what we say we are going to do we 
are going to do in the long term. That is what this amendment does.
  The distinguished Senator from West Virginia has offered it before on 
other pieces of legislation and, I must say, I hope that on this 
occasion, we can have broad bipartisan consensus in support of it 
because, indeed, it puts the rest of our efforts over the course of the 
next couple of days as we debate the real rescission package, its 
scope, its size, its practical application to the budget process in 
much more realistic terms.
  This ought to have been the first amendment, because if it had been 
the first amendment, I think we could have all said unequivocally, 
regardless of what else we do, as we debate size and as we debate 
offsets and as we debate all the other issues pertaining directly to 
this bill, the one thing we will not debate is what we do with the 
savings once they have been promulgated.
   [[Page S4787]] This amendment says unequivocally that those savings 
will be used for deficit reduction, and I hope, again, with unanimity, 
this body can support it this afternoon.
  Again, I commend the leadership offered to us by the distinguished 
Senator from West Virginia, and I hope we can support him in this 
effort when we have our vote later on.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I do not know from whom I must request 
time. I have been informed by the Parliamentarian that that is a 
mistake, that Senator Daschle technically controls the time that 
Senator Hatfield controls. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Because it says ``in the usual form.''
  Senator Daschle, I believe, unbeknownst to both of us, controls 45 
minutes. Can the Senator yield me 5 minutes?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I will be happy to yield to the distinguished Senator 
from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me say that I had the amendment that 
Senator Byrd offered all ready. In fact, I carried it over to him 
yesterday thinking that I would offer it. He said he already had it 
ready. I was shopping mine to show him what was in it. So I am a 
cosponsor. There is no use doing it twice, nor should there be 
necessarily any pride of authorship on my part since Senator Byrd had 
the amendment ready, and it is here.
  The first big issue we could have is whether we waive the Budget Act 
in order to adopt this amendment. That means we need 60 votes. I hope 
that everybody in this Senate, Republican and Democrat, will vote to 
waive the Budget Act for this amendment. It is a technical waiver. It 
is not a waiver that has to do with incurring more debt. It is just 
that this proposal has to go before the Budget Committee to be 
reviewed, and technically, if it has not, it is subject to quite an 
appropriate point of order. We would not want all kinds of things 
coming straight to the floor that change the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act. So we need that point of order. I hope 
everyone will vote for a waiver if it is necessary.
  Essentially, it is not necessarily the case that if Congress approves 
rescissions and literally cuts money out of ongoing programs that those 
savings would go toward deficit reduction. That is not necessarily the 
case.
  As a matter of fact, if you did a rescission and you saved some money 
but you did not provide for what happened to the savings, essentially 
you could fill the cap back up with later spending. You could go from 
whatever you cut all the way up to the cap that year, and you would 
still be within the procedures of the Budget Act. You would simply have 
cut spending in one program and spend the savings on another program.
  Obviously, we are in the midst of this gigantic problem of getting 
the deficit under control, which I really believe the American people 
want more than anything else. There may be those who are not yet 
showing up in the polls saying they want deficit reduction, but I 
suspect it is because they do not believe it will ever happen. They do 
not believe we have the guts to do it, so some of them have already 
given up on us.
  I want to make a commitment right here today. It may be very 
difficult, and it may be that some people cannot vote for it, but I 
have been encouraged, if not supported unanimously, by Republican 
Senators who come to meetings--and there was a large group today--that 
Republicans ought to produce a balanced Federal budget by the year 
2002.
  Now, that is not without risk, I guarantee you. We are looking for 
some people on the other side of the aisle to help us. It is going to 
be for real, and when it is finished, the Congressional Budget Office 
is going to tell the American people the budget is in balance.
  Whatever vagaries of estimating may occur during the 7-year period 
leading to balance, we are going to produce a balanced budget, not in 5 
years, but in 7 years.
  It would be absurd for us to make that commitment and then come along 
here with a midyear reduction in expenditures for the very year we are 
in, $6 billion net, and not provide that we start that deficit 
reduction effort with these savings.
  Would it not be folly to say, well, let us just wait around and see 
if we need this spending authority for something else, and then start 
anew in about 2 months with a budget resolution where we have to do 50 
times this much over the next 7 years, or more?
  Having said that, this is a very simple but very, very useful 
amendment. It says the savings achieved by this midyear rescission or 
carving out of already appropriated money will all go toward deficit 
reduction in the year we cut it. It will be traced in the budget 
because some of it flows into, or outlays in, other years. It will be 
counted as savings in those years, and those amounts will go to deficit 
reduction.
  In a sense, it lowers the caps in a manner such that it would be very 
difficult to spend the money. But what we are saying is it cannot be 
used for anything else, and nobody should be worried about that.
  For those who are wondering about tax cuts, there is no question that 
the law is already very clear that you cannot use discretionary savings 
to pay for tax cuts. How much in tax cuts we will seek, I do not know. 
Clearly under existing law, when you do that, you are going to have to 
have entitlement changes to offset the tax cuts.
  So I believe this amendment sends an absolutely clear message, one 
that says we are not trying to fool anybody. If we are cutting a net $6 
billion, let us put it toward deficit reduction, and not leave this 
spending authority around for somebody to dilly-dally, play with, and 
perhaps even spend.
  Let me make another point on how important this is, Mr. President. 
Yesterday, the President of the United States, in a major, major press 
conference preceding his regional economic summit in Atlanta, told us 
about $13 billion in savings over the next 5 years from the second 
phase of the President's reinventing of Government--$13 billion. 
Nothing new about it. Incidentally, as it turns out, it is already in 
the President's budget, that $13 billion in assumed savings, so it is 
nothing new. However, look at the proportion of savings. We are here 
debating a bill that will cut a net of $6 billion out of existing 
appropriations for this year, and the President is touting a major 
deficit reduction effort over 5 years for $13 billion. Actually, we 
could take this little $6 billion savings and make it recur each year, 
and we would be over $30 billion, approaching three times the 
President's figure. Does anybody think we are not going to do at least 
that as we put together a 7-year balanced budget? We will have to do 
more than that.
  So it is not that the President is not within his powers and quite 
appropriately talking about his kind of reform. But I think to make a 
big case out of it being major deficit reduction pales; it does not 
quite hit the mark.
  So I do not have any other remarks to make. I might have exceeded my 
5 minutes.
  I hope we do not have to have this be even a close call. I welcome, 
on our side, putting my name up here as the Budget Committee chairman. 
I think we should waive the Budget Act on this amendment if that is 
necessary. I hope Republican Senators understand that we ought to do 
this. To not do it would be true folly, and we could be subject to 
enormous criticism, and properly so, if we did not devote these savings 
to deficit reduction.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New 
Mexico. His word on this is very influential and meaningful. I am very 
grateful for what he has said in his support for waiving what might be 
otherwise a budget point of order.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Feingold, 
Dorgan, and Bumpers be added as cosponsors.
  I will yield whatever time the Senator from Arkansas may desire off 
the time that I control.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I want to compliment the Senator from 
West 
[[Page S4788]] Virginia for this very important proposal, which I see 
as a sign of things to come. I see this as absolutely essential for 
keeping faith with the American people, who are counting on us to do 
something about the deficit.
  Everybody knows that we are going to be a severe disappointment to 
those people unless we give up the idea of this so-called middle-class 
tax cut and put this spending, which we are laboring mightily to cut, 
on deficit reduction.
  Just on a personal note, Mr. President, I have not received one 
single letter from a constituent saying, ``Please give me my middle-
class tax cut.'' And I have received literally thousands of letters 
from people saying, ``Please put it all on the deficit.'' You cannot do 
both. And if you chose to do both, you would run into an unmitigated 
disaster. You would have to cut Social Security; you would have to cut 
Medicare; you would have to cut unbelievable programs, such as 
veterans, to achieve a balanced budget by the year 2002, or any other 
year.
  The proposal of the Senator from West Virginia is simple, 
straightforward, dynamic, and absolutely necessary if we are serious 
about deficit reduction.
  We tried cutting taxes and increasing spending back in 1981. That was 
$3.5 trillion ago. We just finished, Mr. President, a very volatile 
debate on the balanced budget amendment. I was on the unpopular side of 
that issue, because I regard the Constitution of the United States with 
a reverence reserved only for the Holy Bible. There were a lot of 
politics involved in that debate. But you and I both know we cannot 
balance the budget with political rhetoric. We cannot balance the 
budget with anything less than common sense and spine.
  I heard the Senator from West Virginia say a moment ago, when I was 
in my office listening to his remarks, that unless this amendment 
passes, which says this $6 billion in net spending cuts on this bill we 
are considering goes for deficit reduction, he will vote against the 
bill. And that makes a lot of sense.
  There are a lot of cuts in this bill which, if I had a choice about 
it, I would prefer to keep. There are dramatic cuts in housing. There 
are dramatic cuts in jobs. There are dramatic cuts in a lot of programs 
which I cherish, which I think go to the very heart and strength of the 
Nation. I do not want to go through this agony only to see it go out 
for what is called a middle-class tax cut that includes people who make 
$200,000 a year.
  I promise you that the workers of this country would get just about a 
13-inch pizza--the equivalent of the tax cut would be about a 13-inch 
pizza on Friday night. If we balance the budget, as we say we are going 
to, I promise you, he would give up pizza for life in order to give his 
children some sense of a good destiny, so that they are living in a 
country that is worth living in and which has a great future. His house 
payment will not be as much. His car payment will not be as much. The 
dollar will again be king, and the people on Wall Street will be 
rhapsodic.
  But that pales compared to the way the American people would change 
their attitude about this institution we call Congress.
  Democracy always hangs by a mere thread. When we say to the American 
people, ``We cannot function anymore. We made you a promise, but we do 
not intend to keep it,'' we erode people's confidence in their 
Government. Every time you do that, you pay a little heavier price.
  I may vote for this bill simply because I saw the remarks of the 
distinguished budget chairman in the paper this morning. Senator, I 
want to say I was heartened. I was heartened by your comments in that 
story this morning. I am heartened when I see the chairman of the 
Finance Committee singing out of the same hymn book, the same page.
  Then my heart sinks when I look at what the leader in the House and 
the leader in the Senate are saying. Not singing from the same hymn 
book. They say we will have a tax cut.
  So I am really troubled about how I will vote on this. I do not want 
to vote for a tax cut. I wanted to vote for deficit reduction and keep 
faith with the American people.
  Mr. President, this vote is going to separate the people who want a 
political issue to talk about and those who really believe in deficit 
reduction. There has never been a more golden moment here where the 
U.S. Senate can stand up and say ``As much as I would like to give 
people a tax cut, we are not going to do it, because we have a higher 
responsibility.''
  I am like the Senator from West Virginia. I have never made an enemy 
voting for a tax cut. There is a Senator in this body came up to me 
about 10 years ago and said, ``Senator, I just saw a poll that 92 
percent of the people in this country do not want their taxes 
increased.'' Well, no kidding. I would assume that figure would be 99 
percent.
  So, the choices cannot be easy, if we are serious. The choices must 
be tough. Here is a vote that will separate those who want the issue 
from those who want to keep faith with the American people.
  This amendment, carefully drafted, says ``You may not use this 
deficit reduction for taxes, or increased spending.'' Bear in mind, it 
is not just taxes here. It says two things: Do not increase spending on 
something else planning to use this $6 billion as an offset; and do not 
plan to use it for a tax cut. It is just that simple.
  I thank the Senator from West Virginia for yielding me this time. I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have no other requests from Senators who 
wish to speak. I assume that the distinguished minority leader would be 
willing to have time under his control yielded back.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, would the Senator yield 1 minute?
  Mr. BYRD. Absolutely.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I notice my friend from Arkansas said he 
was ``heartened.'' Let me say I will be heartened almost to death if 
about 10 or 15 people on that side of the aisle vote for that balanced 
budget we were talking about.
  That will be the test, not this little $6 billion baby. I think with 
the great enthusiasm that I am hearing from that side of the aisle that 
there might be great fever and fervor and enthusiasm for the balanced 
budget that we have been trying to put together.
  I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for yielding. I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if I may retrieve 1 minute, I yield it to 
the Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator for yielding 1 minute.
  I do not want to open up the debate on the balanced budget amendment, 
but let me say to my good friend from New Mexico: Here is the 
opportunity to have the best of two worlds. Do not tinker with the 
Constitution, and balance the budget--both. I yield the floor.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 423

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has been yielded back. The question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] 
is necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] would vote ``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 119 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     [[Page S4789]] Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Dorgan
       
  So the amendment (No. 423) was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in order that we might not delay Senate 
rollcall votes, I shall ask unanimous consent----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will withhold, the Senate is 
not in order.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, rather than moving to waive, in view of the 
fact that no Senator voted against the amendment, I shall ask unanimous 
consent, to thus save a rollcall vote. I ask unanimous consent to waive 
the provisions of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 for the 
language of amendment No. 423 as included in any conference report on 
H.R. 1158.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank all Senators.
  Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, may we have order in the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Order in the Chamber.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would like to suggest what the 
immediate agenda may be for the rest of this day.
  We have amendments pending, and are ready to be offered by Members. 
We urge them to be here. I think Senator McCain will be offering the 
next amendment. We have on our list Senator Kyl, and Senator Pressler, 
and then we would like to finish today's activity between 7 and 7:30.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the Senate is 
not in order. We cannot hear the distinguished chairman.
  Mr. HATFIELD. I would estimate that we would probably wind up today 
between 7 and 7:30, and earlier, if possible, depending on rollcall 
possibilities for the amendments that are ready to be offered.
  I yield the floor.
  I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin.

                          ____________________