[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 71 (Monday, May 20, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5394-S5396]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the concurrent 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for 
the amendment.


                           Amendment No. 4019

  Mr. DOMENICI. On behalf of Senators Dole, Hatch, and Helms, I submit 
an amendment and ask for its immediate consideration. I guess I need 
consent. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set 
aside temporarily.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. Dole, 
     for himself, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Helms, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4019.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       The Senate finds that:
       Drugs use is devastating to the nation, particularly among 
     juveniles, and has led juveniles to become involved in 
     interstate gangs and to participate in violent crime;
       Drug use has experienced a dramatic resurgence among our 
     youth;
       The number of youths aged 12-17 using marijuana has 
     increased from 1.6 million in 1992 to 2.9 million in 1994, 
     and the category of ``recent marijuana use'' increased a 
     staggering 200% among 14 to 15-year-olds over the same 
     period.
       The Senate finds that:
       Since 1992, there has been a 52% jump in the number of high 
     school seniors using drugs on a monthly basis, even as 
     worrisome declines are noted in peer disapproval of drug use;
       1 in 3 high school students uses marijuana;
       12 to 17-year-olds who use marijuana are 85% more likely to 
     graduate to cocaine than those who abstain from marijuana;
       Juveniles who reach 21 without ever having used drugs 
     almost never try them later in life;
       The latest results from the Drug Abuse Warning Network show 
     that marijuana-related episodes jumped 39% and are running at 
     155% above the 1990 level, and that methamphetamine cases 
     have risen 256% over the 1991 level;
       Between February 1993 and February 1995 the retail price of 
     a gram of cocaine fell from $172 to $137, and that of a gram 
     of heroin also fell from $2,032 to $1,278;
       It has been reported that the Department of Justice, 
     through the United States Attorney for the Southern District 
     of California, has adopted a policy of allowing certain 
     foreign drug smugglers to avoid prosecution altogether by 
     being released to Mexico;
       It has been reported that in the past year approximately 
     2,300 suspected narcotics traffickers were taken into custody 
     for bringing illegal drugs across the border, but 
     approximately one in four were returned to their country of 
     origin without being prosecuted;
       It has been reported that the U.S. Customs Service is 
     operating under guidelines limiting any prosecution in 
     marijuana cases to cases involving 125 pounds of marijuana or 
     more;
       It has been reported that suspects possessing as much as 32 
     pounds of methamphetamine and 37,000 Quaalude tables, were 
     not prosecuted but were, instead, allowed to return to their 
     countries of origin after their drugs and vehicles were 
     confiscated;
       It has been reported that after a seizure of 158 pounds of 
     cocaine, one defendant was cited and released because there 
     was no room at the federal jail and charges against her were 
     dropped;
       It has been reported that some smugglers have been caught 
     two or more times--even in the same week--yet still were not 
     prosecuted;
       The number of defendants prosecuted for violations of the 
     federal drug laws has dropped from 25,033 in 1992 to 22,926 
     in 1995;
       The efforts of law enforcement officers deployed against 
     drug smugglers are severely undermined by insufficiently 
     vigorous prosecution policies of federal prosecutors;
       This Congress has increased the funding of the Federal 
     Bureau of Prisons by 11.7% over the 1995 appropriations 
     level;
       This Congress has increased the funding of the Immigration 
     and Naturalization Service by 23.5% over the 1995 
     appropriations level;
       It is the Sense of the Senate that the functional totals 
     underlying this resolution assume that the Attorney General 
     promptly

[[Page S5395]]

     should investigate this matter and report, within 30 days, to 
     the Chair of the Senate and House Committees on the 
     Judiciary.
       That the Attorney General should change the policy of the 
     United States Attorney for the Southern District of 
     California in order to ensure that cases involving the 
     smuggling of drugs into the United States are vigorously 
     prosecuted; and
       That the Attorney General should direct all United States 
     Attorneys vigorously to prosecute persons involved in the 
     importation of illegal drugs into the United States.

  Mr. DOMENICI. This amendment, Mr. President, is a sense of the Senate 
that says funding in the resolution assumes that the Attorney General 
should conduct an investigation promptly into a number of areas and 
report to them. If the reports that have been made are correct about 
the administration's prosecution of drug smugglers, they are 
disturbing. This asks for certain reports. I have nothing further on 
the amendment.
  Now, if Senator Feingold can proceed, we will follow the unanimous 
consent request.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  Mr. President, first, I very much thank the chairman and ranking 
member for their courtesy.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be 
set aside temporarily so I may offer an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.


                           Amendment No. 3969

                  (Purpose: To eliminate the tax cut)

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 
3969, and I call it up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold], for himself, Mr. 
     Simon, Mr. Bumpers, and Mr. Robb proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3969.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 3, line 5, increase the amount by $15,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 6, increase the amount by $20,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 7, increase the amount by $24,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 8, increase the amount by $23,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 9, increase the amount by $23,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 10, increase the amount by $16,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by $15,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 15, increase the amount by $20,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 16, increase the amount by $24,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 17, increase the amount by $23,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 18, increase the amount by $23,000,000,000.
       On page 3, line 19, increase the amount by $16,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 1, decrease the amount by $15,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 2, decrease the amount by $20,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 3, decrease the amount by $24,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 4, decrease the amount by $23,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 5, decrease the amount by $23,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 6, decrease the amount by $16,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 9, decrease the amount by $15,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 10, decrease the amount by $20,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 11, decrease the amount by $24,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 12, decrease the amount by $23,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 13, decrease the amount by $23,000,000,000.
       On page 5, line 14, decrease the amount by $16,000,000,000.
       On page 6, line 13, decrease the amount by $15,000,000,000.
       On page 6, line 14, decrease the amount by $20,000,000,000.
       On page 6, line 15, decrease the amount by $24,000,000,000.
       On page 6, line 16, decrease the amount by $23,000,000,000.
       On page 6, line 17, decrease the amount by $23,000,000,000.
       On page 6, line 18, decrease the amount by $16,000,000,000.
       On page 51, beginning with line 6 strike all through line 
     17.
       On page 55, beginning with line 18 strike all through page 
     56, line 20.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.
  After the debate of the past year, a casual observer might believe 
that we have finally achieved a broad political consensus that we must 
balance the budget. Republicans and Democrats and bipartisan groups 
have all offered plans to balance the budget over the next 6 years. The 
President has submitted a budget that reaches balance in 6 years, and 5 
years if you use the assumptions and numbers of the OMB. This budget 
resolution provides for a balanced budget by 2002, as do several 
alternatives that we have been debating in the process of looking at 
that budget resolution.
  Mr. President, one might think that it is only a matter of moving 
ahead with these various plans until a proposal that can be enacted 
simply evolves from the political process. Mr. President, the balanced 
budget veneer of many of these proposals and of this budget resolution 
in particular obscures a flaw that will make it difficult and maybe 
impossible to eliminate the deficit and reach balance despite this 
apparent consensus.
  Mr. President, that flaw is the massive tax cut that has been 
proposed and is still being proposed.
  Let me quickly add that this problem is certainly not unique to the 
budget resolution before us. The plan that was discussed extensively 
tonight, the Chafee-Breaux plan, has this defect, and to a lesser 
extent, the President's plan has this flaw as well.
  In fact, of course, I was pleased to hear all the bipartisan 
cooperation on the Chafee-Breaux plan, but as the distinguished ranking 
member has pointed out just a few moments ago, the money that is raised 
from the changes in the Consumer Price Index, in the CPI, are not under 
the Chafee-Breaux plan going to be used to reduce the deficit. They are 
going to be used to fund a tax cut. That is not pleasant, but it is the 
cold, hard fact. In their plan, the Chafee-Breaux plan, there is $126 
billion in changes in the CPI, and lo and behold, $130 billion in tax 
cuts. It is almost a dollar-for-dollar transfer from CPI to tax cuts. 
It is not a dollar-for-dollar transfer from CPI to deficit reduction.

  So it is not being used for deficit reduction. As the distinguished 
ranking member points out, those funds from the CPI are not even being 
used for purposes of bolstering the Social Security trust fund. These 
are two purposes that I think rank much higher than a tax cut at this 
time.
  So the question is whether this flaw of including a tax cut is a 
fatal flaw. It is debatable. But I think it may well be a fatal flaw of 
the plans before us.
  I think these tax cuts being included are certainly irresponsible 
budgeting. It is a risk not worth taking when we have the central and 
critical goal being to actually eliminate the Federal deficit over the 
very few next years.
  Mr. President, I have opposed major tax cut plans of both parties for 
some time now. I was the first Member of either body to do so. I can 
attest that it is not very much fun to oppose tax cuts or to oppose a 
President of your own party on such an issue.
  I am proud to say, though, we have had some good company. Three of 
the Senate's most ardent champions of deficit reduction, the Senator 
from Arkansas, Mr. Bumpers, the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Robb, and my 
neighbor and good friend, the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Simon, have 
consistently opposed these reckless tax cuts. I am pleased that they 
are cosponsors of the amendment that I have just offered.
  I am also very pleased, Mr. President, to tell you that we have the 
support for this amendment of the Concord Coalition, which does believe 
that tax cuts are not the top priority but that deficit reduction is.
  Mr. President, in many ways the concerns of those of us who have 
fought these fiscally irresponsible tax cuts have been realized. The 
initial call for major tax cuts in the Contract With America, followed 
by the President's own proposals, has in fact, as we feared, led to a 
bidding war on tax cuts. We have too easily moved away from the deficit 
reduction track. We are still consumed with enacting tax cuts no matter 
what cost that has for the integrity of the budget process.
  Mr. President, every time you turn around, we are bumping into 
another proposal for some other kind of tax cut, whether well disguised 
or not.

[[Page S5396]]

 They come in all shapes and sizes. Some come clothed as tax reform. 
The so-called flat tax plans we saw offered during the Presidential 
primaries were really nothing more than plans to cut certain taxes. You 
did not see anyone calling for a flat tax that raised taxes for anyone. 
All the plans that were put forward touted tax cuts. In fact, the 
debate on the flat tax really amounted to which flat tax plan cuts 
taxes the most.
  The Wall Street Journal recently reported that a trendier tax cut 
plan is a 15 percent across-the-board cut in income tax rates, phased 
in over 3 years. I am sure we will be hearing a lot more about that 
before the summer is out. Let me add to this display of a trend on tax 
cuts, especially in recent weeks.
  We have just spent 2 weeks debating on and off the issue of a 4.3-
cent gas tax cut, and the other body has sent us a $1.7 billion special 
adoption tax credit and is working on another $7 billion tax cut for 
small businesses. This is beginning to look, Mr. President, like a 
stampede for tax cuts. As I said, unfortunately, even the bipartisan 
budget alternative includes major tax cuts.
  Mr. President, let me say again, and I know you have been a very 
valued participant in this process. I have enormous respect for those 
who participated in putting together the bipartisan plan. I think a 
majority of that group is committed to a balanced budget plan, and I 
think they would have supported the plan without including the tax 
cuts. I regret the views of a few in the group who actually prevailed 
on the tax cut issue. Rather than broadening the appeal for the plan, 
as I think some of the group hoped the tax cuts undermined the long 
term fiscal and political integrity of the budget plan, and I believe 
it cost the plan some significant support both within the Congress and 
among the American people who know very well you can only spend a 
dollar once--either for tax cuts or you can spend it to balance the 
budget--but you cannot spend it for both.
  Mr. President, even discounting the short-term effect of election-
year politics, we have again really strayed from the course of reducing 
the deficit. For those whose highest economic priority is a balanced 
budget, our worst fears may be realized. A tax cut bidding war still 
dominates the policy debate. Tax cuts, tax cuts--not the need to 
balance the budget--are the driving force behind many of the policy 
decisions in this resolution.
  Mr. President, those who doubt this need only look to the highly 
unusual, almost unprecedented, unprecedented special tax cut 
reconciliation measure envisioned in this resolution. In this ``bucket 
brigade'' construction of three successive reconciliation bills, it is 
the tax cut legislation that is the end game. That is the end goal of 
this technique.
  I am told that the parliamentary skids have been greased for that tax 
cut reconciliation bill and that there may have been some precedent for 
it in the past. Nevertheless, it is, at best, ironic and, at worst, 
offensive to grant a tax cut bill the special procedures normally 
reserved for legislation to reduce the deficit.
  Mr. President, let me just close by suggesting this vote is more than 
just a good vote for the Concord Coalition scorecard, though it 
certainly is that. It is a vote against this insane tax cut bidding 
war. It is a vote to get us back on track, to reducing the deficit and 
balancing the budget. Mr. President, I believe it is a vote for a 
sensible and sound budgeting process.
  Mr. President, I urge the body to consider this alternative. If you 
take a look at the plan offered by the bipartisan group, all you have 
to do is eliminate the tax cuts and the whole issue of the CPI would be 
also eliminated and you would have a balanced budget. It is as simple 
as that.
  I hope as the negotiations and discussions continue people realize we 
have an even simpler solution before us, and that is to forego the tax 
cuts, balance the budget first, and then I think all of us will be 
eager to find the opportunity to reduce taxes for all Americans.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________