[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.
____________________