[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 31 (Friday, March 9, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2105-S2113]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     BANKRUPTCY REFORM ACT OF 2001

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of S. 420, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 420) to amend title 11, United States Code, and 
     for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Schumer amendment No. 25, to ensure that the bankruptcy 
     code is not used to exacerbate the effects of certain illegal 
     predatory lending practices.
       Feinstein amendment No. 27, to place a $2,500 cap on any 
     credit card issued to a minor, unless the minor submits an 
     application with the signature of his parents or

[[Page S2106]]

     guardian indicating joint liability for debt or the minor 
     submits financial information indicating an independent means 
     or an ability to repay the debt that the card accrues.
       Leahy amendment No. 20, to resolve an ambiguity relating to 
     the definition of current monthly income.
       Conrad modified amendment No. 29, to establish an off-
     budget lockbox to strengthen Social Security and Medicare.
       Sessions amendment No. 32, to establish a procedure to 
     safeguard the surpluses of the Social Security and medicare 
     hospital insurance trust funds.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The assistant minority leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I see the manager of the bankruptcy bill 
coming on the floor. If there are matters dealing with bankruptcy that 
the Senator wants to take care of at this time, I will be happy to 
yield to him. I know Senator Conrad wishes to speak some time this 
morning.
  I yield to my friend from Utah.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The senior Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we are now on the 4th day of debating the 
bankruptcy reform legislation. Yesterday we were given a list of some 
100 Democratic amendments to this bill. If Members are serious about 
their amendments, then I ask that they come down and offer them, and 
that they do so now, so we can see the actual text and avoid any 
further undue delays and move forward with this much needed reform 
legislation. There may be one or two amendments on our side, but I do 
not think much more than that. So it comes down to getting our friends 
on the other side to come and offer their amendments and we will go 
from there.
  I understand Senator Conrad will be here in a few minutes to speak to 
one of his amendments. With that, I yield back to the senior Senator 
from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend, the senior Senator from 
Utah, I thought we made headway yesterday, with the majority leader, 
where he indicated he thought it was important that we work our way 
through these amendments. He and Senator Daschle thought that was the 
best way to proceed. I agree.
  They have a goal of finishing this bill next week. There are other 
matters because of calendar obligations that we have that must be taken 
up the following week. I think we can work our way through these 
amendments.
  I agree with my friend from Utah, the manager of this bill, that we 
should move on some of these amendments. We have all day today and all 
day Monday. After Monday there are going to be people saying: I don't 
have time to debate this. I don't have time to offer this. Here are 2 
full days uninterrupted. They can talk as long as they want. So I hope 
we can have some of these amendments offered.
  Mr. President, I recognize that Senator Conrad will be here shortly. 
With the consent of my friend from Utah, I ask unanimous consent to 
proceed, for the purposes of introducing a bill, as in morning 
business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. I say to Senator Hatch, I will, with your permission, until 
Senator Conrad gets here, be as in morning business to introduce a 
bill.
  Mr. HATCH. Fine.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Reid pertaining to the introduction of S. 503 are 
located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and 
Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I know my friend from North Dakota is going 
to address the Senate on a very important amendment. But I wanted to 
say--for I have not had an opportunity publicly for some time--that 
Senator Conrad and I came to the Senate together; we were elected in 
1986. We both had tough, hard-fought elections, and we were grateful 
for the people of our respective States allowing us to serve in the 
Senate. We have gotten to know each other very well in the years since 
1986.
  I have been in public life all my adult life--they were all part-time 
jobs until I came here in 1982 to the House of Representatives--so I 
have seen a lot of people and worked with people in many different 
capacities in government. During my career, I have never known anybody 
who has a better grasp of finances than Kent Conrad. He not only 
understands them, but he can articulate them. I speak for the entire 
Democratic caucus, and I think most Republicans, in indicating how good 
he is and how well he understands numbers. The people of North Dakota 
and this country are so fortunate to have someone who understands 
money. It is easy to understand the more sexy issues, for lack of a 
better description, such as crime and punishment and education. But 
money is hard to explain. Dollars are hard to explain. Budgets are hard 
to explain. Taxes are hard to explain.
  I repeat that I have never known anybody in my career who better 
understands and can better express himself in his understanding than 
Kent Conrad.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota is 
recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for nice, kind words 
this morning. I appreciate that. I rise this morning to talk about what 
I think is a very important amendment. It is an amendment I offered 
yesterday to provide protection to the trust funds of Social Security 
and Medicare. We call it the Social Security and Medicare off-budget 
lockbox. It is designed to save both the trust funds of Social Security 
and Medicare.
  Mr. President, this is critically important because it is right at 
the heart of the debate that is going to occur this year over our 
budget priorities. My Social Security and Medicare lockbox amendment 
protects Social Security surpluses in each and every year, takes the 
Medicare Part A trust fund off budget, gives Medicare the same 
protections as the Social Security trust fund, and it contains strong 
enforcement provisions.
  This is the amendment we voted on last year on the floor of the 
Senate. We had 60 votes, a strong bipartisan vote, to protect both the 
Social Security trust fund and the Medicare trust fund.
  Speaker Hastert, in speaking on a bill offered in the House said:

       We are going to wall off Social Security trust funds and 
     Medicare trust funds . . . and consequently, we pay down the 
     public debt when we do that. So we are going to continue to 
     do that. That's in the parameters of our budget and we are 
     not going to dip into that at all.

  In other words, the Speaker is endorsing the principle, at least, of 
what is contained in this amendment, this legislation. Unfortunately, 
if you look at the lockbox they passed in the House, it has a giant 
trapdoor. It is not really protecting the two funds, the Social 
Security and the Medicare trust fund. I think we can do better here in 
the Senate. We did last year, and I think we can again this year.

  Really, what they passed is what I call a ``leaky lockbox.'' It 
doesn't really protect Social Security and Medicare trust funds because 
it has a big exception that will allow them to be used for other 
purposes, to be used for new commitments for Social Security and 
Medicare.
  I think all of us know we need the Social Security and Medicare trust 
funds to keep the promises that have already been made. We have 
additional challenges, no question about that. We have a long-term 
challenge of Social Security that will not be solved even by saving 
every penny of the trust fund. We are going to have to put more money 
into it. But I don't believe we should set those funds up to be raided 
for any other purpose.
  Some will say if you save the Social Security and Medicare trust 
funds, you are going to build up cash, and then the Government will 
have to figure out what to do with that cash. Let me just say that we 
have done a detailed cashflow analysis. You can save every penny of the 
Social Security and Medicare trust funds and have no buildup of surplus 
cash until the year 2010--2010 is 9 years from now. That gives us 
plenty of time to adjust to that, if indeed it begins to happen.
  If these forecasts that have been made actually develop, if we 
actually see them coming true, we will have plenty of additional time 
to adjust.
  I go back to a statement made by a fellow Budget Committee member, 
Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, who is also on the Finance Committee. He 
said, back in 1998, in the Budget Committee deliberations:


[[Page S2107]]


       But the fundamental strength of it is, whether they are 
     Democrats or Republicans who have gotten together in these 
     dark corners of very bright rooms and said, what would we do 
     if we had a half trillion dollars to spend? The obvious 
     answer that cries out is Medicare. I think it is logical. 
     People understood the President on save Social Security 
     first, and I think they will understand save Medicare first. 
     Medicare is in crisis. We want to save Medicare first.

  What we are saying in this legislation is, we want to save Social 
Security and Medicare. We ought to treat the trust funds of Social 
Security and Medicare in the same way. We ought to protect them both, 
give them the same protections. We don't in current law. In current 
law, we give much more protection to the Social Security trust fund 
than we do the Medicare trust fund.
  We all know the Medicare trust fund is in greater danger; we face 
insolvency in a more recent timeframe than we do with Social Security. 
So what we are saying is, let's protect them both. That just makes 
common sense.
  The chairman of the Budget Committee said this at that same time back 
in 1998:

       For every dollar you divert to some other program, you are 
     hastening the day when Medicare falls into bankruptcy and you 
     are making it more and more difficult to solve the Medicare 
     problem in a permanent manner into the next millennium.

  That is absolutely right. The chairman of the Budget Committee was 
right then, and this same sentiment is right now. We should not raid 
the Medicare trust fund for other purposes. That hastens its 
insolvency.

  Let me say the proposal the Republicans have made that will be the 
competing proposal to what I have offered, which will be voted on on 
Tuesday, I refer to as the ``Republican broken safe.'' Under the 
President's budget plan that he has sent us, not a penny is reserved 
for the Medicare trust fund, not a penny. That is kind of startling and 
almost hard to believe, but it is true.
  So their broken safe has a wide open door on it. It has a wide open 
door because the President doesn't reserve any money for the Medicare 
trust fund. It has a wide open door because the proposal that has come 
over from the House is very leaky. It has a huge, ``we will protect the 
Medicare trust fund, unless we don't.'' That is not going to work, or 
sell, and it should not because it is not right.
  One of the reasons this proposal is necessary is because, if you look 
at the President's budget proposal, it simply does not add up. As I 
have gone through the numbers and tried to determine the President's 
plan and the effect of the President's plan, here is what I have found: 
The projected surplus is $5.6 trillion. That is what the CBO says and 
what the OMB says, and we all know that is a 10-year forecast, and we 
all know it is highly uncertain. We all know there is only a 10-percent 
chance that is really going to come true. The people who made the 
forecast told us there is a 45-percent chance it will be greater than 
that. There is a 45-percent chance it will be lower than that.
  That counsels to many of us that we ought to use caution here. The 
President says the Social Security trust fund is $2.6 trillion out of 
that $5.6 trillion. His documents say the Medicare trust fund is $500 
billion of that $5.6 trillion.
  If you subtract out the Social Security and the Medicare trust funds, 
you wind up with an available surplus of $2.5 trillion.
  If we look at the cost of the Bush tax cut, here is what we find. It 
has been advertised as a tax cut of $1.6 trillion, but when the House 
considered parts of the President's tax cut, they reestimated the cost, 
and they increased the cost by over $100 billion. For just part of what 
the President has proposed, they have increased the cost by over $100 
billion.
  Part of that is moving up the effective date. Part of it is a 
reestimate of the true cost of parts of the President's proposal. 
Instead of a $1.6 trillion tax cut, it is a $1.7 trillion tax cut.
  In that same reestimate done for the House, we learn that there is a 
very serious problem that will be created or made worse by the 
President's proposal, and that is the alternative minimum tax. The 
alternative minimum tax today affects about 2 million taxpayers. The 
Joint Tax Committee has now told us if we pass the President's plan, 
the alternative minimum tax will affect not 2 million people, but over 
30 million people.
  Let me repeat that. The Joint Tax Committee has now told us that if 
we pass the President's tax plan, it will affect not 2 million people 
in the alternative minimum tax, which is currently the case, but over 
30 million people, and that it will cost $300 billion to fix it.
  That has to be added to the President's plan. It is not in the 
President's plan. It is not there, but this is made more necessary by 
the President's plan, and it will cost $300 billion to fix.
  The interest cost associated with this tax cut and the alternative 
minimum tax reform is another $500 billion because anytime you spend 
money or cut taxes, that means you have greater interest costs and the 
interest cost associated with that tax cut and the alternative minimum 
tax reform that it makes more necessary is $500 billion.
  Then we have the President's spending initiatives over the baseline. 
That is $200 billion. If you add up the President's tax cut, his 
spending initiatives, it is $2.7 trillion, but if you are protecting 
the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, you only have $2.5 
trillion available. He is, by my calculation, $200 billion in the hole 
already and counting, and it will be more because we have yet to have 
the estimate of what his estate tax elimination costs. We can be 
confident it is going to be far higher than the previous estimate 
because of the economic changes that have occurred in the interim.
  They have not reestimated his marriage penalty proposal, which we 
know is going to be higher, again because of changes that have occurred 
in the economy since the previous estimate. This is before any defense 
initiative sent forward by the President. Does anybody in this Chamber 
not believe the President is going to send up a major defense 
initiative next year? We all know he is. I personally believe he 
should. I think we are going to need more money in defense, but it does 
not end there.
  Some of the tax extenders are included in the President's baseline; 
others are not. We all know the provisions that affect energy are going 
to be extended in the Tax Code. There is a cost to that. That is not in 
these calculations, and it does not stop there because we now know the 
President's prescription drug proposal is badly deficient in terms of 
the resources he has dedicated to a prescription drug benefit.
  The Republican chairman of the Finance Committee said to us the 
number is going to have to be much higher to have a serious 
prescription drug benefit; it is going to be much higher than what is 
in the President's budget. The President has $153 billion in his 
estimate for a prescription drug benefit. The Congressional Budget 
Office is telling us the estimates on all the prescription drug 
proposals are being increased by about one-third because of new 
information on what is happening to the cost of pharmaceuticals.

  I am saying this to my colleagues and I am saying this to anybody who 
is listening because when you add these things up, the President's 
proposal simply does not make it. There is this tremendous gap between 
what is available if we are protecting the Social Security and Medicare 
trust funds and what is being used. In fact, it is very clear that the 
President is using all of the non-trust-fund money for his tax cut and 
its related expenses.
  It is clear, I just do not know how any of this can be in any serious 
question. We all agree on the projected surplus, and I think most of us 
understand it is highly uncertain. It is a 10-year number. The 
forecasting agency itself has told us it is highly uncertain. This is 
the President's own number for the Social Security trust fund. This is 
his number for the Medicare trust fund.
  The Bush tax cut--this is the reestimate done on the House side of 
just part of his plan, and it added $100 billion to the $1.6 trillion 
that has been so much discussed. We know there is an interest cost 
associated with any tax cut or any spending proposal. The spending 
initiatives of the President are not in dispute. It is $200 billion 
above the so-called baseline.
  The only question there can be of these figures is this one, fixing 
the alternative minimum tax. The President

[[Page S2108]]

has not included it in his plan, but it is clearly made necessary by 
his plan. We cannot take 2 million people who are currently caught up 
in the alternative minimum tax and have it affect 30 million people. 
That will never be tolerated in this country, and it should not be. It 
would be unfair for 30 million taxpayers. And they are not saying 30 
million, they are saying substantially in excess of 30 million people 
will be caught up in the alternative minimum tax if the Bush tax cut 
proposal is passed. It costs $300 billion to fix. That is not Kent 
Conrad's number. That is the number of the Joint Committee on Taxation.
  There is something else people should know in this Chamber that I 
call the dirty little secret of the President's budget proposal. The 
President's budget is in deficit in the year 2005 if he does not raid 
the Medicare trust fund. The reason I believe his proposal does not 
protect the Medicare trust fund is that he needs the money in the year 
2005 to avoid being in deficit.
  These are the numbers from his proposal. What they show is that in 
the year 2005, the President's budget is in deficit unless he is using 
the full Medicare trust fund surplus. Some of us believe that is a 
profound mistake, that that is not a place we should go; we should not 
raid the Social Security trust fund surplus for any other purpose; we 
should not raid the Medicare trust fund for any other purpose; we 
should hold those funds for the purposes intended. We should protect 
the Social Security trust fund. We should protect the Medicare trust 
fund. We should not allow them to be raided for any other purpose.

  This year, certain Republicans have asserted there is no trust fund 
surplus in Medicare. It is a bizarre argument, is the only thing I can 
say. Their argument is there is a Part A trust fund to Medicare and 
there is a Part B trust fund. They say the trust fund of Part A is in 
surplus by $500 billion. They say the Part B surplus is in deficit.
  As I said yesterday, there is no Part B trust fund deficit. There is 
none. They are arguing there is a surplus in Part A, there is a deficit 
in B, so let's not count the trust funds at all in Medicare.
  What a bizarre argument. No. 1, they are factually wrong. There is no 
deficit over the 10 years in Part B. I direct them to page 19 of the 
Congressional Budget Office report. Page 19 of this report, available 
to every Member of Congress, makes it very clear in table 1. It is 
titled ``Trust Fund Surpluses.'' First is Social Security. We all know 
Social Security has a trust fund and it is in surplus. That is, it is 
in surplus during this period of time. It is needed when the baby 
boomers start to retire. So ``surplus'' is a little misleading. It is 
in surplus temporarily, but it is committed to future liability.
  The next trust fund mentioned is the Medicare trust fund's Part A. 
The Congressional Budget Office showed over a $400 billion surplus. 
Their numbers are somewhat different from the President's numbers. The 
President has an even larger surplus in trust fund Part A. He has a 
$500 billion surplus.
  In Part B, where some are claiming it is in deficit, the 
Congressional Budget Office shows very clearly there is no deficit over 
the 10-year period in Part B, it is roughly in balance.
  The argument that some on the other side are making is, since only 25 
percent of the Part B trust fund is for premiums and 75 percent comes 
from the general fund, that means it is in deficit. That isn't what the 
law says. That isn't what the actuaries say. That isn't what the 
Congressional Budget Office reports. They report the Part A trust fund 
is in surplus. They report that the Part B is in balance over the 10-
year period. There is no justification for making the claim that if you 
put the two together there is no surplus at all, because there clearly 
is.
  Even if there weren't, if there were a deficit in Part B, what 
earthly sense would it make to move the Part A trust fund surplus to a 
category called ``undesignated,'' called ``contingency fund'' in the 
President's plan? That is what he has done. He has taken all of the 
Medicare trust fund money and moved it from a committed category, a 
trust fund category, to an undesignated category, a category available 
for every other kind of spending.
  In my State yesterday, he stated he has this fund, this uncategorized 
fund, this undesignated fund, and if you need more money for 
agriculture, go to that fund. It is kind of the magic asterisk.
  There is no such fund. There is no such fund unless you raid every 
penny of the Medicare trust fund. If somebody does it, they will be 
held to account, because some of us are going to tell the truth and we 
are going to remind people there is a trust fund of Medicare and a 
trust fund of Social Security and that both of them deserve protection 
and both of them deserve support and both of them should not be used 
for other purposes.
  I frankly think we ought to put more money in agriculture, but I am 
not for taking it out of the Medicare trust fund. Any move to use the 
Medicare trust fund money for other purposes moves up the date of 
insolvency, and in fact the President's plan to take the $500 billion 
from the Medicare trust fund and use it for his so-called contingency 
fund that is available for defense spending or agriculture spending or 
any other kind of spending, that moves up the date of insolvency of the 
Medicare trust fund.
  In fact, the actuaries say if we do what the President has proposed 
and take the money from the Medicare trust fund, put it in the 
contingency funds, and make it available for other spending, we move up 
the date of insolvency of the Medicare trust fund by 16 years and it 
goes broke in the year 2009.
  Some of us will not have any part of that plan because it is wrong. 
It is wrong for the country. It is wrong for Medicare. It is wrong to 
take trust fund money that has been designated for a specific purpose 
and seek to raid it for other purposes. That is what has gotten us into 
financial trouble in the past. That is what would get us into financial 
trouble in the future, if we permitted it to happen.
  This is a debate that deserves to be heard all across this country. 
It is fundamental to the economic future of America. Do we raid the 
trust funds to try to provide an oversized tax cut, or do we protect 
them? That is the question.
  I believe our colleagues will rally around a principle they have 
rallied around before, which is the fundamental notion, you don't raid 
trust funds: You don't raid Social Security trust funds, you don't raid 
Medicare trust funds; those funds ought to be lockboxed, they ought to 
be walled off, they ought to be protected. That is what this amendment 
is all about. I believe this is what the American people support.
  On Thursday, the Los Angeles Times reported that the American people, 
if they are asked: Are you for the Bush tax cut? Are you against it? 
overwhelmingly, they say they are for it. If you ask the American 
people about the choices, they give quite a different answer. When The 
Los Angeles Times asked in a nationwide poll if they would prefer the 
Bush tax cut or the Democratic proposal that had a tax cut half as big 
as the President proposed, with more money for Medicare, more money for 
education, and more money to pay down debt--which would they prefer--
then the American people gave this answer: 30 percent said they were 
for the Bush tax cut; 55 percent said they were for the alternative 
plan to reduce the size of the President's tax cut in half and to have 
more money to strengthen Medicare, to improve education, and to pay 
down more of the debt.
  That is what the American people are supporting. Yes, they want a tax 
cut, but they want one that is affordable. They want one that gives 
room to strengthen Social Security, improve Medicare, enhance 
education, strengthen defense, and pay down more of our national debt. 
That is where the American people are. That is where I hope this 
Chamber will be.
  The first fundamental test is on Tuesday. The basic question: Do we 
protect the Social Security and Medicare trust funds? I hope very much 
we get the same result this year as we got last year. The result last 
year was 60 votes, on a strong bipartisan basis, for the fundamental 
principle that we do not permit a raid of the Social Security or the 
Medicare trust funds. That is important for the future of our country. 
It is important for the future of our economy. I hope very much this 
Chamber will say we are not going to abandon fiscal discipline.

[[Page S2109]]

  We are not going to abandon the notion that we ought to pursue the 
maximum paydown of both our short-term and long-term debt. That is in 
America's interest. That is what is at stake on Tuesday.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I was sitting here mulling things over 
after I listened to my colleague from North Dakota and his very erudite 
comments about the budget, about President Bush's budget, the tax cut 
package, and so forth.
  It is kind of amazing to me because, in all honesty, I am afraid our 
colleagues on the other side completely ignore what happened during the 
Reagan years. In their zeal to say that President Reagan caused the 
budget deficits, they ignore the impact of the marginal tax rate 
reductions that occurred during those years.
  The reason I know a little bit about this is because I was one of a 
handful who worked very hard to convince President Reagan to cut the 
marginal tax rates, which at that point topped out at 70 percent in 
this country. He cut the maximum rate down to 28 percent by 1986.
  I remember all the arguments that were raised then by our colleagues 
on the other side; and they basically centered on the fact that if you 
cut taxes like that, you will run us into huge deficits because by 
cutting taxes, you will cut revenues. Those were the arguments made by 
our colleagues on the other side. They have completely glossed over 
what really happened in saying that all of the subsequent deficits 
occurred because of Ronald Reagan and his tax cuts.
  The real facts are that Ronald Reagan's tax cuts--those marginal tax 
rate reductions from 70 percent down to 28 percent, by 1986--helped to 
lead us into an unprecedented era of prosperity we still enjoy today, 
and that the resulting federal revenues that came about after those 
cuts did not decrease, except for one single year. In fact, annual 
revenue to the Treasury actually almost doubled during the Reagan 
years. The fact is, those tax cuts led to greater revenues because more 
people saved their money. Instead of the federal Government spending 
it, most people invested their money, created businesses, 
opportunities, and jobs for others. In the end, we actually received 
more tax revenues.
  Well, then, how did we get the big deficits? In part, the deficits 
came from Reagan's increases in military spending. But let's stop and 
think about that for a minute. That spending has been highly 
criticized. But defense is the only area where he literally increased 
spending that I can recall. All of the other increases in spending came 
from our friends on the other side and liberal Republicans.
  Let's quit talking about Democrats and Republicans. Let's talk about 
liberals and conservatives. The fact is, we enacted the marginal tax 
rate reductions, and revenue jumped to almost double as a result. But 
spending went up dramatically during those years because, in order to 
get the marginal tax rate reductions, Ronald Reagan had to agree to 
Democrat spending because Tip O'Neill was the Speaker of the House at 
that time, and the House was controlled by Democrats, or should I say, 
by the liberals, and they just kept spending. That was part of the 
payoff in order to get tax rate reductions.
  But we should not lose sight of the fact that we had a tremendous 
increase in revenues as a result of tax rate reductions.
  The same revenue effect occurred when Senator Lieberman and I pushed 
through the Hatch-Lieberman capital gains rate reduction in 1997. I can 
remember our friends, our liberal friends in this body, saying: If you 
cut capital gains rates, we will lose revenues. We said: No. If you cut 
capital gains rates, people will save more, invest more, create more 
businesses, more jobs, more opportunities, we will have more people 
working, with more people paying taxes into the system. We will 
actually increase revenues.
  Some of them even laughed at us until the DRI econometricians came 
out with their analysis, and they are hardly a conservative group. They 
came out and made it clear that not only did we not lose revenues as a 
result of reducing capital gains rates from 28 percent down to 20 
percent, but we actually gained revenues. We did not gain as much as I 
thought we would, but we gained revenues. That is what happened with 
the Reagan marginal tax rate reductions.
  But the spending increases were phenomenal during those years. True, 
military spending went up during the Reagan years. And I am sure Ronald 
Reagan would be the first to take credit for spending more on the 
military. In fact, during John F. Kennedy's tenure as President, we 
were spending almost 50 percent of the budget on the military. Over the 
next years, it greatly decreased. Reagan finally got it up to higher 
levels, but it was far cry from where John F. Kennedy had it as a 
percentage of budget expenditures.
  Today, under the Clinton budget, it has gone down to somewhere below 
3 percent, virtually half or less of where Ronald Reagan had it.
  But what people seem to ignore, when they complain about military 
spending, is that because of the increase in the budget for the 
military, the cold war was ended because the Soviets had to throw in 
the towel because they could not compete with the United States of 
America. The fact is, we probably have saved trillions of dollars by 
ending the cold war, with the United States emerging as the No. 1 power 
in the world today.
  So even with that additional spending, which was not anywhere near as 
high as the percentage of the budget that John F. Kennedy was spending, 
we have probably saved trillions of dollars over the years since the 
cold war came to an end.
  I never cease to be amazed at how our liberal friends in this body 
are constantly talking about balancing the budget. It never ceases to 
amaze me because in 1994, when they controlled both Houses of Congress, 
and President Clinton was President, their budget projections showed 
$200 billion in deficits every year ad infinitum. Tell me that isn't 
true. I know it is. I was here--$200 billion every year, henceforth in 
the future. Basically, President Clinton said there was not much we 
could do about it.
  And then, all of a sudden, the first Republican Congress in almost 40 
years came into being, and we started pushing for a balanced budget, 
which we shortly after achieved. And now our liberal friends are trying 
to claim they balanced the budget. Give me a break.
  I am talking about liberals on both sides of the aisle. If you just 
look at last year, the people in these two bodies could not control 
spending and it went up in whopping fashion. The reason it went up is 
because there was no pressure to control spending because we had a 
surplus, and we could just tap into that surplus at will.
  I might also add that President Clinton used the surpluses for 
``emergency'' spending that exceeded $20 billion a year. Frankly, 
almost everything they wanted to spend on, from a liberal perspective, 
suddenly became an emergency. Some of those programs were emergencies, 
but certainly not all.
  I guess what I am saying is, if we do not give the taxpayers back 
some of this $5.6 trillion projected surplus--and I have to say $1.6 
trillion of the $5.6 trillion isn't very much--if we do not give them 
back some of that surplus, I guarantee you the wonderful Members of 
Congress, especially those on the liberal side--but I have to say some 
conservatives, too; all of us are to blame--we will spend every 
stinking dime of it. And the American people will be the worse off for 
it.
  When I hear these analyses done by our friends on the other side, 
they never give credit for the dynamic effects of cutting marginal tax 
rates. They always use static budgetary figures that never take into 
consideration economic stimuli that comes from cutting taxes and giving 
people a break.
  Of course, they have been able to get away with it for years because, 
for all of the time I have been here--and I have been here for 25 
years--there has never been a conservative control of either House of 
Congress. It has always

[[Page S2110]]

been under the control, if you look at the numbers, of the left. And 
the left believes in spending. They believe the Federal Government is 
the last answer to everything.
  They believe the Federal Government, like a great big all-consuming 
nanny, is going to take care of all of us. They ignore the economic 
fact that there are some dynamics in economics that do occur when you 
give incentives to the American people.
  We have a $5.6 trillion projected surplus. Most economists, including 
OMB, including CBO, indicate that this may be a conservative figure. It 
may be even beyond that if we do what is right. One of the things we 
can do to make sure it is a conservative figure and to make sure we 
might even get more money in revenue is to cut marginal tax rates 
because it does work to do so. If we have the guts and the brains and 
the ability to do that, the American economy is going to be much better 
off.
  President Bush has said he doesn't want a spending increase of more 
than 4 percent in the total budget. He has also said he will be 
reasonable with regard to the spending needs of Congress. He has also 
said he only wants $1.6 trillion from the $5.6 trillion projected 
budget in tax cuts. That leaves $4 trillion more, and he is going to 
put $2.6 trillion away for Social Security and Medicare.
  I get such a kick out of the lockbox arguments on both sides because 
there is no lockbox. There is never going to be a lockbox. The fact is, 
if we save that money, unless we reform Medicare and Social Security, 
we are going to have to take that money and either spend it, which is 
what Congress will probably do, or we are going to pay down the 
national debt, which is what we should do to an extent.
  Even if you save the $2.6 trillion for Social Security and Medicare, 
that is not going to do much good unless we reform those programs. 
Everybody knows there are approximately 40 million people on Medicare 
now. That is going to rise to 80 million people by the year 2035. If we 
don't do something now to reform Medicare, it won't make any difference 
how much money we put in there. It will not be enough. Social Security 
has some of the same problems.
  When Social Security came into existence, there were 46 workers, if I 
recall correctly, for everybody receiving Social Security. Today, it is 
3.4 workers for everybody on Social Security, going down to 3, maybe 
2.9 in the next 10 years, 2.9 workers for everybody receiving Social 
Security.
  What future do our kids have unless we reform these programs and make 
them work and make them live within their means? I hear all these 
comments about a lockbox and how we have to save Medicare and Social 
Security. Yet I don't see a lot of effort being made, at least by the 
left and maybe some of us on the right, being made to save these 
programs, to reform them, and make them work. I am very concerned about 
these issues.
  President Bush is willing to set aside $2.6 trillion of the projected 
surplus. He wants $1.6 trillion for a tax cut, and that still leaves a 
considerable amount of money to take care of other problems we have. 
That surplus won't be there if we keep taxing and spending as we have a 
tendency to do.
  Last year was a perfect illustration, as we just spent ourselves into 
a blind fit of passion. Those who actually handle the budget, those who 
handle the appropriations process, are having a heck of a time trying 
to hold the more moderate-to-liberal members among us from spending 
this Nation into bankruptcy.
  Yet all we hear is, we shouldn't cut taxes. When you have a $5.6 
trillion projected surplus, by gosh, you know the taxpayers are paying 
too much in taxes. It is the time to give them some of these taxes 
back. Is this $1.6 trillion tax cut exorbitant? Hardly. It is about 
half in relative terms what John F. Kennedy did and only a third of 
what Ronald Reagan did. It is not a great big ballooning tax cut. The 
fact is, if we cut taxes, this economy will be stimulated and spurred 
on to higher revenue.

  The so-called ``budget surplus'' is really an overcollection of taxes 
which belongs to the American people. There is no question about it.
  One other point we need to understand is that the budget surplus is 
not the result of some brilliant new goods or services the Federal 
Government sells. The Government's revenues come from collections from 
the American people. The Federal Government hasn't created this 
surplus.
  Some on the other side would say their massive increases of taxes, 
such as the 1993 tax increase, have helped. I suspect that is possibly 
true. Then again, doesn't that argue in my favor and make the point I 
have been making: we are taxing the American people far too much when 
you have these kind of surpluses? There are some on the other side who 
have never seen a spending bill they didn't fall in love with. There 
are some on the other side who have never said, in the whole time I 
have known them--and I think we could pick them out rather easily--they 
have never said: Where are we going to get the money to pay for these 
programs?
  There are some on the other side who really do want us to have the 
Federal Government take care of everybody from the cradle to the grave. 
That sounds wonderful except it would make the United States an also-
ran country like so many others that have taken that type of philosophy 
and put it into practice.
  What we have to do as Members of Congress is to support this 
President. The American people did elect him, in spite of all the 
moaning and groaning about Florida. The facts are that George Bush did 
win Florida. He probably won New Mexico, too. Because Florida was where 
it was at, they didn't contest New Mexico. He probably won a few other 
States. If you look at some of the reports that have come in, there is 
no reason for anybody on the other side to be complaining at this 
particular point.
  Some have said Gore received a half million more votes. Well, that is 
irrelevant because we have an electoral college system where we have a 
direct election by 50 States, not by 280 million people, except insofar 
as they vote for a particular candidate in their respective States. 
There is a genius to that system because it makes our system for 
running for President a truly national election rather than a series of 
regional elections. Under this system, a candidate can't afford to 
ignore any State, any of the 50 States, when he or she is running for 
President.
  If you need any further proof, just look at the last election. 
Wyoming, with three electoral college votes, made the difference. I 
might add, Vermont would have made the difference with three. North 
Dakota would have made the difference with three, or Alaska with three 
votes. Every State was in play. There was a genius to the Founding 
Fathers.
  Our electoral college system requires a national, not a regional, 
campaign. Why is that important? Because the Founding Fathers were 
afraid, in fact terrorized, that the small States, the more rural 
States, would be completely obliterated by those who had all the money 
and the population. So they gave a little advantage to the small States 
by having the House of Representatives elected proportionately but the 
Senate with equal rights of suffrage for every State. In other words, 
Utah, with 2.1 million people, has the same number of Senators as 
California with 32 million. The reason was because they wanted to have 
the Senate protect the country. That is why Senators have 6-year terms, 
so they can rise above politics occasionally.
  The fact is, our electoral college system works very well because 
Presidential campaigns have to be national, not regional. The media 
would not control the Federal election completely, which they would, 
because only the 10 or 12 largest States would control the country. 
What it means is that George Bush, if we had a direct popular election, 
would have spent a lot more time in New York, a lot more time in 
California, a lot more time in Michigan, a lot more time in Illinois. 
He would have picked up those 500,000 votes or more. He didn't spend a 
lot of time in States he knew he was going to lose. He had to try to 
make sure he ran a national campaign and picked up enough votes to win 
the electoral college, so that no 6, or 8, or 10, or 12 States, at the 
most, would control everything in this country. The media would not 
control the major centers that disseminate all the news in this 
country. Nobody doubts for a minute that the media is one-sided. 
Everybody in America

[[Page S2111]]

knows the media are certainly tilted to the left. It is awfully hard to 
even get a job in the media unless you are on the left. We all know 
that; the media knows that; there isn't even a question about it.

  So our electoral college system does work. It makes it a national 
election, not a regional election. The media can't control the 
election. You have to campaign in all of the respective States, and, 
literally, it makes a lot of sense. This last election proved that more 
than ever before.
  I hear these arguments that George Bush is taking us down the road to 
destruction because he wants to give the American people some of their 
money back. George Bush is absolutely right on his tax cut. There 
should not be a $5.6 trillion surplus without a realization that the 
American people are being taxed and overtaxed. I have to tell you, if 
we don't do something about it and give some of that money back, our 
wonderful friends in both bodies here--and they are good people; they 
just can't help themselves--are going to spend all that money and we 
are going to try to ``do good'' with all that money. In the end, we 
will kill this economy deader than a doornail.
  So what President Bush is fighting for out in the hinterland right 
now is extremely important. It will make the difference as to whether 
we have another 17 or 18 years of economic prosperity, with continual 
rises in productivity and other benefits that are economic in nature, 
or whether we start to descend and retrogress as a nation. I believe 
that is one reason he was elected. I believe that is one reason we need 
to support him.
  I have heard a lot about bipartisanship around here. In all honesty, 
this is a good chance for everybody to show bipartisanship and support 
the President in the one program that he really thinks is the 
centerpiece of his agenda. We are going to try to do something on 
education, but let's be honest about that: The Federal Government 
affects only about 7 percent of all of public education in this 
country; 93 percent of all educational funds come from the States. That 
is where they ought to come from, and that is where the power ought to 
be, and that is where the authority ought to be. But President Bush is 
going to do what he can in education. That will probably be the next 
bill on the floor after bankruptcy.
  The hallmark of the Bush tax cut legislation is the same as Ronald 
Reagan's. When Reagan came in, people laughed at first when he started 
talking about a 25-percent marginal tax rate reduction over a 3-year 
period. But you can't laugh at it today. It was the Reagan marginal tax 
rate reductions that almost doubled the revenues. It was Congress' 
spending that put us into the huge deficits we had. Plus, he did 
increase the military, but we ended the cold war, which saved us 
trillions of dollars over the years.
  Then we had a battle for the balanced budget amendment year after 
year. We knew we would always lose that battle. There was only one time 
we had a chance of winning. It had to be waged, and it got the American 
people thinking, my gosh, they are right, we should balance the budget. 
It was the 1997 capital gains rate reductions, that Senator Lieberman 
and I and a whole raft of others in the Congress fought so hard to get, 
which helped to stabilize the economy. It helped in so many ways. It 
was the productivity that grew out of those issues. I think Alan 
Greenspan, to a large degree, has done very remarkable work at the Fed. 
I think Bob Rubin did a very good job in stabilizing world markets as 
Treasury Secretary. But it was the first Republican Congress in almost 
40 years that insisted on balancing the budget, and President Clinton 
was brought reluctantly with us. We insisted on balancing the budget, 
and we were able to finally do it. Our colleagues on the left are now 
claiming they are the ones who did it. Give me a break.
  As bad as spending was last year, it could have been far worse. We 
had to fight every inch of the way to control it, to the extent that we 
could. It would have gone completely out of control. It is not all the 
left's fault; some of the blame is on the right as well.

  All of these factors came together to bring us to the point now where 
we have a balanced budget and a projected $5.6 trillion surplus. I 
suggest there will be a lot more if we cut tax rates by $1.6 trillion, 
as President Bush would like to.
  I get a little tired of this class warfare that goes on around here, 
too. It gets very old to hear that ``the upper 1 percent'' is going to 
benefit so much and those making $25,000 a year will get no benefits 
out of this program. That is not true. All levels of taxpayers are 
going to get tax cuts from the Bush plan.
  A family of four earning $35,000 a year or less will pay nothing in 
taxes. There is a good reason that taxpayers with even lower incomes 
are not going to get much benefit from the tax cut they don't pay any 
taxes to begin with, as far as income taxes are concerned. They do pay 
through the nose, especially if they are self-employed, on Social 
Security, FICA taxes, there is no question about it. We need to do 
something about that, but not without some reform of the Social 
Security system.
  When you stop and think about it, the upper 5 percent of income-
taxpayers pay 50 percent of all the income taxes in this country. All 
Bush wants to do is reduce the top rate from 39.6 percent down to 33 
percent, and the other three brackets correspondingly, with the lower 
ones being reduced the most.
  Guess what the bottom 50 percent pay in Federal income taxes. Less 
than 5 percent of Federal income taxes.
  So, naturally, those who benefit from marginal rate reductions will 
be those who pay taxes. Naturally, there will be people who are wealthy 
and who will benefit from that tax rate reduction. But these people 
don't take that money and put it into socks or mattresses, they put it 
into productive uses, by and large, and in the process create more 
opportunity, jobs, high-technology, and they keep the United States in 
the forefront of all of these economic programs that have made us the 
greatest Nation in the world.
  Yes, those who pay taxes are going to get tax reductions. Those who 
don't are still going to get plenty of benefits from the Federal 
Government. We do need to do something to save Social Security and 
Medicare, no question about it. I, for one, hope we have the guts to do 
something about that over the next few years. But when I hear these 
comments all based on a static economic analysis, never considering the 
dynamism we have all seen occur since 1982, just completely ignoring 
that and acting as though it doesn't exist, and coming out with these 
doomsday scenarios that are trying to undermine what President Bush is 
trying to do, which is to just get the taxpayers a little bit back. In 
comparison to John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, the Bush tax cut is 
half of the Kennedy tax cut and one-third of the Reagan tax cut, if you 
want to put it in relative terms.
  I hear these doomsday scenarios that we should not cut taxes because 
we have so much for which we need to spend that money. I am not 
speaking of my friend from North Dakota. I think he literally wants to 
do what is right, but he is using the static economic analyses that 
aren't necessarily accurate.
  You can use figures to make any point you want. But there is one 
figure you can't ignore, and that is a $5.6 trillion surplus that 
virtually all of the major economic analytical groups say is going to 
be there. If that is so, then you have to draw the conclusion that the 
American people are paying too much in taxes and that they deserve tax 
breaks under these circumstances.
  I want to see us go toward a more dynamic economic analysis, at least 
have both sides of it so we do not just have this stultification to any 
kind of tax rate reduction that is being argued by our friends on the 
other side.
  I hope they are not arguing these basic budgetary principles, that I 
think are wrong, just so they can politically make it tough for 
President Bush. He has only been in office a couple months.
  Frankly, it would be a crime to not give his program a chance to work 
since he is our President. It would be a crime to not work in a 
bipartisan fashion to do what needs to be done. Literally, it would be 
a crime not to give this President some support. We have done it for 
President Clinton, and it is time to do it for President Bush. It is 
not President Bush for whom we are doing it in the final analysis, it 
is for everybody in our society, and really for many places in the 
world that depend

[[Page S2112]]

upon the economic stability of the United States of America.
  I make these points because I get concerned when I hear one-sided 
arguments on the budget, one-sided arguments on tax rate reductions, 
one-sided arguments on Medicare and Social Security, one-sided 
arguments based on static analyses that never take into consideration 
actual real-world results, one-sided arguments that ignore the facts in 
this country that tax rate reductions work, and one-sided arguments in 
complete derogation and ignorance of the last 18 years.
  The fact is, we all have to do our best to analyze this the best we 
can, but we should not ignore the econometricians, though not 
conservative, who have proven that tax rate reductions do work, and we 
should not ignore the fact that restraint in spending does work, too. 
We have not had much of that around here, even with a Republican 
Congress.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. 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. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to take a few more minutes to 
respond to some of the comments of my friend and colleague from North 
Dakota.
  The Senator from North Dakota keeps talking about a Bush tax cut of 
more than $1.6 trillion. He can talk about any number he wants, but the 
President has made it clear that he is committed to a budget that would 
reduce Federal revenue collections by $1.6 trillion over the next 10 
years. Budget Committee Chairmen Domenici and Nussle have committed to 
producing a budget that reduces tax collections by $1.6 trillion over 
10 years.
  The House and Senate Republican leadership are determined to allow 
taxpayers to keep more of their own money--$1.6 trillion--over the next 
10 years. All the above have agreed that any changes to the President's 
tax relief proposal--adding provisions, removing provisions, changing 
provisions--would have to be accommodated within a budget that reduces 
Federal revenues by $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years.
  Let's now look at why the number is not $2.4 trillion, $2.5 trillion 
or $2.6 trillion.
  The claimed additional interest cost of $500 billion to the tax cut 
is a red herring argument; interest is included in the budget; trying 
to tie interest cost to the tax cut is inconsistent with past practice 
on spending increases and tax cuts.
  Moreover, Mr. President, adding interest to these tax cuts assumes 
that the every dollar of the tax cut would be used to pay down the debt 
if the taxes were not cut. In reality, every Member of this Chamber 
very well knows that if we do not send this money home to the taxpayers 
who were overcharged in the form of too high of taxes, most of the 
surplus will be spent by Congress. There is no interest savings when 
the alternative to tax cuts is spending increases. All one has to do is 
look at last year for an illustration.
  The claimed additional revenue loss of $200 billion connected with 
the alternative minimum tax will have to be addressed within the 
context of the $1.6 trillion figure; with respect to the child tax 
credit, it is already accounted for in the President's budget. The 
President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of the Treasury have 
made it clear that if the AMT is taken care of, some other feature of 
the President's tax plan would be reduced to make it fit in the $1.6 
trillion number.
  The claimed additional revenue loss of $200 billion for the 
retroactive portion of the tax cut will also have to be addressed 
within the context of the $1.6 trillion figure.
  The claimed additional revenue loss of $100 billion for tax extenders 
is an example of double counting; extenders are already addressed in 
the President's budget.
  The bottom line is that the numbers used by the other side are bogus 
arguments to support their ultimate goal: very little tax cut and much 
higher spending.
  The President's budget shows that you can pay down the Federal debt, 
return some of the surplus to the people as tax relief, and provide 
targeted spending increases. I think we ought to talk facts, not 
fiction. That is what I am trying to do.

  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hatch). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Lugar pertaining to the introduction of S. 508 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')


                            Amendment No. 28

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of amendment No. 
28. This amendment will increase the authorization of appropriations 
for LIHEAP assistance, weatherization programs, and State conservation 
grants. It also will expand the Federal energy efficiency program to 
include water, as well as energy, conservation.
  This provision is critical. In my part of the country, and elsewhere 
around the Nation, we have experienced record cold temperatures, and 
record-high natural gas prices. I have received letters from people who 
have to choose between heating their homes and eating, because they 
can't afford both. I also heard from a couple that can't afford to keep 
their retirement home, because the heating bills have been so high. We 
must do something to rectify this terrible situation now.
  Under current law, States have the flexibility to establish, or 
raise, the threshold for LIHEAP eligibility at 60 percent of the 
State's median income level. Because of limited resources, States 
rarely reach that threshold.
  Specifically, \2/3\ of LIHEAP funds currently go to individuals who 
earn $8,000 per year or less. One-third goes to those who earn 
approximately $15,000 per year. That is, only 19 percent of people that 
could qualify for eligibility to receive LIHEAP funds actually receive 
such funds. Eighty-one percent of those eligible, therefore, do not 
receive LIHEAP funding.
  This amendment would expand the LIHEAP program to attempt to reach 
the 81 percent not currently receiving LIHEAP assistance.
  This amendment also is critical because it would increase the 
eligible income levels, so that LIHEAP assistance would be provided to 
a broader group of people, who cannot pay their exorbitant energy 
bills. This amendment would enable States to provide LIHEAP assistance 
to households with incomes up to and including 200 percent of the 
poverty level for each State.
  We also need to place a greater emphasis on conservation, and on 
renewable energy. Unfortunately, the President's budget cuts these 
critical program elements.
  As yesterday's Washington Post reported, ``The Bush plan calls for a 
$700 million reduction from this year's $19.7 billion Energy Department 
spending.'' Nearly half ``of those proposed cuts were aimed at the 
efficiency and renewable-energy programs. They are currently budgeted 
at $1.18 billion. The research is focused on a range of programs, from 
high-mileage, hybrid motor-engines and more energy-efficient industrial 
processes to new building designs that conserve energy.''
  I hope the Bush administration will realize the impracticality of 
cutting alternative energy and energy conservation programs at a time 
when we have a shortage of domestic energy supply sources and are 
overly reliant on foreign energy supplies.
  Beyond the short-term, emergency measures we are working to pass 
today, we need to develop a broader, long-term energy policy that will 
attempt to address the multiple energy problems we are facing. I will 
work with my colleagues to develop such legislation, legislation that 
must include renewable energy and conservation measures, including 
improved vehicle efficiency, as well as efforts to diversify our fuel 
supply sources in an environmentally sustainable manner. This

[[Page S2113]]

would include advancing clean coal technologies, for example.
  I have introduced legislation to provide a 5-year extension of the 
wind energy production tax credit. This will help develop a non-fossil 
infrastructure to relieve burden on other fuel sources and help bring 
overall energy prices down. I understand that President Bush has 
announced his support for this type of incentive.
  I also am considering legislation to pursue exploration not of the 
Arctic Refuge, but of Alaska's North Slope, where 35 trillion cubic 
feet of natural gas have already been identified as readily available. 
Such legislation would include provisions to develop the pipeline 
infrastructure to bring that natural gas to the lower 48 States. We 
must pursue exploration and development, but must do so in a safe and 
environmentally sustainable manner.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________