[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 39 (Thursday, March 22, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2688-S2690]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               THE BUDGET

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, yesterday in my role as ranking member on 
the Senate Budget Committee, I met with Senator Domenici, the chairman 
of the Senate Budget Committee. He informed me he intended not to have 
a markup of the budget in the Budget Committee but to come directly to 
the floor of the Senate. This was pursuant to a request I had made that 
we proceed to schedule a markup in the committee. I told him I thought 
a decision not to have a markup in the Budget Committee would be a 
mistake.
  We have never had a circumstance in which we have tried to bring a 
budget for the United States to the floor of the Senate without the 
Budget Committee, which has the primary responsibility, meeting first 
to hammer out an agreement. Senator Domenici, the chairman of the 
Budget Committee, told me he believes it will be impossible for us to 
reach an agreement. I don't know how anyone can be certain of that 
before we have tried.
  I hope very much that he will--and I asked Senator Domenici yesterday 
to reconsider to give us a chance to debate and discuss the budget in 
the Budget Committee and to have votes.
  That is how we make decisions.
  I still hold some optimism that after discussion and debate we might 
find agreement. It might not be on precisely what the President has 
proposed. Someone recommended yesterday that we try to agree on a 1-
year budget.
  But we have a country that has some serious challenges. Anybody who 
has been watching the markets knows they continue to decline, and 
decline precipitously. While it is true that the best immediate 
response is monetary policy and the Federal Reserve Board lowering 
interest rates, that has now been done three times, and still the slide 
continues, and still we see warning signals about the economy. We see 
Japan in a perilous position. We have had a serious energy shock in 
this country. We see high levels of individual debt in America. We see 
very dramatic weakness in the financial markets.
  I personally believe we have an obligation and a responsibility to 
try to respond as quickly as possible. I think

[[Page S2689]]

that means, on the fiscal policy side, we fast-forward the parts of the 
President's proposed tax cut to try to provide some stimulus to this 
economy.
  We can wait, and we can doddle and deliberate, or we can act. I hope 
very much that we take the opportunity to work in the Budget Committee 
to try to find common ground, to try to find a basis on which we can 
agree so we can get a swift response on the fiscal side to provide some 
confidence to the American people, to provide some confidence that 
their Government is responding to what is happening in their daily 
lives.
  Some have said, well, if you agree on something that is other than 
precisely what the President has proposed, that will be seen as a 
defeat for the President. I don't think we need to be in that position. 
I think we can find perhaps an overall global agreement that would be 
seen as a win for the country, a win for the President, and a win for 
the Congress. Nobody is defeated, nobody is hurt, but that collectively 
we have worked together to do what is best for the country.

  I really think we can do that, and at the end of the day it might be 
precisely what the President has proposed. But it may well enjoy his 
support. The fact is, circumstances have changed. He made a proposal 
during the campaign. I didn't agree with every part of it, but I 
respect him for doing it. The question now is, What do we do in light 
of what we face today? It does not need to be exactly what was proposed 
more than a year ago. Circumstances have changed. We have a requirement 
and a responsibility to respond to what is occurring.
  I am again asking Senator Domenici to reconsider. I am asking 
colleagues on both sides to urge Senator Domenici to reconsider. The 
Members on the Budget Committee have been very diligent in their 
responsibilities. We had an outstanding set of hearings. We ought to 
debate and discuss a budget resolution for this country before it comes 
to the floor of the Senate. I think it really invites chaos to come out 
here with the Budget Committee for the first time ever failing to even 
meet and failing to even try. What kind of procedure is that?
  I hope very much that Members of goodwill will get together in this 
Chamber and try to do what is best for the country and try to go 
through the kind of process we normally do to reach agreement. This 
idea that we predict failure before we have tried I think is a mistake. 
We ought to try debate and we ought to discuss and vote and provide 
some leadership so that we have a budget resolution out on the floor 
that has been carefully vetted by the Members who have the primary 
responsibility--the Senate Budget Committee.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this has been cleared with the managers of 
the bill, Senators Dodd and McConnell.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. 
Feingold, be recognized for 5 minutes as if in morning business, and 
following that Senator Hollings be recognized for 10 minutes as if in 
morning business, and the time not count against the amendment that has 
been filed by the Senator from Mississippi.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I am pleased that the distinguished ranking member of the Budget 
Committee is still on the floor because I rise at this point not to 
talk about campaign finance reform but to strongly agree with the 
comments he has made.
  I am very pleased to be a member of the Budget Committee. It is 
something I wanted to have an opportunity to do when I came here 
because it was the issue on which I ran originally--and I believe the 
issue on which the Senator from North Dakota ran--getting this 
country's fiscal situation under control. That is actually the most 
important thing we can do. If you care passionately about campaign 
finance reform, nothing is more important than the appropriate and 
thoughtful budgeting of the people's resources. I am grateful for his 
extremely skilled leadership on our side in the Budget Committee.
  I am pleased to join with the ranking member of the Budget Committee 
and my colleagues on the committee to talk about the need for the 
markup in our committee of the concurrent budget resolution.
  I, too, was disappointed to hear our chairman indicate that he may 
not convene a markup. I believe his stated reason is that he does not 
want to conduct a markup unless he can be assured the resulting product 
will have the support of a majority of the committee.
  I very much hope the chairman will reconsider his decision.
  The principal work of a member of that committee and the reason we 
are so eager to be a part of that committee and, frankly, one of the 
best parts of being in the Senate for me has been the experience of 
going through the markup of a budget resolution. It is extremely 
interesting, and it is extremely important in terms of the priorities 
of our country. Forgoing a markup renders membership on that committee 
much less meaningful.
  As many of my colleagues may know, the inability of the Budget 
Committee to muster a majority to report out a bill would not prevent 
the Senate from considering a budget resolution. The precedents of the 
Senate provide for just such gridlock.
  Unfortunately, it appears that this very precedent will be used to 
circumvent the committee entirely, leaving the writing of the budget 
resolution to unelected staff.
  While this might have little practical effect on just about any other 
bill where debate and amendment are much more open, debate on the 
budget resolution is severely constrained.
  We are warning our few colleagues, including the Presiding Officer, 
that we are about to experience ``vote-arama'' where we vote on scores 
of amendments with just a few minutes' notice because of the inability 
to find time and to have time for people to actually fully debate 
amendments on the budget resolution.
  Stringent germaneness standards severely restrict the ability of the 
body to amend the resolution, and those standards flow form the 
baseline resolution that comes to the Senate.
  This makes the work of the Budget Committee on the resolution all the 
more important. The threshold for adopting an amendment can be a simple 
majority, or a supermajority, depending on the underlying structure of 
the concurrent resolution crafted by the Budget Committee.
  The chairman has considerable say in the way the concurrent 
resolution is structured even with a committee markup. But others on 
the Budget Committee should have a say as well.
  We are in an unusual posture with an evenly divided Senate and evenly 
divided committees. Perhaps we are the victims of some ancient curse, 
having to ``legislate in interesting times.''
  But these ``interesting times'' are all the more reason to respect 
the rights of Members to participate fully in their respective 
committees.
  I simply wanted to rise to strongly agree with the ranking member 
that we need to have a markup in the Budget Committee.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Chair and my distinguished colleague from 
Arizona.
  Mr. President, I just want to reemphasize the point made by the 
Senators from North Dakota and Wisconsin relative to a markup of the 
budget in the Budget Committee.
  Yesterday morning, Marjorie Williams had an intriguing op-ed piece in 
the Washington Post emphasizing that the key watchword of the Bush 
administration is ``transparency,'' ``transparency.'' Apparently, at 
every turn, the emphasis has been: We're transparent. We're 
transparent. We're open.
  This bemuses this particular Senator because the one thing they are 
absolutely nontransparent about is the budget. I have been trying, as a 
former chairman of the Budget Committee--and working here now for 25 
years on this particular problem--to get the President's budget 
figures. We have had different people make some very interesting, 
amusing, and entertaining appearances on C-SPAN, but nobody has pointed 
out the actual outlays and the spending in the President's budget.
  We are on a collision course. What will happen come April 1st, under 
the

[[Page S2690]]

budget rule, the majority leader can propose and lay down a budget, and 
start debating. If that is the game plan, we are headed now on a course 
of a train wreck. That is not going to fly.
  We do not have any idea of the figures. And to just vote willy-nilly 
as an exercise, to bypass all proceedings of the budget in the Budget 
Committee, just to get it to a conference, and then to mark up, for the 
first time, what the President wants, is really the process of 
arrogance.
  It is disturbing how little confidence the market has in us--in the 
Congress and the President--at this particular time. They see the 
Congress headed in one direction, and the President running around, 
continuing in his campaign, talking about the budget. He is out selling 
his so-called tax cut and budget everywhere but in the Budget 
Committee. We do not know exactly what he wants for defense, education, 
housing, and transportation. These are all important items to be 
discussed.
  At the beginning--weeks back--not having a real detailed budget, I 
thought we should take this year's budget--that we passed only in 
December--and just more or less have a budget freeze like you would 
have as a Governor. You would just take the President's budget and 
debate what cuts you had on there, and say, for any increases--the so-
called pay-go rule--that you had to have offsets, and then hold up on 
the tax cuts until it became apparent whether it was going to be a soft 
or hard landing.
  I have to say in the same breath, this is a hard enough landing for 
this Senator. And rather than hold up, I have amended my initiative to 
put in an immediate economic stimulus package in the Finance Committee. 
But my budget is in the Budget Committee. I have written the chairman 
and asked him to please let me know when we are going to have a markup 
so we can discuss my budget, the President's budget, and any and all 
budgets.
  This is, as I say, the process of arrogance in which the debate and 
the consideration of the individual Senators and their opinions makes 
no difference in the committee. It is a ritual: Now that we have the 
bare majority, what we have to do is ram through--right now--what we 
want, irrespective of any debate or consideration. That is going to 
erode the confidence we have in the White House and the confidence the 
White House has in the Congress itself.
  The market sees this. I think we really are eroding confidence. You 
are going to see more downturns in the economy, and everything else, 
until we quit running around and come back home and start working 
together on the nation's problems.

  I see the distinguished President out talking about the Patients' 
Bill of Rights. That is not before the Congress right now. But we are 
out politicking on different campaign issues. But if we could show a 
willingness to work together, I think we would be much better off. I 
have not seen the likes of this in my years, and particularly with 
respect to the budget.
  The budget process was instituted as a result of some 13 
appropriations bills, and we did not have one look-see at the 
Government spending in its entirety. So we put in these particular 
rules so that we could facilitate a complete and comprehensive debate 
and treatment of the Government's financial needs.
  Those rules are restrictions to help move it along--a mammoth 
Government budget of all departments--but they are being used to 
obscure any consideration rather than give comprehensive treatment and 
consideration.
  So instead of knowing what the President intends on education, 
housing, crime or with respect to the Justice Department, we just 
operate in the dark, in a casual fashion, and use the limited rules of 
the budget process--not for a comprehensive treatment and 
consideration--but, on the contrary, to obscure any consideration, any 
treatment, any markup, any understanding. That is fundamentally bad 
Government.
  I appreciate the distinguished leaders on the opposite side of the 
aisle giving me time to comment on this particular matter because I do 
have a budget. It is a good one. It really responds to our country's 
needs. But I have not been able to get a markup of my budget. We cannot 
consider the President's budget.
  We are going to take up the budget, willy-nilly, under a limited 
time--with the leadership relinquishing back most of its time and 
saying: All right, you Democrats, we have the votes. This is what we 
are going to pass. Go ahead and put your amendments on, and your time 
will run out by Wednesday and we will start the ``vote-a-rama'' around 
the clock. And the more amendments there are, the longer we will stay. 
We will stay here Thursday, we will stay here Friday, we will stay here 
Saturday--and we will stay here Palm Sunday--and just continue to vote 
if that is what you all want to do, making it appear that there is 
obstructionism on this side of the aisle, wherein the truth is, we have 
not had a chance to consider anything and to find out the merit or 
demerit of the bill or the feelings of the other side on anything.
  This is just bad congressional process legislating. I hope the 
chairman of the Budget Committee and the leadership on the other side 
of the aisle will say: All right, let's start Monday, meet in formal 
session and start marking up this budget.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________