[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 45 (Friday, March 30, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3205-S3208]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               THE BUDGET

  Mr. KYL. Madam President, while the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia is still here, let me thank him for the remarks he has just 
made. I, too, listened very carefully to his remarks, as well as to the 
Senator from Florida and the Senator from New York.
  But I must say that I find this rather bemusing--if I am using that 
term correctly. People around the country might wonder why there is 
such an emphasis on, or such a concern for, taking up the budget. After 
all, isn't it time to take up the budget? Indeed, in the normal course 
of events in the Senate, we would be taking up the budget about right 
now. So why is there all this expression about concern about taking up 
the budget? I suggest it has to do with the old phrase, ``You follow 
the money.''
  While I came here to speak about another subject, I want to speak for 
a few minutes about this subject because I think people across this 
country deserve to know what is really behind all of this talk about 
taking up the budget. You see, the truth is, until we take up the 
budget and pass a budget, we can't take up tax relief. Until we take up 
and pass tax relief, the money that is available here in Washington to 
be spent by the politicians will be spent by the politicians. So you 
follow the money. If we never take up the budget, then we can't pass 
the tax relief. If we don't pass the tax relief, the money that the 
hard-working families of this country have sent to Washington, DC, will 
be available for this Congress to spend.
  People who like to spend other people's money don't want to see tax 
relief. They can't stand in the way of tax relief, which is too 
popular. It is going to pass. But they might be able to stop the budget 
from being considered, based upon some parliamentary procedures. That, 
Madam President, is what I think this is all about.
  Let me take the four points that have been raised by my friends 
across the aisle in order:
  First of all, that we can't possibly take up the budget yet because 
we don't have the details of the President's budget. I have in my hand 
a copy of something called ``A Vision of Change For America.'' The 
Senator from West Virginia will remember this. It is dated February 17, 
1993.
  This is what the Democratically controlled Senate had before it when 
it considered the budget resolution in that year. We did not have the 
Clinton budget. There was no Clinton budget.
  Like the first year of President Bush, that was the first year of 
President Clinton. It takes a new President's team a little while to 
put together the budget, but that has never stopped the Congress from 
passing a budget in the ordinary timeframe because that is the first 
thing we have to do. We are pretty well stymied in all of the other 
things we have to do in terms of reconciliation, in terms of 
appropriations, until we have adopted the budget.
  What is this ``Vision for Change for America'' that President Clinton 
sent up? It was not a budget, as he acknowledges here; it was a 
blueprint, a vision, as he called it, pretty similar to the document 
the Senator from West Virginia has been referring to that President 
Bush sent up to Capitol Hill.
  It is a blueprint. It is a vision for what he would like to do. There 
is a lot of information in it. It is not as detailed as the usual 
budget, to be sure, but there is plenty of information about the 
general direction he would like to take.
  What happened to this ``Vision for Change for America''? Did 
Republicans say: We cannot possibly take this budget resolution up; we 
have to wait for a detailed budget by President Clinton? Actually, I 
think some Republicans did say that, but the Democratic leadership 
said: Forget it; we are going to take up the budget resolution, and 
this body passed a budget resolution in a number of days--we are trying 
to determine whether it was 12 or 13. It was a number of days, close to 
2 weeks, before the real Clinton budget was sent up here. The Senate 
acted upon its budget resolution before it ever had the detailed 
Clinton budget before it.
  I do think it is a bit much to argue that it is unprecedented, that 
it is improper for the Senate to take up a budget resolution when it 
has not yet got the exact, complete, detailed budget from the 
President. We know full well the general direction this President's 
budget is going to take.
  The second point is that there are questionable forecasts. I have 
heard

[[Page S3206]]

the phrase twice used here, ``looking through a glass darkly.'' My 
goodness, we have to make decisions every day based upon what we think 
is going to happen. We cannot know for certain. As the fine Senator 
from West Virginia pointed out, we can hardly forecast the weather 
tomorrow, and that is true.
  Yet we make decisions in the Congress, in the Government, in 
business, for our own families every day based upon imperfect and 
uncertain knowledge of what is going to happen in the future. We have 
to do that; otherwise, we would be frozen into inaction. We would never 
be able to do anything. We do the best we can.
  We have been using very conservative budget estimates. The 
congressional budget estimates are that over the next 10 years, we 
would have about a $5.6 trillion surplus and in that President Bush has 
decided to ask for $1.6 trillion over a 10-year period to be returned 
to American taxpayers. That is the size of his tax cut.
  That tax cut was proposed during the campaign when the estimated 
budget surplus was far less. That budget surplus has grown virtually 
every quarter since then. It is now up to $5.6 trillion, $5.8 trillion.
  Given the fact that these are conservative estimates, given the fact 
that we all have to make decisions on imperfect information, it 
certainly seems to me we ought to at least proceed to take up the 
budget. My goodness, we will be here all year waiting for exactitude, 
and nobody, of course, expects that.
  The third point I have heard is there is not going to be room for 
debt relief if we are not careful. That, of course, is not true. I was 
in a hearing yesterday of the Finance Committee in which we had experts 
talk about how much debt we could pay down and over what period of 
time.
  Everybody agrees that the debt can be paid down within the 10-year 
period as far as we can possibly pay it. The only difference is, can we 
pay it down to about $500 billion or down to $1 trillion, somewhere in 
between there? The experts are in disagreement as to where exactly we 
can pay it down. It is virtually impossible to pay off more debt than 
that because it is held by people in long-term obligations and 
obligations that would cost too much to buy back.
  We are going to pay down the debt all we can, and there is just over 
$1 trillion left, after we have done the tax cuts, after we have paid 
off the debt, and after we have paid for everything on which the 
Government has to spend money, plus a 4-percent rate of growth, more 
than the rate of inflation. And that is on top of record huge 
historical increases in spending over the last 2 years, all of which 
are built into the baseline.
  We have the historic spending, greater even than--well, literally any 
other period in our history, including all but the largest year of 
spending in World War II. We have historic spending levels. We are 
increasing that spending; we are paying off the national debt; we are 
providing $1.6 trillion over 10 years in tax relief; and we still have 
another billion dollars left over. That does not sound to me to be a 
very risky proposition.
  Finally, the fourth point that has been raised by our friends on the 
other side is we have to come together in a bipartisan spirit, and 
that, I gather, is why the Democratic leadership has worked so hard to 
get every single Democrat to oppose the budget resolution in an 
absolute 100-percent partisan vote. That is bipartisanship?
  Every Democrat can decide to oppose this budget resolution on the 
basis that they do not like it. That is totally fair. They will 
probably all conclude that is why they are not going to vote for it, 
and I certainly respect that. But I think it is a bit much to talk 
about a spirit of bipartisanship when we already know that for several 
days this week, the Democratic leadership has been working very hard to 
get an absolute, 100-percent partisan vote against the Republican 
budget resolution. That is not bipartisanship.
  That is the condition we are faced with right now. Why wouldn't 
Senators want to take up the budget? What is really behind this? As I 
said, follow the money. We cannot cut taxes until we take up the 
budget, and that, in fact, is why some Senators do not wish us to take 
up the budget.
  Paul Harvey has a saying at the end of his broadcast in which he 
says: ``And that's the rest of the story.'' If we are direct and clear-
eyed about this, this is the rest of the story. It has nothing to do 
with whether we should take up the budget, whether we have enough 
information to take up the budget, whether it is time to take up the 
budget, whether we will have all week long to debate the budget, to 
offer amendments to the budget. All of that will be quite possible.

  It all has to do with partisan politics to delay taking up the budget 
so that we delay taking up the issue of tax relief because there are a 
lot of folks who do not want the degree of tax relief for which 
President Bush has called.
  I see my distinguished friend from West Virginia wants to intercede 
with a comment which he will pose in the form of a question, and I will 
be happy to yield.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am struck with amazement, if I might say. 
I thank the distinguished Senator for yielding. But when he charges the 
Democratic leadership with having spent all these days trying to get a 
solid vote against this resolution, I ask the question: What on Earth 
has the Republican leadership been doing this past week?
  I am sorry that this discussion is taking a very partisan turn.
  I say that with all due respect to the very distinguished Senator. I 
didn't come here to speak in politically partisan terms. I have been 
talking about the need for both sides of the aisle to have the 
President's budget in front of us before we vote.
  May I say to the distinguished Senator, I don't determine my vote on 
what the leadership on this side says or what the leadership on that 
side says. So let me debunk his mind with respect to that.
  Let me get to the earlier point of the distinguished Senator when he 
spoke of the ``Vision of Change,'' when he was reacting to my comments 
regarding ``A Blueprint for New Beginnings,'' this outline of what the 
Bush administration is proposing. It is a mere outline. The 
distinguished Senator from Arizona reminded the Senate that in 1993 the 
Senate operated on the basis of this document entitled ``A Vision of 
Change for America.''
  The difference, may I say to my friend, and he probably already knows 
this, the difference in 1993 and now is that this document in 1993 
contained more detail than does this document on which we are going to 
have to base our judgment, apparently, in the forthcoming debate next 
week.
  Furthermore, in that instance, the Budget Committee had a markup and 
reported to the Senate a concurrent resolution on the budget. That is 
not the case here. The Budget Committee of the Senate has not had any 
markup this year. In 1993 the Budget Committee had a markup. It sent to 
the Senate a document, a resolution, that came out of that committee 
and was the result of that committee's deliberations, both Democrats 
and Republicans. Further, in that instance, CBO had enough information 
to provide an analysis of Clinton's 1993 budget.
  We need a CBO analysis for this budget. We don't have it here. We had 
it then. We had a markup by the Budget Committee that year; we were 
denied a markup in the Budget Committee this year. We were denied that 
opportunity. We had a CBO analysis in 1993; in this instance we don't 
have. Furthermore, in that instance we were following the true purposes 
of the Budget Reform Act in that we were seeking to reduce the 
deficits; in this case we are going to increase the deficits in all 
likelihood if we enact a huge tax cut purely on the basis of projected 
surpluses.
  And finally, in that instance, not a single Republican in the Senate, 
not a single Republican in the House of Representatives, voted for the 
budget. So, if my friends on the Republican side are going to hold this 
document up and say, look what we did back then, the Senate went ahead 
and acted on the basis of that document. That is the role model, I 
assume they are saying. Look at what you did, you Democrats; you did it 
without the President's budget in 1993.
  But they fail to remind listeners that not a single Republican voted 
for that document, and that that document is the basis for the surge of 
surpluses that

[[Page S3207]]

we now enjoy. The budget in 1993 took us out of the deficit ditch and 
made possible the surpluses of today, and yet not a single Republican 
in either House voted for that document. And here we are today, the 
Republicans are extolling the 1993 budget.
  Mr. KYL. I think the Senator from West Virginia would concede I have 
been quite liberal in yielding to him to answer that question.
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator has. I wanted to help set the record straight.
  Mr. KYL. I know that, and I appreciate the Senator helping to set the 
record straight. Let me set it exactly straight, however.
  Mr. BYRD. I am waiting.
  Mr. KYL. President Clinton's vision of America was transmitted on 
February 17, 1993, 145 pages long, outlining the details of the fiscal 
1993 spending stimulus package and tax increase plan, plus the other 
visions of President Clinton.
  President Bush's ``Blueprint for New Beginnings,'' of which the 
Senator from West Virginia has a copy, was transmitted on February 28, 
2001. The document is 207 pages long and outlines a 10-year budget plan 
with $1.6 trillion in tax cuts.
  The Senator from West Virginia might say my document is more detailed 
than your document. I think that is a matter of judgment. My document 
is longer than your document. It covers a longer period of time.
  The fact is, neither are budgets in the pure traditional sense, the 
Senator from West Virginia would acknowledge. Both are the best the 
administration could do within the short period of time they had, and 
in both cases the majority party in the Senate sought to take up a 
budget resolution prior to the submission of the budget by the 
President.
  The Democratic-controlled Congress in 1993 not only reported a budget 
resolution on a party-line vote--and I will stop for a moment and say 
the Senator from West Virginia is exactly correct, not a single 
Republican supported it but every Democrat did support it. So I don't 
know which side you blame for being partisan.
  Mr. BYRD. I am not blaming either side.
  Mr. KYL. It was a partisan vote.
  Mr. BYRD. I am not blaming either side.
  Mr. KYL. Thank you. I thought for a moment you were suggesting 
Republicans were partisan for sticking together but Democrats were not 
partisan for sticking together. The fact is, at that time the Democrats 
were in charge of the Senate. It passed Senate and House floors on 
party-line votes--budget resolutions based on the document, completed 
conference on the two budget-passed resolutions, completed and passed 
on party-line votes, budget resolution conference based upon this 
``Vision of Change'' document and, most importantly, Congress did all 
of this by April 1, 1993, a full week before President Clinton 
submitted his detailed budget plan.
  The 107th Congress now is working to adopt a budget resolution in the 
Senate following the submission of President Bush's blueprint, and that 
is no different than what was done in the 1993 democratically-
controlled Congress.
  The point I am trying to make is that all of this debate about 
procedures--is it the real budget? Is it just a blueprint? Have we ever 
done this before? Is it partisan? All of that is a smokescreen. It is a 
smokescreen to hide the fact that my friends on the other side of the 
aisle are trying to delay the consideration of the budget in order to 
delay the consideration of tax relief so that possibly something will 
come up so the tax relief won't pass to the degree that President Bush 
wants it to pass.
  Just to make it crystal clear, I would never suggest that the Senator 
from West Virginia would feel himself bound to follow his party 
leadership. I suggest that it is the Senator from West Virginia who is 
helping to lead his party. I know in this case he believes strongly 
about this. We believe just as strongly. I do not think that it is too 
much to ask the Congress to take up the budget at the time it does 
every year, pursuant to the budget resolution, and consider that budget 
so we can get on with the other business of the Congress and the other 
business of the nation, to take up the questions of appropriations for 
all of the spending programs we need to fund, to take up the question 
of tax relief for hard-working Americans, and to do all the other 
things the American people sent us back here to do.

  To try to get bogged down in a bunch of parliamentary or procedural 
wrangling, I suggest, doesn't do the people's business.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I had asked for an hour to present to the 
Senate another very interesting set of comments.
  However, given the fact that we have begun an actual conversation on 
the Senate floor, something somewhat rare, I am delighted to continue 
to use the time that was allocated to me under the unanimous consent 
agreement to continue this debate and, under it, not only have 
Republicans speaking, but also to have Democrats speaking, with the 
stipulation that when we are all done with this I have an opportunity 
to present my other remarks in full, which really will not take a full 
hour but at least I ask I have that opportunity at the time.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, what we are seeing here is not a very 
illuminating discussion between two Senators. This is precisely what 
the President, I think, had in mind when he said he would like to see 
an end to the quibbling and to the bickering and the partisanship in 
Washington.
  I came to the floor today suggesting that the Senate would be much 
better off if we had the President's budget in front of us before we 
vote. Then I said even if we can't have the President's budget, surely 
the administration has the details, the information it can submit to 
the Senate. Let us see what is in it. I did not come here with any 
intent to engage in quibbling, or partisanship.
  Mr. KYL. I hope the Senator from West Virginia doesn't mind if anyone 
disagrees with his assessment that we shouldn't take up the budget. May 
I ask the Senator a question?
  Mr. NICKLES. Regular order, Madam President.
  Mr. KYL. The regular order is I have the time, I believe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. May I say I came here hoping I could speak out for the 
rights of both sides of the aisle; the rights of Republican Senators, 
the rights of Democrats; the rights of the majority, the rights of the 
minority, to have before us the President's budget, which we need in 
order to exercise a reasoned judgment. That is what I came here for. I 
am not interested in bickering, arguing about partisanship.
  I will be just as happy if we concentrate on the need for the 
President's budget for the edification of both sides. I want to stand 
up for our rights, for the Senator's rights--the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. I ask the Senator from West Virginia, were you willing to 
stand up for the----
  Mr. NICKLES. Regular order, Senators are having discussion. They are 
supposed to go through the Chair. I believe the Senator from Arizona 
has the floor. I believe he can only yield for a question.

  Mr. KYL. I would like to yield to the Senator for a question if he 
would care to answer it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. I will be glad to ask a question.
  Mr. KYL. When Republicans, in 1993, objected to the consideration of 
the budget resolution on the grounds that President Clinton's ``Vision 
of Change'' was not a real budget, did the Senator from West Virginia 
stand up for their rights to wait until the President submitted a 
complete budget? Or did the Senator from West Virginia vote with the 
majority on a purely partisan vote to pass the budget resolution and, 
in fact, to pass the final budget resolution, all prior to the time 
President Clinton submitted a budget?
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I was thinking of Cicero's statement when 
he said, ``Let us not go over the old ground.''
  Mr. KYL. That was then; this is now.
  Mr. BYRD. Wait. Let's just wait. I like your smile, but I don't like 
the interruption of Cicero's quotation. But the Senator is being very 
liberal to me in letting me speak on his time.
  Cicero said:

       Let us not go over the old ground. Let us, rather, prepare 
     for what is to come.


[[Page S3208]]


  The Senator wants me to ask him a question? I will ask that question.
  Mr. KYL. No, I want the Senator to answer the question.
  Mr. BYRD. I answered the question, didn't I?
  Mr. KYL. Was the answer yes?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes. Yes, I voted for that budget.
  Mr. KYL. Thank you.
  Mr. BYRD. I was one of--I don't remember the precise number, but I 
was one Senator who voted for that budget in 1993, and not a single 
Republican voted for it in the Senate or in the House. Yet, it was that 
budget that put this country on the course of having surpluses rather 
than deficits.
  Now, did the Senator want me to ask a question or answer a question?
  Mr. KYL. No, I think the Senator answered the question. The Senator 
was willing to vote for a budget resolution prior to the submission of 
the complete budget by the President in 1993, but he criticizes 
Republicans for doing precisely the same thing in the year 2001.
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator from Arizona just yield for a question?
  Mr. KYL. If I might, since the Senator from Oklahoma was here earlier 
and had sought recognition, I would like to yield to him first.
  Mr. NICKLES. The Senator has an hour under his control. I wish to 
make a speech on campaign finance.
  Mr. KYL. Then, Madam President, perhaps what I should do is ask how 
much time we have remaining so I can give the remarks I was originally 
prepared to give and then yield to those others.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 30 and one-half minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. KYL. I think that will be sufficient to give the other remarks I 
have, unless the Senator from North Dakota wishes to engage me in a 
lengthy colloquy, in which case I would want to ask for a little bit 
more time.

  Mr. CONRAD. No, I will be very brief. Was the Senator aware that in 
1993 there was sufficient detail from the President to have the Joint 
Tax Committee and the Congressional Budget Office estimate the cost of 
the President's tax proposals? That is totally different from this 
year. In this year, we have insufficient detail from the President for 
the Joint Tax Committee and the Congressional Budget Office to give us 
an independent estimate of the cost of the President's proposals.
  Mr. KYL. That is a question. Let me answer by saying apparently the 
Joint Tax Committee believes it has enough information, because it has 
given us an estimate of the cost, both to the House and the Senate. In 
fact, it gave a very uncomplimentary estimate of the part of the tax 
relief which I am putting forward. I might argue with what they have 
come up with, but apparently they believed they had enough information 
to do it.
  We do have an estimate this year, whether it is right or wrong. We 
had an estimate back in 1993. We have an estimate this year. We are 
going to have to live with it one way or the other. But I don't think 
that should be a basis for suggesting it is improper at this point to 
take up the budget resolution. I think what we have established is that 
just as with the change of President in 1993, when you have a President 
in the year 2001, it is unrealistic to expect there would be the same 
degree of detail in the budget they send up in their very first year as 
there is for the remainder of their term.
  But the fact has not stopped Congress from acting on a budget 
resolution at the time of year when it should do so, that we will be 
doing that, and that hopefully we will have an entire week next week 
for a continuation of this debate for proposals of amendments. I 
suspect we will be going very late at night next week as we consider 
all the different ideas different Senators have before we finally act 
on the budget.
  I hope, to conclude the remarks here, this could be done in a 
bipartisan fashion and it will not be a purely partisan vote. One would 
hope that. We will see how it develops.
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator further yield just for a brief question?
  Mr. KYL. I would like to get on with what I started a half hour ago, 
if I may.
  Mr. CONRAD. May I be permitted a brief question?
  Mr. KYL. I think, as the Senator from West Virginia has said, I have 
been more than liberal in yielding to my colleagues. I really would 
like to get on to what I came here to talk about.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, we have not seen an estimate from the 
Congressional Budget Office nor the Joint Tax Committee of the cost of 
the President's plan, except for pieces of it, the estate tax provision 
of the Senator from Arizona, and two pieces of it from the House. But 
we don't have an estimate of the President's full plan.
  Mr. KYL. What we have, of course, is the estimate of those portions 
of the President's tax plan that have been put forward by Members of 
the House and Senate, and that is ordinarily what is reviewed and what 
we get estimates of. That is plenty enough for us to move forward on it 
at this point.
  I know the Senator from North Dakota appreciates that we in the 
Senate operate on that basis as a routine matter.
  I appreciate the opportunity to have this exchange. I think it may 
illustrate some of the tough sledding that we have to do as we move 
forward with the consideration of the President's budget, with the 
Senate budget resolution, with our tax relief legislation, and the 
other business that we have.

                          ____________________