Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 49 (Thursday, April 5, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 49 (Thursday, April 5, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3462-S3525]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEARS
2001-2011

The ACTING PRESIDING pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will now resume consideration of H. Con. Res. 83, which the
clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 83) establishing the
congressional budget for the United States Government for
fiscal year 2002, revising the congressional budget for the
United States Government for fiscal year 2001, and setting
forth appropriate budgetary levels for each of fiscal years
2003 through 2011.

Pending:

Domenici amendment No. 170, in the nature of a substitute.
Motion to reconsider the vote by which Harkin amendment No.
185 (to amendment No. 170), listed above, was agreed to.
Collins amendment No. 190 (to amendment No. 170), to
establish a reserve fund to eliminate further cuts in
Medicare payments to home health agencies.
Stabenow/Johnson amendment No. 191 (to amendment No. 170),
to eliminate further cuts in Medicare payments to home health
agencies.

Amendments Nos. 190 and 191

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will now resume
concurrent debate on the Collins amendment No. 190 and the Stabenow
amendment No. 191 with the time to be equally divided. There will now
be 10 minutes for explanation prior to votes on or in relation to the
Collins amendment No. 190 and the Stabenow amendment No. 191.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I have offered an amendment that we will
soon vote on that is intended to eliminate a further cut in Medicare
reimbursements for home health agencies. The statistics tell the story.
The combinations of cutbacks in Medicare payments and the onerous
regulations imposed by the Clinton administration have cost some
900,000 Medicare patients--often our most frail and vulnerable senior
citizens, as well as those citizens with considerable disabilities--to
lose access to their home health care.
In Maine, more than 11,000 seniors and disabled citizens have lost
their home health care services. Nationwide, 3,300 home health agencies
have closed their doors or have stopped serving Medicare patients. And
looming on the horizon is yet another 15-percent cutback in Medicare
payments to home health agencies.
It is scheduled to go into effect on October 1 of next year. If it
does go into effect, it will have a devastating impact that will
further jeopardize access to home health services for our senior
citizens.
The cutbacks have already caused tragedies. I discussed last night an
elderly woman with advanced Alzheimer's disease in the State of Maine
who had a number of other problems, who lost access to her home health
care services, and as a result died from an untreated infection in her
foot.
Surely, one of the dedicated home health nurses would have been able
to treat that infection before it got out of control. That is just
typical of the problems being created by the cutbacks in home health
care.
My amendment establishes a $13.7 billion reserve fund that can be
used only to restore Medicare payments to home health agencies. And it
protects every dime of the Medicare HI trust fund.
By contrast, my colleague from Michigan has also offered an amendment
that would take the money set aside for tax relief and place it in the
Medicare budget account. Once there, the funds could be used for any
purpose under the Medicare program. Under the amendment of my
colleague, there is absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that the funds
would be used for home health care. Indeed, there is no mention at all
of home health care in the text of the amendment of my friend from
Michigan.
In contrast, my amendment would bring us significantly closer to
restoring Medicare home health payments. It sets aside $13.7 billion
for home health--and home health alone. It also provides a mechanism to
move subsequent legislation to eliminate the scheduled 15-percent
reduction without being subject to a budget point of order.
I want to make a point clear. Under either approach, subsequent
legislation will be needed to repeal the 15-percent reduction. That is
precisely the situation that the reserve fund is designed to address.
We have used this approach before. We set aside funds in a reserve
account just last year for the cervical and breast cancer program, and
subsequently passed authorizing legislation that, because of the
reserve account, was passed last year.
Mr. President, I see that my colleague from Missouri, who has been a
tremendous leader on this issue, is on the floor as well. I want to
make sure I leave some time for him. Could the Presiding Officer inform
me how much time I have remaining?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 1 minute remaining.
Ms. COLLINS. With that, let me yield my 1 minute. But let me make one
point.
My amendment is endorsed by the National Association for Home Care
and the Visiting Nurses Association of America. Those are the two
organizations representing home health care providers.

[[Page S3463]]

I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Missouri.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri is
recognized for 40 seconds.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, a very brief comment, necessarily, on the
two amendments.
The Democrats claim the difference is that their amendment will
guarantee that the money will go to home health care. Unfortunately,
that is not the way the amendment is drawn. That is not what will
happen. Basically, the Democratic amendment simply says: You may spend
more on Medicare, not necessarily on home health. The only thing it
truly does is cut the money available for tax cuts. That leaves more
money for spending in any area.
The Collins-Bond amendment sets aside a reserve fund specifically for
home health. It cannot be used for anything else.
I urge my colleagues to support the Collins amendment and to oppose
the Democratic amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator has
expired.
Ms. STABENOW addressed the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning.
We have in front of us two approaches to addressing home health care
needs and stopping the 15-percent cut that is scheduled to go into
effect in October of 2002. I applaud my colleague from Maine for her
commitment to this issue. I share that commitment, having worked very
closely for 4 years in the House of Representatives with the agencies
and associations involved in home health care.
I know we share a deep concern about the fact that there has been a
24-percent cut in patient care in home health care settings as a result
of the Balanced Budget Act. I consider that an unintended consequence.
I do not believe that it was intended that we see a 30-percent
reduction in the number of agencies that serve Medicare patients. And
as a result of that, we have seen this 15-percent cut delayed on three
different occasions.
Today is the opportunity for us to send a strong message to the
patients and families who rely on home health care, and the home health
care agencies that do such a wonderful job, and say that, in fact, this
cut will not take effect and they can proceed in providing quality care
for our families.
The difference in the approach is that my colleague provides for a
proposal that says ``if.'' And I will read this: ``subject to the
condition that such legislation will not, when taken together with all
other previously-enacted legislation, reduce the on-budget surplus
below the level of the Medicare . . . Trust Fund:'' Then, and only
then, would we have $13.7 billion available for home health care. Then,
and only then, would we stop this incredibly devastating 15-percent cut
that is scheduled to take effect.
I offer a different approach. It is very simple. We will protect home
health care, period. We take the $13.7 billion off the top, as they
say. We take a very minute amount of money away from what is, in
effect, a $2.5 trillion tax cut that has been proposed by the
President, to say that we are going to make sure the families of
America have access to home health care; that seniors can live in
dignity in their homes; that families who care for moms and dads and
grandmas and grandpas can make sure that home health care services are
available so they are not forced to choose a nursing home or another
institution when it is not appropriate.
It is very clear; we have two approaches and the same amount of
dollars. One says: Maybe, if all other things happen, we will stop the
15-percent cut in home health care.
My amendment very simply says: We take it off the top. We guarantee
that we place home health care as a priority.
It certainly is a priority for our families. It needs to be a
priority for this Congress. My amendment will simply make sure that
that is the case.
I urge colleagues on both sides of the aisle who care deeply about
home health care to join with me in guaranteeing that home health care
is a priority of this Congress and to make sure this devastating 15-
percent cut will not, in fact, take place.
I urge support for the amendment and yield to my colleague and friend
from North Dakota.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the difference between these two
amendments is very clear. The Senator from Michigan has an amendment
that is paid for. The Senator from Maine has an amendment for which
there will be no money if Medicare is being raided for other purposes,
which we have seen time after time after time on the floor of the
Senate over the last 2 days. The choice is very clear. If Senators want
to support home health care, they had better support the Senator from
Michigan. It is the only proposal that is paid for.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield myself such leader time as I might
need, although I will be brief.
On the issue before us, the amendment by the Senator from Michigan,
once again, this is a continuation of what I referred to yesterday:
Fiddling while Rome is burning. Once again we are going to increase
spending, albeit in a good cause, and we are going to take it away from
tax relief for working Americans.
The Senator from Maine has a better alternative. I say again to all
who are watching, the pattern is clear--spend more and tax more. That
is what the Congress has been committed to for so many years, and we
are trying to change that culture.
With that, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I will take time off the leader time.
We always welcome the majority leader to the floor, even when he
makes statements that don't quite fit the facts. I say to my colleague
this morning, I think he knows, as we all know, that the choice is not
the choice between spending and a tax cut. It is really more
complicated than that. It is the question of what is the appropriate
mix of tax cut, debt paydown, and reserving resources for these high-
priority domestic needs such as improving education and a prescription
drug benefit.
The most stark differences are that we have reserved much more of the
projected surplus for the paydown of national debt. They have a tax cut
that is about twice as big as ours. We have about twice as much
reserved for the paydown of our national debt, both short-term and
long-term. We think that is a better set of priorities. We have also
reserved additional resources for improving education and for a
prescription drug benefit and for strengthening our national defense.
We think those are the priorities of the American people.
The President has said very often this is the people's money. We
agree with that. Absolutely, this is the people's money. Some of it
should be returned to them in a tax cut. Some of it should be used to
pay down our collective national debt. After all, that is the people's
debt. We also ought to strengthen Social Security because that is the
people's Social Security program. We ought to improve education for our
kids because, after all, they are our kids. We also ought to do
something about a priority that is as important as home health care.
The Senator from Michigan has an amendment that is paid for, that would
provide an assurance that the resources would be available to improve
home health care. It deserves our support.
I reserve the remainder of leader time and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allen). The question is on agreeing to the
Stabenow amendment No. 191.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 53, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 73 Leg.]

YEAS--47

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan

[[Page S3464]]

Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--53

Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
The amendment (No. 191) was rejected.

vote on amendment no. 190

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is now on agreeing to the Collins
amendment.
Ms. COLLINS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 1, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 74 Leg.]

YEAS--99

Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--1

Byrd

The amendment (No. 190) ws agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. I understand we have an order entered as to how we
proceed. I want to take 5 minutes off the resolution just to talk with
the Senate a little bit about where we are. I understand my friend
wants to do the same. He is not limited, of course, to 5 minutes. But I
want to start that.
Mr. President, I want Senators to know that both of us, as managers
of this bill, find ourselves in a position where there are some very
big conflicting desires. One desire is that we finish by noon tomorrow.
It seems to be a rather pervasive one going around. Whenever you say:
Would you like to finish at 12 tomorrow, the roof goes down with shouts
of, ``Alleluia. Let's do it.''
We are trying to figure out how we can do that. The problem, fellow
Senators--I speak to all Senators; and then my friend can speak to all,
and he can include ours in his comments--it is not possible to do that.
Some Senators have five, some have six, some requested three
amendments. I don't know if there is anybody with any higher than six
that we are aware of, but we have all these requests for amendments,
and we want everybody to know we are aware of that. But we also want
everybody to know that we are going to have to soon find a way to limit
our time. When that happens, it is not going to be possible that all of
these amendments are going to be considered. We have a time agreement
now that says Senators who have amendments and want them considered
have to get them turned in by 2 o'clock today. That is in just a few
hours.
I hope my recalling that to Senators does not bring another rash of
amendments. If you have them ready, I am hoping you will get them down
here. I hope I did not remind you to come up with more because
essentially there is not going to be time for more.
We are going to have to get our heads together--that is, the two
leaders and the two managers--to talk about how we are going to attempt
to assure Senators that we will be finished tomorrow at 12 o'clock. In
that process, we have no way of setting a list of 40, 50 amendments
that are all going to be considered. I think you understand that would
not be the case. If we used all the time we have, many Senators would
not get their amendments up other than a vote-athon. We are trying very
hard to limit the vote-athon so it is credible, rational, and so people
have a couple minutes and we don't just start voting.
With that, I urge anybody on our side who has amendments that they
absolutely feel must be considered to talk with us. If they can get by
with one amendment, if they have three pending and will put two of them
in the vote-athon, and then get them one after another, and very
quickly, we will very much appreciate that.
We are trying our best. All Senators should know we are trying to get
a consent agreement so that we will be out of here by 12 tomorrow. That
means people will get pushed back in terms of the number that can be
considered and the time that can be used on amendments. We are going to
do our very best on our side. We think we know the Senators who have
insisted and worked very hard to make sure they get an opportunity. We
are going to try to protect that.
Beyond that, I don't think we can guarantee very much. If indeed
Senators want us to lead them to the promised land, the promised land,
we thought, was to have a unanimous consent agreement sooner rather
than later, saying we will be finished at 12 tomorrow.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask for 3 minutes off the resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I repeat the theme of the chairman of the
Budget Committee on this question of what we have before us. We have
had Members come to us and say: We very much want to conclude our work
by noon tomorrow.
We want to be faithful to that charge. It is absolutely not possible
to do that and to consider all of the amendments that have been
reported to us. We have over 110 amendments. If we go into a vote-athon
with 110 amendments, that will take 40 hours to complete with 3 votes
an hour being conducted.
It is very important that the message go out to our colleagues: It is
now time for us to exercise self-discipline. Every Senator has the
right to offer their amendment and get it considered under the rules of
the Budget Act. Unfortunately, that means if individual Members insist
on their right to offer each and every one of the amendments that has
been prepared, we are going to be here through Monday. That is just the
hard reality of calculating the number of amendments, the amount of
time, and how long it takes to vote. If people want to be here through
Monday, voting every 20 minutes on an amendment, we can do that. Or we
can exercise self-restraint and self-discipline and work with the
managers and work with the leadership and winnow down the number of
amendments and enter into time agreements so we can dispose of
amendments as quickly and efficiently as possible.
One other thing: It is very important that we not have to hold the
vote open for 30 minutes so colleagues who are late have a chance to
vote. We want every colleague to have a chance to vote. We hope they
will consider their other colleagues. We are going to wind up being
very late here night after night if we don't exercise that restraint.

[[Page S3465]]

I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if I could have the attention of my
colleagues from North Dakota as well as New Mexico, I have an amendment
I will offer with Senators Biden, Nelson, and Daschle. I ask unanimous
consent that our 30 minutes on this amendment be divided so that
Senator Biden of Delaware will be first to speak for 10 minutes,
Senator Nelson of Florida for 5 minutes, and that I will speak for the
last 15 minutes.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I may just say, the Senator from North
Dakota has asked to use all the time on the resolution. It is my
understanding that the Senator from North Dakota would like to save
some time on the amendment. I am sure the Senator from North Dakota
would yield time on the resolution as the Senator indicated and reserve
the time on the amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator. If it is permissible at this point
to go ahead with this arrangement.
Mr. REID. The arrangement would be fine, but the time would be off
the resolution, not off the amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent then that the next 30 minutes of
debate on the amendment I am sending to the desk be allocated as I have
suggested.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I must
apologize to the Senator--would he please repeat the request.
Mr. DURBIN. I am asking that 30 minutes of the debate that will
follow on the amendment be allocated 10 minutes to my colleague from
Delaware, Senator Biden, and 5 minutes to the Senator from Florida, Mr.
Nelson, and that I have the last 15 minutes of that 30 minutes.
Mr. REID. The time will be yielded off the resolution.
Mr. DOMENICI. I understand that the time would not come off the
amendment but off the resolution.
Mr. DURBIN. That is my understanding.
Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 202

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for himself, Mr.
Biden, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Daschle, proposes an amendment
numbered 202.

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

(Purpose: To call for immediate action by the United States Senate on
passage of an Economic Stimulus Package in FY01 and to provide for
further tax cuts in Fiscal Years 2002-11 as part of a fiscally
responsible budget that ensures maximum feasible debt reduction)

On page 2, line 17, decrease the amount by $31,140,000,000.
On page 2, line 18, decrease the amount by $10,606,000,000.
On page 3, line 1, increase the amount by $12,100,000,000.
On page 3, line 2, increase the amount by $33,077,000,000.
On page 3, line 3, increase the amount by $57,444,000,000.
On page 3 line 4, increase the amount by $67,821,000,000.
On page 3, line 5, increase the amount by $73,414,000,000.
On page 3 line 6, increase the amount by $71,119,000,000.
On page 3, line 7, increase the amount by $80,281,000,000.
On page 3, line 8, increase the amount by $64,625,000,000.
On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $31,140,000,000.
On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by $10,606,000,000.
On page 3, line 15, decrease the amount by $12,100,000,000.
On page 3, line 16, decrease the amount by $33,077,000,000.
On page 3, line 17, decrease the amount by $57,444,000,000.
On page 3, line 18, decrease the amount by $67,821,000,000.
On page 3, line 19, decrease the amount by $73,414,000,000.
On page 3, line 20, decrease the amount by $71,119,000,000.
On page 3, line 21, decrease the amount by $80,281,000,000.
On page 3, line 22, decrease the amount by $64,625,000,000,
and add the following
(a). Findings.--The Senate finds:
(1) That the economy of the United States has consistently
grown since 1993, providing increasing prosperity for
millions of hardworking Americans;
(2) That the pace of growth of the economy of the United
States was measured at only one percent in the fourth quarter
of 2000;
(3) That debt reduction is effective in stimulating capital
investment that promotes long-term growth;
(4) That the President and Vice President of the United
States have noted that the economy of the United States is in
need of a stimulus;
(5) That the Democratic Leader of the United States Senate
and other Members of the Democratic Caucus have called for
immediate passage of a $60 billion Economic Stimulus Package;
(6) That the Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget
has included in his FY02 budget substitute a $60 billion
Economic Stimulus Package;
(7) That the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on the
Budget has also called for a $60 billion Economic Stimulus
Package;
(b). Sense of Senate.--It is the Sense of the Senate that
the levels in this resolution assume that the Senate should
discharge H.R. 3 from the Senate Committee on Finance, begin
floor consideration of H.R. 3 immediately after passage of H.
Con. Res. 83, strike all after the enacting clause and insert
the text of the agreed upon $60 billion Bipartisan Economic
Stimulus Package, including an immediate economic stimulus
check for all payroll and income taxpayers and a permanent
reduction of the fifteen percent income tax bracket to a ten
percent tax bracket, and proceed to a vote on final passage
prior to April recess.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois.
This is a simple amendment. It is an amendment that everyone here, on
both sides of the aisle, should be able to support.
When President Bush was campaigning during the Republican primaries,
he announced a 10-year across-the-board income tax cut plan. He said
that increasing the budget surplus meant the Government was taking much
too much money.
Steve Forbes had his flat tax, and Mr. Bush had his tax cut plan. He
offered that plan at a time--to repeat what has been said on the floor
before--when our economy was booming, when the stock market was still
climbing. In late 1999, when the campaign was beginning and this plan
was offered, the economy was growing at 8.5 percent. That is a very
different circumstance than we have today. We just found out that the
economy was still growing in the first quarter of this year, but not at
8.5 percent, at 1 percent.
The President has told us the plan he came up with in the campaign
when the economy was expanding was exactly the right size for the
economy at that time. Now he is trying to tell us it is exactly the
size for the economy at this time.
President Bush has admitted that his plan fails to get enough money
out to people at the start of his plan, right now, while the economy is
at a low point, while consumer confidence is bumbling around down
there, and while people are slowing up on their purchases, slowing up
on buying durable goods, and beginning to wonder whether or not the
economy is going to take a further tailspin or recover, although
consumer confidence bumped up slightly.
The vast majority of the President's tax cut actually happens many
years from now. It can't have any effect on the economic problems we
face today, on the sluggishness of our economy, and our concerns for
recession. In fact, 95 percent of the President's tax cut takes effect
after the year 2003. His plan, whatever else we may make of it, is not
designed in any way, shape, or form, to stimulate the economy in the
short run.
One thing everyone seems in agreement on is what we should be doing.
At least what we should be doing is stimulating the economy in the
short run. The President himself acknowledges this. In fact, so does
the Republican budget resolution before us today. My friend, the
chairman of the Budget Committee, has included $60 billion for a
stimulus proposal in this resolution. Senator Durbin, Senator Nelson of
Florida, Senator Lieberman, and I suggest that we act on that. We are
offering an amendment, with the same $60

[[Page S3466]]

billion cost this year as in the Republican plan, that will put money
in the pockets of everyone who works for a living and pays payroll
taxes.
If this were to become law, as soon as 2 or 3 months from now, we
will be able to send a $600 check to eligible couples, $300 to single
taxpayers. We also permanently drop--and the President proposes as
well--the income tax rate from 15 to 10 percent. This is a permanent
cut that affects everyone who pays income tax at the highest and lowest
brackets.
The President has a similar proposal, but ours would go into effect
immediately. That would mean an additional $300, on average, per person
per year on top of the payroll tax rebate check for a married couple
through lowering withholding from their paychecks, having lowered the
lowest rate from 15 to 10, as the President proposes. That extra 900
bucks per family this year is real money. It is real money for working
families, and it has real consequences.
As strange as it may sound, it means a couple that is withholding the
purchase of a new toaster or refrigerator or microwave or a durable
product that folks like us don't withhold buying now--we are not the
reason the economy is slowing down. Everybody always talks about how
the Senate is made up of millionaires. I wish I were one of them. But
there is no millionaire in this place who is not spending their money.
They are not the reason the economy is slowing down.
Average folks, the folks I grew up with, they are the ones who are
causing the economy to slow because they are not spending their money.
They have lost confidence in the economy. So if we are going to have
any hope of an impact beyond what I believe is needed--the monetary
stimulus that Mr. Greenspan, hopefully, will continue to provide, this
is the only fiscal stimulus that is available to us.
That extra $900 per family, as I said, is real money. It exceeds what
they would get under the whole plan, in some cases, of the President.
This will mean a lot of people and businesses that depend on them will
be able to purchase and sell, keep people employed, keep the economy
going. This money would get out this year, and to give a $60 billion
jump start to the economy is something, if I read the budget resolution
correctly, if I listened to the rhetoric I have heard from Democrats as
well as Republicans, as we all acknowledge is needed--maybe the
argument will be it is not enough of a stimulus. Some argue it is too
much. I don't know anybody arguing that we don't need a stimulus.
This is something I think we can all agree on: the need for a tax cut
that actually does something to lift the sagging economy here and now.
By the way, as our friend from Arkansas stood up, Senator Blanche
Lincoln, a couple weeks ago, I was surprised when she listed how many
people in her State would not benefit from any aspect of the
President's tax cut because all they do is pay payroll taxes. Nothing.
This will see to it that everybody--those folks, real live folks we all
say we care about, will get a tax cut, and they will get it now. So the
two benefits it has for that cadre of people is, one, they get it now
and, two, they get it.
Under the existing proposal of the President, they don't get it,
period. I hope we get it and figure it out.
The amendment I am speaking to today, along with my friend from
Illinois and my friend from Florida, who will speak next, simply says
we should put our money where our mouth is. Both parties in the Senate
agree on a $60 billion stimulus plan, and we should act as soon as
possible. This amendment calls on us to take the first tax bill that
comes over from the House, substitute our $60 billion economic stimulus
plan with this bipartisan support, pass it right away, and within weeks
get money into people's hands.
I say to my friends on both sides of the aisle, if you believe in
doing something right now to pump some life into the economy, this is
your chance. Whatever you make of this $2 trillion-plus tax cut cost by
the President, whatever you make of its size or its distribution, this
amendment does what tax cuts alone do not do--it puts money now, real
money, into the hands of every taxpayer in the country in time to
respond to the real needs of the economic stimulus. It is not based
upon some pie-in-the-sky expectation of what is going to happen over 10
years based upon the growth of the economy and us limiting spending.
I thank my colleague for listening. Whatever time I have left, I
yield to my friend from the State of Florida.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized. The
remaining time is 1 minute 2 seconds.
Mr. BIDEN. I ask unanimous consent that the remaining time be yielded
to my friend from Florida.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I had requested 5 minutes, so
would you prefer that I go ahead and take it, or let the Senator from
Oregon go ahead, and I will be happy to speak after him? What is the
pleasure of the Senator from Oregon?
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I say to my friend, I am awaiting the arrival of
the senior Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, who will be here
momentarily. If the Senator won't be long, why doesn't he go ahead and
we will wait.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I thank Senator Biden for his
comments on the introduction of this particular amendment. He has
spoken to the stimulus of the tax package and why we need in a
declining economy, which, of course, we hope rebounds, but because
there is an indication that the economy is on the decline, we don't
need a tax cut to take effect mainly in the last 5 years of the next
decade; we need it to take effect now, to inject some financial, some
fiscal stimulus into the economy so we can come out of the slump. That
is what Senator Biden has addressed.
I wish to address another part of this particular amendment, and that
is the part of debt reduction, because this amendment takes a portion
from the President's proposed tax cut, lowers that tax cut, changes the
nature of that tax cut to an immediate fiscal stimulus, and has further
a reduction of the national debt down to a level of approximately $500
billion after the decade, after the 10-year period for which we are
planning.
Now, why is this important? First of all, it is very important
because that is what the people of America want. For decades we have
been living in an economy that has been driven by annual deficits; that
is, when the Federal Government is paying more out than it has coming
in in tax revenues. And the difference--since we spend more than we
have in tax revenues--is what we have to borrow each year, called the
annual deficit. That deficit then, is added each year, and cumulatively
the national debt becomes greater and greater. That figure today on the
publicly held national debt is about $3.4 trillion.
Well, not until a year ago did we ever seriously think that we could
confront the fact of paying down the national debt, until suddenly we
realized that we were in this surplus condition. Now we don't know what
the surplus is. We say, in the last estimate, that it is $5.6 trillion
over the next 10 years. New estimates are saying it is much lower than
that, and that it is really about $4.2 trillion. But if we keep going
into a declining economy, the surplus could dwindle to significantly
less than we are projecting. But we do know there is a surplus there,
at least for the foreseeable future.
So all of this is to say that is why the people out there in
America--and I can tell you in my State of Florida--clearly are giving
us the message that in this time of beneficence, as a result of the
prosperity that we have experienced in the last decade, they want us to
use that prosperity to start paying down the national debt, as well as
giving a substantial tax cut. That is just good economic common sense.
That is what we all do in our individual budgets. We want to pay down
debt, get ourselves debt free so we have a much more stable financial
condition. So, too, with our country.
In our country there is a little bit of difference. In the $3.4
trillion of publicly held debt, there is some of that debt, as Mr.
Greenspan testified in front of our Budget Committee, which you would
not necessarily be able to pay off right away because it is long-term
bonds and the Federal Government would have to pay a premium to pay
those off. That overall publicly

[[Page S3467]]

held debt is estimated to be about half a trillion dollars, $500
billion, which would be difficult to pay off without paying a premium.
This amendment brings down, over a 10-year projection, that publicly
held debt to a level at which we would not have to pay a penalty or a
premium to pay off, and that is estimated at $500 billion at the end of
the decade.
That is common sense. That is good fiscal discipline. That is good
fiscal and economic policy, and it is what the people of our country
want.
If we have an opportunity to pay down our national debt, we ought to
do it. That is being good stewards of our national economy.
That is the message I wanted to bring as this amendment being offered
by Senator Durbin is considered by the Senate.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator
from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes off the
resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Florida, who is
a very distinguished member of the Budget Committee, for his remarks
and for the contribution he has made to the work of the committee in
this his first year in the Senate. Of course, he is a veteran of
Congress because he served with distinction in the House of
Representatives. He has been through the 1980s and saw firsthand what
happened when very serious fiscal mistakes were made.
The Senator from Florida has been one of the strongest voices in the
Senate Budget Committee saying: Let's not repeat those mistakes; let's
be serious and sober; let's take a look at the fact that these
surpluses are projected, they are forecasted; they are not in the bank;
and let's dedicate most of that projected surplus to debt reduction.
Yes, we can spend some money. Yes, we can have a significant tax cut.
Yes, we can provide additional resources for improving education, as we
did yesterday, and provide a prescription drug benefit, as we did the
day before yesterday. Yes, we can strengthen our national defense, as
we did last night, over what is in the President's budget. Those are
investments. That is prudent spending.
The primary emphasis ought to be: Keep our eye on the ball; keep
paying down this national debt. That is what is going to be a time bomb
for this country if we fail to keep the pressure on paying down this
national debt. That is what this Durbin amendment is about.
The Durbin amendment does two things. It says: Reduce the size of the
President's tax cut and with that money pay down more of this debt.
Second, it says we have money in this year's budget that will permit an
immediate fiscal stimulus.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. CONRAD. I yield myself an additional minute. We have money in
this year's budget for an immediate fiscal stimulus of $60 billion. On
both sides, we have agreed that is necessary, that is important. Let us
do it, and let us do it before we leave on the April work break. Let us
do it now. Let us inject these funds into the economy to give some lift
so that America can regain some sense of confidence that the fiscal
affairs of the country are being managed in a way that affects this
economic downturn in a positive manner.
Again, I thank the Senator from Florida who has been such a valued
member of the Senate Budget Committee. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan. Who yields time to
the Senator?
Mr. CONRAD. How much time would the Senator from Michigan like?
Ms. STABENOW. I request 5 minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. I yield 5 minutes off the resolution to the Senator from
Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. I thank my esteemed leader from North Dakota.
Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate my colleagues, my friends
from Florida and Delaware and the Senator from Illinois, the author of
the amendment, on this approach of putting dollars directly into
people's pockets as a part of this budget process.
We do that in three ways: First, through an immediate tax cut. The
President has proposed a tax cut, most of which would not take effect
for at least 6 years. We know that is not what is needed in this
economy. We need to be putting dollars directly into people's pockets
immediately as a stimulus. This would do that.
Secondly, we put money into people's pockets by lower interest rates.
We must keep the economy going. One of the reasons the economy has done
as well as it has in the last 8 years is because we began to
systematically pay down the debt so our mortgage payments could go
down, our car payments could go down, college loan payments could go
down. That is a second way we put money back in people's pockets.
The third way is to guarantee we keep this economy going so people
have a job. This package does all three of those things. It stimulates
the economy so we can continue to focus on creating good-paying jobs
for people so they can care for their families and have the resources
they need.
It puts tax dollars, this year, directly into people's pockets, and
it puts dollars in their pockets by allowing them to refinance their
mortgage, as we continue to pay down the debt so interest rates come
down.
It is incredibly important we act immediately. We heard over and over
in the Budget Committee that if we were going to have any impact
through a tax cut, it needs to be immediate. We can do that immediately
and at the same time address debt reduction and critical investments
that we know will help keep the economy going for the future.
I support these efforts. It is very important we act immediately. We
can do that right now. We can make a difference for families right now
and stimulate this economy immediately so we can continue to make sure
that families benefit from the economy we have had of the last 8 years.
My distinguished colleague from Illinois, who is the chief sponsor
and leader in this effort, is in the Chamber. I yield back my time and
give the Senator from Illinois an opportunity to address his amendment.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Domenici, I ask
unanimous consent that the Durbin amendment be laid aside and that
Senator Bennett be recognized to offer an amendment.
I further ask consent that the debate run concurrently on both first-
degree amendments and be limited to 60 minutes equally divided, and
following that time, the amendments be laid aside.
I further ask consent that no amendments to these amendments be in
order prior to the votes just described and the votes occur in a
stacked sequence, first, in relation to the Durbin amendment, and then
in relation to the amendment offered on behalf of Senator Domenici,
beginning at 6 p.m., with 10 minutes for closing remarks equally
divided prior to the 6 p.m. stacked votes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, the only reservation I
have is I hope I have an opportunity at this time to speak for about 15
or 20 minutes on my amendments as we had agreed to under a previous
unanimous consent agreement.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, so long as it comes off the time of the
amendment, there is no objection on this side.
Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object, the previous agreement
with respect to the Senator from Illinois was that the 20 minutes he
had reserved would come off the resolution, not off the amendment. We
will now be changing a previous agreement if we do that.
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. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S3468]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEE TO MEET

Mr. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent the Committee on the Judiciary
be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Thursday, April 5, at
10:00 a.m. in Senate Dirksen 226.
Mr. CONRAD. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Mr. NICKLES. 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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank everyone for helping on this agreement. I think
we have reached an agreement with which everybody agrees.
I ask consent the Durbin amendment be laid aside and Senator Bennett
be recognized to offer an amendment.
I further ask consent the debate run concurrently on both first-
degree amendments--both of them--and be limited to 60 minutes equally
divided in the usual form and, following that time, the amendments be
laid aside.
I further ask consent that no amendments to those amendments be in
order prior to votes just described and the votes occur in a stacked
sequence, first in relation to the Durbin amendment and then in
relation to the Bennett amendment, beginning at a time determined by
the two leaders. Further, I ask consent that following that debate,
Senator Smith of Oregon be recognized to offer an amendment and there
be 15 minutes of debate equally divided between Senator Smith and
Senator Wyden and, following that debate, the amendment be temporarily
set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the only
point I would like to add is that after Senator Bennett's second-degree
or substitute amendment is laid down, I would like to have right of
recognition first.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CONRAD. Let me be clear. What the Senator from Illinois is
asking, as I understand it, is after Senator Bennett's amendment has
been laid down, that he receive the first right of recognition.
Mr. DURBIN. That is correct.
Mr. CONRAD. Is that acceptable?
Mr. BYRD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would like
to see this written agreement. I may not have objection, but I would
like to see what we are doing.
Mr. DOMENICI. Fine.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I withdraw my reservation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Utah is recognized.

Amendment No. 216

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Utah [Mr. Bennett] proposes an amendment
numbered 216.

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

(Purpose: To call for a quick stimulus for the American economy, linked
to a long-term stimulus to guarantee economic expansion and job
creation, and oppose a $439 billion tax increase that would threaten
economic growth)

On page 2, line 17, decrease the amount by $31,140,000,000.
On page 2, line 18, decrease the amount by $10,606,000,000.
On page 3, line 1, increase the amount by $0.
On page 3, line 2, increase the amount by $0.
On page 3, line 3, increase the amount by $0.
On page 3, line 4, increase the amount by $0.
On page 3, line 5, increase the amount by $0.
On page 3, line 6, increase the amount by $0.
On page 3, line 7, increase the amount by $0.
On page 3, line 8, increase the amount by $0.
On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $31,140,000,000.
On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by $0.
On page 3, line 15, decrease the amount by $0.
On page 3, line 16, decrease the amount by $0.
On page 3, line 17, decrease the amount by $0.
On page 3, line 18, decrease the amount by $0.
On page 3, line 19, decrease the amount by $0.
On page 3, line 20, decrease the amount by $0.
On page 3, line 21, decrease the amount by $0.
On page 3, line 22, decrease the amount by $0.

Amendment No. 202

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Illinois is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this may be one of the most important
debates we will have about this budget resolution because at issue in
this debate, with the Durbin amendment and the Bennett amendment, is a
very simple proposition. It is this: America's economy needs a shot in
the arm. It needs help immediately--not a year from now, not 5 years
from now, not 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 years from now, but immediately.
What I am proposing with the Durbin amendment is to take from the
surplus of some $97 billion, which we know we will have this year on
the budget we are debating, $60 billion of that surplus and return it
to the American people as quickly as we can prudently return it so we
will give that spending power back to families in America immediately.
That is what I am proposing.
The amendment by the Senator from Utah proposes to stay with
President Bush's approach. They believe in it on their side of the
aisle. I understand that. But they will have to concede this point. If
they prevail, there will be no immediate relief for taxpayers--none,
zero, no help. I can tell you for families across Illinois and across
the Nation there is an immediate need for a helping hand.

Let me tell you about this amendment.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a second?
Mr. DURBIN. Yes.
Mr. NICKLES. I inform my colleagues that the Bennett amendment takes
the two tax accelerations that the Senator from Illinois has in his
first 2 years. If I am correct, the Senator has an additional tax
increase of $31 billion in 2002 and $11 billion in 2003. We put that in
our amendment. The difference is that we reduce or eliminate the tax
cut, and in subsequent years we drop that. But we took the first 2
years of accelerated tax cuts that the Senator has, and that is going
to be in the Bennett amendment.
Mr. DURBIN. I see there has been a modification to the amendment
since it was given to us earlier. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for
clarifying that point.
If there are any additional modifications, I hope you will bring them
to our attention as well.
Let me tell you what we are proposing with this tax stimulus package:
a one-time tax refund check for all people who pay income or payroll
taxes of $600 per couple and $300 per individual. A new 10-percent tax
bracket applies to the first $12,000 of income for every married couple
in America, whatever their gross income may be, and $6,000 for single
filers. The total 2001 tax cut will be $900 per couple and $450 per
individual.
This is the first step in the Democratic tax cut agenda. The reason
why people believe this is an important first step is that it deals
with reality, and not with speculation. It deals with the reality of an
economy that has slowed down and the reality of families who need a
helping hand.
It provides a rebate to families, and within a matter of weeks they
will be receiving it. This kind of timely tax assistance is going to be
important across the Nation. Whether you are paying electric bills in
California, or heating bills in Illinois, you have had a tough winter.
I can tell you from my family experience and the people I have spoken
to in

[[Page S3469]]

my State that their heating costs have gone up. People are saying: We
would like a helping hand, Senator. If you are going to talk about tax
relief, don't talk about a theory in the future. Help us now. Show us
that this is something beyond political chin music and that you are
actually dealing with reality.
The Durbin tax cut applies immediately. Let me tell you why it is
important. The Democratic stimulus plan would provide immediate tax
cuts for all taxpayers.
President Bush's tax cut of $1.6 trillion, which was his first
proposal, leaves behind 23 million taxpayers in America. The
Republicans supporting this proposal say they aren't really taxpayers;
that all they pay are payroll taxes; and they do not pay real taxes.
Tell the 23 million Americans who pay payroll taxes but not income
taxes that they aren't facing a tax burden. They are. Quite honestly,
they are the people who are facing a tougher burden than most because
they are in lower income categories.
The President right now is holding the economy hostage. He is holding
it hostage to his $1.6 trillion proposal. What Senator Bennett and
others have said is, if you want to talk about an immediate stimulus,
you can only have it if you buy the whole program. You have to buy the
whole package. You have to accept $1.6 trillion over 10 years or we are
not going to be signing up for any kind of stimulus right now.

I think that is very shortsighted. I don't think it is fair to
families across America. I don't think it is responsible to the real
serious economic problem that we face. Our plan is fiscally
responsible.
The Senator from Oklahoma makes an important point. We believe the
overall tax cut, the long-term tax cut, should be a responsible,
prudent, manageable figure, and something that won't drive us back into
deficits.
The Republicans think that the President's projections of what will
happen to America 5 or 10 years from now are as reliable as they can
be.
We know that 6 months ago when Chairman Greenspan, our economic guru
in America, was looking at the economy he got it all wrong. Six months
ago he said we had to raise interest rates; that the economy was
heating up too fast. He was wrong. This man with all the information
and all of the wisdom didn't get it right. But the White House is
telling us that the President can get it right--not just 6 months from
now but 6 years from now; he can tell you what the American economy is
going to produce. If you were a stockbroker or an adviser, you could
get rich if you had that kind of confidence in the end results.
Ordinary people don't. Economists are often wrong.
Let me tell you about this tax cut and what it means.
The American income tax system is a system built on stair steps.
Everybody pays the bottom rate of 15 percent. Then, of course, as your
income increases, the incremental dollars are taxed at different
levels--28 percent, 31 percent, 36 percent, and beyond.
We are proposing a permanent tax cut for all Americans across the
board who pay income taxes from 15 percent to 20 percent so that the
richest in America as well as those in the lowest income categories
paying income taxes will benefit.
The President's proposal, on the other hand, says, let's provide the
lion's share of the benefits to those right here at the highest income
categories. The President's tax cut gives 43 percent of all the tax
benefits to people making over $319,000 a year--43 percent. That is not
fair.
The Democratic approach says everyone benefits across the board. The
richest down to the lowest in income pay an income tax. The Durbin
amendment provides that tax relief.
Let me give you an idea why that is important. Eighty-one percent of
all the taxpayers' benefits will go to those who pay the 15-percent
rate on income tax. When we reduce this rate, it means that 81 percent
of the taxpayers in America are going to benefit from this rate cut.
If you just provide the rate cuts for the higher income categories,
you can find that, frankly, smaller and smaller percentages of
Americans will benefit.
We want the benefit to go to everyone in America. I can tell you that
the home heating bills in Illinois went to people of all income
groups--not just to the poor or to the rich but everybody. The folks
who got hit the hardest were those in the lower income categories.
When you take a look at the source of individual tax collection in
America, here is an interesting statistic: 57 percent of the individual
tax collection comes from income taxes and 37 percent from payroll
taxes.
Do not forget that President Bush in his tax cut and Senator Bennett
in his amendment leave these people behind. They do not provide the
assistance that is needed so that people paying payroll taxes also get
some benefit from the tax cut.

If you look at the total Government revenues by source, you can see
that 50 percent comes from the income tax but 32 percent comes from
payroll taxes.
President Bush ignores this reality. President Bush's tax cut does
not provide that kind of tax benefit.
Let's talk for a moment about a stimulus and whether it is needed. I
am going to quote some sources of which I think Senator Bennett will be
proud. This is our new President, George Bush, from the Washington Post
of January 15 this year:

I am open to any suggestions people have, particularly as
it relates to making sure that the economy gets the kick-
start it needs.

I think that is a pretty good endorsement of the Durbin amendment.
Let me see. This is another one from President Bush that is better,
on February 7, when the President said:

The economy is slowing down, and we need to act, and act as
quickly as we possibly can. The goal is to get money into the
pockets of the working people as quickly as we can.

Part of the Durbin amendment says the Senate will not go home until
we vote this tax cut. That is right. We may have to put off Passover
observance. We may have to put off a bit of our observance of our
Easter holiday. But we ought to observe the obvious; that is, the
American people do not need our speeches. They need our help. If they
are going to get our help, we shouldn't leave town saying that we got
the budget resolution passed, and in a couple of weeks we will come
back and think of something new. This is something new. This is tax
relief that is real, tangible, and immediate. It says in this amendment
which I have introduced that we will immediately take the House tax
bill that has come over here, put this tax into it, pass it in the
Senate, and send it back to them when they come back to town in a
couple of weeks and move on it.
We will be able to say to the American people, almost to the tax day
of April 15, that you are going to be assured that a tax rebate is
going to come your way and help your family.
There are quotes from a very learned and esteemed colleague of
Minnesota, a spokesman for Senator Pete Domenici, chairman of the
Budget Committee, who said:

Senator Domenici is willing to put off consideration of the
marriage penalty relief, estate tax repeal, and other
elements of the Bush tax plan. But he said the stimulus tax
cut and the reductions in the personal income tax rates must
be in the same bill. Sixty billion dollars without the
marginal rate cuts doesn't tell taxpayers that help is on the
way. It puts them in the boat without any oars.
That is a quote from a staff person of Senator Domenici in the
Washington Post on March 24 of this year.
We have good news for the Senator from New Mexico. We not only have a
boat; we have the oars. We are providing a rebate directly to the
families, and we are cutting the tax rate permanently, so families know
their tax burden is going to be reduced.
We have more comments from President Bush. And they just keep getting
better about the Durbin amendment. Here is one from the Detroit News on
March 27. The President said:

I'm listening to what different members have to say. The
key thing is, we have to have meaningful, real tax relief . .
. to get money in people's pockets to serve as a stimulus for
the economy.

I want to thank the President for those kind words of encouragement.
Then on March 28, in the Orlando Sentinel, the President said, again:

We must put more money in the hands of consumers in the
short term and restore confidence and optimism for the long
term.

He goes on to make that point.
My friends, the sad reality is, unless and until we pass a tax rebate
that has teeth in it--that means that a check will be coming to
families across

[[Page S3470]]

America, not in a matter of a year or two or beyond but right now--that
we are not going to see this economy turn around as quickly as it
might. The benefits, of course, to an economy turnaround are pretty
obvious.
You pick up the Washington Post this morning, and you go to the
Business section and look at the Dow Jones or go to the New York
Times--the same story; it is an up-and-down roller coaster but mainly
down. People across this country who have 401(k)s and IRAs understand
that that little nest egg they put aside for security and safety in
their retirement has been battered pretty badly over the last 6 months
or a year. We believe we can get this economy back on track.
During the Clinton-Gore administration, we had unparalleled
prosperity in this country. We can return to those days, but we have to
return to them with the vision of what makes the economy move forward.
What helps it move forward is when consumers have some confidence,
confidence that they can pay their bills, confidence that this economy
is going to be there, so they can turn around and buy a car, a washer
and dryer, maybe remodel the kitchen--whatever is important to their
family--pay off some tuition bills for their kids.
We want to put money in their pocket to make it happen. The Durbin
amendment really addresses that directly.
I say to those on the other side who believe you cannot really offer
a stimulus and this kind of tax cut to families unless you talk about
what is going to happen in America over the next 10 years, that is an
important debate. Let's stick with that debate. Let's have it, but
let's not let that debate hold hostage the idea of a stimulus right
now, a stimulus that can help the American economy turn around.
I do not believe the support for this idea comes exclusively from
Senator Domenici or President Bush. I think it comes from the people I
represent in Illinois, and I will bet most of the other States that are
represented in this Senate.
I ask my colleagues, let's pass this budget and immediately take up
H.R. 3 and substitute this bipartisan stimulus package and get checks
out to every taxpaying American. Let's do this before we leave for any
kind of a break. Then, when we come back, let's debate the marriage tax
penalty, let's debate the estate tax, the IRA/pension bill, the
charitable giving bill, the ESEA bill, the minimum wage, and so many
other important issues.

This does not have to be the end of tax cuts. This does not have to
be the end of debating bills such as the Senate of old. Over the last 2
weeks I have been heartened that this Senate has really reverted to
what it was for so many decades, a gathering of men and women who
studied an important issue and then came to the floor to offer
amendments and debate them. We did that on campaign finance reform. We
can do it on our tax policy.
The vote yesterday suggested there is a bipartisan sentiment to move
away from President Bush's $1.6 trillion figure to one that is more
manageable. We believe we can justify a $745 billion or $750 billion
tax cut and also dedicate resources in our surplus to important other
priorities.
Now the Republicans say: Oh, there they go again; if we don't give it
all away in tax cuts, these Democrats will spend it. Well, we want to
put money into a stimulus package, have a tax cut right now. We also
believe we can pay down more of the national debt. If that is what they
call tax and spend, I don't buy it, but I certainly think paying down
our national debt is one of the best investments for our future and for
our Nation. We collect $1 billion in taxes a day to pay interest on our
old debt of $5.7 trillion. I think we ought to try to reduce that debt
as much as possible. The Democrats reduce more of the national debt
than the Republicans do with President Bush's approach.
We also believe it is naive to ignore the reality that we will need
to invest more money in Medicare and Social Security. In 10 years, 53
million Americans will be drawing Social Security as a retirement. In
10 years, 43 million Americans will rely on Medicare.
Should we spend money on those two programs to reform them and make
them stronger? Absolutely. We know that balloon payment is coming. The
Democrats set money aside so we can make that investment when the baby
boomers arrive. We do not want to face any sticker shock when it comes
to the expenses of those two invaluable social programs in America.
Mr. President, I am prepared to yield the floor now. I see my
colleague, Senator Lieberman, a cosponsor of this amendment, is here to
join me.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. 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. BENNETT. Mr. President, may I inquire as to what the time
situation is.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has 28 minutes 48
seconds.
Mr. BENNETT. And on the other side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The other side has 13 minutes 15 seconds.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, may I be notified when there are only 13
minutes left on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will notify the Senator from Utah.
Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Chair.

Amendment No. 216, As Modified

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment
be modified. I send a modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

On page 2, line 17, decrease the amount by $31,140,000,000.
On page 2, line 18, decrease the amount by $10,606,000,000.
On page 3, line 1, increase the amount by $0.
On page 3, line 2, increase the amount by $0.
On page 3, line 3, increase the amount by $0.
On page 3, line 4, increase the amount by $0.
On page 3, line 5, increase the amount by $0.
On page 3, line 6, increase the amount by $0.
On page 3, line 7, increase the amount by $0.
On page 3, line 8, increase the amount by $0.
On page 3, line 13, increase the amount by $31,140,000,000.
On page 3, line 14, increase the amount by $10,606,000,000.
On page 3, line 15, decrease the amount by $0.
On page 3, line 16, decrease the amount by $0.
On page 3, line 17, decrease the amount by $0.
On page 3, line 18, decrease the amount by $0.
On page 3, line 19, decrease the amount by $0.
On page 3, line 20, decrease the amount by $0.
On page 3, line 21, decrease the amount by $0.
On page 3, line 22, decrease the amount by $0.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I have listened with interest to the
statements of the Senator from Illinois, who says we need to kick-start
the economy. He went on at great length quoting Senator Domenici and
President Bush about how we absolutely need to do this, perhaps
ignoring the statement by the Senator from Oklahoma that my amendment
includes the amounts he says will kick-start the economy.
The issue is not, Do we both agree that there must be something to
kick-start the economy? The issue is whether or not, having kick-
started it, we then try to kill it at the back end.
Let's make no mistake about what this amendment is about. This
amendment is not about stimulating the economy in the short run,
because Republicans and Democrats agree, and my amendment has exactly
the same numbers in it as the amendment on the other side. The
disagreement is on what happens on the back end.
In the name of stimulating the economy in the short term, they want
to kill the tax cut in the long term. That is what this is about. It
may be couched in other kinds of rhetoric, but basically this is a
further attempt on

[[Page S3471]]

the part of the Democrats in the Senate to see to it that President
Bush will not get his tax cut, so that the headline in the Washington
Post will be ``Bush Suffers A Defeat.'' That is what they are after.
This is not about the economy. This is not about paying heating bills
for poor people in Illinois. This is about the political victory of the
Senate Democrats to get the headline that says ``Bush Suffers A
Defeat.''
Look at the numbers. The total effect of the underlying amendment, to
which my amendment is a second degree, would be to cut, over a 10-year
period, the total size of the tax cut by $418 billion. Right now, if
the Harkin amendment is not overturned on reconsideration, the tax cut
has been scaled down from the $1.6 trillion President Bush asked for to
$1.1 trillion. If this amendment passes, that will be scaled down
further to $746 billion, which is below the number the Democratic
leader offered in the first place as the logical size of the tax cut.
This is a stealth attempt to make sure, in the name of stimulating
the economy, that the tax cut gets cut, and cut, and cut.
I suggest that there are other amendments lying in the weeds which,
added to this one, will bring it down even lower than the 746. That is
a prophecy; prophecies can be wrong. One thing is not wrong is the 746
number. If the underlying amendment passes, the total size of the tax
cut is cut to 746. That is what this is all about.
We talk about stimulating the economy, and we need to do it now. Once
again, my amendment has exactly the same numbers the underlying
amendment has. Make no mistake: We are not debating stimulating the
economy. We are debating eviscerating the Bush tax cut.
I wish I had this better than secondhand. It was reported to a group
of us yesterday. The source given was Alan Blinder. I am prepared to be
corrected if it is wrong. It makes sense. It is right, and I will share
it with the Senate with those caveats around it.
Alan Blinder said, if you want to stimulate the economy and you pass
a long-term rate structure reduction, the net benefit is 1, whatever 1
is. We are on a scale now. If you do a quick fix kind of stimulus, the
net benefit to the economy is, compared to 1, .5. If you do a complete
rebate of sending out checks, the net effect on the economy is .3.
We are willing to talk about something that, on the scale I have just
described, would be a .5, but we are not willing to sacrifice the 1 in
order to do it. We are not willing to kill the most fundamental and
beneficial stimulus for the economy, long term as well as short term,
in the name of a short-term stimulus that makes for good speeches but
bad economics.
We hear a lot of class warfare rhetoric. We heard it again from the
Senator from Illinois: We must take care of the little people; we must
do something, not for the rich, we must do something for the people at
the bottom.
Every time we have had testimony before the Banking Committee, on
which I sit, or the Joint Economic Committee, on which I am now vice
chairman, from Chairman Greenspan or other distinguished economists,
the question comes up: Who benefits the most when the economy is sound
and doing well? The answer is always: The people at the bottom.
The best thing we can do for the people at the bottom is see to it
that the economy is structurally sound and growing. The best stimulus
is to see that the people who control capital have confidence in the
future. They will start making the capital investments that create the
jobs. They will start putting in place the structural pattern that they
have interrupted because they have lost confidence. And that can come
by the passage of the Bush tax cut, which may or may not have any
immediate stimulation in terms of the people in Illinois the Senator
refers to, but will have the kind of impact that will produce both
short-term stimulus and long-term stability.
That is what this debate is all about. Are we going to get excited
about the short-term stimulus being the only thing to do and kill the
long-term stability on the basis that we don't know what the numbers
are going to be? Or are we going to do both in a prudent fashion?
I hear a lot of talk about the heating bills. I suggest to the
Senator from Illinois and other Senators that if they want to deal with
heating bills, they ought to deal with the energy crisis and not try to
fiddle round with taxes. But that is another debate for another time.
Let me address one other point that keeps coming up. We must pay down
the national debt. Both sides want to pay down the national debt. Let
us not pretend that is an exclusively Democratic position or an
exclusively Republican position. Let's not go through the motions of
saying we are the ones who want to pay down the national debt. Let's
ask the question: How much national debt can we prudently pay down?

Once again, the numbers make it clear that the Bush tax proposal is a
prudent and intelligent attack on the national debt that will bring us
to the place where we want to be in an intelligent fashion.
I spent some time with officials from the Treasury Department. I
don't have time in this debate to go into it in detail; I will at some
future point. These officials, quite frankly, if we want to put a
political cast on it, are holdovers from the Clinton administration. I
got the numbers directly from the Treasury. I didn't get them from a
columnist. I didn't get them filtered through staff. I got them
directly from Clinton-appointed officials at the Treasury Department. I
am absolutely satisfied that the level of debt being paid down by the
Bush tax cut is prudent and fits perfectly with the numbers they have
given us.
These numbers are reality. These numbers are not projections. These
numbers are very clear. We don't have time now, in the restricted
agreement we have, for me to go into these numbers in any great length.
Fundamentally, we must understand this. If we pay down the debt too
rapidly, we will have to go to holders of the debt that are not yet
maturing and say: Will you give us the opportunity to pay you in
advance? For that, we need to pay them a premium.
Right now, 42 percent of the debt is held by foreign sources. The
largest chunk of that is held in Japan. This has been going up
dramatically. People say: Does that mean foreigners are buying more of
our debt? No. It means the debt is being paid down among American
holders, and foreign holders are hanging onto it. That is why the
percentage of foreign holders of the debt is going up. The total debt
is going down, but their total numbers are staying about the same.
I don't want to be in the position of going to foreign holders of the
debt and saying to them we want to pay them a premium to buy their debt
back early, just to satisfy some political rhetoric and political
points.
I conclude as I began. This is not a debate about whether we will
have a short-term stimulus because the numbers in my amendment are
identical to the numbers in the Democratic amendment. This is a debate
about whether or not we kill the Bush tax cut long term. As long as we
understand that, as long as we understand that the effect of the
underlying amendment would be to bring the size of the tax cut down
below the level the Democratic leader has endorsed, we will understand
what we are talking about. Otherwise, we will waste our time in
rhetoric about short-term stimulus, when there is, in fact, no
difference.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). The distinguished Senator from
North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, will the Chair inform us of the time
remaining on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota has 13 minutes
15 seconds. The distinguished Senator from Oklahoma has 17 minutes 35
seconds.
Mr. CONRAD. Does the Senator from Oklahoma desire going now? The
Senator from Connecticut has requested 5 minutes, 6 minutes. I would be
prepared to yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Connecticut is
recognized for 6 minutes and 15 seconds.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. I thank my friend and colleague
from North Dakota.

[[Page S3472]]

It seems to me as we deal with this budget resolution and we think
about the condition of our economy and of the Federal Government books,
we have a short-term need and a long-term opportunity. The long-term
opportunity is to constructively use the surplus that the American
people have built up over the 1990s, to continue our prosperity, to
continue to act with fiscal responsibility, and to invest in the seeds
of growth in our economy so that the private sector, which is where
jobs and growth are created, can in fact continue the growth in this
decade that we had in the last decade.
We also clearly have a short-term need. It has affected our longer-
term discussions because the obvious fact is that the economy, after a
period of unprecedented growth, has now slowed. My friend from Utah
used the word ``prophecy.'' We all would like to achieve some degree of
it. I think it is fair to say that none of us has clear prophecy when
it comes to our economy.
Now a $9 trillion economy is affected every day by the decision of
now 280 million people. We can't predict what they are going to do next
week, let alone 10 years from now.
The economy is slowing. We don't know how long this slowdown will
last or how deep it will go. That is why people on both sides of the
aisle and folks in the administration are now talking about trying to
use part of the surplus that we know will be there on October 1 of this
year, when the books close for the Federal Government on September 30,
to use that to get some money out into the economy--not with any
confidence that it is going to make everything better in our economy
but with the confidence that it will help.
I spoke to a number of economists before I worked on the proposal
that underlies the amendment that my friend and colleague from Illinois
and the Democratic leader offered, of which I am proud to be a
cosponsor. I said to these business leaders and economists: What is a
reasonable amount of money for us to try to get into people's pockets
right away, in the next couple of months, to have an effect on the
economy? Interestingly, the consensus was $60 billion. That is a number
that has come up on both sides of the aisle in the Senate and from the
administration.
One business leader said economists told him we could expect a
multiplier effect of 1\1/2\ times so that we might--actually, by
putting $60 billion back into the public's pockets right away--have a
1\1/2\ times multiplier, or a $90 billion effect on the economy. That
is 1 percent of the gross domestic product. That would be a tremendous
result and a great lift out of the slowdown.
Other experts told us they have done studies that, interestingly,
have focused on what taxpayers do with a refund check. I am sure the
Chair will not be surprised to hear that 70 percent of those checks are
spent within 3 months. It is different than having a reduction in your
withholding. It is a check in hand. You may buy something you have
needed. Maybe you pay down a bill. Maybe, if you are a young worker,
you buy a CD or a new suit.
That is our short-term stimulus package, and the most important part
of the amendment that is before the Senate now is the last paragraph
sent to the Senate that ``the levels in this resolution assume that the
Senate should discharge H.R. 3 from the Committee on Finance''--that is
the tax bill they sent over--``strike all after the enacting clause and
insert the text of the agreed upon $60 billion bipartisan economic
stimulus package,'' including an immediate economic stimulus check for
everyone in America who pays payroll taxes or income taxes.
That means everybody. If you don't make enough to pay an income tax,
but you are working and you have a lot of money taken out of your
paycheck every week, every couple of weeks, you get $300. How did we
come to $300? Take 200 million taxpayers and put that into the $60
billion we want to get into the economy. It comes out to $300 per
taxpayer.
If you are older and you pay income tax, but you don't have payroll
withdrawals or deductions, you still get the $300.
So the point of this amendment is let's do it now and help the
economy now. Let's not have it said a year from now that the Senate and
the Congress and the Government of the United States fiddled while the
American economy was slowing down. One positive step we can take is to
adopt this amendment, substitute for the House tax bill sent over here,
get a $300 check from the Federal Government into the hands and wallets
and pocketbooks of the 200 million Americans who pay payroll or income
tax, and let them go out and move this economy out of the dip it is in
now.
That is the vote we are casting. Don't hold short-term economic
relief hostage to the much more complicated, long-term, controversial
partisan debate going on about how to spend the surplus for the next 10
years. America needs help now. Let's do it. I yield the floor.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, on my time, may I ask the Senator from
Connecticut a quick question? I ask unanimous consent that that be
allowed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BENNETT. I ask the Senator from Connecticut why he did not
address at all the impact of his amendment on the President's tax cut
long term. As I said in my remarks, the amount in my amendment and the
amount in the Democratic amendment for a short-term stimulus is exactly
the same. But the effect of the Democratic amendment would be to cut
the total amount of the Bush tax cut down to $746 billion. I ask the
Senator from Connecticut why he did not comment on that effect, and if
he has a comment now.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator from Utah. I did not comment
because, for me, the distinguishing factor in this amendment is the
short-term economic stimulus and the particular method to achieve it,
which is spelled out here, which is the substitute for the House tax
bill. Those who framed the amendment consistently linked it with the
long-term tax cut that, as you know, most Democrats propose because we
think it is more fiscally responsible.
Mr. President, if I may return the question, is the Senator from Utah
prepared to separate the short-term fiscal stimulus? Again, I think
across the aisle we agree that $60 billion is the number. We may
disagree about how to distribute it--to separate that from the longer
term, 10-year discussion about how to divide the surplus.
Mr. NICKLES. Regular order, Mr. President.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I would be happy to discuss that with the
Senator, but the Senator from Oklahoma is asking for the regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the regular order, the Senator from
Oklahoma controls the time.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues, Democrats and
Republicans, to reject the Durbin amendment. The Durbin amendment
reduces the overall size of the tax bill. It stands at $1.6 trillion.
An amendment they offered last night reduced it by $448 billion. This
amendment reduces it by another $418 billion. In other words,
eliminating over half of President Bush's tax cut. If you want to make
news, go ahead. You got a nice headline: ``Senate Democrats Cut Bush
Tax Bill By a Third.'' My compliments. Now they want to go further and
reduce the tax bill even below what the leaders recommend and adopt the
Durbin amendment. If we adopt the Durbin amendment we will have a
stimulus--I love my friend and colleague from Connecticut who says we
want a stimulus. There is a little stimulus in the front, but there are
a whole lot of tax increases in the back.
There is tax cut, in the Durbin amendment, in the first 2 years. My
friend and colleague from Utah , wants to match those figures and give
at least that much of a tax cut in the first 2 years. What you don't
read in the rest of the amendment is that Democrats increase taxes all
the way through for every other year. The net impact of it is to
increase taxes from the underlying resolution by $418 billion.
Senate Democrats, and one or two of our colleagues voted yesterday to
cut the President's tax bill by $448 billion. This amendment cuts it by
another $418 billion. That is a net tax reduction that is less than
what many people on the Democrat side said they would support. But they
want to do it under the guise of moving it up a little bit more

[[Page S3473]]

in a few years without hardly any tax cuts later. Maybe that is the
size of the tax reduction some people want.
They act as if they are writing a tax bill, which you cannot do on
the floor of the Senate in the budget resolution. And their argument is
that this is going to stimulate the economy. Why don't you just fly
over a stadium and drop money out of an airplane? That will stimulate
the economy as well. They want to turn a tax bill into a spending
program, without regard to who paid the taxes, or a tax cut for
taxpayers. We want to gut the President's tax bill. That is what this
is really all about.

The tax bill they are proposing is fatally flawed and should not
pass, but that will be discussed and dealt with in a bipartisan manner
in the Finance Committee. I am absolutely certain the proposal they
have made would never, should never, and will never pass Congress.
Giving everybody $300--and now that has been raised to $450--is not
going to happen.
The real purpose of the amendment is to reduce President Bush's tax
cut. It was already reduced yesterday to $1.15 trillion over 10 years.
Now they want to take another $418 billion out.
The net result would be a tax reduction over 10 years of $746 billion
at a time when we have surpluses estimated to be $5.6 trillion. In
other words, let us give President Bush less than half of what he asked
for. That is what this amendment does.
The net impact of this amendment is to have a net tax cut over the 10
years of President Bush's proposal of $746 billion. That is basically
45 percent of what President Bush originally requested. We cannot and
will not let this happen.
In the last couple of days, my friends on the Democratic side have
offered five amendments to have higher taxes and higher spending. They
won on one of them yesterday. I consider that a setback, and I hope to
repair that damage before we are done by tomorrow night.
This amendment doubly complicates it. Yesterday we adopted the Harkin
amendment and we increased taxes from the underlying budget resolution
of $448 billion. This increases taxes an additional $418 billion on top
of the Harkin amendment.
I urge my colleagues not to go down this road. This would be a
serious mistake. The tax proposal that was outlined would be a very
serious mistake. Let us work together and see if we cannot have a tax
cut and do some positive things to stimulate the economy.
My friend from Utah, Senator Bennett, has articulately stated that we
will come up with more money in the upfront years. We want to do it. We
have been trying to do it. Our budget resolution has $60 billion in
2001.
We only have a few months left in 2001. We can increase year 2002 by
$31 billion. That is what the amendment of my colleague from Utah says.
We will match that and also increase the level in 2003 by $11 billion.
We will have that amount of additional tax relief in the upfront years.
What I disagree with in the Conrad amendment is, other than the first
two lines which cut taxes, there are dozens of lines that increase
taxes. Two lines cut taxes up front, but all the rest of the lines
increase taxes to a net total of $418 billion.
They adopted an amendment yesterday to reduce the tax cut by $448
billion. If we adopt the Durbin amendment, we will also reduce the tax
cut by another $418 billion. That is a total reduction of President
Bush's underlying budget of $866 billion, and total tax increases they
have adopted in the last 2 days. That would be a serious mistake, and I
urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to say that is not
enough. Taxpayers are paying enormous surpluses, and President Bush
gives one-fourth of that back to taxpayers. The taxpayers are paying in
the entire surplus, and we are saying taxpayers: We are going to let
you keep a fourth of it. The Democrats are saying: No, no, maybe one-
eighth; not quite an eighth; maybe the taxpayers get to keep one-
eighth. Then they want to give it to people who filed a return, whether
they paid taxes or not. I disagree with that totally and completely and
urge my colleagues to vote no on the Durbin amendment and vote yes on
Senator Bennett's amendment. They will be voted on at some point later
today.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Michigan is
recognized.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes off the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I will speak first about the broader
perspective of what we have been doing on this resolution. The
President of the United States put forth a budget and tax cut that
basically said if you take Medicare and Social Security surpluses off
the table, every penny of available on-budget surplus is used for a tax
cut geared to the wealthiest Americans, hopefully trickling down.
We argue instead of doing that, we definitely need to protect
Medicare and Social Security. Because the President uses all non-
Medicare and Social Security money for his tax cut, he then spends
Medicare; he moves all of the Medicare trust fund into spending.
We say, no, protect Medicare and Social Security and then let us do a
balanced approach. Let us use a third of what is projected--hopefully
it will happen--for a tax cut, and that is what this amendment does. It
reserves a third for a tax cut, putting a stimulus on the front end so
we can help the economy with money in people's pockets right now. Let
us use a third for debt reduction, looking at long-term debt--and
possibly if the surpluses do not materialize, that is our hedge so we
do not go into further debt--and let us use a third for critical
investments in our people--education, lowering the cost of prescription
drugs.
My concern with the comments of my friend from Utah, as a member of
the Budget Committee and talking about paying down the debt, is I have
heard over and over, as the President has said, we cannot put more than
$2 trillion into paying down the debt. We have to leave $1.2 trillion.
It cannot be any lower than that.
In the Budget Committee, we heard from more than one speaker that
$2.6 trillion will naturally, between now and 2011, become available.
We will be able to redeem $2.6 trillion just by allowing it to come to
maturity over the next 11 years.

That is very different than what we are hearing today. Chairman
Greenspan came to the Budget Committee and indicated a difference of
opinion with the President saying that we could, in fact, pay down more
debt than what is in the President's budget. We support what Chairman
Greenspan is talking about, with those who managed the money directly
for the past administration. We support the position of allowing the
$2.6 trillion to mature over the next 11 years. We can do a better job
of paying down the debt.
We put money in people's pockets in three ways: We give them a tax
cut, which I strongly support--not only an immediate stimulus, but a
long-term tax cut--we pay down the debt, which puts money in people's
pockets by lowering their mortgage payment, car payment, and college
loan, and other costs people have, and finally, we stimulate the
economy so people have a job, which is the most important way we put
money in people's pockets.
I urge we support the Durbin amendment and oppose the amendment of my
good friend from Utah.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the distinguished Senator from
Michigan has expired.
The distinguished Senator from Utah is recognized.
Mr. BENNETT. How much time is available on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah has 7 minutes 56
seconds.
Mr. BENNETT. I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes and reserve the remainder
of the time for the Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. President, the senior Senator from Texas has a great line. He
says: Don't argue about facts; look them up. You can argue about
opinions, but do not argue about facts.
The former senior Senator from New York, Mr. Moynihan, used to say:
Everybody is entitled to his own opinions but not to his own
facts. That is why I went to the Treasury Department to try to get the
facts on the debt. I have heard people quote this, quote that. I

[[Page S3474]]

went to the people who manage the debt. They said to me, as they began
the conversation: We have been managing debt for over 200 years. We
know how to do it.

I have the numbers. I will be glad to discuss them with any Senator.
Fundamentally, this is what it comes down to: The amount in the next 10
years of national debt that cannot be paid off without paying a
premium, factually, is roughly $800 billion. Alan Greenspan, before the
Budget Committee, talked about 70-something. I round up to $800
billion. The Treasury agrees with that number. However, they say we
cannot go to that absolute number because we have to have some debt to
help cash management.
If I can put it in the context of a family, you may have paid off all
your mortgages and paid off all your debt, but the paycheck and the
bills don't always correspond exactly in time, so you pay the bills
with a credit card, which is debt. You may pay the credit card
completely off every 30 days, but you have some debt to manage your
cash situation, and the Treasury does. I said: How much money are we
talking about? And these Treasury officials who have no political ax to
grind said: We have to have about another $300 billion for cash
management purposes on top of the amount of debt Alan Greenspan was
talking about. If you add 800 to 300 you get $1.1 trillion, which is
the number President Bush has been talking about.
Those are the facts. We can look them up. We can have differences of
opinion on everything else, but let's not keep fudging those facts.
The President's proposal with respect to debt paydown is the
responsible, proper proposal. It should not be factually challenged.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from New Mexico is
recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think this has been an excellent
discussion and debate this afternoon. I will summarize it my way.
If this amendment is adopted, the so-called stimulus package from the
other side, then the tax cut proposed by our President would be reduced
to $746 billion. Understand, just doing the arithmetic, we would have
taken $854 billion of the President's tax cut and wiped it out.
Imagine, in the name of an economic stimulus package, we reduce that
which stimulates the economy by $854 billion.
I say to Senators on both sides, if you have been worrying about
taking more and more away from the President's tax cut, you have a real
humdinger on your platter. This, combined with others, will make the
President's tax package $746 billion, which is $854 billion less than
he asked for--and he thinks he is giving us a stimulus package. We are
saying $60 billion up front and $1.6 trillion over time, with marginal
rate deductions, marriage tax penalty, child care credits, and the
other things. We say that is exactly what the American economy needs as
a stimulus, short and long term. In the name of an economic stimulus
package, the tax cuts to the American people are reduced by more than
one-half, more than 50 percent.
Once again, Americans, if you have been sitting around thinking maybe
Congress will do something right, maybe they will give us back some of
our money, over half of it disappears. Between this amendment and a
previous Democrat amendment they have taken more than half of what you
might have expected. It is out the window. It is gone, gone at the
altar of an alleged stimulus package. This is just following suit of
almost every amendment offered: Baucus Medicare, higher taxes, $156
billion; Johnson agriculture, higher taxes, $88 billion; Harkin
education, $448 billion, higher taxes; Landrieu, $93 billion more;
Stabenow, $14 billion more. Adding them up, $798 billion is how much
they tried thus far to reduce the tax cuts for the American people.

Only one passed, Harkin, but it is still under consideration, so I
don't count it yet. Maybe it won't pass.
Having said that, if I have any remaining time, I yield it to Senator
Nickles.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my friend and leader.
I say to the American public, Senator Domenici has done outstanding
work on a very difficult job. This is a tough process. He was right. I
mentioned on the floor that the amendment that passed last night is
being reconsidered. I don't want to be so presumptive as to say the
$448 billion tax increase passed. It made a step towards passing, but
it has not been finally passed. I appreciate your correcting me on that
because the Senator is right.
The amendment Senator Durbin offered would also increase taxes from
the existing resolution, $418 billion. If you add the two together, it
is $866 billion, well over half of the President's proposed tax
reduction. I thank my friend and colleague. The Harkin amendment has
not yet been adopted, but if it is, and a lot of people are working on
the assumption that it is because it got an affirmative vote yesterday,
the combined impact would be $866 billion, and 55 percent of President
Bush's tax proposal just went out the door.
That is not the way to stimulate the economy. That is the point my
colleague and friend from New Mexico and Utah were making. I thank them
for that. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Durbin amendment and
vote in favor of Senator Bennett's amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Michigan is
recognized.
Ms. STABENOW. On behalf of Senator Conrad, I yield myself the
remaining time on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 3 minutes.
Ms. STABENOW. First, no one is talking about raising taxes. No one on
either side is talking about raising taxes. We are talking about a
budget for next year and conceivably for 10 years. What are the values
and the priorities of the American people? That is what we are talking
about in this discussion.
I suggest when we look at the President's proposal, if we lock up
Social Security and Medicare, we have $2.5 trillion to make decisions
about values and priorities of the American people. The President's tax
cut, when added up, takes every penny. There is zero for education
increases, zero for prescription drug coverage, and we all have heard
why we need to be doing this.
Unfortunately, in the President's budget, in order to pay for
spending, Medicare is used because there is nothing left after his tax
cut. He takes Medicare out of the lockbox and spends it.
We are suggesting and addressing the need for long-term stimulus. It
addresses the need to protect Social Security and Medicare, provide a
tax cut, short-term stimulus. We all support a long-term tax cut. Pay
down the debt to the maximum amount and make sure we have critical
investments to allow the economy to proceed. That is the debate.
Yes, we have a fundamental difference. We are not willing to touch
Medicare and Social Security. We say hands off Medicare, hands off
Social Security completely. Let's make sure we are paying down the
debt. Let's make sure we give tax cuts. Let's make sure we invest in
the priorities of the American people.
We can do all of it if we do it the right way. As I said before,
there is more than one way to put money in people's pockets. We can put
it in their pockets through a tax cut, and the stimulus Senator Durbin
is talking about is exactly what is needed in order to stimulate this
economy. Then we can focus on longer term tax cuts. It allows us to pay
down maximum debt. That puts money in people's pockets because they can
refinance that mortgage and that car payment. And it allows us to
invest in critical needs without touching the Medicare trust fund.
That is what we are arguing. I strongly encourage my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to support the short-term economic stimulus
that will allow us to protect the Medicare trust fund and that will
allow us to pay down the maximum amount of debt. Then we will work
together, no question about it, to continue to provide tax relief that
is focused particularly on middle-class taxpayers, small businesses,
family farmers. We want to work together to be able to do that and make
sure we

[[Page S3475]]

are reflecting the true values and priorities of the American people.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed
in the Record a table that shows the tax reduction Senator Durbin
offers in the first 2 years and the tax increases he has in the years
2004 through 2011, which net a total tax increase, compared to the
underlying resolution, of $418 billion for a net tax of $746, assuming
the budget resolution was amended by Senator Harkin. I want this to be
in the Record so everyone can see the total evisceration of the Bush
tax cut should this amendment be agreed to. I ask unanimous consent to
have that printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

DURBIN AMENDMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tax cuts
Conrad tax (current After
increase status) Durbin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001........................... -- 0.2 0
2002........................... 31 29.3 60
2003........................... 11 50.5 61
2004........................... (12) 74.2 62
2005........................... (33) 97.5 64
2006........................... (57) 125.7 68
2007........................... (68) 141.5 74
2008........................... (73) 149.2 76
2009........................... (71) 154.8 84
2010........................... (80) 170.3 90
2011........................... (65) 170.5 106
----------------------------------------
Total.................... (418) 1,164 746
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the document I have
in my hand be printed in the Record immediately following the table
Senator Nickles placed in the Record regarding the Durbin amendment now
before this body.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

DURBIN AMENDMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tax cuts
Conrad tax (current After
decrease status) Durbin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001........................... ............ 0.2 0
2002........................... 31 29.3 60
2003........................... 11 50.5 61
2004........................... (12) 74.2 62
2005........................... (33) 97.5 64
2006........................... (57) 125.7 68
2007........................... (68) 141.5 74
2008........................... (73) 149.2 76
2009........................... (71) 154.8 84
2010........................... (80) 170.3 90
2011........................... (65) 170.5 106
----------------------------------------
Total.................... (418) 1,164 746
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. REID. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Conrad, I yield to
Senator Stabenow 1 minute off the resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I reiterate, we are in the process of
determining the priorities for the country. No one is talking about a
tax cut. This amendment would provide an immediate stimulus this year.
President Bush's tax cut for the most part does not take effect for 6
years. We then want to take the next step and work together on a long-
term tax package.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask for 3 minutes off the resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator is recognized.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I understand once again today there has
been talk that somebody here is for a tax increase. Nobody is for a tax
increase. All the proposals on both sides of the aisle are for
significant tax cuts. The fundamental difference here is on the
question of how much debt reduction we do.
On our side we think there ought to be more debt reduction than is
being proposed on the other side. We have a total of $3.65 trillion of
the $5.6 trillion projected surplus set aside for short-term and long-
term debt reduction. President Bush is setting aside $2 trillion. So we
have nearly twice as much set aside for debt reduction as does the
President. He has a tax cut that is about twice as big as ours. That is
the fundamental difference between the two sides.
I understand Senator Bennett said you can't do more debt reduction
than the President proposes. That is just not so. We had detailed
testimony before the Senate Budget Committee by the man who ran the
debt reduction program in the U.S. Treasury Department under the
previous administration. He says you can reduce far more of the
national debt than the Bush administration is calling for. In fact,
President Bush says you can only reduce the publicly held debt by $2
trillion. Mr. Gensler, who was in charge of the debt reduction program
in the previous administration, pointed out that $2.6 trillion of the
debt actually comes due during this 10-year period. You can eliminate
all of that. That is $2.6 trillion instead of the $2 trillion the
President says is available for debt reduction. But even more than
that, we did a detailed cashflow analysis.

I yield myself an additional minute off the resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. We did a detailed cashflow analysis of debt reduction.
What we found is--this is the President's line, the green line. That
saves $2 trillion--reduces the publicly held debt by $2 trillion.
The red line is our publicly held debt reduction line. It would
reduce publicly held debt--publicly held debt is currently $3.4
trillion. It would reduce that debt by $2.9 trillion--$900 billion more
than the President's plan.
This line shows the unredeemable debt line. What this chart reveals
is there is absolutely no problem of cash buildup, even if you use $2.9
trillion to reduce publicly held debt.
I yield myself an additional 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. Somebody watching me may be very quick with figures and
say: Gee, Senator Conrad is saying the Democrats believe you can reduce
$2.9 trillion of the $3.4 trillion publicly held debt. But on his
previous chart he showed the Democrats have reserved $3.65 trillion for
debt reduction. How can both those things be true?
Simply, they are both accurate, they are both true, because we are
dealing with short-term debt and long-term debt. The short-term debt is
the publicly held debt, which is $3.4 trillion. We would pay that down
by $2.9 trillion. But, in addition to that, we reserve $750 billion
more for long-term debt reduction. The long term-debt that is building,
that our Federal accounting system does not take account of because of
the long-term unfunded liability for Social Security and Medicare, we
set aside $750 billion for that purpose. The other side does not set
aside a single penny--not a dime--for the long-term debt that is
building for this country.
That is the fundamental difference between our two sides. We believe
we ought to pay down more of the short-term and long-term debt and have
less of a tax cut. It is still a substantial tax cut, one that would
permit rate reductions, reform of the estate tax, and also address the
marriage penalty.
That is the fundamental difference. I do not want to lose sight of it
in the bric-a-brac and the back and forth. That is the best summary I
can provide.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the distinguished Senator has
expired.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Parliamentary inquiry: It is part of the
unanimous consent agreement that Senator Wyden and I have 15 minutes
equally divided?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

Amendment No. 240

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I have an amendment I send to the
desk. It is an amendment proposed by myself, my colleague Senator
Wyden, Senator Baucus, Senator Kennedy, Senator Snowe, and Senator
Santorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Smith] for himself and Mr.
Wyden, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Santorum,
proposes an amendment numbered 240.

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

[[Page S3476]]

(Purpose: To increase mandatory spending in the Health function by
$28,000,000,000 over Fiscal Year 2002, Fiscal Year 2003, and Fiscal
Year 2004 for proposals that would expand health insurance coverage to
the uninsured, targeting funding for those who need it most, combining
public and private coverage options to efficiently target the
uninsured, avoiding creating new bureaucracies, promoting state
flexibility, protecting employer-based coverage systems, providing a
meaningful, affordable health insurance benefit to the uninsured,
emphasizing enrollment and not just eligibility, and without taking
funding from the HI Trust Fund)

On page 4, line 2, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 4, line 3, increase the amount by $10,000,000,000.
On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by $10,000,000,000.
On page 4, line 16, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $10,000,000,000.
On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $10,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 7, decrease the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 8, decrease the amount by $10,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 9, decrease the amount by $10,000,000,000.
On page 28, line 23, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 28, line 24, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 29, line 2, increase the amount by $10,000,000,000.
On page 29, line 3, increase the amount by $10,000,000,000.
On page 29, line 6, increase the amount by $10,000,000,000.
On page 29, line 7, increase the amount by $10,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 20, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 21, increase the amount by $18,000,000,000.
On page 5, line 22, increase the amount by $28,000,000,000.
On page 6, line 8, increase the amount by $8,000,000,000.
On page 6, line 9, increase the amount by $18,000,000,000.
On page 6, line 10, increase the amount by $28,000,000,000.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, when I go home to Oregon I am
often asked what is the biggest surprise I have had as a Senator. I
often and without any hesitation answer that my biggest surprise is
that one of my closest friendships in the Senate, and one of the most
constructive relationships I have in the Senate, is with my former
opponent, the senior Senator from Oregon, Ron Wyden. After I was
elected to replace Mark Hatfield, he and I became more than colleagues;
we became friends, confidants, and worked every year to try to
establish an agenda that helps and serves the interests of our State as
well as our country.
This year we have followed that tradition, announced a bipartisan
agenda, toured our State with seven joint townhalls, and tried to
listen to the people as to what they wanted. We heard many things. We
heard, ``Tax cuts.'' I am for President Bush's tax cut. I make no
apology for that.
I believe our economy needs that. I believe our country needs help. I
believe we need to be reminded that we are a democratic free enterprise
society and not a democratic socialist society.
But having said that, I believe, using the surpluses we are
bountifully blessed with, there are things we can and should do.
In Oregon, we have a proud tradition of caring for the
underprivileged and the uninsured. I was a State senator when we set
about funding the Oregon Health Plan. We accomplished that, but the job
is not done in helping the uninsured.
It seems to me appropriate that in a time when we are looking to cut
substantial taxes from the paychecks of the American people that we
should take time to help those who also work but who do not enjoy some
of the basics of American living, which is health care.
There are 170 million Americans who enjoy the best health care in the
world. They are Americans. But of our American citizens, there are 43
million who have no health insurance. Many of those folks are working
Americans as well.
But Senator Wyden and I propose, along with the bipartisan coalition,
to provide in this budget $28 billion over 3 years to further narrow
that gap of the uninsured.
Our plan will build on past actions to give 15 million to 20 million
of these uninsured Americans access to affordable quality health
insurance without creating huge new Government programs.
First, our plan will give businesses incentives to make quality
health insurance more affordable to their low-income workers. Our plan
will give businesses a tax credit if they chip in more to offer quality
health care to their low-income employees. Many low-wage employees are
working hard, but we are having trouble paying the full amount for
health insurance.
Second, our plan will extend Medicaid coverage to more low-income
Americans. Many low-income adults who cannot afford or are not offered
private health insurance would now be eligible under this proposal for
Medicaid coverage.
Finally, we will give the State the option to extend the highly
successful CHIP program, or the SCHIP program, the State Children's
Health Insurance Program. We will work to extend these benefits to the
parents of these children.
We are trying to say in this great society that we can narrow this
uninsured gap. I believe if we can't do it now, we will never be able
to do it.
Senator Wyden and I are bringing together an extraordinary coalition
between liberals and conservatives. I am referring to the Families
U.S.A., which is a group of folks who are trying to advance the cause
of the uninsured.
Also, the Health Insurance Association of America, a very
conservative group, has come together behind what Senator Wyden and I
are trying to give voice to.
I appreciate the chance to offer this amendment. I urge its adoption
and, if not by unanimous consent, that it be overwhelmingly approved.
I believe it will be a very nice component of President Bush's effort
to extend some passion and conservatism to the American people.
I yield the remainder of my time to my colleague, Senator Wyden.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Oregon is
recognized.
Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President.
First, I commend my colleague and thank him for the opportunity to
work with him on this bipartisan agenda. I commend him for a very fine
statement this afternoon as well.
Each night more than 43 million Americans go to bed without basic
health coverage knowing that a serious illness could wipe their family
out. These are Americans who aren't old enough for Medicare. They
aren't poor enough for Medicaid. Very often they work as small
businesses. And yet in a country as strong and good as ours we have not
made sure that they have access to basic health coverage.
In my view, for the Congress not to respond now at a time when there
are layoffs, at a time when there is great fragility in our economy,
for this Congress not to respond to the needs of the uninsured is, in
my view, nothing short of government malpractice.
This amendment ensures, with the $28 billion that would be provided
for mandatory spending, that the Senate Finance Committee could develop
a program that would allow for public and private options. There are
many in the business community who argue--and I think correctly so--
that there are a variety of approaches with employer-based health care
coverage that makes sense. This amendment would allow for that. There
are advocates for the low income who argue--and I think correctly so--
that we ought to be spending for important programs like my colleague
mentioned, the CHIP program. Senator Kennedy, for example, has done
yeoman and exceptional work in trying to extend coverage for adults
whose children are on Medicaid. And yet those adults, for example, who
might work at a small business lack coverage. This proposal would make
that possible. We would have a chance to cover those individuals who
are part of what Senator Kennedy has correctly termed ``family care.''
In my view, this proposal represents an opportunity for a major
breakthrough on the health care issue which unfortunately to a great
extent has been deadlocked since the downfall of the discussion over
the Clinton health care plan.
In my view, with this amendment it will be possible to provide
immediate relief to millions of our citizens through public and private
options and

[[Page S3477]]

at the same time build a foundation for a longer term approach that,
again, looks to both the private and the public sector to fill in these
gaps in American health care.
I particularly want to thank Senator Kennedy and Senator Baucus. They
have been leaders in our party in the development of advocacy for these
individuals.
Senator Conrad and his staff have been exceptionally helpful as well
in ensuring that this amendment was crafted so that it would not in any
way allow for a raid of the health insurance trust fund.
I will tell you, Mr. President, since my days when I was codirector
of the Gray Panthers, I dreamed that I could one day be part of a
bipartisan effort to really fill in the gaps in the American health
care system.
I thank my colleague, Senator Smith, for the opportunity to work with
him. These important breakthroughs for the uninsured can, in fact, only
be accomplished if they are bipartisan. I thank him for the chance to
work with him.
I yield the floor at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on the
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon has 2 minutes 43
seconds; the other distinguished Senator from Oregon has 3 minutes 16
seconds.
Ms. STABENOW. I ask for a minute.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am happy to yield time to my friend from
Michigan, who has already shown that she is going to be a tremendous
advocate for working families and seniors on health. I am happy to
yield to her.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to commend my colleagues for
their hard work. There is nothing more urgent in a family's life than
the issue of health care. I often think that if we address this issue
in as urgent a manner as a family does when someone has a health care
problem, we would have acted much more quickly. When there is a health
concern in a family, it seems that the world stops until you fix it or
try to figure out how to help your child or your parent or yourself. We
need to have that same sense of urgency about health care in this
Chamber.
I commend my colleagues for their work.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues in support of
Mr. Smith's amendment to increase funding in the Resolution by $28
billion over fiscal year 2002 through 2004 for the purpose of expanding
health insurance coverage to the uninsured. Yesterday's New York Times
reported that the President's proposed budget, details of which we will
not see until next week, will suggest cuts of nearly 90 percent to
programs that increase access to health care for the uninsured. That
obviously is moving in exactly the wrong direction.
I oppose the administration's reported plan to ``phase out'' the
Community Access Program. The program seeks to reduce the number of
uninsured through integrated, comprehensive health care delivery
systems. I also am troubled that the Administration seems to undervalue
one of the most important components of any health care safety net--
quality care. We need to continue to train health professionals to
ensure that every patient receives the quality care he or she deserves.
Moreover, we need to make sure we have enough health professionals in
every part of this country so that no one is denied access to care
because of where they live. According to New York Times, however, the
White House position is that there is ``an oversupply of doctors.'' The
truth is there are great disparities in the distribution of health
professionals in this country. The majority of the country's counties
experience shortages in health professionals and are medically
underserved areas.
I support the Smith amendment. This funding will help. But we need to
go further. We need quality care for all, which means universal health
care coverage. I intend to introduce the Health Security for All
Americans Act following this Easter recess. Every American should have
quality health care coverage. Meanwhile, the Administration's proposals
to cut the Community Access Program, flat-line funding for the care of
people living with AIDS and HIV, and cut into funding for the training
of our health professionals take us in the wrong direction. This
amendment improves the Resolution.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment that
has a very simple purpose: to increase mandatory health spending by $28
billion to increase health insurance coverage.
This is a matter of great national urgency. Today, nearly 33 million
adults and 10 million children go without health care coverage. That's
18 percent of all Americans. And despite record employment and a
booming economy over the past decade, over eighty percent of the
uninsured are in working families.
Quite simply, we cannot afford to be complacent. Both the nation and
individuals pay a penalty for the lack of health insurance. Indeed, one
of the most deeply disturbing is that health care costs more for the
uninsured!
According to a recent New York Times article, because ``health
insurance companies insist on hefty discounts'' for their patients,
there can be ``extreme price disparities'' between what the uninsured
are charged for medical care and what people with insurance are
charged.
For example, one internal medicine specialist reported that the cost
of his bills for ``routine exam[s]'' can vary by 45 percent, with ``the
uninsured pay[ing] the most'' and those with insurance ``pay[ing] much
less than their share.'' As a result of such arrangements, ``some
uninsured people struggle for years to pay medical bills and others put
off seeing a doctor until minor problems become major ones.''
How might these funds be spent to improve health insurance coverage?
One very promising approach is legislation that will be introduced
shortly to expand the SCHIP program to provide health insurance
coverage of parents of children eligible for the program.
As I am sure many Members know, in 1997, under the leadership of
Senators Kennedy and Rockefeller, Senators Hatch and the late John
Chafee, Congress created the State Children's Health Insurance Program,
or ``S-CHIP.'' Since SCHIP was launched just 3 short years ago, this
Federal-State partnership has provided health insurance coverage to 3.3
million low-income children. My home State of Maine is justifiably
proud of its Cub Care program, covering 9,500 low-income children.
What could be a greater priority of our Nation than the health and
well-being of our children? What greater responsibility do we have as
leaders and adults? The fact of the matter is, if we are to be stewards
of the future, we must be protectors of our children. America's
children cannot grow up strong if they do not grow up healthy.
But just as the early results are encouraging, we can and must do
more. Despite a team effort to enroll all eligible children, one-third
of the remaining 18,000 uninsured children in Maine are currently
eligible for coverage under Medicaid or Cub Care, but aren't receiving
the benefits. Nationwide, an estimated 6.3 million additional children
who could be served by the program remain unenrolled. Like a letter
mailed without an address, benefits that aren't delivered are benefits
that might as well not exist.
We must reach our goal of covering all those who are eligible. The
solution, or the ``key prescription'' as one Maine pediatrician said is
health insurance coverage for their parents.
Here is some evidence. Three of the first States that provided
coverage to parents under Medicaid saw their coverage of eligible
children increase by 16 percent from 1990 to 1998, compared to 3
percent for States that didn't cover parents.
The bottom line is that parental coverage means that children are
more likely to be enrolled in SCHIP; and that means better access to
medical care.
Of course, there are many other possible avenues to improve health
care coverage. Indeed, no one solution is the answer for all 43 million
uninsured Americans. But none of the options is possible without
funding.
I urge all Senators who believe as I do that we must improve health
insurance coverage to vote for this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

[[Page S3478]]

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, it is my understanding that this
may be agreed to unanimously. But in the event it is not, I ask for the
yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
Mr. REID. Will the Senator withhold?
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I withhold.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Is all time expired on the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has not yet expired. The Senator from
Oregon has 2 minutes 20 seconds; the Senator from Oregon has 2 minutes
34 seconds.
Mr. DOMENICI. I wonder if the Senators would be prepared to yield
back their time.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I would be willing to yield back
my time. I was just asking, if necessary, for the yeas and nays.
Mr. DOMENICI. I do not think it is necessary. I think we are prepared
now to have a voice vote and accept the amendment.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. That would be fine.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I was always under the impression you ought
to quit while you are ahead. I yield my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
240.
The amendment (No. 240) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum
and ask unanimous consent it be charged equally against both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOMENICI. 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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this is a unanimous consent agreement
that has been worked on by a wide variety of Senators representing
leadership on both sides. I will propound it now.
I ask unanimous consent that time from 3:30 p.m. today until 6:30
p.m. be equally divided for the consideration of Senator Domenici's
reconciliation instructions amendment; that all the time on the budget
resolution expire at 6:30 p.m. this evening; that when the Senate votes
in relation to the reconciliation amendment, all remaining amendments
be limited to 30 minutes each.
I further ask unanimous consent that any votes ordered on remaining
amendments to the budget resolution be stacked to occur following the
vote on or in relation to Senator Domenici's reconciliation amendment
at 6:30 p.m., with 2 minutes prior to each vote for explanation.
I further ask unanimous consent that the first-degree amendments to
be offered by the minority and majority leaders be the last two
amendments in order prior to the vote on the substitute and the vote on
adoption of the concurrent resolution, that they be offered in the
order listed above and they not be subject to any second-degree
amendments.
I further ask that following the disposition of the amendments by the
two leaders, the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the substitute,
to be followed immediately by a vote on adoption of the concurrent
resolution, all without any intervening action, motion, or debate, if
all amendments have been offered and disposed of.
Finally, I ask unanimous consent that disposition of the last two
amendments by the two leaders and the final vote on the concurrent
budget resolution occur no earlier than 2:30 p.m. on Friday, April 6.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object, I think, as it was read,
there may be some confusion in the first few lines. It might be helpful
to restate it, I say to my colleague; because of changes that have
occurred as we have negotiated this, I think it would be useful to
restate the first few lines.
Mr. DOMENICI. I will be glad to. I think the Senator is correct.
I ask unanimous consent that the time from 3:30 p.m. until 6:30 p.m.
be equally divided for consideration of Senator Domenici's
reconciliation instructions amendment; that all time on the budget
resolution expire at 6:30 p.m.; that when the Senate votes in relation
to the reconciliation amendment, all remaining amendments be limited to
30 minutes each.
I further ask unanimous consent that any votes ordered on remaining
amendments to the budget resolution be stacked to occur following the
vote on or in relation to Senator Domenici's reconciliation amendment
at 6:30 p.m. with 2 minutes prior to each vote for explanation. I think
the rest of it was clearly audible. I propose the rest of it.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to be clear: All remaining
amendments be limited to 30 minutes each is intended to apply to what
occurs between now and 3:30 p.m.?
Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct.
Mr. CONRAD. And from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. will be on
reconciliation? That what occurs after that, the 30-minute limitation
does not apply. The 30-minute limitation applies to what occurs between
now and 3:30 p.m.; is that the understanding of the Senator?
Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct. That is what it says, but if it needs
to be further clarified, I accept that clarification.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, this does not preclude any
points of order anyone might have during the course of the day?
Mr. DOMENICI. No, it does not.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from West
Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, two things: First, is it
clear that the vote on the Domenici reconciliation amendment will occur
at the expiration of the 3 hours allotted to that amendment?
Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator is correct.
Mr. BYRD. Second, will the distinguished Senator from New Mexico read
the final proviso which deals with the final vote at 2:30 p.m. tomorrow
or circa 2:30 p.m.?
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, I will. I ask unanimous consent that disposition
of the last two amendments by the two leaders and final vote on the
concurrent resolution occur no earlier than 2:30 p.m., Friday, April 6,
2001--tomorrow.
Mr. BYRD. That will mean then the vote-arama, which I do not like and
I do not believe the distinguished Senator likes either, would occur.
Whatever amendments there are, if Senators chose to call them up, they
would have votes on them.
Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct.
Mr. BYRD. That is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, it is. We hope to make some impression on our
friends that we do not have to do them all. The Senator is correct.
Mr. BYRD. Fine. Is it clear that the majority leader will have an
amendment and the minority leader? Is it clear, absolutely clear that
they will have one amendment each?
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, both the minority and majority have an opportunity
at the end, in the order stated, in the order of minority, majority
leader--in that sequence--but they both have that right.
Mr. BYRD. They both have that right.
Mr. DOMENICI. Wraparound right.
Mr. BYRD. They may choose not to offer such amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want the Senator from West Virginia to
understand all amendments will be in order in the vote-arama if filed
by 2 o'clock today, as under a previous agreement.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator for reminding us of that. Senators
should know that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent
request by the distinguished Senator from New Mexico?

Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand the distinguished Senator
from Delaware wants to speak for 5 minutes with the time coming off the
resolution. That is all right with me.

[[Page S3479]]

Can we propose the following, not as a UC, but as a planning tool? We
have done it before.
Senator Frist on HIV and Senator Corzine on energy; Senator Bond,
Senator Mikulski, Senator Dodd on child care; Senator Voinovich on
process; Senator Hollings on stimulus; Senator Allen and Senator
Brownback on process. That is what we are trying to accomplish.
Mr. CONRAD. Can we see the list?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Delaware is
recognized.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, this is the week baseball season begins
anew. I am in a little bit of a baseball mood this week, even this
afternoon under bright, sunny skies in our Nation's Capital. We have
been working on the budget resolution in the Senate Chamber for the
better part of this week, and under the unanimous consent agreement we
will wrap it up hopefully tomorrow afternoon.
Using a baseball analogy, this is like the seventh inning stretch. I
want to take the opportunity to reflect on what we have agreed to, not
agreed to, and maybe some thoughts we can keep in mind over the next 24
hours or so.
As we attempt to adopt, fashion, and agree on a blueprint for
spending for our Nation, the thought that creeps into almost every
aspect of our discussions is the economy, the shaky nature of the
economy, the fragile nature of the economy, and to what extent tax cuts
should play as we adopt this budget framework.
There are a number of ways to stimulate the economy, as we all know.
One of the ways that is going forward right now is the aggressive
monetary policy launched by the Federal Reserve over the last couple of
months which will add to the gross domestic product of our country, I
am told, somewhere close to half a percentage point this year by virtue
of lower interest rates. The Federal Reserve is expected to come back
and consider by May 15 whether more interest rate relief is called for.
My hope is they will do so, and maybe even before that time.
Those interest rate reductions are already being felt in our economy
as people refinance their homes, lower their mortgage rates, and take
the moneys they are saving and spend it for other purposes.

Another obvious way to stimulate the economy is through tax policy. I
remind my colleagues as we consider a stimulus policy, trying to put
some kind of rebates in place now, rate reductions, child credits, or
marriage penalty relief, the actual impact we will have through tax
policy is de minimis.
Take $3 trillion out of the stock market, as we have seen over the
last several months, and pump in $40 billion, $50 billion, $60 billion
in tax policy and in reality it is not going to amount to too much.
I hope we will continue our efforts over the next 24 hours--frankly,
over the weeks to come--to adopt the best stimulus of all. The best
stimulus we could send, not just to the markets but the American
people, would be for us to actually agree on a tax policy, not just 51
Republicans with the Vice President casting the tie-breaking vote but
for a number of Democrats and Republicans to agree on an incremental
approach where we would be able to lower marginal rates, broadly but
not as deeply as the President wants, or double the child credit and
make it retroactive to the beginning of this year, or we might
eliminate the marriage penalty effective the beginning of this year,
and do it in a way to provide stimulus to our economy but also some
assurance that the taxpayers are going to see long-term rate reduction,
long-term relief.
The President was in Delaware a couple days ago, and I talked with
him about this. He said: My concern is, Tom, if we do not take a lot of
money off the table now, we will spend the money. I reminded the
President he plays an activist role in the appropriations process--
signing and vetoing appropriations bills, signing and vetoing
enhancements to entitlement programs.
In the end, while we are in the seventh inning stretch, the ball game
is likely to go into extra innings, and the very best victory the
American people can hope for is a bipartisan agreement for an
incremental approach to tax cuts that includes restraint on spending
and includes a consensus that one of the best things we can do is
continue the good work we have begun on reducing our Nation's debt. I
yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The Senator from New Mexico is
recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask the ranking member, we read off seven names, you
added an eighth; can we say the eighth is Senator Wellstone?
Mr. CONRAD. Senators Wellstone and Johnson, if I could add that
additional name.
Mr. DOMENICI. Sure. We will try to accommodate all the Senators,
saying no more than 15 minutes on each of the amendments.
I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 215

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 215,
on behalf of myself, Senators Smith of Oregon, Leahy, Durbin, Kerry,
and Feingold, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Frist], for himself, Mr.
Smith of Oregon, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Kerry and Mr.
Feingold, proposes amendment numbered 215.

Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 4, line 3, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
On page 5, line 8, decrease the amount by $500,000,000.
On page 12, line 16, increase the amount by $200,000,000.
On page 12, line 17, increase the amount by $200,000,000.
On page 12, line 20, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
On page 12, line 21, increase the amount by $500,000,000.
On page 43, line 15, decrease the amount by $200,000,000.
On page 43, line 16, decrease the amount by $200,000,000.
On page 48, line 8, increase the amount by $200,000,000.
On page 48, line 9, increase the amount by $200,000,000.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, it
is the sense of the Senate that:
(a) Findings.--The Senate finds the following:
(1) HIV/AIDS, having already infected over 58 million
people worldwide, is devastating the health, economies, and
social structures in dozens of countries in Africa, and
increasingly in Asia, the Caribbean and Eastern Europe.
(2) AIDS has wiped out decades of progress in improving the
lives of families in the developing world. As the leading
cause of death in Africa, AIDS has killed 17 million and will
claim the lives of one quarter of the population, mostly
productive adults, in the next decade. In addition, 13
million children have been orphaned by AIDS--a number that
will rise to 40 million by 2010.
(3) The Agency for International Development, along with
the Centers for Disease Control, Department of Labor, and
Department of Defense have been at the forefront of the
international battle to control HIV/AIDS, with global
assistance totaling $330,000,000 from USAID and $136,000,000
from other agencies in fiscal year 2001, primarily focused on
targeted prevention programs.
(4) While prevention is key, treatment and care for those
affected by HIV/AIDS is an increasingly critical component of
the global response. Improving health systems, providing
home-based care, treating AIDS-associated diseases like
tuberculosis, providing for family support and orphan care,
and making anti-retroviral drugs against HIV available will
reduce social and economic damage to families and
communities.
(5) Pharmaceutical companies recently dramatically reduced
the prices of anti-retroviral drugs to the poorest countries.
With sufficient resources, it is now possible to improve
treatment options in countries where health systems are able
to deliver and monitor the medications.
(6) The UN AIDS program estimates it will cost at least
$3,000,000,000 for basic AIDS prevention and care services in
Sub-Saharan Africa alone, and at least $2,000,000,000 more if
anti-retroviral drugs are provided widely. In Africa, only
$500,000,000 is currently available from all donors, lending
agencies and African governments themselves.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the spending levels in this budget resolution shall be
increased by $200,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 and by
$500,000,000 in 2003 and for each year thereafter for the
purpose of helping the neediest countries cope with the
burgeoning costs of prevention, care and treatment of those
affected by HIV/AIDS and associated infectious diseases.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the time is at hand for the United States
to take

[[Page S3480]]

another act of leadership in confronting one of the most important
moral, humanitarian, and foreign policy decisions of the new century:
How to stop the ravages of HIV/AIDS in Africa and other developing
countries.
History will indelibly record how the United States, along with other
governments, other institutions, other foundations, and other civil
societies, responds to the call. Inaction will be measured in millions
of lives--lives lost, families destroyed, and economies ruined.
The statistics tell the story. They are chilling. Twenty-two million
people have died of AIDS worldwide, more than 3 million last year
alone. That is over 8,000 per day or nearly 6 deaths every minute. That
number is growing. Thirty-six million people are currently infected
with HIV, a staggering number that is increasing by 15,000 new
infections every day, mostly in the world's poorest countries. By 2010,
80 million persons could be dead of AIDS. That is more deaths than we
saw in military and civilian forces suffered during all of World War
II.
In Africa, life expectancy has been reduced by nearly half in many
countries. In the next decade, 40 million children will be orphaned by
AIDS. That is a number equal to all children in this country living
east of the Mississippi. The economic impact is devastating. An entire
generation of workforce is being lost. Trained personnel in key sectors
needed for economic growth and stability--teachers, health care
personnel, law enforcement--are being decimated by the epidemic. In
South Africa alone, a once growing economy is being devastated by HIV/
AIDS. The projected GDP over the next 10 years will be reduced by 17
percent, or the equivalent of about $22 billion, because of this single
virus.
Africa is not alone. The Caribbean region has the second highest rate
of HIV infections. Russia has the largest increase of any in the world.
The National Intelligence Council has said that Asia, especially India,
is on the verge of a catastrophic epidemic. This is especially
troubling for those concerned about regional security in the most
populous part of the globe.
All Americans, indeed, can be proud of the international leadership
in responding by the United States to this epidemic. We have pushed the
G-8 to embrace debt relief in exchange for health programs. We have
tripled our global commitment to AIDS programs over the last 2 years.
But we are not doing enough. We are not alone. In all of sub-Saharan
Africa, the combined national, UN, and donor contributions in the fight
against AIDS total $500 million. Yet the United Nations estimates the
basic prevention and care in Africa alone will cost $3 billion a year,
increasing to $5 billion a year if treatment, including access to
specific anti-AIDS drugs, is added.
The fundamental question we must ask today is this: If the United
States is already doing more than anyone else, why should we do more
right now? There are three reasons.
No. 1, the disease is not waiting. It is not waiting for the
international community to mount a coordinated response. Just since I
have been talking, 18 people have died and there have been 35 new
infections. The problem is growing by the minute.
No. 2, a major new initiative by several pharmaceutical companies
that has been rolled out over the last several weeks means AIDS
treatment drugs for Africa are more affordable today than they have
ever been.

No. 3, access to treatment enhances prevention efforts. Access to
treatment enhances prevention, a basic underlying premise of public
health.
For the first time in history, the drugs that have revolutionized
AIDS care and treatment in the United States can become for the first
time part of that comprehensive prevention, care, and treatment
strategy even in the poorest countries of the world.
But how we supply these drugs where they are needed, given the fact
that purchasing them at cost still puts them way beyond the means of
infected individuals in poor countries, is a question we must address.
The answer is in the sort of public-private partnerships which we
know have worked in the past and can increasingly work in the future.
On the private side, U.S. companies took the lead in making drugs
available, and now it is appropriate for the U.S. Government in this
private partnership approach to take the lead in making these drugs
part of a comprehensive plan, strategy, of prevention, care, and
treatment in these poorest countries.
Currently, the United States is contributing close to $500 million to
fight the scourge of HIV/AIDS in poor countries. The amendment my
colleagues and I are putting forth today increases that amount by $200
million next year and by $500 million the following year, effectively
doubling our current commitment over 2 years.
These funding resources from the United States will provide the
leadership impetus for a powerful coalition of Government, of
foundations, of the United Nations, of the pharmaceutical companies, of
academic institutions, of the scientific institutions to help fill the
gap between the available resources and the need for care and
treatment.
Working with authorizing and appropriation committees, working with
Secretaries Powell and Thompson, with USAID and other parties, we will
be crafting legislation to ensure this new budget authority enhances
and complements our bilateral aid programs and also, fundamentally
important, creating a mechanism that both encourages participation by
other donors and gives the program the appropriate accountability and
oversight we all must require.
One possible model would be the strictly monitored fund similar to
the successful global alliance on vaccines and immunization. That
particular program has combined substantial contributions by the Gates
Foundation, as well as that by governments, putting them together. It
is managed by those who know how to deliver those programs, to hold
them accountable and to make sure the services are delivered to those
in greatest need.
In addition, work by community-based organizations, both religious
and secular, will be the linchpin of success on the ground. It has to
be made clear to the American people and to the world at large that the
drugs alone are not enough. Delivery systems and health infrastructures
are absolutely mandatory if programs are to be more than just talk or
to make us feel good--programs that actually reach the people who are
in so much desperate need for them.
Let's be clear about one thing: The new moneys will not be used to
add to the coffers of those leaders who have not made AIDS a national
priority and who have not yet committed to science-based national plans
to address this challenge. There is no point in assisting governments
that choose to avoid the hard realities. Let's also remember that until
science and the tremendous resources we can provide in this country in
terms of science and discovery produce a vaccine, prevention through
sustained change in behavior is the first and most important means of
AIDS control, and prevention must remain a primary focus of our
development assistance.
However, we cannot spend our assistance dollars only on prevention
activities. The major new initiative we have seen by the pharmaceutical
companies recently gives us some hope for those already suffering from
AIDS and their families. After all, how can families and communities
and democracies survive when over a third of young adults are becoming
infected and are expected to die by the age of 45, leaving millions of
children with little support and even less hope. In extending the
productive lives of those people affected, treatment can prolong the
time that families are together, can provide that support and pass on
their cultural tradition and values.

Beyond these humanitarian concerns, treatment makes prevention work.
Without some expectation of hope or of care, people have no reason to
be tested for AIDS, to go in and seek help. They become outcasts in
their communities.
Make no mistake about the fact that much more needs to be done than
we are proposing. Other nations absolutely must step up with their
involvement as well. We will look to the administration to use expanded
U.S. commitments to urge our trading partners to increase their
participation.
By using such leverage, an increase of $200 million in U.S. aide
should increase aide by others by several times that much. Americans
have always been among the first to tackle the

[[Page S3481]]

most difficult challenges of the times. We must do no less when
confronted with perhaps the worst international health crisis since the
bubonic plague ravaged Europe over 600 years ago.
When our children and grandchildren asked what we did to help slow
down this human tragedy, let us be proud of our answer.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Who yields time? The Senator from
Oregon.
Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I rise today to join Senator
Frist to increase funding for International HIV/AIDS efforts. This
amendment will increase by $200 million in fiscal year 2002 to help the
neediest countries cope with the burgeoning costs of prevention, care
and treatment of those affected by HIV/AIDS and associated diseases.
AIDS is one of the most recent and most devastating infectious
diseases facing the world today. Since the virus was first identified
about 20 years ago, more than 50 million people have been infected--and
at the current rate of infection that number will top 100 million
within 6 years.
Of those being infected with HIV, half are between the ages of 10 and
24. Five young people will contract HIV/AIDS as each minute passes as I
stand here speaking to you on the Senate floor.
These numbers are beyond belief--these youth are the future of the
world and yet that future is being endangered as surely as those lives
are being endangered.
Last year many of us on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee joined
forces to authorize a real boost in funding to fight HIV/AIDS abroad.
Senator Boxer, Frist, Kerry and I--and many others including Chairman
Helms--succeeded in authorizing increased funding to meet the
challenges of HIV/AIDS infection.
We did this without care about party politics, ideology or
conviction, working together to somehow find solutions to a horrible
health problem. I note that last year our focus was basically on
Africa.
This year our attention has unfortunately been turned to new
continents and new countries that are being impacted by HIV/AIDS.
In the Far East--in Thailand for instance, in the Near East--
threatening India and in some countries of Eastern Europe and in
Russia, HIV/AIDS is spreading quickly. Asia will soon have more new HIV
infections than any other region. In Russia more Russians are projected
to be diagnosed with HIV/AIDS by the end of the year than all cases
from previous years combined.
I could go on--HIV/AIDS will be responsible for the deaths of more
men, women and children than all the soldiers killed in the major wars
and conflicts of the 20th Century.
All these facts, again, cause the mind to numb and the imagination to
stagger. Vocabulary fails to describe this. I simply ask my colleagues
to join Senator Frist and me in helping to fight HIV/AIDS abroad. Time
and lives are wasting, even as we speak.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment offered
by Senators Frist and Feingold. It is a timely amendment that addresses
not only a humanitarian crisis, but a key threat to U.S. national
security. I commend the sponsors for drafting an amendment that will
keep the United States in a leadership role on this critical issue.
HIV/AIDS is a public health crisis throughout Africa, Asia, and the
Caribbean. There are more than 50 million people infected with HIV
worldwide; more than 25 million of them are in Africa, where some
countries experience infection rates between 10 and 20 percent of the
population. In India, there are 3500 new cases of HIV daily, and the
World Bank projects that India will have 35 million people with HIV by
2005. Although prevention is key to halting the spread of HIV, because
of the high costs of drugs and the woeful medical infrastructure, many
of those infected are shut out of any treatment or care.
This devastating impact on a large and growing segment of the world
population threatens to produce an economic development crisis. It is
striking down productive adults, impacting agricultural and economic
output in many countries, and creating an estimated 13 million orphans,
who face increased risk of malnutrition and reduced prospects for
education. Some estimates suggest that the number of orphans will grow
to 40 million in the next decade.
This amendment provides the United States with the resources it will
need to confront this threat. The President's budget allowed for a 10
percent increase over last year's spending, but this challenge demands
a more robust American response, and the Senate is responding here
tonight.
This amendment is the first step, a very good first step, in that
response. I am encouraged by a study released yesterday by Harvard
University that this problem is, in fact, surmountable. It will,
however, demand that we follow through on the next steps in this fight
making drugs available at affordable prices and providing the medical
infrastructure these countries need to meet this threat. It is a threat
we can address, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to
address it.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second? There
appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. Is the Senator from New Jersey seeking time?
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I call up amendment 257 at the desk.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is still time remaining on
the Frist amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, if we had time on this amendment, we
yield it back.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, there was 30 seconds. I yield that time
back.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Time remains on the other side.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we yield back all time on this amendment
and we yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey. Is the Senator
from New Jersey seeking 7 minutes?
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, 10 minutes total, and I will yield time
to other Senators.
Mr. CONRAD. At this time, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from New
Jersey.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator will withhold for one
moment. The time is all yielded back on the Frist amendment. The
Senator from New Jersey is recognized to call up an amendment.

Amendment No. 257

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 257, which is
currently at the desk. I ask for its immediate consideration.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the amendment
by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Corzine] offers an
amendment numbered 257.

Mr. CORZINE. I ask unanimous consent further reading be dispensed
with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized for 7
minutes.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, this amendment would restore $50 billion
of cuts built into the Republican resolution to environment, natural
resources, and energy conservation programs. This means that
environmental programs would be increased 4 percent in 2002. But keep
in mind, this is the total. We are merely maintaining funding at the
increase the President has requested for overall growth in
discretionary spending this year.
To offset these adjustments, the amendment would reduce
administrative costs for fiscal year 2002 and reduce the size of the
tax cuts in subsequent years.
Further, the amendment would set aside an additional $50 billion for
debt reduction.
I believe protecting our environment deserves top priority. Yet in
the past few months, we have seen the administration wage nothing less
than an all-out attack on our environment.
Three weeks ago, the administration pulled a complete 180-degree turn
on a clear campaign pledge to address global warming through the
regulation of

[[Page S3482]]

carbon dioxide. They pushed back regulation designed to protect the
public from arsenic in drinking water. They proposed drilling in the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And they refused to defend regulations
designed to protect our national forests.
Unfortunately, the Bush budget and this budget resolution continue
this attack on our environment. The President's ``Budget Blueprint''
proposed a 15-percent cut in environmental and natural resource
programs--15 percent. These cuts are a dramatic step backwards and
would reverse much of the progress we have made on cleaning our air and
water and protecting our Nation's natural resources. These cuts would
contribute to the Nation's growing concern about sprawl and would
weaken efforts to hold polluters accountable.
These cuts have been especially serious in my State of New Jersey. I
know I was sent here to fight to represent New Jersey's interests. Air
quality in New Jersey is one of the worst--in six of our counties--in
the Nation. We have 115 Superfund sites, 80 percent of our rivers and
lakes and streams are unfishable and unswimmable.
Unfortunately, while the President has not revealed all the specific
cuts that will be included in his budget, we know that they are coming.
We know they will be severe. Just today there is a report in the Wall
Street Journal outlining leaked information about these prospective
cuts.
I ask unanimous consent this article be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Bush's Budget Plan To Face Critics' Ire Over Environment

(By John D. McKinnon and Sarah Lueck)

Washington.--President Bush is likely to ignite more
controversy over his environmental policies with the release
next week of detailed budget plans including big cuts in
conservation and energy-efficiency programs.
Democratic strategists say that environmental issues are
fast becoming Mr. Bush's biggest political weak spot because
of their popularity with middle-class voters. Democrats and
their allies among environmental groups are planning to
highlight the cuts next week and again on April 22, Earth
Day.
``We expect the president's budget is going to be the next
big attack on the environment,'' said Alyssondra Campaigne of
the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Based on Mr. Bush's previously released budget outline,
environmentalists now estimate that he will propose cutting
environmental spending by 10%, including reductions at the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Energy and Interior
departments and the Army Corps of Engineers.
The Energy Department would endure the biggest cuts,
expected to total as much as $120 million, from research
programs that promote energy efficiency in manufacturing
processes, appliances and building design. The budget plan
also would cut as much as $150 million from the department's
programs for creating fossil-fuel-production technologies,
including some aimed at making oil wells and pipelines safer
for the environment.
Much of the savings would be used to beef up other programs
within the department, such as weatherization, home-heating
aid for the poor and clean-coal research.
Still, activities call the administration's cuts in energy
conservation perplexing, given that Mr. Bush has been
proclaiming an energy crisis. ``The programs that will
actually solve the problems, save consumers money and reduce
pollution are getting slashed by this administration,'' said
Anna Aurilio of U.S. PIRG, a consumer group.
An administration spokesman declined to provide details of
the cuts but said the targeted programs aren't necessarily
saving money. A White House official said the president's
budget ``reflects his support for energy conservation,
renewable energy and encouraging entrepreneurs to develop
alternative sources,'' and noted that it proposes significant
new tax incentives for energy production.
At the EPA, spending is being reduced by $500 million. Some
congressional aides also expect reductions in core funds that
pay for EPA enforcement activities, possibly as part of an
increase in grants to help states pay for enforcement.
The environment isn't the only area in which Mr. Bush is
taking some political heat. In health care, he is expected to
propose cutting some programs favored by the Clinton
administration, including a $125 million program that helps
uninsured people get treatment and one aimed at preventing
child abuse. But overall, programs designed to help abused
children and the uninsured will receive more funding,
officials at the Department of Health and Human Services
said.

Mr. CORZINE. This uncertainty aside, we do know this undercuts a
commitment the Congress made last year to support the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. This blueprint cuts conservation initiatives by $2.7
billion. That is in the blueprint.
Potentially most damaging, the Bush budget would undermine
enforcement of our environmental laws. It would require deep cuts in
the operating functions of our environmental agencies: the EPA,
Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

We just can't afford these cuts. If anything, we should be putting
more resources into enforcement not less. Consider EPA's own data from
just last month. They found that:
Twenty-six percent of industrial facilities were in significant
noncompliance with their clean air permits; Nearly 10 percent of
industrial facilities were in significant noncompliance with their
clear water permits; And 7 percent of industrial facilities were in
significant noncompliance with their hazardous waste permits.
When government lets polluters off the hook, all of us pay a price--
particularly those least able to protect themselves--our kids and
seniors.
The Bush administration has not been in office very long. But it has
done a lot of damage and a lot of damage to our environmental laws. And
it's time for them to reverse their course.
I hope my colleagues will support the amendment I am offering today.
It is really a very limited amendment. It simply would allow us to
barely maintain funding for environmental programs at today's levels.
Frankly, I think we should do substantially more. But I hope my
colleagues can support at least this, because it is protection of where
we are today.
The message of this amendment is simple. It says that it's more
important to keep our air and water clean than to give huge tax breaks
to the very wealthiest Americans. And it's more important to address
global warming than to give the top one percent of Americans a tax cut
worth $55,000 a year.
I think environmental priorities reflect the values of the American
people. I think they're the right priorities for our nation and world.
And I hope my colleagues will support the amendment and those values.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, does the Senator from Nevada or the
Senator from California seek time?
Mrs. BOXER. I yield to my colleague, the Senator from Nevada.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from
Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am the ranking member of the environment
committee, and I want to express my appreciation to the Senator from
New Jersey and the Senator from California who will soon speak on this
amendment.
In our committee, every Member on the Democratic side has been
extremely concerned about what has happened so far during the Bush
administration and what they have done to violate what we have worked
on for so long to take care of the environment, whether it is global
warming, whether it is arsenic, whether it is lead, or whether it is
drilling in ANWR. We need to understand that in our country--no matter
if you are from New Jersey or California and all the States in
between--people care about the environment. George Bush is a good man.
He is simply not getting the word that he is making tremendous mistakes
in how he is treating the environment.
The Senator from New Jersey has done an excellent job with this
amendment in restoring financing in the budget so we can do something
about the environment and to maintain the progress we have made.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from
California.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much. I thank my colleague from New
Jersey, Senator Corzine, and my ranking member, Senator Reid.
I stand in strong support of Senator Corzine's amendment. It isn't
rocket science to know a few things about our life. If we can't breathe
clean air, if we can't drink safe water, and if we can't count on the
Government to protect us from events that we cannot protect

[[Page S3483]]

ourselves against, then what use are we as a Senate?
If you take a look at the Republican budget that is before us, it is
a sad commentary on the value that they place on a clean and healthy
environment for our people. They can say whatever they want, but they
are at $52.5 billion, and they are going below the current level of
services.
Again, this President likes arsenic in the water. I don't know. He
will have to explain that to the American people. He took a move where
he was going to say we are not even going to check for salmonella in
the meat that goes to school lunches. Senator Durbin caught him on that
and now he backed off. He has also backed off on the right to know if
there is lead in a product, or in the air we breathe. I have to say
that is not a family value. That is not a value of a great nation.
Whether it is arsenic in our water or contaminants in our soil or
air, this amendment should be supported. It doesn't do us any good to
have a thousand dollars in our pocket if we are dying of cancer.

FOREST FIRE FUNDING

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, first, I commend my colleague, Senator
Corzine, for this amendment and indicate that I am very glad to be a
cosponsor of it. It is an important amendment. Second, I would like to
engage Senator Corzine in a brief colloquy at this time.
Mr. CORZINE. Of course.
Mr. BINGAMAN. The spring and summer of 2000 will not soon be
forgotten in my home state. A series of fires burned more than 65,000
acres in New Mexico, including the Cerro Grande fire that destroyed
more than 400 homes. As a result of these fires and others that raged
throughout the country, Congress took a step in the right direction
last year by providing substantial funding for fire prevention efforts.
In addition, Congress appropriated additional funds to implement the
National Fire Plan. This plan, issued by the Secretary of Agriculture
and the Secretary of the Interior, contains recommendations to reduce
the impacts of wildland fires on rural communities and ensure
sufficient firefighting resources in the future. I would like to
clarify that it is the Senator's intent that this amendment maintains,
at a minimum, current levels of funding for the National Fire Plan and
base fire programs.
Mr. CORZINE. Yes, that is my intent.
Mr. BINGAMAN. It is important to ensure sufficient levels of funding
for all programs related to the National Fire Plan. For example,
Congress specifically instructed the agencies to target hazardous fuel
reduction funds near communities that are at high risk from wildfire.
In addition, the Rural Fire Assistance program strengthens the wildland
fire protection capabilities of rural fire departments by providing
technical assistance, training, and supplies. Moreover, economic action
programs assist rural communities in developing and marketing products
created from the little trees removed as part of fuels reduction
efforts. Other cooperative fire protection programs, that provide
assistance for complementary hazardous fuels reduction projects on non-
Federal lands in the wildland/urban interface and educate homeowners
about the proper way to fire proof their homes, are also essential
elements of our cohesive efforts to diminish fire risks.
Mr. CORZINE. I agree with the Senator that a multi-faceted approach
is necessary.
Mr. BINGAMAN. We need to sustain a commitment to all components of
the National Fire Plan over a long enough period of time to make a
difference, at least 15 years based on recommendations from the Forest
Service and the Department of the Interior. Your amendment ensures that
Congress is doing its part with respect to fire prevention without
adversely affecting other important programs funded under Function 300.
I thank the Senator for the clarification.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I know Senators Bond and Mikulski are
ready to proceed under our previous arrangement. I say to Senator Bond
that he is going to have 10 minutes on his amendment. I would like to
take a couple of minutes now to explain something about the process,
but I don't want to take away from anybody else's time.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, if I could, I think Senator Mikulski and I
each wanted 5, and I think Senator Bingaman wanted 2, if we could
expand that to 12 minutes. Are there others?
Mr. DOMENICI. We will go 12. That is fine.
Mr. President, I want to make sure there is no misunderstanding. Just
because we are not offering a second-degree amendment, we are not
precluded from offering a second-degree amendment before we vote, from
everything I understand. If anybody on the other side has a contrary
reading, I wish they would raise that issue now.
Let me ask one simple question of the distinguished Senator from New
Jersey. Does this amendment take $100 billion out of the tax cut and
put $50 billion of it against the debt and $50 billion of it for
increased spending in various environmental areas?
Mr. CORZINE. It is $93.75 billion.
Mr. DOMENICI. I don't want anybody to think we round out those big
numbers. But sometimes we refer to $93.75 billion as a hundred.
Mr. CORZINE. We will check those numbers.
Mr. DOMENICI. We plan to have a second degree. We will have to work
on it in due course. But we will have a second-degree amendment to
that.
We don't have any formal agreement, excepting that a series of
Senators are going to be recognized--bipartisan or otherwise--to send
an amendment to the desk and talk about it and be limited to 15 minutes
so we can have enough time to get them all in. We are going to yield 12
minutes for your team.
Is that satisfactory?
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished manager.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Amendment No. 211

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I call up my amendment.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond], for himself, Ms.
Mikulski, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Allen, and Mr. Frist, proposes
an amendment numbered 211.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

On page 14, line 11, increase the amount by $1,441,000,000.
On page 14, line 12, increase the amount by $530,000,000.
On page 43, line 15, decrease the amount by $1,441,000,000.
On page 43, line 16, decrease the amount by $530,000,000.
On page 48, line 8, increase the amount by $1,441,000,000.
On page 48, line 9, increase the amount by $530,000,000.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering with my
colleagues, Senators Mikulski, Allen, Lieberman, and Bingaman proposes
to add $1.44 billion over the President's budget to the Function 250
general science account to boost spending in fiscal year 2002 for the
National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, and National
Aeronautics and Space Administration. Compared to the fiscal year 2001
enacted levels, this amendment would add $469 million to DOE's science
accounts, $674 million to NSF, and $518 million to NASA. This amendment
continues the Federal Government's strong commitment to the Nation's
basic science research programs. Let us make no mistake, basic science
means applied science, which is the foundation of this economy and will
be the booster rocket for the future success of our economy and allow
this Nation to lead the world in this century.

Of particular interest to me, this amendment maintains the momentum
to double the budget of NSF over 5 years. Under this amendment, NSF
would receive a 15.3 percent increase over last year's enacted level.
As chairman of the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations
Subcommittee, I began the doubling effort last year with my good friend
and colleague on the appropriations subcommittee, Senator Mikulski. We
are not alone and we have broad support for this funding. Last year, a
bipartisan group of 41 Senators also supported this effort and I expect
even

[[Page S3484]]

more direct and enthusiastic support this year. NSF plays an important
and unique role in stimulating core disciplines of science,
mathematics, and engineering and doubling the NSF budget will help
ensure that the economic growth we have enjoyed over the past several
years will continue.
I think we can all agree that research and development is a positive
and critical investment for the economic and intellectual growth and
well-being of our Nation. According to many economists, over the past
half century, advances in science and engineering have stimulated at
least half of the Nation's economic growth. Further, investment in
scientific research has led to innovative developments in the high-tech
industry--most notably the Internet and lasers. The investments have
also spawned not only new products, but also entire industries, such as
biotechnology, Internet providers, E-commerce, and geographic
information systems.
Besides the economic benefits we have enjoyed from our investment in
NSF's research programs, NSF has also played a crucial role in the
biomedical area. Over the past half century, NSF-supported research has
had monumental impact in the field of medical technologies and
research. Let me make it clear that I am very supportive of the funding
support we have provided to the National Institutes of Health. However,
I am very concerned that the work that NIH is doing currently may be
jeopardized if the underlying work from NSF research is not adequately
supported. Medical technologies such as magnetic resonance imaging,
ultrasound, digital mammography and genomic mapping could not have
occurred, and cannot now improve to the next level of proficiency,
without underlying knowledge from NSF-supported work in biology,
physics, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, and computer sciences.
Thus, the success of NIH to cure deadly diseases such as cancer depend
upon the underpinning research supported by NSF. The connection between
NSF and NIH has been recognized by leading medical experts such as
former NIH Directors, Bernadine Healy and Harold Varmus. As Dr. Varmus
wrote in a letter to me last June 26:

Essential contributions to both genome sequencing and
determination of protein structures have come from work
supported by the NSF, and efforts to take advantage of this
new information will require expanded activity in disciplines
traditionally dependent on the NSF--including computer
science, chemistry, physics, and engineering. Indeed, from
the perspective of a medical scientist, there could be no
more opportune time to guarantee the vitality of American
science funded by the NSF.

Let me add on more voice, Dr. Kenneth Shine of the Institute of
Medicine. Dr. Shine wrote:

. . . it is important to note that advances in medicine are
very dependent upon other fields of science that are mostly
supported by the National Science Foundation . . . . doubling
of the NSF budget will pay for itself many times over in
terms of saving costs, and, more importantly, improving human
health.
To be blunt, supporting NSF supports NIH.
Beyond just the biomedical field, the Senate should also be concerned
about our Nation's supply of engineers and scientists. For the past
several years, the number of graduates in the science and engineering
fields has been declining. This decline has put our Nation's innovation
capabilities at risk and at risk of falling behind other industrial
nations. In the past decade, growth in the number of Asian and European
students earning degrees in the natural sciences and engineering has
gone up on average by four percent per year. During the same time, the
rate for U.S. students declined on average by nearly one percent each
year.
NSF plays a key role in funding the training of the nation's young
researchers in university laboratories. Twenty thousand graduate
students and nearly 30,000 undergraduates are directly involved in NSF
programs and activities every year.
However, as many of my colleagues know, the Congress has had to raise
the cap on H1-B visas for immigrant workers due to the shortage of
technically-trained workers in this country. The high-tech industry has
had to turn to foreign workers because our country is not producing
enough scientists and engineers to meet demand. According to NSF, the
demand for engineers and computer scientists is expected to grow by
more than 50 percent by 2008. While NSF has been active in addressing
this problem, it is obvious that it is not enough and we need to
provide more support to our Nation's students. I hope my colleagues
understand why this amendment is so critical. If we do not support NSF,
this problem will continue and our Nation's long-term economic growth
and research innovation will be significantly hampered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 4 minutes.
Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair.
I hope my colleagues will support this important amendment and our
efforts to strengthen the country's research and development base. It
is important to recognize that if we are to sustain our economic base
and support the important work of NIH, we must support NSF.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I am going to use the last bit of my time to tell my colleagues that
I have another amendment at the desk, No. 210, which we will be calling
up in the vote-arama. It is cosponsored by Senators Hollings and
DeWine.
Yesterday, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to add to the President's
generous proposal for NIH research spending. I hope we get an
overwhelming vote for this one, too. It does two things.
First, it adds to the President's proposal on community health
centers. Like NIH, the Senate is on record supporting double funding
over 5 years for health centers, and like the NIH amendment yesterday,
my amendment would put us on track to double the funding for health
centers.
Second, the amendment would make room in the budget to finally
provide equitable treatment for children's hospitals when it comes to
our support of physician training programs. They have not received
enough money to train the pediatricians they need. This year, our goal
is to end this inequity finally.
The amendment we will be calling up later will provide enough room in
the budget to make these things happen. When that amendment comes up, I
ask my colleagues to support that one as well.
I thank the Chair and my colleague. I yield the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Before yielding to Senator Mikulski, may I ask the
Senator a question?
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I would be happy to respond to the
distinguished manager.
Mr. DOMENICI. May we have order, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. DOMENICI. May I ask the Senator: The other part of the Government
that has basic science research is the Department of Energy. I
understand that you included that in the triad. We have done NSF and
the National Institutes of Health. You have added for the National
Science Foundation and added $469 million for DOE basic research. Is
that correct?
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the total amount of funding goes into
section 250. I say to the Senator, $1.44 billion goes into section 250.
As I understand it, how that gets sliced up is probably beyond the
ability of this particular budget debate to determine. It will
ultimately come down, I believe, to a 302(b) allocation. But my
recommendation is that the vitally important work of DOE be funded with
an additional $469 million out of this function.
There is another function--I believe it is 270--that also funds
science.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Will the Chair inform us how much time remains on both
sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland has 5 minutes.
Senator Bingaman has 2 minutes.
The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise as an original cosponsor of this
amendment with my dear colleague, Senator Bond, to increase the
function 250 for general science.
Our amendment seeks to increase funding for science by $1.4 billion
by

[[Page S3485]]

doubling the funding for the National Science Foundation, increasing
the NASA budget by $500 million, as well as the Department of Energy
funds.
This has strong bipartisan support. We are joined by Senators
Lieberman and Rockefeller on my side of the aisle.
Why is it this issue enjoys such strong bipartisan support?
Both sides of the aisle--Senator Kit Bond and Senator Barbara
Mikulski--want to make sure that America not only continues to win the
Nobel Prizes but that we win the global markets. In order to do so, we
need to invest in our Federal labs to create the new ideas that lead to
the new products that lead to us winning those prizes and their
markets. We are so proud of the fact we are on target to double the
funding at NIH. But NIH is not the only place where we need to increase
our funding for science and technology.
Our amendment pays for this increase through a $1.4 billion reduction
in the proposed contingency fund. This offset does not cut any existing
program or agency. Unfortunately, the President's budget cuts NSF
research below last year's appropriated level. The President's budget
also proposes similar cuts in real terms to NASA and the Department of
Energy research programs. This is unacceptable. While we are on target
to increase biomedical research at NIH, we must also increase funding
in the core areas of science and engineering--the same disciplines that
fuel the very biomedical enterprise we seek to strengthen. CAT Scans
and MRI's were created by NSF research--not NIH research.
As the former head of NIH, Dr. Harold Varmus, said:

Scientists can wage an effective war on disease only if we
as a nation and as a scientific community harness the
energies of many disciplines, not just biology and medicine.
The allies must include mathematicians, physicists, engineers
and computer and behavioral scientists.

Because it is at NSF, NASA, and also DOE that we are supporting basic
science that saves lives and generates jobs today and jobs tomorrow.
NASA and NSF made the major innovations in the Internet, satellites,
and microelectronics. If it were not for federally funded research,
none of this would exist today.
But supporting basic scientific research is not just about saving
lives, it is also about creating the jobs of tomorrow. Federal funding
for basic scientific research is absolutely necessary for economic
growth and job creation. I couldn't even begin to list the technologies
and inventions that were created through Federal research, but I will
name just a few: the Internet, satellites, and microelectronics. If it
weren't for federally funded research, none of this would exist today.
The private sector will always be focused on near-term product
development--that is what they have to do. But that allows the
Government to focus on long-term basic research to provide industry
with the foundation for future product development and future job
creation for our country. Mr. President, we are on the verge of
historic breakthroughs in science and technology that will
revolutionize our economy. Nanotechnology is just one area that could
transform our economy. Nanotechnology is the science of creating new
materials and devices at the atomic and molecular levels, through the
manipulation of individual atoms and molecules.
What does this mean? It means inventing new materials that are 10
times stronger than steel--at a fraction of the weight. It means
supercomputers the size of a teardrop. It means new sensors that can
detect cancer cells at the earliest stages of development.
Unfortunately, we may not see the pay-off for 10 or 20 years. Industry
on its own cannot support such high risk, long term research. That is
why the Federal Government must support long term basic scientific
research. For evidence, just look at recent history. The United States
had led the world in patenting considered a critical measure of
innovation. Entrepreneurial investment in new technologies and services
created an estimated one-third of the 10 million new jobs between 1990
and 1997. Since 1995, growth in gross domestic product per capita
reached its highest levels in 40 years.
We cannot afford to stop now. That is why this amendment is
necessary. Not only do we need to increase funding for research, we
need to rebuild our research infrastructure.
According to NSF, there is an $11 billion backlog in modernizing
university research labs and research facilities. How can we push the
frontiers of new technology if our laboratories aren't ready? We are
seeing a decrease in the numbers of graduates in key science and
engineering fields. This puts our future innovation capabilities at
risk. We must work to expand the pool of U.S. scientists and engineers
by increasing support for K-12 math and science education. We must
increase support for the education and training at our 2 year colleges,
undergraduate institutions and research universities. Our international
competitors won't stand still, and neither can we. With all that is
confronting us, now is precisely the wrong time to cut funding for
scientific research.
I urge all my colleagues to join us by supporting this amendment as a
necessary and critical investment in the future well being of the
Nation.
Mr. President, yesterday I had a great talk with Dr. Sally Ride, the
first woman to go into space. When she went into space, she took the
hopes and dreams of so many of us. Dr. Ride holds degrees in both
English literature as well as astrophysics. If Dr. Ride were here today
to consult with the Senators, she would say she could do what she did
because of the funding of the National Science Foundation that helped
her get the background to be able to go on to be an astronaut. And look
at what it has meant.
Our own National Science Foundation today is leading a breakthrough
effort in a new field called nanotechnology. It could transform our
economy. It is the science of creating new materials at the atomic and
subatomic level.
But what does that mean to those of us who are scientifically
literate but not scientists? It means a supercomputer the size of a
teardrop, new materials that are 10 times stronger than steel at a
fraction of the weight. Think what it means for new materials for our
airplanes and our automobiles.
Unfortunately, we will not see this payoff for 10 or 20 years.
Industry cannot be the venture capitalists in this area. Government
needs to get into it. By getting involved in nanotechnology and
infotech technology, we are really taking America to the future. We
lead the world in patenting and innovation.
Since 1995, our gross domestic product has increased more. Why?
Because of innovation that has led to new products and new
productivity. So we really need to focus our research on what will
generate this type of activity.
At the same time, while we are looking at the funding of research,
there is an $11 billion backlog in modernizing university research labs
and research facilities. How can we push these frontiers of new
technology if our laboratories are not ready? This program will help
with those laboratories.
I think all here know of my passion for bringing often left out
constituencies into science and technology--women, people of color.
It is the National Science Foundation that reaches out to bring them
into the field of science, mathematics, and engineering. The NSF has
done a fantastic job reaching out to historically black colleges and to
women. At the same time we see, particularly with some of the NIH money
that doesn't necessarily come to States with large rural populations,
EPSCoR, an excellent program at NSF that brings high-tech research
opportunities to our smaller rural States, that enables them to come up
with the new ideas and maybe even jump start efforts of the stodgy
universities. This is the competition we love. It is the competition of
ideas, the competition for new products.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator
from New Mexico has 2 minutes.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank the sponsors of the amendment
for the opportunity to speak on its behalf. I am a cosponsor of the
amendment. I believe very strongly that it is the right thing to do. Of
course, it does not actually get the money appropriated for these very
important purposes, but it does make it possible for us to do that
later in this session of the Congress.
We have seen a commitment over several years now by the Congress to

[[Page S3486]]

adequately fund the National Institutes of Health. I have strongly
supported that. But we have not seen the same level of commitment, the
same level of appreciation for the importance of maintaining high
levels of funding for research and development in the physical sciences
area. That is what this amendment would do. It would try to bring
funding for research and development in the physical sciences on a par
with the funding for the research and development that is pursued in
the life sciences through the National Institutes of Health.
This is an extremely important effort, particularly as it relates to
the Department of Energy's Office of Science, their commitment to
developing the necessary user facilities across the Nation in two
critical areas. One is the nanosciences that have been mentioned by the
Senator from Maryland. The second is in advanced scientific computers.
In both of these areas, we need to be the world leader. There is no
reason we cannot be. In both of these areas we need to commit funds in
order to maintain that leadership position.
I strongly support the amendment. I commend the sponsors of the
amendment for proposing it and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New
Mexico for his kind comments as well as the strong comments of the
Senator from Maryland.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished chairman of
the Budget Committee be identified as an original cosponsor. It was my
mistake not to include him on that list.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator withhold?
Mr. CONRAD. I am pleased to withhold for the Senator.
Mr. DOMENICI. While we are waiting, I yield myself 1 minute off the
conglomeration of amendments. We won't exceed our time on those.
I take a minute to respond to the distinguished Senator from
California who talked about our President and his environmental record.
I want to make sure everybody out there in the hinterlands knows that
the Senate had an opportunity to vote on whether it would ever enforce
the so-called Kyoto accord. Not one single Senator voted that we would,
indeed, enforce that accord. The vote was either 99-0 or 98-0,
indicating forthrightly that the treaty would never see the light of
day because the Senate said it wouldn't.
I believe we ought to be square with this President and be honest
with the people. How can he be blamed for doing damage to the
environment when the Senate clearly said, with not a single dissenting
vote, that we would not enforce it? If we wouldn't enforce it, it would
never be effective. It would have no efficacy on the environment of the
world or America.
When our President announced that, somebody should have put a little
scorecard up there that said: The President agrees with the Senate,
which voted 98-0 that it would not enforce that accord.
On arsenic, which the Senator from California addressed, there are
Democratic mayors across this land who have written to the Senator from
New Mexico. I don't know very many who supported the old arsenic
regulation because it was nonscientific and was not based on any real
science. It wasn't only this President. Democratic mayors and
councilmen joined by Republicans across the land said: Don't make us
spend all this money when there is no benefit to the public health.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from
Louisiana.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished ranking member,
Senator Conrad, for his skill in managing our presentation from this
side on the budget.
I rise to make some comments in general terms but directing my
comments to the amendment I introduced today on behalf of myself and
Senators Nelson, Landrieu, Carnahan, Chafee, Lincoln, Bayh, Torricelli,
and Jeffords. The amendment provides for a $1.25 trillion tax cut over
the next 10 years for the enactment of marginal rate reductions and
estate, marriage penalty, and alternative minimum tax relief, and
reserves additional resources for other domestic priorities such as
debt reduction, education, agriculture, defense, and prescription
drugs. That is the essence of the amendment.
Let me suggest to my colleagues and, indeed, to the American public,
that during the Presidential elections of last year, the most important
thing President Bush was able to enunciate for the American people who
contributed to his victory was not a number but a concept. The number
he talked about in the campaign was a $1.3 trillion tax cut for all
Americans. But more important than the number was the concept in which
he told the American people that if he were to come to Washington, he
wanted to change the culture of the way Washington worked or, rather,
the way Washington did not work.
He said--I think correctly--that the American people were tired of
class warfare. The American people were tired of the blame game. The
American people were tired of seeing Democrats blame Republicans for
failure. The American people were tired of Republicans blaming
Democrats for failure. The American people were tired of the blame game
and the essence in which we argued about failure and whose fault it was
that nothing was getting done.
He said: If I get the chance to come to Washington, I will change
that culture.
The election was not about a number. It was about changing
fundamentally the way we do business in this city.
On this budget, we have the opportunity to show the American people
that perhaps there is a glimmer of hope, that perhaps with a new
President in Washington, if he truly believes, as I think he does, that
he wants to change the culture, this is the first test of whether that
will be done.
If you took to the American people a tax cut of over a trillion
dollars for all Americans and you were able to put together a
bipartisan coalition of 55, 60, 65 or more votes together in a package
and say, we have worked together to accomplish this in a bipartisan
fashion, we have fundamentally changed the way Washington works, that
would be a victory for this President. It would be a victory for the
Senate and, far more importantly, it would be a victory for the
American public.
Let me assure my colleagues of one thing: This body is not the Super
Bowl. This body is not the Final Four. In both of those endeavors there
has to be a winner and there has to be a loser. I suggest that in the
Congress of the United States that is not true. In the Congress of the
United States it is far more important that we keep in mind that we
should be trying to make the American people the real winners. It is
not as important which party wins, but that both parties can work
together in order to make a victory available to the people of this
country.
I suggest we have an opportunity to do that, and unlike with the
Super Bowl and the Final Four, everyone can be a winner and there can
be no losers. It is time that we stop thinking that any number under
$1.6 trillion is a loss for the President and a victory for the
Democrats. That is simply not true. A number in between what Democrats
have offered and what the Republicans have offered that is available to
all Americans, that receives a substantial degree of support from both
sides, is an incredible victory. It is an incredible victory not
because it is a number but because we will have changed fundamentally
the culture of this city.
It does not behoove any of us to try to pick one Republican off to
join this side and for them to try to pick one Democrat off to join
them on that side. If the American people see that that is the way
Washington works in the year 2001, they will say the last Presidential
election meant very little because of all the talk about change in the
culture, and we ultimately get back to the

[[Page S3487]]

same old way of doing things. We pick up one, they pick up two; we pick
up one, we get a 50-50 tie; and then we bring down the Vice President
to break the tie and one side declares victory.
In essence, I think that is a short-term, shallow victory. In
essence, I think it would be a serious defeat for all Americans who
think we should change the culture of the way this institution works.
We have offered something that I think could be a victory for everyone.
We have offered a plan that should bring about serious negotiations,
where we all sit together and not try to pick each other off, but we
try to create a system that works for the benefit of all Americans.
What is not a victory is trying to pick each other off one at a time,
with one more promise than the last group made, to try to say: Be with
me for a short while so I can go to the winner's circle and be declared
the victor.
We have an opportunity in this divided Congress--a President who won
the electoral college but not the popular vote, a House of
Representatives that is closer than it has been in decades, and a U.S.
Senate that, for only the second time in our country's history, is
absolutely deadlocked--that should not be a problem. That should be an
opportunity. It should be the opportunity that this President talked
about when he was running: ``If I am elected and I go to Washington, I
will fundamentally change the culture of that city.''
This is the first test of whether we are going to change it. This is
the first opportunity to show the American people that things will be
done differently.
For all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have joined
with us in offering this, I think this is the answer to the deadlock in
which we are involved. I thank them for their participation. I
encourage all of my colleagues to work with us to ensure not just one
party's victory but a victory for the American public.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Nebraska.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor
of the Breaux-Nelson-Jeffords, et al., bipartisan tax cut plan. This
compromise is the result of careful consideration of the two
philosophies dominating the tax cut debate today. The first was the
belief that the $750 billion tax cut was not sufficient, considering
the size of our projected surplus. Yet the second was that the $1.6
trillion tax cut could negatively impact programs in agriculture and
defense, which are so important to the people of America and the people
of Nebraska.
To put it another way, this legislation was written with one specific
goal in mind: to cut taxes without cutting hope, and to do so in a
bipartisan manner. We have worked deliberately toward that end, and I
am pleased to stand here today and help introduce a tax cut package
that will, in fact, achieve that goal.
In this plan we have included a $1.25 trillion tax cut proposal, and
we put $350 billion back into the surplus so it can be used for
increased debt reduction and the programs that are vital to the future
of our industry, such as agriculture, defense, education, and a
prescription drug benefit.
Acknowledging the discrepancy between the two plans offered today for
consideration gives us the chance to negotiate our partisan differences
on the tax cut. I believe quite strongly that the Breaux-Nelson-
Jeffords, et al., plan is an excellent starting point for this
discussion.
I have had the privilege of working with the President back in the
days when I was Governor Nelson and he was Governor Bush. So I am
familiar with the bipartisan efforts he undertook in the State of
Texas. We both campaigned on the premise that we would reach across
party lines to find sensible solutions to the Nation's most pressing
issues. With this bipartisan proposal on the table, the President and
the White House have the opportunity to demonstrate their negotiating
skills and their desire to work together to achieve an ideological
conclusion that is based not on partisanship, but is based on
partnership.
Persuading one or two Democrats to vote with 48 or 49 Republicans
doesn't, in my opinion, constitute bipartisanship. However, sitting
down and working out our differences to establish a constructive
alternative does, in fact, constitute bipartisanship.
On the surface, this legislation is about the tax cut, but it is also
about much more than a tax cut. This bill is about changing the
partisan tenor in Washington. And when we can successfully negotiate
with the people at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, as well as with
colleagues on either side of the table, we will be taking a step in the
right direction. I am confident that if we work together, we will in
fact reduce our differences, and we will also in fact reduce taxes; but
we will not reduce our hopes and our dreams or those of others.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from Nebraska. He
has been an exceptional addition to the Senate. He comes to us as a
very distinguished former Governor, and he has made a great
contribution to this debate in the Senate. I want to say that we
welcome him, and we are so pleased that he has played this constructive
role.
Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, at some point, the division of this
Senate on the issue of a tax reduction proposal must end. We must find
some moment where there is a bipartisan approach that both protects our
resources to deal with education and health care initiatives, but also
has meaningful tax reduction. This can be that moment.
I join with Senator Breaux because I believe we have found a
reasonable compromise that is bipartisan--a $1.25 trillion tax
reduction that lowers rates, offers real relief to middle-income
families, but also protects enough resources to deal with our
education, prescription drugs, and other family needs.
We have been told in recent months that there is a false choice. We
can either deal with these problems or we can provide tax relief, but
most assuredly we cannot do both. With this proposal, we achieve both
by doing each modestly.

I have in the past indicated my belief that I could support a $1.6
trillion tax reduction as proposed by President Bush. Indeed, if
required to do so, at some point I might vote for it, but surely this
is the better path--not a tax reduction of 51 votes, no Vice President
breaking a tie to decide upon a major national initiative that will
decide the basic fiscal parameters of this Government for the next
decade. This, a bipartisan plan that is affordable, protects the
surplus and allows for a variety of other initiatives.
This is the most important part of the plan because while these are
good times in America, they are not perfect times; and while the
economy has been strong, it is now troubled.
In the last few years, we began an effort to hire 100,000 teachers;
50,000 remain to be hired to complete the program to reduce class size
in America to 18 because we know it is the one variable that does the
most to improve the quality of education.
Under the plan I offer with Senator Breaux, this initiative can
proceed. I am not certain it can with a larger tax cut program.
The Nation is living through a virtual revolution of technology with
prescription medications prolonging life and helping the quality of
life. Yet 15 million Americans have no access to prescription drugs.
They are a vital part of their quality of life.
This plan leaves enough resources to write a realistic prescription
drug program. Were it larger, I am not certain that would be possible.
I hope Members of the Senate will look carefully at what Senator
Breaux has offered today, our first chance at a bipartisan product to
move toward meaningful tax reduction and a balanced program. I am
sympathetic with the need to reduce taxes and reduce them substantially
and immediately. I do not think a nation at peace, in relatively good
economic times, should be taking 28 or 30 percent of the incomes of
middle-income families. Indeed, 39 percent of the income of any
American family should not be expected in peacetime and in relatively
good times.
That is exactly what we are asking of the American people. The
average per capita tax in America is $6,300. In my State of New Jersey,
it is an astounding $9,400 per person. For a middle-income family, that
is money the Federal Government should not expect because the Federal
Government does not need

[[Page S3488]]

it. That is money that should be going to educate children, feed them,
house them, to deal with family security and emergencies and savings.
That is the better use of these resources.
I believe that meaningful tax reduction in an economy of this size,
with these emerging surpluses, can allow for dramatic tax reduction on
this scale.
Senator Breaux has offered a meaningful beginning to writing that tax
reduction and providing that relief. I am proud to join with him.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey once
again for a powerful and persuasive presentation.
Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Connecticut if he seeks time.
Mr. DODD. I do, Mr. President.
Mr. CONRAD. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, my amendment is currently being crafted, and
I have been in discussion with the distinguished chairman of the Budget
Committee. I will explain what the amendment is and then I will offer
it shortly.
I will be offering this amendment on behalf of myself and several of
my colleagues: Senators Wellstone, Clinton, Bingaman, Corzine, Murray,
Landrieu, Lincoln, Rockefeller, Dayton, and Durbin.
This amendment ensures that critical children's programs will be
protected from harmful cuts. President Bush, as we all know, campaigned
on the promise to leave no child behind. If we heard it once, we heard
it a thousand times during the campaign. Those of us who took this
President at his word were dismayed, to put it mildly, by the news 2
weeks ago that he intends to pay for the tax cut by cutting programs
affecting children's health, children's hospitals, child care, and
child abuse prevention treatment programs.
His actions certainly beg the question: When he pledged to leave no
child behind, which children did he mean? Not abused and neglected
children apparently because he would cut funding for child abuse by 18
percent.
Yesterday I attended a wonderful program sponsored by Child Help USA,
a national group supporting programs to eliminate child abuse in this
country. I was pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the
program. The luncheon was co-hosted by the distinguished wife of our
majority leader and my wife. We had speakers from the House and the
Senate, as well as many experts from across the country who are
involved in child abuse prevention. Groups like Child Help USA, serving
the needs of abused and neglected children throughout the nation,
deserve our utmost support. The amendment that I offer today is a step
in the direction of providing that support.
What we are doing with this amendment is seeing to it that the level
of funding for child abuse at the very least remains the same and we do
not have an 18-percent cut in that program, as called for in President
Bush's budget.
More than 800,000 children are the victims of child abuse each year.
Certainly an 18-percent cut in that program can be devastating for
these very worthwhile efforts.
Children's hospitals is a second issue addressed by this amendment.
These hospitals train more than 25 percent of our Nation's
pediatricians and more than 50 percent of the country's pediatric
specialists. A $35 million cut in that program which trains
pediatricians and pediatric specialists is surely a move in the wrong
direction. The most critically ill children in our country are at these
children's hospitals, and seeing to it they get the proper assistance
and support is critically important.
The third issue addressed by my amendment is the restoration of the
$20 million cut in the early learning programs contained in President
Bush's budget. These early learning programs were sponsored by our
colleague from Alaska, Senator Stevens, and our colleague from
Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy. I believe the early learning program is
certainly worthwhile, and it has to be restored. My amendment will
restore this cut.
Lastly, as many of my colleagues know, child care is a very important
program to our nation's children and families. Last year, this body,
along with the other body, increased funding for child care. Under the
President's proposal, child care would be cut by $200 million which is
a major step in the wrong direction. Given the needs of children who
are on waiting lists for child care and of working families who need
help in paying for the cost of child care, child care funding is
vitally important. Mr. President, in Texas, 41,000 children are on the
waiting list for child care assistance, in Florida, 44,000;
Mississippi, 15,000; 16,000 in Massachusetts; 14,000 in North Carolina.
Yet if the proposed cuts went into place, 60,000 more families with
young children and toddlers would be denied child care assistance under
the child care development block grant that was authored by my
colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, and myself. We think the
restoration to present levels of funding is the very least we can do as
we enter the 21st century with the established need for well-trained
pediatricians, good early learning programs, adequately dealing with
child abuse, and providing at least the same level of funding for child
care assistance in this country.

We are told all the reasons we need to have a tax cut of this size,
but to do that, it seems to me, the cost of cutting into programs for
the most needy people in our society--children in children's hospitals,
children who are abused, children who need early learning programs--is
too high a price to pay for tax relief. To say we cannot provide some
reduction in that tax cut, where the bulk of it is still going to those
who can afford these programs the most, to provide some assistance to
these children and these families is something for which this body I
believe does not want to be on record.
This is not an increase. I stress to my colleagues, I am not asking
for that. I will, however, at some point. Today all I am asking for is
the restoration of last year's funding levels. That is all--child
abuse, child care, and pediatric care, along with early learning
programs that Senator Stevens and Senator Kennedy have championed, do
not deserve these cuts. All I am asking for with this amendment is that
we--at the very minimum--provide the same level of funding we provided
just last year. While I surely support adding to these levels, and will
work toward boosting funding as we move into the appropriation's
process, the amendment I offer today simply restores cuts to these
vital programs contained in President Bush's budget. Don't make cuts in
these programs at the same time we are offering a substantial tax break
for those I know who like it, but many of them would agree that their
money could be better invested in programs that serve vulnerable
children and families.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut
for his amendment. I thank him for his passion for children. I am very
proud to be an original cosponsor of this amendment. I thank my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if indeed they support this
amendment. To cut funding for a program that would help with prevention
of child abuse, to cut funding for child care, little children, to cut
funding for training for doctors at some of our children's hospitals
where you have some of the sickest children is no way to realize the
goal of leaving no child behind.
This amendment restores funding. There will be a number of Senators
fighting for more funding for investment in children, especially
prekindergarten, little children. This is a good amendment. I thank my
colleague from Connecticut. I am proud to be a supporter.
Mr. DODD. We are talking about a very modest amount of money. We
Members have been talking about billions of dollars yesterday and
today. This amendment does not even get near the $1 billion figure.
While we regularly talk of billions and trillion of dollars around here
as if they don't count much, they surely count if you have a child in a
children's hospital needing help, if you are a parent trying to afford
child care and you are working, if you have seen what happens to
children that are abused. The millions of dollars that this
amendment will restore, while not the billions we usually

[[Page S3489]]

talk about, can make a huge difference to a family with a sick child or
in need of child care. Sixty thousand children could be positively
affected by keeping the funding level for child care, not to mention
the thousands of kids who need the help in our children's hospitals for
pediatric care, and not to mention the abused and neglected children
that would benefit from this amendment.

I hope that the request that I am making to my colleagues on the
Budget Committee with this amendment will find some room in their
hearts to at least keep the playing field level for children and
families that need our help. If we reduce the tax cut by this tiny
amount, it will not cause any great damage to other people. These
programs are deserving. The American public believes that children who
are sick and need care, abused kids, deserve to get help.
I urge adoption of this amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. If the Senator will modify the amendment so the money
is taken out of the contingency fund instead of the tax cut it will be
passed. Otherwise, we will have to wait and see what we can do.
I will take a minute in response to the Senators who spoke for a tax
number considerably lower than the President's. I heard the number was
$1.25 trillion. I heard both of the Senators on the other side, led by
Senator Breaux, say we ought to have a bipartisan approach. The
President came to town and they are quite sure this is what he would
like because it is bipartisan.
I remind everybody what I am willing to do as chairman of the Budget
Committee, to make sure the Senate understands--each and every Senator
and those who report for them--we are asking for the President's
proposal. I have heard him now more than 10 times clarify this. They
ask him: What about $1.25 trillion, Mr. President? What about $1.4
trillion, Mr. President? Of course he is good-natured; he listens and
he says: I think that is too low. I think that is too low. They ask for
a higher amount because some want more than 1.6, and he says that is
too high and 1.6 is just about right.
Those who are suggesting they are doing what the President is seeking
when they are asking for $1.25 trillion instead of $1.6 trillion, that
is their proposal. That is not the President's proposal. It may be they
will prevail and we won't get the President's proposal.
I want everybody to know that is my brief response to the two or
three speeches made on the other side of the aisle, led by the
distinguished senior Senator from Louisiana, the junior Senator from
Nebraska, and the senior Senator from New Jersey.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in
advocating passage of the Bond and Mikulski amendment on science and
technology research funding. This amendment recognizes the critical
importance of Federal science and technology funding in expanding the
frontiers of science and laying the groundwork for economic success.
The Bond-Mikulski amendment will increase the funding for the
National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy's R&D activities,
and NASA. Importantly, the increase to NSF would return us to a path to
double that agency's funding over the next five years. I have worked
for many years with Senators Frist, Lieberman and others on the Federal
Research Investment Act, which would double federal funding government-
wide for science and technology research. That bill has passed the
Senate twice, but has yet to become law. This year I hope that it will
pass both Houses and become law. This amendment contributes to that
larger overall effort by maintaining our funding trajectory for several
agencies for the current budget. The Federal Research Investment Act is
still necessary to reach our goal on the larger group of agencies that
together represent our nation's overall commitment to federal science
support, and to ensure that funding will be adequate over a longer time
period.
Senators Bond, Mikulski, Frist, Lieberman, and I are not alone in our
call for more substantial funding for science and technology research.
The House Science Committee, CEOs of our high technology companies,
Presidents of our leading universities, our top scientists and
economists, and representatives of labor organizations have all made it
clear that Congress must make significantly higher long-term
investments in science and technology research. Congressional failure
to appropriate more funding for science and technology research will
threaten America's competitive advantage in information technology,
biotechnology, health science, new materials, and other critical
technology-intensive fields. As we all know, many of our best economic
thinkers, including Alan Greenspan, MIT economist Lester Thurow, and
Harvard Business School professor Michael Porter, have asserted that
our country's leadership in these areas is a critical ingredient for
future economic success.
This amendment gives us a chance to make an important investment in
our country's future and to lay the groundwork for continued American
high-tech leadership. I urge my colleagues to heed our high-tech,
academic, and labor leaders' call to action on federal R&D support and
work together to pass this important amendment.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor this
amendment offered by Senators Bond and Mikulski to increase funding
authorization for Function 250. Studies have shown that roughly half of
the economic growth in the past 50 years is a direct result of
technological innovation; science, engineering, and technology play a
central role in the creation of new goods and services, new jobs and
new capital. Three of the greatest generators of innovative ideas, The
National Science Foundation, NASA, and the Department of Energy,
receive significant budget increases in this amendment, reaffirming our
nation's commitment to achieving advances in science and technology.
This commitment to research and development is also imperative for
training the next generation of scientists and engineers. Reductions in
R&D translate to reductions in the number of students trained in
technical disciplines. In short, strong support for federally-funded
R&D is crucial to continued economic and technological success for our
Nation.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to indicate my strong support for
the amendment offered by Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski that would
increase the amount of funding available for scientific research at the
National Science Foundation, NASA and the Department of Energy by $1.4
billion.
Our nation's capacity for groundbreaking scientific research is one
of its greatest assets. Scientific research strengthens our economy,
improves our international competitiveness and raises the quality of
life for all of our citizens. President Bush's 2002 budget, however,
will retard our nation's investment into such research. For example, it
virtually freezes funding for the National Science Foundation, NSF,
cutting facility project funding by $13 million, and providing no
funding for new projects. Such cuts threaten to throw our country's
research portfolio out of balance by not providing for needed advances
in the physical sciences and engineering.
Science is a bipartisan issue. A recent Wall Street Journal article
reported that to pay for his tax cut, ``President Bush is having to
chop another Republican priority: increased government spending for
science.'' D. Allen Bromley, a professor of nuclear physics at Yale and
science and technology advisor to former President George H. W. Bush,
recently wrote, ``the proposed cuts by the Bush Administration to
scientific research are a self-defeating policy. Congress must increase
the federal investment in science. No science, no surplus. It's that
simple.'' Even Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has been reported as
calling the President's NSF budget ``a tragic mistake,'' stating it
``should be $11 billion'' instead of $4.5 billion.
Earlier this year, a blue-ribbon panel of physicists recommended a
site in my state of South Dakota, the Homestake Gold Mine, as its
preferred location for a world class underground physics lab. Last
year, the Homestake Mining Company announced it will close its doors
this December after more than 125 years of operation. The mine has been
the economic mainstay of the Black Hills of South Dakota, and its
closure

[[Page S3490]]

would have a devastating effect on the surrounding communities.
Converting the mine into a world-class research facility holds great
promise for the scientific community at large and would minimize the
disruption the mine's closure will have on the region. With an
underground laboratory, hundreds of new jobs would be created, business
would expand, and new opportunities for growth and learning would
abound.
If Homestake is selected as the site for a national underground
science laboratory, it is imperative for the project to be funded this
year. Unless construction begins this year, Homestake Mining Company
will allow the mine shafts to flood when the mine closes, permanently
foreclosing any chance of building the lab at Homestake. Moreover, the
longer we delay, the more likely it is that the mine's workforce will
leave, crippling our ability to construct the lab.
The Bond/Mikulski amendment will greatly enhance the prospects that
valuable scientific ventures like the national underground physics
laboratory will secure the government support needed to make them
viable. I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Amendment No. 322

Mr. DODD. I call up amendment No. 322.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd] proposes an
amendment numbered 322.

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

(Purpose: To increase discretionary funding for Early Learning, Child
Care Development Block Grant, Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment, and
Pediatric GME programs)

On page 2, line 17, increase the amount by $1,163,000,000.
On page 2, line 18, increase the amount by $1,498,000,000.
On page 3, line 13, decrease the amount by $1,163,000,000.
On page 27, line 3, increase the amount by $243,000,000.
On page 27, line 4, increase the amount by $243,000,000.
On page 28, line 22, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
On page 28, line 24, increase the amount by $50,000,000.
On page 32, line 15, increase the amount by $870,000,000.
On page 32, line 16, increase the amount by $870,000,000.
On page 43, line 15, decrease the amount by $1,163,000,000.
On page 43, line 16, decrease the amount by $1,163,000,000.
On page 48, line 8, increase the amount by $1,163,000,000.
On page 48, line 9, increase the amount by $1,163,000,000.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.

Amendment No. 288

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Gregg and
Feingold, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Voinovich], for himself, Mr.
Feingold and Mr. Gregg, proposes an amendment numbered 288.

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

(Purpose: To improve the fiscal discipline of the budget process)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. . EMERGENCY DESIGNATION POINT OF ORDER IN THE SENATE.

(a) Designations.--
(1) Guidance.--In making a designation of a provision of
legislation as an emergency requirement under section
251(b)(2)(A) or 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985, the committee report and any
statement of managers accompanying that legislation shall
analyze whether a proposed emergency requirement meets all
the criteria in paragraph (2).
(2) Criteria.--
(A) In general.--The criteria to be considered in
determining whether a proposed expenditure or tax change is
an emergency requirement are--
(i) necessary, essential, or vital (not merely useful or
beneficial);
(ii) sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up
over time;
(iii) an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring
immediate action;
(iv) subject to subparagraph (B), unforeseen,
unpredictable, and unanticipated; and
(v) not permanent, temporary in nature.
(B) Unforeseen.--An emergency that is part of an aggregate
level of anticipated emergencies, particularly when normally
estimated in advance, is not unforeseen.
(3) Justification for failure to meet criteria.--If the
proposed emergency requirement does not meet all the criteria
set forth in paragraph (2), the committee report or the
statement of managers, as the case may be, shall provide a
written justification of why the requirement should be
accorded emergency status.
(b) Point of Order.--When the Senate is considering a bill,
resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report, a point
of order may be made by a Senator against an emergency
designation in that measure and if the Presiding Officer
sustains that point of order, the provision making such a
designation shall be stricken from the measure and may not be
offered as an amendment from the floor.
(c) Waiver and Appeal.--This section may be waived or
suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative
vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly
chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain
an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order
raised under this section.
(d) Definition of an Emergency Requirement.--A provision
shall be considered an emergency designation if it designates
any item an emergency requirement pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A) or 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985.
(e) Form of the Point of Order.--A point of order under
this section may be raised by a Senator as provided in
section 313(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(f) Conference Reports.--If a point of order is sustained
under this section against a conference report, the report
shall be disposed of as provided in section 313(d) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(g) Conforming Repeal.--Section 205 of H. Con. Res. 290
(106th Congress) is repealed.

SEC. . CLOSING BUDGET LOOPHOLES.

(a) Changing Caps.--It shall not be in order in the Senate
to consider any bill or resolution (or amendment, motion, or
conference report on that bill or resolution) that changes
the discretionary spending limits this resolution.
(b) Waiving Sequester.--It shall not be in order in the
Senate to consider any bill or resolution (or amendment,
motion, or conference report on that bill or resolution) that
waives or suspends the enforcement of section 251 of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
(c) Directed Scoring.--It shall not be in order in the
Senate to consider any bill or resolution (or amendment,
motion, or conference report on that bill or resolution) that
directs the scorekeeping of any bill or resolution.
(d) Waiver and Appeal.--This section may be waived or
suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative
vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly
chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain
an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order
raised under this section.

Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, when I came to the Senate in 1999, one
of my goals was to bring fiscal responsibility to Congress and to our
Nation.
In this regard, I have pursued my fiscal priorities, which are: pay
down the debt, control spending, and, if possible, return to the
taxpayers any of their money that is not needed to meet our most
pressing obligations.
Over the last 2 years we have had the proverbial ``good news/bad
news'' with respect to putting our fiscal house in order.
The good news is, we are not using the Social Security surplus or the
Medicare Part A surplus to cover our spending, allowing them instead to
be used as they were intended. In effect, we have managed to ``lock
box'' Social Security since 1999, and Medicare since 2000. I think we
need legislation to make sure we continue to do that.
In addition, because we haven't dipped into Social Security or
Medicare surpluses, we have been able to allocate a total of $363
billion towards debt reduction in the last 2 years.
The bad news is, we have spent far too much money over the last 2
years. For fiscal year 2001, we increased non-defense discretionary
spending 14.3 percent last year and we had an 8.6 percent increase the
year before.
In the last half of last year, the 106th Congress increased spending
over 10 years by $598 billion. Nearly $600 billion of the taxpayers'
money gone--used up. That is disgraceful.
Therefore, to help avoid a repetition of this sad episode, I am
proposing this amendment with my two colleagues, Senator Feingold and
Senator Gregg.
The amendment we are offering helps to refine the procedures in the
budget

[[Page S3491]]

process that are designed to control spending. It is clear from the
egregious levels of spending in the past couple of years that the
existing process needs reinforcement.
Our amendment is designed to tighten the enforcement of existing
spending controls. To do this, we create an explicit point of order
against emergency spending that does not meet the definition for
emergency spending as laid out by OMB.
Under our amendment, Senators may raise a point of order against
legislation designated as emergency spending that fails to meet certain
criteria.
This provision would apply equally to both discretionary and military
spending and would also establish a 60-vote waiver threshold.
I realize we will not completely stop the problem of Congress' over-
spending here today, but it is a reasonable first step.
So what we are doing here with this amendment is closing budget
loopholes by: Creating a point of order against actions that raise the
discretionary spending caps; creating a point of order against efforts
to waive sequesters, which is a budget enforcement mechanism; and
creating a point of order against directed scoring in essence, telling
OMB and CBO how to treat spending that others use in order to dodge
spending limits.
Any waiver of these measures will require 60 votes.
I want to reassure my colleagues that our amendment will not preclude
the use of emergency spending to meet our true defense needs.
I have no doubt whatsoever that should this Nation face a crisis,
there will be well over 60 Senators willing to vote to waive any
possible use of this point of order.
I believe that it is important that we have this tool to eliminate
the irrelevant spending that so often gets ``tacked on'' to our defense
emergency supplemental appropriations bills.
For instance, in past defense supplementals, we have spent: $1
billion on ballistic missile defense enhancements; $200 million on
defense health programs; and $42 million on defense counter-drug and
drug interdiction activities.
I would question whether these defense ``emergencies'' could not have
been handled in the normal appropriations process.
Total emergency supplemental defense spending in fiscal year 2000
amounted to $17.5 billion, and in fiscal year 1999, it totaled $16.8
billion.
Even for Washington, these are large sums of money.
I am sure that the vast majority of this spending is for legitimate
emergencies.
However, I believe we need an added safeguard to help stop abuses of
the emergency spending designation in an effort to circumvent our
spending caps.
I believe this amendment is a sensible approach to achieving our goal
of fiscal responsibility and it represents a good step toward improving
the transparency of our budget process.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Amendment No. 322, As Modified

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send a modification of my earlier
amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

(Purpose: To increase discretionary funding for Early Learning, Child
Care Development Block Grant, Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment, and
Pediatric GME programs)

On page 2, line 17, increase the amount by $270,700,000.
On page 3, line 13, decrease the amount by $270,700,000.
On page 27, line 3 increase the amount by $270,700,000.
On page 27, line 4 increase the amount by $243,000,000.
On page 28, line 22 increase the amount by $50,000,000.
On page 28, line 24 increase the amount by $50,000,000.
On page 32, line 15 increase the amount by $870,000,000.
On page 32, line 16 increase the amount by $870,000,000.
On page 4, line 2 increase the amount by $270,700,000.
On page 4, line 16 increase the amount by $270,700,000.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues,
Senators Voinovich and Gregg, to offer this amendment to improve fiscal
discipline.
Our amendment would strengthen enforcement tools. The amendment would
restate the procedure on emergency spending from last year's budget
resolution, with one change. It would put emergency defense spending on
exactly the same footing as emergency domestic spending. All emergency
designations would thus be subject to a 60-vote point of order.
As under current practice, if sustained, the point of order would
strike the emergency designation, but leave the associated funding. If
the funding, without the emergency designation attached, would push the
total funding for the bill over its allocation, or over the total
discretionary spending cap, another point of order could be raised.
Our amendment would also close several budget loopholes. It would
make out of order three separate devices used to evade budget
discipline: changing the discretionary spending caps, waiving a
sequester, and directing scorekeeping. Under current law, doing any of
these three things is out of order on any bill not reported by the
Budget Committee. Our amendment would extend that prohibition to all
bills.
This amendment will strengthen budget enforcement. I urge my
colleagues to support it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. VOINOVICH. I want to remind my colleagues of one thing. The
direct scoring was used in the last two omnibus appropriation bills to,
frankly, avoid busting the budget caps. That is why it is so important
we have this point of order.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the pending amendment is not germane.
Therefore, I am constrained to raise a point of order. The amendment
violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I ask the point of order be waived and
ask for the yeas and nays on the waiver of the point of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Had the Senator used all his time? How much time did he
use?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They used 7 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Would the Senator like to speak a little longer on this
amendment in case somebody is interested?
Mr. VOINOVICH. Not necessarily, unless somebody wants to speak
against it. Then I will answer.
Mr. CONRAD. Does the Senator from South Carolina seek time?
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask for 10 minutes from my
distinguished chairman?
Mr. CONRAD. I yield to the Senator from South Carolina 10 minutes.

Amendment No. 225

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 225 on behalf of
myself, Senator Biden, Senator Daschle, and others.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], for
himself, Mr. Biden, and Mr. Daschle, proposes an amendment
numbered 225.

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

(Purpose: To provide for a $85 billion tax rebate, and for other
purposes)

On page 43, strike lines 10 through 12, and insert the
following:
(A) New budget authority, $85,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $85,000,000,000.
(C) The Senate finds that
(i) given the apparent economic slowdown, the Congress
should stimulate the economy by passing a 1-year true tax cut
stimulus package that provides income tax and payroll tax
relief;
(ii) for real economic stimulus the 1-year tax cut should
equal approximately 1 percent of the gross domestic product,
or $95,000,000,000;

[[Page S3492]]

(iii) a meaningful economic stimulus must reach as many
taxpayers as possible, or at least 120 million people;
(iv) the broadest range of taxpayers can be reached by
offering a direct rebate based on income tax liability or
payroll tax liability; and
(v) the tax stimulus bill should be immediate and take
effect on or before July 1, 2001.
(D) It is the sense of the Senate that the levels in this
resolution assume that the Senate should as soon as practical
consider and pass a stimulus tax package pursuant to this
budget resolution that will result in a rebate of
(i) up to $500 per individual or $1,000 per couple for 95
million taxpayers who pay income tax; and
(ii) up to $500 for the 25 million taxpayers who pay
payroll taxes but do not have income tax liability.

Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, my appeal now is to all Democratic
Senators, all Republican Senators--to the Senate as a body--to heed the
distinguished majority leader's admonition to us last evening when he
exclaimed: We are fiddling while Rome burns. What we should be doing is
taking up a stimulus measure to get the economy moving, not, if you
please, worrying about what is going to happen over the 10-year
period--not for the elections next year, or education, or housing, or
Patients' Bill of Rights, or health care, or any of these other things.
Distinguished members of the Concord Coalition, including the former
Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary Rubin, and former Senators Warren
Rudman and Sam Nunn, recently wrote an editorial to The Washington
Post, ``On Taxes, One Step At A Time,'' saying what we really need:

We believe an immediate fiscal stimulus can be provided
independently of the proposed 10-year tax cut.

That is exactly what my amendment is cut out to do. The previous
amendment, the Durbin amendment, involves the tax cut. This has nothing
to do with the tax cut. It responds to what Rubin and others have been
saying, that is, to at least try to get 1 percent of a $10 trillion
economy, around $85 billion or $95 billion, to extend to the greatest
number of Americans--namely, the 95 million taxpayers and the 25
million payroll workers, some 120 million Americans--a $500 rebate,
Senator Domenici, or $1,000.
You ask me where the money is? This is the most money we can utilize
for stimulus without touching the Medicare and Social Security trust
funds. I would have put in even more, if it was available. The $60
billion the distinguished Senator from New Mexico has in his bill was
called, by Steve Forbes, ``an hors d'oeuvre.'' I call it half a
haircut. I do not know whether the $85 billion in this particular
measure is going to do the trick. I hope so. But we have the best
authorities from all walks of economic life, and from the market
itself, in agreement.
MIT professor Lester Thurow:

If President Bush were really interested in using taxes to
stop the plunge in the economy, he would drop his 10-year tax
cut and first go for a large 1-year temporary tax cut, a
stimulus package that could be extended for another year if
needed.

That is exactly what I have done. I am not involved in the budget
arguments so as to divorce it from the politics of tax cuts; rather,
get a true stimulus package.
Robert Kuttner, whose column appears in the Boston Globe: First, the
tax cut should be smaller, quicker, and directed to people who need it.
The best idea proposed by Harvard's Richard Freeman and the Economic
Policy Institute is a one-time dividend of $500 for every woman, man,
and child. That would inject a lot of stimulus into the economy right
now. The Treasury could send out the checks within a month.
We are all complaining about Alan Greenspan, but we have to do our
part here. If you want to accept responsibility for the recession, just
vote against this amendment, because this is not involved in the
politics, tax, or the budget debate. This is involved in what everyone
says--Republicans and Democrats, economists and market experts--that we
need right now.
David Broder:

If they can, this country can reap the benefits of an
immediate tax cut that will cushion the effects of the
slowdown of the economy.

That is just last week. And this week's Business Week headline reads:
America Needs That Tax Cut Right Now.
We made it a rebate because I am confident that our friends on the
other side of the aisle will not support the Durbin amendment. Of
course, the Durbin amendment is not an amendment with respect to the
$60 billion amount, it is an endorsement of the same amount. I think it
is inadequate on the one hand, but otherwise it gives that 10-year
lower bracket of 15 percent down to 10 percent, which costs them $500
billion and goes right in the face of the Bush tax cut.
I do not want to get involved in that political argument. I want a
true tax cut for which everybody can vote. That is it.
What we have been doing here has gotten all wound up with the rich,
the poor, the high, the low; what are we going to do for medicine, what
are we going to do for defense and everything in the next 10 years. But
as the distinguished majority leader yesterday afternoon said: Rome is
burning.
If you want it to continue to burn, vote the amendment down. If you
want to revive the economy and the market so that there will be some
surpluses here, then please help us with this particular amendment.
I retain the remainder of my time.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, may I ask a question of the Senator?
Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes, sir.
Mr. DOMENICI. I read the amendment. Let me see if I am correct. You
don't do anything to the rest of the budget and the proposed tax cut.
Mr. HOLLINGS. No. I leave that alone.
Mr. DOMENICI. You just increase the 60 that we have.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Eighty-five, because I understand Senator Grassley has
used some emergency agricultural funds in his amendment. That is the
only one that is touched for 2001. The Budget Committee staff has been
keeping score. I had to cut it back to 85.
Mr. DOMENICI. I am certainly going to explore this with the Senator.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Please do. My goodness, with the smile on your face and
with some help, we can really help the economy. That is the whole
idea--not to be partisan, or, I am for Bush, or against Bush, or I am
for the rich and you are for the poor, and all of that kind of stuff.
Let's really get what the economy needs now.
Mr. DOMENICI. I am in fact smiling. My face is in such a big smile
that I can't hardly talk. So just give me a moment. I don't want you to
answer this. But if I consider your amendment, would you consider my
budget?
Mr. HOLLINGS. Oh, yes. I consider your budget. In fact, if we had all
of those surpluses, I promise to vote for Bush's budget. As Senator
Byrd carries around the Constitution, I carry around the economy. The
debt to the penny by the U.S. Treasury, from the Secretary of the
Treasury, shows that the debt has gone up this fiscal year already by
$102 billion, with a $42 billion increase in the debt owed by the
public and $60 billion in debt owed by the Government itself.
We are not paying down the debt. But if you get those surpluses, you
will have my help.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I close by saying I don't want to ask
another question, obviously, because your answer was one that I didn't
expect. But I want to remind you that you made a deal with me once. You
said as soon as we balance the budget--you and I--wouldn't you jump off
of some building?
Mr. HOLLINGS. Off the dome. That is right. You had me looking for a
parachute last fall. But now look at what we have going. We are
spending money we don't have now on this particular measure.
I go back to Roosevelt's ``prime the pump,'' because I remember for
about a 2- to 3-year period back in my hometown they were paying
everybody in script. We didn't have the money.
That assumes we don't have the money. But if you want to get this
economy moving again, let's vote for this particular amendment so we
can do that and not be accused of bogging down in the political
argument of tax cuts and budgets.
Mr. DOMENICI. I would have modified my suggestion, and would have
said, Will the Senator try a bungee jump? You wouldn't have to jump for
real.
I yield the floor.

[[Page S3493]]

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Budget
Committee and the ranking member, Senator Conrad. I yield the remainder
of my time. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.

Amendment No. 201

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment with Senator
Brownback and others, No. 201.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Allen], for himself and Mr.
Brownback, proposes an amendment numbered 201.

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

(Purpose: To provide for a tax cut accelerator)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ____. TAX CUT ACCELERATOR.

(a) Reporting Additional Surpluses.--If any report provided
pursuant to section 202(e)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, estimates an on-budget surplus that exceeds the on-
budget surplus set forth in such a report for the preceding
year, the chairmen of the Committee on the Budget of the
House of Representatives and of the Senate shall make
adjustments in the resolution for the next fiscal year as
provided in subsection (b).
(b) Adjustments.--The chairmen of the Committee on the
Budget of the House of Representatives and of the Senate
shall make the following adjustments in an amount not to
exceed the difference between the on-budget surpluses in the
reports referred to in subsection (a):
(1) Reduce the on-budget revenue aggregate by that amount
for the fiscal years included in such reports.
(2) Adjust the instruction to the Committee on Ways and
Means and the Committee on Finance to increase the reduction
in revenues by the sum of the amounts for the period of such
fiscal years in such manner as to not produce an on-budget
deficit in the next fiscal year, over the next 5 fiscal
years, or over the next 10 fiscal years and to require a
report of reconciliation legislation by the Committee on Ways
and Means and the Committee on Finance not later than March
15.
(3) Adjust such other levels in such resolution, as
appropriate, and the House of Representatives and the Senate
pay-as-you-go scorecards.
(c) Legislation.--It shall not be in order in the Senate to
consider any bill that is reported by the Committee on
Finance pursuant to the adjusted instructions described in
subsection (b), unless the bill provides for expedited
procedures for the consideration of the bill by the Senate no
later than 60 days after the bill is reported by the
Committee.

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I bring forth this amendment on behalf of
myself, Senator Brownback, Senator Craig, and Senator Hutchison of
Texas. This measure is the tax cut accelerator amendment which will
help provide the assurance that we live up to our obligation to
American families and make sure they receive the tax relief they
deserve.
The way this works is if the Congressional Budget Office's January
report projects higher than expected on-budget surpluses over the
previous year, then this amendment would require the Budget Committee
to make the appropriate budgetary adjustments by reducing the on-budget
revenue aggregate by the same amount as previously unaccounted for--the
unaccounted for on-budget surplus.
It instructs the Finance Committee to increase the amount of tax
relief by the same amount, and the bottom line is it sends money back
to the people and not to fund increased Government spending.
We hear many issues and ideas about triggers and brakes and circuit
breakers designed to slow down tax relief and not enough about a tax
cut accelerator in the case that on-budget surpluses are higher than
expected.
If you look at the Congressional Budget Office projections over the
years, they are generally very pessimistic about what revenues will be
coming in and, therefore, surpluses will not be there. But, in fact,
they are right about the deficits. They err on the side of caution. I
understand that. That is probably a good way of looking at things.
However, if the economy is doing better, if the budget surpluses
appear on a year-to-year basis, who ought to have the first claim on
those surpluses? In my view, it ought to be the taxpayers.
The Finance Committee and Budget Committee may not want to use the
entire surplus for tax cuts being accelerated. They may want to say
they want to take care of priorities--let's say expenditures in health,
or scientific research, or national defense. They will say: Well, we
will use half this for these priorities and half for accelerated
reductions in taxes.
The point is, that identified surplus is not spent--not rolled over--
but it is determined as a definite, identifiable amount of money that
the Budget Committee will act upon, that the Senate Finance Committee
will act upon, and then this whole body will act upon and have that
scrutiny.
I think it will, of course, in my view, help speed up tax relief to
the people.
Because any view is more optimistic than the pessimistic views of the
Congressional Budget Office. There is plenty of evidence, and other
projections have been too low over the years because they use static
estimates--not dynamic estimates.
It is understandable why in 1-year budgets you would use static
analysis because you do not have the full impact of tax reductions or
any measures until a few years or maybe more than a few years down the
road. If you want to look at what the impact of static analysis has on
underestimates in the revenue impact because of tax cuts, the Kennedy
tax cut under President John F. Kennedy was 12.6 percent of Federal
revenues. They reduced rates from 90 to 70 percent. The rate reduction
resulted in a return of all expected revenue losses plus an additional
4 percent. The Reagan tax cut, at 18.7 percent of Federal revenues,
reduced rates, tax rates from 70 to 50 percent. The static models
predicted a revenue impact of a negative $330 billion. The actual
fiscal impact on the Treasury was about $78 million--less than one-
fourth of the expected impact.
These numbers, coupled with CBO's past inaccuracies, make it
reasonable to believe that the on-budget surpluses will come in higher
than projected.
I am convinced more than ever that we need a tax cut accelerator.
Over the past few days, the Senate has chipped away on the on-budget
surplus.
The Senate has reduced drastically the available money for tax
relief. Hiding behind the arguments over process about how many
reconciliation instructions per budget resolution is really to get in
the way of real tax relief for American families.
Real people do not care about reconciliation. They think it is a
domestic matter, if you ever bring up reconciliation. It means, at
best, some sort of family squabble being resolved. They care about
providing for their families. People in the real world care about their
future.
This tax relief accelerator will hold Congress accountable to the
American people, which I think is very good. This budget represents a
promise to the people of America. It protects Social Security and
Medicare. Tax cut accelerator does not affect Medicare or Social
Security; it is only the on-budget surplus.
This budget helps pay off all available debt. It funds current
Government obligations and programs. It provides a $26 billion
increase, or 4 percent raise, over last year's budget for Government
spending. It ensures for future contingencies. And this budget promises
to provide the people of America with the tax relief they deserve.
I generally support this budgetary framework, and I strongly believe
we should honor all of its promises. The tax cut accelerator provides
the assurance that Washington will fulfill its promise to return excess
on-budget surpluses to the people, to the taxpayers, instead of
permitting their hard-earned dollars to be spent away by Government
bureaucracies.
The accelerator does not--does not--touch Social Security or Medicare
funds. It does not threaten funding for current programs. It allows for
increases in funding for new and existing priorities, such as defense,
education, science, and medical research. And it does not bring back
deficit spending.
Today we have a choice. Our choice is, Do we keep our promises? Do we
trust the American people and adopt this amendment which provides the
necessary mechanism to ensure the return of unexpected on-budget
surpluses back to our families and businesses or do we allow Government
to keep this money from them?
I say we ought to let the people decide how to best spend their hard-

[[Page S3494]]

earned dollars. Families must be better able to save and spend for
their children's education, to make a downpayment on a new home, to
invest in their business, or to prepare for their retirement years. It
is my view that we ought to trust people in our free enterprise system.
People, better than Government, know how best to allocate their own
dollars.
When there is excess money here in Washington, and in an on-budget
surplus--money that has not been appropriated; it is not promised, it
is just coming in at a greater rate than anticipated--the first claim
on that, the first lien, so to speak, the first mortgage, ought to be
to the taxpayers of this country with accelerated tax reduction.
So with that, I see my friend from Kansas has risen.
Mr. President, how much time do we have on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes.
Mr. ALLEN. OK. I will yield the floor and allow the opposition to
make any statements they so desire.
Mr. CONRAD. We do not intend to use time on the amendment. So it
would be appropriate for the Senator from Kansas to use the time. It
is, unfortunately, the only way we can stay on schedule with what we
agreed to on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent that I be allotted 5 minutes
to speak on behalf of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
I thank my colleague from Virginia for his sponsorship in putting
forward this amendment. I think this is a key amendment.
We have been talking a lot about reducing the tax cut because we are
not sure that the money may come in. What this amendment says is, if
the money does come in, then let's require that there be a vote that we
have a larger tax cut. That seems to me to be the symmetrical
discussion that should be taking place.
We hear concern about: OK, what if the resources do not come in? What
if this does not quite work out? Should we lock ourselves into this
size tax cut? What we are saying is, once this money comes in--I am
confident it is going to come in; I am confident that it will happen--
if it does come in, then tax cuts of a larger scale should be voted
upon.
Yesterday the step was taken by the Senate to make a smaller tax cut.
I think that was a wrong step. I think it is a bad step for our
economy. That sends a signal to people that there is going to be less
money in their pocket. Less consumer confidence will result and that is
going to be a more difficult situation for our economy and for our
people.
What we are trying to do is send a different signal, saying that if
this economy continues to put these sorts of receipts in the Federal
Government--which I am confident that it will--then we are going to
return more of that to the American taxpayers. That will create an
economic climate that allows individuals to make informed savings and
investment decisions. It is the best path for sound, responsible fiscal
policy.
If individuals are not confident that the economic decisions they
make today will be respected in the Tax Code tomorrow, they will be
less likely to take the kind of risks that make our economy one of the
most productive and fastest growing in the world. That level of
predictability and the assurance is important.
This is why offering taxpayers a one-time rebate, in my estimation,
as has been proposed by some of my colleagues, is bad economic policy.
The problem is, it gives the veneer of economic growth while only
providing really a Band-Aid to the larger underlying problems of
sluggish growth and a slowing economy.
The goal of our economic policy should be to encourage savings and
investments at the margins, not promoting policies that artificially
might prop up the economy through consumption incentives that do
nothing to solve long-run economic problems.
Mr. President, because I know our time is short, I want to make an
additional point; that is, for people who are also concerned that we
are not paying down the debt sufficiently with the policies we put
forward, what this says is that if we have more coming in, we will vote
on a larger scale tax cut. We are going to continue to pay the debt
down. We will pay down all the available debt over a period of 10
years. This has nothing to do with that. We will continue to honor that
debt paydown provision that is in the overall budget and is a part of
our overall proposal. I want to make sure we set that one off to the
side so people are not concerned about that particular issue as well.

With those caveats, and for those reasons, I urge my colleagues to
vote for this triggering mechanism that would go into place if--if--the
dollars are forthcoming. There really should be no reason to vote
against this amendment. That is why I urge my colleagues to support
this amendment and vote for it.
With that, Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time and
yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be made a
cosponsor of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. I believe the Senator has allocated me a few minutes.
Mr. ALLEN. Yes.
Mr. President, how much time do we have on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes 39 seconds.
Mr. WARNER. Might I inquire of the Chair as to the amount of time
remaining for the Senator from New Mexico?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time for the Senator from New
Mexico.
Mr. ALLEN. I would like to have just a final closing comment, and
then I will yield to the senior Senator from Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. ALLEN. Let me say in a few seconds--and I want to yield the
remainder of the time to the senior Senator from Virginia--the Senator
from Kansas has it exactly right. We want to have an insurance policy
for the people of this country, the taxpayers. We understand their
budgets are strained.
If there is a surplus--and we are optimistic there will be because we
think reducing taxes helps create jobs, improve our economy, and has a
dynamic, positive impact on our country. So if you want to make sure
the taxpayers of this country get any of the excess money they have the
first claim on, then you should support this amendment because it
supports the people of America and will help strengthen our economy.
I yield the remainder of my time to the senior Senator from Virginia,
Mr. Warner.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague.
Mr. President, I would like to call up amendment No. 265, and ask
unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, what was the
request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There was a request to call up an amendment.
Mr. REID. I object. There is an amendment pending.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. WARNER. I have it filed at the desk.
Mr. REID. We have a UC that is now in order. There is a unanimous
consent agreement in order, and the only amendment in order now is one
to be offered by Senator Wellstone, after this one is completed.
Mr. WARNER. I had consulted with the Senator from New Mexico. I was
told I could have a minute. Obviously, I am in error. I apologize to my
distinguished colleague, and I withdraw my comments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, how much time remains on the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-nine seconds.

[[Page S3495]]

Mr. BROWNBACK. How much?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-six seconds now.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, CBO, in January of 1999, said that the
2-year forecast showed a total budget surplus of $2.3 trillion. The
surplus announced this year is $5.6 trillion. In that 2-year time
period, they more than doubled the size of it. What we are saying is,
if that happens again, as is likely, let us vote on a bigger tax cut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the pending amendment is not germane.
Therefore, I raise a point of order that the amendment violates section
305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
I yield back the remainder of our time on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, under section 904 of the Budget Act, I move
to waive section 305 of the Budget Act for the consideration of this
amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Minnesota. We only have 10 minutes remaining, I advise the Senator--
actually less than that. We have agreed to provide the other time to
the Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. WELLSTONE. That is fine.
Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator from North Dakota yield for a question?
Mr. CONRAD. No, the Senator from North Dakota can't yield at this
point for a question because we are rapidly running out of time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

Amendment No. 269

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 269.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself,
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Dorgan, Mrs. Murray, Ms.
Mikulski, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Feingold, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Durbin,
Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Reid, proposes an amendment numbered
269.

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

(Purpose: To increase discretionary funding for veterans medical care
by $1.718 billion in 2002 and each year thereafter to ensure that
veterans have access to quality medical care)

On page 2, line 17, increase the amount by $1,546,000,000.
On page 2, line 18, increase the amount by $1,689,000,000.
On page 3, line 1, increase the amount by $1,703,000,000.
On page 3, line 2, increase the amount by $1,709,000,000.
On page 3, line 3, increase the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 3, line 4, increase the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 3, line 5, increase the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 3, line 6, increase the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 3, line 7, increase the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 3, line 8, increase the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 3, line 13, decrease the amount by $1,546,000,000.
On page 3, line 14, decrease the amount by $1,689,000,000.
On page 3, line 15, decrease the amount by $1,703,000,000.
On page 3, line 16, decrease the amount by $1,709,000,000.
On page 3, line 17, decrease the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 3, line 18, decrease the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 3, line 19, decrease the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 3, line 20, decrease the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 3, line 21, decrease the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 3, line 22, decrease the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 36, line 6, increase the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 36, line 7, increase the amount by $1,546,000,000.
On page 36, line 10, increase the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 36, line 11, increase the amount by $1,689,000,000.
On page 36, line 14, increase the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 36, line 15, increase the amount by $1,703,000,000.
On page 36, line 18, increase the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 36, line 19, increase the amount by $1,709,000,000.
On page 36, line 22, increase the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 36, line 23, increase the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 37, line 2, increase the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 37, line 3, increase the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 37, line 6, increase the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 37, line 7, increase the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 37, line 10, increase the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 37, line 11, increase the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 37, line 14, increase the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 37, line 15, increase the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 37, line 18, increase the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 37, line 19, increase the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 43, line 15, decrease the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 43, line 16, decrease the amount by $1,546,000,000.
On page 48, line 8, increase the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 48, line 9, increase the amount by $1,546,000,000.
On page 4, line 3, increase the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 4, line 4, increase the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 4, line 5, increase the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 4, line 6, increase the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 4, line 7, increase the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 4, line 8, increase the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 4, line 9, increase the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 4, line 10, increase the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 4, line 11, increase the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 4, line 17, increase the amount by $1,689,000,000.
On page 4, line 18, increase the amount by $1,703,000,000.
On page 4, line 19, increase the amount by $1,709,000,000.
On page 4, line 20, increase the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 4, line 21, increase the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 4, line 22, increase the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 4, line 23, increase the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 5, line 1, increase the amount by $1,718,000,000.
On page 5, line 2, increase the amount by $1,718,000,000.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I introduce this amendment on behalf of
myself and Senators Johnson, Bingaman, Dorgan, Murray, Mikulski, Kerry,
Feingold, and Landrieu. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Durbin
and Daschle be included as original cosponsors as well as Senator Harry
Reid.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the problem with the President's budget
request and this budget resolution is it provides a $1 billion increase
over fiscal year 2001 for all of the VA discretionary programs. That is
no way to say thank you to veterans. Secretary Principi, who is a great
Secretary, testified before the veterans committee last month. I
believe he will be a great advocate for veterans, but he had a tough
time with the following question: How does a $1 billion increase over
fiscal year 2001 do the job for America's veterans when we are going to
see a $900 million increase this year in medical inflation alone?
Then if we get beyond the $900 million and add to that our commitment
to treating people with hepatitis C, our commitment to emergency
medical services for veterans who have no coverage, our commitment to
the millennium program for older veterans, our commitment to mental
health services for veterans, we get way above $1 billion.
Mr. President, there are huge gaps in the veterans health care
system. We can do much better. This amendment would increase the
veterans health care budget, contained in this budget resolution, by
$1.7 billion annually. The independent budget, which was produced by
Amvets, VFW, DAV, the Disabled American Veterans, and Paralyzed
Veterans, talked about $2.6 billion. This amendment gets us to that
level.

[[Page S3496]]

Here is the point: $1 billion for all discretionary programs for the
Veterans' Administration is pathetic. It doesn't come close to meeting
the needs.
I am joined by Senator Rockefeller, who is the ranking minority
member on the veterans committee. He will be speaking in just 1 minute.
The arithmetic is compelling, just on veterans health care: $900
million in inflation, emergency room services for veterans who don't
have any coverage, hepatitis C coverage we have committed to, the
millennium program, which is so important when we are saying to
veterans who are 65 years of age and over, we are going to begin to
address your long-term care needs.
When I am in the medical center in Minneapolis and I am talking to a
spouse of a World War II veteran, and this happens over and over and
over again, she doesn't have a clue what she is going to do when her
husband gets home. Where is going to be the care for her? Where will be
the supportive services for him? Not to mention all the long waits of
veterans for health care.
The county veterans service officers are the best of the best of the
best. They do the work down in the trenches. I get my education from
them. Even though they are not within the VA system, they talk about
the long waits and the gaps.
This amendment is all about living up to our commitment to veterans.
We need to provide full funding for veterans health care. This
amendment should receive Democratic support and Republican support. The
amendment offset by transferring $1.7 billion out of these Robin-Hood-
in-reverse tax cuts, of which over 40 percent of the benefits going to
the top 1 percent. We surely can transfer $1.7 billion to veterans
health care.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
added as a cosponsor of the Wellstone amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Let's be very clear. The Senator from Minnesota is
correct. For the Department of Veterans Affairs, under the budget
resolution which is proposed, there will be tremendous damage to the
Veterans' Administration and to the veterans of our country. It is
axiomatic that the increase that is contemplated in the budget
resolution simply will not work. It does not come close.
If there is anything which is an immutable fact, it is that the cost
of health care and the cost of paying those who deliver it goes up by
more than a billion dollars a year, just for health care alone. That is
across America, and that is true for the veterans.
Beyond that, we have a very difficult problem of disability claims.
We need $132 million for staffing and technology. My veterans in West
Virginia are being told they are going to have to wait for a full year
even for a preliminary examination of their disability claims.
Lastly, we cannot forget our commitment to the final resting places
of honor for our veterans. Our Nation's veterans cemeteries are falling
apart in many cases. Graves are sinking. Tombstones are breaking. That
may seem incidental to some. It does not seem incidental to any
veteran's family.
I urge all to remember our promise to our veterans and support the
Wellstone amendment.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I would like to first commend Senate
Budget Committee Chairman Domenici for including an increase in his
budget mark for veterans' health care. This funding level is in line
with what the Administration proposed in its budget request and shows a
renewed commitment to veterans' health care.
While I am pleased that this budget includes an increase in outlays,
I am disappointed that it falls short of the funding level proposed in
the authoritative Independent Budget endorsed by 40 veterans groups and
medical societies, including AMVETS, the Disabled American Veterans,
the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the VFW.
That is why I join Senator Wellstone in offering an amendment today
that would increase appropriations for veterans health care by $1.718
billion over the Budget Committee's level. With our amendment, the
Senate budget resolution would include an increase in appropriations of
$2.6 billion for veterans health care over last year's funding level.
Our amendment pays for this increase in health care for our nation's
veterans with a modest decrease in the $1.6 trillion in tax cuts
proposed by the President.
For a number of years, the VA had to contend with a flat-line
appropriation for veterans' health care as the cost of health care far
outpaced the rate of inflation. As a result, the VA experienced deep
cuts at a time when it should have been addressing the growing need for
medical care for this country's veterans.
For the past 2 years, I have offered amendments in the Budget
Committee and on the Senate floor to increase veterans funding to allow
the VA to continue giving quality care to veterans. With the help of
the chairman, we were able to increase VA health care funding by $1.7
billion for fiscal year 2000 and $1.4 billion for fiscal year 2001.
These were good steps in restoring budget equity to veterans' health
care.
We must continue this process by increasing funding for veterans'
health care to the level recommended in the Independent Budget. It is
critical that we increase veterans health care funding over and above
the Chairman's mark in order to compensate for previous underfunded VA
budgets and to allow the VA to meet the growing health care needs of
our veterans.
Veterans from South Dakota visited my office recently with stories of
understaffed VA hospitals, long waits for appointments, and reductions
or cuts in vital services. These situations are not unique to my state
and affect every VA hospital and clinic in the country.
With adoption of our amendment, we will have a VA veterans' health
care budget that can adequately offset the higher costs of medical care
caused by consumer inflation, medical care inflation, wage increases,
and legislation passed by Congress.
Without a total increase of $2.6 billion above last year's
appropriation in veterans health care, the VA will likely be unable to
address the treatment of Hepatitis C, emergency medical services,
increased costs due to medical inflation, and long-term care
initiatives.
The Independent Budget highlights the need to increase funding in a
number of important health care initiatives including: an additional
$523 million for mental health care; an additional $848 million for
long-term care; an additional $25 million to restore the Spinal Cord
Injury program; an additional $75 million to help homeless veterans.
Our efforts over the past 2 years to increase VA veterans' health
care have helped to reverse the damaging effects of years of flat-lined
VA budgets. We have an opportunity to continue this progress by
adopting our amendment to increase funding for VA veterans' health care
by $1.718 billion over the Chairman's level in the budget resolution.
With our amendment, we will fund veterans' health care at the level
requested in the Independent Budget.
I urge my colleagues to support the Johnson-Wellstone amendment on
veterans' health care. At this time, I ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the Record letters of support for our amendment from
veterans organizations.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The Independent Budget,

A Budget for Veterans by Veterans,

April 3, 2001.
To All Members of the Senate:
On behalf of the co-authors of The Independent Budget,
AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of
America, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, we are writing to
urge you to support the Johnson-Wellstone Amendment that
would increase Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health
care funding to the level we recommended for FY 2002.
The President's ``Budget Blueprint,'' and the Domenici
substitute to H. Con. Res. 83 provides a discretionary
spending increase of $1 billion. This recommended amount
would not even cover the costs of mandated salary increases
and the effects of inflation. The Independent Budget has
identified an increase for VA health care of $2.6 billion
over the amount provided in FY 2001. This recommended
increase would provide the resources necessary for the VA to
meet the needs of the men and women who have

[[Page S3497]]

served our Nation, and rely upon the VA for the health care
they need.
Again, we ask for your support of the Johnson-Wellstone
Amendment that would increase the amount available for VA
health care up to the level we have recommended in The
Independent Budget.
Sincerely,
David E. Woodbury,
Executive Director, AMVETS.
Keith W. Wingfield,
Executive Director, Paralyzed Veterans of America.
Robert E. Wallace,
Executive Director, Veterans of Foreign War.
David W. Gorman,
Executive Director, Disabled American Veterans.
____

Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States,

Washington, DC, April 3, 2001.
To All Member of the United Stats Senate:
On behalf of the 2.7 million men and women of the Veterans
of Foreign Wars of the United States and our Ladies
Auxiliary, we urge you to support the Johnson-Wellstone
Amendment to increase the Department of Veterans Affairs'
(VA) health care funding by $1.8 billion over the chairman's
mark for a total of $2.6 billion for fiscal year 2002.
We and our colleagues of the Independent Budget have
identified the need to increase VA health care funding by
$2.6 billion over the amount provided in FY 2001. This
recommended increase would provide the resources necessary
for VA to meet the needs of the men and women who have served
our Nation and rely upon VA for health care.
Again, we urge your support of the Johnson-Wellstone
Amendment to increase the amount available for VA health care
to the level necessary to properly and compassionately
provide for veterans' health care needs.
Sincerely,
Robert E. Wallace,
Executive Director.
____

PVA,

North Central Chapter,

Sioux Falls, SD, April 3, 2001.
Senator Tim Johnson,
Hart Senate Office Bldg.,
Washington, DC.
Dear Tim, the North Central Chapter PVA would like to thank
you for the recent correspondence you and Senator Wellstone
presented to your fellow Senator's concerning the VA budget.
These letters (dated March 12, 2001 and April 2, 2001)
highlight the budgetary shortfalls as demonstrated in the
Independence Budget and bring attention to this vitally
important issue.
As you indicate in your letters, the VA health care system
must have adequate funding in order to provide the services
our Veterans need and deserve. Anything less than the
Independent Budgets' recommended 2.6 billion dollar increase
will mean a cut in health care services. We must not and can
not return to the days of inadequate health care because of
the lack of funding.
Once again, on behalf of all the members of North Central
Chapter PVA, we commend you for all your efforts on Veterans'
health care issues. If at any time we can be of assistance,
please do not hesitate to contact our office or myself and
we'll happy to help.
Respectfully,
Joel Niemeyer,
Government Relations Director, North Central Chapter PVA.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, as the Ranking Member of the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I ask my colleagues to support an
amendment offered by Senators Wellstone and Johnson to S. Con. Res. 20,
the concurrent resolution on the fiscal year 2002 Budget. The budget
resolution provides for an increase of $1 billion for all veterans
funding from the fiscal year 2001 amount. The Wellstone-Johnson
amendment goes further and provides for an overall increase of $2.6
billion for veterans' health care.
If the Department of Veterans Affairs is funded at the level that the
Budget Resolution provides, a $1 billion increase over the fiscal year
2001 appropriation, which might appear generous at first glance, we can
expect VA to eliminate staff, delay providing health care and benefits,
and slash vital programs.
While some may describe the funding included in this resolution as a
major increase, I must disagree. Much, if not all, of this proposed
increase would be consumed in merely overcoming inflation in the costs
of providing medical care. After spending vast sums for a tax cut for
the wealthiest Americans, there simply isn't enough money to meet VA's
needs in the next fiscal year.
The alliance of veterans service organizations that authors the
Independent Budget for Fiscal Year 2002--AMVETS, the Disabled American
Veterans, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans of
Foreign Wars, rightly concluded that ``more must be done to meet the
increasing needs of an aging veteran population, adapt to the rising
cost of health care, enhance and facilitate benefits delivery, and
maintain the continuity of funding for VA programs as a whole.''
The budget resolution before us would not allow us to fulfill those
obligations. We must ensure VA a level of funding that will minimize
the impact of inflation, fund existing initiatives, and allow the
system to move forward in the ways we all expect.
Urgent demands on the VA health care system make increased funding
essential. The landmark Veterans Millennium Health Care and Benefits
Act of 1999 significantly expanded VA noninstitutional long-term care,
which for the first time is available to all veterans enrolled with the
VA health care system. As we contend with the dilemma of developing
long-term care for all Americans, VA will begin this effort with our
Nation's veterans. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the
VA noninstitutional extended care program will cost more than $400
million a year. We must supply adequate funds to fulfill this
legislative mandate.
The Millennium Act also ensures emergency care coverage for veterans
with no other health insurance options. Necessity demands this costly
provision: nearly 1 million veterans enrolled with the VA are uninsured
and in poorer health than the general population. Although this new
benefit has not yet been either implemented or publicized, claims are
already mounting.
Medical inflation and wage increases, factors beyond VA's control,
have been estimated to devour nearly $1 billion of VA's budget
annually. At the same time, more and more veterans are turning to the
VA for health care. In my own state of West Virginia, the number of
veterans seeking care from VA has increased, despite a declining total
number of veterans statewide. As an example, the Martinsburg VAMC saw
its new enrollees increase by 24.7 percent over the last 2 years.
Rapidly expanding enrollment at all four West Virginia VA medical
centers has jeopardized their ability to provide high quality care in a
timely fashion. Unfortunately, similar examples can be found throughout
the Nation.
Between new initiatives--long-term care and emergency care coverage,
and simply maintaining current services, we must secure an increase of
$1.8 billion for health care alone.
Unfortunately, maintaining current services will not be enough to
ensure that VA can meet veterans' health care needs. The aging veterans
population faces chronic illnesses and newly recognized challenges,
such as the disproportionate burden of hepatitis C, that will further
strain VA facilities. We must anticipate the difficulties of treating
complex diseases and ensure that we do not neglect the needs of
veterans with multiple, coincident medical problems.
If we simply maintain current services, can we expect VA to restore
the capacity for PTSD and spinal cord injury treatment to the 1996
legislatively mandated level? In West Virginia, many veterans not only
wait months for specialty care, they have to travel hundreds of miles
to get it. We can depend on community outpatient clinics to increase
veterans' access to primary health care, but we must also ensure that
the many veterans who require more intensive, specialized services can
turn to adequately funded inpatient programs.
VA research not only contributes to our national battle against
disease, but enhances the quality of care for veterans by attracting
the best and brightest physicians. The Budget Resolution allows, at
best, for a stagnant research budget. Not only will this slow the
search for new and better medical treatments, but it could weaken
efforts to protect human subjects in VA-sponsored studies. An increase
of $47.1 million will be required merely to offset the costs of
inflation and to monitor compliance with increasingly stringent
research guidelines.
The $2.6 billion increase proposed by Senators Wellstone and Johnson
in the amendment before us will ensure that VA has the resources
required to provide veterans with the high quality health care that
they need.

[[Page S3498]]

Savings may be gained through more resourceful management of VA
hospitals and clinics, a possibility that VA is pursuing through its
Capital Asset Realignment and Enhancement Studies, CARES. In the
meantime, efficiencies should not come at the expense of veterans who
turn to the VA health care system for needed treatment, nor should VA
neglect essential repairs and maintenance of its infrastructure while
awaiting the outcome of the CARES process. Accommodating the backlog of
urgently needed construction projects will require an increase of $280
million. A shortsighted focus on immediate gains, by delaying essential
projects or neglecting existing facilities, may compromise patient
safety and prove even more costly to VA and veterans in the long run.
The Veterans Benefits Administration also faces challenges that
require additional funding for staffing. One of these challenges
results from an aging workforce. Projections suggest that 25 percent of
current VBA decisionmakers will retire by 2004. These losses would be
in addition to the staff that has already left service. It takes 2-3
years to fully train a new decisionmaker. Therefore, it is critical
that VBA hire new employees now to fully train them before the
experienced trainers and mentors have retired.
In addition to this looming succession crisis, extensive new
legislation enacted in 2000 will severely affect VBA's workload.
Sweeping enhancements to the Montgomery GI Bill are expected to double
VA's education claims work. New legislation reestablishing the ``duty
to assist'' veterans in developing their claims, regulations
presumptively connecting diabetes to Agent Orange exposure in Vietnam
veterans, and new software systems intended to improve the quality of
decisionmaking have severely affected VBA's workload and slowed output.
West Virginia veterans are already receiving letters from the VA
regional office warning them to expect a 9-12 month delay for even
initial consideration of their new claims.
If VBA is unable to hire new staff, the increasing backlog of
claims--which is already unacceptable--would reach abominable levels.
Without an increase in staffing, the backlog of claims is expected to
grow from the current 400,000 claims (up from 309,000 in September
2000) to 600,000 by March 2002. VBA will need a minimum increase of
$132 million to acquire the tools, staffing and technology, to avert
this escalating disaster.
The mission of the National Cemetery Administration, NCA, providing
an honorable resting place for our Nation's veterans--is becoming more
difficult as we face the solemn task of memorializing an increasing
number of World War II and Korean War veterans. It is estimated that
574,000 veterans died last year. The aging of the veterans population
is placing additional demands on NCA in interments, maintenance, and
other operations. VA has attempted to meet this demand by opening four
cemeteries over the last 2 years and planning construction of the six
new cemeteries authorized by Congress in 1999. It is estimated that an
increase of $21 million will be required to develop these cemeteries.
Increases are also required to maintain the VA's National Shrine
Commitment. We must preserve our national cemeteries so that they do
not dishonor those who died serving their country. Sunken graves and
damaged headstones cannot be tolerated. We applaud VA's commitment to
this initiative and encourage VA to continue the project. In order to
rise to this task and operate its current facilities, NCA will require
an increase of at least $13 million for a total appropriation of $123
million.
If we fail to amend the Budget Resolution before us, we tacitly place
the needs of affluent Americans before our obligations to our veterans.
While we consider the best way to cut taxes responsibly, we mustn't
lose sight of our obligations. We all need to agree on how much should
go to tax cuts and how much should be saved to strengthen Medicare,
invest in education, and fully address the needs of the men and women
who have served our country. I urge you all to support this amendment
so that we can fulfill our Nation's promise to our veterans.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, 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. CONRAD. 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. CONRAD. Mr. President, we should observe for our colleagues that
we set a goal of going to the debate on reconciliation at 3:30. Wonder
of wonders, we have accomplished that goal.
I thank all of our colleagues who have worked together to help make
this happen. I single out, of course, the chairman of the Senate Budget
Committee, Mr. Domenici, who, along with his staff, has worked so
diligently to bring us to this point.
I also want to thank on our side, Senator Reid, the whip, who has
really worked night and day to try to expedite the consideration of
this budget resolution. I think working together we have managed to get
the trains to run on time, which is not always the case in the Senate.
Again, I thank very much my colleague, the chairman of the Budget
Committee along with his very able staff, including the director, Mr.
Hoagland, for the very hard work they have done.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, somehow I feel that we are not yet
finished, that we have a long way to go. I think I am right.
Nonetheless, we ought to stop over and pat ourselves on the back this
afternoon because we didn't really have this afternoon all planned out
with any unanimous consent agreements. We had 2 hours. I think we have
made the best of it. I think from that side four different amendments
have been considered with various Senators speaking, and we have had
time for others to give speeches on matters of importance. We have
taken some on our side. They are all subject to amendment, unless we
accept them. We have looked at them to see if we can dispose of them.
I thank Senator Conrad and his staff because we got a long way today
toward accommodating Senators who felt very strongly that they had to
give a speech along with their amendment. Nobody is limited in the
future, but the vote-arama will take a very long time.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 345

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] proposes an
amendment numbered 345.

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

(Purpose: To provide for tax relief)

At the end of title I, insert the following:

SEC. . RECONCILIATION OF REVENUE REDUCTIONS IN THE SENATE.

The Committee on Finance of the Senate shall report to the
Senate a reconciliation bill--
(1) not later than May 18, 2001: and
(2) not later than September 14, 2001

that consists of changes in laws within its jurisdiction
sufficient to reduce the total level of revenues for the
period of fiscal years 2001 through 2011 by not more than the
sum of the totals set out in Section 101(1)(B) of this
resolution and increase the total level of outlays by not
more than $60,000,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2001
through 2011.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, as I understand it, we have 3 hours to
debate this reconciliation instruction, one-half hour for the
distinguished Senator Byrd, or his designee, and one-half hour for the
Senator from New Mexico, or his designee; is that right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, since Senator Gramm wants to speak in
the

[[Page S3499]]

way that addresses a matter brought up with reference to tax cuts
earlier, I will yield on our side 10 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
Budget Committee. This has been a long, hard process and we are only
part way through it. Senator Domenici and I don't always agree at every
single moment, but my admiration for him constantly grows as the years
pass and I have an opportunity to work with him more.
We are getting ready to have a serious debate, and I don't want to in
any way infringe on it by getting into any kind of partisan bickering,
but I did want to respond to one point that was made earlier when we
didn't have time to respond. I can be brief about it.
Some of our colleagues lamented the lack of bipartisanship on the
budget. I want to respond, with all due respect, that bipartisanship is
a two-way street. Since we started considering the budget, we have had
amendments offered by Democrat Members of the Senate to spend another
$697 billion over the next 10 years. This is coming on top of the last
6 months of last year, where we added $561 billion to the underlying
spending projections of the Federal Government over the next 10 years.
I just want to say that never in that short a period in American
history, to my knowledge, have we ever had a Congress or a Senate
propose more spending in a shorter period of time. I guess I would say
that you can't have it both ways. You can't have the bipartisanship you
seek and, at the same time, propose that level of spending.
Having gotten all that out of my system, let me turn to the issue
before us. I thank Senator Byrd for his willingness to talk to Senator
Domenici, to me, and to others, in trying to find a way out of this
conflict. When you serve in the Senate, when you have competing visions
for America's future, when you believe in what you are doing, it is
easy to get into conflicts that are unavoidable. But when they are
avoidable and you don't avoid them, it is not only poor legislative
strategy, but I don't think you are living up to the high standards of
this great institution.
So when Senator Byrd raised a concern about using reconciliation on
the tax bill, even though we feel as strong on our side, based on the
precedents that have been used, including the tax increase when
President Clinton was President, and the tax cut that was part of
reconciliation in 1997, we decided that any time you can accommodate
the concerns of another Member without undoing your ability to have a
chance to achieve what you want to do, that you ought to do it.
So we undertook what I call a fairly extensive negotiation. We met
three or four times off and on. We submitted a proposal in writing.
Just to refresh my colleagues' memory, we have about four or five
people who work with this law every day. Senator Byrd wrote most of it.
But to most Members, and almost everybody else in America, it is all
gibberish.
Basically, under reconciliation, we have a very powerful tool that
allows you to have special privilege in implementing your budget. You
are going to hear a lot of debate about that and what it was intended
to do today.
The point is, it does exist. It is part of the law. Under that
procedure, it would mean that the tax bill we bring to the Senate would
be subject to these special procedures: There would be 20 hours of
debate equally divided. The majority could yield back its 10 hours. So
we could end up with 10 hours of debate. We have a strict germaneness
rule on amendments. When the debate is over, we have an up-or-down
vote.
In naming conferees, we have a time limit on debate. We have an up-
or-down vote. That is the procedure that exists in the budget process.
What we had sought to do in trying to work out an accommodation--and
I am sorry it did not work, as I know Senator Byrd is. I want people to
understand there was a good-faith effort to work this out. We proposed
that rather than having 20 hours, we have 50 hours equally divided.
We proposed on first-degree amendments there would be no more than 2
hours, unless the managers yielded more time, that is, if there was
real debate, and on second-degree amendments, only 1 hour; that all
first- and second-degree amendments be germane; that at the end of the
process, we have an up-or-down vote; that on naming conferees, we have
a time limit on debate and then have an up-or-down vote; and the same
procedure would apply to the conference report.
Some concern was raised that even with this agreement, we could come
back and use reconciliation again. It was clear from our intent at the
time that if we agreed to a unanimous consent agreement, there would be
no need to use reconciliation.
In any case, with the best of intentions, we got together.
Differences existed at the end of the process, and no agreement was
reached. So we are here basically in a debate and with a vote coming
that no one wanted, but here it is.
Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I want to give a very brief synopsis of my
argument for the use of reconciliation. We have had an extensive debate
on the floor of the Senate. We are going to adopt a budget at some
point. I hope it will be to my liking, but we are going to adopt one
whether it is to my liking or not. We are going to go to conference. I
hope to be a conferee, and I am confident the conference report will be
more to my liking if this bill is not.
In any case, we want to be sure we have an opportunity to have an up-
or-down vote on the President's tax cut or something very close to it.
Obviously, there is no way we can make people vote for it, but we want
to be sure that a new President with a new agenda gets an opportunity
to have his program voted on.
We obviously are at an impasse as a Senate on naming conferees. When
we worked out this powersharing agreement--an extraordinary agreement,
in my opinion, and a very generous agreement from the majority leader,
in my opinion--one of the things that was not worked out is what do we
do about conferences.
We believe if we pass a tax bill in the Senate and it requires a
conference, we do not want to get into a position where we simply try
to pass the House bill. It may not be the final product we want. That
does not make for good law to do something like that. We ought to be
able to name conferees, and on a tax bill we adopt, obviously we
believe we should have a majority on the conference committee.
Unfortunately, since we could not work out a unanimous consent
agreement, the only way we can be assured that we have this opportunity
to make the case and have an up-or-down vote is through reconciliation.

When reconciliation was used to raise taxes in President Clinton's
first year in office, not one Republican voted for that tax increase,
but no one challenged the right of our colleagues who were in the
majority then to use reconciliation. No one challenged that right. It
was used.
In 1997, in the budget when reconciliation was used to adopt a
bipartisan tax cut, that was a hammered out agreement between the
Republican majority then in both Houses and President Clinton. No one
challenged our right to use reconciliation for that process.
Now we have a situation where we are trying to do for our new
President what President Clinton did. We are trying to follow a
procedure that we followed in 1997 when no objection was made. We
understand strong feelings. We are sorry we could not work this out,
but in the end, we believe the process is the right process, and given
our inability to work out an agreement, we want to use it. That is why
I urge my colleagues to vote to allow us to use the same process that
has been used over and over since the budget process first started.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Gramm for his succinct
summary of where we are and what we are about.
The reason this is a serious debate is because it did not take me 28
years being a Senator to learn--in fact, probably in the early years, I
learned from my opponent who has been in the Senate 43 years--there are
some things

[[Page S3500]]

very special about the Senate that everybody should know. It has a
couple of qualities that are rather incredible for parliamentary
bodies.
One of those is freedom to debate. Sometimes people call that the
right to filibuster. Filibuster does not sound so good, so of late we
call it freedom to debate. That really means if you want to delay
things or if you want to get your way or you want to make some changes
your colleagues do not want to make in the Senate, you can get the
floor and can talk as long as you can talk and nobody can stop you
until you stop yourself. It even means more than that.
Essentially, it is the right to debate as long as you want and as
long as you can.
The second quality that makes this a very different institution is
the right to offer amendments. It takes some people a while to know
what that really means.
I can recall during the Vietnam war there was a Senator from the west
coast who used to sit at one of the desks in the back. I am going to be
as plain and honest about it as I can. Come 8 o'clock at night, it was
5 o'clock in the Senator's State. At about that time in the afternoon,
regardless of what we were debating, that Senator would try to get the
floor and try to offer either an amendment or resolution regarding the
Vietnam war because he was becoming known as an anti-Vietnam war
Senator.
Of course, at 8 o'clock in the Senate, it was 5 o'clock in the State
on the west coast. If one does that every 5 or 6 days, you get to be
known as the anti-Vietnam Senator. A Senator can also offer that to any
kind of bill. It can be offered to an appropriations bill. It can be
offered to an authorizing bill unless there is an agreement to the
contrary. It is a Senator's right.
Those are the two qualities that are most significant about the
Senate. I learned them rather quickly. I do not think I appreciated
them in terms of the institution for maybe about 10 years.
I soon found, once I became a member of the Budget Committee --in
fact, through a quirk of things, I got on very early and I did not
choose to ever get off because I could see myself moving up, never
thinking I would ever be chairman. I could see myself moving up and
being ranking member. All of a sudden, the Republicans took over the
Senate, and I got a call from Senator Baker who said: Hi, Mr. Chairman,
you are chairing the Budget Committee. If I was not in that position, I
was in the position of lead Republican.
I found out very quickly those two qualities--the right to filibuster
or debate as long as you want and the right to amend --were changed by
a law that changed the rules of the Senate. I am holding it up.
This is the law. It was adopted 25 years ago. It changed, for as long
as this law is operative, the rules of the Senate because if you have a
reconciliation instruction under this Budget Act, which changes the
rules of the Senate, that reconciliation instruction no longer carries
with it on the floor of the Senate those two cherished privileges.
It has a limited debate because this law says the debate is limited.
It says only 50 hours of debate on a resolution and only 20 hours of
debate on a bill that comes forward from this document and a resolution
called reconciliation.
Guess what else it did. You do not have a right to amend a bill that
is a creature of a reconciliation instruction which is a creature of
this law. You don't have that right. Laws on amendments are very
narrowly construed.
I know my good friend, Senator Byrd, is going to attempt to draw a
distinction between what we are doing in this budget resolution because
we have a surplus and what we did other times--either by increasing the
taxes, as we did for President Clinton in a reconciliation instruction,
which meant 20 hours of debate and, for all intents and purposes, no
amendments. We were in the minority, and every single Democrat voted to
give the Finance Committee that authority, and then every Democrat
voted to pass the bill that was the creature of that reconciliation--
split exactly down party lines. But taxes were increased under the
process created by this act, in derogation of the normal rules of the
Senate.
I happened to have been here through almost every reconciliation, and
my friend from West Virginia frequently calls it ``re-conciliation,''
and we have agreed that both pronunciations are correct.
Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. I am happy to yield.
Mr. BYRD. The pronunciation by the distinguished Senator from New
Mexico is the correct one. I have just gotten into a habit for a long
time of saying ``re-conciliation.'' I think it is reconciliation. I am
liable to stay in the same old habit.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe the budget resolution before
the Senate today is like other budget resolutions. And I have been a
party to every single one. If somebody wants to write the history of
what has happened that is most significant to the Senate in the past 25
years, they can start off with this bill. This has caused the most
significant changes that the Senate has had imposed upon it by virtue
of a reconciliation instruction that has, on some occasions, reduced
spending. On other occasions, it has increased taxes. On other
occasions--and if we get around to the details I will list them for
everyone--we have used it to cut taxes or reduce taxes.
Those who will write the history of the past 25 years will probably
say that no other document has caused more changes in the tax laws up
and down, in the changing of entitlements up and down, without full
debate and without the right to amend, than this document over this 25
years.
I was thinking I would come to the floor and tell the Senate every
reconciliation bill of which I have been a part. But the list is too
long. It is very long. There have been many. You can tell if you read
statutes of the U.S. Congress and you find something that says Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1976 or 1981, almost without exception
they are the creature of a reconciliation instruction done on the floor
of both Houses ultimately to their respective committees.
Frankly, I don't see any difference between what we have done in the
past and what we have done here. As a matter of fact, there was an
occasion in 1996 when the other side of the aisle challenged a proposal
in a budget resolution to reduce taxes. They actually raised the point
of order that it wasn't right, it wasn't permitted under this act. The
Parliamentarian agreed that it was. We had a vote where the other
side challenged that and sought to appeal the ruling of the Chair. The
Chair was sustained. The Chair was sustained by a partisan vote. We had
the majority by three then. We had 53 Senators then. The Senate decided
you could use reconciliation to reduce taxes, as they were in 1976. I
might suggest they were done again in 1997 and 1999 and no challenge
was made to them.

In two instances we did it, and the President vetoed the bills
anyway. So you don't find an omnibus reconciliation tax bill for those
years. But one did pass the Congress, both Houses.
All I have sought in the budget resolution and all I seek here is to
use the same process we have been using since this Budget Act was
adopted. It had many experts, but in order to become what it has
become, because it still works, it had to have some knowledgeable input
when it was written.
What did they need to do? They needed to make sure that nothing stood
in the way of getting a budget resolution, No. 1, including that rules
of the Senate could not stand in the way of the budget resolution. It
had a limited amount of time. And it had to get passed.
Then they didn't want reconciliation to be held up. In particular,
section 310 of the act, on page 25 of the act, states: Inclusion of
reconciliation directives in a concurrent resolution on the budget--a
concurrent resolution on the budget for any fiscal year to the extent
necessary to effectuate the provisions and requirements of such a
resolution.
That is precisely what we are trying to do with our request that this
procedure be made available.
Frankly, some have asked: Senator Domenici, how can you keep on doing
these year after year? I don't know. I think it is because the
reconciliation process provides an opportunity to get something done.
If there wasn't something significant happening because we stood here
on the floor and produced a budget resolution, I say to my good

[[Page S3501]]

friend Senator Byrd, I don't think I would have been staying on the
Budget Committee, doing budget resolutions, if we just admonished
committees and then they didn't have to do it. In fact, I stayed on
because we had to tell committees what the parameters were and they did
it. We always told them, if they didn't do it, something might happen.
They misconstrued us sometimes, and they thought we would write their
law. We didn't know what would happen. The leadership would have to
find a way to enforce it if the committees didn't.
The point is it has been exciting because we have done 12, 14, maybe
15 reconciliation bills that have literally caused change that would
not have happened. Senator Graham you didn't like some of the changes.
Some of the changes I didn't like. To tell you the truth, I didn't like
many of them. But I don't believe we should deny ourselves an
opportunity for this new President to have us use a reconciliation
instruction bound and borne by this Budget Act which changes the rules
of the Senate for as long as this law exists.
I didn't think we should say: We have used it, but you can't use it
now. We thought our President's proposals for 4 percent growth in the
expenditures of government in the ordinary and regular appropriation
process and a $1.6 trillion tax cut over 10 years out of a surplus of
$5.6 trillion seemed to be more than justified by the new President's
proposals for sound fiscal policy and, indeed, for sound tax policy for
our people.
With that as my introductory remarks and my concern, I offer today an
instruction, an instruction that we would ask the Senate to vote on
soon, sometime this evening, that essentially says we can use the
process called reconciliation to accomplish the tax consequences of
this budget resolution in its final form, whatever that is.
I am quite sure that I have not made this interesting for those out
there listening; it is pretty hard to make this interesting. But
neither do I hope that I appear anything but serious.
A little while ago one of my good friends asked me to smile. I smiled
in response, so big that I couldn't talk. Then I said I have to either
quit smiling or I can't talk anymore.
In any event, it is serious. I think we should all try very hard to
make the average person listening to this understand it is important to
their business. The public's business is really affected by the rules
and the rights of Senators. But they are also affected by the rules and
rights created by this Budget Impoundment Act of 1975. I did not help
write it. I voted for it. I think it passed overwhelmingly. I don't
know if there were even any negative votes for it. I remember Senators
such as Chuck Percy from Government Operations playing a part in it,
coming to the floor, saying it was the biggest change we will ever
effect.
It took me 5 or 6 years to understand it really was a big change. All
we want to do now on our budget is make sure the changes permitted by
this law be carried over to this President's tax proposals so we can
get a start, as he would say, toward letting the people of this country
get back some of their money and also to create a kind of tax policy
that will be good for the future.
I am going to read this. I will not go into any detail. I would say
reconciliation has been used by the Senate--with reference, Senator
Gramm, to tax law changes--not 1 time, not 5 times, 15 times--one-five
times it has been used--10 times to increase taxes and all became law,
5 times to cut taxes, 2 became law, 2 were vetoed, and 1 did not find
its way beyond the Halls of Congress. It was what was seen to be a
rather useless chore, to send it down to be vetoed. But the Congress
did it. So I repeat, over 25 years no wonder the Senator from New
Mexico wanted to stay on this. We were changing things dramatically, 15
times--10 to increase taxes, all of which happened; 5 to cut taxes, all
of which happened.
With that history I very much appreciate Senator Byrd wanting this
matter to be thoroughly discussed. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this is a critically important debate.
This is not fundamentally a question of the issue of the President's
proposal for a tax cut. This is a far bigger issue than that. This is
the fundamental question of the role of the Senate in our Government.
Our Founding Fathers had a genius. They created this structure of
government to protect the rights of the American people. They built a
House of Representatives that they wanted to respond to the immediate
feelings of the people, a body elected every 2 years. They wanted them
to respond to the will of the people and the immediate passions of the
moment.
They created the Senate with Senators having 6-year terms for a very
different reason. They wanted the Senate to be the cooling saucer in
our Government. They wanted the Senate to be able to debate and amend
and to coolly reflect on what the policies should be for our country.
That is the role of the Senate, and this debate is consequential
because it would dramatically change the role of the Senate.
Reconciliation means no less than Senators giving up their
fundamental right to extended debate and amendment. Those are the
things that distinguish this body from parliamentary bodies the world
around. It is what has made this Chamber the greatest parliamentary
body in the world. All of that is at stake in the next 3 hours, because
at the end of that time we are going to vote, and how we vote will help
determine the future role of this body.

Reconciliation was established in 1974 to allow Congress to make
last-minute spending or revenue changes. It was not intended to be used
to enact major new spending proposals or major tax cuts or substantive
policy changes. It was a device to make small changes. It was in that
context that Senators were willing to limit their right to debate and
offer amendments, because it was so narrowly to be applied.
By the early 1980s, reconciliation had evolved into a mechanism for
deficit reduction. For example, in 1981, Congress used reconciliation
to enact the spending cuts that President Reagan called for. It was not
used for the tax cuts that President Reagan proposed and that were
passed precisely for the reasons I have given. It was for deficit
reduction, not for spending, not for tax cuts.
In 1985, Congress passed the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget
Emergency Deficit Control Act and, in separate legislation, the Byrd
rule. Both proposals served to limit the focus of reconciliation solely
to deficit reduction.
What is being proposed now is precisely the opposite, a $1.6 trillion
tax cut with limited debate, limited time for amendment, the rights of
each Senator sharply curtailed. That was never the intention of the
Founding Fathers of our Nation--never.
There have been attempts in recent years to dramatically alter
reconciliation to implement major tax cuts instead of to achieve
deficit reduction, but not once have those changes been enacted. No
reconciliation package that did not reduce the deficit has ever been
enacted--not one.
The Senator from Texas referred to 1993 and President Clinton's
budget that included reconciliation. Precisely so, because that was a
deficit reduction package.
In example after example that has been given by my colleagues on the
other side, they have neglected to point out that when reconciliation
actually was used and law was enacted, those were deficit reduction
packages.
Every one that involved a tax cut was never enacted--not once.
That is why this debate is so consequential, so profound, and will
set a very important precedent.
In 1981, a colloquy occurred during consideration of the
reconciliation bill. Majority leader Howard Baker, the Republican
leader, and the Democratic leader, Senator Byrd, underscored the belief
that the intent of reconciliation was limited to deficit reduction.
According to Senator Howard Baker, the revered Republican leader:

Reconciliation was never meant to be a vehicle for an
omnibus authorization bill. To permit it as such is to break
faith with the Senate's historical uniqueness as a forum for
the exercise of minority and individual rights. In 1985,
Congress passed the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget
Emergency Deficit Control Act in order to reduce the growing
budget deficit. The 1985 act provided that no amendments to a
reconciliation bill would be in order if the amendment did
not have the result of reducing the

[[Page S3502]]

deficit. That was the purpose of reconciliation, to reduce
deficits, to either increase taxes or to cut spending but to
reduce deficits. It was not designed to either allow or
permit an increase in spending, or cuts in taxes. That is
precisely the opposite of what was intended.

I call my colleagues' attention to something the chairman of the
Senate Budget Committee said back in 1985. He said:

Frankly, as chairman of the Budget Committee, I am aware of
how beneficial reconciliation can be to deficit reduction.
But I am also totally aware of what can happen when we choose
to use this kind of process to basically get around the Rules
of the Senate as to limiting debate. Clearly, unlimited
debate is the prerogative of the Senate that is greatly
modified under this process. I have grown to understand that
this institution, while it has a lot of shortcomings, has
some qualities that are rather exceptional. One of those is
the fact that it is an extremely free institution, that we
are free to offer amendments, that we are free to take as
much time as this Senate will let us to debate and have those
issues thoroughly understood both here and across the
country.

The Senator from New Mexico, our budget chairman, was right when he
said that in 1985.
He said in 1989:

There are few things about the United States Senate that
people understand to be very, very, significant. One is that
you have the right, a rather broad right, the most
significant right, among all parliamentary bodies in the
world to amend freely on the floor. The other is the right to
debate and to filibuster. When the Budget Act was drafted,
the reconciliation procedure was crafted very carefully. It
was intended to be used rather carefully because, in essence,
Mr. President, it vitiated those two significant
characteristics of this place that many have grown to respect
and admire. Some think it is a marvelous institution of
democracy, and if you lose those two qualities, you just
about turn this U.S. Senate into the United States House of
Representatives, our other parliamentary body.

That is what this debate is about. Are we going to have a Senate that
functions as our forefathers intended, as the Framers of the
Constitution intended, or are we going to turn this body into a second
House of Representatives?
That would be a profound mistake--a mistake for our country, a
mistake for this Chamber, and a mistake for the future.

I hope very much that cooler heads will prevail, that we will vote to
reject reconciliation for this purpose, and that we will reserve it for
deficit reduction.
This is a profoundly important decision. We have just a few hours
before it will be resolved. I hope very much that we understand and
appreciate that we can consider tax cuts in this Chamber without using
the reconciliation process that limits the rights of Senators and that
changes the role of the Senate.
Massive tax cuts were considered without reconciliation in 1981. They
can be considered without reconciliation in the year 2001.
That is what we should do. That is what we must do.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. I ask my colleague from West
Virginia to proceed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The Senator from West
Virginia is recognized.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Herodotus, the Father of History, instructs
us that on his way to Salamis, Xerxes the Great, the Persian monarch,
ascended a hill because he had a longing to behold his mighty army,
which was probably the largest army that was ever assembled in the
history of the world. And arriving there, he paused to look upon all of
his mighty hosts.
As there was a throne of white marble, which had been prepared
beforehand at his bidding, Xerxes the Great, son of Darius and grandson
of Cyrus the Great, took his seat upon it, and he gazed thence upon the
shore below, beheld at one view, all of his mighty land forces and all
of his ships, which he had assembled for this great battle, which would
soon occur in the Sea of Aegina, and which is recalled to us as the
battle of Salamis in 480 B.C.
As he looked and saw the whole Hellespont covered with the vessels of
his fleet, all the shores and every plain about him as full as possible
of men, Xerxes congratulated himself on his great power and his great
fortune, but after a little while, he wept.
Then, Artabanus, the King's uncle, when he saw Xerxes in tears, said
to Xerxes: ``How different, Sire, is what thou art now doing from what
thou didst a little while ago? Then thou didst congratulate thyself;
now, behold, thou weepest.''
Replied Xerxes: ``There came upon me a sudden pity when I thought of
the shortness of man's life, and considered that all of this mighty
host, which has gathered from the many provinces under my control as
King of Persia, so numerous as it is, not one --not one--will be alive
100 years from today.''
So, Mr. President, as I stand today and gaze upon this Chamber, I,
like Xerxes, consider that of the 100 Senators--when I came here there
were 96; and there were 100 Senators in the original Roman Senate--of
the 100 Senators who will cast their votes today, not one will be alive
when 100 years are gone by. But just as we who live today revere the
names and the works of our illustrious forebears who framed the
Constitution 214 years ago, so will our posterity--our children, our
children's children, and our children's children's children--look back
upon us and our works. And may our children, oh, God, have cause to
bless the memory of their fathers, as we have cause to bless the memory
of ours.
Posterity will see fit to look back upon us, whether it be 100 years
from today or whether it be 10 years from now, and will have reason to
judge us, in considerable measure, by whether we, in our time, so serve
as to perpetuate the blessings that have come down to us from our
forbears, the greatest blessing of all being the Constitution of the
United States--I hold it in my hand--and the perpetuation of the rights
of men and women, the perpetuation of the constitutional principles
laid down in that document, the perpetuation of the principles of
freedom to debate and amend that have been handed down to us as
Senators by our forefathers.
Will our posterity thank us for perpetuating a Senate founded upon
the bedrock principles of freedom of debate and amendment? Will they
remember us as having so acted as to hand down to them unblemished,
untarnished, and unstained the right and freedom to speak, to debate,
and to amend? The rights of Senators to debate and amend at length are
being denied. And such a denial is a denial of due process--due
process. And that denial is not only a denial of our rights to amend
and to speak freely in this Chamber at length, but a denial to our
constituents who send us here.
These rights go back hundreds of years. They did not originate in
1787 in Philadelphia. They did not originate there. They were
recognized centuries ago. And their roots are buried deep in the mists
of antiquity.
I will read just a few words from the Magna Carta, which was signed
at Runnymede, in the meadow at Runnymede, on June 15, 1215, when the
King was compelled by his subjects to sign that great document. Let me
read briefly therefrom. Chapter 12:

No scutage nor aid shall be imposed on our kingdom, unless
by common counsel of our kingdom. . . .

What was an aid? An aid was a revenue, a kind of revenue that vassals
of the King were compelled to pay him.

No scutage nor aid shall be imposed in our kingdom, unless
by common counsel of our kingdom. . . .

That means everybody.
Chapter 14:

And for obtaining the common counsel of the kingdom anent
the assessing of an aid (except in the three cases aforesaid)
or of a scutage, we will cause to be summoned the
archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons,
severally by our letters [under seal]; and we will moreover
cause to be summoned generally, through our sheriffs and
bailiffs, all others who hold of us in chief, for a fixed
date, namely, after the expiry of at least forty days, and at
a fixed place; and in all letters of such summons we will
specify the reason of the summons. And when the summons has
thus been made, the business shall proceed on the day
appointed, according to the counsel of such as are present,
although not all who were summoned have come.

Now what was King John saying? He was saying: No tax, no aid, no
revenue will be imposed upon my vassals, my people, except by the
common consent of the kingdom, not just by the common consent of a few.
And he indicated in writing, by the way he defined the various groups
of people--meaning all of his people would be represented: the
archbishops, the bishops, the earls, and so on--that they would gather
and that they would pass upon the revenues that he requested.

[[Page S3503]]

So as we deal with the matter before us, which involves revenue, let
us remember that our rights, our people's rights to be represented by
us in full, the roots of those rights go back centuries and centuries
ago.

At Runnymede, at Runnymede,
What say the reeds at Runnymede?
At Runnymede, at Runnymede,
Your rights were won at Runnymede!
No freeman shall be fined or bound,
Or dispossessed of freehold ground,
Except by lawful judgment found
And passed upon him by his peers!
Forget not, after all these years,
The Charter signed at Runnymede.

Today we are finding, over the experience of the last few days, that
those rights, the roots of which go back to Runnymede and beyond, are
being short-circuited. They are being trampled upon.
We are in very uncharted waters with this budget. It is a 10-year
budget. This is the first time in my long tenure of nearly 49 years on
Capitol Hill that the Congress has ever tried to enact a 10-year
budget. No one is very sure of any of the assumptions and estimates
underlying this 10-year budget plan--nobody. Even those witnesses who
appeared before our committee, the Budget Committee, indicated they
couldn't be sure of their estimates. Yet, some in this body are
perfectly willing to roll the dice and let the devil take the
consequences.
I am amazed that this tactic is even being attempted. We have an
equally divided Senate, 50 Republicans, 50 Democrats. The Presidential
election was virtually a tie in the popular vote. There is no clear
mandate for this President. Mr. Bush is President. He took the oath of
office. There is no question regarding his being the President of the
United States--no question--no question whatsoever as to his legitimacy
in holding this office--none. But there is no clear mandate. We have
not heard the voices of the people clamoring for this economic plan.
Yet, the majority side is using this procedural straitjacket called
reconciliation to keep free-flowing debate, for which our forefathers
fought and died, from happening, free-flowing debate and amendment on
the forthcoming tax cut. There is no mandate for that tax cut, with 50/
50 in the Senate and the membership in the other body being likewise
very close insofar as the number of Republicans and number of Democrats
are concerned.
This President has said over and over and over again that he wants to
change things in Washington. This President has said he wants
bipartisanship. Yet we are very far from any attempt at bipartisanship
when we resort to heavy-handed tactics to shut out one side of the
aisle.
We wanted a markup in the Budget Committee. We asked for a markup in
the Budget Committee. We pleaded for a markup in the Budget Committee.
We were entitled to have a markup in the Budget Committee. But didn't
get it. The Budget Committee is split 11 to 11. In fact, instead of
bipartisanship, then, what we have here is gamesmanship--gamesmanship
of the worst sort.
There are those in this town who are so polarized, so intent upon
winning that nothing else matters but to win. They don't care what they
win as long as they win. They don't care what the cost is to this body,
the central balance wheel of the Constitution, this body, the master
stroke of the Framers, the jewel of the Constitution--the Senate. They
don't care what the cost may be to the country. Winning is everything.
They have to win.
We are tied here 50/50, and it doesn't matter so much how we attain
the end, how we win; the important thing is that we win. At the time of
the enactment of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act
of 1974, it was thought that Congress would pass its first budget
resolution at the beginning of each session, and this would be followed
by the annual Appropriations Bills and any other spending measures.
Then, Congress would issue any reconciliation instructions that might
be necessary to bring the spending and revenues into line with the
Budget Resolution, and that process was to involve the passage of a
second Budget Resolution.

Reconciliation involves a two-stage process, in which reconciliation
instructions are included in the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget--
that is what is before the Senate--to direct appropriate Committees to
achieve the desired budgetary results, and then to incorporate those
results into an omnibus bill which is considered under expedited
procedures in the House and in the Senate.
Fast track procedures were included in the Congressional Budget Act
to help Congress quickly to enact necessary changes in spending or
revenues so as to insure the integrity of the Budget Resolution
targets. The fast track procedures limit Senate debate on
reconciliation bills to 20 hours and allow only germane amendments.
Time on reconciliation bills may be further limited by non-debatable
motion. The managers of a reconciliation bill may yield back their
time, which can further cut the time for consideration.
Unfortunately, reconciliation bills have proved to be almost
irresistible vehicles for Senators to use to move all manner of
legislation because of these fast-track procedures, and, in recent
times, the misuse has been gross.
Fast track procedures take away from Senators--the elected
representatives of the people in this Chamber-- the opportunity to
offer their amendments and to fully debate them. Reconciliation,
therefore, is a non-filibusterable ``bear trap" that should be used
very sparingly and only for purposes of fiscal restraint.
In other words, reconciliation should be used only--hear me now--
reconciliation should be used only for reducing deficits. I know my
good friend from New Mexico says otherwise, but hear me. To trample
upon the rights of men and women in this body, to take away from them
the right to freely debate and amend measures, is a very serious thing.
We passed that act in 1974 saying, yes, we will, for a very narrow
purpose, under certain narrow circumstances, take away for a brief time
and for a brief purpose those rights, the right to debate and to amend.
The Senate is the foremost upper body in the world today. Why is it so
unique? Why? Because in this Chamber, men and women who are elected by
the people back home have the right, the constitutional right, to
freely debate and amend.
Augustus, the first great Roman Emperor, from 27 B.C. to 14 A.D.,
didn't like to hear senators argue and debate. So he was critical of
senators who had the nerve to debate. And their answer was: ``Don't
senators have the right to debate, to speak, to criticize the
commonwealth?"
Reconciliation was established only for reducing deficits. In 1999,
the reconciliation process was used by the Republican leadership to
allow for a $792 billion tax cut to be brought to the Senate using
fast-track procedures, taking away the right to debate fully and amend
that tax cut bill. I believe this was the first time--or at least one
of the rare times--that reconciliation instructions were issued that
mandated a worsening of fiscal discipline for the Federal Government.
Unlike the fiscal year 1997 budget resolution, I do not believe that
the budget reconciliation instructions in 1999 resulted in improving
the fiscal status of the Federal budget. Again, in the year 2000, the
reconciliation process was used to allow for major tax cuts to be
brought before the Senate in reconciliation bills. In short, we have,
in my view--and I think my view is based upon facts. I am not
interested in who wins, whether it is Democrats or Republicans, as far
as that is concerned; I am interested in maintaining unblemished,
untarnished, and unstained the fundamental principles on which this
Senate rests, and they are involved here. In short, we have, in my
view, abused and distorted beyond all recognition the original, very
limited purpose of the reconciliation procedure.
Now let those who wish to contest that do so. It is obvious that the
Republican majority will, for the third straight year, attempt
ultimately to fashion a budget resolution that will contain
reconciliation instructions to the Senate Finance Committee and House
Ways and Means Committee, directing them to bring forth the Bush
administration's $1.6 trillion tax cut bill.
Taking advantage of the reconciliation procedures in this way would
be the latest in what has become a steady degradation of the
congressional budget process. Reconciliation, which was created to make
it easier to impose budget discipline, is instead being used

[[Page S3504]]

to make it easier to get around the Senate's rights to debate and
amend. Reconciliation, therefore, is being turned on its head.
Hear me. ``O, that my tongue were in the thunder's mouth, then with a
passion would I shake the world!'' There is no reason whatsoever to
consider the President's tax cut proposal as a reconciliation bill. The
Senate should take up this massive tax cut proposal as a freestanding
bill. That is the way we have always done it. It is a tax cut bill. It
should be fully debated and amended. That is what was done in 1981 when
President Reagan sent to Congress his tax cut proposal. On that
occasion, Congress used the reconciliation process to accomplish the
spending cuts in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, but the Reagan
tax cuts were brought before the Senate as a freestanding bill and were
fully debated, without depending on reconciliation fast-track
procedures. More than 100 amendments were disposed of, and the Reagan
tax cut bill was debated for 12 days prior to its passage. The Senate
Republican leadership in that instance chose to do the right thing by
bringing the Reagan tax cut bill to the Senate as a freestanding
measure rather than use fast-track reconciliation procedures. It was
thoroughly aired.

Taking the easy way and doing the expedient thing rarely requires
much leadership. The former Republican leader, Howard Baker, who was
the majority leader--I was the minority leader --did the right thing
for the Senate, for the President, and for the country.
In 1993, my own Democratic leadership--now, listen to this. In 1993,
my own Democratic leadership pleaded with me. How many of my friends on
the Republican side today would stand as firm as the Rock of Gibraltar
as I did on that occasion? The Democratic leadership pleaded with me at
length to agree to support the idea that the Clinton health care bill
should be included in that year's reconciliation package. They came to
my office on the floor below. Not only did Majority Leader George
Mitchell and others of my colleagues attempt to persuade me to go along
and not raise a point of order under the Byrd rule, which would require
60 votes to waive, President Clinton got on the phone and called me
also and pressed me to allow his massive health care bill to be
insulated by reconciliation's protection. He called me on the
telephone. Here is the President of the United States calling this
lowly former coal town boy and asking me to let his huge health bill
come before the Senate on that fast track. I could not, in good
conscience, however, look the other way and not make that point of
order and allow what would clearly have been an abuse of congressional
intent to occur.
How many others would do that today on that side of the aisle, stand
against their President. Well, perhaps that is not too important.
I felt that changes as dramatic as the Clinton health care package,
which would affect every man, woman, and child in the United States,
should be subject to scrutiny. I said: Mr. President, I cannot in good
conscience turn my face the other way. That is why we have a Senate--to
amend and to debate freely--and that health bill, important as it is,
is so complex, so far reaching that the people of this country need to
know what is in it and, moreover, Mr. President, we Senators need to
know what is in it.
He accepted that. He accepted that, thanked me, and we said goodbye.
I could not, I would not, and I did not allow that package to be
handled in such a cavalier manner. It was the threat of the use of the
Byrd rule--and my how that Byrd rule has been maligned and excoriated
and criticized by many Members of the other body who should be thanking
the Senate for it. It was the threat of the use of the Byrd rule that
bolstered my position. My view prevailed then; my view is the same
today. It is time for the abuse of the reconciliation process to cease.
We should not be using tight, expedited procedures to take up measures
that worsen the fiscal situation of the Nation and that have far
reaching, profound impacts on the people. Reconciliation was never,
never, never intended to be a shield, to be used as a shield for
controversial legislation by depriving Senators of their rights and
their duty to debate and to amend.
I want the Senate to have an opportunity to work its will and to
apply its considered judgment to the massive tax cut that is being
proposed by the Bush administration. I strenuously object to having
such a far-reaching, critical matter swathed in the protective bandages
of a reconciliation process and ramrodded through this body like a
self-propelled missile. Nobody who has listened to the testimony of
witnesses before the Budget Committee could possibly claim that the
right choices are clear. There is vast uncertainty and disagreement
about nearly every aspect of the Bush tax cut.
The President's proposal is not an edict, and the Senate is not a
quivering body of humble subjects who must obey.

Come one, come all! this rock shall fly
From its firm base as soon as I.

This is the Senate. Reliance on reconciliation as the torpedo with
which to deliver a knock-out punch for the President is a tactic that
ought to be abandoned. It is not a fair course. It is not a wise
course. It is not right to enforce this reconciliation gag rule upon
the Senate. It is wrong. We must not shackle the intellects of 100
Members of the Senate in this way. We should not fear the wisdom of
open and free-ranging debate about a proposal which is, at best, risky
business. Now is no time to circle the wagons. Now is the time to hear
all of the voices on both sides of the aisle. Now is the time to build
consensus among ourselves and among the people we represent.
There will be no victory if we make the wrong choices and plunge this
Nation back into a deficit status. There will be no victory. We will
have plenty of time to regret and to weep.
The President has said that he wants bipartisanship. He has said that
he has faith in his plan. I believe, therefore, that there is no need
to hide behind the iron wall of reconciliation. This would be a hollow
victory, indeed, for the President, and for the majority leadership in
this body.

As to the tax cut itself, the Bush proposal is pretty stale bread. It
probably came from last year's campaign wars that blew up in the snows
of winter in New Hampshire. If it ever was a good idea, it probably is
not now. The economic picture has changed since then and changed
radically. The type and size of the tax cut proposed in the President's
budget--and we have not seen his budget. Why haven't we seen his
budget? It was promised to us for Monday of this week, but now we know
that it will be Monday of next week before the budget comes here.
I have been among those who have urged that we just wait a little bit
and, before we cross that railroad crossing where the lights are
flashing, have the budget before us. We can have it by Monday. It is
within 3 blocks of the Capitol right now being printed. So it is
around. Why can't we have it?
The economic picture has changed, as I say, and it has changed
radically. The type and size of the tax cut proposed in the President's
budget obviously bears rethinking. The size of the proposed surplus has
already been diminished by the stock market plunge.
Even the staunchest supporters of the President's $1.6 trillion tax
cut idea would have to admit that the ground has shifted and that the
President's plan might need some adjustment. Only an extremely
doctrinaire mind would continue to claim that this tax cut is still a
perfect fit for the present economy or the projected surpluses that go
out to the far end of 10 years. That would be like claiming that your
size 42 pants still fit fine after you have dropped 25 pounds. The
economy has lost some weight since the President's plan was created.
I can understand the desire to win one for the new President. I can
understand my good friend from Texas, of whom I am very fond and whom I
consider a friend. I live with him here 5 days a week, 4 days a week in
many of the weeks of the year. I live with the chairman of the Budget
Committee who is an extremely able chairman. He is of the true Roman
stock, and I admire him. I admire him. I am sorry that on this occasion
we have to disagree. We will disagree, but disagreement, as far as I am
concerned, lasts only for a day and then it is all in the past.
On the other hand, it is always well to remember that the Senate is
an equal branch, with Members having decades--decades--of experience
which is their duty, their responsibility to apply. The Senate should
not behave

[[Page S3505]]

like some eager puppy taking slippers to its master for a good word and
a pat on the head.
We do this new President no favors to let him have exactly his way if
that way is flawed. He will be blamed. President Bush will be blamed if
this budget turns out to be a disaster for the American people. And we
might be able to avoid some mistakes if the Senate is given a chance to
debate and amend the tax proposal in a separate and freestanding bill.
The President would still get the credit if the amount was cut, but
why would it not be better if it were handed to him after a
freestanding debate?
What is a Republic? Madison in the Federalists No. 14 answered this
question:

In a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government
in person; in a Republic, they assemble and administer it by
their Representatives and agents.

Madison answered that question. Consequently, to whatever degree that
Senators, the elected representatives of the people, are prevented from
debating and amending the legislation of that Congress or the Senate,
to that same degree the people are denied their rights to be heard and
to make decisions through their elected representatives in the Senate.
Benjamin Franklin was asked by a lady following the Constitutional
Convention's close on September 17, 1787: Dr. Franklin, what have you
given us? The answer: A republic, madam, if you can keep it.
Now, in this regard, let's listen to one of the complaints enunciated
in the Declaration of Independence against King George III of England.
In this little book is contained the Constitution and the Declaration
of Independence. At the beginning of the Declaration of Independence,
Thomas Jefferson enunciated the complaints that the people had against
King George III and the reasons why the colonialists were going to
sever those bonds forever. Listen to this:

He [meaning King George III] has refused to pass any laws
for the accommodations of large districts of people, unless
those people would relinquish the Right of Representation in
the legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable
to tyrants only. He has dissolved representative houses
repeatedly.

One of their major complaints was that the King had refused to pass
laws unless the people would give up something, would give up their
right of representation in the legislature.
That really, in essence, is what is happening here. A budget plan for
10 years is about to be passed and, as a result of that budget, unless
the Senate votes otherwise today and/or tomorrow, the people, through
their elected representatives, will be relinquishing their rights to
have full freedom of debate and amendment when it comes to the Bush tax
cut.
I say to Senators, the ranking member of the Budget Committee said
only a little while ago that this is the most important legislation the
Senate will act upon in this session. Why? Not only because it will
involve a huge tax cut, the ramifications of which we cannot clearly
see because we have no budget before us, but also because it goes to
the root, the very marrow of the bone of Senators' constitutional
rights on behalf of their constituents to fully debate and amend.
I say to Senators, our ancestors fought a war with England because of
the denial of representation in the legislature where taxation was
concerned. When the reconciliation process is employed to curtail
debate and amendments on bills making huge tax cuts, the people are
being denied true representation in the Senate because their elected
representatives here, who happen to be in the minority, are being
gagged by the fast-track procedures of the reconciliation process.
When a minority of Senators--and keep in mind, this is the largest
minority that it is possible to have in this Chamber; there are 100
Members in the Chamber, 100 Members have been sworn and the breakdown
is 50/50, so the minority is as large a minority as the Senate could
possibly have. A minority of Senators are being denied by the
reconciliation process the right to debate at length and the right
to freely amend. The people of the United States, who are represented
by that minority in the Senate, are, in essence, being forced to
relinquish the right of representation in the legislature.

How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time remaining is 26\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. BYRD. Let me briefly respond to the distinguished chairman of the
Budget Committee. A chairman of any committee could be no more
distinguished than the chairman of the Budget Committee. Anent the
chairman's statement that what we are doing today is fully in accord
with the intent of the Budget Act, I am saying that it absolutely is
not.
Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. CONRAD. I inquire as to the time remaining on our side and the
time remaining on the Republican side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority has 25\1/2\ minutes and the
majority has 61\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. I ask the Senator if he could wrap up fairly quickly so
we can turn to the other side so we will have some time remaining for
requests of other Senators.
Mr. BYRD. Absolutely. I will be glad to do that. I will postpone what
I was going to say in response to the chairman's claim that this Budget
Act can be in conformity with the act's intent and be used to cut
taxes.
I challenge that. I am ready to do so. I will not do so at the
moment.
On the other hand, I think I should. Section 310 of the Congressional
Budget Act, as enacted in 1974, was arguably neutral in its purpose.
The provision merely authorized reconciliation instructions to change
laws or bills within a committee's jurisdiction. However, several
amendments to the Congressional Budget Act have made it quite clear
that the purpose of reconciliation was for deficit reduction.
Section 310 of the act was amended by the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, to
prohibit amendments to reconciliation bills that reduced revenues, if
the amendment caused a committee to fail to meet its reconciliation
instruction. This prohibition would make no sense if committees could
be instructed to reduce net revenues. It only makes sense if a
committee could be instructed to increase revenues. Furthermore, the
Byrd rule was added as section 313 of the Budget Act. It prohibits as
extraneous any provision reported by a committee that reduces revenues
if that committee failed to meet its reconciliation instructions. The
Byrd rule also prohibits as extraneous a provision that results in net
revenue losses in the years beyond the budget resolution, the outyears,
unless those losses are compensated for by outlay reductions.

Again, these provisions make no sense if committees could be given a
reconciliation instruction to reduce net revenues. They only make sense
if committees could only be instructed to increase revenue.
It should also be noted that section 310 was amended in 1990 to
specifically authorize a reconciliation instruction ``to achieve
deficit reduction''. Thus, there is explicit and there is implicit
language standing for the principle that the purpose of reconciliation
is for deficit reduction. There is nothing in the Congressional Budget
Act stating that reconciliation can be used to reduce revenues. The
only conclusion that can be drawn is that this process is for deficit
reduction.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I inquire of the chairman of the Budget
Committee if he would prefer to go at this point.
Mr. DOMENICI. I understand the distinguished Senator wanted to speak
for 4 minutes. I am delighted to have him do that, if it is all right
with Senator Conrad.
Mr. CONRAD. I am delighted to yield 4 minutes to the Senator from
Florida.
Let me say to my colleagues, we have very little time left on this
side. It is our intention, after the Senator from Florida has spoken,
to allow those on the other side of the aisle to take an extended
period of time to express their view before we come back to our side.
With that, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Florida.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am happy to hear the Senator's
intention, but I do not know what the intention is

[[Page S3506]]

on our side. We are going to do our very best to be fair. We had to sit
through a very lengthy discussion that I thought was very powerful. We
would like a little bit of time to make our rebuttal.
I am suggesting you can go another 4 minutes if that is all right
with you all.
Mr. CONRAD. Yes. We thought we would go to the Senator from Florida
and yield 4 minutes to him.
Mr. DOMENICI. I failed to mention that we have a whole series of
votes on amendment, I might say to Senator Reid, that might occur
tonight after the 6:30 commencement of the vote on the Domenici
reconciliation amendment. I hope Senators do not run off after this
next vote. I think there could be 3 hours' worth of votes tonight just
on what we have already agreed to do.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend, if he will yield, the staff is working
to see if any of those eight amendments can be accepted. But whatever,
there is going to be a lot of voting starting at 6:30.
Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am moved to speak because of
the eloquence of the Senator from West Virginia and what he has taught
us today by his statements as the author of the Byrd rule, as the
author of the reconciliation act, and how he has woven the importance
of this body being able to freely debate and freely amend into the
course of history.

He talked about Runnymede. He talked about Xerxes. As he was speaking
so eloquently, it recalled to my mind Athens in the fifth century
before Christ, one of the greatest golden times in the age of
civilization of planet Earth. But Athens had a problem in a bald-
headed, bandy-legged little man by the name of Socrates who liked to
ask all kinds of questions and who liked to challenge the established
order of things Athenian.
In the process of that experience with democracy and free speech, the
special interests of the day urged the crowd so that the pack became in
full cry to shut up the man who dared to ask the questions--Mr.
Socrates. Ultimately they offered him the cup and said: Have a drink,
Mr. Socrates.
Socrates was such a part of that Athenian society that rather than
break the rules, he drank from the cup. He showed by so doing that he
adhered to the highest principles of Athenian society while they were
muzzling and shackling and clamping his mouth shut.
It is because of that, as a part of the lessons of history, added to
the great lessons of history that the distinguished Senator from West
Virginia has shared with us today, that ultimately led to that
brilliant band of political thinkers who all came together to fashion
this thing we know as the Constitution of the United States, that we do
not want to limit debate or limit amendment, especially, as the Senator
has so eloquently explained to us, on something as enormous and
effective on these United States as a tax bill that will take prevail
for 10 years.
I thank the Senator from West Virginia for the history lesson he has
given us. I thank him for what he represents as the true historian of
this Senate, who can put this debate in perspective and give us another
reason we should not have this reconciliation instruction that will
muzzle this Senate on something so important to the discourse of the
day, an enormous tax bill.
I thank the Senator from West Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. From our side of the aisle I want to say Senator
Grassley is here ready to speak. I understood there were a couple of
other Senators, including Senator Gregg, who wanted to speak. I cannot
assure you as soon as you walk on the floor that you will be able to
speak because time is back and forth and Senator Byrd was entitled to
speak. In a few moments I will yield to my colleague. I understand he
has some very responsive remarks. I want to hear them myself.
Let me say to Senator Byrd, I have heard often--and perhaps I should
say oftentimes--from you of your humble beginnings. I do not in any way
want to suggest that I had humble beginnings. I am not sure my humble
beginnings are relevant. I am sure yours are.
But just so we will know, my father came all the way from Italy, when
he was 14, to the city of Albuquerque. He never learned how to write
English. He could not read well, but he could speak three languages. He
did all right with a small grocery business. He took care of five
children; it looks like all of them went to college; it looks like he
left enough for his wife, to take care of her; and that is all he
worried about.
But I, too, have been challenged by a President. You were challenged
by one. I will explain about that challenge in just a moment. I was
challenged by Ronald Reagan. You weren't on the Budget Committee then.
I wish you would have been. We were marking up after an Easter recess,
having asked the President's Defense Secretary to negotiate with us for
2 months on two different occasions. This Senator from humble
beginnings, son of the Italian immigrants, was called by the President,
called out from a committee meeting to an office, and he said: Adjourn
the meeting. I need to discuss things with you.

Let me tell you that we marked up the bill that afternoon. We
finished because I had my job to do and he had his job to do. We gave
him more defense money. He ended up getting more when Congress was
finished, which is interesting, too.
Let me suggest to the President, and to those who are quite impressed
tonight by the remarks given by the senior Senator from West Virginia--
and I remind everyone that he has had 43 years to learn about this
Senate; I have only had 28. I feel very strongly about the Senate, just
as he does, except I don't have any history to quote. That is just
because I am not a history person, be it ancient, modern. Whatever the
history, I am just not very good at it.
But I can tell you that Senator Byrd's argument tonight is 27 years
too late. In fact, he should have made that argument before we adopted
the Senate Budget and Impoundment Act. He helped write it. I didn't
help write it. I voted for it. But my recollection is that not a single
Senator voted against it. Let me tell you that Senator Byrd should have
made an argument then. This bill was filled with all the risks he talks
about to change forever what the Senate stands for. If that wasn't the
case, Senator Byrd should have objected and should have come and given
this speech the 15 times that we have used reconciliation--10 times to
raise taxes and 5 times to reduce taxes. He did object to one of those.
He lost on a reduction of taxes. But that is when the argument tonight,
ever so eloquent, should have been made.
For those enraptured about the qualities of the Senate as discussed
tonight, let me remind everyone that we changed them. We changed them
under the authorship of the distinguished senior Senator from West
Virginia who argued tonight about what a serious impact of a negative
type this reconciliation instruction is going to impose on the Senate.
I remind everyone. I see the tax-writing staff is here. Some of them
have been through all of these. They can probably come over here and
help me. They didn't like it when they were told to do a tax increase.
That is probably what they liked the least.
We did it. You know what happened on those instructions? The Senate
did not have a chance to filibuster them. On not a single one of them
did they have a chance to filibuster. Why? Because this act prevailed.
Let me remind you that they did not have a chance to filibuster them
or amend them significantly, whether they increased taxes or diminished
taxes.
On the argument that this Budget Act is not policy neutral, which the
distinguished Senator from West Virginia challenges, let me just say I
was part of the whole thing. I think it remains neutral. The only thing
it permits us to do of a multiyear nature is to look forward to what
will certain policies do in the future. That is what it permits us to
do. It doesn't say in this Budget Act that you can do that only if you
are reducing deficits. It just doesn't say it. The Senator interprets
it that way. I don't interpret it that way.
Let me also talk a minute with the Senate about the event. You know
the

[[Page S3507]]

event, when President Clinton almost got us to vote on a health care
plan. I don't say any of this in a contentious manner toward any
Senator. But I have already heard two Democratic Senators submit to the
Senate, including my friend from West Virginia, that we were
responsible for us not considering the plan, which is sometimes called
the Hillary Clinton Health Care Plan. They were responsible for
its failure--President Clinton's big health care plan.

Let me tell you. The truth is, 3 years before we considered that, my
good friend had prevailed in the Senate with a statute--not a ruling, a
statute--that created the Byrd budget rule carrying his distinguished
name. We did it around here for 3 years before that. And we finally
said: You are right. Let's pass the Byrd rule.
Guess what the Byrd rule would have done if they would have brought
President Clinton's health care bill to the floor. Any Senator could
have raised a point of order under that rule, the Byrd rule. Any
Senator would have gotten a ruling from the Chair that it was subject
to a point of order.
Guess what next. It would require 60 votes to pass.
So let's be honest and realistic. Senator Byrd has been part of
helping fix this up for a number of years, but he has never been able
to fix it up to deny its efficacy as changing forever the rules of the
Senate so long as this Budget Act exists.
Having said that, I want to comment on something else.
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. I haven't had much time. Let me finish. Am I doing
something wrong that you would like to correct me on?
Mr. SARBANES. I think you are misstating Senator Byrd's position.
Mr. DOMENICI. I don't believe so. I was here for the whole speech.
You can speak on your own time.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Chair enforce the rule that
Senators must address each other through the Chair and in the third
person.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will enforce the rule.
Mr. DOMENICI. I understand. I will try to do that.
I want to talk a minute about Leader Baker's role in determining all
of this, if you will permit me for a moment.
First, let me put Senator Baker's comments in context. Maybe it would
be best to do this. Senator Baker's comments were made, to the
recollection of the Senator from New Mexico, with reference to a
Commerce Committee bill. The Commerce Committee was then under the
chairmanship of Robert Packwood. Senator Packwood took a little, tiny
instruction that told that committee to change a fee--something that
you are charging. He wrote a whole reauthorization of the telecom bill
with a little, tiny instruction for a few hundred thousand dollars.
Senator Baker said: You shouldn't do that.
That was the beginning of the Byrd rule. That was the beginning of a
rule which said amendments have to be fiscally related and germane.
We are very pleased that the distinguished Senator from West Virginia
did that. We are very pleased that rule governs even today. But it
doesn't govern with reference to a tax reconciliation bill because, as
a matter of fact, we have done that 15 times since the adoption of this
bill.
Let me tell you a little bit about the origins of reconciliation. I
remember very vividly because we were in the minority. The other side
was in the majority by quite a healthy margin. The chairman of the
Budget Committee was Senator Ed Muskie when the first reconciliation
was used. The other side of the aisle was getting close to election
time. There was a concern about a deficit. So a reconciliation
instruction was used--$8 billion for all intents and purposes,
something we almost round off these days.
Guess what one of the committees was that was reconciled in that
instance to raise a few dollars. I know it sounds not right, but it is
right. The Agriculture Committee was reconciled to change the School
Lunch Program costs to impose an extra 5 cents on the school lunches
across America. How do I know that? Because this man right here, the
chief of staff on the majority side, was then at the Department of
Agriculture. He was asked to enforce that after it was passed. I
believe the reason he is with the Senate is because they made him the
scapegoat over there for passing the measure that was reconciled by the
Congress to them.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Mexico yield for
a question?
Mr. DOMENICI. I am pleased to yield for a question.
Mr. GREGG. In listening to the presentation of the Senator from West
Virginia, as I understood it, the Senator from West Virginia was
essentially saying you could use the reconciliation for the purposes of
raising taxes in order to reduce the deficit but you cannot use it for
the purposes of cutting taxes that do not involve addressing a deficit.
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
Mr. GREGG. At the same time, the Senator from West Virginia argued
reconciliation was an inherently inappropriate concept because it cut
off debate here in the Senate and therefore it was inappropriate in the
sense that it limited the ability of this Senate to exercise its due
privileges on an issue.
Aren't those two arguments inconsistent: To say that reconciliation
could be used in one instance, no matter what the instance is, but, on
the other side, it is inappropriate to use reconciliation at any time
because of the nature of the Senate and its need to have debates?
Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, let me say, I think they are. But I believe
implicit in the Senator's argument is that he does not think so. But
maybe he should answer that.
Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DOMENICI. Maybe the Senator from West Virginia would like to
answer that. I am not asking now. I was trying to follow the admonition
not to say ``he'' but ``the Senator from West Virginia.'' I try very
hard. I slip sometimes.
Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield for another question?
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
Mr. GREGG. In reviewing the Record of the Senate, I noted that when
the ruling was made in 1996, the question asked by Senator Daschle to
the Chair was:

Is it the opinion of the Chair that this resolution would
continue to be a budget resolution if it directed the
creation of that third reconciliation bill--the one that
solely worsens the deficit--

And I underline and emphasize those words, ``the one that solely
worsens the deficit''--
Even under circumstances when the Congress had failed to enact the
prior two reconciliation bills.
And the Chair ruled:

If the Senator's question is, can the budget resolution
direct the creation of a reconciliation bill which lowers
revenues, the answer is yes.

Can this language be any clearer, I would ask the chairman of the
Budget Committee, that the Chair has ruled that reconciliation can be
used to reduce taxes even if it worsens a deficit and therefore is not
a deficit issue?
Mr. DOMENICI. No question about it, I say to the Senator. As a matter
of fact, you might know that the Senator from New Mexico, in preparing
the budget resolution, had that in mind. And it was so clear to me that
I put the reconciliation in the budget bill because it seemed to me we
already decided that--the Chair had already decided it. And unbeknownst
to me, even though that is what you read, and that is what it says, and
that is what I think it says, we had to go around and do what we are
doing tonight, even with that interpretation because there was a
parliamentary understanding that was somewhat different from that. So
that is the case.
I think you are right. But I think you should understand that we
asked for that ruling, and we would have been involved in not getting a
debate on the budget resolution. It would have been freely debatable if
we had tried that.
Mr. GREGG. I understand that. I guess my question is, Hasn't the
Chair, in fact, ruled on this issue? Is it not the precedent of the
Senate, as defined by this language at least, which is fairly clear?
Mr. DOMENICI. I do not think there is any question. That is my
interpretation. I thank you for it. I do not think there is any doubt
whatsoever.
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a question?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). Does the Senator from New
Mexico yield?

[[Page S3508]]

Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, I am not one who is fearful of
questions, but I really want you to know I very much would like to
answer a few more thoughts because I paid very close attention, and I
don't think the Senator from Maryland, in all deference, was even here
when I listened to most of this distinguished Senator's remarks. I
would like to finish my remarks.
Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator would yield on that point.
Mr. DOMENICI. I will be happy to.
Mr. SARBANES. I was here for a good part of it.
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, sir.
Mr. SARBANES. I think the Senator from New Mexico was here for all of
it.
Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct.
Mr. SARBANES. I cannot claim that. And I respect the Senator from New
Mexico for that. But I was here for a good part of the time. Does that
qualify me to ask the Senator a question?
Mr. DOMENICI. It does, I say to the Senator. I am glad to answer a
question. It qualifies. You do not have to make that statement. You are
qualified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Mexico yield?
Mr. SARBANES. It seems to me what Senator Byrd is underscoring is
that the Senate, when they first passed the Budget Act, made a great
exception to the process of unlimited debate in order to try to bring
the deficit under control. The guiding rationale for making that
exception was limited to accomplishing deficit reduction. No one, in
their wildest dreams, ever imagined we were going to be out here trying
to deal with reconciliation instructions which would lower the surplus
or potentially increase the deficit.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, I believe if you are going to
make a speech, it ought to be charged to their time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has the floor.
Mr. SARBANES. Does the Senator disagree with the initial purpose of
the Budget Act?
Mr. DOMENICI. I am very glad to answer. I totally disagree. I do not
think that was the initial purpose. The Budget Act simply allows us to
use reconciliation to carry out the fiscal policies outlined in the
budget.
Now if Congress wanted to run deficits with policies it enacted, they
could decide to do so with the laws it passed and that were outlined in
its budget. In other words, if Congress wants to run surpluses, it
could do so under the act. Also under the Act, it could also reduce
them. So that is my interpretation. And I want to finish my remarks.
Now, Mr. President, I note the presence of Senator Grassley who I
really want to speak on taxes. But I do want to say, underlying a very
large quantity of the arguments here tonight is inherently an anti-
give-the-people-back-their-money attitude--to wit, tax cuts.
The truth is, there are some who just do not want to have tax cuts. I
understand that. I do understand that very clearly. There are Senators
who would rather spend the money than give it back. I am not saying
every Senator--some Senators.
Frankly, I do not believe those feelings ought to enter this debate.
But if a Senator wants to have those feelings, then he ought to be
right on this debate because it does not have anything to do with those
feelings. It has to do with the Budget Act--a Budget Act that, I
repeat, changed the rules of the Senate for so long as we apply that
Budget Act.
I want to repeat, we have used that act for small and large tax
increases. How do you think the Senators on the Republican side feel
who want to do tax cuts? I am standing up here telling them it is
somebody's interpretation that you can surely increase taxes with
reconciliation, I say to Senator Grassley, chairman of the committee,
but you cannot decrease taxes. You cannot reduce taxes. I believe you
would have to have a strong, absolute determination in this act that
that was the case, or the Senator from Iowa would claim it was
discriminatory against whom? The taxpayers, the average person. You can
surely get them for increases, but you cannot give them a decrease,
right? At least not under this act, if you are going to interpret it as
some choose to interpret it tonight.
So I know this is a historic argument. And I don't know if I
appreciated its historical significance when we started tonight, but I
have been reminded of it.
So if there was any lesser thought on my part, I am right there. It
is an historic argument, except that it isn't a very new argument. It
isn't a very new use of reconciliation that is being argued tonight; it
is a very old use of reconciliation.
With that, how much time does the Senator desire? I ask Senator
Grassley.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I would like to have 25 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 25 minutes to Senator Grassley.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. The Federal Government is collecting too much in taxes.
That is what is at the basis of the tax reduction package we hope to
get through the Senate in a couple months. The Federal Government will
accumulate over $3.1 trillion in excess tax collections over the next
10 years. Federal tax receipts are at one of their highest levels in
our Nation's history. The bulk of these excess collections comes from
the individual taxpayer, mostly the individual income-tax payer.
Individual income tax collections are currently near an all-time high,
even higher than they were at some levels imposed during World War II.
So I have a series of charts I would like to have my colleagues
review with me to illustrate our present situation.
The first chart shows total Federal tax receipts as a percentage of
gross domestic product over the last 40 years. Tax receipts have
fluctuated frequently since 1960, but the most shocking spike in tax
receipts began in 1993.
The Congressional Budget Office's January 2001 report to Congress
shows that in 1992, total tax receipts were around 17.2 percent of GDP.
By the year 2000, Federal receipts had exploded to an astronomical 2.6
percent of gross domestic product. The significance of this percentage
can only be appreciated by its historical comparison.
In 1944, at the height of World War II, taxes as a percentage of GDP
were 20.9 percent, only one-half percent higher than they are this very
day. By 1945, those taxes had dropped to 20.4 percent of GDP, which is
actually lower than collection levels today.
It is unbelievable that in a time of unprecedented peace and
prosperity, the Federal Government should rake in taxes at a wartime
level. The sorriest part of this whole story is that this huge increase
in taxes has been borne almost exclusively by the individual American
taxpayer.
As this next chart shows, over the past decade, tax collection levels
for payroll taxes, corporate taxes, and all other taxes have been
relatively stable. We can see that corporate taxes during the past 10
years have increased very little, from 1.6 percent of GDP to 2.1
percent, and estate taxes have remained essentially unchanged.
Collections of individual income taxes, however, have soared.
As this chart shows, in 1992, tax collections from individual income
taxes were 7.7 percent of gross domestic product. That percentage has
risen steadily each year and, as of the year 2000, was an astounding
10.2 percent of GDP. Individual income taxes now take up the largest
share of GDP in history. Even during World War II, collections from
individuals were 9.4 percent of GDP, nearly a full percentage point
below the current levels.
As we can see, the source of the current and future surpluses is from
the huge runups in a single tax, the individual tax collections. These
excess collections are attributable to the tax increases forced through
by President Clinton in 1993. Since 1992, total personal income has
grown an average of 5.6 percent per year. Federal income tax
collections, however, have grown an average of 9.1 percent a year,
outstripping the rate of personal income tax growth by 64 percent.
The Joint Committee on Taxation, at the request of their parent
committee, estimated that just repealing the revenue-raising provisions
of President Clinton's 1993 tax hike would yield tax relief of more
than $1 trillion over the 10 years. Democrats and Republicans

[[Page S3509]]

alike can agree that individual taxpayers deserve relief from the
Federal Government's overtaxation.
President Bush has offered a plan to reduce individual income taxes
across all tax rates, all brackets, and to reduce the number of
brackets as well. This benefits taxpayers all across America.
Now we hear, however, a hue and cry from some on the other side of
the aisle that not all taxpayers should receive rate reductions. They
say the President's plan disproportionately benefits upper income-tax
payers and does not provide enough relief at the lower end of the
income scale. There is some good news out there for those who believe
that: None of those allegations are true.
We need to first understand the current distribution of the tax
burden in America. We have a highly progressive income tax system.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the top 20 percent of
income earners pay over 75 percent of all individual income taxes. By
contrast, households in the bottom three-fifths of the income
distribution pay 7 percent of all individual taxes. The President's
plan not only preserves this progressive system but--surprise--actually
makes those top income people pay more of the percentage of income
coming into the Federal Treasury, if the President's plan is adopted.

To all those who are trying to engage in class warfare over the
President's tax proposals, I invite them to pay attention to the next
two charts. As the first of these two charts demonstrates, the
President's marginal rate reductions, when combined with his increase
in the child credit, the additional deduction for the lower earning
spouse, and his refundable tax credit for individual health insurance,
provides the greatest reduction in tax burden for lower income-tax
payers.
Look at the levels of reduction in tax burden shown on this chart.
The upper income-tax payers receive an 8.7-percent reduction in their
burden. Those at the lower end of the income scale, however, receive a
136.2 percent reduction in their taxes. This is because 4 million
taxpayers will be taken off the income tax rolls. A four-person family
earning $35,000 a year will no longer have any income tax burden.
As this chart also shows, a large reduction of tax burden is targeted
towards taxpayers making between $30,000 and $75,000 a year. These
taxpayers will experience relief ranging from 20.8 percent to 38.3
percent of their current tax burden.
Now, I also said the President's plan, when passed, actually makes
our tax system more progressive. Look at the next chart to get the
proof of that. This is a very important chart for those who will
demagogue the President's proposal on the basis of income differences.
As this chart demonstrates, under the President's proposal, the
overall tax burden goes down for all taxpayers earning below $100,000.
For taxpayers making $100,000 or more, however, their share of Federal
tax burden will actually increase under the President's plan.
For example, the share of the tax burden for taxpayers earning
between $30,000 and $40,000 a year will drop from 2.5 percent to 1.8
percent. Similarly, for those earning between $50,000 and $75,000, the
burden share drops from 12.2 percent to 11.3 percent.
This is not the case, however, for taxpayers earning $200,000 or
more. Their share of the overall burden will actually increase, and
increase by a full 3 percent.
As we can see, then, the President's plan not only retains the
progressivity of our tax system, that progressivity is actually
enhanced. The President's plan gives tax relief to all taxpayers, and
it does so in a fair manner, one that requires more from those who are
able to pay and provides the greatest relief for those most in need.
There are several Members of the Senate who belong to a group called
the Centrist Coalition. There is nothing wrong with that group; they
are good people. They are out there to try to find compromise and to
promote bipartisanship. In a time of a 50-50 Senate, you cannot knock
that, and I do not. However, they have a plan on which I will comment.
The Centrist Coalition is concerned that $1.6 trillion is not the
right amount of tax reduction and argue that the right number is
somewhere between the Democrat's number of $900 billion and the
President's number, $1.6 trillion. I thank Senator Breaux, the head of
the Centrist Coalition, for his efforts to find, as he says, a middle
ground.
Senator Breaux has a long history as one who tries to secure
bipartisan consensus. He was one of the few Democrats to cross over and
support the Senate tax relief plan in 1999. He is widely known for his
efforts to find bipartisan consensus on Medicare. I will be relying on
Senator Breaux, along with Senator Baucus, when we take up Medicare
legislation later this year. Earlier this year, I accepted the
centrists' invitation to join their meetings. I attended a meeting in a
recent week on tax options and found it to be a very useful discussion.
Senator Breaux suggests that the middle ground is splitting the
difference between the President's number of $1.6 trillion and the
Democratic alternative of $900 billion. If those were the only two
numbers to consider, I would probably agree that his number of $1.25
trillion is pretty close to middle ground. But the reality is that the
numbers range, as Senator Conrad has said, all the way up to $2.2
trillion down to $900 billion. Some of my colleagues on this side
really like that $2.2 trillion number better, and I have to put water
to dampen their desires, because we have to be realistic in this game.
In comparing the numbers, I, like Senator Breaux, am not comfortable
with either the Democrat number of $900 billion or the $2.2 trillion
being thrown around by some on my side of the aisle. Unlike Senator
Breaux, however, I am comfortable with the $1.6 trillion number, and
this is why. I am going to run through a hypothetical calculation of a
tax cut agenda and look at each number to see if it accommodates the
agenda of its proponents.
I want to look at Senator Conrad's number of $900 billion. Now
Senators Daschle, Conrad, and the Democratic leadership have been
talking a lot about their stimulus and rate cut package.
Under Joint Tax scoring, that proposal loses around $506 billion over
10 years. That leaves $394 billion out of their $900 billion for other
tax cuts that Senator Conrad and other Democrats say they support.
The Democrat alternative on marriage tax relief, which was offered in
the Finance Committee last year, contained a revenue loss of $197
billion over 10 years, without a sunset.
The Democratic alternative on death tax relief contained a revenue
loss of $64 billion over 10 years.
So using Democratic proposals and last year's revenue loss estimates,
the Democrats have less than $133 billion in surplus left.
You have to keep in mind that these are only the Democrat proposals
we are talking about. We have to consider that there are bipartisan tax
cuts that passed either or both Houses of Congress during the past
year.
There is the retirement security bill that Senator Baucus and I will
soon be introducing. A similar bill passed the House almost
unanimously. That bill will run about $52 billion.
There is a bill to repeal the Spanish-American War phone tax that
passed the House last year by an overwhelming bipartisan margin, and
that will run about $50 billion.
Then there is the small business and agricultural tax cuts that
everyone supports. That package totals over $17 billion.
The education tax relief that unanimously passed the Finance
Committee last month runs about $20 billion.
Now, you have to add up all these bipartisan tax cuts and, when you
do, we have now exceeded the $133 billion that was left in the Democrat
budget. It is all gone. And we haven't even factored in their greatest
objection to the President's proposal, and that is the problem with the
alternative minimum tax.

We have heard a lot of pointed criticism of the President's tax plan
from Senators on the other side of the aisle on the issue of the
alternative minimum tax. Senator Conrad has said that it takes $200
billion to $300 billion to fix the AMT problem under the Bush plan.
Senator Conrad is correct that the President's plan could make the
problem worse. As I have said, I intend to address that problem.

[[Page S3510]]

The Senate Democratic stimulus and rate reduction package does
nothing about the AMT problem that they have addressed and found fault
with in the President's program. In fact, their legislation will make
this problem worse. According to the Joint Tax Committee, the
Democrats' package will subject an additional 7 million taxpayers to
the AMT.
So if Senator Conrad and other Senators on the other side of the
aisle want to practice what they preach, they will have to raise their
budget's tax cut numbers to deal with the alternative minimum tax. As
they have said, that is another $200 billion to $300 billion.
But at this point, after including their priorities and the
bipartisan tax cuts, they don't have any surplus left to redress the
AMT problem. So, as you can see, the Democratic budget number of $900
billion does not even accommodate their own tax priorities.
Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. GRASSLEY. I believe many on the other side, like Senator Breaux,
know this.
I would like to finish, and then I'll respond; but I only have 25
minutes allotted.
Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield on my time?
Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes, I will yield on his time.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have great respect for the chairman. He
and I have worked on many matters together. I want to take this moment
to advise the Senator that we have $125 billion of our $750 billion tax
cut unallocated. We have specifically not allocated it all so that some
of it could be used to address the alternative minimum tax problem. So
we have not done what we have criticized the other side for doing.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for what he thinks
is a clarification. But he, I think, makes my point. They have reserved
some money, but when you add all of their proposals, and when you take
into consideration the AMT, and when you also take into consideration
their votes on bipartisan tax proposals, there is no way that you are
going to squeeze that into their numbers.
Let me tell you, we have had problems on this side of the aisle. Even
if we go at $1.6 trillion, there is going to be a difficulty squeezing
everything in. But we have a problem of having the greatest amount of
flexibility that we can.
Now, as has been said, the Democratic budget number of $900 billion
does not even accommodate their own tax priorities. I believe Senator
Breaux knows that.
I think those who have proposed numbers in the range of $2 trillion
to $2.4 trillion are also pushing the wrong number.
That tax cut number doesn't balance our priorities in paying down
debt and targeted spending increases.
Senator Breaux's number is better than the Democratic number because
it allows more tax cuts to be addressed. However, it does not have
enough room. Unlike the Democratic number, Senator Breaux's number
might be enough to cover Democratic priorities, plus a little bit more;
but it would ignore the President's priorities.
So I believe the number that the President has proposed is
appropriate but not just because he proposed it. It is appropriate
because it will allow us to accommodate the bipartisan tax cut
priorities before us.
Senator Baucus and I will need the full $1.6 trillion to make the tax
cuts for all of you, through these votes and through these proposals,
have indicated that you are interested in, and to make it work.
The Democrat side has said they want bipartisan legislation. So in
order to do that, the Finance Committee will need $1.6 trillion in tax
cut relief authority from the Senate through the budget resolution.
I also think that many in this body are looking at the number too
much in terms of a win or loss for President Bush. This is true of
Republicans, who tend to look at the $1.6 trillion number, or anything
higher, as a win for the President. Democrats are looking at anything
less than that number as somewhat of a loss for the President.
Democratic leaders, budgetwise and their elected leadership, have
been explicit in this objective. They have worked very hard to try to
defeat the President's tax cut. All the amendments we have been voting
on take money from the tax cut, which indicates that is their strategy.
We ought to look at the numbers in terms of the tax cut agenda,
including the President's proposal, the bipartisan and the bicameral
proposals and, of course, the Senate's own proposals.
Senator Breaux's amendment, while well intentioned, does not provide
the Finance Committee with the tools necessary to do the job of
delivering bipartisan tax relief to the American people.
I want to bring this down State by State. All politics is local, we
are told. The Treasury Department has released data showing the number
of individual tax returns on a State-by-State basis that will benefit
from the President's tax relief plan. These returns are a mix of
married couples filing jointly, single return filers, and heads of
household.
The data is significant for all Senators. For example, in my home
State of Iowa, over 1 million individual returns would benefit under
the President's plan. If even half of those returns are married filing
jointly, that means over 1.5 million people in my State will receive a
tax benefit from the President's plan.
The numbers are even greater for larger States. For example, the
number of individual returns that would receive a tax benefit under the
President's plan in: Arkansas, 787,000; California, 11 million;
Florida, 5.5 million; Georgia, 2.7 million; Illinois, 4.5 million;
Louisiana, 1.3 million; Missouri, 1.9 million; Nebraska, 631,000; New
Jersey, 3.2 million; New York State, 6.5 million; North Carolina, 2.7
million.
Keep in mind that these numbers I just listed are the number of
individual tax returns. If a substantial portion in each of these
States were married filing jointly, the number of taxpayers benefiting
under the President's plan could nearly double.
The number of individual taxpayers benefiting under the President's
proposal is simply too big to ignore; unless, of course, we focus on
the smaller States that do not file as many individual tax returns. For
example, North Dakota has only 230,000 individual returns filed. South
Dakota has only 236,000 returns; Maine, 465,000; Rhode Island, 385,000;
Vermont, 232,000.
Perhaps the tax benefits offered by the President's plan are not
relevant to these smaller States. Those taxpayers do not really count,
but they certainly count in my State, and I suspect they count in many
of the other States as well.
An interesting study was recently released by the Tax Foundation, a
nonpartisan tax-exempt organization.
I yield myself 5 more minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennett). The Senator has yielded 5 more
minutes and is recognized.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I am not going to go through this chart, but one can
see we list the benefits of the households in the States, so one can
see there is tremendous benefit and savings to the people living in
these States.

Just think what these families can do with those dollars if we let
them keep their hard-earned money instead of taking it away to squander
in Washington. For example, I know the cost-of-living in California is
high, but $15,800 in the pockets of the average household in that State
would buy quite a bit. If they decide to pay down early on their 30-
year mortgage, the interest saved would save them a tremendous number
of house payments. It can buy kids clothes, family vacations. Let the
family decide how to spend it.
The tax savings offered to the residents of each State is laid out in
these charts, and I hope our constituents in each of these States hold
us accountable to provide tax savings.
It is time to wrap up the debate on whether the Finance Committee
will have an opportunity to cut taxes up to $1.6 trillion over 10
years. I underscore the word ``opportunity'' because that is what this
debate is all about: the opportunity for a tax cut.
This vote is not about what the tax cut contains. That debate and
vote will come later. That debate and vote comes when the Finance
Committee marks up tax cut legislation. This vote is about whether we
will consider the tax cut under reconciliation.
Reconciliation plain and simple, as we sit here today, is the only
way we are going to get a tax cut for the American people in a timely
manner.

[[Page S3511]]

There have been strong statements made by some on the other side
about tax cuts and reconciliation. From the tone of the statements, one
would think that a reconciled tax cut is a new event. We have gone
through the history of it, and I do not want to repeat that history. It
has been discussed between the Senator from New Hampshire and the
Senator from New Mexico to a great extent, but I think it boils down to
the question of cooperation and shared responsibility. A 50/50 Senate
means shared power and, just as important, shared responsibility.
The Senate today is operating under a historic powersharing
arrangement reached on January 5, 2001. Republicans following our
leader yielded a significant concession to the Democrats. What did we
get in exchange? What we got was, as Senator Lott put it, a good-faith
promise on the part of Democrats to cooperate.
In the Senate Finance Committee, I have had this sort of cooperation
from Senator Baucus, and we will continue to do it. However, the
opponents of Senator Domenici's amendment depart from the spirit of
that historic agreement.
In 1993, with a new President and majorities in both Houses,
Democrats used reconciliation to raise taxes. Democrats in 1993 used
reconciliation within their right to further their President's program,
a partisan-designed major tax increase.
Eight years later, we are faced with a similar situation, though I am
hopeful more than one Member of the other side will support us.
Republicans, by a razor-thin edge, have control of Congress and the
Presidency. The core of President Bush's program, much as President
Clinton's program 8 years ago, involves taxes. The difference is that
President Bush wants to return a portion of the record level of income
taxes to folks who pay them. Republicans did not object to use of
reconciliation in 1993; Democrats should not object to Republicans' use
of reconciliation today.
For those of us on this side of the aisle, this is a very compelling
point, especially in the context of our concession in powersharing. I
want to quote Senator Byrd from West Virginia on this point. He made
this point on January 5, 2001, when this agreement was reached.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. GRASSLEY. May I do this one quote and then I will quit.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield whatever the Senator needs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Senator Byrd said:

I know it has been difficult for Members, particularly on
the Republican side to come to an agreement such as has been
reached here, but they have been willing to give up their
partisanship for the moment in the interests of the Nation.
Also, it is exceedingly important--I have already mentioned
it here--to George Bush. . . . It is vitally important to
him, if he is to expect to see his programs considered and
adopted. And hopefully, from his standpoint, certainly, and
from the standpoint of many others, if he is to see those
programs succeed, he--

Meaning President Bush--

is going to have to have help. He can't depend on all of it
coming just from his side--

Meaning the Republican side of the aisle.

He is going to have some help over here. . . .

Meaning the Democrats side of the aisle.
As always, Senator Byrd said it very well. At this point in history,
the President's agenda, including the cornerstone of his proposed tax
relief for working men and women, is tied in with his power-sharing
agreement. With this power-sharing agreement that govern the operation
of this Senate, this year, certainly from the perspective of those on
this side of the Aisle, there is a connection.
Therefore, it strikes us as particularly unfortunate that in the
context of power sharing a new obstacle is raised to the use of the
reconciliation process. It is particularly disappointing to this side
of the aisle that this argument on reconciliation is forthcoming now.
We believe the Domenici amendment should not be necessary.
Reconciliation affords the President an opportunity to consider his
program. It is an appropriate opportunity in the context of the history
of the budget Act. It is also appropriate, and maybe more so, in the
context of the power-sharing agreement governing the operation of the
Senate, in this Congress, because the Senate is 50/50.
A vote for the Domenici amendment is not a vote for a tax cut; it is
a vote to give the Senate the opportunity we ought to have to consider
such tax relief for working men and women.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate from the North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I remind the Senator form Iowa it was
entirely appropriate to use reconciliation in 1993 because that was a
deficit reduction piece of legislation. That is the difference. This is
not deficit reduction.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I cannot support including reconciliation
instructions in this resolution. This is a very important issue for the
Senate as an institution and a very important issue for the future
economic well-being of the nation. The Senate is a great legislative
body, a deliberative body unique in the world. The central feature of
the unique role the Senate plays is the fullness of debate and the
openness of the amendment process.
The reconciliation process is a feature of the Budget Act which was
adopted in 1974. When it was adopted, it was contemplated that the
reconciliation process would be used as a tool of fiscal restraint.
That is, that reconciliation would be used to reduce deficits.
The Chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, himself, said
in 1985:

Frankly, as the chairman of the Budget Committee I am aware
of how beneficial reconciliation can be to deficit reduction.
But I'm also totally aware of what can happen when we choose
to use this kind of process to basically get around the rules
of the Senate as to limiting debate. Clearly, unlimited
debate is the prerogative of the Senate that is greatly
modified under this process. I have grown to understand this
institution. While it has a lot of shortcomings, it has some
qualities that are rather exceptional. One of those is the
fact that it is an extremely free institution, that we are
free to offer amendments, that we are free to take as much
time as this Senate will let us, to debate and have those
issues thoroughly understood both here and across the
country.

And, in 1989, Senator Domenici said:

There are a few things about the U.S. Senate that people
understand to be very, very significant. One is that you have
the right, the rather broad right, the most significant right
among all parliamentary bodies in the world, to amend freely
on the floor. The other is the right to debate and to
filibuster. When the Budget Act was drafted, the
reconciliation procedure was crafted very carefully. It was
intended to be used rather carefully because, in essence, Mr.
President, it vitiated those two significant characteristics
of this place that many have grown to respect and admire.
Some think it is a marvelous institution of democracy. And if
you lose those two qualities you just about turn this U.S.
Senate into the U.S. House of Representatives or other
parliamentary body.

In 1981, former Majority Leader Howard Baker stated,

Reconciliation was never meant to be a vehicle for an
omnibus authorization bill. To permit it to be treated as
such is to break faith with the Senate's historical
uniqueness as a forum for the exercise of minority and
individual rights.

The amendment before us today would add reconciliation instructions
to this budget resolution for a totally different purpose. The purpose
is to shield the massive tax cut proposed by President Bush from full
debate and the amending process in the Senate. This is the opposite of
fiscal restraint. This is the opposite of deficit reduction. The
reconciliation process would restrict debate to only twenty hours and
potentially less time and would constrain amendments. It reduces the
likelihood of compromise. It reduces the likelihood of the enactment of
a tax cut with broad bipartisan support because it weakens minority
rights and tempts the majority to force their version on the minority.
This would be a misuse of the reconciliation process and a disservice
to the American people. The tax bill will impact the federal budget and
the nation's economy for many years to come. It will cost more than
$1.6 trillion over the next decade, probably much more. The American
people, the people who send us here as their representatives have the
right to have this tax cut considered and evaluated, debated and
amended under the normal procedures which have made the Senate a great
deliberative body.
In 1981, the reconciliation process was used to enact spending
reductions which President Reagan sought. That was appropriate.
However, the major

[[Page S3512]]

tax cut which was the centerpiece of his program was considered that
same year as a free-standing tax bill in the Senate. That is, it was
considered under the normal Senate rules. The tax bill was fully
debated for about twelve days and more than a hundred amendments were
considered. There were fifty roll call votes. That was a process in the
tradition of the Senate and did it credit. I was one of eleven Senators
that voted against that bill. But the process that was used to adopt
that tax bill was the appropriate and normal process. This is what
makes the Senate the world's preeminent deliberative body.
Today, we are being asked to turn our backs on Senate history by
adding language to this budget resolution which will make it more
difficult for the Senate to fully debate, amend and work its will on
tax legislation which we will consider in the weeks ahead. I support a
tax cut, but not President Bush's version which I think is too large,
relies on highly problematical projections. But, I cannot support this
effort the circumvent the Senate's rules in order to pass without full
debate and amendment any tax cut bill. Doing so is the opposite of the
intent of reconciliation.
Mr. CONRAD. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I think it is useful to sit back and
reflect, get a little perspective on this issue.
I remind Members we have a Constitution. Under the Constitution there
is an article I, an article II, and an article III. Article I is the
legislative article; article II, the executive article; and article
III, the judicial.
Why is that important? It is important because we are separate
branches of government: The legislative branch, the executive. Why is
article I the legislative branch? Our Founding Fathers said because it
is where laws are written, it is the most important. We are coequal
branches, but article I is legislative, essentially because this is
where the laws are made.
We all run for office. We are elected or unelected by our people, the
citizens of our States, the people for whom we work. It is a wonderful
form of government. It works. We are not a parliamentary form of
government. We are not a parliamentary form of government because we
have a separate legislative branch. In the parliamentary form of
government, the majority party that is elected in the elections is the
Government.
Under the Constitution, we are treated differently. We are separate.
Of course, we have political parties. That complicates matters. I have
the utmost respect for the President of the United States, whether he
or she be Republican or Democrat. It is important to state, however,
that we are Senators, with all that means, proudly doing what we think
is right, representing the people of our States, which is no small
matter. It is a tremendous burden, a tremendous responsibility, and a
tremendous privilege. That is why we sought this office, that is why we
like this job so much, and that is why most Members want to continue
and seek reelection.
The question tonight is very narrow. It is whether or not the tax
legislation that will be contemplated this year should be within the
narrow confines of reconciliation. It is conceded, it is agreed, that
reconciliation and all its very narrow constraints is very proper in
order to reduce deficits, to raise taxes, or cut spending. No one
disputes that. Under reconciliation, the Senate is not the Senate; the
Senate is a different institution with very narrow constraints on
amendments, germaneness, and debate.
Rather, the issue before the Senate is whether those extremely tight
constraints should also apply to cutting taxes and increasing outlays.
That is the question.
It has been argued on the other side, yes, it should. It has been
argued that reconciliation is policy neutral. If we do believe that,
then we believe that anything can be in reconciliation that in any way
affects outlays or revenues--anything: The highway bill, the former
health care bill that has been mentioned. That is what that argument
means.
I ask my good friend from Iowa, the chairman of the Finance
Committee, who enjoys the prerogatives of the chairman of the Finance
Committee--I plead with him--to have a process where the Finance
Committee has more opportunity to write more legislation in the
committee and also on the floor.
The central point is, we have an opportunity tonight to do what is
right. There have been a lot of red herrings. For example, the point
has been made that Senator Byrd should have made the argument 27 years
ago. That is irrelevant. We are the Senate. We can vote on what we want
to vote on. Tomorrow we can vote again on a different matter. It is up
to us to decide what is right.
What is right is to use reconciliation where it should be used, in
reducing deficits. It should not be used to craft anything else under
the sun. Because the latter approach disenfranchises, literally, a
majority of Americans. The right to offer amendments on the floor of
the Senate and the right of unlimited debate are essential. Under
reconciliation, we have constraints on unlimited debate--which
disenfranchises voters.
It is wrong for this amendment to pass. It is undermining why we came
here. I urge Senators to vote against the pending amendment.
Mr. CONRAD. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Florida.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the issue is not whether we are going to
have a tax cut or what the specific details of the tax cut will be. The
question is, Are we going to take this historic opportunity with over
$5.5 trillion of surplus available in the next 10 years and make
decisions on how to allocate that surplus in the most rational manner?
One of the issues, I am afraid, that will be trampled upon if we do
not defeat this amendment, and deny us the opportunity for full debate,
is the question of how we will finance a prescription drug benefit
through Medicare. Virtually every Member of the Senate, on both sides
of the aisle, has voted in favor of a prescription drug
benefit. Virtually every Member has also voted that that benefit should
be in the range of $300 billion to $311 billion over the next 10 years.
Where we disagree is how we should pay for it.

This side of the aisle has voted to pay for it in the traditional
manner, general revenue and premiums paid by the beneficiaries. The
other side of the aisle has voted to pay for it by taking the excess
funds that are in the hospital trust fund.
For 35 years, there has been a contract between the people of the
United States and their Federal Government. That contract has said: You
pay me every month 1.5 percent of your salary, and when you reach
retirement age, we will provide you a range of benefits that includes
hospital, skilled nursing home, and home health care.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. GRAHAM. That contract is now about to be broken. We should have a
full debate in the Senate before we engage in that unilateral abolition
of a 35-year commitment by the American people. Before I yield the
remainder of my time to the Senator from Michigan, I ask unanimous
consent that a letter from the American Hospital Association dated
today be printed in the Record, which states:

We believe the Part A Trust Fund should be used for the
purpose for which it was intended.

There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

American Hospital Association,

Washington, DC, April 5, 2001.
Hon. Bob Graham,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Graham: On behalf of the American Hospital
association (AHA), I would like to express our strong support
of your amendment to H. Con. Res. 83, the fiscal year (FY)
2002 budget resolution requiring a ``super majority'' of 60
votes in the Senate in order to spend Hospital Insurance (HI)
Trust Fund dollars for non-Part A services.
The AHA represents nearly 5,000 hospitals, health systems,
networks and other health care provider members.
The Medicare program is expected to experience very rapid
growth over the next decade as our nation's 78 million ``baby
boomers'' begin to retire. The Part A Trust Fund, which is
supported by a payroll tax, is projected to see its
obligations exceed its income by 2015, and its assets could
be exhausted by 2029.
We believe that the Part A Trust Fund should be used for
the purpose for which it

[[Page S3513]]

was intended: to provide beneficiaries with the highest
quality hospital acute care services. Congress must be
careful not to dilute the trust fund or divert dollars
currently in the trust fund for other purposes. It is
imperative that Congress avoids legislation that accelerates
the insolvency of the Medicare Part A Trust Fund. We need to
ensure that Medicare Part A services are there when our
seniors need them.
Since its inception, the Medicare program has ensured
seniors access to high quality affordable health care. It is
incumbent upon all of us to ensure that the program is
preserved, protected and strengthened for future generations.
Sicnerely,
Rick Pollack,
Executive Vice President.

Mr. GRAHAM. I yield the remainder of my time to my distinguished
colleague from Michigan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is a debate about a reconciliation
process by which a tax cut will occur. I think most Members of this
Congress would, in quiet moments, agree we are unlikely to have 10
years of relentless surpluses. This is truly a triumph of hope over
experience, but that is the way politics is sometimes.
I want to introduce into the Record a memorandum by Alan Blinder,
Gene Sperling, and Jason Furman, three very distinguished economists
who have reviewed the assessment of the 51 leading private sector
forecasts with respect to recent economic trends on the surplus.
I am going to ask consent to have it printed in the Record in its
entirety, but essentially they say:

. . . altering only the 2001 growth forecast [with the last
three months of information] leaving all other projections
unchanged, would result in a roughly $215 billion reduction
in the unified surplus. . . .

They go on to say the effect of the stock market difficulties could
well lower the unified surplus by $1 trillion or more.

Standard & Poor's DRI, for example, project stock market
factors could reduce the unified surplus by more than $1
trillion over the next decade.

My point is very simply if we proceed with the size of a tax cut
proposed by the Republican Party and by the President and do not
experience these surpluses, which is very likely--very likely we will
not experience these surpluses--we will head back into big deficits.
The discussion is as if these surpluses already exist. They do not.
They are not in a silk purse; they are not in a mattress; they are not
in a bank account. They do not exist. They are projections and they are
projections which we may not see. Let's be cautious and conservative.
Let's have a tax cut, yes; pay down the debt, yes; meet our
priorities--improving schools and other things--but do it in a prudent
and thoughtful way.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent the memorandum be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Memorandum for Senator Dorgan

From: Alan Blinder, Princeton University, Gene Sperling, Brookings
Institution, Jason Furman, Harvard University

Subject: Analysis of the impact of recent economic conditions on the
10-year projection of the surplus

Summary
Many observers have questioned whether or not the most
recent surplus projections would be altered by the recent
slowdown in economic activity and fall in the stock market.
Although many of the fundamentals of the economy remain
strong--with unemployment near 30 year lows, productivity
growth still high, and many indications that consumer demand
is holding up--other weaker indicators have led many
forecasters to lower their growth projections for 2001. In
assessing the impact of recent economic trends on the
surplus, we have chosen not to offer our own economic
projections, but simply to examine how changes in the 51
leading private-sector forecasters who make up the Blue Chip
consensus would impact surplus projections.
The analysis is informative for at least a couple of key
reasons. First, this analysis highlights the degree of
uncertainty surrounding the projection of the surplus.
Indeed, it shows that altering only the 2001 growth forecast,
leaving all the other projections unchanged, would result in
a roughly $215 billion reduction in the unified surplus
relative to the CBO baseline projection. It should be noted
that this change is result of taking into account only three
months of new information, representing just 2\1/2\ percent
of the 10-year period. Second, the recent fall in the stock
market further highlights the uncertainty of budget
projections that are based not only on economic growth
projections but on projections of revenues from taxation of
capital gains, stock options, and taxable withdrawals from
retirement accounts--all of which are highly dependent on the
level of stock market. Indeed, if individual income tax
receipts as a share of GDP fall back slightly from the very
high levels achieved in 2000, the unified surplus could be
lowered by $1 trillion or more. Standard & Poor DRI, for
example, project that stock market factors could reduce the
unified surplus by more than $1 trillion over the next
decade.
While we remain optimistic about the future of the American
economy, such significant swings in just three months show
why even optimists should exercise prudence when making ten-
year policy commitments based on ten-year projections. Over
the next ten years, there are likely to be many other periods
in which economic activity departs substantially from the
current projections, resulting in substantial deviations of
the actual surplus from the projections that are being made
today. CBO estimates that, based on their track record,
the unified surplus in 2002 could be anywhere from $69
billion to $556 billion. The uncertainty grows so that in
2006, with no tax cuts or spending increases in the
interim, the budget balance could be anywhere from a $92
billion deficit to a $1.1 trillion surplus. After setting
aside the Social Security and Medicare surpluses, the
probability of running into deficits increases
substantially: the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities
(CBPP), relying on CBO analysis, has estimated that there
is a ``20 percent chance that, under current law, the
budget excluding Social Security and Medicare will be in
deficit in each year from 2002 through 2006.''
These reductions in the projected surplus and uncertainty
come on top of the predictable factors that will reduce the
surplus over the next decade, including the likelihood that
real discretionary spending will grow with population,
several popular tax credits will be extended, and the
Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) will be reformed so that it
does not affect a growing share of middle-class families.
These factors will likely reduce the available surplus by an
additional $800 billion.
Revisions to GDP Growth and Their Impact on the Surplus
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) finalized the
economic forecast underlying their latest budget projections
in December 2000. Both CBO and the Administration project 2.4
percent GDP growth in 2001.
When CBO made its economic forecast, 2.4 percent GDP growth
was consistent with the Blue Chip consensus of leading
forecasters. Since December, however, the Blue Chip consensus
has been revised down and now stands at 1.9 percent growth
for 2001. The Blue Chip forecasters have also revised down
their predictions for growth in 2002 to 3.4 percent, the same
rate predicted by CBO, and left their growth predictions
essentially unchanged thereafter.
Estimating the budget impact of the latest Blue Chip short-
run macroeconomic forecast provides an example of how just
three months of data might lead to revisions in the projected
surplus. It is important to note that although the Blue Chip
forecast is slightly more pessimistic than CBO, it is still
relatively optimistic compared to the recessionary
projections of many commentators. Nevertheless, even this
relatively small change in the outlook would result in a
substantial reduction in the projected surplus over the next
decade.
To estimate the likely magnitude of this reduction we have
relied on Table 1-6 ``Sensitivity of the Budget to Economic
Assumptions'' from the Analytical Perspectives volume of the
Administration's FY 2001 budget. We updated these estimates
to reflect a GDP slowdown in 2001 and projected them forward
to cover the period 2002-11 (the Analytical Perspectives
table only covers 2000-05). Based on this, every one
percentage point reduction of GDP growth in 2001--with
unchanged growth projections in 2002-11--will reduce the
unified surplus by about $430 billion over 10 years:

IMPACT OF A 1 PERCENTAGE POINT REDUCTION IN GDP GROWTH IN 2001 ON THE UNIFIED SURPLUS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 210 2011 2002-2011
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Receipts............................. 9 19 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 31 33 265
Outlays.............................. 2 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 67
Interest............................. 0 1 2 4 6 8 10 13 16 18 22 100
Total.......................... 11 27 31 34 37 40 44 48 52 57 62 432
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Authors' calculations based on Table 1-6 of FY 2001 Analytical Perspectives

[[Page S3514]]

Based on the latest Blue Chip projections, the slowdown
would reduce GDP growth by 0.5 percentage point relative to
the current CBO forecast--reducing the unified surplus by
about $215 billion over 10 years.
The actual revision to the surplus forecast based on the
latest outlook for aggregate economic activity could be more
or less than this $215 billion prediction which is based on
the assumption that the level of real GDP remains 0.5 percent
lower from 2002-11. On the one hand, the reduction to the
surplus would be even larger if the future growth rate of
real GDP were slower. CBO estimates that if the GDP growth
rate were 0.1 percentage point lower per year, the unified
surplus would be reduced by an additional $244 billion. On
the other hand, the reduction to the surplus would be less
than $215 billion if the current slowdown is followed by a
period of stronger growth that returns the economy to
potential GDP. In its recent Economic and Budget Outlook CBO
presents a ``recession scenario'' in which a sharp slowdown
in 2001 is followed by substantially stronger growth, leading
to only a $133 billion reduction in the unified surplus from
2002-11. CBO's scenario, however, would be less likely if the
economy in 2000 was well above potential, if the recent
slowdown causes economists to revise down their estimate of
the level of potential GDP, or if the adjustment back to
potential is very slow.
Uncertainty from the short-term economic outlook
The key point from examining the impact of recent economic
changes on the long-run surplus projections is the large
amount of uncertainty, which has only been increased by the
uncertainty over the short-run outlook. The bottom 10 Blue
Chip forecasters project growth of 1.3 percent in 2001--
compared to the 2.6 percent GDP growth projection of the top
10 Blue Chip forecasters. Taking the range of Blue Chip
projections for GDP growth in 2001 and 2002 would lead to a
range in projections of the unified surplus of roughly $370
billion more than CBO's current forecast to roughly $730
billion less than CBO's current forecast.
Additional sources of downward revisions in the surplus: The
impact of the stock market on Revenues
The level of economic activity is not the only factor that
affects the surplus. A major factor in the recent rise in the
surplus is the increase in individual income tax receipts
from 8.1 percent of GDP in 1995 to 10.2 percent of GDP in
2000. Although legislation in 1997 reduced taxes, several
factors contributed to tax receipts growing more quickly than
the economy. CBO estimates that half of the recent increase
has been due to rising capital gains realizations and higher
income for high-income taxpayers. The strong stock market has
clearly played an important role in these strong tax
receipts.
Going forward, CBO projects that individual income tax
receipts will stay above 10.2 percent of GDP for the next
decade. Part of this is driven by the projection of continued
strong capital gains. Although CBO builds in some declines in
capital gains from the extraordinarily high levels in the
last few years, it still projects capital gains realizations
of around 4\1/2\ percent of GDP going forward, which is
substantially higher than the 2.4 percent of GDP that
prevailed from 1990-96.
In addition to capital gains, the level of the stock market
has a substantial impact on individual income tax receipts as
a share of GDP through its impact on the flow of nonqualified
stock options (which are taxed as ordinary income) and
withdrawals from taxable savings accounts. Standard & Poors
DRI estimates that 15 percent of Federal revenue ``is coming
from the stock market.''
With the broad Wilshire 5000 stock index down 14 percent
since December 31st, this factor is likely to reduce the
surplus even more than the conservative projection based on
the GDP slowdown alone. It is difficult to estimate the
impact of the past changes in the stock market, let alone to
predict future changes in the stock market. But even small
changes could have a big impact on the surplus. For example,
if individual income tax receipts stay at 9.6 percent of
GDP--their level in 1998-99 and well above their level from
1994-97--then the unified surplus over the next decade would
be $1.2 trillion lower than the current projections. In this
example, receipts as a share of GDP are still substantially
higher than CBO's ``pessimistic scenario,''
Severla investment banks and economic forecasters have made
rough estimates about the likely impact of economic
conditions on the surplus that are very large in magnitude.
These predications include:
Merrill Lynch has projected that the surplus for FY 2001
will be $250 billion, $31 billion less than CBO's projection.
Merrill Lynch's more pessimistic projections for GDP growth
only accounts for about one-quarter of this difference from
CBO; the majority of the difference is due to other factors
like the fall in the stock market.
Standard & Poors DRI estimates that CBO's underestimate of
the impact of the stock market on the economy could wipe out
$1 trillion of the projected surplus over 10 years.
Mark Zandi, chief economist of economy.com, has been quoted
as saying that the 10-year surplus could be half the current
projections--$2.7 trillion downward revision.
General uncertainty about the future
If a new budget forecast were to take into account the news
from the last three months, it would most likely revise down
the projected surplus. As an example, just taking into
account the revised short-run economic outlook by the Blue
Chip forecasters would lead to a downward revision of about
$215 billion in the projected surplus. Taking into account
the stock market and other factors could reduce the surplus
by substantially more.
These changes appear to be relatively small compared to the
projected $5.6 trillion surplus. But these revisions, which
are only based on three months of additional data, highlight
how much uncertainty surrounds projections of the forecast
ten years in the future. The uncertainty in the projection of
the unified surplus grows over time, from a margin of error
of plus or minus $244 billion in 2002 to plus or minus $612
billion in 2006. This is especially important in light of the
fact that 71 percent of the 10-year non-Social Security, non-
Medicare surplus occurs after 2005.
CBO itself captures the uncertainty in its estimates by
making projections for an ``optimistic scenario'' and a
``pessimistic scenario.'' On this basis the projected 10-year
non-Social Security balance ranges from a $525 billion
deficit to a $6.2 trillion surplus. In assessing these
projections, CBO writes ``If CBO's track record is any guide,
both the optimistic and pessimistic scenarios lie well within
the range of uncertainty of the budget projections.''
Likely expenditures not included in CBO's forecast
In addition to the uncertainties about the future, there
are several ways that policies are likely to deviate from the
interpretation of ``current law'' that is used by CBO and the
Administration in putting together their budget baselines.
Independent groups and experts like the Concord Coalition,
the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and William Gale
and Alan Auerbach have all estimated that the available
surplus is about $900 billion to $1.4 trillion lower than the
projected on-budget surplus. The elements of this predictable
reduction in the surplus are:
Medicare off-budget. Virtually the entire House and a
majority of the Senate have voted to make the Medicare HI
surplus unavailable for tax cuts or spending increases--
taking $392 billion off CBO's projection of the non-Social
Security surplus.
Real discretionary spending rising with population. The
current baseline does not incorporate the impact that
increasing population has on the cost of maintaining a
constant level of government services. This could reduce the
surplus by $300 billion.
Alternative Minimum Tax. The Alternative Minimum Tax will
affect an increasing number of middle-class families over the
next decade; policymakers are likely to fix this provision so
that it serves its historic intent which is to ensure a
minimum level of taxation for upper-income taxpayers. This
reform would cost about $80 billion.
Expiring tax provisions. Several popular tax provisions are
set to expire at the end of this year; extending them, as is
likely, will cost $112 billion over 10 years according to
CBO.
Taking into account these realistic expenditures reduces
the available surplus to about $2 trillion over 10 years--
without even taking into account the recent changes in the
outlook for the economy. Taking recent economic factors into
account, it is more than likely that less $2 trillion will be
available for tax cuts, spending increases, or additional
debt reduction.

Mr. CONRAD. How much time is remaining on this side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 4 minutes 44 seconds.
Mr. CONRAD. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Maryland.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. SARBANES. I hope all of our colleagues were listening very
carefully to Senator Byrd as he made that very powerful statement about
the Senate as an institution.
The reconciliation process, this great exception to Senate rules, was
allowed and adopted in order to bring down the deficit. It has been
twisted all out of shape. This amendment proposes to use it for a
purpose that is not relevant to reducing the deficit.
They talk about taxes going up, taxes going down--the end objective
is supposed to be reducing the deficit. That is absent in this
situation. Reconciliation is now being used, in effect, for any purpose
whatsoever.
I very much hope the Senate will reject this amendment. I thank
Senator Byrd for a very powerful statement. I also want to commend the
very able Senator from North Dakota for his leadership on the budget.
As he has often said, it is a matter of balance. It is a matter of
prudence. It is a matter of restraint. We can do a tax cut to help
working people, we can strengthen Social Security and Medicare, we can
pay down the national debt, and we can invest in the future of our
country, in education, in health, in environment, in infrastructure.
All of this can be done if we use prudence and caution. But we cannot
do it if we go to excess.

[[Page S3515]]

That was demonstrated yesterday when we adopted an important
education amendment. But in order to do it, we had to bring down the
amount of the tax proposal.
What matters is how you blend these priorities together. What balance
do you achieve? The Senator from North Dakota, in my judgment, has done
an extraordinary job of laying out an approach which encompasses these
multiple goals, reconciles them, and moves the Nation forward. That is
what we ought to be doing. That would not give away our fiscal
responsibility. Under that approach, we would not do a huge tax cut
based on 10-year surplus projections, 70 percent of which appear only
in the last 5 years of the 10-year period. No one in their private or
business life would engage in that kind of reliance on tenuous
projections. We ought not to do it on the floor of the Senate.
I thank the Senator from North Dakota for the tremendous leadership
he has provided and the vision he has outlined of a balanced program
that will encompass tax reduction, protect Social Security and
Medicare, pay down the debt, and invest in the future of our country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, Senator Sessions
from Alabama.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank Senators Domenici and Grassley
for their courageous effort to make sure this body has a full chance to
vote on the President's tax cut proposal. It has been objected to by a
host of procedural objections in a desperate effort to throw it off
track, but we are going to get that vote up, I believe, and have a
chance to let the American people fully consider the issue.
The question I want to raise is why do we have this extraordinary
surplus? Why are we having big surpluses this year? In fact, we were
told recently, within the last week, that even though we have had a
slowdown in this year's economy, our projection of last year
underestimates the surplus we will have this year--maybe by 20 or more
billion dollars. We will see how it turns out. But even with this
slowdown, we have more coming in than we projected and we have had more
coming in for the last 3 years than has been projected by the CBO or
OMB.
Why is it happening? It is because the Federal Government not only is
taking in more, and not only are the American people making more, the
Federal Government is taking a larger percentage. It is taking a larger
percentage of America's wealth--too much.
In 1992, the Federal Government took 17.6 percent of the total gross
domestic product, all that we make and manufacture in the United
States. Today it has hit 20.7 percent, a monumental increase. That is
the highest percentage of the economy taken by the Federal Government
since the height of World War II. The American people are entitled to
not see that continue upwards. In fact, this tax reduction, if passed
fully, would not really reduce that number but just flatten it out and
keep it from going up.
We need this tax cut now. We need to have this bill on the floor so
we can fully debate the President's proposals. I say let it go. Let the
Senators vote, vote to move this budget forward.
I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his effective leadership.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I note the presence on the floor of
Senator Clinton. I want to say if I referred to the distinguished
Senator in the first person an hour or so ago, I apologize.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from New
Mexico yield?
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes. I yield.
Mrs. CLINTON. Thank you very much.
Mr. President, I say to the chairman of the Budget Committee, on
which I am honored to serve, that I appreciate those words. I came down
to the floor after hearing that to say just two quick things.
One, in 1993, we made a considerable effort to reform health care. I
learned a lot from that experience. I learned that we had to go in a
step-by-step, progressive way to try to achieve quality, affordable
health care. I also learned that we needed to have an open, spirited
debate about what needed to be done for the good of our country.
I appreciate the chance to rise and state my objections to adding
reconciliation instructions to the budget resolution because I think
the lesson we learned is a lesson we should apply.
I thank the distinguished Senator for his remarks.
Mr. DOMENICI. I am glad to do that.
Mr. President, to all of those on the other side who have spoken
eloquently about the Senate rules and the fact that we ought to have
free and open debate, I want to say one more time that the time for
those arguments was 27 years ago. When this bill, the Budget
Impoundment Act, was adopted, it essentially permitted reconciliation
instructions. And if they were given by majority vote of the Senate and
the House, then a committee had to adopt laws consistent with it.
If that was too early, we have adopted 15 tax bills under this Budget
Act--10 were tax increases; 5 were tax decreases. If 27 years ago was
too long ago to raise the objection, we had 15 different budget
resolutions that came to the floor that had taxes in them. Some might
have objected. But the truth is, the strongest arguments have been made
on this particular reconciliation instruction. I believe it is because
some don't want to let the President have a chance to have his taxes
voted on--plain, pure, and simple. I think that is going to fail
tonight. He is going to get his chance. I think eventually his tax plan
will get taken care of in the Finance Committee and the Ways and Means
Committee. Those members will pass the bill out of their committee and
it will come to the floor under this Budget Act, which is now 27 years
old.
I yield the floor. Whatever time I have remaining, I yield to the
majority leader. However, he doesn't need my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might need off
the leader time for the opportunity to sort of go over what is going to
be the process at this point. The chairman and ranking member might
want to be prepared to comment or respond.
For the information of all Senators, we are about to start a series
of votes, which has been unfortunately referred to correctly as the
``vote-arama.'' The first of these votes will be in relation to the
Domenici amendment regarding reconciliation. Following that vote, we
will have votes on the remaining pending amendments in the order in
which they have been offered. I believe Senators have access to those
amendments in their order and, therefore, will know when they will come
up.
I also announce that in order for us to be able to bring this to some
conclusion, it is going to be necessary to move forward into the night,
and we will shorten the voting period from 15 minutes after the first
vote to 10 minutes on the subsequent amendments.
There are approximately, as I understand it, 160 amendments that have
been filed. I hope Senators will show restraint, not offer the
amendments, and work with the chairman and the manager to identify the
amendments we really do want to consider. If we did all of the
amendments on the list that are available here tonight, assuming we
could do about three votes an hour, we would be here until I guess
until 9 or 9:30--something such as that.
I know the chairman, the manager, and the sponsors will work with
them. Maybe they can work through some of those amendments to reduce
them. Of course, tomorrow morning we will continue with the so-called
vote-arama every 15 minutes to vote on other amendments that would be
pending or would be necessary to be voted on, with the idea that we
would get conclusion of voting sometime and final passage tomorrow
around 2:30.
I know it is going to take a lot of patience to get to that point.
But that is our goal. I believe that is the way it is presently lined
up. Is that correct?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. LOTT. Yes.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, one of the things that would help
tremendously

[[Page S3516]]

and which would help the staff is when we have a 10-minute vote, it
should end at 10 minutes. These votes take forever. Members walk off,
go back to their offices, or go have dinner, whatever it is. I think if
you called the vote to an end at 10 minutes and set an example, some
Members would simply miss the votes, but I think we can move this
along.
Mr. LOTT. I think we need to do that. We quite often have legitimate
requests. Senators are stuck in elevators, are in the area and we can't
find them, or whatever. After the first vote I will remind Senators
again, if you will join me and remind them that we need them to stay in
the Chamber, we can get through at a more reasonable hour and still be
able to complete the list of amendments tomorrow and get to final
passage at a reasonable time tomorrow afternoon.
Senator Daschle I see just came on the floor. I was just going over
the process of how we will proceed tonight and tomorrow.
With that, I believe we are ready to proceed to the first vote.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, will the distinguished leader yield to
me for a couple of observations? I believe both the ranking member and
I have agreed on sense-of-the-Senate resolutions that are nongermane,
both of us will object to them, which I believe means that they are
going to fall. I think that is the rule now if they are not germane. We
will make a point of order, which means they will fall. There are a lot
of sense-of-the-Senate proposals.

But I would like to yield to my ranking member of the committee for
his observations on those kinds of amendments that are pending.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, it should sober us up to understand that
if we don't show some restraint and self-discipline, we face 50 hours
of straight voting. That is the harsh reality of what confronts us
tonight--50 straight hours of voting every 10 minutes. That is not a
good process. It is not credible. And it can't be allowed to happen.
We have to simply say to Members that they cannot expect to have each
and every one of these amendments voted on. We will join in resisting
amendments that are not practical, that are not fiscally responsible,
and others that are just sense-of-the-Senate amendments. We hope that
message goes out very clearly. We ask leaders, if they could, to rivet
that point to our colleagues.
Mr. LOTT. We will do that on an individual basis, and also publicly
after the next vote. We don't want to eat up a lot of time. We will
remind them of that.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wanted to weigh in as well. I
appreciate so much the leadership and partnership shown by our chairman
and ranking member.
Let me go to the point the majority leader has made. If we want to
finish by 2:30 tomorrow--and the reason we need to finish by 2:30
tomorrow, of course, is that we have a Jewish holiday coming up, and
there are a number of personal matters that have to be tended to. I
hope we can get everyone's cooperation tomorrow morning. If we are
going to do that, we have to be at a point tonight with no more than 20
amendments, and 2 minutes on each, if we come in at 9 o'clock in the
morning. That doesn't leave us with a lot tomorrow. In other words, we
have to virtually finish our work tonight.
A number of us are going to go to our colleagues and ask for their
full cooperation and partnership and effort to try to get us to the
point that we have nothing left but no more than 20 amendments in the
morning. I hope we can all work together to make that happen.
I appreciate very much the leader yielding.
Mr. LOTT. I thank Senator Daschle. We will work with you on that.
Parliamentary inquiry: Has all time expired?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
Mr. LOTT. Are we prepared to go to the first in a series of votes?
Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
Mr. CONRAD. Parliamentary inquiry: Has all time expired? We
understood that we had 1 minute left, and that the other side had 1
minute 30 seconds. We have been on leader time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico yielded his time
to the leader, which was used. Then leader time was used. The Senator
from North Dakota spoke and he was charged 1 minute 40 seconds.
Are you pondering a request to have 1 minute 30 seconds restored?
Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent that we have 1 minute restored on
both sides so the managers can conclude the argument on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, it may sound, to those listening, as
though this is a debate on the President's tax cut. It is not. This is
a debate on how the President's tax cut will be considered.
On our side, we do not believe we should restrict the Senators' right
of freedom to debate and freedom to amend. That is what this vote is
about.
Let me cite Senator Domenici in a debate in 1989 on an amendment from
the majority and minority leaders at the time to limit the scope of the
bill that was then being considered to deficit reduction. Senator
Domenici said:

We are going to use the process available under the Budget
Act to strip from this bill not only those matters which the
Parliamentarian would call extraneous but also those which
were never intended because they were not pure deficit
reduction matters.

That is the issue. This is not a deficit reduction matter. It should
not be considered under reconciliation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, deficit reduction was the issue then;
surpluses are the issue today.
But the real issue is whether or not we are going to consider and
give the American people a tax break. The issue is whether the
President of the United States is going to have his proposals
considered by a committee and then voted on by the Senate, instead of
being whittled away by time and by the consumption of all types of
amendments and all types of dilatory tactics.
Last, without question, we have tried by unanimous consent--we have
offered unanimous consent approaches--so we would not have to do
reconciliation. We cannot get that done. When that cannot be done, we
have to do this one, or we will not get a tax cut for the American
people. That is the issue. The rest is talk. The issue tonight is, will
we or will we not have a tax cut for the American people?
I yield whatever time I have and ask for the yeas and nays on the
Domenici amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 345.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 75 Leg.]

YEAS--51

Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NAYS--49

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
The amendment (No. 345) was agreed to.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page S3517]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allen). The Senator from Nevada is
recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, is the Senate in order at this time? There
is no quorum call; right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is not in order.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, 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. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the Senator from
Nevada, as well as the Senator from North Dakota for their willingness
to work with the majority leader and me and others to try to reduce the
amount of amendments and the time and try to get through this process
as best we can. These vote-aramas are not pretty or very pleasant.
Mr. President, I ask for the regular order with respect to the
amendment so that we will vote on the remaining amendments in the order
offered and, further, that the next votes in this series be limited to
10 minutes in length.
Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object--how about all votes rather
than just the next vote?
Mr. NICKLES. All the votes in this series.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. We have some problems we need to work out before the first
vote. With everybody's cooperation, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 202

Mr. REID. Mr. President, on the Durbin amendment, I ask for the yeas
and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes equally divided in favor
and in opposition to the amendment.
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment. This
is the economic stimulus amendment that provides an immediate rebate to
the taxpayers of America, both income-tax payers and payroll-tax
payers, of at least $300 per person, $600 per family.
It also provides a permanent rate reduction of the lowest rate from
15 percent to 10 percent. It will cost us $60 billion. It will go into
effect immediately. It will help families across America this year.
This also provides that the total tax cut in addition to this will be
$745 billion. This has been mischaracterized as a tax increase. We do
not have a tax cut in place. We are debating the size of the tax cut.
We think a third of the surplus should go to a tax cut, a third to
deficit reduction, and a third to crucial priorities, such as Social
Security, Medicare, and investments in education. I urge my colleagues
to support the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I want to correct the record. The pending
amendment provides additional tax relief in the year 2002, $31 billion,
and in 2003, $11 billion, but it also has over $400 billion in tax
increases compared to the resolution before us.
If we adopt this amendment, the net tax cut will boil down to not
$1.6 trillion, not $1.1 trillion, which is where we ended up last
night, but a total of $746 billion. That means the President gets less
than half the tax cut he proposed.
There is a lot of spending. My colleagues on the Democratic side have
offered $697 billion in new spending and higher taxes, now $1.3
trillion.
The pending amendment raises taxes $418 billion over and above the
tax increase we passed last night, which was $448 billion.
If my colleagues want a tax cut that is less than half of what the
President proposed, adopt this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote
no on the underlying amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
202. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 61, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 76 Leg.]

YEAS--39

Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--61

Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Johnson
Kyl
Landrieu
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
The amendment (No. 202) was rejected.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I had understood from the distinguished
Senator who offered the next amendment there was no need to have a
rollcall vote on it.
Mr. CONRAD. If I may say, we have not yet cleared this on this side.
We are not prepared. I recommend we go to a quorum call.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. May we have order.

Amendment No. 216

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will please come to order.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 216) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 215

The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have 2 minutes. We have 2 minutes now on
the amendment of the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Frist.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senator can take his minute, but I
wonder if we need a rollcall vote. We are willing to accept it.
Mr. FRIST. I would like a rollcall vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Might I say to the Senator from Tennessee, if he can
accept a voice vote, he will have strong support. If we have to go to a
vote, he may lose the amendment.
We urge the Senator to think about the circumstance and to accept the
voice vote.
Mr. FRIST. I request a rollcall vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have had 154 amendments. We are never
going to end this thing unless people cooperate a little bit. If the
other side is worried about us getting out of here

[[Page S3518]]

tomorrow, they had better start cooperating a little bit. There is no
need to have a vote on this amendment. We agree. We accept it.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have done my best. I talked to
Senators. He has requested a rollcall vote since early this afternoon.
He told me about it. We can waste more time talking about why he should
not get it than to go ahead and have the vote. Then we will get on to
the next one and do everything we can to avoid it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I recommend we move to a vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes equally divided on the
amendment of the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Frist.
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOMENICI. 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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have the concurrence of the
distinguished Senator from Tennessee and the ranking member of our
committee that we set this amendment aside temporarily. I ask unanimous
consent that be the status of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, if I might just say to our colleagues,
please understand. We are set up to have 50 straight hours of voting
unless people show a little restraint, a little discipline, and a
little courtesy towards our colleagues. Please, let's not get into a
circumstance in which we spend the next 50 hours in this Chamber voting
every 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is now on the Corzine amendment.

Amendment No. 346

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I understand the situation is such that
Senator Murkowski wants to offer a second degree. But I understand that
we want to handle that as we have handled other second-degree
amendments.
Is that correct?
Mr. CONRAD. That is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. That means they will have an amount of time to debate
between them. It should be 2 minutes. It was going to be 1. Then we
will be able to vote on the two amendments side by side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will please report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski) proposes an
amendment No. 346.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this amendment would raise the level of
the conservation spending cap to the statutory level of $1.76 billion
in budget authority and $1.38 billion in outlays at 2002.
Last year, this cap was created through careful compromise in the
Interior appropriations bill. It assures funding for certain high-
priority conservation programs. Those include the Land and Water
Conservation Fund; National Park Service; management urban and
community forestry; State wildlife grants; Pacific coastal salmon
recovery; urban parks restoration; historic preservation; payment in
lieu of taxes; and other important programs which provide funding to
maintain our national parks, provide funding to help support
communities with large Federal land ownership, help create urban parks,
assure the survival of the Pacific salmon, and many other worthwhile
projects.
Last year, we made a commitment to these programs. We should keep our
commitment to these programs and to our natural resources.
I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. CORZINE. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment. The amendment will
restore $50 billion in cuts included in the underlying resolution. The
amendment will fund priority environmental and natural resource energy
conservation programs--programs such as brownfield restoration,
wildfire prevention, sewer and water infrastructure programs, energy
conservation and efficiency programs, and the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. These restorations are offset by reduced tax cuts
and administrative savings.
The amendment also sets aside an additional $50 billion for debt
reduction. I urge my colleagues to stand up for our legacy to future
generations. I urge my colleagues to stand up for our environment and
support the amendment.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the Murkowski amendment.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me ask colleagues, we are going to
have to exercise discipline tonight or we are going to have chaos. This
is just as clear as it can be. So, please, let's try to be quiet while
Senators are speaking, and let's try to restrict debate so that we can
finish. The manager and I believe, given the fact that none of us have
seen the amendment of the Senator from Alaska, that it would be
appropriate to give him another minute to explain his amendment, and
another minute on the side of the Senator from New Jersey in response.
We ask unanimous consent for an additional minute for the Senator from
Alaska and an additional minute for the Senator from New Jersey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I yield time to the Senator from Texas
on the amendment that I have offered.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, the Corzine amendment spends another $46
billion, adding to total spending in a budget which is now already
grossly bloated. Our Democrat colleagues in the last 2 days have in the
process of adding spending, added $697 billion of new spending in their
amendments. That is more than the entire Government spent in the first
150 years of our great Republic.
If anybody has any doubt as to what the two parties are about, all
they have to do is look at this spending orgy.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Corzine amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for
a minute
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, in the short time we have had to look at the
amendment of the distinguished Senator from Alaska, we recognize that
it is quite good. It has $200 million to help fund CARA. It is ``CARA-
lite,'' though.

What the Senator from New Jersey has done is recognize that there
have been tremendous cuts in this underlying budget in programs in
which we all believe, not the least of which is arsenic in the water
and all these things we talked about during the day.
We believe the amendment of the Senator from Alaska is very weak. It
is about $50 billion weak. It does nothing to address the real problems
this country faces, and it does not reduce the debt.
Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from
Alaska.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished ranking member
if

[[Page S3519]]

we could let Senator Corzine have the first vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the amendment of the Senator from Alaska
was an amendment in the second degree. Normally that would be the first
vote.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. That is correct.
Mr. CONRAD. So the amendment of the Senator from Alaska would
normally be considered as the first vote.
Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, that isn't true. Just a while ago we agreed to
a unanimous consent that they would be side-by-side amendments. That is
not a second-degree amendment.
Mr. REID. No. No.
Mr. CONRAD. But it is in the form of a second degree.
I think we have also in every one of these circumstances but one----
Mr. DOMENICI. I am not going to argue. We are going to vote for
Senator Murkowski's first. I hope they vote for it because the
alternative is going to be the Corzine amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. CONRAD. Might I ask that we take the Senator's vote on a voice
vote? Would the Senator accept a voice vote?
Mr. MURKOWSKI. 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. CONRAD. 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. CONRAD. We believe we have an agreement to go to a voice vote on
the amendment by the Senator from Alaska.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
346.
The amendment (No. 346) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. GRAMM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 257

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to Corzine
amendment No. 257.
Mr. REID. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 54, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 77 Leg.]

YEAS--46

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--54

Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Landrieu
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
The amendment (No. 257) was rejected.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 211

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes now on the Bond amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest that as to the Bond amendment,
which is going to be discussed, and the Dodd-Collins amendment which
follows, we accept those two amendments. They are bipartisan. I am
willing to accept them, and we won't have to have votes. That means the
next vote will be on the Voinovich amendment, which is an appeal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are willing to accept those mentioned
amendments as well, the Bond-Mikulski amendment and the Dodd-Collins
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, this amendment, cosponsored by Senators
Mikulski, Lieberman, Allen, Bingaman, and Domenici, adds a very
important $1.4 billion to function 250, the general science function.
Basic science research in this country is suffering because we have
not adequately funded the National Science Foundation in recent years.
The funding in this function leverages the research done in NIH and
other areas. We believe it is extremely important. We expect that we
are on a path for doubling the NSF budget in 5 years. This will put us
back on the path.
I yield to my colleague from Maryland.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, the United States of America every year
wins Nobel Prizes. We want to be sure that every year we win the global
markets, as well as the Nobel Prizes. By doubling the National Science
Foundation, by increasing funding for NASA and increasing funding for
the Department of Energy, we are making public investments in great
core science and engineering laboratories.
This is where we create the new ideas that lead to new products as
well as educate the next generation of Sally Rides, of other great
scientists, the Dr. Varmuses who go on and lead our Nation. If we don't
increase the funding for the National Science Foundation, we are not
going to have the mathematicians, the physicists, and the engineers we
need.
We are the greatest country in the world because we are willing to
take risks. We are the greatest country in the world because we are
inventors and we are discoverers. Why don't we put our public money
where our national values are? Let's pass the Bond-Mikulski amendment
and take America right into the 21st century.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to proceed with the first of
those amendments, the Bond amendment No. 211.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
211.
The amendment (No. 211) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 322, As Modified

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and the Senator from
Maine, we offer this amendment which restores some funding that is
being cut for children's hospitals, as well as for the child care
development block grant and the child abuse prevention programs. These
moneys total around $270 million, which gets us back to the level of
funding for this year. It is not beyond that at all. It just brings
these numbers up to the present year level.
I thank my colleague from Maine, who has worked tirelessly over the
years on this issue.
I urge my colleagues' support. I thank the chairman of the Budget
Committee for his support, as well as my own ranking Democrat on the
Budget Committee.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are prepared to vote.

[[Page S3520]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The question is on agreeing to
the amendment.
The amendment (No. 322), as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 288

Mr. DOMENICI. The next amendment is Senator Voinovich's appeal of the
ruling of the Chair.
I yield the floor.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment with my
colleagues, Senators Feingold, Gregg, and Domenici. This amendment we
are offering helps to refine the procedures in the budget process that
are designed to control spending. It is clear from the egregious levels
of spending in the past couple of years that the existing process needs
reinforcement. That is what this amendment does.
Our amendment is designed to tighten the enforcement of existing
spending controls. To do this, we create an explicit point of order
against the emergency spending that doesn't meet the definition for
emergency spending as laid out by OMB.
The amendment also closes budget loopholes by creating a point of
order against actions that raise the discretionary spending caps;
creating a point of order against efforts to waive sequesters, which is
a budget enforcement mechanism; and last, creating a point of order
against directed scoring--in essence, telling OMB and CBO how to treat
spending that others use in order to dodge spending limits. Any waiver
of these measures will require 60 votes.
I urge my colleagues' support. It will guarantee that the budget
process is more transparent.
I ask unanimous consent that Senators Domenici and Gramm be added as
cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this is a nongermane amendment. As a
result, this is subject to a 60-vote point of order. This amendment has
some parts that are good, but, unfortunately, it also contains a fatal
flaw. It would establish a 60-vote point of order against all emergency
designations, both defense and nondefense. I don't think we want to set
a precedent here that we require supermajority points of order to
respond to a defense emergency or a natural disaster emergency.
I urge colleagues to defeat the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to the Senate we thank you very
much for the way things are going. We very much appreciate your
attention. We haven't had much disturbance or much talking on the
floor. For that, I thank each Senator on both sides of the aisle. We
thank you very much for your cooperation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
waive.
The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 46, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 78 Leg.]

YEAS--54

Allard
Allen
Bayh
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NAYS--46

Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feinstein
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allen). On this vote, the yeas are 54, the
nays are 46. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of
order is sustained and the amendment falls.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we laid aside the amendment of the
distinguished Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Frist. He will accept a voice
vote. If we can proceed to that now, he will not ask for a rollcall.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to publicly apologize to my friend
from Tennessee for raising my voice to him and the rest of the Senate.
I recognize being unreasonable is not only on one side of the aisle. I
apologize to the Senator.

Amendment No. 215

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, it is time for the world to wake up. We are
confronted today with the worst international health crisis in 600
years: the international scourge of HIV/AIDS; 8,000 people died today,
15,000 new infections today.
In Africa, the life expectancy in more than a handful of the
countries has been cut in half.
Currently, the United States spends about $500 million annually. Our
amendment increases that by $200 million next year, ultimately doubling
our commitment.
The goal is simple: Reduce the devastation of the most significant
moral, humanitarian, and developmental challenges of our time.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, a year ago we joined together in the Senate
with Senator Helms as leader, and others in the Foreign Affairs
Committee, to make a major effort with respect to the international
AIDS program. President Bush and his security team the other day joined
what President Clinton and his security team had found, which is that
this is an international security issue. It is a national security
issue for the United States. I hope all of our colleagues will join
together in restoring this critical funding that will deal with
prevention, care, and treatment across the globe.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the yeas and nays are
vitiated.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from
Tennessee.
The amendment (No. 215) was agreed to.
Mr. SANTORUM. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment
was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 225

Mr. DOMENICI. I understand the next amendment is amendment No. 225
offered by the distinguished Senator Hollings. We have a second-degree
amendment we will offer, but we would like to treat them side by side
as we have other amendments. Senator Hutchison of Texas will offer it.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I didn't know about the second degree. I thought there
would not be a second-degree amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. It is a simple amendment. It is an amendment about
which the Senator feels strongly.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I think the real point here is to send a message to the
market, to the consumers, and to the people of this country that we
feel their pain. As the old expression goes around this town, we know
that we need an immediate stimulus to the economy to stop this
downturn. This is divorced entirely from the tax cut, divorced entirely
from budgets for 10-year considerations. It is a 1-year immediate
repayment to the 95 million income-tax payers and another $500 to the
25 million payroll-tax payers who

[[Page S3521]]

do not pay income tax for a total of 120 million, as recommended by
Harvard Business School, Lester Thurow, the Concord Coalition, Business
Week, former Secretary of the Treasury Bob Rubin, the Economic Policy
Institute, and others.
This is the need. We have been going on and on about the tax cut for
the rich, poor, and everyone else.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

Amendment No. 347

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk which
adds language to the Hollings amendment that basically assures the
marriage penalty is fully repealed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] proposes an
amendment numbered 347.

The amendment is as follows:

At the appropriate place add:
Sec. . Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, the revenue levels and other aggregates in this
resolution shall be adjusted to reflect an additional $69
billion in revenue reductions for the period of fiscal years
2002 through 2011.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. It would add $69 billion to assure that there is a
marriage penalty elimination for this country. We have said we want to
eliminate it. Now is the time to do it. We want to add the amount we
believe it will cost to fully eliminate the marriage penalty in this
country.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, 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. CONRAD. 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. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment of
the Senator from Texas because after doing an analysis of the
amendments previously agreed to and passed, it is very clear that this
amendment will raid the Medicare trust fund. We can't accept an
amendment that would do that. I am asking colleagues to oppose this
amendment because it raids the Medicare trust fund in the years 2004,
2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CONRAD. Parliamentary inquiry: On whose time is the Senator from
Texas proceeding?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 2 minutes allotted before each vote.
Mr. CONRAD. The Senator from Texas already spoke.
Mr. DOMENICI. Would the Senator like another minute?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I don't think we exhausted the time. I spoke, but I
did not speak for 2 minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. The Senator had 1 minute.
Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Chair explain this to Senators.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask for 30 seconds to respond to the
Senator from North Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas spoke for 1 minute in
opposition to the Hollings amendment. She is allowed 1 minute to speak
in favor of her own amendment.
The Senator from Texas is recognized for 1 minute.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I respectfully disagree with the
numbers that my colleague from North Dakota has given. We did not raid
the Medicare trust fund when we had $1.6 billion in tax cuts. Now we
are talking about $1.1 billion or so, and we are adding $69 billion.
This is to eliminate the marriage penalty tax. We are squeezing down
the tax cuts and I do not want married couples in this country to think
that it is not important for us to eliminate the marriage penalty. We
should not penalize people for getting married. I hope you will vote
for my amendment, and I hope you will vote for the amendment of Senator
Hollings as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the budget resolution does not determine
any specific tax policy. All of us know that. This does not eliminate
the marriage penalty or anything else. It simply adds $69 billion to
the tax cut, which raids the Medicare trust funds in each of the years
I previously referenced.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. The $69 billion will go to the marriage penalty
because we will say so. I hope my colleagues will support elimination
of the marriage penalty.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Hutchison
amendment.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 79 Leg.]

YEAS--50

Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NAYS--50

Vote on Amendment No. 225

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the Hollings
amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call
the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 6, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 80 Leg.]

YEAS--94

Akaka
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

NAYS--6

Carper
Corzine
Dodd
Feingold
Graham
Nelson (FL)
The amendment (No. 225) was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page S3522]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, may I just inform Senators where we are.
People would like to go home this evening. The next amendment is that
of Senator Allen from Virginia. We have a minute; whoever opposes him
has a minute. The next amendment would be Senator Wellstone with
reference to veterans spending, and we have a second-degree amendment
to that. They will be voted side by side. If we can get those finished,
that is all we have lined up by way of votes.
We have an amendment on vote-arama and streamlining the process so we
won't get into these problems next year.
We should proceed with the votes we have: Senator Allen, to be
followed by Wellstone and a second degree.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to indicate to our colleagues and
to the manager of the bill that there will be a second-degree amendment
to Senator Allen's amendment as well, so everybody is on notice with
respect to how that amendment will be treated.

Amendment No. 201

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has 1 minute.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Brownback, Hutchison,
Craig, Warner, and myself, the tax cut accelerator ensures that
unexpected on-budget surpluses are used to accelerate tax cuts rather
than accelerate more Government spending. The tax relief accelerator
provides a tax relief insurance policy so that the Federal Government
will fulfill its promise to return excess tax collections to the
taxpayer. The tax cut accelerator does not touch Social Security or
Medicare. It does not threaten funding for current programs. It allows
us to set priorities in education, national defense, and scientific
research.
It does hold the Government accountable to the American people,
setting priorities, determining the amount and type of tax relief,
taking action, and justifying our decisions to the American people.
I respectfully ask my colleagues to please say yes to the taxpayers
of America and improve our economic vitality.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator
from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this amendment is a nongermane amendment.
It is subject to a 60-vote point of order. We have brought that order
under the Budget Act. I hope my colleagues will support that point of
order.
This would require fully expedited procedures beyond even what
reconciliation provides. I hope our colleagues will reject this
amendment on a point of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
waive. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 45, nays 55, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 81 Leg.]

YEAS--45

Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Craig
Crapo
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NAYS--55

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 45, the nays are
55. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is
sustained, and the amendment fails.
Mr. CONRAD. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, 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. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I will address colleagues on my side for a
moment to say we still have 27 amendments pending. This would be a
wonderful opportunity, while we are waiting to work things out, for
colleagues to come down and voluntarily give up their amendment in the
interest of the whole body. What a good way to end the evening, to have
a few more amendments given up so we could finish by our goal of 2:30
tomorrow afternoon.
I am making the offer. We will be here. We will be in business, and
we will be eagerly awaiting our colleagues who want to give up
amendments this evening.
Mr. DOMENICI. Might I thank the distinguished Senator. I thank him
for his request on his side. I say to our side, we have 10 amendments.
We sure hope we can find some way to narrow that down to three or four.
We will be working with Senators when we finish tonight.
Let me tell Members what these amendments are: 289 is Crapo-Murray;
237 is Grassley; 286, Santorum; 236, DeWine; 214, Collins; and four
Smith amendments, 83, 46, 45, and 57.
We very much would like to get the list down to about three.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we have been consulting on both sides of the
aisle as to how to complete action tonight and how we will begin in the
morning. I think everybody understands the best way to proceed at this
point. I ask consent the Wellstone amendment be laid aside and the
Senator from Louisiana be recognized to offer a first-degree amendment;
that it be laid aside and the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, offer a
first-degree amendment; that no amendments be in order to these
amendments prior to the votes, and votes occur in relation to these
amendments, also in a stacked sequence, first in relation to the Breaux
amendment and then in relation to the Collins amendment.
I further ask consent the first vote tomorrow morning occur in
relation to the Wellstone amendment beginning at 9:30.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I object.
Mr. LOTT. To clarify that, on the two I just outlined, the Collins
and the Breaux amendments, those votes would occur tonight. Then
tomorrow, of course, we would have the Wellstone amendment which would
have the parallel second-degree amendment to it also.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Did the Senator from Minnesota object?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I object for right now. I want to try
to understand a little bit further how we are proceeding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 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. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I do not object.

[[Page S3523]]

Mr. LOTT. I renew my request, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. I believe we are ready to proceed, then, with the two
amendments. Of course, they would be 10-minute votes with a brief
explanation of the two amendments, a minute each.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.

Amendment No. 348

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk. I ask it
be reported.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux], for himself and
Mr. Jeffords, proposes an amendment numbered 348.

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

(Purpose: To increase funding for IDEA amendment)

At the appropriate place add:
Sec. . Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, the spending aggregates, functional totals,
allocations, and other levels in this resolution shall be
adjusted to reflect an additional $70 billion in budget
authority and outlays for function 500 for the period of
fiscal years 2002 through 2011, and a reduction of $70
billion in revenue reductions (and an increase of $70 billion
in total revenues) for the period of fiscal years 2002
through 2011.

Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, we have only a minute. For the sake of our
colleagues, this amendment simply takes $70 billion off the tax cut
which is now at approximately a level of $1.275 trillion, I think. It
says that $70 billion is going to be used for education purposes, and
the purpose is to fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
IDEA; to put the money back where I think it is a high priority. This
amendment is offered on behalf of myself and Senator Jeffords who has
been a long-time champion for the funding of the IDEA program.
This amendment does not take it out of the contingency fund. There is
no more contingency fund. Remember the spectrum? Remember how many
times we spent it? It is gone; agriculture and defense and everything
else ate it up. If you want the $70 billion, there is only one place to
get it, and my amendment provides the one place to get it by reducing
the tax cuts. I ask my colleagues to support this effort.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time in opposition?
Mr. GRAMM. I reserve the time.
Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Collins would like to offer an amendment. I
think that is the way we have been doing it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.

Amendment No. 349

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins] proposes an amendment
numbered 349.

Ms. COLLINS. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Propose: To provide tax credits for small business to purchase health
insurance for their employees and to provide for the deductibility of
health insurance for the self-employed and those who don't receive
health insurance from their employers and for long-term care)

At the appropriate place, insert:
Sec. . Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, the revenue levels and other aggregates in this
resolution shall be adjusted to reflect an additional $70
billion in revenue reductions for the period of fiscal years
2002 through 2011.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, first let me make clear that the
amendment I am offering does not change the amendment offered by the
distinguished Senator from Louisiana. What it would do instead is add
to the tax cut $70 billion in order to cover the following: A tax
credit for small businesses to help them purchase health insurance.
This is based on legislation that the Senator from Louisiana--the
other Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu--and I recently introduced
to address the problem of small businesses having a difficult time in
affording health insurance for their employees. It would provide for
full deductibility of health insurance for the self-employed, an issue
that I know is something the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, and the
Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond, have worked on. And it would provide
for long-term care insurance above the line deduction to help people
and encourage them to purchase long-term care insurance.
The combined total of those provisions would be approximately $70
billion over the next 10 years. That would bring the total tax cut to
approximately $1.3 trillion.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, how much time is left in opposition to the
amendment of the Senator from Maine?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The opposition has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. BREAUX. I might just take a minute in opposition to the Senator's
amendment. I have a great deal of respect for her, but I suggest the
budget authorization doesn't do any of those things. The respective
committees that are going to be authorizing this will decide how it is
going to be spent. While the list is a nice list, it has nothing to do
with reality because the Budget Committee does not make that decision.
The respective committees that had jurisdiction are going to make the
decision on how to spend the money.
Anyone can stand up and read a laudatory list of noble things, but
there is no assurance that will happen. I respect everything she said
about the intent, but the committee of jurisdiction has to make those
decisions. We do not make those decisions on the floor.
Our amendment, however, does provide $70 billion specifically for
education which allows that decision to be made. It does not come out
of a nonexistent fund. That is the big difference.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, we have 1 minute in opposition to the
Breaux amendment. Exactly the same argument is true with regard to the
Breaux amendment.
Nothing in the Breaux amendment in any way requires that the money go
for the purpose he specifies. All his amendment does is basically
reduce the tax cut by $70 billion and add it to spending. What Senator
Collins has done is given us an opportunity as a Senate to go on record
in favor of something we all claim we are for; that is, to provide $70
billion for the purpose of making a health insurance tax credit for
small business, so they can cover their employees, and to give
deductibility for health insurance.
I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time has expired?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana has 11 seconds.
Mr. BREAUX. I can only say in 11 seconds that it specifies it has to
be for education, and it comes out of the function 500. That is the
education function. It can't be used for anything else.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment by the Senator from
Louisiana.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays are ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 46, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 82 Leg.]

YEAS--54

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Collins
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCain
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden

[[Page S3524]]

NAYS--46

Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
The amendment (No. 348) was agreed to.
Mr. CONRAD. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 349

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Collins
amendment No. 349.
Mr. GRAMM. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 51, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 83 Leg.]

YEAS--49

Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NAYS--51

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
The amendment (No. 349) was rejected.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. DASCHLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, 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. DOMENICI. 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. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are working on a UC. We are going to
try not to delay the Senate. We have four amendments that have been
approved on both sides. I may call them up and ask that they be adopted
en bloc.
Mr. CONRAD. What is the chairman's intention about how we proceed?
Does the Senator want to do them one at a time?

Amendment No. 208

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we will just do these one at a time. I
will call up 208.
I send the amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. Byrd,
proposes an amendment numbered 208.

The amendment reads as follows:

(Purpose: To foster greater debate of amendments to a reconciliation
bill or a budget resolution)

At the end of title II, insert the following:

SEC. ____. LIMITATION ON CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS UNDER
RECONCILIATION AND A BUDGET RESOLUTION.

(a) Reconciliation and Budget Resolutions.--For purposes of
consideration of any reconciliation bill reported under
section 310(e) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 or any
budget resolution reported under section 305(b) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974--
(1) debate, and all amendments thereto and debatable
motions and appeals in connection therewith, shall be limited
to not more than 50 hours;
(2) time on a bill or resolution may only be yielded back
by consent;
(3) time on amendments shall be limited to 60 minutes to be
equally divided in the usual form and on any second degree
amendment or motion to 30 minutes to be equally divided in
the usual form;
(4) no first degree amendment may be proposed after the
10th hour of debate on a bill or resolution unless it has
been submitted to the Journal Clerk prior to the expiration
of the 10th hour;
(5) no second degree amendment may be proposed after the
20th hour of debate on a bill or resolution unless it has
been submitted to the Journal Clerk prior to the expiration
of the 20th hour; and
(6) after not more than 40 hours of debate on a bill or
resolution, the bill or resolution shall be set aside for 1
calendar day, so that all filed amendments are printed and
made available in the Congressional Record before debate on
the bill or resolution continues.
(b) Waiver and Appeal.--This section may be waived or
suspended in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative
vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly
chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain
an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order
raised under this section.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are willing to accept this amendment.
It is a procedural change that makes all of the processes much better.
We will work on it in conference. On our side we are willing to accept
it.
Mr. CONRAD. We are as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 208) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 289

Mr. DOMENICI. I send to the desk amendment No. 289, the Crapo-Murray
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. Crapo
and Mrs. Murray, proposes an amendment numbered 289.

The amendment reads as follows:

(Purpose: To ensure that the Department of Energy's Environmental
Management program is funded at a level adequate to continue progress
in waste treatment and management, site maintenance and closure,
environmental restoration, and technology development, while meeting
its legally binding compliance commitments to the states, the Atomic
Energy Defense Account is increased by $1 billion in fiscal year 2002)

On page 10, line 21, increase the amount by $1 billion. On
page 10, line 22, increase the amount by $650 million. On
page 43, line 15, decrease the amount by $1 billion. On page
43, line 16, decrease the amount by $650 million. On page 48,
line 8, increase the amount by $1 billion. On page 48, line
9, increase the amount by $650 million.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we should note that the cosponsor is
Senator Murray, so that we have the right sponsors. We have no
objection to this amendment. It has to do with funding environmental
cleanup that we are committed to doing. Most of us think we are going
to have to do it in any event. This makes it clear that we have the
money to do that.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are willing to accept this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 289) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 210

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we have clearance for another amendment on
the list, No. 210, the Bond amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have been willing to do that. Senator
Bond has graciously told us he would not insist on a rollcall vote. He
said that to us an hour ago.
I send the amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

[[Page S3525]]

The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. Bond,
proposes an amendment numbered 210.

The amendment reads as follows:

(Purpose: To provide funds for consolidated health centers under
section 330 of the Public Health Service Act and for children's
hospitals graduate medical education programs under section 340E of
such Act)

On page 28, line 23, increase the amount by $136,000,000.
On page 28, line 24, increase the amount by $136,000,000.
On page 43, line 15, decrease the amount by $136,000,000.
On page 43, line 16, decrease the amount by $136,000,000.
On page 48, line 8, increase the amount by $136,000,000.
On page 48, line 9, increase the amount by $136,000,000.
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. . Sense of the Senate on Consolidated Health
Centers.--It is the sense of the Senate that appropriations
for consolidated health centers under section 330 of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254b) should be
increased by 100 percent over the next 5 fiscal years in
order to double the number of individuals who receive health
services at community, migrant, homeless, and public housing
health centers.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we accept the amendment.
Mr. CONRAD. We have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 210) was agreed to.

Amendment No. 237

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we have good news. We have another
amendment on which we have agreement, and that is amendment No. 237. We
just received clearance on amendment No. 237, the Grassley-Kennedy
amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. It is OK on our side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr.
Grassley, for himself and Mr. Kennedy, proposes an amendment
numbered 237.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a reserve fund for the Family Opportunity Act)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ____. RESERVE FUND FOR FAMILY OPPORTUNITY ACT.

If the Committee on Finance of the Senate reports a bill or
joint resolution, or if an amendment is offered, or a
conference report is submitted which provides States with the
opportunity to expand medicaid coverage for children with
special needs, allowing families of disabled children with
the opportunity to purchase coverage under the medicaid
program for such children (commonly referred to as the
``Family Opportunity Act of 2001''), the Chairman of the
Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise committee
allocations for the Committee on Finance and other
appropriate budgetary aggregates and allocations of new
budget authority (and the outlays resulting therefrom) in
this resolution by the amount provided by that measure for
that purpose, but not to exceed $200,000,000 in new budget
authority and outlays for fiscal year 2002 and $7,900,000,000
in new budget authority and outlays for the period of fiscal
years 2002 through 2011, subject to the condition that such
legislation will not, when taken together with all other
previously-enacted legislation, reduce the on-budget surplus
below the level of the Medicare Federal Hospital Insurance
Trust Fund surplus in any fiscal year covered by this
resolution.

Mr. DOMENICI. It is acceptable on our side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CONRAD. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 237) was agreed to.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Vitiation of Action on Amendment No. 237

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent we vitiate the adoption of the
amendment numbered 237 because it has technical problems we have to
work out. We will work them out overnight.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 256

Mr. CONRAD. We have now cleared on this side amendment 256, the Reid-
Hutchinson amendment.
Mr. DOMENICI. We call up amendment No. 256, Reid-Hutchinson.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. Reid of
Nevada and Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Warner, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Johnson, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Levin, proposes an amendment
numbered 256.

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of
the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish a reserve fund for the payment of retired pay
and compensation to disabled military retirees)

At the end of title II, insert the following:

SEC. . RESERVE FUND FOR THE PAYMENT OF RETIRED PAY AND
COMPENSATION TO DISABLED MILITARY RETIREES.

If the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate or the
House of Representatives reports the Department of Defense
authorization bill and includes a provision to fund the
payment of retired pay and compensation to disabled military
retirees, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the
Senate or the House of Representatives, as applicable, may
increase the allocation of new budget authority and outlays
to that committee by the amount of new budget authority (and
the outlays resulting therefrom) provided by that measure for
that purpose not to exceed $2,900,000,000 in new budget
authority and outlays for fiscal year 2002, and
$40,000,000,000 in new budget authority and outlays for the
period of fiscal years 2002 through 2011, subject to the
condition that such legislation will not, when taken together
with all other previously enacted legislation, reduce the on-
budget surplus below the level of the Medicare Hospital
Insurance Trust Fund surplus in any fiscal year covered by
this resolution.

Mr. DOMENICI. We have no objection.
Mr. CONRAD. No objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment,
No. 256.
The amendment (No. 256) was agreed to.

____________________