[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 108 (Monday, July 30, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8371-S8373]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE AGENDA
Mr. REID. Mr. President, one of the things I want to visit about this
morning is something I read in the morning newspapers; that is, there
is now another effort being made to pass a constitutional amendment to
balance the budget. I hope that people will get a new page in their
song book. We have danced that tune. We have had long hours and days of
debate in the Senate on a constitutional amendment to balance the
budget.
[[Page S8372]]
From the information I have received, they still want to do it using
the Social Security surpluses. It seems to me that we have done very
well without a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. When
this debate started, as you will recall, based upon the beginnings of
the Reagan administration, there was an effort to cut taxes and
increase spending. That was a recipe for disaster. We now have a debt
of about $5 trillion as a result of that. We have now, it seems, the
same basic scenario. There is being an effort made to cut taxes, and we
already know, based upon having passed the supplemental appropriations
bill, Mr. President, that our surplus is basically gone.
In an effort to further grind down domestic spending, it appears
there is an effort being made to go back where we were a few years ago
saying what we really need to make things great in this country is a
constitutional amendment to balance the budget. When that debate
started during the first Bush administration, there was an annual
deficit of about $300 billion.
In the last 8 years, we have been able to do a great job without a
constitutional amendment. We have reduced the annual deficit to where
now we are having surpluses. Prior to this budget--we will see how much
damage this budget does to the progress we have made--we have been able
to have many months of low inflation and low unemployment, the longest
in some 40 years.
We have been able to reduce the Federal payroll, separate and apart
from the military, some 300,000 fewer jobs than we had before. Job
creation has been really significant. Some 22 million new jobs have
been created. I am trying to figure out why we need, at this stage, a
constitutional amendment to balance the budget.
I am afraid what has taken place in this short administration of Bush
II is, it appears, a recipe for disaster. I say that because the income
of this country will be cut back significantly.
I made a call today, and I am not going to divulge the name of the
individual to whom I spoke, but I would be happy to do that privately
with the President pro tempore or anyone else who wants to ask me, but
I will not do it for the press because it was a relatively private call
with someone at a large corporation.
He indicated that in the last few days the value of this stock, of
this major American corporation, international corporation, has dropped
some 70 percent--in a matter of about a week.
The chief executive officer of this major company told me this
morning he believes for the first time this softening of the economy we
have all talked about is now being felt worldwide. This is a worldwide
company. For this stock, in a week's period of time, to decline 70
percent indicates this country had better slow down and slow down its
efforts to change the way things have been going.
They have been going great. Senator Moynihan, who was a valued Member
of the Senate, said there are Members of the Senate, Members of
Congress, people in and outside of government, who for decades have
determined they cannot cut back domestic spending by facing it head on
and saying we want to cut this program for the Forest Service or for
any program one wants to pick--the Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of
Reclamation, which entities do so much good--they cannot do this head
on because these entities do so much good. I have just picked a few off
the top of my head.
What they are doing instead is just squeezing down the domestic
discretionary spending so these entities will, in effect, starve
themselves, and that is what is happening. That is what Senator
Moynihan said was going to happen, and it appears he is right. What
they are trying to do is starve the domestic aspect of our spending.
We are going to have to realize what we are facing. There are going
to be huge requests even this year for more defense spending, and I am
sure there is a need for more defense spending, but also there is a
need for domestic discretionary spending.
I held a hearing in my subcommittee of the Environment and Public
Works Committee last Monday, dealing with this Nation's infrastructure.
I brought in mayors from around the country to talk about what is
happening in their cities. It is scary, to say the least.
The mayor of Atlanta, GA, said that most mayors in America now are on
term limits and the No. 1 wish of mayors from around America is: Please
do not have the water system, the sewer system, break down, before my
term is up. Let the next mayor face the problem because it is coming.
It is just a question of when.
The mayor of Atlanta said in this relatively new, modern city in the
sense that most of the growth has taken place recently, there is a very
big backlog of things which need to be done. Some of their water
systems in Atlanta are very old and are being put together by--I am
exaggerating--chewing gum. They are just holding them together. They do
not have enough money to do it right.
I had Mayor Williams of our National City, Washington, DC, testify in
my subcommittee. Those of us who spend a lot of time in Washington, DC,
have all seen and read in the paper about the manhole covers blowing
off in the Georgetown area. He said that is a result of work not being
done that needs to be done with the electricity, with the sewers, with
the water systems. He said some of the water pipes in Washington, DC,
are old wooden pipes.
We heard from the Mayor of Washington, DC, saying the infrastructure
needs of this metropolitan American Federal city are disastrous. He
needs help. If there is a city in America we should help, it is
Washington, DC, where tourists come to see the Nation's Capitol, but we
have manhole covers blowing off into the air like mortars. He said
there are going to be more of them; they do not have the wherewithal to
fix them.
Mark Morial, the mayor of New Orleans, came in and testified. New
Orleans is a famous city, with a great and rich heritage. I am reading
a book now about Andrew Jackson, ``Battle of New Orleans.'' It is a
wonderful book. New Orleans has 100 water pumping stations. That is the
way it is. That is the way they have to get the water out of the city.
There is lots of water. If they did not pump the water out, the city
would be flooded. The pumping stations use pumps over 100 years old.
The mayor said, how much longer can they keep doing what they are
supposed to do? The pumps are 100 years old. Some of those pumps came
into existence before the turn of the last century, and we are still
using them.
The mayor of Las Vegas, NV, Oscar Goodman, testified. It is the most
rapidly growing city in America, the fastest growing State in America.
I asked: Is it true, Mayor Goodman, we must build 12 new schools
every year in the Las Vegas area, 1 every month, to keep up?
He said: Senator, you are wrong. It is now up to 14. We have to build
more than one school every month to keep up with the growth there. We
really need help. Las Vegas needs help. Clark County, where Las Vegas
is, needs help.
What are we talking about doing? Spending time on the Senate floor
talking about a constitutional amendment to balance the budget? We need
to talk about ways to help the cities of Atlanta, New Orleans, Las
Vegas and Washington, DC. That is what we need to be spending some time
on.
We are on a literal powder keg of things that need to be done for our
cities.
I also say this: If there was ever a time for bipartisanship, it is
now. The Senate is under the control of the Democrats, just barely. The
House is under the control of the Republicans, just barely. We have a
man who is President of the United States, who received fewer votes
than the person he beat. It would seem to me this is a time that cries
out for bipartisanship, to work together to get things done.
Yet we had a filibuster last week that held up another appropriations
bill. It was based on an issue--and I know the people who disputed the
Mexican trucking issue believe fervently in their side. There were two
sides, and both believed in their causes. What went on in this Chamber
was not good for the well-being of the country. We needed to pass the
appropriations bill, take it to conference. That is where it is going
to be decided. It is not going to be decided in the Senate.
The House has a provision that, in effect, bans Mexican trucks coming
into America. It passed by a 2-to-1 margin. What we had crafted by
Senators Shelby and Murray was a middle ground,
[[Page S8373]]
and that still was not good enough. The bill was taken down and will be
brought back up. We will vote again on cloture, and this week sometime
we will pass the Transportation appropriations bill.
But we need to work on issues that are important to this country.
Last week a report came out dealing with Social Security and what
needed to be done. One of the main directions of that report is for the
President's commission to do an analysis of Social Security. Most
everyone said the people had a preconceived idea before they were
appointed, and that is to privatize Social Security. We have heard from
a lot of people that such a plan would require a 41 percent cut in
benefits in order to maintain Social Security solvency, according to an
October 2000 Century Foundation analysis by the country's leading
economists. It is very unlikely that private accounts would earn enough
to dig out of the hole. Average single earners would still face 20
percent cuts, with married couples and lower earners doing even worse.
So there are a lot of issues that we are being forced to talk about by
the administration.
I think it is important we take a look at Social Security to see what
we can do to build it up in the outyears, but for people saying Social
Security is a disaster, it is broke, simply isn't true. Everyone will
draw 100 percent of the benefits until almost the year 2040. And if we
did nothing with Social Security prior to 2040--and I certainly hope we
will not--people would still be able to draw 80 percent of their
benefits. They should be able to draw 100 percent of the benefits.
I think that another direction we are getting from the White House is
not appropriate, and that is talking about Social Security being
bankrupt. It is not. We need to take a look and do some things so in
the outyears it is going to be strong and everybody can draw 100
percent of their benefits, not just 80 percent of the benefits. We also
look forward to having the committee chairmen work hard on having
hearings so that we can report out as many of the President's
nominations as we can. I personally think that the process isn't good;
it takes so long. There is a huge hole at the end, and all these
nominations are stuffed in this hole. At the other end, where they come
out down, it is about this big. It is a very tiny little hole. It is a
funnel that has a small end on it. What happens is we do not have the
opportunity in a timely fashion to look at these people. They go
through the Justice Department, vetted by the White House, and outside
entities take a look at them. It has become so burdensome that even an
independent analysis says the quickest President Bush can have all his
nominees in place will be next February. That is really too slow, and
we are going to do our best to process these nominees as fairly and
expeditiously as possible.
Mr. President, I would hope that we are allowed to go to the
Emergency Agriculture Assistance Act of 2001. It is very important
legislation for almost the entire country--I shouldn't say almost the
entire country. It is important for the whole country. Title I deals
with commodities, and these commodities are things that we take for
granted. When we go to the grocery stores, these things are always
there. Farmers have difficulty year after year doing what needs to be
done. This is an emergency supplemental. As we have heard on this floor
from Senators from different parts of the country, if their farmers
don't get relief, they will, in effect, go bankrupt. That is why we
need to do this as quickly as possible.
Title II is very important. It deals with conservation. There is a
new part of the bill that has received a lot of direction and
attention. The conservation aspect of this bill is important because we
are looking at things we haven't done in the past, such as wetlands
reserve programs and conservation reserve programs. So I would hope
that Senators Harkin and Lugar, who will be the managers of this
legislation, are allowed to go forward with this bill as quickly as
possible.
It is too bad we are going to have a cloture vote on the motion to
proceed, but that is what we have been asked to do.
Title III deals with nutrition, which is a substantial part of this
program. It requires a Farmers' Market Nutrition Pilot Program,
distribution of commodities, things that again we take for granted. So
I hope that we move to title IV dealing with credit and rural
development, which is certainly something that Nevada cares about;
title V dealing with research; and title VI, disaster assistance, we
can move as quickly as possible.
We understand there will be a number of amendments. We hope that we
could move to these amendments quickly and not have to face another
cloture motion on the bill itself. I think all we are doing is holding
up legislation that is vital to the very existence of the family farm.
We have heard time and time again how important family farms are to
America. This legislation will preserve thousands of family farms that
are in desperate shape at this time.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
____________________