[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.

                          ____________________