[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 42 (Tuesday, April 16, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2690-S2691]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           BUDGET RESOLUTION

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned about reports that I 
have been hearing that indicate that perhaps the Senate may not even 
consider a budget resolution this year. It is not clear whether we will 
or we won't, but in the discussions I have had with Senator Daschle, 
his only response has been: Well, that decision has not been made yet.
  I must say that is very troubling, and I hope the decision is not 
made to just defer action completely on the budget resolution this 
year.
  If we don't have a budget resolution, I predict that it will lead to 
legislative chaos for the remainder of the year. When you look at the 
budget resolution, you see page after page of numbers. I realize it is 
not very exciting, it is difficult to read, and the debate on the 
budget resolution, while it is under expedited procedures, leads to 
highly arcane descriptions of such things as reserve funds, 
reconciliation procedures, and references to points of order. But, 
clearly, it is a process that you can go through and you can usually do 
it in about a week. Yes, it leads to a number of votes, quite often 
even the very unattractive carousel-type procedure where you vote on 
amendment after amendment.
  I wish we could find a way to limit that. Maybe this is the year we 
can come to some sort of agreement to not have 20 or 30 votes, one 
right after the other. It makes it very difficult to legislate properly 
and difficult for Senators to even understand the ramifications of 
those votes. But that is the way it has been done.
  I think that in spite of the messy procedure, it will determine 
whether or not we are able to really govern this year. The budget 
resolution is not really about numbers in the final analysis; it is 
about setting priorities and making choices. What will be the position 
of the Senate on spending for the year? What is the position of the 
Senate on tax policy? What is the position of the Senate in terms of 
defense and improving education and health care? Everything sort of 
depends on having this statement of policy in the budget resolution.
  Now, in the years we have had the Budget Empowerment Act, since about 
1974, the Senate has never failed to act. Two or 3 years ago, we did 
have a situation where the Senate passed a resolution, the House passed 
a resolution, and we could not get a conference agreement. But the two 
bodies agreed on the numbers that would be followed by the 
Appropriations Committee and we went forward. I was not proud of that. 
I thought that was an abdication of our responsibility. At least we 
agreed on numbers and we went forward.
  The idea we would not even make an effort this year sends a fairly 
bad signal. I realize there is a time problem here. We have about 5 
weeks before the Memorial Day recess. We need to finish the energy 
bill, and we need to do trade promotion authority and bills associated 
with that, at least indirectly, such as the Andean trade authority and 
the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act. We still have to do supplemental 
appropriations. We need to do the Defense authorization bill and a 
budget resolution, and we need to do all that before the Memorial Day 
recess. The law requires that we do a budget resolution by April 15.
  More years than not, we do not meet that deadline, but at least we go 
forward and have a budget resolution. If we do not do this by Memorial 
Day, then it will be very difficult for the Appropriations Committee to 
proceed. When we look at the fact we have June, July, and September 
basically remaining in this legislative year, we will have to get going 
with Defense--well, with all the appropriations bills. Hopefully, 
Defense appropriations will be first. We need to make sure we fund that 
program before anything else because our men and women are so dependent 
on it.
  I am very worried about what the situation will be if we do not have 
a budget resolution. I have been looking at what it could lead to, and 
I have to say it is going to be a wild-west-type approach. If 
appropriations bills come up, there are no limits, no points of order 
to limit spending beyond what a subcommittee may have designated as its 
numbers. The 60-vote point of order will not apply. The bills could 
very well collapse of their own weight because there will be so many 
brilliant ideas of how spending can be added.
  If I were a subcommittee chairman, regardless of on which aisle I 
sat, that would be a very difficult situation to manage.
  The argument might be: It will be hard; we will have to vote on all 
those amendments. That is true, but we do it year after year.
  The argument can be made: We are closely divided. Last year we got a 
budget resolution, and we were divided 50-50. Here are the budget 
resolutions we passed over the past 6\1/2\ years, including last year 
when it was 50-50. By the way, when we got to a final vote, it was 
passed by a wide bipartisan vote. In fact, the Senate passed the budget 
resolution on April 6, before the April 15 date that is included in the 
budget law, and it was by a bipartisan vote of 65 to 35. It can be 
done, it should be done, and every year I served as majority leader, we 
got it done. Here are the budget resolutions. The evidence is there.
  I think perhaps what is going on here is just a desire to not have 
Senators cast these tough votes. That is an abdication of our 
responsibility.
  Perhaps the Senate majority leader and the budget chairmen have 
something different in mind. Maybe they are saying they prefer to just 
operate under last year's budget resolution. By choosing not to vote on 
their own, they are, in effect, choosing to continue under the budget 
resolution we passed last year. Obviously, that would create a number 
of problems.
  I support the President's budget. The President came up with a good 
budget. He does provide a significant increase in the priorities that 
need to have increases. There is an increase for defense funding. We 
need a supplemental for defense to pay for what we have already spent, 
and we need to make sure our military men and women have a decent 
quality of life, have the weapons they need to do the job, the most 
modern technology possible, which has saved a lot of lives.
  We need to move forward on national security. Of course, we realized 
last year after September 11 that we were vulnerable and we needed to 
do more with respect to homeland security. There are a lot of hearings 
occurring now in the Appropriations Committee and other committees of 
jurisdiction about exactly where this additional spending in homeland 
security should go. We know we need to do more for port security, 
airport security, first responders, law enforcement, firemen.
  Clearly, we are going to have to add significant increases in funds 
for homeland security. That has been acknowledged and called for on 
both sides of the aisle. So national defense, homeland security, and 
economic security are priorities.

  We need to make sure we are doing the right thing with fiscal policy 
at the Federal Government level so that the economy will grow. We see 
positive signs, but it is not universal. It is uneven, and it varies 
from sector to sector, and there are even some regional differences.
  This year maybe more than ever we need to have a budget resolution 
that sets some priorities so that we can do what we need to do but not 
lose control of it when it gets to this Chamber.
  Let me speak a minute about one of the specifics in the budget 
resolution that came out of the Senate Budget Committee. I commend 
Senator Conrad, the chairman of the committee. He could have just said 
it is not worth the effort, we are not even going to try to get it out 
of committee. He did make the effort, and they reported out a budget 
resolution. That signaled to me we were going to be ready to go to the 
floor with the resolution that came out of the committee.
  Now you see it, now you don't. I do not quite understand why that 
change occurred, even after the Budget Committee stepped up, and while 
it did not pass on a bipartisan vote, it went through within 2 or 3 
days of consideration and is now ready for full Senate consideration.
  My concern is specifically in the defense area. I am worried that the 
budget that came out of the Budget Committee is soft on defense. While 
it fully funds the President's defense request for next year, it 
shortchanges the President's request by $225 billion over the next 
succeeding 9 years. It is $225

[[Page S2691]]

billion short. That means the troops will not get the supplies and 
armaments they need to prosecute the war on terrorism, and this, we all 
know, is not a short-term issue; this is something that is going to 
take months and years as we try to root out terrorism and make sure we 
can be safe around the world at our embassies and at home.
  It means that operations and maintenance will suffer. Pilots will not 
be able to fly the missions they need for training, and upkeep on ships 
will slow down. It means Secretary Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs will 
have fewer resources in place to plan for the next step. It will mean 
we will not have the resources to take action against Saddam Hussein 
and the ``axis of evil.''
  The President has established our priorities, and national defense is 
tops. The President has called on us to act on the defense bill first.
  Why in the world would this decision be made not to fully fund the 
war? I think the response we are going to hear is: We do fully fund the 
President's request next year, but then we are going to create a 
reserve fund for defense spending for the future. Unfortunately, the 
reserve fund is nothing more than a gimmick.
  If one looks elsewhere in the budget, specifically in the section 
titled ``Functional Totals,'' one will see that the defense money in 
the reserve fund is not there for defense. It would be used supposedly 
to reduce the debt. That certainly is a worthwhile objective, and we 
should continue to try to find ways to live within a budget and reduce 
the debt, as we had been doing for the previous 4 years.
  We have to make some choices now. We should fund defense first, and 
we should not set up a mechanism that would short the Defense 
Department by $225 billion.
  Our world changed on September 11. We know national security and 
homeland security is going to be important. We are going to have to act 
on it. We have to be prepared to defend ourselves against attacks 
internationally and at home. We have to provide support for our allies 
and friends, such as NATO and Israel. We must repel and deter and, in 
some instances, take preemptive action to prevent attacks on American 
citizens. No one in the Senate disagrees we are going to have to do 
more in national security and it is going to take more than 1 year. 
This is a long-term commitment.
  I do want to particularly point out to my colleagues that there is a 
huge problem in the budget resolution reported by the committee in the 
defense area. We need to stand shoulder to shoulder with the President, 
and we have in the war on terrorism. We did it repeatedly and 
courageously after the events of September 11. But slowly we have 
slipped back into our normal sniping.
  We will always have legitimate debate. It is about democracy. That is 
the great thing about America. We can disagree without undermining what 
needs to be done for our country. When it comes to defense, we cannot 
short-fund it, and we cannot allow it to slip off into partisan debate.
  Here is what we need to do in the Senate, and we need to do it before 
the Memorial Day recess: Pass a budget resolution. What other form of 
discipline can we possibly have? What more important indicator is there 
about whether or not we are prepared to govern and make tough choices? 
Pass a budget resolution, fully fund the President's budget request in 
both the short and long term, add the $225 billion for defense back 
into the budget resolution, and eliminate the reserve fund. Pass the 
defense resolution first.
  That, Mr. President, is how we stand shoulder to shoulder with the 
President in this war on terrorism.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________