[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 136 (Wednesday, October 16, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10527-S10531]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS REPORTING THIRTEEN APPROPRIATIONS BILLS BY 
                             JULY 31, 2002

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 304, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 304) encouraging the Senate Committee 
     on Appropriations to report thirteen, fiscally responsible, 
     bipartisan appropriations bills to the Senate not later than 
     July 31, 2002.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate has begun debate 
on the extension of several critically important budget enforcement 
tools. I want to thank the majority leader, Senator Daschle, for 
bringing up this important matter and for finding the time for this 
Senate debate.
  I know that floor time is scarce and there are many other important 
priorities for this Senate, but I believe this amendment, authored by 
myself, Senator Domenici, Senator Gregg, and Senator Feingold, is one 
of the most important measures the Senate will vote upon this year.
  As I have indicated, I am especially pleased to be joined in this 
amendment by the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee, 
Senator Domenici.
  The amendment that we offer today represents a major step in 
preserving fiscal discipline in the Senate. The bipartisan amendment 
includes a 1-year extension requiring 60 votes in the Senate to waive 
certain Budget Act points of order. The extension would continue the 
60-vote waiver of these points of order against legislation that would, 
among other things, decrease the Social Security surplus, increase 
spending, or cut taxes beyond levels specified in the most recent 
budget resolution.

  A 1-year extension of the Senate pay-as-you-go rule that has been in 
effect since 1993 is also included. This Senate rule requires 60 votes 
to waive a point of order raised against direct spending or tax cut 
legislation that would increase the deficit, further tapping into the 
Social Security surplus. In addition, the resolution extends the pay-
as-you-go rule to mandatory spending items added to appropriations 
bills.
  If you pierce the veil, because that is a lot of technical language 
that is important, the fundamentals of this amendment are very simple. 
This is a question of whether or not we are going to have the budget 
disciplines we have had in place for most of the last decade that 
proved to be so important to having fiscal discipline in the Congress.
  This amendment will help protect Social Security. As previously 
mentioned, it extends the Senate pay-go rule which helps to prevent use 
of the Social Security surplus for tax cuts or mandatory spending. It 
will extend the requirement for 60 votes to waive a point of order 
against a reconciliation bill that would make changes in Social 
Security. It will extend the requirement for 60 votes to waive a point 
of order against a budget resolution that would reduce the Social 
Security surplus, and it will extend the requirement for 60 votes to 
waive a point of order against legislation that would reduce the Social 
Security surplus.
  This amendment does not accomplish everything I would like to 
accomplish. Back in June, Senators Domenici and Feingold and I offered 
an amendment to the Defense authorization bill that would have included 
all of the elements of this amendment but also would have gone further.
  At that time, we recommended to our colleagues to set a limit of $768 
billion on discretionary spending for fiscal year 2003 and a required 
60 votes to waive a point of order against legislation that would 
exceed that limit. We offered an extension of the statutory rules that 
would enforce that discretionary limit through sequestration. We also 
would have extended the statutory pay-as-you-go rules that require that 
increases in mandatory spending or tax cuts be paid for and that 
enforce requirement for sequestration.
  Although we had bipartisan support for that amendment, we fell one 
vote short of the supermajority that was required. The President will 
recall on that day we had 59 votes to extend the enforcement procedures 
on the budget, 59 votes for a spending cap. But 59 votes was not 
enough. The rules require that we have the supermajority of 60 votes; 
we fell 1 vote short.
  Senator Domenici, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, stood 
with us in that effort. Senator Stevens, the ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee, stood with us on that vote. Senator McCain, a 
prominent Republican Presidential candidate, stood with us on that 
vote. Again, we did not achieve the 60 votes necessary to have that 
measure passed.
  I would still like to put in place a limit on discretionary spending 
and extend the more comprehensive package of enforcement tools on which 
we voted that day. Getting agreement between the House, Senate, and the 
White House on a discretionary spending limit is not possible right 
now. For now, we have to take this different approach, even though it 
is more limited. Because of the importance of extending Senate rules 
enforcing limits on mandatory spending and tax cuts, Senator Domenici 
and I agreed to proceed with this simple Senate resolution.
  Let me be clear; this is not a budget resolution. There has been some 
discussion, and I know Senator Domenici expressed concern to me. He is 
right; this is not a budget resolution. This is a measure that extends 
budget enforcement procedures in the Senate. It extends the expiring 
requirements for 60 votes in the Senate to waive the point of order 
relating to mandatory spending and tax cuts. It is, unfortunately, 
silent on the level of discretionary spending for fiscal year 2003.
  Again, while this is not everything I want or everything that needs 
to be done to ensure fiscal discipline, I am convinced this is all that 
is possible today. It represents a very important step forward in the 
fight for fiscal discipline. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment. Let us demonstrate to the American people that the Senate 
has not abandoned budget discipline.

[[Page S10528]]

                           Amendment No. 4886

  I call up my amendment which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Conrad), for himself, 
     Mr. Domenici, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. Gregg, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4886.

  Mr. CONRAD. 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:
       Strike all after the Resolved Clause and insert the 
     following: That the Senate encouraging the Senate Committee 
     on Appropriations to report thirteen, fiscally responsible, 
     bipartisan appropriations bills to the Senate not later than 
     July 31, 2002. :

     SEC. __. BUDGET ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Extension of Supermajority Enforcement.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any provision of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, subsections (c)(2) and 
     (d)(3) of section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     shall remain in effect for purposes of Senate enforcement 
     through September 30, 2003.
       (2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the 
     enforcement of section 302(f)(2)(B) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974.
       (b) Pay-As-You-Go Rule in the Senate.--
       (1) In general.--For purposes of Senate enforcement, 
     section 207 of H. Con. Res. 68 (106th Congress, 1st Session) 
     shall be construed as follows:
       (A) In subsection (b)(6), by inserting after ``paragraph 
     (5)(A)'' the following: ``, except that direct spending or 
     revenue effects resulting in net deficit reduction enacted 
     pursuant to reconciliation instructions since the beginning 
     of that same calendar year shall not be available''.
       (B) In subsection (g), by striking ``2002'' and inserting 
     ``2003''.
       (2) Scorecard.--For purposes of enforcing section 207 of 
     House Concurrent Resolution 68 (106th Congress), upon the 
     adoption of this section the Chairman of the Committee on the 
     Budget of the Senate shall adjust balances of direct spending 
     and receipts for all fiscal years to zero.
       (3) Application to appropriations.--For the purposes of 
     enforcing this resolution, notwithstanding rule 3 of the 
     Budget Scorekeeping Guidelines set forth in the joint 
     explanatory statement of the committee of conference 
     accompanying Conference Report 105-217, during the 
     consideration of any appropriations Act, provisions of an 
     amendment (other than an amendment reported by the Committee 
     on Appropriations including routine and ongoing direct 
     spending or receipts), a motion, or a conference report 
     thereon (only to the extent that such provision was not 
     committed to conference), that would have been estimated as 
     changing direct spending or receipts under section 252 of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (as 
     in effect prior to September 30, 2002) were they included in 
     an Act other than an appropriations Act shall be treated as 
     direct spending or receipts legislation, as appropriate, 
     under section 207 of H. Con. Res. 68 (106th Congress, 1st 
     Session) as amended by this resolution.

  Mr. CONRAD. At this point, I thank my very able colleague, the 
ranking member of the Budget Committee, who has provided leadership to 
this body on these issues for a very long time and is keenly committed 
to the budget process, and who is deeply committed, as well, to fiscal 
discipline.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is very late to be talking about 
this, but better late than never. So we will get something, rather than 
nothing.
  Perhaps people are wondering what we are doing. If you think back the 
last 8 or 9 months, a vote will occur in the Senate, only in the 
Senate; a vote is going to occur, and someone stands up and makes a 
point of order to honor the Budget Act.
  When you first do one of these, it is something big. I remember 
making one and you wonder what is going to happen. The staff told you 
how to do each little thing, and when it came time to vote, you 
wondered if you really did it. But it is a very heavily used situation 
in the Senate.
  Members call up an amendment. It costs a lot of money either in 
program authority or outlays. The money is not found in the budget 
resolution that should have already been passed. Members get up and 
say: I am asking that that amendment be deemed invalid because it 
violates the Budget Act. Another Senator says: I move we waive this 
budget point of order under the Budget Act. Then Members state which 
part or provision to be waived.
  What happens in that situation, from that point forward? If you call 
up that amendment, you need 60 votes. Many Americans, especially 
academicians, are wondering what happened to the Senate: Have we 
stopped being a body where the majority prevailed? Don't we have 
majority rules anymore?
  The Budget Act provides an opportunity within its language--and it is 
only a 25-year-old statute--that if you violate the Budget Act by 
introducing and calling up an amendment or a bill, you can ask that it 
be deemed null and void, and the other side says: I want to try a 
waiver.

  How effective has this been? We put this together with the first 
President Bush a number of years ago. We did not know it would be so 
effective. Let's see how effective it has been.
  Fifteen Budget Act points of order that would have reverted now to 
simple majority votes, in a budget point of order, have been raised 65 
times. Republicans raised 47, Democrats raised 18. Only eight times did 
these points of order get waived by having 60 votes or more.
  When this rule for 60 votes first came about, we were talking about a 
constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Someone said: How in 
the world are you going to enforce it? So if you read the 
constitutional amendments--and the American people thought they 
absolutely prevailed--it said the only way you could violate that was 
by 60 votes in the Senate. That was borrowed, not knowing how well 
either of them would work, the one that didn't happen or this one, but 
here it worked.
  What happened? To those who are listening to this strange talk, that 
side of the aisle, the Democrats in the Senate, had a responsibility 
many months ago to pass a budget resolution. We have passed a budget 
resolution every year, sooner or later, since we have had a Budget Act. 
You come down to the floor and you give to the Senate an opportunity to 
vote on the big issues that will be part of a budget, saying how much 
will be spent and included within it or the entitlement programs, and 
obviously if there are big increases, you show them. Then you adopt 
that budget resolution.
  That is the instrument around here for fiscal responsibility. Some 
people do not think it is strong enough; others think it is too 
complicated; others think it is too porous. But nobody denies if you do 
not have it around, the void will be worse than having it.
  So months went by, and we did not get a budget resolution because the 
Democratic side, under their leadership, did not produce one we could 
pass, Then we started to talk, the chairman and I, about maybe we ought 
to save a piece of this. This is the piece we decided to try to save.
  I hope all the Senators understand that, of the issues to be voted 
on, the most significant opportunity to save taxpayers' money for the 
next year is this little resolution.
  Let me repeat that. If anybody wants to go home and say, ``I really 
watched out for your taxes, but I voted against this particular 
resolution,'' you can count on this Senator--and I am sure the Chairman 
will stand up and say count on him--to say you voted ``no'' on the most 
important opportunity to save expenditures of this whole year.
  Somebody will come up with an entitlement program we have all been 
waiting for and we do not have it because it is too expensive, and we 
will be stirring around saying, What do we do? We are going to lose 
this one.
  We would not lose this one, if this was the law because we would 
start telling everybody it violates the budget. Then pretty soon when 
we finish debate, that 60 votes would come into effect. It will not be 
in order unless this little resolution is adopted by the Senate.
  It is very short. It is only in the Senate. You don't have to take it 
to the House because the budget resolution is a resolution, and this 
part of the budget does not apply in the House. So we have to do it. We 
are doing it. Frankly, I hope whatever the arguments are made, we can 
straighten them out and vote for it.
  I told Senators what it said about entitlement spending programs. It 
also says if this is part of the way you do business, you have this 
resolution adopted and you want to cut taxes, if, in fact, your budget 
is not balanced, you have to put into your budget resources to make up 
what you are taking out by taxes.

[[Page S10529]]

  Some will not like that. But we get both together because if you want 
one, you have to take the other. That is the way we have done the law. 
That is how we have lived under it.
  My friend Senator Gramm, who had been an ardent apostle of this 60-
vote margin and this approach, has his own version as to why he would 
like it not to happen for a while. He will offer his own amendment and 
we will debate again.
  I hope he will not win unless, after we discuss it with him, it 
essentially is about the same resolution we talked about here, and it 
will take up expenditures and not taxes.
  I understand he has a very legitimate concern. But I tell you, so do 
I. I have a big concern. We had 4 years of balanced budgets and that 
was great. The American people liked that, and the markets in America 
liked that, and the foreign investors liked that, and we had very low 
interest rates, which were very good for Americans. I do not intend to 
carry on a debate, unless somebody cares to, as to who caused it. Many 
factors caused it. But we are now back into an unbalanced situation.
  If we had had these provisions in when we had a surplus and we would 
not vote for new expenditures, or to cut taxes unless we had paid for 
them, or unless they were in the budget resolution, then why wouldn't 
we have it now when we have this huge deficit? Unless we are providing 
for something absolutely important--such as war or the continuation of 
a recession that lasted a long time--in those cases, obviously the 
Senate would say the 60 votes are not so hard to make; let's vote and 
get it done so we can spend the extra money.
  We know of no better way to maintain our system--which should have 
been 51 votes, majority vote--no way of putting it in a mode where it 
can take care of excessive spending by corralling excessive spending 
and the extra tax cuts with a resolution that says we choose, 
ourselves, to restrain spending by enacting a law, in effect, that 
restrains us. It puts a little collar around us and tightens us.
  I have some additional remarks that go into a little more history, 
but I have a hunch we will talk more at some point. When I first 
started talking about this, I went to talk to Senators on that side of 
the aisle. I note the presence of one of the Senators, who asked me 
then: If you do this, please put me on. We did add the Senator as we 
said we would. I assume the Senator still agrees we ought to have the 
60-vote majority requirement?
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield, I know the Senator from 
Wisconsin has wanted to speak for some time.
  I speak for the entire Senate when I say how much I appreciate the 
leadership of Senators Conrad and Domenici. I think, as Senator 
Domenici has said, we could have a long, drawn-out debate on why we are 
in this economic situation. The two managers of this bill have decided 
to go the path less traveled in recent months and talk about what is 
really the best thing for the country. There is no question the best 
thing for the country is to have fiscal constraints that are not 
mandatory unless we pass this legislation. I hope we can quickly 
resolve this issue. It is so important for us and the future of this 
country.
  Again, I compliment and applaud the two managers of this bill for 
working together in a bipartisan fashion to allow us to get to the end 
of the road, where we need to get on this issue.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to ask the Senator from Wisconsin 
if he is going to join us.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I support it.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am going to stop in a minute and let him speak. But I 
believe we need 60 votes at some point on this resolution. I hope 
Senators will understand we have drawn it in the fairest way possible. 
If somebody thinks we should only apply it to the entitlements, then I 
am afraid half the Senate will vote against it because they would say: 
``It started with both; it is only for 1 year; let's see how it 
works.''
  Even in better times, I think we ought to have it on the books rather 
than have nothing.
  I will be back to talk to Senators again about it, once Senator Gramm 
has come to the floor. Maybe he can find some amendments that will make 
his concerns disappear, in which event this Senator will be helping 
him.
  Parliamentary inquiry: Is there any parliamentary order with 
reference to when we might vote on this?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Not at this time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask the Senator to yield for 30 seconds.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield to the Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Judd Gregg be 
shown as an original cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask the Chair to confirm that I am an original 
cosponsor of this as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise to join the Chairman of the 
Budget Committee, Chairman Conrad, the Ranking Republican Member, 
Senator Domenici, and the Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, in 
offering this amendment to extend the budget process.
  Exercising the power of the purse is among Congress's most important 
responsibilities. Justifiably, there has been much concern in the 
Nation about how Congress has exercised and will exercise its 
responsibilities under the Constitution's war powers, and certainly 
that is a grave and consequential responsibility. But we should recall 
that the way that the Congress ended the Vietnam war was through the 
exercise of the power of the purse, by constraining spending. The power 
of the purse is a momentous power.
  Article I, section 9, of the Constitution reserves the power of the 
purse with Congress through the admonition that:

     [n]o Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in 
     Consequence of Appropriations made by Law . . . .

  Interpreting that power, our Founder James Madison wrote in the 
``Federalist Papers'':

       They, in a word, hold the purse that powerful instrument by 
     which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, 
     an infant and humble representation of the people gradually 
     enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and 
     finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the 
     overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the 
     government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be 
     regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which 
     any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the 
     people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for 
     carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.

  That is what James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 58.
  Congress exercises that power of the purse through its rules and 
through the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. The strength of 
Congress's power of the purse depends on the orderly rules that the 
Congressional budget process provides.
  Regrettably, those rules and that Congressional budget process 
largely expired at the beginning of this month. That is why it is so 
important that the Senate adopt this amendment to extend the budget 
process.
  Our responsibilities under the Constitution would be enough of a 
reason to extend these rules. But added to that, and making the need 
for budget rules even more pressing, is the dire turn of affairs that 
our government's finances have taken in this last year-and-a-half.
  In January of last year, the Congressional Budget Office projected 
that, in the fiscal year just ended, fiscal year 2002, the Government 
would run a unified budget surplus of $313 billion. In its latest 
projections, however, CBO now estimates that we will have run a unified 
budget deficit of $157 billion. That is a dramatic swing of $470 
billion--the disappearance of nearly half a trillion dollars--for that 
1 year alone.

  If, as the law requires, we do not count Social Security surpluses 
toward that total, then the picture is even more alarming. In January 
of last year, CBO projected that for fiscal year 2002, the government 
would run a surplus of $142 billion, without using Social Security 
surpluses. Now, CBO projects a deficit of $314 billion, not counting 
Social Security. If that projection holds, it will have been the third-
largest on-budget deficit in our Nation's history, rivaling those of 
the bad old days of 1991 and 1992, when the

[[Page S10530]]

United States logged its record highest on-budget deficits. Instead of 
using those Social Security surpluses to prepare for the coming needs 
of that vital program, the Government has instead been using them to 
fund other Government programs.
  And the baseline projections for the fiscal year just begun bring no 
respite. For the year that started at the beginning of this month, 
fiscal year 2003, CBO projects baseline deficits similar to those for 
the year just ended. For 2003, CBO projects a unified budget deficit of 
$145 billion, and a deficit of $315 billion, not counting Social 
Security.
  And that is before taking into account the costs of a possible war 
with Iraq. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that American 
taxpayers may have to come up with between $100 billion and $200 
billion more to wage a war in Iraq, according to President Bush's chief 
economic adviser. He said that we could have to add $100 to $200 
billion to the non-Social Security deficit that CBO says will already 
be $315 billion this year. If those predictions prove true, yielding 
on-budget deficits of $415 to $515 billion, then the government would 
be running the largest on-budget deficits in our nation's history, by 
far.
  Looking into the years to come, one can see little if any relief from 
the damaging fiscal outlook. CBO projects that under current policies, 
unified budget deficits will continue until 2006. And without counting 
Social Security, CBO projects that deficits will continue until 2011, 
when the sunset of the tax cut brings us back to on-budget surplus 
again, just barely. And it is among the most fervently-held articles of 
faith among many on the other side of the aisle that those tax cuts 
shall not be allowed to sunset.
  Over the next 10 years, CBO projects a deficit of more than $1.5 
trillion, without counting Social Security. And that is before taking 
into account a war with Iraq, before taking into account a prescription 
drug benefit that most Senators agree is needed to bring Medicare up to 
date, and before taking into account any of the many additional tax 
cuts that the President and many in the Senate would still like to 
enact.
  It is sad to say that there is no way to look at these numbers 
without coming to this conclusion.
  The government is in dire fiscal circumstances. I am concerned that 
many elected officials have not yet come to realize how grave those 
circumstances are.
  We must not forget why sound fiscal policy is important. We must stop 
running deficits because they cause the government to use the surpluses 
of the Social Security Trust Fund for other government purposes, rather 
than to pay down the debt and help our nation prepare for the coming 
retirement of the Baby Boom generation.
  We must stop running deficits because every dollar that we add to the 
Federal debt is another dollar that we are forcing our children to pay 
back in higher taxes or fewer government benefits in the future. When 
we in this generation choose to spend on current consumption and to 
accumulate debt for our children's generation to pay, we do nothing 
less than rob our children of their own choices which they deserve the 
opportunity make. We make our choices to spend on our wants, but we 
saddle them with debts that they must pay from their tax dollars and 
the sweat of their brow. That is not right.

  That is why Senator Gregg and I offered an amendment in the Budget 
Committee markup of the budget resolution to extend budget rules and 
set appropriations caps for 5 years.
  That is why Senator Gregg and I offered an amendment on the Senate 
floor on June 5 to extend the budget rules and set appropriations caps 
for 5 years.
  That is why I joined with our distinguished and very able chairman, 
Chairman Conrad, on June 20 in yet another attempt to extend the budget 
rules and set appropriations caps for 2 years. Fifty-nine Senators 
voted for extending the budget process on that day, just one short of 
the number we need to adopt such a measure.
  That is why I am joining with my Colleagues the Chairman and Ranking 
Republican Member of the Budget Committee and Senator Gregg to offer 
this amendment to extend the budget process today.
  Yes, I would prefer to strengthen the budget process. I would prefer 
to do more.
  But this is the bare minimum that we should do. The Conrad-Domenici-
Feingold-Gregg amendment would provide some minimal restraint on 
entitlement spending and tax cuts. And we can do no less.
  The Senate must preserve its vital role in exercising the power of 
the purse that the Constitution vests in Congress.
  We must stop using Social Security surpluses to fund other government 
programs. We must stop piling up debt for our children to pay off. We 
must adopt this amendment and extend the budget process.
  I again want to thank the chairman for his leadership and the 
opportunity to work with him on this issue. I urge my colleagues to 
support the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. 
Feingold, for his strong support of this amendment. I also want to 
thank him for his contribution on the Budget Committee. He has been a 
disciplined voice for fiscal responsibility. He has been a leader in 
trying to bring to the attention of our colleagues how dramatically the 
budget circumstance of the Federal Government has changed. I thank 
Senator Feingold for reminding our colleagues of where we were a year 
ago, where we are now, and where we are headed.
  It is critically important that our colleagues, the others on the 
other side of the Capitol in the other body, and the American people 
understand how dramatically our fiscal circumstances have changed.
  A year ago, we were told we could expect over the next 10 years 
nearly $6 trillion in surpluses. Now we know with the latest look from 
the Congressional Budget Office that the money is all gone. If we were 
just to put in place the President's proposals for spending and revenue 
over the next decade, there wouldn't be $6 trillion of surpluses. There 
wouldn't be $4 trillion of surpluses. There wouldn't be $2 trillion. 
There would be $400 billion of deficits. That is from $5.6 trillion, 
which we were told a year ago we would have in the surpluses over the 
next decade, to $400 billion of deficits. That is a $6 trillion swing 
in 1 year.
  Now the question before this body is we are going to leave this place 
without the fiscal discipline that helped us get deficits under control 
once before in our history--after the 1980s when deficits were 
exploding, and we put in place a framework to get us back on track, a 
framework that worked, a framework that moved us from deficits to 
surpluses, that led to the longest economic expansion in our history, 
that led to the lowest inflation in 30 years, and the lowest 
unemployment in 30 years. Are we going to abandon all of that now?
  That is the question before this body. Are we going to have the 
fiscal discipline that will be critically important to economic 
recovery? That is the question.
  That is what this amendment is about. That is why it is important. 
That is why I thank Senator Gregg, Senator Feingold, and Senator 
Domenici for cosponsoring this amendment. That is why I ask my 
colleagues to adopt it.
  This is important. It is important not just for the notion of fiscal 
discipline, but it is important for the economy. When the markets see 
that we are serious about living within our means, we know that means 
good things for interest rates, and we know that means good things for 
the economic strength of America.
  That is what this amendment is about. I know there are some who have 
a different view. I can't think of any good thing that will come from 
doing away with the budget disciplines that have worked so effectively 
in this Chamber.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from 
Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I hope those who wish to speak on the matter 
now before the Senate will do so. It is 4 o'clock. We understand there 
are a number from each side who wish to speak. We hope that will occur.

[[Page S10531]]

  Others wish to speak on other issues. If they feel so inclined, I 
hope they will come and speak now. We would like to have as little down 
time as possible before we go out this evening. If there are no 
amendments or further debate, of course, we can move to third reading. 
I am told there may be some amendments, but I don't think either leader 
wants us to wait around here doing nothing on this resolution.
  If there are going to be amendments, I hope Members will come and 
offer them. If not, as I indicated, we can move to third reading at any 
time.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BAUCUS. 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. BAUCUS. Mr. President, what is pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 4886 to S. Res. 304 is the 
pending business.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________