[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.
____________________