[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4340-4343]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



              BUDGET COMMITTEE MARKUP OF BUDGET RESOLUTION

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am a product of the West Virginia coal 
fields. I remember my heritage, and I am proud that it has served me 
well throughout my political career. I remember the legendary president 
of the United Mine Workers of America, John L. Lewis, who was a great 
student of Shakespeare, as I recall him in those days. And he once 
advised union coal miners of the adage:

       when ye be an anvil,
       lie very still,
       when ye be a hammer,
       strike with all thy will.

  Mr. President, I am not an anvil--not an anvil--which explains, in 
part, why I joined the Senate Budget Committee this year. First, I am 
very concerned about Congress approving permanent tax cuts based on 
highly uncertain surplus estimates, which threaten to put us back in 
the deficit ditch. Second, I strenuously oppose the use of the 
reconciliation process--now, Mr. President, that is the way I have 
pronounced that word for years. I was called to order a little earlier 
today because I did not pronounce it ``reconciliation,'' which is all 
right with me, just so it is understood what we are talking about--to 
ram a $2 trillion tax-cut package through the Senate. Such a misuse of 
the reconciliation process abuses the rights of every Senator to debate 
this significant legislation. That is an important thing. Third, in 
recent years, I have become increasingly concerned about the 
unrealistically low spending levels established by the annual budget 
resolutions for programs under the jurisdiction of the Appropriations 
Committee, on which I serve as the ranking member and which is chaired 
by the most able and

[[Page 4341]]

distinguished Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, who recently won the 
award ``Alaskan of the Century.'' And I would say at this point, I 
think he is the Alaskan of the Century. He deserves that award.
  These unrealistically low funding levels in recent budget resolutions 
have forced the Appropriations Committee to resort to all manner of 
gimmicks and creative bookkeeping to ensure that we could adequately 
fund the 13 annual appropriations bills, despite not having sufficient 
resources to address the ongoing infrastructure needs of the Nation, 
much less begin to address the funding backlog in those funding needs 
in many critical areas.
  So as a member of the Budget Committee, my hope was that this year I 
would be able to assist in crafting a budget resolution that would more 
accurately determine the spending levels that will be necessary to 
produce the FY 2002 appropriations bills. I wanted to actively 
participate in that committee in a markup of the budgetary blueprint 
that will guide the Nation's fiscal policy, not only for FY 2002, but 
for the next decade. This year's budget resolution will address not 
only the discretionary funding needs to which I have alluded, but also 
will involve efforts to allow for perhaps a massive tax cut of $2 
trillion or more, over the next 10 years. That is a big--$2 trillion is 
just something that is beyond my comprehension, and probably that of 
most Members of this body.
  I might say to the distinguished Senator who presently presides over 
the Senate that, much to his surprise, perhaps, it would take 32,000 
years to count $1 trillion at the rate of $1 per second. At the rate of 
$1 per second, it would take 32,000 years to count $1 trillion. That is 
a little more money than we are used to counting in West Virginia. But 
when we talk about a $2 trillion tax cut, that means it would take 
64,000 years to count $2 trillion at the rate of $1 per second. Perhaps 
that will give us some better idea of how much $1 trillion really is.
  This year's budget proposal will also be based on flimsy 10-year 
surplus projections, that, I assure you, are not worth the paper on 
which they are written.
  Marvel at how much confidence we put in projections of the surpluses 
over the next 10 years when we cannot really judge 24 hours ahead that 
the stock market is going to drop 436 points.
  It was for these reasons, Mr. President, that I was pleased to see 
that the distinguished Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator 
Domenici, and his very capable ally on the Budget Committee, Senator 
Conrad, scheduled a series of highly informative hearings in order to 
enable the 22 members of the committee to have the views of an 
outstanding group of experts before it was time for those committee 
members to vote on this year's budget resolution. Committee members did 
benefit by actively participating in those hearings and by interacting 
with a vast array of expert witnesses, who addressed such important 
subjects as: the Nation's infrastructure needs; the need for 
prescription drug benefits for Medicare recipients; the need to reform 
Social Security and Medicare, and other health care issues, education 
needs; national security needs, including the need for a national 
missile defense system; the problems of our Nation's farmers; and 
questions as to how much of the national debt can be retired over the 
coming decade. We had an opportunity to have the views of such experts 
as Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan on such questions as to 
whether a tax cut should be enacted, and if so, how large. We had the 
Deputy Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Mr. Barry Anderson, 
testify on the CBO's projections of surpluses and the likelihood that 
their 10-year projections would come to pass. I know, that I gained a 
greater understanding through these hearings in virtually all of the 
aforementioned areas of national policy. Not only did my increased 
knowledge come from these expert witnesses, but also from the very 
incisive questioning of the witnesses by virtually every member of the 
Senate Budget Committee.
  Having heard these witnesses, Mr. President, and having had a chance 
to enter into a dialog with them regarding these great issues facing 
the Nation, I have become very concerned in recent weeks that the 
Budget Committee chairman might be entertaining the idea that there 
should be no committee markup of the budget resolution at all this 
year. I inquired of the very able chairman on two occasions during the 
committee's hearings as to whether the chairman intended to mark up the 
budget resolution.
  I am concerned at the prospect that the Senate will take up this 
year's very important budget resolution without having the benefit of 
the committee's views in the form of its marked-up resolution and an 
accompanying Budget Committee report. It is because of this concern 
that I joined my Democratic colleagues on the committee in signing a 
letter to our able committee chairman respectfully requesting a markup 
of the budget resolution before the April 1st statutory deadline. As 
pointed out in the letter, circumventing a committee markup of the 
budget resolution is unprecedented and has never been done before in 
the history of the Senate Budget Committee, as far as I have been able 
to determine. It ought not to be done this year, of all years. If we do 
not intend to mark up a budget resolution, then I ask the Senate, why 
did we go through the process of hearing the expert witnesses? Was this 
hearing process merely intended to be a charade to enable the 
leadership of the Senate to act as though it had fulfilled its 
responsibilities, while knowing all along that there was no intention 
of allowing any member of the committee an opportunity to participate 
in a committee markup? If that be true, it didn't really matter, then, 
in the end, perhaps, what the witnesses said or what the questions of 
the Senators on the committee revealed.
  Is none of this knowledge to be utilized during the forthcoming days 
of debate on the resolution? Why should we not have had a markup, a 
markup where Senators may offer their amendments to the chairman's 
recommendations and have those amendments debated and voted upon, 
either up or down?
  Having been chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate 
once upon a time, I know how that works. The chairman prepares, with 
his staff, the bill or resolution that is to be worked on by the 
committee, and that is what we call the chairman's mark, and, of 
course, it is always made available to the ranking member what the 
appropriations bill mark will be. Then laying it before the committee 
gives every member a chance to offer amendments thereto, have them 
voted up or down, and debate the bill.
  Apparently, there is some fear that such a markup of a budget 
resolution would result in a deadlock, that a tie vote might occur on 
adoption of the budget resolution. That concern should not in any way 
prevent the Budget Committee from marking up a budget resolution. If 
such an event occurs, if the committee were to be deadlocked on 
reporting this year's budget resolution, there would still be no 
impediment to having the leadership call up the budget resolution. In 
other words, it is provided for that such a resolution can be called up 
on April 1 and, if it is not reported from the committee by April 1, 
the committee is automatically discharged of the resolution. So the 
Senate could be assured that even if there were a tie vote in 
committee, the resolution could still be called up by the majority 
leader.
  The agreement that was entered into not so long ago by the majority 
leader and the Democratic leader and by the Senate as a whole provided 
that in the case of a tie vote in committee, the majority leader could 
proceed to call up the resolution. That is in accordance with the 
agreement, as I understood it, that we entered into earlier this year.
  In other words, the leadership would still have the ability to call 
up the Republican chairman's budget resolution. But the American 
people, as well as other Members of the Senate and their staffs, will 
have an opportunity to watch and listen to the debate, if we had a 
committee markup. This would be healthy for the budget process. It

[[Page 4342]]

would greatly enhance the knowledge of those who might participate in 
such a markup, as well as those who might observe it.
  It does not bode well for the Senate or for this administration, for 
that matter, in my judgment, to begin this year's budget cycle on such 
a sour and unprecedented note. I repeat the request that we Democratic 
members of the committee have made in our earlier letter to the 
chairman of the Budget Committee, namely, that the committee convene at 
the earliest practicable time to mark up the fiscal year 2002 budget 
resolution, and that the committee meet its April 1 statutory deadline 
in doing so.
  I feel I must also address another concern that I have regarding this 
year's budget process. After having been told several weeks ago by 
various administration officials that the President's detailed budget 
would be received by the Senate on April 3, in time for Senators to 
take into account the details behind the document entitled ``A 
Blueprint for New Beginnings,'' we were advised just a few days ago--I 
believe on Monday of this week--that the Senate will not receive the 
detailed budget until April 9. It just so happens that April 9 falls on 
the Monday beginning a 2-week Easter recess, and also occurs 3 days 
after the Senate Republican leadership has expressed an intention of 
having completed Senate consideration of the budget resolution.
  In other words, we have learned just this past Monday that Senators 
will have no opportunity, none, to consider the details of the Bush 
administration's fiscal year 2002 budget until after the Senate has 
finished consideration of the budget resolution.
  This causes me grave concern, particularly as it relates to the 
levels of discretionary spending being proposed by the administration. 
We do not have the details of what the President intends to propose as 
spending levels for a myriad of Federal Government programs and 
activities that affect virtually every citizen of this Nation. In the 
document that we have received from the Bush administration entitled 
``A Blueprint for New Beginnings,'' we find that table S-4 on page 188 
contains the following items under the heading ``Offsets'': Non-
repetition of earmarked funding $-4.3 billion; non-repetition of one-
time funding, $-4.1 billion; and Program decreases $-12.1 billion. The 
figures again, to repeat them, $-4.3 billion, $-4.1 billion, and $-12.1 
billion, minuses in each case, respectively. And following these three 
cuts in discretionary spending for fiscal year 2002 is a footnote which 
states: ``The final distribution of offsets has yet to be determined.''
  So, Mr. President, we have no idea as to what the specific reductions 
will be for $20 billion in spending cuts that are proposed on page 188 
of the President's ``blueprint'' for this year's budget.
  We do know that nondefense spending overall will have to be cut $5.9 
billion below what the Congressional Budget Office says is necessary to 
maintain purchasing power for current service levels. We know the 
Agriculture Department will be cut by 8.6 percent. The Commerce 
Department will be cut by 16.6 percent. The Energy Department will be 
cut by 6.8 percent. The Justice Department will be cut by 8.8 percent. 
The Labor Department will be cut 7.4 percent. The Transportation 
Department will be cut by 15 percent.
  What we do not know--and what we cannot know until the President 
submits his complete budget on April 9--is what specific programs the 
administration proposes to cut, and by how much, in order to 
accommodate the President's $2 trillion tax cut plan. So we are 
operating in the dark; really, that is what it amounts to. Why should 
Senators be asked to take up and adopt a budget resolution calling for 
a $2 trillion tax cut without knowing the specific spending cuts that 
would be required? Why should we buy a pig in a poke? Why should we 
engage in a riverboat gamble, just like we did with the Reagan-Bush tax 
cut of 1981, which put us in the deficit ditch for 17 years? We ought 
not make that same mistake again.
  In recent weeks, I have seen Senators swept up in the political 
whirlwind, a vortex that has been blown in from Texas. Neither the 
Office of Management and Budget nor the Congressional Budget Office is 
able to accurately project surpluses at the end of the current fiscal 
year, let alone for 10 years. Yet the Senate will soon be considering a 
10-year spending and tax cut plan. We are being asked to do so without 
the benefit of seeing the President's complete budget, or the benefit 
of having a committee markup. So I wonder if the inmates have not 
finally taken over the asylum.
  Earlier, I commented on how the budget process has deteriorated in 
recent years because of unrealistically tight spending caps that forced 
the Appropriations Committee to resort to all manner of measures to 
pass the 13 appropriations bills. Sometimes I wonder how Senator Ted 
Stevens has been able to do it. The budget process has truly taken 
another turn for the worse. It is a massive charade when Budget 
Committee members are not even allowed to mark up this year's budget 
resolution, or to have the benefit of the details behind the 
President's budget blueprint before acting on this vitally important 
fiscal plan for the Nation.
  The American people do not send us here to be anvils. They do not 
send us here to lie very still and simply accept whatever is put before 
us. The committee should be given the opportunity to hammer out an 
acceptable budget that will benefit all Americans. Such a budget could 
be hammered out upon the anvil of free and unlimited debate. I don't 
mind having a limitation, as far as that is concerned. I may be very 
opposed to such a radical tax cut, but I am not for killing it by 
filibuster. That would not be my desire at all. The committee members 
should be allowed to offer amendments and have those amendments be 
considered and voted upon. I studied for these hearings like a school 
boy preparing for an exam. I am new on the committee and I wanted to 
understand as much as I could about the budget and about the new 
President's proposals so that I could be a useful force--limited though 
I may be--at the committee markup. I have had my staff prepare 
amendments which I had hoped to offer. But, apparently, the hearings 
which many members so faithfully attended are going to amount to little 
more than a TV show with Senators on the committee serving as 
convenient props. Why have a Budget Committee at all if the committee 
is not going to be allowed to work its will on the budget resolution? 
Why ask questions? Why have testimony? Why take up the time of 
witnesses and members?
  Especially when the new budget embodies such radical tax cuts and 
deep spending cuts, the committee should be able to work its will. That 
is all I am asking. So I hope the distinguished Budget Committee 
chairman will think about this more over the weekend and reconsider his 
earlier announced intentions. Especially when the budget sets fiscal 
policy for the next 10 years, the committee should be able to work its 
will. Especially when the American economy has lately been behaving 
like a roller-coaster ride at the State fair, the committee should be 
able to work its will.
  The Budget Committee hearings must not be reduced to a ``Gong Show'' 
charade designed to make members feel good, but deny them any real 
vote. I hope the decision to avoid a markup will be revisited. I hope 
it will be revisited. The Senate deserves the full committee's judgment 
and nothing less.
  Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, Mr. 
McConnell, and I thank the distinguished Democratic whip, Mr. Reid, and 
all other Senators, for the opportunity to make these remarks. As I 
said earlier, I would not have come to the floor at this time were it 
not for the fact that I noted on the television screen that the Senate 
was in a prolonged quorum.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I will soon suggest the absence of a 
quorum and ask that the time be charged equally to both sides. Before 
that, if all of the time is used on this amendment, what time would the 
vote occur?

[[Page 4343]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Approximately 4:35.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to the Members of the Senate who may be 
listening, or staff members, it is our hope to vote well before that.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the 
time be charged to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I have just come from the Senate Budget 
Committee where we have concluded a series of hearings. We have now 
held 16 different hearings on all facets related to the budget, tax 
cuts, and domestic spending. I am very deeply concerned about the 
conclusion that has been reached at the end of these very important 
hearings.
  I must rise today with deep regret that the Republican leadership, in 
fact, appears to be bypassing the important work of the Budget 
Committee in order to bring the budget resolution directly to the floor 
without debate about a budget resolution and without an opportunity for 
us to vote and to come together on a bipartisan budget resolution that 
reflects our values and priorities for the families that we represent 
in our States.
  We have, in fact, been diligently at work. As a new Member of not 
only the Senate but the Senate Budget Committee, I have taken this work 
very seriously. We have been meeting, sometimes several days in a row, 
hearing from Chairman Greenspan, the Congressional Budget Office, the 
Office of Management and Budget, the Secretary of the Treasury, the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Education, and 
the Secretary of State.
  We have held hearings on long-term budget projections and demographic 
trends and Medicare. I have been meeting with people throughout my 
great State of Michigan to talk about their values and priorities for 
the future, and how they would like to see us come together and fashion 
this budget.
  Unfortunately, all of this work seems to be for naught because the 
Republican leadership wants to avoid committee debate on the budget 
resolution for the first time since Congress passed the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974. When you think about it, this is at a time when we 
have seen our new President come forward to reach out his hand and talk 
about bipartisanship. Yet, once again, we are forced to come to the 
floor of the Senate and ask to be partners in this process and to truly 
move ahead in a bipartisan fashion.
  It is not enough just to speak about bipartisanship, just as it is 
not enough to just speak about issues. Our constituents expect us to 
act. And we have a right to expect what will happen will fulfill the 
words that are being talked about on Capitol Hill.
  Our committee should debate all of the critical issues before us: How 
we pay down the maximum public debt we can so we can put money in our 
constituents' pockets through lower interest rates, and put money in 
their pockets through a tax cut, and making sure we have an economic 
policy that means they have a job. There are several ways in which we 
need to put dollars back into the pockets of the people we represent.
  We also need to debate Social Security and Medicare for the future, 
education, which drives this economy, research, technology and 
education, increased labor productivity, which drives the economy, as 
we have heard over and over again in the Budget Committee. We need to 
debate national defense and protecting the environment.
  One issue that I think needs great debate is the issue of protecting 
the Medicare trust fund. We have found, during this budget process, 
that the President's budget does not protect the Medicare trust fund. 
The President's budget does not protect the Medicare trust fund. In 
fact, it takes it from a protected status and moves it over into a 
contingency fund to be used for spending.
  We tried a week ago, through Senator Conrad's legislation, to create 
a lockbox for Social Security and Medicare, and say--as the American 
public wants us to do--that we will keep our hands off Social Security 
and Medicare and protect it for the future.
  In this budget, we go in the exact opposite direction. We not only 
don't protect it and strengthen it by adding dollars for the future, it 
is put over into spending which, in fact, could cause Medicare to 
become insolvent 15 years sooner, when we expect the strain of the baby 
boomers coming into the system and the fact that we are going to have a 
long-term liability on Medicare and Social Security.
  The American people need to understand that if we don't protect the 
Medicare trust fund, there will be a severe strain when baby boomers 
begin to retire in 2012. This could mean benefit cuts or increases in 
taxes at that time. It is not necessary for us to be put in this kind 
of a situation.
  I hope the Republican leadership will reconsider, as we asked the 
chairman of the committee to do today, and reach out to us to get a 
bipartisan budget and tax agreement. I was fortunate to be in the House 
of Representatives in 1997, when the President and the Congress, of 
different parties, worked together to balance the budget, make critical 
investments in education and in our future needs, and cut taxes. If we 
did it then, we can do it now. We have to do it together.
  If we hold a markup in committee and work together, we can get the 
job done. If not, I fear we continue to go back to policies we have all 
denounced--the practice of partisanship, one side versus the other. Our 
committee has worked hard, our members have been there and involved in 
these hearings. I commend the Chair for holding such comprehensive 
hearings to be able to bring forward the issues that relate to this 
budget so we can put together the values and priorities of our country 
in the form of a budget for the future.
  It is extremely unfortunate that we find ourselves in this position 
now, at the end of the road, when the budget hearings come to a 
conclusion, where we do not have the opportunity to work together to 
draw up that budget resolution and show, in fact, that we can work 
together on behalf of the families we represent.
  I urge the Republican leadership to allow the Budget Committee to do 
our work and allow us to come together to protect Social Security and 
Medicare for the long haul, to provide a tax cut to make sure we are 
paying down the debt for the future for our children, and to make sure 
we have outlined the priorities for the country that are most important 
for our families.

                          ____________________