[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5181-5182]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                 CONSIDERATION OF THE BUDGET RESOLUTION

  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair and the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. President, I wanted to further engage the Senator from Arizona 
because the Senator from Arizona asserted that we have received the 
estimates of the cost of the President's tax package, and that is 
simply not the case. It is not true. If he has received it, I would 
like him to give me a copy because we haven't received it.
  We haven't received it because the Joint Tax Committee has said they 
don't have sufficient detail about the President's package to do such a 
reestimate, and so we are being asked to go to a budget resolution 
without having the President's budget, without having the estimates 
from an independent source of the cost of the President's budget 
proposal, and with no markup in the Senate Budget Committee, which is 
unprecedented, not even an attempt to mark up in the Senate Budget 
Committee, and all under a reconciliation which denies Senators their 
fundamental rights to engage in extended debate and amendment.
  There were remarks made on the floor that are just not true. It is 
one thing to have a disagreement, and we can disagree. We can even 
disagree on the facts. The facts are clear and direct. The differences 
between the present and 1993 are sharp. In 1993, we did not have the 
full President's budget. We did have sufficient detail for an 
independent, objective review of the cost of the President's tax 
proposals.

[[Page 5182]]

We do not have that now. We do not have the reestimate. We do not have 
an objective independent review of the cost of this President's tax 
plan.
  What has been reestimated is part of the plan. And what has been 
reestimated is the estate tax plan of the Senator from Arizona, not the 
President's estate tax plan, because the Joint Tax Committee has made 
clear they don't have sufficient detail to make such a reestimate. This 
body is being asked to write a budget resolution without the budget 
from the President, without sufficient detail from this President to 
have an objective, independent analysis of the cost of his proposal, 
without markup in the committee.
  That is another difference. In 1993, we had a full and complete 
markup in the Budget Committee. This time there is none. It has never 
happened before.
  Some on their side will say, well, in 1983, we went to the floor with 
a budget resolution without having completed a markup in the committee. 
That is true. But at least we tried to mark up in the Budget Committee 
each and every year. Virtually every year we have succeeded, except 
this year. There wasn't even an attempt to mark up the budget 
resolution in the committee.
  As I say, we are now being asked to go to the budget resolution with 
no budget from the President, without even sufficient detail to have an 
independent analysis of the cost of his proposal, which is a massive 
$1.6 trillion tax cut that threatens to put us back into deficit, that 
threatens to raid the trust funds of Medicare and Social Security, and 
we have had no markup in the committee.
  The majority is proposing to use reconciliation, which was designed 
for deficit reduction, for a tax cut. That is an abuse of 
reconciliation. It would be an abuse if it was for spending; it is an 
abuse if it is for a tax cut. That was not the purpose of special 
procedures in which Senators give up their rights, their rights to 
debate and amend legislation. That is wrong. That turns this body into 
the House of Representatives.
  I say to my colleagues on the other side, in 1993, when our 
leadership came to some of us and asked to use reconciliation for a 
spending program, we said no. This Senator said no. That is an abuse of 
reconciliation because reconciliation is for deficit reduction, not for 
spending increases, not for tax cuts. We are not to short-circuit the 
process of the Senate--extended debate, the right to amend--because 
those are the fundamental rights of every Senator. That is the basis 
the Founding Fathers gave to this institution. The House of 
Representatives was to act in a way that responded to the instant 
demands of the moment. The Senate was to be the cooling saucer where 
extended debate and discussion could occur, where Senators could offer 
amendments so that mistakes could be avoided.
  All of that is being short-circuited. All of that is being thrown 
aside. All of that is being put in a position in which the fundamental 
constitutional structure of this body is being altered.
  Because the Senator from Oklahoma was so gracious, I am going to stop 
for the moment so he can make his remarks. Then I will resume at a 
later point in time. I wanted to do this as a thank-you to the Senator 
from Oklahoma for his good manners and graciousness. I appreciate it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.

                          ____________________