[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8028-8030]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                             RECONCILIATION

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, as we speak, there is a meeting of the 
Finance Committee taking place. There are 10 Democrats on that 
committee and 10 Republicans. I have tried today but really literally 
have been able to spend no more than 3 or 4 minutes watching the 
proceedings. They have been going on all day. I understand they will go 
on into the night trying to come up with a tax bill we call 
reconciliation.
  I have heard in the last few minutes that there is going to be an 
attempt tomorrow to bring that bill before the Senate. I hope the 
majority understands there are 40 Democrats and 40 Republicans who do 
not sit on the Finance Committee. It is a prestigious committee, I 
understand, but the members cannot speak for the rest of us, either 
Democrats or Republicans.
  I very much want to have the opportunity to look through certain 
parts of that bill. It is going to be a very large piece of 
legislation. I doubt I will be able to read all of it, but I want to 
read parts of it. I have a staff that will read every word of it and 
bring to my attention those things I have not looked at first.
  I have a staff that I think is well equipped to peruse that bill, but 
I just cannot imagine that we would go to that bill tomorrow without 
Members of the Senate having an opportunity to look at that 
legislation. That is how we get into trouble legislatively.
  It is unfair to the American people. I have said from the very 
beginning we are doing well. We have a surplus. We deserve a tax cut. 
The American people, the people of Nevada deserve a tax cut, and they 
should get an immediate tax cut. But that tax cut should be given to 
them with deliberation. We should make sure we understand every 
provision in that very important legislation. I cannot imagine a 
legislator voting for or against that bill not having the opportunity 
to read it.
  I hope we slow down. We can work on this bill Thursday or next Monday 
or Tuesday just as well as we can tomorrow. What I prefer, when they 
report that bill out of committee, is we have several days to look at 
it.
  I repeat, there is no effort on this Senator's part to unduly delay 
proceedings. There are all kinds of ways we can do that. There has been 
talk, if this proceeding goes forward as indicated, that people will 
file lots and lots of amendments, and we would have to vote on every 
one of them and the voting would take several weeks.
  There are methods of slowing this down. I hope we will not have to 
resort to any of those. I hope we have ample time for us and for our 
staffs to review this legislation in some detail.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Nevada yield for a 
question?
  Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield to my friend from North Dakota, 
whom I appreciate being here. I say prior to yielding, I served in the 
House with my friend from North Dakota. I looked to him when we served 
together. He was one of the leaders of issues dealing with money. He 
was on the Ways and Means Committee, which is the comparable committee 
to the Finance Committee in the Senate.
  I will be happy to yield to my friend from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada makes a critically 
important point. It is important for all of us to think through this 
process and this strategy. We are blessed with a wonderful country that 
has had an economy that has produced jobs and expansion and opportunity 
in the last years. We want to make sure we do not create a fiscal 
policy that turns that around and moves us back into big Federal budget 
deficits and economic contraction rather than expansion.
  The Congress is now, in a new day, set to provide some tax breaks 
because we are at this point experiencing some budget surpluses.
  I support tax cuts. They need to be thoughtful and reasonable. They 
need to be fair to all the American people. But what I worry about is 
we are told that the Finance Committee is now writing a tax bill. It is 
now 6:30 in the evening. I understand there are over 120 amendments to 
that bill that have been filed. They are sitting over in, I believe, 
216 of the Hart Building going through amendments. If they do finish 
tonight, I expect they will work until the wee hours of the morning.
  We are told--I do not know if this is the case--we are told that at 
10 o'clock tomorrow morning the Senate will be confronted with the 
reconciliation bill, the tax bill that is being written this evening. 
If that is brought before the full Senate for consideration at 10 
o'clock in the morning, I ask who in the Senate, A, has read it; B, 
knows what is in it; and C, has studied it enough to evaluate what kind 
of amendments they may or may not offer.
  The answer to that question--I will answer it myself--is nobody. Not 
one Member of the Senate will have the foggiest notion of what is in 
that bill. So bringing that bill up tomorrow at 10 o'clock in the 
morning will be a disservice to this body and a disservice, in my 
judgment, to good sound fiscal policy for this country.
  We are talking, after all, about a proposal that will affect Federal 
revenues for well over a decade. We are talking about affecting Federal 
revenues for over 10 years. This tax bill is put together with the 
prospect that we will always have budget surpluses in our future, 
something I hope we will have, but there is no guarantee that will be 
the case. There is still such a thing as a business cycle, and there is 
still a contraction phase in the business cycle.

[[Page 8029]]

  I worry very much we may not experience the surpluses, and if we put 
in a very large tax cut that some are proposing to do, the bulk of 
which, by the way, will go to the largest income earners in the 
country, if we do that in a way that is thoughtless rather than 
thoughtful, we will throw this country into very significant trouble.
  I implore the majority leader and those involved in scheduling not to 
tell us that the Finance Committee will finish at midnight tonight and, 
oh, by the way, we will bring that before the Senate at 10 a.m. 
tomorrow knowing we have not read it, knowing we have not studied it, 
and knowing we would not have an opportunity to figure out what 
amendments might be necessary. We will do it and do it under a 
reconciliation proposal, which is a complete fraud as we know--it was 
never intended for this purpose--and it will be limited to 20 hours of 
debate on a bill that is worth trillions of dollars that will affect 
this country's revenues for the next decade. Is that a thoughtful or a 
thoughtless way to legislate? My hope is that we can persuade those in 
charge to understand the best way to do this would be to go through 
this committee, the Finance Committee, report a bill to the floor, have 
it printed--God forbid, that should be a radical thought, to have a 
bill printed--have it on the desks of Members of the Senate, have 
people study the bill, evaluate what its consequences might be for the 
country, figure out who gets what, whether it is a fair tax cut, and 
then come back and debate it after having a couple of days of study and 
evaluation, offer amendments, and proceed to decide exactly how the 
Senate wants to work its will on this important issue.
  I ask the Senator from Nevada, does the Senator from Nevada think if 
they bring this to the floor at 10 o'clock in the morning that there is 
anyone in the Senate, save for those who serve on the Finance 
Committee, who will know what is in that piece of legislation?
  Mr. REID. I answer my friend from North Dakota by saying I think 
there are several, of the 20 who serve on the committee, who would have 
a foggy idea of what is in various parts of that bill. Not even every 
member of the Finance Committee would have a foggy idea of what is in 
the bill. And certainly the 80 people who do not serve on the committee 
would not have the slightest idea of what is in that legislation. The 
Senator from North Dakota is correct.
  I also say to my friend who has served in the Congress longer than I, 
I have known of occurrences when these bills are rushed through that 
mistakes are made: printing errors, people not having had the 
opportunity to look at them. Also, some mischievous things have 
happened. We know during the budget that was debated a couple of weeks 
ago in the House of Representatives, there were two very important 
pages missing that they found at 2 o'clock in the morning. Those were 
the pages dealing with how we would handle, in the budget, the tax 
measures. Whether it was done on purpose or not I do not know. The fact 
is those pages were found to be missing and it was necessary to put 
that over for a couple of days.
  I say to my friend from North Dakota, I think the majority would be 
so much better served, our country would be better served, if we had 
the opportunity to have this week to study this legislation, come back 
Monday, we could come in at 9 o'clock in the morning--it doesn't matter 
to this Senator. We could have ample time next week. There are 20 hours 
to debate it. We could have some thoughtful amendments prepared.
  I am stating to anyone within the sound of my voice that there may be 
some Senators who feel so strongly about this basic principle, that 
before you vote on something you should be able to read it, who have 
this radical idea that they want to have a bill that involves trillions 
of dollars and, as the Senator has indicated, will involve fiscal 
policy for this country for more than 10 years--they have this radical 
idea they would like to understand a little bit before they vote on it. 
They may feel so strongly that they may file a thousand amendments on 
this legislation, and the rules are that we only have 20 hours of 
debate, but we can have a thousand days of voting on amendments.
  It would seem to me to serve everyone's best interests if we approach 
this in a deliberative manner, recognizing there are only 20 hours of 
debate on it. We could take it up Monday or Tuesday, finish it next 
week.
  I say to my friend from North Dakota, I will be happy to yield to him 
to answer that question. Does it not seem to make sense with a piece of 
legislation that will be huge, to have some idea what is in it before 
we are required to vote on final passage of this most important 
legislation to people of Nevada, North Dakota, and all over this 
country?
  Mr. DORGAN. The Senator from Nevada yields, and I appreciate that. I 
only have this to say. The people of America don't care, I am sure, 
whether you or I or anyone else has the opportunity to speak as long as 
we might want to speak on anything. They could not care less. Nobody is 
going to walk around with a bad attitude because somebody here doesn't 
have enough time to talk on the floor of the Senate.
  What is important, if we are going to cut benefits, is who gets the 
benefit of those tax cuts? I wondered in school whether fractions would 
ever come in handy. We studied them in the lower grades. Let me give a 
couple of simple fractions.
  From a briefing, I understand, over in the Finance Committee right 
now the chairman's mark--which is going to pass and be brought to the 
floor and apparently going to be brought here at 10 o'clock in the 
morning--does the following: The top 1 percent of the American income 
earners pay about a quarter of the taxes. They are going to get about a 
third of the tax cuts.
  Let me say that again because I think it is important. The top 1 
percent of the income earners in America pay about a quarter of the 
taxes, one-fourth of the taxes. But the tax bill that is going to come 
here at 10 in the morning gives them a third of the tax cuts.
  I did take fractions. I didn't go way beyond fractions in my little 
school, but I understand fractions enough to understand that is not 
fair. Why not take some of that tax cut back, which is above that which 
should go to the top 1 percent, and give it back to the folks in the 
rest of the 99 percent and say: If we are going to give taxes back, 
let's make sure everybody is treated fairly. Wouldn't everybody at 
every tax bracket like to have a little more back than they pay in? The 
top 1 percent do. They get it under this bill.
  As we take a look at all this and ask ourselves are we going to have 
a chance to dig into this, offer amendments, understand it, make 
changes, the answer is: If the bill is not written, except that 
provision, of course, is already in the chairman's mark and we know he 
has the votes to get that out--if this bill isn't written, they have 
120 or so additional amendments they are going to consider this 
evening. Now we are told they want to bring it to the floor at 10 
o'clock in the morning?
  I just ask the question, not so much on my behalf but on behalf of 
the American people who are not going to get the benefit of getting a 
bigger tax cut than the proportion of that which they paid in in taxes, 
would it be fair to have everybody take a look at this and see if maybe 
there is not a little better way to cut this pie? There are only so 
many pieces when you cut these pies up. It seems to me there is kind of 
this hog-in-the-corn-crib approach to some of these things around here. 
The same people always get the biggest slice. Did you ever notice that? 
The same interests always seem to end up with the biggest slice.
  That is what I fear is going to happen here. It is not that I oppose 
a tax cut. I do not oppose a tax cut. In fact, I support a tax cut. We 
have a surplus. Some of that ought to go back to the American people in 
the form of a tax cut. But it ought to be fair. It ought to be a 
circumstance where a lot of people who do not have lobbyists walking 
around this building or haven't been able to afford people to represent 
their interests, those people, somewhere on the floor of the Senate, 
ought to have

[[Page 8030]]

people to dissect this, take it apart and evaluate who is getting a 
fair piece. Whose slice of this tax cut is appropriate? Whose slice is 
too large?
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. The other Senator from North Dakota, I spoke to him right 
down in the well of the Senate a half hour ago. He left the Finance 
Committee to come to vote.
  I said: How are things going, Senator Conrad?
  He said: You can't believe some of the things that are going on 
there. He said: For example, so that they do not raid the Social 
Security trust fund this year, they put off one provision for 15 days 
so they will not raid it for 15 days so they can go around and say we 
did not raid the trust fund this year--but we will do it in 15 days 
when it cuts in.
  I would like to read that. I would like Senator Conrad or someone on 
my staff to point out where it is they did that.
  Mr. DORGAN. If you remember a couple of years ago, they created a 
13th month--sort of the same tactic, perhaps by the same people.
  Mr. REID. I remember that. Thanks for reminding me.
  The Senator from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, also said to me, one 
of the provisions in here had a sunset provision so things would just 
stop and have to start all over at a certain time. That was something 
that they have also, as of a half hour ago, a kind of gimmick, the 
sunset provision. They changed it only a matter of a few hours.
  There are some things going on that should be open. Sunshine should 
shine on this bill so everyone has a chance to look at what is in it.
  Maybe my suspicions are all wrong--I hope so; I hope everything has 
been done aboveboard--that the Medicare trust fund is not violated, as 
I think it is. I hope the Social Security trust fund is held inviolate, 
that it is not also raided so people get these tax cuts. The people of 
Nevada want tax cuts, but they do not want them at the expense of 
taking money from the Medicare trust fund or the Social Security trust 
fund. So all I am saying is, let's take a look at this bill and see 
whether that, in fact, is the case.
  Would the Senator agree that those are a couple of examples, whether 
valid or not, and we should check to see if they are by reading the 
bill?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Nevada, he is 
absolutely correct. This rush here seems to me to be inappropriate if, 
in fact, they bring a bill to the floor tomorrow at 10 a.m. that has 
not yet been written--it is now 20 minutes to 7 here in Washington, 
DC--the bill has not yet been completed, and there are 100 and some 
amendments remaining. They are over in the Hart Building finishing it. 
It will be brought over to the Senate. I guarantee it will not be 
printed. They will have one copy at the desk. Someone may have made 
some copies, some Xerox copies, and hope they don't lose a couple pages 
this time. A couple weeks ago they lost a couple pages and held things 
up. But that is not the way to legislate.
  It seems to me the thoughtful way to do this would be to move this 
through the Finance Committee, have it printed, bring it to the floor, 
lay it over at least 1 day--it should be more than that--give people an 
opportunity to study it, and determine what is in it and how they might 
wish to amend it.
  There is an old saying I mentioned before in this Senate Chamber: 
Never buy something from somebody who is out of breath. There is a kind 
of breathless quality to this rush: We must rush; We must get this done 
immediately; We must bring this bill to the floor immediately.
  That is not fair. It is not fair in terms of those who come to this 
Senate wanting to represent their constituents, wanting to know what is 
in it for various income groups, various occupations. How will it 
affect their constituents? How will it affect the people living in 
their State? In order to do that, they will need to see how the bill is 
written and be able to evaluate it with their legislative assistants.
  Just making a final point to the Senator from Nevada, I did serve in 
the other body, in the House, and served for 10 years on the Ways and 
Means Committee. We wrote tax law. We had done this many times, where 
we would write a rather complicated piece of legislation. But it has 
generally been the case that when you write tax law, and write 
legislation that is complicated--and tax law by definition is always 
complicated--you give people an opportunity to evaluate it, to think 
through it, to try to understand what kind of changes they would like 
to make; and then have the body work its will.
  There is, as I said, a kind of breathless quality around here to 
rushing this thing through. I am not quite sure I understand why. As I 
indicated, this will affect our country for a decade. This is big 
stakes. It will have significant impacts on our economy, on the 
condition of the American economy, the rates of economic growth. I am 
not sure how. I am not sure anybody understands how. But we ought to 
all be given the opportunity to think through and evaluate what is in 
it, what it means to our country, what it means for the American people 
in general, and what it means for income groups and occupations, and so 
on.
  The only way we can do that is to have the time. So I urge the 
majority leader, do not try to do that tomorrow. Do not bring a bill up 
tomorrow that has not yet been printed and ask the Senate, under 20 
hours of time, to begin debating and trying to amend a piece of 
legislation that has not yet been printed. That is not fair to the 
Senate and that is not a thoughtful way to legislate.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator would yield, I think we have to make sure 
that people understand this is not some stalling game we are playing. 
This bill is fast tracked. We have 20 hours to debate it. The majority 
has a right to yield back 10 of those hours. So it could be done in 1 
day.
  But I do not think it is a radical proposal when I say for the people 
I represent--the 2 million people I represent--I would sure like to 
read this bill first, have my staff review this bill first. I do not 
think that is asking too much. That is all we are asking.
  I think the majority is buying themselves a lot of trouble by trying 
to fast track this. There is no reason to do this. Let us look at the 
legislation. We are going to offer amendments anyway. We might as well 
offer amendments that have some bearing on the bill we have read rather 
than one we have heard about reported in the press.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________