[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 420-421]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  FUNDING FOR COMMITTEE STAFFING AND THE PRESIDENT'S TAX CUT PROPOSAL

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to make observations on two 
important points that have already been alluded to by my colleagues 
from South Dakota and Nevada during this session. One has to do with 
the need to resolve the issue of funding for committee staffing.
  One ordinarily would think this would be an administrative decision 
that would not be of enormous consequence, but the fact is, until that 
is resolved, this Senate is not able to go forward with legislation of 
any kind, much less to resolving the fiscal year 2003 appropriations 
issue involving 11 of the 13 appropriations bills remaining incomplete 
and needing work. These are bills that should have been concluded prior 
to October 1 of last year, and yet here we are now well into January 
with that work incomplete.
  I have some concerns about the size of the budget cuts--roughly $9 
billion--that will be required, apparently, to come out of these 11 
appropriations bills in order to accommodate President Bush and the 
Republican leadership budget baseline to which they have agreed. I look 
forward to offering amendments to moderate that for purposes of 
agriculture, veterans health care, and other areas. But we cannot go 
forward, in any way, until a resolution is reached.
  Unfortunately, the majority leader, at this point, appears to have 
taken the position of the far right of his caucus in demanding that his 
party have two-thirds of the funding versus one-third for the 
Democratic side. It does not take a rocket scientist to conclude that 
with a 51-to-49 division in the Senate--consistent with what we did in 
the most recent Congress--a funding division of two-thirds to one-third 
is not fair.
  I appreciate that there is precedent going back a number of years for 
that kind of divide, but most recently, with the then-majority leader, 
Senator Daschle, in place, we accommodated our Republican colleagues 
with a much narrower divide of committee budgeting. That is the right 
way to proceed. It is the only way that will allow us to go forward 
with our work. It certainly is my hope that the majority leader will 
see the error of his ways and return to a more moderate, more 
responsible approach to the funding of these committees and concur with 
the recommendations of Senator Daschle, the Democratic leader, so we 
may get on with the work of the people.
  Secondly, I have to share with my colleagues some thoughts on the 
budget tax proposal submitted by President Bush. I stand here as 1 of 
12 Democrats who joined in an effort of moderating President Bush's 
initial $1.35 trillion

[[Page 421]]

tax cut. Our thought was that by participating in that effort, we could 
moderate its cost, make it more fiscally responsible, as well as 
redirect some of its benefits to middle-class and working families, to 
people who really make our economy go, and certainly in a way that is 
consistent with the interests of my home State of South Dakota.
  We did that, but we did that at a time when the projections were that 
we were going to run up a $5.6 trillion budget surplus over the coming 
10 years. We had just come from 4 consecutive years--the final 4 years 
of the Clinton administration--of budgets in the black, and we were 
paying down the national debt. There was concern about whether we would 
pay down the national debt too quickly. That, believe it or not, was 
the concern at the time. We had budget surpluses as far as the eye 
could see, and there was no war on the horizon. So the environment was 
considerably different.
  Now we find ourselves, with the passage of that tax bill, with 
changes in the economy and with a war possibly imminent. We hope not, 
but we certainly are very cognizant of the fact that we may wind up in 
Iraq and expending literally hundreds of billions of dollars in that 
effort to make sure that our men and women in uniform have the 
resources they need if, in fact, we wind up in that kind of conflict.
  So the environment is radically different. Now we find ourselves with 
deficits as far as the eye can see. Now we find ourselves utilizing 
Social Security trust fund dollars, according to the administration's 
Office of Management and Budget, for the remainder of this decade. Now 
we find ourselves not paying down the accumulated national debt at all, 
much less paying it down too quickly, as President Bush and his 
administration coached us to fear a short time ago.
  So now we find ourselves with this radically different environment. 
Yet the President comes to us with a plan which would cost $675 billion 
over the coming 10 years. If you take into consideration the interest 
payments that would have to be made--because every dime of that will 
have to be borrowed; we will have to borrow that money out of the 
Social Security trust fund to pay for these tax cuts--if you take into 
consideration the interest costs, it comes to cost roughly $933 billion 
over the coming 10 years. We would be deep in the red as far as the eye 
could see. And this is before you take into consideration the added 
costs of war, before you take into consideration what else could happen 
to the economy.
  This would involve about a $108 billion tax cut in the coming year, 
primarily for Wall Street and for the superwealthy, although there are 
a few grains of benefit for middle-class families. But, by and large, 
that is a very modest part of the overall plan we would borrow money to 
pay for.
  Yet at the same time that we are considering this ill-considered, 
irresponsible plan, we are being told by the administration that we 
have to cut about $9 billion out of next year's budget. That comes out 
of veterans health care. That comes out of education; it comes out of 
economic development; it comes out of infrastructure; it comes out of 
highways and airports; it comes out of law enforcement; it comes out of 
so many areas that are fundamental and vital to America's national 
interests. That will have to come out this year alone. But that is just 
the beginning compared to where we would be in future years.
  My constituents--Republicans and Democrats alike--in my home State, 
which is a very agricultural State, are asking me: Why has the 
President threatened to veto a $6 billion drought relief bill, for 
droughts in 2001 and 2002, that has the support of 32 agricultural 
organizations, from the Farm Bureau to the Farmers Union, liberal to 
conservative, because of the natural disasters they faced? Why is the 
President threatening to veto $6 billion of relief but talking 
simultaneously about $108 billion of economic stimulus this year that 
would go primarily to Wall Street?
  What would be more stimulative of the economy than to provide that 
drought relief across the dozens of States that suffer badly this year? 
Because of the circumstances the States face, schools in my State are 
literally on the verge of closing their doors. My hospitals and my 
nursing homes--because we did not pass the Medicare reimbursement 
changes last year and seemed to be in no rush to get it done this 
year--are at risk of closing their doors as well.
  Our veterans are standing in lines, 10 and 12 and 14 months long, in 
my home State, waiting to gain access to the health care benefits that 
they fought and struggled for in defending our Nation but for which we 
do not now have the money to provide.
  The priorities laid on the table are astonishing, that the President 
would recommend $108 billion of tax cuts this year, to borrow the money 
to pay for that when we can't come up with the drought relief and the 
VA health care and can't keep our schools and nursing homes open. What 
sense does that make?
  I am willing to consider some additional tax relief for middle-class 
families, but the environment has changed radically from what it was a 
couple years ago. Now we find ourselves in a situation where the most 
fundamental needs of our people are in jeopardy. We need to take that 
into consideration.
  It is my hope that there will be strong bipartisan opposition to the 
plan as presented by the President, that we can in fact go forward, 
come to an equitable division of resources available for committees, 
promptly take up the 2003 budget, take up the 2004 budget, deal with 
the shortfalls that we have in rural America for our veterans, 
education, health care, seniors. And when we have done that, we will 
see what we can do relative to tax relief for our middle-class working 
families who struggle so hard every day to meet health care payments 
and house payments and to keep their kids in school. We will work with 
them as well, but we can't give away the store. We cannot, regardless 
of the libertarian political drive behind it, support a budget tax 
proposal as wildly out of keeping with where most South Dakotans and 
most Americans of either political persuasion want to go.
  I express my frustration that this Nation needs to meet its 
commitments, it needs fiscal responsibility, and it can only do that by 
rejecting the President's enormous $933 billion, over 10-year proposal, 
and returning to taking care of the needs of our people, returning our 
budgets to the black and setting the stage for additional prosperity 
and making sure that we have the resources to deal with whatever 
military eventuality we may have to face very soon.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THOMAS. 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. THOMAS. I rise to speak in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are in morning business.

                          ____________________