Search Bills

Browse Bills

93rd (26222)
94th (23756)
95th (21548)
96th (14332)
97th (20134)
98th (19990)
99th (15984)
100th (15557)
101st (15547)
102nd (16113)
103rd (13166)
104th (11290)
105th (11312)
106th (13919)
113th (9767)
112th (15911)
111th (19293)
110th (7009)
109th (19491)
108th (15530)
107th (16380)

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET


Sponsor:

Summary:

All articles in Senate section

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET
(Senate - May 22, 1997)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S4944-S4994] CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET The Senate continued with the consideration of the concurrent resolution. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized for 10 minutes. Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Chair. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee. Mr. President, I rise in support of the overall balanced budget plan and rise expressing some reservations in regard to many of the amendments that we are considering, the pending amendments; some 45 of them, as a matter of fact. If nothing else, I wanted to pay a personal tribute in behalf of the taxpayers of Kansas and thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for his leadership, his perseverance, his patience. He has the patience of Job. I must confess, having come from the lower body, as described by Senator Byrd, and being the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I am not sure I had the patience of Senator Domenici. We now spell ``persevere'' D-o-m-e-n-i-c-i. How many hours, I ask of the chairman, if he could respond, how many days, even years, have been involved? Does he have any estimate in regard to the hours he has spent late, early--he and Chairman Kasich of the House? If he gives me an estimate, what is it? 10,000? Mr. DOMENICI. On this agreement itself, just this year, I would estimate 1,000 hours. Mr. ROBERTS. 1,000 hours. I said hours and minutes; even years. This has been the third year on this particular budget plan. This is the culmination of 3 years of hard work that the Senator from New Mexico has put in, all members of the Budget Committee, as well as the staff. This has been a Lonesome Dove Trail ride. I hope we get through the tall grass and balanced budget with all of our body parts intact. If we do, the chairman will get most of the credit. In the last session of the Congress we had two balanced budgets. We worked very hard and very diligently. They were vetoed by the President. We even came to a Government shutdown. Nobody wants to repeat that. I understand that when you are doing a budget for the U.S. Government, you have many, many strong differences of opinion. After all, for better or worse, the Congress of the United States reflects the diversity we have in this country and the strong difference of opinions. Goodness knows, we have good diversity and strong differences of opinion. The House, the other body, just the other night stayed until 3 a.m., and, finally, by a two-vote margin, succeeded in defeating an amendment that was a deal breaker. It involved highways. As a matter of fact, it involved transportation, the very issue we are discussing on the floor at this very moment other than my comments. Two votes was the difference. Goodness knows, everybody in the House of the Representatives, everybody in the Senate cares about transportation and cares about highways and the infrastructure. We came within five votes of a deal breaker on the floor of the Senate. I think it was five votes in regard to health care for children. Who can be opposed to additional funds for health care for children? As a matter of fact, the chairman has worked very hard to provide $16 billion in regard to that goal. So we had highways, health care, and we had a situation in regard to the construction of our schools, to fix the infrastructure of the Nation's schools--$5 billion--with a $100 billion price tag, which set a very unique precedent. I don't question the intent. I don't question the purpose nor the integrity of any Senator, nor, for that matter, anyone who would like to propose an amendment or a better idea in regard to the budget. But I would suggest that the high road of humility and responsibility is not bothered by heavy traffic in this instance. Most of the amendments--I have them all here. Here is the stack, 45 of them. Most of the pending amendments right here are either sense of the Senate or they have been rejected outright as deal breakers. Sense of the Senate means it is the sense of the Senate. It has no legal standing, has no legislative standing. It is just a Senator saying this would be a good idea in terms of my intent, my purpose, what I think we ought to do. And there are a few that are agreed to that obviously will be very helpful. But here are the 45. Most of them are simply not going anywhere but raises the point. I took a little counting here. There are 8 Democrats and 11 Republicans--11 Republicans who have decided that they will take the time of the Senate, take the time of the American people, take the time of the chairman of the Budget Committee and staff and go over and repeat their priority concerns in regard to the budget. There is nothing wrong with that. I understand that. Each Senator is an island in terms of their own ideas and their own purpose and their integrity. I do not really question that but in terms of time, I mean after 3 years of debate, after hours and hours and hours of careful deliberation between the President and the Republican leadership and 45 pending amendments. I have my own amendments. I have my own amendments. I should have had some sense of the Senate amendments. I feel a bit left out. I thought we had a budget deal. I thought we were going to vote on it. I thought that we were going to conclude. And then during the regular appropriations process, during the regular order, if you will, of the rest of the session, why, perhaps we could address these things that I care very deeply about. Maybe we ought to have a sense-of-the-Senate resolution introduced by Senator Roberts that all wheat in Kansas should be sold at $6. That is a little facetious, to say the least, but I do have concerns about crop insurance, a child care bill I have introduced, along with a capital gains bill, capital gains and estate tax. I think capital gains should be across the board. I think estate tax should be at least $1 million. I want a sense-of-the-Senate resolution or amendment declaring that. Or maybe an amendment--I tell you what we ought to have, if the chairman would agree. I think you ought to make a unanimous consent request to consider an amendment that all Senators who offer an amendment on the budget process must be required to serve 6 months on the Budget Committee. Why not? Perhaps in the interest of time, since all of the time that is being spent by the 11 Republicans and the 8 Democrats--oh, I forgot my sense-of-the-Senate resolution on defense. I do not think we have enough money committed to our national defense with the obligations we hear from the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the administration and everything else. So add that one in Roberts' sense of the Senate. Maybe we ought to have a unanimous consent request, to save time, to get [[Page S4945]] this business done, to accept the responsibility for the budget, I could just ask unanimous consent that all amendments pending be laid on the table and considered en bloc and ask for the yeas and nays and we could get the budget deal and go home. I have not made that unanimous consent request. That would be untoward. That is the mildest word I could use for it because it would violate agreements the distinguished chairman has made with other Senators. So let me say this to all the Senators who introduced all these sense-of-the-Senate amendments, fell asleep, issued a lot of press releases back home and got a lot of credit. And I laud their intent, laud their purpose. What about breaking the deal? What about the law of unintended or intended effects? What about the responsibility of delaying the Senate and possibly delaying 3 years of work, 3 years of work to get to a balanced budget? As you can see by the tone of my remarks, perhaps my patience as a new Member of the Senate is not near the patience of Chairman Job, Chairman Job Domenici, in regard to the Budget Committee. Now, I had intended on reading the names of all the Senators, their amendments and lauding their intent in behalf of all the things that we would like to see done. As I say, I have them all here. They range from everything from highways to education to defense to making sure that we have proper tax relief across the board. I will not do that. But I would at least ask my colleagues in the Senate to consider the job and the mission and what our distinguished chairman and members of the Budget Committee have brought to the floor of the Senate. And if we could, if we could plead for a little bit of expeditious consideration, because you know what is going to happen. Time will run out and then we will engage in what the Senate calls a votearama, and the votearama is like ``Jeopardy'' or any other game you play on television. You will not even hear what the amendment is. We will just hear an amendment by X, Y, or Z, Senator X, Y, or Z and then we will vote on it and obviously that will make a good statement back home and we can consider that very serious bill, that serious legislative intent during the regular order which should have been considered that way from the first. Again, I thank the chairman so much. Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield? Mr. ROBERTS. I will be delighted to yield. Mr. ASHCROFT. I appreciate the Senator's remarks. When the Senator holds the stack of amendments, is he suggesting there should be no amendments or is he just focused on sense-of-the-Senate amendments? Mr. ROBERTS. I think if I could further clarify that, of the 45 amendments there are about 6 deal breakers, if my conversation with the chairman is correct. Most of them are sense of Senate. And there are others that have been agreed to. But my basic premise is--and goodness knows, this new Member of the Senate is not about to say that we should change the process of the Senate. And this Member of the Senate is not about to preclude any Member from offering any amendment. The point that I am trying to make is that every amendment, every sense-of-the-Senate amendment, every deal-breaking amendment also to some degree interferes with the process and the conclusion of a balanced budget which has taken us 3 years. And I know because I have been sitting in the chair presiding, listening to the same speeches that are made today in the Chamber during morning business, and people can make them in their districts; they can make them on the steps of the Capitol; they can make them here, and that is quite proper of the Senate and is advisable. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Mr. ROBERTS. Could I have an additional minute? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator seeks an additional minute. Who yields him time? Mr. DOMENICI. How much time does the Senator desire? Mr. ROBERTS. One additional minute. Mr. DOMENICI. I yield it. Mr. ROBERTS. I find it rather untoward or awkward after talking 10 minutes and expressing concern of the time here I would go on and on about this. I think the point is well taken. I know the Senator from Missouri has a very laudable amendment in regards to something I would agree with and I would not deny him that opportunity. But can we not get on with it after 3 years? I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico. Amendment No. 311 Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me make it very clear to everyone in the Senate, first of all, I have nothing but the highest respect and admiration for both the sponsors of this amendment, the distinguished Senator from Virginia, who has worked diligently to try to create the transportation programs in the committee he serves and do it in the best interests of our whole country, and believe you me, he has had a tough job, and so has Senator Baucus in doing a great job, whether working on the committee or with transportation infrastructure. Their job is very difficult because they have to balance frequently the interests of all 50 States or those that are rural versus those that are very dense in terms of population and thus roadway needs are very different in his State or mine as compared with New Jersey, if you just take into account how much gasoline tax is taken in because we are small, with small populations, but we cannot get from one place to another without roads, so we are in a different category. And over the decades we have all worked very hard to figure out how to do that balancing act. And then it turns out when it is all finished, the House does it differently than the Senate because the Senate is represented two Senators to each State. So Senator Baucus and his co-Senator represent a very small population but they are two. In the House, they always load the bills with the heavy populated States and over here we try to do it with a little more fairness, more fair play. They have had to be referees over that. In fact, I might tell the Senators, they probably do not remember, but I was a referee on that once as a conferee, and that was pretty interesting, how we found a formula that year. I might say, in spite of these accolades, this is a very, very strange amendment, to say the least. Here we have been for all these days discussing a balanced budget, and as a matter of fact even those who would break this budget did not unbalance the budget. Or even those who had deal breakers because they would take the principal components of the budget and change them, as our leader said yesterday, pulling the wheels out from under the cart so it would break down. This amendment makes no effort to try to offset the $12 billion that they add to this budget. In other words, Mr. President and fellow Senators, this amendment is bold enough to say it just does not matter about a balanced budget. We just want to put in $12 billion more for highways. Frankly, I am sorry we do not have the money in this budget for that. But we did in fact, we did in fact increase the President's proposal by $10.4 billion. That is $10.4 billion more than the President had in mind, and we balanced the budget. We offset it somewhere or in some way reduced the amount of tax cut we were going to have in the overall sense of putting the package together. But this amendment just comes along and says, well, we just want this additional money spent on highways, and we will wait until another day to worry about the balance. Frankly, we had a very meager surplus in the year 2002. This particular amendment costs $4.5 billion in the year 2002, and that will bring us out of balance by over $2.5 billion. So I urge the Senators who want to support this amendment or this concept, they ought to come down to the floor and cut $12 billion out of this budget so it is still in balance. Then we would understand what would be hit--education and everything else we have been trying to fund. So I must say on this one the administration supports us. We were not so [[Page S4946]] sure yesterday morning, I say to my good friend from Kentucky, but they support us. They sent a letter up here saying they do not support this amendment. They support our efforts to see that it does not pass. Frankly, I would be less than honest and less than fair with the cosponsors--it is clear we are going to have to do something when the ISTEA Program comes along in the not too distant future. We are going to have to make some serious, serious adjustments. And I think those are going to happen. Perhaps the Senators will help expedite that a bit today by calling to the attention of the Senate the situation as you see it. But essentially, we have many trust funds in the United States, many trust funds. I used to know how many. But I think it is probably fair to say we have 100 trust funds. I think that is low by 50. I think we have 150. But let us just say we have 100 of them. Frankly, we do not spend every penny that comes into those trust funds every year, nor do we take them and set them out on the side and say whatever comes in goes out. We have put them in the unified budget. I am not sure--people argue on both sides of that concept. Should you break Government up into 150 pieces and then find some more pieces and have no central government running things, no unified budget, I should say. Forget who runs it, just a budget representing them all. And I have come down on the side of putting them all in and leaving them in, and if there is surpluses take credit for the surpluses. As a matter of fact, it is pretty clear that at some point we are going to have to change the way we are doing business, not perhaps spend more. But I would urge Senators not to vote for this amendment today. I will move to table it. I think it breaks the budget. It unbalances the budget. The intentions are very, very good, but this is not quite the way to do it. Now I yield to Senator Lautenberg-- Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. DOMENICI. Of course. Mr. WARNER. I thank him for the courtesy. Let's clarify a little bit just how the Senator as chairman of the Budget Committee--and certainly we commend him for the hard work he has done. What is the meaning of a trust fund? Let's be honest. You are keeping $26 billion, according to my calculation, holding it back, of the revenues paid at the gas tank, as if it were poker chips to play where you so desire elsewhere in the budget. We specifically did not put in offsets because the offset is there in a trust fund established 42 years ago with a legislative history which clearly said that it belongs to the people and should be returned to the people. That is why we did not have an offset. The offset is there in the form of the money in the highway trust fund. Shall we rename that budget deficit fund? Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, you will be writing the new ISTEA law. If you will care to rename it, it will be renamed under your direction, not under mine. But I would say, from what I can find out, this $26 billion trust fund surplus--we spend about $20 billion each year and they have done that for a long time. This $26 billion that is referred to is made up of two things: $20.6 billion of it is compounded interest, and $5.9 is committed to projects. Frankly, that does not mean we have an awful lot of money to spend. As a matter of fact, we probably do not have very much. But, from my standpoint, this trust fund balance is a very reasonable balance to keep in the fund. If at some point we can get to a better plan and do it over a period of time, you are going to find this Senator on your side. Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator yield? Mr. DOMENICI. Did Senator Lautenberg want to speak now? Mr. LAUTENBERG. I do. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time remains? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 20 minutes left; the other side has 12 minutes. Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we all deeply appreciate the amount of work the Senator from New Mexico has made to try to put this together. It is an almost impossible task. He made an interesting statement, though, that I would just like to follow up on a little bit. He turned to the Senator from Virginia a few minutes ago--if I heard you correctly; I do not want to put words in your mouth--and said something to the effect: Yes, you are right. At some future time when we take up ISTEA we are going to have to deal with deficiencies that are otherwise going to be available to be spent on the highway bill, ISTEA. If I heard him correctly, if that is what he meant, I would just like to explore with the chairman where we might find some of those additional dollars if it's not in the context of this budget resolution. Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, you did not quote me so incorrectly that I would say you didn't quote me right. But, in essence I am just expressing the notion that is pretty rampant, that outside of this budget resolution, at a later date, that in various committees we will be working on what do we do with this highway trust fund and what do we do with the new formula, where there will be a new formula. All I am suggesting is at some point that debate is going to occur, but I don't believe it should occur here on the floor of the Senate, taking $12 billion and just adding it to this budget and saying we are just going to go in the red because we have not figured out any other way. There is going to be another way to look at this situation. Mr. BAUCUS. But again I ask you, at what time, at what point would we begin to find the additional dollars that we all know we need for transportation? Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, look, the committees in the U.S. Senate are marvelous institutions, and how you work out problems that are complicated and difficult and frequently of longstanding--the Senate is historic in its wise ways of doing this. Mr. BAUCUS. I understand. Mr. DOMENICI. All I am suggesting is there is going to be a way. Mr. BAUCUS. I understand, but I bow to the mighty power of the Budget Committee, when we see the limitations that otherwise are incumbent upon us-- Mr. DOMENICI. I might suggest, I served on that committee for a long time, Senator Warner. In fact, I would have been chairman three times over with the longevity I would have if I would have been there. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we want the Senator where he is. Please stay. By the way, I volunteered three times to serve on the Budget Committee, and my name will be on there one of these days. Mr. DOMENICI. All right. Now, how much time do we have left? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 17 minutes left. Mr. DOMENICI. I wanted to yield to Senator Lautenberg, who is my ally here on the floor on this issue, and then find a little time of mine out of it to yield to the Senator from Rhode Island. Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am not going to take that much time, Mr. President. I think the chairman of the Budget Committee has fairly directly and succinctly made the arguments. The fact of the matter is that none of us are happy with the level of funding that we have for our investments in highways and our transportation needs. We are more deficient, in many ways, than countries down the Third World list. I think we rank about 55th in per capita spending for infrastructure. So, one would not disagree with the distinguished Senator from Virginia or the distinguished Senator from Montana in terms of the need, the need to correct the situation. But unfortunately, and it is unfortunate for me because I have long been an advocate of more spending on transportation in this country. I think it is common knowledge that the Senator from New Jersey has been an advocate of mass transit, of rail transportation, improving our highway system, of fixing our deficient bridges, which number in the thousands. But we have a proposal in hand that takes a priority, unfortunately, for the moment. That is, to complete the work we started on a balanced budget. We are committed to it. Believe me, this is not a place I enjoy being, because I do not agree with everything that is in the budget resolution. But I agree with it enough to say that there is a consensus that we fulfilled an obligation that we talked about to children, children's health, to the senior citizens, to try to make [[Page S4947]] Medicare solvent, to try to not further burden the impoverished in terms of Medicare, to try to take care of those who are in this country legally and become disabled. We fulfilled those obligations. The economy is moving along at a very good rate and we are still running the risk, in my view, with some of the tax cuts that have been proposed, of taking us away from the direction that we are moving in, which is to continue to reduce the budget deficit until the year 2002, when there will be none. So we have an imperfect, but pretty good, solution in front us. And, now what we are discussing, in terms of transportation--and this is like me talking against motherhood--but the transportation funds that are there are inadequate because of the structure of our budgeting structure, the budgeting arrangement that we have in our Government. The fact is that we have unified budgets. If one wants to start, as has been claimed here several times, establishing truth in budgeting, under that nomenclature I think one would have to start with Social Security. Are we prepared today to say we are going to add $70 billion to our deficit each year? We certainly are not. Yet I think, when you talk about a trust fund, there is no more sanctified trust fund than Social Security, something people paid in, they are relying on for their future, for their ability to get along. But we nevertheless still have the unified budget. That problem, I assure you, is going to get intense scrutiny over the next several years. Senator Roberts said something--I don't know whether you were here, Senator Domenici, when he said: Everybody, in order to have the budget fully understood, every Senator should be sentenced to 6 months on the Budget Committee. I thought immediately, there is a constitutional prohibition against cruel and inhuman punishment, so we could not do that, even if we wanted to. I am on the Budget Committee by a quirk of circumstance. When I came here, a fellow I had known who was a Senator said that he would do me a favor and that he would vacate his seat on the Budget Committee for me. And I will get even. The fact of the matter is, we complain and we gripe, but the money is where the policy is, the money is where the direction is. We take this assignment with a degree of relish, because we want to do the right thing. None of us want to throw the taxpayers' money away. But we are where we are. It is with reluctance that I am opposing this amendment because both Senators, Senator Warner and Senator Baucus, have been very actively involved in highway funding and highway legislation as a result of our mutual service on the Environment and Public Works Committee. But we are spending more than we did last year. We are spending more than the budget resolution of just 2 years ago. I was able, with a lot of hard work and with the support of the chairman of the committee, to get an $8.7 billion increase over the President's budget request for transportation. I had asked that transportation be included as one of the top priorities in the budget. Unfortunately it is not there. But there is a plan, that we expect to be fulfilled, to have a reserve fund that would allow significantly more funding for some of the transportation needs. But I want to point out one thing about the trust fund. That is, there is a slow payout in highway projects. I think everybody is aware of that--5, 7 years on many of these things. If we shut down the revenue source now, interest alone would not carry the obligations that are already out there. The obligation ceiling as contrasted with the contract authority are quite different things. We have these obligations that have to be fulfilled, they are there and one day must be met. The balances in the fund, I think, will start coming down with the adjustments that are expected to occur in ISTEA. We have the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee on the floor. That will be opportunity to make some of the changes that are being contemplated here. I just think it is a terrible time to say we ought to burden the budget deficit by $12 billion, roughly, right now, when everybody has worked so hard, and this budget has been scrubbed, reviewed, rewashed, rehashed--you name it. We are where we are, in a fairly delicate balance, I point out to my colleagues. There are very delicate opportunities that will, I think, upset the balance that has been achieved. So, again, I repeat myself when I say with reluctance I am going to vote against it. Mr. WARNER. Will my colleague yield for a brief question? Mr. LAUTENBERG. Sure. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator, a member of our committee, Environment and Public Works, is, according to my records, a cosponsor of a piece of legislation called ISTEA--NEXTEA. Am I not correct? Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is correct. Mr. WARNER. In that, it is interesting, there are three bills put in by Members of the Senate. I am coauthor--Senator Baucus, Senator Graham of Florida; STEP 21, Senator Baucus is 2000, you are with Senator Chafee. Mr. LAUTENBERG. Right. Mr. WARNER. ISTEA. Look into that bill. Right in there is a provision saying we want $26 billion each year, far more than what the Senator from Virginia is asking. I build up to $26 billion in the fifth year. You want it beginning this year. In other words, you are saying to the Senate, in a cosponsored piece of legislation together with the distinguished chairman of the committee, you want $26 billion. Now you stand on this floor and talk in direct opposite. That is what leaves me at a loss. So the question is, you are a cosponsor and---- Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, in response to the question, before the speech, I would say this--yes, I sponsored that legislation. My heart is in more funding for transportation, and no one here can say differently. The problem is that we are in a different point in time, and if you want to take it out of highways and say forget the children's health care bill, if you want to take it out of highways and forget the pledge we made to the senior citizens, or take it out of this bill and forget the pledge that we made to those who might be disabled, let's do it, let's talk about that. Let's talk about balancing the budget, because I know the distinguished Senator from Virginia has been a proponent of a balanced budget almost from the day the words were invented around here. So now we have a different occasion. We are not talking about transportation; we all agree that transportation is definitely underfunded. What we are talking about is at what price do we make this change, and the price is at, again, children's health or otherwise, because we are committed to balancing this budget. And this is strange talk for a fellow like me. Mr. DOMENICI. I think it is right on, and I hope you make it about five or six times in the remaining couple hours. I look forward to hearing it more times than one. Mr. President, I wonder, how much time do we have remaining? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 7 minutes; the Senator from Virginia has 10 minutes, almost 11 minutes. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, the chairman of the full Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senator Chafee. Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished manager of the bill. I rise in opposition today to the amendment offered by the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Montana. I might say, these are two Senators for whom I have tremendous respect. I have worked with them. The Senator from Virginia, I think we first started our association in 1969, and the Senator from Montana, I started working with him the first year he came to the Senate, which I think was 1978, 1979, and we have been closely associated ever since. However, this amendment, which would increase outlays for transportation spending above the levels provided in the resolution before us, I find to be inconsistent with the achievement of a balanced budget by the year 2002. The Senator from Virginia just said it went beyond the bill, the so- called NEXTEA bill that goes beyond this, and that is absolutely right, but that was before we had a target from the Budget Committee. I believe strongly in the budgetary process we have set up. I voted for it, and I support it. [[Page S4948]] I think we all can agree that the Nation's roads and bridges are in need of repair. No one argues with that. Transportation plays a critical role in our Nation's economy. We recognize that. In the United States, more than 12 million people, more than 11 percent of the gross national product, is involved in transportation. Earlier this year, I cosponsored a measure to increase, within the context of a unified budget, the level of transportation spending from the highway trust fund. I am pleased that the budget agreement, crafted by the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from New Jersey, increases the spending levels implicit in that proposal, the so- called Bond-Chafee proposal. It is $13 billion over a freeze baseline. That is pretty good. Would we like more? Sure we would. But I think it is terribly important to recognize that any proposal that boosts highway spending or transportation spending without corresponding offsets is something I personally cannot support. So, I agree with Senators Warner and Baucus that transportation spending should be increased, but not in a manner that would undermine the careful agreement reached by the Budget Committee. Do we like everything in this budget? No, but it is the best we can get. I am supporting that agreement. It seems to me we simply cannot afford to retreat from our efforts to eliminate the Federal deficit. So that, Mr. President, is the reason I cannot support this amendment that is before us today. I thank the Chair and thank the manager and thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee that deals with these matters. He has worked on them, and I know his heart is in this. As always, he argues his case with vigor and considerable force. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, might I ask a question on my time of my distinguished chairman? There are three bills pending before the Senate relating to the reauthorization of ISTEA. I mentioned that. Seventy-four colleagues have signed one of those three bills. Each one of those bills has the higher level of $26 billion. I say to my colleague, he also is a cosponsor of the Bond-Chafee/Chafee-Bond legislation. The principle that Senator Baucus and I are arguing today precisely is the Chafee- Bond bill. I ask the Senator, does he feel there is any difference in principle? Mr. CHAFEE. Yes. First of all, I am pleased to call it the Chafee- Bond proposal. Mr. WARNER. Call it what you want. Mr. CHAFEE. We call it that in Rhode Island. What the Chafee-Bond proposal does is it says that what came in in the previous year--we do not deal with the interest, we do not deal with---- Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I do not need an explanation. In principle, pay it in, take it out, isn't that right, in simple English? Mr. CHAFEE. That's right. Mr. WARNER. Fine, that's all I need to say. Mr. CHAFEE. What comes in this year goes out next year, and that principle is in this budget. Mr. WARNER. That principle is in this amendment. I thank the distinguished Senator. That is all we are asking. But it is interesting we are asking for less than what is paid in to come out, recognizing the challenge before the Budget Committee. So I say, once again, 74 colleagues have signed on to legislation. We are going to have to answer to our constituents, Mr. President, on this vote. You say one thing in sponsoring the bills, and we will see how consistent you are. I will put a letter on the desk signed by 56 Senators as to how they spoke to this. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana. Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator from Virginia yield for a few minutes? Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield all but a minute and a half, 2 minutes I have reserved. Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we heard today from both the chairman and the ranking member of the Budget Committee that we need to address this problem; the problem that there is a deficiency in highway-mass transit-infrastructure spending that must be dealt with at sometime. But they are also saying they feel constrained to say they cannot deal with it here because they feel constrained by the budget resolution, a resolution agreed to principally between the White House and the leadership. They talk about an $8 billion increase. That does not include interest. And because the country is growing, because of additional needs we have and the crumbling bridges, if this resolution is adopted, Senators should know that they will receive less in dollars than they will need for their State's infrastructure. The Senators, the chairman and ranking member, say, ``Well, we will deal with it in the future at sometime,'' acknowledging that there is a problem and we need more transportation dollars. I must remind Senators that we have a difficult problem ahead of us. When we in the Environment and Public Works Committee in the coming weeks write a bill dealing with CMAQ, dealing with formulas, donor States, donee States, so on and so forth, what do we look at? We look at the number that the Budget Committee sends to us. We are constrained by that number. We must then write a 5- or 6-year bill which locks in the spending limits that the Budget Committee prescribes for us. We are locked in for 5 or 6 years. Those lower levels cannot be changed next year by a new budget resolution, cannot be changed until or unless this Congress writes a new highway bill. I am not so sure this Congress is going to want to write a new highway bill every year. So I am saying that this is the time to deal with this problem. It is now. Otherwise, we are locked in for 6 years to inadequate numbers. We want to make an adjustment of less than one-tenth of 1 percent of our Federal budget, less than one-tenth of 1 percent of our Federal budget, which I am fully confident can be dealt with in conference. It is critical that this amendment be adopted so that we are not locked in over the next 6 years to inadequate numbers. We will be locked into these numbers if this resolution is adopted. We can make adjustments in all the other accounts and still maintain the core provisions of the bipartisan agreement. So I urge Senators to, therefore, vote for this so we can do what we know is right. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair notes 2 minutes remain for the Senator from Virginia. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, is that all the time that is remaining? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The Senator from New Mexico has 2 minutes; the Senator from Virginia has 2 minutes. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend my distinguished colleague. He, in his concluding remarks, gave the clarion call: When we cast the vote, we simply cast a vote to say to the Budget Committee, ``Go back and look for that very small fraction so we can avoid this flat green line which is correctly represented on this chart, and allow our several States to build that infrastructure necessary to compete in this world market.'' What we have left out, my distinguished colleague and myself, are pages and pages of added requests by our colleagues. I totaled over $7 billion in addition to what is to be allocated under the formulation for superb programs that are badly needed by the country: Appalachian highway system; for the Indian reservation roads; for expansion of the intelligent transportation system; for innovative financing initiatives; for new funding to meet infrastructure--on and on it goes. We want to, Senator Baucus and I together with other members of our subcommittee and full committee, try and do this, but those we haven't even discussed today. We will never get to one nickel of this unless we are given some additional flexibility. So we say, with all due respect, we are simply asking a voice mandate in support of our constituents to the Budget Committee, ``Go back and reexamine the desperate need of America for these dollars.'' I thank the Chair. I yield back all time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Mr. DOMENICI. Do I have 2 minutes and that is it? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me suggest, again, to Senators who might be listening or those who might be listening in their stead, in this budget, we [[Page S4949]] have tried to do many things. We have tried to cut taxes for the American people; we have tried to cover little children who are uninsured with $16 billion; we have tried to cover the National Institutes of Health with a 3.5-percent increase. We heard from people what America had to be doing, and, in each instance, we had to get rid of something. In fact, I have not said it yet, but the President gave up 50 percent of his initiatives in the compromise that was made, and every time we did it, we said, ``Let's balance the budget; let's balance the budget.'' We would come back and say, ``Well, we want to add this, what do we take out?'' And we would take something out. What we have here today is $12 billion as if it just flopped out of the sky; no effort to balance the budget, no effort to offset it with expenditures so we can all see where do you pick up the $12 billion that is needed for highways? Everybody understands that highways are very much needed in America, but this budget, for the first time, will permit us to spend every cent of new taxes that comes into that fund every single year. We are moving in the right direction. Every cent of new gasoline tax that goes into this fund under this budget agreement will be spent in that year that it comes in, obligated during that year. That is a giant stride in the direction that we have been asked to go by many people in our country. Frankly, every Governor in America sends a letter in. They want more money. And then some of them get up and criticize that we do not balance the budget right. The lead Governor in America, the head of the association, he wants every penny of highway funds, but this budget resolution just does not get the job done right. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). All time has expired. Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back the balance of my time, and move to table the amendment, and ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to lay on the table the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk called the roll. The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 80 Leg.] YEAS--51 Allard Bennett Biden Bond Breaux Brownback Campbell Chafee Cleland Cochran Collins Coverdell Craig D'Amato Daschle Domenici Durbin Enzi Feingold Feinstein Ford Frist Gorton Gramm Grassley Gregg Hagel Hutchison Kohl Kyl Landrieu Lautenberg Lieberman Lott Lugar Mack McCain Moseley-Braun Moynihan Murkowski Nickles Reed Roberts Rockefeller Roth Santorum Smith (NH) Smith (OR) Snowe Stevens Thompson NAYS--49 Abraham Akaka Ashcroft Baucus Bingaman Boxer Bryan Bumpers Burns Byrd Coats Conrad DeWine Dodd Dorgan Faircloth Glenn Graham Grams Harkin Hatch Helms Hollings Hutchinson Inhofe Inouye Jeffords Johnson Kempthorne Kennedy Kerrey Kerry Leahy Levin McConnell Mikulski Murray Reid Robb Sarbanes Sessions Shelby Specter Thomas Thurmond Torricelli Warner Wellstone Wyden The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 311) was agreed to. Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote. Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay it on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. WARNER. History was made with this vote, by two votes, and two votes in the House--that resonates all across this land. It is a wake- up call to all those entrusted with the responsibility of keeping America's infrastructure modernized and safe so we can compete in this one-world market. This is but the first of a series of battles that will be waged on this floor on behalf of America's transportation system. It is my privilege to be a part of that team. I thank the Chair. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes. I want to compliment those who offered the amendment for the way they have handled matters and to tell the same American people that were listening to the distinguished Senator from Virginia that there will be additional highway funding in years to come, there is no doubt about it, but it will not be done at the expense of unbalancing the budget. It will not be done at the expense of just saying we will spend some money even if the deficit goes up. I look forward to the day we do it in such a way that it is balanced and that, as a matter of fact, if we increase, we cut some things to make up for the difference so we stay in balance. Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield? Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 2 minutes to Senator Stevens. Mr. STEVENS. As chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I want to tell the Senate that those of us who are voting against some of these amendments are doing it because there is no money to fund these sense- of-the-Senate resolutions. I say to any of you that want to offer amendments that change this budget, that authorize additional funds-- show me the money. Show me where the money is when you offer amendments that change the budget plan agreed to with the President. I have discussed this with the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. We will have the obligation to allot money within the budget among 13 subcommittees. A sense-of-the-Senate resolution does not give us any more money but it gives us the problem that you have sent a message to America that there is money in this budget to do something the Senate votes for in a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. When the budget resolution, just before, was voted I asked for a chance to come to the floor again, and I ask for you to reserve some time and we will show where a commitment has been made by the Senate to fund items where there is no money. I urge the Senate to wake up. We are voting against these matters not because we are against highways or aid for children who need insurance. We are voting--the Senators from New Mexico and New Jersey have brought us a resolution. We had a budget that has been worked out with the President and we have a chance to vote for a balanced budget. I do not want to be accused of being a tightwad when we allocate the money under 602(b) of the budget act and then we do not cover the sense-of-the-Senate Resolutions. Again, if anyone is going to accuse us of being tightwads and not following the sense of the Senate, I tell you, if you vote for one of these things, you show us where the money is and we will allocate it. We will not be misled by these attempts to gain publicity and to gain some credit at home on a bill like this. This is a very serious bill. The two of us are going to have a horrendous job trying to meet our duties even within this budget, so do not give us any more of this funny money. You show me real money and I will allocate it to your function. Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield? Mr. DOMENICI. I yield. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself in considerable measure with the distinguished Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens]. We have been voting for a lot of sense-of-the-Senate resolutions. I think we had one yesterday, 99-0. We know it is not going to be paid for. On this business about infrastructure, we hear it said that there is no money. I am from a State that needs infrastructure. We say there is no money. I shall state why I supported the Warner-Baucus amendment. We do not need a tax cut in this country right now. We do not need a tax cut. I say that with respect to the Republican tax cut and with respect to the tax cut that is supported by the Administration. We do not need a tax cut. When we see what we are doing in this budget resolution with respect to cutting taxes--cutting taxes at a time when we are within reach of balancing the budget, if we were to use that money that is going for the tax cut, we would balance this budget much earlier than it is expected to be balanced now and we could also use some of that money for infrastructure. If we want to know where we [[Page S4950]] can get the money, that is where it can be found. Let's vote against the tax cut. I am going to vote against this resolution if we have the tax cut tied with it. I thank the distinguished Senator. Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New Jersey. Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield myself 2 minutes off the resolution. Mr. President, I don't like being put in the position that appears to be developing here, that I am against investment in infrastructure. I stand on my record of having fought as hard as anyone in this body to invest more money in highways, in mass transit, in rail and aviation, whatever was called for. I never met a transportation project I didn't like if it was a well-founded and well-thought-out project. But the insinuation by our distinguished friend from Virginia to caution us and to lay down the scare that we will be counted upon or we will be looked upon by the Record and by the voters, I want to say this: The Senator from Virginia took the liberty yesterday of voting against the funds for crumbling schools, against schools that are tattered and falling apart, where children can't possibly learn. That was OK to vote against. And the appeal wasn't made, and there was no threat that if you vote against this, you are committing those kids to an even more difficult assignment to try and lift themselves up. I have defended investments in transportation as chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation of the Appropriations Committee. Without fail, I have defended investing more. But the onerous comparison is that we neglected our responsibility. It is almost as if you are unpatriotic. I don't really like everything in this budget resolution. But I am committed by my constitutional responsibilities. If I take the assignment, I have to work on it. We negotiated in good faith, and I don't like some of the tax concessions we have in there. But I think middle-class people in this country are entitled to some tax relief. I think those who want to send their kids to college are entitled to some help to get them the first step up on the economic ladder. No, I don't like it all. But I have my duty to do, and I did it. It wasn't pleasant. It wasn't pleasant when I went into the Army in World War II, either, but I did it. And the insinuation that somehow or other I have deserted my responsibility is one that really offends me. We did what we thought was best, each one of us, whatever the vote was. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I was to be able to call up an amendment at this time. Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is in the order. That is true. Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, before I use any of that time, just as a matter of courtesy and parliamentary process, my distinguished colleague is also standing for recognition. If I could ask the Chair what the Senator's intent might be, we might be able to work out an arrangement. Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my intention, having talked to the ranking Member, was to seek 10 minutes for debate on the resolution. Whatever fits with the schedule of the Senator from Massachusetts will be fine with me. Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is a commitment that was made, I say to the Senator from North Dakota. But the Senator from Massachusetts did have a priority and was on record as being next in line. If an accommodation can be made between the two--if not, the Senator from Massachusetts has an opportunity to offer an amendment. Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from North Dakota be permitted to proceed for 10 minutes, and subsequently, when he completes, that I be recognized for the purposes of calling up my amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his courtesy. I wanted to speak for a couple of minutes on the resolution itself that is brought to the floor of the Senate. I want to talk just for a moment about what it is and what it is not. This piece of legislation is a budget agreement that I intend to vote for on final passage. I think a substantial amount of work has been done by the chairman of the Budget Committee, the ranking member, and many others in the House and the Senate and in the White House. They have negotiated in very difficult circumstances the terms of a budget agreement. But, as I said, I want to talk about what this is and what it is not. This is a budget agreement that provides a balanced budget of the unified budget. Is that something that has merit? Yes, it is. Is that something that moves in the right direction? Yes, it does. But it is not a balanced budget amendment that balances the budget without the use of trust funds, such as the Social Security fund. I want everybody to be clear about that. On page 4 of this budget resolution, which is on the desks of all Senators, it says ``deficit.'' On line 24, it says ``deficit'' in the year 2002, ``$108 billion.'' Why does it say that? It says that because this piece of legislation balances what is called the unified budget. Many of us believe there is another step to be taken after that. That is to balance the budget without the use of trust funds, especially without the use of Social Security trust funds. For that reason, I voted for the initiative offered yesterday by the Senator from South Carolina. It got very few votes, I might say. But he said, let us balance the budget and not do tax cuts and not do added investments at the start so that we balance the budget completely without using the trust fund, and then, as the economy strengthens and as we have extra money, let us provide for the tax cuts and let us provide for the added investments. Obviously, that proposal failed. I will vote for this budget agreement. But it is not truly a balanced budget. It moves in the direction, and it moves the right way. But it will leave this country, still, with a deficit. That must be the next step following action on this document. There are several steps here in climbing a flight of stairs to get to the point where we make real progress. One step we took in 1993. I was one who voted for the budget in 1993. I am glad I did. I said at the time it was a very controversial vote. It passed by one vote in the U.S. Senate--a budget agreement to substantially reduce the Federal budget deficit. It passed by one vote, the vote of the Vice President of the United States. Some paid a very heavy price for that vote because it was controversial. It cut spending. And, yes, it raised some taxes. But what was the result of that vote in 1993? The result was a dramatically reduced budget deficit. In that year, the unified budget deficit was close to $290 billion. Again, using the unified budget, the Congressional Budget Office now says the unified budget deficit is going to be, at the end of year, $67 billion. What has caused all of that? Well, a good economy and a 1993 budget act that a lot of people here had the courage to vote for, that passed by one vote, that says, let's put us moving in the right direction; let's move us in the right direction to substantially reduce the budget deficit. And only with that vote, and only with the progress that came from that vote, are we now able to take another very large step in moving toward a balanced budget. What was the result of that vote? It was interesting. We had people in 1993 on the floor of the Senate who said, if you cast a ``yes'' vote and pass this budget, the economy will collapse; the country will go into a recession; it means higher deficits and a higher debt; it means the economy goes into a tailspin. It passed with my vote--and, yes, the votes of some of my colleagues who decided to say to this country that we are serious, that we are going to move this country in the right direction even if the choice is painful for us to cast this vote. What happened? What happened was 4 years of sustained economic growth, inflation coming down, down, down, and down, and unemployment coming down and down for 4 years in a row. We have more people working. This country now has 12 million more people on [[Page S4951]] the payrolls that we did in 1993. We have an economy that is moving ahead, a deficit that is moving down, and inflation that is at a 30- year low. I wonder if those who predicted doom from that vote now won't join us and say, ``You did the right thing. It wasn't easy to do. But because you did it, we stand here today now able to take the next step.'' The next step is a step in which we now try to choose priorities. What do we make investments on in our country, and where do we cut real levels of spending? That is what this document is about. It is a compromise between Republicans and Democrats, between a President and Congress, that tries to establish priorities. Frankly, while it reduces spending in some areas, it cuts out entire classes of spending in others. It also increases some investment in spending in yet other areas. What are those? Education: It makes a lot of sense for us even as we attempt to move toward solving this country's fiscal problems to say that we don't solve the problems of the future by retreating on things like educating our kids. So this piece of legislation says education is a priority--more Pell grants, more Head Start, more investing in education, from young kids to college age and beyond. It says we are going to invest in education. Then it says the environment and health care. It says these areas are priorities. They are areas that make this country strong, and we will continue to invest in those areas even as we move to reconcile our books so that we are not spending more than we take in. That is why this is important, and it is why it is successful. I am pleased, frankly, after all of these years, to be on the floor of the Senate saying this is something that is bipartisan. Finally, Republicans and Democrats, rather than exerting all of their energy to fight each other and beat each other, are deciding there are ways that we can join each other and pass a piece of legislation that moves this country in the right direction. I think the American people probably think it is a pretty good thing that bipartisanship comes to the floor of the Senate in the form of this budget resolution. I started by saying I would talk about what this is and what it isn't. I am going to vote for this. It moves this country in the right direction. It preserves priorities that are important to preserve, and investment in this country's future. It represents a compromise. Many of us would have written it differently. We didn't get all we wanted. But it moves this country in the right direction while preserving the kinds of things most of us think are important as investments in our country's future. This is not a balanced budget, not truly a balanced budget. It balances something called the unified budget. But it is a major step in the right direction. I hope we will take the next step beyond this to say that, on page 4 of the next budget resolution, line 24, we will say ``zero'' in a future year. That is when we will truly have completed the job. But the choices here are not always choices we would like. The choice that we now ask ourselves is, does this move us in the right direction with respect to the things I care a great deal about--one, fiscal discipline; a more deficit reduction; investment in education, health care, the environment--things that make this country a better place? The answer, unequivocally, is yes. This moves America in the right direction. Is it an exercise between the President and Congress, between Democrats and Republicans, that will give this country some confidence that the past is over, that the reckless, the irresponsible fiscal policy of saying let's spend money we don't have on things we don't need and run up trillions and trillions of dollars of debt for our kids and our grandkids to assume? Is it a message to the American people that we are beyond that period and have moved on to a new day of bipartisanship to decide together we can plot a better course and move this country toward a brighter future? The answer to that is yes. If the past is any experience, since 1993, the vote we took then to put us on the road to balancing this budget is a proud vote and one that I am glad I cast. I will be glad I cast this vote as well, because this is the next major segment of the journey to do what the American people want us to do on their behalf and on behalf of so many children who will inherit this country. They will inherit a better country because of what we will have done in this Chamber this week. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we have under normal regular order an amount of time at this point. The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has no time. The Senator hasn't called up his amendment. Amendment No. 309 Mr. KERRY. I call up amendment No. 309. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Kohl, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Wellstone, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 309. (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of May 21, 1997.) Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I now yield to the Senator from Minnesota 4 minutes. Mr. President, before I yield let me just take 1 minute to explain. This is an amendment to hold out a possibility--I yield myself such time as I may use--to hold out the possibility that when we come back in the appropriating process, we may be able to find some money to deal with the issue of early child development. We do not spend money now. We do not trade money. We do not have an offset. We do not spend. We simply want to be able to reserve the capacity to come back at a later time to deal with this issue. I will explain why I feel that is so important, as do the other Senators joining me.

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET
(Senate - May 22, 1997)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S4944-S4994] CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET The Senate continued with the consideration of the concurrent resolution. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized for 10 minutes. Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Chair. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee. Mr. President, I rise in support of the overall balanced budget plan and rise expressing some reservations in regard to many of the amendments that we are considering, the pending amendments; some 45 of them, as a matter of fact. If nothing else, I wanted to pay a personal tribute in behalf of the taxpayers of Kansas and thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for his leadership, his perseverance, his patience. He has the patience of Job. I must confess, having come from the lower body, as described by Senator Byrd, and being the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I am not sure I had the patience of Senator Domenici. We now spell ``persevere'' D-o-m-e-n-i-c-i. How many hours, I ask of the chairman, if he could respond, how many days, even years, have been involved? Does he have any estimate in regard to the hours he has spent late, early--he and Chairman Kasich of the House? If he gives me an estimate, what is it? 10,000? Mr. DOMENICI. On this agreement itself, just this year, I would estimate 1,000 hours. Mr. ROBERTS. 1,000 hours. I said hours and minutes; even years. This has been the third year on this particular budget plan. This is the culmination of 3 years of hard work that the Senator from New Mexico has put in, all members of the Budget Committee, as well as the staff. This has been a Lonesome Dove Trail ride. I hope we get through the tall grass and balanced budget with all of our body parts intact. If we do, the chairman will get most of the credit. In the last session of the Congress we had two balanced budgets. We worked very hard and very diligently. They were vetoed by the President. We even came to a Government shutdown. Nobody wants to repeat that. I understand that when you are doing a budget for the U.S. Government, you have many, many strong differences of opinion. After all, for better or worse, the Congress of the United States reflects the diversity we have in this country and the strong difference of opinions. Goodness knows, we have good diversity and strong differences of opinion. The House, the other body, just the other night stayed until 3 a.m., and, finally, by a two-vote margin, succeeded in defeating an amendment that was a deal breaker. It involved highways. As a matter of fact, it involved transportation, the very issue we are discussing on the floor at this very moment other than my comments. Two votes was the difference. Goodness knows, everybody in the House of the Representatives, everybody in the Senate cares about transportation and cares about highways and the infrastructure. We came within five votes of a deal breaker on the floor of the Senate. I think it was five votes in regard to health care for children. Who can be opposed to additional funds for health care for children? As a matter of fact, the chairman has worked very hard to provide $16 billion in regard to that goal. So we had highways, health care, and we had a situation in regard to the construction of our schools, to fix the infrastructure of the Nation's schools--$5 billion--with a $100 billion price tag, which set a very unique precedent. I don't question the intent. I don't question the purpose nor the integrity of any Senator, nor, for that matter, anyone who would like to propose an amendment or a better idea in regard to the budget. But I would suggest that the high road of humility and responsibility is not bothered by heavy traffic in this instance. Most of the amendments--I have them all here. Here is the stack, 45 of them. Most of the pending amendments right here are either sense of the Senate or they have been rejected outright as deal breakers. Sense of the Senate means it is the sense of the Senate. It has no legal standing, has no legislative standing. It is just a Senator saying this would be a good idea in terms of my intent, my purpose, what I think we ought to do. And there are a few that are agreed to that obviously will be very helpful. But here are the 45. Most of them are simply not going anywhere but raises the point. I took a little counting here. There are 8 Democrats and 11 Republicans--11 Republicans who have decided that they will take the time of the Senate, take the time of the American people, take the time of the chairman of the Budget Committee and staff and go over and repeat their priority concerns in regard to the budget. There is nothing wrong with that. I understand that. Each Senator is an island in terms of their own ideas and their own purpose and their integrity. I do not really question that but in terms of time, I mean after 3 years of debate, after hours and hours and hours of careful deliberation between the President and the Republican leadership and 45 pending amendments. I have my own amendments. I have my own amendments. I should have had some sense of the Senate amendments. I feel a bit left out. I thought we had a budget deal. I thought we were going to vote on it. I thought that we were going to conclude. And then during the regular appropriations process, during the regular order, if you will, of the rest of the session, why, perhaps we could address these things that I care very deeply about. Maybe we ought to have a sense-of-the-Senate resolution introduced by Senator Roberts that all wheat in Kansas should be sold at $6. That is a little facetious, to say the least, but I do have concerns about crop insurance, a child care bill I have introduced, along with a capital gains bill, capital gains and estate tax. I think capital gains should be across the board. I think estate tax should be at least $1 million. I want a sense-of-the-Senate resolution or amendment declaring that. Or maybe an amendment--I tell you what we ought to have, if the chairman would agree. I think you ought to make a unanimous consent request to consider an amendment that all Senators who offer an amendment on the budget process must be required to serve 6 months on the Budget Committee. Why not? Perhaps in the interest of time, since all of the time that is being spent by the 11 Republicans and the 8 Democrats--oh, I forgot my sense-of-the-Senate resolution on defense. I do not think we have enough money committed to our national defense with the obligations we hear from the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the administration and everything else. So add that one in Roberts' sense of the Senate. Maybe we ought to have a unanimous consent request, to save time, to get [[Page S4945]] this business done, to accept the responsibility for the budget, I could just ask unanimous consent that all amendments pending be laid on the table and considered en bloc and ask for the yeas and nays and we could get the budget deal and go home. I have not made that unanimous consent request. That would be untoward. That is the mildest word I could use for it because it would violate agreements the distinguished chairman has made with other Senators. So let me say this to all the Senators who introduced all these sense-of-the-Senate amendments, fell asleep, issued a lot of press releases back home and got a lot of credit. And I laud their intent, laud their purpose. What about breaking the deal? What about the law of unintended or intended effects? What about the responsibility of delaying the Senate and possibly delaying 3 years of work, 3 years of work to get to a balanced budget? As you can see by the tone of my remarks, perhaps my patience as a new Member of the Senate is not near the patience of Chairman Job, Chairman Job Domenici, in regard to the Budget Committee. Now, I had intended on reading the names of all the Senators, their amendments and lauding their intent in behalf of all the things that we would like to see done. As I say, I have them all here. They range from everything from highways to education to defense to making sure that we have proper tax relief across the board. I will not do that. But I would at least ask my colleagues in the Senate to consider the job and the mission and what our distinguished chairman and members of the Budget Committee have brought to the floor of the Senate. And if we could, if we could plead for a little bit of expeditious consideration, because you know what is going to happen. Time will run out and then we will engage in what the Senate calls a votearama, and the votearama is like ``Jeopardy'' or any other game you play on television. You will not even hear what the amendment is. We will just hear an amendment by X, Y, or Z, Senator X, Y, or Z and then we will vote on it and obviously that will make a good statement back home and we can consider that very serious bill, that serious legislative intent during the regular order which should have been considered that way from the first. Again, I thank the chairman so much. Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield? Mr. ROBERTS. I will be delighted to yield. Mr. ASHCROFT. I appreciate the Senator's remarks. When the Senator holds the stack of amendments, is he suggesting there should be no amendments or is he just focused on sense-of-the-Senate amendments? Mr. ROBERTS. I think if I could further clarify that, of the 45 amendments there are about 6 deal breakers, if my conversation with the chairman is correct. Most of them are sense of Senate. And there are others that have been agreed to. But my basic premise is--and goodness knows, this new Member of the Senate is not about to say that we should change the process of the Senate. And this Member of the Senate is not about to preclude any Member from offering any amendment. The point that I am trying to make is that every amendment, every sense-of-the-Senate amendment, every deal-breaking amendment also to some degree interferes with the process and the conclusion of a balanced budget which has taken us 3 years. And I know because I have been sitting in the chair presiding, listening to the same speeches that are made today in the Chamber during morning business, and people can make them in their districts; they can make them on the steps of the Capitol; they can make them here, and that is quite proper of the Senate and is advisable. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Mr. ROBERTS. Could I have an additional minute? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator seeks an additional minute. Who yields him time? Mr. DOMENICI. How much time does the Senator desire? Mr. ROBERTS. One additional minute. Mr. DOMENICI. I yield it. Mr. ROBERTS. I find it rather untoward or awkward after talking 10 minutes and expressing concern of the time here I would go on and on about this. I think the point is well taken. I know the Senator from Missouri has a very laudable amendment in regards to something I would agree with and I would not deny him that opportunity. But can we not get on with it after 3 years? I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico. Amendment No. 311 Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me make it very clear to everyone in the Senate, first of all, I have nothing but the highest respect and admiration for both the sponsors of this amendment, the distinguished Senator from Virginia, who has worked diligently to try to create the transportation programs in the committee he serves and do it in the best interests of our whole country, and believe you me, he has had a tough job, and so has Senator Baucus in doing a great job, whether working on the committee or with transportation infrastructure. Their job is very difficult because they have to balance frequently the interests of all 50 States or those that are rural versus those that are very dense in terms of population and thus roadway needs are very different in his State or mine as compared with New Jersey, if you just take into account how much gasoline tax is taken in because we are small, with small populations, but we cannot get from one place to another without roads, so we are in a different category. And over the decades we have all worked very hard to figure out how to do that balancing act. And then it turns out when it is all finished, the House does it differently than the Senate because the Senate is represented two Senators to each State. So Senator Baucus and his co-Senator represent a very small population but they are two. In the House, they always load the bills with the heavy populated States and over here we try to do it with a little more fairness, more fair play. They have had to be referees over that. In fact, I might tell the Senators, they probably do not remember, but I was a referee on that once as a conferee, and that was pretty interesting, how we found a formula that year. I might say, in spite of these accolades, this is a very, very strange amendment, to say the least. Here we have been for all these days discussing a balanced budget, and as a matter of fact even those who would break this budget did not unbalance the budget. Or even those who had deal breakers because they would take the principal components of the budget and change them, as our leader said yesterday, pulling the wheels out from under the cart so it would break down. This amendment makes no effort to try to offset the $12 billion that they add to this budget. In other words, Mr. President and fellow Senators, this amendment is bold enough to say it just does not matter about a balanced budget. We just want to put in $12 billion more for highways. Frankly, I am sorry we do not have the money in this budget for that. But we did in fact, we did in fact increase the President's proposal by $10.4 billion. That is $10.4 billion more than the President had in mind, and we balanced the budget. We offset it somewhere or in some way reduced the amount of tax cut we were going to have in the overall sense of putting the package together. But this amendment just comes along and says, well, we just want this additional money spent on highways, and we will wait until another day to worry about the balance. Frankly, we had a very meager surplus in the year 2002. This particular amendment costs $4.5 billion in the year 2002, and that will bring us out of balance by over $2.5 billion. So I urge the Senators who want to support this amendment or this concept, they ought to come down to the floor and cut $12 billion out of this budget so it is still in balance. Then we would understand what would be hit--education and everything else we have been trying to fund. So I must say on this one the administration supports us. We were not so [[Page S4946]] sure yesterday morning, I say to my good friend from Kentucky, but they support us. They sent a letter up here saying they do not support this amendment. They support our efforts to see that it does not pass. Frankly, I would be less than honest and less than fair with the cosponsors--it is clear we are going to have to do something when the ISTEA Program comes along in the not too distant future. We are going to have to make some serious, serious adjustments. And I think those are going to happen. Perhaps the Senators will help expedite that a bit today by calling to the attention of the Senate the situation as you see it. But essentially, we have many trust funds in the United States, many trust funds. I used to know how many. But I think it is probably fair to say we have 100 trust funds. I think that is low by 50. I think we have 150. But let us just say we have 100 of them. Frankly, we do not spend every penny that comes into those trust funds every year, nor do we take them and set them out on the side and say whatever comes in goes out. We have put them in the unified budget. I am not sure--people argue on both sides of that concept. Should you break Government up into 150 pieces and then find some more pieces and have no central government running things, no unified budget, I should say. Forget who runs it, just a budget representing them all. And I have come down on the side of putting them all in and leaving them in, and if there is surpluses take credit for the surpluses. As a matter of fact, it is pretty clear that at some point we are going to have to change the way we are doing business, not perhaps spend more. But I would urge Senators not to vote for this amendment today. I will move to table it. I think it breaks the budget. It unbalances the budget. The intentions are very, very good, but this is not quite the way to do it. Now I yield to Senator Lautenberg-- Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. DOMENICI. Of course. Mr. WARNER. I thank him for the courtesy. Let's clarify a little bit just how the Senator as chairman of the Budget Committee--and certainly we commend him for the hard work he has done. What is the meaning of a trust fund? Let's be honest. You are keeping $26 billion, according to my calculation, holding it back, of the revenues paid at the gas tank, as if it were poker chips to play where you so desire elsewhere in the budget. We specifically did not put in offsets because the offset is there in a trust fund established 42 years ago with a legislative history which clearly said that it belongs to the people and should be returned to the people. That is why we did not have an offset. The offset is there in the form of the money in the highway trust fund. Shall we rename that budget deficit fund? Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, you will be writing the new ISTEA law. If you will care to rename it, it will be renamed under your direction, not under mine. But I would say, from what I can find out, this $26 billion trust fund surplus--we spend about $20 billion each year and they have done that for a long time. This $26 billion that is referred to is made up of two things: $20.6 billion of it is compounded interest, and $5.9 is committed to projects. Frankly, that does not mean we have an awful lot of money to spend. As a matter of fact, we probably do not have very much. But, from my standpoint, this trust fund balance is a very reasonable balance to keep in the fund. If at some point we can get to a better plan and do it over a period of time, you are going to find this Senator on your side. Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator yield? Mr. DOMENICI. Did Senator Lautenberg want to speak now? Mr. LAUTENBERG. I do. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time remains? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 20 minutes left; the other side has 12 minutes. Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we all deeply appreciate the amount of work the Senator from New Mexico has made to try to put this together. It is an almost impossible task. He made an interesting statement, though, that I would just like to follow up on a little bit. He turned to the Senator from Virginia a few minutes ago--if I heard you correctly; I do not want to put words in your mouth--and said something to the effect: Yes, you are right. At some future time when we take up ISTEA we are going to have to deal with deficiencies that are otherwise going to be available to be spent on the highway bill, ISTEA. If I heard him correctly, if that is what he meant, I would just like to explore with the chairman where we might find some of those additional dollars if it's not in the context of this budget resolution. Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, you did not quote me so incorrectly that I would say you didn't quote me right. But, in essence I am just expressing the notion that is pretty rampant, that outside of this budget resolution, at a later date, that in various committees we will be working on what do we do with this highway trust fund and what do we do with the new formula, where there will be a new formula. All I am suggesting is at some point that debate is going to occur, but I don't believe it should occur here on the floor of the Senate, taking $12 billion and just adding it to this budget and saying we are just going to go in the red because we have not figured out any other way. There is going to be another way to look at this situation. Mr. BAUCUS. But again I ask you, at what time, at what point would we begin to find the additional dollars that we all know we need for transportation? Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, look, the committees in the U.S. Senate are marvelous institutions, and how you work out problems that are complicated and difficult and frequently of longstanding--the Senate is historic in its wise ways of doing this. Mr. BAUCUS. I understand. Mr. DOMENICI. All I am suggesting is there is going to be a way. Mr. BAUCUS. I understand, but I bow to the mighty power of the Budget Committee, when we see the limitations that otherwise are incumbent upon us-- Mr. DOMENICI. I might suggest, I served on that committee for a long time, Senator Warner. In fact, I would have been chairman three times over with the longevity I would have if I would have been there. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we want the Senator where he is. Please stay. By the way, I volunteered three times to serve on the Budget Committee, and my name will be on there one of these days. Mr. DOMENICI. All right. Now, how much time do we have left? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 17 minutes left. Mr. DOMENICI. I wanted to yield to Senator Lautenberg, who is my ally here on the floor on this issue, and then find a little time of mine out of it to yield to the Senator from Rhode Island. Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am not going to take that much time, Mr. President. I think the chairman of the Budget Committee has fairly directly and succinctly made the arguments. The fact of the matter is that none of us are happy with the level of funding that we have for our investments in highways and our transportation needs. We are more deficient, in many ways, than countries down the Third World list. I think we rank about 55th in per capita spending for infrastructure. So, one would not disagree with the distinguished Senator from Virginia or the distinguished Senator from Montana in terms of the need, the need to correct the situation. But unfortunately, and it is unfortunate for me because I have long been an advocate of more spending on transportation in this country. I think it is common knowledge that the Senator from New Jersey has been an advocate of mass transit, of rail transportation, improving our highway system, of fixing our deficient bridges, which number in the thousands. But we have a proposal in hand that takes a priority, unfortunately, for the moment. That is, to complete the work we started on a balanced budget. We are committed to it. Believe me, this is not a place I enjoy being, because I do not agree with everything that is in the budget resolution. But I agree with it enough to say that there is a consensus that we fulfilled an obligation that we talked about to children, children's health, to the senior citizens, to try to make [[Page S4947]] Medicare solvent, to try to not further burden the impoverished in terms of Medicare, to try to take care of those who are in this country legally and become disabled. We fulfilled those obligations. The economy is moving along at a very good rate and we are still running the risk, in my view, with some of the tax cuts that have been proposed, of taking us away from the direction that we are moving in, which is to continue to reduce the budget deficit until the year 2002, when there will be none. So we have an imperfect, but pretty good, solution in front us. And, now what we are discussing, in terms of transportation--and this is like me talking against motherhood--but the transportation funds that are there are inadequate because of the structure of our budgeting structure, the budgeting arrangement that we have in our Government. The fact is that we have unified budgets. If one wants to start, as has been claimed here several times, establishing truth in budgeting, under that nomenclature I think one would have to start with Social Security. Are we prepared today to say we are going to add $70 billion to our deficit each year? We certainly are not. Yet I think, when you talk about a trust fund, there is no more sanctified trust fund than Social Security, something people paid in, they are relying on for their future, for their ability to get along. But we nevertheless still have the unified budget. That problem, I assure you, is going to get intense scrutiny over the next several years. Senator Roberts said something--I don't know whether you were here, Senator Domenici, when he said: Everybody, in order to have the budget fully understood, every Senator should be sentenced to 6 months on the Budget Committee. I thought immediately, there is a constitutional prohibition against cruel and inhuman punishment, so we could not do that, even if we wanted to. I am on the Budget Committee by a quirk of circumstance. When I came here, a fellow I had known who was a Senator said that he would do me a favor and that he would vacate his seat on the Budget Committee for me. And I will get even. The fact of the matter is, we complain and we gripe, but the money is where the policy is, the money is where the direction is. We take this assignment with a degree of relish, because we want to do the right thing. None of us want to throw the taxpayers' money away. But we are where we are. It is with reluctance that I am opposing this amendment because both Senators, Senator Warner and Senator Baucus, have been very actively involved in highway funding and highway legislation as a result of our mutual service on the Environment and Public Works Committee. But we are spending more than we did last year. We are spending more than the budget resolution of just 2 years ago. I was able, with a lot of hard work and with the support of the chairman of the committee, to get an $8.7 billion increase over the President's budget request for transportation. I had asked that transportation be included as one of the top priorities in the budget. Unfortunately it is not there. But there is a plan, that we expect to be fulfilled, to have a reserve fund that would allow significantly more funding for some of the transportation needs. But I want to point out one thing about the trust fund. That is, there is a slow payout in highway projects. I think everybody is aware of that--5, 7 years on many of these things. If we shut down the revenue source now, interest alone would not carry the obligations that are already out there. The obligation ceiling as contrasted with the contract authority are quite different things. We have these obligations that have to be fulfilled, they are there and one day must be met. The balances in the fund, I think, will start coming down with the adjustments that are expected to occur in ISTEA. We have the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee on the floor. That will be opportunity to make some of the changes that are being contemplated here. I just think it is a terrible time to say we ought to burden the budget deficit by $12 billion, roughly, right now, when everybody has worked so hard, and this budget has been scrubbed, reviewed, rewashed, rehashed--you name it. We are where we are, in a fairly delicate balance, I point out to my colleagues. There are very delicate opportunities that will, I think, upset the balance that has been achieved. So, again, I repeat myself when I say with reluctance I am going to vote against it. Mr. WARNER. Will my colleague yield for a brief question? Mr. LAUTENBERG. Sure. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator, a member of our committee, Environment and Public Works, is, according to my records, a cosponsor of a piece of legislation called ISTEA--NEXTEA. Am I not correct? Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is correct. Mr. WARNER. In that, it is interesting, there are three bills put in by Members of the Senate. I am coauthor--Senator Baucus, Senator Graham of Florida; STEP 21, Senator Baucus is 2000, you are with Senator Chafee. Mr. LAUTENBERG. Right. Mr. WARNER. ISTEA. Look into that bill. Right in there is a provision saying we want $26 billion each year, far more than what the Senator from Virginia is asking. I build up to $26 billion in the fifth year. You want it beginning this year. In other words, you are saying to the Senate, in a cosponsored piece of legislation together with the distinguished chairman of the committee, you want $26 billion. Now you stand on this floor and talk in direct opposite. That is what leaves me at a loss. So the question is, you are a cosponsor and---- Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, in response to the question, before the speech, I would say this--yes, I sponsored that legislation. My heart is in more funding for transportation, and no one here can say differently. The problem is that we are in a different point in time, and if you want to take it out of highways and say forget the children's health care bill, if you want to take it out of highways and forget the pledge we made to the senior citizens, or take it out of this bill and forget the pledge that we made to those who might be disabled, let's do it, let's talk about that. Let's talk about balancing the budget, because I know the distinguished Senator from Virginia has been a proponent of a balanced budget almost from the day the words were invented around here. So now we have a different occasion. We are not talking about transportation; we all agree that transportation is definitely underfunded. What we are talking about is at what price do we make this change, and the price is at, again, children's health or otherwise, because we are committed to balancing this budget. And this is strange talk for a fellow like me. Mr. DOMENICI. I think it is right on, and I hope you make it about five or six times in the remaining couple hours. I look forward to hearing it more times than one. Mr. President, I wonder, how much time do we have remaining? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 7 minutes; the Senator from Virginia has 10 minutes, almost 11 minutes. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, the chairman of the full Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senator Chafee. Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished manager of the bill. I rise in opposition today to the amendment offered by the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Montana. I might say, these are two Senators for whom I have tremendous respect. I have worked with them. The Senator from Virginia, I think we first started our association in 1969, and the Senator from Montana, I started working with him the first year he came to the Senate, which I think was 1978, 1979, and we have been closely associated ever since. However, this amendment, which would increase outlays for transportation spending above the levels provided in the resolution before us, I find to be inconsistent with the achievement of a balanced budget by the year 2002. The Senator from Virginia just said it went beyond the bill, the so- called NEXTEA bill that goes beyond this, and that is absolutely right, but that was before we had a target from the Budget Committee. I believe strongly in the budgetary process we have set up. I voted for it, and I support it. [[Page S4948]] I think we all can agree that the Nation's roads and bridges are in need of repair. No one argues with that. Transportation plays a critical role in our Nation's economy. We recognize that. In the United States, more than 12 million people, more than 11 percent of the gross national product, is involved in transportation. Earlier this year, I cosponsored a measure to increase, within the context of a unified budget, the level of transportation spending from the highway trust fund. I am pleased that the budget agreement, crafted by the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from New Jersey, increases the spending levels implicit in that proposal, the so- called Bond-Chafee proposal. It is $13 billion over a freeze baseline. That is pretty good. Would we like more? Sure we would. But I think it is terribly important to recognize that any proposal that boosts highway spending or transportation spending without corresponding offsets is something I personally cannot support. So, I agree with Senators Warner and Baucus that transportation spending should be increased, but not in a manner that would undermine the careful agreement reached by the Budget Committee. Do we like everything in this budget? No, but it is the best we can get. I am supporting that agreement. It seems to me we simply cannot afford to retreat from our efforts to eliminate the Federal deficit. So that, Mr. President, is the reason I cannot support this amendment that is before us today. I thank the Chair and thank the manager and thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee that deals with these matters. He has worked on them, and I know his heart is in this. As always, he argues his case with vigor and considerable force. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, might I ask a question on my time of my distinguished chairman? There are three bills pending before the Senate relating to the reauthorization of ISTEA. I mentioned that. Seventy-four colleagues have signed one of those three bills. Each one of those bills has the higher level of $26 billion. I say to my colleague, he also is a cosponsor of the Bond-Chafee/Chafee-Bond legislation. The principle that Senator Baucus and I are arguing today precisely is the Chafee- Bond bill. I ask the Senator, does he feel there is any difference in principle? Mr. CHAFEE. Yes. First of all, I am pleased to call it the Chafee- Bond proposal. Mr. WARNER. Call it what you want. Mr. CHAFEE. We call it that in Rhode Island. What the Chafee-Bond proposal does is it says that what came in in the previous year--we do not deal with the interest, we do not deal with---- Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I do not need an explanation. In principle, pay it in, take it out, isn't that right, in simple English? Mr. CHAFEE. That's right. Mr. WARNER. Fine, that's all I need to say. Mr. CHAFEE. What comes in this year goes out next year, and that principle is in this budget. Mr. WARNER. That principle is in this amendment. I thank the distinguished Senator. That is all we are asking. But it is interesting we are asking for less than what is paid in to come out, recognizing the challenge before the Budget Committee. So I say, once again, 74 colleagues have signed on to legislation. We are going to have to answer to our constituents, Mr. President, on this vote. You say one thing in sponsoring the bills, and we will see how consistent you are. I will put a letter on the desk signed by 56 Senators as to how they spoke to this. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana. Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator from Virginia yield for a few minutes? Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield all but a minute and a half, 2 minutes I have reserved. Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we heard today from both the chairman and the ranking member of the Budget Committee that we need to address this problem; the problem that there is a deficiency in highway-mass transit-infrastructure spending that must be dealt with at sometime. But they are also saying they feel constrained to say they cannot deal with it here because they feel constrained by the budget resolution, a resolution agreed to principally between the White House and the leadership. They talk about an $8 billion increase. That does not include interest. And because the country is growing, because of additional needs we have and the crumbling bridges, if this resolution is adopted, Senators should know that they will receive less in dollars than they will need for their State's infrastructure. The Senators, the chairman and ranking member, say, ``Well, we will deal with it in the future at sometime,'' acknowledging that there is a problem and we need more transportation dollars. I must remind Senators that we have a difficult problem ahead of us. When we in the Environment and Public Works Committee in the coming weeks write a bill dealing with CMAQ, dealing with formulas, donor States, donee States, so on and so forth, what do we look at? We look at the number that the Budget Committee sends to us. We are constrained by that number. We must then write a 5- or 6-year bill which locks in the spending limits that the Budget Committee prescribes for us. We are locked in for 5 or 6 years. Those lower levels cannot be changed next year by a new budget resolution, cannot be changed until or unless this Congress writes a new highway bill. I am not so sure this Congress is going to want to write a new highway bill every year. So I am saying that this is the time to deal with this problem. It is now. Otherwise, we are locked in for 6 years to inadequate numbers. We want to make an adjustment of less than one-tenth of 1 percent of our Federal budget, less than one-tenth of 1 percent of our Federal budget, which I am fully confident can be dealt with in conference. It is critical that this amendment be adopted so that we are not locked in over the next 6 years to inadequate numbers. We will be locked into these numbers if this resolution is adopted. We can make adjustments in all the other accounts and still maintain the core provisions of the bipartisan agreement. So I urge Senators to, therefore, vote for this so we can do what we know is right. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair notes 2 minutes remain for the Senator from Virginia. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, is that all the time that is remaining? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The Senator from New Mexico has 2 minutes; the Senator from Virginia has 2 minutes. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend my distinguished colleague. He, in his concluding remarks, gave the clarion call: When we cast the vote, we simply cast a vote to say to the Budget Committee, ``Go back and look for that very small fraction so we can avoid this flat green line which is correctly represented on this chart, and allow our several States to build that infrastructure necessary to compete in this world market.'' What we have left out, my distinguished colleague and myself, are pages and pages of added requests by our colleagues. I totaled over $7 billion in addition to what is to be allocated under the formulation for superb programs that are badly needed by the country: Appalachian highway system; for the Indian reservation roads; for expansion of the intelligent transportation system; for innovative financing initiatives; for new funding to meet infrastructure--on and on it goes. We want to, Senator Baucus and I together with other members of our subcommittee and full committee, try and do this, but those we haven't even discussed today. We will never get to one nickel of this unless we are given some additional flexibility. So we say, with all due respect, we are simply asking a voice mandate in support of our constituents to the Budget Committee, ``Go back and reexamine the desperate need of America for these dollars.'' I thank the Chair. I yield back all time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Mr. DOMENICI. Do I have 2 minutes and that is it? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me suggest, again, to Senators who might be listening or those who might be listening in their stead, in this budget, we [[Page S4949]] have tried to do many things. We have tried to cut taxes for the American people; we have tried to cover little children who are uninsured with $16 billion; we have tried to cover the National Institutes of Health with a 3.5-percent increase. We heard from people what America had to be doing, and, in each instance, we had to get rid of something. In fact, I have not said it yet, but the President gave up 50 percent of his initiatives in the compromise that was made, and every time we did it, we said, ``Let's balance the budget; let's balance the budget.'' We would come back and say, ``Well, we want to add this, what do we take out?'' And we would take something out. What we have here today is $12 billion as if it just flopped out of the sky; no effort to balance the budget, no effort to offset it with expenditures so we can all see where do you pick up the $12 billion that is needed for highways? Everybody understands that highways are very much needed in America, but this budget, for the first time, will permit us to spend every cent of new taxes that comes into that fund every single year. We are moving in the right direction. Every cent of new gasoline tax that goes into this fund under this budget agreement will be spent in that year that it comes in, obligated during that year. That is a giant stride in the direction that we have been asked to go by many people in our country. Frankly, every Governor in America sends a letter in. They want more money. And then some of them get up and criticize that we do not balance the budget right. The lead Governor in America, the head of the association, he wants every penny of highway funds, but this budget resolution just does not get the job done right. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). All time has expired. Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back the balance of my time, and move to table the amendment, and ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to lay on the table the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk called the roll. The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 80 Leg.] YEAS--51 Allard Bennett Biden Bond Breaux Brownback Campbell Chafee Cleland Cochran Collins Coverdell Craig D'Amato Daschle Domenici Durbin Enzi Feingold Feinstein Ford Frist Gorton Gramm Grassley Gregg Hagel Hutchison Kohl Kyl Landrieu Lautenberg Lieberman Lott Lugar Mack McCain Moseley-Braun Moynihan Murkowski Nickles Reed Roberts Rockefeller Roth Santorum Smith (NH) Smith (OR) Snowe Stevens Thompson NAYS--49 Abraham Akaka Ashcroft Baucus Bingaman Boxer Bryan Bumpers Burns Byrd Coats Conrad DeWine Dodd Dorgan Faircloth Glenn Graham Grams Harkin Hatch Helms Hollings Hutchinson Inhofe Inouye Jeffords Johnson Kempthorne Kennedy Kerrey Kerry Leahy Levin McConnell Mikulski Murray Reid Robb Sarbanes Sessions Shelby Specter Thomas Thurmond Torricelli Warner Wellstone Wyden The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 311) was agreed to. Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote. Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay it on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. WARNER. History was made with this vote, by two votes, and two votes in the House--that resonates all across this land. It is a wake- up call to all those entrusted with the responsibility of keeping America's infrastructure modernized and safe so we can compete in this one-world market. This is but the first of a series of battles that will be waged on this floor on behalf of America's transportation system. It is my privilege to be a part of that team. I thank the Chair. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes. I want to compliment those who offered the amendment for the way they have handled matters and to tell the same American people that were listening to the distinguished Senator from Virginia that there will be additional highway funding in years to come, there is no doubt about it, but it will not be done at the expense of unbalancing the budget. It will not be done at the expense of just saying we will spend some money even if the deficit goes up. I look forward to the day we do it in such a way that it is balanced and that, as a matter of fact, if we increase, we cut some things to make up for the difference so we stay in balance. Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield? Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 2 minutes to Senator Stevens. Mr. STEVENS. As chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I want to tell the Senate that those of us who are voting against some of these amendments are doing it because there is no money to fund these sense- of-the-Senate resolutions. I say to any of you that want to offer amendments that change this budget, that authorize additional funds-- show me the money. Show me where the money is when you offer amendments that change the budget plan agreed to with the President. I have discussed this with the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. We will have the obligation to allot money within the budget among 13 subcommittees. A sense-of-the-Senate resolution does not give us any more money but it gives us the problem that you have sent a message to America that there is money in this budget to do something the Senate votes for in a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. When the budget resolution, just before, was voted I asked for a chance to come to the floor again, and I ask for you to reserve some time and we will show where a commitment has been made by the Senate to fund items where there is no money. I urge the Senate to wake up. We are voting against these matters not because we are against highways or aid for children who need insurance. We are voting--the Senators from New Mexico and New Jersey have brought us a resolution. We had a budget that has been worked out with the President and we have a chance to vote for a balanced budget. I do not want to be accused of being a tightwad when we allocate the money under 602(b) of the budget act and then we do not cover the sense-of-the-Senate Resolutions. Again, if anyone is going to accuse us of being tightwads and not following the sense of the Senate, I tell you, if you vote for one of these things, you show us where the money is and we will allocate it. We will not be misled by these attempts to gain publicity and to gain some credit at home on a bill like this. This is a very serious bill. The two of us are going to have a horrendous job trying to meet our duties even within this budget, so do not give us any more of this funny money. You show me real money and I will allocate it to your function. Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield? Mr. DOMENICI. I yield. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself in considerable measure with the distinguished Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens]. We have been voting for a lot of sense-of-the-Senate resolutions. I think we had one yesterday, 99-0. We know it is not going to be paid for. On this business about infrastructure, we hear it said that there is no money. I am from a State that needs infrastructure. We say there is no money. I shall state why I supported the Warner-Baucus amendment. We do not need a tax cut in this country right now. We do not need a tax cut. I say that with respect to the Republican tax cut and with respect to the tax cut that is supported by the Administration. We do not need a tax cut. When we see what we are doing in this budget resolution with respect to cutting taxes--cutting taxes at a time when we are within reach of balancing the budget, if we were to use that money that is going for the tax cut, we would balance this budget much earlier than it is expected to be balanced now and we could also use some of that money for infrastructure. If we want to know where we [[Page S4950]] can get the money, that is where it can be found. Let's vote against the tax cut. I am going to vote against this resolution if we have the tax cut tied with it. I thank the distinguished Senator. Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New Jersey. Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield myself 2 minutes off the resolution. Mr. President, I don't like being put in the position that appears to be developing here, that I am against investment in infrastructure. I stand on my record of having fought as hard as anyone in this body to invest more money in highways, in mass transit, in rail and aviation, whatever was called for. I never met a transportation project I didn't like if it was a well-founded and well-thought-out project. But the insinuation by our distinguished friend from Virginia to caution us and to lay down the scare that we will be counted upon or we will be looked upon by the Record and by the voters, I want to say this: The Senator from Virginia took the liberty yesterday of voting against the funds for crumbling schools, against schools that are tattered and falling apart, where children can't possibly learn. That was OK to vote against. And the appeal wasn't made, and there was no threat that if you vote against this, you are committing those kids to an even more difficult assignment to try and lift themselves up. I have defended investments in transportation as chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation of the Appropriations Committee. Without fail, I have defended investing more. But the onerous comparison is that we neglected our responsibility. It is almost as if you are unpatriotic. I don't really like everything in this budget resolution. But I am committed by my constitutional responsibilities. If I take the assignment, I have to work on it. We negotiated in good faith, and I don't like some of the tax concessions we have in there. But I think middle-class people in this country are entitled to some tax relief. I think those who want to send their kids to college are entitled to some help to get them the first step up on the economic ladder. No, I don't like it all. But I have my duty to do, and I did it. It wasn't pleasant. It wasn't pleasant when I went into the Army in World War II, either, but I did it. And the insinuation that somehow or other I have deserted my responsibility is one that really offends me. We did what we thought was best, each one of us, whatever the vote was. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I was to be able to call up an amendment at this time. Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is in the order. That is true. Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, before I use any of that time, just as a matter of courtesy and parliamentary process, my distinguished colleague is also standing for recognition. If I could ask the Chair what the Senator's intent might be, we might be able to work out an arrangement. Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my intention, having talked to the ranking Member, was to seek 10 minutes for debate on the resolution. Whatever fits with the schedule of the Senator from Massachusetts will be fine with me. Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is a commitment that was made, I say to the Senator from North Dakota. But the Senator from Massachusetts did have a priority and was on record as being next in line. If an accommodation can be made between the two--if not, the Senator from Massachusetts has an opportunity to offer an amendment. Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from North Dakota be permitted to proceed for 10 minutes, and subsequently, when he completes, that I be recognized for the purposes of calling up my amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his courtesy. I wanted to speak for a couple of minutes on the resolution itself that is brought to the floor of the Senate. I want to talk just for a moment about what it is and what it is not. This piece of legislation is a budget agreement that I intend to vote for on final passage. I think a substantial amount of work has been done by the chairman of the Budget Committee, the ranking member, and many others in the House and the Senate and in the White House. They have negotiated in very difficult circumstances the terms of a budget agreement. But, as I said, I want to talk about what this is and what it is not. This is a budget agreement that provides a balanced budget of the unified budget. Is that something that has merit? Yes, it is. Is that something that moves in the right direction? Yes, it does. But it is not a balanced budget amendment that balances the budget without the use of trust funds, such as the Social Security fund. I want everybody to be clear about that. On page 4 of this budget resolution, which is on the desks of all Senators, it says ``deficit.'' On line 24, it says ``deficit'' in the year 2002, ``$108 billion.'' Why does it say that? It says that because this piece of legislation balances what is called the unified budget. Many of us believe there is another step to be taken after that. That is to balance the budget without the use of trust funds, especially without the use of Social Security trust funds. For that reason, I voted for the initiative offered yesterday by the Senator from South Carolina. It got very few votes, I might say. But he said, let us balance the budget and not do tax cuts and not do added investments at the start so that we balance the budget completely without using the trust fund, and then, as the economy strengthens and as we have extra money, let us provide for the tax cuts and let us provide for the added investments. Obviously, that proposal failed. I will vote for this budget agreement. But it is not truly a balanced budget. It moves in the direction, and it moves the right way. But it will leave this country, still, with a deficit. That must be the next step following action on this document. There are several steps here in climbing a flight of stairs to get to the point where we make real progress. One step we took in 1993. I was one who voted for the budget in 1993. I am glad I did. I said at the time it was a very controversial vote. It passed by one vote in the U.S. Senate--a budget agreement to substantially reduce the Federal budget deficit. It passed by one vote, the vote of the Vice President of the United States. Some paid a very heavy price for that vote because it was controversial. It cut spending. And, yes, it raised some taxes. But what was the result of that vote in 1993? The result was a dramatically reduced budget deficit. In that year, the unified budget deficit was close to $290 billion. Again, using the unified budget, the Congressional Budget Office now says the unified budget deficit is going to be, at the end of year, $67 billion. What has caused all of that? Well, a good economy and a 1993 budget act that a lot of people here had the courage to vote for, that passed by one vote, that says, let's put us moving in the right direction; let's move us in the right direction to substantially reduce the budget deficit. And only with that vote, and only with the progress that came from that vote, are we now able to take another very large step in moving toward a balanced budget. What was the result of that vote? It was interesting. We had people in 1993 on the floor of the Senate who said, if you cast a ``yes'' vote and pass this budget, the economy will collapse; the country will go into a recession; it means higher deficits and a higher debt; it means the economy goes into a tailspin. It passed with my vote--and, yes, the votes of some of my colleagues who decided to say to this country that we are serious, that we are going to move this country in the right direction even if the choice is painful for us to cast this vote. What happened? What happened was 4 years of sustained economic growth, inflation coming down, down, down, and down, and unemployment coming down and down for 4 years in a row. We have more people working. This country now has 12 million more people on [[Page S4951]] the payrolls that we did in 1993. We have an economy that is moving ahead, a deficit that is moving down, and inflation that is at a 30- year low. I wonder if those who predicted doom from that vote now won't join us and say, ``You did the right thing. It wasn't easy to do. But because you did it, we stand here today now able to take the next step.'' The next step is a step in which we now try to choose priorities. What do we make investments on in our country, and where do we cut real levels of spending? That is what this document is about. It is a compromise between Republicans and Democrats, between a President and Congress, that tries to establish priorities. Frankly, while it reduces spending in some areas, it cuts out entire classes of spending in others. It also increases some investment in spending in yet other areas. What are those? Education: It makes a lot of sense for us even as we attempt to move toward solving this country's fiscal problems to say that we don't solve the problems of the future by retreating on things like educating our kids. So this piece of legislation says education is a priority--more Pell grants, more Head Start, more investing in education, from young kids to college age and beyond. It says we are going to invest in education. Then it says the environment and health care. It says these areas are priorities. They are areas that make this country strong, and we will continue to invest in those areas even as we move to reconcile our books so that we are not spending more than we take in. That is why this is important, and it is why it is successful. I am pleased, frankly, after all of these years, to be on the floor of the Senate saying this is something that is bipartisan. Finally, Republicans and Democrats, rather than exerting all of their energy to fight each other and beat each other, are deciding there are ways that we can join each other and pass a piece of legislation that moves this country in the right direction. I think the American people probably think it is a pretty good thing that bipartisanship comes to the floor of the Senate in the form of this budget resolution. I started by saying I would talk about what this is and what it isn't. I am going to vote for this. It moves this country in the right direction. It preserves priorities that are important to preserve, and investment in this country's future. It represents a compromise. Many of us would have written it differently. We didn't get all we wanted. But it moves this country in the right direction while preserving the kinds of things most of us think are important as investments in our country's future. This is not a balanced budget, not truly a balanced budget. It balances something called the unified budget. But it is a major step in the right direction. I hope we will take the next step beyond this to say that, on page 4 of the next budget resolution, line 24, we will say ``zero'' in a future year. That is when we will truly have completed the job. But the choices here are not always choices we would like. The choice that we now ask ourselves is, does this move us in the right direction with respect to the things I care a great deal about--one, fiscal discipline; a more deficit reduction; investment in education, health care, the environment--things that make this country a better place? The answer, unequivocally, is yes. This moves America in the right direction. Is it an exercise between the President and Congress, between Democrats and Republicans, that will give this country some confidence that the past is over, that the reckless, the irresponsible fiscal policy of saying let's spend money we don't have on things we don't need and run up trillions and trillions of dollars of debt for our kids and our grandkids to assume? Is it a message to the American people that we are beyond that period and have moved on to a new day of bipartisanship to decide together we can plot a better course and move this country toward a brighter future? The answer to that is yes. If the past is any experience, since 1993, the vote we took then to put us on the road to balancing this budget is a proud vote and one that I am glad I cast. I will be glad I cast this vote as well, because this is the next major segment of the journey to do what the American people want us to do on their behalf and on behalf of so many children who will inherit this country. They will inherit a better country because of what we will have done in this Chamber this week. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we have under normal regular order an amount of time at this point. The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has no time. The Senator hasn't called up his amendment. Amendment No. 309 Mr. KERRY. I call up amendment No. 309. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Kohl, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Wellstone, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 309. (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of May 21, 1997.) Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I now yield to the Senator from Minnesota 4 minutes. Mr. President, before I yield let me just take 1 minute to explain. This is an amendment to hold out a possibility--I yield myself such time as I may use--to hold out the possibility that when we come back in the appropriating process, we may be able to find some money to deal with the issue of early child development. We do not spend money now. We do not trade money. We do not have an offset. We do not spend. We simply want to be able to reserve the capacity to come back at a later time to deal with this issue. I will explain why I feel that is so important, as do the other Senators j

Amendments:

Cosponsors:

Search Bills

Browse Bills

93rd (26222)
94th (23756)
95th (21548)
96th (14332)
97th (20134)
98th (19990)
99th (15984)
100th (15557)
101st (15547)
102nd (16113)
103rd (13166)
104th (11290)
105th (11312)
106th (13919)
113th (9767)
112th (15911)
111th (19293)
110th (7009)
109th (19491)
108th (15530)
107th (16380)

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET


Sponsor:

Summary:

All articles in Senate section

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET
(Senate - May 22, 1997)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S4944-S4994] CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET The Senate continued with the consideration of the concurrent resolution. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized for 10 minutes. Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Chair. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee. Mr. President, I rise in support of the overall balanced budget plan and rise expressing some reservations in regard to many of the amendments that we are considering, the pending amendments; some 45 of them, as a matter of fact. If nothing else, I wanted to pay a personal tribute in behalf of the taxpayers of Kansas and thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for his leadership, his perseverance, his patience. He has the patience of Job. I must confess, having come from the lower body, as described by Senator Byrd, and being the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I am not sure I had the patience of Senator Domenici. We now spell ``persevere'' D-o-m-e-n-i-c-i. How many hours, I ask of the chairman, if he could respond, how many days, even years, have been involved? Does he have any estimate in regard to the hours he has spent late, early--he and Chairman Kasich of the House? If he gives me an estimate, what is it? 10,000? Mr. DOMENICI. On this agreement itself, just this year, I would estimate 1,000 hours. Mr. ROBERTS. 1,000 hours. I said hours and minutes; even years. This has been the third year on this particular budget plan. This is the culmination of 3 years of hard work that the Senator from New Mexico has put in, all members of the Budget Committee, as well as the staff. This has been a Lonesome Dove Trail ride. I hope we get through the tall grass and balanced budget with all of our body parts intact. If we do, the chairman will get most of the credit. In the last session of the Congress we had two balanced budgets. We worked very hard and very diligently. They were vetoed by the President. We even came to a Government shutdown. Nobody wants to repeat that. I understand that when you are doing a budget for the U.S. Government, you have many, many strong differences of opinion. After all, for better or worse, the Congress of the United States reflects the diversity we have in this country and the strong difference of opinions. Goodness knows, we have good diversity and strong differences of opinion. The House, the other body, just the other night stayed until 3 a.m., and, finally, by a two-vote margin, succeeded in defeating an amendment that was a deal breaker. It involved highways. As a matter of fact, it involved transportation, the very issue we are discussing on the floor at this very moment other than my comments. Two votes was the difference. Goodness knows, everybody in the House of the Representatives, everybody in the Senate cares about transportation and cares about highways and the infrastructure. We came within five votes of a deal breaker on the floor of the Senate. I think it was five votes in regard to health care for children. Who can be opposed to additional funds for health care for children? As a matter of fact, the chairman has worked very hard to provide $16 billion in regard to that goal. So we had highways, health care, and we had a situation in regard to the construction of our schools, to fix the infrastructure of the Nation's schools--$5 billion--with a $100 billion price tag, which set a very unique precedent. I don't question the intent. I don't question the purpose nor the integrity of any Senator, nor, for that matter, anyone who would like to propose an amendment or a better idea in regard to the budget. But I would suggest that the high road of humility and responsibility is not bothered by heavy traffic in this instance. Most of the amendments--I have them all here. Here is the stack, 45 of them. Most of the pending amendments right here are either sense of the Senate or they have been rejected outright as deal breakers. Sense of the Senate means it is the sense of the Senate. It has no legal standing, has no legislative standing. It is just a Senator saying this would be a good idea in terms of my intent, my purpose, what I think we ought to do. And there are a few that are agreed to that obviously will be very helpful. But here are the 45. Most of them are simply not going anywhere but raises the point. I took a little counting here. There are 8 Democrats and 11 Republicans--11 Republicans who have decided that they will take the time of the Senate, take the time of the American people, take the time of the chairman of the Budget Committee and staff and go over and repeat their priority concerns in regard to the budget. There is nothing wrong with that. I understand that. Each Senator is an island in terms of their own ideas and their own purpose and their integrity. I do not really question that but in terms of time, I mean after 3 years of debate, after hours and hours and hours of careful deliberation between the President and the Republican leadership and 45 pending amendments. I have my own amendments. I have my own amendments. I should have had some sense of the Senate amendments. I feel a bit left out. I thought we had a budget deal. I thought we were going to vote on it. I thought that we were going to conclude. And then during the regular appropriations process, during the regular order, if you will, of the rest of the session, why, perhaps we could address these things that I care very deeply about. Maybe we ought to have a sense-of-the-Senate resolution introduced by Senator Roberts that all wheat in Kansas should be sold at $6. That is a little facetious, to say the least, but I do have concerns about crop insurance, a child care bill I have introduced, along with a capital gains bill, capital gains and estate tax. I think capital gains should be across the board. I think estate tax should be at least $1 million. I want a sense-of-the-Senate resolution or amendment declaring that. Or maybe an amendment--I tell you what we ought to have, if the chairman would agree. I think you ought to make a unanimous consent request to consider an amendment that all Senators who offer an amendment on the budget process must be required to serve 6 months on the Budget Committee. Why not? Perhaps in the interest of time, since all of the time that is being spent by the 11 Republicans and the 8 Democrats--oh, I forgot my sense-of-the-Senate resolution on defense. I do not think we have enough money committed to our national defense with the obligations we hear from the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the administration and everything else. So add that one in Roberts' sense of the Senate. Maybe we ought to have a unanimous consent request, to save time, to get [[Page S4945]] this business done, to accept the responsibility for the budget, I could just ask unanimous consent that all amendments pending be laid on the table and considered en bloc and ask for the yeas and nays and we could get the budget deal and go home. I have not made that unanimous consent request. That would be untoward. That is the mildest word I could use for it because it would violate agreements the distinguished chairman has made with other Senators. So let me say this to all the Senators who introduced all these sense-of-the-Senate amendments, fell asleep, issued a lot of press releases back home and got a lot of credit. And I laud their intent, laud their purpose. What about breaking the deal? What about the law of unintended or intended effects? What about the responsibility of delaying the Senate and possibly delaying 3 years of work, 3 years of work to get to a balanced budget? As you can see by the tone of my remarks, perhaps my patience as a new Member of the Senate is not near the patience of Chairman Job, Chairman Job Domenici, in regard to the Budget Committee. Now, I had intended on reading the names of all the Senators, their amendments and lauding their intent in behalf of all the things that we would like to see done. As I say, I have them all here. They range from everything from highways to education to defense to making sure that we have proper tax relief across the board. I will not do that. But I would at least ask my colleagues in the Senate to consider the job and the mission and what our distinguished chairman and members of the Budget Committee have brought to the floor of the Senate. And if we could, if we could plead for a little bit of expeditious consideration, because you know what is going to happen. Time will run out and then we will engage in what the Senate calls a votearama, and the votearama is like ``Jeopardy'' or any other game you play on television. You will not even hear what the amendment is. We will just hear an amendment by X, Y, or Z, Senator X, Y, or Z and then we will vote on it and obviously that will make a good statement back home and we can consider that very serious bill, that serious legislative intent during the regular order which should have been considered that way from the first. Again, I thank the chairman so much. Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield? Mr. ROBERTS. I will be delighted to yield. Mr. ASHCROFT. I appreciate the Senator's remarks. When the Senator holds the stack of amendments, is he suggesting there should be no amendments or is he just focused on sense-of-the-Senate amendments? Mr. ROBERTS. I think if I could further clarify that, of the 45 amendments there are about 6 deal breakers, if my conversation with the chairman is correct. Most of them are sense of Senate. And there are others that have been agreed to. But my basic premise is--and goodness knows, this new Member of the Senate is not about to say that we should change the process of the Senate. And this Member of the Senate is not about to preclude any Member from offering any amendment. The point that I am trying to make is that every amendment, every sense-of-the-Senate amendment, every deal-breaking amendment also to some degree interferes with the process and the conclusion of a balanced budget which has taken us 3 years. And I know because I have been sitting in the chair presiding, listening to the same speeches that are made today in the Chamber during morning business, and people can make them in their districts; they can make them on the steps of the Capitol; they can make them here, and that is quite proper of the Senate and is advisable. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Mr. ROBERTS. Could I have an additional minute? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator seeks an additional minute. Who yields him time? Mr. DOMENICI. How much time does the Senator desire? Mr. ROBERTS. One additional minute. Mr. DOMENICI. I yield it. Mr. ROBERTS. I find it rather untoward or awkward after talking 10 minutes and expressing concern of the time here I would go on and on about this. I think the point is well taken. I know the Senator from Missouri has a very laudable amendment in regards to something I would agree with and I would not deny him that opportunity. But can we not get on with it after 3 years? I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico. Amendment No. 311 Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me make it very clear to everyone in the Senate, first of all, I have nothing but the highest respect and admiration for both the sponsors of this amendment, the distinguished Senator from Virginia, who has worked diligently to try to create the transportation programs in the committee he serves and do it in the best interests of our whole country, and believe you me, he has had a tough job, and so has Senator Baucus in doing a great job, whether working on the committee or with transportation infrastructure. Their job is very difficult because they have to balance frequently the interests of all 50 States or those that are rural versus those that are very dense in terms of population and thus roadway needs are very different in his State or mine as compared with New Jersey, if you just take into account how much gasoline tax is taken in because we are small, with small populations, but we cannot get from one place to another without roads, so we are in a different category. And over the decades we have all worked very hard to figure out how to do that balancing act. And then it turns out when it is all finished, the House does it differently than the Senate because the Senate is represented two Senators to each State. So Senator Baucus and his co-Senator represent a very small population but they are two. In the House, they always load the bills with the heavy populated States and over here we try to do it with a little more fairness, more fair play. They have had to be referees over that. In fact, I might tell the Senators, they probably do not remember, but I was a referee on that once as a conferee, and that was pretty interesting, how we found a formula that year. I might say, in spite of these accolades, this is a very, very strange amendment, to say the least. Here we have been for all these days discussing a balanced budget, and as a matter of fact even those who would break this budget did not unbalance the budget. Or even those who had deal breakers because they would take the principal components of the budget and change them, as our leader said yesterday, pulling the wheels out from under the cart so it would break down. This amendment makes no effort to try to offset the $12 billion that they add to this budget. In other words, Mr. President and fellow Senators, this amendment is bold enough to say it just does not matter about a balanced budget. We just want to put in $12 billion more for highways. Frankly, I am sorry we do not have the money in this budget for that. But we did in fact, we did in fact increase the President's proposal by $10.4 billion. That is $10.4 billion more than the President had in mind, and we balanced the budget. We offset it somewhere or in some way reduced the amount of tax cut we were going to have in the overall sense of putting the package together. But this amendment just comes along and says, well, we just want this additional money spent on highways, and we will wait until another day to worry about the balance. Frankly, we had a very meager surplus in the year 2002. This particular amendment costs $4.5 billion in the year 2002, and that will bring us out of balance by over $2.5 billion. So I urge the Senators who want to support this amendment or this concept, they ought to come down to the floor and cut $12 billion out of this budget so it is still in balance. Then we would understand what would be hit--education and everything else we have been trying to fund. So I must say on this one the administration supports us. We were not so [[Page S4946]] sure yesterday morning, I say to my good friend from Kentucky, but they support us. They sent a letter up here saying they do not support this amendment. They support our efforts to see that it does not pass. Frankly, I would be less than honest and less than fair with the cosponsors--it is clear we are going to have to do something when the ISTEA Program comes along in the not too distant future. We are going to have to make some serious, serious adjustments. And I think those are going to happen. Perhaps the Senators will help expedite that a bit today by calling to the attention of the Senate the situation as you see it. But essentially, we have many trust funds in the United States, many trust funds. I used to know how many. But I think it is probably fair to say we have 100 trust funds. I think that is low by 50. I think we have 150. But let us just say we have 100 of them. Frankly, we do not spend every penny that comes into those trust funds every year, nor do we take them and set them out on the side and say whatever comes in goes out. We have put them in the unified budget. I am not sure--people argue on both sides of that concept. Should you break Government up into 150 pieces and then find some more pieces and have no central government running things, no unified budget, I should say. Forget who runs it, just a budget representing them all. And I have come down on the side of putting them all in and leaving them in, and if there is surpluses take credit for the surpluses. As a matter of fact, it is pretty clear that at some point we are going to have to change the way we are doing business, not perhaps spend more. But I would urge Senators not to vote for this amendment today. I will move to table it. I think it breaks the budget. It unbalances the budget. The intentions are very, very good, but this is not quite the way to do it. Now I yield to Senator Lautenberg-- Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. DOMENICI. Of course. Mr. WARNER. I thank him for the courtesy. Let's clarify a little bit just how the Senator as chairman of the Budget Committee--and certainly we commend him for the hard work he has done. What is the meaning of a trust fund? Let's be honest. You are keeping $26 billion, according to my calculation, holding it back, of the revenues paid at the gas tank, as if it were poker chips to play where you so desire elsewhere in the budget. We specifically did not put in offsets because the offset is there in a trust fund established 42 years ago with a legislative history which clearly said that it belongs to the people and should be returned to the people. That is why we did not have an offset. The offset is there in the form of the money in the highway trust fund. Shall we rename that budget deficit fund? Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, you will be writing the new ISTEA law. If you will care to rename it, it will be renamed under your direction, not under mine. But I would say, from what I can find out, this $26 billion trust fund surplus--we spend about $20 billion each year and they have done that for a long time. This $26 billion that is referred to is made up of two things: $20.6 billion of it is compounded interest, and $5.9 is committed to projects. Frankly, that does not mean we have an awful lot of money to spend. As a matter of fact, we probably do not have very much. But, from my standpoint, this trust fund balance is a very reasonable balance to keep in the fund. If at some point we can get to a better plan and do it over a period of time, you are going to find this Senator on your side. Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator yield? Mr. DOMENICI. Did Senator Lautenberg want to speak now? Mr. LAUTENBERG. I do. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time remains? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 20 minutes left; the other side has 12 minutes. Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we all deeply appreciate the amount of work the Senator from New Mexico has made to try to put this together. It is an almost impossible task. He made an interesting statement, though, that I would just like to follow up on a little bit. He turned to the Senator from Virginia a few minutes ago--if I heard you correctly; I do not want to put words in your mouth--and said something to the effect: Yes, you are right. At some future time when we take up ISTEA we are going to have to deal with deficiencies that are otherwise going to be available to be spent on the highway bill, ISTEA. If I heard him correctly, if that is what he meant, I would just like to explore with the chairman where we might find some of those additional dollars if it's not in the context of this budget resolution. Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, you did not quote me so incorrectly that I would say you didn't quote me right. But, in essence I am just expressing the notion that is pretty rampant, that outside of this budget resolution, at a later date, that in various committees we will be working on what do we do with this highway trust fund and what do we do with the new formula, where there will be a new formula. All I am suggesting is at some point that debate is going to occur, but I don't believe it should occur here on the floor of the Senate, taking $12 billion and just adding it to this budget and saying we are just going to go in the red because we have not figured out any other way. There is going to be another way to look at this situation. Mr. BAUCUS. But again I ask you, at what time, at what point would we begin to find the additional dollars that we all know we need for transportation? Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, look, the committees in the U.S. Senate are marvelous institutions, and how you work out problems that are complicated and difficult and frequently of longstanding--the Senate is historic in its wise ways of doing this. Mr. BAUCUS. I understand. Mr. DOMENICI. All I am suggesting is there is going to be a way. Mr. BAUCUS. I understand, but I bow to the mighty power of the Budget Committee, when we see the limitations that otherwise are incumbent upon us-- Mr. DOMENICI. I might suggest, I served on that committee for a long time, Senator Warner. In fact, I would have been chairman three times over with the longevity I would have if I would have been there. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we want the Senator where he is. Please stay. By the way, I volunteered three times to serve on the Budget Committee, and my name will be on there one of these days. Mr. DOMENICI. All right. Now, how much time do we have left? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 17 minutes left. Mr. DOMENICI. I wanted to yield to Senator Lautenberg, who is my ally here on the floor on this issue, and then find a little time of mine out of it to yield to the Senator from Rhode Island. Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am not going to take that much time, Mr. President. I think the chairman of the Budget Committee has fairly directly and succinctly made the arguments. The fact of the matter is that none of us are happy with the level of funding that we have for our investments in highways and our transportation needs. We are more deficient, in many ways, than countries down the Third World list. I think we rank about 55th in per capita spending for infrastructure. So, one would not disagree with the distinguished Senator from Virginia or the distinguished Senator from Montana in terms of the need, the need to correct the situation. But unfortunately, and it is unfortunate for me because I have long been an advocate of more spending on transportation in this country. I think it is common knowledge that the Senator from New Jersey has been an advocate of mass transit, of rail transportation, improving our highway system, of fixing our deficient bridges, which number in the thousands. But we have a proposal in hand that takes a priority, unfortunately, for the moment. That is, to complete the work we started on a balanced budget. We are committed to it. Believe me, this is not a place I enjoy being, because I do not agree with everything that is in the budget resolution. But I agree with it enough to say that there is a consensus that we fulfilled an obligation that we talked about to children, children's health, to the senior citizens, to try to make [[Page S4947]] Medicare solvent, to try to not further burden the impoverished in terms of Medicare, to try to take care of those who are in this country legally and become disabled. We fulfilled those obligations. The economy is moving along at a very good rate and we are still running the risk, in my view, with some of the tax cuts that have been proposed, of taking us away from the direction that we are moving in, which is to continue to reduce the budget deficit until the year 2002, when there will be none. So we have an imperfect, but pretty good, solution in front us. And, now what we are discussing, in terms of transportation--and this is like me talking against motherhood--but the transportation funds that are there are inadequate because of the structure of our budgeting structure, the budgeting arrangement that we have in our Government. The fact is that we have unified budgets. If one wants to start, as has been claimed here several times, establishing truth in budgeting, under that nomenclature I think one would have to start with Social Security. Are we prepared today to say we are going to add $70 billion to our deficit each year? We certainly are not. Yet I think, when you talk about a trust fund, there is no more sanctified trust fund than Social Security, something people paid in, they are relying on for their future, for their ability to get along. But we nevertheless still have the unified budget. That problem, I assure you, is going to get intense scrutiny over the next several years. Senator Roberts said something--I don't know whether you were here, Senator Domenici, when he said: Everybody, in order to have the budget fully understood, every Senator should be sentenced to 6 months on the Budget Committee. I thought immediately, there is a constitutional prohibition against cruel and inhuman punishment, so we could not do that, even if we wanted to. I am on the Budget Committee by a quirk of circumstance. When I came here, a fellow I had known who was a Senator said that he would do me a favor and that he would vacate his seat on the Budget Committee for me. And I will get even. The fact of the matter is, we complain and we gripe, but the money is where the policy is, the money is where the direction is. We take this assignment with a degree of relish, because we want to do the right thing. None of us want to throw the taxpayers' money away. But we are where we are. It is with reluctance that I am opposing this amendment because both Senators, Senator Warner and Senator Baucus, have been very actively involved in highway funding and highway legislation as a result of our mutual service on the Environment and Public Works Committee. But we are spending more than we did last year. We are spending more than the budget resolution of just 2 years ago. I was able, with a lot of hard work and with the support of the chairman of the committee, to get an $8.7 billion increase over the President's budget request for transportation. I had asked that transportation be included as one of the top priorities in the budget. Unfortunately it is not there. But there is a plan, that we expect to be fulfilled, to have a reserve fund that would allow significantly more funding for some of the transportation needs. But I want to point out one thing about the trust fund. That is, there is a slow payout in highway projects. I think everybody is aware of that--5, 7 years on many of these things. If we shut down the revenue source now, interest alone would not carry the obligations that are already out there. The obligation ceiling as contrasted with the contract authority are quite different things. We have these obligations that have to be fulfilled, they are there and one day must be met. The balances in the fund, I think, will start coming down with the adjustments that are expected to occur in ISTEA. We have the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee on the floor. That will be opportunity to make some of the changes that are being contemplated here. I just think it is a terrible time to say we ought to burden the budget deficit by $12 billion, roughly, right now, when everybody has worked so hard, and this budget has been scrubbed, reviewed, rewashed, rehashed--you name it. We are where we are, in a fairly delicate balance, I point out to my colleagues. There are very delicate opportunities that will, I think, upset the balance that has been achieved. So, again, I repeat myself when I say with reluctance I am going to vote against it. Mr. WARNER. Will my colleague yield for a brief question? Mr. LAUTENBERG. Sure. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator, a member of our committee, Environment and Public Works, is, according to my records, a cosponsor of a piece of legislation called ISTEA--NEXTEA. Am I not correct? Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is correct. Mr. WARNER. In that, it is interesting, there are three bills put in by Members of the Senate. I am coauthor--Senator Baucus, Senator Graham of Florida; STEP 21, Senator Baucus is 2000, you are with Senator Chafee. Mr. LAUTENBERG. Right. Mr. WARNER. ISTEA. Look into that bill. Right in there is a provision saying we want $26 billion each year, far more than what the Senator from Virginia is asking. I build up to $26 billion in the fifth year. You want it beginning this year. In other words, you are saying to the Senate, in a cosponsored piece of legislation together with the distinguished chairman of the committee, you want $26 billion. Now you stand on this floor and talk in direct opposite. That is what leaves me at a loss. So the question is, you are a cosponsor and---- Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, in response to the question, before the speech, I would say this--yes, I sponsored that legislation. My heart is in more funding for transportation, and no one here can say differently. The problem is that we are in a different point in time, and if you want to take it out of highways and say forget the children's health care bill, if you want to take it out of highways and forget the pledge we made to the senior citizens, or take it out of this bill and forget the pledge that we made to those who might be disabled, let's do it, let's talk about that. Let's talk about balancing the budget, because I know the distinguished Senator from Virginia has been a proponent of a balanced budget almost from the day the words were invented around here. So now we have a different occasion. We are not talking about transportation; we all agree that transportation is definitely underfunded. What we are talking about is at what price do we make this change, and the price is at, again, children's health or otherwise, because we are committed to balancing this budget. And this is strange talk for a fellow like me. Mr. DOMENICI. I think it is right on, and I hope you make it about five or six times in the remaining couple hours. I look forward to hearing it more times than one. Mr. President, I wonder, how much time do we have remaining? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 7 minutes; the Senator from Virginia has 10 minutes, almost 11 minutes. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, the chairman of the full Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senator Chafee. Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished manager of the bill. I rise in opposition today to the amendment offered by the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Montana. I might say, these are two Senators for whom I have tremendous respect. I have worked with them. The Senator from Virginia, I think we first started our association in 1969, and the Senator from Montana, I started working with him the first year he came to the Senate, which I think was 1978, 1979, and we have been closely associated ever since. However, this amendment, which would increase outlays for transportation spending above the levels provided in the resolution before us, I find to be inconsistent with the achievement of a balanced budget by the year 2002. The Senator from Virginia just said it went beyond the bill, the so- called NEXTEA bill that goes beyond this, and that is absolutely right, but that was before we had a target from the Budget Committee. I believe strongly in the budgetary process we have set up. I voted for it, and I support it. [[Page S4948]] I think we all can agree that the Nation's roads and bridges are in need of repair. No one argues with that. Transportation plays a critical role in our Nation's economy. We recognize that. In the United States, more than 12 million people, more than 11 percent of the gross national product, is involved in transportation. Earlier this year, I cosponsored a measure to increase, within the context of a unified budget, the level of transportation spending from the highway trust fund. I am pleased that the budget agreement, crafted by the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from New Jersey, increases the spending levels implicit in that proposal, the so- called Bond-Chafee proposal. It is $13 billion over a freeze baseline. That is pretty good. Would we like more? Sure we would. But I think it is terribly important to recognize that any proposal that boosts highway spending or transportation spending without corresponding offsets is something I personally cannot support. So, I agree with Senators Warner and Baucus that transportation spending should be increased, but not in a manner that would undermine the careful agreement reached by the Budget Committee. Do we like everything in this budget? No, but it is the best we can get. I am supporting that agreement. It seems to me we simply cannot afford to retreat from our efforts to eliminate the Federal deficit. So that, Mr. President, is the reason I cannot support this amendment that is before us today. I thank the Chair and thank the manager and thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee that deals with these matters. He has worked on them, and I know his heart is in this. As always, he argues his case with vigor and considerable force. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, might I ask a question on my time of my distinguished chairman? There are three bills pending before the Senate relating to the reauthorization of ISTEA. I mentioned that. Seventy-four colleagues have signed one of those three bills. Each one of those bills has the higher level of $26 billion. I say to my colleague, he also is a cosponsor of the Bond-Chafee/Chafee-Bond legislation. The principle that Senator Baucus and I are arguing today precisely is the Chafee- Bond bill. I ask the Senator, does he feel there is any difference in principle? Mr. CHAFEE. Yes. First of all, I am pleased to call it the Chafee- Bond proposal. Mr. WARNER. Call it what you want. Mr. CHAFEE. We call it that in Rhode Island. What the Chafee-Bond proposal does is it says that what came in in the previous year--we do not deal with the interest, we do not deal with---- Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I do not need an explanation. In principle, pay it in, take it out, isn't that right, in simple English? Mr. CHAFEE. That's right. Mr. WARNER. Fine, that's all I need to say. Mr. CHAFEE. What comes in this year goes out next year, and that principle is in this budget. Mr. WARNER. That principle is in this amendment. I thank the distinguished Senator. That is all we are asking. But it is interesting we are asking for less than what is paid in to come out, recognizing the challenge before the Budget Committee. So I say, once again, 74 colleagues have signed on to legislation. We are going to have to answer to our constituents, Mr. President, on this vote. You say one thing in sponsoring the bills, and we will see how consistent you are. I will put a letter on the desk signed by 56 Senators as to how they spoke to this. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana. Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator from Virginia yield for a few minutes? Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield all but a minute and a half, 2 minutes I have reserved. Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we heard today from both the chairman and the ranking member of the Budget Committee that we need to address this problem; the problem that there is a deficiency in highway-mass transit-infrastructure spending that must be dealt with at sometime. But they are also saying they feel constrained to say they cannot deal with it here because they feel constrained by the budget resolution, a resolution agreed to principally between the White House and the leadership. They talk about an $8 billion increase. That does not include interest. And because the country is growing, because of additional needs we have and the crumbling bridges, if this resolution is adopted, Senators should know that they will receive less in dollars than they will need for their State's infrastructure. The Senators, the chairman and ranking member, say, ``Well, we will deal with it in the future at sometime,'' acknowledging that there is a problem and we need more transportation dollars. I must remind Senators that we have a difficult problem ahead of us. When we in the Environment and Public Works Committee in the coming weeks write a bill dealing with CMAQ, dealing with formulas, donor States, donee States, so on and so forth, what do we look at? We look at the number that the Budget Committee sends to us. We are constrained by that number. We must then write a 5- or 6-year bill which locks in the spending limits that the Budget Committee prescribes for us. We are locked in for 5 or 6 years. Those lower levels cannot be changed next year by a new budget resolution, cannot be changed until or unless this Congress writes a new highway bill. I am not so sure this Congress is going to want to write a new highway bill every year. So I am saying that this is the time to deal with this problem. It is now. Otherwise, we are locked in for 6 years to inadequate numbers. We want to make an adjustment of less than one-tenth of 1 percent of our Federal budget, less than one-tenth of 1 percent of our Federal budget, which I am fully confident can be dealt with in conference. It is critical that this amendment be adopted so that we are not locked in over the next 6 years to inadequate numbers. We will be locked into these numbers if this resolution is adopted. We can make adjustments in all the other accounts and still maintain the core provisions of the bipartisan agreement. So I urge Senators to, therefore, vote for this so we can do what we know is right. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair notes 2 minutes remain for the Senator from Virginia. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, is that all the time that is remaining? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The Senator from New Mexico has 2 minutes; the Senator from Virginia has 2 minutes. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend my distinguished colleague. He, in his concluding remarks, gave the clarion call: When we cast the vote, we simply cast a vote to say to the Budget Committee, ``Go back and look for that very small fraction so we can avoid this flat green line which is correctly represented on this chart, and allow our several States to build that infrastructure necessary to compete in this world market.'' What we have left out, my distinguished colleague and myself, are pages and pages of added requests by our colleagues. I totaled over $7 billion in addition to what is to be allocated under the formulation for superb programs that are badly needed by the country: Appalachian highway system; for the Indian reservation roads; for expansion of the intelligent transportation system; for innovative financing initiatives; for new funding to meet infrastructure--on and on it goes. We want to, Senator Baucus and I together with other members of our subcommittee and full committee, try and do this, but those we haven't even discussed today. We will never get to one nickel of this unless we are given some additional flexibility. So we say, with all due respect, we are simply asking a voice mandate in support of our constituents to the Budget Committee, ``Go back and reexamine the desperate need of America for these dollars.'' I thank the Chair. I yield back all time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Mr. DOMENICI. Do I have 2 minutes and that is it? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me suggest, again, to Senators who might be listening or those who might be listening in their stead, in this budget, we [[Page S4949]] have tried to do many things. We have tried to cut taxes for the American people; we have tried to cover little children who are uninsured with $16 billion; we have tried to cover the National Institutes of Health with a 3.5-percent increase. We heard from people what America had to be doing, and, in each instance, we had to get rid of something. In fact, I have not said it yet, but the President gave up 50 percent of his initiatives in the compromise that was made, and every time we did it, we said, ``Let's balance the budget; let's balance the budget.'' We would come back and say, ``Well, we want to add this, what do we take out?'' And we would take something out. What we have here today is $12 billion as if it just flopped out of the sky; no effort to balance the budget, no effort to offset it with expenditures so we can all see where do you pick up the $12 billion that is needed for highways? Everybody understands that highways are very much needed in America, but this budget, for the first time, will permit us to spend every cent of new taxes that comes into that fund every single year. We are moving in the right direction. Every cent of new gasoline tax that goes into this fund under this budget agreement will be spent in that year that it comes in, obligated during that year. That is a giant stride in the direction that we have been asked to go by many people in our country. Frankly, every Governor in America sends a letter in. They want more money. And then some of them get up and criticize that we do not balance the budget right. The lead Governor in America, the head of the association, he wants every penny of highway funds, but this budget resolution just does not get the job done right. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). All time has expired. Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back the balance of my time, and move to table the amendment, and ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to lay on the table the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk called the roll. The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 80 Leg.] YEAS--51 Allard Bennett Biden Bond Breaux Brownback Campbell Chafee Cleland Cochran Collins Coverdell Craig D'Amato Daschle Domenici Durbin Enzi Feingold Feinstein Ford Frist Gorton Gramm Grassley Gregg Hagel Hutchison Kohl Kyl Landrieu Lautenberg Lieberman Lott Lugar Mack McCain Moseley-Braun Moynihan Murkowski Nickles Reed Roberts Rockefeller Roth Santorum Smith (NH) Smith (OR) Snowe Stevens Thompson NAYS--49 Abraham Akaka Ashcroft Baucus Bingaman Boxer Bryan Bumpers Burns Byrd Coats Conrad DeWine Dodd Dorgan Faircloth Glenn Graham Grams Harkin Hatch Helms Hollings Hutchinson Inhofe Inouye Jeffords Johnson Kempthorne Kennedy Kerrey Kerry Leahy Levin McConnell Mikulski Murray Reid Robb Sarbanes Sessions Shelby Specter Thomas Thurmond Torricelli Warner Wellstone Wyden The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 311) was agreed to. Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote. Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay it on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. WARNER. History was made with this vote, by two votes, and two votes in the House--that resonates all across this land. It is a wake- up call to all those entrusted with the responsibility of keeping America's infrastructure modernized and safe so we can compete in this one-world market. This is but the first of a series of battles that will be waged on this floor on behalf of America's transportation system. It is my privilege to be a part of that team. I thank the Chair. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes. I want to compliment those who offered the amendment for the way they have handled matters and to tell the same American people that were listening to the distinguished Senator from Virginia that there will be additional highway funding in years to come, there is no doubt about it, but it will not be done at the expense of unbalancing the budget. It will not be done at the expense of just saying we will spend some money even if the deficit goes up. I look forward to the day we do it in such a way that it is balanced and that, as a matter of fact, if we increase, we cut some things to make up for the difference so we stay in balance. Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield? Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 2 minutes to Senator Stevens. Mr. STEVENS. As chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I want to tell the Senate that those of us who are voting against some of these amendments are doing it because there is no money to fund these sense- of-the-Senate resolutions. I say to any of you that want to offer amendments that change this budget, that authorize additional funds-- show me the money. Show me where the money is when you offer amendments that change the budget plan agreed to with the President. I have discussed this with the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. We will have the obligation to allot money within the budget among 13 subcommittees. A sense-of-the-Senate resolution does not give us any more money but it gives us the problem that you have sent a message to America that there is money in this budget to do something the Senate votes for in a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. When the budget resolution, just before, was voted I asked for a chance to come to the floor again, and I ask for you to reserve some time and we will show where a commitment has been made by the Senate to fund items where there is no money. I urge the Senate to wake up. We are voting against these matters not because we are against highways or aid for children who need insurance. We are voting--the Senators from New Mexico and New Jersey have brought us a resolution. We had a budget that has been worked out with the President and we have a chance to vote for a balanced budget. I do not want to be accused of being a tightwad when we allocate the money under 602(b) of the budget act and then we do not cover the sense-of-the-Senate Resolutions. Again, if anyone is going to accuse us of being tightwads and not following the sense of the Senate, I tell you, if you vote for one of these things, you show us where the money is and we will allocate it. We will not be misled by these attempts to gain publicity and to gain some credit at home on a bill like this. This is a very serious bill. The two of us are going to have a horrendous job trying to meet our duties even within this budget, so do not give us any more of this funny money. You show me real money and I will allocate it to your function. Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield? Mr. DOMENICI. I yield. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself in considerable measure with the distinguished Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens]. We have been voting for a lot of sense-of-the-Senate resolutions. I think we had one yesterday, 99-0. We know it is not going to be paid for. On this business about infrastructure, we hear it said that there is no money. I am from a State that needs infrastructure. We say there is no money. I shall state why I supported the Warner-Baucus amendment. We do not need a tax cut in this country right now. We do not need a tax cut. I say that with respect to the Republican tax cut and with respect to the tax cut that is supported by the Administration. We do not need a tax cut. When we see what we are doing in this budget resolution with respect to cutting taxes--cutting taxes at a time when we are within reach of balancing the budget, if we were to use that money that is going for the tax cut, we would balance this budget much earlier than it is expected to be balanced now and we could also use some of that money for infrastructure. If we want to know where we [[Page S4950]] can get the money, that is where it can be found. Let's vote against the tax cut. I am going to vote against this resolution if we have the tax cut tied with it. I thank the distinguished Senator. Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New Jersey. Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield myself 2 minutes off the resolution. Mr. President, I don't like being put in the position that appears to be developing here, that I am against investment in infrastructure. I stand on my record of having fought as hard as anyone in this body to invest more money in highways, in mass transit, in rail and aviation, whatever was called for. I never met a transportation project I didn't like if it was a well-founded and well-thought-out project. But the insinuation by our distinguished friend from Virginia to caution us and to lay down the scare that we will be counted upon or we will be looked upon by the Record and by the voters, I want to say this: The Senator from Virginia took the liberty yesterday of voting against the funds for crumbling schools, against schools that are tattered and falling apart, where children can't possibly learn. That was OK to vote against. And the appeal wasn't made, and there was no threat that if you vote against this, you are committing those kids to an even more difficult assignment to try and lift themselves up. I have defended investments in transportation as chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation of the Appropriations Committee. Without fail, I have defended investing more. But the onerous comparison is that we neglected our responsibility. It is almost as if you are unpatriotic. I don't really like everything in this budget resolution. But I am committed by my constitutional responsibilities. If I take the assignment, I have to work on it. We negotiated in good faith, and I don't like some of the tax concessions we have in there. But I think middle-class people in this country are entitled to some tax relief. I think those who want to send their kids to college are entitled to some help to get them the first step up on the economic ladder. No, I don't like it all. But I have my duty to do, and I did it. It wasn't pleasant. It wasn't pleasant when I went into the Army in World War II, either, but I did it. And the insinuation that somehow or other I have deserted my responsibility is one that really offends me. We did what we thought was best, each one of us, whatever the vote was. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I was to be able to call up an amendment at this time. Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is in the order. That is true. Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, before I use any of that time, just as a matter of courtesy and parliamentary process, my distinguished colleague is also standing for recognition. If I could ask the Chair what the Senator's intent might be, we might be able to work out an arrangement. Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my intention, having talked to the ranking Member, was to seek 10 minutes for debate on the resolution. Whatever fits with the schedule of the Senator from Massachusetts will be fine with me. Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is a commitment that was made, I say to the Senator from North Dakota. But the Senator from Massachusetts did have a priority and was on record as being next in line. If an accommodation can be made between the two--if not, the Senator from Massachusetts has an opportunity to offer an amendment. Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from North Dakota be permitted to proceed for 10 minutes, and subsequently, when he completes, that I be recognized for the purposes of calling up my amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his courtesy. I wanted to speak for a couple of minutes on the resolution itself that is brought to the floor of the Senate. I want to talk just for a moment about what it is and what it is not. This piece of legislation is a budget agreement that I intend to vote for on final passage. I think a substantial amount of work has been done by the chairman of the Budget Committee, the ranking member, and many others in the House and the Senate and in the White House. They have negotiated in very difficult circumstances the terms of a budget agreement. But, as I said, I want to talk about what this is and what it is not. This is a budget agreement that provides a balanced budget of the unified budget. Is that something that has merit? Yes, it is. Is that something that moves in the right direction? Yes, it does. But it is not a balanced budget amendment that balances the budget without the use of trust funds, such as the Social Security fund. I want everybody to be clear about that. On page 4 of this budget resolution, which is on the desks of all Senators, it says ``deficit.'' On line 24, it says ``deficit'' in the year 2002, ``$108 billion.'' Why does it say that? It says that because this piece of legislation balances what is called the unified budget. Many of us believe there is another step to be taken after that. That is to balance the budget without the use of trust funds, especially without the use of Social Security trust funds. For that reason, I voted for the initiative offered yesterday by the Senator from South Carolina. It got very few votes, I might say. But he said, let us balance the budget and not do tax cuts and not do added investments at the start so that we balance the budget completely without using the trust fund, and then, as the economy strengthens and as we have extra money, let us provide for the tax cuts and let us provide for the added investments. Obviously, that proposal failed. I will vote for this budget agreement. But it is not truly a balanced budget. It moves in the direction, and it moves the right way. But it will leave this country, still, with a deficit. That must be the next step following action on this document. There are several steps here in climbing a flight of stairs to get to the point where we make real progress. One step we took in 1993. I was one who voted for the budget in 1993. I am glad I did. I said at the time it was a very controversial vote. It passed by one vote in the U.S. Senate--a budget agreement to substantially reduce the Federal budget deficit. It passed by one vote, the vote of the Vice President of the United States. Some paid a very heavy price for that vote because it was controversial. It cut spending. And, yes, it raised some taxes. But what was the result of that vote in 1993? The result was a dramatically reduced budget deficit. In that year, the unified budget deficit was close to $290 billion. Again, using the unified budget, the Congressional Budget Office now says the unified budget deficit is going to be, at the end of year, $67 billion. What has caused all of that? Well, a good economy and a 1993 budget act that a lot of people here had the courage to vote for, that passed by one vote, that says, let's put us moving in the right direction; let's move us in the right direction to substantially reduce the budget deficit. And only with that vote, and only with the progress that came from that vote, are we now able to take another very large step in moving toward a balanced budget. What was the result of that vote? It was interesting. We had people in 1993 on the floor of the Senate who said, if you cast a ``yes'' vote and pass this budget, the economy will collapse; the country will go into a recession; it means higher deficits and a higher debt; it means the economy goes into a tailspin. It passed with my vote--and, yes, the votes of some of my colleagues who decided to say to this country that we are serious, that we are going to move this country in the right direction even if the choice is painful for us to cast this vote. What happened? What happened was 4 years of sustained economic growth, inflation coming down, down, down, and down, and unemployment coming down and down for 4 years in a row. We have more people working. This country now has 12 million more people on [[Page S4951]] the payrolls that we did in 1993. We have an economy that is moving ahead, a deficit that is moving down, and inflation that is at a 30- year low. I wonder if those who predicted doom from that vote now won't join us and say, ``You did the right thing. It wasn't easy to do. But because you did it, we stand here today now able to take the next step.'' The next step is a step in which we now try to choose priorities. What do we make investments on in our country, and where do we cut real levels of spending? That is what this document is about. It is a compromise between Republicans and Democrats, between a President and Congress, that tries to establish priorities. Frankly, while it reduces spending in some areas, it cuts out entire classes of spending in others. It also increases some investment in spending in yet other areas. What are those? Education: It makes a lot of sense for us even as we attempt to move toward solving this country's fiscal problems to say that we don't solve the problems of the future by retreating on things like educating our kids. So this piece of legislation says education is a priority--more Pell grants, more Head Start, more investing in education, from young kids to college age and beyond. It says we are going to invest in education. Then it says the environment and health care. It says these areas are priorities. They are areas that make this country strong, and we will continue to invest in those areas even as we move to reconcile our books so that we are not spending more than we take in. That is why this is important, and it is why it is successful. I am pleased, frankly, after all of these years, to be on the floor of the Senate saying this is something that is bipartisan. Finally, Republicans and Democrats, rather than exerting all of their energy to fight each other and beat each other, are deciding there are ways that we can join each other and pass a piece of legislation that moves this country in the right direction. I think the American people probably think it is a pretty good thing that bipartisanship comes to the floor of the Senate in the form of this budget resolution. I started by saying I would talk about what this is and what it isn't. I am going to vote for this. It moves this country in the right direction. It preserves priorities that are important to preserve, and investment in this country's future. It represents a compromise. Many of us would have written it differently. We didn't get all we wanted. But it moves this country in the right direction while preserving the kinds of things most of us think are important as investments in our country's future. This is not a balanced budget, not truly a balanced budget. It balances something called the unified budget. But it is a major step in the right direction. I hope we will take the next step beyond this to say that, on page 4 of the next budget resolution, line 24, we will say ``zero'' in a future year. That is when we will truly have completed the job. But the choices here are not always choices we would like. The choice that we now ask ourselves is, does this move us in the right direction with respect to the things I care a great deal about--one, fiscal discipline; a more deficit reduction; investment in education, health care, the environment--things that make this country a better place? The answer, unequivocally, is yes. This moves America in the right direction. Is it an exercise between the President and Congress, between Democrats and Republicans, that will give this country some confidence that the past is over, that the reckless, the irresponsible fiscal policy of saying let's spend money we don't have on things we don't need and run up trillions and trillions of dollars of debt for our kids and our grandkids to assume? Is it a message to the American people that we are beyond that period and have moved on to a new day of bipartisanship to decide together we can plot a better course and move this country toward a brighter future? The answer to that is yes. If the past is any experience, since 1993, the vote we took then to put us on the road to balancing this budget is a proud vote and one that I am glad I cast. I will be glad I cast this vote as well, because this is the next major segment of the journey to do what the American people want us to do on their behalf and on behalf of so many children who will inherit this country. They will inherit a better country because of what we will have done in this Chamber this week. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we have under normal regular order an amount of time at this point. The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has no time. The Senator hasn't called up his amendment. Amendment No. 309 Mr. KERRY. I call up amendment No. 309. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Kohl, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Wellstone, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 309. (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of May 21, 1997.) Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I now yield to the Senator from Minnesota 4 minutes. Mr. President, before I yield let me just take 1 minute to explain. This is an amendment to hold out a possibility--I yield myself such time as I may use--to hold out the possibility that when we come back in the appropriating process, we may be able to find some money to deal with the issue of early child development. We do not spend money now. We do not trade money. We do not have an offset. We do not spend. We simply want to be able to reserve the capacity to come back at a later time to deal with this issue. I will explain why I feel that is so important, as do the other Senators joining me.

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET
(Senate - May 22, 1997)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S4944-S4994] CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET The Senate continued with the consideration of the concurrent resolution. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized for 10 minutes. Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Chair. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee. Mr. President, I rise in support of the overall balanced budget plan and rise expressing some reservations in regard to many of the amendments that we are considering, the pending amendments; some 45 of them, as a matter of fact. If nothing else, I wanted to pay a personal tribute in behalf of the taxpayers of Kansas and thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for his leadership, his perseverance, his patience. He has the patience of Job. I must confess, having come from the lower body, as described by Senator Byrd, and being the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I am not sure I had the patience of Senator Domenici. We now spell ``persevere'' D-o-m-e-n-i-c-i. How many hours, I ask of the chairman, if he could respond, how many days, even years, have been involved? Does he have any estimate in regard to the hours he has spent late, early--he and Chairman Kasich of the House? If he gives me an estimate, what is it? 10,000? Mr. DOMENICI. On this agreement itself, just this year, I would estimate 1,000 hours. Mr. ROBERTS. 1,000 hours. I said hours and minutes; even years. This has been the third year on this particular budget plan. This is the culmination of 3 years of hard work that the Senator from New Mexico has put in, all members of the Budget Committee, as well as the staff. This has been a Lonesome Dove Trail ride. I hope we get through the tall grass and balanced budget with all of our body parts intact. If we do, the chairman will get most of the credit. In the last session of the Congress we had two balanced budgets. We worked very hard and very diligently. They were vetoed by the President. We even came to a Government shutdown. Nobody wants to repeat that. I understand that when you are doing a budget for the U.S. Government, you have many, many strong differences of opinion. After all, for better or worse, the Congress of the United States reflects the diversity we have in this country and the strong difference of opinions. Goodness knows, we have good diversity and strong differences of opinion. The House, the other body, just the other night stayed until 3 a.m., and, finally, by a two-vote margin, succeeded in defeating an amendment that was a deal breaker. It involved highways. As a matter of fact, it involved transportation, the very issue we are discussing on the floor at this very moment other than my comments. Two votes was the difference. Goodness knows, everybody in the House of the Representatives, everybody in the Senate cares about transportation and cares about highways and the infrastructure. We came within five votes of a deal breaker on the floor of the Senate. I think it was five votes in regard to health care for children. Who can be opposed to additional funds for health care for children? As a matter of fact, the chairman has worked very hard to provide $16 billion in regard to that goal. So we had highways, health care, and we had a situation in regard to the construction of our schools, to fix the infrastructure of the Nation's schools--$5 billion--with a $100 billion price tag, which set a very unique precedent. I don't question the intent. I don't question the purpose nor the integrity of any Senator, nor, for that matter, anyone who would like to propose an amendment or a better idea in regard to the budget. But I would suggest that the high road of humility and responsibility is not bothered by heavy traffic in this instance. Most of the amendments--I have them all here. Here is the stack, 45 of them. Most of the pending amendments right here are either sense of the Senate or they have been rejected outright as deal breakers. Sense of the Senate means it is the sense of the Senate. It has no legal standing, has no legislative standing. It is just a Senator saying this would be a good idea in terms of my intent, my purpose, what I think we ought to do. And there are a few that are agreed to that obviously will be very helpful. But here are the 45. Most of them are simply not going anywhere but raises the point. I took a little counting here. There are 8 Democrats and 11 Republicans--11 Republicans who have decided that they will take the time of the Senate, take the time of the American people, take the time of the chairman of the Budget Committee and staff and go over and repeat their priority concerns in regard to the budget. There is nothing wrong with that. I understand that. Each Senator is an island in terms of their own ideas and their own purpose and their integrity. I do not really question that but in terms of time, I mean after 3 years of debate, after hours and hours and hours of careful deliberation between the President and the Republican leadership and 45 pending amendments. I have my own amendments. I have my own amendments. I should have had some sense of the Senate amendments. I feel a bit left out. I thought we had a budget deal. I thought we were going to vote on it. I thought that we were going to conclude. And then during the regular appropriations process, during the regular order, if you will, of the rest of the session, why, perhaps we could address these things that I care very deeply about. Maybe we ought to have a sense-of-the-Senate resolution introduced by Senator Roberts that all wheat in Kansas should be sold at $6. That is a little facetious, to say the least, but I do have concerns about crop insurance, a child care bill I have introduced, along with a capital gains bill, capital gains and estate tax. I think capital gains should be across the board. I think estate tax should be at least $1 million. I want a sense-of-the-Senate resolution or amendment declaring that. Or maybe an amendment--I tell you what we ought to have, if the chairman would agree. I think you ought to make a unanimous consent request to consider an amendment that all Senators who offer an amendment on the budget process must be required to serve 6 months on the Budget Committee. Why not? Perhaps in the interest of time, since all of the time that is being spent by the 11 Republicans and the 8 Democrats--oh, I forgot my sense-of-the-Senate resolution on defense. I do not think we have enough money committed to our national defense with the obligations we hear from the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the administration and everything else. So add that one in Roberts' sense of the Senate. Maybe we ought to have a unanimous consent request, to save time, to get [[Page S4945]] this business done, to accept the responsibility for the budget, I could just ask unanimous consent that all amendments pending be laid on the table and considered en bloc and ask for the yeas and nays and we could get the budget deal and go home. I have not made that unanimous consent request. That would be untoward. That is the mildest word I could use for it because it would violate agreements the distinguished chairman has made with other Senators. So let me say this to all the Senators who introduced all these sense-of-the-Senate amendments, fell asleep, issued a lot of press releases back home and got a lot of credit. And I laud their intent, laud their purpose. What about breaking the deal? What about the law of unintended or intended effects? What about the responsibility of delaying the Senate and possibly delaying 3 years of work, 3 years of work to get to a balanced budget? As you can see by the tone of my remarks, perhaps my patience as a new Member of the Senate is not near the patience of Chairman Job, Chairman Job Domenici, in regard to the Budget Committee. Now, I had intended on reading the names of all the Senators, their amendments and lauding their intent in behalf of all the things that we would like to see done. As I say, I have them all here. They range from everything from highways to education to defense to making sure that we have proper tax relief across the board. I will not do that. But I would at least ask my colleagues in the Senate to consider the job and the mission and what our distinguished chairman and members of the Budget Committee have brought to the floor of the Senate. And if we could, if we could plead for a little bit of expeditious consideration, because you know what is going to happen. Time will run out and then we will engage in what the Senate calls a votearama, and the votearama is like ``Jeopardy'' or any other game you play on television. You will not even hear what the amendment is. We will just hear an amendment by X, Y, or Z, Senator X, Y, or Z and then we will vote on it and obviously that will make a good statement back home and we can consider that very serious bill, that serious legislative intent during the regular order which should have been considered that way from the first. Again, I thank the chairman so much. Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield? Mr. ROBERTS. I will be delighted to yield. Mr. ASHCROFT. I appreciate the Senator's remarks. When the Senator holds the stack of amendments, is he suggesting there should be no amendments or is he just focused on sense-of-the-Senate amendments? Mr. ROBERTS. I think if I could further clarify that, of the 45 amendments there are about 6 deal breakers, if my conversation with the chairman is correct. Most of them are sense of Senate. And there are others that have been agreed to. But my basic premise is--and goodness knows, this new Member of the Senate is not about to say that we should change the process of the Senate. And this Member of the Senate is not about to preclude any Member from offering any amendment. The point that I am trying to make is that every amendment, every sense-of-the-Senate amendment, every deal-breaking amendment also to some degree interferes with the process and the conclusion of a balanced budget which has taken us 3 years. And I know because I have been sitting in the chair presiding, listening to the same speeches that are made today in the Chamber during morning business, and people can make them in their districts; they can make them on the steps of the Capitol; they can make them here, and that is quite proper of the Senate and is advisable. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Mr. ROBERTS. Could I have an additional minute? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator seeks an additional minute. Who yields him time? Mr. DOMENICI. How much time does the Senator desire? Mr. ROBERTS. One additional minute. Mr. DOMENICI. I yield it. Mr. ROBERTS. I find it rather untoward or awkward after talking 10 minutes and expressing concern of the time here I would go on and on about this. I think the point is well taken. I know the Senator from Missouri has a very laudable amendment in regards to something I would agree with and I would not deny him that opportunity. But can we not get on with it after 3 years? I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico. Amendment No. 311 Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me make it very clear to everyone in the Senate, first of all, I have nothing but the highest respect and admiration for both the sponsors of this amendment, the distinguished Senator from Virginia, who has worked diligently to try to create the transportation programs in the committee he serves and do it in the best interests of our whole country, and believe you me, he has had a tough job, and so has Senator Baucus in doing a great job, whether working on the committee or with transportation infrastructure. Their job is very difficult because they have to balance frequently the interests of all 50 States or those that are rural versus those that are very dense in terms of population and thus roadway needs are very different in his State or mine as compared with New Jersey, if you just take into account how much gasoline tax is taken in because we are small, with small populations, but we cannot get from one place to another without roads, so we are in a different category. And over the decades we have all worked very hard to figure out how to do that balancing act. And then it turns out when it is all finished, the House does it differently than the Senate because the Senate is represented two Senators to each State. So Senator Baucus and his co-Senator represent a very small population but they are two. In the House, they always load the bills with the heavy populated States and over here we try to do it with a little more fairness, more fair play. They have had to be referees over that. In fact, I might tell the Senators, they probably do not remember, but I was a referee on that once as a conferee, and that was pretty interesting, how we found a formula that year. I might say, in spite of these accolades, this is a very, very strange amendment, to say the least. Here we have been for all these days discussing a balanced budget, and as a matter of fact even those who would break this budget did not unbalance the budget. Or even those who had deal breakers because they would take the principal components of the budget and change them, as our leader said yesterday, pulling the wheels out from under the cart so it would break down. This amendment makes no effort to try to offset the $12 billion that they add to this budget. In other words, Mr. President and fellow Senators, this amendment is bold enough to say it just does not matter about a balanced budget. We just want to put in $12 billion more for highways. Frankly, I am sorry we do not have the money in this budget for that. But we did in fact, we did in fact increase the President's proposal by $10.4 billion. That is $10.4 billion more than the President had in mind, and we balanced the budget. We offset it somewhere or in some way reduced the amount of tax cut we were going to have in the overall sense of putting the package together. But this amendment just comes along and says, well, we just want this additional money spent on highways, and we will wait until another day to worry about the balance. Frankly, we had a very meager surplus in the year 2002. This particular amendment costs $4.5 billion in the year 2002, and that will bring us out of balance by over $2.5 billion. So I urge the Senators who want to support this amendment or this concept, they ought to come down to the floor and cut $12 billion out of this budget so it is still in balance. Then we would understand what would be hit--education and everything else we have been trying to fund. So I must say on this one the administration supports us. We were not so [[Page S4946]] sure yesterday morning, I say to my good friend from Kentucky, but they support us. They sent a letter up here saying they do not support this amendment. They support our efforts to see that it does not pass. Frankly, I would be less than honest and less than fair with the cosponsors--it is clear we are going to have to do something when the ISTEA Program comes along in the not too distant future. We are going to have to make some serious, serious adjustments. And I think those are going to happen. Perhaps the Senators will help expedite that a bit today by calling to the attention of the Senate the situation as you see it. But essentially, we have many trust funds in the United States, many trust funds. I used to know how many. But I think it is probably fair to say we have 100 trust funds. I think that is low by 50. I think we have 150. But let us just say we have 100 of them. Frankly, we do not spend every penny that comes into those trust funds every year, nor do we take them and set them out on the side and say whatever comes in goes out. We have put them in the unified budget. I am not sure--people argue on both sides of that concept. Should you break Government up into 150 pieces and then find some more pieces and have no central government running things, no unified budget, I should say. Forget who runs it, just a budget representing them all. And I have come down on the side of putting them all in and leaving them in, and if there is surpluses take credit for the surpluses. As a matter of fact, it is pretty clear that at some point we are going to have to change the way we are doing business, not perhaps spend more. But I would urge Senators not to vote for this amendment today. I will move to table it. I think it breaks the budget. It unbalances the budget. The intentions are very, very good, but this is not quite the way to do it. Now I yield to Senator Lautenberg-- Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. DOMENICI. Of course. Mr. WARNER. I thank him for the courtesy. Let's clarify a little bit just how the Senator as chairman of the Budget Committee--and certainly we commend him for the hard work he has done. What is the meaning of a trust fund? Let's be honest. You are keeping $26 billion, according to my calculation, holding it back, of the revenues paid at the gas tank, as if it were poker chips to play where you so desire elsewhere in the budget. We specifically did not put in offsets because the offset is there in a trust fund established 42 years ago with a legislative history which clearly said that it belongs to the people and should be returned to the people. That is why we did not have an offset. The offset is there in the form of the money in the highway trust fund. Shall we rename that budget deficit fund? Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, you will be writing the new ISTEA law. If you will care to rename it, it will be renamed under your direction, not under mine. But I would say, from what I can find out, this $26 billion trust fund surplus--we spend about $20 billion each year and they have done that for a long time. This $26 billion that is referred to is made up of two things: $20.6 billion of it is compounded interest, and $5.9 is committed to projects. Frankly, that does not mean we have an awful lot of money to spend. As a matter of fact, we probably do not have very much. But, from my standpoint, this trust fund balance is a very reasonable balance to keep in the fund. If at some point we can get to a better plan and do it over a period of time, you are going to find this Senator on your side. Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator yield? Mr. DOMENICI. Did Senator Lautenberg want to speak now? Mr. LAUTENBERG. I do. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time remains? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 20 minutes left; the other side has 12 minutes. Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we all deeply appreciate the amount of work the Senator from New Mexico has made to try to put this together. It is an almost impossible task. He made an interesting statement, though, that I would just like to follow up on a little bit. He turned to the Senator from Virginia a few minutes ago--if I heard you correctly; I do not want to put words in your mouth--and said something to the effect: Yes, you are right. At some future time when we take up ISTEA we are going to have to deal with deficiencies that are otherwise going to be available to be spent on the highway bill, ISTEA. If I heard him correctly, if that is what he meant, I would just like to explore with the chairman where we might find some of those additional dollars if it's not in the context of this budget resolution. Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, you did not quote me so incorrectly that I would say you didn't quote me right. But, in essence I am just expressing the notion that is pretty rampant, that outside of this budget resolution, at a later date, that in various committees we will be working on what do we do with this highway trust fund and what do we do with the new formula, where there will be a new formula. All I am suggesting is at some point that debate is going to occur, but I don't believe it should occur here on the floor of the Senate, taking $12 billion and just adding it to this budget and saying we are just going to go in the red because we have not figured out any other way. There is going to be another way to look at this situation. Mr. BAUCUS. But again I ask you, at what time, at what point would we begin to find the additional dollars that we all know we need for transportation? Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, look, the committees in the U.S. Senate are marvelous institutions, and how you work out problems that are complicated and difficult and frequently of longstanding--the Senate is historic in its wise ways of doing this. Mr. BAUCUS. I understand. Mr. DOMENICI. All I am suggesting is there is going to be a way. Mr. BAUCUS. I understand, but I bow to the mighty power of the Budget Committee, when we see the limitations that otherwise are incumbent upon us-- Mr. DOMENICI. I might suggest, I served on that committee for a long time, Senator Warner. In fact, I would have been chairman three times over with the longevity I would have if I would have been there. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we want the Senator where he is. Please stay. By the way, I volunteered three times to serve on the Budget Committee, and my name will be on there one of these days. Mr. DOMENICI. All right. Now, how much time do we have left? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 17 minutes left. Mr. DOMENICI. I wanted to yield to Senator Lautenberg, who is my ally here on the floor on this issue, and then find a little time of mine out of it to yield to the Senator from Rhode Island. Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am not going to take that much time, Mr. President. I think the chairman of the Budget Committee has fairly directly and succinctly made the arguments. The fact of the matter is that none of us are happy with the level of funding that we have for our investments in highways and our transportation needs. We are more deficient, in many ways, than countries down the Third World list. I think we rank about 55th in per capita spending for infrastructure. So, one would not disagree with the distinguished Senator from Virginia or the distinguished Senator from Montana in terms of the need, the need to correct the situation. But unfortunately, and it is unfortunate for me because I have long been an advocate of more spending on transportation in this country. I think it is common knowledge that the Senator from New Jersey has been an advocate of mass transit, of rail transportation, improving our highway system, of fixing our deficient bridges, which number in the thousands. But we have a proposal in hand that takes a priority, unfortunately, for the moment. That is, to complete the work we started on a balanced budget. We are committed to it. Believe me, this is not a place I enjoy being, because I do not agree with everything that is in the budget resolution. But I agree with it enough to say that there is a consensus that we fulfilled an obligation that we talked about to children, children's health, to the senior citizens, to try to make [[Page S4947]] Medicare solvent, to try to not further burden the impoverished in terms of Medicare, to try to take care of those who are in this country legally and become disabled. We fulfilled those obligations. The economy is moving along at a very good rate and we are still running the risk, in my view, with some of the tax cuts that have been proposed, of taking us away from the direction that we are moving in, which is to continue to reduce the budget deficit until the year 2002, when there will be none. So we have an imperfect, but pretty good, solution in front us. And, now what we are discussing, in terms of transportation--and this is like me talking against motherhood--but the transportation funds that are there are inadequate because of the structure of our budgeting structure, the budgeting arrangement that we have in our Government. The fact is that we have unified budgets. If one wants to start, as has been claimed here several times, establishing truth in budgeting, under that nomenclature I think one would have to start with Social Security. Are we prepared today to say we are going to add $70 billion to our deficit each year? We certainly are not. Yet I think, when you talk about a trust fund, there is no more sanctified trust fund than Social Security, something people paid in, they are relying on for their future, for their ability to get along. But we nevertheless still have the unified budget. That problem, I assure you, is going to get intense scrutiny over the next several years. Senator Roberts said something--I don't know whether you were here, Senator Domenici, when he said: Everybody, in order to have the budget fully understood, every Senator should be sentenced to 6 months on the Budget Committee. I thought immediately, there is a constitutional prohibition against cruel and inhuman punishment, so we could not do that, even if we wanted to. I am on the Budget Committee by a quirk of circumstance. When I came here, a fellow I had known who was a Senator said that he would do me a favor and that he would vacate his seat on the Budget Committee for me. And I will get even. The fact of the matter is, we complain and we gripe, but the money is where the policy is, the money is where the direction is. We take this assignment with a degree of relish, because we want to do the right thing. None of us want to throw the taxpayers' money away. But we are where we are. It is with reluctance that I am opposing this amendment because both Senators, Senator Warner and Senator Baucus, have been very actively involved in highway funding and highway legislation as a result of our mutual service on the Environment and Public Works Committee. But we are spending more than we did last year. We are spending more than the budget resolution of just 2 years ago. I was able, with a lot of hard work and with the support of the chairman of the committee, to get an $8.7 billion increase over the President's budget request for transportation. I had asked that transportation be included as one of the top priorities in the budget. Unfortunately it is not there. But there is a plan, that we expect to be fulfilled, to have a reserve fund that would allow significantly more funding for some of the transportation needs. But I want to point out one thing about the trust fund. That is, there is a slow payout in highway projects. I think everybody is aware of that--5, 7 years on many of these things. If we shut down the revenue source now, interest alone would not carry the obligations that are already out there. The obligation ceiling as contrasted with the contract authority are quite different things. We have these obligations that have to be fulfilled, they are there and one day must be met. The balances in the fund, I think, will start coming down with the adjustments that are expected to occur in ISTEA. We have the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee on the floor. That will be opportunity to make some of the changes that are being contemplated here. I just think it is a terrible time to say we ought to burden the budget deficit by $12 billion, roughly, right now, when everybody has worked so hard, and this budget has been scrubbed, reviewed, rewashed, rehashed--you name it. We are where we are, in a fairly delicate balance, I point out to my colleagues. There are very delicate opportunities that will, I think, upset the balance that has been achieved. So, again, I repeat myself when I say with reluctance I am going to vote against it. Mr. WARNER. Will my colleague yield for a brief question? Mr. LAUTENBERG. Sure. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator, a member of our committee, Environment and Public Works, is, according to my records, a cosponsor of a piece of legislation called ISTEA--NEXTEA. Am I not correct? Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is correct. Mr. WARNER. In that, it is interesting, there are three bills put in by Members of the Senate. I am coauthor--Senator Baucus, Senator Graham of Florida; STEP 21, Senator Baucus is 2000, you are with Senator Chafee. Mr. LAUTENBERG. Right. Mr. WARNER. ISTEA. Look into that bill. Right in there is a provision saying we want $26 billion each year, far more than what the Senator from Virginia is asking. I build up to $26 billion in the fifth year. You want it beginning this year. In other words, you are saying to the Senate, in a cosponsored piece of legislation together with the distinguished chairman of the committee, you want $26 billion. Now you stand on this floor and talk in direct opposite. That is what leaves me at a loss. So the question is, you are a cosponsor and---- Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, in response to the question, before the speech, I would say this--yes, I sponsored that legislation. My heart is in more funding for transportation, and no one here can say differently. The problem is that we are in a different point in time, and if you want to take it out of highways and say forget the children's health care bill, if you want to take it out of highways and forget the pledge we made to the senior citizens, or take it out of this bill and forget the pledge that we made to those who might be disabled, let's do it, let's talk about that. Let's talk about balancing the budget, because I know the distinguished Senator from Virginia has been a proponent of a balanced budget almost from the day the words were invented around here. So now we have a different occasion. We are not talking about transportation; we all agree that transportation is definitely underfunded. What we are talking about is at what price do we make this change, and the price is at, again, children's health or otherwise, because we are committed to balancing this budget. And this is strange talk for a fellow like me. Mr. DOMENICI. I think it is right on, and I hope you make it about five or six times in the remaining couple hours. I look forward to hearing it more times than one. Mr. President, I wonder, how much time do we have remaining? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 7 minutes; the Senator from Virginia has 10 minutes, almost 11 minutes. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, the chairman of the full Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senator Chafee. Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished manager of the bill. I rise in opposition today to the amendment offered by the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Montana. I might say, these are two Senators for whom I have tremendous respect. I have worked with them. The Senator from Virginia, I think we first started our association in 1969, and the Senator from Montana, I started working with him the first year he came to the Senate, which I think was 1978, 1979, and we have been closely associated ever since. However, this amendment, which would increase outlays for transportation spending above the levels provided in the resolution before us, I find to be inconsistent with the achievement of a balanced budget by the year 2002. The Senator from Virginia just said it went beyond the bill, the so- called NEXTEA bill that goes beyond this, and that is absolutely right, but that was before we had a target from the Budget Committee. I believe strongly in the budgetary process we have set up. I voted for it, and I support it. [[Page S4948]] I think we all can agree that the Nation's roads and bridges are in need of repair. No one argues with that. Transportation plays a critical role in our Nation's economy. We recognize that. In the United States, more than 12 million people, more than 11 percent of the gross national product, is involved in transportation. Earlier this year, I cosponsored a measure to increase, within the context of a unified budget, the level of transportation spending from the highway trust fund. I am pleased that the budget agreement, crafted by the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from New Jersey, increases the spending levels implicit in that proposal, the so- called Bond-Chafee proposal. It is $13 billion over a freeze baseline. That is pretty good. Would we like more? Sure we would. But I think it is terribly important to recognize that any proposal that boosts highway spending or transportation spending without corresponding offsets is something I personally cannot support. So, I agree with Senators Warner and Baucus that transportation spending should be increased, but not in a manner that would undermine the careful agreement reached by the Budget Committee. Do we like everything in this budget? No, but it is the best we can get. I am supporting that agreement. It seems to me we simply cannot afford to retreat from our efforts to eliminate the Federal deficit. So that, Mr. President, is the reason I cannot support this amendment that is before us today. I thank the Chair and thank the manager and thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee that deals with these matters. He has worked on them, and I know his heart is in this. As always, he argues his case with vigor and considerable force. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, might I ask a question on my time of my distinguished chairman? There are three bills pending before the Senate relating to the reauthorization of ISTEA. I mentioned that. Seventy-four colleagues have signed one of those three bills. Each one of those bills has the higher level of $26 billion. I say to my colleague, he also is a cosponsor of the Bond-Chafee/Chafee-Bond legislation. The principle that Senator Baucus and I are arguing today precisely is the Chafee- Bond bill. I ask the Senator, does he feel there is any difference in principle? Mr. CHAFEE. Yes. First of all, I am pleased to call it the Chafee- Bond proposal. Mr. WARNER. Call it what you want. Mr. CHAFEE. We call it that in Rhode Island. What the Chafee-Bond proposal does is it says that what came in in the previous year--we do not deal with the interest, we do not deal with---- Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I do not need an explanation. In principle, pay it in, take it out, isn't that right, in simple English? Mr. CHAFEE. That's right. Mr. WARNER. Fine, that's all I need to say. Mr. CHAFEE. What comes in this year goes out next year, and that principle is in this budget. Mr. WARNER. That principle is in this amendment. I thank the distinguished Senator. That is all we are asking. But it is interesting we are asking for less than what is paid in to come out, recognizing the challenge before the Budget Committee. So I say, once again, 74 colleagues have signed on to legislation. We are going to have to answer to our constituents, Mr. President, on this vote. You say one thing in sponsoring the bills, and we will see how consistent you are. I will put a letter on the desk signed by 56 Senators as to how they spoke to this. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana. Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator from Virginia yield for a few minutes? Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield all but a minute and a half, 2 minutes I have reserved. Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we heard today from both the chairman and the ranking member of the Budget Committee that we need to address this problem; the problem that there is a deficiency in highway-mass transit-infrastructure spending that must be dealt with at sometime. But they are also saying they feel constrained to say they cannot deal with it here because they feel constrained by the budget resolution, a resolution agreed to principally between the White House and the leadership. They talk about an $8 billion increase. That does not include interest. And because the country is growing, because of additional needs we have and the crumbling bridges, if this resolution is adopted, Senators should know that they will receive less in dollars than they will need for their State's infrastructure. The Senators, the chairman and ranking member, say, ``Well, we will deal with it in the future at sometime,'' acknowledging that there is a problem and we need more transportation dollars. I must remind Senators that we have a difficult problem ahead of us. When we in the Environment and Public Works Committee in the coming weeks write a bill dealing with CMAQ, dealing with formulas, donor States, donee States, so on and so forth, what do we look at? We look at the number that the Budget Committee sends to us. We are constrained by that number. We must then write a 5- or 6-year bill which locks in the spending limits that the Budget Committee prescribes for us. We are locked in for 5 or 6 years. Those lower levels cannot be changed next year by a new budget resolution, cannot be changed until or unless this Congress writes a new highway bill. I am not so sure this Congress is going to want to write a new highway bill every year. So I am saying that this is the time to deal with this problem. It is now. Otherwise, we are locked in for 6 years to inadequate numbers. We want to make an adjustment of less than one-tenth of 1 percent of our Federal budget, less than one-tenth of 1 percent of our Federal budget, which I am fully confident can be dealt with in conference. It is critical that this amendment be adopted so that we are not locked in over the next 6 years to inadequate numbers. We will be locked into these numbers if this resolution is adopted. We can make adjustments in all the other accounts and still maintain the core provisions of the bipartisan agreement. So I urge Senators to, therefore, vote for this so we can do what we know is right. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair notes 2 minutes remain for the Senator from Virginia. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, is that all the time that is remaining? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The Senator from New Mexico has 2 minutes; the Senator from Virginia has 2 minutes. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend my distinguished colleague. He, in his concluding remarks, gave the clarion call: When we cast the vote, we simply cast a vote to say to the Budget Committee, ``Go back and look for that very small fraction so we can avoid this flat green line which is correctly represented on this chart, and allow our several States to build that infrastructure necessary to compete in this world market.'' What we have left out, my distinguished colleague and myself, are pages and pages of added requests by our colleagues. I totaled over $7 billion in addition to what is to be allocated under the formulation for superb programs that are badly needed by the country: Appalachian highway system; for the Indian reservation roads; for expansion of the intelligent transportation system; for innovative financing initiatives; for new funding to meet infrastructure--on and on it goes. We want to, Senator Baucus and I together with other members of our subcommittee and full committee, try and do this, but those we haven't even discussed today. We will never get to one nickel of this unless we are given some additional flexibility. So we say, with all due respect, we are simply asking a voice mandate in support of our constituents to the Budget Committee, ``Go back and reexamine the desperate need of America for these dollars.'' I thank the Chair. I yield back all time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Mr. DOMENICI. Do I have 2 minutes and that is it? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me suggest, again, to Senators who might be listening or those who might be listening in their stead, in this budget, we [[Page S4949]] have tried to do many things. We have tried to cut taxes for the American people; we have tried to cover little children who are uninsured with $16 billion; we have tried to cover the National Institutes of Health with a 3.5-percent increase. We heard from people what America had to be doing, and, in each instance, we had to get rid of something. In fact, I have not said it yet, but the President gave up 50 percent of his initiatives in the compromise that was made, and every time we did it, we said, ``Let's balance the budget; let's balance the budget.'' We would come back and say, ``Well, we want to add this, what do we take out?'' And we would take something out. What we have here today is $12 billion as if it just flopped out of the sky; no effort to balance the budget, no effort to offset it with expenditures so we can all see where do you pick up the $12 billion that is needed for highways? Everybody understands that highways are very much needed in America, but this budget, for the first time, will permit us to spend every cent of new taxes that comes into that fund every single year. We are moving in the right direction. Every cent of new gasoline tax that goes into this fund under this budget agreement will be spent in that year that it comes in, obligated during that year. That is a giant stride in the direction that we have been asked to go by many people in our country. Frankly, every Governor in America sends a letter in. They want more money. And then some of them get up and criticize that we do not balance the budget right. The lead Governor in America, the head of the association, he wants every penny of highway funds, but this budget resolution just does not get the job done right. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). All time has expired. Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back the balance of my time, and move to table the amendment, and ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to lay on the table the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk called the roll. The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 80 Leg.] YEAS--51 Allard Bennett Biden Bond Breaux Brownback Campbell Chafee Cleland Cochran Collins Coverdell Craig D'Amato Daschle Domenici Durbin Enzi Feingold Feinstein Ford Frist Gorton Gramm Grassley Gregg Hagel Hutchison Kohl Kyl Landrieu Lautenberg Lieberman Lott Lugar Mack McCain Moseley-Braun Moynihan Murkowski Nickles Reed Roberts Rockefeller Roth Santorum Smith (NH) Smith (OR) Snowe Stevens Thompson NAYS--49 Abraham Akaka Ashcroft Baucus Bingaman Boxer Bryan Bumpers Burns Byrd Coats Conrad DeWine Dodd Dorgan Faircloth Glenn Graham Grams Harkin Hatch Helms Hollings Hutchinson Inhofe Inouye Jeffords Johnson Kempthorne Kennedy Kerrey Kerry Leahy Levin McConnell Mikulski Murray Reid Robb Sarbanes Sessions Shelby Specter Thomas Thurmond Torricelli Warner Wellstone Wyden The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 311) was agreed to. Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote. Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay it on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. WARNER. History was made with this vote, by two votes, and two votes in the House--that resonates all across this land. It is a wake- up call to all those entrusted with the responsibility of keeping America's infrastructure modernized and safe so we can compete in this one-world market. This is but the first of a series of battles that will be waged on this floor on behalf of America's transportation system. It is my privilege to be a part of that team. I thank the Chair. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes. I want to compliment those who offered the amendment for the way they have handled matters and to tell the same American people that were listening to the distinguished Senator from Virginia that there will be additional highway funding in years to come, there is no doubt about it, but it will not be done at the expense of unbalancing the budget. It will not be done at the expense of just saying we will spend some money even if the deficit goes up. I look forward to the day we do it in such a way that it is balanced and that, as a matter of fact, if we increase, we cut some things to make up for the difference so we stay in balance. Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield? Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 2 minutes to Senator Stevens. Mr. STEVENS. As chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I want to tell the Senate that those of us who are voting against some of these amendments are doing it because there is no money to fund these sense- of-the-Senate resolutions. I say to any of you that want to offer amendments that change this budget, that authorize additional funds-- show me the money. Show me where the money is when you offer amendments that change the budget plan agreed to with the President. I have discussed this with the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. We will have the obligation to allot money within the budget among 13 subcommittees. A sense-of-the-Senate resolution does not give us any more money but it gives us the problem that you have sent a message to America that there is money in this budget to do something the Senate votes for in a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. When the budget resolution, just before, was voted I asked for a chance to come to the floor again, and I ask for you to reserve some time and we will show where a commitment has been made by the Senate to fund items where there is no money. I urge the Senate to wake up. We are voting against these matters not because we are against highways or aid for children who need insurance. We are voting--the Senators from New Mexico and New Jersey have brought us a resolution. We had a budget that has been worked out with the President and we have a chance to vote for a balanced budget. I do not want to be accused of being a tightwad when we allocate the money under 602(b) of the budget act and then we do not cover the sense-of-the-Senate Resolutions. Again, if anyone is going to accuse us of being tightwads and not following the sense of the Senate, I tell you, if you vote for one of these things, you show us where the money is and we will allocate it. We will not be misled by these attempts to gain publicity and to gain some credit at home on a bill like this. This is a very serious bill. The two of us are going to have a horrendous job trying to meet our duties even within this budget, so do not give us any more of this funny money. You show me real money and I will allocate it to your function. Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield? Mr. DOMENICI. I yield. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself in considerable measure with the distinguished Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens]. We have been voting for a lot of sense-of-the-Senate resolutions. I think we had one yesterday, 99-0. We know it is not going to be paid for. On this business about infrastructure, we hear it said that there is no money. I am from a State that needs infrastructure. We say there is no money. I shall state why I supported the Warner-Baucus amendment. We do not need a tax cut in this country right now. We do not need a tax cut. I say that with respect to the Republican tax cut and with respect to the tax cut that is supported by the Administration. We do not need a tax cut. When we see what we are doing in this budget resolution with respect to cutting taxes--cutting taxes at a time when we are within reach of balancing the budget, if we were to use that money that is going for the tax cut, we would balance this budget much earlier than it is expected to be balanced now and we could also use some of that money for infrastructure. If we want to know where we [[Page S4950]] can get the money, that is where it can be found. Let's vote against the tax cut. I am going to vote against this resolution if we have the tax cut tied with it. I thank the distinguished Senator. Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New Jersey. Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield myself 2 minutes off the resolution. Mr. President, I don't like being put in the position that appears to be developing here, that I am against investment in infrastructure. I stand on my record of having fought as hard as anyone in this body to invest more money in highways, in mass transit, in rail and aviation, whatever was called for. I never met a transportation project I didn't like if it was a well-founded and well-thought-out project. But the insinuation by our distinguished friend from Virginia to caution us and to lay down the scare that we will be counted upon or we will be looked upon by the Record and by the voters, I want to say this: The Senator from Virginia took the liberty yesterday of voting against the funds for crumbling schools, against schools that are tattered and falling apart, where children can't possibly learn. That was OK to vote against. And the appeal wasn't made, and there was no threat that if you vote against this, you are committing those kids to an even more difficult assignment to try and lift themselves up. I have defended investments in transportation as chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation of the Appropriations Committee. Without fail, I have defended investing more. But the onerous comparison is that we neglected our responsibility. It is almost as if you are unpatriotic. I don't really like everything in this budget resolution. But I am committed by my constitutional responsibilities. If I take the assignment, I have to work on it. We negotiated in good faith, and I don't like some of the tax concessions we have in there. But I think middle-class people in this country are entitled to some tax relief. I think those who want to send their kids to college are entitled to some help to get them the first step up on the economic ladder. No, I don't like it all. But I have my duty to do, and I did it. It wasn't pleasant. It wasn't pleasant when I went into the Army in World War II, either, but I did it. And the insinuation that somehow or other I have deserted my responsibility is one that really offends me. We did what we thought was best, each one of us, whatever the vote was. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I was to be able to call up an amendment at this time. Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is in the order. That is true. Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, before I use any of that time, just as a matter of courtesy and parliamentary process, my distinguished colleague is also standing for recognition. If I could ask the Chair what the Senator's intent might be, we might be able to work out an arrangement. Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my intention, having talked to the ranking Member, was to seek 10 minutes for debate on the resolution. Whatever fits with the schedule of the Senator from Massachusetts will be fine with me. Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is a commitment that was made, I say to the Senator from North Dakota. But the Senator from Massachusetts did have a priority and was on record as being next in line. If an accommodation can be made between the two--if not, the Senator from Massachusetts has an opportunity to offer an amendment. Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from North Dakota be permitted to proceed for 10 minutes, and subsequently, when he completes, that I be recognized for the purposes of calling up my amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his courtesy. I wanted to speak for a couple of minutes on the resolution itself that is brought to the floor of the Senate. I want to talk just for a moment about what it is and what it is not. This piece of legislation is a budget agreement that I intend to vote for on final passage. I think a substantial amount of work has been done by the chairman of the Budget Committee, the ranking member, and many others in the House and the Senate and in the White House. They have negotiated in very difficult circumstances the terms of a budget agreement. But, as I said, I want to talk about what this is and what it is not. This is a budget agreement that provides a balanced budget of the unified budget. Is that something that has merit? Yes, it is. Is that something that moves in the right direction? Yes, it does. But it is not a balanced budget amendment that balances the budget without the use of trust funds, such as the Social Security fund. I want everybody to be clear about that. On page 4 of this budget resolution, which is on the desks of all Senators, it says ``deficit.'' On line 24, it says ``deficit'' in the year 2002, ``$108 billion.'' Why does it say that? It says that because this piece of legislation balances what is called the unified budget. Many of us believe there is another step to be taken after that. That is to balance the budget without the use of trust funds, especially without the use of Social Security trust funds. For that reason, I voted for the initiative offered yesterday by the Senator from South Carolina. It got very few votes, I might say. But he said, let us balance the budget and not do tax cuts and not do added investments at the start so that we balance the budget completely without using the trust fund, and then, as the economy strengthens and as we have extra money, let us provide for the tax cuts and let us provide for the added investments. Obviously, that proposal failed. I will vote for this budget agreement. But it is not truly a balanced budget. It moves in the direction, and it moves the right way. But it will leave this country, still, with a deficit. That must be the next step following action on this document. There are several steps here in climbing a flight of stairs to get to the point where we make real progress. One step we took in 1993. I was one who voted for the budget in 1993. I am glad I did. I said at the time it was a very controversial vote. It passed by one vote in the U.S. Senate--a budget agreement to substantially reduce the Federal budget deficit. It passed by one vote, the vote of the Vice President of the United States. Some paid a very heavy price for that vote because it was controversial. It cut spending. And, yes, it raised some taxes. But what was the result of that vote in 1993? The result was a dramatically reduced budget deficit. In that year, the unified budget deficit was close to $290 billion. Again, using the unified budget, the Congressional Budget Office now says the unified budget deficit is going to be, at the end of year, $67 billion. What has caused all of that? Well, a good economy and a 1993 budget act that a lot of people here had the courage to vote for, that passed by one vote, that says, let's put us moving in the right direction; let's move us in the right direction to substantially reduce the budget deficit. And only with that vote, and only with the progress that came from that vote, are we now able to take another very large step in moving toward a balanced budget. What was the result of that vote? It was interesting. We had people in 1993 on the floor of the Senate who said, if you cast a ``yes'' vote and pass this budget, the economy will collapse; the country will go into a recession; it means higher deficits and a higher debt; it means the economy goes into a tailspin. It passed with my vote--and, yes, the votes of some of my colleagues who decided to say to this country that we are serious, that we are going to move this country in the right direction even if the choice is painful for us to cast this vote. What happened? What happened was 4 years of sustained economic growth, inflation coming down, down, down, and down, and unemployment coming down and down for 4 years in a row. We have more people working. This country now has 12 million more people on [[Page S4951]] the payrolls that we did in 1993. We have an economy that is moving ahead, a deficit that is moving down, and inflation that is at a 30- year low. I wonder if those who predicted doom from that vote now won't join us and say, ``You did the right thing. It wasn't easy to do. But because you did it, we stand here today now able to take the next step.'' The next step is a step in which we now try to choose priorities. What do we make investments on in our country, and where do we cut real levels of spending? That is what this document is about. It is a compromise between Republicans and Democrats, between a President and Congress, that tries to establish priorities. Frankly, while it reduces spending in some areas, it cuts out entire classes of spending in others. It also increases some investment in spending in yet other areas. What are those? Education: It makes a lot of sense for us even as we attempt to move toward solving this country's fiscal problems to say that we don't solve the problems of the future by retreating on things like educating our kids. So this piece of legislation says education is a priority--more Pell grants, more Head Start, more investing in education, from young kids to college age and beyond. It says we are going to invest in education. Then it says the environment and health care. It says these areas are priorities. They are areas that make this country strong, and we will continue to invest in those areas even as we move to reconcile our books so that we are not spending more than we take in. That is why this is important, and it is why it is successful. I am pleased, frankly, after all of these years, to be on the floor of the Senate saying this is something that is bipartisan. Finally, Republicans and Democrats, rather than exerting all of their energy to fight each other and beat each other, are deciding there are ways that we can join each other and pass a piece of legislation that moves this country in the right direction. I think the American people probably think it is a pretty good thing that bipartisanship comes to the floor of the Senate in the form of this budget resolution. I started by saying I would talk about what this is and what it isn't. I am going to vote for this. It moves this country in the right direction. It preserves priorities that are important to preserve, and investment in this country's future. It represents a compromise. Many of us would have written it differently. We didn't get all we wanted. But it moves this country in the right direction while preserving the kinds of things most of us think are important as investments in our country's future. This is not a balanced budget, not truly a balanced budget. It balances something called the unified budget. But it is a major step in the right direction. I hope we will take the next step beyond this to say that, on page 4 of the next budget resolution, line 24, we will say ``zero'' in a future year. That is when we will truly have completed the job. But the choices here are not always choices we would like. The choice that we now ask ourselves is, does this move us in the right direction with respect to the things I care a great deal about--one, fiscal discipline; a more deficit reduction; investment in education, health care, the environment--things that make this country a better place? The answer, unequivocally, is yes. This moves America in the right direction. Is it an exercise between the President and Congress, between Democrats and Republicans, that will give this country some confidence that the past is over, that the reckless, the irresponsible fiscal policy of saying let's spend money we don't have on things we don't need and run up trillions and trillions of dollars of debt for our kids and our grandkids to assume? Is it a message to the American people that we are beyond that period and have moved on to a new day of bipartisanship to decide together we can plot a better course and move this country toward a brighter future? The answer to that is yes. If the past is any experience, since 1993, the vote we took then to put us on the road to balancing this budget is a proud vote and one that I am glad I cast. I will be glad I cast this vote as well, because this is the next major segment of the journey to do what the American people want us to do on their behalf and on behalf of so many children who will inherit this country. They will inherit a better country because of what we will have done in this Chamber this week. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we have under normal regular order an amount of time at this point. The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has no time. The Senator hasn't called up his amendment. Amendment No. 309 Mr. KERRY. I call up amendment No. 309. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Kohl, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Wellstone, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 309. (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of May 21, 1997.) Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I now yield to the Senator from Minnesota 4 minutes. Mr. President, before I yield let me just take 1 minute to explain. This is an amendment to hold out a possibility--I yield myself such time as I may use--to hold out the possibility that when we come back in the appropriating process, we may be able to find some money to deal with the issue of early child development. We do not spend money now. We do not trade money. We do not have an offset. We do not spend. We simply want to be able to reserve the capacity to come back at a later time to deal with this issue. I will explain why I feel that is so important, as do the other Senators j

Amendments:

Cosponsors:


bill

Search Bills

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET


Sponsor:

Summary:

All articles in Senate section

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET
(Senate - May 22, 1997)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S4944-S4994] CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET The Senate continued with the consideration of the concurrent resolution. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized for 10 minutes. Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Chair. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee. Mr. President, I rise in support of the overall balanced budget plan and rise expressing some reservations in regard to many of the amendments that we are considering, the pending amendments; some 45 of them, as a matter of fact. If nothing else, I wanted to pay a personal tribute in behalf of the taxpayers of Kansas and thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for his leadership, his perseverance, his patience. He has the patience of Job. I must confess, having come from the lower body, as described by Senator Byrd, and being the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I am not sure I had the patience of Senator Domenici. We now spell ``persevere'' D-o-m-e-n-i-c-i. How many hours, I ask of the chairman, if he could respond, how many days, even years, have been involved? Does he have any estimate in regard to the hours he has spent late, early--he and Chairman Kasich of the House? If he gives me an estimate, what is it? 10,000? Mr. DOMENICI. On this agreement itself, just this year, I would estimate 1,000 hours. Mr. ROBERTS. 1,000 hours. I said hours and minutes; even years. This has been the third year on this particular budget plan. This is the culmination of 3 years of hard work that the Senator from New Mexico has put in, all members of the Budget Committee, as well as the staff. This has been a Lonesome Dove Trail ride. I hope we get through the tall grass and balanced budget with all of our body parts intact. If we do, the chairman will get most of the credit. In the last session of the Congress we had two balanced budgets. We worked very hard and very diligently. They were vetoed by the President. We even came to a Government shutdown. Nobody wants to repeat that. I understand that when you are doing a budget for the U.S. Government, you have many, many strong differences of opinion. After all, for better or worse, the Congress of the United States reflects the diversity we have in this country and the strong difference of opinions. Goodness knows, we have good diversity and strong differences of opinion. The House, the other body, just the other night stayed until 3 a.m., and, finally, by a two-vote margin, succeeded in defeating an amendment that was a deal breaker. It involved highways. As a matter of fact, it involved transportation, the very issue we are discussing on the floor at this very moment other than my comments. Two votes was the difference. Goodness knows, everybody in the House of the Representatives, everybody in the Senate cares about transportation and cares about highways and the infrastructure. We came within five votes of a deal breaker on the floor of the Senate. I think it was five votes in regard to health care for children. Who can be opposed to additional funds for health care for children? As a matter of fact, the chairman has worked very hard to provide $16 billion in regard to that goal. So we had highways, health care, and we had a situation in regard to the construction of our schools, to fix the infrastructure of the Nation's schools--$5 billion--with a $100 billion price tag, which set a very unique precedent. I don't question the intent. I don't question the purpose nor the integrity of any Senator, nor, for that matter, anyone who would like to propose an amendment or a better idea in regard to the budget. But I would suggest that the high road of humility and responsibility is not bothered by heavy traffic in this instance. Most of the amendments--I have them all here. Here is the stack, 45 of them. Most of the pending amendments right here are either sense of the Senate or they have been rejected outright as deal breakers. Sense of the Senate means it is the sense of the Senate. It has no legal standing, has no legislative standing. It is just a Senator saying this would be a good idea in terms of my intent, my purpose, what I think we ought to do. And there are a few that are agreed to that obviously will be very helpful. But here are the 45. Most of them are simply not going anywhere but raises the point. I took a little counting here. There are 8 Democrats and 11 Republicans--11 Republicans who have decided that they will take the time of the Senate, take the time of the American people, take the time of the chairman of the Budget Committee and staff and go over and repeat their priority concerns in regard to the budget. There is nothing wrong with that. I understand that. Each Senator is an island in terms of their own ideas and their own purpose and their integrity. I do not really question that but in terms of time, I mean after 3 years of debate, after hours and hours and hours of careful deliberation between the President and the Republican leadership and 45 pending amendments. I have my own amendments. I have my own amendments. I should have had some sense of the Senate amendments. I feel a bit left out. I thought we had a budget deal. I thought we were going to vote on it. I thought that we were going to conclude. And then during the regular appropriations process, during the regular order, if you will, of the rest of the session, why, perhaps we could address these things that I care very deeply about. Maybe we ought to have a sense-of-the-Senate resolution introduced by Senator Roberts that all wheat in Kansas should be sold at $6. That is a little facetious, to say the least, but I do have concerns about crop insurance, a child care bill I have introduced, along with a capital gains bill, capital gains and estate tax. I think capital gains should be across the board. I think estate tax should be at least $1 million. I want a sense-of-the-Senate resolution or amendment declaring that. Or maybe an amendment--I tell you what we ought to have, if the chairman would agree. I think you ought to make a unanimous consent request to consider an amendment that all Senators who offer an amendment on the budget process must be required to serve 6 months on the Budget Committee. Why not? Perhaps in the interest of time, since all of the time that is being spent by the 11 Republicans and the 8 Democrats--oh, I forgot my sense-of-the-Senate resolution on defense. I do not think we have enough money committed to our national defense with the obligations we hear from the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the administration and everything else. So add that one in Roberts' sense of the Senate. Maybe we ought to have a unanimous consent request, to save time, to get [[Page S4945]] this business done, to accept the responsibility for the budget, I could just ask unanimous consent that all amendments pending be laid on the table and considered en bloc and ask for the yeas and nays and we could get the budget deal and go home. I have not made that unanimous consent request. That would be untoward. That is the mildest word I could use for it because it would violate agreements the distinguished chairman has made with other Senators. So let me say this to all the Senators who introduced all these sense-of-the-Senate amendments, fell asleep, issued a lot of press releases back home and got a lot of credit. And I laud their intent, laud their purpose. What about breaking the deal? What about the law of unintended or intended effects? What about the responsibility of delaying the Senate and possibly delaying 3 years of work, 3 years of work to get to a balanced budget? As you can see by the tone of my remarks, perhaps my patience as a new Member of the Senate is not near the patience of Chairman Job, Chairman Job Domenici, in regard to the Budget Committee. Now, I had intended on reading the names of all the Senators, their amendments and lauding their intent in behalf of all the things that we would like to see done. As I say, I have them all here. They range from everything from highways to education to defense to making sure that we have proper tax relief across the board. I will not do that. But I would at least ask my colleagues in the Senate to consider the job and the mission and what our distinguished chairman and members of the Budget Committee have brought to the floor of the Senate. And if we could, if we could plead for a little bit of expeditious consideration, because you know what is going to happen. Time will run out and then we will engage in what the Senate calls a votearama, and the votearama is like ``Jeopardy'' or any other game you play on television. You will not even hear what the amendment is. We will just hear an amendment by X, Y, or Z, Senator X, Y, or Z and then we will vote on it and obviously that will make a good statement back home and we can consider that very serious bill, that serious legislative intent during the regular order which should have been considered that way from the first. Again, I thank the chairman so much. Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield? Mr. ROBERTS. I will be delighted to yield. Mr. ASHCROFT. I appreciate the Senator's remarks. When the Senator holds the stack of amendments, is he suggesting there should be no amendments or is he just focused on sense-of-the-Senate amendments? Mr. ROBERTS. I think if I could further clarify that, of the 45 amendments there are about 6 deal breakers, if my conversation with the chairman is correct. Most of them are sense of Senate. And there are others that have been agreed to. But my basic premise is--and goodness knows, this new Member of the Senate is not about to say that we should change the process of the Senate. And this Member of the Senate is not about to preclude any Member from offering any amendment. The point that I am trying to make is that every amendment, every sense-of-the-Senate amendment, every deal-breaking amendment also to some degree interferes with the process and the conclusion of a balanced budget which has taken us 3 years. And I know because I have been sitting in the chair presiding, listening to the same speeches that are made today in the Chamber during morning business, and people can make them in their districts; they can make them on the steps of the Capitol; they can make them here, and that is quite proper of the Senate and is advisable. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Mr. ROBERTS. Could I have an additional minute? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator seeks an additional minute. Who yields him time? Mr. DOMENICI. How much time does the Senator desire? Mr. ROBERTS. One additional minute. Mr. DOMENICI. I yield it. Mr. ROBERTS. I find it rather untoward or awkward after talking 10 minutes and expressing concern of the time here I would go on and on about this. I think the point is well taken. I know the Senator from Missouri has a very laudable amendment in regards to something I would agree with and I would not deny him that opportunity. But can we not get on with it after 3 years? I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico. Amendment No. 311 Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me make it very clear to everyone in the Senate, first of all, I have nothing but the highest respect and admiration for both the sponsors of this amendment, the distinguished Senator from Virginia, who has worked diligently to try to create the transportation programs in the committee he serves and do it in the best interests of our whole country, and believe you me, he has had a tough job, and so has Senator Baucus in doing a great job, whether working on the committee or with transportation infrastructure. Their job is very difficult because they have to balance frequently the interests of all 50 States or those that are rural versus those that are very dense in terms of population and thus roadway needs are very different in his State or mine as compared with New Jersey, if you just take into account how much gasoline tax is taken in because we are small, with small populations, but we cannot get from one place to another without roads, so we are in a different category. And over the decades we have all worked very hard to figure out how to do that balancing act. And then it turns out when it is all finished, the House does it differently than the Senate because the Senate is represented two Senators to each State. So Senator Baucus and his co-Senator represent a very small population but they are two. In the House, they always load the bills with the heavy populated States and over here we try to do it with a little more fairness, more fair play. They have had to be referees over that. In fact, I might tell the Senators, they probably do not remember, but I was a referee on that once as a conferee, and that was pretty interesting, how we found a formula that year. I might say, in spite of these accolades, this is a very, very strange amendment, to say the least. Here we have been for all these days discussing a balanced budget, and as a matter of fact even those who would break this budget did not unbalance the budget. Or even those who had deal breakers because they would take the principal components of the budget and change them, as our leader said yesterday, pulling the wheels out from under the cart so it would break down. This amendment makes no effort to try to offset the $12 billion that they add to this budget. In other words, Mr. President and fellow Senators, this amendment is bold enough to say it just does not matter about a balanced budget. We just want to put in $12 billion more for highways. Frankly, I am sorry we do not have the money in this budget for that. But we did in fact, we did in fact increase the President's proposal by $10.4 billion. That is $10.4 billion more than the President had in mind, and we balanced the budget. We offset it somewhere or in some way reduced the amount of tax cut we were going to have in the overall sense of putting the package together. But this amendment just comes along and says, well, we just want this additional money spent on highways, and we will wait until another day to worry about the balance. Frankly, we had a very meager surplus in the year 2002. This particular amendment costs $4.5 billion in the year 2002, and that will bring us out of balance by over $2.5 billion. So I urge the Senators who want to support this amendment or this concept, they ought to come down to the floor and cut $12 billion out of this budget so it is still in balance. Then we would understand what would be hit--education and everything else we have been trying to fund. So I must say on this one the administration supports us. We were not so [[Page S4946]] sure yesterday morning, I say to my good friend from Kentucky, but they support us. They sent a letter up here saying they do not support this amendment. They support our efforts to see that it does not pass. Frankly, I would be less than honest and less than fair with the cosponsors--it is clear we are going to have to do something when the ISTEA Program comes along in the not too distant future. We are going to have to make some serious, serious adjustments. And I think those are going to happen. Perhaps the Senators will help expedite that a bit today by calling to the attention of the Senate the situation as you see it. But essentially, we have many trust funds in the United States, many trust funds. I used to know how many. But I think it is probably fair to say we have 100 trust funds. I think that is low by 50. I think we have 150. But let us just say we have 100 of them. Frankly, we do not spend every penny that comes into those trust funds every year, nor do we take them and set them out on the side and say whatever comes in goes out. We have put them in the unified budget. I am not sure--people argue on both sides of that concept. Should you break Government up into 150 pieces and then find some more pieces and have no central government running things, no unified budget, I should say. Forget who runs it, just a budget representing them all. And I have come down on the side of putting them all in and leaving them in, and if there is surpluses take credit for the surpluses. As a matter of fact, it is pretty clear that at some point we are going to have to change the way we are doing business, not perhaps spend more. But I would urge Senators not to vote for this amendment today. I will move to table it. I think it breaks the budget. It unbalances the budget. The intentions are very, very good, but this is not quite the way to do it. Now I yield to Senator Lautenberg-- Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. DOMENICI. Of course. Mr. WARNER. I thank him for the courtesy. Let's clarify a little bit just how the Senator as chairman of the Budget Committee--and certainly we commend him for the hard work he has done. What is the meaning of a trust fund? Let's be honest. You are keeping $26 billion, according to my calculation, holding it back, of the revenues paid at the gas tank, as if it were poker chips to play where you so desire elsewhere in the budget. We specifically did not put in offsets because the offset is there in a trust fund established 42 years ago with a legislative history which clearly said that it belongs to the people and should be returned to the people. That is why we did not have an offset. The offset is there in the form of the money in the highway trust fund. Shall we rename that budget deficit fund? Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, you will be writing the new ISTEA law. If you will care to rename it, it will be renamed under your direction, not under mine. But I would say, from what I can find out, this $26 billion trust fund surplus--we spend about $20 billion each year and they have done that for a long time. This $26 billion that is referred to is made up of two things: $20.6 billion of it is compounded interest, and $5.9 is committed to projects. Frankly, that does not mean we have an awful lot of money to spend. As a matter of fact, we probably do not have very much. But, from my standpoint, this trust fund balance is a very reasonable balance to keep in the fund. If at some point we can get to a better plan and do it over a period of time, you are going to find this Senator on your side. Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator yield? Mr. DOMENICI. Did Senator Lautenberg want to speak now? Mr. LAUTENBERG. I do. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time remains? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 20 minutes left; the other side has 12 minutes. Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we all deeply appreciate the amount of work the Senator from New Mexico has made to try to put this together. It is an almost impossible task. He made an interesting statement, though, that I would just like to follow up on a little bit. He turned to the Senator from Virginia a few minutes ago--if I heard you correctly; I do not want to put words in your mouth--and said something to the effect: Yes, you are right. At some future time when we take up ISTEA we are going to have to deal with deficiencies that are otherwise going to be available to be spent on the highway bill, ISTEA. If I heard him correctly, if that is what he meant, I would just like to explore with the chairman where we might find some of those additional dollars if it's not in the context of this budget resolution. Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, you did not quote me so incorrectly that I would say you didn't quote me right. But, in essence I am just expressing the notion that is pretty rampant, that outside of this budget resolution, at a later date, that in various committees we will be working on what do we do with this highway trust fund and what do we do with the new formula, where there will be a new formula. All I am suggesting is at some point that debate is going to occur, but I don't believe it should occur here on the floor of the Senate, taking $12 billion and just adding it to this budget and saying we are just going to go in the red because we have not figured out any other way. There is going to be another way to look at this situation. Mr. BAUCUS. But again I ask you, at what time, at what point would we begin to find the additional dollars that we all know we need for transportation? Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, look, the committees in the U.S. Senate are marvelous institutions, and how you work out problems that are complicated and difficult and frequently of longstanding--the Senate is historic in its wise ways of doing this. Mr. BAUCUS. I understand. Mr. DOMENICI. All I am suggesting is there is going to be a way. Mr. BAUCUS. I understand, but I bow to the mighty power of the Budget Committee, when we see the limitations that otherwise are incumbent upon us-- Mr. DOMENICI. I might suggest, I served on that committee for a long time, Senator Warner. In fact, I would have been chairman three times over with the longevity I would have if I would have been there. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we want the Senator where he is. Please stay. By the way, I volunteered three times to serve on the Budget Committee, and my name will be on there one of these days. Mr. DOMENICI. All right. Now, how much time do we have left? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 17 minutes left. Mr. DOMENICI. I wanted to yield to Senator Lautenberg, who is my ally here on the floor on this issue, and then find a little time of mine out of it to yield to the Senator from Rhode Island. Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am not going to take that much time, Mr. President. I think the chairman of the Budget Committee has fairly directly and succinctly made the arguments. The fact of the matter is that none of us are happy with the level of funding that we have for our investments in highways and our transportation needs. We are more deficient, in many ways, than countries down the Third World list. I think we rank about 55th in per capita spending for infrastructure. So, one would not disagree with the distinguished Senator from Virginia or the distinguished Senator from Montana in terms of the need, the need to correct the situation. But unfortunately, and it is unfortunate for me because I have long been an advocate of more spending on transportation in this country. I think it is common knowledge that the Senator from New Jersey has been an advocate of mass transit, of rail transportation, improving our highway system, of fixing our deficient bridges, which number in the thousands. But we have a proposal in hand that takes a priority, unfortunately, for the moment. That is, to complete the work we started on a balanced budget. We are committed to it. Believe me, this is not a place I enjoy being, because I do not agree with everything that is in the budget resolution. But I agree with it enough to say that there is a consensus that we fulfilled an obligation that we talked about to children, children's health, to the senior citizens, to try to make [[Page S4947]] Medicare solvent, to try to not further burden the impoverished in terms of Medicare, to try to take care of those who are in this country legally and become disabled. We fulfilled those obligations. The economy is moving along at a very good rate and we are still running the risk, in my view, with some of the tax cuts that have been proposed, of taking us away from the direction that we are moving in, which is to continue to reduce the budget deficit until the year 2002, when there will be none. So we have an imperfect, but pretty good, solution in front us. And, now what we are discussing, in terms of transportation--and this is like me talking against motherhood--but the transportation funds that are there are inadequate because of the structure of our budgeting structure, the budgeting arrangement that we have in our Government. The fact is that we have unified budgets. If one wants to start, as has been claimed here several times, establishing truth in budgeting, under that nomenclature I think one would have to start with Social Security. Are we prepared today to say we are going to add $70 billion to our deficit each year? We certainly are not. Yet I think, when you talk about a trust fund, there is no more sanctified trust fund than Social Security, something people paid in, they are relying on for their future, for their ability to get along. But we nevertheless still have the unified budget. That problem, I assure you, is going to get intense scrutiny over the next several years. Senator Roberts said something--I don't know whether you were here, Senator Domenici, when he said: Everybody, in order to have the budget fully understood, every Senator should be sentenced to 6 months on the Budget Committee. I thought immediately, there is a constitutional prohibition against cruel and inhuman punishment, so we could not do that, even if we wanted to. I am on the Budget Committee by a quirk of circumstance. When I came here, a fellow I had known who was a Senator said that he would do me a favor and that he would vacate his seat on the Budget Committee for me. And I will get even. The fact of the matter is, we complain and we gripe, but the money is where the policy is, the money is where the direction is. We take this assignment with a degree of relish, because we want to do the right thing. None of us want to throw the taxpayers' money away. But we are where we are. It is with reluctance that I am opposing this amendment because both Senators, Senator Warner and Senator Baucus, have been very actively involved in highway funding and highway legislation as a result of our mutual service on the Environment and Public Works Committee. But we are spending more than we did last year. We are spending more than the budget resolution of just 2 years ago. I was able, with a lot of hard work and with the support of the chairman of the committee, to get an $8.7 billion increase over the President's budget request for transportation. I had asked that transportation be included as one of the top priorities in the budget. Unfortunately it is not there. But there is a plan, that we expect to be fulfilled, to have a reserve fund that would allow significantly more funding for some of the transportation needs. But I want to point out one thing about the trust fund. That is, there is a slow payout in highway projects. I think everybody is aware of that--5, 7 years on many of these things. If we shut down the revenue source now, interest alone would not carry the obligations that are already out there. The obligation ceiling as contrasted with the contract authority are quite different things. We have these obligations that have to be fulfilled, they are there and one day must be met. The balances in the fund, I think, will start coming down with the adjustments that are expected to occur in ISTEA. We have the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee on the floor. That will be opportunity to make some of the changes that are being contemplated here. I just think it is a terrible time to say we ought to burden the budget deficit by $12 billion, roughly, right now, when everybody has worked so hard, and this budget has been scrubbed, reviewed, rewashed, rehashed--you name it. We are where we are, in a fairly delicate balance, I point out to my colleagues. There are very delicate opportunities that will, I think, upset the balance that has been achieved. So, again, I repeat myself when I say with reluctance I am going to vote against it. Mr. WARNER. Will my colleague yield for a brief question? Mr. LAUTENBERG. Sure. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator, a member of our committee, Environment and Public Works, is, according to my records, a cosponsor of a piece of legislation called ISTEA--NEXTEA. Am I not correct? Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is correct. Mr. WARNER. In that, it is interesting, there are three bills put in by Members of the Senate. I am coauthor--Senator Baucus, Senator Graham of Florida; STEP 21, Senator Baucus is 2000, you are with Senator Chafee. Mr. LAUTENBERG. Right. Mr. WARNER. ISTEA. Look into that bill. Right in there is a provision saying we want $26 billion each year, far more than what the Senator from Virginia is asking. I build up to $26 billion in the fifth year. You want it beginning this year. In other words, you are saying to the Senate, in a cosponsored piece of legislation together with the distinguished chairman of the committee, you want $26 billion. Now you stand on this floor and talk in direct opposite. That is what leaves me at a loss. So the question is, you are a cosponsor and---- Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, in response to the question, before the speech, I would say this--yes, I sponsored that legislation. My heart is in more funding for transportation, and no one here can say differently. The problem is that we are in a different point in time, and if you want to take it out of highways and say forget the children's health care bill, if you want to take it out of highways and forget the pledge we made to the senior citizens, or take it out of this bill and forget the pledge that we made to those who might be disabled, let's do it, let's talk about that. Let's talk about balancing the budget, because I know the distinguished Senator from Virginia has been a proponent of a balanced budget almost from the day the words were invented around here. So now we have a different occasion. We are not talking about transportation; we all agree that transportation is definitely underfunded. What we are talking about is at what price do we make this change, and the price is at, again, children's health or otherwise, because we are committed to balancing this budget. And this is strange talk for a fellow like me. Mr. DOMENICI. I think it is right on, and I hope you make it about five or six times in the remaining couple hours. I look forward to hearing it more times than one. Mr. President, I wonder, how much time do we have remaining? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 7 minutes; the Senator from Virginia has 10 minutes, almost 11 minutes. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, the chairman of the full Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senator Chafee. Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished manager of the bill. I rise in opposition today to the amendment offered by the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Montana. I might say, these are two Senators for whom I have tremendous respect. I have worked with them. The Senator from Virginia, I think we first started our association in 1969, and the Senator from Montana, I started working with him the first year he came to the Senate, which I think was 1978, 1979, and we have been closely associated ever since. However, this amendment, which would increase outlays for transportation spending above the levels provided in the resolution before us, I find to be inconsistent with the achievement of a balanced budget by the year 2002. The Senator from Virginia just said it went beyond the bill, the so- called NEXTEA bill that goes beyond this, and that is absolutely right, but that was before we had a target from the Budget Committee. I believe strongly in the budgetary process we have set up. I voted for it, and I support it. [[Page S4948]] I think we all can agree that the Nation's roads and bridges are in need of repair. No one argues with that. Transportation plays a critical role in our Nation's economy. We recognize that. In the United States, more than 12 million people, more than 11 percent of the gross national product, is involved in transportation. Earlier this year, I cosponsored a measure to increase, within the context of a unified budget, the level of transportation spending from the highway trust fund. I am pleased that the budget agreement, crafted by the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from New Jersey, increases the spending levels implicit in that proposal, the so- called Bond-Chafee proposal. It is $13 billion over a freeze baseline. That is pretty good. Would we like more? Sure we would. But I think it is terribly important to recognize that any proposal that boosts highway spending or transportation spending without corresponding offsets is something I personally cannot support. So, I agree with Senators Warner and Baucus that transportation spending should be increased, but not in a manner that would undermine the careful agreement reached by the Budget Committee. Do we like everything in this budget? No, but it is the best we can get. I am supporting that agreement. It seems to me we simply cannot afford to retreat from our efforts to eliminate the Federal deficit. So that, Mr. President, is the reason I cannot support this amendment that is before us today. I thank the Chair and thank the manager and thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee that deals with these matters. He has worked on them, and I know his heart is in this. As always, he argues his case with vigor and considerable force. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, might I ask a question on my time of my distinguished chairman? There are three bills pending before the Senate relating to the reauthorization of ISTEA. I mentioned that. Seventy-four colleagues have signed one of those three bills. Each one of those bills has the higher level of $26 billion. I say to my colleague, he also is a cosponsor of the Bond-Chafee/Chafee-Bond legislation. The principle that Senator Baucus and I are arguing today precisely is the Chafee- Bond bill. I ask the Senator, does he feel there is any difference in principle? Mr. CHAFEE. Yes. First of all, I am pleased to call it the Chafee- Bond proposal. Mr. WARNER. Call it what you want. Mr. CHAFEE. We call it that in Rhode Island. What the Chafee-Bond proposal does is it says that what came in in the previous year--we do not deal with the interest, we do not deal with---- Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I do not need an explanation. In principle, pay it in, take it out, isn't that right, in simple English? Mr. CHAFEE. That's right. Mr. WARNER. Fine, that's all I need to say. Mr. CHAFEE. What comes in this year goes out next year, and that principle is in this budget. Mr. WARNER. That principle is in this amendment. I thank the distinguished Senator. That is all we are asking. But it is interesting we are asking for less than what is paid in to come out, recognizing the challenge before the Budget Committee. So I say, once again, 74 colleagues have signed on to legislation. We are going to have to answer to our constituents, Mr. President, on this vote. You say one thing in sponsoring the bills, and we will see how consistent you are. I will put a letter on the desk signed by 56 Senators as to how they spoke to this. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana. Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator from Virginia yield for a few minutes? Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield all but a minute and a half, 2 minutes I have reserved. Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we heard today from both the chairman and the ranking member of the Budget Committee that we need to address this problem; the problem that there is a deficiency in highway-mass transit-infrastructure spending that must be dealt with at sometime. But they are also saying they feel constrained to say they cannot deal with it here because they feel constrained by the budget resolution, a resolution agreed to principally between the White House and the leadership. They talk about an $8 billion increase. That does not include interest. And because the country is growing, because of additional needs we have and the crumbling bridges, if this resolution is adopted, Senators should know that they will receive less in dollars than they will need for their State's infrastructure. The Senators, the chairman and ranking member, say, ``Well, we will deal with it in the future at sometime,'' acknowledging that there is a problem and we need more transportation dollars. I must remind Senators that we have a difficult problem ahead of us. When we in the Environment and Public Works Committee in the coming weeks write a bill dealing with CMAQ, dealing with formulas, donor States, donee States, so on and so forth, what do we look at? We look at the number that the Budget Committee sends to us. We are constrained by that number. We must then write a 5- or 6-year bill which locks in the spending limits that the Budget Committee prescribes for us. We are locked in for 5 or 6 years. Those lower levels cannot be changed next year by a new budget resolution, cannot be changed until or unless this Congress writes a new highway bill. I am not so sure this Congress is going to want to write a new highway bill every year. So I am saying that this is the time to deal with this problem. It is now. Otherwise, we are locked in for 6 years to inadequate numbers. We want to make an adjustment of less than one-tenth of 1 percent of our Federal budget, less than one-tenth of 1 percent of our Federal budget, which I am fully confident can be dealt with in conference. It is critical that this amendment be adopted so that we are not locked in over the next 6 years to inadequate numbers. We will be locked into these numbers if this resolution is adopted. We can make adjustments in all the other accounts and still maintain the core provisions of the bipartisan agreement. So I urge Senators to, therefore, vote for this so we can do what we know is right. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair notes 2 minutes remain for the Senator from Virginia. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, is that all the time that is remaining? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The Senator from New Mexico has 2 minutes; the Senator from Virginia has 2 minutes. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend my distinguished colleague. He, in his concluding remarks, gave the clarion call: When we cast the vote, we simply cast a vote to say to the Budget Committee, ``Go back and look for that very small fraction so we can avoid this flat green line which is correctly represented on this chart, and allow our several States to build that infrastructure necessary to compete in this world market.'' What we have left out, my distinguished colleague and myself, are pages and pages of added requests by our colleagues. I totaled over $7 billion in addition to what is to be allocated under the formulation for superb programs that are badly needed by the country: Appalachian highway system; for the Indian reservation roads; for expansion of the intelligent transportation system; for innovative financing initiatives; for new funding to meet infrastructure--on and on it goes. We want to, Senator Baucus and I together with other members of our subcommittee and full committee, try and do this, but those we haven't even discussed today. We will never get to one nickel of this unless we are given some additional flexibility. So we say, with all due respect, we are simply asking a voice mandate in support of our constituents to the Budget Committee, ``Go back and reexamine the desperate need of America for these dollars.'' I thank the Chair. I yield back all time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Mr. DOMENICI. Do I have 2 minutes and that is it? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me suggest, again, to Senators who might be listening or those who might be listening in their stead, in this budget, we [[Page S4949]] have tried to do many things. We have tried to cut taxes for the American people; we have tried to cover little children who are uninsured with $16 billion; we have tried to cover the National Institutes of Health with a 3.5-percent increase. We heard from people what America had to be doing, and, in each instance, we had to get rid of something. In fact, I have not said it yet, but the President gave up 50 percent of his initiatives in the compromise that was made, and every time we did it, we said, ``Let's balance the budget; let's balance the budget.'' We would come back and say, ``Well, we want to add this, what do we take out?'' And we would take something out. What we have here today is $12 billion as if it just flopped out of the sky; no effort to balance the budget, no effort to offset it with expenditures so we can all see where do you pick up the $12 billion that is needed for highways? Everybody understands that highways are very much needed in America, but this budget, for the first time, will permit us to spend every cent of new taxes that comes into that fund every single year. We are moving in the right direction. Every cent of new gasoline tax that goes into this fund under this budget agreement will be spent in that year that it comes in, obligated during that year. That is a giant stride in the direction that we have been asked to go by many people in our country. Frankly, every Governor in America sends a letter in. They want more money. And then some of them get up and criticize that we do not balance the budget right. The lead Governor in America, the head of the association, he wants every penny of highway funds, but this budget resolution just does not get the job done right. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). All time has expired. Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back the balance of my time, and move to table the amendment, and ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to lay on the table the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk called the roll. The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 80 Leg.] YEAS--51 Allard Bennett Biden Bond Breaux Brownback Campbell Chafee Cleland Cochran Collins Coverdell Craig D'Amato Daschle Domenici Durbin Enzi Feingold Feinstein Ford Frist Gorton Gramm Grassley Gregg Hagel Hutchison Kohl Kyl Landrieu Lautenberg Lieberman Lott Lugar Mack McCain Moseley-Braun Moynihan Murkowski Nickles Reed Roberts Rockefeller Roth Santorum Smith (NH) Smith (OR) Snowe Stevens Thompson NAYS--49 Abraham Akaka Ashcroft Baucus Bingaman Boxer Bryan Bumpers Burns Byrd Coats Conrad DeWine Dodd Dorgan Faircloth Glenn Graham Grams Harkin Hatch Helms Hollings Hutchinson Inhofe Inouye Jeffords Johnson Kempthorne Kennedy Kerrey Kerry Leahy Levin McConnell Mikulski Murray Reid Robb Sarbanes Sessions Shelby Specter Thomas Thurmond Torricelli Warner Wellstone Wyden The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 311) was agreed to. Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote. Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay it on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. WARNER. History was made with this vote, by two votes, and two votes in the House--that resonates all across this land. It is a wake- up call to all those entrusted with the responsibility of keeping America's infrastructure modernized and safe so we can compete in this one-world market. This is but the first of a series of battles that will be waged on this floor on behalf of America's transportation system. It is my privilege to be a part of that team. I thank the Chair. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes. I want to compliment those who offered the amendment for the way they have handled matters and to tell the same American people that were listening to the distinguished Senator from Virginia that there will be additional highway funding in years to come, there is no doubt about it, but it will not be done at the expense of unbalancing the budget. It will not be done at the expense of just saying we will spend some money even if the deficit goes up. I look forward to the day we do it in such a way that it is balanced and that, as a matter of fact, if we increase, we cut some things to make up for the difference so we stay in balance. Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield? Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 2 minutes to Senator Stevens. Mr. STEVENS. As chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I want to tell the Senate that those of us who are voting against some of these amendments are doing it because there is no money to fund these sense- of-the-Senate resolutions. I say to any of you that want to offer amendments that change this budget, that authorize additional funds-- show me the money. Show me where the money is when you offer amendments that change the budget plan agreed to with the President. I have discussed this with the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. We will have the obligation to allot money within the budget among 13 subcommittees. A sense-of-the-Senate resolution does not give us any more money but it gives us the problem that you have sent a message to America that there is money in this budget to do something the Senate votes for in a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. When the budget resolution, just before, was voted I asked for a chance to come to the floor again, and I ask for you to reserve some time and we will show where a commitment has been made by the Senate to fund items where there is no money. I urge the Senate to wake up. We are voting against these matters not because we are against highways or aid for children who need insurance. We are voting--the Senators from New Mexico and New Jersey have brought us a resolution. We had a budget that has been worked out with the President and we have a chance to vote for a balanced budget. I do not want to be accused of being a tightwad when we allocate the money under 602(b) of the budget act and then we do not cover the sense-of-the-Senate Resolutions. Again, if anyone is going to accuse us of being tightwads and not following the sense of the Senate, I tell you, if you vote for one of these things, you show us where the money is and we will allocate it. We will not be misled by these attempts to gain publicity and to gain some credit at home on a bill like this. This is a very serious bill. The two of us are going to have a horrendous job trying to meet our duties even within this budget, so do not give us any more of this funny money. You show me real money and I will allocate it to your function. Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield? Mr. DOMENICI. I yield. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself in considerable measure with the distinguished Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens]. We have been voting for a lot of sense-of-the-Senate resolutions. I think we had one yesterday, 99-0. We know it is not going to be paid for. On this business about infrastructure, we hear it said that there is no money. I am from a State that needs infrastructure. We say there is no money. I shall state why I supported the Warner-Baucus amendment. We do not need a tax cut in this country right now. We do not need a tax cut. I say that with respect to the Republican tax cut and with respect to the tax cut that is supported by the Administration. We do not need a tax cut. When we see what we are doing in this budget resolution with respect to cutting taxes--cutting taxes at a time when we are within reach of balancing the budget, if we were to use that money that is going for the tax cut, we would balance this budget much earlier than it is expected to be balanced now and we could also use some of that money for infrastructure. If we want to know where we [[Page S4950]] can get the money, that is where it can be found. Let's vote against the tax cut. I am going to vote against this resolution if we have the tax cut tied with it. I thank the distinguished Senator. Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New Jersey. Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield myself 2 minutes off the resolution. Mr. President, I don't like being put in the position that appears to be developing here, that I am against investment in infrastructure. I stand on my record of having fought as hard as anyone in this body to invest more money in highways, in mass transit, in rail and aviation, whatever was called for. I never met a transportation project I didn't like if it was a well-founded and well-thought-out project. But the insinuation by our distinguished friend from Virginia to caution us and to lay down the scare that we will be counted upon or we will be looked upon by the Record and by the voters, I want to say this: The Senator from Virginia took the liberty yesterday of voting against the funds for crumbling schools, against schools that are tattered and falling apart, where children can't possibly learn. That was OK to vote against. And the appeal wasn't made, and there was no threat that if you vote against this, you are committing those kids to an even more difficult assignment to try and lift themselves up. I have defended investments in transportation as chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation of the Appropriations Committee. Without fail, I have defended investing more. But the onerous comparison is that we neglected our responsibility. It is almost as if you are unpatriotic. I don't really like everything in this budget resolution. But I am committed by my constitutional responsibilities. If I take the assignment, I have to work on it. We negotiated in good faith, and I don't like some of the tax concessions we have in there. But I think middle-class people in this country are entitled to some tax relief. I think those who want to send their kids to college are entitled to some help to get them the first step up on the economic ladder. No, I don't like it all. But I have my duty to do, and I did it. It wasn't pleasant. It wasn't pleasant when I went into the Army in World War II, either, but I did it. And the insinuation that somehow or other I have deserted my responsibility is one that really offends me. We did what we thought was best, each one of us, whatever the vote was. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I was to be able to call up an amendment at this time. Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is in the order. That is true. Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, before I use any of that time, just as a matter of courtesy and parliamentary process, my distinguished colleague is also standing for recognition. If I could ask the Chair what the Senator's intent might be, we might be able to work out an arrangement. Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my intention, having talked to the ranking Member, was to seek 10 minutes for debate on the resolution. Whatever fits with the schedule of the Senator from Massachusetts will be fine with me. Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is a commitment that was made, I say to the Senator from North Dakota. But the Senator from Massachusetts did have a priority and was on record as being next in line. If an accommodation can be made between the two--if not, the Senator from Massachusetts has an opportunity to offer an amendment. Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from North Dakota be permitted to proceed for 10 minutes, and subsequently, when he completes, that I be recognized for the purposes of calling up my amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his courtesy. I wanted to speak for a couple of minutes on the resolution itself that is brought to the floor of the Senate. I want to talk just for a moment about what it is and what it is not. This piece of legislation is a budget agreement that I intend to vote for on final passage. I think a substantial amount of work has been done by the chairman of the Budget Committee, the ranking member, and many others in the House and the Senate and in the White House. They have negotiated in very difficult circumstances the terms of a budget agreement. But, as I said, I want to talk about what this is and what it is not. This is a budget agreement that provides a balanced budget of the unified budget. Is that something that has merit? Yes, it is. Is that something that moves in the right direction? Yes, it does. But it is not a balanced budget amendment that balances the budget without the use of trust funds, such as the Social Security fund. I want everybody to be clear about that. On page 4 of this budget resolution, which is on the desks of all Senators, it says ``deficit.'' On line 24, it says ``deficit'' in the year 2002, ``$108 billion.'' Why does it say that? It says that because this piece of legislation balances what is called the unified budget. Many of us believe there is another step to be taken after that. That is to balance the budget without the use of trust funds, especially without the use of Social Security trust funds. For that reason, I voted for the initiative offered yesterday by the Senator from South Carolina. It got very few votes, I might say. But he said, let us balance the budget and not do tax cuts and not do added investments at the start so that we balance the budget completely without using the trust fund, and then, as the economy strengthens and as we have extra money, let us provide for the tax cuts and let us provide for the added investments. Obviously, that proposal failed. I will vote for this budget agreement. But it is not truly a balanced budget. It moves in the direction, and it moves the right way. But it will leave this country, still, with a deficit. That must be the next step following action on this document. There are several steps here in climbing a flight of stairs to get to the point where we make real progress. One step we took in 1993. I was one who voted for the budget in 1993. I am glad I did. I said at the time it was a very controversial vote. It passed by one vote in the U.S. Senate--a budget agreement to substantially reduce the Federal budget deficit. It passed by one vote, the vote of the Vice President of the United States. Some paid a very heavy price for that vote because it was controversial. It cut spending. And, yes, it raised some taxes. But what was the result of that vote in 1993? The result was a dramatically reduced budget deficit. In that year, the unified budget deficit was close to $290 billion. Again, using the unified budget, the Congressional Budget Office now says the unified budget deficit is going to be, at the end of year, $67 billion. What has caused all of that? Well, a good economy and a 1993 budget act that a lot of people here had the courage to vote for, that passed by one vote, that says, let's put us moving in the right direction; let's move us in the right direction to substantially reduce the budget deficit. And only with that vote, and only with the progress that came from that vote, are we now able to take another very large step in moving toward a balanced budget. What was the result of that vote? It was interesting. We had people in 1993 on the floor of the Senate who said, if you cast a ``yes'' vote and pass this budget, the economy will collapse; the country will go into a recession; it means higher deficits and a higher debt; it means the economy goes into a tailspin. It passed with my vote--and, yes, the votes of some of my colleagues who decided to say to this country that we are serious, that we are going to move this country in the right direction even if the choice is painful for us to cast this vote. What happened? What happened was 4 years of sustained economic growth, inflation coming down, down, down, and down, and unemployment coming down and down for 4 years in a row. We have more people working. This country now has 12 million more people on [[Page S4951]] the payrolls that we did in 1993. We have an economy that is moving ahead, a deficit that is moving down, and inflation that is at a 30- year low. I wonder if those who predicted doom from that vote now won't join us and say, ``You did the right thing. It wasn't easy to do. But because you did it, we stand here today now able to take the next step.'' The next step is a step in which we now try to choose priorities. What do we make investments on in our country, and where do we cut real levels of spending? That is what this document is about. It is a compromise between Republicans and Democrats, between a President and Congress, that tries to establish priorities. Frankly, while it reduces spending in some areas, it cuts out entire classes of spending in others. It also increases some investment in spending in yet other areas. What are those? Education: It makes a lot of sense for us even as we attempt to move toward solving this country's fiscal problems to say that we don't solve the problems of the future by retreating on things like educating our kids. So this piece of legislation says education is a priority--more Pell grants, more Head Start, more investing in education, from young kids to college age and beyond. It says we are going to invest in education. Then it says the environment and health care. It says these areas are priorities. They are areas that make this country strong, and we will continue to invest in those areas even as we move to reconcile our books so that we are not spending more than we take in. That is why this is important, and it is why it is successful. I am pleased, frankly, after all of these years, to be on the floor of the Senate saying this is something that is bipartisan. Finally, Republicans and Democrats, rather than exerting all of their energy to fight each other and beat each other, are deciding there are ways that we can join each other and pass a piece of legislation that moves this country in the right direction. I think the American people probably think it is a pretty good thing that bipartisanship comes to the floor of the Senate in the form of this budget resolution. I started by saying I would talk about what this is and what it isn't. I am going to vote for this. It moves this country in the right direction. It preserves priorities that are important to preserve, and investment in this country's future. It represents a compromise. Many of us would have written it differently. We didn't get all we wanted. But it moves this country in the right direction while preserving the kinds of things most of us think are important as investments in our country's future. This is not a balanced budget, not truly a balanced budget. It balances something called the unified budget. But it is a major step in the right direction. I hope we will take the next step beyond this to say that, on page 4 of the next budget resolution, line 24, we will say ``zero'' in a future year. That is when we will truly have completed the job. But the choices here are not always choices we would like. The choice that we now ask ourselves is, does this move us in the right direction with respect to the things I care a great deal about--one, fiscal discipline; a more deficit reduction; investment in education, health care, the environment--things that make this country a better place? The answer, unequivocally, is yes. This moves America in the right direction. Is it an exercise between the President and Congress, between Democrats and Republicans, that will give this country some confidence that the past is over, that the reckless, the irresponsible fiscal policy of saying let's spend money we don't have on things we don't need and run up trillions and trillions of dollars of debt for our kids and our grandkids to assume? Is it a message to the American people that we are beyond that period and have moved on to a new day of bipartisanship to decide together we can plot a better course and move this country toward a brighter future? The answer to that is yes. If the past is any experience, since 1993, the vote we took then to put us on the road to balancing this budget is a proud vote and one that I am glad I cast. I will be glad I cast this vote as well, because this is the next major segment of the journey to do what the American people want us to do on their behalf and on behalf of so many children who will inherit this country. They will inherit a better country because of what we will have done in this Chamber this week. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we have under normal regular order an amount of time at this point. The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has no time. The Senator hasn't called up his amendment. Amendment No. 309 Mr. KERRY. I call up amendment No. 309. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Kohl, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Wellstone, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 309. (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of May 21, 1997.) Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I now yield to the Senator from Minnesota 4 minutes. Mr. President, before I yield let me just take 1 minute to explain. This is an amendment to hold out a possibility--I yield myself such time as I may use--to hold out the possibility that when we come back in the appropriating process, we may be able to find some money to deal with the issue of early child development. We do not spend money now. We do not trade money. We do not have an offset. We do not spend. We simply want to be able to reserve the capacity to come back at a later time to deal with this issue. I will explain why I feel that is so important, as do the other Senators joining me.

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET
(Senate - May 22, 1997)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S4944-S4994] CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET The Senate continued with the consideration of the concurrent resolution. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized for 10 minutes. Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the Chair. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee. Mr. President, I rise in support of the overall balanced budget plan and rise expressing some reservations in regard to many of the amendments that we are considering, the pending amendments; some 45 of them, as a matter of fact. If nothing else, I wanted to pay a personal tribute in behalf of the taxpayers of Kansas and thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for his leadership, his perseverance, his patience. He has the patience of Job. I must confess, having come from the lower body, as described by Senator Byrd, and being the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I am not sure I had the patience of Senator Domenici. We now spell ``persevere'' D-o-m-e-n-i-c-i. How many hours, I ask of the chairman, if he could respond, how many days, even years, have been involved? Does he have any estimate in regard to the hours he has spent late, early--he and Chairman Kasich of the House? If he gives me an estimate, what is it? 10,000? Mr. DOMENICI. On this agreement itself, just this year, I would estimate 1,000 hours. Mr. ROBERTS. 1,000 hours. I said hours and minutes; even years. This has been the third year on this particular budget plan. This is the culmination of 3 years of hard work that the Senator from New Mexico has put in, all members of the Budget Committee, as well as the staff. This has been a Lonesome Dove Trail ride. I hope we get through the tall grass and balanced budget with all of our body parts intact. If we do, the chairman will get most of the credit. In the last session of the Congress we had two balanced budgets. We worked very hard and very diligently. They were vetoed by the President. We even came to a Government shutdown. Nobody wants to repeat that. I understand that when you are doing a budget for the U.S. Government, you have many, many strong differences of opinion. After all, for better or worse, the Congress of the United States reflects the diversity we have in this country and the strong difference of opinions. Goodness knows, we have good diversity and strong differences of opinion. The House, the other body, just the other night stayed until 3 a.m., and, finally, by a two-vote margin, succeeded in defeating an amendment that was a deal breaker. It involved highways. As a matter of fact, it involved transportation, the very issue we are discussing on the floor at this very moment other than my comments. Two votes was the difference. Goodness knows, everybody in the House of the Representatives, everybody in the Senate cares about transportation and cares about highways and the infrastructure. We came within five votes of a deal breaker on the floor of the Senate. I think it was five votes in regard to health care for children. Who can be opposed to additional funds for health care for children? As a matter of fact, the chairman has worked very hard to provide $16 billion in regard to that goal. So we had highways, health care, and we had a situation in regard to the construction of our schools, to fix the infrastructure of the Nation's schools--$5 billion--with a $100 billion price tag, which set a very unique precedent. I don't question the intent. I don't question the purpose nor the integrity of any Senator, nor, for that matter, anyone who would like to propose an amendment or a better idea in regard to the budget. But I would suggest that the high road of humility and responsibility is not bothered by heavy traffic in this instance. Most of the amendments--I have them all here. Here is the stack, 45 of them. Most of the pending amendments right here are either sense of the Senate or they have been rejected outright as deal breakers. Sense of the Senate means it is the sense of the Senate. It has no legal standing, has no legislative standing. It is just a Senator saying this would be a good idea in terms of my intent, my purpose, what I think we ought to do. And there are a few that are agreed to that obviously will be very helpful. But here are the 45. Most of them are simply not going anywhere but raises the point. I took a little counting here. There are 8 Democrats and 11 Republicans--11 Republicans who have decided that they will take the time of the Senate, take the time of the American people, take the time of the chairman of the Budget Committee and staff and go over and repeat their priority concerns in regard to the budget. There is nothing wrong with that. I understand that. Each Senator is an island in terms of their own ideas and their own purpose and their integrity. I do not really question that but in terms of time, I mean after 3 years of debate, after hours and hours and hours of careful deliberation between the President and the Republican leadership and 45 pending amendments. I have my own amendments. I have my own amendments. I should have had some sense of the Senate amendments. I feel a bit left out. I thought we had a budget deal. I thought we were going to vote on it. I thought that we were going to conclude. And then during the regular appropriations process, during the regular order, if you will, of the rest of the session, why, perhaps we could address these things that I care very deeply about. Maybe we ought to have a sense-of-the-Senate resolution introduced by Senator Roberts that all wheat in Kansas should be sold at $6. That is a little facetious, to say the least, but I do have concerns about crop insurance, a child care bill I have introduced, along with a capital gains bill, capital gains and estate tax. I think capital gains should be across the board. I think estate tax should be at least $1 million. I want a sense-of-the-Senate resolution or amendment declaring that. Or maybe an amendment--I tell you what we ought to have, if the chairman would agree. I think you ought to make a unanimous consent request to consider an amendment that all Senators who offer an amendment on the budget process must be required to serve 6 months on the Budget Committee. Why not? Perhaps in the interest of time, since all of the time that is being spent by the 11 Republicans and the 8 Democrats--oh, I forgot my sense-of-the-Senate resolution on defense. I do not think we have enough money committed to our national defense with the obligations we hear from the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the administration and everything else. So add that one in Roberts' sense of the Senate. Maybe we ought to have a unanimous consent request, to save time, to get [[Page S4945]] this business done, to accept the responsibility for the budget, I could just ask unanimous consent that all amendments pending be laid on the table and considered en bloc and ask for the yeas and nays and we could get the budget deal and go home. I have not made that unanimous consent request. That would be untoward. That is the mildest word I could use for it because it would violate agreements the distinguished chairman has made with other Senators. So let me say this to all the Senators who introduced all these sense-of-the-Senate amendments, fell asleep, issued a lot of press releases back home and got a lot of credit. And I laud their intent, laud their purpose. What about breaking the deal? What about the law of unintended or intended effects? What about the responsibility of delaying the Senate and possibly delaying 3 years of work, 3 years of work to get to a balanced budget? As you can see by the tone of my remarks, perhaps my patience as a new Member of the Senate is not near the patience of Chairman Job, Chairman Job Domenici, in regard to the Budget Committee. Now, I had intended on reading the names of all the Senators, their amendments and lauding their intent in behalf of all the things that we would like to see done. As I say, I have them all here. They range from everything from highways to education to defense to making sure that we have proper tax relief across the board. I will not do that. But I would at least ask my colleagues in the Senate to consider the job and the mission and what our distinguished chairman and members of the Budget Committee have brought to the floor of the Senate. And if we could, if we could plead for a little bit of expeditious consideration, because you know what is going to happen. Time will run out and then we will engage in what the Senate calls a votearama, and the votearama is like ``Jeopardy'' or any other game you play on television. You will not even hear what the amendment is. We will just hear an amendment by X, Y, or Z, Senator X, Y, or Z and then we will vote on it and obviously that will make a good statement back home and we can consider that very serious bill, that serious legislative intent during the regular order which should have been considered that way from the first. Again, I thank the chairman so much. Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield? Mr. ROBERTS. I will be delighted to yield. Mr. ASHCROFT. I appreciate the Senator's remarks. When the Senator holds the stack of amendments, is he suggesting there should be no amendments or is he just focused on sense-of-the-Senate amendments? Mr. ROBERTS. I think if I could further clarify that, of the 45 amendments there are about 6 deal breakers, if my conversation with the chairman is correct. Most of them are sense of Senate. And there are others that have been agreed to. But my basic premise is--and goodness knows, this new Member of the Senate is not about to say that we should change the process of the Senate. And this Member of the Senate is not about to preclude any Member from offering any amendment. The point that I am trying to make is that every amendment, every sense-of-the-Senate amendment, every deal-breaking amendment also to some degree interferes with the process and the conclusion of a balanced budget which has taken us 3 years. And I know because I have been sitting in the chair presiding, listening to the same speeches that are made today in the Chamber during morning business, and people can make them in their districts; they can make them on the steps of the Capitol; they can make them here, and that is quite proper of the Senate and is advisable. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Mr. ROBERTS. Could I have an additional minute? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator seeks an additional minute. Who yields him time? Mr. DOMENICI. How much time does the Senator desire? Mr. ROBERTS. One additional minute. Mr. DOMENICI. I yield it. Mr. ROBERTS. I find it rather untoward or awkward after talking 10 minutes and expressing concern of the time here I would go on and on about this. I think the point is well taken. I know the Senator from Missouri has a very laudable amendment in regards to something I would agree with and I would not deny him that opportunity. But can we not get on with it after 3 years? I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico. Amendment No. 311 Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me make it very clear to everyone in the Senate, first of all, I have nothing but the highest respect and admiration for both the sponsors of this amendment, the distinguished Senator from Virginia, who has worked diligently to try to create the transportation programs in the committee he serves and do it in the best interests of our whole country, and believe you me, he has had a tough job, and so has Senator Baucus in doing a great job, whether working on the committee or with transportation infrastructure. Their job is very difficult because they have to balance frequently the interests of all 50 States or those that are rural versus those that are very dense in terms of population and thus roadway needs are very different in his State or mine as compared with New Jersey, if you just take into account how much gasoline tax is taken in because we are small, with small populations, but we cannot get from one place to another without roads, so we are in a different category. And over the decades we have all worked very hard to figure out how to do that balancing act. And then it turns out when it is all finished, the House does it differently than the Senate because the Senate is represented two Senators to each State. So Senator Baucus and his co-Senator represent a very small population but they are two. In the House, they always load the bills with the heavy populated States and over here we try to do it with a little more fairness, more fair play. They have had to be referees over that. In fact, I might tell the Senators, they probably do not remember, but I was a referee on that once as a conferee, and that was pretty interesting, how we found a formula that year. I might say, in spite of these accolades, this is a very, very strange amendment, to say the least. Here we have been for all these days discussing a balanced budget, and as a matter of fact even those who would break this budget did not unbalance the budget. Or even those who had deal breakers because they would take the principal components of the budget and change them, as our leader said yesterday, pulling the wheels out from under the cart so it would break down. This amendment makes no effort to try to offset the $12 billion that they add to this budget. In other words, Mr. President and fellow Senators, this amendment is bold enough to say it just does not matter about a balanced budget. We just want to put in $12 billion more for highways. Frankly, I am sorry we do not have the money in this budget for that. But we did in fact, we did in fact increase the President's proposal by $10.4 billion. That is $10.4 billion more than the President had in mind, and we balanced the budget. We offset it somewhere or in some way reduced the amount of tax cut we were going to have in the overall sense of putting the package together. But this amendment just comes along and says, well, we just want this additional money spent on highways, and we will wait until another day to worry about the balance. Frankly, we had a very meager surplus in the year 2002. This particular amendment costs $4.5 billion in the year 2002, and that will bring us out of balance by over $2.5 billion. So I urge the Senators who want to support this amendment or this concept, they ought to come down to the floor and cut $12 billion out of this budget so it is still in balance. Then we would understand what would be hit--education and everything else we have been trying to fund. So I must say on this one the administration supports us. We were not so [[Page S4946]] sure yesterday morning, I say to my good friend from Kentucky, but they support us. They sent a letter up here saying they do not support this amendment. They support our efforts to see that it does not pass. Frankly, I would be less than honest and less than fair with the cosponsors--it is clear we are going to have to do something when the ISTEA Program comes along in the not too distant future. We are going to have to make some serious, serious adjustments. And I think those are going to happen. Perhaps the Senators will help expedite that a bit today by calling to the attention of the Senate the situation as you see it. But essentially, we have many trust funds in the United States, many trust funds. I used to know how many. But I think it is probably fair to say we have 100 trust funds. I think that is low by 50. I think we have 150. But let us just say we have 100 of them. Frankly, we do not spend every penny that comes into those trust funds every year, nor do we take them and set them out on the side and say whatever comes in goes out. We have put them in the unified budget. I am not sure--people argue on both sides of that concept. Should you break Government up into 150 pieces and then find some more pieces and have no central government running things, no unified budget, I should say. Forget who runs it, just a budget representing them all. And I have come down on the side of putting them all in and leaving them in, and if there is surpluses take credit for the surpluses. As a matter of fact, it is pretty clear that at some point we are going to have to change the way we are doing business, not perhaps spend more. But I would urge Senators not to vote for this amendment today. I will move to table it. I think it breaks the budget. It unbalances the budget. The intentions are very, very good, but this is not quite the way to do it. Now I yield to Senator Lautenberg-- Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. DOMENICI. Of course. Mr. WARNER. I thank him for the courtesy. Let's clarify a little bit just how the Senator as chairman of the Budget Committee--and certainly we commend him for the hard work he has done. What is the meaning of a trust fund? Let's be honest. You are keeping $26 billion, according to my calculation, holding it back, of the revenues paid at the gas tank, as if it were poker chips to play where you so desire elsewhere in the budget. We specifically did not put in offsets because the offset is there in a trust fund established 42 years ago with a legislative history which clearly said that it belongs to the people and should be returned to the people. That is why we did not have an offset. The offset is there in the form of the money in the highway trust fund. Shall we rename that budget deficit fund? Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, you will be writing the new ISTEA law. If you will care to rename it, it will be renamed under your direction, not under mine. But I would say, from what I can find out, this $26 billion trust fund surplus--we spend about $20 billion each year and they have done that for a long time. This $26 billion that is referred to is made up of two things: $20.6 billion of it is compounded interest, and $5.9 is committed to projects. Frankly, that does not mean we have an awful lot of money to spend. As a matter of fact, we probably do not have very much. But, from my standpoint, this trust fund balance is a very reasonable balance to keep in the fund. If at some point we can get to a better plan and do it over a period of time, you are going to find this Senator on your side. Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator yield? Mr. DOMENICI. Did Senator Lautenberg want to speak now? Mr. LAUTENBERG. I do. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time remains? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 20 minutes left; the other side has 12 minutes. Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we all deeply appreciate the amount of work the Senator from New Mexico has made to try to put this together. It is an almost impossible task. He made an interesting statement, though, that I would just like to follow up on a little bit. He turned to the Senator from Virginia a few minutes ago--if I heard you correctly; I do not want to put words in your mouth--and said something to the effect: Yes, you are right. At some future time when we take up ISTEA we are going to have to deal with deficiencies that are otherwise going to be available to be spent on the highway bill, ISTEA. If I heard him correctly, if that is what he meant, I would just like to explore with the chairman where we might find some of those additional dollars if it's not in the context of this budget resolution. Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, you did not quote me so incorrectly that I would say you didn't quote me right. But, in essence I am just expressing the notion that is pretty rampant, that outside of this budget resolution, at a later date, that in various committees we will be working on what do we do with this highway trust fund and what do we do with the new formula, where there will be a new formula. All I am suggesting is at some point that debate is going to occur, but I don't believe it should occur here on the floor of the Senate, taking $12 billion and just adding it to this budget and saying we are just going to go in the red because we have not figured out any other way. There is going to be another way to look at this situation. Mr. BAUCUS. But again I ask you, at what time, at what point would we begin to find the additional dollars that we all know we need for transportation? Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, look, the committees in the U.S. Senate are marvelous institutions, and how you work out problems that are complicated and difficult and frequently of longstanding--the Senate is historic in its wise ways of doing this. Mr. BAUCUS. I understand. Mr. DOMENICI. All I am suggesting is there is going to be a way. Mr. BAUCUS. I understand, but I bow to the mighty power of the Budget Committee, when we see the limitations that otherwise are incumbent upon us-- Mr. DOMENICI. I might suggest, I served on that committee for a long time, Senator Warner. In fact, I would have been chairman three times over with the longevity I would have if I would have been there. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we want the Senator where he is. Please stay. By the way, I volunteered three times to serve on the Budget Committee, and my name will be on there one of these days. Mr. DOMENICI. All right. Now, how much time do we have left? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 17 minutes left. Mr. DOMENICI. I wanted to yield to Senator Lautenberg, who is my ally here on the floor on this issue, and then find a little time of mine out of it to yield to the Senator from Rhode Island. Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am not going to take that much time, Mr. President. I think the chairman of the Budget Committee has fairly directly and succinctly made the arguments. The fact of the matter is that none of us are happy with the level of funding that we have for our investments in highways and our transportation needs. We are more deficient, in many ways, than countries down the Third World list. I think we rank about 55th in per capita spending for infrastructure. So, one would not disagree with the distinguished Senator from Virginia or the distinguished Senator from Montana in terms of the need, the need to correct the situation. But unfortunately, and it is unfortunate for me because I have long been an advocate of more spending on transportation in this country. I think it is common knowledge that the Senator from New Jersey has been an advocate of mass transit, of rail transportation, improving our highway system, of fixing our deficient bridges, which number in the thousands. But we have a proposal in hand that takes a priority, unfortunately, for the moment. That is, to complete the work we started on a balanced budget. We are committed to it. Believe me, this is not a place I enjoy being, because I do not agree with everything that is in the budget resolution. But I agree with it enough to say that there is a consensus that we fulfilled an obligation that we talked about to children, children's health, to the senior citizens, to try to make [[Page S4947]] Medicare solvent, to try to not further burden the impoverished in terms of Medicare, to try to take care of those who are in this country legally and become disabled. We fulfilled those obligations. The economy is moving along at a very good rate and we are still running the risk, in my view, with some of the tax cuts that have been proposed, of taking us away from the direction that we are moving in, which is to continue to reduce the budget deficit until the year 2002, when there will be none. So we have an imperfect, but pretty good, solution in front us. And, now what we are discussing, in terms of transportation--and this is like me talking against motherhood--but the transportation funds that are there are inadequate because of the structure of our budgeting structure, the budgeting arrangement that we have in our Government. The fact is that we have unified budgets. If one wants to start, as has been claimed here several times, establishing truth in budgeting, under that nomenclature I think one would have to start with Social Security. Are we prepared today to say we are going to add $70 billion to our deficit each year? We certainly are not. Yet I think, when you talk about a trust fund, there is no more sanctified trust fund than Social Security, something people paid in, they are relying on for their future, for their ability to get along. But we nevertheless still have the unified budget. That problem, I assure you, is going to get intense scrutiny over the next several years. Senator Roberts said something--I don't know whether you were here, Senator Domenici, when he said: Everybody, in order to have the budget fully understood, every Senator should be sentenced to 6 months on the Budget Committee. I thought immediately, there is a constitutional prohibition against cruel and inhuman punishment, so we could not do that, even if we wanted to. I am on the Budget Committee by a quirk of circumstance. When I came here, a fellow I had known who was a Senator said that he would do me a favor and that he would vacate his seat on the Budget Committee for me. And I will get even. The fact of the matter is, we complain and we gripe, but the money is where the policy is, the money is where the direction is. We take this assignment with a degree of relish, because we want to do the right thing. None of us want to throw the taxpayers' money away. But we are where we are. It is with reluctance that I am opposing this amendment because both Senators, Senator Warner and Senator Baucus, have been very actively involved in highway funding and highway legislation as a result of our mutual service on the Environment and Public Works Committee. But we are spending more than we did last year. We are spending more than the budget resolution of just 2 years ago. I was able, with a lot of hard work and with the support of the chairman of the committee, to get an $8.7 billion increase over the President's budget request for transportation. I had asked that transportation be included as one of the top priorities in the budget. Unfortunately it is not there. But there is a plan, that we expect to be fulfilled, to have a reserve fund that would allow significantly more funding for some of the transportation needs. But I want to point out one thing about the trust fund. That is, there is a slow payout in highway projects. I think everybody is aware of that--5, 7 years on many of these things. If we shut down the revenue source now, interest alone would not carry the obligations that are already out there. The obligation ceiling as contrasted with the contract authority are quite different things. We have these obligations that have to be fulfilled, they are there and one day must be met. The balances in the fund, I think, will start coming down with the adjustments that are expected to occur in ISTEA. We have the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee on the floor. That will be opportunity to make some of the changes that are being contemplated here. I just think it is a terrible time to say we ought to burden the budget deficit by $12 billion, roughly, right now, when everybody has worked so hard, and this budget has been scrubbed, reviewed, rewashed, rehashed--you name it. We are where we are, in a fairly delicate balance, I point out to my colleagues. There are very delicate opportunities that will, I think, upset the balance that has been achieved. So, again, I repeat myself when I say with reluctance I am going to vote against it. Mr. WARNER. Will my colleague yield for a brief question? Mr. LAUTENBERG. Sure. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator, a member of our committee, Environment and Public Works, is, according to my records, a cosponsor of a piece of legislation called ISTEA--NEXTEA. Am I not correct? Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is correct. Mr. WARNER. In that, it is interesting, there are three bills put in by Members of the Senate. I am coauthor--Senator Baucus, Senator Graham of Florida; STEP 21, Senator Baucus is 2000, you are with Senator Chafee. Mr. LAUTENBERG. Right. Mr. WARNER. ISTEA. Look into that bill. Right in there is a provision saying we want $26 billion each year, far more than what the Senator from Virginia is asking. I build up to $26 billion in the fifth year. You want it beginning this year. In other words, you are saying to the Senate, in a cosponsored piece of legislation together with the distinguished chairman of the committee, you want $26 billion. Now you stand on this floor and talk in direct opposite. That is what leaves me at a loss. So the question is, you are a cosponsor and---- Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, in response to the question, before the speech, I would say this--yes, I sponsored that legislation. My heart is in more funding for transportation, and no one here can say differently. The problem is that we are in a different point in time, and if you want to take it out of highways and say forget the children's health care bill, if you want to take it out of highways and forget the pledge we made to the senior citizens, or take it out of this bill and forget the pledge that we made to those who might be disabled, let's do it, let's talk about that. Let's talk about balancing the budget, because I know the distinguished Senator from Virginia has been a proponent of a balanced budget almost from the day the words were invented around here. So now we have a different occasion. We are not talking about transportation; we all agree that transportation is definitely underfunded. What we are talking about is at what price do we make this change, and the price is at, again, children's health or otherwise, because we are committed to balancing this budget. And this is strange talk for a fellow like me. Mr. DOMENICI. I think it is right on, and I hope you make it about five or six times in the remaining couple hours. I look forward to hearing it more times than one. Mr. President, I wonder, how much time do we have remaining? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 7 minutes; the Senator from Virginia has 10 minutes, almost 11 minutes. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, the chairman of the full Committee on Environment and Public Works, Senator Chafee. Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished manager of the bill. I rise in opposition today to the amendment offered by the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Montana. I might say, these are two Senators for whom I have tremendous respect. I have worked with them. The Senator from Virginia, I think we first started our association in 1969, and the Senator from Montana, I started working with him the first year he came to the Senate, which I think was 1978, 1979, and we have been closely associated ever since. However, this amendment, which would increase outlays for transportation spending above the levels provided in the resolution before us, I find to be inconsistent with the achievement of a balanced budget by the year 2002. The Senator from Virginia just said it went beyond the bill, the so- called NEXTEA bill that goes beyond this, and that is absolutely right, but that was before we had a target from the Budget Committee. I believe strongly in the budgetary process we have set up. I voted for it, and I support it. [[Page S4948]] I think we all can agree that the Nation's roads and bridges are in need of repair. No one argues with that. Transportation plays a critical role in our Nation's economy. We recognize that. In the United States, more than 12 million people, more than 11 percent of the gross national product, is involved in transportation. Earlier this year, I cosponsored a measure to increase, within the context of a unified budget, the level of transportation spending from the highway trust fund. I am pleased that the budget agreement, crafted by the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from New Jersey, increases the spending levels implicit in that proposal, the so- called Bond-Chafee proposal. It is $13 billion over a freeze baseline. That is pretty good. Would we like more? Sure we would. But I think it is terribly important to recognize that any proposal that boosts highway spending or transportation spending without corresponding offsets is something I personally cannot support. So, I agree with Senators Warner and Baucus that transportation spending should be increased, but not in a manner that would undermine the careful agreement reached by the Budget Committee. Do we like everything in this budget? No, but it is the best we can get. I am supporting that agreement. It seems to me we simply cannot afford to retreat from our efforts to eliminate the Federal deficit. So that, Mr. President, is the reason I cannot support this amendment that is before us today. I thank the Chair and thank the manager and thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee that deals with these matters. He has worked on them, and I know his heart is in this. As always, he argues his case with vigor and considerable force. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, might I ask a question on my time of my distinguished chairman? There are three bills pending before the Senate relating to the reauthorization of ISTEA. I mentioned that. Seventy-four colleagues have signed one of those three bills. Each one of those bills has the higher level of $26 billion. I say to my colleague, he also is a cosponsor of the Bond-Chafee/Chafee-Bond legislation. The principle that Senator Baucus and I are arguing today precisely is the Chafee- Bond bill. I ask the Senator, does he feel there is any difference in principle? Mr. CHAFEE. Yes. First of all, I am pleased to call it the Chafee- Bond proposal. Mr. WARNER. Call it what you want. Mr. CHAFEE. We call it that in Rhode Island. What the Chafee-Bond proposal does is it says that what came in in the previous year--we do not deal with the interest, we do not deal with---- Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I do not need an explanation. In principle, pay it in, take it out, isn't that right, in simple English? Mr. CHAFEE. That's right. Mr. WARNER. Fine, that's all I need to say. Mr. CHAFEE. What comes in this year goes out next year, and that principle is in this budget. Mr. WARNER. That principle is in this amendment. I thank the distinguished Senator. That is all we are asking. But it is interesting we are asking for less than what is paid in to come out, recognizing the challenge before the Budget Committee. So I say, once again, 74 colleagues have signed on to legislation. We are going to have to answer to our constituents, Mr. President, on this vote. You say one thing in sponsoring the bills, and we will see how consistent you are. I will put a letter on the desk signed by 56 Senators as to how they spoke to this. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana. Mr. BAUCUS. Will the Senator from Virginia yield for a few minutes? Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield all but a minute and a half, 2 minutes I have reserved. Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, we heard today from both the chairman and the ranking member of the Budget Committee that we need to address this problem; the problem that there is a deficiency in highway-mass transit-infrastructure spending that must be dealt with at sometime. But they are also saying they feel constrained to say they cannot deal with it here because they feel constrained by the budget resolution, a resolution agreed to principally between the White House and the leadership. They talk about an $8 billion increase. That does not include interest. And because the country is growing, because of additional needs we have and the crumbling bridges, if this resolution is adopted, Senators should know that they will receive less in dollars than they will need for their State's infrastructure. The Senators, the chairman and ranking member, say, ``Well, we will deal with it in the future at sometime,'' acknowledging that there is a problem and we need more transportation dollars. I must remind Senators that we have a difficult problem ahead of us. When we in the Environment and Public Works Committee in the coming weeks write a bill dealing with CMAQ, dealing with formulas, donor States, donee States, so on and so forth, what do we look at? We look at the number that the Budget Committee sends to us. We are constrained by that number. We must then write a 5- or 6-year bill which locks in the spending limits that the Budget Committee prescribes for us. We are locked in for 5 or 6 years. Those lower levels cannot be changed next year by a new budget resolution, cannot be changed until or unless this Congress writes a new highway bill. I am not so sure this Congress is going to want to write a new highway bill every year. So I am saying that this is the time to deal with this problem. It is now. Otherwise, we are locked in for 6 years to inadequate numbers. We want to make an adjustment of less than one-tenth of 1 percent of our Federal budget, less than one-tenth of 1 percent of our Federal budget, which I am fully confident can be dealt with in conference. It is critical that this amendment be adopted so that we are not locked in over the next 6 years to inadequate numbers. We will be locked into these numbers if this resolution is adopted. We can make adjustments in all the other accounts and still maintain the core provisions of the bipartisan agreement. So I urge Senators to, therefore, vote for this so we can do what we know is right. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair notes 2 minutes remain for the Senator from Virginia. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, is that all the time that is remaining? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The Senator from New Mexico has 2 minutes; the Senator from Virginia has 2 minutes. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend my distinguished colleague. He, in his concluding remarks, gave the clarion call: When we cast the vote, we simply cast a vote to say to the Budget Committee, ``Go back and look for that very small fraction so we can avoid this flat green line which is correctly represented on this chart, and allow our several States to build that infrastructure necessary to compete in this world market.'' What we have left out, my distinguished colleague and myself, are pages and pages of added requests by our colleagues. I totaled over $7 billion in addition to what is to be allocated under the formulation for superb programs that are badly needed by the country: Appalachian highway system; for the Indian reservation roads; for expansion of the intelligent transportation system; for innovative financing initiatives; for new funding to meet infrastructure--on and on it goes. We want to, Senator Baucus and I together with other members of our subcommittee and full committee, try and do this, but those we haven't even discussed today. We will never get to one nickel of this unless we are given some additional flexibility. So we say, with all due respect, we are simply asking a voice mandate in support of our constituents to the Budget Committee, ``Go back and reexamine the desperate need of America for these dollars.'' I thank the Chair. I yield back all time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Mr. DOMENICI. Do I have 2 minutes and that is it? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me suggest, again, to Senators who might be listening or those who might be listening in their stead, in this budget, we [[Page S4949]] have tried to do many things. We have tried to cut taxes for the American people; we have tried to cover little children who are uninsured with $16 billion; we have tried to cover the National Institutes of Health with a 3.5-percent increase. We heard from people what America had to be doing, and, in each instance, we had to get rid of something. In fact, I have not said it yet, but the President gave up 50 percent of his initiatives in the compromise that was made, and every time we did it, we said, ``Let's balance the budget; let's balance the budget.'' We would come back and say, ``Well, we want to add this, what do we take out?'' And we would take something out. What we have here today is $12 billion as if it just flopped out of the sky; no effort to balance the budget, no effort to offset it with expenditures so we can all see where do you pick up the $12 billion that is needed for highways? Everybody understands that highways are very much needed in America, but this budget, for the first time, will permit us to spend every cent of new taxes that comes into that fund every single year. We are moving in the right direction. Every cent of new gasoline tax that goes into this fund under this budget agreement will be spent in that year that it comes in, obligated during that year. That is a giant stride in the direction that we have been asked to go by many people in our country. Frankly, every Governor in America sends a letter in. They want more money. And then some of them get up and criticize that we do not balance the budget right. The lead Governor in America, the head of the association, he wants every penny of highway funds, but this budget resolution just does not get the job done right. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). All time has expired. Mr. DOMENICI. I yield back the balance of my time, and move to table the amendment, and ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The yeas and nays were ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to lay on the table the amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk called the roll. The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 80 Leg.] YEAS--51 Allard Bennett Biden Bond Breaux Brownback Campbell Chafee Cleland Cochran Collins Coverdell Craig D'Amato Daschle Domenici Durbin Enzi Feingold Feinstein Ford Frist Gorton Gramm Grassley Gregg Hagel Hutchison Kohl Kyl Landrieu Lautenberg Lieberman Lott Lugar Mack McCain Moseley-Braun Moynihan Murkowski Nickles Reed Roberts Rockefeller Roth Santorum Smith (NH) Smith (OR) Snowe Stevens Thompson NAYS--49 Abraham Akaka Ashcroft Baucus Bingaman Boxer Bryan Bumpers Burns Byrd Coats Conrad DeWine Dodd Dorgan Faircloth Glenn Graham Grams Harkin Hatch Helms Hollings Hutchinson Inhofe Inouye Jeffords Johnson Kempthorne Kennedy Kerrey Kerry Leahy Levin McConnell Mikulski Murray Reid Robb Sarbanes Sessions Shelby Specter Thomas Thurmond Torricelli Warner Wellstone Wyden The motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 311) was agreed to. Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote. Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay it on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. WARNER. History was made with this vote, by two votes, and two votes in the House--that resonates all across this land. It is a wake- up call to all those entrusted with the responsibility of keeping America's infrastructure modernized and safe so we can compete in this one-world market. This is but the first of a series of battles that will be waged on this floor on behalf of America's transportation system. It is my privilege to be a part of that team. I thank the Chair. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself 2 minutes. I want to compliment those who offered the amendment for the way they have handled matters and to tell the same American people that were listening to the distinguished Senator from Virginia that there will be additional highway funding in years to come, there is no doubt about it, but it will not be done at the expense of unbalancing the budget. It will not be done at the expense of just saying we will spend some money even if the deficit goes up. I look forward to the day we do it in such a way that it is balanced and that, as a matter of fact, if we increase, we cut some things to make up for the difference so we stay in balance. Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield? Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 2 minutes to Senator Stevens. Mr. STEVENS. As chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I want to tell the Senate that those of us who are voting against some of these amendments are doing it because there is no money to fund these sense- of-the-Senate resolutions. I say to any of you that want to offer amendments that change this budget, that authorize additional funds-- show me the money. Show me where the money is when you offer amendments that change the budget plan agreed to with the President. I have discussed this with the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. We will have the obligation to allot money within the budget among 13 subcommittees. A sense-of-the-Senate resolution does not give us any more money but it gives us the problem that you have sent a message to America that there is money in this budget to do something the Senate votes for in a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. When the budget resolution, just before, was voted I asked for a chance to come to the floor again, and I ask for you to reserve some time and we will show where a commitment has been made by the Senate to fund items where there is no money. I urge the Senate to wake up. We are voting against these matters not because we are against highways or aid for children who need insurance. We are voting--the Senators from New Mexico and New Jersey have brought us a resolution. We had a budget that has been worked out with the President and we have a chance to vote for a balanced budget. I do not want to be accused of being a tightwad when we allocate the money under 602(b) of the budget act and then we do not cover the sense-of-the-Senate Resolutions. Again, if anyone is going to accuse us of being tightwads and not following the sense of the Senate, I tell you, if you vote for one of these things, you show us where the money is and we will allocate it. We will not be misled by these attempts to gain publicity and to gain some credit at home on a bill like this. This is a very serious bill. The two of us are going to have a horrendous job trying to meet our duties even within this budget, so do not give us any more of this funny money. You show me real money and I will allocate it to your function. Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield? Mr. DOMENICI. I yield. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish to associate myself in considerable measure with the distinguished Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens]. We have been voting for a lot of sense-of-the-Senate resolutions. I think we had one yesterday, 99-0. We know it is not going to be paid for. On this business about infrastructure, we hear it said that there is no money. I am from a State that needs infrastructure. We say there is no money. I shall state why I supported the Warner-Baucus amendment. We do not need a tax cut in this country right now. We do not need a tax cut. I say that with respect to the Republican tax cut and with respect to the tax cut that is supported by the Administration. We do not need a tax cut. When we see what we are doing in this budget resolution with respect to cutting taxes--cutting taxes at a time when we are within reach of balancing the budget, if we were to use that money that is going for the tax cut, we would balance this budget much earlier than it is expected to be balanced now and we could also use some of that money for infrastructure. If we want to know where we [[Page S4950]] can get the money, that is where it can be found. Let's vote against the tax cut. I am going to vote against this resolution if we have the tax cut tied with it. I thank the distinguished Senator. Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from New Jersey. Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield myself 2 minutes off the resolution. Mr. President, I don't like being put in the position that appears to be developing here, that I am against investment in infrastructure. I stand on my record of having fought as hard as anyone in this body to invest more money in highways, in mass transit, in rail and aviation, whatever was called for. I never met a transportation project I didn't like if it was a well-founded and well-thought-out project. But the insinuation by our distinguished friend from Virginia to caution us and to lay down the scare that we will be counted upon or we will be looked upon by the Record and by the voters, I want to say this: The Senator from Virginia took the liberty yesterday of voting against the funds for crumbling schools, against schools that are tattered and falling apart, where children can't possibly learn. That was OK to vote against. And the appeal wasn't made, and there was no threat that if you vote against this, you are committing those kids to an even more difficult assignment to try and lift themselves up. I have defended investments in transportation as chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation of the Appropriations Committee. Without fail, I have defended investing more. But the onerous comparison is that we neglected our responsibility. It is almost as if you are unpatriotic. I don't really like everything in this budget resolution. But I am committed by my constitutional responsibilities. If I take the assignment, I have to work on it. We negotiated in good faith, and I don't like some of the tax concessions we have in there. But I think middle-class people in this country are entitled to some tax relief. I think those who want to send their kids to college are entitled to some help to get them the first step up on the economic ladder. No, I don't like it all. But I have my duty to do, and I did it. It wasn't pleasant. It wasn't pleasant when I went into the Army in World War II, either, but I did it. And the insinuation that somehow or other I have deserted my responsibility is one that really offends me. We did what we thought was best, each one of us, whatever the vote was. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I was to be able to call up an amendment at this time. Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is in the order. That is true. Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, before I use any of that time, just as a matter of courtesy and parliamentary process, my distinguished colleague is also standing for recognition. If I could ask the Chair what the Senator's intent might be, we might be able to work out an arrangement. Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my intention, having talked to the ranking Member, was to seek 10 minutes for debate on the resolution. Whatever fits with the schedule of the Senator from Massachusetts will be fine with me. Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is a commitment that was made, I say to the Senator from North Dakota. But the Senator from Massachusetts did have a priority and was on record as being next in line. If an accommodation can be made between the two--if not, the Senator from Massachusetts has an opportunity to offer an amendment. Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from North Dakota be permitted to proceed for 10 minutes, and subsequently, when he completes, that I be recognized for the purposes of calling up my amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his courtesy. I wanted to speak for a couple of minutes on the resolution itself that is brought to the floor of the Senate. I want to talk just for a moment about what it is and what it is not. This piece of legislation is a budget agreement that I intend to vote for on final passage. I think a substantial amount of work has been done by the chairman of the Budget Committee, the ranking member, and many others in the House and the Senate and in the White House. They have negotiated in very difficult circumstances the terms of a budget agreement. But, as I said, I want to talk about what this is and what it is not. This is a budget agreement that provides a balanced budget of the unified budget. Is that something that has merit? Yes, it is. Is that something that moves in the right direction? Yes, it does. But it is not a balanced budget amendment that balances the budget without the use of trust funds, such as the Social Security fund. I want everybody to be clear about that. On page 4 of this budget resolution, which is on the desks of all Senators, it says ``deficit.'' On line 24, it says ``deficit'' in the year 2002, ``$108 billion.'' Why does it say that? It says that because this piece of legislation balances what is called the unified budget. Many of us believe there is another step to be taken after that. That is to balance the budget without the use of trust funds, especially without the use of Social Security trust funds. For that reason, I voted for the initiative offered yesterday by the Senator from South Carolina. It got very few votes, I might say. But he said, let us balance the budget and not do tax cuts and not do added investments at the start so that we balance the budget completely without using the trust fund, and then, as the economy strengthens and as we have extra money, let us provide for the tax cuts and let us provide for the added investments. Obviously, that proposal failed. I will vote for this budget agreement. But it is not truly a balanced budget. It moves in the direction, and it moves the right way. But it will leave this country, still, with a deficit. That must be the next step following action on this document. There are several steps here in climbing a flight of stairs to get to the point where we make real progress. One step we took in 1993. I was one who voted for the budget in 1993. I am glad I did. I said at the time it was a very controversial vote. It passed by one vote in the U.S. Senate--a budget agreement to substantially reduce the Federal budget deficit. It passed by one vote, the vote of the Vice President of the United States. Some paid a very heavy price for that vote because it was controversial. It cut spending. And, yes, it raised some taxes. But what was the result of that vote in 1993? The result was a dramatically reduced budget deficit. In that year, the unified budget deficit was close to $290 billion. Again, using the unified budget, the Congressional Budget Office now says the unified budget deficit is going to be, at the end of year, $67 billion. What has caused all of that? Well, a good economy and a 1993 budget act that a lot of people here had the courage to vote for, that passed by one vote, that says, let's put us moving in the right direction; let's move us in the right direction to substantially reduce the budget deficit. And only with that vote, and only with the progress that came from that vote, are we now able to take another very large step in moving toward a balanced budget. What was the result of that vote? It was interesting. We had people in 1993 on the floor of the Senate who said, if you cast a ``yes'' vote and pass this budget, the economy will collapse; the country will go into a recession; it means higher deficits and a higher debt; it means the economy goes into a tailspin. It passed with my vote--and, yes, the votes of some of my colleagues who decided to say to this country that we are serious, that we are going to move this country in the right direction even if the choice is painful for us to cast this vote. What happened? What happened was 4 years of sustained economic growth, inflation coming down, down, down, and down, and unemployment coming down and down for 4 years in a row. We have more people working. This country now has 12 million more people on [[Page S4951]] the payrolls that we did in 1993. We have an economy that is moving ahead, a deficit that is moving down, and inflation that is at a 30- year low. I wonder if those who predicted doom from that vote now won't join us and say, ``You did the right thing. It wasn't easy to do. But because you did it, we stand here today now able to take the next step.'' The next step is a step in which we now try to choose priorities. What do we make investments on in our country, and where do we cut real levels of spending? That is what this document is about. It is a compromise between Republicans and Democrats, between a President and Congress, that tries to establish priorities. Frankly, while it reduces spending in some areas, it cuts out entire classes of spending in others. It also increases some investment in spending in yet other areas. What are those? Education: It makes a lot of sense for us even as we attempt to move toward solving this country's fiscal problems to say that we don't solve the problems of the future by retreating on things like educating our kids. So this piece of legislation says education is a priority--more Pell grants, more Head Start, more investing in education, from young kids to college age and beyond. It says we are going to invest in education. Then it says the environment and health care. It says these areas are priorities. They are areas that make this country strong, and we will continue to invest in those areas even as we move to reconcile our books so that we are not spending more than we take in. That is why this is important, and it is why it is successful. I am pleased, frankly, after all of these years, to be on the floor of the Senate saying this is something that is bipartisan. Finally, Republicans and Democrats, rather than exerting all of their energy to fight each other and beat each other, are deciding there are ways that we can join each other and pass a piece of legislation that moves this country in the right direction. I think the American people probably think it is a pretty good thing that bipartisanship comes to the floor of the Senate in the form of this budget resolution. I started by saying I would talk about what this is and what it isn't. I am going to vote for this. It moves this country in the right direction. It preserves priorities that are important to preserve, and investment in this country's future. It represents a compromise. Many of us would have written it differently. We didn't get all we wanted. But it moves this country in the right direction while preserving the kinds of things most of us think are important as investments in our country's future. This is not a balanced budget, not truly a balanced budget. It balances something called the unified budget. But it is a major step in the right direction. I hope we will take the next step beyond this to say that, on page 4 of the next budget resolution, line 24, we will say ``zero'' in a future year. That is when we will truly have completed the job. But the choices here are not always choices we would like. The choice that we now ask ourselves is, does this move us in the right direction with respect to the things I care a great deal about--one, fiscal discipline; a more deficit reduction; investment in education, health care, the environment--things that make this country a better place? The answer, unequivocally, is yes. This moves America in the right direction. Is it an exercise between the President and Congress, between Democrats and Republicans, that will give this country some confidence that the past is over, that the reckless, the irresponsible fiscal policy of saying let's spend money we don't have on things we don't need and run up trillions and trillions of dollars of debt for our kids and our grandkids to assume? Is it a message to the American people that we are beyond that period and have moved on to a new day of bipartisanship to decide together we can plot a better course and move this country toward a brighter future? The answer to that is yes. If the past is any experience, since 1993, the vote we took then to put us on the road to balancing this budget is a proud vote and one that I am glad I cast. I will be glad I cast this vote as well, because this is the next major segment of the journey to do what the American people want us to do on their behalf and on behalf of so many children who will inherit this country. They will inherit a better country because of what we will have done in this Chamber this week. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we have under normal regular order an amount of time at this point. The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has no time. The Senator hasn't called up his amendment. Amendment No. 309 Mr. KERRY. I call up amendment No. 309. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Kohl, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Wellstone, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Murray, and Mr. Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 309. (The text of the amendment is printed in the Record of May 21, 1997.) Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I now yield to the Senator from Minnesota 4 minutes. Mr. President, before I yield let me just take 1 minute to explain. This is an amendment to hold out a possibility--I yield myself such time as I may use--to hold out the possibility that when we come back in the appropriating process, we may be able to find some money to deal with the issue of early child development. We do not spend money now. We do not trade money. We do not have an offset. We do not spend. We simply want to be able to reserve the capacity to come back at a later time to deal with this issue. I will explain why I feel that is so important, as do the other Senators j

Amendments:

Cosponsors: