Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I join my colleagues from the Environment and Public Works Committee in introducing the administration's bill by request. I do so largely because of my friendship with and respect for Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, whom I served with in my days in the House of Representatives.

I have always been a proponent of infrastructure spending and the economic stimulus and jobs that it creates. For every billion dollars we spend on our Nation's surface transportation infrastructure, we create over 47,000 well-paid skilled jobs. Reauthorizing our Nation's surface transportation laws represents a tremendous opportunity for us to impact our economy in a meaningful, lasting way. Unfortunately, the administration's reauthorization proposal does not take full advantage of this opportunity.

While the bill continues the spirit of its predecessors, ISTEA and TEA-21, the bill is woefully underfunded. The bill correctly places added emphasis on important topics such as safety, but then lacks the funding to make a real and substantial impact in these areas.

The administration's bill also would modify certain environmental provisions and project permitting requirements. TEA-21 and its predecessor, ISTEA, proved we can advance our national transportation goals while preserving our environment. I will not support any provision that undermines essential environmental protections I have spent 20 years in public office trying to preserve. We can increase investment in and improve our Nation's surface transportation system in a timely, thoughtful, and effective way without jeopardizing the environment.

I look forward to the coming reauthorization debate and to working with my colleagues and Secretary Mineta on this most important legislation.

We have two of the most experienced managers in the Senate working on this bill, Senators Grassley and Baucus. The rules of this tax

debate are not the ordinary rules of the Senate. They are unique in this piece of legislation. So we need to make sure that Members understand that, and that those who have amendments, as the majority leader has indicated, give the managers some indication as to when they will be ready. We don't have the luxury, as we have on a lot of pieces of legislation, to just wait around until they show up. With some exceptions, the time runs all the time--with the exception, of course, if there are rollcall votes.

I ask that all Members understand that the rules of this debate are different than others. If we are going to complete all of the work people want--we have a significant number of amendments on this side that people want to offer, and they may not be able to offer them. If the majority wants to take time on our amendments, they can do that, of course.

This is also one of those times when we have the ability to enter into debate and have amendments voted on. We are going to have this trimmed down as much as we can on our side, but we have a lot of amendments. Voting alone on this bill could take several hours. So I hope everybody will cooperate with Senators Grassley and Baucus and help us move this important piece of legislation.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Is the Senator aware of some statements made by some of our friends on the other side of the aisle?

For example, I quote Senator Santorum. And this is from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette on November 15, 1995:

The American people are sick and tired of excuses for

inaction to balance the budget. The public wants us to stay

the course towards a balanced budget, and we take that

obligation quite seriously.

I quote the majority leader at the time, Senator Trent Lott:

I think the most important thing really does involve the

budget, keeping a balanced budget, not dipping into Social

Security, and continuing to reduce the national debt.

I quote Senator Hagel, from the Omaha World Herald, on February 6, 1997:

The real threat to Social Security is the national debt. If

we don't act to balance the budget and stop adding to the

debt, then we are truly placing the future of Social Security

in jeopardy.

Final quote--there are others--but the final quote I will give you is from Senator Judd Gregg. This is from the New Hampshire Sunday News, February 1, 1998:

As long as we have a Republican Congress, we're going to

have a balanced budget, and if we can get a Republican

President, we can start paying down the debt on the Federal

government.

I give you these quotes.

Also, very soon, in the next few days, we are going to take up the issue of increasing the national debt by almost $1 trillion. So will the Senator comment on these direct quotes from Republican leaders and the fact we are being asked by the President of the United States to increase the national debt by almost $1 trillion in the next few days?

If the Senator would allow me to ask him a question.

Is the Senator from Illinois aware that the Congressional Budget Office, the White House Council of Economic Advisors, and the private sector economists who helped the President analyze this proposal have stated that the President's tax break plan will weaken the long-term health of our economy? This is from the Congressional Budget Office, the first part of April of this year. Is the Senator aware that these institutions and individuals have so stated?

Is the Senator aware that in the State of Illinois the number of jobs lost since the beginning of the Bush administration is nearly 200,000, and last month alone it was almost 20,000 jobs?

Mr. President, it is my understanding the Senator is asking that in the form of a unanimous consent agreement she speak in morning business.

I am not going to object to this request, but I do want everyone to understand that the majority leader asked that we expedite the tax bill. We are trying to do that, but speaking in morning business is not going to expedite consideration of this bill. There is limited time. We have 7 hours on our side. We are going to try to spend all 7 hours on tax matters. I want everyone to understand this when the majority leader is asking why this is not moving more quickly

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

My dear friend from Iowa was wrong in saying that the time would be used up anyway, and here is the point I am making: We have been asked to move the tax bill. That is what we should be doing. We have turned down a number of requests on this side of people wanting to speak, no matter how important it might be, on issues other than those relating to the tax bill. The time used on the bill talking about morning business, no matter how important it might be, does not deal with the tax issues of this country. The majority leader has asked us to cooperate in trying to move this bill along. It is obvious as the day is clear that we are not moving this along when we are talking about extraneous matters. That is the point I am making. I have no objection.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, the amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota will be voted on as it stands. If there is any suggestion that there will be an offer or attempt to second-degree the amendment or somehow not give us a straight up-or-down vote, we will continue to offer this second-degree amendment on other things. There will be a vote on this amendment.

It would be to everyone's best interest to get that out of the way as quickly as possible and vote on this very important amendment offered by the Senator from North Dakota.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask that amendment No. 560 be reported.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I can remember as a little boy my grandmother getting what she referred to as her old-age pension check. That is what she called it. We have refined the name. That is not politically correct anymore. We now refer to someone receiving a Social Security check.

The Social Security check my grandmother received gave her dignity. She had eight children. The children helped her, but my grandmother, a proud widow, did not want to feel dependent on people, even her own children. I repeat, that old-age pension check gave her dignity. It gave her independence. She had money of her own that she could spend. She was unable to work. My grandmother, for all the time I remember her, could not walk very well. She was very heavy and did not move around very well. But that check still gave her the ability to feel free to do things on her own.

Social Security is the most important, the most successful social program in the history of the world. There has never been a program that has worked as well as Social Security. In addition to helping my grandmother as it did, Social Security has other important effects. It helps those who are widows.

I have said on this floor before and I will repeat it, I was in my Senate office in the Hart Building, and a woman was there representing an agency from Nevada. It was obvious she was very anxious to make her flight. I asked: You can make your plane easily; why are you so nervous? She had to get home to her children. She proceeded to tell me she was a widow. She was a young woman. I asked her what happened to her husband. He was murdered. Social Security steps in in situations such as that to help widows and orphans. Social Security also helps the disabled.

Social Security is more than a check for my grandmother. It is a check for the widow whose husband was murdered. It is a check for someone who has a debilitating disease and cannot work. Social Security is an important program. Our Social Security program is the envy of the rest of the world. It is a program that came about during the Great Depression, the brainchild of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and the program has been remarkable.

Not every Member of this body is committed to protecting Social Security. That is a fact. The former majority leader of the Senate, my friend, the distinguished Senator from Kansas, Mr. Dole, is proud of the fact he voted against Medicare. He acknowledges, as do a number of other distinguished Republican leaders, that Social Security and Medicare are bad programs.

I carry in my wallet--I still have them here; I have read them so many times and I am not going to do it again--quotes from Republican leaders--Gingrich, Armey, Dole, and there are others who are not as nearly forthright as these three men who acknowledge their dislike for these programs, but we know there are people in the other body who do not like these programs. We know there are people in this body, Senators who do not like these programs.

As has already been stated on this floor by the distinguished Senator from North Dakota, the former chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Conrad, part of this tax program of the majority is simply to do away with programs they cannot defeat head up. They cannot get rid of Medicare and Social Security with votes on the Senate floor. So these tax programs will starve domestic discretionary spending and cause us to cut back and maybe even eliminate, if they get what they want, these important programs.

I repeat, not every Member of this body is committed to protecting Social Security. The amendment I have offered will give Members an opportunity to show not only seniors, but others, that Social Security is a program believed to be important to this country.

Young people believe in Social Security, and there has been this myth propounded by the majority that Social Security is about to go broke. Social Security is not about to go broke. We need to do things in the outyears, probably around 2040, to make Social Security a better program than it would be without our help, but even if we did nothing, Social Security recipients would be able to draw 75 to 80 percent of their benefits. We need to do something.

What is being done is exactly the wrong approach. The Republican tax bill that is before this Senate--call it growth and opportunity, call it whatever you want--is a tax bill that is devastating to the security of this country. It is devastating to the Social Security program.

My amendment is very simple. It says Congress cannot raid Social Security surpluses to fund tax cuts on corporate dividends. It is as simple as that. The Social Security trust fund is being raided as we speak.

During the Clinton years, we came to the conclusion that it was not appropriate to mask the yearly deficit with Social Security surpluses. So we had an accurate accounting system. When we talked about there being a surplus, there was a real surplus. What we have here is a report in the newspapers by the administration of what the deficit is, but that deficit is masked because of Social Security surpluses.

As we speak, there are huge amounts of money coming in to the Social Security trust fund, and these moneys are not being spent. There is a surplus.

As the late Senator Moynihan and I, in a dialog in the Senate one afternoon, talked about, it should be a Social Security trust fund, not a Social Security slush fund.

It is being used as a slush fund to cover deficits. The deficit this year will approach $600 billion. So I believe that we should protect Social Security. We used to have debates going on about lockboxes. What was a lockbox? A lockbox was a box that the Social Security surpluses were in and it could not be raided. We said: You cannot have the key to unlock that lockbox for Social Security surpluses. That debate is gone. Nobody talks about it anymore because everyone knows this administration has not only given the key away to the lockbox but thrown away the lockbox. Social Security surpluses are raided every day in this country.

The last 3 years of the Clinton administration there were huge surpluses, retiring hundreds of billions of dollars of debt. Now we have the direct opposite. We are creating hundreds of billions of dollars of debt, and in the next few days we are going to be asked to vote upon increasing the national debt ceiling by a trillion dollars, approximately, some 980-odd-billion dollars. Round it off to a trillion dollars.

My amendment is about priorities. Are we going to protect Social Security or are we going to take the money raised with payroll taxes and use it for a tax cut for the elite of this country?

Every worker pays payroll taxes. Yet every worker will not benefit from a corporate dividend tax cut. So it hardly seems right that we would support using payroll tax money to fund a tax cut that will benefit a select few of the elite of this country.

A short time ago the county assessor from Washoe County, NV, Reno, NV, came to my office. He came for one reason, to tell me: Please, Senator, do not do anything to allow this dividend tax cut to go through. It will devastate Washoe County. How we build roads, bridges, and schools is through floating bonds. That is how we do our assessment districts, to put in water systems, curbs and gutters. If the dividend tax cut goes through, State and local governments are going to be devastated. They will not be able to raise money as they did before.

So as far as I am concerned, this dividend tax cut is not good for our country. In just 6 years, the baby boom generation will begin to retire and our senior population will double--almost double from 44 million to 77 million. We need to make sure that we are prepared to meet the obligations we have made to our parents, our grandparents, as well as our children and our grandchildren.

When the Bush administration came into office, there was a projected $5.6 trillion 10-year surplus. Some say it was over $7 trillion. Now, the Government will have a record of a $1.8 trillion deficit, and maybe a $2 trillion deficit, and spend every dollar of the $2.2 trillion Social Security surplus over the next 10 years.

Before Social Security, 1 in 3 older Americans lived in poverty. Social Security has reduced that number to 1 in 10. Over the past few decades, millions of older Americans have been lifted out of poverty by Social Security.

I believe Social Security is one of the greatest success stories in the history of our country. I have already stated that.

As I said, Social Security is something everyone in this country wants to believe is going to continue to be as successful as it has been. Yet it is a success story that will be rewritten with a tragic ending if we decide to plow ahead with the corporate dividend tax cut before we meet our commitment to future generations. If we are going to build on the success of the Social Security Program, we cannot allow Congress to raid the Social Security surplus in order to fund corporate dividend tax cuts. New tax cuts will run up debt, make it harder for Social Security to meet its future obligations, and further threaten its long-term solvency. Simply, this means future generations of seniors can look forward to uncertain retirements. For many, this will mean retirements into poverty.

Social Security is a guarantee of some measure of security in retirement. It is not everything, but it is a guarantee of some security in retirement. The collapse of corporations like Enron and WorldCom underscore the importance of maintaining this guarantee and not forcing workers to depend entirely on pensions for their retirement savings.

We have just started to see what is happening to the retirements of people who have worked all their lives. For example, in the airline industry we have real concern about the future. Are they going to be able to maintain their programs so people can draw their benefits? The airline industry is only one. We have battled with the steel industry, coal miners. We have had all kinds of problems and that is only a small portion of what is probably going to happen in the future.

Not everyone agrees on how to approach Social Security reform. But one thing is certain, nearly every single Social Security reform plan that has been proposed requires additional resources, not less resources. In fact, the plan recommended by the President's own commission to strengthen Social Security required over a trillion dollars. What has happened to that? The true question is, Where does Social Security rank on the page of important issues voted on? Will this Senate say that protecting Social Security is more important than giving a dividend tax cut to the elite of this country? I hope the answer is yes. I hope people vote to put Social Security first. I hope every Member in this body agrees we should not raid Social Security trust fund dollars so we can offer tax cuts for the elite of this country.

Let's show our seniors and future generations we are serious about fulfilling our obligations to them. It is time, and this amendment is the time to demonstrate that Social Security is a top priority for this Congress and for the Nation.

A constituent said it best in a recent e-mail that he wrote to me. I do not know if that is a proper term for e-mail, but I received it. He said:

Tax cuts are nice . . . but if we can't depend on what the

Federal Government promises, then what is left for us to

believe in?

Of course, that was referenced directly to Social Security.

I hope we will join to do the right thing for the millions of people who are on Social Security, the millions of people who will go on Social Security, and for those people who recognize that this program is the most successful social program in the history of the world.

I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I personally think we should have a real jobs bill. For example, there has been a lot of talk about how many jobs this tax bill will create. Let's analyze this.

There is no dispute that for every $1 billion we spend on public works projects--for example, building highways, roads, bridges, dams, water systems, sewer systems--for every $1 billion we spend, we create 47,000 jobs. The math is simple. By spending just a few billion dollars compared to the multitrillion-dollar tax program that has been recommended, we could create many more jobs. Those are direct, high- paying jobs. Every $1 billion, 47,000 jobs. Multiply that and it comes out to lots of jobs, especially those that would be created indirectly.

I hope some day we have a real jobs bill, instead of what we are talking about, jobs and growth; call a pig a horse all you want, but it is still a pig. You can talk all you want about this tax bill and how much growth it will create; the fact is it is a program for the elite of this country.

Simple and direct to the point, it is what it is. It is an effort to devastate the ability for domestic discretionary spending and cause tremendous harm to programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

I hope when we vote on this measure there will be a resounding yes vote. I understand there will be a technicality raised because, under this rule, germaneness is a very tight rule and it will require 60 votes. That is not such a high burden.

We should be able to have 60 Senators vote to put Social Security before giving tax cuts to the elite. My amendment goes only to the dividend tax cut. I hope we have support on that. If 60 Senators do not agree to support Social Security over a dividend tax cut, I feel very sorry for the remainder of the session and what it will do to the American people.

Will the Senator withhold for a brief minute?

Madam President, there are Senators wondering what will happen this afternoon. It is my understanding that the distinguished Senator from Iowa will propound a unanimous consent request that we will have a vote around 2 p.m.; is that right?

It is my understanding, though, that we will have a vote, try to have a unanimous consent agreement and vote on the Dorgan amendment and the Reid amendment, and the Senator from Iowa may raise points of order against those.

That is right.

Mr. President, I have the deepest affection for my friend from Utah. He lives in a different political world than I do. He just did a stunning job in his debate, but he was debating himself. The matter pending before the Senate is whether we should have tax cuts for the elite--that is, dividend tax cuts--or whether those moneys should be kept for Social Security. That seems pretty simple to me.

I did mention, and the Senator from Utah responded briefly, that my proposal to have public works projects is not in keeping with his idea of how to create jobs. The only way to create jobs, he said, is through entrepreneurship.

Well, Frainer Construction of Nevada, Helms Construction of Nevada, Granite Construction, Las Vegas Paving--large by Nevada standards--are companies that believe in entrepreneurship. Every road they build, every water project they work on, every bridge they repair is entrepreneurship. What is the difference in these huge tax cuts that go to the elite, that create no jobs, as I will shortly show? If past experience means anything, I think we are better off directly doing something.

My friend from Utah has acknowledged that there is not going to be anything happening in the near future. He is talking about future Presidents taking credit, future Congresses. He has acknowledged that nothing is going to happen in the near term with this foolish tax cut that has been proposed.

All this talk about growth and jobs, as this bill is intended to do, simply will not work. I direct my friend to a few people on this chart. These are the economists who support the Bush tax plan. You can see them on the left hand side, few in number. The economists opposing the Bush tax plan are 450 in number. Those who support the plan are 13 in number. Those opposing are 10 people who have won Nobel Prizes for their work. We have, in fact, professors from the University of Utah, Gail Blattenberger, Samuel Jameson, David Kiefer, Thomas Maloney, James M. Rock, Norman Waitzman, all distinguished scholars from Utah who are on this chart who say this tax plan the President has proposed is not good.

The question before the body--the vote will take place at 2--is whether this body will vote to have a tax cut for the elite as it relates to dividends or whether Senators will vote to protect Social Security. The Social Security debate has left this body since Republicans became the party that dwells in the White House. We used to talk about a lockbox. Not only the key has been lost but the whole lockbox has been thrown someplace we can't find. Social Security is not part of the equation anymore. Suddenly deficits don't matter.

I say to my distinguished friend who was a courageous soldier for the United States, somebody who was valiant in battle and who I have the greatest respect for as a legislator, I want to bring to his attention some of the problems that exist with this new philosophy that deficits don't matter.

I refer the distinguished Presiding Officer to a statement he made on the 6th of February 1997, in the Omaha World Herald:

The real threat to Social Security is the national debt. If

we don't act to balance the budget and stop adding to the

debt, then we are truly placing the future of Social Security

in jeopardy.

I ask my friend, when he comes down to this table in 40 minutes and votes, to remember what he said in 1997. This is clearly an indication that we are driving this country into a terribly difficult situation as it relates to the deficit.

Deficits don't matter? I hope they do. But apparently there has been a new philosophy from the other side of the aisle.

We are going to be asked in a few days to increase the national debt by almost $1 trillion. I hope people will be more concerned about the debt. I agree with the statement made by the Senator from Nebraska.

I believed the chairman of the Federal Reserve System when he told us in the Appropriations Committee that the most important thing we could do is get rid of the deficit. We did that. We took him at his word. As a result of that, we had years where we paid down the debt to the tune of $600 billion.

When the Bush administration took office, they promised to eliminate the national debt and spur the economy with a massive tax cut for the elite. I didn't vote for that tax cut because I thought it would do exactly what it has done. I have been through the years in the past when we were told that the trickle down theory was a great one and would help the country economically. It didn't then, and it didn't during the Bush 2 program. This plan has failed the vast majority of people in America who are worse off than 2 years ago when this man took office.

Since this administration took office, the economy has lost almost 3 million private sector jobs. The economy has shed 500,000 jobs in the past 3 months alone. About 9 million people are looking for work. The unemployment rate is 6 percent. The number of unemployed workers has increased 47 percent since the President took office. A growing share of the unemployed workers are long-term unemployed. In February, nearly 2 million people had been unemployed for 6 months, which is triple what it was before this man became President. The Bush administration is on track to post the worst job creation record of any administration in almost six decades. This tax cut raids Social Security, and that is what this amendment is all about.

I have been here long enough to know that the majority are not very independent. I believe--and I hope my belief is unfounded--that come 2 o'clock people will march down here and vote against this amendment. They will vote that it is not germane. It takes 60 votes. We know the rules of germaneness. They will march down here just like lemmings over the cliff and throw Social Security to the wind, I am sorry to say, but I think that is what is going to happen.

Even without the new tax break for the elite, this Government will spend every dollar of the $2 trillion Social Security surplus over the next 10 years--even without this. So with this, it will be done more quickly.

The real reason for the deficit is the tax cut--the tax cut previously made, which I voted against. It is not easy to vote against tax cuts. People love them. It will be used against me in my campaign. That is the way it is.

The Congressional Budget Office says that only 14 percent of the deficit is as a result of homeland security and defense spending. Over 10 years, Federal spending on interest on the public debt will amount to $2.4 trillion. Of course, every dollar directed toward interest is diverted from Social Security. It is diverted from Medicare, education, defense, and homeland security.

The additional interest burden on a family of four will be $30,000. That is the additional burden. State and local governments are in the midst of the worst fiscal crisis since World War II. Last month, the cumulative 2004 budget shortfall was about $54 billion. A billion of that is in the small State of Nevada. State and local governments, which bear primary responsibility for most education, health care, and first responder expenditures, will bear the brunt of the consequences of this irresponsible tax plan.

The second phase gets even worse. Sixteen States have cut education programs in elementary schools. In Nevada, the Clark County School District is considering going to a 4-day week for kids because it is having trouble paying for a 5-day week. Twenty States have cut health care programs, even though we are living in a heightened risk of bioterrorism and SARS. It makes no sense to just chop to pieces

our State public health budgets. But that is a consequence of what is happening in this administration.

What is wrong with this plan we are being asked to approve? It fails to help working people, for one thing. Our top priority is to create jobs. I will say it again, Mr. President--creating jobs. The moneys that would be given in these public works projects, which are not new jobs--I bet in the States of Utah and Nebraska there are many projects on the drawing board that simply cannot be completed because there is no money to do it--roads, water and sewer projects, bridges, dams, all those activities. They are on the drawing boards now and would go forward tomorrow if there were money to do it.

As I indicated before, for every billion dollars spent, 40,000 jobs are created. Those are direct jobs, all high-paying jobs. These people would buy refrigerators, carpets, cars, all kinds of consumer items. There are a lot of indirect jobs as a result. The Republican plan fails to help working people. It fails to preserve Social Security. It offers no relief to the 9 million Americans who want to work but cannot find a job.

People on the other side refer to this as a ``jobs and growth package.'' As I said earlier today, you can call a pig a horse, but it doesn't matter how many times you call a pig a horse, it is still a pig. Or you can call a horse a pig; it doesn't matter; that animal is still a horse. You can call this program jobs and growth all you want, but it doesn't make it a jobs and growth program. Calling this a jobs and growth program--there could not be anything further from the truth.

The CBO, the White House Counsel of Economic Advisers, and the private sector economists who helped the President analyze this proposal have stated that his tax break plan won't create jobs and will weaken the long-term health of this country. In fact, some economists have forecast that the plan will cause an annual .25 percent drop in GDP and will result in a loss of almost a million jobs in the next 10 years. That is in addition to the jobs that have already been lost. There are the 400 economists there on the chart. And I am sure there would be more if we spent a little extra time. So 400 economists, including 10 Nobel laureate prizewinners, signed a statement warning that the President's plan would do long-term harm to the economy, adding to the Nation's projected deficits.

Mr. President, you were not standing there alone saying deficits matter. Some of your colleagues also felt the same. A number of very distinguished colleagues felt the same. For example, somebody for whom I have the greatest respect, Trent Lott--we worked together on the floor very closely for 4 years--said on the 27th day of January, 2002:

I think the most important thing really does involve the

budget--keeping a balanced budget, not dipping into Social

Security, and continuing to reduce the national debt.

He gave that quote to the Chattanooga Free Press. What has changed? Nothing has changed in a little over a year. Senator Judd Gregg--here is a man who has wide-ranging experience. He served in the House of Representatives, he was a Governor, and now he is a Senator. He said to the New Hampshire Sun News on the first day of February 1998:

As long as we have a Republican Congress, we are going to

have a balanced budget. And if we can get a Republican

President, we can start paying down the debt on the Federal

Government.

What has happened to that? Do deficits not matter anymore? Obviously, they don't. We are going to be asked to increase the national debt a trillion dollars in a few days.

I am happy to yield to the Senator from Illinois for a question.

Mr. President, I say to my friend in answer to his question, the Senator is absolutely right. What is happening boggles my mind. I am certainly not a genius, but I did OK in school, and I can understand some basic facts. How can people, for whom I have the highest respect, say one thing about deficits mattering and Social Security mattering and vote for this awful program?

I say to my friend, the distinguished Senator from Illinois, what I said earlier today. I believe this is all part of a program to do away with some of these programs in which we really believe. I repeated in different words what the Senator said today in responding to a statement made by the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee. I said the same thing to the distinguished junior Senator from Utah. They live in a different world than I live in. It is as simple as that. They live in a different world. They care about the trickle down theory. I do not. I do not think it has worked. Over the years I have seen it trying to work where you give money to the elite of this country. It does not trickle down.

We have significant problems in the State of Nevada. We are battling budget problems in the little State of Nevada, and the Republican Governor in the State of Nevada--I am sure it was very difficult for him--because there is no alternative because of the unfunded mandates the Federal Government passed on to the State of Nevada, is trying to find ways to create new revenues. I say the word, the Republican Governor of the State of Nevada has asked for new taxes.

I respond to my friend, I voted against the first tax cut. It was not an easy vote. Just on general principle you want to vote for tax cuts. I believe the payroll taxes are something most people pay much more than they do in income taxes. I would like to figure out some way to give them a break from payroll taxes. I think there are ways we can reduce taxes.

At first glance, you do not want to vote against a tax cut, but I had an inkling, I had a belief, I had a conviction that doing what was done with the first big tax cut would throw this country into an economic downturn, and that is what it has done.

When the Bush administration took office, they promised to eliminate the national debt and spur the economy with a massive tax cut for the wealthy. They failed to deliver. Most people are not better off; they are worse off than they were 2 years ago, I say to my friend.

I will be happy to yield for a question from my friend from Utah without losing my right to the floor.

I respond to my friend from Utah, I borrowed this chart from somebody else. I am not much on this chart business, but I know that if there are that many who favor the tax cut, you should do your own chart.

I yield for a question. I will do that.

I will be happy to respond to the question. First, it seems a little unusual to me, the huge tax cuts written by the Republicans and passed virtually by Republican votes, with very few Democratic votes, now they are saying the tax cut was not big enough and not quick enough. So now what we are going to do is come back with a bigger tax cut and I guess they say it is not quick enough.

The majority has written both tax bills. I voted against the first tax cut, and I will vote against the second tax cut because I believe the tax cut certainly is not going to help Social Security. Remember, the issue before the Senate today, and we are going to vote on it at 2 o'clock, is whether this body should give tax cuts to the elite of this country in the form of reducing the tax on corporate dividends or whether that money should be put back in Social Security. That is the issue before the Senate. It is a very simple issue.

I have talked about what I think is wrong with the plan in general. Remember, my statement has been directed toward what I feel is a very pertinent question: Does this body, the Senate, want to preserve Social Security or destroy Social Security? The vote at 2 o'clock will take that into consideration.

I believe when we had discussions on the Senate floor dealing with lockboxes and keys to lockboxes that it was a good discussion because I felt very strongly that we should do something to preserve Social Security.

It is interesting to me that there was a constitutional amendment offered on the Senate floor to balance the budget. It was offered by Republicans. I offered a counter amendment. I said that is a great idea, let's do it, but we are going to do it without using the Social Security surpluses. That was not enough for my friends on the other side of the aisle. My amendment received 44 votes. I was six votes short. I wanted a constitutional amendment to balance the budget but not use the surpluses of Social Security. The majority disagreed. They wanted to use Social Security surpluses to balance the budget. That is unfair. I have no regret having done that.

I yield to my friend for a question.

The Senator is absolutely right. The baby boom generation is upon us.

Our senior population will nearly double from 44 million to 77 million in just 6 years. That is what it is all about. I am just stunned by--I believe in intellectual consistency, and I try to be consistent on what I do in my legislative voting on the Senate floor. I try to remember statements I have made, so I do not want to be inconsistent, to say something today that is inconsistent with something I said previously.

What has happened to our friends on the other side of the aisle who cared so much about deficits and balancing the budget, who offered a constitutional amendment on the Senate floor to balance the budget? Of course, they wanted to use Social Security surpluses, but still they were concerned about balancing the budget.

Senator Rick Santorum, the junior Senator from Pennsylvania, who is one of the leaders on the other side of the aisle, is quoted in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette:

The American people are sick and tired of excuses for

inaction to balance the budget. The public wants us to stay

the course towards a balanced budget, and we take that

obligation quite seriously.

Take it quite seriously, when we are going to be asked to increase the national debt in a few days by a trillion dollars--by a trillion dollars; not a billion, not a million but a trillion? Where are all of these statements? What happened to them? What happened to the consistency? Why all of a sudden do deficits not matter, the national debt does not matter, Social Security does not matter, Medicare does not matter, education does not matter, just give tax cuts to the elite and it will all be fine?

It is going to take care of all the environmental problems we have in America today. We do not have to worry about Superfund, endangered species, clean air, clean water. Just cut taxes. That takes care of it all.

The Senator from Illinois has raised a question, and I am sure the people watching this have the same question, which is: Okay, you do not like the Republican plan. What is your idea?

Well, we do have an idea. It costs much less money and has a direct impact. We would want a new wage credit, which would provide $300 for each adult in a family; $300 for the first two

children. We want to accelerate the child tax credit to $800 from the current $600. It eliminates the marriage tax penalty. It provides marriage penalty relief for recipients of the earned-income tax credit, which by the way, Ronald Reagan said was the most important tax policy this country has ever had, the earned-income tax rate. What is that? It creates a desire for people to work rather than try to go on, say, welfare, because they can actually make money by working with their hands.

Ronald Reagan loved this program, the earned-income tax credit, and we want to make it even more important.

We want to have a 50-percent tax credit to help small businesses pay for health insurance premiums. These estimates are not exact, but there are from 21 million to 25 million Americans with no health insurance. There are millions more who are underinsured. Now, this is not going to answer all the problems, but it sure is a step in the right direction. It will help small businesses pay for health insurance premiums.

As I mentioned, the answer to all of the problems-- environmental problems, better schools, homeland security--is cut taxes for the elite of this country. That will handle everything. I am sure that is their reasoning for this no-tax policy on health insurance.

In answer to the Senator's question, we would allow small business expensing that I think is very important. That is in the Republican plan. I think it is important we have that in ours. We want a bonus deduction for businesses on depreciation rules. We want a 20-percent tax credit for businesses that invest in the broadband high-speed Internet infrastructure. We want $40 billion direct relief to States and local governments. It is so important we do that.

As I mentioned to the Senator earlier in responding to one of the questions, the State of Nevada is devastated because of unfunded mandates. Leave No Child Behind, as I said, according to the State legislature, is leaving lots of kids behind because they have no money to implement all the testing requirements and things that our school districts are being forced to do. They do not have the money to do it.

Homeland security, we have all kinds of burdens upon us as a result of 9/11, and I think we should be helping with that.

With our tax plan, which we are going to have a chance to vote on and which I think is going to be offered by the Senator from Louisiana, we are going to have an opportunity to do something about unemployment benefits. Our plan calls for unemployment benefits. I think that is extremely important.

Our plan is so much better. It creates over a million jobs right away. It is a program that has something the working men and women in this country will benefit from. We had a meeting with one of the most successful businesspeople in the country, Warren Buffett, a man who is a study in how entrepreneurship should work. We have heard a lot about entrepreneurs in speeches on the other side.

He is what the free market system is all about. When asked a direct question about what he thinks of the Bush tax cut plan, after he wiped the smile off his face, he said: You know, if this tax cut plan passes, next year I will receive--and this figure might not be exact but real close--an extra $390 million for me, Warren Buffett.

He said: I do not need that. I do not want that. It is not going to create jobs. What we should do, if there is $390 million to go around, is give 390,000 people a thousand dollars.

He said: They will spend that. That will help the economy.

That is the difference between our plan and their plan. The Warren Buffett understanding of what our economy is all about is about people spending money.

I say to my friend, in parroting something the Senator said earlier today, those people on the other side of the aisle who are pushing this tax plan are not evil people; they are not bad people. They are good people. They just live in a different political world. They live in a world where they are willing to change their political philosophy according to who is in the White House. People who used to say that deficits matter now say they do not matter. People who said we had to balance the budget no longer say we have to balance the budget. They simply are not willing to approach the world the way I think the world needs to be approached.

I think I am right. I believe I am right. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I have a little substantiation. I have 10 Nobel laureates who believe I am right, that this tax cut is not good; it will not help the economy. However, no one has to accept these Nobel laureates. Ask the Congressional Budget Office. They, the Republicans, picked who runs that, we did not, and the Congressional Budget Office says it will not help anything.

I say to my friend from Illinois, this vote we will take in a few minutes is an example of the difference in philosophy between what is going on with the majority and we, the Democrats. What we are saying is the dividend tax cuts for the elite of this world should not go forward. That money should be saved for Social Security. That money that will go to elite people is coming out of the Social Security trust fund.

If there was ever an example of how we should vote for constituents, it is now. Do you vote for people who want to maintain the strong Social Security Program or do you vote for the people who are going to give big tax cuts to Warren Buffett? There is a simple answer to the question.

Remember the vote today at 2 p.m.: Dividend tax cuts or saving Social Security. It is as simple as that. We recognize that anyone can puff it any way they want; anyone can slam it any way they want. That is what the vote is about. The first vote we will take on this tax cut bill is whether you are going to vote for Social Security or the wealthy of this country. It is as simple as that.

Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act, I move to waive the section of the Budget Act for the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) and the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``Aye''.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BREAUX addressed the Chair.

Madam President, I have cleared this with the distinguished chairman of the committee. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be temporarily set aside so the Senator from Massachusetts may offer his amendment.

Will the Senator from Massachusetts call up his amendment?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time used by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts be charged against the time on this amendment.

Madam President, how much time does that leave on this amendment on the side of the minority?

So the Senators from Washington and Rhode Island will have 36 minutes, or whatever time they need.

I ask Senator Kennedy, will you yield time to the Senator from Rhode Island?

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside and ask that the Senator from Vermont be recognized to offer an amendment.

It is my understanding the Senator has completed debate on this amendment.

I recognize the Senator from Kentucky, who, as the gentleman he is, very graciously allowed the Senator from Vermont to go first. The Senator from Vermont had been waiting for a long time. We appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Kentucky.

No objection.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.

As I said earlier this morning, we have two of the most experienced Senators that we have in the Senate managing this bill. We would not be at the point we are today but for the good work of the two Senators, the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Montana. It doesn't matter how you feel about the underlying bill, the work that has been done on the floor by these two men here today has been outstanding, and that is why we are able to enter into this agreement. There is no objection on this side.

No objection.

One area of clarification: I am confident there is no problem. We want to make sure motions to waive would also be in order on these amendments that are pending.

Mr. President, if I could, I know the distinguished majority leader has a statement to make on an important subject. While he is here, as we begin today's session, I have a couple of questions.

First, with the order that was entered last night, we are in morning business until 12:30; is that what the leader intends to do?

Mr. President, I say to the leader, we would be happy to cooperate in any way that will make things move more quickly. We do have a number of Senators--Senator Conrad, Senator Stabenow--who wish to speak, and so I am not sure they can complete everything by then, but we will enter into an agreement that we can get to the energy bill as quickly as possible.

I am not going to do this in the form of a unanimous consent request because I did this yesterday--and there is no need to do this again-- other than to say, I think it would be in the best interest of the Senate if today we immediately move to the debt limit bill. The leader has indicated what he wishes to finish this week. We believe it would be good to do this prior to the tax bill. We could finish it today. We could be in a position where we could complete the votes even tonight when the people return from the Long funeral.

So I would hope the majority leader would consider allowing us, rather than going to the energy bill, which we are not going to make much progress on--and my personal feeling is we will not finish that bill until the leader gives us a lump of time that says we are going to finish the bill. So, anyway, I hope we can move to the debt limit bill as expeditiously as possible. That is why we have this agreement which is standing dealing with H.J. Res. 51, that we have a limited number of amendments. We have indicated there would be no filibuster. So I would hope we could move to this as quickly as possible.

Mr. President, we understand the importance of each one of these measures. We understand the importance of global AIDS. I think it is important that we have a bipartisan approach, and the majority leader, as a physician, has helped us move into that position. Keep in mind, this is an authorization bill. We have to do authorizations before we do appropriations. With regard to its urgency, it is important we get it done so that during the appropriations process we can give some money to the programs that are authorized. As far as it being as urgent as the tax bill or the debt ceiling is concerned, it is down the list in that regard.

Senator Feingold wishes to speak. I will work with the floor staff as soon as the majority leader completes his statement to try to figure out how much time we need on this side. While it is the decision of the leader to move to energy, we think we should move to the debt limit. But the leader makes that decision. We will work out with the floor staff as to how much time we need for this side.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that the majority wants to move to the energy bill as quickly as possible. We have two speakers. Senator Feingold wishes to speak for 25 minutes and Senator Stabenow wishes to have 15 minutes. That would be a total of 40 minutes. If there are no intervening speeches, we can move to the energy bill at approximately 11:10.

Mr. President, I received a note that Senator Mikulski also wishes to speak for 10 minutes. If there are intervening Republicans who wish to speak, we certainly understand that.

I ask unanimous consent that before we move to the energy bill, Senator Feingold be recognized for 25 minutes, Senator Stabenow for 15 minutes, and Senator Mikulski for 10 minutes. Also, Senator Enzi wishes to speak for 20 minutes.

Then we can go to the energy bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that be the case.

Mr. President, I know the Chair is anxious to close the Senate for our caucuses. I ask the patience of the Chair. The majority will be here shortly. We have a very important unanimous consent request that we have to enter before the recess.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Reserving the right to object, I want to make sure there is an understanding. It is my understanding that the leader sometime this evening, after the bill is reported out of the Finance Committee, would bring this to the floor, but that we would not work on the bill tonight. The 14 hours would start running actually tomorrow; is that right? I wanted to make sure that was the understanding.

We have been, for the last 24 hours, suggesting that we would be

better moving to the debt ceiling sooner rather than later. We feel it should be done before this tax bill. We are working on that. I have worked with the distinguished Senator from Kentucky the last couple of hours. If we get a few breaks during the caucuses, we may be able to bring it up this afternoon. I have no objection to the request by the Senator from Kentucky.

Will the leader yield before he leaves the floor?

The distinguished Democratic leader, I am certain, is aware of the fact that during the last 3 years of the Clinton administration there was an actual paydown of the national debt. Is the leader aware of that?

I ask the distinguished Senator from South Dakota if he is as concerned as I am about there being no concern as to the unbalanced budget we now have. I have in front of me statements made by Republican leaders in years past where they said, among other things:

The real threat to Social Security is the national debt. If

we do not act to balance the budget and stop adding to the

debt, then we are truly placing the future of Social Security

in jeopardy.

That is a direct quote from a Republican leader in 1997. I have several pages of quotes about the Republicans feeling the importance of balancing the budget. Is the Senator as concerned as I am that they no longer are concerned about balancing the budget?

I listened to a speech just delivered, and the leader indicated we are going to be asked in the next few days to increase the national debt by almost a trillion dollars--not a billion, almost a trillion dollars. Is that what the leader said?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the statements of five Republican Senate leaders regarding their beliefs in years past about balancing the budget be printed in the Record.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Will the Senator yield?

I apologize for interrupting the Senator. I applaud and commend the author of this legislation, with whom I joined, in presenting this legislation.

For the State of Nevada, with the limited agriculture we have, and the very few rivers we have, the tamarisk is removing our agricultural possibilities, our recreational possibilities. If we can figure out a way to get rid of this salt cedar that has been ruining Nevada's rivers for decades now, it will do as much to help the State of Nevada and the environment as any one thing we can do. This will actually improve the environment of the State of Nevada.

I want the record to reflect how much I, on behalf of the State of Nevada, applaud the Senator from New Mexico for offering this legislation.

If I could just say one more thing to my friend from New Mexico, in addition to that, they are not good for shade.

They are not good for birds to nest in. They are just an ugly blight on Nevada's environment.

Will the Senator yield?

I apologize for interrupting the Senator. I applaud and commend the author of this legislation, with whom I joined, in presenting this legislation.

For the State of Nevada, with the limited agriculture we have, and the very few rivers we have, the tamarisk is removing our agricultural possibilities, our recreational possibilities. If we can figure out a way to get rid of this salt cedar that has been ruining Nevada's rivers for decades now, it will do as much to help the State of Nevada and the environment as any one thing we can do. This will actually improve the environment of the State of Nevada.

I want the record to reflect how much I, on behalf of the State of Nevada, applaud the Senator from New Mexico for offering this legislation.

If I could just say one more thing to my friend from New Mexico, in addition to that, they are not good for shade.

They are not good for birds to nest in. They are just an ugly blight on Nevada's environment.

No.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Reserving the right to object, on our side we ask that the ranking member of the Finance Committee go first on our time, and the ranking member of the Budget Committee go second on our time.

Mr. President, I think when the hour is up, we will just revisit what we are going to do.

One additional minute on the other side.

The same on the other side, Mr. President.

Parliamentary inquiry.

When and if we complete the morning business--which I understand there is a minute and a half remaining; is that right?

What would be the order before the Senate at that time?

What would be the order following the majority using its 11 minutes?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time to proceed to H.J. Res. 51 prior to taking up the reconciliation bill. I ask unanimous consent to take into consideration the previous order that was entered regarding the debt limit. We have been told that the President must sign a bill increasing the debt limit by no later than Monday morning; that the country is in deep trouble with the debt.

I ask that we move to this matter. We have a unanimous consent agreement that would be in effect, and we could finish it in 1 day. I ask unanimous consent that we do that prior to moving to the tax bill.