Max Baucus

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. And subsequent amendments?

Mr. BAUCUS. I appreciate that. I encourage the leader to stick with 10 minutes.

Mr. BAUCUS. And that includes 2 minutes to explain votes.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order. The Senator from West Virginia has an amendment, and I think we all should give him our attention.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, these remarks are meant as a substitution for remarks regarding the trigger amendment to H.R. 1836 when debated May 17, 2001. I speak in opposition to the pending amendment as it is based upon uncertainty, the uncertainty layered on top of the uncertainty is whether the trigger will be pulled. We cannot legislate certainty. We can only exercise good judgment. We, as a Congress, in these next years, have to decide what to do according to the circumstances at the time and exercise good judgment as to what we should do. Unfortunately, we have not been able to explore the full policy ramifications of this amendment. We have not been able to adequately debate the substance of this amendment. It is because we are in this time constraint where everything is rushed, and nobody has been able to look at the substance. There have been no hearings on this. First, you cannot and should not limit public debt management. The Treasury Secretary has to have discretion in debt management. Right off the top, we are tying the hands of the Treasury Secretary, for whatever reason he or she may want to borrow more, sell more securities, sell more bonds for domestic reasons or for international reasons. Secretary Rubin has said consistently that we should not tie debt management to fiscal policy. You should not do it. It is wrong. I understand why the Senator from Indiana is offering this amendment, and I understand why the Senator from Maine is offering the amendment. Let me talk about the uncertainties in this amendment. This amendment essentially provides, I will summarize it, scheduled debt reduction targets, in even numbered years, and the Treasury Secretary will certify whether these targets are being met. If they are not being met, then what happens? What is triggered is that reductions in taxes are automatically stopped, the growth rates for discretionary spending are automatically held at the rate of inflation, and entitlement spending increases are automatically stopped. What about a Medicare drug benefit? I heard that entitlement increases will be stopped. No, I will stand corrected because I see the Senator from Indiana shaking his head. But the way it is drafted, new entitlement spending, as I understand it, is included in the trigger. But I stand to be corrected if that is not the case, but that is how I read this amendment now. What happens in odd-numbered years? Things are not automatic. But any Member can stand up in this Chamber and say the targets have not been met and set a trigger process in motion. That is too much uncertainty. Do we really want to tie our hands like that? Do we want to limit our discretion in future years as to what is best by putting this automatic provision in the law? Do we want to tie the hands of our Treasury Secretary in debt management? Do we really want to do that? Talk about the steepness of the yield curve. Why is the yield curve steep? It is steep because the bond market today believes in the outyears that interest rates are going to rise. Why? Because the Federal Reserve has just lowered interest rates by 50 basis points. And because this tax cut is going to pass. The market thinks there is going to be growth because of the stimulus of this tax cut and because of the lowering of short-term interest rates. As a result, the market believes there will be inflation in the outyears; therefore, long-term interest rates are going to be higher. I believe the policy consequences of this amendment have not been fully explored and that it is based on too much uncertainty. We should not adopt it.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Landrieu, I ask her amendment be withdrawn. We are working on it. I think we will find a way.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, there will be a point of order raised.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I appreciate the generosity and cooperation of the Senator from Arizona. The point of order is well taken. It is not good policy. I think we are making progress tonight. This is the first time we are going to move along here in a way that does not occupy a lot of time. Madam President, the pending amendment is not germane. Therefore, I raise a point of order the pending amendment violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. BAUCUS. I yield back the remainder of our time as well.

Mr. BAUCUS. If the Senator from New Hampshire is willing, I am willing to yield back the remainder of our time on both the first- and second-degree amendments.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to address the underlying amendment. It is a good idea. There is no reason for the exclusion of certain income under survivor benefits with respect to persons who died before 1996. Sometimes those benefits are distributed after 1996, and I think the amendment offered by the Senator from New Hampshire is a good one. I must say, I am a little bit surprised by the second-degree amendment. It is not an improvement on the first degree. It is an entirely different subject. It is a subject which is not in the jurisdiction of this committee. I urge the Senator, frankly, to withdraw it or maybe offer the amendment later on. We have not debated that issue at any length. At least with respect to the underlying amendment, I think the Senator has a good idea.

Mr. BAUCUS. So we can go on with this amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. I yield back all time. If Senator Conrad wants to speak for 2 minutes later on during the day, I think we can find time to let him speak on the amendment.

Mr. BAUCUS. Very briefly, Mr. President, to help clarify where the managers of the bill are on this amendment, I think it is a very good amendment, but I cannot agree to it. Essentially, it is conditional. It violates the Constitution. This is not the time and place for this particular amendment, even though it is meritorious, not on this bill. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, if there is some way we could work out waiting for a couple minutes so the chairman of the committee could be here, I think that would be appropriate.

Mr. BAUCUS. I object.

Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 minute.

Mr. BAUCUS. I asked unanimous consent to address the Senate for 1 minute.

Mr. BAUCUS. I ask the Senator from Mississippi whether he would be willing to entertain putting us out tonight so long as we can develop a list of subsequent amendments to be offered, say, by tomorrow? I say that to my friend because there are so many amendments that could otherwise be offered tonight, we are going to be here until 6 in the morning at least. I very much agree with the Senator from West Virginia. There is a time and a place for everything. The time to end is probably about now. Perhaps we could put together a list of amendments with the understanding that that is the list, those are the amendments because, as we all know, at this point any number of amendments could be offered even subsequent to those that are being contemplated. I ask the Senator if he would contemplate that?

Mr. BAUCUS

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I will object if the effect of the consent is that an objection can be raised to laying aside the Senator's amendment whenever a subsequent amendment might be offered.

Mr. BAUCUS. I yield whatever time the Senator needs.

Mr. BAUCUS. How much time do we have remaining?

Mr. BAUCUS. I would like to answer that question. I didn't say that there is no policy. Those were not the words I used. I did say, though, that I don't think we should start going down this road, which basically implies that, whether the provision you mentioned is meritorious or not, I don't know if it is wise to keep going down that road. I want to share a line that kind of struck me about this whole subject. When my wife and I got married about 18 years ago, we went on a honeymoon. On the honeymoon, we stopped off on the first night at a bed and breakfast. The next morning we were sitting down and having breakfast, and the lady who ran the bed and breakfast was serving breakfast. She knew, for some reason, I was in the Senate. I did not broadcast that. I did not, frankly, want her to know that. I was on a honeymoon with my bride. And this lady walked up to me right away after she served us part of the breakfast and she started insisting that the red dress she was wearing should be tax deductible because it wasn't fair. Here I am on my honeymoon, and I couldn't get away from it. I thought, first of all, it is in poor taste to be asking for that, but, second, it is clear that some people, with the jobs they have, need legitimate expense deductions for the expenses they have. She is not entitled, this lady, to a deduction for the dress she wears. We have to draw lines. We have to make choices. I think this is not a road we want to continue going down. We do not want to further complicate the code with even more complexities. The Senator is right, it is with a heavy heart that I must stand up and say I don't think this is good tax policy. Even with a heavy heart, I think this is not the wise way to go. There are better ways to accomplish the objective the Senator is so correctly seeking.

Mr. BAUCUS. I was going to ask the Senator a question. He asked me a question.