Kit Bond

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes. We have heard a lot of straw men set up by opponents on the other side. We have heard about all kinds of horrible cuts that would come if we get a responsible budget number for welfare. This body should know that the $53 billion cut, which we propose in this amendment to include in reconciliation instructions, is equivalent to the $53 billion cut that was passed by an 87-vote majority in this body when we debated welfare previously. Now, there could have been as many as 13 Members of the body that did not like what was in that welfare bill. But I can assure you, with 87 Members of this body voting for welfare reform, the horrible, tragic things that we hear about that could happen if we have to achieve reconciliation savings of $53 billion in welfare are so much smoke and mirrors. What we are concerned about in the numbers is assuring that veterans health care does not take an impossible hit, a $12.9 billion reduction. There is no way that one can work out. My colleague from California, who has argued so eloquently for the veterans and has talked about them, did not propose any changes when she voted for the amendment that would slash Veterans' Administration spending by almost $13 billion in the Budget Committee. The Senator from Minnesota had said we should not worry about the cuts in veterans. We just cannot adopt a budget number that is consistent with the previous welfare reform that 87 Members of this body, on a bipartisan vote, supported when we first passed welfare reform. Mr. President, budgets are about setting reasonable expectations for Government so that we can carry out our functions in a responsible manner and not continue to add to the deficit. All of the horror stories, all of the very difficult and compelling cases that were cited are not the ones that would be hit by the budget reconciliation proposal that this amendment contains. Mr. President, I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I guess I had better talk rapidly. We have raised the caps in the amendment in the copy we have. We would be happy to have staff be sure we are talking about the right numbers. The fact remains that both sides agree that we cannot cut, as the President has proposed, spending on the Veterans' Administration. I thank the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee for his kind comments. We will have more to say about veterans affairs and the credibility of the President's budget on the next vote. I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be ordered.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside to permit the introduction of an amendment by the ranking member of the Budget Committee and that the amendment so set aside be placed second in the order for votes at the end of debate on the amendment by the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, before I start my formal remarks, let me straighten out any misunderstanding. Were we not furnished a copy of the amendment. Is that what I understand? I am just trying to make sure that we know where we are coming from.

Mr. BOND. If it is there, that is all I need to know. We were concerned it might not be. You made a change. You made a change in the copy of the amendment after it was given to us. Is that the mixup? The best guess is that we were not furnished the final copy of the amendment. It is no big deal. The fact is it is in there. That is what I wanted. Can you give us a copy of yours?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I would like to be able to enter into a debate on this. But I am still waiting to see what it is the amendment does. I know it deals with veterans. But I am a bit at a loss to know how we should debate it when we do not have the amendment before us. I have been in some difficult situations, but this is probably one of the toughest ones.

Mr. BOND. I am happy to.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I suggest we do not need to go into recess. I would make my friend an offer. If he will just tell us what he means by cutting corporate welfare, maybe we can carry out the debate, because I would trust his characterization. I would ask the Senator from Nebraska, does he mean he is raising taxes? Could he be a little more specific about the things we are doing?

Mr. BOND. I yield myself such time as I may require. We obviously are getting some basic philosophical differences here. My distinguished friend from Nebraska has accused us of reflexively turning to means-tested entitlements. What we have done, Mr. President, in fact, is to turn to failed programs and say it is time to reform them. The President himself has said it is time to end welfare as we know it. That is why 87 Members of this body, Democrats and Republicans, said we need to reform welfare. The system is not serving the people it is supposed to serve--the taxpayers who fund it, the communities that see its impact, or the future generations who hope that we could help people get out of welfare and into productive employment. What we are saying is it is time to reform these programs. We are going to keep saying that because I think the overwhelming body of American citizens knows that welfare needs to be reformed. By the same token, my friends on the other side of the aisle reflexively turn to tax increases. If it moves, tax it. We are talking about an amendment to the budget presented on behalf of the President by the distinguished Senator from Nebraska. Let me point out that that bill already has $36 billion in new taxes in extenders. It raises $36 billion in extending taxes. It has $54 billion in other loophole closings. They have already got $90 billion of tax increases. And the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee says, let us just hit them with another $13 billion of taxes. Now, Mr. President, I thought that maybe our friends would have learned something when President Clinton proposed and they voted for the significant tax increases of 1993. I have cited before on this floor the studies have shown that raising taxes in the way that was done in 1993 did not generate the kinds of revenue expected because it discouraged economic activity. It has slowed economic activity, economic growth and jobs in this country, and we have no less of an authority than the President himself, who said at a reception attended by people, I guess, whose taxes he had raised markedly in Texas, that he raised taxes too much. We agreed with him at the time. Unfortunately, he just did not see it our way until later on. Now we want to take a $90 billion gross tax increase here and add another $13 billion to it. Certainly, our budget provides for changes in the mix of taxation if we need it. That can be done right now. The chairman of the Finance Committee will offer a bill that may raise some taxes and lower others and shift the mix of taxes. But when we talk about the total burden of taxation, that is one of the problems which is causing our country to slow down, jobs not to be created, and as we get into a debate on the President's budget the one argument I have not heard made about it is that it does not raise enough taxes. But that is really what the amendment by the Senator from Nebraska would do. Are we really in trouble because we do not tax enough? I don't think so, Mr. President. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and vote for the amendment which will follow it. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I call on my distinguished friend, how many minutes?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute first and just say, I thank the Senator from North Dakota. He has been a great champion for reforming entitlements. He and I agree entitlements need to be reformed. My amendment proposes reforms in the entitlement programs. The amendment of my friend from Nebraska, Senator Exon, adds another $13 billion in tax increases. And in looking at the extensive list on page 153 and 154 of tax increases that are already included in the President's recommendation, I am puzzled where they find another $13 billion. But that is the argument: Do we reform entitlements or raise taxes? I now yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, before yielding to the Senator from Washington, I just want a point of clarification with my distinguished friend from Nebraska. Does that chart show the President's numbers with or without the automatic trigger?

Mr. BOND. That chart, does it show it with or without the automatic trigger?

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the CBO said the only way the President's numbers get to a balance in 2002 is if an automatic trigger clicks in and cuts 10 percent of discretionary spending in 2001 and 18 percent in 2002. I am simply asking whether that chart--and I did not prepare the chart--does that chart present the President's number assuming no trigger or assuming a trigger? Which way is it?

Mr. BOND. I thank my good friend from Nebraska. That is all I wanted to ask, because we have, as he indicated, I think on a bipartisan basis, voted overwhelmingly that we do not want the trigger. We have said, no trigger. We do not want a meat ax. So the only difference between the President's budget and the Republicans' budget is that the President's budget, by CBO numbers, does not now get to balance--without the trigger, it does not get to balance. Ours does. With that, I will yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Washington. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. BOND

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

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk in the second degree.

Mr. BOND. Let me show this chart.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I appreciate the questions, I say to the Senator from Minnesota. I have been asked for my attention by the Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. BOND. We are not saying, Mr. President, exactly what the outlines of this welfare reform proposal will be. The Finance Committee has previously presented welfare reform proposals. We presented and adopted in this body a measure taking $64 billion out of welfare. It was included in the Balanced Budget Act. I would expect that the beginning point would be that point, and if Members wish to change that measure, they can even reduce that by some $10 billion and still achieve the savings that are necessary.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BOND

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I assume that did not count against my 10 minutes.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Washington. Let me say, I am going to agree with----