Dale Bumpers

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. The distinguished floor manager is just suggesting to proceed as we were with the understanding there be 20 minutes equally divided tomorrow morning on this amendment. That is essentially my unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. BUMPERS. Will the Senator repeat that?

Mr. BUMPERS. I understand you may offer a second-degree amendment this evening, and I certainly have no objection to that. I need to be gone from here for about an hour, and that is one of the reasons, I do not mind telling you, I am trying to get an agreement here so I will feel free to leave the floor for an hour. Perhaps we ought to just keep going here.

Mr. BUMPERS. I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BUMPERS

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

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, we are all speaking here at the indulgence of the managers of the bill because there is no time left on this bill. I will not delay it for long. First, I want to say that I have never been as happy with my decision not to seek reelection as I have been today. I have been voting on amendments that involve billions of dollars today with only a superficial or cursory knowledge of what I was voting on. I would not like to go home--and I don't speak for the rest of you but I expect I am speaking for the rest of you, too--I would hate to have to go home and explain to people what was involved in all of these amendments, particularly this one which I do not have a clue about. But we must not lose sight of the point that the distinguished Senator from West Virginia made in the opening part of his statement a moment ago. That is, it is the rule that is the tyrant here with 20 hours to debate this part of the reconciliation bill and 20 hours to debate the tax portion of it, which is monumental and most probably will be the most significant important legislation we will deal with all year--20 hours. We will wind up at the end of that 20 hours precisely the way we have with this one. There will be a long list of amendments down there. Maybe we will have another unanimous-consent agreement where you are allowed 60 seconds to explain a bill that involves $10 billion. We are not doing the people of this Nation a service as long as we allow this kind of a rule to put us in this kind of a straitjacket where we have to get up and openly confess that this system is not working as it ought to. So, I applaud the Senator from West Virginia for his comments. He is right on target. Fifty hours ought to be a minimum for the consideration of a reconciliation bill. I thank the Senator for making everybody aware of our shortcomings on this day.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. The second-degree could be in order, and it is not necessary that the second-degree amendment be filed or any notice given prior to that time.

Mr. BUMPERS. A second-degree amendment cannot be offered until the first-degree is brought up. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. A second-degree amendment in this scenario cannot be offered until the first-degree amendment is offered, can it?

Mr. BUMPERS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. Is that a correct statement, that the second-degree amendment would have to be offered tonight and you would not know precisely what amendment you would offer it to until tomorrow?

Mr. BUMPERS. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not, will there be a time for each amendment, for the proponents and opponents?

Mr. BUMPERS. Two minutes equally divided. Will that same time be accorded to people who offer second-degree amendments?

Mr. BUMPERS. Is the Parliamentarian saying that if I have a second- degree amendment to any amendment that is going to be offered here tonight before we adjourn for the evening, that I will not be allowed to offer second-degree amendments tomorrow to any one of those amendments unless that second-degree amendment is filed also this evening?

Mr. BUMPERS. Offered or filed?

Mr. BUMPERS. Has to be offered this evening?

Mr. BUMPERS. I yield.

Mr. BUMPERS. I object to the unanimous-consent agreement.

Mr. BUMPERS. Could I get a parliamentary ruling on that.

Mr. BUMPERS. Reserving the right to object--I shall not--will the Senator indicate approximately what time this back-to-back vote will occur?

Mr. BUMPERS. I am not sure about the language here. How can you offer a second-degree amendment before a first-degree amendment is offered?

Mr. BUMPERS. I have to stay here then until 10 o'clock tonight to see whether a first-degree amendment to which I can offer a second-degree amendment would be filed this evening, is that correct?

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me first extend my sincere and profound gratitude to Senator Bond for creating and being the originator of this legislation. I am honored he has asked me to be his chief cosponsor. I just want to say for the Record and for those who may be watching, I remember when I was Governor of my State and my wife, Betty, was first lady. She had spent 2 years laying the groundwork for a statewide immunization program. It was a howling success. We immunized 300,000 children one Saturday without a single reaction. That evening I said, ``Betty, you ought to take great pride in what you just accomplished today.'' She said, ``I do. Of course, this is good for your political career and it is good for the babies who were immunized today, but it is certainly no final solution because we will lapse right back into the lethargy we have experienced and watched for years with low immunization rates among children who are yet to be born.'' She said until we institutionalize a program that can track each child's immunizations from birth through early childhood we will not have succeeded. Thanks to her efforts and many others, including Rosalynn Carter, and the program Every Child By Two, immunization levels in this country are now at an all-time high. The same principle applies in this case. Once we get this bill passed, and we will get it passed, it is imperative that we follow it up year after year after year so we do not lapse into the condition we are in right now where the rate of smoking among teenage women, pregnant teenage women, is going up. We got it down to 14 percent and now it is back up to 17 percent. If you ask that same teenage mother, what and whom do you love most, she loves mostly that fetus that lies inside her womb, and when that baby is born, she loves that baby above everything under the shining sun--above all else. So ask yourself, why would a woman, or why would parents smoke during pregnancy, and why would parents smoke after the baby is born? Every pediatrician in the country will tell you horror stories about sending children home after asthma attacks, only to see them come back with another asthma attack because people are smoking in the household. Senator Bond and I are asking for $10 million for this new initiative, an infinitesimal sum when compared to the savings it will produce. Hubert Humphrey stood at that desk right there. I never will forget the speech he made. ``We don't have national health insurance. What we have is national sick insurance. It isn't worth anything until you get sick.'' He told me about preventive programs that Ford Motor Company had instituted among all their employees and how much they were saving on health care costs through preventive medicine. Here we are now with a chance to save 10 to 100 times more than the paltry $10 million we will spend educating pregnant women in this country and telling them the consequences of asthma and low-birthweight babies. After the baby is born, one of the biggest single problems is sudden infant death syndrome. One of its causes is smoking around newborn babies. Mr. President, I am honored to join my distinguished colleague, Senator Bond, in pushing this. I hope we will be able to get hearings on this very shortly. Incidentally, I hope that the Centers for Disease Control will not just conduct outreach and education among pregnant women. I hope they will also work to educate the College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Sometimes the very best professionals neglect and forget to tell pregnant women how to conduct themselves during pregnancy. I do not think that is a big problem, but I do think providers must be made acutely aware that they have this grave responsibility to at least tell pregnant women what they are up against and tell women what they must do when they go home from the hospital with a newborn. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me first extend my sincere and profound gratitude to Senator Bond for creating and being the originator of this legislation. I am honored he has asked me to be his chief cosponsor. I just want to say for the Record and for those who may be watching, I remember when I was Governor of my State and my wife, Betty, was first lady. She had spent 2 years laying the groundwork for a statewide immunization program. It was a howling success. We immunized 300,000 children one Saturday without a single reaction. That evening I said, ``Betty, you ought to take great pride in what you just accomplished today.'' She said, ``I do. Of course, this is good for your political career and it is good for the babies who were immunized today, but it is certainly no final solution because we will lapse right back into the lethargy we have experienced and watched for years with low immunization rates among children who are yet to be born.'' She said until we institutionalize a program that can track each child's immunizations from birth through early childhood we will not have succeeded. Thanks to her efforts and many others, including Rosalynn Carter, and the program Every Child By Two, immunization levels in this country are now at an all-time high. The same principle applies in this case. Once we get this bill passed, and we will get it passed, it is imperative that we follow it up year after year after year so we do not lapse into the condition we are in right now where the rate of smoking among teenage women, pregnant teenage women, is going up. We got it down to 14 percent and now it is back up to 17 percent. If you ask that same teenage mother, what and whom do you love most, she loves mostly that fetus that lies inside her womb, and when that baby is born, she loves that baby above everything under the shining sun--above all else. So ask yourself, why would a woman, or why would parents smoke during pregnancy, and why would parents smoke after the baby is born? Every pediatrician in the country will tell you horror stories about sending children home after asthma attacks, only to see them come back with another asthma attack because people are smoking in the household. Senator Bond and I are asking for $10 million for this new initiative, an infinitesimal sum when compared to the savings it will produce. Hubert Humphrey stood at that desk right there. I never will forget the speech he made. ``We don't have national health insurance. What we have is national sick insurance. It isn't worth anything until you get sick.'' He told me about preventive programs that Ford Motor Company had instituted among all their employees and how much they were saving on health care costs through preventive medicine. Here we are now with a chance to save 10 to 100 times more than the paltry $10 million we will spend educating pregnant women in this country and telling them the consequences of asthma and low-birthweight babies. After the baby is born, one of the biggest single problems is sudden infant death syndrome. One of its causes is smoking around newborn babies. Mr. President, I am honored to join my distinguished colleague, Senator Bond, in pushing this. I hope we will be able to get hearings on this very shortly. Incidentally, I hope that the Centers for Disease Control will not just conduct outreach and education among pregnant women. I hope they will also work to educate the College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Sometimes the very best professionals neglect and forget to tell pregnant women how to conduct themselves during pregnancy. I do not think that is a big problem, but I do think providers must be made acutely aware that they have this grave responsibility to at least tell pregnant women what they are up against and tell women what they must do when they go home from the hospital with a newborn. I yield the floor.

Mr. BUMPERS

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

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, my second amendment is one I feel strongly about--both of these--but I want you to listen to this. It would delay the tax cuts that are provided in this budget resolution. We are going to face all of this later on in the reconciliation bill. I know that. But what we ought to do is delay the tax cuts until the year 2002. All I do in this amendment is I strike the first $63.3 billion of tax cuts over the years 1998 to 2001. You know what that does, Mr. President? It does not balance the budget in the year 2002. It balances the budget in the year 2001. Now, why would we not, after reading the paper this morning and seeing that the Treasury Department reaped a gold mine in April--the surplus in April of income versus expenditures was $97 billion. CBO has now said that the deficit could be as low as $65 billion come September 30. That is a remarkable achievement. On this floor in August 1993, we passed a bill called the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. I regret, Mr. President, not one single Republican voted for it. You know what the effect of that was? I told the President as far as I am concerned that is going to be his legacy. All these other things he is trying to accomplish, they are all laudable. I have no quarrel with them. But 5 solid straight years of real budget deficit reduction is going to be his legacy. But I will tell you how that legacy can be destroyed. That is to proceed with a budget that we have right here which cuts taxes by $135 billion for the wealthiest people in America, and revenues go down every single year--every single year. If we were to postpone these tax cuts until the year 2002, we could balance the budget in the year 2001. Let me tell you something else. If we do not strike while the iron is hot, we are going to regret it. I promise you, the assumptions in this bill that our economy is going to be as hot as these assumptions say it will be over the next 5 years is a very dicey situation. We have already had an unbelievable prosperity for the past 6 years. Nothing looks like it since Eisenhower was President. To assume it is going to continue another 5 years is the height of folly. You cannot depend on this budget to balance anything unless you agree with those economic assumptions, and I do not. I have spent 22 years in the Senate standing in this aisle, screaming my head off about budget deficits. In 1981, when Ronald Reagan was riding the crest the likes of which has never been seen since Franklin Roosevelt, the herd instinct swept through this body and all my screaming was for naught. It did not do a bit of good. I said--and I will send anybody a copy of the speech that would like to see it--you pass this budget and you are going to create deficits big enough to choke a mule. You cannot cut taxes, increase defense spending and balance the budget any more than you can lose weight on five chocolate sundaes a day. That is the five-chocolate-sundaes-a-day diet. And that is exactly what we are coming back to. What does it take to educate this body? If you do not learn from past experiences, what are you going to learn from? When Ronald Reagan left office 8 years later, the national debt--which at that time was $1 trillion and took 200 years to get to $1 trillion--when he left, all his 8 years later, it was $3 trillion. He had tripled the national debt because of the folly, the political folly, the political herd instinct that swept across this body in 1981. I am proud to tell you, Mr. President--a little self-serving--I did not vote for it. There are only 11 Senators who voted against the tax cuts. There were only three Senators who voted against the tax cuts and for the spending cuts. We could have balanced the budget by 1985 easily if everybody had voted the way those three Senators voted. So here we are, back at the same old stand: It did not work before, but it'll sure work this time. We will cut taxes, are going to cut taxes, going to increase spending, and bring you a balanced budget. While the deficit goes from $67 billion anticipated this fall, the fifth straight year, from $290 billion in 1992--$290 billion--to $67 billion this year, 5 straight years of deficit reduction, what does this budget do? Why, it takes it back up to $97 billion next year and $97 billion the following year and $83 billion the following year and $50 billion the following year. Then the following year a $1 billion surplus. I have some great land in the Everglades I would like to sell you if you believe that is going to happen. Mr. President, all we have to do is vote very simply to postpone the tax cuts. I am not saying do not ever cut taxes. But you are either for cutting taxes or for balancing the budget, but you cannot be for both and be economically sound in the process. So I am asking my colleagues to say, postpone the tax cuts until the year 2001 and balance the budget at the soonest possible date. Then you can argue all the other economic nonsense. But our first priority is to balance the budget. You are not going to do it with this budget. If you assume that the economy is going to stay like it is right now for the next 5 years--I do not know whether I will be here or not. I would just like to be around at the end of 5 years so I can say, I told you so. I yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.