Dale Bumpers

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. I am not asking for time. I am curious whether or not we are going to be here for another hour before we vote.

Mr. BUMPERS. Yes.

Mr. BUMPERS. The question is, how much time does the Senator from Nebraska intend to use, if he knows?

Mr. BUMPERS. Would I be within my rights to ask the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee how much time he intends to take?

Mr. BUMPERS. I wonder if we could get the people who are speaking on it to tell us whether they are going use the entire hour or not.

Mr. BUMPERS. And how much time is there on that?

Mr. BUMPERS. Parliamentary inquiry. Are we about to debate the Finance Committee amendment?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, there is some confusion about what fair market value is in this bill. This amendment simply says that the mining industry, when they apply for patents from the Interior Department for land, will pay fair market value. Fair market value means just what it says: Land and minerals. Is that fair? All you have to do is vote ``aye'' and the U.S. Government will receive fair market value.

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

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

Mr. BUMPERS. I do.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, from 1987 until 1995 we had a specific prohibition against scoring asset sales for a very good reason. You cannot balance the budget by selling off all our assets. It is like Rudolph Penner who talked about the lawyer coming home one night and told his wife he had a great day. She said, ``What happened?'' He said, ``I sold my desk.'' The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, did we miss something? Mr. EXON. Yes. But it is all right.

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

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, in the last 133 years, the mining companies of America have mined $254 billion worth of gold and silver off Federal lands and have not paid 1 cent in royalty. This amendment provides for a royalty of approximately 50 percent of what they pay in the private sector, and it offsets the sale of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which loses $600 million. I agree with the Senator from Texas. It is time these corporate welfare people in the back of the wagon get out and help the rest of us pull it. I strongly urge your support.

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

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me just close by saying that I can remember when there were about 10 Republicans last summer who were strongly opposed to a tax cut until we balanced the budget. I do not think the majority leader was very keen for it. And the Senator from New Mexico, chairman of the Budget Committee, was devoutly opposed to it. So what happened along the way? I can only conclude that Newt Gingrich said, ``This is the major part of the contract. You do not have any choice. You have got to abandon all economic reason and sanity and vote for this tax cut.'' It is the height of fiscal irresponsibility to do it. But even more importantly, it is a social disaster. It makes the working people of this country second-class citizens. They are in the second tier. I do not want to say the idle rich, but the rich who do not work, who get their income from the sweat of somebody else's brow, they are in the first-class tier. Mr. President, the real tragedy is the American people are not asking for this. If you look at the New York Times poll this morning, the American people are strongly opposed to a tax cut until we balance the budget. Here is a USA poll taken in December of 1994. Seventy percent of the people in this country said, ``We want the budget balanced before you cut taxes.''

Mr. BUMPERS. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading be dispensed with.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, this is very simple and straightforward. The Members of this body should vote for this on a purely intellectual basis, without regard for partisanship. That is hard for me to say, and I know it is hard for people around here to respond to that kind of request. But it simply says: Do not cut taxes until you balance the budget. I can remember not too many months ago when that idea had great credence in this body, on both sides of the aisle. I had even hoped at one time that the chairman of the Budget Committee who crafted this whole thing, Senator Domenici, would join me, today, with this amendment saying we are not going to cut taxes until we balance the budget. Here is what Senator Domenici said on May 29, this year, just a few months ago. ``We are working through some very, very tough terrain,'' he said, acknowledging that most battles lie ahead. ``But I am convinced that most people share our view that we must balance the budget first before we cut taxes.'' Here is a chart for anybody who chooses to look at this thing economically and sensibly. Here it is. You cut taxes in accordance with $245 billion, the figure that is bandied about here, and if you cut taxes by $245 billion over the next 7 years you add $293 billion to the national debt and our children and grandchildren will pay interest on that $293 billion as far as you can see. I do not want to mix Social Security in this, but when you add this $300 billion, also bear in mind there are about $656 or $660 billion in Social Security surpluses that are going to be used. To say we are going to have a balanced budget when we are using Social Security surpluses, when we are $78 billion short even by the Republicans' own numbers, it is a scam to lead the American people to believe that we are going to have a balanced budget. If we never have another deficit after 2002, our grandchildren and great-grandchildren are going to pay interest on this tax cut. You know, the reconciliation bill provides $5,600 per year--listen to this--$5,600 per year in tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of the people in this country, and the bottom 50 percent wind up with less money than they had before this reconciliation bill passes. What does that say about the values of the U.S. Congress, about their attitude--not toward people with stocks who get dividends and interest, but about working people who sweat and toil every day to keep this Nation going, who get nothing out of this except increases, lowered standard of living? Do you know something else? This bill stands squarely on the shoulders of 50 brave Democrats who, in August 1993, passed a reconciliation bill. I want you to think about this. If it were not for 50 brave Senators who stood on their hind feet and voted to raise taxes on the wealthy and to cut spending accordingly, the Republicans would be faced with raising another $1.081 trillion to balance the budget. The senior Senator from Texas, a candidate for the Presidency, said we want all of those people in the back of the wagon to get out and help the rest of us pull. They were. Every single Republican in the Senate was in the back of the wagon that day when a lot of people lost their jobs a year and a half later for doing something so sensible. And here they are still in the back of the wagon taking advantage of $1.8 trillion that the Democrats provided, the most courageous, sensible thing that the President of the United States has proposed since he has been President.

Mr. BUMPERS. I am happy to yield.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, our friends on the other side of the aisle have the best of both worlds. They can criticize and carp about that bill in 1993, and yet they have never tried to undo one penny of it; did not undo the gas tax, did not undo the 36-percent tax rate increase, have not done anything about the surcharge, and they get the benefit of over $1 trillion in balancing the budget because 50 Senators stood up--and 2 of them are not with us today because they did; and about 17 Members of the House are not with us today because they did. This tax cut is the height of fiscal irresponsibility. That is the reason we call it the fiscal responsibility amendment, to do away with the tax cut until we balance the budget. We have the rest of our lives to cut taxes. Our first chore is to keep faith with the people of this country. If you eliminate the tax cut, you do not balance the budget in the year 2002 even by the Republican figures. You can do it in 2001. That would be shocking. But the most important thing I want to say, Mr. President, is do not cut taxes when we are running this kind of a deficit. Balance the budget, and then talk about taxes. When you are talking about tax cuts, talk for a change about working people and real middle-class Americans. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Does anyone wish time? I yield to the distinguished Senator from Michigan 5 minutes.

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Wisconsin 5 minutes.

Mr. BUMPERS

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, in 1981, this body, all but 11 Senators, voted for a massive tax cut on the argument that it would help balance the budget. Eight years and $2 trillion later, we all knew we had made a massive mistake. We are about to repeat it, though not quite the magnitude of that. This amendment simply says what my good friend from New Mexico, the chairman of the Budget Committee, said on May 30 of this year, that there is one thing our side has agreed on: There will be no tax cut until we balance the budget. Senator Domenici was right on May 30, and to vote a different way now is wrong. The New York Times this very morning shows that a vast majority of the American people, even the wealthy who benefit most from this, are all opposed to a tax cut until we balance the budget. It is fiscal responsibility, and that is the reason we call this the fiscal responsibility amendment. I yield the floor, Mr. President.