Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. At this time, I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, does the Senator from Nevada or the Senator from California seek time?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from California.

Mr. CONRAD. Will the Chair inform us how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD. I am pleased to withhold for the Senator.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Nebraska.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from Nebraska. He has been an exceptional addition to the Senate. He comes to us as a very distinguished former Governor, and he has made a great contribution to this debate in the Senate. I want to say that we welcome him, and we are so pleased that he has played this constructive role. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey once again for a powerful and persuasive presentation. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Connecticut if he seeks time.

Mr. CONRAD. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the pending amendment is not germane. Therefore, I am constrained to raise a point of order. The amendment violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. CONRAD. Does the Senator from South Carolina seek time?

Mr. CONRAD. I yield to the Senator from South Carolina 10 minutes. Amendment No. 225

Mr. CONRAD. We do not intend to use time on the amendment. So it would be appropriate for the Senator from Kansas to use the time. It is, unfortunately, the only way we can stay on schedule with what we agreed to on both sides.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the pending amendment is not germane. Therefore, I raise a point of order that the amendment violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. I yield back the remainder of our time on the amendment.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota. We only have 10 minutes remaining, I advise the Senator-- actually less than that. We have agreed to provide the other time to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. CONRAD. No, the Senator from North Dakota can't yield at this point for a question because we are rapidly running out of time.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we should observe for our colleagues that we set a goal of going to the debate on reconciliation at 3:30. Wonder of wonders, we have accomplished that goal. I thank all of our colleagues who have worked together to help make this happen. I single out, of course, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Mr. Domenici, who, along with his staff, has worked so diligently to bring us to this point. I also want to thank on our side, Senator Reid, the whip, who has really worked night and day to try to expedite the consideration of this budget resolution. I think working together we have managed to get the trains to run on time, which is not always the case in the Senate. Again, I thank very much my colleague, the chairman of the Budget Committee along with his very able staff, including the director, Mr. Hoagland, for the very hard work they have done.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this is a critically important debate. This is not fundamentally a question of the issue of the President's proposal for a tax cut. This is a far bigger issue than that. This is the fundamental question of the role of the Senate in our Government. Our Founding Fathers had a genius. They created this structure of government to protect the rights of the American people. They built a House of Representatives that they wanted to respond to the immediate feelings of the people, a body elected every 2 years. They wanted them to respond to the will of the people and the immediate passions of the moment. They created the Senate with Senators having 6-year terms for a very different reason. They wanted the Senate to be the cooling saucer in our Government. They wanted the Senate to be able to debate and amend and to coolly reflect on what the policies should be for our country. That is the role of the Senate, and this debate is consequential because it would dramatically change the role of the Senate. Reconciliation means no less than Senators giving up their fundamental right to extended debate and amendment. Those are the things that distinguish this body from parliamentary bodies the world around. It is what has made this Chamber the greatest parliamentary body in the world. All of that is at stake in the next 3 hours, because at the end of that time we are going to vote, and how we vote will help determine the future role of this body. Reconciliation was established in 1974 to allow Congress to make last-minute spending or revenue changes. It was not intended to be used to enact major new spending proposals or major tax cuts or substantive policy changes. It was a device to make small changes. It was in that context that Senators were willing to limit their right to debate and offer amendments, because it was so narrowly to be applied. By the early 1980s, reconciliation had evolved into a mechanism for deficit reduction. For example, in 1981, Congress used reconciliation to enact the spending cuts that President Reagan called for. It was not used for the tax cuts that President Reagan proposed and that were passed precisely for the reasons I have given. It was for deficit reduction, not for spending, not for tax cuts. In 1985, Congress passed the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget Emergency Deficit Control Act and, in separate legislation, the Byrd rule. Both proposals served to limit the focus of reconciliation solely to deficit reduction. What is being proposed now is precisely the opposite, a $1.6 trillion tax cut with limited debate, limited time for amendment, the rights of each Senator sharply curtailed. That was never the intention of the Founding Fathers of our Nation--never. There have been attempts in recent years to dramatically alter reconciliation to implement major tax cuts instead of to achieve deficit reduction, but not once have those changes been enacted. No reconciliation package that did not reduce the deficit has ever been enacted--not one. The Senator from Texas referred to 1993 and President Clinton's budget that included reconciliation. Precisely so, because that was a deficit reduction package. In example after example that has been given by my colleagues on the other side, they have neglected to point out that when reconciliation actually was used and law was enacted, those were deficit reduction packages. Every one that involved a tax cut was never enacted--not once. That is why this debate is so consequential, so profound, and will set a very important precedent. In 1981, a colloquy occurred during consideration of the reconciliation bill. Majority leader Howard Baker, the Republican leader, and the Democratic leader, Senator Byrd, underscored the belief that the intent of reconciliation was limited to deficit reduction. According to Senator Howard Baker, the revered Republican leader: Reconciliation was never meant to be a vehicle for an omnibus authorization bill. To permit it as such is to break faith with the Senate's historical uniqueness as a forum for the exercise of minority and individual rights. In 1985, Congress passed the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget Emergency Deficit Control Act in order to reduce the growing budget deficit. The 1985 act provided that no amendments to a reconciliation bill would be in order if the amendment did not have the result of reducing the deficit. That was the purpose of reconciliation, to reduce deficits, to either increase taxes or to cut spending but to reduce deficits. It was not designed to either allow or permit an increase in spending, or cuts in taxes. That is precisely the opposite of what was intended. I call my colleagues' attention to something the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee said back in 1985. He said: Frankly, as chairman of the Budget Committee, I am aware of how beneficial reconciliation can be to deficit reduction. But I am also totally aware of what can happen when we choose to use this kind of process to basically get around the Rules of the Senate as to limiting debate. Clearly, unlimited debate is the prerogative of the Senate that is greatly modified under this process. I have grown to understand that this institution, while it has a lot of shortcomings, has some qualities that are rather exceptional. One of those is the fact that it is an extremely free institution, that we are free to offer amendments, that we are free to take as much time as this Senate will let us to debate and have those issues thoroughly understood both here and across the country. The Senator from New Mexico, our budget chairman, was right when he said that in 1985. He said in 1989: There are few things about the United States Senate that people understand to be very, very, significant. One is that you have the right, a rather broad right, the most significant right, among all parliamentary bodies in the world to amend freely on the floor. The other is the right to debate and to filibuster. When the Budget Act was drafted, the reconciliation procedure was crafted very carefully. It was intended to be used rather carefully because, in essence, Mr. President, it vitiated those two significant characteristics of this place that many have grown to respect and admire. Some think it is a marvelous institution of democracy, and if you lose those two qualities, you just about turn this U.S. Senate into the United States House of Representatives, our other parliamentary body. That is what this debate is about. Are we going to have a Senate that functions as our forefathers intended, as the Framers of the Constitution intended, or are we going to turn this body into a second House of Representatives? That would be a profound mistake--a mistake for our country, a mistake for this Chamber, and a mistake for the future. I hope very much that cooler heads will prevail, that we will vote to reject reconciliation for this purpose, and that we will reserve it for deficit reduction. This is a profoundly important decision. We have just a few hours before it will be resolved. I hope very much that we understand and appreciate that we can consider tax cuts in this Chamber without using the reconciliation process that limits the rights of Senators and that changes the role of the Senate. Massive tax cuts were considered without reconciliation in 1981. They can be considered without reconciliation in the year 2001. That is what we should do. That is what we must do. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. I ask my colleague from West Virginia to proceed.

Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CONRAD. I inquire as to the time remaining on our side and the time remaining on the Republican side.