Richard Shelby

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask that a modification be made to amendment No. 5273, which was previously adopted. This has been cleared by the ranking member, Senator Kerrey. I send the modification to the desk.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the Kassebaum amendment temporarily.

Mr. SHELBY. I respond to the Senator from New Jersey that I have a couple of things. I would like to adopt the committee amendment, the motion failed to table a few minutes ago, and I would like to move to reconsider the vote. I have a unanimous-consent to modify an amendment. It will take 2 minutes at the most. Senator Specter also has been trying to speak.

Mr. SHELBY. Reserving the right to object at this time, I object. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SHELBY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SHELBY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I thank the Senators, both the Senator from Ohio and Wisconsin. The language the Senator is attempting to restore here is a hot political topic, to say the least. The debate about it will, no doubt, be one of the main points the media reports in the bill. It will make, no doubt about it, the papers and the nightly news, if it is adopted. This amendment is great political rhetoric. We all have talked about too many political appointees in the past, depending on who was the President of the United States. Right now, there are about 2 million civil employees in the executive branch of Government. Political appointees are responsible for final decisionmaking there, as we know. We might not always like what they do, but how many of us can say we have not questioned actions of the career bureaucracy? Do we want to have a system like Great Britain and Japan and others, in which their career bureaucracy runs the Government? I hope not. Political appointees, on the other hand, are accountable. They are accountable for the decisions they make. I believe, overall, the civil bureaucracy is not. The American people, I think, deserve accountability from their Government officials. By reducing political appointees and increasing the size and the power of a faceless bureaucracy, we are reducing accountability. Do we want to do that? We may need to adjust where they are, but is one-tenth of 1 percent too much for political representation? I hope not. I hope my colleagues, at the proper time, will vote against the motion to table this amendment, as I agree with the Senator from Ohio, this is not the time and this is not the place.

Mr. SHELBY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SHELBY

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

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

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the committee amendment and the second-degree amendment to it, the Kassebaum amendment, so we can go forward.

Mr. SHELBY. If we set aside the committee amendment and the Kassebaum second degree, at the end of the hour of debate, which we have already gotten a UC on, we would automatically come back to the committee amendment and the Kassebaum amendment. Is that correct?

Mr. SHELBY. Parliamentary inquiry. We set aside the committee amendment, and then the Kassebaum amendment which is the second degree, then we go under the UC to the pending committee amendment, as I understand it. Is it the committee amendment, and then the Kassebaum amendment in the second degree. Is that correct?

Mr. SHELBY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, we have debated this for quite awhile today, and also, as some of you recall, fairly extensively last night. Mr. President, this is not a Treasury appropriations issue that is before us. This debate has addressed the issue, and adopted an amendment. The amendment would cause the committee to find $85 million in the conference to stay within our allocation. We would have to take funds from the accounts that I spoke about earlier. The bill funds law enforcement, the IRS, and other basic Government functions, such as the Secret Service, and GSA. This bill does not come close to the President's budget request. The administration would like more money in this bill for law enforcement and others, not less. This amendment would further reduce those programs, if it were adopted, $85 million. The Senator's amendment may be a worthy one, and probably is a worthy one, but the committee has an obligation, I believe, to fund the basic Government functions before the committee that we have jurisdiction over, and the Wyden amendment undermines the committee's ability to do so. I hope that the Senate will not waive the Budget Act. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, CBO has told staff from both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, that the scoring of this amendment is the same as the scoring of the Ganske bill in the House, and they will be providing a written confirmation on this scoring to both of our staffs immediately. It could be imminent. We will present it and insert it into the Record as soon as we get it from CBO. It is going to be the same thing. CBO says to us that it is going to cost $85 million and it violates the Budget Act. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, to reassert this amendment raises constitutional questions with regard to raising revenue, which we are all familiar with. For these reasons I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee is opposed to the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota. In his statement, he raises several important points that I want to share with you right now. The most important is that this amendment, the Dorgan amendment, if accepted, would potentially subject the entire bill, including funding for drug enforcement, law enforcement, to a blue slip. This would effectively kill the entire bill and, with it, funding for critical priorities such as the drug czar, drug enforcement, Customs, border guards, ATF, Secret Service, White House, IRS, civil service pensions, and so forth. The Senator from North Dakota raises an important issue, and it ought to be debated and considered by the appropriate committee at the appropriate time. I don't believe this is the right time. It is misplaced here and it threatens to jeopardize our entire bill today. I note that the House, for the record, has blue-slipped less blatant attempts to raise revenues and change tax policy. Some of you will recall that 2 years ago the Senate adopted an amendment with regard to taxes on diesel fuel. It passed overwhelmingly here in this body, and it had strong support in the House at that time, including from the then-chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. Yet, because of the constitutional issue, he chose to utilize the blue-slip procedure over there and the Treasury bill was sent back to the Senate. In effect, had the Senate not adopted separate legislation striking that provision, the House would have had to begin the process of drafting and moving the necessary appropriations bill all over again. I don't believe that is what we want to happen here. I don't believe we can afford such a procedure. Our Nation's law enforcement people, Mr. President, cannot afford such a procedure. Our Nation's drug policy and funding for that policy cannot afford such a procedure. This country's civil servants, who rely on this bill every year to fund their pensions and disabilities, cannot afford such a procedure here. I cannot stress enough this afternoon the important funding in this bill --and most of you are aware of this--which this amendment would jeopardize.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Wyden amendment.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to Paul Irving, staff of Treasury, Post Office.

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

Mr. SHELBY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. In 5 minutes.

Mr. SHELBY. That will be fine.