Congressional Budget for U.S. Government for Fiscal Year 2004 (Continued)

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment, not because Medicare is not a very legitimate subject of discussion; it is. The difference between this year and last year, last year we did not have a budget resolution. The process this year is a very orderly process toward getting us a prescription drug program as part of Medicare. That very orderly process is, first of all, to have a budget resolution. It is a very orderly process. We are going to have a budget resolution this year. We are going to have $100 billion more for Medicare/prescription drugs than the last time we debated this.
Most of the people on the other side of the aisle 2 years ago helped us get a $300 billion figure. We have a $400 billion figure. We have a Senate majority leader who is committed to the committee process working. Out of the Finance Committee in June, we will produce a good prescription drug program for the Senate to debate this summer.

I urge Members to vote against the amendment. I move to table the amendment and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I start by congratulating the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator NICKLES, on his fine work.

One of the reasons for the problems of last session was the absence, for the first time in a generation, of a budget resolution. Chairman NICKLES has carried the President's budget to the floor and been a loyal lieutenant for our Commander in Chief.
It looks as if much of the President's budget may remain intact, but it is also true that the budget will change somewhat.
Let me make it clear. I support the President's budget, including the tax cut number and the growth package.

I believe we need a bold response to the flagging economy. It is our obligation to the folks that sent us here. We need to respond. Both sides agree on that need, as do the centrists, led by Senators BREAUX and SNOWE. Where the Democratic caucus, the Republican caucus, and the centrists differ is on the number we allocate for growth proposals.

The debate we have this afternoon is about that number. Really, though, the debate is about whether we should be bold, cautious, or timid. The President and most of the Republican caucus want to be bold. We want American businesses, small and large, to grow. We want every American who wants a job to be able to get a job. We don't want to take any chances.

The Democratic leadership's proposed growth package yields a net tax increase of $11.7 billion. That package also contains new spending of $118.7 billion. I call that a timid response to the flagging economy.

Now, let's turn to the Breaux-Snowe-Baucus-Voinovich amendment. I understand the concerns of my friends from the Centrist Coalition. They are worried about long-term deficits. I am too.

I am more worried about the spending side of the ledger. The Centrists are focusing on the tax cut side only. It is important that the Centrists' amendment does place the tax cut reduction into deficit reduction. There is, however, no guarantee that the $375 billion will not be spent in subsequent amendments on this resolution.

Senators Breaux and Snowe have a long history of trying to secure bipartisan consensus. In 2001, they, along with Senator Baucus, were critical supporters of the bipartisan tax relief package. They are widely known for their efforts to find
bipartisan consensus on Medicare. I will be looking to this group when we take up Medicare legislation later this year.

Senators Breaux and Snowe suggest that the middle ground is splitting the difference between the President's number of $726 billion and the Democratic leadership's position.

I am opposed to this amendment because we need more than $350 billion to do the job the right way. Don't get me wrong. If $350 billion is the number, that is the number the Finance Committee will work with. The Finance Committee will develop the best package we can.

My point is that the Finance Committee can do more growth incentives with a number above $350 billion.

Now, some view the net $350 billion as a vote against the President's proposal to eliminate the double taxation of dividends.
I support the President's proposal to eliminate the double taxation of dividends. It is good tax policy and it is good economic policy.

This vote is not about the dividends proposal. The Finance Committee, in its bipartisan way, will decide the composition of the growth package.

To my moderate friends, let me say something in conclusion. No matter where the number ends up, I expect Senator Baucus and I will produce a bipartisan growth package.

The Breaux-Snowe amendment, while well intentioned, does not provide the Finance Committee with the tools necessary to do the job of delivering a bold growth package to the American people.