[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 39 (Tuesday, March 31, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2828-S2847]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEARS
1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 AND 2003
The Senate continued with consideration of the concurrent resolution.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we are operating under a unanimous consent
agreement under which the next two amendments are to be proposed by
Senator Conrad of North Dakota and Senator Coverdell of Georgia.
Neither of them is here. We do have two Senators here who are ready to
offer amendments, Senator Reid of Nevada and Senator Allard of
Colorado.
I ask unanimous consent now that we hear first from Senator Reid and
then from Senator Allard, warn the other two Senators that this will
take perhaps half an hour combined, something of that sort, and they
will come after that.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. If I may, in my discussion with Senator Reid of
Nevada, he believed about 15 to 20 minutes would be his maximum
requirement, and I spoke to the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Allard. He
also talked about the possibility of a matching 20 minutes. So in the
unanimous consent agreement, why don't we do that, recognizing that one
Senator may not be available to do his immediately, and as such, would
the Senator from Colorado be willing to do his when there is a break in
the schedule?
Mr. ALLARD. I am more than glad to work with the floor managers on
this. I am set to preside over the Senate until 8 o'clock. I have to
set up some charts and I am ready to go. I can be flexible, and any
Member who thinks they want to go ahead and make comments, it is all
right with me.
I just was hoping I could get to go this evening. If there was nobody
else that was willing to go, I was ready to go so we wouldn't lose
time.
Mr. GORTON. This sounds like a generous offer. I will ask now that
Senator Reid of Nevada be recognized to offer an amendment in spite of
the existing unanimous consent agreement, and then when he is done, we
will see who is here and perhaps be able to accommodate Senator Allard.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. If I may, Mr. President, we are expecting the
unanimous consent agreement that was propounded before that includes
Senator Conrad followed by Senator Coverdell, and we intend to follow
that order, but understanding that after Senator Reid presents his, at
Senator Allard's convenience when we have a break, we will include him
as part of the unanimous consent agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Nevada.
Amendment No. 2206
(Purpose: To express the Sense of the Senate that the landowner
incentive program included in the Endangered Species Recovery Act
should be financed from a dedicated source of funding and that public
lands should not be sold to fund the landowner incentive program of the
Endangered Species Recovery Act)
Mr. REID. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the pending
amendment will be set aside.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid), for himself and Mr.
Bryan, proposes an amendment numbered 2206.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place insert the following:
SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON OBJECTION TO THE USE OF THE
SALE OF PUBLIC LANDS TO FUND CERTAIN PROGRAMS.
(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that the Budget Committee
Report accompanying this resolution assumes that the
landowner incentive program of the Endangered Species
Recovery Act would be funded ``from the gross receipts
realized in the sales of excess BLM land, provided that BLM
has sufficient administrative funds to conduct such sales.''
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the Sense of the Senate
that the functional totals underlying this resolution assume
that:
(1) the landowner incentive program included in the
Endangered Species Recovery Act should be financed from a
dedicated source of funding; and
(2) public lands should not be sold to fund the landowner
incentive program of the Endangered Species Recovery Act.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bryan be added as a
cosponsor of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, this amendment is important because I think
what we are doing here is setting some very important public policy.
That public policy is that we should not auction off Federal land to
take care of the Endangered Species Act.
In short, this sense-of-the-Senate resolution I have presented to the
Senate deals with the budget resolution and its report concerning the
sale of excess public lands. The provision in question
[[Page S2829]]
calls for financing of certain landowner incentive programs through the
sale of excess BLM land. What this means, in layman's language, is that
the Environment and Public Works Committee came up with an endangered
species reauthorization compromise. It came out of the committee by a
vote of 16-3 and received bipartisan support in the committee.
The problems that have arisen since we reported that bill are
relatively minor in nature. However, one of the problems that has been
talked about is some permanent means of financing the programs in the
new Endangered Species Act. I support the new Endangered Species Act,
but I know that there must be some form of financing for that. I am
convinced this is not the way to finance it. As someone who has been
involved in the negotiations on the reauthorization of the Endangered
Species Act, I am aware of the need to provide a dedicated source of
funding for these programs. These programs assist private landowners in
carrying out the purpose, the intention, the aim of the Endangered
Species Act. That is basically protection and recovery of threatened
and endangered species.
I am supportive of providing the landowners with incentive for
proactive efforts to conserve endangered species. However, the Federal
Government's responsibility in assisting landowners carrying out this
act should not be borne by Western States, and principally one Western
State, at this time because the real estate market is so hot in the
southern Nevada area. This responsibility should not be borne basically
by one State. The Endangered Species Act covers the whole country. In
that it does cover the whole country, the whole country should be
involved in solving the details of it, especially the financing. It is
not fair that States like Colorado, Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, and New
Mexico be the cash cow for the Endangered Species Act.
The Endangered Species Act and requirements apply to all 50 States.
It is a national Federal law because, Mr. President, there is a
national Federal interest in the protection and conservation of
endangered species. We shouldn't turn our Federal lands into a land
bank that finances this important act.
I understand the importance of Federal land. The State of Nevada is
87 percent owned by the Federal Government. I repeat, 87 percent of the
State of Nevada is owned by the Federal Government; 13 percent of that
land is owned by private parties. We want to get more of that land in
the public sector into the private sector, but we want to do it in an
orderly fashion, and we have done that in the soon-to-be second largest
city in Nevada. Henderson, NV, is the place where I went to high
school. At that time, it was a community of about 10,000 people. It is
now approaching 200,000 people and growing very rapidly--the most
rapidly growing city in all of Nevada; in fact, one of the most rapidly
growing communities in all of America.
Now, the reason it has been allowed to grow is because we have added
Federal land to the land base of the city of Henderson. It has had a
very orderly growth. We have some planned communities. One of the most
important planned communities anywhere in the country is a place called
Green Valley. It is a beautiful community. Mr. President, that has been
done in an orderly fashion. It hasn't been forced upon anyone. It
wasn't done at auction. That, in effect, is what we are talking about
here. They are public lands that belong to the public for their
enjoyment.
Not only has Henderson received the benefit of public lands, but
other places throughout the State of Nevada, like Mesquite, Carlin, NV.
We could go on with many other examples. These are public lands and
they belong to the public for their enjoyment.
Are we going to auction off all the nice places in Nevada and then
only people of wealth who can buy those lands will be able to use those
nice places in Nevada? I hope not. That is in effect what they are
doing here. They are mandating in this budget resolution the sale of
public lands to meet the needs of the Endangered Species Act. Mandating
the sale and using the proceeds to fund programs outside the State
where the land is would be patently unfair.
This body should reject this misguided proposal and support this
amendment. It is surprising to me that any Western Senator could
support the underlying provision in this budget resolution saying we
are going to auction off Federal lands the purpose of which is to carry
out the intent of the Endangered Species Act. Apart from the regional
States' specific bias, the amendment should also be rejected on
environmental grounds. This will be one of the key environmental votes
of this Congress, or any Congress.
Opponents of this provision in the budget resolution are Friends of
the Earth, American Oceans Campaign, Center for Marine Conservation,
Defenders of Wildlife Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, Environmental
Defense Fund, Grassroots Environmental Effectiveness Network, Izaak
Walton League of America, National Audubon Society, National Wildlife
Federation, Natural Resource Defense Council, Trout Unlimited, U.S.
Public Interest Research Group, Western Ancient Forest Campaign, the
Wilderness Society, the World Wildlife Fund, and many others.
The League of Conservation Voters is looking at this very closely, I
am told, as they should.
We have worked closely with these groups over the past years in
coming up with the Endangered Species Act. One of their strongest
concerns in this period of time is to ensure that we put in place a
long-term mechanism to finance these programs. The proposal included in
this resolution funds these important programs only for limited times
and only for the one-time revenue scheme. As a matter of public policy,
this doesn't make sense. The demand to participate in the program and
additional obligation to maintain incentives over time is going to
create a tremendous pressure to sell additional public lands.
That isn't how we should get rid of public lands, how we should get
public lands into the private sector. We should not do it on a forced
sale. It should be done in an orderly process, certainly not an auction
so that we need money this year because we have three endangered
species listed in Florida, two in Colorado, one in Nevada, and three in
Hawaii. That isn't the way it should be.
To show you how disingenuous those who are pushing this proposal are,
the Bureau of Land Management sells an average of 5,000 acres per year
for about $2.5 million. It is interesting to note that Congress Daily
quotes an unnamed BLM official as saying the Budget Committee estimates
$350 million revenue from this proposal. Absurd. It is impossible.
Mr. President, there are a number of appropriate justifications for
disposal of public lands. I have talked about the city of Henderson,
the city of Carlin, the city of Mesquite, and other places in Nevada. I
have also worked closely with Senator Bryan and my two colleagues from
the House on the Nevada Public Lands Act, which provides for the
disposal of certain public lands in Nevada--a good piece of
legislation. We are going to have a hearing in May on this matter
before the committee of the senior Senator from Alaska, who is the
chairman of the committee. We have confidence that he will report that
bill out favorably and that it will pass.
Now, why in the world would they--whoever ``they'' are pushing this
budget resolution--want to undermine something that is working well? We
have general support from the committee--I spoke to the chairman
myself--on the Nevada Public Lands Act. And it applies not only to
Nevada, but to the entire West. It would allow lands to be auctioned,
and those moneys would stay in the State from where the land is sold
for environmental concerns. There may be a special piece of land that
the Federal Government wants. There may be some things that the Federal
Government needs, and auctioning off these lands would allow them to do
that.
For example, we have a number of things in the State of Nevada for
which the Federal Government wants these lands. They do not want the
land to be subdivided. It is a special place to be used for a park or
recreational purposes. So these lands would be auctioned off, and you
could purchase that land to put it in the public sector or the private
sector.
[[Page S2830]]
So I think it is important that some of the lands we identified in
our legislation--the Nevada Public Lands Act--would, of course, be used
now for this legislation, the budget resolution. That is not the way it
should be. I am very concerned. I have worked long and hard on the
Endangered Species Act, but I am not about to be part of an Endangered
Species Act if it has this as a source of funding. I think there is
probably some concern about why this is put in the budget resolution. I
guess it is kind of like a fire auction. You get the best you can with
what you have. I think what they have in this instance is a hot real
estate market in the State of Nevada, southern Nevada particularly, and
they are going to sell this land as quickly as they can. I think that
is wrong. The amount of public lands in Las Vegas would be the only
likely source today of a significant amount of money to fund these
proposed programs. Tomorrow, it may be the outskirts of Denver. Next
year, it may be the outskirts of Albuquerque. These would be places
they would go to raise as much money as they could as quickly as they
can--fire sales to fund the Endangered Species Act. Funds would then be
made available for incentives throughout the country, not just in
Nevada. This is a conflict with the legislation that I have talked
about earlier that is now before the Energy Committee. The resolution
puts in place a public lands disposal policy that is entirely driven by
the need to sell excess lands. But unlike the meritorious programs they
will fund, which are temporary, the disposal of public lands is
permanent.
Mr. President, I have said that this proposal is a poison pill. I
believe it is intended to kill reauthorization of the Endangered
Species Act. We have been negotiating the reauthorization of this
monumental act for 2 years or more, along with Senators Baucus, Chafee,
Kempthorne, and the administration. We sought to secure a dedicated
source of funding for these private land programs. This is not it.
While I can't speak for the administration, I repeat that we were never
consulted on this proposal. Frankly, I don't like it. I think it is a
poison pill. If our amendment is defeated, as far as I am concerned, it
is the death of the Endangered Species Act. I could not agree to
supporting a bill which so unfairly exploits the value of Nevada public
lands and undermines the legislation. It has been more than a year in
the making, the Nevada Public Lands Act.
Mr. President, I would like to make part of the Record a letter from
the group of environmental concerns, including Friends of the Earth,
American Oceans Campaign, and others, dated March 30, 1998. I ask
unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record, along with
a letter dated March 31 from the Sierra Club dealing with this subject,
and a letter from the League of Conservation Voters.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
March 30, 1998.
Dear Senator: We are writing to express our concern over a
proposal described in the Senate Budget Resolution to use the
proceeds from the sale of public lands under the Interior
Department's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to fund the
private landowner incentive programs of S. 1180.
In general, we are supportive of providing private
landowners with incentives for proactive efforts to conserve
endangered species and would like them funded through
sustainable, long-term revenue mechanisms. However, under the
proposal being developed, the landowner incentives programs
in S. 1180 would be funded presumably only for a limited time
from a one-time revenue scheme. Thereafter, additional
revenues would need to be generated to continue funding of
these programs. The demand to participate in this program,
and the obligation to maintain the incentives over time,
could create pressure to sell additional public land if
other, more acceptable, revenue sources were not identified.
We believe a more sustained funding mechanism is needed.
In addition to failing to establish a reliable source of
funding, the proposal would set an unacceptable precedent
regarding the sale of public lands. Our public lands are an
integral part of America's national heritage, and we strongly
oppose the sell-off of such important assets. Disposing of
public lands may be appropriate when the planning process
concludes it is in the public interest to exchange or sell
certain parcels. In such cases, the lands could be exchanged
for--or revenues dedicated to--acquisition and permanent
protection of lands that contain important natural habitats
and/or resources. However, the need for revenues should not
drive the decision-making on disposal of public lands. That
is exactly the wrong reason to sell off public lands. From a
policy and budget perspective, it is not appropriate to tie
the permanent disposal of taxpayer-owned property to
temporary measures for endangered species.
While we support efforts to find the necessary resources to
fund the protection of endangered species, we believe this
proposal creates serious problems and we will oppose it.
Sincerely,
Gawain Kripke,
Director, Appropriations Project, Friends of the Earth.
Ted Morton,
Program Counsel, American Oceans Campaign.
Wm. Robert Irvin,
Vice President for Marine Wildlife, Conservation and
General Counsel, Center for Marine Conservation.
Michael Senatore,
Legislative Counsel, Defenders of Wildlife.
Heather Weiner,
Policy Analyst, Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund
Michael J. Bean,
Director, Wildlife Program, Environmental Defense Fund.
Roger Featherstone,
Director, Grassroots Environmental Effectiveness Network.
Jim Mosher,
Conservation Director, Izaak Walton League of America.
Mary Minette,
Director, Endangered Species Campaign, National Audubon
Society.
Sara Barth,
Legislative Representative, Endangered Species, National
Wildlife Federation.
Philip M. Pittman,
Policy Analyst, Natural Resource Defense Council.
Steve Moyer,
Vice President of Conservation Programs, Trout Unlimited.
Kim Delfino,
Staff Attorney, U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
Jim Jontz,
Executive Director, Western Ancient Forest Campaign.
Fran Hunt,
Director, BLM Program, Wilderness Society.
Christopher E. Williams,
Director, Endangered Species Policy and Chihuahuan Desert
Conservation, World Wildlife Fund.
____
Sierra Club,
Washington, DC, March 31, 1998.
Dear Senator: On behalf of Sierra Club's over half million
members, I am writing to convey our opposition to a provision
currently in the Senate Budget Resolution which assumes the
sale of Bureau of Land Management land in order to fund
landowner incentives for endangered species programs.
While land exchanges may be appropriate for some federal
lands if they have little public, ecological, or wildlife
value, these exchanges should result in the acquisition and
permanent protection of the scarce remaining lands that do
have these values. This proposal would set a dangerous
precedent regarding the management of our federal public
lands and the amount and quality of public land available to
future generations of Americans. The Sierra Club is firmly
opposed to the selling off of these important assets.
Sierra Club is generally supportive of providing small,
private landowners with incentives for proactive conservation
measures, but such measures should be funded through
sustainable means. The mechanism proposed in the Senate
Budget Resolution is problematic because it fails to
establish a reliable source of funding. Under the Proposal,
funding for landowner incentives would likely come from the
one-time sale of BLM lands. This would not provide a sound
funding program for landowner incentives, and would create
pressure to sell off additional public lands.
Some in Congress support the outright ``disposal'' of our
public lands. The budget bill should under no circumstances
be used as a backdoor mechanism to achieve this controversial
goal.
Later this week, a Sense of the Senate amendment will
likely be offered by Senator Harry Reid and Dale Bumpers in
opposition
[[Page S2831]]
to this provision. We strongly urge you to support this
amendment and protect our federal public lands from this
precedent setting provision. In addition, we urge you to
refer to our previously delivered coalition letter in support
Senator Frank Lautenberg's amendment to provide adequate
funding for environmental protection programs. . .
Sincerely,
Debbie Sease,
Legislative Director.
____
League of Conservation Voters,
March 30, 1998.
Re Senate Concurrent Resolution 86. supporting the Latenberg
amendment to fund environment and national resource
protection.
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator, the League of Conservation Voters is the
bipartisan, political arm of the national environmental
movement. Each year, LCV publishes the National Environmental
Scorecard, which details the voting records of Members of
Congress on environmental legislation. The Scorecard is
distributed to LCV members, concerned voters nationwide and
the press.
Last year's balanced budget agreement contemplated
decreasing spending every year until at least 2003 for
natural resources and environmental programs. The American
public has made clear that clean water, our public lands,
fisheries and wildlife management, and other environmental
programs require a higher priority than was reflected in this
agreement.
During consideration of the Budget Resolution, S. Con. Res.
86, LCV urges you to support an amendment by Senator
Lautenberg (D-NJ) that would restore funding for critical
environment and natural resource programs that were proposed
in the President's budget but omitted from the Resolution.
This amendment would address the following crucial
environmental initiatives:
The Clean Water Action Plan which will provide increased
resources to states, tribes and individuals in order to
address polluted runoff from urban areas, agriculture, mining
and other sources.
A continuation of funding for the Drinking Water and Clean
Water State Revolving Loan Funds which will help to ensure
that our drinking water and wastewater treatment
infrastructure can meet water quality and public health needs
for the next century.
The Land, Water and Facility Restoration Initiative, which
provides increased funding for ``Safe Visits to Public
Lands'' and ``Supporting the Land and Water Conservation Fund
Vision''.
An increase in funding to continue progress in cleanups at
Superfund sites around the nation, where many communities
have been waiting for over a decade to have toxic and
hazardous sites restored to safety.
In addition, LCV urges you to support any amendments to
address the following:
We understand that an amendment may be offered to reduce or
eliminate the existing tax subsidy for mining on public and
parented lands--known as the percentage depletion allowance.
The Budget Resolution assumes that landowner incentives
programs for endangered species would be funded from the
proceeds of the sale of public lands under the Interior
Department's Bureau of Land Management. This proposal would
set an unacceptable precedent regarding the sale of public
lands and would fail to provide a sustainable, long-term
revenue mechanism for endangered species protection.
America's land, water, fish, wildlife and plants are
irreplaceable natural assets that belong to, and benefit our
entire nation: their protection and stewardship warrant the
modest increase in funding that Senator Lautenberg's
amendment would allow. LCV's Political Advisory Committee
will consider including votes on S. Con. Res. 86 in compiling
LCV's 1998 Scorecard. Thank you for your consideration of
this issue. If you need more information please call Paul
Brotherton in my office at (202) 785-8683.
Sincerely,
Deb Callahan,
President.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, as I have indicated earlier in my
presentation, I think that Senator Bumpers, at a subsequent time, would
like to come speak on this. His not being here today does not waive his
ability to come.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator from
North Dakota is ready, we just heard from the Senator from Nevada; he
put his amendment in. Further action will occur at the appropriate
time.
I would like now to ask our colleague from North Dakota to present an
amendment he has been waiting for.
Amendment No. 2174
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the amendment on behalf
of myself; Senator Lautenberg, the ranking member on the Budget
Committee; Senator Bingaman of New Mexico; and Senator Reed of Rhode
Island.
Mr. President, this amendment will address one of the problems with
the budget resolution that was passed out of the Senate Budget
Committee. The Senate budget resolution says that if any tobacco
revenues are forthcoming as a result of a conclusion to the tobacco
controversy, that money can only be used for the Medicare Program.
I would be the first to acknowledge the critical importance of
Medicare and to say that some of the tobacco revenues ought to go for
that purpose. In fact, the measure that I have introduced, which has 32
cosponsors in the U.S. Senate, provides for some of the funds to go to
strengthen the Medicare Program. But there are other important
priorities as well. Under the budget resolution passed by the
Republican majority in the Budget Committee, none of the funds can go
for other purposes to address the tobacco challenge facing our country.
In fact, none of the funds that could come from a resolution of the
tobacco issue could be used for smoking cessation, smoking prevention,
counter-tobacco-advertising programs, to expand health research on
tobacco-related issues, to provide for additional funding for FDA
increased regulatory authority over the tobacco industry.
That just seems to be a serious mistake. Every single expert that
came before our task force on the tobacco legislation said that if you
are going to be serious about protecting the public health, if you are
going to be serious about reducing youth smoking, you need a
comprehensive plan, a plan that raises prices to deter youth from
taking up the habit; you need to have smoking cessation and smoking
prevention programs; you need to have counter-tobacco advertising. You
also need to expand FDA's regulatory authority. And, yes, you should
have expanded health research into the diseases caused by tobacco
addiction and tobacco use.
The resolution from our friends on the other side of the aisle says
no to all of those other priorities. It says there is only one
priority. It says all of the money should go for only one purpose. Mr.
President, that is just a mistake. If we look at all of the
comprehensive bills that have been introduced in this Chamber by
Republicans and Democrats, every single one of those comprehensive
bills provides funding for matters other than just Medicare. They
provide money for smoking cessation, for smoking prevention, for
counter-tobacco advertising, for expanded FDA regulatory authority, for
increased health research into the problems caused by the addiction and
disease brought on by the use of tobacco products.
I brought this chart that compares reality to rhetoric. If we look at
the policy goals in all of the comprehensive bills that have been
introduced in this Chamber, bills by three Republican chairmen--Senator
McCain, chairman of the Commerce Committee; Senator Hatch, chairman of
the Judiciary Committee; and also Senator Lugar, chairman of the
Agriculture Committee--all of those bills provide for funding for these
other priorities. In addition to my own bill, the HEALTHY Kids Act,
Senator Lautenberg's bill and Senator Kennedy's bill, all of them use
tobacco revenue for anti-youth-smoking-education initiatives--every
single one of them, Republicans and Democrats, provide for using some
of the funds for that purpose. The Republican budget alternative
available on the floor says no money for that purpose. All of the
bills, Republicans' and Democrats', that have been introduced on the
floor, use some of the tobacco revenue for public service advertising
to counter the industry's targeting of our kids. But the Republican
budget that is before the Senate says no money can be used for counter-
tobacco advertising.
Mr. President, all of the major bills that have been introduced say
use some of the tobacco revenue to fund tobacco-related medical
research. That just makes common sense. But the Republican budget
alternative says not one dime from a resolution of the tobacco
controversy can be used for that purpose. What sense does that make?
All of the major bills that have been introduced by Republicans and
Democrats say some of the tobacco revenue should be used to fund
smoking cessation programs. The Republican budget says no. The
Republican budget says not one penny out of the tobacco revenues for
the purpose of funding smoking-cessation programs. What sense does that
make? All of the major bills say use part of the tobacco revenue to
assist tobacco farmers.
[[Page S2832]]
The Republican budget resolution says no; not one dime to ease the
transition for tobacco farmers that would result from the passage of
tobacco legislation.
Mr. President, the Republican budget resolution would hold every
comprehensive tobacco bill that has been introduced by Republicans or
Democrats to be out of order on the floor of the Senate--all of them.
They would all be out of order under the Republican budget resolution.
What sense does that make?
I submit that we can do better. We should do better. We have the
opportunity to respond by taking what is in the Republican budget
resolution with respect to the funds that would be taken in, the
revenue that might result if we are able to resolve the tobacco
question, and, instead of only allowing those funds to be used for the
Medicare Program, to broaden the use of those funds to allow them to be
spent in a way the American people want to see them spent, and the way
every bill which is comprehensive which has been introduced by
Republicans or Democrats provides. It is in my amendment; that is, not
only should the money go for Medicare; yes, some of the money should go
for that purpose; but some of the money should go for public health
efforts to reduce the use of tobacco products by children, including
tobacco control, education, and prevention programs,
counteradvertising, research, and smoking cessation.
Every expert who came before our task force--we heard from over 100
witnesses--said you have to have a comprehensive plan, you have to do
some or all of these things, if you are going to be successful at
protecting the public health; you have to do some or all of these
things if you are really going to be successful at reducing youth
smoking.
We should also provide the chance, at least for comprehensive tobacco
legislation, to provide assistance for tobacco farmers. The budget
resolution before us says no; no help for tobacco farmers. Not only are
we not going to have any money from tobacco revenues for smoking
cessation, for smoking prevention, or for health research, we have no
money to assist tobacco farmers and their communities.
We also provide increased funding, or at least the chance for
increased funding, for the Food and Drug Administration, which, under
virtually every bill that is out here, would be asked to take on a
greater role and more responsibility. If they are going to be given
more obligations, they ought to be given the funding to match those
obligations. They ought to be told yes, those additional resources to
regulate the tobacco product will be provided. Virtually every bill
that has been introduced here by Republicans and Democrats says that is
an appropriate outcome. The Republican budget resolution says no--not
one thin dime for that purpose, or for the purpose of the farmers, or
for the purpose of smoking cessation, smoking prevention, health
research, or countertobacco advertising--no tobacco revenues to be used
for that purpose.
Mr. President, it just doesn't make sense. Yes, we provide that the
funds which would be set aside taken from the tobacco revenues could
also be used for expanded health research. If there is one thing we
have heard from the experts, it is that we need to know more about the
causes of the diseases which flow from the addiction and the use of
these tobacco products.
The National Institutes of Health need additional funding to look
into the cancers caused by the use of tobacco products, to examine the
heart problems caused by the use of tobacco products, to examine the
emphysema which is caused by the use of tobacco products. We need to do
more research to understand the role of addiction in causing the
diseases which flow from the use of tobacco products. But the budget
resolution which is before us says no; not one thin dime for any of
those purposes out of tobacco revenue.
That contradicts every single public health organization and every
single public health leader in America. Dr. Koop and Dr. Kessler have
pleaded with us: If you are going to have an effective program of
protecting the public health, if you are going to have an effective
program to reduce use of smoking, you have to have a comprehensive
plan; you have to have one which addresses every one of these aspects.
You can't just limit it to Medicare.
Yes, Medicare is very important. There is no question about it. Our
legislation would provide some of the funding for Medicare. Our
legislation would provide some of the funding for Social Security,
which the Republican budget resolution also precludes. They wouldn't
provide a penny to strengthen Social Security. They oppose providing
any help to Social Security, even though we know it faces a demographic
time bomb, the same demographic time bomb that Medicare faces. But they
say no for any money to strengthen and protect Social Security. And
they say no to any funding for smoking prevention, smoking cessation,
countertobacco advertising, and additional health research out of the
tobacco revenues. It does not make sense.
Mr. President, I am going to turn now to my colleagues, my leading
cosponsor, Senator Lautenberg, the ranking member of the Budget
Committee, and Senator Reed of Rhode Island, who is here as well. I
don't know--Senator Reed has been waiting--if he would like to comment
now, or if Senator Lautenberg would like to take this opportunity.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask how much time the Senator from
Rhode Island would need.
I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island may proceed.
Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President.
I strongly support the amendment proposed by Senator Conrad, Senator
Lautenberg, and my colleagues. The budget resolution before us today
does not give us a fighting chance to do what we want to do, but more
importantly, what the American people want us to do. That is to reduce
teenage smoking in the United States. We know it is a curse. We know it
is causing incalculable pain throughout this country in terms of health
problems down the road.
But this budget resolution does not give us the tools to grapple with
the issue of teen smoking. It is illogical, too, as Senator Conrad
pointed out so eloquently. All of the major legislative initiatives
have specific provisions which require anti-youth-smoking efforts,
increased research at the National Institutes of Health, FDA regulatory
authority, State regulatory authority, and none of these can be funded
from the budget resolution.
But there is something that is even more illogical, in my view. I do
not want to take a brief for the tobacco industry. But with every one
of these major pieces of legislation for the tobacco industry, you must
reduce teen smoking by 50 percent, 60 percent, or 70 percent in so many
years. Yet, if we take all of the proceeds from the increased tobacco
taxes and all the other payments and we don't use them in some way to
try to suppress teen smoking through counteradvertising campaigns, to
try to get people who are addicted to nicotine over the addiction,
there is no way that these goals can be met. We are setting up a test
that is bound to fail. We have to recognize that if we are serious
about mandating the reduction of teen smoking by significant
percentages over the next several years, we have to provide the
resources to do that job. This budget resolution does not make such a
provision. It does not allow us to take the proceeds of whatever
tobacco deal is ultimately reached and use those proceeds to invest in
a healthier America, to invest in the health of our children.
All of these provisions, which Senator Conrad has outlined, are so
absolutely necessary in making any proposed agreement work, and also,
fundamentally, to ensure that we reduce teen smoking, we have to adopt
a very strong anti-youth-smoking effort. The principal means to do that
is a counteradvertising campaign. Every year, the tobacco industry
spends $5 billion on advertising, billboards, sporting events, teams,
sponsorships, giveaways--hats, jackets, whatever, key chains--a
powerful influence on the youth of America. In fact, all of us can
think back through our sort of history, and, even if we do not smoke,
we know we have been terribly influenced by tobacco advertising
campaigns.
I was on the floor a few weeks ago talking about the legislation
which I
[[Page S2833]]
had, and it came to me that if I asked anyone who is roughly my age--I
will be kind, about 40--if I asked them what LSMFT meant, the light
bulb would go right on. If I ask these young ladies and gentleman, they
would say it is gibberish. I see the shake of the head. They do not
know. LSMFT means ``Lucky Strike Means Fine Tobacco.'' Through
literally millions of dollars of advertising over 20 or 30 years, a
whole generation, or more, of Americans understood that. We have to
reverse that. We have to convince a whole generation of Americans now
and in the future that tobacco is dangerous, addictive, and will
ultimately kill them. We can't do it just with good wishes here on the
floor of the Senate; we have to do it with real resources. This budget
resolution will not give us a chance to do that.
We have to look seriously at NIH research, because there are
opportunities perhaps to develop antidotes to nicotine, to the harmful
effects of tobacco smoke. There are ways through science and research.
We might have better ways to wean individuals off tobacco smoke. All of
these things have to be done if we are going to meet our objective of
using this historic opportunity, this historic agreement, to improve
the public health of Americans.
We also have to ensure that the FDA has the resources to do the job
of enforcing on the tobacco industry. We know every year it is a battle
here through the appropriations process to fund worthwhile programs for
the FDA. We know at the end of the day that there are many worthwhile
programs which just do not make the cut, not because they are bad but
just because we run out of money long before the public health
community runs out of problem. If we do not provide within this
resolution for the use of the resources of the tobacco industry to
invest in FDA, we are not going to be able to give them the tools to do
the job to make sure that smoking is not contagious among young people.
Add to that our responsibility to help the States provide an
important part of this overall agreement. We expect--in fact, in most
of the legislation it is clearly explicitly written--that the States
will fund elaborate programs of access control to tobacco through
licenses of clerks, thorough investigations and inspections of
facilities that are selling tobacco products, ensuring that products
don't mysteriously appear in the State without these controls.
All of that takes money, and the States are going to look to us and
say, ``Listen. You are the folks that have all of the money. You are
the ones that are getting the $500 billion over so many years from
increased taxes and increased fees and penalty payments. We need this
to ensure that we can control access to tobacco products.''
One of the other aspects is thrown in our face constantly when we
talk about this tobacco arrangement. That is the possibility, or the
probability, the eventuality, of a black market in cigarettes because
the price is going up. How are we going to counteract this black market
if we do not have the resources at the State level and the FDA level
and through other law enforcement means to actually counteract the
potential growth of black markets? Once again, I don't see within this
budget resolution those types of resources being available.
We also have to fund smoking cessation programs. Mr. President, 70
percent of smokers today want to quit. But wanting to quit and being
able to beat this addiction are two different things. They cannot do it
without resources--without access to counsel, without access to
nicotine patches, without access to those items which are going to
ensure that they can avoid their present dilemma, which is smoking but
wanting desperately to quit.
Then, as Senator Conrad also pointed out, every one of these pieces
of legislation includes substantial payments to farmers who are likely
to lose their valuable crops because tobacco is going to be suppressed
in this country--not prohibited, not outlawed--but certainly we hope
the demand will begin to shrink for tobacco products as fewer people
smoke, particularly fewer young people smoke. Every one of these bills
has it. Both sides of this aisle are trumpeting their support for the
farmer. They are not going to let these innocent victims of this
industry be left adrift without any resources, cut off from a lucrative
economic crop and left to their own devices. Yet, once again, within
the confines or context of this resolution, there is no resource to do
the job.
We have to do something. Frankly, this amendment makes so much sense.
It allows for the funding of all of these provisions. It allows for
other important uses of the tobacco settlement, too. But at a minimum
it allows us to do what we have to do, and I am supportive, not only of
this effort but overall of developing strong and tough tobacco
legislation. We have an opportunity, a historic opportunity, for the
first time in many, many years, to put America on the path of sense and
sanity when it comes to smoking policy.
We can, we hope, empower a generation of young Americans with the
knowledge and with the support to stop smoking. If we do that, we will
reap a tremendous benefit in a healthier America and a healthier
society. Yet, without these resources we cannot, in fact, go forward
because this budget resolution does not give us the opportunity and the
flexibility to go ahead and do, again, not only what I want to do, what
I assume the vast majority of my colleagues want to do, but what our
constituents demand that we do: Use these historic opportunities, when
the industry has recognized its past mistakes, when the industry is
attempting to change its culture, when we have for the first time the
support not only of the American people but the cooperation, to a
degree at least, of the industry, to ensure that we prevent young
people from smoking.
The fear is we will have debates on this floor about all of these
legislative materials and all of the different aspects of the proposed
agreements, but, ultimately, when it comes down to the bottom line,
when we have to put our money where our words are, there will be no
money because this resolution takes that option off the table for us.
So I hope all of my colleagues will join us in supporting this
amendment, will join us in the continued effort to ensure that we have
good, tough tobacco legislation, but legislation that not only will say
the right things but have the money and resources to do the right
things.
My colleague from New Jersey, I think, is going to speak in a moment.
I think he is present. While he is coming forward, let me just say that
we have before us a very challenging set of issues. This is a critical
one, getting this budget resolution in a shape where it will support
sound legislation on the floor. There are other issues, too, that will
come up before us.
Many aspects of this proposed settlement are controversial, not only
between the two contesting parties, the tobacco industry and those who
are trying to protect the public health, but also controversial by
their nature. I talked a little bit about the need for adequate
resources to fund smoking cessation advertisements that will actually
go out and convince young people not to smoke. That will become
particularly crucial if some provisions we have in the legislation are
stricken down because of the first amendment. As you realize, most of
these legislative initiatives contain language which essentially asks
that the industry give up their first amendment rights to advertise in
exchange for immunity protection. There is always the threat that
someone--perhaps not even in the tobacco industry, perhaps a third
party, like convenience stores--would come out and suggest that these
restrictions are contrary to the first amendment. In this regard, we
would really definitely, most definitively, need resources to keep up
an effective counteradvertising campaign.
So for these reasons and many others, we must, I think, support this
amendment, and we must, in fact, ensure that we have the dollars as
well as the legislative language to prevent teen smoking. If we do
that, then we will achieve the historic conclusion to these debates.
Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island,
Senator Reed. He has been one of the most dedicated members on our task
force on tobacco. He has been absolutely committed to the effort to
form sound national tobacco policy. Nobody
[[Page S2834]]
worked harder in our task force. Nobody is more thoughtful, more
creative about how we approach this set of challenges and problems than
the Senator from Rhode Island. I thank him personally and publicly for
the role that he has played.
If we ultimately succeed in passing comprehensive national tobacco
legislation, in no small measure it will be because of the contribution
of the Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Reed. I especially thank him
for his contribution to the debate on this amendment, because I think
this goes right to the heart of the question. Are we going to have a
chance to write comprehensive national tobacco legislation or are we
going to be foreclosed and that effort endangered because the
Republican budget resolution puts at risk any chance of passing a
comprehensive bill? They would create supermajority vote requirements
to pass any comprehensive tobacco bill. Instead of requiring 50 votes
or 51 votes, we would have to have supermajority votes of over 60
because they have created points of order against any of the major
bills that have been introduced by Republicans or Democrats.
This is a matter that must be fixed. This amendment that Senator
Lautenberg and Senator Reed and Senator Bingaman and I have introduced
is the key to unlocking the chance to have national tobacco
legislation. So I especially thank my colleague from Rhode Island,
Senator Reed.
Mr. REED. If the Senator will yield 30 seconds, just to not only
commend the Senator and thank him for his kind words, but also for his
tremendous leadership with respect to the tobacco task force and also
to commend the senior Senator from New Jersey for his leadership over
many years. I thank both the Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their kind
comments and would say, while this looks like a mutual admiration
society, we kind of get that way because we work on an issue we care an
awful lot about, something with which several of us have had a history
for a long time. I particularly say what a delight it is to work with
our distinguished Senator from North Dakota, Senator Conrad. He is
always very thorough in his review of budget matters or whatever the
subject is. He is on the Finance Committee. He has done a lot of good
work there and has earned the respect of all the people he works with
because he is so thoughtful and so deliberate and so direct in the
things he sees and that he wants to work on.
Senator Conrad was designated as chairman of the tobacco task force
by our leader. It was a singular honor, because what the minority
leader wanted to do was to pick someone whose objectivity could be
counted on because we do have different views on how we ought to treat
the tobacco negotiations, deal with the tobacco companies, and deal
with our constituents and the public at large. The Democratic leader,
Senator Daschle, chose Senator Conrad because he knew he could be
counted on to do a thorough analysis, bring the parties together, and
certainly that has been the case. Senator Conrad had people there who
were friends of the industry, unabashedly. They made sure the industry
point of view was being represented. On the other hand, we had those
from the science community, Dr. Koop and Dr. Kessler, and people who
had seen the effects of tobacco directly in their homes and often on
their own person.
So he has done a thorough job all the way through the discussions
here. We have a chance now to finally come to the beginning of the
analysis of what might take place here in the Senate as it regards a
kind of comprehensive settlement. It is discouraging, I must say, at
this point, to find out, despite the good intentions of our friends on
the other side, that we wind up with a budget resolution facing us that
totally restricts our ability to work with the problem. The problem,
very simply, is how do we protect young people--kids, if I may use the
affectionate expression--kids, from starting to smoke when they are 8,
9, 10, 11 years old? We had a boy, a young man, in front of our
committee. I think he was 12, a young man from Iowa, 12 years old. He
was pleading for help to stop his addiction--12 years old--because he
didn't want his little brother to start smoking and be addicted to
tobacco--12 years old. He said he was already hooked and he tried to
stop several times.
I looked at him and I said, ``My gosh, how can that happen that
someone that age, still in the full bloom of development and growth,
how could he be hooked on tobacco?'' He told it as it was. He wasn't a
city slicker. He was a boy from--kind of country. He came in with a
member of the police department, as I remember, who was his friend and
kind of counselor.
We have lost the mission, I think, by directing the language so that
we are hamstrung. We are unable to say to the country at large that
what we want to do is we want to see that the tobacco industry finally
makes up for some of the terrible damage it has brought on our
community, brought on our people. We lose sight of that sometimes, the
damage, as we go through the debate, because we talk about immunity
from the suit, protection from litigation, talking about how we can cut
a deal with the tobacco industry. I, frankly, think it comes under the
umbrella of nonsense.
I don't like to be casual with language. We are dealing with an
industry that has taken a terrible toll on America. To put it in some
frame that makes it quite clear, in all of the wars of the 20th
century--World War II, World War I, Korea, Vietnam--the casualties,
those killed in combat in all the wars of the 20th century, don't equal
the number that die each year as a result of smoking. It is incredible
when you think about it.
We know there are over 400,000 deaths a year, most of them premature,
often fatal after surgery--after surgery--lungs, throat, you name it,
respiratory conditions galore, gastrointestinal conditions. We found
out not too long ago, via the Harvard School of Public Health, that in
addition to those who we knew died from tobacco-developed illnesses,
that those who have exposure to secondhand smoke, numbering over 50,000
persons a year, 50,000 persons a year have fatal heart attacks, fatal
heart attacks from exposure to secondhand smoke.
We look at this and we say, ``Well, what do we do about our
arrangement with the companies?''
The first thing we have begun to find out--and we are about to find
out a lot more--is what they have hidden in their planning over the
years, their papers over the years, their attempt to hide information
from the public by pretending that there is a client-attorney
relationship.
The reason I mention these things is, we have to understand who it is
that we are working with, that we are talking to. This is an industry
which has been a foul-play industry for decades, knowing very well that
addiction was being created by the manipulation of the nicotine, trying
to grow plants that have a higher nicotine content that will addict
quicker and firmer.
After a lot of discussion, after the attorneys general of most of the
States in the country have met and have fashioned out what they think
is a settlement--which we didn't all fully agree with, but they made a
start, and I give them credit--they began to lay out what the
parameters might be, an arrangement which would have the companies
stepping up to help us develop a proper public health policy, because
that is the primary mission.
Money, in this case, while not unimportant, is certainly a secondary
part of the discussion, because with that money what we want to do is
stop kids from smoking. We want to teach people how to stop even after
they have begun smoking. We want to do some research. We want to find
out what that nicotine does to the body, to the lungs, to the digestive
system--the whole thing. We want to be able to stand up face to face
with the powerful tobacco industry and say, ``Hey, listen; whatever you
do, understand that we are going to limit your ability to get your
message out to children and to other unsuspecting people, and we want
you to pay for it, but we want you to work with us to help us develop
these programs.''
We thought we were doing pretty well, because that proposed
settlement served as a springboard for other discussions. It served as
a springboard for what else we might do, as the President so carefully
and positively laid out. We saw that there would be programs as a
result of an agreement with
[[Page S2835]]
the tobacco companies and to ask the public to join in and help pay for
some of the costs that tobacco renders on our society. There are
guesstimates that it goes from $30 billion, $40 billion a year, up to
$100 billion a year when you talk about lost productivity and problems
which arise for individuals and families which go beyond just the
treatment of the health problem. We worked hard.
Mr. President, we have just been joined by the distinguished chairman
of the Budget Committee, who has become a friend over the years as we
worked together and with whom we had an unusually successful program
last year to get to a balanced budget, to help continue the process
begun by President Clinton and his policy and watch that deficit go
down. We look forward to surpluses in the future, possibly over $1
trillion in the next decade. Think about what good we could do with
that money.
The President laid it out very carefully. It had to do with teen
smoking programs, how we stop that from happening, and all the things I
just talked about to improve health, prevent people from becoming
addicts, which they are, over 41 million of them--addicts. It doesn't
sound pleasant, but that is the truth. As a matter of fact, it is said
in some quarters that addiction to smoking is almost deeper and longer
lasting than it is with some of the illegal drugs that we hear so much
about in our society.
We were enthusiastic. I know I speak for the Senator from North
Dakota and I speak for myself, Senator Reed, Senator Durbin, and
Senator Bingaman, when I say we thought, ``OK, we're on a good track;
we talked to our friends on the Republican side of the Budget
Committee, and we worked to find a plan so that we could use whatever
revenues developed effectively,'' even as we developed a good health
policy, because that was outside the Budget Committee directly. But it
did include the programs which would be considered as part of the
budget resolution, budget planning, for fiscal year 1999.
I don't have to tell you how disappointing it was to find out we were
not at all going to be able to implement the policies we thought were
positive--that we thought would prevent the kids from starting to
smoke, that we thought would help us counter advertising, that we
thought would help us with research, the NIH--to find out that by
design, certainly more than by coincidence, what we were doing was
restricting the use of any funds which might derive from a fee--we
might even call it a user fee--from those who smoke, but a fee, an
excise tax--that it was going to be restricted to something we like, by
the way.
All of us want to see a more solvent Medicare, a stronger Medicare.
The President has confirmed his view of what ought to be done, because
he has appointed a commission. They are going to have a chance for
deliberation. In the next year, there are going to be specific
recommendations on how to protect Medicare, how to create the kind of
solvency which will give us all some confidence that Medicare is going
to be there as a program to use for all who reach 65.
We find out, however, despite the fact that we want to see Medicare
protected, what has happened is the use of funds has become so narrowed
that we can't do the other programs; that we are going to be unable to
take the money which was earned off the addiction, off the habit that
ruined so many people's health. Out of the 41 million people who are
out there, we don't know how many are going to die prematurely, but we
know a lot of them are, and we know a lot of them will be wrestling
with diseases which will render them unable to conduct their lives in a
normal fashion, and we are not going to be able to use those funds for
that.
Again, there is not a suggestion of anything underhanded-- not at
all, Mr. President. I want to make sure that is completely understood.
It is a focus on what the programs are that we are going to be able to
put into place as a result of having those funds available. Our friends
on the Republican side have decided you are not going to use it for any
of those things; you are not going to use it for developing an
appropriate health policy program; you are not going to be able to use
it to stop teen smoking. I know there are programs within the basic
budget resolution to encourage that, but, Mr. President, those programs
are financed to the tune of $125 million a year. That is the
recommendation. My gosh, even the tobacco companies, who hate to admit
they have done anything wrong, were willing to put $2 billion into the
anti-teen-smoking program.
We find ourselves in the position where we agree with the interests
and the effort on behalf of the majority of the Budget Committee in
developing a program, but we also find ourselves saying, ``Hey, wait a
second, is this going to help the tobacco companies in some way? Is
this going to hurt our ability to attack the programs that we so
desperately need to do? Or is it just a little bit of a disguise to
say, `Well, OK, what we are going to do is, we are going to support
health programs very narrowly'?''
It is with regret that we talk about that today. Mr. President, you
have seen the list that the Senator from North Dakota has alongside him
there: Reality versus rhetoric. We have some work to do. We have to try
to amend what it is that came out of the Budget Committee. I am the
ranking member. I like working with Senator Domenici. I hope he will
like working with me when I am the chairman. But that is the way these
things go, Mr. President. Sometimes what goes around comes around.
Mr. DOMENICI. How long do you plan to be a Senator?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Long enough to accomplish that objective. Anyway, we
are going to want to amend this, and I hope we can get that done. That
would be a positive start. Think about it: 3,000 young people a day
start smoking; over 1 million a year. One-third of them will die
prematurely, just as sure as we are standing here, if we don't make
significant changes in the way tobacco is understood in our society--1
million kids a year. Wow, that is larger than some of our biggest
cities. It is certainly larger than a lot of the countries that are on
this globe.
It is time we reach out a helping hand and say, ``OK, we are going to
help you stop before you get started on this addiction.'' I hope our
friends on the Republican side will join us.
It was interesting for me to see what happened on two different
occasions in these last couple of weeks. One was this very day, when a
senior Member of the Senate on the Republican side, the Senator from
New Hampshire, offered an amendment to say that there would be no
protection for the tobacco companies, that they would have to face up
to what the process is--whether it is the courts or negotiated
settlements, or what have you--and take their chances. It drew a lot of
votes. I think there were 75 votes in favor of the Gregg amendment.
The other was an earlier time, when we were marking up the budget
resolution, when we had six members of the Republican Party stand up
with Democrats and confirm the fact that we think the $1.50 price per
pack of cigarettes put in place over 3 years at the rate of 50 cents a
year ought to move ahead.
And that was the only amendment that had any bipartisan support--the
only amendment. It meant that some of our friends on the Republican
side, just as we have heard in these Capitol Grounds, just could not
say no. They had to say yes. They had to say yes, we want to see a
$1.50 per pack fee imposed on cigarette use.
We are looking at a lot of money. We are looking at hundreds of
millions of dollars over the next 25 years. I make a plea for those who
are going to be voting on this amendment tomorrow sometime: Take a look
at what it is you are doing. We understand the interests in Medicare,
but we want you to share our concern that the place to start in
preventing disease from the use of tobacco starts with kids, starts
with the youngest of them, starts with the most helpless of us, and
join us in amending this budget resolution so that we can get a
different kind of message out there.
Mr. President, to reiterate I strongly support this amendment, which
would expand the tobacco reserve fund to allow tobacco revenues to be
used for anti-tobacco efforts.
This amendment, in effect, is a test of whether the Senate is serious
about comprehensive tobacco legislation. If we vote down this
amendment, then
[[Page S2836]]
we're saying ``no'' to tackling the issue of tobacco this year.
Senators on both sides of the aisle have various visions of how
tobacco revenue should be spent. But there had been a bipartisan
consensus that, at the very least, we should dedicate tobacco revenue
to fighting teen smoking and developing smoking cessation programs.
The majority leader, Senator Lott, has taken that position. Senator
McCain is developing legislation that would use tobacco revenues for
anti-smoking efforts. And other bills by Senators Hatch, Conrad,
Jeffords, Kennedy, and myself all would devote tobacco revenue to anti-
teen smoking programs, tobacco-related research, smoking cessation, and
other tobacco related programs.
Even the tobacco industry's proposed settlement called for tobacco
revenue to be used for a variety of programs, including teen education,
smoking cessation and tobacco research.
Unfortunately, this budget would block all of these activities.
That's wrong. And it just makes no sense.
The distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee has argued that
there is enough funding available in the resolution for these
activities. I strongly disagree.
The budget resolution assumes $125 million in budget authority for
anti-youth smoking and cessation in fiscal year 1999. But that is far
below any of the major tobacco bills. In fact, it's not even in the
same ballpark.
The tobacco industry's original proposed settlement included over $2
billion per year for these programs. Senator Conrad's bill included a
similar figure. That's $2 billion versus $125 million.
That is not even close.
Also, the $125 million assumed for teen smoking reduction programs
and smoking cessation in the budget resolution must be accommodated
within the discretionary spending caps. And there's reason to be
skeptical that this will happen. After all, those caps are very tight.
And increasing funding for these activities would require cuts in other
programs. Maybe that will happen. But I certainly wouldn't count on it.
The bottom line, though, is that the restrictive reserve fund
language in this resolution makes it much less likely that we will pass
tobacco legislation this year. That's a grave concern to me, and to
most of my colleagues on this side of the aisle.
After all, 3,000 kids a day start smoking every day; 1,000 of them
will die prematurely as a result. We simply must act. And this
resolution would create a major roadblock.
I ask my colleagues to support the Conrad amendment, and pave the way
for comprehensive tobacco legislation this year.
With that, I yield the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. What is the status of time under the Budget Act on the
Conrad amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proponents have 8 minutes remaining, and
the opponents have 1 hour.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, my friend, the ranking member
from New Jersey, when we are finished with this, however soon it is or
in a half hour, the Senator from Colorado is going to be heard next. Is
that what we have tentatively understood?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Absolutely. That is what we promised him.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, can you let me respond a bit
since there has been a little response? I will certainly not use
anything like an hour.
Mr. ALLARD. Take your time, Mr. Chairman. I will be glad to wait
until you are finished.
Mr. DOMENICI. For your State and mine, a half hour from now or so is
a better time for your people anyway.
Mr. ALLARD. That is correct.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me start by saying that the Senator
that has proposed this amendment, in my opinion, even though we may not
have agreed on a number of things, as I have watched things evolve on
matters pertaining to fiscal policy, has grown tremendously in his
understanding and his forthrightness and his ability to articulate the
fiscal condition of this country.
I want to acknowledge right up front that there are some who worry
about this budget resolution, but there are some who worry about 10
years from now. And, frankly, we have an awful lot of new sources of
information and new sources of estimating that have become very, very
reliable so that as adult leaders of our country we ought to be able to
look at a budget 10 years from now and 15 years from now in terms of
some big big-ticket items and be able to honestly and forthrightly
indicate where we are.
I just say to him, he has done a very good job in that respect, and I
thank him for that. Like I say, I do not necessarily, when he gets up
and makes his frequent speeches about how wonderful America has become
since the Democrats voted in a budget, I join him in attributing to
that the great success of the American economy. But I do acknowledge
that he has a perfectly valid opportunity to so allege to the world. I
have not yet really found enough time to really talk with the American
people about how that is impossible in terms of having been the primary
reason for America's sustained economic recovery. I am not going to do
that tonight either, but in a sense--in a sense--I am going to talk
about something that I believe my good friend, the proponent of the
amendment that is before us, has stated as well as I will or better
time and again in the Budget Committee and in the Committee of Finance.
That is what this chart before us, in back of me, shows to all of
us--a very, very simple chart. You see that red line, and you see 2021.
That red line is the Medicare hospitalization trust fund balances at
the end of each year.
Now, you see, anything close to that zero line means that the
balances are pretty close--the outgo and the intake. But look what
happens to that red line out there in the future, but not so far in the
future that people like Kent Conrad would not stand up and say, with
Pete Domenici, for all the accolades we are giving ourselves about how
great we have done on fixing the fiscal policy of our Nation, if we sit
back and do not fix that, where that red line can, in a year or so when
we have reformed this program, start to move up and parallel the line
that is at about zero, we have failed the American people in a most
serious way.
Because of that we could put one up here on Social Security. We could
argue about their trust fund. And, frankly, that is a very, very
exciting argument for 2 or 3 hours, if we want to do it. But
essentially, in terms of the impact on America, if we do not fix
something, the impact is apt to be more severe if we do not fix this
than if we do not fix Social Security.
Both are serious. Both are predictable. We understand all the reasons
for what is happening. And we can choose, as we have in the past when
we did not know any better, we could wait 10 years. We could all be
running around saying how wonderful everything is. Probably 25 years
ago nobody could run around after us as we campaigned and say, ``You're
not facing up to the facts.'' But I tell you, they can now, because we
know that red line is a pretty accurate presentation of the most
serious fiscal and social problem that this country has--bar none.
Now, having said that, the budget I chose to present, after much
consultation with the Budget Committee, which was adopted by the
Senators on that committee, I regret, on a party-line basis--but I
actually believe the total reason for that party-line vote had to do
with this issue that is before us, because I do not believe that every
Democrat who voted against the Domenici mark voted against it because
they want to spend a lot more money on new programs.
As a matter of fact, if this tobacco settlement, as fragile and as
amorphous as it is, had not come along--and it was not available either
to the President in his budget or to us in our markup--there would have
been little to argue over, because we do not have any money to spend
unless we want to break the agreement and knock those caps on
discretionary spending off of their pillars and say, ``We just made a
deal, but we're going to break it.'' I do not believe that would have
happened. And I do not think Senator Conrad, who is here with an
amendment tonight on the tobacco settlement--I do not think he would
have joined in saying, ``We've got to invent some new programs and
spend some new money and break those caps.''
[[Page S2837]]
Essentially, we got off on the wrong foot, because the President of
the United States gave a speech called a State of the Union Address,
and, in his normal manner, he was eloquent. The problem was, nobody had
an opportunity to check his budget. So America got excited about an era
of balanced budgets where all of a sudden we could spend a lot of money
that we did not spend the year before. And it was interesting. Some of
us listened and said, what's happening? I mean, we have a literal
freeze on all the programs the President is talking about--more
education money, classroom sizes, interest reduction so you can build
more classrooms, child care--you know, on and on--oh, more health
programs for children who are smoking, and a huge advertising campaign
for that.
And I was thinking, ``Man, all of those belong over here on that side
of the ledger where already we've agreed we can't spend any more
money.'' The President said, ``Well, we'll spend it out of the tobacco
settlement'' that may never occur. If it occurs, it might be very
different than he assumed. And lo and behold, the Congressional Budget
Office told us, he cannot spend it the way he says without breaking the
Budget Act of the United States and breaking the caps by $68 billion
over 5 years.
That is where we found ourselves, with everybody getting excited that
we could have some new programs, we could preserve the surpluses,
right--which my friend from Colorado is going to speak to in a minute--
and we could spend on at least six new programs that pop in my head,
and a whole bunch of add-ons, we could spend $124 billion over 5 years
on things we were not paying for last year.
Mr. President, that sounded like a fairy land, that we would have
tombs and beautiful songs and we could dream and say, ``Boy, isn't that
just fantastic?'' Sort of like Alice in Wonderland. But we soon found
out it was all predicated upon a tobacco settlement that the tobacco
companies agreed to with the attorneys general. And we had no more idea
up here how that was going to get resolved than the Man in the Moon.
And I regret to say, while I think we ought to try to settle that
dispute--I am not averse to raising cigarette taxes--we are still not
very close, when you look at the House and the Senate, to coming up
with a way to do that which has enough votes to do what Howard Baker
used to say, ``Whatever the rules and procedures are, don't worry about
it if you've got enough votes.'' Nobody has enough votes yet. But I
believe there are enough votes for this budget resolution, because it
does the right thing. This Republican budget--which I wish some
Democrats would vote for--says: Don't spend the surplus in the regular
budget of the United States on anything but Social Security, or, as we
put it, ``Social Security reform.''
My friend from Colorado has another suggestion--it is intriguing, and
I hope everybody looks at it--as to the surplus. But we said that. And
the President said it a little differently than us. But essentially,
for the year 1999, don't touch it. For those who might think it is very
big, let me remind you, ``Don't touch it '99'' means don't touch $8
billion worth of surplus, I say to my friend in the Chair, not $30
billion, not $60 billion, not $100 billion--$8 billion.
So this euphoria about, ``We've got to protect that, we can't spend
it,'' with others saying, ``Let's cut taxes''--it is $8 billion. So we
said two big goals: Save Social Security--and I might add, under our
budget resolution that is before us, we literally use the word
``reform,'' so that we do not just contemplate putting the surplus into
the Social Security trust fund; we contemplate having it available for
those who will reform and rewrite Social Security to use, if they need
it, to make that program one that is far better for America's retired
people in the future and which has a chance of making the fund itself
more solvent.
The second thing we said was once the next program that the American
U.S. Government has a responsibility to pay for--not a State issue, not
a city issue, one of ours--and lo and behold, we find the American U.S.
problem is that one, Medicare. Medicare. We found the second big
problem is that, one, that huge red line on the chart going down. It
almost moves in a direction like when you are a young kid and you
wondered where hell was--that is sort of looking like it is going down
to hell, down into the depths of the Earth, in the red, going broke.
We said, what do we do about that? There is nothing more important
than doing what we can to start fixing that. We said whatever the
Federal Government keeps from the settlement--if it ever happens, and
we assume the President's number, but we said whatever it is and
whenever it happens--put the Government share in that fund.
What we are going to do with the amendment of my friend, whom I have
just spoken to, is to say we are not going to put all the money in that
hospital insurance fund for seniors that is going bankrupt; we are
going to spend it on some other things. Frankly, I believe for a
budget, a blueprint, that is a mistake. It will be subject to a point
of order, and I will make it. It is not with any reluctance that I make
it, because I think what we have planned in the budget before the
Senate is better for our country, so long as we have no agreed-upon
plan to do otherwise. I remind the Senators, and the occupant of the
Chair was working hard and very knowledgeable about the tobacco
settlement, we don't have a plan. We have a lot of people talking about
a lot of things, and a lot of wonderful things we ought to buy, but we
don't have a plan that has broad-based bipartisan support. I believe
unless and until that happens, the money ought to go where this budget
says--every nickel should go in Medicare.
Now, I am amazed--and I want to allude back and forth to other
proposals--that the President of the United States in his State of the
Union Address, and in his budget which followed, which not even the
Democrats have used in budget debates, that budget that he told the
American people about, that he sent us, I am amazed in that budget
there was $124 billion in new expenditures from this, that, and the
other, but a huge amount of it from the tobacco settlement and not a
penny for the second worst problem that America has. Not a penny.
Not so with the budget that is before the Senate. The reverse. Not a
penny for any other new program but all the money for that one.
Now, from this Senator's standpoint, I did not set about to ignore
what many people said we ought to pay for if we get the tobacco
settlement. Fellow Senators, I want you to know if there is never a
settlement of the cigarette controversy, if it is never settled and
never resolved, the budget before the Senate, because we chose to
prioritize, to put first things first, has the largest increase for the
National Institutes of Health over the next 5 years for research
related to the effects of cigarette smoking that we have ever put
together in the history of our biological and chemical research
programs of America, the largest. On average, 11 percent a year. We are
not waiting for a cigarette settlement to pay for that.
When you vote for the budget before the Senate that I put together--
and I hope it is not just Republicans--we will have dramatically
increased the National Institutes of Health because we chose to look at
the President's cuts, and he had many. And we said, amen. But we want
to spend it where we think we should spend it and we put it in NIH.
This afternoon we argued about child care, and we put it there, too. We
put $5 billion there in a new block grant to add to what we are doing,
and we don't have to wait for the tobacco settlement to do it.
A number of other items, such as an advertising campaign to address
the issue of trying, with advertising, to mellow the effect of
cigarette advertising on young people. We don't have to wait around for
the cigarette settlement. We have funded that to the tune of $825
million.
Now, frankly, we will never have enough for some. There are some who
would think we should spend $2 billion a year on children's programs
and on health programs for children out of this settlement. Mr.
President, what is intriguing about it all is that in order to get that
done, most amendments around here, and the amendment that is presently
before the Senate, attempt to solve these problems by creating new
mandatory permanent programs for ideas that are being implemented about
which we have little certainty they will succeed. If anything, they
[[Page S2838]]
ought to be annually appropriated so we can look at them each year. Mr.
President, you understand that can't be done without breaking the
budget agreement because we don't have any more room in our budget for
that kind of expenditure. So this amendment and others spend it in a
new entitlement program for kids' advertising or for tobacco research
or whatever the five or six programs are that are there.
Now, $825 million over 5 years for various antiteen smoking and
public health initiatives--I have heard from some of my colleagues we
have not put enough resources into these antismoking initiatives,
without a settlement. I have even heard that we need to spend, maybe,
and I repeat, ``multiple billions of dollars, perhaps even as much as
$2 billion a year,'' on such a campaign. Frankly, fellow Senators, I
find those proposals hard to believe. First, the President's budget
identified $400 million over the next 5 years for antismoking
initiatives at the Federal level through the Centers for Disease
Control.
Let me quote from the HHS 1999 budget press release. This was when
the President was still living off the budget that turned out not to be
doable because it violated the budget but they had money to spend. It
said, ``We will expand our support for State and community programs
from $34 million in 1998 to $51 million in 1999,'' a 50 percent
increase. ``The Centers for Disease Control,'' the quote continues, in
their public relations submission, ``will now fund all States and the
District of Columbia to implement innovative tobacco prevention
programs as a core component of the public health.'' We fund that much
and more without waiting around for the tobacco settlement. Now, it
more than doubles the funds identified in the President's budget for
this initiative.
Let me also point out that we have some history with public campaigns
aimed at youth. According to this administration, we have increased our
efforts to prevent and treat drug use from $4.1 billion in 1992 to $5.4
billion in 1998. Much of that funding was aimed at young Americans.
Nonetheless, teenage drug use has increased from 15 percent in 1992 to
22.2 percent in 1995, the last year we have evidence, and everyone here
knows it is higher now than 1995, and the campaign continues to spend
money, to affect their lives on drugs, with advertising and other
programs.
I only say that not because I do not think we should continue trying,
but I firmly believe it would be wrong to put huge amounts of money in
an entitlement program in this area and just say for the next 5 to 10
years, that is where it goes. So, wherever I look and however I think
about this, I say to those committees and those assigned by our
leadership to try to work a tobacco settlement--good luck. I also say,
if you put it together and you can find 60 votes, you will pass your
program in the Senate. And if you do, who knows? I may be one of the
60. I haven't said I would not, but I believe since we are not anywhere
close to that and we have no consensus on that, that we ought to do
what is the most prudent thing.
I have failed to discuss and I have failed to put up the chart that
clearly depicts what is happening to Medicare spending on tobacco-
related illnesses. It is there now. It is simple and frightening.
The hospital insurance trust fund for the seniors of America has been
made stable for about another 10 years. But we didn't really reform the
program; we reformed the payment plan. It will, once again, as that red
line on the previous chart, it will start to go down again, and when
the baby boomers hit entitlement age, it will go broke. But look at
that, one of the reasons it has gone broke is we never could have
estimated the costs that program would bear on its shoulders from
tobacco-related illnesses of senior citizens. And there it is, $25.5
billion, 14 percent of total Medicare spending, in 1995. Mr. President,
1995 is the best we can do. Say it got better. I don't believe so. In
fact, I am prepared to speculate with a bit of intuition that I think
is right that it is higher now, not lower.
So I submit the budget that is before us is better for America and
has a better chance of solving our serious problems than a budget with
the amendment before the Senate added to it, because I do not believe
there is a better way to spend that money than on the program that is
going bankrupt and is so necessary and was so infringed upon by smoking
costs that we cannot ignore the reality of the relationship between the
smoking and the bankruptcy of the hospital insurance program.
Now, this does not mean, Mr. President, that the Senator from New
Mexico thinks the distinguished Senator, whom I have spoken of this
evening with great affection and as honestly and positively as I have
spoken about a Democrat Senator since I have been here-- perhaps my
friend Sam Nunn has had me do that once before, and perhaps my friend,
the ranking member, has had me do that before. But in any event, that
is not to say that this is a wild idea. It is just that I believe if
you have the facts before you and you don't know how the tobacco is
going to come out at all, we have no idea--and there are all kinds of
things people want to spend it on, right? We could add to this list
here, in the next 48 hours, another six or seven things, and we might,
I say to my friend from Colorado. If this amendment fails, we are going
to see more. They won't all try to do the same things. They will have
other things we ought to do and pay for it out of this fund.
So the best I can do is to say that I believe the best budget we can
do is to save the surplus for reform and solvency of Social Security,
save the Government's share of the cigarette tax to save Medicare,
increase the National Institutes of Health, put some additional money
in child care, add about $9 billion to education. A whole bunch of
amendments are going to say we didn't do enough about education. I just
want to say to everybody that we will take those one at a time, one at
a time. But we put everything in this budget on education that the
bipartisan administration budget agreement contemplated for the year
1999. There is an $8 billion-plus increase year after year on
education, which is exactly what we contemplated. It is there. When the
appropriators finally do it--we don't know what they are going to do,
but we suggested some things that were very interesting. We don't wait
around for the settlement of the tobacco issue for those educational
add-ons. The President did. We don't. We put $2.5 billion in IDEA or
disability education to try to move forward in our commitment to pay
our share. It is embarrassing that we have mandated that disabled young
people be educated in a certain way from here down to our school
districts and we are supposed to pay 40 percent of the tab. Senator, if
you are not embarrassed that your schools have never seen the
Government put up more than 9 percent of that program, I am. We are
going to start putting more in there, and do you know what. They are
going to be relieved of expenditures and be able to hire new teachers,
as they see fit, and do the other things they may need. We will live up
to our responsibilities. They will have money left over to do theirs.
That is in our budget.
Yet, whatever you do, it isn't enough. Tomorrow, we will speak about
building classrooms. Let me suggest, for those who want to build
classrooms and think the President is for it, you will have a surprise
tomorrow. Two budgets ago, the President said in his Department of
Education that it is no business of the Federal Government to build
schools in the school districts of America. He said it even better than
that. And then he canceled the $100 million worth of programs to build
schools. All of a sudden, it's the greatest program ever and we better
do it from up here, even though we have never done that in any big way
as part of American Government's help to our schools. We will debate
that. Some will say we should pay part of that out of the cigarette
settlement. Can you imagine. If you are talking about things related to
cigarette smoking, isn't that one more related? Isn't that fund more
bankrupt than any other fund around and any other obligation? So, Mr.
President, when the time comes after tomorrow--we have a few more
minutes, and I hope some people listened tonight--we will vote. The
point of order will be the issue. I have no doubt that
significant numbers of Senators will vote with my friend. I have
nothing but praise for him, and if they do that, that is OK. But I
don't believe there are going to be enough votes to get around the
point of order.
[[Page S2839]]
We will be back to where we started, which we think is a very good
place to be. That is, we are going to spend the money, if we ever get
the tobacco settlement, to pay for making that Medicare Program
solvent.
Mr. President, make no bones about it; we have appointed a national
commission. It is bipartisan. I have already seen them on C-SPAN, and
they disagreed violently. I don't know if the chairman is going to be
able to ever get them together. We were all wondering who ought to be
chairman and we said, ``Senator Breaux, you ought to be.'' I like him
very much. He is a Democrat. Frankly, the more I look at the different
views, I am glad that he is there because, frankly, it is going to be
hard to put them together. If we have a few tens of billions of dollars
to help them get this reform put together, it will be one of the best
things we have ever done. It may just be the ointment, along with
reforms, that will glue it together. And, conversely, if we throw it
away on programs that we are not sure will work, we will be real sorry
if they can't put together a Medicare reform package because we spent
the money that might have helped them do it.
With that, I don't know how much time remains, but from my
standpoint, I yield the floor on this. I will shortly be prepared to
move with the distinguished Senator from Colorado.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I wonder if we can get the Senator's
question answered as to how much time is left on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proponents have 7 minutes 42 seconds. The
opponents have 24 minutes 42 seconds.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico just
volunteered to give us 5 minutes on our side, with the understanding
that the rest will be yielded back. What I would like to do is ask my
colleague from North Dakota to say what he wants to do. Does he want 7
minutes or so? I would like 5 minutes. If that would be all right, I
would agree with the proposal offered by the Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. CONRAD. That would be acceptable.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Colorado thus far for his
ever-present indulgence.
I will take my 5 minutes first, and I ask the Chair to remind me when
my 5 minutes is up so that I can give the remaining 7 minutes to the
Senator from North Dakota.
First of all, I am not personally insulted, I promise you that, not
at all. I heard the chairman of the Budget Committee talk about what a
great guy and a good friend and a nice Democrat and everything else the
Senator from North Dakota was. Then he talked about the Senator from
Louisiana. It doesn't bother me. It is just one of those things, Mr.
President, two Democrats being described as great guys and all that.
But we will go on from there.
Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Let me say, Mr. President, whatever I have said about
other Senators from the other side of the aisle, it is quite obvious
that the most significant achievement that I have participated in was
the balanced budget agreement of last year, and without my good friend,
Senator Lautenberg from New Jersey, we could not have achieved that
result. So he knows with that statement that I am very proud to work
with him. You got it, Senator.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. We are together, believe me. As a matter of fact, I
want to tell you something, Mr. President. You have no idea--few have--
how hard I worked to get this man to stop smoking. It showed my true
affection for him because I wanted him to be around here. Even when I
disagree with him, I like him here because he stimulates reactions and
gets us going at times, if you know what I mean.
Mr. President, I ask people to consider this question with me. What
grandparent, I ask you, would not say: Take care of my grandchild
first, help my grandchild so that when he or she grows up, they are
healthy, help my grandchild to not become an addict to tobacco or other
drug substances? What grandparent would not stand up and proudly say
``take care of them first'' because eventually they will be the ones
who will shoot the Government programs and health insurance programs up
through the roof?
Yes, there is $22 billion worth of spending in Medicare on tobacco-
related illness. We are not sure, but there is a significant amount,
perhaps a like amount, in Medicaid tobacco-related illness. But if we
don't inhibit smoking among the youngsters today, this price will
continue. Sometimes you have to make an investment in the long term
before you can obtain the result that you want. You can't always do it
overnight.
So I submit, Mr. President, that we are determined not to break the
caps. We are determined to abide by CBO accounting. We are determined
not to spend money that we don't have. And to correct something the
Senator from New Mexico said a moment ago, he said the surpluses should
be used for Medicare. I think he didn't quite mean it that way because,
technically, the words are, ``surplus is going to Social Security,''
and hopefully the proceeds from the tobacco legislation would go toward
creating a more solvent Medicare.
So, Mr. President, I kind of rest the case here. My colleague from
North Dakota is going to want to wrap up, as they say, but I say as an
experienced grandparent--and if anybody wants to see the pictures of my
five grandchildren, I have them here in my pocket. But I tell you that
there is nothing--nothing--in my life that I would not give to prevent
sickness or illness to any one of my grandchildren. There is no price
that is too high to pay. I will take care of myself, but I want to make
sure I give my grandchildren a chance to grow, develop, and be healthy.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor for my friend from North
Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, first of all, I want to say to the
chairman of our committee, he knows that I have the utmost regard for
him for the way he conducts our committee. I have real respect for the
chairman. I have, as well, an affection for the chairman. That really
is not the issue before us tonight. We work together, and on the larger
issues of where we are going for the long term, there is much more that
unites us than divides us because we are both persuaded that if we
don't address the long-term entitlement changes that are necessary in
this country, we put this country at risk.
We are talking about the national security of our Nation because,
fundamentally, that cannot be preserved if we don't get our long-term
fiscal house in order. We are united on that question. Mr. President,
the issue before us tonight is a reserve fund in the budget for tobacco
revenue. The chairman of our committee says that he believes if we get
a tobacco settlement, all of the revenue ought to go for Medicare. I
would be swift to acknowledge that Medicare is a priority, but it's not
the only priority. Medicare does not represent the national tobacco
policy. We have to do more with those tobacco revenues than just
strengthen the Medicare Program. And, in fact, I think the chairman
would be quick to acknowledge that even if we took all of the revenue
from tobacco, we would not do the job that needs to be done with
respect to Medicare. We need fundamental reform of Medicare, and I
voted in the Finance Committee very controversial votes to do precisely
that, because I deeply believe we do need to reform the Medicare
Program, to preserve it and protect it for the long term.
Mr. President, the tobacco revenues won't do that job. In fact, in an
odd way, they actually may retard our facing up to the long-term
challenge of Medicare. But there are other challenges we face as well.
One of them is, if we get the tobacco revenue, how should it be used?
The Republican budget resolution says none of it should be used for
youth-smoking-reduction-education programs. None of it should be used
for public service advertising to counter the tobacco advertising of
the industry. Their resolution says none of it should be used for
tobacco-related medical research; that none of it should be used for
smoking cessation and prevention programs; none of it should be used to
assist tobacco farmers in their communities in the transition. That is
an honest disagreement.
[[Page S2840]]
In the bill I introduced, some of the money was used for Medicare,
some of it was used to strengthen Social Security. But we also believe
that, just as every comprehensive bill that is before this body by
Republicans and Democrats has said, some of the money has to go for
tobacco control problems, smoking cessation, smoking prevention. The
chairman says he has money elsewhere in the budget. Let me just say
that what he has elsewhere in the budget is wholly inadequate. That is
not just my judgment; that is the judgment of the public health
community on a united basis.
In the budget resolution, there is $125 million a year for smoking
cessation, smoking prevention, counter-tobacco advertising, and health
research that is specific to the question of tobacco issues. That is
apart from the NIH money. But in every comprehensive bill that is out
here by Republicans, or Democrats, it is not $125 million for those
purposes. It is $2 billion a year to $4 billion a year. The chairman
elsewhere in the budget has provided for $125 million, and the truth is
that under the budget resolution it may be the result that not a single
dime is available for any of those programs because the Budget
Committee doesn't make that decision. All the money goes in a pot and
the appropriators determine what are their priorities. If they have a
difference on that question, they may decide not to provide one thin
dime for smoking cessation, smoking prevention, counter-tobacco
advertising, or even health research. That is the hard reality.
That is why some of us believe deeply that we have to broaden out
this reserve fund to accommodate the other priorities, to have a chance
to have comprehensive tobacco legislation without a supermajority
requirement here on the floor of the U.S. Senate. A 60-vote point of
order lies against any of these comprehensive tobacco bills that have
been offered by three Republican chairmen on that side and every
comprehensive tobacco bill on our side. We do not believe we should put
supermajority hurdles in the way of accomplishing national tobacco
legislation.
I will just conclude by saying I respect our chairman, I respect the
work of his staff, I respect the work of our ranking member, and his
staff. Let me just say with respect to our ranking member that no one
has been more dedicated on the question of reforming our Nation's
policy with respect to tobacco than the Senator from New Jersey. If
people on airplanes like the fact that they are smoke free, there is
one person who is responsible for it--more responsible than any other
individual--and that is the Senator from New Jersey. We can all thank
him for the contribution he has made to try to do something to get our
kids off the tobacco habit, off the addiction, and the diseases that it
causes. I think we should recognize his leadership in this regard.
Nobody has been a more forceful advocate of changing the tobacco
culture than the Senator from New Jersey.
At some point we are all going to be on the same page because I
believe we are going to find a way to get together on national tobacco
legislation. But I hope that we do not put in the way as a roadblock
the budget resolution. We could broaden that reserve fund so that if we
do get tobacco revenue it can be used, yes, for Medicare, and, yes, to
help strengthen Social Security, as my bill also provides, but in
addition to that provide for smoking cessation, smoking prevention,
counter-tobacco advertising--all of the things that the public health
community has told us is important to a comprehensive approach to
protecting the public health.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a letter from ENACT, a coalition of more than 45 major public health
organizations with millions of volunteers and members who support
comprehensive legislation that will prevent children from taking up
tobacco and will dramatically reduce tobacco use among adults. They
support the type of amendment which I have offered.
I ask unanimous consent to also have printed in the Record a letter
from the American Lung Association, who say in their letter, ``As you
know, the budget resolution recently approved by the Budget Committee
is a disaster for public health.''
I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter
from Public Citizen making the same point; finally, a letter from Smoke
Free 2000, a coalition interested in advancing the public health with
respect to the question of tobacco policy.
So, we will have those letters in the Record demonstrating the
support of the public health community for broadening our tobacco
reserve plan so that a comprehensive bill is possible.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
ENACT,
March 27, 1998.
Dear Senator: The ENACT coalition of more than 45 major
public health organizations with millions of volunteers and
members supports comprehensive legislation that will prevent
children from taking up tobacco and dramatically reduce
tobacco use among adults.
We are writing to express our serious concerns regarding
the restrictions contained in the Budget Resolution that
limit the use of money in the Tobacco Reserve Fund to the
Medicare Hospital Trust Fund. These restrictions will hinder
efforts to enact effective and comprehensive tobacco
legislation by requiring 60 votes to include funding for key
anti-tobacco programs. We believe that the Budget Resolution
should be changed to allow the Tobacco Reserve Fund to be
used for programs that will reduce the use of tobacco and its
harmful effects.
To reduce tobacco use among children and adults,
comprehensive tobacco legislation must contain funding for
tobacco-related public health programs, including:
1. A nationwide public education and counter advertising
program as well as state and local tobacco control programs
and projects.
2. Cessation programs to help children and adults who want
to quit.
3. Regulation of tobacco products by the Food and Drug
Administration.
4. Research into how we can best prevent tobacco use and
help those who want to quit--this research will build on what
we already know and ensure that our efforts to drive down
smoking rates are effective.
Funding for tobacco-related public health programs should
be the first priority for any funds raised through tobacco
legislation; we are therefore opposed to the current
provision in the Budget Resolution that limits the use of
such revenue to the Medicare Hospital Trust Fund.
We recognize that the Budget Resolution includes funding
for teen smoking prevention and cessation programs, but these
programs would have to compete for limited discretionary
dollars available in the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations
bill. Additionally, the funding called for in the Budget
Resolution under the discretionary caps is far below the
funding levels recommended by virtually every major public
health organization and below what was outlined in the
proposed Attorneys General agreement.
The undersigned groups support amending the Budget
Resolution to ensure that funds in the Tobacco Reserve Fund
can be used to support critical tobacco-related programs that
will help drive down smoking rates. This is a historic
opportunity to achieve fundamental change in tobacco
addiction and disease and to save lives. We are committed to
working with you and other members of Congress to pass a
Budget Resolution that will help protect America's children
from the dangers of tobacco addiction.
Sincerely,
Allergy & Asthma Network--Mothers of Asthmatics, Inc.;
American Academy of Family Physicians; American Academy
of Pediatrics; American Association for Respiratory
Care; American Cancer Society; American College of
Chest Physicians; American College of Preventive
Medicine; American Heart Association; American
Psychiatric Association; American School Health
Association; American Society of Internal Medicine;
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids; College on Problems of
Drug Dependence; Family Voices; Federation of
Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive Sciences; The
HMO Group; Interreligious Coalition on Smoking or
Health; Latino Council on Alcohol & Tobacco; National
Association of Children's Hospitals; National
Association of County and City Health Officials;
National Association of Local Boards of Health;
National Hispanic Medical Association; Oncology Nursing
Society; Partnership for Prevention; and Summit Health
Coalition.
____
American Lung Association,
New York, NY, March 25, 1998.
Hon. Frank Lautenberg,
Ranking Member, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lautenberg: As you know, the Budget Resolution
recently approved by the Budget Committee is a disaster for
public health.
Instead of allowing the use of tobacco revenues for public
health programs, as is the case with every major piece of
tobacco control legislation before the Congress, the
committee bill actually precludes the use of any new tobacco
revenues for public health. Moreover, the provisions of
committee bill will set up procedural barriers that will
hamstring the use of these new revenues for preventing youth
smoking, lifesaving research
[[Page S2841]]
at the National Institutes of Health, or FDA efforts to rein
in the tobacco industry. Monies that are provided--$800
million over five years, is way below most other bills. For
example, the Health Kids Act, (S. 1638) calls for over $2
billion per year for tobacco control efforts.
The American Lung Association strongly supports an
amendment to the Budget Resolution that would include funding
for public health programs in the tobacco reserve fund
established by the Budget Committee. We believe that the goal
of tobacco control legislation should be to control tobacco
use--not raise revenue.
Lastly, we support any amendment expressing the sense of
the Senate opposing immunity and supporting full FDA
authority to control tobacco. Recent public opinion polls
conducted by the American Lung Association indicate the
American people strongly oppose granting special protections
to the tobacco industry. The Senate should follow their lead.
We look forward to working with you to craft tobacco
control legislation that protects the public health without
creating special protections, like immunity, for the tobacco
industry.
Sincerely,
Fran Du Melle,
Deputy Managing Director.
____
Public Citizen,
Washington, DC, March 26, 1998.
Hon. Frank Lautenberg,
Ranking Member, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lautenberg: Public Citizen has long supported
efforts to reduce the death and disease caused by tobacco
products and has worked for years against legislation that
would protect corporate wrongdoers from legal accountability
for the harm caused by their dangerous products. We applaud
your work in pursuit of the same public health goals.
We are concerned that the Budget Resolution recently
approved by the Senate Budget Committee does not reflect
sound public health priorities. The measure contains no
funding for many of the health related programs that should
be funded by new tobacco revenues. Instead, the Budget
Resolution proposes that these new tobacco revenues be
earmarked for Medicare. In addition, the money the Budget
Resolution provides for tobacco control--$800 million over
five years--is well below the amount that would be generated
by most of the tobacco bills now before Congress. For
example, the Healthy Kids Act, (S. 1638), calls for over $2
billion per year for tobacco control efforts. We urge that
these deficiencies be corrected.
Further, Public Citizen strongly supports a floor amendment
expressing the sense of the Senate that the tobacco companies
must not be given any special protection from legal liability
as a quid pro quo for its payments--or for anything else. We
oppose any sweetheart deal for this industry that lied to and
cheated the American public and costs the U.S. economy over
$90 billion each year in health care costs alone.
Finally, Public Citizen believes that the FDA must be given
full authority to regulate nicotine and tobacco products, and
we would also support a sense of the Senate amendment
advancing that position.
Thank you for your leadership on these important issues. We
look forward to working with you to craft tobacco control
legislation that protects the public health without creating
special protections, like immunity, for the tobacco industry.
Sincerely,
Joan Claybrook,
President.
____
Smoke Free 2000 Coalition,
St. Paul, MN, March 25, 1998.
Hon. Frank Lautenberg,
Ranking Member, Committee on the Budget, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lautenberg: The Minnesota Smoke-Free Coalition
strongly supports an amendment to the Budget Resolution that
would include significant funding for public health programs
in the tobacco reserve fund established by the Budget
Committee.
In order to reduce tobacco and prevent tobacco use, a
comprehensive approach is needed including, counter-
advertising and education campaigns, reducing illegal sales
to minors, smoking cessation for those who want to quit. The
goal of tobacco control legislation should be to control
tobacco use--not just raise revenue.
The budget resolution recently approved by the Budget
committee prohibits the use of tobacco control revenues for
public health programs. This would be a disaster for public
health and exactly what the tobacco industry would support.
The Minnesota Coalition represents more than 60 health,
education, consumer and civic organizations from across the
state of Minnesota. Collectively, we urge your support of an
amendment to the Budget Resolution that would include funding
for public health.
Sincerely,
A. Stuart Hanson, M.D.,
President.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, is it fair to assume now that we have
both yielded our time on this?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes.
Amendment No. 2209
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that the Committee on
Finance shall consider and report a legislative proposal this year that
would dedicate the Federal budget surplus to the establishment of a
program of personal retirement accounts for working Americans)
Mr. DOMENICI. Before our friend from Colorado proceeds, I send to the
desk an amendment on behalf of Senators Roth, Breaux, Gregg, Robb,
Hatch, Nickles, Gramm, Gordon Smith, and Santorum, and ask it take its
place among the amendments to be determined in the future as to when a
vote will occur.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), for himself,
and Mr. Roth, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Robb, Mr. Hatch, Mr.
Nickles, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Gordon Smith, and Mr. Santorum,
proposes an amendment numbered 2209.
At the end of title III add the following:
SEC. ____. SENSE OF THE SENATE ON SOCIAL SECURITY PERSONAL
RETIREMENT ACCOUNTS AND THE BUDGET SURPLUS.
(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) The social security program is the foundation of
retirement income for most Americans, and solving the
financial problems of the social security program is a vital
national priority and essential for the retirement security
of today's working Americans and their families.
(2) There is a growing bipartisan consensus that personal
retirement accounts should be an important feature of social
security reform.
(3) Personal retirement accounts can provide a substantial
retirement nest egg and real personal wealth. For an
individual 28 years old on the date of the adoption of this
resolution, earning an average wage, and retiring at age 65
in 2035, just 1 percent of that individual's wages deposited
each year in a personal retirement account and invested in
securities consisting of the Standard & Poors 500 would grow
to $132,000, and be worth approximately 20 percent of the
benefits that would be provided to the individual under the
current provisions of the social security program.
(4) Personal retirement accounts would give the majority of
Americans who do not own any investment assets a new stake in
the economic growth of America.
(5) Personal retirement accounts would demonstrate the
value of savings and the magic of compound interest to all
Americans. Today, Americans save less than people in almost
every other country.
(6) Personal retirement accounts would help Americans to
better prepare for retirement generally. According to the
Congressional Research Service, 60 percent of Americans are
not actively participating in a retirement plan other than
social security, although social security was never intended
to be the sole source of retirement income.
(7) Personal retirement accounts would allow partial
prefunding of retirement benefits, thereby providing for
social security's future financial stability.
(8) The Federal budget will register a surplus of
$671,000,000,000 over the next 10 years, offering a unique
opportunity to begin a permanent solution to social
security's financing.
(9) Using the Federal budget surplus to fund personal
retirement accounts would be an important first step in
comprehensive social security reform and ensuring the
delivery of promised retirement benefits.
(b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that this resolution assumes that the Committee on Finance
shall consider and report a legislative proposal this year
that would dedicate the Federal budget surplus to the
establishment of a program of personal retirement accounts
for working Americans and reduce the unfunded liabilities of
the social security program.
Amendment No. 2210
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding repair and
construction needs of Indian schools)
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, before we go on to the Senator from
Colorado, I, too, have an amendment to be sent up to the desk on behalf
of the Senator from South Dakota, Senator Johnson, and ask that it be
placed in the order for such time as it is called up.
Mr. DOMENICI. Is that the amendment on Indian schooling?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes. We should note that the Senator from New Mexico
is a cosponsor of that amendment, and please note that carefully.
Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), for Mr.
Johnson, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Bingaman,
Mr. Wellstone, and Mr. McCain, proposes an amendment numbered
2210.
[[Page S2842]]
The text of the amendment follows:
At the end of title III, insert the following:
SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING REPAIR AND CONSTRUCTION
NEEDS OF INDIAN SCHOOLS.
(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) many of our nation's tribal schools are in a state of
serious disrepair. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
operates 187 school facilities nationwide. Enrollment in
these schools, which presently numbers 47,214 students, has
been growing rapidly. A recent General Accounting Office
report indicates that the repair backlog in these schools
totals $754 million, and that the BIA schools are in
generally worse condition than all schools nationally;
(2) approximately 60 of these schools are in need of
complete replacement or serious renovation. Many of the
renovations include basic structural repair for the safety of
children, new heating components to keep students warm, and
roofing replacement to keep the snow and rain out of the
classroom. In addition to failing to provide adequate
learning environments for Indian children, these repair and
replacement needs pose a serious liability issue for the
Federal government;
(3) sixty-three percent of the BIA schools are over 30
years old, and twenty-six percent are over 50 years old.
Approximately forty percent of all students in BIA schools
are in portable classrooms. Originally intended as temporary
facilities while tribes awaited new construction funds, these
``portables'' have a maximum 10 year life-span. Because of
the construction backlog, children have been shuffling
between classrooms in the harsh climates of the Northern
plains and Western states for ten to fifteen years;
(4) annual appropriations for BIA education facilities
replacement and repair combined have averaged $20-$30 million
annually, meeting only 4% of total need. At the present rate,
one deteriorating BIA school can be replaced each year, with
estimates of completion of nine schools in the next seven
years. Since the new construction and repair backlog is so
great and growing, the current focus at BIA construction must
remain on emergency and safety needs only, without
prioritizing program needs such as increasing enrollment or
technology in the classroom; and
(5) unlike most schools, the BIA schools are a
responsibility of the federal government. Unfortunately, the
failure of the federal government to live up to this
responsibility has come at the expense of quality education
for some of this nation's poorest children with the fewest
existing opportunities to better themselves.
(b) Sense of the Senate--It is the sense of the Senate that
the assumptions underlying the functional totals in this
budget resolution assume that the repair and construction
backlog affecting Bureau of Indian Affairs school facilities
should be eliminated over a period of no more than five years
beginning with Fiscal Year 1999.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield the floor so the Senator from Colorado can call
up and debate his amendment.
Mr. ALLARD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be laid
aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2170
(Purpose: To require the reduction of the deficit, a balanced Federal
budget, and the repayment of the national debt)
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allard) proposes an
amendment numbered 2170.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of title II, add the following:
SEC. . REDUCTION OF NATIONAL DEBT.
(a) In General.--In the Senate, beginning with fiscal year
1999 and for every fiscal year thereafter, it shall not be in
order to consider any concurrent resolution on the budget, or
amendment thereto or conference report thereon, that--
(1) that would cause budgeted outlays for that fiscal year
to exceed budgeted revenues; and
(2) does not provide that actual revenues shall exceed
actual outlays in order to provide for the reduction of the
gross Federal debt as provided in subsection (b).
(b) Amount.--The amount of reduction required by this
section shall be equal to the amount required by amortize the
debt over the next 30 years in order to repay the entire debt
by the end of fiscal year 2028.
(c) Waiver.--The Senate may only waive the provisions of
this section for a fiscal year in which a declaration of war
is in effect.
(d) Passage of Revenue Increase.--No bill to increase
revenues shall be deemed to have passed the Senate unless
approved by a majority of the total membership of each House
of Congress by a rollcall vote.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, first of all, I would like to commend the
chairman of the Budget Committee, the Senator from New Mexico, for his
very laudable statement, which he made earlier on in the debate this
evening. I think we are very fortunate in this body to have somebody
who is trying to bring accountability to the process. I hope that
America was listening, because I think he made some very good points,
and I think as Americans we need to stop to think about our priorities
and how we would like to see those priorities come down in the budget
and how we would like to see those priorities in the budget reflect how
we want to live our lives as Americans.
I have an amendment that I would like to see added to the budget plan
that this chairman and his committee has put forward, the plan to pay
down the American debt.
I think back last year when I proposed an amendment to the then-
budget, a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, that asked the President of
the United States to come forward with a plan on how he might want to
pay down the debt that we have. I think we ought to take a little time
to define the terms. The deficit is how much more we spend in any 1
year than what we bring in in revenue. The debt is an accumulation of
all of that excess spending over the years--the accumulation of all of
these deficits. So I am of the view that we need to do something; we
need to have a plan before us to pay down that debt.
The President ignored the sense-of-the-Senate resolution that was
part of the budget resolution last year, and we got into the budget
debate this year. There was simply not any plan coming from the
President, or anybody else at that point, on how we might pay down our
national debt running somewhere around $5.6 trillion.
So I have decided I will put forward my plan on how I think we might
be able to pay down the debt. As we go through the discussion and the
debate, I will show that we will even have some money left over as we
pay down the debt to provide some tax relief for Americans.
I think we are very fortunate that we have somebody like the chairman
of the Budget Committee who really believes we need to work to
eliminate the deficit and to balance the budget. It brings forth a
certain amount of accountability to the process. I think we need to
have leaders like him due to the fact that we do not have a balanced
budget amendment.
I was very disappointed last year that a balanced budget amendment
did not pass, because I think we needed that accountability in order to
assure that the Members of this Senate would work hard to set
priorities and not ignore deficits that have been accumulating over the
years out into the future and to continue to allow the debt to grow
year after year.
I would like to move forward by beginning to congratulate, again,
Chairman Domenici and the Budget Committee on crafting a sensible
resolution that maintains the discretionary spending caps previously
set forth. I reemphasize that is very key in this debate to assure that
we have protected the future for our children and grandchildren by
having a responsible budget which holds the promise that we made to the
American people.
Even though it appears that we will realize a surplus before the year
2002, I believe that it is essential for this Congress to show
restraint when it comes to budget surpluses. The future solvency of the
Federal Government will likely rest on what we do in the next 3 years.
There is simply no doubt that the economy is performing well--much
better than anyone has expected. But today's rosy predictions could
turn out to be a black future if we do not plan appropriately. We must
begin the process of paying down the Federal debt and preparing for an
investment-based Social Security system. Some have said that they would
like to see the surplus used for Social Security. I say let's do it.
The fact of the matter is that making payments on the national debt is
the best way to provide flexibility for changes in Social Security in
the short term. The last time I came to the floor to discuss the
national debt, it stood at $5.476 trillion. Yes, $5.476 trillion.
Today, even as the U.S. economy continues to grow, we have added $114
billion to the debt, which is now over $5.59 trillion. I believe to not
apply at least a portion of any surplus to pay down the debt is simply
unconscionable.
[[Page S2843]]
In February, Senator Enzi and I introduced the American Debt
Repayment Act legislation. It is legislation that I believe is integral
to the future of this country. I am a realist. I understand that we
cannot retire the Federal debt immediately. What we can do is create a
plan which I hope will become a part of the budget plan by which we pay
down the debt over a set number of years.
This is just a minimal plan. There is nothing in it that says we
cannot do more. In fact, I hope we can do more because we need to sign
on to a plan to pay down the debt. The American Debt Repayment Act
provides such a plan. Senate bill 1608 would amortize and pay off the
debt in the year 2028.
Frankly, this is as simple as it gets. The plan puts the Federal
Government on a 30-year mortgage to pay its creditors and place our
country on sound financial ground.
Because I believe that we must have a plan when dealing with the
debt, I am offering this legislation today as an amendment to the
budget resolution. By approving this amendment, we have made the
initial commitment to pay down the debt. We are saying to the American
people that the Federal Government has finally recognized the time has
come to begin to pay off our Nation's credit card balance.
I realize that there are many competing interests when it comes to
using the surplus, and I am willing to meet my colleagues halfway.
Anything above the amortized payment is not affected by my amendment
and can be used in any way that Congress may deem appropriate. While I
advocate tax relief for the American family from any surplus above the
required payment, my colleagues might decide differently. This
amendment proves that debt reduction and tax relief are not mutually
exclusive.
I would like to take just a moment and refer to the chart that I have
here on the floor with me and talk a little bit about the chart. This
is an amortization schedule, much along the lines of what you would be
shown if you were to buy a new home. Say you are a new American family;
you have just been married; you decide to make probably the first big
investment of your marriage, and you will make a commitment to pay that
down over 30 years. Your banker may very well give you a similar chart
which shows how you are going make that payment year after year to pay
down the mortgage on your home.
This is the plan where we talk about paying down the mortgage of the
Federal Government year after year. It is a 30-year plan, just pretty
much like everybody's home mortgage. To keep things simple, I have just
adopted in this proposal pretty much what the Budget Committee has
estimated will be the surpluses for their 5-year plan. I say fine, we
will not argue with the Budget Committee. We will keep that in place.
But after that period of time, we ought to set $11.7 billion a year, in
addition to what we did the year before, towards paying down the debt.
This accelerates and accumulates over time.
If we do that, let's look at the year 2004, after the current plan
has been adopted. In the year 2004, we have $616 million left over for
tax relief, or maybe program growth or some other needs. When we drop
into 2005, that comes up to $2.1 billion over and above what I put
together on this amortization part for program growth or to reduce the
tax burden. My personal preference, as I stated earlier, is to reduce
the tax burden on the American family.
What happens over a 30-year period? We save $3.7 trillion. I think
that is a pretty substantial step, savings that we can use for Social
Security reform or maybe doing something with our Medicare problems.
This is a plan that shows how we can begin to address those very
serious problems we have before us, but to also keep as a top priority
of this Congress and this Senate a commitment to pay down this national
debt. This plan reflects the amount of savings we are going to save for
the future generations, our children and our grandchildren.
The important point I want to make here is to have a commitment to
pay down the debt. With even a minor commitment with a 30-year payment,
where we are setting aside $11.7 billion a year, we can accomplish
this. We can accomplish this with just a simple, straightforward
commitment. I remind everybody, our total budget is somewhere around
$1.7 trillion. It is not much of the total picture.
I believe an excerpt from an article on March 23, 1988, in Newsday
strikes right at the heart of the issue. I have a quote out of that
particular article. I will read part of it. I have it up here on the
floor. It says:
* * * if Congress and the President agreed to toe the line
and direct all surpluses to pay down the debt for the next 30
years [apparently he has thought about this, too] and if the
economy remained on a steady, moderate growth path, the
government could pay off its entire debt while covering
Social Security and other costs.
Mr. President, I have that article. I ask unanimous consent it be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[from Newsday, March 23, 1998]
Dear Uncle Sam: Use Cash Surplus To Pay Off Debt
(By Clay Chandler and John M. Berry)
Imagine that after years of struggling to gain control of
your finances, you suddenly come into some extra money. Even
better: Suppose you're likely to earn more money than
expected every year for the next decade.
How best to use the windfall? A good financial planner
might recommend you start by cutting debt.
``One of the very first things I tell my clients is to get
rid of debt,'' says L. Edward O'Hara, a financial planner in
Silver Spring, Md. ``A lot of people are reluctant until I
show them what a huge difference it can make to their
financial situation over a long period of time.''
Economists are offering much the same advice to Uncle Sam.
With the federal government suddenly expecting surpluses
estimated between $660 billion and $1.1 trillion over the
next decade, a large contingent of fiscal experts is
recommending that President Bill Clinton and Congress resist
calls for new tax cuts or increased government spending.
Instead, many economists argue, the government is likely to
get the highest economic return from future surpluses by
using them to whittle down the $3.8 trillion in federal debt
held by the public.
``Pretty much all macro-economists would be in the debt-
reduction camp,'' asserts N. Gregory Mankiw, a professor of
economics at Harvard University and author of one of the most
popular economic textbooks for undergraduates. ``For most of
us, the choice seems clear.''
Others aren't so sure. Supply-side economists and GOP
presidential hopefuls Jack Kemp and Malcolm (Steve) Forbes
Jr. blast debt reduction as a ``castor oil'' remedy of no
benefit to the economy. A recent Wall Street Journal
editorial excoriated Republicans who would ``stand for an
abstraction of paying down the national debt . . . even if it
means taxing Americans at higher rates than needed to balance
the federal books.''
At the opposite end of the political spectrum, liberals
such as Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.) and Northwestern
University economist Robert Eisner decry the folly of
extinguishing Treasury IOUs with money that might otherwise
be ``invested'' in new schools or health care for needy
children.
Meanwhile, lawmakers from both parties, rallying behind
House Transportation Committee Chairman Bud Shuster (R-Pa.),
can tick off reasons why using the surpluses to fund
construction of new roads, bridges or other projects in their
districts will make the economy more productive.
Still, a little-noticed set of long-term projections
prepared by the White House Office of Management and Budget
makes a tantalizing case for the benefits of using projected
surpluses over the next 30 years to pay down the debt. If
Congress and the president agreed to toe the line and direct
all surpluses to pay down debt for the next 30 years, and if
the economy remained on a steady, moderate growth path, the
government could pay off its entire debt while covering
Social Security and other costs.
Such an optimistic scenario hasn't been previously
envisioned, in part, because official economic projections
rarely go out longer than 10 years. But also, pragmatic
economists note that it is unlikely a government would direct
all surpluses to paying down the debt rather than funding
important programs.
``From a political standpoint, the problem is simple:
Paying down the debt doesn't get your picture in the paper,''
says economic historian John Steele Gordon. ``There are no
ribbon-cutting ceremonies,'' no throngs of grateful
constituents.
Brookings Institution economist Henry Aaron said the OMB
projections--while they are based on conservative economic
assumptions--may be overly optimistic because they do not
incorporate the distinct possibility of a recession. ``The
right way to look at this is to say that there has been a
distinct change in the budgetary climate,'' Aaron said,
noting that he believes current tax and spending policies
could produce surpluses for the next 20 years. ``The sun is
shining, but that does not mean we won't have deficits
[[Page S2844]]
arising from recessions . . . It does mean we have more elbow
room to plan for the restructuring of Medicare and Social
Security than we had just a few years ago.''
One reason the OMB projections turn out to be so favorable
is the enormous saving on interest payments as the size of
the debt is reduced. If paying down the debt also caused
interest rates to fall somewhat, as some economists believe
it would, the fiscal picture would be even brighter.
Debt-burdened U.S. families last year used an average of 17
percent of their after-tax income to make interest payments.
Similarly, last year the government paid out $244 billion,
more than 15 percent of its income, to cover interest on the
debt owed to the public.
Paying down debt triggers a sort of virtuous cycle: As the
amount owed drops, so does the interest due on the remaining
unpaid balance, and the saving on interest leaves still more
money available to reduce the debt.
May economists in the debt-reduction camp concede, however,
that their position of pay-down-the-debt-first is colored by
assumptions about the mechanics of American democracy. In
theory, they acknowledge, it might be possible to craft tax
cuts or new spending programs that would harness projected
surpluses as efficiently as shrinking the debt. But as a
practical matter, they say, such ideas aren't likely to
emerge from the legislative sausage grinder in an
economically rational form.
Mr. ALLARD. I say to my colleagues, this is exactly what my amendment
does, what is talked about in this article. It creates future
flexibility to deal with the impending Social Security crisis by paying
down the debt over 30 years. I understand we cannot budget 30 years
out--the free market economy does not allow us to do that--but what we
can do is adopt a blueprint for the future, a blueprint that Congress
can follow to eliminate the debt and show the American people, with a
little bit of discipline, we can do that--and a little bit of
accountability. The American people know how difficult it is to make a
living and pay the home mortgage. Let's give them a hand by retiring
the national debt and thereby decrease the interest rates that we pay
on everything from a home loan to a student loan.
If somebody asks you, ``How am I going to benefit if you pay down the
debt?'' they are going to benefit because we have lower interest rates
with tremendous savings for home loans and student loans. A tax cut
would most certainly be beneficial, but we cannot cut taxes at the
expense of our children's future and our grandchildren's future. I ask
that each and every one of my colleagues join me in this effort and
make a commitment to retiring the Federal debt by voting to pass this
simple, commonsense proposal.
Mr. President, if we don't have any further debate on this on either
side, I yield back the time, if that is appropriate at this particular
point, so the Senator from Idaho can be recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the Senator not yield back his
time but, rather, let us set his amendment aside, reserving whatever
time he has, and we will proceed with the next debate. So tomorrow, if
my colleague wants to pick it up when we are in session and use another
period of time, maybe that will give the opponents a chance and we will
have a good debate. If we don't need it, we will yield it back then.
Mr. ALLARD. I thank the chairman for his suggestion. Mr. President, I
will amend my unanimous consent request. I will just yield the floor
and reserve my time until tomorrow. I may use it at that time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is reserved.
Mr. DOMENICI. I understand the distinguished Senator from Idaho, Mr.
Craig, would like to speak for about 5 minutes.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. How much time did the distinguished Senator from
Colorado have under the unanimous consent agreement?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. He had 45 minutes remaining.
Mr. DOMENICI. Remaining?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is with an hour allowance.
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent whatever time the Senator has,
he reserve that time and we set aside his amendment so Senator Craig
can introduce an amendment and speak to it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending
amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2211
(Purpose: To modify the pay-as-you-go requirement of the budget process
to require that direct spending increases be offset only with direct
spending decreases)
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Idaho [Mr. Craig], for himself, Mr.
Allard, Mr. Grams, Mr. Helms, Mr. Inhofe, Mrs. Hutchison, and
Mr. Thomas, proposes an amendment numbered 2211.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of title II, add the following:
SEC. ____. REQUIREMENT TO OFFSET DIRECT SPENDING INCREASES BY
DIRECT SPENDING DECREASES.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Surplus Protection Amendment''.
(b) In General.--In the Senate, for purposes of section 202
of House Concurrent Resolution 67 (104th Congress), it shall
not be in order to consider any bill, joint resolution,
amendment, motion, or conference report that provides an
increase in direct spending unless the increase is offset by
a decrease in direct spending.
(c) Waiver.--This section may be waived or suspended in the
Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the
Members, duly chosen and sworn.
(d) Appeals.--Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of
the Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be
limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and
controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the
concurrent resolution, bill, or joint resolution, as the case
may be. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of
the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the
Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a
point of order raised under this section.
(e) Determination of Budget Levels.--For purposes of this
section, the levels of direct spending for a fiscal year
shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by the
Committee on the Budget of the Senate.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as I debate this amendment this evening,
let me first recognize my colleague from Colorado, who has just brought
before the Senate an almost unbelievable proposal. I say that because
it is difficult for us to fathom a savings of $3.7 trillion to the
American taxpayer and to future generations in this Nation by taking it
upon ourselves to pay down the Federal debt over a 30-year period. I am
proud to support my colleague from Colorado. It is these kinds of
initiatives that I think reflect to the American people that we really
are sincere about getting the spending habits of this Government, and
the debt we have accumulated over the last good number of years, under
control. It is also very reflective of the kind of impact that
controlling deficits and debts has on our economy and on our future
generations.
So, in my offering of the amendment this evening, I am proud the
Senator from Colorado has joined me along with Senator Helms, Senator
Hutchison, Senator Inhofe, Senator Grams, and Senator Thomas. Mine is a
similar measure to once again shape the spending habits of this
Congress. My amendment is entitled the ``Surplus Protection
Amendment,'' because it does just that; it protects the surplus from
irresponsible spending.
Current budget policy as we know it, pay-as-you-go--so-called PAYGO--
budget enforcement rules were established to help put Washington's
fiscal house in order. Since fiscal year 1994, the Senate has had a
point of order requiring 60 votes to waive against any legislation
which would result in mandatory spending increases that would increase
the deficit. Mandatory spending in Washington's version of a fiscal
autopilot. Once enacted, it requires no
[[Page S2845]]
further congressional action to operate. And we know that. We see it
happening right here. It is a part of this budget resolution. Rather
than a perpetual motion machine, mandatory spending is a perpetual
spending machine. It is the Energizer Bunny of budgeting, and it has
kept this budget growing and growing and growing.
What does all of this mean? Any increase in mandatory spending must
be paid for with a tax increase, and any tax cut must be paid for by a
mandatory spending cut. We wonder why taxes are high. We wonder why it
is so difficult to cut taxes. Those are the reasons. As anyone can
tell, PAYGO--that is what we call this provision in its present form--
isn't sufficient. Mandatory spending has increased dramatically and
will continue to increase dramatically as far as any of us can sense
it.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, in 1987, mandatory
spending accounted for 47 percent of the Federal budget. In 1997, it
accounted for 56 percent of the Federal budget, and in the year 2008
under this budget resolution, it will account for about 70 percent of
the total Federal budget.
Now remember, that is the portion that is on auto pilot; that is the
portion that just keeps growing and growing and growing. This means
that there has been and will increasingly be a crowding out of what the
Federal Government can spend on schools, on roads, on law enforcement,
and some of those fundamental things that keep our country operating in
a civil way, the kind of things for which historically our Government
was envisioned to have a responsibility.
I believe because of that it is time that we try to make a change.
Current estimates are that the budget will be balanced this year, and
the budget chairman, my colleague from New Mexico, the senior Senator
who has done such a marvelous job shaping and nurturing and bringing
this balanced budget along, is going to see that that happens. We are
going to help him, and of that we are proud.
As far as we can see out there, we are 4 years ahead of schedule on
balancing the budget, and I applaud it. I am proud to have been a part
of it, and I think it is wonderful for the American people, for our
economy, for job creation and all that that means. The Senator from New
Mexico can be rightfully proud of it, and I know he is. However, we
must look not just at the horizon of the current budget, but we ought
to look beyond it, beyond the 4 years. I know we can't get beyond it in
the budget process, but we can get beyond it in the policy. We can get
beyond it in how we operate moving toward the future.
To avoid what will happen in the future, we must change the way we
work now. I am proposing, as a modest first step, that like a good
doctor, we first pledge to do no harm, and I believe my modest first
step does no harm.
My surplus protection amendment establishes a point of order that
requires new mandatory spending programs be paid for by mandatory
spending savings. Let me repeat that.
My amendment establishes a point of order that requires new mandatory
spending programs be paid for by mandatory spending savings. In other
words, it would require 60 votes in the Senate to create a new
mandatory spending program that was not funded by an equivalent
mandatory spending savings.
If all of the new mandatory spending programs had been paid for, as
we had claimed, we would not be facing a fiscal future with exploding
spending and exploding deficits in the outyears.
Why does this Senate and this country need the Craig amendment? I
think the current budget path that the Senator from New Mexico and all
of us have worked so hard on is truly unsustainable. As good as a
balanced budget today is, without ever more fundamental changes, it
will not remain balanced. And it ought to be our goal to at least
strive to maintain a balanced budget.
That this path is unsustainable is no secret. We all know because of
what we have been told by so many. My colleague, Senator Kerrey of
Nebraska, who chaired the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax
Reform has said that is impossible to do. The General Accounting Office
says we cannot sustain a balanced budget under our current scenario,
and the President's own budget office says so.
In its most recent report, the Congressional Budget Office states:
Currently, more than half of the nearly $1.7 trillion in
Federal spending goes for entitlements and other mandatory
programs (other than net interest) . . . As a share of total
outlays, mandatory spending has jumped from 32 percent in
1962 to 56 percent in 1997. If current policies remain
unchanged, such spending will continue to grow faster than
other spending, reaching 63 percent of total outlays by the
year 2002--or twice the size of discretionary outlays. Under
baseline assumptions, continued growth in mandatory outlays would raise
their share of the budget to 70 percent by the year 2008.
Last year, the Congressional Budget Office wrote:
[T]his year's budgetary news should not lull people into
complacency: the retirement of the large baby-boom generation
is just over the horizon--
Just beyond where this budget and all of us can see--
. . .If the budgetary pressure from both demography and
health care spending is not relieved by reducing the growth
of expenditures or increasing taxes, deficits will mount and
seriously erode future economic growth.
That is the reality of what we deal with. That report concluded, Mr.
President:
[C]urrent budget policy is unsustainable, and attempting to
preserve it would severely damage the economy.
How serious are future projections? The Congressional Budget Office
concluded that even if the budget were balanced through 2002--and that
is our goal, that is the goal of this budget--if that were true, we
would still have a deficit equal to 34 percent of the gross domestic
product by the year 2050 and the public debt would be 283 percent of
the gross domestic product.
There will be a demographic shift to an older population. We all know
that. The experts show us that. I am part of that. I am a baby boomer.
In 1995, there were 34 million 65-year-old, or older, citizens. In
the year 2030, there will be twice that number or 68 million. There
will be more elderly. They will be living longer and using Federal
services much more intensively. There will be relatively fewer workers
around to pay all the bills. Let us remember that it is the current
working population that generates the economy that pays the bills.
In 1950, there were 7.3 workers for every senior. In 1990, there were
4.8 to 1 senior. In the year 2030, there will be 2.8 workers per every
1 senior.
So if that senior is receiving well over $1,000 a month in Social
Security benefits and maybe health care benefits, who is paying for it?
Those 2.8 workers. Divide it up. Count it out. It is pretty obvious how
much has to come out of their wages on a monthly basis to transfer it
to that senior's well-being.
What the demographic shift means is that spending will rise rapidly
relative to revenues. Quoting the Congressional Budget Office:
Revenues will be squeezed as the number of people working--
and the economy--grows more slowly. At the same time, outlays
for Government programs that aid the elderly will burgeon as
the number of people eligible to receive benefits from those
programs shoots up.
What the fiscal squeeze means, if we don't begin to recognize it now,
is enormous deficits. Just at a time when we thought the deficit battle
was over, when this Congress has battled through to get to a balanced
budget, where we are now, all of a sudden this begins to dramatically
shift. We know it will happen because the facts, the figures and the
spending programs are already in law.
The deficit last year was less than 1 percent of the gross domestic
product of our country. In 2035 it would be 29.8 percent. Let me repeat
that. The deficit by the year 2035 will be 29.8 percent of the gross
domestic product if we don't begin to shape it down and scale it down.
The Federal debt was 50 percent of the gross domestic product last
year. Now we are talking about debt. It would be 250 percent by the
year 2035. These are not my figures. These are the projections of the
professionals, the budget professionals--the Congressional Budget
Office and others--who look at the long term, who put on the binoculars
and look over the horizon to see what our spending programs must yield
to benefit the citizens who are
[[Page S2846]]
living today who will be recipients of those benefits in the year 2035.
Those figures I have given you are truly unprecedented. We have never
had to deal with them before as a percentage of the gross domestic
product of this country. The deficit has been higher than 10 percent of
GDP, but only briefly and during a major war. Not during peace times,
not during prosperity, but at a time when we were fighting for the
safety and the security of this country.
The debt exceeded 100 percent only once, briefly during World War II.
The results, if we were to continue to do this with these projections I
have just given you, would be economic catastrophe. Even to make the
burden sustainable, in CBO's terminology, allowing debt to rise but
keeping it at a constant to the gross domestic product rate would have
dire consequences. In other words, we can't just sustain where we are.
We have to begin to back away from where we are and do so over an
extended period of time. The tax burden would have to increase 20
percent above where it is today just to continue running deficits and
adding debt.
Of course, some will say that this budget agreement solves the
problem. I wish it did. It solves the problem in the short term, and
for that we are proud. For that all of us who vote for it and support
it and support the chairman in what he is bringing before us ought to
be proud. We have a right to be. But it is within the short term. It is
in the foreseeable future.
It is certainly an improvement, but it only delays the same scenario
that I have just sketched out. According to the CBO, even if the budget
is balanced through the year 2010--and that is the Congressional Budget
Office speaking--it will take less than 15 years to reach the scenario
that I have just projected, and that is a debt that consumes over 250
percent of the gross domestic product of this country.
The Congressional Budget Office states:
Regardless of how the budget is balanced in the near term,
additional budgetary action. . .would still be needed to put
the budget on a sustainable path.
I am offering, as I said, a modest first step. The year 2030 and the
year 2050 are unreal to any of us on this floor. But if there are any
young people in the galleries tonight, it is their budget. It will be
their Government. It will be their responsibility to run it. And it
will be their responsibility to pay for it. The Congressional Budget
Office paints such an alarming picture that even the authors cannot
imagine it, and they write this:
Policymakers would surely take action before the economy
was driven to such dire straits.
So even those who analyze it are willing to say surely those of us--
that's me, that's you, Mr. President--as policymakers would never allow
this to happen. But we are not taking steps to change it. We are
dealing in the short term, and we have to deal in the short term first.
For that I have already applauded the chairman and the ranking member,
but we have to do more.
Now is the time for us at least to prepare for such an action. My
amendment takes this first modest step that we do no fiscal harm to our
children, like a good doctor would.
The first frightening thing in the CBO report is that it only
addresses existing programs. It makes plain that our children cannot
afford them. The existing programs are not now and will not in the
future be paid for by our taxes. We certainly cannot responsibly add
more.
Regrettably, the President's budget adds more: $28 billion in new
mandatory spending, $118 billion in total new spending, and $43 billion
less in surplus that would be saved for Social Security as the
President himself has called for.
My amendment will not affect a single beneficiary for a single
existing program. My amendment will not even affect anyone who would be
qualified in the future for one of these programs. My amendment will
not prevent a tax increase in order to reduce deficits. And my
amendment will not even prevent a new spending program if a new program
is so important that there is a supermajority, 60 votes in this body,
to bring about a new spending program. This amendment should appeal to
everyone serious about deficits. It will merely make sure that there is
an overwhelming demand for a new program before we create it.
These are shared goals. By all 66 who supported the balanced budget
amendment to the Constitution last year. By even those who opposed it
because it included Social Security. For whatever purpose people want
to use the surplus, they must first be protected. My amendment not only
protects them now but will for the future. Because mandatory spending
has historically failed to adhere to estimates, we must offset new
mandatory spending with mandatory savings.
Good-faith first steps are something that we should all come together
on. So I urge my colleagues to take a look into the future to recognize
those figures that are very real, that no one disputes, whether it is
the President's budget estimators or whether it is our Congressional
Budget Office. My amendment is a modest first step to look beyond the
horizon of a balanced budget, to recognize that our current spending
programs produce deficits and debts in the future that we have not yet
devised a method to respond to. And I would suggest, Mr. President,
that my amendment would attempt to do just that.
With that, I have spoken about this issue all that I would care to
tonight. I would be happy to reserve the balance of my time if no one
else wishes to speak to this issue this evening.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield myself 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. CRAIG. Before the chairman speaks, let me ask, Mr. President,
that Senators Sessions and Coverdell be put on my amendment as original
cosponsors. I ask unanimous consent that that be done.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me just say, when we were attempting
to come up with a constitutional amendment that would work with
reference to a balanced budget, Senator Craig was the leader, and we
all worked with him in an effort to get an amendment which controlled
spending through controlling the amount of debt that could be issued.
And, frankly, that was a lot better approach than many before it
because it was actually doable, it was achievable, and it was
understandable.
And it controlled spending in the right way, because essentially
spending is one thing, but spending when you do not have the money is
another thing. And we have such a powerful country that we can borrow
and borrow and borrow. It is just in recent years that we have finally
got a hold of our senses and have taken such a lead in the world, the
industrial world where we have competition and capitalism and free
enterprise. We have taken such a lead of late because we are getting
our debt under control.
I think it is fair to say we are also getting our entitlement
programs under control. We have never before, before the last decade,
been so concerned--and rightly so--about entitlement programs as part
of the package of expenditures that make up our budget for which we
either pay or, if we do not have enough tax receipts, for which we
borrow. And while I am not certain that I will support the amendment
exactly as it is--I have not made up my mind--I do think it is welcome
here on the floor, because we have been talking about a lot of new
entitlements in an era where we are proud of balanced budgets and an
era of surpluses.
While they are not totally inconsistent--to be talking about an era
of surpluses and balanced budgets for many, many decades--it is obvious
that the biggest danger is new entitlement programs. And since we
cannot increase discretionary programs, as the Senator well knows,
because we finally found a way with the caps and the automatic
sequester at the end of the year--found a way to control them, and
everybody now expects us to, the next front is to increase entitlements
and in some way find money to pay for them, but that will just make a
much bigger, bigger budget and it will be more and more dangerous than
even if you increase discretionary spending.
If you increase discretionary spending 1 year, you don't have to the
next year. But if you increase entitlements, you have to change
entitlements. If
[[Page S2847]]
your estimating is wrong, you have to have an amendment. By then, you
have people who have been receiving the entitlement; right? Not so easy
to change.
So I commend you on the thrust of the amendment and the remarks
tonight. I think they are welcome in the debate we have had for the
last 2 years.
Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Let me thank the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee
for those remarks. I think they are candid and appropriate to the very
essence of my own that, at a time when we have an opportunity to begin
to shape control over mandatory spending, we ought to take a look at
this time, and we can do that in a unique period in our Nation's
history which we all fought to get to. So I thank my colleague for
those comments.
I ask to retain the balance of my time.
Mr. DOMENICI. I understand the amendment will take its place among
the many amendments which will be at some point appropriately sequenced
for votes.
Does the Senator from New Jersey wish to speak?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I listened with interest and do not
want to enlarge the debate at this time. Obviously, the hour is late,
but I listened with a degree of interest and care to the comments of
the Senator from Idaho. And we have this debate sometimes that centers
around whether the glass is half empty or half full. And we are looking
at the same matrix, but I see it differently. I do not see a nation out
of control. I do not see an economy that is in great jeopardy. I do not
despair over what is taking place in our economic structure. Yes, we
are paying more taxes in total, but that is because people's incomes
have gone up and thus they are paying a larger share of the tax burden
than they used to pay.
But when we look at a time when the unemployment rate compares to
all-time lows, when we see inflation so well controlled, when we see
the investment climate in our country so appetizing, no one knows when
this is going to change, but the fact of the matter is, lots of people,
lots of hard-working, what we will call modest-income people, have made
good returns on their investments. And, Lord willing, they will be
protected.
But why is all that taking place? Why has the stock market galloped
up like it has? It is not simply because there is some kind of a
speculation fever out there. A lot of it has to do with the fact that
the United States is the most attractive investment country in the
world. People feel secure. They know if they invest in America that
they have a better chance of keeping their money safe and getting a
return than any other place because of the structure of our financial
being. We cannot ignore these things.
I share the Senator's view. I would like to see us paying off the
debt. I am one of those who said, yes, I want to shore up Social
Security. And how are we going to do it? We are going to do it by
paying down the debt. The President has forecast over $1 trillion worth
of surpluses over the next 10 years. That is a pretty encouraging
prediction.
So, I hope we will continue this debate on the morrow, because I
think there are other people here who would also want to comment.
Mr. President, I do not think we ought to ever lock ourselves into
straitjackets to say that you cannot do this unless you do that. We are
sent here to exercise judgment. And when I hear the speeches of some of
my colleagues, I say, well, we sound like a bunch of recalcitrant
children who have to be locked in a corner or put in our seats, or we
are so bad--why can't we control ourselves? I do not see it that way.
I must tell you, I have great respect for those that I disagree
deeply with here. They are sent here to represent a constituency who
thinks that these people, the Senators in this Chamber, are going to
carry a point of view that they share. And if not, there is a test that
comes every 6 years. And you can see what happens. You have either
passed the test or you have flunked it; it is very decisive.
But with all of that, I just do not see this, if I might call it,
self-flagellation, this beating of ourselves. Look at the facts. The
economy is really good. I know that I feel better about my children's
future now than I did a few years ago. I think we have proven one
thing. And some would say, well, we have not, Alan Greenspan has. He is
part of our crowd, whether we think we are in his league or not.
The fact of the matter is, we have inflation under control--something
that was hard to believe could be done, and has not caused deflation,
has not caused a crisis. Things are going along very well.
So I hope, Mr. President, we will have a chance to chat about this a
little bit tomorrow, and I hope we will be able to encourage our
colleagues to vote against the Craig amendment, to say that we do not
have to put on the handcuffs and apologize for our behavior. I do not
think I do everything right, but I know one thing: I work at what I do.
And so does everybody else here.
I do not think there is anybody here who shirks their responsibility,
who does not take it seriously. And I do not think I have to be put in
a corner like a child and told, well, you are not going to be allowed
to do this unless you do that; you are not going to be allowed to spend
money. How do we know when the crisis is coming?
We have done the things we said we ought to do. We have a balanced
budget. I think we are all proud of that. We can argue whether it is
CBO balanced. We say, yes it is. We all kind of believe that on a
unified budget basis we are going to be seeing a slight surplus in the
very short period. So I hope our colleagues will stand up and say no to
limiting our ability to use our heads, to use our judgment, to take the
risk of our votes and to see if we can do things without limiting our
ability to act.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. I think we are about ready, as soon as the clock
strikes 10 o'clock, to recess. I think I have a long enough list of
unanimous consent requests for all those wonderfully glowing, smiling
faces lined up alongside of the dais there. We will be 1 minute or 2
past 10 before we finish.
Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous consent that
the vote in relationship to the Conrad amendment No. 2174 now occur at
2 p.m., with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. I also ask unanimous consent that when the Senate
resumes the budget resolution on Wednesday, there be 20 hours remaining
under the overall statutory time limitation. And, finally, I ask
unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes the resolution on
Wednesday, the Coverdell amendment No. 2199 be the pending business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________