[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 40 (Wednesday, April 1, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2949-S2964]
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 the consideration of the concurrent 
resolution.


                           Amendment No. 2193

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Hollings 
amendment No. 2193. A point of order has been raised against the 
amendment on the basis that it is not germane. The pending question is 
the motion to waive the Budget Act to allow for the consideration of 
the amendment on which a rollcall vote has been ordered.
  There is 1 minute on each side for debate. The Senator from South 
Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Daschle, 
Senator Conrad, Senator Feingold, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Reid of 
Nevada, we put this in to do just exactly what was called for by the 
President. We want to save Social Security first.
  As we all know, we have used the euphemism of a unified budget, a 
unified deficit, and we have been spending, looting, the Social 
Security trust fund. Some say that actuarially there is a surplus in 
there. That is on a sheet of paper. Actually, the money is gone.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from South Carolina suspend 
until we can get order in the Chamber? The Senator from South Carolina 
has a right to be heard.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this more or less puts into 
parliamentary procedure what we voted for time and again, what the 
distinguished Senator from New Mexico has voted for. It is in the law, 
section 13301, that we save Social Security and quit looting the fund.
  If you really want to put your money where your mouth is, as the 
expression goes, rather than just a sense of the Senate, then support 
this particular resolution now under consideration and put on some 
parliamentary controls, which is what this amendment does. If you want 
to save Social Security, vote for the amendment; waive the Budget Act, 
because that is what the Budget Act says to do in section 13301. If you 
don't want to, vote against the waiver.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized for 
1 minute.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to my fellow Senators, if I 
thought this amendment would do anything to save or preserve Social 
Security, I would be for it. In my humble opinion, it does absolutely 
nothing to save Social Security. What it does is attempt to change the 
process and procedures so that if the Budget Committee reports out for 
Senate consideration anything on Social Security, it is subject to a 
60-vote point of order.
  We could get to the point where we will take every committee of 
jurisdiction and pass a process rule because there was something in 
their jurisdiction we didn't want them to do business on. We could say 
anything you report out has to have 60 votes. Then we would take that 
to the floor, and the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction would 
stand up and say, ``What have we come to?''
  This seems like some kind of exuberance that is not calculated to do 
anything except have some words suggesting we are trying to save Social 
Security. I raised a point of order. There is a motion to waive it. I 
hope we do not waive it. I urge Senators to vote ``no'' on the motion 
to waive. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive the Budget Act with respect to the Hollings amendment No. 2193. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll. This 
will be a 10-minute vote.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warner). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 42, nays 58, as follows:

[[Page S2950]]

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 58 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

     Akaka
     Biden
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--58

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 42, the nays are 58. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained, and the amendment falls.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2251

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the Faircloth 
amendment, amendment No. 2251. There is 1 minute of debate allocated to 
each side.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I believe the Record will reflect that Senator 
Faircloth was granted permission to speak for 3 minutes since we 
yielded back 6 minutes of his time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator would kindly put that in the 
form of a UC request.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Faircloth have 3 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I rise to speak on the Hutchison-Faircloth marriage 
tax elimination amendment. It is cosponsored by a number of Senators: 
Senator Domenici, Senator Inhofe, Senator Hutchinson of Arkansas, and 
Senator Gramm of Texas.
  Mr. President, I want to thank Chairman Domenici for the tremendous 
help on the issue he has given us on the elimination of the marriage 
tax in this budget resolution. What this amendment says is very simple, 
that it is the sense of the Senate that eliminating the marriage 
penalty tax should be one of the highest priorities for tax relief this 
year.
  The Congressional Budget Office has reported that in 1996, 21 million 
American couples paid an average of $1,400 more in income tax simply 
because they were married. The marriage penalty, as it is sometimes 
called, comes about as a result of the way the Tax Code is written. It 
needs to be rewritten so that couples who chose to marry do not get a 
hefty tax bill for choosing to make that decision.
  We should be encouraging couples to marry, not handing them a $1,400 
tax bill. I introduced this legislation along with Senator Hutchison to 
correct this problem. The majority leader, Senator Trent Lott, has also 
been tremendously supportive. Senator Hutchison, Senator Lott, and I 
recently pledged on Valentine's Day that we would work to remove this 
burdensome tax known as the marriage penalty. I think that it is a 
reasonable goal. We are a step closer today with the budget resolution. 
I urge support for the amendment, and I yield back any time.
  Mr. THURMOND. Will the Senator add me as a cosponsor?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I would be delighted to.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Thurmond be added as a cosponsor 
to my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who seeks recognition? Who yields time?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, if there is any time left on Senator 
Faircloth's amendment, I would like to just say I am very pleased to 
support his leadership on the marriage penalty tax.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 40 seconds left allocated to the 
Senator from North Carolina.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent to have that 40 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from North Carolina yield his 
40 seconds to the distinguished Senator from Texas?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Yes.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote for the sense of the Senate, which 
basically says it will be a priority of Congress to eliminate the 
marriage penalty tax. People should not have to choose between love and 
money in this country, but 21 million couples are doing it. And they 
are the police and schoolteachers, people making $28,000 and $32,000 
that are getting hit the worst with taxes up to $1,400 just because 
they got married. That is not right. It is a priority of Congress to 
change that. And I urge my colleagues to say that the U.S. Senate is 
going to fix this problem very soon.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have expressed myself before. I am 
concerned about trying to initiate change this year, but I think it is 
fairly clear that this amendment has support. We do not want to 
continue a penalty in any way, whether it is marriage and taxes or 
marriage and any place. So unless there is someone else on my side who 
wants to use a few seconds, I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. 
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 99, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 59 Leg.]

                                YEAS--99

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

      
     Rockefeller
       
  The amendment (No. 2251) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. This is the last vote tonight. Senator Daschle and I talked 
and we want the Members to know there will be a series of votes 
beginning tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock--probably two on judges and 
five amendments that the managers are going to have ready to vote on in 
the morning--beginning at 9 o'clock, with seven votes in a series.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 2211

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Craig

[[Page S2951]]

amendment No. 2211. The point of order was raised against the amendment 
on the basis that it is not germane. The pending question is on the 
motion to waive the Budget Act to allow the consideration of the 
amendment for which a rollcall vote has been ordered. One minute is 
allocated to each side.
  The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues tonight to vote with me 
to waive the Budget Act. It is the first step to reigning in the 
uncontrolled costs to mandatory spending programs. Your vote tonight 
merely extends the same treatment to mandatory spending that already 
exists to annually appropriated discretionary spending; that new 
programs will offset with savings in existing programs; that mandatory 
spending is out of control--we all know that.
  While this is a balanced budget in the outyears of 2020, and 2035, we 
will be looking at spending up to 200 plus percent of the gross 
domestic product.
  The Craig amendment will not affect a single current beneficiary of a 
single existing program. The Craig amendment will not affect a single 
person who will qualify to become a beneficiary under current 
entitlement programs.
  We need to start with a single, simple, first step, toward reigning 
in mandatory spending. An aye vote starts us in that direction.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I hope that the Senators will oppose 
this attempt to waive the point of order.
  This is a new scheme for things. It says that we ought to depart from 
present pay-as-you-go rules. It would give special protection to 
special interest tax loopholes at the expense of programs like Social 
Security and Medicare.
  Mr. President, very simply, I urge my colleagues to vote against the 
waiver.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive the Budget Act.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 54, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 60 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Byrd
     Coats
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kerrey
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Robb
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Sarbanes
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Rockefeller
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HUTCHINSON). On this vote the yeas are 54, 
the nays are 45. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not 
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of 
order is sustained, and the amendment falls.
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I gather the sequencing would be that 
Senator Dorgan will start and then Senator Allard will follow, and then 
Senator Lautenberg, and then Senator Bond, and then Senator Bumpers. We 
will arrange for Senator Bumpers by unanimous consent.
  Mr. President, before we start the order here, might I suggest that 
Senator Bumpers would be our fifth amendment tonight, but we have 
agreed with him that we will come in at 8:30 in the morning instead of 
9. He will offer his amendment, and thus the half-hour between 8:30 and 
9 will be available for the agreed-upon time, which is a half-hour, 
equally divided, for the Bumpers amendment. He is here.
  I ask unanimous consent that when we start up in the morning at 8:30 
the order of business be the Bumpers amendment, and pursuant to the 
previous order there be a half-hour equally divided on that and the 
vote eventually be on or in relationship to that and we waive no points 
of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, I wonder if the Senator would accommodate me 
for about 6 or 7 minutes. Senator Gorton would like to speak on a 
matter. I ask consent he be permitted to speak for 6 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Washington is recognized.
  MR. GORTON. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Gorton pertaining to the introduction of S. 1904 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                    Amendment No. 2218, As Modified

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and that my amendment No. 2218 be called up and 
that my amendment be modified with the modification I now send to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       Strike page 33, line 3, through page 34, line 3, and insert 
     the following:

     SEC. 301. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE TAX TREATMENT OF HOME 
                   MORTGAGE INTEREST AND CHARITABLE GIVING.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) current Federal income tax laws embrace a number of 
     fundamental tax policies including longstanding encouragement 
     for home ownership and charitable giving, expanded health and 
     retirement benefits;
       (2) the mortgage interest deduction is among the most 
     important incentives in the income tax code and promotes the 
     American Dream of home ownership--the single largest 
     investment for most families, and preserving it is critical 
     for the more than 20,000,000 families claiming it now and for 
     millions more in the future;
       (3) favorable tax treatment to encourage gifts to charities 
     is a longstanding principle that helps charities raise funds 
     needed to provide services to poor families and others when 
     government is simply unable or unwilling to do so, and 
     maintaining this tax incentive will help charities raise 
     money to meet the challenges of their charitable missions in 
     the decades ahead;
       (4) legislation has been proposed to repeal the entire 
     income tax code at the end of the year 2001 without providing 
     a specific replacement; and
       (5) recklessly sunsetting the entire income tax code 
     threatens our Nation's future economic growth and unwisely 
     eliminates existing tax incentives that are crucial for 
     taxpayers who are often making the most important financial 
     decisions of their lives.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the levels in this resolution assume that Congress supports 
     the continued tax deductibility of home mortgage interest and 
     charitable contributions.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to notify me when I have 
used 5 minutes. I will then yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Arkansas and yield back the remainder of the time.
  My amendment is very simple. There is in the budget resolution 
brought to the floor of the Senate a sense-of-the-Senate provision that 
will sunset the Internal Revenue Code on December 31, 2001.
  My amendment strikes that provision and in its place it inserts 
language saying it is the sense of the Congress that we support the 
continued tax deductibility of the home mortgage interest deduction, 
charitable contributions, and so on.
  My point is this: It is irresponsible, in my judgment, to talk about 
sunsetting the Tax Code and a progressive income tax without providing 
any means of telling the American people what you would put in its 
place.
  I want to read something from the Tax Executives Institute. They 
represent some 5,000 corporations around the country.

[[Page S2952]]

  They write that it is folly to make tax policy by sound bite, and 
proposals to sunset the Tax Code without making provisions for its 
replacement or telling the American people what you propose for 
replacement ought to be rejected.
  This is what they say:

       For example, a company that otherwise would invest millions 
     of dollars in a multi-year expansion of its manufacturing 
     facilities might well demur if the pending legislation were 
     enacted because of uncertainty over whether or how, after 
     December 31, 2001, it would recover its costs.

  They wouldn't know:

       To repeal the Internal Revenue Code without specifying a 
     replacement system--to exalt the exhilaration of ``doing it 
     now'' over the necessity of ``doing it right''--is to 
     threaten major disruptions of the economy and the lives of 
     the American people.

  The question I have is this: For those who say let's sunset the 
entire Tax Code, I say, when you say sunset the Tax Code in 2001, what 
are you going to replace it with, a national sales tax? A Brookings 
Institution study on that says if you want to replace the current 
progressive income tax with a national sales tax, you are probably 
talking about at least a 35 percent tax rate. I know that the 
proponents of a national sales tax say a 15 percent rate will work. But 
study after study shows that you are probably talking a 35 percent tax 
rate, and that is the 35 percent sales tax, for example, when you buy a 
home. Think of adding 35 percent to the cost of buying a home.
  How about a flat tax or a VAT tax? A Treasury Department analysis in 
1996 took a look at one of the major flat tax proposals in the 
Congress. It says the flat tax will reduce taxes for families with 
incomes of $200,000 or more, and increase taxes for families with 
incomes under $200,000. Is that what the American people want? To 
sunset the entire Tax Code and replace it with--tax breaks for the 
highest income folks and higher taxes for the rest?
  I ask the question, Is the current Tax Code perfect? No. Are there 
significant troubles with it? Yes. I have a proposal on what we ought 
to do about that. I think my plan would greatly simplify the tax system 
for most Americans. But it does not include flat tax, VAT tax, sales 
tax, all of which would tax work and exempt investment, cut only upper-
income folks' taxes and increase taxes on working folks. That is 
exactly what all the proposals are about ricocheting around this 
Chamber.
  Don't take it from me, take it from the Treasury analysis, take it 
from the Congressional Budget Office analysis, take it from any study 
you like. But those who want to abolish the current Tax Code rather 
than fix what is wrong with the current Tax Code want to replace it, in 
most cases, with something that says, ``Let's tax work and let's exempt 
investments. Let's propose a new system that lowers the tax burden on 
upper-income folks and raises the tax burden on the rest.''
  I will tell those who offer this proposal that everyone out there in 
this country who owns a home and understands their home mortgage 
interest is deductible from their income tax, if this sort of thing 
ever passes, they will be told by this Congress, ``Don't count on 
deductibility of your home mortgage interest, because we may not have a 
tax system that allows that. Don't count on the deductibility of your 
home mortgage interest, because we may abolish the tax system. In fact, 
we want to sunset it, abolish it, replace it with something else, but 
we don't want to tell you what that something else is.''

  It is highly irresponsible, in my judgment, to say let us just 
abolish the Tax Code as of December 31, 2001 before agreeing on a 
replacement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask for 30 additional seconds, and then I will yield 5 
minutes to the Senator from Arkansas, or as much time as he needs under 
the allotment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I understand this proposal to terminate 
the tax code has been ricocheting around for some long while. The Tax 
Executives Institute says it best. This is a good sound bite, but it is 
a poor excuse for good policy. Don't take it from me, take it from 
American corporations and taxpayers who need certainty.
  Those who want to terminate the entire Internal Revenue Code in this 
manner risk creating financial trouble for millions of homeowners. 
Nearly thirty million homeowners who would ask you: If you want to get 
rid of the current Tax Code, what are your intentions with respect to 
the tax deductibility of my home mortgage interest? Do you intend to 
keep that? If not, why not? What do you say to folks who have invested 
in a home and whose home values will now drop because this proposal 
would abolish the deductibility of home mortgage interest?
  If this extreme measure is enacted, future home buyers would likely 
find it more difficult to purchase a new home and realize the American 
Dream of home ownership. This is because, in addition to losing the tax 
deduction, such a move would surely result in great uncertainty for our 
financial markets, lead to higher interest rates, and otherwise 
increase the costs of purchasing a new home--already the largest single 
financial investment for most families.
  Another one of the many important casualties caused by these efforts 
to terminate the Tax Code would be the tax incentives that encourage 
millions of taxpayers to make gifts to charities that provide services 
to needy families and others. Charities perform an important public 
service by providing help to others when the government is unwilling or 
unable to do so. At a time when the government is downsizing and we are 
asking charities and other groups to do more, we ought not take away 
their key tax tools for attracting the funds they need to meet future 
challenges. But that's exactly what would happen should this sunsetting 
proposal become law.
  These are just two examples of the serious problems caused by this 
wrong-headed proposal. For all of the uncertainties this proposal would 
create, one thing seems certain to me: this sunset provision will leave 
most Americans in the dark.
  My amendment is simple, it strikes the sunset provision and inserts 
something in place of it that I think makes sense: support for the 
continued tax deduction for home mortgage interest, charitable giving 
and more. I hope my colleagues will support that motion to strike.
  I yield as much time as he may consume to the Senator from Arkansas, 
Senator Bumpers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, first I express my sincere gratitude to 
the Senator from North Dakota for taking on this issue. I decided 
perhaps nobody was going to offer such an amendment. But I take this 
opportunity to say to my colleagues and the American people, for that 
matter--we are not supposed to call attention to C-SPAN2, but I hope a 
lot of people are watching C-SPAN2 because I want to say that this is 
my 24th year in the Senate, and this is the most irresponsible, without 
question, the most irresponsible provision I have ever seen in a piece 
of legislation. The very idea of saying we are going to abolish the 
Internal Revenue Code without a clue as to what we are going to replace 
it with is the height of irresponsibility.
  I know the applause lines. As the old saying goes, I know how to 
bring people to their feet. The object of any responsible legislator is 
to bring people to their senses. Everybody knows that when you talk to 
the Chamber of Commerce, if you are looking for that nice applause, 
just get on the Internal Revenue Service. Everybody has his own 
favorite horror story. I have my own. I daresay every Member of this 
body has his own horror story about their arrogance, how overbearing 
they are, how they have cost you money. Those are indefensible. I am 
not defending those.
  But I can tell you, if you think the year 2000 computer glitch is 
bad, if you think that may bring this country to the brink of disaster, 
you just eliminate the Internal Revenue Code with absolutely no thought 
of what you are going to replace it with, just as this country is on a 
sound financial basis, and as we are looking forward to a surplus this 
year, what in the name of all that is good and holy are we thinking 
about?
  Is it going to be a flat tax? That gets a lot of applause in some 
places. As far as I am concerned, the flat tax was created by the 
``Flat Earth Society,'' but that is beside the point. I know how to get 
applause talking about a flat tax. Everybody ``pays the same amount.''

[[Page S2953]]

  Is it going to be replaced by some kind of a flat tax where your 
church contributions won't be deductible? Is it going to be a flat tax 
where, as the Senator from North Dakota has pointed out, your mortgage 
interest will not be deductible? ``Mr. Businessman, before you applaud, 
are you willing to give up depreciation? Are you willing to give up 
hundreds of other things that are in the code now that you know 
about?''
  I will tell you one thing, I will take the known, no matter how bad 
it may be, before I will take the unknown. And for the Members of the 
Senate to buy into this proposition of saying we are going to 
eliminate--eliminate--the Internal Revenue Code with nothing to replace 
it--do you know something, I didn't vote for that extra thousand pages 
in the Internal Revenue Code last summer. All the people who were so 
hot for the balanced budget amendment and the big tax cuts and what do 
we get? A thousand more pages in the Internal Revenue Code so they can 
go out and tell the Chamber of Commerce what a horror it is--the same 
people who bring you this piece of trash.

  Mr. President, I, again, thank my friend from North Dakota for 
alerting the people of this body and, hopefully, across America, that 
we are not just going to take this country to the brink of a disaster, 
we are going to take it right over the brink, and if you get to the 
year 2000 after you eliminate the Internal Revenue Code and you don't 
have anything to collect $1.7 trillion with, you tell the Social 
Security recipients how that is going to work out. Tell everybody--the 
Medicare people--how that is going to work out.
  I plead with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, do not buy 
into an applause line. Keep your sanity and do the rational thing and 
strike this from this resolution.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, one of the proponents of this provision, 
although I saw to it that it was put in the resolution, is Senator 
Brownback who is standing now and wants to be recognized. Is the 
Senator going to lead off on his side?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator, and then I will yield 
5 minutes to the next Senator who is his copartner in getting this 
done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the chairman of the 
Budget Committee for including this provision in the budget and for 
being a cosponsor, along with 37 other Members of the U.S. Senate, of 
this provision.
  I have a quiz, if I can, for the Members who are still watching. Just 
a simple question; a series of facts and then a question.
  Let me ask people to, if they will, go through this quiz with me of, 
what is 10 million words long, cost over $150 billion annually just to 
comply with, is unintelligible by almost every American, including 
those with advanced degrees, advanced law degrees, advanced tax 
degrees, and is the lead way Washington mismanages and micromanages our 
lives? What one thing is that?
  It is the Tax Code.
  The Tax Code is over 10 million words, costs over $150 billion just 
to comply with before anybody pays a thin dime on this Tax Code. It is 
unintelligible to people who are tax law experts, and is the lead way 
that Washington micromanages individual lives across this country. It 
is no wonder this is an applause line. It is because people despise 
this code. It has been amended and added to and jiggered with over the 
years and years to where it just does not make any sense.
  All the resolution says is that we should sunset the code at the end 
of the year 2001. We sunset many Federal programs when many Federal 
programs are required for reauthorization.
  I heard the arguments on the other side from my colleagues from North 
Dakota and Arkansas--very good men, with a great deal of integrity and 
honor. But we disagree on this. I have to say their arguments sound 
very familiar. They sound very familiar to the time when we had the 
debate about balancing the budget by a date certain.
  The President then was saying, ``If we balance the budget by a date 
certain, by 7 years, it's going to throw the economy into a tailspin, 
it's going to do all these terrible things. You don't know how you're 
going to balance the budget, do you?'' We said, ``We know a number of 
ways to balance this budget. And if we don't set a date by which we're 
going to accomplish it, it'll never get done.''
  That is the same theory with this bill. There are a number of ways to 
redo the Tax Code. I am glad to hear Senator Dorgan has a proposal 
himself. There is a flat tax proposal, there is a consumption tax 
proposal, there is a VAT tax proposal. Congressman Gephardt has 
proposals. There are a number of them. And we will be phasing in 
transitions the same as phasing in on different programs we have gone 
to.
  But the point of it here is, if we do not start, we will never get 
there. If we do not start, we are going to enter the next century for 
long periods of time with this same Tax Code in place. Let me say to 
the people here who are listening, we cannot have another American 
century built on this Tax Code. It is so big and so intrusive that 
people live in fear of it. Small businesses live in fear of this Tax 
Code because they use so many resources to comply with it. And when 
they comply with it, they still do not know what they have actually 
done to comply with the law.
  So all we are saying by this little provision that is in the budget 
accord is, let us deal with this Tax Code by the end of the year 2001. 
It leaves alone Social Security and Medicare. Those are not touched in 
this. So in case people are saying that they are worried about Social 
Security and Medicare, it is not touched in the bill.
  We are saying, if we are ever going to get rid of this that has 
haunted us for so long, we have to set a date certain by which we will 
do it. I think it is a good provision in the budget resolution. I urge 
my colleagues to vote against this amendment so we can have another 
American century with a different taxation system.
  I yield to my colleague from Arkansas.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield to Senator Hutchinson who has been one of the 
coleaders on this issue.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I wish my good friend and colleague from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers, 
had been able to stay because he called this the most irresponsible 
piece of legislation that he has heard of during his time. This isn't 
about applause lines and not about flat taxes or flatter. It is about 
whether or not we are going to vote to defend the status quo, whether 
we are going to vote to defend an incomprehensible monstrosity called 
the IRS Tax Code.

  I want to begin my remarks by just quoting the words of James Madison 
in Federalist Paper No. 62 when he said:

       It will be of little avail to the people. . .if the laws be 
     so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that 
     they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised 
     before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant 
     changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can 
     guess what it will be tomorrow.

  I think if he were writing today, he would be talking about the IRS 
Tax Code being incomprehensible. The biggest issue raised against it is 
that it is going to cause uncertainty if we repeal it, if we sunset it, 
and that it is going to cause uncertainty.
  Mr. President I can think of no greater expert on the economy or the 
effects of public policy on the economy than Alan Greenspan, the 
Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. All of this 
``the sky is falling,'' all of this fearmongering, all of this rhetoric 
that this is going to somehow cause economic chaos--Mr. Greenspan said, 
in testifying before the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs 
Committee in 1995:

       Sunsetting is a very important process for both regulation 
     and various different types of legislation.

  He was asked:

       If we're talking about sunsetting regulations, should we 
     sunset taxes as well. . .?

  He responded:

       I cannot find reasons why all programs should not have 
     specific time-certain ends to them and be required to be 
     reauthorized.

  He went on:


[[Page S2954]]


       After a period of years, I would say yes to that. I would 
     say all institutions of a democratic society should be 
     reviewed. . .the presumption that institutions should not be 
     reviewed periodically in a democratic society is a mistake.

  Mr. President, we just passed in this Chamber a transportation 
funding bill, the ISTEA bill. We would not have done it had it not been 
sunsetted, had it not expired, had it not had to be reauthorized. We 
would have never forced ourselves to do it.
  Today I spent most of my day in a higher education reauthorization 
markup. We did that because the last one is expiring, because it was 
sunsetted. We do that on spending bills all the time--the IDEA bill. 
Why should we not also do that on bills on the Tax Code that has become 
so incomprehensible to the American people?
  Senator Bumpers, my good friend from Arkansas, said it is the height 
of irresponsibility to sunset something before you know what you are 
going to replace it with. I am so glad--I am so glad--that our Founding 
Fathers did not adopt such a position. To say that you cannot pass a 
law until a new law is ready to replace it ignores the rich history of 
this country that was founded by a group of freedom lovers who signed 
the Declaration of Independence 12 years before the Constitution 
was drafted and implemented. Surely we can do that with just one title 
of the U.S. Code.

  To say that it is the height of irresponsibility--can you imagine our 
Founding Fathers saying, ``Well, it's very irresponsible for us to 
declare independence before we know what the Constitution is going to 
look like or before we know what the Government is going to look like 
or before we know what the Tax Code is going to look like.''
  We know one thing. We may not know, I say to my colleague, whether we 
want a flat tax, sales tax, value added tax, or some other hybrid, but 
we, as the American people, know that of what we have, we deserve 
better, that this serves no one, and the April Fool's joke is to defend 
this Tax Code, which is the nightmare for the American people 2 weeks 
before they reach this deadline.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on this resolution which would delete 
this important sunset provision sense of the Senate from our budget 
resolution. I thank the chairman for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I think that 3, 4 years ago, 5 years ago, someone might 
have walked up to me and said, ``Senator Domenici, why are you on such 
a measure?'' But for many years, more than 5, I have been telling New 
Mexicans and every American that I could speak to that we are going to 
reform the tax laws of America. And guess what has happened. They now 
consist of 17,000 pages of laws. That is not the regulations and all 
the other things--17,000. And every year that passed, since that 5 or 6 
years ago when we started talking about basic reform, the tax laws got 
more complicated, more difficult, cost more money, and more detrimental 
to the American economy with the passage of each year.
  Frankly, I am on this bill and I decided to put it in the budget 
resolution because it seemed to me that we were muscle bound. We could 
not get anything done. I believe the right thing to do when you are in 
that condition, and the people are suffering from it, and the country 
is suffering from it, is that you say there is going to be an ``or 
else'' to this--``you fix it or else.''
  That is what sunsetting is. But nobody should think that we are 
talking about sunsetting a code without prescribing some basic 
fundamentals about the code we intend to replace, that defective, 
deficient one. And anybody who is interested in knowing whether we just 
said, ``Let's do away with the code,'' or whether we spoke 
intelligently and with great common sense, right to what the American 
people are worried about, just turn to page 33 of S. Con. Res. 86--and 
if my time runs out in the middle of these next two or three 
paragraphs, just stop me. But the findings are found in this 
resolution. And it says:

       Findings--Congress finds that a simple and fair Federal tax 
     system is one that--
       (1) applies a low rate, through easily understood laws, to 
     all Americans;
       (2) provides tax relief for working Americans;
       (3) protects the rights of taxpayers and reduces tax 
     collection abuses;
       (4) eliminates bias against savings and investment;
       (5) promotes economic growth and job creation;
       (6) does not penalize marriage or families;
       (7) provides for a taxpayer-friendly collections process. . 
     . .

  And then it goes on to say that the reason for this sunset is ``that 
a new Federal tax system''--not nothing, as was suggested, but ``a new 
Federal tax system will be enacted that is both simple and fair as 
described in'' the provisions that I just read 2 minutes ago.
  That is what the American people want to hear, that we are going to 
do away with this one because we want to pass a new one and more like 
it. And if we can pass the law and send it to the President with the 
real sunset, it is a message to the committees of the Congress, to the 
reformers who seem to never end in terms of, what are we going to get 
in place of this one, that the time is running out, the clock is 
ticking. And that is what this is about.
  I believe the American people, although they have been fed some shock 
medicine by the President, who talks about how irresponsible this is, 
if they heard this read, what we propose, that we are saying stop what 
is currently an abomination and substitute it with a new one that does 
the following things, would say, ``Hallelujah. Let's do it.''
  So I believe we should turn down the proposal that attempts to wipe 
this out of the budget. It is the right place to have it. It is the 
right thing to do. And if we want a good future, we are right on track. 
Fix Social Security in the way we have been discussing, take care of 
Medicare, and fix it, and reform this Tax Code; and we will be giving 
our children and future generations the best present that we could give 
anyone as elected adult leaders.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield to my friend from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes. Mr. President, I sat and listened here with 
wonderment. We are about ready to say, ``Let's get rid of this other 
thing because that will make us behave like responsible citizens. 
That's the only way we can do it.'' We heard the same speeches, with 
all due respect, about whether or not we needed a balanced budget 
amendment because we cannot discipline ourselves, and, thank the Lord, 
that failed. And we did not alter the Constitution, and we did not get 
into the ridiculous kind of arguments that we would have. We just went 
out and did it.
  To my friends on the other side I would say, have faith, have faith 
in your own ability that you can make a difference. You have a 
majority. Let us change it. But if you want to burn down the house so 
we can be forced to move and find another location, I think that is a 
pretty poor way of conducting business. I see what the distinguished 
Senator from New Mexico has proposed as an alternative, something that 
promotes economic growth, something that is a low tax rate.
  This amendment would delete the provision in the resolution calling 
for scrapping the tax code without an alternative. Instead, the 
amendment calls for the continued tax deductibility of home mortgage 
interest and charitable contributions.
  I share the frustration of most Americans about the Internal Revenue 
Service, and believe strongly that we must pass IRS reform legislation 
as soon as possible. The House approved similar legislation last year. 
It's long past time for the Senate to act.
  At the same time, I have serious concerns about the proposal to scrap 
the tax code without an alternative. I think, with all due respect, 
that it is a reckless political gimmick that would backfire on this 
Congress.
  The main problem with this proposal is that it would create enormous 
uncertainty about the continued availability of many important tax code 
provisions. And that could create economic chaos and other problems for 
millions of Americans.
  The Finance Committee needs to consider these problems before we 
scrap the whole tax code. For example,

[[Page S2955]]

what will this do to the value of homes? How will uncertainty affect 
contributions to charities, or savings plans for retirement and 
education purposes? How will employers react to health and retirement 
plans; will they refuse to set up new plans? Will they reduce 
contributions to existing plans?
  What will be the overall effect of uncertainty on economic growth and 
job creation? These are important questions that need to be publicly 
examined.
  The Finance Committee ought to consider these types of questions 
before we approve sunsetting legislation. But I do think it is 
important that, in the meantime, we reaffirm our support for the 
mortgage interest deduction and the deduction for charitable 
contributions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, in short, I hope that the amendment by 
the Senator from North Dakota will prevail, because it makes good sense 
and it tests the mettle of those who are voting. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I guess I have 3 minutes remaining. The 
other side has 2. I will take my 3 minutes. They are welcome to finish.
  There is a wonderful legislative strategy, I guess, that if you 
cannot change the facts, change the subject. The subject here isn't 
about the current Tax Code; the subject is about what do you want to 
put in place of a Tax Code you want to abolish? Something new, we are 
told. Well, it is interesting. There is nothing new around here that I 
see about the proposals to change the Tax Code. All the proposals I 
have seen are the same tired, old proposals--exempt the rich, tax the 
rest, and call it reform.
  You think that is not the case? The plans out here are: Tax work and 
exempt investment; tax people to go to work; tax the income from work; 
say to those that clip coupons, you are exempt. Nothing new about that. 
People have been trying to do that for a century.
  The question I would ask the opponents of this amendment is, do you 
think the American people will be better off with a national sales tax 
plan? Is that what you are going to replace it with?
  Bill Gale at Brookings, who did this piece, says your national sales 
tax rate, by the way, despite all the numbers they tell you, will be 35 
percent. Want to pay a 35 percent sales tax on a home you buy? Do you 
think you are better off with that kind of tax program? Do you think 
you are better off with a program that has also been introduced here in 
the Congress that the Treasury Department analyzes that everybody over 
$200,000 gets a big tax cut? Everybody under $200,000 a year in income 
gets a big tax increase? Do you think you will be better off with that 
kind of Tax Code? I don't think so. Is a business going to be better 
off when they find they can't get their existing depreciation 
deductions ? Or tens of millions of homeowners will be better off when 
they discover they can't deduct their home mortgage interest?
  No, this isn't about change. And with respect to Mr. Greenspan, who 
we are told about here--Mr. Greenspan, of course, is the fellow who 
said if we ever go below 6 percent unemployment we have calamity in 
this country. It has been about 45 months that we have been below 6 
percent unemployment and the economy is doing well and inflation is in 
check. He was wrong about that. He said we will have a new wave of 
inflation, every month. He has been wrong about that for 4 years. 
Inflation is way down. I was about ready to think maybe the Senator had 
merit until he started talking about Greenspan supporting his case.
  Sunset the Tax Code--what will you replace it with? Will the American 
people be better off with a flat tax? A VAT tax? A national sales tax?
  This is the only town in America where people think it is a bold new 
stroke, having a billionaire proposing a tax plan that would cut his 
taxes by hundreds of millions of dollars. That is not bold or new. It 
is the same tired old argument the American people have heard for years 
and years and years.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Does the Senator know that Chairman Roth in a March 
13, 1998, letter--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  The Senator from New Mexico has 1 minute 45 seconds.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Will the Senator yield 1 minute?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 1 minute.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I guess the rationale of the Senator from North Dakota 
is we are stuck with this Tax Code forever and that is the way it will 
be.
  Frankly, there are a lot of different ideas floating around. I heard 
the Senator from North Dakota has a tax proposal, as well.
  I simply ask people looking at this, could we do any worse than this 
current Tax Code? If I had a stack of books here now, it would be this 
tall. I am a lawyer. I confess that sin. I looked at this Tax Code and 
it is unintelligible. We couldn't do any worse with something 
different.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Will the Senator yield some time to me?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 40 seconds.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. The language contained in our budget resolution 
mimics the language of the Tax Code Termination Act. Thirty-eight 
Members of the Senate are cosponsoring it; 154 Members of the House. It 
is responsible language that will force this Congress to act. It will 
force the national debate, it will force a consensus, and it will force 
us to make a decision.

  We can do better and the American people deserve better. We need to 
set a sunset for this Tax Code.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. If the discussion on the amendment is done, I yield 
myself 2 minutes off the bill.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thought we weren't going to do that. We entered a 
unanimous consent agreement that we couldn't do that. Or did we say we 
would only do it for ourselves?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I guess that is what I thought we said, but it is 
like the Senator made a mistake and thought 7 o'clock was 9 o'clock.
  Fair enough.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How many seconds do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I gave him 40 seconds and you said I had 57 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time was counting as the Senator was asking 
the question.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thirty seconds apiece.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Thirty seconds apiece.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. In my 30 seconds, by unanimous consent, Mr. 
President, I say that it is important to note that in a March 13, 1998, 
letter to the Budget Committee, Chairman Roth wrote, ``I believe a 
comprehensive overhaul of the Tax Code should be in place before any 
action is taken to sunset the existing Tax Code.''
  I rest my case.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Dorgan proposed to us, and I think to the 
American people, that he is not for reform and he likes the current tax 
system. Unless that is the case, then it seems to me he would at least 
permit those who write the tax laws to try to write a new one that is 
better than this one.
  My question is, do you like the Tax Code the way it is? Do you like 
tax reform, which has never been passed yet? We don't know what it will 
be, except it will be better than this one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2170

  Mr. ALLARD. I ask the pending amendment be laid aside and I ask to 
call up amendment No. 2170.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Amendment numbered 2170, previously proposed by the Senator 
     from Colorado [Mr. Allard].

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the purpose of the Allard amendment, which 
we did debate last night--I brought it back to continue the debate this 
evening--is to explain just how easy it

[[Page S2956]]

is for us to make a commitment to pay down the debt by making some 
commitment of revenue flow for that sole purpose.
  I have a chart with a provision called the ``American Debt Repayment 
Act.'' Basically, what it does is take the budget bill, the 5-year plan 
we have before us, take the revenues, and say we don't spend it, we 
save it to pay down the debt, and after 5 years we will take $11.7 
billion, less than 1 percent of the total budget allocated over 30 
years, and we will eliminate the debt by doing that.
  The American family today, when they take out their largest loan--
usually to buy a new home--has a 30-year mortgage. I am just saying 
that we can make a minimal commitment from the budget and we can pay 
off this debt within 30 years. That is the reason I propose my 
amendment, because I want this body to make a minimal commitment to 
paying down the debt.
  When you do this, several things happen. First of all, there is 
tremendous savings on interest, some $3.7 trillion in interest over 
that 30 years that is saved that can be used for other programs, 
whether it is tax cuts or whether it is additional spending. I am not 
in favor of additional spending. I think tax cuts is the way to go, but 
the money is there to do it. We do this with this commitment, and yet 
when we do that we still let our budget grow traditionally at the rate 
it has been growing in the past.
  We are really not making a sacrifice but we are making a commitment, 
if we pass this Allard amendment, to help pay off the debt. If we pay 
off the debt in 30 years, that gets us out to year 2027, 2028. If that 
has a familiar ring, let me remind Members that is the same date that 
many economists predict Social Security will be bankrupt. So this is a 
key first step in us being able to address some very serious problems 
that we are faced with today, and that is a Social Security that is 
getting ready to go bankrupt, a Medicare system that is even in worse 
shape than the Social Security system. This frees up revenue to address 
those kinds of problems.
  I asked the chairman of the Federal Reserve when he testified before 
the Banking Committee, Alan Greenspan, if he would comment about paying 
down the debt. He said he agrees that paying down the debt or 
eliminating the Federal debt would have several positive impacts on 
Social Security reform. I will quote his testimony before the Senate 
Banking Committee on the 25th of February:

       The notion to pay down the debt creates a very large amount 
     of savings in the system, a very big window to do a lot in 
     the area of Social Security, if you go that direction.

  In a letter that I received from Alan Greenspan on March 26, 1998, he 
said: ``Budget surpluses will not by themselves make the current 
structure of Social Security taxes and benefits viable over the long 
run. Assuring payment of intended benefits beyond that date will 
require some statutory adjustments to Social Security receipts and or 
benefits.'' So he does recognize that there is definitely a correlation 
between Social Security reform and making a commitment to pay down that 
debt.
  I will comment about the impact of paying off the debt on the total 
economy. Again, I will quote the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan 
Greenspan, when he testified before the Senate Banking Committee, again 
on the 25th of February. In regard to the economy he says: ``The means 
by which you pay off the debt is to run very substantial unified budget 
surpluses. What happens when you do that is you shift the issue of debt 
from the public to the private sector. I think there are very major 
benefits from that occurring.''
  So I think there is a lot of support from people who really know 
about the budget, know about the economy, know about Social Security, 
about this, and there are a lot of Americans who support the idea we 
ought to be paying down the debt. I think the Senate ought to show a 
similar commitment to pay down this huge debt, which is somewhere 
around $5.6 trillion.
  I have on the floor with me a colleague, and I yield 8 minutes to the 
Senator from Wyoming to talk about paying down the debt.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. I rise to express my support for the common sense 
amendment, No. 2170, which would pay down the national debt.
  When Congress was in session, and on most weekends, I traveled 
thousands of miles throughout the vast State of Wyoming. I polled 
people on what they think is the most important thing we can be doing 
with their money. I consistently heard many people say, ``If there's a 
surplus, pay down the debt.'' I have to tell you, they don't quite 
believe in the surplus we keep talking about back here because they 
understand Social Security. But they don't want us squandering it on 
new spending and new ideas.
  If recent CBO statistics hold true, we should see a budget surplus of 
$8 billion in fiscal year 1999--not counting Social Security. However, 
we did not get to this point by exercising fiscal constraint. We still 
spend too much. We spend about $1.7 trillion every year. I voted 
against the spending portion of the balanced budget amendment of 1997 
because it seemed clear to me that more could have been done to cut 
down the size and scope of the Federal Government. We could have 
enacted more meaningful entitlement reform. We could have gotten the 
fiscal house in order faster. If not for the unexpected revenues that 
came as a result of 7 years of economic expansion, we would not be 
close to eliminating that deficit today.
  Just the interest that we are now paying on the Federal debt has 
reached about 15 percent of the total budget outlays. That amounts to 
about $250 billion that cannot be used for education or military 
readiness or national defense. The only way we can cut down on the 
amount and percentage of interest paid is to reduce the Federal debt.
  This amendment will accomplish just that. It will set Congress on a 
path of fiscal responsibility and will require a 30-year pay down of 
the Federal debt. In the past few months, I have seen a unique attitude 
transformation take place in this city. Even though a budget surplus or 
zero deficit, only estimated, has not yet occurred, the administration 
did not hesitate to offer around $100 billion worth of new or expanded 
programs that would easily create a larger deficit in the proposed 
balanced budget. It seems their eye for spending is still bigger than 
the taxpayers' wallet.

  Even though the economy is strong, I am surprised that so few in 
Congress are concerned about what we, as a nation, are in danger of 
passing on to our children and our grandchildren. It seems we are tied 
to the immediate gratification we receive from spending more money that 
we don't have, that we don't see the danger that looms in the not-too-
distant future if we don't stop spending on credit with reckless 
abandon. That danger is a massive Federal debt and the changing 
demographics that will place a tremendous amount of pressure on young 
taxpayers who, if no change is made with the entitlement programs, will 
see a bankrupt Social Security and Medicare system and a mountain of 
high debt and an economy so weak that there will be no hope of passing 
it off--paying it off; we are trying to pass us off.
  Somehow we have convinced ourselves that we deserve these benefits 
and we will it to our children to figure out a way to pay for them. 
Throughout the debate in the budget resolution it becomes even more 
evident that it does not matter whether the economy is performing at 
record highs or lows, some Members of Congress will always propose more 
spending and more programs. I have heard numerous excuses this week of 
why we should spend more of our Federal dollars.
  There seems to be a belief that no matter how much we spend, we are 
not spending enough for the American people. Before I came to 
Washington as a Senator, I knew we had a plethora of Federal programs. 
Now that I am here, however, I am even more astounded at the number of 
programs available for nearly everything and everyone under the sun. 
But some still believe the Federal Government is not doing nearly 
enough to help those in want or need, or more.
  It is very short-sighted to believe that our children or 
grandchildren will not be left with the bill that is accruing. Do we 
ever stop to think what the possible consequences are before we propose 
a program expansion or creation? The Allard amendment would

[[Page S2957]]

require us to focus on our priorities. It would help us focus on a 
limited, less-expansive Federal Government. A limited, responsive 
Federal Government is what the people of Wyoming expect from any 
government, whether at the State, local or Federal level. They and the 
other American people deserve a disciplined Federal Government. This 
amendment will help Congress focus on limiting the scope of Government.
  With a Federal debt of over $5.5 trillion, we must run budget 
surpluses not just for 1 or 2 years, but for 30 or more years to pay 
off the debt. I believe the administration and Congress should heed the 
words of Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan. He noted in his 
testimony in the Senate Budget Committee on January 29, 1998, that we 
should be cautious in our spending because Federal revenues are not 
guaranteed and may fall short of expectations. He, again, advised that 
we should be aiming for budgetary surpluses and using the proceeds to 
retire the outstanding Federal debt. He mentions how that will help the 
economy and save Social Security.
  The Allard amendment follows the advice of Chairman Greenspan. It 
requires budgetary surpluses every year, with these surpluses going 
toward payment of the Federal debt. These payments would amortize the 
debt over the next 30 years, similar to mortgage payments on a $5.5 
trillion mansion. Anybody who purchases a house must pay the mortgage 
that accompanies it. Why should the Federal Government be exempt from a 
similar requirement? It is the ethical thing to do and it just makes 
sound economic sense. Yes, we bought a house for ourselves and our kids 
and our grandkids, and we will pass on the house and we will pass on 
the debt. But let's be sure that we are current on the payments.
  The Allard amendment will not take money from the Social Security 
system. To the contrary, it will extend the life and solvency of the 
Social Security system and other entitlement programs. The best way to 
shore up Social Security is to pay down the national debt while we work 
on reforms to the system.
  Now is the time to start making those mortgage payments and to begin 
to chip away at the mountain of debt. It is irresponsible, reckless, 
and selfish to wait any longer. Any delay will further jeopardize the 
national security and economic freedom of our Nation and our children. 
Some may ask if we can afford to do this now. In response, I will 
borrow the words of President Ronald Reagan: ``If not now, when? If not 
us, who?''
  I urge my colleagues to support the Allard-Enzi amendment.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes 15 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and 
yield the floor.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I watched with interest the 
development of this amendment and the others that we heard over the 
last couple days. It seems like there is a testimonial here to Alan 
Greenspan. He is a very smart guy, and I will tell you how I know how 
smart he is. He used to be on the board of my company, and when I left 
to come to the Senate, he was still on the board of my company. He 
didn't leave there until he was chosen to be chairman of the Fed. At 
that point, he could not stay and continue enjoying the private side of 
things. It was very nice.
  He is a very bright guy. At our board meetings, everybody used to 
listen so attentively to what Alan said. Fortunately, in this country 
of ours, there are lots of smart people. It doesn't mean that he is 
wrong, but it means that others can have a differing view. I think that 
this amendment--and I am not putting myself in his league, I must tell 
you; but we talked to economists, too, and we see a problem with this.
  This amendment would establish a point of order against any budget 
resolution in which revenues do not exceed outlays for any given year. 
We are considering a budget resolution today. There would be a point of 
order against any budget resolution in which revenues do not exceed 
outlays for any given year. Well, this amendment would lock us into a 
rigid formula for fiscal policy, threaten to make future recessions 
more severe, jeopardize our national security--I don't use these words 
casually--and deprive the Nation of needed investments in our future 
well-being.
  We all know that reducing the Federal debt is an important goal of 
fiscal policy. I don't think it is unknown that our President, 
President Clinton, is a very strong advocate of doing that. He proposed 
using any surpluses to pay down debt and, yes, to shore up Social 
Security, which it does at the same time--pay down that. That is what 
the President said, ``I am not going to let you tinker with that. If I 
have anything to do about it, I don't want you to use that money for 
anything but paying down the debt.'' So we have a common goal here, but 
it should not be pursued to the exclusion of all other worthy goals.
  If this amendment were to pass, it would make future recessions 
deeper by eliminating the budget's ability to stabilize the economy 
automatically. We use it that way--perhaps to the surprise of some--and 
when an economic downturn hits, tax revenues go down automatically and 
spending for unemployment benefits increases automatically. That is the 
way, frankly, I think it should be. The budget's automatic response 
helps to offset some of the economic pain and to shorten the 
recession's duration.
  Handcuffing our fiscal policy in times of economic crisis, as this 
amendment would do, risks turning recessions into depressions. As one 
who lived through the Great Depression myself, I know very well what 
that would mean to our Nation. I know what it did to help my family, 
the only time--other than the GI bill--that we had to reach out. My 
father was humiliated when his job was finally lost in the Depression 
and he had to go to work for the WPA, a Government program. It was 
embarrassing to him, but that was the only way he could see to try to 
support his family. That is the way it happens in times of stress like 
that.

  So when I look at what is being proposed here, I say thank goodness 
we have the capacity in times of need to make changes. For instance, 
the Allard amendment doesn't just pose a threat to our economic 
security; it also jeopardizes our national security. The cold war may 
be over, but that doesn't mean we won't face serious new military 
threats in the future. What would happen if America confronted an enemy 
that was building up its military in preparation for conflict? We would 
not be able to arm ourselves to meet the challenge because of this 
fiscal straitjacket.
  I know that the Senator from Colorado wants to do the right thing 
and, again, we share a goal, but the approach is radically different. 
The Allard amendment does include an exception in matters of Defense, 
when a declaration of war is in effect. There is very significant 
meaning to those few words. We faced a variety of major military 
challenges since war was last officially declared, and the year was 
1941. This amendment, in those several times, would have tied our hands 
behind our backs. I also say to Senators who care about public 
investment that this amendment could prevent us from providing 
prudently for our future.
  Here is an example: If Congress were to decide that it's important to 
make significant new investments in our telecommunications 
infrastructure or our transportation infrastructure and we wanted to 
amortize the cost over several years, even though we don't have 
amortization formally in our financial statement, the Allard amendment 
would create a new roadblock. I want to say especially to our friends 
on the other side of the aisle who believe that tax cuts underwrite our 
future prosperity, this amendment would also make it more difficult to 
enact tax cuts.
  My point is not at all to advocate huge, new tax breaks. But I want 
to highlight the fact that this amendment will tie everybody's hands 
behind our backs and limit flexibility for Senators on all sides of the 
ideological spectrum. We have eliminated the deficit, restored fiscal 
discipline, and helped create the strongest economy in decades--maybe 
retroactively we are going to say it has been the strongest

[[Page S2958]]

decade ever. We have done it all without procedural gimmicks that 
limited our flexibility. We did it the old-fashioned way, with hard 
work and hard choices. That is the way I think we ought to do it now 
and in the future. There is just no need for this kind of rigid rule.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I think it would be a 
huge mistake. It could wreak havoc on our economy, could weaken our 
national security to a dangerous point. It could impede our ability to 
make needed investments either directly or through the Tax Code.
  Mr. President, at the appropriate time, I intend to raise a point of 
order against this amendment. It is not germane. If the proponents of 
the amendment move to waive my point of order, I hope my colleagues 
will vote no on the motion to waive.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. ALLARD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to summarize and make sure 
that any opposition to my amendment has had an opportunity to speak. 
When they are finished, I would like to make concluding comments, if I 
might.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I can't promise that. If we have time 
left, we will use it. It is there now for the proponents to make their 
case.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we have 2 
minutes remaining on our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senator has 1 
minute 31 seconds. The opponents have 7 minutes 38 seconds.
  Who yields time?
  If neither side yields time, time runs equally.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I would like to have an opportunity to 
summarize my remarks. I ask that my opposition yield back the remainder 
of their time so I can summarize my comments.
  Apparently, they don't want to do that. I will briefly make comments 
so that we can move along.
  First of all, we heard many arguments about voting against the 
balanced budget amendment. Those who voted against the balanced budget 
amendment said that we should not tie down the hands of the Senate, the 
Senate should have the discipline in order not to go into deficit 
spending. My argument has been that the Senate--I have always supported 
it because I never felt the Senate, although well-intentioned, would 
ever allow that to happen. We are asking for a simple amendment to pay 
down the debt, and one of the arguments made against this is that it 
may raise a point of order if the Senate goes into deficit spending. 
Most of us, I think, in this Chamber agree that we should not have 
deficit spending. So it points out again how very important it is to 
have these types of plans before us if we really are serious about 
eliminating deficit spending and pay down the debt. If we want a secure 
economy and we want to make sure that our children and grandchildren 
have a secure future and we want to continue to see economic growth, 
the way we do that is to make a commitment to pay down the debt. So I 
am here to ask for an aye vote on the Allard amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the pending amendment is not germane 
and I, therefore, raise a point of order that the amendment violates 
section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act.
  Is the time available all on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Having made the point of order, all time has 
elapsed.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, if the Senator from Colorado is not 
going to move to waive, I will.
  Mr. ALLARD. I was going to do that, but the chairman can do it.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to waive the Budget Act, and I 
ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           amendment no. 2195

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2195.
  Mr. President, I want to point out that we have the following 
cosponsors on our amendment. They include Senators Daschle, Kerry, 
Baucus, Bingaman, Boxer, Graham, Moynihan, Leahy, Reid, Wyden, 
Lieberman, and Murray.
  Mr. President, this amendment would establish a reserve fund that 
would allocate funding from a reinstated Superfund tax on polluters for 
several important environmental initiatives.
  Mr. President, President Clinton has made environmental protection a 
top priority. And the American people agree with that. Americans feel 
strongly about the need to keep our water and air clean, and our 
national parks well maintained. And, in my view, they're right.
  The President has urged that several related environmental 
initiatives be funded by reinstating the Superfund tax on polluters. 
But the resolution before us largely rejects this approach. It does 
allow for spending up to $200 million next year from this tax, if it is 
reinstated, and if the reinstatement is part of broader Superfund 
reauthorization legislation.
  However, the Superfund tax raises $1.7 billion per year. And the 
Resolution would allow the extra $1.5 billion per year to be used for 
purposes that have nothing to do with environmental protection.
  By contrast, my amendment would use these environmental taxes for 
environmental objectives.
  My proposal largely incorporates the President's Environmental 
Resources Fund for America, as proposed in his budget.
  Under the proposal, revenue from a reinstated Superfund tax could be 
used for a variety of environmental priorities. These include, but are 
not limited to the following: cleanup of hazardous waste sites; clean 
water initiatives to assist states in protecting waterways from 
polluted runoff; construction and maintenance for our deteriorating 
national parks, forests, refuges, public lands and tribal schools; and 
purchases of valuable natural resources through the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund.
  The funding for hazardous waste cleanup would increase the Superfund 
budget by 40%. This would double the pace of cleanups, bringing the 
total number of cleanups to 900 by the end of 2001.
  Let me be clear, also, that this amendment does not raid the 
Superfund program to pay for other initiatives. Under the amendment, we 
would still appropriate more money for hazardous waste cleanup than is 
collected from the Superfund tax, as has been our practice in the past.
  Mr. President, let me take a moment to highlight the Clean Water and 
Watershed Restoration Initiative. Today, the major source of pollution 
of our rivers, lakes and other sources of drinking water is not 
industry, and it's not municipal sewage treatment plants. It's polluted 
runoff from our cities and farms.
  This program would provide funds--not to increase the federal 
bureaucracy--but to aid states and localities in their efforts to 
address this problem.
  Mr. President, I want to emphasize that this amendment would not 
increase the deficit or reduce a surplus by one penny. It's entirely 
deficit neutral.
  I would also note that the amendment is broad enough to allow the 
appropriate committees to make the specific decisions about where this 
additional $1.5 billion per year would be spent. The amendment does not 
limit the committees to the particular proposals in the President's 
budget. Rather, it allows them flexibility to shape programs based on 
their needs and priorities when the Superfund tax is passed.
  I would note that the amendment is supported by the League of 
Conservation Voters, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the 
American Planning Association.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, the American people want us to protect 
the environment and to protect our investments in our national parks, 
refuges and forests. This amendment could go a long way toward meeting 
these goals in a deficit-neutral manner. I hope my colleagues will 
support it.
  We have a letter from the Council on Environmental Quality responding 
to our request for administration views on the proposed amendment.


[[Page S2959]]


       Please be assured that the Administration strongly supports 
     your efforts to secure adequate funding for pressing 
     environmental challenges facing this country.

  I submit that and the letter from the League of Conservation Voters, 
as well as a letter signed by 44 environmental groups.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent they be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Executive Office of the President, Council on 
           Environmental Quality,
                                    Washington, DC, April 1, 1998.
     Hon. Frank Lautenberg,
     Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Budget, U.S. Senate, 
         Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: I am writing in response to your 
     request for the Administration's views on your proposed 
     amendment to the Senate budget resolution. Please be assured 
     that the Administration strongly supports your efforts to 
     secure adequate funding for pressing environmental challenges 
     facing this country.
       As you are well aware, the President's Fiscal Year 1999 
     budget proposes significant investments to protect our 
     environment and public health. It would accelerate Superfund 
     cleanups, provide new resources for the President's Clean 
     Water Action Plan, and continue our efforts to restore and 
     protect our national parks and other public lands.
       Despite your efforts in the Budget Committee, however, the 
     resolution now before the Senate fails to provide adequate 
     funds for each of these priorities. The effect of the 
     resolution would be quite serious. It would jeopardize public 
     health by delaying cleanup of Superfund sites in communities 
     across the country. It would significantly limit nationwide 
     efforts to curb polluted runoff, the largest remaining threat 
     to the health of our lakes, rivers and coastal waters. And it 
     would hamper our ability to repair deteriorating 
     infrastructure at national parks and other facilities, posing 
     a threat to the health and safety of visitors and workers.
       Your proposed amendment to correct these deficiencies by 
     securing $1.7 billion in Fiscal Year 1999 and a total of $7.4 
     billion over five years is consistent with the 
     Administration's budget request. Furthermore, it is important 
     to note that your amendment is budget-neutral because it 
     would ensure that reinstatement of the Superfund tax is 
     committed to these environmental priorities.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises me that this 
     letter is consistent with the President's program.
       I greatly appreciate your effort to ensure that these vital 
     environmental priorities are met.
           Sincerely,
                                              Kathleen A. McGinty,
     Chairman.
                                  ____



                                League of Conservation Voters,

                                   Washington, DC, March 30, 1998.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Re  Senate Concurrent Resolution 86, Supporting the 
         Lautenberg amendment to fund environment and national 
         resource protection.

       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 Clear 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 
     provide 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 
     patented 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.
                                  ____

                                                   March 27, 1998.

   Support the Lautenberg Amendment to Fund Environment and Natural 
                               Resources

     Attention: Environmental LA.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the undersigned organizations, 
     we strongly urge your support for the amendment to the Budget 
     Resolution, S. Con. Res. 86, that will be offered by Senator 
     Lautenberg during Floor consideration. Senator Lautenberg's 
     amendment would provide funding for critical environment and 
     natural resource programs proposed in the President's budget. 
     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 investment of funds that will be provided by Senator 
     Lautenberg's amendment.
       Some of these crucial environmental initiatives fall under 
     the President's proposed Environmental Resources Fund for 
     America and include:
       The ``Clean Water Action Plan'', which will provide 
     increased resources (a total of $568 Million for this multi-
     agency initiative) to States, tribes and individuals in order 
     to address polluted runoff from urban areas, agriculture, 
     mining and other sources. Polluted runoff is the single 
     biggest cause of water quality impairment in the nation 
     today. The ``Clean Water Action Plan'' will help to reduce 
     its impacts through improved coordination among different 
     levels of government and through increased spending to help 
     farmers and other individuals improve their water quality 
     management practices.
       A continuation of funding for the Drinking Water and Clean 
     Water State Revolving Loan Funds (a total of $1.875 Billion 
     for both) 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 supports the ``Land and Water Conservation Fund 
     (LWCF) Vision''. ``Safe Visits to Public Lands'' would begin 
     to address the critical multi-billion dollar maintenance 
     backlog on our public lands by providing a $92 Million (eight 
     percent) increase in funding to repair and refurbish the 
     aging infrastructure in our national parks, forests, wildlife 
     refuges and other public lands. Supporting the ``LWCF 
     Vision'' would provide a 43% increase in LWCF spending over 
     the next five years to continue acquisition and permanent 
     protection of key land, water, and open space resources for 
     future generations. Even this modest increase still falls far 
     below the level of $900 Million authorized yearly for LWCF.
       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. The Environmental 
     Resources Fund for America proposes $2.1 Billion in spending, 
     which would be a forty percent increase over 1998.
       In addition, the Senate Budget Resolution does not include 
     crucial FY99 increases requested for the Fish and Wildlife 
     Service (FWS). The Lautenberg amendment would provide funding 
     for these increases including:
       An increase in funding for Enhancing Endangered Species Act 
     (ESA) Efforts. In the last five years, the number of listed 
     U.S. species has doubled and a growing number of species 
     require management to survive. The requested increase will 
     allow the FWS to carry out necessary activities to conserve 
     species, to provide more efficient implementation for 
     regulated interests, and to offer new incentives for private 
     landowners. The FY99 increase for FWS is $38.8 million.
       An increase in funding for FWS National Wildlife Refuge 
     System Operations. The nearly 93 million acre National 
     Wildlife Refuge System is the only federal public lands 
     system dedicated primarily to the conservation of fish and 
     wildlife; yet chronic and severe funding shortfalls threaten 
     its mission. The requested $15 Million increase for FY99 
     would take a small step in addressing the current $410 
     Million shortfall in operating needs.
       Last year's balanced budget agreement contemplated 
     decreasing spending every year until at least 2003 for 
     natural resources

[[Page S2960]]

     and environmental programs. The American public has made 
     clear that clean water, stewardship of our public lands, 
     fisheries and wildlife management, and other environmental 
     programs require a higher priority than was reflected in this 
     agreement. At the same time, we would be happy to work with 
     the Senate to weed out environmentally destructive spending 
     that would more than pay for the funding increases reflected 
     in the Lautenberg amendment to fund environment and natural 
     resources.
       A `yes' vote on the Lautenberg Amendment will send a clear 
     signal of your support for protection of the environment and 
     public health, and in particular for clean water, vibrant 
     public lands, and protection of species and habitat. Thank 
     you in advance for your support.
           Sincerely,
         David Younkman, Executive Director, American Oceans 
           Campaign, Washington, DC; Rebecca R. Wodder, President, 
           American Rivers, Washington, DC; Roger E. McManus, 
           President, Center for Marine Conservation, Washington, 
           DC; Roger Schlickeisen, President, Defenders of 
           Wildlife, Washington, DC; Fred D. Krupp, Executive 
           Director, Environmental Defense Fund, New York, NY; 
           Brent Blackwelder, President, Friends of the Earth, 
           Washington, DC; Paul Hansen, Executive Director, Izaak 
           Walton League of America, Gaithersburg, MD; John 
           Flicker, President, National Audubon Society, New York, 
           NY; Thomas C. Kiernan, President, National Parks & 
           Conservation, Association, Washington, DC; Mark Van 
           Putten, President & CEO, National Wildlife Federation, 
           Washington, DC; John H. Adams, Executive Director, 
           Natural Resources Defense Council, New York, NY; Robert 
           K. Musil, Executive Director, Physicians for Social 
           Responsibility, Washington, DC; David Burwell, 
           President, Rails to Trails Conservancy, Washington, DC; 
           Carl Pope, Sierra Club, Executive Director, San 
           Francisco, CA; Will Rogers, President, The Trust for 
           Public Land, San Francisco, CA; Gene Karpinski, 
           Executive Director, U.S. Public Interest Research 
           Group, Washington, DC; William H. Meadows, President, 
           The Wilderness Society, Washington, DC; William M. 
           Eichbaum, Vice President, US Conservation and Global 
           Threats World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC; Becky 
           Cain, President, League of Women Voters, Washington, 
           DC; Jackie Savitz, Executive Director, Coast Alliance, 
           Washington, DC; Jason E. Klein, President, The Outdoor 
           Company, Field & Stream and Outdoor Life, New York, NY; 
           Steve Moyer, Vice President, Conservation Programs, 
           Trout Unlimited, Arlington, VA; Liz Raisbeck, Watershed 
           Program Manager, River Network, Washington, DC; Michael 
           F. Hirshfield, Ph.D., Vice President, Resource 
           Protection, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Annapolis, MD; 
           Jim Jontz, Executive Director, Western Ancient Forest 
           Campaign, Washington, DC; Frank So, Executive Director, 
           American Planning Association, Washington, DC; William 
           R. Neil, Director of Conservation, New Jersey Audubon, 
           Bernardsville, NJ; Robin Cunningham, Executive 
           Director, Montana River Action Network, Bozeman, MT; 
           Judith D. Petersen, Director, Kentucky Waterways 
           Alliance, Munfordville, KY; Ralph H. Goodno, President, 
           Merrimack River Watershed Council, Lawrence, MA; Barry 
           Nelson, Senior Fellow, Save the San Francisco Bay 
           Association, San Francisco, CA; Mark Davis, Executive 
           Director, Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, Baton 
           Rouge, LA; Peter Shelly, Vice President, Conservation 
           Law Foundation, Boston, MA; John Atkin, Executive 
           Director, Save the Sound, Inc., Stamford, CT; Lisa 
           Carey, Coordinator, Long Island Sound Watershed 
           Alliance, Stamford, CT; Todd Miller, Executive 
           Director, North Carolina Coastal Federation, Newport, 
           NC; Peter Clark, Executive Director, Tampa Bay Watch, 
           Tampa, FL; Kathy Fletcher, Executive Director, People 
           for Puget Sound, Seattle, WA; David W. Bott, Executive 
           Director, West Virginia Rivers Coalition, Elkins, WV; 
           Cynthia Chapman, Executive Director, Frontera Audubon 
           Society; George Lea, President, Public Lands 
           Foundation; Norene Chase, Local Conservation Chair, Big 
           Bend Sierra Club, Tallahassee, FL; Nancy Backstrand, 
           Friends of the Santa Margarita River, San Diego County, 
           CA; and Marion Sizemone, Environmental Programs, 
           Wyandotte Tribe of OK, Wyandotte, OK.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, March 1, 1998]

                    A Promising Clean Water Strategy

       The 1972 Clean Water Act has been the most effective of all 
     the landmark environmental measures enacted in the early 
     1970's. But while it has done a good job of controlling 
     pollution from so-called ``point sources'' like factories and 
     waste treatment plants, the act has failed to stem poisonous 
     runoff from ``non-point'' sources like farms and city 
     streets. This runoff is the main reason why nearly 40 percent 
     of the nation's lakes and streams remain unfishable and 
     unswimmable.
       The Clinton Administration has now offered a strategy to 
     remedy this flaw. Given the hostility of this Congress to new 
     environmental legislation, the President has chosen to attack 
     the problem with a series of administrative actions by the 
     Environmental Protection Agency, the Interior Department and 
     other agencies. But Congress will be asked to provide about 
     $2.4 billion in new money over five years to make the plan 
     work. We urge it to do so. This is a modest, common-sense 
     strategy that merits bipartisan support.
       For the first time, the plan would establish enforceable 
     limits on runoffs of nitrogen and phosphorus--two destructive 
     nutrients found in fertilizers, sewage and animal wastes. At 
     the same time, Washington would make available hundreds of 
     millions of dollars to states and individual landowners to 
     pay for setting aside land for stream buffers that prevent 
     the nutrients from entering the water in the first place. 
     These nutrients have been linked not only to outbreaks of 
     Pfiesteria piscicida, a fish-killing microbe, in Maryland and 
     North Carolina, but also to the 6,000-square-mile ``dead 
     zone'' of oxygen-depleted water in the Gulf of Mexico.
       The plan would also impose new restrictions on huge 
     corporate farming operations that generate mountains of waste 
     that are typically stored in ``lagoons'' the size of several 
     football fields. These gigantic pits, which sometimes 
     overflow during rainstorms, would be regarded as ``point 
     sources'' subject to regular inspections and, when violations 
     occur, heavy fines.
       Another ambitious element of the plan seeks to add 100,000 
     acres a year to the nation's declining inventory of valuable 
     wetlands. To do so, however, the Administration must win the 
     cooperation of the Army Corps of Engineers, which oversees 
     wetlands policy and has been parceling out the land bit by 
     bit to developers. One of the more attractive features of the 
     Clinton strategy is that it promises to involve every Federal 
     agency in the fight for cleaner water. Without the corps, the 
     strategy will be incomplete.
                                  ____


                  [The Washington Post, March 3, 1998]

                      The President on Clean Water

       The Country's leading water pollution problem is no longer 
     the industrial and municipal waste that flows from particular 
     pipes but the elusive agricultural and urban runoff that 
     accumulates across entire watersheds. The Clean Water Act 
     provides only indirect authority to deal with it, and the 
     current Congress is hardly likely to strengthen the relevant 
     provisions. In the last Congress, House Republicans tried 
     instead to weaken them. The clean-water initiative the 
     president announced the other day is thus an effort to make 
     the most of a limited arsenal. Within those limits, it does a 
     reasonable job.
       The government will use existing authority to set new 
     standards for nutrients in lakes, streams and estuaries--the 
     nitrogen and phosphorus that are byproducts of agricultural 
     operations especially. Excessive amounts do harm. The states 
     are then meant to apply the standards to water within their 
     jurisdiction, and to draw up plans to reduce them where 
     required. If the plans are too weak, the Environmental 
     Protection Agency can disapprove them, but it lacks the power 
     to enforce them except indirectly if the states default. The 
     administration seeks to fill the enforcement hole with 
     financial inducements both to the states and to farmers to 
     reduce the spread of the pollutants. It has assembled a 
     fairly impressive package of money, much of it from existing 
     programs. Some of the largest are in the Agriculture 
     Department, including the mighty Conservation Reserve Program 
     which each year pays farmers to idle vast amounts of 
     vulnerable land across the country and now supports such 
     things as water quality projects as well.
       Watersheds extend across state boundaries, and the 
     president's initiative includes some fuzzy talk about the 
     need for interstate cooperation. Among much else, a program 
     embracing an entire watershed can liberate states from the 
     fear that if they take strong action, neighboring states may 
     use weaker environmental standards to lure away industry. 
     That's part of the argument that Congess has ignored for a 
     stronger federal law. The administration uses what it has--
     mostly words and a little money--to push in this useful 
     direction.
       The initiative also promises, again a bit fuzzily, to 
     convert the current annual loss of wetlands across the 
     country into a net gain within a few years. Exactly how is 
     left unclear. The last time anyone looked, the Corps of 
     Engineers was proposing to ease the rules under which 
     developers and others are allowed to invade wetlands. This 
     would mark a more aggressive policy, if it occurs. Likewise, 
     there is a promise to do a better job of managing the 
     government's own lands. Because the government is such a 
     large landowner, this would be important.
       This administration generally has pushed in the right 
     directions on environmental issues. But its penchant for show 
     over substance--this report trumpets ``more than 100 major 
     new actions''--often gets the best of it. Many of these are 
     neither major steps nor new. We hope they take them anyway.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, in conclusion, the American people 
want to protect the environment and to protect our investments in our 
national parks and refuges and forests. This amendment could go a long 
way toward meeting these goals in a deficit-neutral manner.

[[Page S2961]]

  I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator from New Mexico is 
recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the proposal by 
the distinguished Senator from New Jersey.
  At the appropriate time I will raise a point of order.
  First, let me say that this proposal exceeds the spending caps set in 
the balanced budget amendment by $600 million in budget authority, and 
$900 million in outlays.
  The budget before us assumes $1 billion in additional spending over 5 
years of the Superfund as originally agreed upon in the balanced budget 
amendment.
  The budget resolution provides $1.4 billion in budget authority, and 
$1.3 billion in outlays to fund critical construction programs within 
the Corps of Engineers rejecting the proposal of the President to cut 
it 47.4 percent.
  It fully funds the President's request for National Park Service 
operations at $1.3 billion; $1.2 billion in outlays. It fully funds the 
President's request for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, NOAA, with $2.3 billion in budget authority; $2.19 
billion in expected expenditures.
  It assumes funding for the Landowner Incentives Program of the 
pending Endangered Species Recovery Act, a step forward for both the 
environmental community and private owners and protecting the Nation's 
endangered species.
  It rejects the President's proposed reductions in the Environmental 
Protection Agency and tribal assistance grant funds; $2.7 billion above 
the President's budget over 5 years for clean water, drinking water, 
and targeted wastewater funds.
  It provides $1.1 billion more in budget authority over 5 years than 
the alternative that was provided in the committee by the minority.
  Frankly, when all of that is said and done, this is another one of 
these funds that is set up. The money that is going to be needed to do 
all the things that Senator Lautenberg contends should be done is not 
provided for, nor are cuts in programs provided for that would go into 
the fund.
  I guess while it sounds good, I firmly believe that it will never 
really happen.
  But, in all events, it is not germane. I will make that point of 
order as soon as time is available.
  I yield any additional time that I may have.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, there is no additional spending that 
is provided for by virtue of the Superfund tax. These are not 
entitlements. We are talking now about direct appropriations. If the 
funds aren't there obviously out of this fund, out of this reserve 
fund, if money doesn't come in, it can't be spent. There were programs 
developed by the Environment and Public Works Committee. I assume the 
Senator is aware that we have finished a Superfund reauthorization bill 
out of the committee. I didn't support it. But it is due to come to the 
floor sometime after our recess. The committee has mandatory spending 
authority for minimum allocation for ISTEA, the orphans' share funding 
for Superfund, and funding for landowner incentives under the proposed 
Endangered Species Act. Under current law the committee has mandatory 
spending authority for the Wallop-Breaux Sports Fishery Act and other 
legislation.

  So this isn't a casual proposal. It is going to be paid for by taxes 
that accrue to the Superfund reserve fund. It will be used for 
environmental purposes. That is what we are talking about. It is fairly 
simple. We offer the amendment, and we are ready to have it processed 
and hope that our colleagues will vote for it.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the pending 
amendment violates the Budget Act and is not germane.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Until the time has been used or yielded, a 
point of order is not in order.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield back my time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield all time back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I make a point of order, as I previously indicated, 
that it violates the Budget Act and is not germane.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to waive the point of order, and I ask for the 
yeas and nays on my motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                    Amendment No. 2213, As Modified

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I call up the Bond-Mikulski amendment, 
as modified.
  Mr. President, Senator Bond has argued this at length here on the 
floor of the Senate during the pendency of this budget resolution, and 
does not desire any time tonight.
  I would merely indicate that amendment No. 2213, as modified, opposes 
the President's proposed reduction in elderly housing by expressing the 
sense of the Senate that the budget resolution levels for elderly 
housing programs shall be funded between 1999 and 2003 at no less than 
the 1998 level of $645 million dollars.
  I yield any time that Senator Bond might have with reference to his 
amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We have no comment. We yield any time that we have in 
response.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas and nays on the Bond amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2205

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I call up the Durbin amendment, No. 
2205.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Amendment numbered 2205, previously proposed by the Senator 
     from New Jersey, Mr. Lautenberg, for Mr. Durbin.


                    Amendment No. 2205, As Modified

  Mr. Domenici. Mr. President, I send a modification of the 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 New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. Durbin 
     and Mr. Kyl, proposes an amendment numbered 2205, as 
     modified.
  The amendment follows:

       At the end of title III, insert the following:

     SEC. __. FINDINGS AND SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING AFFORDABLE, 
                   HIGH-QUALITY HEALTH CARE FOR SENIORS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Seniors deserve affordable, high quality health care.
       (2) The medicare program under title XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) has made health care 
     affordable for millions of seniors.
       (3) Beneficiaries under the medicare program deserve to 
     know that such program will cover the benefits that they are 
     currently entitled to.
       (4) Beneficiaries under the medicare program can pay out-
     of-pocket for health care services whenever they--
       (A) do not want a claim for reimbursement for such services 
     submitted to such program; or
       (B) want or need to obtain health care services that such 
     program does not cover.
       (5) Beneficiaries under the medicare program can use 
     doctors who do not receive any reimbursement under such 
     program.
       (6) Close to 75 percent of seniors have annual incomes 
     below $25,000, including 4 percent who have annual incomes 
     below $5,000, making any additional out-of-pocket costs for 
     health care services extremely burdensome.
       (7) Very few beneficiaries under the medicare program 
     report having difficulty obtaining access to a physician who 
     accepts reimbursement under such program.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the assumptions underlying the functional totals in this 
     resolution assume that seniors have the right to affordable, 
     high-quality health care, that they have the right to choose 
     their physicians, and that no change should be made to the 
     medicare program that could--
       (1) impose unreasonable and unpredictable out-of-pocket 
     costs for seniors or erode the benefits that the 38,000,000 
     beneficiaries under the medicare program are entitled to;
       (2) compromise the efforts of the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services to screen inappropriate or fraudulent claims 
     for reimbursement under such program; and
       (3) allow unscrupulous providers under such program to bill 
     twice for the same services.

[[Page S2962]]

  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Kyl of Arizona is an original cosponsor. The 
amendment should be known as Durbin-Kyl.
  Mr. President, Senator Kyl and Senator Durbin have cooperated on this 
amendment. There is no objection to it. We don't have to have a vote. I 
yield back any time there might be on the amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We yield back all time as well.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2205), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2275

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Congress regarding a permanent 
               extension of income averaging for farmers)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senators Burns and Baucus have a new 
amendment. I send it to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration. I ask it be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici], for Mr. Burns, 
     for himself and Mr. Baucus, proposes an amendment numbered 
     2275.

  Mr. DOMENICI. 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 III, add the following:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING PERMANENT EXTENSION OF 
                   INCOME AVERAGING FOR FARMERS.

       It is the sense of Congress that the provisions of this 
     resolution assume that if the revenue levels are reduced 
     pursuant to section 201 of this resolution for tax 
     legislation, such amount as is necessary shall be used to 
     permanently extend income averaging for farmers for purposes 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

  Mr. DOMENICI. We have no objection to the amendment. We yield back 
any time we might have on the amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We yield back time. We have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2275) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2203

  Mr. WYDEN. I appreciate the cooperation of the Chairman of the Budget 
Committee, Mr. Domenici, in working with me on this matter. My purpose 
in offering the original amendment in Committee was truth in budgeting. 
The truth I am seeking has been masked by inflation. With inflation 
being lower than anticipated, the CBO and GAO estimate there is as much 
as a $3 billion inflationary windfall surplus in the budget for 1999, 
and as much as a $26 billion surplus over the next five years. My 
concern is the American taxpayer never sees this inflationary windfall 
and probably doesn't even know it exists. The money is not accounted 
for by the agencies and is not returned to the taxpayer. Unfortunately, 
the windfall appears to end up as walk-around money in the pockets of 
bureaucrats. That is why I am pleased that together with the Chairman 
of the Budget Committee we will request the General Accounting Office 
to tell Congress by May 15 the exact amount of the inflationary 
windfall for FY99, how the agencies intend to use the inflationary 
windfall and how CBO can go about making this calculation for future 
years. Our request will also direct the GAO by August 15 to develop for 
us a methodology for correctly calculating inflationary estimates that 
is applicable to both defense and non-defense spending and how the 
agencies expect to use the additional funds. I ask unanimous consent to 
have printed in the record the GAO's chart for FY99 Economic 
Adjustments as well as the CBO's March 24, 1998 letter to me on the 
inflationary windfall.
  There being no objection, the material is ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                   Washington, DC, March 24, 1998.
     Hon. Ron Wyden,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: At your request, the Congressional Budget 
     Office (CBO) has estimated adjustments to budget authority 
     for defense programs, as allocated under last year's budget 
     resolution for the 1999-2002 period, that would preserve its 
     implied purchasing power for nonsalary expenses given the 
     changes in CBO's estimates of inflation. Specifically, you 
     asked us to adjust the year-by-year amounts in the budget 
     resolution using actual inflation during 1997 and new 
     estimates of inflation for the 1998-2002 period.
       Last year's budget resolution called for defense budget 
     authority of $271.5 billion for 1999 and $289.6 billion for 
     2002. A year ago, CBO projected that the chain-type price 
     index for the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) would grow by an 
     average of 2.5 percent a year during the 1997-2002 period. 
     CBO currently projects that annual inflation, as measured by 
     the GDP index, will grow by an average of 2.2 percent over 
     that six-year period. Thus, the budget authority in last 
     year's budget resolution could be reduced and still maintain 
     the same inflation-adjusted levels.
       Under its current inflation projection, CBO estimates that 
     lowering last year's budget resolution for defense 
     appropriations by $1.7 billion in 1999 and $9.8 billion over 
     the 1999-2002 period would provide about the same level of 
     real resources for nonsalary purchases as assumed a year ago 
     for that period. Similarly, we also calculated adjustments 
     for 2003 given the assumptions specified in your request. If 
     last year's defense budget authority for 2003 was pegged at 
     $297.8 billion, reducing that figure by $3.5 billion would 
     maintain the purchasing power for nonsalary expenses. The 
     enclosed table shows the adjustments to budget authority and 
     the corresponding changes in outlays for the five-year 
     period.
       CBO does not attempt to forecast the prices of defense-
     related goods and services. Instead, we follow the common 
     practice of using a general measure of inflation--The GDP 
     price index--to adjust purchasing power. The lower growth in 
     our inflation forecast stems from an unexpectedly rapid 
     decline in import and computer prices and slower growth in 
     medical care prices. Although these factors could affect 
     defense-related purchasing power, the changes in assumptions 
     for the growth in the GDP price index do not necessarily 
     indicate a commensurate change in purchasing power for the 
     defense budget.
       If you have further questions, we will be pleased to answer 
     them. The CBO staff contacts are John Peterson, who can be 
     reached at 226-2753 for questions on price indexes, and Kent 
     Christensen, who can be reached at 226-2840 for questions 
     pertaining to their impact on the defense budget.
           Sincerely,
                                                  June E. O'Neill,
     Director.
                                  ____


                         INFLATION ADJUSTMENTS FOR BUDGET FUNCTION 050, NATIONAL DEFENSE
                                    [By fiscal year, in billions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   1999       2000       2001       2002     \2\ 2003    Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998 Budget Resolution:
    Budget Authority \1\......................      271.5      275.4      281.8      289.6      297.8    1,416.1
    Outlays...................................      266.5      269.0      270.7      273.1      280.8    1,360.1
Adjustments to Reflect Current Inflation
 Projections:\3\
    Budget Authority..........................       -1.7       -2.3       -2.7       -3.1       -3.5      -13.4
    Outlays...................................       -0.8       -1.6       -2.2       -2.7       -2.9      -10.2
Adjusted Levels:
    Budget Authority \1\......................      269.8      273.1      279.1      286.5      294.3    1,402.7
    Outlays...................................      265.7      267.4      268.5      270.4      277.9   1,349.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These figures represent funding for discretionary defense programs.
\2\ The 1998 budget resolution contained budget authority and outlay levels through 2002. The amounts shown for
  2003 correspond to the assumptions requested by Senator Wyden.
\3\ These changes would keep inflation-adjusted funding for nonsalary expenses at the same levels assumed in the
  1998 budget resolution. They use actual inflation in 1997 and CBO's current projection of the 1998-2003
  period.
Note: Details may add to totals due to rounding.
 


[[Page S2963]]


                                          FYDP 99--ECONOMIC ADJUSTMENTS
                                              [Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                          FYDP
                                                   FY99       FY00       FY01       FY02       FY03      total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Savings: \1\
    Nonpay Purchases Inflation................      2,785      3,537      4,373      4,945      5,698     21,338
    Fuel Inflation............................        159        173        194        216        238        979
    Foreign Currency Fluctuations.............        367        347        354        361        369      1,798
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Savings.........................      3,311      4,056      4,921      5,522      6,305     24,115
Allocation of Nonpay Purchases Inflation: \2\
    Civilian/Military Pay Raise...............        377        810      1,216      1,633      2,073      6,109
    Defense Health Program....................  .........        500        500        300        300      1,600
    Nuclear Stockpile Stewardship.............  .........        600        500        700        600      2,400
    Chemical Demilitarization Program.........  .........        121        320        469         11        921
    Additional Procurement....................      2,000      1,200        900      1,600      2,700      8,400
    All Other.................................        400        300        900        200  .........      1,800
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Allocated.......................      2,777      3,531      4,336      4,902      5,684     21,230
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ DOD savings for Nonpay Purchases Inflation in FY1998 is $846 million.
\2\ Allocation of the remaining $2,885 million in savings over FY1999-2003 is unknown.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I share the Senator's concern about this 
issue. It is correct that when inflation increases less than projected, 
the buying power of a dollar increases. According to CBO, inflation 
projections for the National Defense Budget Function for 1999 through 
2003 have decreased from the 2.6 percent of the GDP Price Index 
projected last year to rates varying from 2.2 percent to 2.4 percent. 
This translates into a 1999 inflation ``dividend'' for National Defense 
of $1.7 billion in budget authority and $0.8 billion in outlays. For 
1999-2003, the amounts are $13.2 billion in budget authority and $10.3 
billion in outlays.
  The Department of Defense reports to us that it has already 
reinvested this dividend in other defense programs. Therefore, taking 
this money out of the 050 budget this year will cause real program 
reductions, and I would strongly oppose that. However, DoD does not 
routinely report these budgetary data to Congress, and I agree that it 
is important for us to have the data for oversight purposes. I also 
agree it would be useful to have similar data for both defense and 
nondefense purchases.
  I am concerned, however, that an appropriate methodology needs to be 
developed that is applicable to both defense and nondefense agencies. I 
am also concerned that we collect information from each major agency 
and analyze what they do with the additional funds, when such 
``dividends'' are generated. Also, I would argue that when inflation is 
increasing faster than projected, we need to know from the Department 
of Defense and others what constraints this imposes on purchases.
  I believe the appropriate agency to develop the methodology and to 
perform the agency-by-agency research is the General Accounting Office. 
Once appropriate methodologies have been developed for making estimates 
of economic changes, we could ask CBO and GAO to perform further 
research.
  I am happy to work with the Senator from Oregon on this issue, and I 
will gladly join with him to request the GAO to perform the needed 
work. I look forward to starting this research in a timely fashion and 
making it a part of the information we use to exercise our oversight.
  Mr. President, I ask that Senator Wyden's amendment, No. 2203, be 
withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2203) was withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 2226

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I want to go on record today in support 
of the amendment to the Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Resolution offered by 
the Ranking Member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, Senator 
Rockefeller.
  Mr. President, since the VA was founded, we have fought a World War, 
a Cold War and a Gulf War. From the World Wars to Korea, Vietnam to the 
Persian Gulf, each conflict produced a new generation of veterans with 
unique needs.
  The particular needs may vary somewhat for veterans of different 
eras, but one thing should never change - the commitment that we make 
to our veterans.
  Our veterans entered into a covenant with this nation when they 
agreed to risk their lives for our freedom.
  We must ensure that promises made must be promises kept. Our veterans 
must receive quality medical care, effective services and timely 
processing of benefits.
  I have fought for many years, and continue to fight, to ensure that 
our veterans receive the medical care and benefits that they have 
earned.
  Mr. President, our veterans didn't waiver when they put their lives 
on the line. When they were fighting to defend our liberty, risking 
death to ensure that we could sleep easy at night, they didn't waiver.
  Mr. President, we should not waiver on our veterans. The VA General 
Counsel issued a ruling in 1997 that veterans who develop illnesses 
linked to nicotine dependence developed while in service were entitled 
to compensation benefits.
  The Department of Veterans Affairs, beginning in Fiscal Year 1998, is 
due to begin paying those benefits. There is now a proposal before us 
to eliminate the VA's obligation to pay those benefits.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that by eliminating the 
benefits, the government would save $10 billion.
  Well, apparently that money was too attractive to resist, and is 
included in the Budget Resolution to offset ISTEA spending.
  Mr. President, let me be clear. I support the much needed money that 
is going to provide critical infrastructure work throughout the 
country. And like many Senators, I am pleased to see federal support of 
transportation spending in my home state of Maryland.
  But Mr. President, our benefits for our veterans should not be traded 
and bartered. The funds that are due for our veterans must be 
protected.
  It is wrong to take money that is targeted for the benefits that our 
veterans have earned and use it for anything else - no matter how noble 
it may be.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the Rockefeller 
amendment and prevent the raiding of these veterans benefits.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from New 
Mexico, the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, for the 
budget resolution that he has brought to the Senate floor. It is not 
exactly as I would have written it--and my hope is that we will be able 
to make some improvements during the course of debate over the next few 
days--but I believe it is generally on the right track and compares 
favorably to the alternative budget submitted by President Clinton.
  First and foremost, the Senate budget resolution would balance the 
unified budget and keep it in balance during each of the next five 
years. We will even run a small surplus.
  By comparison, President Clinton's budget appears to throw fiscal 
discipline out the window with proposals to spend billions of dollars 
on new government programs. According to the Congressional Budget 
Office, the Clinton budget would take us back into deficit as early as 
the year 2000.
  Second, the Senate budget would adhere to the spending limits that 
both Congress and the President agreed to just last year. The Clinton 
plan, by contrast, would bust the spending caps outright--by $12 
billion in FY99, and a total of $68 billion over the next four years. I 
think we ought to keep our word and stick to the spending limits, and 
we do.

[[Page S2964]]

  Third, the Senate budget would reserve the anticipated surplus for 
Social Security. The President said that is what he wanted, too, but he 
then submitted a budget that would spend down the unified budget 
surplus on myriad new government programs. And of course, he is asking 
us to spend every dime of the Social Security surplus on general 
operating expenses of the government.
  Fourth, our budget would set aside any proceeds from a tobacco 
settlement to shore up the Medicare trust fund for our nation's senior 
citizens. The Clinton budget would spend all of the tobacco money on 
other programs.
  And fifth, the Senate budget would accommodate another, albeit small, 
installment of tax relief for hard-working Americans. By comparison, 
President Clinton's budget would raise taxes yet again.
  Mr. President, let me turn for a moment to the portion of the Senate 
budget resolution that deals with education, training, and employment 
programs, since that seems to be what we are hearing about most from 
the other side. Last year's budget agreement made education, training, 
and employment a protected category and called for spending--outlays--
of $61 billion next year. It called for a total of $318.3 billion over 
five years.
  Here is what President Clinton said about the level of education 
spending in the budget agreement when he signed off on it last year. 
These are comments the President made on the South Lawn of the White 
House on July 29, 1997:

       . . . at the heart of this balanced budget [agreement] is 
     the historic investment in education--the most significant 
     increase in education funding in more than 30 years.

  He went on to call it ``the best education budget in a generation and 
the best for future generations.'' The level of spending the President 
was referring to then is exactly what is included in the Senate budget 
resolution that is before us today. It is the exact level.
  What about health research? Over the next five years, spending at the 
National Institutes of Health would increase substantially under the 
Senate budget. We are talking about an 11 percent increase in 1999, on 
top of the seven percent increase provided in 1998. And we would 
provide these additional funds within the overall spending limits, and 
regardless of whether a tobacco settlement is passed later this year.
  By contrast, President Clinton would link increased NIH spending to 
the fate of the tobacco settlement. That means that if there is no 
settlement, there is no increase for the NIH either. I do not think 
that is good enough. We should devote more to health research whether 
or not we are able to achieve a tobacco settlement, and we do that in 
our budget.
  If there is any revenue derived from the tobacco settlement, we say 
that it ought to go into the Medicare trust fund. And that is what this 
budget resolution would do. We all know that Medicare's long-term 
solvency is still tenuous at best. We ought to shore up the system 
before tapping new sources of revenue for a multitude of new government 
programs.
  So these are some of the things I think the Senate does better than 
the alternatives. But, in my opinion, it still does not do enough to 
limit the growth of federal spending. It is true that the committee-
reported budget is within the spending caps that were set last year, 
but those caps are still too high. The caps allow total spending to 
grow from $1.73 trillion next year to $1.95 trillion in 2003. That will 
amount to a nearly 13 percent increase at the end of the five-year 
period.
  And it comes on top of the 25 percent increase in spending that has 
occurred in just the last five years. What does that mean for 
taxpayers?
  The Tax Foundation estimates that the median income family in America 
saw its combined federal, state, and local tax bill climb to 38.2 
percent of income last year--up from 37.3 percent the year before. That 
is more than the average family spends on food, clothing, and shelter 
combined. Put another way, in too many families, one parent is working 
to put food on the table, while the other is working almost full time 
just to pay the bill for the government bureaucracy.

  Here is a different way to measure how heavy the federal tax burden 
is. Consider that federal revenues this year will claim about 19.9 
percent of the nation's income, the Gross Domestic Product. Next year, 
that portion would climb to 20.1 percent, according to the 
administration's projections. That would be higher than any year since 
1945. It would be only the third year in our nation's entire history 
that revenues have exceeded 20 percent of national income--and the 
first two times, our economy tipped into recession.
  So the question we need to ask is whether a balanced budget is the 
only goal, even if it means we achieve balance at a level where taxes 
and spending are too high? Or is the real goal of a balanced budget to 
limit government's size and give people more choices and more control 
over their lives?
  For me, there is not great achievement in balancing the budget if it 
means that hard-working families continue to be overtaxed. There is no 
great achievement in a balanced budget if the government continues to 
grow, even as it balances its books. If it is doing that, it is 
continuing to take choice and freedom away from its citizens. A 
balanced budget is really the means of right-sizing the government so 
that it is more respectful of hard-working taxpayers' earnings and 
their desire to support their own families.
  With that in mind, I believe we have got to do much better in 
providing tax relief. Currently, this budget calls for tax relief 
amounting to $30 billion over the next five years. Although that may 
initially sound like a lot, let me put it into perspective.
  The federal government expects to collect nearly $9.3 trillion--that 
is, $9.3 trillion--over the next five years. So a tax cut of $30 
billion really amounts to just about 0.3 percent. It is too little. We 
must find a way to do more. And the way to do more within the confines 
of a balanced budget is to reduce non-priority spending and limit 
spending growth.
  At the very least, if we cannot provide more tax relief, we should at 
least be able to agree that taxes are high enough and should go no 
higher. I intend to offer an amendment to express the sense of the 
Senate that it should be harder to raise taxes--at least as hard to 
raise taxes as it is to cut them.
  Recall that President Clinton's record-setting tax increase in 1993 
failed to win support from even a simple majority of elected Senators--
Vice President Gore's vote in favor broke a 50 to 50 tie. By contrast, 
it would have taken a supermajority vote to provide tax relief two 
years later; President Clinton vetoed our tax-relief bill, and it would 
have required a two-thirds vote--67 votes in the Senate--to overcome 
the President's resistance and provide tax relief. That is wrong. A 
supermajority vote to raise taxes would ensure that future tax 
increases, if they are needed, are approved with broad bipartisan 
support in Congress and around the country.
  Mr. President, I again want to commend the chairman of the Budget 
Committee for his work on this measure. It is a good proposal, and I 
think we have an opportunity during the next few days to make it even 
better.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time remains on the budget 
resolution with the completion of work?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico has 4 hours 58 
minutes, and the Senator from New Jersey has 4 hours 58 minutes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, while we have a minute, I must once 
again apologize to the pages, who work so hard, for keeping them out of 
school tomorrow by working them past 10 o'clock. I am sorry, really.
  Mr. DOMENICI. They seem very happy to be excused today.
  We will keep you slightly later tonight.
  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.

                          ____________________