[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 47 (Wednesday, March 24, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3162-S3180]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the concurrent 
resolution.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today we begin our annual pilgrimage 
to establishing a budget for the next fiscal year. The first year of 
the new millennium is almost upon us, and we are moving at a fairly 
rapid pace to get this budget into place, as contrasted to some of the 
experiences we have had in the past. I commend our chairman, Senator 
Domenici, for his lending the urgency that he has to getting this job 
underway.
  Lest it be misunderstood, Mr. President, that does not mean I agree 
with everything that we have come up with. But we are moving the ball, 
as they say, and we will have a chance to amend or debate the budget 
resolution as it passed the Budget Committee.
  As we begin our work on a budget for a new century and a new era in 
our Nation's economic history, we do it with the knowledge and the 
satisfaction that at long last, America has put its fiscal house in 
order.
  At the same time, we still face serious long-term questions. The key 
question facing Congress is whether we meet those challenges and 
prepare for the future, or whether we will yield to short-term 
temptation at tomorrow's expense.
  Democrats are committed to focusing on the future. Our top priority 
is to save Medicare and save Social Security for the long term by 
reducing our debt and increasing national savings. We also want to 
provide targeted tax relief for those who need it most, and that is the 
average middle-class family in America. We want to invest in education 
and other priorities.
  Our friends, the Republicans, have a different view. Their plan 
focuses on tax breaks, largely for the wealthy. These tax breaks, whose 
costs would increase dramatically in the future, would absorb resources 
that are needed to preserve and to save Medicare.
  That, when you get right down to it, is really the main issue before 
the Senate: Should we provide tax cuts, many of which will benefit the 
wealthy, or use that money to save Medicare? It is as simple as that.
  Of course, there is a lot more to the budget resolution before us, so 
let me take some time to explain why I, like every other Democratic 
member of the Budget Committee, strongly opposed this resolution. There 
are four primary reasons.
  First, as I have suggested, it fails to guarantee a single extra 
dollar for Medicare. Instead, it diverts the funds needed for Medicare 
to pay for tax cuts that, again, benefit the wealthy fairly generously.
  Second, it does nothing to extend the solvency of the Social Security 
trust fund. In fact, it could block President Clinton's proposed 
transfer of surplus funds to help extend solvency.
  Third, I think it is fiscally dangerous. The resolution proposes tax 
cuts that begin small but that explode in the future. Some are around 
$13 billion in the first year the budget goes into place, up to $180 
billion--$177 billion--expected in the tenth year, just when the baby 
boomers are beginning to retire.

  And fourth, it proposes extreme and unrealistic cuts in domestic 
programs. These could devastate public services if

[[Page S3163]]

enacted. More likely, Congress, in my view, is going to be unable to 
pass appropriations bills, and we will face a crisis at the end of this 
year that could lead to a complete Government shutdown.
  I want to address each of these problems in turn, Mr. President.
  Medicare's hospital insurance trust fund is now expected to become 
insolvent in the year 2008. It is critical that we address this problem 
and we do it soon. We need to modernize and reform the program to make 
it function more efficiently, but it is clear that also we will need 
additional resources.
  As part of an overall solution, President Clinton proposed allocating 
15 percent of projected unified budget surpluses for Medicare. This 
would extend the solvency of the trust fund for another 12 years, to 
2020. Unfortunately, the budget resolution rejects that proposal. 
Instead of using projected surpluses for Medicare, it uses almost all 
of them for tax cuts. The budget resolution does not specify the 
details of the tax cuts because they will be drafted later in the 
Finance Committee. However, the chairman of the Finance Committee, 
Senator Roth, has said recently that he wants to provide a 10-percent 
cut in tax rates.
  Under that proposal, the top 1 percent of Americans with incomes over 
$300,000, and average incomes of more than $800,000, would get a tax 
cut of more than $20,000. And those in the bottom 60 percent, incomes 
under $38,000, would wind up with $99, less than 100 bucks.
  Other major GOP proposals for tax cuts, which involve estate taxes 
and capital gains taxes, are similarly regressive and unfair. Giving 
away disproportionate tax breaks to the wealthy would be bad enough, 
but the GOP tax breaks would come at the direct expense of Medicare, 
and that is wrong.
  Under the Republican plan, not one penny of projected surpluses is 
guaranteed for Medicare. The resolution does reserve about $100 billion 
for unspecified uses over 10 years. But that is far less than the $350 
billion the President wants for Medicare over 10 years. More 
importantly, none of the $100 billion is actually reserved for 
Medicare.
  In fact, the chairman indicated that this amount may be used for 
unexpected emergencies or contingencies, and those alone could easily 
use up all this money. Emergency spending averages $9 billion a year, 
more than the resolution's annual reserve for each of the next 5 years. 
Even over 10 years, we can expect to consume at least 90 percent of 
this projected reserve to respond to emergencies.
  Mr. President, the Republican refusal to provide additional resources 
for Medicare would have a direct impact on the millions of Americans 
who will depend on Medicare for their health services in the future. 
The resolution almost certainly would mean higher health care costs, 
higher copayments for the individuals, their share of the bill, higher 
deductibles--that means it does not kick in until the levels of costs 
directly to the individual have risen--and potentially lower quality 
health care services, and probably fewer hospitals, all because the 
majority insists on providing huge tax breaks for wealthier Americans.
  Beyond Medicare, the second major problem with the Republican 
resolution is that it does nothing to extend the solvency of the Social 
Security trust fund. Currently, Social Security is projected to become 
insolvent by the year 2032. President Clinton is determined to extend 
the solvency until 2075 and has proposed specific policies to get us to 
the year 2055, as certified by Social Security actuaries.

  The Republicans have been critical of the President's proposals to 
invest some of the Social Security funds in the private market and to 
transfer debt held by the public to the trust fund. Unfortunately, they 
propose nothing to increase the resources available to Social Security. 
In fact, their resolution is specifically designed to block the 
President's proposed transfer of surplus funds for Social Security.
  The bottom line, when it comes to Social Security, is clear. 
President Clinton's budget extends solvency through the year 2055. The 
Republican plan does not add a single day of security.
  The third major problem with the resolution is that it is fiscally 
risky. The resolution calls only for small tax cuts in the first year 
or two. But the cost of those tax cuts explode in the future. And by 
2009, as I said earlier, when the baby boomers will begin retiring, the 
tax cuts will drain the Treasury of more than $180 billion in that 
year. That is not fiscal responsibility.
  The final problem with the Republican plan is that it includes 
extreme cuts in programs for Americans here at home. Total nondefense 
discretionary programs--to be absolutely clear, the discretionary 
programs include defense and nondefense--total nondefense discretionary 
programs would be cut in the first year from $266 billion in the 
current year, not including emergency spending, to $246 billion in the 
year 2000.
  One does not have to be a mathematician to recognize that is a 
significant change--from $266 billion to $246 billion in 1 year. 
Arithmetically, it looks like a 7.5-percent cut--and that does not 
sound like a lot--but the real cut in most programs would be much 
deeper. And I assure you that 7.5-percent cut, at a minimum, is a very 
significant, painful exercise for those who are depending on some of 
our Government programs. And I am not talking about wasteful programs; 
I am talking about fundamental programs like WIC and border guards and 
FBI agents and DEA agents.
  Keep in mind, the resolution claims to increase or maintain funding 
for a handful of favored programs, like new courthouses, TEA 21, our 
transportation program, for the next 6 years, the census, National 
Institutes of Health, and some crime and education programs. Those are 
the protected programs.
  That leaves the other unprotected programs facing cuts of about 11 
percent--everything from environmental protection to the national 
parks, the FAA, the Coast Guard, the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service Border Patrol, FBI, NASA, job training, and Head Start. These 
are successful and important programs.
  When we say that these cuts are going to be 11 percent in the first 
year, that is being pretty conservative, because we are ignoring the 
fact that the cuts increase significantly in the future to 27 percent 
in the year 2004, a 27-percent cut for the American people.
  Just to put the picture straight, imagine a 27-percent cut in wages, 
a 27-percent cut in spending power. It would be an awful tragedy for 
most families.
  Second, the 11-percent figure that we talked about in the first year 
represents a cut from 1999 levels. To make it clear, our fiscal year 
ends September 30 for 1999; and on October 1 we kick in with the budget 
for the year 2000. That does not anticipate any inflation impact.

  Thirdly, there is another problem with the Republican budget. It 
significantly underestimates the outlays that would flow from its 
present levels of defense appropriations. If those outlays are 
estimated to be consistent with historical levels, the cuts in 
nondefense discretionary outlays would be as high as 21 percent in the 
first year.
  I know that we are talking about a lot of different changes in the 
percentages. But it looks like the minimum could be 11 percent, and we 
could be looking at a figure as high as 27 percent in the nondefense 
discretionary programs.
  Mr. President, I am going to give our Republican friends, the 
majority, the benefit of the doubt. I am going to, for the moment, not 
talk about the deeper cuts in the outyears. I am going to leave out, 
ignore, the effects of inflation. And I am not even going to consider 
this dramatic underestimate of defense outlays. I am going to start 
with this very conservative figure of 11 percent and consider what a 
cut of this magnitude would mean for domestic programs next year. Next 
year, again, starts October 1.
  Here are a few examples, based on administration estimates:
  That we would lose 2,700 FBI agents. I ask you, is this a time when 
it seems appropriate to be cutting back on FBI agents? When terrorism 
in this country is a real threat? When we are trying to stop crimes? We 
are adding crimes to the list of crimes that are going to be tried in 
Federal courts. So 2,700 FBI agents.
  Thirteen hundred and fifty Border Patrol agents. We have heard from

[[Page S3164]]

many of our colleagues, Republican and Democrat, who live in border 
States and talk about the problems they have from California, through 
New Mexico, through Arizona, Texas, about those who illegally cross the 
border, pleading for more help, pleading for an opportunity to contain 
this illegal immigration flow. We are talking about reducing Border 
Patrol agents to the tune of 1,350? How do our friends who represent 
those border States feel about this?
  Drug agents: 780 DEA drug enforcement agents would be lost. Now, if 
there is a more distracting problem in our society than drugs, I don't 
know what it is. The overrunning of our young people by drug influences 
is something that we can't tolerate, that we search for solutions to, 
at our wit's end.
  One thing we know: While having enough drug enforcement agents alone 
doesn't solve the problem, take them away and we will see what happens 
to the flow of illegal drugs into this country.
  Ninety thousand, two hundred fewer workers, dislocated as a result of 
industry shifts, plant closings, et cetera, would receive training, job 
search assistance, and support services--90,000 people would be left 
without the training necessary to move to different job situations if 
their job is lost.
  Thirty-four thousand low-income children would be without child care 
assistance.
  Over 1.2 million low-income women, infants, and children would lose 
nutrition assistance every month. That program is commonly known as the 
WIC Program. It is a very effective program. In a country like ours, 
with the bounty that we have from lots of natural resources, industry 
progress, people who are skillful, intelligent, who are hard working, 
lots of people making money--we talk today about the billionaire class 
as we used to hear 40 years ago about the millionaire class--and we 
want to permit 1.2 million low-income women, infants, and children who 
need the nutritional assistance that this program offers to lose it? I 
will not stand by and let that happen.

  FAA operations: Our aviation industry is booming. People cannot get 
seats in lots of situations. What do we worry about? We have lots of 
delays, we have concerns about safety and security and the lack of 
critical modernization technologies. FAA operations would be cut by 
almost $700 million. If we think the delays are bad now, hold on to 
your seat, because they are going to get worse.
  Safety: We will focus on safety to make sure things are maintained, 
but we also want to protect ourselves against possible terrorist 
attacks, keeping people off the airplanes to make us more secure.
  On the environment, roughly 21 Superfund toxic waste sites would not 
be cleaned up as a result of these cuts. They needlessly jeopardize 
public health.
  Up to 100,000 children would lose the opportunity to benefit from 
Head Start. Head Start is an early preschool program that gives 
children who are typically from a disadvantaged situation a chance to 
understand the learning process, to get incentives to learn, to 
understand that learning is fun, that knowledge is beneficial. Take 
away that from 100,000 children? I don't know how we can do it. I don't 
know how, with a clear conscience, we can say, ``Go ahead, listen, too 
bad, take your chances.'' We know who pays the price. All of us pay the 
price. It is only a matter of when. It is much cheaper to give these 
kids a head start than to later deal with those who might turn to crime 
or drugs as a way to work their way up the social and economic ladder.
  We would eliminate 73,000 training and summer job opportunities for 
young people.
  As I earlier said, these are conservative figures, yet these types of 
cuts are clearly painful. In my view, they are dangerous. 
Unfortunately, under this resolution, the problem gets dramatically 
worse in later years. By the year 2004, the nondefense reductions grow 
to about 27 percent. Again, that doesn't include the effects of 
inflation nor any underestimation of defense outlays which loom large 
in front of us now. We have to wonder whether the Republicans are 
serious about cutting domestic programs by 27 percent. It is hard to 
believe, especially when there are virtually no details provided about 
where those cuts would fall.
  Some Republicans have argued that these cuts are required because of 
the discretionary spending caps which remain in effect through the year 
2002. That is not true. Much of the program for domestic programs is 
created because the resolution increases military spending by $18.2 
billion over last year's level. Since all discretionary spending is now 
under a single cap--that is, defense and nondefense--that extra money 
must come directly from domestic programs.
  President Clinton has also made it clear that we should increase 
funding for high-priority discretionary programs such as education and 
the military once we save Social Security. By contrast, the Republican 
plan establishes unrealistically low discretionary spending levels that 
would apply, regardless of whether we approve Social Security reform 
legislation.
  Cutting domestic programs by 27 percent in 2004 is not realistic. 
When it comes to cutting specific programs, Congress almost certainly 
will not follow through. The votes won't be there to do it.
  In other words, this budget resolution is a roadmap to gridlock. The 
results could be disastrous. If we can't pass appropriations bills, we 
face the prospect of yet another Government shutdown. Nobody wants 
that, of course, but it could happen.
  Why, then, are we considering a budget resolution that even some 
Republicans admit can't be enacted into law? The answer is simple: They 
are desperate to claim that they are for tax cuts. They just don't have 
a clue on how to pay for them. They don't want to guarantee Medicare a 
single new dollar, but they are still not even close to identifying 
sufficient offsetting savings to pay for their tax cuts.
  We are left with a budget that deals with fantasy, a budget that 
everybody knows isn't going to be worth the paper it is written on. In 
the end, there is only one way out. The majority party, the 
Republicans, have to get real. They can't continue to insist on huge 
tax cuts if they are not willing to pay for them.
  So, in sum, Mr. President, let me quickly recount the four reasons 
why I oppose this budget. I do it with respect for the chairman. We 
worked hard together, but we just could not agree on what a budget 
would look like.
  First, it doesn't guarantee a single additional penny for Medicare. 
Instead, it takes money needed for Medicare and uses it for tax cuts 
that will benefit the wealthy.
  Second, it does nothing for Social Security. In fact, it doesn't 
extend Social Security's solvency by a single day.
  Third, it is fiscally risky. It calls for huge tax cuts whose costs 
explode in the future, just when the baby boomers will be retiring.
  Finally, its cuts in domestic programs are extreme. If they were ever 
enacted, they would seriously disrupt important and essential public 
services. But, more likely, Congress will never really approve them and 
we will again be facing a disastrous threat of a Government shutdown.
  For all of these reasons, Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed by 
this budget resolution. I hope that we are going to be able to work 
together and make what I consider badly needed improvements. We have 35 
hours in which to determine what the outcome of our budget discussions 
are going to be like, what the result is going to be. I hope that we 
will be able to strike a balance that can get us a budget that can pass 
both Houses, which can also be approved by the President.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. 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. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President I rise today to talk about the great 
progress we have made reducing our federal deficits. I am proud to have 
participated in and voted for three budget acts--in 1990, 1993, and 
1997--which have radically altered the fiscal condition of the Federal 
government and the debate about how the public's hard-earned tax 
dollars should be spent.

[[Page S3165]]

  When I arrived in the Senate 10 years ago, we had a deficit of $205.2 
billion. We were awash in a sea of red ink. Budgeteers were predicting 
deficits as far as the eye could see. In fact, since 1989, our 
publicly-held debt has increased from $2 trillion to $3.7 trillion. 
Hundreds of billions of dollars of borrowing was needed every year to 
fund the Federal budget. This borrowing had two effects: it kept 
interest rates for all public borrowing higher than necessary and it 
caused the net interest costs of the U.S. government to rise as a share 
of total Federal spending.
  After the enactment of these three budget acts--particularly the 1993 
and 1997 budget acts--and on account of impressive gains in private 
sector productivity and growth, we were able to reverse the deficit 
trend. Deficits have continued to shrink since 1994--and we were able 
to celebrate our first unified budget surplus (counting Social 
Security) of $70 billion last year. I am hopeful that the Congressional 
Budget Office's August re-estimate will allow this Congress to 
celebrate its first real budget surplus since 1960.
  Deficits are yesterday's problem. Today, budgeteers are telling us to 
expect budget surpluses as far as the eye can see. I am proud to say 
that we are able to celebrate the fruits of our fiscal restraint--not 
because we had to abide by an inflexible constitutional amendment--but 
because we had the sheer will and political courage to put ourselves on 
a spending diet. Americans should feel good about that. And my 
colleagues who took the tough votes on fiscal restraint should also 
feel good about the budget surpluses we are now enjoying.
  Through our progress on controlling spending, we have also made some 
progress on entitlement and net interest expenditures. Back in 1994, I 
co-chaired the National Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform. In 
its final report, the Commission predicted that ``without changes to 
programs or increased taxes, entitlements and interest on the national 
debt are projected to consume all federal revenues by 2012. In 2030, 
entitlement spending alone will exceed all Federal receipts.'' The 
fiscal restraint that we have displayed in the succeeding 5 years has 
changed the short-term picture of entitlement and interest expenditures 
dramatically.

  Today, about 53% of our Federal budget is spent on mandatory programs 
like Social Security and Medicare; 34% of our budget is dedicated to 
discretionary spending (like NASA, NIH, roads and bridges, and the 
armed forces); and 13% of the budget is spent on interest on our 
national debt. Depending upon whose numbers you look at--the Republican 
Budget Resolution, the President's budget, or the CBO projections--our 
fiscal discipline will allow us to pay down our publicly-held debt and 
reduce our net interest costs. These interest payments will continue to 
decline as a percentage of our total spending--from about 13% today to 
somewhere between 3 and 5 percent by 2009. Although discretionary 
spending will continue to decline as a percentage of total spending--
this decline will occur more slowly than previously predicted. Over the 
next decade, discretionary expenditures will decline from about a third 
of total expenditures to about a fourth of total expenditures by 2009. 
And although mandatory spending will continue to rise as a percentage 
of total expenditures--from 53% today to 70% of spending by 2009--it 
will grow at a slower rate than we had previously predicted.
  The strong growth in our economy and the subsequent strong growth in 
the taxable wage base has increased the solvency of our Medicare HI and 
Social Security OASDI Trust Funds. That same report from the Bipartisan 
Commission on Tax and Entitlement Reform predicted back in 1994 that 
with no changes, the HI Fund would be insolvent in 2001. But the latest 
statistics show that the HI Fund will be solvent until somewhere in the 
year 2010. Our 1994 report also noted that the Social Security would 
become solvent in 2029. In 1998, the Trustees of the Social Security 
Trust Funds announced that our strong growth would extend the solvency 
of the OASDI Trust Funds to 2032--and I have reason to believe that the 
short-term solvency of the Trust Funds will be extended even further 
after the Trustees release their 1999 report next week.
  While we should pat ourselves on the back for our tough votes in 
1990, 1993, and 1997, we must remember that our agenda remains 
unfinished. Today, I want to challenge the Senate to start tackling the 
last piece of unfinished business. I am, of course, referring to the 
biggest political problem facing our generation of legislators: how do 
we work together in a bipartisan manner to modernize, reform, and 
improve the Medicare and Social Security programs for our children and 
grandchildren? Our demonstrated fiscal responsibility has bought us 
some time--and some breathing room--to think about how we want to 
reform our safety net programs, restore solvency to our entitlement 
Trust Funds, and reduce the out-year proportions of the budget which 
finance our entitlement programs.

  Although we've slowed the growth in our entitlement programs, it must 
not go unnoticed that this year we will spend $20 billion more in 
Medicare and Social Security benefits than last year--and next year we 
will spend $30 billion more than this year. That $30 billion increase 
in Medicare and Social Security benefits is more than our total 
combined expenditures on the State, Justice, and Commerce Departments 
during 1999. The additional money we will spend each year on Social 
Security and Medicare benefits will only begin to increase as the first 
Baby Boomers start retiring during the next decade.
  The President's own budget outlines for us the troubling long-run 
budget projections for the Social Security and Medicare programs. Right 
now, we spend the equivalent of 4.5% of GDP on Social Security benefits 
and about 3.6% of GDP on Medicare and Medicaid. By the year 2050, we 
will be spending about 7.2% of GDP on Social Security benefits and 9.7% 
of GDP on Medicare and Medicaid benefits. This is a dramatic increase 
in entitlement expenditures--a doubling from 8.1% of GDP today to 16.9% 
of GDP in 2050. My Nebraska constituents need to know that the more we 
spend on entitlements, the fewer tax dollars will be available for the 
education and training of our children, or the research and development 
of new medicinal drugs, or space exploration. The analytical tables in 
the President's budget show that discretionary expenditures will 
continue to decline from about 7.6% of GDP today, to about 3.6% of GDP 
in 2075.
  I want to challenge my colleagues to seize upon the opportunity to 
modernize, reform, and improve Medicare and Social Security during this 
era of budget surpluses. We need to think about helping people become 
less dependent on the government for their retirement security. For 
example, I support the idea of allowing individuals to have a payroll 
tax cut of 2 percentage points, which they could invest in individual 
accounts. But these individual accounts are not the end in itself--but 
the means to an end. The means to a more independent retirement--a 
retirement that involves the ownership of wealth and the creation of an 
asset that can be passed on to heirs. We need to decrease the demand of 
future retirees on the government by making changes to Social Security 
that reduce costs--but also provide retirement security.

  Efforts to reduce the costs of the program are made harder by changes 
to the Social Security program enacted back in 1983. Some of my 
colleagues--particularly Senator Moynihan--may remember that back in 
1983, Congress agreed to ``pre-fund'' the Social Security benefits of 
the Baby Boom generation by allowing the program to take in more income 
than it needed to pay the benefits of current beneficiaries. This 
excess payroll tax money was supposed to flow into a Social Security 
Trust Fund. As we all know, this money was borrowed from the Trust Fund 
throughout most of the Reagan, Bush and Clinton years to finance the 
general operations of government. When Treasury starts paying back the 
money it borrowed from the Trust Fund in 2013, it will pay these IOUs 
with general revenues--meaning individual and corporate income tax 
dollars.
  Most of my constituents are probably not aware that these changes in 
1983 will give beneficiaries from the Baby Boom generation a claim on 
$6.85 trillion of income tax revenues--in addition to the payroll tax 
claim they already have on tomorrow's workers. The

[[Page S3166]]

President is proposing to increase the Baby Boomers' claim on income 
tax dollars to over $30 trillion. I do not support this change--I 
believe that we have an obligation to make structural reforms to the 
program within the current payroll tax structure. I applaud many of my 
Democratic colleagues who have taken a courageous step in opposing this 
misguided effort to ``save'' Social Security through additional income 
tax dollars. But I want to remind my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle that simply setting aside the surplus for Social Security or 
Medicare reform is not a reform plan--it is a debt reduction plan.
  I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to have an 
honest and open debate about the way we want to finance and reform the 
Social Security program. I believe that Congress and the President can 
and should work together to achieve real structural reforms in the 
program--and do so in a way that helps low-income Americans and that 
shares costs across all generations.
  In addition, I would argue that we need to modernize the Medicare 
program to expand choice, increase competition, and include 
prescription drugs. As those of us who served on the National 
Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare know through painful 
experience, Medicare poses an even more difficult problem than Social 
Security reform. By providing health care coverage, it provides a 
second essential element of retirement security for older Americans, as 
well as serving as an important safety net for disabled Americans who 
can no longer work. Medicare spending is unpredictable and, to a 
certain extent, uncontrollable--spending growth is largely driven by 
the amount of health services that beneficiaries use, technological 
developments in medicine, and--particularly in the future--enrollment 
growth.
  And to complicate matters further, the public is not yet ready to 
undertake a significant change to the Medicare program. They know how 
valuable the current program is to themselves, their parents and 
grandparents. They want to be sure that they have the same coverage, or 
better, when they retire. And they don't see the need to make hard 
decisions about spending and benefits.
  We need to look at these difficult dynamics and make the difficult 
choices that are necessary to keep the Medicare program solvent while 
ensuring that we have the flexibility we need within the Federal budget 
to address other national priorities. Last week, I voted with nine 
other Commissioners to adopt a more competitively-based model for 
financing and administering the Medicare program. I think this type of 
reform will move us in the right direction by helping us control costs, 
and ultimately helping us improve benefits. We can't simply pour new 
general revenues into an un-reformed Medicare program, and wait to deal 
with the larger problems at a later date.
  The surpluses that have appeared, in part due to our fiscal 
discipline, provide us with a unique opportunity to reform our growing 
entitlements burden. The choices involved in achieving Medicare or 
Social Security reform are tough--and may even require some tax 
increases or benefit cuts. The pain of tax increases or benefit cuts 
will be made much less harsh if we use these budget surpluses to help 
reform our Social Security and Medicare programs. I do not believe we 
should use the on-budget surpluses for a debt swap or for a large tax 
cut that will primarily go to high income individuals. We must avoid 
the instant gratification of a large tax cut at the expense of the 
delayed gratification that comes with reforming our entitlement 
programs and reducing the tax burden on future workers.
  I look forward to working with the House, the Senate, and the 
President to complete this unfinished agenda.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, before the distinguished Senator from 
Nebraska, Senator Kerrey, leaves the floor, I want to congratulate him 
on his efforts on behalf of sound fiscal policy and good principles for 
the future and a vision of the future which I believe is an exciting 
one if we will just bear with it and do what we must do.
  It is pretty obvious from the comments he has made here that we ought 
to be able to reform Medicare and make it live and available for many 
decades to come. And we ought to do it this year. There is absolutely 
no reason why we cannot. All we need to know is what the President 
wants to do. The President has not told us what he wants to do. This 
budget resolution contains a very valid program, very live and very 
capable, if the committees can put it together. It doesn't put a plan 
together; it just says what the resources are and how much is 
available. I will go into that in a little more detail in my opening 
remarks, which I will not give now.
  There are two Senators who would like to speak now. I ask, on our 
side, if Senator Helms could proceed and then I see Senator Kennedy 
here. I think he would like to proceed. I do not want to limit him. I 
wish to make my opening remarks after him and then we will try to stir 
up an amendment.
  If others have opening remarks, I hope they will hurry down here, 
because I suggest we are talking about our recess. I want to tell you a 
little bit. What if we have 60 amendments? People will now say we have 
plenty of time; we have all day today, all day tomorrow, which is 
Thursday. We have Friday. But people want to start leaving. They say 
that is 35 hours, 15 each day; that will do it.
  Mr. President, if we have 60 amendments, the vote time and the quorum 
time surrounding them, since they do not count, the vote time does not 
count and quorums do not count, that could be 20 hours on its own; 35 
hours of debate plus 20 hours to vote, that is 55 hours. This would 
mean at least 5 full days, well into Sunday, because we do not actually 
use 15 or 20 hours out of a day. We try to do 8 or 9 or 10. But even if 
you stay late, you do not get in 15 hours.
  So we have to limit our amendments. We are working on that on our 
side. We also, at some point, have to agree to take less time on 
amendments than the 2 hours allowed under the statute.
  With that, I yield whatever time Senator Helms needs and then a 
Democrat can proceed. It will be Senator Kennedy. Then I would like to 
be recognized after Senator Kennedy.
  I yield the floor.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Helms pertaining to the introduction of S. 693 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes.
  First of all, I want to express appreciation to the members of the 
Budget Committee and, in particular, to our ranking minority member, 
Senator Lautenberg, for the work that he and our other colleagues did 
in developing a series of positions in the Budget Committee. I will 
address one of those this morning and refer to another which I hope, 
over the course of the next couple of days, to come back to.
  I think those who are interested in the Nation's priorities, as 
reflected in the Budget Committee, should read the transcript of the 
discussion and debate. I had the opportunity to do so. I think they 
will get a very clear indication, as a result of that review, as to 
exactly what the priorities were for the Democrats in the budget 
consideration, which was the preservation of Social Security and the 
preservation of Medicare.
  During the course of debate and discussion, it becomes quite clear--
and also by the votes--as to those who are strongly committed to that 
program. Over the next several hours, we will have a chance to move 
beyond the rhetoric and into the details of the budget itself. That is 
going to be quite revealing, Mr. President, because we will have a 
clear opportunity to make a judgment at the end of these 3 or 4 days as 
to the very strong position that has been taken by the Democrats in the 
preservation of Social Security and also the strong commitment that we 
have in the preservation of Medicare.
  I know there are those who have said, ``We have a certain amount of 
funds

[[Page S3167]]

that have been allocated within this budget for Medicare; all we are 
waiting for is the President to make some judgment, make some 
recommendation.'' The President has made the most important 
recommendation, and that is to allocate 15 percent of the surplus to 
preserve the Medicare Program through the year 2020, some 12 additional 
years of security for the Medicare Program.
  That will be the longest period of time of solvency for the Medicare 
system since the enactment of Medicare. I will take a few moments later 
on in the day to comment further on this when we talk about the 
particular amendment that I will offer, but we have seen over the 
history of Medicare where there have been interventions for the 
preservation of Medicare to continue it and continue it in a 
financially sound way.
  Now we have heard the President of the United States say we ought to 
allocate the resources that are going to preserve this for another 12 
years and give it the greatest solvency we have had in the history of 
the Medicare Program, and then let's get about trying to put in place 
the kind of reforms that will be sound, taking into consideration the 
various recommendations that have been made by the Medicare Commission, 
a few which make sense and others with which I take serious issue. We 
will have an opportunity to examine those.

  I hope our Republican friends--who virtually have been silent in 
proposing Medicare recommendations, other than to use the 15 percent 
that the President has recommended and allocate it for tax breaks for 
wealthy individuals--I hope that they will, during the time that we are 
out here at least, review with us what their recommendations are, what 
their proposals are, what their solutions are, rather than constantly 
harp on the President. He has taken a giant step forward in the 
allocation of solvency for the Medicare system, and he has also 
indicated, now that the Medicare Commission has reported, that he will 
make future recommendations.
  If we were to accept the recommendations of our Republican friends, 
there will be very little in the till at the end of the day to provide 
protections for our senior citizens. That, I think, is a glaring, 
glaring loophole in this budget proposal, and one which I know the 
ranking member of the committee, Senator Lautenberg, will address with 
an amendment and Senator Conrad with another excellent amendment. And I 
will offer an amendment, along with others, to give focus and attention 
to these issues.
  There will be a very clear indication, hopefully at the end of the 
day, as to what really are the priorities for this body in terms of the 
future of the Medicare system.
  Every budget is a statement of national priority. Every budget is 
really the investment in the future, but the year 2000 budget is 
extremely important, not just because it is the first year of the new 
millennium, but this budget will determine whether the large surplus 
will be used wisely for the benefit of all or squandered on tax 
preferences that disproportionately benefit the few.
  The President, in his program, after the preservation of funding for 
Social Security and Medicare, also targeted tax programs that others 
will address later in the course of this debate. I think those are in 
areas of very special needs--providing assistance to families with the 
disabled, child care, and other areas. We will have a chance to review 
those. They all recognize what is urgent and of great importance, and 
that is the preservation of Social Security, the preservation of 
Medicare, and then the targeted tax cuts.
  This budget will determine whether Medicare will offer the 
protections that are so essential for senior citizens in the years 
ahead. This is the budget that will determine whether we keep medical 
care in Medicare.
  The Republican budget resolution is a thinly veiled assault on 
Medicare and I think an affront to every senior citizen who has earned 
the right to affordable health care through a lifetime of hard work. It 
is a proposal to sacrifice the future of Medicare in order to finance 
the tax cuts for the wealthy.
  Equally as serious is the Republican attempt to privatize Medicare, 
to misuse the current financial problems of Medicare as an excuse to 
turn the program over to the tender mercies of the private insurance 
companies. Of course, there is where the problem started in the 1960s.
  This is the same extreme agenda the Republicans pursued 
unsuccessfully in 1995, 1996, and it was an agenda rejected by 
President Clinton and Democrats in Congress and the American people, 
but now our Republican friends are at it again.

  According to the most recent projections of the Medicare trustees, if 
we do nothing else, keeping Medicare solvent for the next 25 years will 
require benefit cuts of almost 20 percent--massive cuts of hundreds of 
billions of dollars.
  The President's plan makes up most of that shortfall, without any 
benefit cuts, by investing 15 percent of the surplus in Medicare. This 
investment avoids the need for any benefit cuts in Medicare for at 
least the next 21 years. It also gives us the time to develop the 
policies that can reduce the Medicare costs without also reducing the 
health care that the elderly need and deserve.
  But Republicans in Congress have a different agenda for the surplus. 
They want to use it to grant the undeserved tax breaks for the 
wealthiest individuals and corporations in our society regardless of 
what happens to Medicare. Republicans on the Budget Committee had a 
clear opportunity to preserve, protect and improve Medicare. All they 
had to do was adopt the President's proposal for investing the 15 
percent of the surplus in Medicare.
  Instead of protecting Medicare, they use the surplus to pay for 
billions of dollars in new tax breaks. You do not need a degree in 
higher mathematics to understand what is going on here. The Republican 
budget, I believe, is Medicare malpractice.
  Every senior citizen knows and their children and grandchildren know, 
too, that the elderly cannot afford cuts in Medicare. They are already 
stretched to the limit, and sometimes beyond the limit, to purchase the 
health care they need. The out-of-pocket payments by those over 65 now 
is almost the same percent of what it was prior to the time of the 
passage of Medicare. They just cannot afford to have the significant 
and sizable increases that would be assumed if we are not going to 
provide this 15 percent. Because of the gaps in Medicare and the rising 
health care costs, Medicare now covers only 50 percent of the health 
bills of senior citizens.
  On average, senior citizens spend 19 percent of their limited income 
to purchase the health care they need, a larger proportion of what they 
had to pay before Medicare was enacted a generation ago. Many have to 
pay more as a proportion of their income. By 2025, if we do nothing, 
that proportion will have risen to 29 percent--29 percent, Mr. 
President.
  Too often, even with today's Medicare benefits, too many senior 
citizens have to choose between putting food on the table, paying the 
rent, or purchasing the health care they need.
  The typical Medicare beneficiary is a single woman, 76 years old, 
living alone, with an annual income of approximately $10,000. She has 
one or more chronic illnesses. She is a mother and a grandmother. Yet, 
we want to cut her Medicare benefits in order to pay for tax breaks for 
the wealthy.

  These are the women who will be unable to see a doctor, who will go 
without needed prescription drugs or without meals or heat, so that 
wealthy Americans, earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, can 
have additional thousands of dollars a year in tax breaks. This is the 
wrong priority. And America knows it is the wrong priority--even if 
Republicans in Congress do not.
  We all recall that 4 years ago Republicans in Congress also tried to 
slash Medicare to pay for new tax breaks for the wealthy. They tried to 
slash Medicare by $270 billion to pay for $240 billion in tax cuts for 
wealthy individuals and corporations. We all remember. It was not that 
long ago.
  Mr. President, under the GOP proposal, senior citizens would have 
seen their premiums skyrocket an additional $2,400 for elderly couples 
over the budget period. The deductible that senor citizens pay to see a 
physician would have doubled. The Medicare eligibility age would have 
been raised to 67. Protections against extra billing by doctors would 
have been rolled back.

[[Page S3168]]

  I can remember the debates we had on that, Mr. President, where you 
effectively have double billing, where they go on and they take what 
they get from Medicare, and then they send you another bill on top of 
that. We spent a long time to address that particular issue. And now it 
would be reopened again.
  Under the guise of preserving Medicare, Republicans had proposed to 
turn the program over to private insurance companies and force senior 
citizens to give up their family doctors and join HMOs. But President 
Clinton and Democrats in Congress stood firm against these regressive 
proposals, and they were not enacted into law.
  Now the Republicans on the Finance Committee and Ways and Means 
Committee are at it again. They are already drafting new so-called 
reforms for Medicare. No details have been revealed, but the funds 
already earmarked for tax breaks for the wealthy under the Republican 
budget mean there is no alternative to harsh cuts in Medicare.
  As we debate these issues this week, the Republican response is 
predictable. They will deny they have any plans to cut Medicare. They 
will talk about $190 billion additional over the period of time. The 
$190 billion they will say they are giving additional. That is just to 
keep the program going. If you cut any of that, you are providing 
additional kinds of cuts in Medicare. That is what the budget figures 
themselves show.
  Mr. President, they will deny they have any plans to cut Medicare. 
The American people will not be fooled. They know that the President's 
plan will put Medicare on a sound financial footing for the next 2 
decades without the benefit cuts, tax increases, and raising the 
retirement age.
  They also know the Republican plan will take the surplus, intended 
for Medicare, and squander it on the tax breaks. They know that the 
Republican plan for Medicare benefits means benefit cuts for the 
elderly, not the honest protection of our senior citizens.
  This week the Democrats will offer amendments to assure this year's 
budget protects Medicare, not destroys it. Under our proposal, all the 
funds the President has proposed to earmark for Medicare will be placed 
in the Medicare trust fund.
  Our proposal will assure the solvency of Medicare for the next 21 
years without benefit cuts or tax increases or raising the retirement 
age. Republicans will have a chance to vote on whether they are sincere 
about protecting Medicare. The vote on our proposal will test whether 
they care more about senior citizens or tax breaks.
  The Republicans also try to confuse the issue. They will say it is 
wrong to put the surplus into Medicare. I say the workers of this 
country are the ones who earned this surplus. They want to use it to 
protect and preserve Medicare.
  Our Republican friends say that dedicating 15 percent of the surplus 
will not solve Medicare's financial problems beyond 2020. That is true. 
But assuring the solvency of Medicare for the next 21 years is a giant 
accomplishment and a clear statement of our national priorities, and it 
gives us time to develop longer-term programs that will bring down 
Medicare costs while protecting beneficiaries.
  If we fail to dedicate the surplus to Medicare, the only alternative 
is harsh benefit cuts and steep payroll tax increases to make up the 
resources that our Democratic plan provides. The choice is clear. 
Congress must act to preserve the Medicare benefits that seniors depend 
on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Fine.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will give additional time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I see my friend and colleague on the floor, the Senator 
from California. I will come back later in the day.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, thank you for recognizing me.
  I note the presence of Senator Boxer. I have not given any opening 
remarks, and we are trying to line up some amendments.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to wait. Please.
  Mr. DOMENICI. But that will not preclude opening statements if the 
Senator has some.
  Mrs. BOXER. No problem.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am convinced that, for some obvious 
reason, the President and some on the other side of the aisle do not 
want to fix Medicare. I think it might be fair to say they would rather 
have an issue than to fix it. It is not true of everybody, obviously. I 
have heard a number of Senators on both sides saying this is the year 
to reform Medicare. And, clearly, it can be reformed and fixed. There 
is no question about it. We saw that 10 Members out of 17--bipartisan--
came up with a proposal.
  I am hoping that after this budget resolution is completed--everybody 
knows there is plenty of latitude within this budget resolution to 
reform Medicare; there is nothing about this resolution that denies the 
opportunity to reform it, repair it, fix it, for many decades to come--
I am hopeful that perhaps the White House will tell us what their plan 
is. I think some of us, in due course, might like to sit down and talk 
to the President about it. We have all been very, very busy, and 
clearly this issue has, instead of getting the attention it deserves, 
sort of slid by, and here it sits with accusations and insinuations 
instead of reform.
  Having said that, I would like to talk just a little bit before I 
give my remarks about the policy for our Nation for the next 10 years. 
I would like to make sure that everybody understands this is the only 
bill or resolution that, under the law, has a time limit and has a 
limit on how much you can speak on amendments.

  That means that, literally, the time will run out, and the more 
amendments we have, obviously, the more time it is going to take, 
because every vote and every quorum call does not count against this 
statutory timeframe. So if we are not careful and do not try to work 
together, we could be here well into Saturday, which I do not think 
anyone wants. We want to get our work done.
  I have just stated for the Record, so nobody will misunderstand, that 
we have the rest of today and the rest of tomorrow--and then that is 
Thursday night. Many think we want to be finished by that time. With 
the amount of time it takes to vote and the amount of time for debate, 
we could have very little done by tomorrow night and still have 20 
hours left, I guess, or 25, 21. But clearly it puts us a long way from 
finishing.
  I hope amendments will be germane. I intend this year, in a way that 
will challenge the Senate, to raise some issues about germaneness if 
some of the proposals have no impact on the budget and are just here to 
be provocative and to have a vote on something.
  Having said that, Mr. President, fellow Senators, I suggest that the 
United States of America's fiscal policy, economic policy, as far as 
our Nation's jobs and there being an abundance of jobs for our people, 
as far as there being good and even better jobs for our people, if they 
are educated and have some basic skills, when we look at our policy 
today--our fiscal, economic, monetary policy--we are in absolutely 
fantastic condition versus the rest of the industrial world.
  In fact, we read with genuine concern--not enthusiasm but concern--
how a great country like Germany is in the condition they are in. And, 
frankly, it bears talking about for a minute, because the United States 
is, and our economy is, strong and vibrant, because essentially we have 
a probusiness policy in many respects as compared with those who seek 
under other policies to compete in this world.
  We have low taxes compared to Germany. We have many things that 
promote our competitiveness and help our businesses, large and small, 
compete, make money, hire people, pay them better, and pay more taxes.
  We ought to look out and see what is going wrong in the other parts 
of the world where their economies aren't working. It is profoundly 
troublesome to see that the third largest economy in the world, 
Germany, is floundering. Watch what people are saying. They are saying: 
``We are overtaxed. We don't have any freedom with reference to labor 
policies.'' They are saying: ``We have the longest holidays, the 
longest vacations, people retire the

[[Page S3169]]

earliest, they start to work later.'' That great productive country, 
built mostly on the high productivity of their people, is faltering.
  We ought to learn from that. We ought to look at the next decade and 
say, How do we keep this prosperity going? I want to say right upfront, 
regardless of what the White House says about this budget, one way to 
make sure this prosperity machine and our jobs continue into the next 
decade is to recognize that there is a genuine surplus besides the 
Social Security surplus, and we ought to think about how do we use that 
to make sure that America continues with a prosperity machine and 
growth.
  I submit that to put on hold cutting taxes for the American people is 
the wrong way to ensure that growth, prosperity, and the creation of 
jobs. Our opposition, the Democratic Party and the White House, can use 
every bit of language they can muster to talk about us having the wrong 
approach to tax cuts. Nobody knows what the tax cuts are going to be 
under this budget resolution, because the committees of this Congress 
have to make that decision.
  They can get up and talk about tax cuts for the rich all they want, 
but there is room in this budget resolution to fix the marriage tax 
penalty. There is room to fix the research credits that our American 
businesses ought to take. We ought to make it permanent and say they 
are there so you can grow and prosper and make more and more 
breakthroughs. There is allowance there for a capital gains change. 
Yes, there is money there, if it is the will of the Congress, to cut 
marginal rates.
  To say this budget resolution, in that regard, is to cut the taxes of 
the rich is untrue. Unequivocally, we believe when there is a surplus 
that is this big, and an American economy that we want to continue to 
flourish and grow--we have been told there are only three things you 
can do with a surplus for the good of America.
  They are, one, applying the surpluses to the debt to reduce the debt 
held by the public. People such as Alan Greenspan say if you could find 
a way to do that, that is the best way. We have put $1.8 trillion of 
this surplus, every cent of the Social Security surplus, against the 
debt.
  The President bragged about his budget, reducing the debt held by the 
public, and how putting money in trust funds but not spending it and 
waiting to redeem it later with an IOU would reduce the public debt. He 
said it recently again as he summarized an answer to a question. He 
reduces the debt held by the public less than this budget because he 
doesn't put it on the debt. He puts it somewhere where it can be spent. 
As a matter of fact, in the first 5 years of the President's budget, he 
spends more than the whole surplus that was accumulated during that 
period of time, the whole onbudget surplus, that which could be used 
for tax cuts. Because it doesn't necessarily belong to seniors, he 
spends more than the accumulation of that surplus in this budget.
  Now, frankly, there are some who will say the President's budget 
isn't before the Senate. We are going to make sure it is brought before 
us. Let's see if we can vote on it, because the President has been 
claiming things about his budget that are not true. Let me start with 
one.
  There is not one nickel, not one penny, not one dollar, in this 
budget for prescription drugs. As a matter of fact, there are no new 
expenditures for Medicare in his budget because he decided to put the 
surplus away so you couldn't use it for anything else and put it in a 
trust fund that is not spent for Medicare. Two Cabinet members have 
told us there is not a nickel in here to be spent on prescription 
drugs. You wouldn't believe that. That means you have to reform the 
program to get the prescription drugs.
  Mr. President, the Republican budget does a great job with reference 
to Medicare as compared to the President's. We anxiously await a real 
plan. Since I don't think there really is one here, we anxiously await 
his plan. We anxiously await the plan of those on the other side who 
are critical.
  Let's see what their plan is. We increase Medicare spending $200 
billion more than the President over the next decade. He cuts about $20 
billion over the next 10 years, but he would say it is just removing 
payments from hospitals. That is where the money goes for the Medicare 
people of this country: It goes to hospitals, doctors, x ray equipment, 
MRIs, and all the other things. We don't cut that $20 billion; it is 
still in the budget. On top of that, about $100 billion of the surplus 
is left unused--$100 billion--to be used in our budget, if necessary, 
for a Medicare reform package.

  I remind Members that the 10 members of the special committee on 
Medicare, which the President wholeheartedly joined last year in saying 
let's let them tell us how to do it, didn't even use any extra money 
and they covered the poor with prescription drugs through the reform of 
the program. I am not suggesting that the whole thing can be fixed that 
way, but I give you that example, and we left $100 billion there for 
that purpose.
  We can go on. But I will proceed now to just evaluate our budget, 
little by little. First of all, we are beginning to ask the Senate to 
vote also on whether they want to save and apply to the debt 100 
percent of the Social Security surplus. We do that. The reason it is 
important is because the President doesn't do it.
  Now, the President, in the first few years of this, spends Social 
Security money. But he says if you wait 15 years, there will be enough 
of it to make Social Security's trust fund whole. Year by year, he uses 
portions of it until some point out in the future when the amount is 
small and then he leaves it all in the trust fund.
  As I see it, we are going to confront the issue of Medicare here on 
the floor. We are going to be delighted and pleased to tell the senior 
citizens of this country that very major Medicare reform awaits the 
cooperation of the President and that there is ample resources in this 
budget to take care of that.
  I compliment the distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe. She 
encouraged and got passed unanimously with every Democrat supporting it 
this source of money that won't be used for anything else but can be 
used, if desired, to help reform the Medicare.
  Let me quickly tick through what we do that we are proud of. One, the 
budget accounts for every penny of the Social Security trust fund and 
leaves it in the budget unspent to reduce the debt. Later on, we will 
introduce legislation to make it near impossible to spend it.
  We followed the leadership of the President, the minority leader, and 
many others, who said maintain the fiscal discipline established in the 
1997 agreement. The minority leader challenged us: Don't break the 
caps, don't break the agreement we entered into 3 years ago. Stick to 
the caps.

  We did that. Now, watch, as the debate progresses; there will be 
innumerable amendments saying they want more money in domestic 
accounts. Our question will be, if you are going to stick with the 
caps, as recommended by your own leader on the minority side, what are 
you going to cut to make sure you can pay for more than we provided? We 
provided the caps, the exact amount required by law. Incidentally, some 
think a budget resolution is in control of these budget spending 
limits. That statute says if you violate them without changing the law, 
you will cut every program in the Government. It is called a sequester 
to enforce the agreed-upon limits.
  We return to the American taxpayer overpayments they made to the 
Federal Government, not only because they are entitled to it, but they 
should not wait 15 years for a tax cut, as implied or recommended by 
some. We create a non-Social Security surplus of more than $100 
billion, which I have just described. It preserves the Social Security 
surplus balances of $1.8 trillion over the next decade. It is not 
touched in the expenditure or the tax side of this budget because it 
belongs to the Social Security trust fund for use in reform and 
certainly not to spend.
  It is interesting on that score, while I am moving along, that nobody 
is going to vote for the President's budget because, as a matter of 
fact, in the first 5 years he spends $158 billion of the surplus 
belonging to Social Security. After they all vote down here to keep 100 
percent, how are they going to vote for the President's budget when it 
spends it?
  The budget resolution has another challenge in it for us. We do not 
put a

[[Page S3170]]

wall up between the defense expenditures and domestic expenditures 
because things are tight. Senators want the opportunity--and the Budget 
Committee members wanted to preserve the opportunity--to argue over 
defense numbers versus domestic numbers. We will see some amendments 
today that will seek to take money from defense and spend it on 
something else; that is, if the amendments offered in committee are 
offered here. That probably won't pass no matter on what you are going 
to spend the money on the domestic side because we are on the verge of 
a war, and I am quite sure everybody would be frightened to take money 
out of defense for domestic programs at this point. But we will 
probably hear the argument.
  So we have increased spending on national security. And, yes, for 
those who say it is too tight a budget, I repeat, we followed the 
admonition of the minority leader who said, ``Don't break the caps,'' 
and it is a fixed dollar number. We used the number. We divvied it up 
among all the programs of Government. Some don't like the way we 
apportioned it, but I will tell you that we decided to put more in 
education, knowing that it will not go for categorical programs in 
education of the past but will go down to the local level to be spent 
on reform measures, so long as there is accountability as one of the 
qualities.
  We put $3.3 billion more in the first year and $28 billion over the 
next 5 years. That is over and above the $100 billion we would expend 
in the next 5 years. That is far in excess of what the President was 
able to do. Yet, the President said, ``I am bound by the same caps and 
I am following them.'' So we are following them also. We just decided 
other parts of Government could be cut more than he suggested, and we 
put it in priorities like defense and education.

  And, yes, the President speaks of what values do you reflect in the 
budget. I have just expressed them. The taxpayers--we worry about them. 
One of our values is to see that they don't overpay their Government. 
Secondly, we want more for education. We are in an era of reform, and 
we are willing to say let's put more in because it will be helpful to 
reform the educational process. We said the President didn't put in 
enough for veterans. We put in $1.1 billion more for veterans. That is 
our value. How can you take the medical system for veterans and cut it 
and not give it a slight increase, which everybody knows it needs? We 
fully funded all the crime prevention laws, the trust-funded money that 
goes into crime prevention. These are good priorities.
  There will be some who will stand up and say, yes, they are good, but 
you had to reduce foreign aid. Well, so be it. If we are going to all 
live by the same numbers, then let's all talk about priorities. I 
remind everyone, if they want to exceed the targets, those caps, those 
limits on expenditures, clearly they need 60 votes to do it because it 
violates the Budget Act. That is how important it is. It is a major 
hurdle because we wanted fiscal responsibility. I am willing to listen 
to how difficult it will be to live within those limits. I understand 
it is. I don't have a solution right now because I don't see how you 
can report a budget resolution out that violates the budget law of the 
land. I don't see how you can do that. I choose not to do that. The 
committee chose overwhelmingly not to do that.
  I might just suggest, if people are wondering about where the money 
might come from to establish the right priorities and still have to 
reduce other programs, the GAO recently reviewed the budget and they 
have a high-risk series which lists 26 areas in this budget this year--
nearly 40 percent--which have been high risk for 10 years. High risk, 
by definition, is programs that are vulnerable to waste, fraud and 
error. We leave them there. For the most part, we increase them every 
year, and we ask GAO to tell us which are the risky programs that we 
probably won't get our dollar's worth from. Then we do nothing about 
it.
  Second, it is clear that some programs won't grow and will remain at 
the 1999 level and will have to be reduced below a freeze, as the 
President's budget requested. We are going to take some of where he cut 
and reduced. I suggest that the committees and the administration take 
to heart the Government Performance and Results Act, which specifically 
identifies low-performing and inefficient programs. I am sure some 
Senators are hearing for the first time that such lists and assessments 
and evaluations exist.
  This resolution assumes reduced funding for political appointees in 
the administration. It assumes some mandatory savings scored to 
appropriators in the area of the SSI Program and child support and 
enforcement.
  The resolution assumes repeal of the depression era and arcane Davis-
Bacon and Service Contract Act and other administrative savings.
  The resolution assumes that Ginnie Mae will become a private 
operation and its auction creates nearly $2.8 billion in offsets next 
year.
  And, yes, the resolution assumes some of the administration's 
proposed offsets, fees, are assumed for various agencies in the Federal 
Government--FSIS and the President's proposed $200 million broadcasters 
lease fee.
  In the area of mandatory savings. The resolution does not assume any 
of the President's nearly $20 billion reductions in Medicare over the 
next five years. Medicare spending will indeed increase from $195 
billion this year by over $200 billion to a total of $395 billion in 
2009, an annual increase of 7.3 percent.
  And the resolution assumes $6.0 billion in additional resources will 
be allocated to the Agriculture Committee to address the issue of 
depressed incomes in that sector.
  Finally, the resolution assumes that expiring savings provisions in 
2002, that were enacted in the 1997 Balanced Budget agreement, will be 
extended. This applies to all such provisions except expiring Medicare 
savings provisions. Between 2003 and 2009 these provisions would save 
less than $20 billion.
  For revenues the resolution assumes that tax reductions will be 
phased in and over the next five years will return overpayments to the 
American public of nearly $142 billion and $778 billion over the next 
ten years. For 2000, paid for tax cuts of up to $15 billion are 
possible.
  How these tax reductions are carried out will of course be determined 
by the Finance Committee and ultimately the Congress and the President.
  However, I believe elimination or reduction in the marriage penalty 
could easily be accommodated within these levels as well as extension 
of expiring R&D tax credits, self employed health insurance deductions, 
certain education credits and or general reductions in tax rates phased 
in over time.
  Finally, the resolution, being cautious, over a 10 year period, 
projects a non-budget surplus of over $100 billion. This money could be 
needed for unexpected emergencies or contingencies, it also could 
support the cost of funding transition costs for Medicare reform, or if 
nothing else it will continue to further retire debt held by the 
public.
  Two procedural issues need to be noted--a rule change as it relates 
to defining emergencies and a clarification that when there is an on-
budget surplus, those amounts are not subject to pay-go rules.
  Let me close by saying that under this resolution, debt held by the 
public will decline by nearly $463 billion more than under the 
President's budget.
  This is true even if one treats the President's government equity 
purchases as debt reduction.
  Why do we reduce debt more than the President?
  First, the President spends $158 billion of the Social Security 
surplus over the next 5 years. In contrast, the committee reported 
resolution saves the entire Social Security surplus.
  And second, let me remind the Senate of one other thing about the 
President's spending proposal which may surprise many--his spending 
costs more than the resolution's assumed tax reductions. This is true 
over both the 5 year and 10 year period.
  The President's budget spends 35 percent of the Social Security 
surplus over the next five years on programs unrelated to Social 
Security or Medicare.
  The resolution before us today assumes that we return to the American 
taxpayer their overpayments and this sum of money is less smaller than 
the President's spending increases.
  That is why we can save the entire Social Security surplus and why he 
can not.
  That is also why the administration is opposed to the Social Security 
lock

[[Page S3171]]

box idea, because that would stop them from spending the Social 
Security surplus.
  We will have more to say about the President's budget plan later in 
the debate, when we let the full Senate consider whether they want to 
support his budget plan or not.
  For now however, what is before the Senate is S. Con. Res. 20. It is 
a good resolution. It is a reasonable resolution.
  Once again it does four things:
  It protects 100% Social Security surpluses.
  It maintains the fiscal discipline this Senate overwhelmingly 
supported in 1997 and was most recently reaffirmed by the minority 
leader.
  It returns to the American public their tax overpayments.
  And finally, it prudently and cautiously projects on-budget surpluses 
for further debt reduction or for supporting unexpected emergencies, 
and possible transition costs for true Medicare reform like the one 
recently voted on by 11 of the 17 members of the National Commission on 
the future of Medicare.
  It is a good start on budgeting into the next century.
  Mr. President, I will also comment on those from the agricultural 
sectors. We got your letter and your concerns of a bipartisan nature. 
The resolution assumes $6 billion in additional resources to be 
allocated to the Agriculture Committee to address issues of the 
depressed parts of the agricultural community.
  I am going to stop at this time and merely indicate that this debate 
will proceed. Amendments will be forthcoming. I am hopeful that when 
the day ends, we will have a budget resolution similar to this one, and 
let's see how the year evolves as we try to implement it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the chairman. I have an 
understanding that we are going to go from side to side. At this point, 
I yield to the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you so much, Mr. President. I thank the chairman 
and the ranking member, Senator Lautenberg.
  I was so pleased to be a member of the Senate Budget Committee in the 
House. I was on the House Budget Committee for 6 years. To me, the 
Budget Committee is very important, because what we in essence do is 
present a roadmap for the priorities of this country. I think it is key 
to the people, the decisions we make here. How much are we going to 
spend on education? How much are we going to spend on Social Security, 
Medicare? How much are we going to spend on the military? And on and 
on--Border Patrol. Every single item comes under scrutiny in the Budget 
Committee. Although we may not make detailed recommendations, we 
essentially say to the American people--and we have to feel good about 
what we do--this is how we are going to spend the taxpayers' money and 
we hope you will be pleased with it.
  Mr. President, I am not pleased with what we do about Medicare in 
this budget. That is what brings me to my feet today.
  The President took the leadership on this budget when he challenged 
Congress--Members on both sides of the aisle--to save Social Security 
and Medicare and to do something about the low rate of savings in 
America today. So he came forward with a very good suggestion. He said 
set side 62 percent of the surplus for Social Security, set aside 15 
percent of the surplus for Medicare, and set aside 12 percent of the 
surplus for targeted tax cuts, which will help our people increase 
their savings for the future.
  The good news is that both sides of the aisle have agreed on Social 
Security. Both sides in the Senate have agreed to set aside every penny 
of the Social Security surplus every year for Social Security. The bad 
news is that nothing--I say ``nothing''--was done for Medicare by the 
Republicans in this committee. We tried to work with them. Senators 
Lautenberg and Conrad spoke eloquently on the point and offered a 
number of amendments. They will do so again. Yet, on a straight party 
line vote, we were unable to budge our Republican friends.

  I have to say this: Having seen a parent wind up in a very difficult 
position in a nursing home and having seen her be able to hold her head 
up high because she has Social Security and Medicare, they are twin 
pillars of the social safety net. Why do I say this? Because if you ask 
our elderly what they fear, what they fear is getting sick and they 
cannot rely on their Medicare. If their Medicare becomes out of reach 
for them, if it no longer protects them, then they will have to use 
their Social Security to pay for their health care costs, and they will 
wind up in very bad shape.
  So, to me, you can't stand up with a straight face and say you are 
helping seniors in this country, you are helping our people get through 
their golden years, if you do not help Medicare, as well as Social 
Security.
  There are those on the other side who we will hear say, ``Oh, these 
Democrats. All they want to do is throw money at Medicare. They don't 
want to reform it.'' That isn't so. But we do know we need to do both. 
We need to set aside funds from the surplus to get us through these 
years coming for Medicare; also, let's look at the reforms of the 
program.
  As Senator Kennedy said, the proposal we will put before the Senate 
will save Medicare through the year 2020. That is nothing to scoff at. 
Then we have the time to work on the reforms. We need to make sure that 
those reforms, in fact, are good reforms and that ``reform'' does not 
become another word for ``repeal.'' We don't want to repeal Medicare. 
We don't want to change Medicare in such a way that it no longer is 
that peace of mind for our seniors. We want to fix it so that it 
continues to work.
  I hope it will be different on the Senate floor than it was in the 
committee. Shockingly, almost every vote, almost every vote--I will not 
say every amendment, but certainly every vote--to save Medicare was a 
straight party line. We see more and more of it. I see Senator Murray 
on the floor, a member of this committee, who was talking to me about 
how shocked she was that in the markup of the Patients' Bill of Rights 
it was party line all the way. What has become of us?
  These are issues we should work together on. I am sad that we are not 
able to do it. On the other hand, I recognize that there are legitimate 
differences between the parties. It is for the people to judge as to 
who they feel is going to keep Medicare going.
  I want to share a couple of charts with you. It seems to me that what 
we ought to be doing in this budget is securing America's future. In 
the budget we envision, and the kind of amendments we will be offering, 
we want to do a few things. We want to save Social Security. I again 
credit my Republican friends. We have worked together. This is done.
  We also want to strengthen Medicare. Mr. President, it is not done in 
this budget. There isn't a slim dime set aside for Medicare, despite 
the fact that we were talking about last year what we would do with the 
tobacco tax, should it be enacted. Members on the other side of the 
aisle said: If you have extra funds, save Medicare. I don't know what 
happened. We will hear more about that in the debate as it unfolds.
  Also, we should cut taxes to help ordinary Americans save. Those 
kinds of targeted tax cuts, more modest than the ones in the budget 
before us, are the ones we ought to be supporting. So, yes, we support 
tax cuts, but we want them to go to ordinary Americans who need those 
tax cuts. Yes, we want to strengthen Medicare by setting aside 15 
percent of the surplus for Medicare.
  I think it is stunning to look at this budget. This is what this 
budget does with the surplus vis-a-vis Medicare and tax cuts. My 
Republican friends will say, ``Well, we do spend money on Medicare.'' 
Yes, they spend the money. But nothing out of the surplus--nothing to 
address the problem in the future once we have a problem.
  The good news story is that we are living longer. This is good. All 
the work we do around here to increase spending on health research is 
paying off. All the investment we make in the private sector and make 
in high technology is paying off. People are living longer. This is 
good; this isn't something to be sad about. But yet it has to be 
addressed. If we don't address it, we not only hurt the aging 
population, but

[[Page S3172]]

the children of the aging population whose problem it will be when mom 
and pop can no longer afford health insurance--and they may be 
uninsured--or have to dip into their pocket to a great extent when hit 
with a disease.
  Just take a look at this. I ask the question, Is it fair? Is it fair? 
Tax cuts--$1.7 trillion; zero investment in Medicare out of the 
surplus. I don't see how this could be supported. Senators Lautenberg, 
Conrad, Kennedy, and others will be offering us an opportunity to do 
something about this. I hope we will.
  I have a final chart that I want to show.
  So you say to yourself, OK, the Republicans are giving these tax cuts 
out of the surplus; not a dime for Medicare. Who is getting the 
benefit? My friends, I have to tell you, if you earn over $833,000 a 
year, you are going to get a good benefit from this Republican tax plan 
because you are going to get an average of $20,697 back a year.
  In other words, the top 1 percent will average $20,697 a year back in 
their taxes. That is twice as much almost as the minimum wage. And we 
can't get support from the other side of the aisle to raise the minimum 
wage. People who get up and work hard, get dirt under their fingernails 
every day, earn about $11,000 a year. We can't get anyone to raise it 
again.
  But look at this, folks: $20,697 average back to the top 1 percent 
every year, and the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers, that is, whose 
income is below $38,000, get back $99. This is paid for by essentially 
ignoring Medicare. I say to my friends: $99 a year; yes, it is good to 
get that back. But how far does that go when mom and dad call you and 
say, ``My Medicare premiums just went up a huge amount. You have to 
help me; I can't pay the premium''? I say that $99 will be gone pretty 
darned quick.
  So I just don't think it is fair. I respect my friends. They think 
this is good policy. I know they believe it in their hearts. As a 
matter of fact, shockingly--I had an amendment in the committee. Do you 
know what it said? It said that the substantial benefits of the Tax 
Code, of any Tax Code that winds its way through here, should go to the 
first 85 percent of taxpayers rather than the top 15 percent. And to my 
shock, my dear colleagues on the other side would not even let us vote. 
They had a substitute. They did not like it. They supported it last 
year, but they said this year times are different. They do not support 
it now.
  So the reason I love this debate, on the one hand, is there are such 
clear differences in the philosophy of the parties, as evidenced by the 
votes that were taken in the Budget Committee. But I have to say I was 
disappointed. Even an amendment I offered--and I know, again, my 
colleagues will speak on their own amendments--that simply said without 
adding a penny let's make sure we fund afterschool programs out of the 
increase in the education budget, except for one colleague, every 
Republican voted it down. One Republican colleague joined me, but it 
failed on an 11-11 vote. They will not even say that afterschool care 
should be a priority within the education budget, because the 
philosophy is let the local government decide.
  What if the local government decided to spend it to put a shower in 
the principal's office instead of on afterschool? I think there ought 
to be some accountability for the tax dollars we send back. We are not 
saying you have to use it. We are saying if you apply for the funds, 
whether it is for afterschool or more teachers in the classroom--we 
could not even get a vote ``yes'' on that one. So I am proud to be here 
today to stand up for the priorities I started off talking about: 
Saving Social Security--which I give my friends credit for, we do--or 
strengthening Medicare, which they do not do. We are going to offer 
some amendments, so we hope they will do it. And to cut taxes, not for 
the wealthiest Americans, but for ordinary Americans.
  I want to say a word to my colleague, Senator Lautenberg. He and 
Senator Domenici may not agree, but they get along and it is a 
wonderful thing for us to see. Because, as tough as it is to disagree 
on these issues, there is a certain friendship and comity that pervades 
that committee because of their example. I thank them for that. I hope 
my colleague, Senator Lautenberg, will rethink his decision to retire 
because we will miss him too much.
  But the amendments that he will offer symbolize what he is about, 
which is standing up and fighting for the little people, the people who 
need us. Before Medicare, we had old men and women destitute, 
destitute. And my friend, Senator Lautenberg, is an example of the 
American dream when he tells me the story of his mother who ran a 
bakery. She was widowed and she raised her family.
  He served his country. He became a very successful businessman, and 
against his own economic interests, takes positions here that are for 
the good of the people. As he stands up and talks about Medicare, I 
know it is from the heart. I hope we will follow his leadership. I hope 
we will get a bipartisan vote to save Medicare.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am going to yield as much time to 
Senator Gramm as he would like, although I am going to ask him in the 
interest of others to do a little less than the 1 hour he would give to 
his class in economics over there at Texas A&M.
  But I want to read something to the Senate before I yield to him, 
just in response to my good friend, Senator Boxer from California. She 
suggested we would not accept her resolution with reference to what the 
tax cut should be all about. Let me read what the committee adopted 
unanimously. I think it is a pretty good definition of what we ought to 
do with the tax cut:

       It is the sense of the Senate that this concurrent 
     resolution on the budget assumes any reductions in taxes 
     should be structured to benefit working families by providing 
     family tax relief and incentives to stimulate savings, 
     investment, job creation, and economic growth.

  I think those are the kinds of things we all ought to be looking at 
in a tax package as it moves its way through.
  I yield to Senator Gramm.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BURNS). The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I am going to talk mostly about Social 
Security and Medicare, but I want to answer two of the points that our 
dear colleague from California raised. First, she says, Is it fair to 
give a tax cut and to give nothing to Medicare? The Domenici budget 
gives this big tax cut and gives nothing to Medicare. Let me just 
change the question a little. It is not, Is it fair? The question is, 
Is it true? And the answer is no.
  Let me just ask our colleagues to look at page 54 of the report on 
the concurrent budget resolution for the fiscal year 2000. This is the 
budget reported from the Budget Committee. It provides, beginning this 
year, for Medicare, $194.6 billion, and by 2009 that has risen to 
$394.2 billion. So the Domenici budget provides $199 billion of 
additional money for Medicare by the end of the 10-year period.
  Let me just make two points. No. 1, Medicare has never grown by more 
than it grows under the Domenici budget. No. 2, no program has ever 
grown as much as Medicare grows over this 10-year period. There is not 
one cut in one Medicare benefit in the Domenici budget. In fact, the 
President's budget cuts the Medicare Program. The Domenici budget fully 
funds it.
  So we all have a right to our opinions, but we do not have a right to 
our facts.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a retort?
  Mr. GRAMM. I will be happy to yield.
  Mrs. BOXER. What I said clearly is of course there is funding there 
for Medicare. I said: Out of the surplus. There was nothing out of the 
surplus. I was very clear to state of course the committee takes care 
of Medicare under the current condition, but doesn't take anything out 
of the surplus.
  Mr. GRAMM. I thank the Senator for the clarification, but the point 
is every penny of this $199 billion is out of the surplus because, if 
it were not provided, that money would be in the surplus. The point is, 
and I want to be sure nobody is confused, the Domenici budget provides 
full funding for Medicare over the next 10 years. It has not one cut in 
one benefit anywhere for Medicare. In fact, no budget in the history of 
America has provided the funding increase for Medicare that is provided 
in this budget, and no program, except the buildup for a war effort, in 
the history of mankind has ever provided the

[[Page S3173]]

increase we provide for Medicare. So no one should get the impression 
that in any way this budget does not fully fund Medicare. It does.
  Second, and I do not want to get off on this same old debate, 
dragging the same old dead cat across the table, but it is always an 
amazing thing to me that when Democrats talk about tax cuts, they think 
it is always for rich people. When I heard the story, that Senator 
Domenici's mama was out picking lettuce and she started having Senator 
Domenici, and they took her in the house and Senator Domenici was born 
in this house. I don't know why anyone would think Senator Domenici 
does not love working people. I don't know why our Democrat colleagues, 
most of whom are very wealthy people, why they have this monopoly on 
loving poor people and Senator Domenici, the child of an immigrant 
family, somehow he does not love working people.
  Let me tell you what the whole paradox is about. Our colleagues on 
the Democrat side of this body have discovered that we have a 
progressive income tax. Senator Domenici, what that means is that 
American workers in the bottom half of the income scale pay virtually 
no income taxes. And people who are in the higher income brackets pay 
very high levels of income taxes.
  So, for example, if we had an across-the-board tax cut where we 
reduced everybody's taxes by 10 percent, a proposal that was made by 
John F. Kennedy who, last time I looked, was a Democrat--of course he 
believed that rising tides lift all boats. I don't know if Democrats 
still believe that. It was President Kennedy, in 1961, who proposed an 
across-the-board tax cut. ``Let's get America moving again'' was the 
Kennedy slogan.

  When you cut taxes across the board, there are two things that 
everybody ought to understand, because our Democrat colleagues are 
going to go on and on and on about it. No. 1 is, some people do not get 
a tax cut if you cut income taxes across the board. Why? Because they 
don't pay income taxes. Some people don't get Medicare because they are 
not senior citizens. Some people don't get welfare because they are not 
poor. Some people don't get Senate salaries because they don't work for 
the Senate. But tax cuts are for taxpayers. You don't pay taxes, you 
don't get a tax cut.
  Secondly, some people will get a bigger tax cut with an across-the-
board tax cut than others. That shouldn't come as any shock, because 
some people pay more income tax than others. This budget does not make 
this judgment; this budget simply provides money for a tax cut. We will 
decide in the Finance Committee what it is.
  I personally support an across-the-board tax cut. If you want to 
figure out how much you get--it is very simple and couldn't be fairer, 
in my opinion--take the amount you pay, take 10 percent of it, that is 
how much you would save if we had a 10 percent across-the-board tax 
cut. If you don't pay any income taxes, you don't get any tax cut. If 
you pay a little income taxes, you get a little tax cut. If you pay a 
lot of income taxes, you get a lot of tax cuts, but you don't get back 
what you don't pay. Simple formula.
  Let me talk about my two issues.
  The President, 2 years ago, said in the State of the Union Address a 
brilliant line--``Save Social Security first.'' It was a brilliant 
line. Everybody stood up and applauded. We waited a whole year and the 
President never told us how to save Social Security first, last, or 
ever--never had a program. It was simply a bumper sticker, a slogan. 
Then this year the President said, ``Oh, the year has come for us to 
save Social Security.'' He said, ``Don't just save it first; save it 
now.'' We all stood up, standing ovation. We all applauded.
  And we had a big conference down at the White House. One of my 
Democrat colleagues was smart enough not to go. He had already figured 
out that this was a political sham. But I went. I sat through all these 
meetings. I sat in a meeting with the President. We had about 60 
Members of Congress there. He went around the room and asked people 
their opinion, agreed with everybody. Then, when we left, we waited for 
a program.
  Finally, the program came. Let me say, not to mince words but to be 
precise with the English language, it was a total and complete 
political cop-out. It was a political punt. It was a program that 
basically said: We are not going to make any decision other than we are 
going to claim that we are locking all this money away for Social 
Security. I am going to explain how the hoax works.
  The second issue that is a major disappointment in the President's 
budget and the President's proposal is Medicare. I was appointed to the 
Medicare Commission led by Senator Breaux, a Democrat. We put together 
a bipartisan coalition to save Medicare. The President killed the 
Commission. Then he makes a proposal that does not give Medicare a 
dime, not a dime of new resources. It simply reduces debt and gives 
Medicare credit for it in a sort of nebulous IOU that can't be spent 
for 15 years, and can only be spent then if we raise taxes or cut other 
spending to redeem the IOUs.
  I want to talk about Social Security and Medicare the way Bill 
Clinton does it. A lot of my colleagues have racked their brains to try 
to figure out how the President saves Social Security. Let me explain 
it to you. I have a chart here, and I hope people can follow it.
  What I show on the first chart is plotting out over time the Social 
Security surplus, which starts out here at the current level of $137.6 
billion and then it grows over time. That is the amount of money we are 
taking in, in Social Security taxes, that we are not spending on 
benefits, plus the interest we are earning on the IOUs that Social 
Security has from the Federal Government.

  In addition to the Social Security surplus, we have a general budget 
surplus from the rest of government that is shown here as B. The total 
budget surplus, counting the Social Security surplus and the non-Social 
Security surplus, is the combination of the two I have shown in blue 
here.
  Here is what the President does. The President takes the Social 
Security surplus, which this year is $137.6 billion. They have a guy 
over in the Treasury who puts into a computer the number $137.6 
billion, and out in West Virginia there is this little Federal office 
with a steel filing cabinet. They have a printout machine, and this 
prints out this IOU for $137.6 billion. I have seen them on 
television--at least a man and a woman working there. They may have 
10,000 people, but I have seen only 2. The guy normally does it. He 
goes up and he takes it off the machine, tears it off, takes the 
perforated edges off, and takes the carbon copy off. Then he puts it in 
that metal filing cabinet. This is an IOU from the Government to the 
Social Security Administration. This literally happens. That is the 
$137 billion.
  The problem is, we do not have $137 billion, because the unified 
surplus, when you add the two together, Social Security and non-Social 
Security, is only $134.6 billion, because we are running an actual 
deficit in the non-Social Security part of the budget of $2.9 billion.
  What the President does is, he takes the $134.6 billion we have in 
cash and he says: Let's take 62 percent of that. That 62 percent is 
shown in light green here. That is 62 percent of the total budget 
surplus. He says: Let's spend 38 percent of that. Now, that is $52.3 
billion.
  Remember, every penny of this surplus is Social Security, but in his 
budget he spends $53 billion of this surplus. Then he says: We are 
going to give Social Security $83.5 billion. So they already have this 
IOU in West Virginia for the blue, the Social Security surplus, and now 
we are going to give them an IOU for the green, 62% of the unified 
surplus, which of course came from the Social Security surplus.
  So what we do, we start with $137.6 billion in Social Security 
surplus. We don't really have it. We are $2.9 billion short, because we 
already spent that. The President prints out an IOU in West Virginia, 
and then he takes $134 billion, every penny from Social Security, and 
he spends $52 billion of it. Then he takes $83 billion that is left and 
gives it to Social Security again.
  You might ask, how, with $134 billion, do you give Social Security 
$221 billion? Well, how you do it is, you give them $137.6 billion and 
you already have spent $2.9 billion so you have $134 billion. You spend 
another 38 percent of it, and that leaves you with $83 billion, and you 
gave that to Social Security.

[[Page S3174]]

 So what the President has done is double-counted $83.5 billion of the 
Social Security surplus.
  The amazing thing to me is that Senator Domenici, Senator Lautenberg, 
and I have seen many budgets come and go, and we know we have seen 
administrations, Democrat and Republican, who made rosy assumptions 
about the future--of course, nobody knew what was going to happen in 
the future--that did all kinds of things, but nothing of the scale of 
double-counting the Social Security trust fund. In the 20 years in the 
House and the Senate that I have watched budgets come and I have 
watched them go--more go than come, in many cases--I have never before 
seen the level of dishonesty that exists in the budget President 
Clinton has submitted this year.
  It is not rosy assumptions about the future, it is plain fraudulent 
bookkeeping.
  The amazing thing to me--having appeared on television with senior 
officials of the Clinton administration to talk about this issue, 
having listened to them in testimony--is how educated people who have 
credibility independent of serving in the Clinton administration can 
come before the public and come before the Congress and defend this; it 
is totally beyond my comprehension.
  It is totally beyond my ability to understand the willingness of 
people to say something that they know, because every one of them took 
freshman accounting in college--if a freshman economic student at 
Harvard had proposed this double-counting scheme, our dear colleague, 
Larry Summers, the smartest guy in the Clinton administration, would 
have given him an F. And yet poor Larry Summers is dragged on CBS 
television to defend double-counting bookkeeping.
  Having gone through it, let me just show you some of the 
manifestations of it. If you take the President's budget, he claims 
that he is locking away $5.8 trillion for Social Security in the 
future. Remember, these are all IOUs, and it does not make any 
difference whether you have one or you have a cigar box full. They all 
are commitments for which we are going to raise taxes, cut spending, or 
borrow money in the future. But I am simply talking about gimmicks.
  The President claims $5.8 trillion that he has put in the Social 
Security trust fund. But yet when you look at what he has actually 
locked away, it is only $2.2 trillion. Let me just show you the numbers 
from his own budget.
  This is the first document that comes from the Social Security 
Administration, and it shows the President's proposal:

       Under the President's plan, the Social Security trust fund 
     will rise from $864 billion to $6.6 trillion, an increase of 
     $5.8 trillion during the year 2000 to 2014.

  That is what the President says he is doing, locking away $5.8 
trillion for Social Security. But when you actually look, I say to 
Senator Domenici, at the President's budget from the Office of 
Management and Budget, there is a ``Social Security lockbox transfer 
used to redeem debt.'' They are not redeeming $5.8 trillion, the amount 
set aside for Social Security, they are redeeming $2.183 trillion.
  What happened to the other $3.6 trillion? It is missing. You cannot 
find it in their books. What happened to it? It is a funny thing about 
double-counting bookkeeping, you can double count all you want, but 
when you finally open up the box, you only have in there what you put 
in there. That is basically what the President does.
  When our colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle say the 
President does these great things for Social Security, what he does for 
Social Security is double count the entries he is making in the Social 
Security trust fund, but nothing the President does in any way will pay 
any benefit past 2012 because at that point we open this box, and all 
it has is IOUs. Then we have to raise taxes or cut spending or cut 
Social Security benefits, or we have to borrow money to pay for it.
  Finally, let me read you a quote. Probably the best summary of the 
Clinton Social Security proposal was in a major article by David E. 
Rosenbaum in the New York Times on March 24. Here is his summary of 
what he calls ``the shell game'' in the Clinton Social Security 
proposal. Listen to this quote. He is talking about the Clinton plan on 
Social Security:

       The plan does nothing more than throw new IOUs at the 
     problem and avoids tough choices needed to keep subsequent 
     generations from having to pay the bills for the retirement 
     of the baby boomers.

  What is being called a plan to save Social Security is, in fact, a 
phony bookkeeping scheme to double count the number of IOUs put into 
Social Security. Not only is it fraudulent, but it is a hoax, because 
the IOUs in Social Security do nothing to pay benefits. You cannot pay 
benefits with IOUs. You have to have money, and the only way you can 
get money is to tax or to cut spending or to borrow the money from the 
general public.

  The second hoax in the Clinton budget is the hoax of Medicare. This 
year, the President killed the Medicare Commission report, and his 
alternative to it was to send an IOU to Medicare. He said, going back 
to this surplus, ``Look, we started out with $134 billion and we gave 
$221 billion of it to Social Security. That worked great. Having taken 
134 and given 221 of the 134 to Social Security, why don't we give 15 
percent to Medicare? It worked great for Social Security, let's do it 
for Medicare.''
  So what he does is he sends this meaningless IOU to Medicare only, as 
Senator Domenici was the first to discover, there is a big caveat on 
this IOU, and that is, you cannot spend it. He does not provide any new 
benefits.
  He talks about drug benefits and how wonderful it would be to have 
them, but he provides not one penny for drug benefits. None of this 
money can be spent under the President's budget. It is simply a 
meaningless IOU. I guess we will open another office in West Virginia 
and we will hire people and they will print out the IOU for Medicare 
and put it in a metal filing cabinet, but does it fund one prescription 
drug? No. Does it pay for one day in the hospital? No. Does it pay for 
one home health care visit? No.
  If it does not do any of those things, what good is it? It is good 
because it is a political weapon. The President can say, ``I gave 15 
percent of the surplus to Medicare.'' You cannot spend it. It will not 
buy any of these things, but I did it.
  The point is, Senator Domenici could have done all these things, and 
more, if he were willing to use phony bookkeeping. But thank goodness 
he is not willing to use phony bookkeeping. He did fund--fully fund--
for 10 years Medicare.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GRAMM. Let me make a concluding point, and then I will be happy 
to yield.
  The President had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to save Social 
Security this year, and he did not do it. The President had a once-in-
a-lifetime opportunity with a bipartisan commission to plant the seeds 
to save Medicare, and he did not do it. To use a parody on a very 
famous commercial, the Presidency is a terrible thing to waste, and 
President Clinton has wasted Presidential leadership on Medicare and 
Social Security with phony programs that serve no purpose except to 
mislead the American public and to prevent real debate on these issues.
  I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to ask the Senator, in terms of 
the President transferring some balances into the Medicare trust fund 
and taking IOUs back, we all know right now there is an assessment of 
when the Medicare Program will stop generating enough money to pay its 
bills. Remember, that date is 2008----
  Mr. GRAMM. That is right.
  Mr. DOMENICI. When there will be less money coming in than the bills 
calling for it.
  Does the President's plan change that fact?
  Mr. GRAMM. No. In fact, it provides no new money in the year 2008 to 
cover that deficit.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Thank you.
  Mr. GRAMM. I say, in conclusion, that the Domenici budget has a real 
process to lower the debt limit that the Government operates under to 
assure that not one penny of Social Security money will be spent on 
anything else. We will have a vote on that lockbox. Many people who 
say, ``We want to stop the plundering of Social Security,'' will have 
an opportunity to do it, because the Domenici proposal will stop Social 
Security money being spent

[[Page S3175]]

for any other purpose. I intend to support it.
  I congratulate Senator Domenici. And I yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask that Senator Murray of Washington be 
recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington, Senator Murray, 
is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleague from New Jersey, the ranking member 
on the Budget Committee, who has worked with us for a number of years 
in putting together these budgets. I join my colleagues in wishing him 
well on his retirement and thank him for the work he has done for so 
many people throughout his career.
  Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong opposition to the 
pending fiscal year 2000 budget resolution that is before us here today 
and my deep concern and disappointment with the priorities that have 
been laid out in this budget. I remind my colleagues that budgets are 
not about today; they are about tomorrow. Failure to establish a 
framework for Federal spending that focuses on the future is a serious 
mistake.
  Last week during the consideration of the resolution in the Budget 
Committee, I was really amazed at our lack of focus on investing in our 
future and our complete disregard for the impact of the decisions we 
were making on hard-working families. The mistake that we all made 
during committee consideration was our failure to put a human face on 
our discussions. We simply lost sight of the human and social costs of 
our decisions.
  The focus of this budget that is before us and the focus of the 
debate in committee seemed to be based solely on politically expedient 
tax cuts. There was no discussion on extending the solvency of Social 
Security or Medicare and what our failure to address these issues will 
mean for working families. There was no attempt to address the 
shortfalls in our investment in public education, our public health, 
environment, veterans health care, child care, food safety, Older 
Americans Act, Medicare, Medicaid. These are not just spending 
programs, these are investments in our quality of life and in our 
future economic security.
  When we talk about education, a lot of the talk we hear on the floor 
is jargon--jargon--about flexibility and block grants and Federal 
mandates. No one talks about walking into a classroom of 40 young 
children and looking into their faces as they struggle to learn. I 
cannot say strongly enough, there are human costs to the decisions that 
we are making in this budget.
  I have talked to children our decisions affect. I have talked to 
their teachers and their parents. I know they are not interested in 
political double-talk. What they want to know is, What are we doing to 
prepare them for the challenges of the next century? What are we doing 
to invest in our young children so that they have the ability to get a 
job when they graduate? Are we addressing the huge class sizes that our 
children face every day and their inability to learn math and reading 
and science? Are we addressing the issue of the crumbling schools that 
many of our children go to every day? Are we addressing the fact that 
our teachers need to be educated and trained to be able to teach the 
skills that we require of them today?

  That is what parents and students and communities and business 
leaders are looking for in this budget. That is what we have failed to 
address.
  I see the same lack of focus in dealing with Medicare. I am glad 
there is a bipartisan agreement to protect the Social Security trust 
fund. That one step alone will do a lot to restore integrity to the 
program and return confidence to the Social Security system. However, I 
am very troubled by the lack of commitment to Medicare.
  In reviewing the committee's report to accommodate the resolution, 
the priority appears to be one thing, and that is tax cuts. The 
resolution assumes tax cuts totaling almost $700 billion over 10 years 
but very little mention of how we are going to invest the surplus in 
providing equal, affordable health care for our Nation's senior 
citizens. Again, this resolution places a higher priority on 
compensation as opposed to investment.
  I want to know how we are going to explain to an 83-year-old widow 
that Congress has decided that a tax cut is more important than 
providing her with quality, affordable health care.
  The fastest growing segment of our population living in poverty is 
those over the age of 65. All of the investments we have made, from 
Social Security to Medicare to the Older Americans Act, that have 
ensured a quality standard of living for those over 65, are jeopardized 
by a simple fact, and that simple fact is that the population over 65 
is increasing faster than we are ready for. We have an opportunity, 
with the surplus in front of us, to invest a portion of that into 
Medicare in order to extend the solvency without making devastating and 
dangerous cuts.
  Reform of Medicare must be carefully considered and executed. We 
cannot change the program overnight without harmful implications. The 
budget resolution we are dealing with here today fails to address the 
immediate and long-term problems of Medicare, and, once again, there is 
no discussion of the human cost of the decisions we are making.
  I have spoken with that 83-year-old widow who sometimes has to choose 
between hundreds of dollars a year in prescription drugs and food. How 
do I explain that, under this, she could face an additional $2,498 a 
year in Medicare premiums? How do you justify increasing the burden on 
individuals whose average income is slightly less than $13,000 a year?
  I ask my colleagues to stop and reconsider their priorities. I have 
heard some of my colleagues talking about the need to return the 
``people's money'' to the people. Well, I agree. Families have worked 
hard and paid their taxes with the belief that Medicare would provide 
for their parents as well as themselves when they retire. Medicare 
allows the elderly independence and dignity in the final years of their 
lives. I believe investing the surplus into Medicare is returning the 
people's money to the people.

  As I stated earlier, I am pleased that there is a bipartisan 
commitment to save the Social Security trust fund surplus. This will 
allow greater flexibility in reforming the system and improving current 
benefits. And I was pleased with the bipartisan support for the 
amendment I offered in committee regarding the impact of Social 
Security reform on women.
  Up until now, the only discussion about women and Social Security 
reform has been very vague statements about ``taking care'' of them. I 
believe that very few understand the unique circumstances of women who, 
throughout their working life and in retirement, face very different 
decisions and circumstances, where women tend to be out of the 
workforce to raise their children, or later on in life to take care of 
elderly parents, where women earn, on the average, 75 cents on the 
dollar of what men do; when we look at Social Security reform and 
realize right now that Social Security is based on the top 35 years of 
income, and for many women who do not work 35 years, their income is 
averaged by adding a number of zeros into that calculation because they 
have not worked those years.
  We have to use this opportunity to make sure that how these decisions 
are made does not negatively impact women. It is actually this lack of 
understanding of women in the workforce that has resulted in many more 
women who are living in poverty today after the age of 65. Single older 
women are more than twice as likely as men to face poverty today.
  The bipartisan support of my amendment in committee has encouraged me 
to offer an amendment to the pending resolution which I hope my 
colleagues will again support. We have to use reform and this added 
financial flexibility to address the specific shortfalls in the current 
structure that penalize women and oftentimes leave them in poverty 
following the death of their spouse.
  My amendment would simply illustrate the support of the Senate for 
using reform as a mechanism, not just at protecting the status quo but 
actually improving the economic security of older women. I hope that 
the same commitment to address the needs of women in reform prevails 
when I offer

[[Page S3176]]

this amendment in the next several days.
  Finally, Mr. President, I want to caution my colleagues about the 
dangers we face when fiscal policy development breaks down into 
partisan politics. We will not be successful unless we have a 
bipartisan effort. I urge my colleagues to think carefully about the 
constituents they have met and the people who have come to them asking 
them for help and support. We need to stay focused on these faces and 
remember that the budget is not just about economic or policy decisions 
but about decisions with real consequences and real human costs.

  I am hopeful that as this budget process continues we can redirect 
our efforts and shift our priorities from short-term diversions to 
savings and investing in the future. We have made the tough decisions 
that have given us a budget surplus today. Like every family, we cut 
back and for several years maintained strict fiscal discipline. Let's 
follow the example of many families and use our surplus to invest and 
save--not to rush out to spend on lavish vacations or luxury items. 
Let's use basic common sense in deciding on the priorities of the first 
budget of the millennium.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senator Abraham will have some comments 
and then our first amendment. How much time does the Senator desire?
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, 15 minutes. I believe I can make an 
opening statement and comments on the amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, let me begin by acknowledging, as others 
have, the work and accomplishment of our Senate Budget Committee, and 
particularly the work of our chairman, in putting together this budget 
which we are debating today.
  A lot of people have tried to take credit with respect to the 
remarkably strong fiscal position we find ourselves in today. But I 
remind all of our colleagues that when, in 1995, this Senator arrived, 
notwithstanding tax increases and other such devices, we still were 
considering budgets with deficits as great as $200 billion for as far 
as the eye could see. We had one leader in the Senate, the chairman of 
the Budget Committee, who said, We are not going to allow that to 
happen; we are going to begin to strengthen the economy and tighten the 
belt in ways that eliminate the budget deficit.
  I am proud to be a member of the committee and never to have voted 
for anything but a balanced budget since I became a part of that 
committee. I attribute that to our chairman and his staff for the hard 
work they have done to craft documents that have moved us in this 
direction.
  Let me just briefly outline the budget we are looking at here today 
for the benefit of our colleagues who may be perhaps reaching the wrong 
conclusions as to what it contains on the basis of some of the speeches 
we have heard today. I want to set the record straight. Our budget 
accomplishes a number of important priorities. First, it sets aside 
every single dollar of the Social Security surplus so that we can use 
that Social Security surplus for exactly what the public expects us to 
use it for, and that is to fix Social Security and to ensure its long-
term solvency. Later, I will offer an amendment here which will ask the 
Senate to take a position in support of the kind of protection and 
lockbox mechanism that will guarantee that every one of those Social 
Security dollars is used for that purpose.
  Second, this budget makes important investments in two areas of 
public policy where I think there is a broad consensus of support, both 
inside the Senate as well as across America. One of those areas is 
education. This budget acknowledges a greater Federal investment in the 
support of education in our country. It does not dictate how those 
dollars will be spent, obviously. I think a lot of us feel they ought 
to be spent in the classroom.
  With the budget chairman here, I ask if he could respond. I believe, 
Mr. Chairman, that this budget, in fact, increases education spending 
not only over its baseline increase but even beyond what has been 
proposed by prominent education advocates such as the President, is 
that not correct?
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator is absolutely correct. In the first year, 
we recommended that $3 billion, in addition to what the President 
recommended, be spent for education, and over 5 years, $28 billion in 
new money on top of about $100 billion in the programs today.
  We do express our concern in the event this money were used in the 
traditional way that we have done for the last 25 years of telling them 
exactly how to do it with a lot of strings. We are hoping it will move 
down to the classroom level with only accountability as to what the 
Federal Government requires.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Budget Committee chairman. I ask our 
colleagues to take note of this.
  We have already heard people come to the floor and talk about how 
this budget doesn't do enough for education, while at the same time 
they are now saying it is the President who cares about investment in 
education.
  This budget invests more in education than the President of the 
United States has proposed by a very substantial amount over the next 5 
years. We will have a chance later to debate how that investment should 
be made.
  I agree with the chairman of the Budget Committee--we want fewer 
``Washington knows best'' solutions and more people at the local level 
making decisions as to how to use the dollars. It is the Republican's 
budget, not the President's, that puts more money in education.
  Another investment that I think we all, particularly today, have to 
acknowledge is important is a greater investment in national security. 
Obviously, the current events in the Balkans once again remind us that 
America must have a sufficient investment in our security to be able to 
meet international challenges we confront.
  To give the Senate an idea of exactly what we confront with respect 
to national security today, let me use one statistic. That is the 
decrease in levels of manpower and weaponry in just the last 8 years. 
Eight years ago, we engaged in Operation Desert Storm, an 
accomplishment of great military significance. If we had to do that 
again today, we would find ourselves severely strapped both with 
respect to the percentage of our total Armed Forces that would be 
needed to initiate that effort, as well as the amount of weapons from 
our total arsenal that would be needed. In fact, I believe it would 
take about 90 percent of today's Army, two-thirds of our fighter wings, 
two-thirds of our aircraft carriers, and the entire U.S. Marine Corps 
based on those current sizes today to replicate what we did in 1991.
  If that doesn't demonstrate to us the need for a greater investment 
in national security, I don't know what does. If we need further 
arguments, I think we need only to look so far as the reinlistment 
rates which are, as everyone in this body knows, not at the level we 
require. We need to have better pay and better benefits, pension 
benefits, and so on, for our Armed Forces in order to encourage more 
people to join and to stay in the Armed Forces. We have already taken a 
step in that direction earlier this year, but we need to back up 
the Soldiers' Bill of Rights with budget authority to be able to move 
forward. That is what this budget does over the next few years.

  Finally, I want to talk about two other things. This budget sets 
aside money not at all connected to Social Security, but, rather, 
surpluses wholly unrelated to our Social Security payroll taxes for the 
purpose of reducing the tax burden on the people who pay taxes in this 
country. What we are talking about is very simple: More money is coming 
into the Federal Treasury than even the biggest liberal spenders 
anticipated. It is coming faster than the IRS can count it. It is 
building up a surplus that is wholly unconnected to Social Security.
  The question is, What should we do with some of those dollars? This 
budget sets aside a very substantial amount of money, but certainly not 
all of that money, for tax relief. Some say this isn't right; the money 
should be used for more spending programs, new spending programs, or it 
should go in some way to reduce the tax burden of people who are 
already paying the taxes. We don't agree. We think this money 
constitutes an overpayment. It is more money than we expected. If you 
make an overpayment, you ought to get a refund. That is what this 
budget

[[Page S3177]]

reflects. The refunds ought to go to the people who are making the 
overpayment. In my judgment, at least in some way, it ought to reflect 
approximately the percentage of their overpayment. To treat this as 
suddenly a tax break for a special interest group is simply missing the 
point.
  We didn't just shut down a program to be able to finance a tax cut. 
We didn't make a transfer from one beneficiary group to another in 
order to be able to afford a tax cut. We said we are taking the money 
that is coming in and returning it to the American public. The Finance 
Committee, not the Budget Committee, will make that decision. We think 
at least a very substantial part of those surplus dollars ought to be 
used to help allow the people who created this surplus the chance to 
keep a little bit more of what they earn.
  Finally, I want to talk about Medicare briefly, because I find the 
repeated comments with respect to this budget's failure to address 
Medicare to be so erroneous that they require a response. This budget 
puts more money into Medicare over the next 5 years than I believe was 
proposed by the President, and I will defer, again, to the Budget 
chairman when I have a chance here to clarify that. Unlike the 
President, we don't cut Medicare over the next 5 years. Furthermore, we 
set aside over $130 billion in this budget to be used precisely on 
things like fixing Medicare, that so many of our colleagues seem 
interested in doing.
  The one thing we haven't done here that I want to address, we didn't 
say that we are just sort of going to use general tax revenues in order 
to stabilize and offset or postpone the insolvency of the Medicare Part 
A trust fund. We didn't do that here. I don't think that would be an 
appropriate precedent for us to set. We need to fix the Medicare Part A 
trust fund to make it work. It is broken. We all know that.
  There was a Medicare commission and 10 out of 17 people, on a 
bipartisan basis, agreed that there was a way to do that--in fact, a 
way that wouldn't even cost as much with respect to Medicare 
expenditures. They couldn't get 11 votes for that final outcome, but 
they got 10--including two Members of this body, including the Member 
selected by the President to chair the Medicare commission, and in my 
judgment--I am sorry, four Members of this body and two on each side of 
the aisle.

  The point is this, Mr. President. The idea that instead of putting 
together a plan to reform and make Medicare work, the idea to say we 
are simply going to throw more money into this without any concrete 
proposal as to how to spend the money, I think is a mistake.
  In any event, I think this budget addresses the priorities. It locks 
away money for Social Security and every single penny that Social 
Security generates in surplus. It increases our investment in education 
and in national security. It allows us to give people who have paid 
more taxes than we expected the chance to get a little bit of that 
back. Finally, it sets aside considerable amounts of money to address 
our Medicare problems. For that reason, I support it.
  How much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 10 minutes.


                           Amendment No. 143

 (Purpose: Providing a framework for the protection of Social Security 
            Surpluses for current and future beneficiaries)

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Abraham], for himself, Mr. 
     Domenici, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Lott, Mr. Roth, Mr. Voinovich, 
     Mr. Grams, Mr. Gregg, Ms. Collins, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Santorum, 
     and Mr. Craig, proposes an amendment numbered 143.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. 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 appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . FINDINGS; SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE PROTECTION OF THE 
                   SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUSES.

       (a). The Congress finds that--
       (1) Congress and the President should balance the budget 
     excluding the surpluses generated by the Social Security 
     trust funds;
       (2) Reducing the Federal debt held by the public is a top 
     national priority, strongly supported on a bipartisan basis, 
     as evidenced by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's 
     comment that debt reduction ``is a very important element in 
     sustaining economic growth,'' as well as President Clinton's 
     comments that it ``is very, very important that we get the 
     Government debt down'' when referencing his own plans to use 
     the budget surplus to reduce Federal debt held by the public.
       (3) According to the Congressional Budget Office, balancing 
     the budget excluding the surpluses generated by the Social 
     Security trust funds will reduce debt held by the public by a 
     total of $1,723,000,000,000 by the end of fiscal year 2009, 
     $417,000,000,000, or 32 per cent, more than it would be 
     reduced under the President's fiscal year 2000 budget 
     submission;
       (4) further according to the Congressional Budget Office, 
     that the President's budget would actually spend 
     $40,000,000,000 of the Social Security surpluses in fiscal 
     year 2000 on new spending programs, and spend 
     $158,000,000,000 of the Social Security surpluses on new 
     spending programs from fiscal year 2000 through 2004; and
       (5) Social Security surpluses should be used for Social 
     Security reform or to reduce the debt held by the public and 
     should not be used for other purposes.
       (b) It is the sense of Congress that the functional totals 
     in this concurrent resolution on the budget assume that 
     Congress shall pass legislation which--
       (1) reaffirms the provisions of section 13301 of the 
     Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 that provides that 
     the receipts and disbursements of the Social Security trust 
     funds shall not be counted for the purposes of the budget 
     submitted by the President, the congressional budget, or the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, 
     and provides for a Point of Order within the Senate against 
     any concurrent resolution on the budget, an amendment 
     thereto, or a conference report thereon that violates that 
     section.
       (2) Mandates that the Social Security surpluses are used 
     only for the payment of Social Security benefits, Social 
     Security reform or to reduce the Federal debt held by the 
     public, and not spent on non-Social Security programs or used 
     to offset tax cuts.
       (3) Provides for a Senate super-majority Point of Order 
     against any bill, resolution, amendment, motion or conference 
     report that would use Social Security surpluses on anything 
     other than the payment of Social Security benefits, Social 
     Security reform or the reduction of the federal debt held by 
     the public.
       (4) Ensures that all Social Security benefits are paid on 
     time.
       (5) Accommodates Social Security reform legislation.

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, this amendment attempts to embody a 
principle I discussed in my remarks and which we in the Budget 
Committee, I think, within the committee at least, indicated we desired 
to see happen, which is the creation of a lockbox mechanism into which 
we would make sure every Social Security surplus dollar would go, so it 
could not be used for any purpose other than to fix Social Security or, 
until such a Social Security fix was developed and passed, to reduce 
the national debt.
  This is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. I want to make that clear. 
It is not a substantive amendment, per se. But, Mr. President, we all 
agree that saving Social Security is our No. 1 priority in this 
Congress. The President, both in his 1998 and his 1999 address, said we 
should save the Social Security surplus and use it--in this year's 
speech, he said we should use it to reduce Federal debt, to ensure that 
it is not squandered on other spending. This amendment embodies that 
principle in the form of a sense-of-the-Senate amendment and outlines 
the course by which I think we can accomplish that in the most 
appropriate fashion.
  Indeed, Mr. President, this budget resolution agrees with that 
prioritization and allows for the entire surplus of Social Security to 
be protected and to substantially reduce the Federal debt held by the 
public. I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee with whom I have 
worked on this amendment, and I thank Senator Ashcroft who joined me in 
offering that, who I think will both speak to this at some point.
  This is a very straightforward proposal, one I think will best 
protect the surplus and strengthen our economy so that the future of 
Social Security can be best ensured.
  Let me outline some of the provisions. It would strengthen the off-
budget status of Social Security as well as provide for additional 
points of order

[[Page S3178]]

against any bill, amendment, resolution, or conference report that 
would violate this off-budget treatment.
  Second, it would create a subcategory of the gross Federal debt 
limit, the debt held by the public. If this proposal were ultimately 
put into effect through law, we would then cap that publicly held debt 
at the current level of $3.6 trillion. We would also then mandate the 
reduction of that debt level in fiscal years 2000, 2001, and every 2 
years thereafter, by the same amount as the Social Security trust fund 
surplus in those years.
  These limits would be automatically adjusted as projected Social 
Security trust fund surpluses change, so as to ensure that we do not 
force ourselves to reduce the publicly held debt by a greater amount 
than we actually have available in the Social Security surplus, as well 
as to ensure that windfall Social Security surpluses would be protected 
from being raided. The proposal would also allow for a one-time 
adjustment to accommodate Social Security reform, should the Congress 
enact such reform.
  This proposal, if it were actually passed into law, would reduce 
publicly held debt from $3.6 trillion to $2.4 trillion by the year 
2009. I believe that is an even greater reduction than what the 
President's framework proposal suggested. It thereby locks away a 
larger portion of the Social Security surplus.
  To that end, I might add that the budget resolution we have before us 
contains advisory caps on the publicly held debt limits which mirror 
those contained in this proposal. However, I believe it is necessary 
for the Congress to go beyond those advisory caps and to commit itself 
to reducing this publicly held debt and locking away the Social 
Security surplus from being spent on other programs. That is why I am 
joined by 11 colleagues, including Senators Domenici and Ashcroft, as 
well as the majority leader and the chairman of the Finance Committee, 
Senator Roth, in offering a sense-of-the-Senate amendment which will 
state that it is our intention to pursue such a course of action.

  This amendment would state that it is our intention to pass 
legislation to reaffirm the off-budget status of the Social Security 
trust fund, mandate that the Social Security surplus only be used for 
the payment of Social Security benefits, Social Security reform, or the 
reduction of debt held by the public, and provide for protection such 
as points of order against any legislation which would try to 
circumvent those protections, ensure the Social Security benefits 
continue to be paid in full and on time, and accommodate Social 
Security reform.
  We think this makes sense. We think it is consistent with colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle who have been talking about it for an 
extensive period of time. We think it made sense in this budget 
resolution to go on record saying this is the direction in which we are 
going to head. It is one thing to talk about saving Social Security and 
making sure that Social Security surpluses aren't spent, making sure we 
reduce the public debt with Social Security surpluses, and so on; but I 
think talk is one thing, action is another.
  I suggest that the passage of this amendment which I have offered 
with my colleagues would be the sort of action that would set us on the 
right course to make sure that ultimately we do in fact protect the 
Social Security surpluses so they can only be used to fix Social 
Security or to pay down the national debt.
  With that, Mr. President, I will yield the floor. I know other 
colleagues here want to speak on this issue, and in due course, as we 
go back and forth, I am sure they will. I thank the budget chairman and 
the current occupant of the manager's chair, and I thank our ranking 
member as well, for the opportunity to speak.
  Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise not to rebut the amendment by the 
Senator from Michigan but to make an opening statement about this 
budget and certain very crucial items in it.
  I compliment Senator Lautenberg for his strong advocacy as the 
ranking member of the Budget Committee and his longstanding 
championship for those people who have been left out and left behind. 
Sir, I thank you for your role not only in this budget but what you do 
every day in the Senate.
  Through the best efforts, I am very concerned that the fiscal year 
2000 budget resolution really does not adequately address the solvency 
of Social Security, nor does it address adequately the solvency of 
Medicare--the two most important programs that the United States has, 
domestically, and the ones that Americans universally rely upon and 
plan their life around having in a reliable way, that has reliability 
and continuity, and that the entire private sector assumes will be 
there as they plan private sector products.
  Now, preserving Social Security and Medicare must be our Nation's top 
priority, and I believe the original efforts by the Lautenberg group 
were there. What we have before us today, I believe, does not protect 
Social Security.
  Now, we say a lot in the Senate about family values. Well, I believe 
there is a value that comes out of the Judeo-Christian ethic I believe 
in, and it is called honor your father and honor your mother. I believe 
it is not only a good commandment to live by, I think it is a good 
commandment to govern by.
  We should not only have it in our prayer books. We should have it in 
the Federal checkbook. This is why I am so adamant that we must save 
Social Security first and preserve the solvency of Medicare.
  When we look at Social Security, we want to make sure that we protect 
those who have the least resources with them--those without pensions, 
those without IRAs, those without 401(k)s. These are the people who we 
know represent, as we speak, now, over 40 million people. If there are 
40 million Americans without health insurance, you had better believe 
they are going to be the same 40 million who do not have 401(k)s. To 
them ``K'' means Kellogg, and it is a cereal. It is not a life security 
system.
  I am particularly concerned about women. And I am particularly 
concerned about both men and women who, at the end of the day and near 
the end of their lives, will have no reliable pension program to look 
out for them.
  This is what the Social Security issue is all about. I want to be 
sure that in any debate we have--whether it is on the budget, or 
whether it is the Social Security bills--I want to ensure that Social 
Security is universal and portable, that it is a guaranteed benefit, 
that it is inflation proof, and looks out, as I said, for those who do 
not have anything else going for them.
  I have a particular interest in this as it affects women. That is 
because I truly believe that Social Security is a woman's issue. 
Without it, over half of all elderly women would now be living in dire 
poverty. Yes. Women today are working more outside the home, yes, and 
earning more than past generations. But in reality, their lifetime 
earnings, access to pensions, and ability to save continues to be less 
than men. That is why Social Security is a woman's issue. Let me 
elaborate.
  First of all, women live longer. The life expectancy rate for women 
is 65, 4 years longer than for men. That means they will need income 
security for a longer period of time. Also, the equity that we placed 
in Social Security is absolutely crucial. Why? Because right now women 
do not get equal pay for equal work, making 70 percent of what men make 
for similar jobs. They will get less Social Security because their 
benefits are based in part on wages. That means the hard-working female 
x ray technician who puts in 40 hours a week might take home $28,000 a 
year instead of the financial worth that her male counterpart has.
  We need a Social Security system, too, that women can count on, that 
respects values of work inside the home and acknowledges it in 
retirement. This is why the spousal benefit is so crucial and why we 
need to preserve it. Women move in and out of the paid marketplace to 
do some of the most important work--raising children and caring for 
elderly parents and their relatives. Take, for instance, someone who 
works in an office as an executive assistant. She got her high school 
diploma, didn't go to college, worked full time for 5 years, but leaves 
the workforce to raise her children. She might do that for 7 years and 
then return part time. Notice that she lost 7 years in

[[Page S3179]]

her contribution, and then is a part-time wage earner, and then often 
has to go back at an entry wage. This woman needs to know that Social 
Security is there for her, and that she is not penalized for what she 
did, which was the unpaid work for providing the most invaluable 
service to America; that is, raising America's children.

  Certain ideas have been proposed to reforming Social Security which 
would have a devastating impact on women. Having reliance on private 
retirement accounts would hurt women disproportionately. Again, women 
earn less money, unequal pay, leave the paid workforce to raise 
children, or care-give, and would have less to ``invest.'' Reducing the 
Social Security COLA would hurt women. And there are other reforms.
  But the point that I make is that Social Security as it now stands is 
the best deal for women. Sure, we need to make reforms. Sure, we need 
to look at the other ideas. That is why we should not cut or 
dramatically alter Social Security. Sure, it can pay benefits into 
2032. But we have to look ahead to be sure that there is solvency of 
Social Security.
  That is why we support the Lautenberg effort. We want to be sure that 
for women who have worked all of their lives, in the home or outside 
the home, there will be a guaranteed benefit with a full cost of 
living, that it will have a progressive benefit formula that helps the 
low-income wage earners, and that there is a spousal and survivor 
benefit for married women, divorced and widowed. The only way we can do 
that is if we take the surplus and put 62 percent aside, and also 15 
percent for Medicare. Otherwise, this is a hollow budget full of 
promise and hollow on opportunity.
  Mr. President, I salute the efforts of Senator Lautenberg. I am 
deeply disturbed that we are not setting aside 62 percent as we talked 
about. I do not believe the other party adequately protects Social 
Security, adequately protects Medicare, and I believe that ultimately 
the American people will wake up to this.
  As it stands now, I will vote no for this budget.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will take a couple of minutes with 
the agreement of the Senator from Minnesota just to respond, A, to say 
thank you to my dear friend and colleague for her complimentary 
remarks, but even more importantly than that--because flattery is nice, 
but effectiveness is even better--and the Senator from Maryland has 
been a known, strong advocate for the things that she believes in.
  I greet Senator Mikulski each time I see her with the knowledge that 
she has enhanced our view of what life is really about by bringing a 
perspective that comes from the women's side that is so often left out. 
She knows also too well that she hits a familiar tone with me when she 
talks about Social Security, because my father died before my mother 
was 36 years old. She had nothing but bills and an obligation to my 12-
year-old sister and an 18-year-old son who had already enlisted in the 
Army to support her. She did it by sheer dent of hard work and will.
  If we had in that family, going back now--we are talking about 1943--
the benefit of a Social Security Program, a check coming in that would 
kind of help relieve not only the fiscal financial obligations, but the 
anxiety that accompanies the worry about that, if we had Medicare or 
Medicaid in those days when my father died at the age of 43, a 
strapping handsome man--cancer overtook him, and he died leaving 
doctors bills. So we had not only enormous grief, but the obligation to 
pay off the doctor and hospital bills that were accumulated with no 
insurance program.
  So when we talk about Social Security, we talk about women who are 
typically those left most often with the smallest share of assets, 
because of the way we are structured. We need to make sure that Social 
Security is going to be there. We need to make sure that Medicare is 
going to be solvent for a number of years. Yes. We are not disagreeing 
with the need to reform and improve, if possible, but to make sure that 
it is equitably distributed. We need time. We need the assurance that 
the programs are going to be there.

  I for one will jump on the reform-and-improve bandwagon as soon as we 
have a good vehicle to take us along.
  So I thank the Senator from Maryland for her comments.
  I see my friend also from California was so nice before to give me 
credit for some things I probably don't deserve. But, nevertheless, the 
credit is nice to get.
  I thank both Senators.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I wanted to take about 15 seconds.
  We have heard time after time from speaker after speaker on the other 
side of the aisle that somehow the Republican budget doesn't protect or 
set aside money for Social Security. We set aside all the Social 
Security surpluses. It is earmarked in a lockbox for Social Security. 
So that is not what we are saying. One good thing about our budget is 
we don't spend it. The President, under his budget, spends $158 billion 
of the Social Security surplus. Our budget doesn't. So I think we do a 
better job on securing and saving Social Security.
  I would like to yield to my friend from Missouri.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I thank the Senator 
from Minnesota.
  I rise in support of the resolution offered by Senator Abraham that 
has been called the Abraham-Domenici-Ashcroft Social Security 
amendment. That protects our strong support for saving Social Security.
  It expresses our strong support for protecting Social Security. I am 
grateful for the opportunity to cosponsor this amendment, which will 
put the Senate on record in favor of protecting the Social Security 
surplus and not invading it for spending for other Governmental 
programs.
  The Senator from Minnesota is absolutely correct. The President's 
budget over the next 5 years would spend $158 billion of the Social 
Security surplus--not the general Governmental surplus but the Social 
Security surplus. Social Security is a national, cultural and, I might 
add, legal obligation. Social Security is our most important social 
program, a contract between the Government and its citizens. Americans, 
including 1 million Missourians, depend on this commitment. This is 
more than just a Governmental commitment. We have a responsibility as a 
culture to care for the recipients of Social Security--the elderly and 
other individuals in regard to Social Security who are its 
beneficiaries. Social Security is the only retirement income for most 
of the seniors in this country. It is our obligation, passed down from 
generation to generation, to provide retirement security for every 
American.
  As individuals, all of us care about Social Security because we know 
the benefits it pays to our mothers and fathers, relatives and friends. 
And we think of the Social Security taxes we and our children pay--up 
to 12.4 percent of our income. We pay these taxes with the 
understanding that they help our parents and their friends, and we hope 
that our taxes will somehow, someday make it possible to help pay for 
our own retirements.
  In my case, thinking of Social Security brings to mind friends and 
constituents such as Lenus Hill of Bolivar, Missouri, who relies on her 
Social Security to meet living expenses. Billy Yarberry lives on a farm 
near Springfield and depends on Social Security. And there is Reverend 
Walter Keisker of Cape Girardeau, who will be 100 years old next July 
and lives on Social Security. The faces of these friends make Social 
Security have a special, personal meaning to me.
  Whenever I meet with folks in Missouri, I am asked, ``Senator, you 
won't let them use my Social Security taxes to pay for the United 
Nations, will you?'' Or, ``Why can't I get my full benefits if I work 
after 65?'' Or, ``You know I need my Social Security, don't you?''
  And then there are the letters on Social Security I get every day.
  Ed and Beverly Shelton of Independence, Missouri, write:

       Aren't the budget surpluses the result of Social Security 
     taxes generating more revenue than is needed to fund current 
     benefits? Therefore, the Social Security surplus is the 
     surplus! . . . Yes, we are senior citizens and receive a very 
     limited amount of Social Security. We are children who 
     survived the

[[Page S3180]]

     Great Depression and World War II so we know how to stretch a 
     dollar and rationed goods--just [listen to this] wish 
     Congress were as careful with spending our money as we are!

  These concerns are why I am cosponsoring this amendment, which will 
express the Senate's view that we must put an end to the practice of 
using surpluses in the Social Security trust funds to finance deficits 
in the rest of the Federal budget.

  This resolution--the Abraham-Domenici-Ashcroft resolution--puts the 
Senate on record as supporting legislation that would accomplish the 
following:
  (a) Reaffirming the provisions of section 13301 of the Onnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1990. This section provides that the Social 
Security trust funds shall be off budget.
  (2) Mandating that the Social Security surpluses are to be used only 
for the payment of Social Security benefits, Social Security reform, or 
to reduce the federal debt held by the public, and not spent on non-
Social Security programs or used for tax cuts.
  (3) Providing for a Senate super-majority point of order against any 
bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that 
would use Social Security surpluses on anything other than the payment 
of Social Security benefits, Social Security reform, or to reduce the 
federal debt held by the public.
  That is very important. We include in this proposal not just a 
statement that we want to reserve Social Security for the right 
purposes, but we want to create a point of order that makes out of 
order a proposal that we spend Social Security to cover deficits in 
other parts of the Government.
  Additionally, this particular measure ensures that all Social 
Security benefits are paid on time.
  I am in favor of two provisions that will accomplish these 
objectives. First, I am a cosponsor of the Abraham-Domenici lockbox 
provision, which will lock away Social Security surpluses by ratcheting 
down the publicly held debt by the amount of our Social Security 
surpluses. This resolution puts the Senate on record in favor of this 
legislation.
  In addition, Senator Domenici and I have introduced the Protect 
Social Security Benefits Act, which would make it out of order for the 
Senate to pass, or even debate, a budget that uses Social Security 
surpluses to finance deficits in the rest of the budget.
  Under this proposed legislation, a three-fifths vote in the Senate 
would be required to overcome this point of order, thereby making it 
extremely difficult to use the Social Security surplus to fund new 
deficit spending. We must make clear that the Federal Budget should be 
balanced without counting any Social Security surpluses.

  Social Security should not finance new spending. But that is exactly 
what has happened in the past, is now happening, and will continue 
happening in the future, unless changes are made. The funding of 
Federal deficits in Government spending generally by consuming Social 
Security surpluses must end.
  Walling off the trust funds is the first step, not the only step, 
needed to protect Social Security. This is the right way to start the 
effort to improve Social Security so it is strong for our children and 
grandchildren.
  To do this, we need to be honest, realizing that, for now, time is on 
our side to make thoughtful improvements. Social Security does now and 
will in the near future accumulate annual surpluses.
  Together, income from payroll taxes and interest is greater than the 
amount of benefits being paid out. The Social Security trustees believe 
that these surpluses will continue each year for the next 14 years. In 
that time, a $2.8 trillion total surplus will accumulate.
  In the year 2013, however, when more baby boomers will be in 
retirement, annual benefit payments will exceed annual taxes received 
by Social Security through taxes and interest to the fund. As a result, 
Social Security will run an annual deficit. By 2021, annual benefit 
payments will exceed annual taxes received by Social Security and 
interest earned on the accumulated surpluses. Then, by the year 2032, 
Social Security payroll taxes will not only be insufficient to pay 
benefits; the surpluses will be used up. Social Security will be 
bankrupt. That is, even counting the notes in its fund, incapable of 
meeting the demand for benefits.
  In recent years, Social Security surpluses have been used to finance 
deficit spending in the rest of the Federal budget. Take fiscal year 
1998 for example. The Social Security surplus was $99 billion. The 
deficit in the rest of the Government budget was $29 billion. So $29 
billion--or 30 percent of the Social Security surplus--financed other 
Government programs that were not paid for with general tax revenues. 
This occurred despite President Clinton's promise to save ``every penny 
of any surplus'' for Social Security.
  For next year, this money shuffling is even greater. According to 
CBO, the President's budget dips into the Social Security surplus to 
the tune of $158 billion over 5 years to pay for government spending.

  This kind of money shuffling must end. I cannot go back to Lenus Hill 
or Billy Yarberry and tell them that I stood by silently as the 
government devoted spent $158 billion of their retirement money to pay 
for the President's new spending initiatives somewhere else. We must 
stop the dishonest practice of hiding new government deficits with 
Social Security surpluses.
  This amendment is designed to express the sense of the Senate that we 
must not use surpluses in the Social Security trust funds to pay for 
deficits in the rest of the federal budget. Three times Congress has 
passed laws that tried to take Social Security off-budget. These 
efforts have called for accounting statements that require the 
government to keep the financial status of Social Security separate 
from the rest of the budget. But these efforts are inadequate unless 
Congress puts in place safeguards that protect surpluses in Social 
Security from financing new government spending.
  This amendment will put the Senate on record in favor of helping us 
save the trust funds, by directing the entire Social Security surplus 
to shrink the publicly held federal debt. Reducing the publicly held 
debt would cut annual interest costs that now cost $200 billion and 15 
percent of entire federal government budget. Eliminating this interest 
costs would provide more flexibility to address the long-term financing 
difficulties Social Security now faces that could someday jeopardize 
payment of full benefits.
  This amendment is designed to express our support for protecting the 
Social Security system. More importantly, it is designed to protect the 
American people from attempts to spend our retirement dollars on 
current government spending. While I value the Social Security system, 
I value the American people, people like Lenus Hill and the 1 million 
other Missourians who receive Social Security benefits and depend on 
them more. I value those individuals far more than I value the system. 
My primary responsibility is to them. This amendment will protect the 
Social Security system and the America people first.
  Mr. President, I send another amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a pending amendment, the Chair would 
inform the Senator.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, being made aware of the pending 
amendment which is now before the Senate, I withdraw my request to send 
an amendment to the desk.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kriz 
Ardizzone, Tevi Troy, and Jim Carter, members of my legislative staff, 
be granted the privilege of the floor during the pendency of the budget 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for 
his excellent work. I look forward to working with him as we bring this 
budget to the American people. I believe it has the potential of being 
the best budget in years.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I appreciate the kind words of the Senator 
from Missouri.

                          ____________________