[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 51 (Wednesday, April 14, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3676-S3687]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000--CONFERENCE 
                                 REPORT

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of 
conference on the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 68) establishing 
the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal 
year 2000 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for each of 
fiscal years 2001 through 2009, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.

[[Page S3677]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The report will be stated.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the concurrent 
     resolution (H. Con. Res. 68) have agreed to recommend and do 
     recommend to their respective Houses this report, signed by a 
     majority of the conferees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of April 13, 1999.)
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to announce to the Senate 
that the budget resolution, which we have called up and which is being 
considered, was approved just a while ago by the House, passed there by 
220-208. So the remaining real business before we leave for this 
weekend is to get our budget passed here. I will say, if it is passed 
today, it would be historic. If it is passed tomorrow, it will still be 
historic, because we will have produced our budget resolution through 
both Houses, setting the blueprint for the year before the 15th, which 
is the statutory date. I will say to the Senate, we have only done that 
once in the 24-plus years history of the Budget Act.
  I think our commitment to the Senate was helped by our various 
committee members, and help came from our ranking member, Senator 
Lautenberg, to get the job done. No use to delay it. We have been on 
the floor, gone through it. Yesterday we took a number of votes that we 
don't normally take, with Senators exercising their prerogatives to 
make us vote again on some of the issues. Today there will be a vote on 
final passage.
  I remind Senators who might want to speak, whether they are on this 
side of the aisle or that side of the aisle, we have a unanimous 
consent agreement already entered into, with the full concurrence of 
the minority, that whenever we finish this evening--and that could be 
any time--there will be 5 hours remaining tomorrow. That is because 
there is a statutory mandate of 10 hours unless agreed to to the 
contrary.

  That means that tomorrow we will be on for 5 hours and then vote. If 
Senators do not make it to the floor in the next hour or so--obviously, 
they can come down here, and if they want to make it easy on everybody, 
maybe they can tell Senator Lautenberg when they want to come and tell 
me when they want to come on this side, and we will accommodate them so 
they don't have to stay down here and wait a long time while others 
speak.
  Having said that, I probably will reserve most of my time to answer 
what others might say about this budget resolution, but I would like to 
give a summary of where things are. I do not think that will take over 
10 or 15 minutes. Then I will yield to Senator Lautenberg. I have 
already told my friend that I have to go across the hall for a 
Republican policy conference, and I will try to do that as soon as my 
remarks are completed.
  Mr. President, let me briefly outline the conference report on the 
year 2000 budget before us this afternoon. The conference report before 
us is very similar to the Senate-passed budget resolution back on March 
25 on a rollcall vote of 55-44. A similar but different House-passed 
budget resolution required a conference. That conference resulted in 
some modifications to the Senate-passed resolution which I will 
highlight later in my remarks. The basic outline for entering the 
millennium with a fiscal policy and a tax policy and a defense policy 
and an education policy, the basic content of that with some 
modifications is, indeed, what the Senate has before it again today.
  First, this is a 10-year budget resolution. We have done a 5-year 
resolution and 7-year resolution, but this year is the first time we 
have used 10 years to make our projections and upon which to build the 
building blocks for the first part of this new millennium.
  Now, we have done 5-year budgets and we have done 7-year. Why did we 
do 10? Well, the President's budget presentation in February was very 
unique, very different than any President has ever done before. The 
President and his staff tried to use 15 years, and that is 15-year 
numbers, and in some cases, 15-year estimates. This 15-year timeframe 
was a very convenient way to shade the fact that they were and are 
counting on raiding the Social Security surplus in the early years by 
$158 billion over the first 5 years of the President's budget. Without 
any attempt to obfuscate, clearly it uses $158 billion of the Social 
Security surplus for programs, for expenditures, so it was, indeed, a 
raid on that Social Security surplus, and then leave it to future 
Presidents and future Congresses to reimburse that trust fund for this 
administration's early spending plans which would have used some of 
Social Security's surpluses.
  That is most interesting, especially because the President will be 
claiming that he is trying to save the Social Security surplus. I put 
out the challenge to anyone who wants to review the President's 
proposal and this proposal and see if anybody is entitled to the claim 
that we are saving Social Security's trust fund accumulations, 
exempting it, can't use it for taxes, can't use it for appropriated 
accounts. If you would like to look at it and see which does the most, 
I think you will find that the President puts $400 billion, that is 
``billion,'' less in the trust fund during the next decade, or let me 
put it another way, on a 10-year basis, it shortchanges the trust fund 
by $400 billion.
  That is as compared with what really ought to be in the fund. We put 
in what really ought to be in the fund, and that is all of it, all of 
the surplus year by year, not a portion of it over 15 years.

  So we think we can properly say the first responsibility of this 
budget was to make sure that we did everything possible to protect the 
Social Security trust fund and to make it available for those who might 
want to reform, or in a major way change the Social Security program to 
add to its longevity and perhaps its fairness. But only for that 
purpose can any of that trust fund be used. That is the first big item. 
The conference agreement accomplishes that first objective, protects 
Social Security trust fund balances. Then we go on to three other major 
items.
  Two, we didn't see any way that we could produce a budget to enter 
the millennium that did not maintain the fiscal discipline of the 1997 
budget agreement. The distinguished occupant of the Chair, a 
distinguished member of the Budget Committee and other committees, 
knows that it wasn't very long ago that we set a fiscal discipline 
pattern which has brought us a great deal of success. We said we are 
only going to spend so much over the next 5 years. It wasn't over a 
prolonged period, just 5 years. That, plus some other good fortunes 
that are attributable to economic growth and prosperity, has brought us 
the best fiscal policy of any industrialized Nation in the world--
sustained growth, manifold numbers of jobs, low inflation, and low 
interest rates.
  We thought it was best that we stay on that path. So the second point 
is that the fiscal discipline is retained from the 1997 agreement. Why 
shouldn't it? There are those who say it is too tough. There are those 
who say we can't live by it.
  There are those who say the President is going to force us to break 
this budget. Well, we aren't going to let the President do that. If 
that is what he thinks we ought to do, we will have to hear from him. 
We are going to try hard to live within those prescribed limits, which 
brought such credibility to the fiscal policy ideas of this Government 
that I believe we ought to stick with them for awhile.
  Now, the third is another idea that somehow or another has been 
challenged here in the Congress, and that is that we want to return to 
the American taxpayer their overpayments to the Federal Government. 
Now, what we on our side of the aisle--and we hope some Democrats join 
us before the year is over--would like to say is that when you have an 
economy like this one,

[[Page S3678]]

with surpluses that we have, you should not just be thinking about 
spending money; you ought to be thinking about the taxpayer, too. In 
fact, maybe you ought to say let's look at government and let's look at 
the taxpayers and let's make sure we have as little government as 
possible, so that we consider the taxpayers to the maximum extent and 
have them paying the lowest taxes possible within a good, sound policy.
  So while some will say, ``I would like a tax cut but not this one,'' 
or, ``I would like a tax cut, but not now; I would like it later, but I 
would like a little bit now and then wait for 5 or 6 years,'' we say 
the policy is a clear one. The United States succeeds when we have low 
taxes and we exceed our competitor countries in the world predominantly 
on the premise that our businesses and our individuals pay less taxes 
than those competing with us. That is a truism with regard to all of 
the European countries that try to compete. They are heavily taxed; we 
are taxed at a low level. They have huge burdens on business to take 
care of social welfare programs; we have far less.

  As a result, business is flourishing in America and we are adding, if 
not hundreds of thousands, then in a few of the past 6 years, even a 
few million new jobs. And it is interesting to note, Mr. President, as 
we consider this budget, if a poll were taken of American business, in 
particular the medium-sized businesses that are flourishing in our 
country, and we were to ask them, ``Can't you grow a little more?'' 
they would all answer, ``Yes.'' And then if we said, ``Why aren't 
you?'' the No. 1 answer would be, ``We can't find enough skilled 
workers to add to our workforce to grow as we could.''
  Now, that is a very interesting thing for America, and it does mean 
that there is one long-term problem we ought to be concerned about, 
which is the validity of our education system to give basic-skill 
education and basic-skill development to more and more of the young 
people and those who would like to be retrained in America.
  I guess, as an aside, if that doesn't happen, then I know we should 
not be talking about how we will be able to meet the needs of our 
businesses. But I surmise that if we don't create more educational 
skill opportunities for more and more of our people within a decade, we 
will be looking at an American policy that is going to let more people 
come in from outside our country to take our jobs.
  I hope everybody listening to these remarks knows in what sequence I 
have said it. Clearly, I would like very much to get to the next point 
in our budget, because within these fiscal restraints we have taken a 
look at where the priorities for the expenditure of money, even in this 
crimped manner, the budget following this fiscal restraint, should be.
  I believe Americans would agree with us that we ought to increase 
spending on education. In fact, if you looked at the President's 
budget, you would probably say that is not enough; it is sort of a 
nominal increase. We have said that, and we have increased our 
recommendations for public education assistance significantly over the 
President's. In fact, if the recommendation of the Budget Committee 
were accepted, we would increase, over the next 5 years, spending on 
education by $28 billion.
  Everybody should know, we don't pay for a lot of public education. 
Local expenditures are, by far, most of it. Perhaps our country pays 7 
percent of the bill; 93 percent is paid by local school districts, 
States, et cetera. We asked that we put more in, but we expressed a big 
concern--that in doing that we not provide targeted U.S. Government 
programs mandating the school districts to do things our way, but 
rather that we have accountability and flexibility built into the 
education programs that we add money for. So our budget does that.
  Next, we created a non-Social Security surplus of about $92 billion 
for unexpected contingencies, that is, we didn't spend it for tax cuts 
or on anything else. It starts in the fifth year. It is $92 billion for 
unexpected contingencies. That could be used for transition costs for 
implementing fundamental reform in Medicare. Or if we did not use it 
for any of those things, that is, contingencies and/or Medicare reform, 
then they would further reduce the national debt.
  Understanding that I started my remarks by saying we set aside $400 
billion more than the President in the first decade of the Social 
Security trust fund and lock it in a box that we are going to vote on 
later, all of that is used to reduce the public debt until we use it 
for Social Security. It dramatically reduces the public debt. That is 
one of the best things we can do, and we did $400 billion more of debt 
reduction during the first decade than the President.

  We are proud of that and we think it is the best use of the surplus, 
and the second best use is to return it to the taxpayers, so we return 
to them a substantial amount in tax reform, tax cuts, which is $778 
billion. So there will be no confusion, add up all of those numbers I 
speak of and you keep the Social Security trust fund intact, you leave 
$102 billion for expected contingencies, and you cut the taxes of the 
American people by $752 billion over a decade.
  I don't want anybody to be surprised, but the Republican tax package 
will not be big at the inception; it will be small. But in one bill, we 
will pass tax changes that will wedge out and grow each year, and in 
the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh years, you will be providing 
significant tax relief to the American taxpayer. Frankly, I believe 
that is just about perfect.
  Some are fearful of it because we provide it over 10 years. But I 
think the American economy is experiencing a tremendous boon right now. 
I think these tax cuts are going to trigger in --I don't mean ``trigger 
in'' in the sense that anything will have to happen. I will use another 
word. It will come into play at just about the time when we need tax 
cuts for the American people and American business, so we can continue 
the prosperity, growth, and opportunity that is so prevalent today.
  In summary, those are the things we tried to do, and those are the 
things that show up in this budget resolution. After conferring, almost 
all of those principles that started here in the Senate are kept. I am 
pleased to indicate that some of the other things the Senate had in its 
budget resolution are kept in this resolution. So let me tell you a 
couple of those.
  First, the conference adopted the Abraham-Ashcroft-Domenici sense-of-
the-Senate framework for protecting Social Security surpluses through a 
mechanism for retiring debt held by the public and made it a sense of 
the entire Congress. That means that both the House and the Senate will 
use every effort possible to try to pass what we will nickname here 
today ``lockbox'' legislation, which would be statutory preservation of 
that fund, requiring a majority vote to dip into it. We will have more 
to say about that. It will then be perfected and introduced soon, after 
consultation with more experts. We think we will have one that is 
flexible enough, yet rigid enough, to make sure that we don't spend 
that money.
  In addition, yesterday afternoon, for the second time, the Senate 
voted on a child care proposal that had passed the Senate with a 57-40 
vote, including 15 or 16 Republicans. Yesterday, in revisiting it, more 
Senators expressed their will for that.
  While in conference, I was not able to get the House to give on it in 
its entirety. We got $6 billion. Half goes for the block grant that 
Senator Dodd and Senator Jeffords discussed, and half is indicated in 
the tax package and should be used for tax relief that is child care 
oriented for as many families in America as possible.
  Now, I believe that the leadership of both the Senate and the House 
have made a commitment in this conference report to go beyond the 
resolution before the Senate today to try to pass legislation to make 
sure for the first time in history we truly have made it almost 
impossible in the future to spend the Social Security trust fund for 
the ordinary expenditures of our budget as a ``basket'' from which we 
borrow for overextending our receipts.
  This resolution maintains the fiscal discipline required by law. 
Statutory caps cannot be changed by a budget resolution, and they are 
now written into the law. It does not assume any firewalls between 
defense and nondefense discretionary spending. We are

[[Page S3679]]

not trying to protect defense from domestic spending in this era of 
great demands on both. We will just let the good judgment of the 
Congress, in its collaborative efforts, do its will with reference to 
the defense spending and the domestic spending.
  However, in our recommendations, we do substantially increase defense 
beyond that which the President requested. We do that forthrightly and 
openly. We believed, even before the Kosovo situation, that the U.S. 
Department of Defense was being underfunded. We finally asked the Joint 
Chiefs what they really needed. They expressed genuine concern, so we 
added most of their requests to the defense assumptions.
  This resolution makes no decision on the expansion or extension of 
the caps beyond 2002. It assumes, on the other hand, that discretionary 
spending will grow over the decade, increasing at a rate of about half 
the rate of inflation and expanding to a total of $2.9 trillion over 
the next 5 years and $5.9 trillion over the next decade.
  Within the aggregate numbers on the face of the resolution, and again 
as required by law, the level of appropriation is distributed by budget 
function for illustrative purposes, but everyone should know the final 
decision will be a matter for the Appropriations Committee and the 
subcommittees. Everybody is beginning to understand that the budget 
resolution was not intended to be a determiner of how much money each 
program gets, but rather the total that they must not exceed.
  The conference report assumed the priorities I mentioned. I will add 
one clarification on elementary and secondary education. In the first 
year, we increased it $3.3 billion in our allocation assumption and $28 
billion over 5 years. That would be over and above the estimated $100 
billion that would be expended for these programs during the same time 
period.
  We assume full funding of transportation programs adopted last year. 
We assume full funding of the violent crime trust fund next year. We 
also have assumed $1.7 billion in additional veterans' health care 
benefits over the President's request for this year.
  Within the spending restraints, it is assumed that the historic pay 
equity between civilian and military pay will be maintained. It assumes 
that the Congress funds the President's request for the upcoming 
census, and it assumes we double the request for the National 
Institutes of Health--double his increase.
  I think that clearly puts us on the side that most Americans desire. 
We increase defense, we increase education, we increase those functions 
of our Government that take care of crime and criminal justice in our 
country. In addition, we take care of our veterans. The President did 
not even increase, to any extent, the veterans' medical appropriations. 
We added about $1.7 billion.
  Adding those up, and adding a return of tax dollars to the American 
people with the kind of protection for Social Security and Medicare 
that we have provided, I believe we have a very good format to begin 
the millennium, the year 2000 budget.
  To maintain the fiscal discipline of the caps and reorder spending 
toward these and other national needs, it is clear that the Congress 
will need to set priorities. If not, then some of the proposals I have 
outlined will likely not be possible.
  What are some of those lesser priorities on the Federal taxpayers' 
dollars?
  First, last year we appropriated over $106 billion for programs whose 
authorizations did not exist. A good place to start looking for lower 
priority programs in the Federal Government might be in those areas 
where no authorization exists.
  In addition to the unauthorized programs, as I have stated 
previously, it would be helpful if the Congress reviewed the GAO's 
recent high-risk series which lists 26 areas this year--nearly 40 
percent which have been designated high risk for 10 years--areas that 
GAO has found to be vulnerable to waste, fraud, and error.
  Second, it is clear that some programs will not grow, will remain at 
their 1999 level, and some will have to be reduced below a freeze as 
the President's budget suggested. I would suggest that committees and 
the administration take to heart the Government performance and results 
act that specifically identifies low performing and inefficient 
programs.
  Some programs, such as various transportation projects funded last 
year outside TEA-21, were one time and we should not assume continued 
funding of such programs next year.
  The conference assumes that Ginnie Mae will become a private 
operation and its auction creates nearly $2.8 billion in offsets next 
year.
  And yes, the conference 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 5 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.
  The Senate-passed resolution assumed that expiring savings provisions 
in 2002, that were enacted in the 1997 balanced budget agreement, would 
be extended. This applied to all such provisions except expiring 
Medicare savings provisions. Between 2003 and 2009 these provisions 
would save $20 billion.
  In conference the Senate receded to the House position that did not 
assume any of these savings provisions. In part this accounts for the 
fact that the non-Social Security surplus over the next decade has 
declined to $92 billion.
  The Senate-passed resolution included the Dodd-Jeffords amendment to 
add $12 billion to child care spending over the next decade. The 
spending was offset with a reduction in the reconciled tax cut. The 
House had no such assumption.
  The Senate voted yesterday to instruct the conference to adopt this 
provision. The conference assumes half of these resources for families 
with children to cover child care expenditures--$6 billion. These 
expenditures reduced the non-Social Security surplus and did not reduce 
the reconciled tax reduction.
  For revenues the conference resolution assumes that tax reductions 
will be phased in and over the next 5 years will return overpayments to 
the American public of nearly $142 billion and $778 billion over the 
next 10 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 $92 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.
  The Senate-committee-reported resolution included a provision to make 
emergency spending items subject to a supermajority point of order. 
This provision was adopted by the conference, while exempting Defense 
spending.
  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 conference 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

[[Page S3680]]

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 5 years on programs unrelated to Social Security 
or Medicare.
  That is why we can save the entire Social Security surplus and why he 
can not.
  Let me summarize. The conference report does four things: It protects 
100 percent 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 resolution to close out the Budget Act's 25-year silver 
anniversary this year.
  It is a good fiscal blueprint for the next century.
  Commenting for a minute about the tax proposals in this bill, in the 
next 5 years Congress will be permitted under this budget resolution to 
reduce taxes on the American people by $142 billion, and in the second 
5 years the total will be $778 billion.
  The first and second year cannot be very big, depending on what 
loopholes are closed by the Finance Committee and the Ways and Means 
Committee. We can have a goodly tax in the first 2 years, moving up in 
a ``wedged'' manner to some very substantial return of taxes to the 
American people over this next decade.
  There may be remarks on the floor about what these tax cuts will look 
like. Certain Republican Senators, including some of our leadership, 
may say what they prefer. That permits the Democratic leadership and 
Democratic Senators to get up and say they don't think we ought to give 
tax cuts to the rich, that we ought to spend it elsewhere rather than 
giving it to the rich people of our country.
  This budget resolution gives the Congress of the United States and 
its committees full latitude to have a tax cut bill of whatever type 
the Congress and its committees ultimately approve and, hopefully, that 
the President will sign. I am quite sure when that package is finally 
put together the good judgment of the tax-writing committees, with 
Congress exerting its concerns, it will be a balanced package, focused 
on average Americans and on continuing the economic prosperity of our 
country.
  If we do that, then I believe there may be disagreement between 
Republicans and Democrats, but I do believe it will not be the package 
that is constantly suggested by Democrats--that we are going to take 
care of only the high-bracketed people, instead of spending it on 
programs that are good.
  I can do no better than that. I don't know that I will answer every 
time we are accused of having a tax cut that takes care of only the 
wealthy in our country. The facts are as I have indicated. Whether or 
not Senators have taken to the floor or given stump speeches or 
otherwise saying what they would prefer, we probably ought to give some 
serious consideration to reducing the brackets, with taxation more 
proportionally on every group of people. I am sure the package will be 
fair in building American prosperity by cutting taxes in the right 
places for economic growth.
  I make one last comment about the return of tax dollars to the 
American people. I have been heard to say that as a Budget Committee 
member and chairman somehow or another when we finally get to that 
place where we can have surpluses for as far as the eye can see--
according to those who estimate for us--I have been heard to say that 
maybe it is harder to manage surpluses than it is deficits. Yesterday 
my good friend, Senator Lautenberg, indicated that probably that is how 
it should be, because it is human nature that when you have real 
assets, you fight over them; with deficits you do the best you can.
  I have found it more difficult to give taxpayers tax relief when we 
have had a surplus than I found as a budget chairman to give tax relief 
when we had deficits. That is rather incredible.
  But I think the history will indicate that we have had many tax cuts, 
giving back money to the taxpayers, when we had deficits. Now we have a 
criticism of Republicans who want to give back tax money to those who 
have overpaid, because we have more money than we need; that we should 
not be doing it now. If you cannot do it when you have a surplus, when 
can you? If you cannot do it with a surplus, when should you?
  It seems to me the answer is we probably ought to have a major tax 
reduction bill. I would think before the year is out the President of 
the United States will get into the act. He is probably still looking 
back to his first campaign, before he was elected, when he promised a 
middle-income tax cut. I know, in reading about the politics of the 
White House during the intervening years, that some of his consultants 
brought up that issue regularly during his campaign and first year in 
office--what about the tax cuts? Maybe they were not right in his 
scheme of things then, but I submit, with this kind of surplus, they 
are right now.
  We look forward, after this budget resolution is passed--and 
hopefully that will be tomorrow--to working within the Congress--and 
hopefully Congress with the Executive--to take care of our public needs 
and take care of our taxpayers' needs. But we will always be vigilant 
that we not put one over the other, since it is the taxpayers who make 
our Government capable of doing what it does.
  With that, I yield the floor and repeat to Senators, if you do not 
get to speak this evening, there are 5 hours tomorrow. We will be glad 
to start taking names for tomorrow. It will be better than tonight. We 
can get through early tomorrow and early tonight and still have a lot 
of debate time if most of you will sign up for tomorrow, which means we 
could get out of here rather early this evening.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to respond to the analysis just 
given us by our good friend and colleague, the chairman of the Senate 
Budget Committee, Senator Domenici. One thing about Senator Domenici, 
he is always direct. He always calls it like he sees it. And therein 
lie, perhaps, some differences.
  The expression, ``beauty is in the eyes of the beholder,'' is one 
that fits well, I think, because I see it quite differently than 
Senator Domenici. As we begin consideration of the conference report, 
for the benefit of those who do not know how we work here, the 
conference report is that report on the budget that has been agreed to 
by the House of Representatives, their Budget Committee people, and the 
Senate Budget Committee people. So I have to say at the outset that it 
is quite obvious that it is the majority's report we are looking at. 
Even though there are 45 Democrat Senators here, the fact is, with rare 
exception, all of the Democrats voted in opposition to the initial 
Budget Committee report and my view here is that we are probably going 
to see at least something as strong in opposition to the report that 
has now been agreed upon by the House representatives on the budget and 
the Senate representatives.
  Look at this. Here we have a budget resolution, one that says this is 
the way we ought to be spending our money. Mr. President, I remind 
those who are in earshot, this is a toothless tiger. It does have the 
force of a Senate-House conference committee agreeing that is what we 
ought to be spending, but it is without law to support it, and it is 
now an instruction to the various committees that have the jurisdiction 
to set up the spending as recommended by the Budget Committee.
  But what a time this is. The economy has never been stronger. I have 
been around a long time--thank goodness, for my kids and me--but we 
have never seen an economy like this. Unemployment is low, inflation is 
almost unheard of, the stock market is booming, people are able to 
invest in housing and education and plan their future and vacations. 
Our fiscal house is in order. We are now running surpluses, having come 
a long way from 1992 when President Clinton took over, when we were

[[Page S3681]]

running annual deficits in the high $200 billion. Now we are running 
surpluses. So we have done something good. I commend my colleague, the 
chairman of the Budget Committee, for the hard work that he did--that 
we did bilaterally, with the President of the United States--to get a 
balanced budget in place. That, I think, has had a large effect on how 
it is we got to this current period of prosperity. But at the same time 
we face serious long-term challenges. Most importantly, the baby 
boomers' retirement is going to put tremendous pressure on Social 
Security and on Medicare in the years ahead.
  The key question facing Congress is whether we will meet those 
challenges and prepare for the future at this time or whether we are 
going to yield to short-term temptation at the expense of the longevity 
of these programs. Democrats are committed to focusing on the future. 
Our top priority is to save Medicare and Social Security for the long 
term by reducing our debt, keeping our debt in control, and increasing 
national savings.
  We also want to provide targeted tax relief for those who need it 
most and that is the middle-class families, those who work hard for a 
living, those who are dependent totally on wages and salary for their 
living. We want to invest in education and other priorities that will 
enhance the lives of those who are not yet university age but who are 
looking forward to having a job and career that gives them a decent 
lifestyle.

  The Republicans, our friends on the other side of the aisle, have a 
different view. Their plan as embodied in this conference report 
focuses on huge tax breaks, largely for the wealthy. I want to give an 
example of what it is I am talking about because so often our 
Republican friends get irritated when we say ``focused on the 
wealthy.'' But if you are in the top 1 percent of the income earners--
that is starting at $300,000 but averaging $850,000 a year--if you are 
one of the lucky ones, one of the skilled ones, or one of those who 
inherited wealth, and your income is $800,000 a year, you get a $20,000 
tax break in this budget that is proposed before us.
  On the other hand, if you work hard and you go to work every day and 
you worry about how to educate your kids and you worry about how to pay 
your mortgage and you earn $38,000 a year, you get $100--oh, $99, I am 
sorry; it is not even $100--a $99 tax break. Somehow or other that 
doesn't seem right to me: $800,000 on the one hand gets a $20,000 tax 
break and on the other hand, if you make $38,000, slightly over $700 a 
week to support your family, you get $99 and you can spend it in any 
way you want, the $99; buy a yacht, buy a vacation--whatever you want 
to do with the $99. So it does not seem right to me.
  These tax breaks on top of the unfair balance between those who are 
the wealthy and those who work hard for a living would cost the 
taxpayer enormous sums in the future. It would absorb funding that is 
needed to save Medicare. And that, when you get right down to it, is 
really the main issue this conference report presents to the Senate.
  Question: Should we provide huge tax cuts, many of which will benefit 
the wealthy? Or should we use that money to save Medicare?
  Of course, there is a lot more to the conference report before us, so 
I will take a little time now to explain why I strongly oppose and 
intend to vote against the acceptance of this conference report. There 
are four primary reasons.
  First, it does not do anything to increase Medicare's life. In other 
words, in 2015 Medicare is ready for bankruptcy, if things go as they 
are.
  I have suggested that we ought not use funds needed for Medicare for 
tax cuts that are primarily for the wealthy.
  Secondly, it threatens Social Security because it fails to extend 
Social Security's life, but it allows the use of surpluses generated by 
those who currently pay about 13 percent of wages; that is the worker 
and the company, for purposes other than Social Security.
  Thirdly, it is fiscally dangerous. I used to run a big corporation, 
and I will tell you that this is not the way to plan the long-term 
future. It proposes tax cuts that do not cost much in the beginning, as 
the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee said, but he said it 
is going to cost over $700 billion. In 10 years, over $750 billion will 
be used to provide that tax break.
  Fourthly, it proposes extreme and unrealistic cuts in essential 
programs that are necessary for the well-being of all our citizens. It 
would devastate public services on which so many depend. Moreover, 
Congress will be unable to pass the bills that provide the funding that 
these programs need, and it could lead eventually to a repeat of a 
terrible experience that we had a few years ago--a Government shutdown. 
These are the kinds of programs that would be affected.
  Medicare's hospital insurance trust fund is now expected to become 
bankrupt in 2015. It is critical that we address this problem and do it 
now. There is no doubt that we have to modernize and reform Medicare to 
make it function more efficiently, but whatever reform process we pass, 
we still need more resources--more money, to put it bluntly. In an 
attempt to find an overall solution, President Clinton proposed 
allocating 15 percent of projected budget surpluses, that is, the 
unified budget, for surpluses for Medicare. This would extend the life 
of the Medicare trust fund for another 12 years. Our Republican 
colleagues deride this proposal. They say it amounts to adding 
meaningless IOUs to Medicare, but they are wrong.
  First, the President's proposal would reduce the debt that the public 
holds in bonds and investment in Government securities, which would 
significantly reduce interest costs in the future, which would help us 
actually pay for Medicare with the real dollars saved.
  Unfortunately, the Republican budget resolution we have in front of 
us totally rejects the President's proposal to extend Medicare 
solvency. Instead of directly using these surpluses for Medicare, it 
uses almost all of that money for tax cuts. The document we have in 
front of us--that was prepared exclusively by Republicans, I remind 
you--does not specify how we are going to provide those tax cuts. They 
will be drafted later in the Finance Committee. However, based on the 
comments of the chairman of the Finance Committee, it is fair to assume 
that most of the total benefits will flow to the wealthiest Americans. 
Mr. President, these GOP tax breaks would come at the direct expense of 
Medicare. It is wrong.
  Under the Republican plan, not one penny of projected surpluses is 
guaranteed for Medicare--not one cent. The resolution claims to reserve 
about $90 billion for unspecified uses over 10 years and suggests that 
maybe we can take some of that $90 billion for Medicare. However, that 
is far less than the $350 billion the President wants to put into 
Medicare over a 10-year period. And none of this $90 billion is 
actually reserved for Medicare.
  In any case, there is nothing left for the Medicare program after 
these funds are used up for unexpected emergencies. For example, 
emergency spending now averages $9 billion a year. That is emergency 
spending for natural disasters or some other disaster--fire, whatever 
you have--in a community that is needed each and every year. It is 
reasonable to assume that future emergencies will consume all of this 
so-called reserve.
  Mr. President, the Republicans' 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 needs in the 
future. The resolution almost certainly would mean higher health care 
costs, higher copayments--that means for the beneficiary. If you have 
an incident or a matter that can be reimbursed by Medicare, you will 
have a higher copayment, you will have higher deductibles, lower 
quality health care services, and probably fewer hospitals, all because 
the Republicans insist on providing these huge tax breaks.
  Beyond Medicare, the second major problem with the Republican 
resolution is that it poses a direct threat to Social Security.
  Just yesterday, I offered a motion to instruct the conferees, those 
from the House and those from the Senate--but particularly it applied 
to the Senate because that is where we give our directions--that they 
ensure that all Social Security surplus is used only to extend the life 
of Social Security. It was

[[Page S3682]]

not a close vote. The motion was adopted by a 98-0 vote. Ninety-eight 
Senators said, yes, this is the right kind of attitude we want to see. 
Ninety-eight out of 100 Senators said, yes, we want to use all of our 
Social Security surpluses to extend the life of Social Security.
  But within just a few hours of that vote--the vote took place here, 
then it went to conference over there in the House, and the conferees, 
the group that was sitting around the table, our Republican friends, 
approved a provision that would allow Social Security surpluses to be 
used for other purposes. I find it astounding and, frankly, it is 
outrageous that 98 Senators stood up and voted aye, yes, we want all 
Social Security surpluses to be spent on Social Security, and it went 
in the wastebasket within a few hours. Quite incredible.
  The conference report establishes, as we heard, a lockbox that 
supposedly protects Social Security surpluses. But it does not do that. 
It establishes a largely meaningless 50-vote point of order against 
future budget resolutions but has a huge loophole for any legislation 
that ``enhances retirement security.''
  We do not know what the definition of ``retirement security'' is. 
What does it mean to enhance retirement security? It does not say 
``Social Security.'' This is a word game we play here. We say one 
thing, but it has a different meaning when we say it over here. Just a 
change of a word or two: ``Retirement security'' versus ``Social 
Security.'' Presumably this retirement security plan could mean a wide 
range of purposes.
  Mr. President, it is unacceptable, it is outrageous, it deserves to 
be condemned in the strongest possible terms. Social Security surpluses 
should not be used for ``retirement security'' or anything that we do 
not understand clearly. Sure, it should not be used for tax cuts. They 
should not be used for risky new schemes and programs. They should be 
used to pay Social Security benefits, period.
  The third problem with the conference report is that it is fiscally 
irresponsible. The resolution calls only for small tax cuts in the 
first year or two. We heard the chairman of the Budget Committee say 
so. But the cost of these tax cuts explode in the future.

  Over the first 5 years, the total tax cuts that we would have would 
cost $142 billion, but over the second 5 years that cost increases to 
$636 billion, about 4\1/2\ times as high as the first 5 years. And that 
is another way of getting at things. It is kind of a little bit sleight 
of hand, I would say. That is to say, ``Oh, we can give these tax 
breaks, give these tax cuts, and it's not going to cost anything.'' No, 
not while most of us are still Members of this Senate. But 10 years 
hence, when we add up the scorecard, we will have spent almost three-
quarters of a trillion dollars for tax cuts.
  Mr. President, the final problem with the Republican plan is that it 
forces extreme cuts in programs for Americans here at home. Tax cuts, 
on one hand, cost something for the ordinary Americans on the other 
hand.
  I want to point out something. We Democrats are not opposed to tax 
cuts that are targeted, that means something for middle-class people, 
that means something for hard-working people who have to watch if not 
their pennies, at least their nickels. That is the way we want to do 
our tax cuts. We want to encourage savings, we want to encourage child 
care, we want it so people can have child care in case they do want to 
work. We want to make sure there are funds there for long-term health 
care for an elderly person. That is the kind of tax cut that we seek, 
not this broad, across-the-board tax cut that will give these $800,000 
wage-earners a $20,000 tax cut. So we will be losing, as a result of 
that--programs that are here called nondefense discretionary programs--
about 7\1/2\ percent in the first year. But the real cut in most 
programs would be much deeper.
  Keep in mind, the Republican leadership has said they will increase 
or maintain funding for a handful of favored programs like new 
courthouses, the transportation bill for the next half dozen years--we 
call it TEA-21--the census, the National Institutes of Health, and some 
crime and education programs. That leaves other unprotected programs 
facing cuts of about 11 percent.
  I want to point out what we are talking about. This is not just an 
amorphous discussion about arithmetic. When we say 11 percent, we are 
talking about everything from environmental protection to the National 
Parks and the FAA. The FAA is responsible for the maintenance of our 
aviation fleet and working hard to keep up with the new technologies 
and the needs as aviation expands its marketplace.
  The Coast Guard. My gosh, everyone knows the Coast Guard is one of 
the most important branches of service that we have in this country. 
They do everything. They do drug interdiction. They maintain waterways. 
They are out there picking up illegal immigrants who are trying to 
float their way to the American coast. They are on pollution patrol. 
They watch it all. You want to cut that down? I do not think so. Eleven 
percent--that would be devastating.
  I heard our Senators from States that border Central America about 
the inadequacy of the number of Border Patrol members that they have. 
This would take a big slice out of that so that we could no longer do 
even the protection of our borders as efficiently as we do now.
  We would be losing lots of FBI agents, NASA would be hurt, our space 
program, job training, head Start, the program that gives kids who come 
from a disadvantaged background a little bit of a head start.

  So what would it mean in real terms? Here are a few examples based on 
the administration's estimates: 2,700 FBI agents would be lost; 1,350 
Border Patrol agents; 780 drug enforcement agents would be lost; 90,000 
fewer dislocated workers would receive training for new jobs, job 
search assistance, and support services; 34,000 low-income children 
would lose child care assistance--what a devastating thing that would 
be to lots of families--over 1.2 million low-income women, infants and 
children--we call it the WIC Program--would lose nutrition assistance 
each month.
  How can we face our conscience?
  FAA operations would be cut by almost $700 million. It would lead to 
travel delays, weakened security, lack of critical modernization 
technologies. The Superfund Program that cleans up these toxic waste 
sites left by our industrial past--unusable ground--that raise 
potential dangers to those who live nearby; we would lose 21 
opportunities to clean up Superfund toxic waste sites, needlessly 
jeopardizing public health.
  Up to 100,000 children would lose the opportunity to benefit from 
Head Start; 73,000 training and summer job opportunities for young 
people would be lost.
  Mr. President, these types of cuts clearly are unacceptable. They are 
not what the American people want.
  Unfortunately, under this resolution the problem gets dramatically 
worse in later years. By 2004, these nondefense cuts--again, defense, 
on one hand, nondefense on the other. Defense is a very favored account 
in this place, and I support a strong defense. And, boy, if we ever 
doubted our need to fund it, we see now that we have to do it. But we 
do not have to give them all of the new resources that we have.
  By 2004, the nondefense program cuts grow to 27 percent. There isn't 
a Senator here, who, when faced with reality, is going to vote for 
those kinds of cuts. But they put their heads in the sand. They are not 
looking at what the longer consequences of this budget resolution are 
going to be. And it does not even include any effects of inflation.
  Mr. President, you really have to wonder whether our Republican 
friends are serious about cutting domestic programs by 27 percent. It 
is hard to believe, especially when they are not giving us any details 
about where those cuts would come from. Some Republicans have argued 
that these cuts are required because of the discretionary spending caps 
which remain in effect through 2002. But that is not true. ``Spending 
caps,'' again, is part of the vernacular here. Those are the levels of 
spending that we agreed we would adhere to until 2002. But we are now 
in surplus. We are out of debt because of the good fiscal policies that 
we have had here. That occurred because Democrats and Republicans and 
the President worked together.

[[Page S3683]]

  Much of the problem for domestic programs is created because the 
conference report increases military spending significantly over last 
year's level. Since all discretionary spending is now under one cap, 
that extra money must come directly from the other programs that we 
talked about.
  Cutting domestic programs by 27 percent in 2004 is not realistic. It 
is an extreme decision. When it comes time for cutting specific 
programs, Congress sure will not likely follow through.
  In other words, this budget resolution is a roadmap to gridlock. If 
we can't pass the appropriations bills, the funding bills, we face the 
prospect of a horrible nightmare that we once experienced here, and 
that is a Government shutdown.
  Why, then, are we considering a budget resolution that even some 
Republicans admit can't be enacted into law? The answer is simple. 
Republicans are desperate to claim that they are for tax cuts. And they 
see that as the ``Holy Grail.'' That is what they say Americans want. I 
tell you, I see it differently. I see an America where someone comes 
from a home that is not wealthy, sometimes widowed. I had the 
experience personally. My mother was widowed at age 36. My father died 
when he was 43. There was not a chance at all that I was going to be 
able to get an education or progress in life. But, fortunately, I 
served in the military--World War II--and I was able to get my 
education under the GI bill. It is an incredible thing that we offer 
when we propose to young people that they have a chance to get a job 
and to progress and to live a life that is better than their parents in 
most cases. Here we are saying, well, tax cuts will take care of it 
all. No. Tax cuts won't take care of it all. Some tax cuts will help, 
but some tax cuts are just giveaways to wealthy people. The result is 
that we can create stresses in our society that make living 
uncomfortable.

  Right now we see violent crime going down in the most unlikely 
places. Why? Because we have more police on the streets? Yes. Because 
we put more criminals in jail? Yes. Because the judges are tougher? 
Yes. But it is also because people see a way to make a living 
legitimately and they do not turn to criminality. It is because there 
are education programs and there are job opportunities that have been 
created. That is the difference.
  In one case you have a stable society. Those of us--and I include 
myself, having had a successful business career--who can afford to pay 
for the privilege of living in this country ought to step up and pay 
for it and not be looking for tax cuts but be looking for harmony and 
stability in our society. That is what it is all about.
  Here we have the tax cut proposal, the Republican tax cut proposal. 
They think it is politically going to keep up their majorities here. It 
is not going to happen, because we do not have a clue on how to pay for 
them. And as long as we don't know how to pay for them, we can only 
expect the worst.
  Mr. President, we are left with a budget that can be described a 
little bit as show business, fantasy, a budget that almost everybody 
knows isn't worth the paper on which it is written.
  I have to say that some of the other provisions in the conference 
report as well are highly problematic. The conference report 
establishes a new process, a 60-vote point of order against all 
emergency spending except for defense.
  Now I pose a situation. Take a volcano in the State of Washington or 
an earthquake in the State of California or the floods that hit 
Missouri or the droughts that hit other States or the storms that hit 
the Northeast or the Southeast. If we say, well, these are emergency 
conditions, it disturbs the community, it destroys their economic 
viability; we want that to be taken care of by programs that we have in 
the Federal Government. Now we are saying, well, it is not enough to 
have 51 votes. Let's make sure you have to have 60 votes so that 41 
votes can stop any program they want.
  Let's suppose that there is a political problem existing in a 
campaign for President or Senator, and one party is in power here. They 
know that State X, Y or Z has a stronger possible voting block than the 
other party; 41 Senators can get up and stop it cold. Emergency 
spending is emergency spending. We ought to leave it to a majority of 
the Senate to decide that, not require 60 votes.
  It flies directly in the face of the Senate-passed resolution. That 
is the way we did it. We left it 50 votes. So not only do I strongly 
disagree with it as a matter of policy, but I think it is an abuse of 
the conference process.
  If 59 Senators think that we need to pass emergency assistance to 
help those ravaged by a flood or earthquake, we can't let 41 Senators 
block it.
  Why should we be buying new weapons with a higher priority than 
saving the lives of Americans who are suffering from a natural 
disaster? We know there have been abuses of the emergency designation, 
but the Governmental Affairs Committee developed a reasonable approach 
to cutting down on those abuses. They established a new definition and 
a new process for extracting new emergency items that were added at the 
last minute in conference reports. The Senate approved that approach, 
and the House didn't have anything about this in their resolution.

  Yet, when they got together in conference, the conferees on their own 
decided that they would delineate a new and entirely different 
approach. It is not right. That is not the way the system is supposed 
to work. We talk about majority rule.
  I am also concerned that the conference report rejected yesterday's 
Senate vote in support of the Dodd child care amendment. It was 
supported, in part, by our Republican friends, but the amendment that 
was carried through this body called for $12.5 billion in new funding 
for child care on top of any new related tax cuts. Instead, what the 
conferees did is provide only $3 billion in child care funding. We had 
66 votes for the proposal yesterday at $12.5 billion. Today, it is down 
to $3 billion. That is not what the 66 Senators voted for, and it is a 
sad commentary on our commitment to families in need.
  Finally, I am also disturbed that the conference report includes a 
provision saying that any reestimate of our budget surplus can be used 
only for tax cuts. I think it is a mistake. I think it is wrong. Why 
should tax breaks for wealthy people be given a higher priority than 
education or Social Security or Medicare or defense or veterans' needs?
  Mr. President, I do not think we should be spending any surpluses 
until we save Social Security and Medicare. And I certainly do not 
think that surpluses should be reserved only for tax cuts, especially 
when we know that many of those cuts are going to go to wealthy folks.
  There are many serious problems with this conference report. Before I 
close, I want to quickly recount the four problems that are most 
fundamental.
  First, it doesn't guarantee a single additional penny for Medicare, 
even though Medicare faces bankruptcy in the year 2015. Instead, it 
takes money needed for Medicare and uses it for tax cuts that will 
benefit the wealthy.
  Second, it threatens Social Security. It doesn't extend Social 
Security's solvency by a single day, and it calls for using Social 
Security surpluses for purposes other than Social Security directly.
  Third, it is fiscally dangerous. It calls for huge tax cuts, the 
costs of which 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 public services.
  More likely, Congress will never approve them, and we will again be 
facing the disastrous threat of a Government shutdown. The people who 
voted for it, for the most part, know very well that this is not a 
budget that is going to survive. It is too bad that we are taking all 
of this time and expending all of this energy to produce this sleight-
of-hand budget proposal that we see in front of us.
  I am strongly opposed to this conference report, and I hope that it 
will be more than a party-line vote that votes against it.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SESSIONS). Who yields time?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. How much time do we have, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator used 44 minutes of his 2 1/2 
hours.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would be happy to yield to the Senator.

[[Page S3684]]

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is an inquiry. I gather my 
colleagues are on the floor, the Senator from Missouri and others, to 
speak on the budget; is that correct?
  Mr. BOND. Yes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. He has the right to use the time. He is the manager.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will wait to get some time in morning 
business to introduce a bill with Senator Domenici. Why don't we go on 
with the process.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, on behalf of the chairman of the committee, 
I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Ashcroft.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Missouri is 
recognized.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from the 
State of Missouri. I rise to commend, thank, and praise Senator 
Domenici for crafting a budget resolution that we can stand up for and 
speak about and be grateful for. I appreciate it.
  The conference report balances need for responsibility, the need for 
setting priorities. When families gather around the kitchen table to 
make budgets, they set priorities. They say: If we are going to get the 
new car, we don't take the same vacation; we can't spend the same money 
twice.
  For too long, I think the U.S. Government, thinking that it could 
always just go further and further into debt or raid the Social 
Security trust fund, didn't have to set priorities. This is a budget 
that sets priorities. It sets priorities that are important.
  The conference report reduces the debt of this country. It will 
increase funding for education, it will reduce taxes, it will increase 
funding for national defense, and it will maintain the spending caps 
that are so very necessary if we are going to have the kind of 
discipline that keeps us from further invading the province of the next 
generation and their desire to be able to build their own future, 
instead of paying for our past. That is the real question when we 
decide whether we are going to have discipline in spending. It is a 
question of whether we will let the next generation build its dream or 
pay for our past.
  This in great measure is due to Senator Domenici's great efforts. I 
especially appreciate his willingness to work with his colleagues. At 
the start of this process, several other Senators and I sent Senator 
Domenici a letter asking for a budget that saved Social Security 
surpluses, that reduced the $3.8 trillion public debt, that pursued at 
least $600 billion in tax relief over the next 10 years, that 
maintained the statutory spending caps, and included increases in 
funding for both education and national defense. These were specific 
items that we requested in a letter addressed to the chairman of the 
Budget Committee, Senator Domenici. I know the occupant of the Chair 
understands what was included in that letter and endorses that as well.
  What is gratifying about what the chairman of the Budget Committee 
did is that the budget that has been prepared both meets and exceeds 
these goals. It calls for the following: A substantial Federal tax 
relief package, $142 billion over the next 5 years, $778 billion over 
the next 10 years. The resolution requires the Senate Finance Committee 
and the House Ways and Means Committee to report out their tax cut 
plans by mid-July, a major step forward for the American people, to say 
to them, ``You earned it, we returned it''--instead of, ``You sent it, 
we spent it.'' For so long the Congress has said, ``You send it, we 
will spend it.'' No matter how much they sent, we spent. We viewed the 
American people as somehow our ``sugar daddy'' for more and more 
programs and greater and greater spending.
  I think it is high time we said to the American people: We believe in 
you for the future of this country, we believe in families more than we 
believe in bureaucracy, we believe in the private sector. You have 
earned so much, you have worked so hard, that we have an operating 
surplus down the road and we will share it with you by way of tax 
relief.
  Second, it stays within the spending caps. The spending caps have 
enabled us to bring the budget into balance. I am happy that this 
budget maintains those caps.
  It increases spending for education and defense. This is most 
important. We understand the ability to defend the country from foreign 
aggression and the ability for the country to have the kind of intense 
vigor and vitality that comes from well-trained, bright citizens. These 
are the two cornerposts of our existence. Education spending goes up 40 
percent. The budget fully funds the $17.5 billion in defense spending 
requested by the Joint Chiefs of Staff over the next 5 years. We 
accommodated both of those by setting priorities. Senator Domenici and 
the Budget Committee, including the senior Senator from the State of 
Missouri, have done a good job.

  The conference report contains an amendment which I introduced 
directing that this new education resource be directed to the States 
and local education districts and not new Federal bureaucracy. We do 
need to increase the bureaucracy. We need to elevate the students' 
performance levels; their achievement levels need to soar. We don't do 
that by building bureaucracy in Washington. We need to get that 
resource directly to the classroom. I am pleased that the conference 
report will contain this amendment which I proposed, saying that the 
increase will go to school districts in schools where parents and 
teachers, principals, and school administrators will make decisions--
instead of bureaucracy directing it from Washington.
  The conference report also reduces the debt by $450 billion, $450 
billion more than the President's proposal would have reduced the debt. 
It is time for us to reduce the publicly held debt of this country.
  Perhaps most importantly, this budget saves $1.8 trillion over the 
next 10 years for our Nation's elderly. This money is vital to shoring 
up the Social Security system. This stands in stark contrast to the 
President's plan, which spends $158 billion over 5 years of Social 
Security surpluses for non-Social Security purposes. On the one hand, 
we save $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years for our Nation's elderly; 
the President's program over the next 5 years alone would have spent 
$158 billion of Social Security surpluses for non-Social Security 
spending.
  In addition to the money that this budget saves for Social Security, 
the budget also takes procedural steps to build in onbudget surpluses 
from the year 2001 and beyond. In other words, there are Social 
Security surpluses saved, then there will be other surpluses that 
relate to the rest of the budget--and the budget is careful to make 
sure that those surpluses will materialize beginning in the year 2001.
  This is setting priorities. This is kitchen table economics. This is 
understanding that in order to make some things work, you have to 
adjust other things and you have to work them together. It is not just 
a wish list, this is a real spending plan. It is a spending plan that 
honors the next generation and the future of this great country.
  Under these new important procedures, Congress could no longer spend 
billions of dollars on so-called ``emergencies'' that were not really 
emergencies. These new procedures stop the mislabeling of ordinary 
expenses in the category of ``emergencies'' so that you could invade 
funds or take Social Security surplus and spend, which happened last 
year. There will be a point of order in this budget that says you 
cannot do that, you cannot mislabel, you cannot automatically 
categorize things as emergencies.
  Last year, the President and the Congress together spent $21 billion 
from the Social Security trust fund on these so-called emergencies. We 
need to stop that. We must stop that. This budget will stop that kind 
of practice.
  The conference report contains a 60-vote point of order ensuring that 
emergency spending will be limited to actual emergencies. In addition, 
surpluses that are accumulating in the Social Security trust fund will 
no longer be used to finance onbudget deficits in governmental 
operations. It is a fundamental first step of Social Security reform 
that the Social Security surpluses should not be used to funding 
deficits in the rest of government. This budget stops that.
  In order to establish this first step, Senator Domenici and I 
introduced legislation that would establish a 60-vote

[[Page S3685]]

point of order against any budget when the Social Security surpluses 
are used to finance onbudget governmental deficits.
  I rise to say how much I appreciate the work of the chairman of the 
Budget Committee, the members of the Budget Committee, and their 
cooperation with the Members of the House to work together to bring a 
budget that really does what family budgets do--sets priorities, looks 
to the future, understands we cannot have everything all the time, but 
protects Social Security and its surplus, protects our budget generally 
from mislabeling that gets us into emergency spending which puts us 
into debt or raids the Social Security surplus, keeps the caps in 
place, elevates the capacity for spending for education, and 
strengthens the military. These are the fundamentals that are important 
to America's strength in the next century. This budget does that.
  There have been a number of years in which I have not voted for the 
budget. I haven't been able to in good conscience. I voted against last 
year's budget with the $21 billion raid on the Social Security trust 
fund. However, I will be able to vote for this budget. This is a budget 
for which we ought to be grateful. This is the kind of budget that we 
are grateful to have the opportunity to vote in favor of. I commend 
Senator Domenici and the other members of the Budget Committee and the 
House for its cooperation in getting us to a place where we can present 
this kind of spending plan to the people of the United States of 
America, for it is their money that we spend. This is a budget that 
they would be proud to develop, were they to sit around the table and 
make those kinds of hard-nosed judgments about the Nation that they 
make regularly about their families.
  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, before Senator Ashcroft leaves the 
floor, I thank him for his kind remarks. I, too, agree we have a very 
good budget.
  Mr. President, I am going to yield to Senator Bond who wants to 
manage the bill for me for a while. He has a lot of time this 
afternoon. But I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute to proceed as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Domenici pertaining to the introduction of S. 796 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to Senator Dodd, here I got a half 
loaf, maybe a quarter loaf--but we got something.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if I can have the floor for just a second, 
because I don't know who has the time to yield to me?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have the time to yield to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Jersey yield time?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield so much time as the Senator from Connecticut 
needs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from New Mexico on 
the child care effort. There was obviously, strong bipartisan support 
for this measure. As the Senator points out, as is normally the case, 
you do not get everything you want, but it is a major bipartisan step 
forward and will make a lot of difference in people's lives. We had to 
fight very hard and there was a lot of objection on the other side. 
Without his efforts, it would not have happened.
  I also thank Senator Jeffords, Senator Chafee, Senator Hatch and the 
many others who deserve to share the credit for achieving this result, 
but I particularly want to thank my colleague from New Mexico and my 
colleague from New Jersey, who has obviously been a champion of all 
this for a long time. I thank them for their efforts to make a 
difference in the lives of working families who struggle to find safe 
and affordable child care.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me respond. We left last night from 
our place in the Senate from work on this without the conference report 
being signed--and that was the only issue. And about 10:30 last night 
signatures were necessary and we got half a loaf.
  Mr. DODD. Thanks. I appreciate that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may require. I 
join Senator Domenici in thanking my colleague, Senator Ashcroft, for 
his very thoughtful comments on the budget. Those of us who work on the 
numbers sometimes get lost in the trees and fail to see the forest. But 
I thought the Senator from Missouri did a very effective job in 
explaining why this budget is so important to the working American in 
the average family who sits around the kitchen table and tries to 
figure out how to spend their money and wonders why those of us in 
Washington cannot spend our money with the same kind of discipline.
  Today is April 14. It is an ideal time for us to consider this final 
version of the budget resolution. While so many of our constituents 
will be staying up late tonight to finish their own income taxes before 
tomorrow's deadline, we look like we are going to be able to meet an 
April 15 deadline of our own. The Congressional Budget Act created a 
deadline of April 15 for Congress to adopt its budget for the upcoming 
year, and this year looks like it will be only the second time since 
the Budget Act was adopted in 1974 that we in Congress will meet the 
deadline and will deliver a budget on time. I am sure many of our 
friends and colleagues and neighbors back home will be astonished to 
hear that. Taxpayers, those who are carrying the load that we are 
distributing, have to meet their April 15 deadline every year. I can 
understand their amazement, why we cannot seem to meet our April 15 
deadline. Meeting the deadline is a major step forward in demonstrating 
to our fellow Americans we can be responsible in spending their tax 
money. I commend Chairman Domenici and all the conferees on doing 
whatever it takes to make that happen.
  Senator Domenici is responsible for the discipline that this budget 
imposes on spending. Through his good efforts and with the cooperation 
of the colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they even met the 
time deadlines that were required as well. But, as our constituents put 
the final touches on their tax forms, it is important they be able to 
read in the papers about how their taxes will be spent next year. 
Adopting the budget at this time amounts to full disclosure. Taxpayers 
are sending in their checks. We need to deliver the details of what 
they are buying. This year I think the taxpayers will have less cause 
for buyers' remorse than in the past.
  I think, when the American people heard what the President proposed 
in February, they probably wished their tax forms carried a money-back 
guarantee. Just think of what the President sent us and look how far we 
have come. The proposal made by the President would destroy the budget 
discipline that has helped us balance the books. It would have actually 
broken the spending caps by $22 billion in new budget authority and $30 
billion in actual cash outlays. The conference report we have before us 
keeps to the caps and keeps to the discipline the taxpayers demanded.
  When you listen to the President's budget, someone might get the idea 
that it really presented a sound fiscal plan. That is patently false. 
This budget that the conferees presented us saves more of the surplus 
than the President over the next 5 and 10 years. That is why we will 
have lower debt levels than the President's proposal, from the year 
2000 to the year 2009, even if one adjusts for Social Security equity 
purchases.
  This means the President's new spending is larger than our tax cuts. 
You do not hear too much about that, but that is what the President 
proposed. We have heard great complaints about leaving options in the 
budget for tax relief for American families, but the President proposed 
to spend more than that, new spending already above what we already do. 
The President would spend 35 percent of the surplus over the next 5 
years on programs unrelated to Social Security or Medicare. To do that, 
he would have to use $158 billion of Social Security's money to pay for 
them.

  Our tax cut that we empower in this budget is smaller than the 
President's

[[Page S3686]]

new spending, which is why we felt it was essential that we save the 
entire Social Security surplus. The President's budget talks about 15-
year budget estimates and talks about how much he would save over the 
extended period. When you talk about saving money down the line and 
spending it in the short term, I do not think you have to tell the 
American taxpayer what that is all about.
  There is an old saying about ``a bird in the hand is worth two in the 
bush.'' The President front-loads his spending and says leave it to a 
future President to come up with more savings. I do not believe that 
dog hunts in my State or any other State in the Nation. That is not the 
way to go.
  That is why I believe, when I introduced the President's budget as an 
amendment, for those who did not like the budget presented by the 
majority, the Republican budget, that the President's budget got a 
whopping two votes on the floor of the Senate. That was the President's 
budget, all his assumptions, what he wanted to do. People who said ours 
was so bad, our friends on the other side of the aisle, two of them 
voted for it. It was not a viable option. What we have presented is a 
good option.
  The conference report, as I said, will save Social Security surpluses 
for Social Security. It keeps to the contract we have with our seniors 
and puts the ``trust'' back in the Social Security trust fund. I look 
forward to working with Chairman Domenici and, I hope, with colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle, to create a formal lockbox to enforce this 
approach.
  At a time when tax revenues are at their highest level since World 
War II, and income taxes are at an all-time high relative to our gross 
domestic product, the President proposed not to reduce taxes, but to 
increase them. The President's budget requested increased revenues $82 
billion over the next 5 years.
  That is 80 different revenue raisers, 80 different increases in taxes 
or fees or revenues. The conference report which we have before us 
today goes in the opposite direction by permitting Congress to fashion 
responsible tax policy. We could leave in the pockets of the people who 
do the work, who create the jobs, who create the products, the goods 
and services, some $778 billion between 2000 and 2009.
  I have my ideas on how we need a flatter, simpler, fairer tax that 
will encourage economic development, but that is not going to be 
debated until we get around to the actual tax provisions.
  I think, however, that all taxpayers should welcome the news as they 
work on their tax forms today and tomorrow that there is a hope there 
might be a little less taxes to pay in future years. It is also 
important to note that not a dime of that tax relief will come at the 
expense of Social Security. All of it will be funded from the non-
Social Security portion of the surplus.
  Let me cite one specific example of where this conference report 
makes a significant improvement over the President's budget. On a 
specific program that is of great concern to me, to the people of my 
State of Missouri, and I believe to people throughout the country, 
people who are concerned about a healthy environment, who want to see 
clean water, who want to clean up the wastewater that could carry 
pollution, that could carry damaging and dangerous illnesses that 
despoil our natural environments and put us at risk of waterborne 
diseases, the President proposed to whack $550 million out of the Clean 
Water State Revolving Loan Fund.
  This program is not a very trendy one, it is not an environmental 
boutique program that sounds good in a press release, but it affects 
Missourians whether they drink water, whether they swim, or whether 
they fish. It means in the future that citizens in every State of the 
Nation can expect cleaner water. The funding is imperative for public 
health protection, for environmental protection, and economic growth.
  During the Budget Committee markup of the budget resolution, I said 
these cuts would not stand. Chairman Domenici was able to restore a 
good chunk of the President's cuts, and I thank him for that. But in 
this conference report, I am hopeful we can restore even more of this 
crucial funding.
  The conference report puts an additional $1.1 billion in the overall 
funding category for natural resources and environment for 2000. I will 
be working to try to get a good part of that for the State revolving 
funds. That is money that goes back to the people who are building the 
facilities, who are operating the facilities, who have had hands 
dirtied cleaning up the wastewater in this country and assuring that we 
have safe drinking water.
  As chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that handles the EPA 
budget, I am confident that the additional funding will be a crucial 
resource in restoring the funds the President slashed.
  Mr. President, I am encouraged that as our constituents finish their 
tax returns and pay off their taxes, we do not have to be ashamed of 
how we will be using the money they worked so hard to provide their 
Government. In fact, we are going to be letting them keep a bigger 
portion of their money through tax relief in the future. We will 
protect our children and our grandchildren from the debts that come 
from excessive spending. We will keep our promises to retirees who 
depend on Social Security--all of this signed, sealed, and delivered by 
the April 15 deadline.

  This budget will put the trust back in Social Security. If there is 
any surplus remaining, we can give needed tax relief to working 
families. It will say that we need to rescue Medicare by making the 
structural changes in it that are needed, not by putting in the pot 
more IOUs that will be future debt burdens on our children.
  We also made a commitment to reform education, to put decisionmaking 
back in the hands of parents, teachers and local schools.
  We are able to have this debate about what to do with the surplus 
because we have some good things going for us in this country. Our 
overall economic activity is good. We have relatively low unemployment. 
We have steady growth. We have a stock market, for those people who are 
interested, that has gone out of sight. Why is that so? First, I think 
a sound monetary policy. We have had good monetary policy. We have kept 
inflation under control. We have avoided the hidden tax of inflation.
  Secondly, after fighting long and hard, this Congress, through its 
majority, has gotten the President to accept the discipline on 
spending, to put caps on spending so that ``if we don't got it, we 
ain't gonna spend it,'' to put it in the vernacular. We have caps that 
keep spending under control. That means, like most Americans, we will 
not be spending money we do not have.
  Congress and the President have to sit down and decide what our 
priorities are going to be, to take care of priorities without saying 
yes to every spending opportunity that comes along. It is going to take 
some tough decisions, and many of those tough decisions are still 
coming down the pike. But you tell a family that has to live within 
their budget that we have to make tough choices, and they will tell 
you, ``So, what's new? What's different between what we have to do and 
what every American family has to do?'' We have to establish that 
discipline.
  Now is not the time to abandon the discipline and go back to the old 
ways of runaway spending. It seemed easy in the past to spend money 
that we did not have, to run up the debt, but when you think about it, 
we were running up the debt on our children's and our grandchildren's 
credit cards. That debt was building up for them to pay in the future, 
and it had a tremendously harmful impact on our Nation's economy. Poor 
fiscal discipline was holding our economy back.
  With the Federal Government's budget under control, with sound 
monetary policy, with a promise that we are going to allow the 
taxpayers to keep more of their money that is not needed for the work 
of the Government, we have the conditions to allow the strong, free 
market economy to continue to grow, to create jobs, to create wealth, 
and to provide for the families of America, for the individuals who 
work hard and who are the people we are to serve in this Government.
  Mr. President, I am proud to have worked with Senator Domenici. I 
appreciate his leadership. I hope that my colleagues will vote on both 
sides of this aisle for the budget so that we can get about the 
business of developing spending plans that comply with the

[[Page S3687]]

discipline of a balanced budget, one that augers well for the future of 
this country.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I commend the chairman of the Senate 
Budget Committee for the decisions made in this conference report that 
will protect the Social Security trust funds. First, it will be an 
honor for me to vote for this budget resolution which, for the first 
time in 30 years, balances the Federal budget and does so without using 
the Social Security surplus. Second, this budget further protects 
Social Security by creating a point of order against future 
congressional budgets which use Social Security surpluses to pay for 
budget deficits of the federal government.
  These are great first steps to take to protect Social Security. 
Americans who have devoted a lifetime of working and paying their 
Social Security taxes deserve to have their Social Security reserved 
for nothing but their Social Security. That has not happened in recent 
years. Without reform, this practice of raiding Social Security would 
continue. In fact, President Clinton's budget for next year proposed 
using $158 billion of the Social Security Trust Fund to finance new 
government spending. We must stop these raids on Social Security.
  The point of order included in this conference report is similar to 
legislation I have introduced with the chairman of the Senate Budget 
Committee. The Ashcroft-Domenici bill writes into law the Social 
Security protection point of order. This conference report puts the 
point of order in the House and Senate rules for this year and next, 
the maximum amount of time allowed under House rules. This is a wise 
decision, and the right step to take now. Because a budget resolution 
does not become law, the only option available to the budget conferees 
to protect Social Security was to amend House and Senate rules. I 
support this action.
  Later this year I will seek Senate passage of my bill to put this 
point of order into law, to make it permanent and to strengthen it by 
requiring that it can only be waived in the Senate with 60 votes, a 
super majority. I will also support the efforts by Senators Domenici 
and Abraham to win passage of their Social Security lockbox bill which 
uses the debt limit as an enforcement mechanism to make sure neither 
the President nor Congress can use Social Security to finance new 
deficits.
  I am also pleased that the conferees included in the final bill a 
resolution I offered and the Senate passed expressing the Sense of the 
Senate that the government should not invest the Social Security Trust 
Funds in the stock market. The President has proposed investing as much 
as $700 billion of the surplus in the stock market. This is an unwise 
gamble to take in my view, in the view of the Senate and, in light of 
its inclusion in this conference report, the Congress of the United 
States.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Missouri, I 
appreciate your leadership in protecting Social Security. After the 
President's budget was released and it proposed to raid $158 billion 
from the Social Security trust funds, you told me that Congress needed 
to protect Social Security. You were right. If memory serves me 
correctly, you introduced the first bill in the Senate this year to 
protect Social Security by using a point of order mechanism. I was 
pleased to be your first cosponsor. The inclusion in this conference 
report of the point of order is the first step to protect Social 
Security. I look forward to working with you, Senator Abraham and other 
Senators in putting into law, not just the House and Senate rules, 
provisions that will further protect the Social Security trust funds.
  Mr. LOTT. I join Senator Domenici in thanking the Senator from 
Missouri for his leadership on Social Security. I recall a lengthy 
letter Senator Ashcroft sent me earlier this year advocating that 
walling off Social Security should be the top budget priority for this 
Congress. I also remember the bill he introduced earlier this year 
creating the Social Security point of order that is similar to the one 
in the conference report and his advocacy during Senate debate and when 
the bill was in conference for the final bill to include the point of 
order. With passage of this budget which, for the first time in 30 
years, balances the budget without using Social Security and puts 
procedures in place to protect Social Security in the future, the 
Senate has made protecting Social Security a high priority. I commend 
Senator Ashcroft for his efforts in protecting Social Security.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________