[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 46 (Monday, April 2, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3262-S3273]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEARS 
                               2001-2011

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the 
concurrent resolution by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 83) establishing the 
     congressional budget of the United States Government for 
     fiscal year 2002, revising the congressional budget for the 
     United States Government for fiscal year 2001, and setting 
     forth appropriate budgetary levels for each of fiscal years 
     2003 through 2011.


                           Amendment No. 170

       (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Domenici] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 170.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we have an agreement and understanding 
that there will be no amendments offered tonight. Incidentally, for 
those who wonder what that amendment I sent to the desk is, that 
amendment is the budget I submitted on Thursday of last week to the 
other side of the aisle. When my friend got it--maybe he got it the 
next day. It was there for circulation. It is the same budget.
  Senator Gramm from Texas asked if he could speak tonight. I want it 
to go out to his office and others that we would like for him to come 
down. I do not intend to speak until 9 o'clock, considering however 
long my friend wants to speak. That would be an awful long time for 
each of us to listen to ourselves, although we both probably have a lot 
to say. It probably would be fun to listen.
  I yield myself, for purposes of making sure we keep ourselves under 
control, 10 minutes and ask that I be reminded when I have used that 
time.
  I hope we do not spend an awful lot of time talking about whether or 
not we have sufficient information from the President of the United 
States to proceed on this budget. I do not want to spend a long time on 
it, but I remind everyone--those Senators in their offices who are 
listening, or those who give Senators information about what is 
happening on the floor.
  I spoke earlier of trying to give a new President an opportunity to 
have his budget considered and his tax proposal considered. I want 
everyone to know the other side of the aisle, when they had the 
majority, when they had a brand new President named William Jefferson 
Clinton--he did not have the luxury of being in office for very long to 
write up a budget--the other side of the aisle, in its majority status 
with their President, proceeded to bring up a budget resolution, and 
the President of the United States, Bill Clinton, had not sent a budget 
to the Congress.
  In fact, the budget resolution was adopted by the Senate on a party-
line vote. The other side of the aisle had the majority. It was 
adopted, and the President had not sent us a budget in its totality.
  It went to conference with the House. They conferred upon it and 
brought it back and passed a final version of a budget resolution 
which, incidentally, included not tax cuts but tax increases, tax 
increases that if you looked at them in today's gross domestic product 
numbers would be equivalent to almost a trillion dollars in tax 
increases.
  Various committees--10, I think--were instructed to make changes in 
matters that they could make changes in to effect a budget--some of 
them up, some of them down. The important point is all of that was done 
by the other side of the aisle when they had a new President without a 
final budget document. They had a 100-page document, more or less, 
called ``A Vision for America.''
  Our new President, who was elected--and even though some want to 
contest that election, I believe President Bush got a higher percentage 
of votes than did Bill Clinton because there were three people running. 
I do not think we ought to be hearkening back as to who had the moral 
authority to give us a budget. We have a President. He sent us his 
vision document, and it was used by the Budget Committee, including 
this Senator and the staff on this side. It was used to develop the 
budget that I sent to the desk.
  Frankly, I repeat, I hope we do not have an argument now from every 
Senator on the other side of the aisle that we should delay this 
because we do not have the President's detailed budget. Summarizing, 
neither did the other side of the aisle, the then-majority, have the 
budget of the new Democratic President, Bill Clinton, when they 
produced a budget resolution and the entire finality of a 5-year game 
plan for America's fiscal policy and tax policy.

  If we get the budget next week and this budget resolution is still 
around, I remind everyone that the details in the President's budget 
may enlighten some people, but it will not necessarily have an impact 
on this budget resolution because we do not have the authority to 
determine small itemized programs. That all goes to the Appropriations 
Committee, as the Chair now recognizes, and they make the final 
decisions.
  Mr. President, have I used my 10 minutes yet?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has only used 4 
minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senator Gramm will return after we have 
used some time, and I welcome that.
  I want to speak a little bit and then tomorrow will give more 
detailed

[[Page S3263]]

statements, or tonight, when we have more time.
  This budget does not include the dollars in tax receipts that would 
be forthcoming if we had ANWR in this budget, as prescribed by the 
President. That would be an expectation of $1.2 trillion in the third 
year of this budget. We did not put that in. That does not preclude, 
nor does it enhance, the passage of ANWR. It just means that in a 
budget resolution at this point in time, which is very close in votes, 
we chose not to put it in, and it will be taken up at a later time.
  Also, President Bush had a 10-year budget that covers 2002, and it is 
over a 10-year period. He proposed that a portion of the projected $5.6 
trillion budget surplus be returned to the American taxpayers in tax 
relief. We still have that in this budget, but we also have prescribed 
something he did not have, which is that in this year, 2001, there be 
made available up to $60 billion of this year's surplus--$60 billion. 
Tomorrow we will talk in more detail from where that comes. 
Essentially, believe it or not, it is a surplus that exists right now 
in the budget of the United States, and we decided that we ought to 
give some of it to the tax-writing committee to prescribe this year's 
stimulus of their prescription. We cannot write a tax bill, so the tax-
writing committee will determine how.
  I was very thrilled when I presented this budget to the Republicans 
in a caucus and almost all were there. For the first time, they saw 
this budget, and they also saw from me a proposal that we ought to use 
$60 billion to ``stimulate'' the economy now. They said, to a man and 
to a woman: Let's do it.
  Nobody should misunderstand. We did not suggest that day, nor are we 
suggesting today, that we should adopt a $60 billion stimulus without 
providing permanent changes in the Tax Code that enhance growth and 
prosperity.
  We have said what our President said. He agrees with us on the $60 
billion stimulus this year, almost the same day we talked about it, but 
he said, as we said then and as we say today, it would be foolhardy to 
adopt a current 1-year stimulus package without reforming the Tax Code 
so as to provide for more prosperity over a longer period of time.
  I understand there is a difference between our side and their side on 
what the tax changes should look like, but I hope even in their 
proposal on tax reduction, they would cause an improvement in the 
economy over time by cutting marginal rates; that is, cutting the 
current point at which you go to the next bracket and pay the next 
highest amount of the Tax Code.
  We propose that every bracket, every margin, be given a cut. When the 
time comes to debate that more fully, we can talk about who is right 
about what it ought to look like. For now, it does not matter too much 
what we think because the tax-writing committee is going to end up 
determining that.
  I could get up here and tell the taxpayers: Here is a list of the 
things we want out of the budget resolution, but I want everybody to 
know, on the tax side, if we said that, all that is binding on the 
committees of the Congress is the total, $1.6 trillion and the $60 
billion surplus for stimulus. They can provide what kind of stimulus.
  The other side of the aisle will talk about what they like. We will 
talk about what we like. That is just debate because the Finance 
Committee, under Senator Grassley's chairmanship in the Senate, will 
decide what kind of stimulus. They will also decide what kind of tax 
changes are going to accrue, what can the American taxpayers really get 
by way of a return of their money. Essentially, that is where we are.

  I will spend a few minutes on a very interesting word. The word is 
``reconciliation.'' My friend, Senator Byrd, is not on the floor. He 
pronounces it differently. It doesn't matter whether we pronounce it 
reconciliation as the Senator from New Mexico does or as the Senator 
from West Virginia does; it is the same animal.
  So everybody will understand, we decided 25 years ago to change the 
procedures of the Senate. What do I mean? When we adopted the Budget 
Act, with the help of a lot of experts, including the best 
Parliamentarians they could muster to help write it, that Budget Act 
said if you are going to do a reconciliation instruction, by 
definition, here is what it means. It means if you do that, you have 
held that the Senate no longer is bound by a filibuster rule on that 
bill that comes from reconciliation. You cannot filibuster it.
  That is a dramatic change in the rules of the Senate. For those who 
complain about it, when we get a chance to vote on it, what we say to 
them is, go back and amend the bill that created it. It is already 25 
years old. Anybody who wanted to amend it, to take out this authority 
could have, but it is there. It is there to be used by Republicans and 
Democrats.
  How efficient is it and does it work? Yes, indeed. The other side of 
the aisle adopted the entire Clinton plan on taxes and budget changes 
in a reconciliation bill to the committees.
  What else does it do about Senate rules? The Senate rules are very 
important to this Senator. I understand the institution. It is 
cherished that we can amend to our heart's content. There is no real 
limit on amendments--except under the Budget Act. And 25 years ago, we 
agreed if you have a budget that orders reconciliation, and a bill that 
comes forth from that, it is not amendable in the ordinary manner. As a 
matter of fact, it is very narrowly amended. It has been used to 
increase taxes, obviously. President Clinton increased taxes. It has 
been used to reduce taxes. In 1997, there was a tax decrease, tax cuts. 
We used this now famous process of ``reconciliation.''
  It is a very important change in the rules of the Senate. It says 
those reconciliation bills no longer are treated as other bills in the 
Senate. Just remember, this isn't the first time. We have been using it 
for 25 years. It changed forever until we repeal that act.
  We think it is appropriate here. We will have at least an hour's 
debate on whether it is or is not.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The Senator from North 
Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico has talked 
further about reconciliation. Let me make it clear this will be one of 
the most consequential votes in the Senate in any of our memories. If 
this precedent is adopted that says you can totally take away the 
safeguards of the Senate, change the constitutional structure of this 
body by using that methodology for a $1.6 trillion tax cut, then the 
door is wide open for every kind of abuse.
  The Senator from New Mexico says reconciliation can be used by either 
side. That is true. It is also true it can be abused by either side.
  I remember very well in 1993 and 1994 when we had massive health care 
legislation being considered and a group of Senators were approached 
and asked if we would support the use of reconciliation that short-
circuits Senators' rights to debate and amend, to pass that 
legislation. A group of Senators said, no; that would be an abuse of 
the process to pass a $138 billion spending initiative based on limited 
debate and limited amendment. That is not what the Senate was designed 
for; that is not what the Founding Fathers intended for this body.
  The Founding Fathers intended for this body to be, as I described 
before, the cooling saucer, where we could have extended debate and 
unlimited amendment to determine the outcome to protect the American 
people, to protect the rights of a minority.
  We are on the brink of sweeping all of that aside in the name of a 
tax cut, to take away those protections for a minority, to take away 
those protections for an individual Senator to represent his or her 
constituents, to take away those protections for this institution. It 
is wrong; it is dead wrong. It was wrong in 1993 and 1994 to use it for 
a spending provision. It would be wrong, dead wrong, to use it now for 
a tax cut. The whole purpose of reconciliation was for deficit 
reduction.
  The Senator from New Mexico quite correctly says in 1993 
reconciliation was used by our side--he is exactly right--for deficit 
reduction. That was a package that cut spending and raised taxes to 
reduce deficits.
  This package is the opposite of that. This package is the opposite.
  When the Senator talks about previous precedents, he cites 1997. Yes, 
reconciliation was used. But, again,

[[Page S3264]]

that was part of an overall package of deficit reduction.
  We have gone over the precedents with respect to budget 
reconciliation. We find only one case, back in 1976, where 
reconciliation was used for a tax cut, absent other deficit reduction 
provisions. That was a $6 billion item. It was vetoed.
  In 1993, reconciliation was used. It was used for deficit reduction. 
In 1997, reconciliation was used. It was used for deficit reduction. 
That is the reason we have those provisions.
  I cite Senator Domenici himself in a letter I wrote to the 
Parliamentarian. Senator Domenici said:

       Frankly, as the chairman of the Budget Committee I am aware 
     of how beneficial reconciliation can be to deficit reduction. 
     But I'm also totally aware of what can happen when we choose 
     to use this kind of process to basically get around the rules 
     of the Senate as to limiting debate. Clearly, unlimited 
     debate is the prerogative of the Senate that is greatly 
     modified under this process.
       I have grown to understand this institution. While it has a 
     lot of shortcomings, it has some qualities that are rather 
     exceptional. One of those is the fact that it is an extremely 
     free institution, that we are free to offer amendments, that 
     we are free to take as much time as this Senate will let us, 
     to debate and have those issues thoroughly understood both 
     here and across the country.
  That was Senator Domenici, on October 24, 1985.
  The Senator was right then. He is wrong now.
  He said later, on October 13, 1989:

       There are a few things about the U.S. Senate that people 
     understand to be very, very significant. One is that you have 
     the right, the rather broad right, the most significant right 
     among all parliamentary bodies in the world, to amend freely 
     on the floor. The other is the right to debate and to 
     filibuster. When the Budget Act was drafted, the 
     reconciliation procedure was crafted very carefully. It was 
     intended to be used rather carefully because, in essence, Mr. 
     President, it vitiated those two significant characteristics 
     of this place that many have grown to respect and admire. 
     Some think it is a marvelous institution of democracy. And if 
     you lose those two qualities you just about turn this U.S. 
     Senate into the U.S. House of Representatives or other 
     parliamentary body.

  The Senator was right then. He is wrong now. It is an absolute abuse 
of reconciliation to use it for purposes other than deficit reduction. 
If we allow it here, we are going to open the floodgates. Someday it 
may be used or abused for spending, as was attempted back in 1993-1994, 
when a group of us on our side stood up and said: No, don't you dare. 
Because we will not be any part of damaging this institution or 
undermining the constitutional role of the Senate.
  It is as wrong to have used reconciliation for a $138 billion 
spending initiative as it is to propose it for a $1.6 trillion tax cut. 
Both of them are dead wrong. Reconciliation was designed, not for 
spending, not for tax cuts, but for deficit reduction. Senators agreed 
to restrict their fundamental rights to amend and debate in the 
interest of deficit reduction. Now we are talking about Senators giving 
up their fundamental rights to debate and to amend--for what? For the 
opposite of deficit reduction. That would be a profound mistake. As 
Senator Domenici himself observed in 1989, that could change for all 
time this Chamber and its role in the United States and the Congress of 
the United States.
  I hope very much we do not go down that road. I hope very much that 
wiser and cooler and calmer heads will prevail. We can address the 
President's tax cut under the regular order. We can use the normal 
procedures of the Senate just as was done in 1981 with the big Reagan 
tax cut. They didn't use reconciliation; they used the normal 
procedures of the Senate that permitted debate and amendment and not a 
short circuiting of the process or an abuse of the process.
  Mr. President, How much time have I used?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 10 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Will the Chair notify me when I have used another 10 
minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to run through a number of 
charts and use those for a broader discussion of the budget resolution 
as we embark on its consideration.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Did the Senator ask for an additional 10 minutes? Sure.
  Mr. CONRAD. I just asked the Chair to notify me when I consumed 
another 10 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. OK.
  Mr. CONRAD. I think one of the most important things about this 
debate is the question of whether or not we learn anything from 
history.
  The chart I have put up behind me talks a little about history. It 
talks a little about history in this country from 1960 through 1999 and 
the increase in the gross Federal debt of the United States. You can 
see after 1990, the gross Federal debt of our country absolutely 
exploded. It exploded because we adopted a fiscal policy that was 
fatally flawed. That fiscal policy included a massive tax cut, a 
dramatic increase in defense spending, and was based on a rosy scenario 
economic forecast. All of those things conspired to put us in a deficit 
ditch that exploded the debt of the United States, and it took us 15 
years to recover.

  I believe we are in danger of repeating that series of mistakes in a 
way that will take us back into deficit, back into the bad old days of 
raiding trust funds, and put us on a course that is not fiscally 
sustainable. The debt of our Nation quadrupled because of those failed 
economic policies.
  Curiously enough, many of the very same voices who were the 
architects of that failed plan are back today, advocating this one, the 
Bush budget plan. Many of the same people who were there at the 
birthing of the dramatic increase in the deficits and debt of this 
country are back again. You have to ask the question, Did we learn 
nothing in the 1980s?
  Let's first deal with the economic forecast that underlies this 
proposed budget. I indicated in the 1980s, when we saw the explosion of 
deficits and debt, one of the key reasons was a flawed forecast, an 
overly rosy set of economic assumptions. Once again I believe we face 
an uncertain forecast. This time it is a 10-year forecast. This time, 
the forecasting agency itself warns us of its uncertainty. We are told 
they have gone back and looked over their previous forecasts to see the 
variance between what they predicted and what actually occurred. What 
they have found is this chart that they have provided to us. I call it 
the fan chart. It is from the Congressional Budget Office.
  What it tells us is in the fifth year of this 10-year forecast we 
could have anywhere from a $50 billion deficit to more than a $1 
trillion surplus based on the variances in their previous forecasts. 
That is how uncertain this forecast is.
  The Congressional Budget Office, which did the projection, tells us 
that this number of $5.6 trillion surplus that the Senator from New 
Mexico discussed has a 10-percent chance of coming true--10 percent. 
There is a 45-percent chance there will be more money, 45-percent 
chance there will be less money. This forecast was done 8 weeks ago.
  What has happened in the economy? Do you think it makes it more 
likely or less likely that the number will be greater or less than the 
$5.6 trillion the Congressional Budget Office tells us has a 10-percent 
chance of coming true?
  It seems pretty clear to me that this is a river boat gamble. This is 
betting the farm on a 10-year forecast that has very little chance of 
ever coming true.
  We are offering an alternative that we think is more cautious, more 
conservative, and more balanced. We take the forecast surplus of $5.6 
trillion, and then we reserve every penny of the Social Security and 
Medicare trust funds for the purposes intended. That leaves us with 
$2.7 trillion remaining.
  We separate that amount into equal thirds: A third for a tax cut; a 
third for the high-priority domestic needs of a prescription drug 
benefit, strengthening our national defense, improving education, and 
funding agriculture; and, with the final third, we set that money aside 
for strengthening Social Security and dealing with our long-term debt 
because just as we have surpluses now in this 10-year period, we know 
that when the baby boomers start to retire these surpluses turn to 
massive deficits.
  We think it is only prudent and wise that we begin to prepare for 
that future--that we have a downpayment on this long-term liability 
that is building.
  As I indicated, we believe the top priority ought to be to 
aggressively pay down our publicly held debt.

[[Page S3265]]

  When we look at a comparison between the Republican plan and our 
plan, we see that they are leaving a greater share of the publicly held 
debt than are we. They leave $818 billion of publicly held debt at the 
end of this 10-year period. We leave less than $500 billion because we 
are more aggressively paying down the publicly-held debt than their 
plan.
  In addition, as I have indicated, we are reserving $750 billion to 
strengthen Social Security for the long term; they provide nothing for 
this purpose--a clear difference, and one that we think is a compelling 
argument for our alternative plan.
  We agree that we can afford a significant tax reduction. But our tax 
reduction is about half as big as the President's proposal. That is 
because, as I have indicated, we reserve more resources for debt 
reduction and we reserve more resources to strengthen Social Security 
for the long term. We still have a tax reduction of $750 billion over 
the next 10 years in comparison to the President's $1.6 trillion.
  We have other differences in priorities as well. As I have indicated, 
we reserve more resources for the high-priority domestic needs of 
prescription drugs, national defense, and education, as well as others.
  On prescription drugs, the President's proposal has $153 billion for 
a prescription drug benefit; we have $311 billion. Unfortunately, the 
President's proposal will only provide benefits to about 25 percent of 
those eligible. That is an inadequate prescription drug benefit.
  We believe if we are going to have a prescription drug benefit, it 
ought to be universally available, it ought to be voluntary, but it 
ought to have enough money behind it to do the job, and not just be 
limited to low-income people in this country.
  The same is true in education. While the Republican budget dedicates 
$21 billion over the 10-year period over the baseline, we have provided 
$151 billion. We believe this is America's top priority. And it is our 
top priority. We believe that ought to be reflected in the budget 
resolution. If we are going to meaningfully improve education for our 
kids, it is going to take resources. That is not the only thing it is 
going to take, but it is certainly going to take that. We provide those 
resources in this budget resolution.

  We also have provided more resources for our national defense. We 
believe it is very clear that we are going to require more dollars for 
defense. We provide them. The Republican budget resolution provides $68 
billion in additional funding for defense over the 10-year period. We 
provide an additional $100 billion in our budget resolution.
  Our budget also provides environmental protection. While the 
Republican budget dramatically slashes those provisions of the law--the 
Republican budget, $53 billion--our budget provides a $19 billion 
increase over the 10-year period.
  Our budget protects the Nation's veterans. At the same time that the 
Republican budget slashes funding for veterans by $19 billion, we 
provide a $15 billion increase over the 10-year period.
  But it doesn't stop there. We have also provided additional resources 
for the energy crisis that is hitting our country. We had testimony 
before the Budget Committee that indicated there will be an additional 
need for Federal resources to deal with the energy shortfall sweeping 
the country. We have provided an increase of nearly $10 billion while 
the Republican budget has cut $1.4 billion over the same period.
  Our budget responds to the farm crisis by providing $88 billion over 
the 10-year period to level the playing field between our country and 
our major competitors, the Europeans. The Europeans currently are 
spending 10 times as much to support their producers as we spend 
supporting ours. They are spending over $300 an acre in support for 
their producers while we spend $30.
  On the question of export support, the Europeans are providing 84 
percent of all the world's agricultural export assistance while we 
provide one-thirtieth as much. No wonder we have a crisis in American 
agriculture. No wonder our producers are faced with financial ruin.
  Our budget addresses the crisis in agriculture. The Republican budget 
absolutely fails it.
  These are the different priorities of the two budgets.
  If I were to briefly recap, it would be simply this: While we support 
a significant tax reduction for all amounts, we have a smaller tax cut 
than they have provided, so that we can have more resources to pay down 
our publicly held debt; more resources to strengthen Social Security 
for the long term; so that we can reserve additional resources to 
improve education and strengthen national defense; and, yes, to provide 
a prescription drug benefit.
  Even within that context, our overall spending as a share of the 
gross domestic product has the Federal role shrinking. We have seen the 
Federal Government's role go from 22 percent of gross domestic product 
in 1993 to 18 percent today. Under our plan, the Federal role would 
continue to shrink to 16.4 percent of gross domestic product, the 
smallest role for the Federal Government--the smallest role for the 
Federal Government--in 50 years. That is a conservative plan. It is a 
balanced plan. It is one that is in line with the priorities of the 
American people.
  I hope very much that we can take the budget that has been laid down 
by my colleague from New Mexico and improve it; that we can add to the 
debt reduction; that we can set aside funds to strengthen Social 
Security for the long term; that we can reserve additional resources to 
improve education and strengthen our national defense and provide a 
meaningful prescription drug benefit.
  That is what the American people want us to do, all within the 
context of continuing to shrink the role of the Federal Government, all 
within the context of paying off this publicly held debt, all within 
the context of preparing for the baby boom generation, and 
strengthening Social Security so that when those liabilities come due, 
the American system of Government is prepared to respond.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am going to yield shortly to Senator 
Gramm. I thank him very much for waiting. But I want to first say to my 
good friend, I really do appreciate his advocacy. Frankly, it has been 
a rather exciting year because the Senator is a very good adversary. 
But I wish we all could strike a word from our vocabulary--``right'' 
and ``wrong''--because I think we can do better.
  I say to the Senator, I think you can do better than to say that what 
we propose is wrong and what you propose is right. Frankly, I do not 
know that we are talking in absolutes on any of this. We just think we 
have a better idea than they do. As a matter of fact, I just want to 
make two points and then I will yield to my friend.
  This is budget language, but since my friend spoke of, What do you 
use this Budget Act for? I want to hold it up. This is the act that 
changed--until it is repealed--the rules of the Senate. This law did 
that.
  I defy anyone to read this law and find within it where it says what 
is major policy and what is minor policy, what size tax cut is OK and 
what size tax cut is not OK. I do not believe that is what this law 
says in any page of it.
  Somebody might interpret something differently than I would interpret 
it, but I do not believe there is anything in here that justifies 
saying a policy that our President has suggested, of reducing our taxes 
by $1.6 trillion over a decade, when total revenues America will 
receive during that period of time is $27 trillion; when the gross 
domestic product is about $25 or $26 trillion--who would determine 
under this law what is appropriate policy and what isn't?
  We decide. We vote. And if we have the votes, we use reconciliation 
because this law permits it. We are not violating anything. If we do 
not have the votes, we do not use it. But I do not choose to brag about 
the Senate's great institutional prowess of total debate forever, 
debate until you kill something, and amendments until you run out of 
breath offering them. That is not what this law says is the prerogative 
of the Senators anymore; and it has not been for 25 years, as long as 
we have had this act. It changed that, if you follow it right. And we 
will decide in the next 3 or 4 days what is following it right and what 
isn't in terms of interpreting that statute by the votes of this 
Senate--each and every Member voting the way he or she chooses.
  Now, finally, I was not able to do the arithmetic of this cursory 
summary of

[[Page S3266]]

their budget, but let me say to Americans, if you want to spend more 
money, that is the budget. From what I can figure, including interest, 
this is a ``little'' budget; it only adds $500 billion in expenditures 
to the President's; and with interest it is $700 billion more than the 
President's.
  For starters, so everybody will know, what did the President provide? 
He provided a 4-percent increase each and every year--4 percent. I 
heard some of the people in the White House say: Who in America would 
not be satisfied with a 4-percent increase? I was wondering about 
whether we should do more. I brought a budget down that starts with a 
4-percent increase each time. What they are offering in terms of these 
quick summaries is over and above 4 percent.
  Of course, we can say each and every neat thing about our Government 
should double or triple or should be 30 percent more, or who knows 
what. But I just added up a few in theirs: Defense, 100 percent; 
education, 80-some percent; agriculture, 80-some percent; Medicare, 160 
percent more; energy, 10 percent, veterans, 15 percent. Remember, 
almost all these programs were increased by the President. And this is 
more than that. So what does it yield as a final product?
  Fellow Americans, do you want us to spend the surplus or do you want 
tax relief where we send you back some of your money? And how much is 
the right ratio of what we should spend anew on top of the President's 
budget of 4 percent? How much is enough? And how much should we put 
there for those who write taxes to say to the American people, we have 
this surplus because of you? We didn't get it from the sky or manna. We 
thank the Lord for giving manna once under biblical terms. We didn't 
get it. We worked hard. That is what happened. That is where this money 
came from, all this surplus: innovation, change, hard work.
  So the question is very simple: What do you want to provide for the 
future out of that surplus? We will take each item one by one later, 
including the national debt. But for now I yield the floor to Senator 
Gramm of Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Budget Committee. I thank him for his work not only on this budget but 
on budgets for America going all the way back to 1981. If there is any 
person here who has had a permanent impact on this process, it is 
Senator Domenici. I congratulate him.
  Let me say to Senator Conrad, I congratulate him on being the new 
ranking member. He does an excellent job in making his case. The fact 
that the case will not hold water is not a reflection on him. He does 
as good a job with a bad hand as you can possibly do.
  But the problem is, facts are stubborn things. Facts are very 
stubborn things. And our Democrat colleagues now have become 
conservatives. They are concerned about this big tax cut. They are 
concerned about debt. They are concerned about deficits. They are 
concerned about protecting Social Security.
  But fortunately we do have some memory. I would like to say, and I am 
sure the same must strike Senator Domenici as well, it takes a sense of 
humor in this business. It amazes me how people who killed our Social 
Security lockbox in 1999--we tried one, two, three, four, five times to 
set up a procedure to prevent Congress from spending the Social 
Security surplus: On April 22; on April 30; on June 15; on June 16; and 
on July 16. In each case, we were successful in that we got a majority 
vote, but we could not get 60 votes we needed to pass the bill. And we 
did not get 60 votes because the Democrats opposed the Social Security 
lockbox in 1999.
  Today they are worried about tax cuts. They are worried about debt 
reduction. They are concerned that this massive tax cut is going to 
take away Social Security money. But 2 years ago, on five different 
occasions, they used the necessity of our getting 60 votes to pass 
Senator Domenici's proposal to not let Congress spend Social Security 
and, on virtually a straight party-line vote, that effort was killed.
  It never ceases to amaze me that people who voted against the 
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, who voted against a 
prohibition that would have stopped the spending of the Social Security 
surplus, who voted against Gramm-Rudman, which, with all of its 
problems and failings, was the only effort we have made to try to 
control spending, now are very concerned about debt. But they are not 
concerned when you are spending money.
  This concern they have about deficits and debt is very narrowly 
defined. They are concerned about deficits and debt only when you want 
to give money back to the taxpayer. They are not concerned when you are 
spending.
  As all of my colleagues know, in January, the Congressional Budget 
Office--this is the nonpartisan budgeting arm of the Congress--came out 
with their estimate as to how much we had added to Government spending 
over 10 years during the last 6 months of the Clinton administration. 
How much money did we commit to spend out of the surplus over the next 
10 years in the last 6 months of the Clinton administration? Many 
people were stunned to find that in those 6 months, we added $561 
billion to Government spending. No 6-month period in American history 
ever added that much money to Government spending.
  I ask my colleagues: Where was all this concern about debt and 
deficits when we were spending $561 billion in the last 6 months of 
last year? Where was this concern? It didn't exist. It was silence. All 
the people who are now telling us that they are worried about this 
giant tax cut are the same people who stood by while in 6 months $561 
billion was spent on new Government programs. At that rate, in 12 more 
months, they will have spent the entire Bush tax cut. I don't 
understand. Where was this concern about deficits and debt when they 
were voting down the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution? 
Where was it when they weren't willing to protect Social Security from 
having its funds plundered and spent? Where was it when they were 
spending $561 billion? What produced this change of heart?
  What produced the change of heart is, they weren't concerned when 
they were spending money. They are only concerned when we give it back 
to the taxpayer. That is what this debate is about.
  Our colleagues want to make the point this week that they have this 
idea to divide the surplus into a third, a third, and a third. There is 
only one problem. They have already spent their third. Since we 
achieved a surplus, since the economy started running a budget surplus, 
we have added some $800 billion to new spending on programs. So having 
already spent their third over the last 2\1/2\ years, now they want to 
spend another third, which is why they can't afford to let the American 
people have more of their money back in tax relief.
  Let me make the points I want to make. First, what is a budget about? 
I am sure people think this is dull business, but actually of all the 
votes we cast every year, it is the most important because it is the 
one time we define our vision for the future of America. Each year our 
two great political parties on the floor of the Senate and in the House 
try to define through their budget what kind of vision they have 
for the future of America.

  I believe if you listen very carefully, you ultimately reach the 
conclusion that there are two competing visions and that the two 
visions really come down to the following: Do we want more Government, 
or do we want more opportunity? Do we want to tighten the belt on the 
family, or do we want to tighten the belt on the Government? Given that 
we have this surplus because people have paid more in taxes than we 
need to fund the Government, should we use this money to let the 
Government grow? Or should we give some of this money back to the 
people who have earned it?
  That is what this debate is about. Don't be confused. Despite all the 
talk about debt and deficits, this debate is not about debt and it is 
not about deficits. It is about spending versus tax cuts. We want to 
give a substantial amount of money but a responsible amount of money, 
as I will show, back to the people who paid the taxes to begin with, 
and the Democrats want to spend it. That is a perfectly legitimate 
view. You can make a case for it. You will hear it over the next 50 
hours.

[[Page S3267]]

  But it really boils down to a simple question--and Americans will ask 
it, hopefully, and answer it--that is: Do you believe the Government 
can take this surplus of tax revenues and spend it better than you 
could spend it if you got to keep it?
  Under the President's tax cut, the average family in my State making 
$51,000 a year, two-wage earners with two children, will get about 
$1,600 in tax relief. At some point in the debate, I am sure our 
colleagues will say: Look, that is not a whole lot of money.
  In my State, $1,600 is a lot of money. It is the difference between 
owning your own home and living in somebody else's house. It is the 
difference between your children going to college or going to work. It 
is the difference between having a retirement program and not having 
one. The real question is, if Government kept the money and spent it, 
could they spend it better than you could spend the $1,600 if you got 
to keep it?
  That is the question about which I am willing to let the American 
people make a decision. In fact, I would be willing to submit that to 
the public. There will be all kinds of efforts to confuse the issue and 
talk about debt and deficits instead of about spending, but anybody who 
is listening is going to understand.
  Let me begin talking about the President's tax cut. Every time that 
anybody mentions the President's tax cut, they talk about how big it 
is, huge.
  Mr. DOMENICI. May I interrupt?
  Mr. GRAMM. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I forgot when I yielded, I should have asked how much 
time was needed. I should establish an amount of time. Does the Senator 
need 10 more minutes?
  Mr. GRAMM. How much have I used?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 11 minutes.
  Mr. GRAMM. I would like 20 more minutes, if I may have it.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator used 15 more than I. I yield him that. Then 
we will yield back to the Senator.
  Mr. GRAMM. Every time we hear the President's tax cut discussed, we 
hear the term ``huge'' or ``massive.'' Why not? It is $1.6 trillion. I 
have a few constituents who know what $1 million is. I have two 
constituents who know what a billion dollars is--Mr. Perot and Mr. 
Dell. Mr. Dell used to know what a billion dollars is. I suspect he 
will again, knowing Mr. Dell.
  Nobody knows what a trillion dollars is, so obviously it is huge. 
What I would like to do is, using some figures from the National 
Taxpayers Union that are very relevant to the debate, let's convert it 
into English. Out of every dollar we are going to send to Washington in 
the next 10 years, how much would the Bush tax cut give you back, how 
many pennies for every dollar we are going to send to Washington in the 
next 10 years? The answer, 6.2 cents. So this tax cut, basically, will 
give back 6.2 cents out of every dollar that taxpayers are going to 
send to Washington in the next 10 years. Six point two cents out of 
every dollar sounds like a fairly modest tax cut, and it is.
  Compare it to the Kennedy tax cut--the proposal that John Kennedy, as 
President, sent to Congress--a tax cut, by the way, that cut rates 
across the board. We now hear from our colleagues that when we cut the 
bottom rate twice as much as the top rate, then it is skewed to the 
rich. But John Kennedy, when he submitted his tax plan, had an across-
the-board rate cut. In fact, when the question was raised, he said, ``A 
rising tide lifts all boats.''
  When you look at his tax cut and ask how many pennies out of every 
dollar in revenue were collected in the 10 years after it was adopted, 
you find that it gave back 12.6 cents out of every dollar. It was over 
twice as big as the Bush tax cut. The Reagan tax cut, in 1981, gave 
back 18.7 cents out of every dollar collected. It was three times as 
big as the Bush tax cut. So the first point I want to make is, when you 
look at the tax cut in terms of how much taxes people are paying, the 
Bush tax cut is actually a quite modest and responsible tax cut. It is 
half as big as what President Kennedy proposed in 1961, and it is one-
third the size that Reagan proposed in 1981. And it is 2001 and it is 
time for another tax cut.
  Many of my colleagues are saying it is not big enough. My response to 
that is, let's do it, and if the economy gets stronger, we can cut 
taxes again next year. This doesn't have to be the last tax cut of the 
first Bush term. But this, by historic standards, is a modest tax cut. 
That is the first point I want to be sure everybody understands.
  The second point is, this is a tax cut that America not only needs, 
but that we can afford. Let me remind everybody--it is a point Senator 
Domenici made, but it is a point worth making--last year, in the last 6 
months, we increased spending by $561 billion over 10 years. This 
surplus has literally been burning a hole in our pockets. Even the 
Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, Alan Greenspan, who is very 
loathe to criticize Congress, in testimony before the Banking 
Committee, raised the issue about what has happened to spending in the 
last 2 years and expressed alarm and concern about it. If you listen to 
our Democrat colleagues, you would get the idea that President Bush is 
just slashing spending, and they have all these charts about how he is 
not doing enough and they are going to do more and more--trillions, 
billions of dollars more.
  The plain truth is, the Bush budget takes every penny we have spent 
in the last 6 months in the biggest spending spree in American history 
and uses that as the beginning point and raises spending by 4 percent. 
How, based on that, can anybody argue that the President is cutting 
spending? In fact, he adds $1 trillion of new spending in the next 10 
years over the current level.
  Now, he adds a 4-percent increase that adds $1 trillion to Government 
spending over the next 10 years. But even after you spend that $1 
trillion, we are looking at a $5.6 trillion surplus over the next 10 
years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. If we take out the 
amount of money that is committed to Social Security and Medicare, we 
have $3.1 trillion left in what we call on-budget surplus, and then 
President Bush has proposed that roughly half of that money, that 
surplus, go to his tax cut. This is a modest tax cut by historic 
standards--half the size of the Kennedy proposal, a third of the size 
of the Reagan proposal, and it is also a tax cut that we can afford. 
Now, we cannot afford it if you are going to let the Democrats spend 
this money. That is true. You can't spend it and give it back. You can 
spend $1 trillion on top of what we have already spent in the last 2 
years and you can afford this tax cut. But if you are not going to say 
no to any special interest group in America, if you are going to take 
this opportunity to spend even more money, you can't do both.

  We choose to give it back; they choose to spend it.
  Now, let me talk a minute about debt reduction. Under our current 
situation, we are literally able to pay down the debt quicker than the 
bonds become due. And everybody has said, since one-third of the 
Federal debt of this country is held by foreign governments, foreign 
central banks, that we don't want to pay a premium in order to buy this 
debt back.
  But this is the plain truth. Let me show you the following chart. We 
currently owe $3.4 trillion in debt that is held by the public. If we 
didn't do the tax cut, we would have enough surplus to pay this off by 
2009. Doing the tax cut, we would have enough to pay it off in 2011. 
But the plain truth is that we can't physically buy the debt back as 
quick as we are capable of doing it under either scenario. What we can 
do, as this chart shows, is we can dramatically reduce the size of the 
public debt, but we are going to reach a point out here in 2009 where 
we would have to pay these foreign bondholders these big premiums in 
order to reduce the debt. And it doesn't make any sense to do that. We 
are going to get the interest on the debt down very low. So our 
colleagues talk about interest costs to the tax cut. The plain truth is 
that we are going to get interest costs down to as low as it can be 
gotten down, so there are hardly any interest costs to the tax cut once 
we get past 2005 and 2006.
  Here is the point. We are paying down debt as quickly as we can pay 
it down. If we control spending, if we are prudent about what we do, we 
can increase Government spending by 4 percent, which is more than the 
average family budget is going up this year, and we can have the Bush 
tax cut, and we can pay down debt as much as we

[[Page S3268]]

will be capable of doing, given the bonds that are available.
  So let me conclude by simply making the following points.
  This is a choice in the end between letting people spend this tax 
surplus or having the Government spend it. I am sure there are many 
Americans, not a majority, but many Americans who are not paying taxes 
and would rather the Government spend it because they might get some of 
it. I think most Americans who work for a living and who pay taxes 
would believe they can spend $1,600, which is the average tax cut in my 
State, better than the Government could spend it if the Government got 
to keep it.
  That ultimately is what this debate comes down to. We have put 
together a very responsible budget. In fact, I have been involved, one 
way or another, in every budget debate since 1979. I have seen a lot of 
budget proposals that were rosy scenarios or had magic asterisks and 
had all kinds of gimmicks. I have never seen a budget that is more 
realistic and more achievable than the Bush budget.
  The Bush budget has no gimmicks in it. The reason it has no gimmicks 
in it is because it has a modest tax cut, it has an achievable proposal 
in debt reduction, and it has a modest increase in Government spending. 
But if you believe Government spending should keep growing the way it 
did in the last 6 months, and you believe we cannot afford a tax cut, 
then you are right.
  The question is, Should Government spending grow that fast? Should we 
literally spend this surplus instead of giving part of it back? I do 
not think we should.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this budget. I want to pay down the 
Government debt, and I am in favor of setting out a program to pay it 
down as quickly as it is physically possible as the bonds become due. 
Any bond that comes due ought to be paid off, and we should not borrow 
more money.
  There is another kind of debt, private debt. Twenty million families 
are carrying debt on credit cards. There are a lot of families who 
would like to engage in debt reduction. This tax cut will let families 
reduce their debt as our Government reduces its debt.
  Finally, in terms of the tax cut itself--and we are going to have 
plenty of time to debate it, but ultimately it is going to be part of 
this debate--we do three simple things in the tax cut: One, we cut 
everybody's rate. Everybody who pays income taxes will get a tax cut.
  We will hear some say there are some people who do not get a tax cut. 
Yes, but they do not pay income taxes. This is an income tax cut. You 
do not get an income tax cut if you do not pay taxes.
  Said another way, we will give you a 100-percent cut if you do not 
pay taxes. Of course, you do not get anything because you do not pay 
taxes. We have a surplus of taxes so we are giving taxes back to the 
people who pay it. We cut the top rate half as much as the bottom rate.
  The second part is repealing the marriage penalty and doubling the 
child tax credit. We think families should keep more of what they earn 
to invest in the one institution we know works. Government does not 
always work, but the family will work if it has the resources to work.
  The third part is repealing the death tax, believing that when people 
build up a family business or family farm and they pay taxes on every 
dollar they earn, we ought not to force their children to sell off 
their business or sell off their farm to give another tax to the 
Government.
  Ultimately, we are going to hear in this debate that Bill Gates will 
be able to buy a Lexus. Bill Gates already has a Lexus. Can anybody who 
believes that a man who pays 1,000 times as much income tax as I do 
does not deserve a bigger tax cut than I get? The fact he could buy a 
Lexus is irrelevant. He already has a Lexus.

  We are going to hear other people say: Yes, but low-income people who 
don't pay much in taxes will only get enough to buy a tailpipe system 
and muffler. Have you bought a tailpipe system and muffler lately? 
Obviously, you have not, but if you had, you know it costs a lot of 
money, and if you need a tailpipe system and a muffler, having the 
money to pay for it makes a big difference.
  This is going to be an important debate. Often we talk about things 
that do not matter. We spend endless hours talking about issues that 
somebody thinks is important and that often do not end up being 
important. This issue is important. What America will look like 10 
years from now and 100 years from now will be determined, in part, 
significantly by the outcome of this debate.
  If we adopt the President's budget, if we enforce it, and if we cut 
taxes, I believe America will be richer, freer, and happier 10 years 
from now and 100 years from now than it would be if we do not.
  I believe Government will be bigger if we do not. I think Government 
will be spending more money if we do not. I think the tax burden will 
be heavier if we do not.
  If you think you can make America greater by making Government 
bigger, then you would want to vote against this budget, but if you 
believe, as I do, that letting working families invest more money in 
their children, in their community, and in their family makes for a 
better America, then making it so people who work hard for a living get 
to keep more of what they earn and not end up working a third of the 
year just to pay for Government, if you believe that makes for a better 
America, you have to believe this debate is important.
  Whatever happens, one thing is clear: We are not going to waste this 
week. This week we are going to make very important decisions that will 
affect the well-being of everybody who will call themselves Americans 
for a very long time. That is why this debate is so critically 
important.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas began by saying I 
was a good advocate but I was playing a weak hand. I say to him, he is 
an outstanding advocate. I do not agree with him. I think his 
prescription for America really is not the priorities of the American 
people.
  Most of all, I always enjoy listening to him, but I must say, the 
words he speaks bears almost no relationship to the facts and certainly 
no relationship to the budget I have offered. What I find most 
enjoyable is that the Senator from Texas has been giving this same 
speech for 20 years, and it does not matter if the facts have changed 
completely, he sticks with his speech. So I applaud him for his 
consistency.
  When he says this is a question of more and bigger Government or 
smaller Government, that is not what this is about. No, no, no. That is 
the old debate. That is the old, tired debate, but that is not what 
this budget resolution is about.
  The budget resolution I have offered today would shrink the role of 
Government and would dedicate more of the money to debt reduction. The 
truth is, the fundamental difference between our budget proposals is we 
have dedicated about 70 percent of this projected surplus to short-term 
and long-term debt reduction. The President's plan devotes about 35 
percent to short-term and long-term debt reduction. That is the big 
difference. They have a much bigger tax cut. We have much more money 
for short-term and long-term debt reduction. That is the real 
difference.
  When the Senator from Texas says there has just been this explosion 
of Federal spending, come on. We know better than that. That is not 
what has been happening. There has not been any big explosion of 
Federal spending. Let us deal with the facts.
  This is what has happened to Federal spending from 1962 to 2002. This 
is what has happened to Federal spending as a share of our gross 
domestic product, which is the best way to compare so we are not just 
looking at inflated dollars.
  We see that the Federal spending is now at the lowest level since 
1966. We are down to 18 percent of gross domestic product being 
consumed by the Federal Government. Of course, where does most of the 
money go?
  Most of the money goes for Social Security, direct payments to the 
American people; Medicare, direct payment of the health bills of the 
American people; interest on the debt, the debt of the American people. 
Another big expenditure this year is paying down the debt, the debt of 
the American people.
  The President has said very often, this is the people's money; we 
ought to

[[Page S3269]]

give it back to the people. First of all, I agree with the first part 
of his formulation. This money is the people's money. Absolutely. We 
should give some of it back to the American people. Absolutely.
  But this debt is the debt of the American people. Social Security 
goes to the American people. Medicare goes to the American people. 
National defense is for the American people. A prescription drug 
benefit goes to the American people. Improving education is the 
education of the American people. All of these are the people's needs 
and the people's priorities. This is not a case where the money goes to 
the Government, the Government sticks it in a sock somewhere. This is a 
question of how we best use our resources to provide a significant tax 
cut to protect Social Security and Medicare, to improve education and 
defense, and the rest.
  When the Senator from Texas says we have been on a spending binge, it 
is just not true. As I indicated, we have been seeing the Federal 
Government spending share come down each and every year since 1992. We 
were at 22 percent of gross domestic product in 1992; we will be at 18 
percent of gross domestic product this year. The Federal share of the 
national income has been going down steadily.
  Under the Democrat alternative that we have offered and are proposing 
to our colleagues, we continue to bring down the share of the Federal 
income going to the Federal Government. We continue to shrink the size 
of the Federal Government from 18 percent of gross domestic product to 
16.4 percent at the end of this period, the smallest part of national 
income going to the Federal Government since 1951.
  This dog won't hunt. This tired old debate that it is tax cuts versus 
spending and those are the only options--those are not the only 
options. Those are false choices for the American people. The truth is, 
the choices are more complicated than that. It is not just a question 
of spending or tax cuts; it is a question of spending or tax cuts or 
debt reduction, short term and long term.
  On our side, we have said the highest priority is additional debt 
reduction. Why? Because we know where we are headed when the baby 
boomers start to retire and this long-term debt takes off like a 
scalded cat.
  It is interesting; the Republicans claim that this is just a question 
of our spending versus their spending. Under their plan, they may well 
be spending more money next year than our plan provides. Our plan 
provides a 5-percent increase in overall spending next year. The 
Republican plan may be as little as 4.9 percent, slightly less than 
ours, but if they use their contingency fund they have set aside, they 
could have as much as a 10-percent increase in Federal spending. Our 
Republican friends are trying to have it both ways. They are claiming 
they are against spending. Yet they have created a contingency.
  By the way, you have to wonder where else it will be used because the 
President has said very clearly, his tax cut is $1.6 trillion and no 
bigger. He has said he will pay down $2 trillion of national debt and 
no more. Yet they have established a contingency fund. If it is not 
going to go for a tax cut, if it is not going to go for paying down 
more debt, the only place it can go is more spending, in which case our 
friends on the other side of the aisle have more spending than we do.

  What a surprise. This is the same old shell game they have engaged in 
for years, to try to suggest this is a question of tax cuts versus 
spending. That is not the choice.
  We are saying, devote most of these resources, 70 percent of this 
projected surplus, to paying down short-term and long-term debt. We are 
dedicating nearly twice as much to that--$1.8 trillion more--to paying 
down short-term and long-term debt. They are dedicating more to a tax 
cut.
  That is the fundamental choice. It is not a choice of spending versus 
tax cut; it is a choice of tax cut versus paying down the debt. That is 
the fundamental choice before the American people in the budget 
resolution we offer versus the budget resolution they offer.
  There are other choices as well. We have provided $750 billion to 
start to address our long-term debt that will be created by the 
retirement of the baby boom generation. We have put aside $750 billion 
to strengthen Social Security. They have a big goose egg for that 
purpose; they have nothing.
  We talk about who is being fiscally responsible. I will vote for our 
side. I am happy to take our budget and defend it anywhere because we 
have devoted twice as much money to short-term and long-term debt 
reduction as the other side.
  Now my colleague from Texas says: The Democrats didn't support the 
Social Security/Medicare lockbox we proposed last year or in 1999. No, 
we didn't support their lockbox. Certainly, we did not. It was a leaky 
lockbox. It didn't lock up anything. In fact, the Treasury Secretary 
said it endangered our ability to pay the debt of the United States. 
That was the lockbox they offered.
  The lockbox we voted for, to protect Social Security and Medicare, 
was a lockbox I offered on the floor of this Senate last year. It got 
60 votes, including, I think, 14 Republicans. When the Senator suggests 
Democrats didn't support protection for Social Security and Medicare, 
it is just false. He knows it is false. He knows it is absolutely 
false. We supported protection for Social Security and Medicare, and it 
is the proposal that passed here with the highest number of votes in 
the Senate, 60 votes.
  The Senator from Texas says: They didn't vote for my constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget. He is exactly right; we didn't vote 
for his constitutional amendment to balance the budget because it 
defined ``balancing the budget'' as one that looted the Social Security 
trust fund to achieve balance. He is darn right we didn't vote for 
that. We have been able to balance the budget subsequent to that 
without raiding the Social Security trust fund.
  Who is right and who is wrong about that dispute? He came out here 
with a constitutional amendment and said we had to pass it; it was the 
only way to balance the budget, and he defined ``balancing the budget'' 
as raiding the Social Security trust fund to achieve balance. What a 
fraud. What an absolute fraud that would be for balancing the budget. 
No, we didn't vote for it. We voted against it because we wanted to 
balance the budget without counting Social Security. That was the right 
thing to do.
  The Senator from Texas said we increased spending last year by $561 
billion. No, we didn't. There was no $560 billion increase in spending 
last year.
  Let's go back to the record. Here is what has happened with spending. 
As a share of the economy, Federal spending has gone down each and 
every year, including last year. Under the plan we are proposing, it 
will continue to go down as a share of our national income, as a 
percentage of our gross domestic production. That is the way economists 
say is the best way to measure changes in spending over time because 
that is adjusting for inflation.

  The Senator from Texas says this is a question of more Government or 
more opportunity. Those are not the choices before us. That is a good 
speech line, but it has almost no relevance to the choices before us in 
this budget resolution. The fact is before us are a series of choices, 
not just one or the other; it is a series of choices.
  The first choice is do we reduce the size of the President's proposed 
tax cut in order to have more short-term and long-term debt reduction? 
We say yes. We say we ought to reduce the size of his tax cut so we 
have more short-term and long-term debt reduction. We also say we ought 
to reduce the size of his tax cut to set aside money to strengthen 
Social Security for the long term.
  We also believe we ought to reduce the size of his tax cut to improve 
education and to provide a prescription drug benefit and to strengthen 
national defense because those are also priorities of the American 
people.
  But we only endorse those spending initiatives in the context of 
maximum paydown of our publicly held debt, of putting aside money to 
deal with our long-term liabilities, and also within the context of 
continuing to shrink the role of the Federal Government.
  Let's go back to that chart that shows, under the plan we are 
proposing, we would continue to shrink the role of the Federal 
Government from 18 percent of gross domestic product today, down to 
16.4 percent at the end of this period, the lowest level since 1951. 
That is the lowest level in 50 years.
  The Senator from Texas also said we are paying down all the debt we 
can

[[Page S3270]]

pay down. No we are not. That is not true. We had very clear testimony 
before the committee on how much debt can be paid down. I thought the 
most compelling testimony was by the man who has managed the successful 
debt paydown of the previous administration. The President is saying we 
can only pay down $2 trillion of the publicly held debt over this 
period. That is not the case. We have $2.6 trillion of debt coming due 
during this period. We can certainly pay down all of that. If we 
reserve all the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, and those 
moneys are used to pay down publicly held debt, we have no cash buildup 
problem until the year 2010. That is what a detailed cashflow analysis 
demonstrates.
  It is a red herring to suggest we are going to have to pay these big 
premiums to foreign bondholders. That is all nonsense. We are not going 
to have to pay any big premiums to anybody. We are just going to retire 
the debt of the United States as it comes due, not renew it, not issue 
new debt. They want to issue new debt to pay for their tax cut. We do 
not. We think we ought to dump this debt while we have the chance 
because we know what happens when you get past this 10-year period and 
the debt of the United States takes off like a scalded cat.
  This is a fundamental choice. The thing the Senator from Texas and I 
do agree on is that this debate is important. It is going to shape the 
economic future of our country. I say to those who are listening, the 
President's plan is fatally flawed. The President's plan is fatally 
flawed because he uses virtually all of the non-trust-fund money for 
his tax cut.
  In fact, here is the projected surplus: $5.6 trillion, as uncertain 
as it is. If you take out the Social Security trust fund, $2.6 
trillion. Then you take out the Medicare trust fund, $500 billion. That 
leaves you with an available surplus of $2.5 trillion.
  Then the President proposes a tax cut of $1.7 trillion. His tax cut 
plan requires additional adjustments in what is called the alternative 
minimum tax.
  Today there are 2 million people affected by the alternative minimum 
tax, but if we pass the President's plan, 30 million are going to get 
caught up in the alternative minimum tax. It costs $300 billion to fix 
that problem.
  The interest costs associated with the first two are $500 billion, 
the President's spending initiatives over the so-called baseline are 
$200 billion, for a total cost of his plan of $2.7 trillion--when there 
is only $2.5 trillion available, if you safeguard the Social Security 
and Medicare trust funds.
  The numbers do not add up. The President's plan is $200 billion in 
the hole and that is before any defense initiative that he might 
propose, that is before any of the other things that may be suggested 
by this administration in terms of additional tax cuts, as we have seen 
come over from the House--$300 billion over and above what the 
President has proposed; and before additional funds for education or a 
prescription drug benefit. That is before any adjustment in the 
forecast because of the economic downturn.
  We have a President's budget that is eating into the trust funds 
already and it is headed for much worse. Many of us believe it would be 
a very serious mistake to make a decision that locks in for the next 10 
years a tax cut that is so big that it threatens the Social Security 
and Medicare trust funds. Let's remember, when we get past this 10-year 
period we are faced with a totally different situation; The retirement 
of the baby boom generation, the explosion of demands on Social 
Security and Medicare.
  The truth is, the choices in this budget resolution are critically 
important to the country's economic future. The question is, Do we have 
more of a tax cut or do we have more debt reduction? Do we reserve 
resources to improve education, national defense, and provide for a 
prescription drug benefit or do we go on the cheap on education? Do we 
go on the cheap on the health care of the American people?
  I hope very much, as this debate continues, we will have a chance to 
really inform the American people of what the choices are. I believe 
the choices we made on our side are the choices they would make in 
their own families. If they had a windfall I do not believe they would 
go blow it all on a vacation or fancy car. I think they might take a 
vacation, but I think they would also pay down that mortgage. I think 
they would also use those resources to invest for the future.
  Those are the principles and the values that have formed the budget 
we are offering on our side. It is a budget that protects every penny 
of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, a budget that takes 
what is left and provides a third for a significant tax cut for all 
Americans, including addressing the marriage penalty and reforming the 
estate tax; and with an additional third addressing those high-priority 
domestic needs of improving education, strengthening national defense, 
and providing a prescription drug benefit; and with the final third, 
taking that money to strengthen Social Security for the long term, to 
address this long-term debt that is building.
  We think that is a pretty good set of priorities, and we hope our 
colleagues will endorse it before this week ends.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, again, I want to ask if there are any 
Senators who want to speak. I don't want anyone to think our schedule 
is going to be in any way influenced by the NCAA finals. But it does 
seem as though, if we got out of here by 9 o'clock, we could all 
participate in the game someplace. I think it is 15 minutes after that 
it starts. We are going to shoot for that anyway. If Senators come down 
later than that, we will let them close down. We wouldn't want you, Mr. 
President, to occupy the chair that late. We have a volunteer, I think, 
willing to do that.
  First, I want to say to everybody listening that in an effort to try 
to see where we were with this big surplus, we invited a lot of people 
to testify. At the suggestion of the other side, we invited the 
Comptroller General. He is a former CPA of some significant firm--one 
of the big firms. He loves to inject himself in the budget issues. And 
he does that with a great deal of enthusiasm. Sometimes I wonder if 
that is in his charter. Nonetheless, we hear from him.
  I want everybody to listen carefully to what he said. He was talking 
about the debt in the future. He was not talking about 10 years from 
now. He wasn't talking about 20 years from now. He was talking about 
the debt 25, 35, and 50 years from now; that is, we don't have all of 
these programs paid for during that period of time.
  So I asked him: We have been hearing words of caution about this 
surplus. But, Mr. Comptroller, does the $1.6 trillion the President is 
talking about in a tax cut have any negative impact on that debt? He 
answered, Absolutely not.
  So you see that you can come to the floor and do what my friend has 
done, and talk about having all of this money in for future debt.
  To tell you the truth, the President's number on a tax cut will have 
no negative impact on that. I conclude that it will have a positive 
impact because I will tell you right now what will have the biggest 
positive effect on assuring every single senior that they will get 
their Social Security for as long as we have the ability to project 
that, and, for everybody who is worried about Medicare and its 
solvency, I tell you the best way to make sure that it works. It has 
nothing whatsoever to do with what we plug into this budget for 
Medicare. Do you know what it is? Will the $1.6 trillion tax cut 
promote longer prosperity at higher rates of growth than if we don't do 
it?
  Americans, if you are wondering what is going to make Social Security 
more and more solvent, it is, the sooner we get out of this dip in the 
economy and the sooner we go for 8 or 9 more years with sustained 
growth at a modest rate as predicted in this budget, the better off 
everyone will be.
  Frankly, I believe that I have been listening. I have gotten a great 
education, I tell my New Mexicans all the time, by listening to the 
greatest economists--those who have more to do with the future of the 
American economy year by year--by listening to them. The one to whom I 
have listened tentatively is Dr. Alan Greenspan.
  Let me say about our new President, President George W. Bush, whether 
you talk to him or not, he listens. You get some waves from him as to 
what you should do with a surplus. I can't quote

[[Page S3271]]

him, but let me paraphrase him accurately.
  He said: If you have a very large surplus--and he was amazed that it 
was as big as $5.6 trillion, but he concurs that it is, under current 
projections--which he also concurs is a modest projection and not some 
blue-sky projection. But he says: If you have a surplus and it is big, 
pay the debt down. And then, when you have done as much of that as you 
consider the next priority for government, you cut marginal rates.

  Why was he saying that? Was he saying that because he just wants to 
cut marginal rates? And Alan Greenspan doesn't think that every rate 
should get a cut, as our good friend from Texas explained. Of course 
not. It is because that is the very best thing for the American 
economy. That is the best thing for the future of our senior citizens 
and for Medicare. Yes. Even for that long-term debt that is out there, 
and even for some of that gross national debt, which our friend puts up 
on a map on one of his charts as if we were busy paying off that gross 
debt. It isn't even considered in the unified budget when the 
economists look at America for the next 10, 15, 20 years.
  The point is: The recommendation is that you pay debt as the first 
priority, and the second highest priority with the surplus is to cut 
marginal rates. Guess what. The third and least priority is to spend 
the surplus.
  That is not Senator Pete Domenici. That is what I have learned from 
experts, including the expert who tells us what is best for America. 
That means Americans; that means families; that means everybody who is 
concerned about paying their mortgage or adding on to their house--all 
of these things--plus businesspeople who are making money at their 
businesses. They are highly motivated by what they get to keep.
  That is why all the experts say the second highest priority with the 
surplus is to cut marginal rates.
  I am not going to spend tonight talking about how much is the right 
amount to pay on the debt. I will just tell you that for those who 
worry about what portion of our budget is interest on the national 
debt, let me guess with you. I have it on the chart up there. But 
currently it is about 13.5 to 14 percent. So every budget has a big 
slice of it--13 to 14 percent to pay down the debt as a percentage of 
the total budget.
  It is as if we don't plan to do anything about it, if you listen to 
the other side.
  Do you know what it will be after 10 years of paying down the debt as 
we contemplate it percentage-wise? Three. It will be 14 percent of the 
Federal budget down to 3 or 3\1/2\.
  When people say we are not paying down the debt and you show them 
that chart, is this paying down the debt fast enough? Everybody says, 
of course, that is paying it down fast enough.
  If you want to be technical, bring in two experts and ask if we could 
pay it down faster. You will find two who will say we can.
  But to tell you the truth, I have almost become convinced that it is 
not the right thing for me to say as a noneconomist--or maybe it is for 
a noneconomist. I almost believe the surplus can get too big. I think 
it can be a drag on the growth in the economy. I believe to pay it down 
any faster than we propose is very risky. I really believe that is 
plenty of debt payment for this generation and this little timeframe to 
be paying on a debt which has accumulated over 25 years or maybe 40 
years. It is just a lot to take out of the economy.
  So everyone will know how much debt we should pay down, we had a 
witness. He is a very excellent economist. He said none. He didn't say 
they are right or you are right. He said you are both wrong. Don't pay 
any of it down. Because he is very worried about a slowing of the 
economy and paying the debt down and what happens. I am not saying 
that. I am just giving you parameters of what we heard.
  We had another prominent witness from the Treasury Department of Bill 
Clinton saying we should cut it down more. Guess what. He was in the 
Treasury Department. They produced a budget. President Clinton produced 
a budget and didn't even ask him. They put in their budget precisely 
the numbers that George W. Bush is using in his budget for debt 
payment.
  All the talk we hear: Is it enough? Is it too small? Should it be 
bigger? We are talking about the end of this 10 years, and we are 
talking about $300 billion to $400 billion at the tail end of this 
entire process.
  I want to close by saying again to my fellow Republicans and to 
anyone on the other side who wants to treat George W. Bush fairly, to 
treat him as the Democrats treated President Clinton, why don't you let 
the President have a trial, have an opportunity, have a chance at 
taking his budget to the next level? Let's work on tax cuts, and see 
where the American people are when we get down to the details of tax 
cuts. I believe he deserves that.

  If this Senator were frightened about this budget bringing us back to 
deficit spending, I would be here saying we just should not do it. I 
have been fighting too long to get where we are. But I honestly believe 
there is a higher chance that we will have a bigger surplus than is 
reported than we will have a lower amount. I think the highest 
probability is that it will be about right.
  When you see that funnel up there on that graph that my good friend 
offered--it came from the Congressional Budget Office, so I can speak 
to it also; it looked like a big wave of bees--if you look at it 
carefully, right down the middle is where it is all dark, and that is 
where it is turning up most of the time, and that is this surplus of 
$5.6 trillion. On the edges it is showing a lot less and a lot more. I 
ask, which one should you use? The huge amount less or the huge amount 
more? No. I think you should use what the Congressional Budget Office 
recommended, and you should apply the President's number to that, and I 
believe you will have something very significant happen when the 
American people understand that over a decade we are giving them back 
their money. They will begin to ask, If we don't do that, what is going 
to happen to that surplus?
  Do you know what I think is going to happen to it? I think it is 
going to get spent. I think it is going to get spent. I do not know how 
yet, but it will get spent. Every year we will have an excuse, just 
about like the amendments that are going to be offered to the Bush 
budget tomorrow and the next day, where there will be some new purpose 
that we should add to it well beyond what he recommended. But in the 
end, fellow Senators and those listening, those are all using the 
surplus to spend more money instead of giving the taxpayer a break. If 
we want to spend money, spend what is left over. There is still a lot 
left over.
  I ask my friend, what is your desire regarding the rest of the 
evening?
  Mr. CONRAD. I would just like a few more minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. OK. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have been reading the book by David 
Stockman, ``The Triumph of Politics.'' It is about what happened in the 
1980s, when, through a series of disastrous fiscal miscalculations, we 
plunged this country into deep, deep debt. I was not here at the time, 
but in that book he outlines very clearly what happened when the 
President advocated a massive tax cut, combined with a big increase in 
defense spending, all under a rosy economic forecast. The results were 
a tripling and quadrupling of deficits, a quadrupling of debt. The same 
voices who were advocating then to give the President a chance are 
advocating to give this President a chance with the same kind of fiscal 
scheme.
  It is amazing how much credence a 10-year forecast has been given in 
this body, this notion that there is really going to be $5.6 trillion 
of surpluses over the next 10 years. It is almost mystical, the 
confidence people have in that kind of forecast.
  I used to be responsible for forecasting the revenue for my State. I 
had to do it for 30 months--not a 10-year forecast, a 2\1/2\ year 
forecast. I can tell you, it is a crapshoot to forecast the revenue for 
2\1/2\ years, much less the revenue for the United States for 10 years.
  Let me say to my colleagues, if one assumption were changed in that 
forecast, $2.5 trillion of the $5.6 trillion would be right out the 
window. If the productivity gains assumed for the next 10 years were 
the same productivity increases we had in the United

[[Page S3272]]

States between 1982 and 1995, that $5.6 trillion surplus would turn 
into a $3.2 trillion surplus--one estimate, one part of the projection, 
and 40 percent of the surplus goes right out the window.
  It is not wise to bet the farm on a 10-year forecast, a 10-year 
forecast made after 5 of the strongest economic years in the history of 
the United States, at a time a downturn has started.
  Sometimes one wonders if we have all gotten caught up in the 
giddiness of markets. We saw the NASDAQ go from 1,500 to 5,000 and fall 
back to 1,800. Isn't there a warning there someplace? Do we really 
believe that things that just go up, up, up, just keep going up, up, 
up? Is there no caution here? I believe we can all hope that things 
keep going up, up, up. I certainly do. That would be good for the 
economy, good for the country, and make our jobs a lot easier. But I do 
not think we ought to bet the farm on it.
  This whole thing about it is the people's money and we ought to give 
it back to the people--if you examine our proposal, we are giving as 
much back as they are. We are just doing it in a different way. We have 
a tax cut that is half as big as theirs. But we have another $800 
billion that we are proposing to use for strengthening Social Security 
for the long term, to, for example, put in investment accounts for 
people that they could then match or they could add to, so we would 
increase the pool of savings and investments for our society so we 
would have a stronger economy in the years ahead. That money is going 
right to the American people just as would a tax cut, only it is for 
savings and investment.
  The differences between us are important differences, but it is not a 
question of we want to take the money and just spend it on Government 
programs and they want a tax cut. Those are not the choices. They are 
just not the choices.
  The choices are, No. 1, that we would take $800 billion and use it to 
strengthen Social Security for the long term by establishing something 
like the thrift savings plan accounts that every Federal employee has. 
That is not money that is going to be spent on Government programs. 
That is money that is going to be available for savings and investment 
by the American people. On top of that, we advocate another $750 
billion of tax cuts.
  So if you compare their tax cut to our proposal of tax cuts and money 
that is available for individual accounts, to strengthen Social 
Security, and provide a pool of savings and investment for the 
strengthening of the economic future of America, we both have about the 
same amount of money going directly back to the American people. But in 
addition to that, we have reserved a lot more of this projected surplus 
for paying down the people's debt. Yes, it is the people's money, 
absolutely. It is also the people's debt. It is also the people's 
education and the people's defense, and the people's Social Security.
  This is not a question of spending versus tax cuts. I know the other 
side always loves to use that formulation. That is not our budget plan. 
Our budget plan is fundamentally a question of more debt reduction, 
both short term and long term, versus more for tax cuts. That is a 
fundamental choice before us.
  We believe, yes, there ought to be a significant tax cut, but we also 
believe we ought to use more of this projected surplus for paying down 
both short-term and long-term debt. We devote about twice as much as 
their budget resolution for those purposes.
  We think it is a better use of the people's money to dump the 
people's debt while we have this opportunity because it is a fleeting 
opportunity. In 11 years, those baby boomers start to retire, and then 
the obligations of the Federal Government are going to skyrocket. Those 
obligations are going to be the obligations of the American taxpayer. I 
hope very much that as we continue this debate, the choices will become 
clear.
  I will end as I began, by saying our budget plan seeks to put aside 
every penny of Social Security and Medicare trust funds, reserving it 
for those purposes, and then to have a significant tax cut, a tax cut 
of $900 billion, including interest, $900 billion for high-priority 
domestic needs such as improving education, a prescription drug 
benefit, strengthening our national defense, and then that final $900 
billion, or roughly that, to strengthen Social Security for the long 
term--resources reserved so we can strengthen the Social Security 
system.
  Every single proposal that is serious about strengthening Social 
Security for the long term has a cost associated with it, has a need 
for resources. We provide them. They don't. That is a very fundamental 
difference between these plans.
  Again, I look forward to continuing this debate tomorrow and thank my 
colleagues and others who have been listening.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
Budget Committee staff named on the following list be permitted to 
remain on the floor during consideration of S. Con. Res. 101 and that 
the list be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

               Staff List: Senate Committee on the Budget


                             majority staff

       Daniel P. Brandt III, Amy Call, Allen R. Cutler, Beth 
     Felder, Rachel Forward, Jennifer Hilton, Jim Hearn, W. Walter 
     Hearne, Bill Hoagland, Sabre Mayhugh, Carole Mcguire, Mieko 
     Nakabayashi, James O'Keeffe, Maureen O'Neill, David A. 
     Ortega, Cheri Reidy, Andrew Siracuse, Robert Stein, Bob 
     Stevenson, Margaret Bonynge Stewart, Kathleen M. Weldon, 
     Winslow Wheeler, Jennifer Winkler, Sandra Wiseman.


                             minority staff

       Rochelle Amdur, Stephen Bailey, Scott Carlson, Rock E. 
     Cheung, Jim Esquea, Bonnie Galvin, Timothy Galvin, James 
     Horney, Lisa Konwinski, Sarah Kuehl, Karin Kullman, Stuart 
     Nagurka, Mary Naylor, Sue Nelson, Steven Posner, Dakota 
     Rudesill, Charles Stone, Barry Strumpf.


                          administrative staff

       Michael Berkholtz, Jeffrey Eaby, Alex Green, Sahand 
     Sarshar, Lynne Seymour, George Woodall.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 
the presence and use of small calculators, which we don't normally 
permit but which might be needed, during consideration of the fiscal 
year 2001 concurrent resolution on the budget.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, when my friend gets up and puts up a 
chart that says the President is going to have to spend all these 
things on taxes, even though he didn't ask for them--he put up a number 
and said: They are going to have to spend money on the alternative 
minimum tax. Frankly, he put a big dollar number there. I want 
everybody to know, that is a very wonderful thought on his part, but 
the truth is, the budget resolution does not say that you do whatever 
you want on taxes. It says $1.6 trillion. If he wants to surmise that 
they are going to break this budget and have more tax cuts than that, 
then he ought to clearly say that because if there is going to be an 
alternative minimum change, they are going to make it within this $1.6 
trillion because that is all that is allowed in this budget resolution.
  Frankly, a very large chunk of that is estimated to be for one of the 
three purposes; that is, either the marriage tax penalty or doubling 
the child care credit or the death tax repeal.
  Those could all be adjusted, any of the three could be adjusted, in 
terms of how much they are going to cost. We are using a number. 
Actually, the Finance Committee can decide how to change those, and 
there may be money left over when they have finished doing that. Just 
so the people understand, we are looking at 1.6, not 1.9, not 2.2 
trillion. We are looking at 1.6.
  My last observation is, my good friend says there is going to be more 
investment under their plan, and then he says there is $700 billion 
that is going to be used for investment purposes on individual accounts 
under Social Security. I don't know what we are going to do with it 
between now and the time that such a plan evolves. I am not sure it is 
in the wings that we are going to change Social Security to do that. 
Just wait until we talk here about investing it in the stock market, 
which is probably the only way we are going to do it. Are we going to 
do that in the next 6 months or the next 2 years? In the meantime, what 
is all that money going to be used for under their budget? I don't 
know. I assume it is going to be sitting around. And then

[[Page S3273]]

what? We are going to buy up private securities with it? What are we 
going to do with it in the meantime?
  Maybe my friend can answer that, and maybe it is truly invested. I 
don't know how it gets invested.
  My last observation, one more time, is that President Bush deserves 
an opportunity. To those watching tonight, he has proposed a very 
reasonable and responsible budget plan. We are only asking that it be 
permitted to take one step forward and see if the next committees will 
choose to adopt it and whether the Senate will adopt those bills later. 
I believe he deserves that. He is the President. He has made a very 
important proposal. He is telling us precisely why he is doing it. He 
wants the American people to get a refund now in some way of $60 
billion, but he wants to fix the Tax Code where it is more advantageous 
to investment and growth and prosperity. He is entitled to just that 
one break on this budget resolution. We will keep working for it, and 
we will have a lot of Senators on our side.
  I hope in the end, if they want to make amendments, they will end up 
voting for the critical essence of this President's approach; that is, 
the tax plan. If you want to do some other things in this budget, leave 
his tax plan intact and let's see how it comes out in the end for the 
American people.

                          ____________________