Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 95 (Tuesday, July 10, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 95 (Tuesday, July 10, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7363-S7374]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will now resume consideration of S. 1077, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1077) making supplemental appropriations for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other
purposes.

Pending:

Reid (for Schumer) amendment No. 862, to rescind
$33,900,000 for the printing and postage costs of the notices
to be sent by the Internal Revenue Service before and after
the tax rebate, such amount to remain available for debt
reduction.
Reid (for Feingold) amendment No. 863, to increase the
amount provided to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and
tuberculosis, and to offset that increase by rescinding
amounts appropriated to the Navy for the V-22 Osprey aircraft
program.
Craig (for Roberts) amendment No. 864, to prohibit the use
of funds for reorganizing certain B-1 bomber forces.
Voinovich amendment No. 865, to protect the social security
surpluses by preventing on-budget deficits.
Byrd (for Conrad) amendment No. 866 (to amendment No. 865),
to establish an off-budget lockbox to strengthen Social
Security and Medicare.
Conrad amendment No. 867, to provide funds for emergency
housing on the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation.
Stevens (for McCain) amendment No. 868, to increase amounts
appropriated to the Department of Defense.
Stevens (for McCain) amendment No. 869, to provide
additional funds for military personnel, working-capital
funds, mission-critical maintenance, force protection, and
other purposes by increasing amounts appropriated to the
Department of Defense, and to offset the increases by
reducing and rescinding certain appropriations.
Stevens (for Hutchinson) amendment No. 870, to provide
additional amounts to repair damage caused by ice storms in
the States of Arkansas and Oklahoma.
Stevens (for Craig) amendment No. 871, regarding the
proportionality of the level of non-military exports
purchased by Israel to the amount of United States cash
transfer assistance for Israel.
Bond amendment No. 872, to increase amounts appropriated
for the Department of Defense.
Reid (for Hollings) amendment No. 873, ensuring funding for
defense and education and the supplemental appropriation by
repealing tax cuts for 2001.
Reid (for Wellstone) amendment No. 874, to increase funding
for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, with an
offset.
Reid (for Johnson) amendment No. 875, to amend the Higher
Education Act of 1965 to make certain interest rate changes
permanent.

Amendments Nos. 866 and 865

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will now be 2 hours of concurrent debate, equally divided, in relation
to the lockbox amendments, Nos. 866 and 865.
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask the time I consume not be charged
against either Senator Conrad or Senator Voinovich.

[[Page S7364]]

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

Schedule

Mr. REID. First of all, as has been announced, we have now resumed
consideration of the supplemental appropriations bill. The majority
leader indicated that both Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd have every
intention of finishing this bill today so we can go on to the Interior
appropriations bill tomorrow. The majority leader has authorized me to
state it is his wish we could complete that legislation sometime on
Thursday--Interior appropriations. If we did that, the majority leader
said there would be no votes on Friday. So it would be really good if
we could do that. It will take a lot of cooperation from everyone.
The majority leader has also asked me to express his appreciation to
everyone for the cooperation on the Patients' Bill of Rights. It was a
very contentious issue. Both sides worked, offered very difficult
amendments for everyone to consider. It was done. It was done in an
expedient way, and we arrived at a conclusion at an earlier time than
people expected.
There are 14 amendments today. We have every expectation that some of
them will be accepted by the managers of the legislation. Others,
perhaps, can be worked out. The two managers of the bill have asked
that we work to try to get time agreements on each of the amendments,
and we will do that.
We hope we can arrive at a situation today where there can be votes
at 2:15, as has been announced earlier. We expect, with the cooperation
of Senator Voinovich and Senator Conrad, that can be done, and we will
work toward that end.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. I ask the
time be equally charged against both sides.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, how much time remains on the Conrad
amendment as a result of the quorum call?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 47\1/2\ minutes on each
side.
Mr. REID. For the edification of Members, we have had a general
agreement that we will try to put in writing that we will complete this
debate on these two amendments in approximately 90 minutes. They have
agreed and consented to having a vote at 2:15 on Conrad first and
Voinovich second, with 6 minutes equally divided between the two before
the vote. We will write that up. I have explained to the Senators that
when we get that written up, we will interrupt them so people will know
definitely when the votes will occur.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Ohio is
recognized.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, one of the primary reasons I wanted to
serve as a U.S. Senator was to have an opportunity to bring fiscal
responsibility to our Nation and help eliminate the terrible debt with
which we will surely burden our children and grandchildren. As my
colleagues know, for decades successive Congresses and Presidents spent
money on things that, while important, they were unwilling to pay for
or do without. In the process, we ran up a staggering debt and
mortgaged our future.
Today, our national debt is at $5.6 trillion, which costs us over
$200 billion every year in interest payments. From the time I arrived
in the Senate, I have been working to rein in spending and lower our
national debt. Over the past 2\1/2\ years, I have sponsored and
cosponsored a number of amendments designed to bring fiscal discipline
to the Federal Government.
For instance, in 1999 and 2000, we offered an amendment to use the
entire on-budget surplus to pay down the debt. Also, in an effort to
bring spending under control, Senator Allard and I offered an amendment
in June of 2000 to direct $12 billion of the fiscal year on-budget
surplus toward debt reduction. The amendment passed by an overwhelming
margin of 95-3 and committed Congress to designate the on-budget
surpluses to reduce the national debt, keeping those funds from being
used for additional Government spending.
Our amendment provided the mechanism to assure that Congress will
begin the serious task of paying down the debt. Further, this past
April, Senators Feingold, Gregg, and I offered an amendment to the
fiscal year 2000 budget resolution designed to tighten the enforcement
of existing spending controls. Our amendment created an explicit point
of order against directed scoring and abuses of the emergency spending.
Given this commitment to fiscal responsibility, the huge spending
increases we have seen in the past 2 years have been troubling for me
and for a lot of other Members of this body. I am worried that they
will lead us back to our deficit spending and debt accumulation.

I was encouraged, however, with the budget that the President sent to
us this year. The President's budget relies equally on three primary
principles. I refer to them as the ``three-legged stool.'' They are tax
cuts, restrained spending, and debt reduction; all three of them fit
together. This isn't just what the President proposed. It was what
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan called for in his
groundbreaking testimony before the Senate Budget Committee earlier
this year. Chairman Greenspan said that he hoped the recent increases
in Federal spending was only an aberration. He went on to say that we
needed a tax reduction because surpluses were accumulating so fast that
they were overwhelming our ability to repay the national debt without
having to pay a premium. This is precisely what the President's tax cut
did.
The President's proposal to cut taxes was responsible precisely
because it was coupled with two other legs of this budgetary stool.
Without limits on spending and maximum efforts to pay down the debt, I
could not have supported in good conscience the proposed tax cuts.
Ultimately, Congress passed the budget that achieves all three
objectives of the three-legged stool. It cuts taxes, restrains spending
to a responsible level, and pays down the available publicly held debt
over a 10-year period. Little did we know how the tax cut would be
needed to jump start the economy and restore consumer confidence. I
don't think we knew that until recently when we saw what has been
happening to our economy.
Hopefully, with the tax reduction, lower interest rates, and action
by Congress to curb energy costs, we will see an improvement in the
economy and a restoration of the public's confidence in the economy.
We have taken the first step to implement the budget agreement by
enacting the President's proposed tax cuts with a large bipartisan
majority. Tax cuts are now law and are a done deal. I know some Members
of this body believe that those tax cuts were too much. But the fact is
that a majority of us felt they were reasonable and less than what the
President asked for.
But our work is not yet finished. We still need to enact legislation
to lock in the other two legs of the budgetary stool. We need a
mechanism to restrain spending and pay down the debt. That is precisely
what our amendment does. It is the teeth that ensures that we will pay
down the debt and limit spending. Lockboxing the Social Security
surplus is the key to protecting our accomplishments thus far and
enforcing our budget agreement.
I want to call your attention to this chart, which basically shows
that all during the 1990s we had the deficit, but that deficit would
have been much larger than was reported because we used the Social
Security surplus to pay for things that Congress was unwilling to pay
for or to do without. So as you can see, all the way up until the year
2000, we had a real deficit; there was no surplus whatsoever. It was
only until 2000 that we saw a real on-budget surplus, and it wasn't
until 1998 that we weren't using the Social Security surplus. The point
is that we do not want to return to what we were doing in the past, and
that is using the Social Security surplus.
I think that my colleagues can see on this chart, and so can the
American

[[Page S7365]]

taxpayers, that the Social Security surplus, if you can see this, is
significant all the way during this next decade. What my amendment
would basically do is to make sure that all of this money is used to
pay down the debt and to restrain spending by the Members of this
Senate.
I have every reason to believe if we don't pass this amendment, there
is a good chance this money will be used to pay for spending.
Mr. President, as you can see, Congress has not been able to resist
spending Social Security. I was an earlier supporter of the Abraham-
Domenici Social Security lockbox that was first offered in 1999.
I voted in favor of the lockbox on several occasions. Laying out a
thoughtful and well-reasoned budget plan is not enough to guarantee we
do not stray back to spending the Social Security surplus. Good
intentions are not enough.
Our lockbox strengthens the existing point of order against spending
the Social Security surplus. Our lockbox makes it out of order to use
the Social Security surplus in any one of the next 10 years, contrasted
with the current budget resolution.
This is an important improvement. The existing point of order is
written so it is possible to use the Social Security surplus in the
future and is not possible to call a point of order. My amendment would
prevent that.
Most important, my amendment contains an automatic enforcement
mechanism. If OMB reports that the Federal Government will spend the
Social Security surplus, an automatic across-the-board sequester will
be put in place by OMB, and the size of the sequester will offset the
use of the surplus.
This is the ultimate enforcement mechanism. If the Social Security
surplus looks as if it will get spent, OMB stops it from happening.
This mechanism is our safety valve which will ensure we stay on course
to limit spending and pay down our debt.
Spending cuts under my amendment would cut into both discretionary
and mandatory spending. Mandatory spending for the most needy in
society would not be affected by these cuts. My amendment would exclude
Social Security, food stamps, and other programs that are excluded from
sequesters under the Deficit Control Act of 1985, and to prevent an
inadvertent sequester, my amendment builds in a margin of error. This
margin is equal to one-half of 1 percent of outlays. Because it is so
hard to calculate the aggregate level of spending from year to year, I
think this is a reasonable measure and OMB supports it. It would
prevent inadvertent sequesters.
My amendment is straightforward and relies on existing law. I
primarily build on existing budget process and mechanisms. We all know
Social Security is off budget, and my amendment reinforces that
position.
My amendment does not modify any budgetary conventions or pretend
Social Security is something that it is not. Everyone knows the Budget
Act points of order have their limitations. Someone has to call them,
and too often no one does call them.
Take the use of Budget Act points of order against appropriations
bills. The appropriations bills that pass early in the session can
contain outrageous spending increases, and they are immune from the
Social Security point of order because they do not threaten the Social
Security surplus. It is only when we take up the last appropriations
bills that it is obvious that the cumulative effect of our actions
might cause a problem.
Until we take up the last appropriations bill, it is pure conjecture
as to whether we might spend the Social Security surplus. The use of
omnibus appropriations bills makes this all the more problematic. By
the time we reach that last appropriations bill around here, it is too
late. Large spending increases could have already been done, and we all
know how bad Congress wants to get out of town when that last bill
rolls around. For this reason, no one is willing to call a point of
order that threatens to derail the train or a carefully worked out
compromise needed to pass the last appropriations bills.
This is the shortcoming of points of order, and that is why we need
an automatic enforcement mechanism to protect the Social Security
surplus. The existence of an automatic Social Security sequestration
will force Congress to act. I am no fool, however. I know that if
Congress wants to spend money, it will. With 60 votes, we can do just
about anything here, and just as we raise the discretionary spending
caps and the debt ceiling, we can vote to undo this mechanism, but it
will force Congress to act and will put Congress on record as violating
the Social Security surplus. People of America should know that is what
we are doing. It should not be hidden.

My colleague across the aisle, on the other hand, relies exclusively
on points of order to enforce his lockbox which we will be hearing more
about and, in my opinion, this is a serious weakness.
We in Congress spend and spend. For fiscal year 2001, with strong
encouragement of the Clinton administration, my colleagues in Congress
increased nondefense discretionary spending by a staggering 14.3
percent. I want everybody to hear that--14.3 percent. Think of it, a
14.3-percent growth in nondefense discretionary spending, and we
increased overall spending by 8 percent. We grew the size of the
Federal Government by 8 percent. We spend, and we spend.
As we begin to consider spending for fiscal year 2002, the President
presented a modest, responsible budget that called for a 4-percent
growth rate. Congress tacked on more spending and passed a bipartisan
budget that called for a 4.7-percent increase in Federal spending. We
spend.
We then took up an education bill intended to reform schools in an
effort to ensure we were properly preparing our children for the 21st
century, a goal I wholeheartedly support. Unfortunately, reform in
Congress means more spending. We passed an education bill that
authorized an incredible 62-percent increase in Federal spending on
education--62 percent. Again, we spend.
If I can refer to this chart, my colleagues can see just what has
happened to spending in Congress in the last couple of years. The
budget caps that were put in place in 1997 in the budget agreement were
supposed to cap spending in 1998 at 52.7, in 1999 at 53.3, in 2000 at
53.7, and in 2001 at 54.2. The red line is what we actually spent. Look
at this increase. Starting in 1997, we increased spending.
From looking at that, one can see that walling off the Social
Security trust fund from spending is something that has to be done. We
have proven time and again that we are very good at one thing: spending
other people's money. I remind the President and others that prior to
1999 we were spending that Social Security surplus regularly. This
amendment ensures we will not spend that money. It ensures it will go
where it belongs: paying down the national debt and providing a
firewall against irresponsible spending. We must make sure history does
not repeat itself.
If, however, the economic prosperity this Nation has enjoyed recently
continues to fade--and I hope it is just a temporary situation--any
surplus projections are likely to be revised downward and that Social
Security surplus will, again, be in the crosshairs. It will be in the
crosshairs because Congress's yearning for spending has not abated, for
example, as I mentioned, the 62-percent increase in education. The
President now is asking for more money in defense spending.
Given the spending trajectory and the possibility of continued
economic softness and that the surplus will not be as large as
projected, we could be bumping against the Social Security trust fund.
We cannot let that happen. There is a real risk of it happening. We
need to rein in the spending and protect Social Security from these
spending threats. We need to lockbox it. Once lockboxed, the Social
Security surplus will go to our debt reduction as our budget and the
President's original plan intends and Federal Reserve Chairman Alan
Greenspan has recommended.

It is Congress's irresponsible record of spending that has
accumulated the $5.6 trillion in debt that now hangs over our children
and our children's children. Paying off the debt will free up the 11
percent of the Federal budget which currently goes to debt service so
we can focus on other needs such as Social Security reform.
There is what at first appears to be an alternative to my amendment,
and that is the amendment offered by my

[[Page S7366]]

colleague from North Dakota, the chairman of the Budget Committee.
Unfortunately, I do not think it measures up to the amendment I have
offered. I would like to take a moment to address the second-degree
amendment of my colleague from North Dakota.
Its enforcement measure, in my opinion, is not as tough as mine.
Therefore, my colleague's measure can easily be dodged by a Congress
under pressure to spend more or which simply lacks the same commitment
to debt reduction and spending restraint we have shown in our budget
resolution.
The Senator's amendment purports to lockbox the Medicare surplus, but
there is no such surplus. There is no Medicare surplus. It is money
that does not exist. The Part B deficit exceeds the so-called Part A
surplus. For fiscal year 2002, the net position of the Medicare
Program, when we combine Part A and Part B, we have a negative $52
billion that is coming from the general fund. Medicare is an on-budget
account, unlike Social Security, which is currently in a huge deficit
and which relies upon direct infusions from the general fund.

I note that some tried harsh words to differentiate between Parts A
and B, but the fact is we are still talking about the same program.
Considering them separately and pretending they are off budget are
simply not intellectually honest deductions and are a faulty premise on
which to base legislation. If you want the appearance of action,
coupled with the security of inaction, don't vote for my amendment,
vote for the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota.
I want to be frank with the President and my colleagues in the
Senate. Many gave thought to the idea of ``lockboxing'' Part A of
Medicare. I think our colleagues know there is a Part A and Part B.
Part A is funded by deducting money from people's Social Security check
and by everyone paying into the Medicare trust fund. We take in more
money than is spent out for Part A.
However, Part B, which is the nonhospital portion of Medicare, does
not take in enough money. The Medicare Part A surplus projected for the
year 2002 is $36 billion; Medicare Part B deficit is $88 billion. In
effect, we are taking $52 billion out of the general fund of the United
States to support Medicare. I am sure a lot of people getting Medicare
today think the money coming out of their Social Security, the money
sons and daughters are paying into the Medicare fund, is taking care of
it. That is not the case. That is not the case.
When you combine Part A and Part B, the taxpayers of the United
States subsidize Medicare. There is not enough money in the Medicare
fund from the money coming in every year and the money being taken out
of people's Social Security and the money they pay in for Part B. We
are subsidizing it. To talk of a Medicare surplus when you see these
numbers, is not being truthful. The surplus projected for the next 10
years shows the Medicare surplus for Part A is $393 billion. Whoopee.
Part B, the deficit is $1.36 trillion. The overall subsidy coming from
the general fund of the United States is $643 billion. For us to talk
about lockboxing this, to me, really does not make sense. I know some
talked about doing this last year, but the only reason it was brought
up was the concept it would help restrain spending. When you see the
total budget picture, the Medicare surplus is part of the on-budget
surplus. It is in deficit. We ought not talk about locking off
something that is not there.
I urge my colleagues to reject the Conrad second-degree amendment
because I don't think it will be enacted. In my opinion, it is a poison
pill. It pretends there is a sacrosanct Medicare surplus which does not
exist and which was never walled off. I predict today if the second-
degree amendment is passed by the Senate, the entire provision will be
removed from the conference report of this bill. That money is going to
be needed to pay for spending in the budget we now have, particularly
if we increase education 62 percent, as some colleagues would like to
do, and we entertain the President's request for more money for
defense.
On the other hand, if you want to make sure the money is there to
follow through on what we promised the American people, if we want to
pay down the debt as we promised--we said we want to pay down the debt
and we want to restrain spending--if we want to do that without
gimmicks, the pure Social Security lockbox that will do that, I request
my colleagues support this amendment.
I am not proposing this today for political reasons. It is popular. I
want to lockbox Social Security. I want to lockbox Medicare. The fact
is, this is very serious business. I testified before Congress in 1985
as president of the National League of Cities. At that time, spending
was out of control. What happened was during the Reagan years--some of
my colleagues might not like to hear it--we reduced taxes, but at the
same time we reduced taxes which was supposed to stimulate the economy,
at the same time we increased spending astronomically. What President
Reagan received was money for the defense initiative, and what the
other colleagues received was money for domestic spending. It was
during that period of the 1980s where we saw the national debt
skyrocket, and we gobbled up Social Security.
We need to be fiscally responsible. The way to do that is lockbox
Social Security so it can be used for deficit reduction; lockbox it so
it can not be used for spending. I think we can leave here with our
head high and it will be something we may very well need by the end of
this year if things do not work out as well as we hoped.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio and I see the same
problem, but we have a different approach to solving the problem.
The Senator from Ohio says the Social Security is endangered. I
agree. I say not only is the Social Security trust fund endangered but
so, too, is the Medicare trust fund. Despite the words from the Senator
from Ohio, there really is a Medicare trust fund. It really is in
surplus. We know that. That is from the reports from this
administration. Those are what the reports from the Congressional
Budget Office make very clear.
Here is the ``Medicare Budget Outlook,'' from chapter 1, from the
CBO, table 1-7 ``Trust Fund Surpluses.''
Under ``Medicare, Hospital Insurance (Part A),'' the trust fund is in
surplus each and every year of the years under consideration.
Part B, referenced by the Senator from Ohio, is in rough balance.
What the Senator from Ohio has confused with his charts, is that Part
A has always been funded in one way, under one formula, and Part B has
been funded under a different formula. Part A is funded by deductions
from payrolls of employees all across the country. As I indicate, Part
A is in surplus.
Part B is funded by premiums paid by Medicare beneficiaries and by
general fund contributions. That is not in deficit as asserted by the
Senator from Ohio. That is incorrect. Long ago, Congress determined
Part B would be funded in part by contributions from the general fund,
in part by premiums. We decide that level of contribution from the
general fund as a matter of law. We make that determination. It has
nothing to do with the Part B trust fund being in surplus or deficit.
In fact, the reports of the Office of Management and Budget and the
reports of the Congressional Budget Office show that the Part B trust
fund is in rough balance because of that funding mechanism. It is not
in deficit. That is an inaccurate statement. Part A is in surplus. So I
believe the proper policy here is to give protection to both the Social
Security trust fund and the Medicare trust fund, not just the Social
Security trust fund, because the truth is Medicare is headed for
insolvency even sooner than Social Security.

I believe we ought to save the Social Security surplus and save the
Medicare surplus; we ought to provide protection to both. It is
critically important that we do so.
The amendment I have offered in the second degree to the amendment of
the Senator from Ohio protects the Social Security surpluses in each
and every year, takes the Medicare Part A trust fund surplus off
budget, just as we have done with Social Security, and gives Medicare,
the same protections as Social Security and contains strong enforcement
for both. This is an amendment that received 60 votes on the floor of
the Senate last year. Sixty

[[Page S7367]]

Members voted for protecting both Social Security and Medicare. I hope
we will do that again.
To go to the specific comparison of the two amendments I think would
be useful to our Members.
First, on the question of taking Medicare off budget, my amendment
does so, to provide the same protection we have provided to Social
Security. The basic idea is a simple one. Should we be using Medicare
trust fund money or Social Security trust fund money for other
purposes? Should we be using that money to fund the other operations of
Government? My answer would be that at a time of economic growth we
simply should not. We should not be raiding trust funds, retirement
funds, health care funds, to pay for other functions of Government. We
should not be using Medicare trust fund money to pay for national
defense. We should not be using Medicare trust fund money or Social
Security trust fund money to pay for education. We should not be using
trust fund money to pay for tax cuts. We should not be using trust fund
money to pay for the park system. The fundamental reason not to is we
need that money to make the funds solvent.
We have the baby boom generation coming along. If we use that money
for other purposes, it is not available to pay down debt or to address
the long-term liability in those programs. The fundamental effect is we
dig the hole deeper before we start refilling it.
My amendment would take the Part A trust fund off budget and protect
it just as we do Social Security. The Voinovich amendment does not. He
does not protect Medicare like Social Security.
The second question is, Does it protect Medicare surpluses? My
amendment, the Conrad amendment, does. It creates supermajority points
of order against any legislation that would decrease the Medicare trust
fund or increase trust fund deficits in any fiscal year. The Voinovich
amendment has no such provision.
On the third question of protecting Medicare against cuts, yes, on
the Conrad amendment. We exempt Medicare trust funds from mandatory
sequesters. We do not think those funds that are dedicated to Medicare
should be used to cover up the deficit in other places in the budget.
We do not think Social Security funds should be used for that purpose.
We do not believe Medicare funds should be used for that purpose. We
have already separately taxed people for Medicare and Social Security.
They are in surplus. To take their funds to pay for other functions of
the Federal Government is just wrong. No private sector entity could do
that. There is not a private sector entity in America that could raid
the retirement funds of their employees to pay the operating expenses
of the company. There is not a private sector firm in America that
could take the health care trust funds of their employees and use them
to fund the other operations of the company. That is illegal. It would
be illegal under Federal law if any private sector organization tried
to do it.

Why don't we apply the same principle to ourselves? Why don't we say:
Look, trust fund money? That is a different category. It is a different
category from other spending. If we are going to do that, we have to
treat the Social Security trust fund and Medicare trust fund in the
same way. My amendment does. The amendment of the Senator from Ohio
simply does not. In fact, the amendment of the Senator from Ohio would
require Medicare to be cut. Under his sequester, Medicare could be cut,
defense could be cut, any other part of Federal spending could be cut;
it is undifferentiated. It doesn't matter whether it is a trust fund or
other operations of Government; under the amendment of the Senator from
Ohio, they could all be cut.
I do not think that is right. I do not think it is right to treat the
Medicare trust fund the same way as other Federal programs when there
is a shortfall in Social Security--to cut Medicare to make up for it? I
don't think so. I do not think that is the right principle at all.
The fourth question: Do we protect on-budget surpluses? Yes, under
the Conrad amendment we create a supermajority point of order against
the budget resolution or other legislation that would cause or increase
an on-budget deficit for any fiscal year; in other words, taking out
Social Security and Medicare, treating them as trust funds. That is
what they are supposed to be, that is what they are designed to be, and
we ought to treat them as such. The amendment of the Senator from Ohio
is the same as my amendment in that regard.
Protecting Social Security? The two are the same.
On the final question, providing for cuts in Medicare, education,
defense, and other programs, no, my amendment does not provide new
sequesters beyond existing mandatory and discretionary sequesters under
the Budget Enforcement Act. The amendment of the Senator from Ohio
amends the Budget Enforcement Act to sequester spending in any year the
estimated on-budget spending exceeds one-half of 1 percent of total
estimated outlays, regardless of what caused the deficit--regardless of
what caused it.
Under his proposal, even if it was a tax cut that caused the
shortfall, you have to go out and cut Medicare; you have to go out and
cut defense; you have to go out and cut education, even though it was
not a spending increase that caused the problem. If it was, instead, a
shortfall in revenue or if, instead, it was some other provision that
created the problem--a tax cut, for example, that caused the
shortfall--his answer is the same in every case: You cut spending. It
doesn't matter what the cause of the problem is; you treat them all the
same. I do not think that makes sense or stacks up.
Under the amendment my colleague from Ohio is offering--I call it the
Republican broken safe because there is not a penny reserved for
Medicare--you are protecting Social Security, which my amendment does
as well, but he does nothing for Medicare. I do not think that is the
way we want to go.
I will go back to my colleague from New Mexico, who I see is on the
floor now. This was his statement back in 1998:

For every dollar you divert to some other program you are
hastening the day when Medicare falls into bankruptcy, and
you are making it more and more difficult to solve the
Medicare problem in a permanent manner into the next
millennium.

He was exactly right when he made that statement. That is why I offer
this amendment today, to protect Social Security and Medicare, to treat
them as trust funds, because that is the way they were designed, that
is the way they were set up, and that is the way we ought to treat
them.
This chart shows we are already in trouble. Under the budget that was
passed, with the tax cut that was passed, with the economic slowdown
that is occurring, in the fiscal year 2001, the year we are in right
now, you can see we started with a $275 billion forecasted surplus, but
$156 billion of that is Social Security money and $28 billion is
Medicare trust fund money. When you take those out, you have $92
billion left. Then you take out the tax bill. That is $74 billion. If
you take out what is in the budget resolution that passed both the
Senate and the House, that is another $10 billion out of this year--
most of it in the bill that is before us right now, the supplemental
appropriations bill. Then when you look at the interest associated with
the first two, we are down to a margin of only $6 billion this year.
Now we have been told by the administration we can anticipate--to be
fair, this is Mr. Lindsey, Larry Lindsey, the President's Chief
Economic Adviser, who did a back-of-the-envelope calculation and said
when we adjust the number that he used for the different baselines, we
would lose another $20 billion this year because of the economic
downturn. That puts us in the hole this year by $17 billion. That puts
us into the Medicare trust fund by $17 billion.

That is before any appropriations bill has passed. No appropriations
bill has passed. There is no spending beyond what is in the budget, and
we are already in trouble. And for next year you can see the same
pattern, but it is more serious in that we are using all of the
Medicare trust fund next year, plus we are even using some of the
Social Security trust fund--only $4 billion but, nonetheless, the
numbers show that with the economic slowdown this year, we can
anticipate lower receipts next year. If you look at all of the numbers
and you look at how much of the money is in the trust funds, you

[[Page S7368]]

find that we have a problem this year and next year.
If we go even further and look at the next 10 years, what we see is
that we have problems in the Medicare trust fund in the first 4 years.
Every year we are into the Medicare trust fund just based on the budget
that has passed, based on the tax cut that has passed, based on the
economic downturn we see so far. And that is before we consider the
President's request for billions more for national defense. We are in
trouble already. We are into the trust funds already before we consider
the President's defense requests, before we consider any new money for
education.
Remember, we just passed an authorization bill with over $300 billion
of new money for education. This is before we have any money for
natural disasters. And we typically have $5 to $6 billion for natural
disasters every year. This is before the tax extenders are passed.
Those are popular provisions. The research and development tax credit--
does anybody believe we are not going to extend the research and
develop tax credit? Does anybody believe we are not going to extend the
wind and solar tax credits? If we do, it is not in the budget. And it
just makes the problem more severe.
I say to my colleagues, we are into the trust funds before any of
these additional measures, before the President's defense requests,
before any new money for education, before money for natural disasters,
before the tax extenders are provided for, before the alternative
minimum tax problem is fixed. And I am not talking about a total fix to
the alternative minimum tax; I am just talking about a fix to the
problem created by this tax bill that has been passed. Just fixing that
matter is a $200 billion cost. This is before any further economic
revisions. And we have been alerted by the Congressional Budget Office
to expect a further downward revision to the long-term forecast because
of the weakening economy.
Colleagues, what could be more clear? We have a responsibility to
deal not just with the short term but with the long term as well.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent agreement?
Mr. CONRAD. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, these unanimous consent requests have been
cleared by both leaders and both managers of the bill that is now
before us.
So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 90 minutes
for debate equally divided between Senators Voinovich and Conrad--and
this would go back to the time when they started their debate earlier
today, which there is probably----
Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. REID. Pardon me.
Mr. DOMENICI. I am reserving the right to object.
Mr. REID. If I could complete the request--on the subject of both the
Voinovich amendment No. 865 and the Conrad amendment No. 866, that at
2:15 p.m. there be 2 minutes for debate equally divided between
Senators Voinovich and Conrad prior to a vote in relation to the Conrad
amendment; that following the disposition of his amendment--that is,
the Conrad amendment--there be 6 minutes equally divided between
Senators Voinovich and Conrad followed by a vote in relation to the
Voinovich amendment, as amended, if amended.
I want to make sure it is clear, all time already consumed by Senator
Voinovich and Senator Conrad be charged against the 90 minutes. I also
say, to alleviate any questions anyone might have, there will be points
of order raised against both amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). Is there objection?
Mr. DOMENICI. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object--
maybe I didn't hear it--did you reserve some time for the Senator from
New Mexico to speak?
Mr. REID. Senator Voinovich has some time. I assume that is where
your time will come from, because we are already working under a time
agreement that was entered into yesterday.
How much time remains for Senator Voinovich?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-four minutes.
Under the unanimous consent request, there would be 21 minutes
remaining.
Mr. REID. Twenty-one minutes.
I ask Senator Voinovich, would you yield some of that time to the
ranking member of the Budget Committee?
Mr. Voinovich. I would be more than happy to.
Mr. DOMENICI. You said you would?
Mr. Voinovich. Yes. Absolutely.
Mr. DOMENICI. I will not use over 10 minutes, I say to the Senator.
It would be 7 to 10 minutes.
Mr. Voinovich. Fine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Thank you.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that with respect to the
Feingold amendment No. 863, there be 30 minutes for debate divided as
follows prior to a vote in relation to the amendment: 20 minutes under
the control of Senator Feingold, 10 minutes equally divided between the
chairman and ranking member, with no second-degree amendments in order
prior to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Further, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that with
respect to the Hollings amendment No. 873, there be 40 minutes for
debate divided as follows prior to a vote in relation to the amendment:
20 minutes under the control of the Senator from South Carolina, Mr.
Hollings; 20 minutes equally divided between the chairman and ranking
member of the Appropriations Committee, with no second-degree
amendments in order prior to the vote; further, that this debate
commence upon the conclusion of the debate on the lockbox amendments
this morning--that is, the Voinovich and Conrad amendments--and that,
further, a vote in relation to the Hollings amendment occur upon
disposition of the Voinovich amendment, as amended, if amended, with 4
minutes for debate equally divided prior to the vote. And to clarify,
the chairman and the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee or
their designees would control the 20 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to this unanimous consent
request?
The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, let me, through you, to my friend from North
Dakota, express my appreciation for his courtesy in yielding the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me just pick up where I left off and
point out that while we are in a period of surpluses now with respect
to Medicare and Social Security, we all know what is to come. The
Congressional Budget Office has alerted us. The Comptroller General of
the United States has alerted us. The Social Security Administration
has alerted us. Medicare has alerted us. And they all have told us the
same thing: That when we get past this decade--in the next decade when
the baby boomers start to retire--these surpluses turn to massive
deficits. That is what happens. The cash deficits begin in the year
2016, and then they grow geometrically as more and more baby boomers
retire.
That should warn us, that should alert us that we should not be using
the trust funds for other purposes. We should not be using the Medicare
and Social Security trust funds to fund other operations of Government.
Yet we are poised to do that this year. We are poised to do it to an
even greater degree next year. And we are poised to do it for the next
decade even in a time of strong economic growth.
Let's think about that. Let's think about it soberly. The
administration is not forecasting an economic slowdown next year or the
years thereafter; they are forecasting strong economic growth. In that
context, the numbers reveal we will be using trust fund monies to fund
the other operations of the Federal Government. I do not think that is
right.
Mr. Novak said, in a column yesterday, that I am--what did he say?--
an antique fiscal conservative.
Whatever name one applies to it doesn't make much difference to me.
It doesn't have anything to do with antique. It has to do with common
sense. You don't take trust fund money to pay for other programs when
you know

[[Page S7369]]

what is to come, and there is no one in this Chamber who doesn't know
what is to come. We know we are facing a demographic tidal wave unlike
anything we have ever seen in our Nation's history. We are going to go
from a time of surpluses in these trust funds to deficits.
One of the ways to deal with it is not to use the money in the trust
funds for other purposes. That is the heart and soul of my amendment.
We ought to pass it.
Does that mean you are forced to have a tax cut in a time of economic
slowdown? No, absolutely not. We have an economic slowdown now. I
proposed $60 billion of tax cuts, of fiscal stimulus this year. That
was part of the proposal I put before my colleagues--far more fiscal
stimulus than the President proposed. That isn't the correct
suggestion, that somehow we would force tax increases or spending cuts
at a time of an economic slowdown.
They are not forecasting an economic slowdown for this year or next
year or the year thereafter. They are forecasting strong economic
growth. We see from the numbers that their plan has put us into the
trust funds of Medicare and Social Security even at a time of economic
growth. That doesn't make sense to this Senator. I don't think it makes
any sense at all.
My colleague on the other side put up a chart suggesting that
spending is out of control, that that is the problem. I have to give
the other side of the story. That may be the popular view, but it
doesn't match the facts.
This chart shows Federal spending as a share of the economy has gone
down each and every year for the last 9 years. There hasn't been some
big spending splurge. He talks about one part of Federal spending. That
is the chart he had. The chart he had was not all Federal spending. No,
the chart he had was one part of Federal spending that has shown
significant increases. He didn't tell Members that he was showing a
chart that has just one-third of Federal spending. He didn't say that.
He made people believe that was all of Federal spending on that chart.
He knows and I know that is not the case.
He knows and I know that the proper way to compare Federal spending
is as a share of our gross domestic product because that takes out the
effects of inflation. That is the way to make the best comparison.
What do we see when we do that? We see that Federal spending in 1992
was 22 percent of gross domestic product. Federal spending in this
year, 2001, is going to be 18 percent of gross domestic product. There
has not been some big spending explosion. That is not an accurate
characterization to the American people.
The fact is, the share of money out of national income going to the
Federal Government has gone down dramatically, from 22 percent of gross
domestic product to 18 percent of gross domestic product today. That is
about a 20-percent reduction, not some big spending binge. That has
been a reduction in the share of national income going to the Federal
Government for spending. That is a fact.
Under the budget we passed, spending is not going up as a share of
gross domestic product or as a share of our national income; Federal
spending is going to continue to decline. It is going to go down to 16
percent of gross domestic product. That will be the lowest level since
1951.

Facts are stubborn things. The fact is, we do not have runaway
Federal spending. We have Federal spending going down and going down
sharply as a share of our national income, which every economist
asserts is the appropriate way to measure so that we take out the
effects of inflation and show real trends, what is really happening.
This is what has happened to Federal spending. Right now it is at the
lowest level since 1966 on a fair comparison basis, measured as a share
of gross domestic product. We can see we did have sharp increases back
in the 1980s. That is true. He was correct on that. But since then we
can see Federal spending as a share of GDP has gone down and gone down
sharply, gone down to the lowest level since 1966. We are poised, with
the budget under which we are operating, to go down to the level last
seen in 1951.
This is an important subject. We do have a growing problem of dipping
into the trust funds to finance the other operations of Government,
even in a time of economic growth. It is economic growth that is
forecasted next year. Those are all the numbers that are being used to
make these analyses. The problem is significant and growing.
I urge my colleagues to take a stand and vote to protect not only the
Social Security trust fund but the Medicare trust fund as well. That is
common sense.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota has 17 minutes
remaining. The Senator from Ohio has 21 minutes remaining.
The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. VOINOVICH. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am not here in the Chamber to discuss
the economics of the next 4, 5, 6, 10 years, nor am I here to conduct
an argument with the Budget chairman with reference to the status of
the economy, what we are getting versus what we projected. In due
course, we will get some projections that are authentic and we will be
down here to talk about the shortfall, which perhaps is a shortfall in
revenue, but we have nothing official. We have a statement out of the
White House. There is a formula that could be applied if the economy
comes down by x amount or the tax take could be reduced by a certain
amount. My good friend Senator Conrad is building a proposed set of
hearings around that. I look forward to them.
For now, let me say the biggest thing that has happened with
reference to the surplus is, No. 1, the Congress, led by the Senate,
decided to increase the stimulus this year in this remaining part of
the budget cycle. We decided in conference and then voted, with very
large votes, that $72 billion would be given back to the American
people during the remainder of this year. That is a very large sum. It
is the most prudent thing we could have done.
Looking back, I am very glad we did it. The only thing we have going
governmentally that might help this economy is to get some of these tax
dollars back into the hands of taxpayers to see if it will build on
their confidence as consumers or if they will use it to purchase items
that are currently under the rubric of heavy inventories that are
driving the economy down.
No. 1, the only big thing we have done is put in place a tax cut of
around $72 billion in the first year, this year, and about $30 billion
plus next year. To the extent that that reduced the surplus, I guess
one would have to ask: Should we now undo that tax measure?
I understand somebody is going to propose as an amendment that we
reduce the tax cuts. I don't know if it is in the first year or what,
but the Senate followed our good friend, Senator Hollings, here in the
Chamber while we were doing the budget resolution and said we should do
more in the first and second years, and essentially the conference on
the tax bill gave in to the proposals coming forth from this body.
The second thing that has happened is even though the Congressional
Budget Office had dramatically reduced the expectation of growth, they
went from about a 5.1 growth to an estimate for the relevant year of
2.5 percent, so we were operating on a rather conservative set of
economics, but what has happened is a shortfall in the American
economy, or the downturn, which has gone on pretty long--much longer
than many expected--is apparently going to cause some diminution, some
lessening of the taxes coming into the coffers than was expected. We
don't have the exact information from how or from whence.
So we have a tax cut that is our best hope of bringing this economy
back and causing this downturn to be minimum, at its minimal duration,
and to start back up as early as possible. I did not promote that tax
package with enough enthusiasm about it being needed for the economy
because I didn't believe we had the shortfall coming and it would last
this long. I spoke of that tax cut to make Government smaller and leave
money in the hands of the people. Other people thought it was an
antirecessionary measure, and I am grateful they did it because it
turns out to be right.
The $70 billion this year and the $30 billion-plus next year are
probably as

[[Page S7370]]

close to what the economic doctor would have prescribed to us if he
were looking at the veins of our economy and saying we better make some
of them a little more robust. So that happened. The economic estimate
went from 5.5 plus to 2.5 by the CBO. Apparently, it is coming down
beyond that, but for how long and how much, I don't know. We will be
getting our numbers together and we can have a very interesting debate.
What do we do if, in fact, this recession, this downward trend, lasts a
little longer than expected? What do we do with reference to the
shortfall in revenues? Do we increase taxes? Of course not. Do we just
cut everything in the Federal programs 10 percent or 8 percent? Of
course not. We won't do that.
Today, we have an amendment by the new chairman of the Budget
Committee that, I regret to say, I cannot support. I don't think it is
the right thing to do. First of all, this amendment is the same
amendment that was offered in the Senate and defeated by the Senate on
the Bankruptcy Act. The amendment the distinguished chairman is
offering now, he offered then. Approval of it was denied by the Senate.
The second thing is, if we look at the entire Medicare Program
instead of just Part A, we will see that Medicare is already running a
deficit of $58 billion in 2002 and nearly a trillion dollars over 10.
For what does that cry out? It cries out for reform of the Medicare
system, and it cries out loudly for a different delivery system and
prescription drugs.
Incidentally, there is $300 billion sitting in this budget to be used
for prescription drugs if and when we get a bill. But we have said all
of the moneys that are part of Medicare should be used to reform this,
and certainly Medicare money should be used as part of a reform
measure, including prescription drugs.
The second point is that it was voted down in the Senate on a
point of order. This splits Medicare in half. For the first time, we
had half of Medicare off budget, half of Medicare on budget. That
doesn't mean anything to anyone out there. But it is just totally the
wrong way to help solve the long-term problem in Medicare. Doesn't
everyone in this Chamber hope that as part of prescription drugs we
actually reform Medicare so that it can deliver more for less? It is a
25- or 30-year-old regime, in terms of what is paid for and deducted
and all of those things. Those should be made modern in the reform
package.

This amendment won't permit that because it says the portion of the
trust fund that is for Medicare Part A is totally off budget, but Part
B is on budget.
From my standpoint, we are going to just encourage more gimmicks when
we do this kind of thing. We are all aware that the surpluses were
generated because we shifted home health services from Part A to Part B
in 1997--a charade of sorts because that was a way of saying Medicare
looks better--but at the same time we took one of the biggest
components of their responsibility away from them. Anybody can do
better on money if they have five mortgages and somebody says: Well,
don't count three of them; we will put them somewhere else and you can
run around and say all you owe are two mortgages and the other three
are sitting over there somewhere and you are not going to do anything
about them.
I believe the most important thing we can do--and everybody has
priorities--the most important thing we can do this year--and I think
the President is taking the first step tomorrow--is to get started on
Medicare reform. My concept would be that the money in Medicare, Part A
and Part B--and the $300 billion in this budget for additional
prescription drugs--we package all that and pass a Medicare bill this
year. I think that is the right thing to do.
I could talk a lot longer about trust funds and how they relate to
the budget of the United States. But, for today, I believe the chairman
of the Appropriations Committee, or the ranking member, whose bill is
on the floor, will make a point of order. The distinguished majority
whip has said a point of order will be made. I think it will be made in
each case by a different Senator, one from each side of the aisle. This
violates the Budget Act and therefore a point of order lies against it.
I don't think anybody who votes for that is going to make it stick that
they are against Medicare.
As a matter of fact, one might make the argument that if the Conrad
amendment is adopted and made law, which is a long way from now, you
might make it harder to get reform in prescription drugs because you
will be working off some arbitrary lines that took part of it off
budget and left part on budget. So we need reform, not just shuffling
money around.
I look forward to many days of discussions with my friend, the new
chairman. I look forward with enthusiasm to discussing what is
happening to the American economy. What should we do since the lull is
a little longer? I think we ought to start talking about that.
I yield the floor and thank the Senator from Ohio for yielding time
to me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio has 10 minutes
remaining. The Senator from North Dakota has just over 17 minutes.
The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we always welcome the sage observations of
the former chairman of the Budget Committee and, probably not
surprisingly, we disagree. There is nothing in my amendment that
precludes reform of Medicare. I not only serve on the Budget Committee,
I serve on the Finance Committee. I have been part of every reform
effort on Medicare that has occurred. So I am in favor of Medicare
reform, and there is nothing in my amendment that prevents further
Medicare reform.
In fact, I believe this amendment is part of Medicare reform because
it recognizes that the trust funds of Social Security and Medicare both
deserve protection. That is the reality. That is what is at the heart
of this discussion and debate today.
Make no mistake, this talk about Medicare being in deficit is just
erroneous. Let's review the Congressional Budget Office report.
Here is Medicare. Under the table that is headlined ``Trust Fund
Surpluses,'' Medicare Part A, which is financed out of payroll
deductions, is in surplus each and every year of the 10 years of the
forecast period.
Medicare Part B is in rough balance over the 10 years. In some years,
it is down $1 billion and then it is in surplus by $3 billion, $2
billion, $2 billion. The fact is Part B is in rough balance over the 10
years.
The Senator says it is a deficit. It is not a deficit. It is a
funding mechanism we decided on in Congress for Medicare Part B. Part
of the money comes from premiums. Part of the money comes from the
general fund. It is not in deficit.
The report of the Congressional Budget Office shows very clearly it
is in rough balance. Part A is in clear surplus.
If you allow the money that is in surplus in the trust funds of
Medicare to be used for other purposes, which we are now poised to do
because of an unwise fiscal policy that has been put in place, guess
what happens.
What does that mean? I do not think we want to force the Medicare
trust fund to go broke faster. It does not make sense to me.
The Senator from Michigan is seeking time. I yield 5 minutes to the
Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I thank our Budget Committee chairman for his
leadership on this issue. I am proud to be cosponsoring the amendment
he has offered to protect Medicare and Social Security.
I ask unanimous consent to add my name as a cosponsor of the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, this is a very simple, straightforward
debate: Are we going to protect Social Security and Medicare trust
funds for their intended purpose, or are we going to allow them to be
used for other purposes?
My friend from Ohio speaks about Social Security trust funds, and I
share his concern about protecting them, but that is not enough without
including Medicare. I find it so interesting that in the Budget
Committee we have

[[Page S7371]]

heard testimony from the Secretary of the Treasury about protecting
Social Security, and we have heard from the OMB Director about
protecting Social Security, but nowhere do they talk about protecting
Medicare.
Then we turn around and review over 30 years of reports regarding the
Medicare trust fund, the solvency of the Medicare Part A trust fund.
For over 30 years, we have acted as if there is a Medicare trust fund.
Now we are being told magically this year, with the new
administration, that there is no trust fund. I find that quite amazing.
In fact, there is a Medicare Part A trust fund. It is in surplus. It
goes for important health care purposes. Just ask our hospitals. It is
important we protect those dollars for those who receive health care
through Medicare.

I also find quite interesting the logic that if, in fact, there is
not a Medicare trust fund, there is no surplus; then rather than
putting money into Medicare in order to strengthen it, we should spend
it for other items. That is basically what we are hearing; that it is
all right to spend Medicare for something other than health care for
seniors and the disabled because somehow, through accounting
mechanisms, we decided there is no trust fund.
The Conrad amendment, which is so fundamental and so important to the
people of our country, simply says we will not spend Social Security
and Medicare trust funds for something other than the intended purpose.
This is absolutely critical. Those of us who stood in this Chamber and
expressed concern about the budget resolution, expressed concern that,
in fact, Medicare and Social Security would be used to pay for the tax
cut that passed, to pay for other spending, the reason Senator Evan
Bayh, Senator Olympia Snowe, I, and others offered something called a
budget trigger during that debate was simply to say we did not want to
be in this situation and that phase-in of the tax cuts would be
suspended if we were dipping into Medicare and Social Security.
That received 49 votes, not quite enough for adoption. We now move on
throughout the year, and we find ourselves, as our Budget chairman has
indicated, poised to spend Medicare health care dollars for other
purposes, not in the future but this year and every year until 2010.
The Conrad amendment simply says we will not do that; we will protect
the sacred promise of Social Security and Medicare; we will not spend
Social Security or Medicare for other than the intended purpose.
This is what we ought to make sure we put into place and protect for
the future, for those who are counting on us, who are paying into
Medicare as well as Social Security and are counting on us to make sure
that health care is available to them when they need it.
I believe Medicare and Social Security are great American success
stories and we ought to do everything in our power to guarantee that
both of those trust funds are strengthened and protected, not weakened.
The Conrad lockbox amendment protects those promises and those trust
funds for the future, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to strongly support the Conrad amendment.
I yield back any time remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio controls 9 minutes 40
seconds. The Senator from North Dakota controls exactly 9 minutes.
The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. VOINOVICH. How much time does the Senator from North Dakota have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine minutes forty seconds.
Mr. VOINOVICH. How much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine minutes forty seconds, and the Senator
from North Dakota controls 9 minutes exactly.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I will make a couple of remarks and let
the Senator from North Dakota finish up on his time, and then I want to
give Senator Gramm of Texas the last part of my time, if that is
acceptable to the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio may proceed.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, we have a saying in Ohio, especially
north of Route 40, that you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's
ear. We are talking about a Medicare Part A surplus, and to not also
recognize that we have a Part B Medicare responsibility and argue that
we have a surplus when the figures show that when we put A and B
together they are in deficit some $52 billion--there is no such thing
as a Medicare surplus, if you are looking at Medicare as it really is,
and that is Part A and Part B.
In this budget, we are going to have about $36 billion more than what
we expected in Part A, but on Part B--that is the out of hospital--we
are going to be in deficit some $88 billion. When we put the two of
them together, we are in deficit $52 billion.
How can one talk about a Medicare surplus when we are in debt $52
billion? If we take the next 10 years, we are going to take in $393
billion more in Part A, but in Part B we are going to have to subsidize
$1.36 trillion, and it all works out to be a deficit of $643 billion.
The point I am making is this: There is no Medicare surplus; it is a
fiction. If we are to go along with the amendment of the Senator from
North Dakota, in fact, what is going to happen is it will be used to
pay down debt, and we will not have it to reform Medicare, which we
need to do. We will not have it to pay for the prescription drug
benefits that the American people are demanding we provide, and
hopefully we are going to do something about it this year. I urge my
colleagues to vote against that amendment and to support the real pure
lockbox of Social Security that I suggest today.

I point out to the Senator from North Dakota that the sequester does
not take Medicare or Social Security. It exempts those under the Budget
Act of 1985 so you don't have to worry, if the sequester goes into
force, taking anything--Social Security, Medicare, and some of the
other things to which the Senator made reference. It is written in my
amendment and references the 1985 budget agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, my staff says the Senator is incorrect
when he says his amendment protects Medicare from the sequester,
protects Social Security. They assert after examining the amendment
that it does not protect Medicare from a sequester.
More importantly is the question of whether there is a trust fund
surplus. I ask the Senator from Ohio, does he dispute the report of the
Congressional Budget Office? The report of the Congressional Budget
Office is as clear as it can be on page 19. I refer the Senator to
``Trust Fund Surpluses.''
Here is Social Security. We all know it is in surplus. Medicare,
hospital insurance, Part A, is in surplus every single year. Part B is
in rough balance over the 10 years.
The Senator from Ohio has confused the funding mechanism for Part B.
The funding mechanism is part of the cost, for Part B is premiums paid
by those who are Medicare eligible and the other part is a general fund
contribution. It is not in deficit. It is a choice made by Congress as
to how to fund Part A, which are payroll deductions. That is how it is
funded. It is in surplus. Part B is funded by premiums for part of the
costs and by general fund contributions for the other part. It is not
in deficit. It is a funding decision made by the Congress. Part A is in
surplus; Part B is in rough balance.
To suggest there is no surplus, I ask the Senator, what is his
conclusion, this money doesn't exist? There is no surplus in Part A
year by year? I don't think so. It is as clear as it can be.
If one says there is no surplus and make it a jump ball, make this
money available for other purposes, that is what will happen around
here. That is the implication of the Senator's position. I don't think
that is a wise position. I don't think it is a prudent position. It is
certainly not a conservative position. It is a position that says we
can use this money for any purpose; it doesn't matter. It doesn't
matter that we have a trust fund. It doesn't matter that these moneys
are supposed to be protected. We will use them any place.

That is exactly what got us back into trouble in the 1980s. We raided
every trust fund in sight and put this in the deficit ditch and
exploded the deficits

[[Page S7372]]

and exploded the debt. I don't want any part of repeating that process.
I yield the floor.
Mr. VOINOVICH. I yield time to the Senator from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There remains 6 minutes 24 seconds controlled
by the Senator from Ohio.
Mr. GRAMM. I thank the Senator from Ohio. There is only one person in
this Congress who has done anything to control spending thus far, and
his name is George Voinovich of Ohio. He got 35 Members of the Senate
to sign a letter urging the President to veto spending bills that were
over budget, that threatened the viability of Social Security and
Medicare, and threatened the surplus. I congratulate him on that. He
has proposed a mechanism to be sure we do not spend the Social Security
surplus.
First of all, let me make it clear there is not a Medicare surplus.
If ever there has been a fraud, this is it. It is true that one part of
Medicare has a surplus of $29 billion. But it is also true that the
other part of Medicare has a deficit of $73 billion, so Medicare in
terms of taking general revenue, losing money, is running a deficit of
$44 billion.
Even the surplus in Part A is the product of a gimmick from the
Clinton administration where we took the fastest growing part of Part
A, home health care, and ``saved'' $174 billion by paying for it out of
Part B rather than Part A.
I am tempted to vote for the Senator from North Dakota's amendment
because it makes it harder to spend money. I rejoice in that. But don't
act as if there is a real surplus in Medicare and it is equivalent to
the genuine surplus which exists in Social Security.
There is an additional problem in that the Senator from Ohio has a
sequester to enforce the protection of the Social Security surplus
which does not exist under the amendment of the Senator from North
Dakota.
Let me outline what this is about. This is not about solvency of
Medicare. It is not about solvency of Social Security. There are not
real trust funds for either. Both of these programs have phony IOUs
that the Federal Government prints, but it is a debt of the Federal
Government to the Federal Government. It is like writing yourself an
IOU and putting it in your left pocket and saying: I am richer by that
amount. The problem is you have to take money out of the right pocket
to pay for it.
We are not using either one of these surpluses to provide for these
programs in the future. If the money were being invested in the name of
the people who are paying these taxes and those investments could be
sold in the future to pay benefits, this would be a real debate about
protecting Social Security and protecting Medicare.
I am very interested in this debate because it is about protecting
freedom. It is about stopping a runaway spending machine. In the last 6
months of the Clinton administration, we increased spending by $561
billion over the next 10 years, in a 6-month period. There has never
been anything comparable to that in American history. There is still a
mentality in this Senate that we can afford to do everything anybody
wants to do. In fact, in the supplemental appropriations bill before
the Senate, we have half a dozen amendments that simply add more
spending for little pork barrel projects and for great big programs,
for important items such as defense, for unimportant items such as
somebody's pet project. But the point is, we are still spending money
as if it is water.
I am for both these amendments because they both make it harder to
spend money. I would have to say that the distinguished chairman of the
Budget Committee has a power that no other Member of the Senate has
because under the budget resolution he unilaterally controls $423.8
billion worth of reserve funds, and simply by saying ``no,'' that money
cannot be spent. No one is in a better position than the distinguished
chairman of the Budget Committee to deal with the crisis that he has
talked about.
When Senator Domenici was chairman, we had a surplus. We were not
spending any of the so-called surplus in Medicare. We were not spending
a penny of the Social Security surplus. We had general surplus in the
rest of the budget. Now that the Senator from North Dakota has taken
control and apparently things have almost spontaneously gone to hell,
it seems to me he has a lot of explaining to do. I look forward to
hearing it.

But the bottom line is, we have a proposal before us that sets up a
process to make it much harder to spend the Social Security surplus.
Then, if we spend it, it has an enforcement mechanism through a
sequester. Every Member of the Senate that means it when they say
anything about Social Security ought to vote for the amendment of the
distinguished Senator from Ohio.
In my opinion, the case for the amendment of the Senator from North
Dakota is a much weaker case. There is not a Medicare surplus. There is
a surplus in one part of it, there is a deficit in the other, and we
created the surplus by taking the fastest growing part out of it during
the Clinton administration and putting it into Part B. So the whole
thing is kind of a fabrication. On the other hand, if we actually did
not allow this surplus to be--quote--spent, it would be harder to spend
money. But there is another paradox, and that is you could not even
spend it for Medicare.
So whatever you do on the amendment of the Senator from North Dakota,
I urge you to support the amendment of the Senator from Ohio.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time controlled by the Senator from Ohio has
expired. The Senator from North Dakota has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas is wrong about the
amendment of the Senator from Ohio.
I just say this. Some of what the Senator from Texas says I agree
with. I really do think we have a circumstance that requires us to
think very carefully about how we are going to deal with requests for
additional spending, requests for additional tax reductions, because,
as I calculate it, the cupboard is bare. We are already into the trust
funds or are poised to be if the items in the budget resolution are
enacted. We are into the trust funds, just based on the tax cut that
has passed, based on the budget resolution that has passed, and based
on reductions in revenue because of the economic slowdown.
Tongue in cheek, the Senator from Texas suggests it is my ascension
to chairman of the Budget Committee that has somehow led to these
events. I can assure the Senator from Texas that it was not my becoming
chairman of the Budget Committee that led to the economic slowdown, and
it was not my ascension to the Budget Committee chairmanship that led
to the passage of the budget resolution. I opposed it. It wasn't my
position as Budget Committee chairman that led to the passage of the
tax bill. I opposed it because I predicted then we would face the
circumstance I believe we face now. That is, we have just done too much
and the result is we have a problem.

I am not for raising taxes at a time of economic slowdown. I am not
for cutting spending at a time of economic slowdown because that would
counter fiscal stimulus, and we need fiscal stimulus. But looking ahead
to times when the administration projects strong economic growth, it
does not seem wise to me that we use the trust funds of Social Security
and Medicare for other purposes. That just does not seem to be a wise
thing to do. My amendment would prevent us from doing it.
It would not absolutely prevent us because you could get around it
with 60 votes. That is always true here. The Senator from Texas talks
about the power that I have. The power I have is actually rather
limited. The power I have is to release reserve funds that are in the
budget, but any action I take can be overcome by 60 votes in the
Senate.
I have sent the very clear signal to the Secretary of Defense and the
administration with respect to their request for additional spending
for defense. By the way, I believe we need more money for defense. But,
given our fiscal situation, the question becomes, Will it be taken out
of the trust funds of Medicare and Social Security, or will it be paid
for by spending cuts elsewhere, or will it be paid for by additional
revenue? I do not believe it should come out of the trust funds of
Medicare and Social Security. I think that is wrong. I think that is a
mistake.

[[Page S7373]]

I think the amendment of the Senator from Ohio is deficient. No
matter what the cause of the shortfall is, he has only one answer. His
answer is: Cut spending everywhere else, other than Social Security. I
do not think that is the right answer. I think everything has to be on
the table, revenue and spending cuts, especially if the problem is
caused by tax cuts that were too big.
No matter what the cause, whether it is economic downturn, whether it
is a tax cut that was too big, he has only one answer: Cut all spending
other than Social Security. I do not think that is a balanced response.
I do not think that is a balanced response.
Let me go again to the question of spending. I ask the Chair how much
time is remaining on my side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). The Senator has 55 seconds.
Mr. CONRAD. Again, the Senator from Texas talked about spending being
out of control. I just beg to differ. I do not think that is what the
record shows. As a share of GDP, Federal spending has gone down each
and every year for the last 9 years, from 22 percent of GDP to 18
percent this year. Under the budget resolution that passed, Federal
spending as a share of gross domestic product is going to continue to
decline, from 18 percent of GDP down to 16.3 percent, the lowest level
of GDP since 1951. Discretionary spending, domestic discretionary
spending is going to be at the lowest level in our history.
So, please, let's not be telling the American people there is some
big spending binge that has been going on here and put up a chart such
as the one the Senator from Ohio has up there that has just one part of
Federal spending.

Amendment No. 873

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Under the
previous order, the Senate will now debate the amendment of the Senator
from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair. Madam President, I
want to yield to the distinguished ranking member of our Finance
Committee because he has a conflict. We want to try to accommodate
that.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I might
consume. I will not consume all the time that has been allocated to our
side. I will not be here to allocate other time, so anybody who wants
to speak in opposition to the Hollings amendment is free to yield
themselves what time I might have remaining.
Even though Senator Hollings has not discussed his amendment--he is
going to do that very shortly--I have strong opposition to his
amendment because his amendment would repeal the retroactive marginal
rate cuts enacted on June 7, this year, barely 1 month ago. My
opposition to the amendment of the distinguished Senator from South
Carolina is based both on procedural and substantive grounds. First,
procedural problems with the amendment: It is a tax amendment. As a tax
amendment, it obviously falls within the jurisdiction of the Finance
Committee. The bill before the Senate is an appropriations bill, not a
finance bill. As the senior Finance Committee Republican, I must oppose
this tax amendment on an appropriations bill.
Furthermore, if Senator Hollings were to prevail, this appropriations
bill would become a Senate-originated revenue bill and, as such, it
would be blue-slipped when sent to the other body. In other words, this
amendment, if added to the underlying supplemental appropriations bill,
would kill the appropriations bill we are now considering, a bill that
is so badly needed.
As bad as this amendment is procedurally, it is even worse
substantively. This amendment would repeal all the retroactive marginal
rate reductions in a recently passed tax bill. Those tax rate cuts are
based principally on the new 10-percent bracket for the first $6,000 of
income for single taxpayers and $12,000 of income for married
taxpayers. The retroactive, new tax percent bracket is the basis, then,
for the advanced refund checks of $300 for single people and $600 for
married couples that will soon by mailed out by the Treasury Department
starting July 23. So the Hollings amendment, then, would stop these
checks dead in their tracks. A vote for the Hollings amendment is a way
to say no to American taxpayers who now expect to receive the refund
checks.
These checks and the other retroactive rate cuts are, of course, a
stimulus in the tax legislation that we just enacted. Just when the
economy is slowing down and when the economy, then, is in need of a
stimulus, the Hollings amendment would pull the rug out from under our
attempt to stimulate it. Frankly, I cannot think of a proposal more
damaging to the potential return to economic growth than the amendment
on which we will soon vote.

Soon, in a separate speech, I am going to discuss in some depth the
tax legislation just enacted. Let me point out one important fact for
one to chew on in the meantime. According to the Congressional Budget
Office, Federal taxes are at an all-time high of 20.6 percent of the
economy. That is higher than taxes were even in World War II.
Individual income taxes are at record levels as a percentage of the
GDP. The tax legislation returns this overpayment--which is dragging
down American workers, investors, businesses, and collectively the
American economy--to the people.
What the Hollings amendment really says is, return taxes to their
record levels. The Hollings amendment says high taxes are no problem
and should be ignored in a slowing economy. Think about this, my fellow
Senators. This amendment, in effect, raises taxes at a time we have a
slowing economy.
Madam President, I yield the floor and thank Senator Hollings for
yielding to me to make these remarks at this point ahead of him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, the distinguished then-chairman of the
Finance Committee, when they reported out the tax cut, did not include
a rebate, did not include a tax cut for this present fiscal year, 2001.
But to not have it in all of a sudden has become, in his words,
dangerous: Oh, this is a dangerous thing. I am just doing what he, as
the chairman of the Finance Committee, reported out.
I have said: Look, let's not have a tax cut for the year 2001. That
is exactly what President Bush said when he submitted his tax cut:
Let's not have a tax cut for 2001. We will begin in 2002. That is what
the House of Representatives said when they passed the tax cut. They
said: Don't have it for 2001. Let's begin in 2002.
Now, all of a sudden, to do that has become dangerous? a
constitutional question? I originated this particular rebate, which I
ask now to be repealed, in the Senate. The Senate did not raise a
constitutional point of order that it was a revenue measure that should
derive in the House. Every one of the Republicans voted for it, without
question, without point of order, without constitutional question. They
did not blue-slip it when it got over to the House of Representatives.
Now where are we? They talk about campaign finance in the morning
paper and say the House is debating it and they are only going to have
1 day of debate. But we are only going to have 15 minutes of debate
here this morning on campaign finance because that is all this is.
Nobody thinks now the minimal, too late, too little rebate is going to
work. I have not found anybody who really thinks mailing somebody $300
or $600 is all of a sudden going to trigger a recovery in a $10
trillion economy--let me emphasize this. When it got to be about
February and March, and I really began to worry about the economy,
wondering if there was anything that could be done, yes, there was a
rebate being discussed. So I went to the financial minds on Wall Street
and the economists--because I am a former chairman of the Budget
Committee, and I know whom to call and whom to talk to--and I said:
Look, do you think a rebate will work? They said: It's 50-50, a flip of
the coin. It might, but probably will not. To make sure it works, they
told me the rebate ought to be at least 1 percent of the gross domestic
product of $10 trillion, which is $100 billion. And it certainly ought
to cover as many taxpayers as possible.

So we set out with $100 billion, and we included the 95 million
income-tax payers and the 25 million payroll-tax payers, and do you
know what those

[[Page S7374]]

rascals did? Listen to this. They gimmickly said: The corporate taxes
due in September--namely, fiscal year 2001--we are going to move that
over to October so we will have enough money for the campaign next
year.
Talk about campaign financing. Where are we going to take it away? We
are going to take it away from, of all people, Dicky Flatt.
The Senator from Texas is always talking about little Dicky Flatt who
pulls the wagon and pays the taxes and builds the country and sits
around the kitchen table. Poor Dicky Flatt gets nothing. And what does
this amendment say? Let's put everybody in Dicky Flatt's shoes. If he
and the 25 million payroll-tax payers are not going to get anything,
then let's not give it to anybody because we can save $40 billion. To
pay for what? To pay for the defense, the $18 billion increase that
Secretary Rumsfeld says we are going to need. To pay for what? The
distinguished Senator from Iowa re-allocated $250 million over 10 years
for education.
Everybody is asking: Where is the money? Instead of sobering up and
looking at it in a judicious fashion and saying, wait a minute, what we
are really doing is borrowing, we will have to borrow some $40 billion
to distribute around when we know it is not going to do the job.
Let me emphasize why I say borrow. Here in my hand is the debt to the
penny. The U.S. Department of the Treasury publishes this on the
Internet. The national debt now is up to $5.710 trillion. At the
beginning of the fiscal year it was $5.674 trillion. So, a surplus?
Come on. The debt has gone up. We have a deficit, as of this minute, of
$36 billion and it is going up.
I will take another bet if the distinguished former chairman of the
Budget Committee, the Senator from New Mexico, will come out. I will
still jump off the Capitol dome. He wants me to, I know. But I will
jump off that dome if the deficit is less than $50 billion by the end
of September. You watch. It is going up, up, and away.
Here are the CBO figures. These are my realities. You can see here,
we have ended the fiscal year 2000 with a $22.7 billion deficit, and at
the beginning of this year, CBO was projecting a $26 billion surplus
for 2001.
Then in May, they verified that $26 billion by saying: We are going
to have to adjust it down by $6 billion. So it went down to $20
billion. You can see that we Democrats have been fiscally responsible.
When President Clinton came in office, he came in with a $403.6 billion
increase in the debt--a deficit of $403.6 billion. We have been going
down, down, down in the red, and we lost the Senate. Yes, because we
voted for an increase in taxes, a cut in the size of Government--over
300,000 slots--and a cut in spending of over $350 billion. And what did
that do? The market and technology boomed for 8 years, and for 8 years
straight we have been reducing into the black and going right into
surplus. As of April 3, we had a $102 billion surplus.
Now, today, July 10, we are already back in the red. I voted for a
balanced budget under Lyndon Johnson, but I haven't been able to for
the past 34 years. I thought I could have until they came with the tax
cut. And now they insist on it when they are going to give it to the
rich. A stimulus was not even contemplated by President Bush, not
contemplated by Chairman Grassley of Finance, not contemplated by the
House of Representatives. And it was certainly not contemplated for
Dicky Flatt, not for the 25 million payroll tax payers who really need
the relief. I had to put it in on the Senate side.
Oh, yes, they are buying the vote. That is all this is, campaign
finance. It is a sad thing because we thought we could stay on course
financially.
You can see on the chart how at 22.7, we started going down in the
red. Then we started back up, and now we are headed down to 75 and
staying. If we had stayed on course, we were going to remain in the
black, surplus, surplus, surplus. And that is what we heard from
President Bush. Now he talks about stimulating, stimulating, when he
had no idea of stimulating. His tax cut included nothing for this
particular fiscal year.
I do not touch his tax cut. I lost on that particular vote. They
still have their tax cut beginning next fiscal year. But they put in,
rather than a rebate, as I had it, of $500 and $1,000 and going to 120
million taxpayers in America, a rebate of just $300 and $600. They also
left out the most important of all taxpayers, the payroll tax payers,
some 25 million, who get nothing.
All I am saying is, wait a minute, let's save the money. Let's don't
go out and borrow it because we don't have it. Go over to the Treasury
Department. And don't let them give you the doubletalk, either, when
you get over to Treasury. When I mention doubletalk, this is what I
mean. Let me explain to my colleagues. They talk about private debt and
public debt, unified budget deficits and all this; we have had this
gamesmanship for 34 years now. Debt held by the public has gone down
$137 billion, but the debt held by the Government has gone up $173
billion. That is where you get the deficit of $36 billion. So we are
borrowing now.
I don't want to get into it with my distinguished chairman who is
doing an outstanding job trying to save Social Security and Medicare. I
can tell him, according to the Treasury records, as of this minute,
they have spent $173 billion of trust funds. You have a computer. Just
look up this information on the Internet.
I don't know where they got the $173 billion. I have my ideas where
they get it. They continue to spend. We passed 13-301. You have a
Secretary of the Treasury running around, Secretary O'Neill, saying
there never has been any money in the Social Security trust fund. The
Greenspan Commission, section 21, said put Social Security off budget.
On November 5, 1990, George Herbert Walker Bush signed it into law, 13-
301, to put Social Security off budget in the sense that the President
and the Congress were forbidden to report a budget that included the
Social Security trust funds. Everybody voted for it, 98-2 here in the
Senate. But they totally ignore it. And now we have the Secretary of
the Treasury saying there never has been a trust fund.
That is how run amok this Government has become. It is time we sober
up and stop spending money we don't have. Everybody is talking about
paying down the debt, paying down the debt. A vote against this is to
increase the debt. I am saying let's hold the tax schedule where it is
and, in short, do away with the rebate because it is not going to do
any good. Everybody knows there is no chance of it. And in time, Madam
President, we might find some money to take care of defense, take care
of education, take care of the $6.5 billion for this supplemental bill.
That was never contemplated. We are looking for money as a way to pay
it, and rather than going out and borrowing it, we are distributing it
around to buy the vote. That is all it is going to do politically. It
is not going to do anything economically. Maybe we can get back to some
rational approach to our fiscal affairs.

Mr. Greenspan can do all he will with respect to the monetary policy,
but it is up to us to take care of the fiscal policy, the long-range
interest rates and everything else.
A headline from the Financial Times reads, ``Hard Landing Alert
Sounded for U.S. Economy.'' And again, Mort Zuckerman, editor in chief
of U.S. News and World Report, says that consumer spending, capital
spending, and exports are declining rapidly, that the economy is in
worse shape than it looks.
With that confronting us, why are we running around borrowing some
$40 billion to mail around knowing it is not going to do any good,
confronting funding Social Security, funding Medicare, funding the
education increase of $30 billion a year, funding the increase that
Secretary Rumsfeld wants of $18 billion?
I retain the remainder of my time and suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________