[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.

                          ____________________