[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1083-1090]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



              THE REPUBLICAN AGENDA FOR THE 106TH CONGRESS

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, day before yesterday, our conference 
introduced our agenda for the 106th Congress. We all know that the 
Senate is in a very stressful period. But we have said time and time 
again that the people's business is going to continue. If anything, the 
presence of all Members of the Senate has accelerated our attention--
the Presiding Officer and I talked about that earlier today--
accelerated the work of the people's business. But the outlining of 
this agenda is extremely important and says volumes about our view of 
what is good for America and what this Congress, the 106th, will be 
highly focused upon.
  There are five core areas that were defined by Majority Leader Lott, 
other members of leadership, and our conference:

[[Page 1084]]

  No. 1: Saving and strengthening of Social Security to create a more 
secure retirement system for all generations--not just some.
  No. 2: Improving education opportunities for every American child, 
regardless of circumstances. We all know--and last night the President 
acknowledged--that we have an enormous problem in kindergarten through 
high school. In the last Congress, the 105th, our conference put 
education No. 1. I predicted then that we were going to stay with it. 
And we are. Nothing could be more important.
  No. 3: Providing tax relief and economic opportunity for working 
families.
  When I first came to Washington not all too long ago, a working 
family in Georgia was only keeping 45 cents on the dollar after taxes--
State, local, and Federal--and their cost of regulation. In this 
Congress, our majority has gotten it to where they now keep 52 cents on 
the dollar. We are up 7 cents. But until we get two-thirds of their 
paychecks staying in their checking account--not coming up here--our 
work isn't anywhere near finished.
  Many in our leadership have already outlined dramatic proposals to 
reduce all taxes anywhere from 4 to 10 percent and 15 percent over 10 
years. I might add that if we can achieve that, we will indeed be 
restoring to American families the right to keep two-thirds of their 
paycheck. What a wonderful celebration we ought to have when that is 
achieved.
  No. 4: Increasing personal and community security by fighting drugs 
and crime.
  Drugs are the axle of crime in America today, Mr. President. In any 
prison in America, 80 percent of the prisoners in it--a jail, a Federal 
prison--are there for direct or indirect drug-related problems. To 
break the back of crime in America, you have to break the back of the 
narcotic Mafia.
  No. 5: Strengthen our national security.
  We just heard from Senator Warner, the world is a very, very 
dangerous place. We have undermined our military. We have not given 
them sufficient resources, and therefore they cannot be as trained and 
ready as they need to be--No. 1. No. 2, the President alluded to last 
night--we are behind the curve in understanding that terrorism is a 
component of strategic warfare today. No. 3: As the Rumsfeld Commission 
has acknowledged, we cannot defend ourselves against ballistic missiles 
in the hands of rogues.
  Saving Social Security, improving education, tax relief, personal 
security at home and in school and in the workplace, and strengthening 
our ability to defend ourselves from world rogues--Mr. President, these 
are not episodic issues that somebody dragged out of a hole; these 
issues are an acknowledgment that America is great because her people 
have been free, and an understanding that the core principles of 
American freedom are economic opportunity, the right to work and save 
and pursue your dreams. That is what has made Americans so independent 
and bold--and an understanding that a free society cannot function if 
its citizens are not safe, either from a world rogue or a narcotic 
dealer, or that their property is not secure. To the extent a citizen 
of America is not fully educated, they cannot enjoy the full benefits 
of American citizenship, and indeed no uneducated people will remain 
free.
  This agenda is designed to strengthen the components that have kept 
America great: Our freedom--keep Americans free economically, let them 
keep their paycheck, keep them secure and safe in their workplace and 
home and school, and that their property is protected, and keep them 
educated. Mr. President, they will take it from there no matter who the 
policymakers are; the American citizens will build that new American 
century that the President alluded to last night.
  Mr. President, I now yield up to 5 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, Senator Abraham from Michigan, who will continue addressing 
the key components of this agenda for freedom.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from 
Georgia for organizing today's presentation.
  As he has already outlined, yesterday we on the Republican side 
offered an agenda which we think includes the key cornerstones for 
strengthening our Nation and moving forward into the 21st century. I am 
not going to talk about every one of those. I would like to address a 
couple of them, though, briefly, because I think it is very important 
for the public to understand exactly why these are at the top of our 
list.
  First, I want to talk about tax relief. As we learned last night from 
the State of the Union--and the Budget Committee hearing in the Senate 
has recently indicated--not only did last year mark the first time 
since 1969 that we ran a budget surplus, but it now appears as if we 
will run budget surpluses for the next 25 years, and potentially 
beyond.
  That is great news for our country. I think--I hope, at least--that 
it will address some of the cynicism that has existed in America 
towards the U.S. Congress because for so many years, no matter what we 
were claiming in our campaigns, we would come to the Senate and the 
House and not get the job done. But we have gotten the job done.
  Today, Americans are sending sufficient revenues so we have a 
surplus. That is going to be a very big surplus. In fact, it may be as 
much as multitrillion dollars of surplus over the next 10, 20, 25 years 
and beyond. The reason we have the surplus is in large measure--in 
fact, almost exclusively--because of two things: No. 1, our ability 
here in Washington to tighten belts with respect to some spending 
programs in recent years; and, much more importantly, the fact that 
American taxpayers are sending more money to Washington in tax revenue 
than we anticipated when we put in place the budget that we are working 
with today.
  Mr. President, obviously part of that is the result of the economy's 
strength, and it is thriving. But if the American taxpayers are sending 
more money to Washington than we even expected, than we even asked them 
for, and that they should be spending, it seems to me obvious that the 
time is here to let them keep some of those dollars that we didn't even 
ask for in the first place.
  So for that reason, the Republican agenda includes in every one of 
its key components an across-the-board tax cut for hard-working 
American families.
  We heard people say, ``Well, we shouldn't do a tax cut; we have so 
many other things to get done first.'' When we had a budget deficit, we 
were told we couldn't cut taxes now, that we have a deficit. Now we 
have a budget surplus and it is projected to go for 25 years.
  I would suggest that no matter what today's agenda items are that 
deserve priority over tax cuts, there will always be more. There will 
always be a new program, there will always be an old program, there 
will always be some rainy day down the road we are worried about, and 
the taxpayers consistently are told no, no, no, the time is not ripe 
yet for a tax cut. Well, I say it is. I think the families who are 
sending us the largest percentage of the GDP that we have ever seen 
sent to Washington in history deserve to keep some of those dollars and 
set their own priorities. And for that reason, we propose an across-
the-board tax cut.
  We also believe that the families of America deserve protection in 
another sense. Here in this Chamber we ought to talk about children and 
the problems and the challenges that confront them and our desire to 
have policies that will protect the young people of America.
  The one thing we have to protect them against, in my judgment, and 
continue protecting them against, is the scourge of illegal drugs that 
continues to take an unhealthy and an increasing toll on young people.
  Over the last few years, the drug statistics have suggested that 
there has been a leveling out of the drug use in this country, that we 
may have at least peaked, and it may be even getting better a little 
bit. But the one area where

[[Page 1085]]

we are not seeing improvement is with respect to the use of drugs by 
kids, kids as young as eighth grade, some even younger than that.
  Now, our drug plan, which is the second cornerstone of this agenda, 
will help us to achieve the goal of protecting our kids from these 
illegal drugs. It will include a wide array, a wide focus of programs, 
from interdiction on the one hand to treatment and prevention on the 
other.
  But a centerpiece that I want to briefly discuss before my time 
expires is that this proposal of ours provides tough sentences for the 
people who peddle drugs to our kids. The message we have to send to 
drug dealers and the symbol we have to set for kids in America is that 
the price of doing business in drugs is going up, not down. Now, this 
is an area where there is some disagreement between our legislation and 
the administration.
  I ask for an additional minute.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, the Senator may please feel free. The 
next presenter has not arrived, so the Senator might as well continue 
with his remarks until they do.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. In the last Congress, the U.S. Sentencing Commission put 
forth a proposal, embraced by the administration and the Department of 
Justice and the President, that would address this issue in what I 
consider to be the wrong fashion. That proposal suggests that because 
there is a wide difference between the drug sentences that powder 
cocaine dealers receive and the sentence that crack cocaine dealers 
receive, we ought to bring them more in line with each other by making 
the sentences on crack cocaine dealers more lenient.
  That is the wrong way to proceed, Mr. President. And our legislation 
goes at it the right way, by making the sentences meted out to people 
who sell powder cocaine tougher. That is an important part of this 
legislation, not only because we need to make those sentences tougher, 
because we don't want people at the top of the drug chain to be getting 
lighter sentences than those at the bottom. But it is also important 
because it is critical that we send a signal that we are not going to 
make anybody's drug sentences, if they are peddling crack cocaine to 
our kids, any lighter.
  This is important for a variety of reasons that I have spoken about 
here before, but I think it demonstrates the seriousness of the 
Republican proposal. And taken as a whole, that proposal, I believe, 
will have a tremendous impact on reducing the use of illegal drugs in 
this country and, most specifically, reducing the use of illegal drugs 
by young people.
  So for these reasons, I am very proud to endorse this agenda, and I 
will be working as a cosponsor on a number of these bills. I believe we 
can pass them in this Congress. I think we saw yesterday in the 
introduction of these bills the makings of the kind of solid 
foundation, as I said, the cornerstone for success, as we move our 
country to the 21st century.
  So I want to thank Senator Coverdell again for having put together 
today's special order. I look forward to working with him and under his 
leadership on a number of these issues, and I thank the Chair for 
allowing me a chance to proceed here today.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Michigan. I 
don't think you can say enough about the fact that the new target of 
the drug cartels, the drug infrastructure, which is in many ways better 
than a lot of the soft drink distributors', is focused on children 8 to 
14--8 to 14. And the consequences of attacking that vulnerable segment 
of our society live with us an extended period of time.
  Mr. President, I now yield up to 5 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague, Senator Grams of Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Georgia for 
organizing this time and giving us an opportunity to speak on some of 
the subjects that I think are very important to this Congress.
  Mr. President, I join my colleagues today in offering our perspective 
on the State of the Union--on both last night's speech by the 
President, and also the direction I believe we are headed as a nation.
  Let me begin with the speech.
  What we heard from the President last night was vintage Bill Clinton. 
And that is lots of promises, lots of poll-tested proposals, lots of 
talk, but that all adds up to more spending and more Washington 
control. In fact, in about 77 minutes he made about 77 new promises of 
spending for Washington.
  Each of us want good schools for our children, security for our 
retirement years, a tax system that lets us meet important family 
obligations, and more opportunities for Americans to sell their 
products around the world. But empty promises from Washington are not 
going to help.
  The President believes the answer in part lies in targeted tax cuts 
that try to regulate behavior. It is a way to bribe the taxpayers with 
their own money by saying, ``If you do this for me, I will cut your 
taxes in return.''
  That is the wrong approach. It is aimed at a certain political 
segment, and because of that, 90 percent of the people in this country 
will not benefit. The tax cuts proposed by the President add up to too 
few dollars that only a few people would benefit from.
  If we are truly going to pursue economic freedom for all, the real 
answer is to reduce the roadblocks to success. That, I believe, begins 
with our continuing efforts on cutting taxes for everyone.
  Yesterday, I joined Chairman Roth in introducing S. 3, the Tax Cuts 
for All Americans Act. Our legislation, one of the top five priorities 
of Republicans in the 106th Congress, would offer a ten percent across-
the-board tax cut for every American, instead of the President's 
targeted tax scheme that ignores most working families. A ten-percent 
cut is meaningful tax relief for all, not token tax relief for just a 
few.
  Mr. President, in one word, the state of the union is ``overtaxed.''
  American families are taxed at the highest levels in our history, 
even higher than during World War II, with nearly 40 percent of a 
typical family's budget going to pay taxes on the federal, state and 
local levels. Over $1.8 trillion of their income will be siphoned off 
to Washington this year.
  Certainly, the taxpayers are in desperate need of relief.
  Freedom for families means giving families the freedom to spend more 
of their own dollars as they choose.
  Our bill will cut the personal tax rate for each American by 10 
percent across the board. It will increase incentives to work. It will 
increase incentives to save and invest. It will help to improve the 
standard of living for all Americans.
  The 10 percent across-the-board tax cut will not only benefit 
families, but it will also have a substantial, positive impact on the 
economy as a whole. It will increase the financial rewards of hard 
work, entrepreneurship, innovation, and productivity--the very 
foundations upon which this nation has thrived.
  If the state of the union is overtaxed, the President did not help 
much with the laundry list of new initiatives he proposed last night 
that would expand the size and scope of the already enormous federal 
government.
  It was about 2 years ago that we heard the era of big government was 
over. Well, the era of big government is now alive and well. In fact, 
it is a mammoth new government under the proposals of President Clinton 
last night. Many of these programs sound good, but what the President 
did not spell out is exactly who is going to pay for it--and, of 
course, we all know that its the taxpayers. In other words, I say he 
led Americans into the candy store last night and said, ``you can have 
anything you want.'' The only problem is he didn't tell you who is 
going to have to pay for it. The White House ``spinmeisters'' suggested 
the President's proposals would, ``knock your socks off.'' Instead, 
those proposals will pick your pockets.
  Mr. President, let me say this as clearly as I can: I will strongly 
oppose any proposals that are designed to build the President's 
popularity at the expense of the American taxpayers.

[[Page 1086]]

  I am also disappointed by the comments made by the President last 
night about the ailing Social Security system.
  We heard a lot of vague promises that ultimately leave the government 
in control of your retirement dollars and do nothing to save Social 
Security from bankruptcy or create a better retirement system for the 
next generation. The President is worried about saving a failed 
retirement system that promises small benefits when he should be 
working to create a system that provides larger benefits and more 
security for everybody. Let us worry about people, and not expend 
precious time and resources trying to save a dying government program. 
If we are truly serious about offering Americans the opportunity to 
achieve wealth and security in their retirement years, legislation I 
have introduced that would allow workers to set up personal retirement 
accounts is a far better approach. Mr. President, the American people 
now have a choice: empty words and poll-tested promises on one hand, 
and a real taxpayers' agenda of freedom and opportunity on the other. 
The state of the union can be improved, as my colleagues and I have so 
vigorously suggested today. And the people are depending on us to lead 
the way. I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank my colleague from Minnesota for his remarks. I 
am going to yield to the Senator from Mississippi for the purpose of a 
unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Cochran and Mr. Hagel pertaining to the 
introduction of S. 257 are located in today's Record under ``Statements 
on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to make a brief 
observation and reflect on one of the points the President made last 
night during his State of the Union Message. The President suggested--
recommended that America pause for a moment and understand and absorb 
this dynamic, exciting time that we live in. And, indeed, it is 
exciting, dynamic, and full of hope and opportunity. But, as I listened 
to the President last night--and I listened to the 20 specific mentions 
of more government spending for more and new programs, and as I 
listened to the 24 specific mentions of more Federal Government 
regulation--I failed to hear any reference to tax cuts, to turning back 
authority, turning back regulation, turning back government to the 
people.
  I connected with what he said in his observation about the times we 
live in. And isn't it amazing, especially when you look at the report 
that Freedom House issued a month ago about where the world is going 
today. In that report, Freedom House pointed out that for the first 
time since Freedom House has been calculating personal liberty in the 
world, more peoples are free, with more personal liberties, today than 
at any time in the history of their measurement; in fact, they went so 
far as to say maybe in the history, proportionally, of mankind. There 
is a long way to go, but in their calculations they said almost half of 
the 5.6 billion people on Earth are free today. I find that rather 
interesting, in that most of the world is moving this way--less 
government, less regulation, more personal liberty--and here the 
greatest Republic in the history of mankind, if you listen to the 
President, is going back the other way: more restrictions, more 
government, more regulation, and less individual freedom.
  On Sunday and Monday of this week I was back in Nebraska and met with 
teachers, students, parents. One of the things that came out of that 
meeting from the teachers was this observation, and I say this in light 
of what the President proposed last night with his advocacy of more 
Federal Government involvement in education. As a matter of fact, he 
went beyond that. He said, unless local school districts complied with 
what Washington said--with our money, the taxpayers' money; even more 
interesting--then we would cut them off. What the schoolteachers told 
me, those we have charged to educate our children, those who have maybe 
the heaviest burden except for the parents, in this debate--they tell 
me we don't want any more Government. But they also said this, and this 
is where we are missing the point: We are gliding over this gap of 
children from 1 to 5 or 6. When the teacher gets that child at 5 or 6, 
that is a molded product. That is a molded product we can work and 
develop, but where is the emphasis on the parental responsibility? 
According to the President, we are going to, in fact, do more for day 
care, and now summer programs, more education--the Federal Government, 
essentially, is going to really dictate the dynamics of our foundation.
  The foundation of our country is not government. The foundation of 
this country rests on a value system, and morals and honesty and 
respect for one another. That is what we build from. That is what we 
have always built from. Not more government programs; not more money. 
And, when we glide over that and act like that is not there or that is 
not important, or even emphasize the responsibility of parents and the 
responsibility of all society, we are in some trouble.
  I find it interesting, in reading Governor George Bush's comments 
yesterday, what he said: Too much hope in economics, just as we once 
put too much hope in Government, may be our greater challenge. He is 
right. We must go beyond Government, beyond economics, and go back and 
emphasize parental responsibility and truth and values. That is what we 
build from.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank my good colleague from Nebraska for his 
remarks and insight, and now turn to yield up to 5 minutes to the 
distinguished Senator from Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). Senator Craig is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me associate myself with the remarks of 
my colleague from Nebraska and thank my colleague from Georgia for 
bringing us this special order as we attempt to analyze the President's 
State of the Union Message of last evening.
  America tuned in, and so did we, to hear what our President would say 
about the State of the Union. And he said what we expected him to say, 
that the State of the Union itself at this moment in time is very, very 
good. But, what would a Presidency in crisis try to do at a time that 
the State of the Union is in excellent shape? My guess is that 
Presidency would attempt to appeal to his base in a very aggressive 
way, and to divert attention from the real issue at hand that will 
transpire once again on the floor of this Senate in less than an hour, 
and that is an impeachment trial of this President, this Presidency in 
crisis.
  But, for a moment, let me talk about the speech and his effort to 
divert attention. The polls show he did just that. He got excellent 
ratings in the polls this morning in that snapshot of American opinion 
about what this President said. The problem in the snapshot is that 
there were no comparatives. The Senator from Nebraska offered 
comparatives, the Senator from Georgia has offered comparatives this 
morning, as to what this President has said in the past and done in the 
past versus what he said last night. About a year ago now, this 
President said the era of big government is over. We all cheered that. 
Most conservatives like myself for a long time have dedicated their 
energies to reducing the size of government and its impact on our daily 
lives as citizens and taxpayers of this country. And we have come a 
long way in doing that in the last several decades. So the President, 
once again appealing to his ratings in the polls, said the era of big 
government is over. That was 12 months ago.
  As we all know, in the last 12 months a great deal has transpired as 
it relates to this President and his Presidency. Last night this 
President proclaimed a grand new great society. In fact, he probably 
proposed more new Government initiatives--75 or 80 new initiatives--
more so than Lyndon Johnson did with his proposal for a great new 
society. He literally reached out and

[[Page 1087]]

attempted to touch every American citizen to make them feel good. He is 
going to correct the schools and change the character of the schools, 
as to which the Senator from Nebraska referred. Obviously, he is going 
to attack us on our second amendment rights to protect our citizens, so 
he says, and it went on and on and on.
  But the one thing he did not mention was what was he going to do to 
the taxpayer; more importantly, what was he going to do for the 
taxpayer. He proposed to do nothing for them but do a heck of a lot to 
them.
  Three times or four or five times last night he talked about his 
balanced budget. I say, ``Mr. President, how dare you.'' I say it with 
a bit of a smile on my face because this President has no credibility 
in that area. But he is basking in the popularity of it now, made 
popular by a conservative Republican Congress that said, ``No more 
deficits, and we'll fight to get a balanced budget.'' And we did that, 
even though the President opposed us every step of the way and then 
takes credit for it.
  The reason I bring that up in the context of what did he do to or for 
the taxpayers is that several news reporters said, ``What did you think 
of the speech?'' My reaction was, Well, for 15 years, I fought for a 
balanced budget. I and others, collectively this Congress, was 
successful in getting it, and we built this sizable growing surplus. We 
built that surplus, or at least we hoped we could build a surplus when 
we created a balanced budget to do a couple of things: to stimulate the 
economy by returning to the taxpayers excessive taxes which we had 
taken from them. Surpluses are not free moneys to spend, they are 
representative of the fact that we are overtaxing our citizenry, and we 
ought to return some of the money to them.
  I won't argue with the President about Social Security reform and the 
value of that reform and using the surplus for those purposes. But, Mr. 
President, over $4 trillion worth of surplus in the next 15 years and 
you don't want to give one dime back to the taxpayer?
  I think I was right in my initial analysis, this President slipped 
back last night, because of the pressure and the crisis he is in, to 
his old base of trying to give something to everybody. It was a feel-
good State of the Union speech that did nothing for the taxpayer, 
nothing for the economy and a heck of a lot to grow big government and, 
once again, put shackles on the freedom of our citizens to perform 
independent of their Government. I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
Idaho. I heard this morning, just as an aside, that the speech was 77 
minutes long and there were 77 new programs.
  Mr. CRAIG. That is about right.
  Mr. COVERDELL. A program a minute. I now yield to my distinguished 
colleague from Wyoming for up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Wyoming is 
recognized for up to 5 minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for arranging to have 
this discussion and talk about where we are going. That is, after all, 
what it is about.
  I listened to my colleagues state their impression, their 
interpretation of last night's State of the Union Address, and it is 
right on target. What we really are faced with--all of us--is a vision 
of where we are going in this country, a broad vision in the long run 
of where we want to go and what we want to achieve and what it takes to 
cause that to happen. That is really the challenge that we have; the 
long-term goal in a broad sense of things like freedom and opportunity 
and security, job security, business; smaller government rather than 
more, moving government back to people in communities.
  Those are the long-term goals that we ought to have so that as we 
then put our agenda together, we have to ask how do these things fit.
  When you talk about the things the President mentioned last night, 45 
or whatever it was, how do they fit in this business of freedom, how do 
they fit in making Government smaller? So each, then, has a challenge 
to transfer our goals into the specifics that we talk about.
  Collectively, we need an agenda for ourselves narrowed down to those 
things with which we really need to deal. Of course, we all have other 
issues, but there ought to be some priorities, and that is what we are 
doing and that is what the Senator is doing in setting an agenda.
  We need to talk about Social Security and make it work. We need to 
make it work just as much for those who are now getting benefits as for 
those who are just beginning to pay in. That is one of the things we 
need to do.
  Everyone knows we need to strengthen the military, and we must do 
that. This administration has not. We can do that.
  Of course, we need to strengthen health care, but we don't need a 
national health care program. We already tried that. We already talked 
about that. We don't need to do that. We need to take pieces and 
strengthen the private sector.
  Tax reform--I don't think there is a soul in this country who doesn't 
believe we need tax reform to make it more simple, but we are moving 
the other way. Every time we want to effect some behavior, as in the 
President's message last night, we give them a tax break--a tax break 
here, tax break there. We need to look at the overall reduction for all 
taxpayers and earners in this country.
  Mr. President, it seems to me, rather than comment particularly on 
the State of the Union last night, I just am saying to myself and to 
you, let's take a look at our long-term goals of where we want to be 
over a period of time, measure those things that need to be done then 
immediately so that we can reach those goals, put some emphasis and 
priorities on a small number of items so that we can accomplish it and 
not have the same result the President did a year ago, when he listed 
almost the same number of events and, according to Broder in the 
Washington Post, was successful in one.
  We have a chance to be successful within an agenda--Social Security, 
health care, strengthen the military, do something on crime, and 
simplify and reduce taxes. I hope that is our agenda. It is our agenda. 
I hope it is the President's agenda as well. That is what we ought to 
do this year. I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Senator from Wyoming and return to the 
Senator from Idaho and extend another 2 minutes to him. I know, with a 
number of Senators coming to the floor, he wasn't able to complete his 
remarks. So I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia. I 
appreciate that. I wanted to add for the Record some of the analysis we 
are now doing about what the President said last night and, more 
importantly, how he proposes to spend the taxpayers' money.
  The surplus that he projects, and that I think we generally agree 
with, based on the vibrancy of our economy today, is about $4.35 
trillion over the next 15 years. That is rough, give or take 1 percent, 
depending on who is doing the calculation.
  In that context, here is what the President proposes to do: He 
proposes to spend 62 percent of it for Social Security, about $2.7 
trillion. Probably we would not want to disagree with that, because 
about 60 percent of the surplus is generated by Social Security taxes, 
and it ought to go into Social Security and it ought to go into 
strengthening it and saving it and, hopefully, reforming it.
  The President laid out a plan last night that we are looking at now, 
but at least he opened the door for reform--and I am glad he has--and 
will create some flexibility, because we are going to guarantee that 
the current recipients and immediate future recipients of Social 
Security are going to have their Social Security. What I am worried 
about are the young people who are entering the workforce today and 
beginning to invest in Social Security and finding that the worst 
investment they have ever made. That is

[[Page 1088]]

wrong, and we know how to correct it. We have an opportunity to so.
  He has done something else that is very interesting. He is saying 
that about 15 percent ought to go into Medicare. That would be the 
first time that general fund taxes would ever go to Medicare. That 
represents about a 20-percent increase in the current payroll tax that 
is going into Medicare--general fund dollars into Medicare, first time 
in history that would happen. That is a rather bold new break in his 
approach.
  USA retirement accounts, 11 percent; new spending, about 11 percent, 
$479 billion. He also includes a substantial tax increase to get there.
  That is a little bit of the economic analysis. Here is a President 
who says we have a balanced budget, and he slides into major new tax 
increases and creates a huge new approach toward Federal spending. We 
are going to work with him, but we are not going to spend that kind of 
money, that is for sure.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, again, I thank my colleague from Idaho.
  I now yield up to 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Oklahoma.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia for the 
time. I know it is very scarce, but I felt compelled, Mr. President, to 
make a couple of comments about what was not in the State of the Union 
Message last night.
  One of the most disturbing things was that out of 1 hour and 20 
minutes, only about less than 90 seconds were devoted to our Nation's 
defense. We are facing a crisis, and it is on two fronts. And I, just 
briefly, would like to submit a couple things for the record and 
discuss those two things.
  First of all, not many Americans realize that we do not have a 
national missile defense system. And that is to say, Mr. President, 
that if a missile is fired from anyplace in China at Washington, DC, it 
takes approximately 35 minutes to get over here. Now, the average 
person would think, well, if it takes 35 minutes to get over here--and 
we can remember the Persian Gulf war--we know you can knock down 
missiles with missiles, therefore, we have a defense. But, in fact, we 
have zero defense.
  We don't have any defense at all. And the reason is that when you 
have a trajectory, where a missile is fired in one area, it goes up, it 
is out of the atmosphere, and by the time it comes back in, it is 
coming at a velocity that is faster than anything we have in our 
arsenal; and, consequently, we have no defense.
  So you might ask the question, well, is there really a threat out 
there that is facing us that is imminent today? And I have to say that 
there is. I know that it sounds extreme to say this, but I have often 
said--and others are now agreeing--that I look back wistfully on the 
days of the cold war where there are two superpowers, the U.S.S.R. and 
the United States of America; and we knew what they had, they knew what 
we had. And we had this great agreement that was put together, not by 
Democrats but by Republicans, called the ABM agreement of 1972 that 
said: ``I will make you a deal. If you agree not to defend yourself, 
we'll agree not to defend ourselves, therefore, if you shoot us, we'll 
shoot you, and everyone dies and everyone's happy.'' That was something 
I didn't agree with at that time, but, however, today it makes 
absolutely no sense at all.
  I would like to repeat something that was said recently by Henry 
Kissinger, who was one of the architects of that ABM Treaty of 1972, 
when he said it no longer has any application today. Today, when you 
are looking at the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, when 
you see countries like Russia and China that have missiles that will 
reach any city in the United States of America from anyplace in the 
world, that is a very, very serious thing. And that means that there is 
not just one entity out there from which we must defend ourselves.
  I can remember--I am old enough to remember--the 1962 Cuban missile 
crisis when all of a sudden hysteria set out in the United States of 
America. We discovered that there were 40 medium-range intercontinental 
ballistic missiles, that were Soviet missiles, on the little island of 
Cuba, 90 miles off of our shore, and they could reach any city outside 
of the States of Washington, Alaska and Hawaii. And I would say now the 
crisis is even worse because they can reach anywhere. And we still have 
no defense at all.
  I want to submit for the record--to evaluate this, we on the Armed 
Services Committee have the nine most professional people, most 
knowledgeable people on missiles anywhere in the world--and it was 
chaired by Don Rumsfeld--and they put together an assessment of what 
our threat really is.
  A lot of times people say the threat is not imminent when they talk 
about indigenous capabilities. In other words, if Iran were trying to 
develop a missile to reach us, it would take them 5 or 6 years to do 
it. On the other hand, we know that Iran is trading, as we speak, with 
China, trading technology, trading systems. And they have one that 
could hit us today. So I only read the Executive Summary concluding 
paragraph:

       Therefore, we unanimously recommend that U.S. analyses, 
     practices and policies that depend on expectations of 
     extended warning of deployment be reviewed and, as 
     appropriate, revised to reflect the reality of an environment 
     in which there may be little or no warning.

  I ask unanimous consent to have that material printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    Executive Summary of the Report of the Commission To Assess the 
             Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States

                             July 15, 1998


                         ii. executive summary

     A. Conclusions of the Commissioners
       The nine Commissioners are unanimous in concluding that:
       Concerted efforts by a number of overtly or potentially 
     hostile nations to acquire ballistic missiles with biological 
     or nuclear payloads pose a growing threat to the United 
     States, its deployed forces and its friends and allies. These 
     newer, developing threats in North Korea, Iran and Iraq are 
     in addition to those still posed by the existing ballistic 
     missile arsenals of Russia and China, nations with which we 
     are not now in conflict but which remain in uncertain 
     transitions. The newer ballistic missile-equipped nations' 
     capabilities will not match those of U.S. systems for 
     accuracy or reliability. However, they would be able to 
     inflict major destruction on the U.S. within about five years 
     of a decision to acquire such a capability (10 years in the 
     case of Iraq). During several of those years, the U.S. might 
     not be aware that such a decision had been made.
       The threat to the U.S. posed by these emerging capabilities 
     is broader, more mature and evolving more rapidly than has 
     been reported in estimates and reports by the Intelligence 
     Community.
       The Intelligence Community's ability to provide timely and 
     accurate estimates of ballistic missile threats to the U.S. 
     is eroding. This erosion has roots both within and beyond the 
     intelligence process itself. The Community's capabilities in 
     this area need to be strengthened in terms of both resources 
     and methodology.
       The warning times the U.S. can expect of new, threatening 
     ballistic missile deployments are being reduced. Under some 
     plausible scenarios--including re-basing or transfer of 
     operational missiles, sea- and air-launch options, shortened 
     development programs that might include testing in a third 
     country, or some combination of these--the U.S. might well 
     have little or no warning before operational deployment.
       Therefore, we unanimously recommend that U.S. analyses, 
     practices and policies that depend on expectations of 
     extended warning of deployment be reviewed and, as 
     appropriate, revised to reflect the reality of an environment 
     in which there may be little or no warning.
                                  ____


                     Resumes of Commission Members

       The Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, chairman of the Board of 
     Directors of Gilead Sciences, Inc., naval aviator (1954-
     1957), Member of Congress (1963-1969), U.S. Ambassador to 
     NATO (1972-1974), White House Chief of Staff (1974-1975), 
     Secretary of Defense (1975-1977), Presidential envoy to the 
     Middle East (1983-1984), chairman of Rand Corporation (1981-
     1986; 1995-1996), chairman and CEO of G.D. Searle & Co. 
     (1977-1985), chairman and CEO of General Instruments 
     Corporation (1990-1993); received the Presidential Medal of 
     Freedom in 1977.
       Dr. Barry M. Belchman, PhD., International Relations, 
     president and founder of

[[Page 1089]]

     DFI International (1984), chairman and co-founder of the 
     Henry L. Stimson Center (1989), Assistant Director of the 
     U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (1977-1980); 
     Affiliated with: a. U.S. Army (1964-1966), b. Center for 
     Naval Analyses (1966-1971), c. Brookings Institute (1971-
     1977), d. Carnegie Endowment (1980-1982), e. Center for 
     Strategic and International Studies (1982-1984); Author: 
     ``Face Without War'' and ``The Politics of National 
     Security''.
       General Lee Butler, USAF (Ret.), Commander-in-Chief of the 
     U.S. Strategic Command and Strategic Air Command (1992-1994), 
     Director of Strategic Plans and Policy on the Joint Chiefs of 
     Staff (1989-1991), Director of Operations at USAF 
     Headquarters (1984-1986), Inspector General of the Strategic 
     Air Command (1984-1986), Commander of the 96th and 320th Bomb 
     Wings (1982-1984); Olmstead scholar.
       Dr. Richard L. Garwin, PhD., Physics, Senior fellow for 
     Sciences and Technology with the Council on Foreign 
     Relations, IBM fellow emeritus at the Thomas J. Watson 
     Research Center since 1993; fellow (1952-1993), member--
     President's Science Advisory Committee (1962-1969); 1969-
     1972), served on Defense Science Board (1966-1969); Awards: 
     a. U.S. foreign intelligence community awarded him the R.V. 
     Jones Award for Scientific Intelligence; b. Department of 
     Energy awarded him the Enrico Fermi award.
       Dr. William R. Graham, PhD. in Electrical Engineering, 
     chairman of the board and president of National Security 
     Research (1996-Present), Director of White House Office of 
     Science & Technology Policy (1986-1989), Deputy Administrator 
     of NASA (1985-1986).
       Dr. William Schneider, Jr., PhD. in Economics, president of 
     International Planning Services, Inc. (1986-Present), served 
     as Under Secretary of State for Security Assistance (1982-
     1986), chairman of the President's General Advisory Committee 
     on Arms Control and Disarmament (1987-1993).
       General Larry D. Welch, USAF (Ret.), president and CEO of 
     the Institute for Defense Analyses (1990-Present), Chief of 
     Staff of the U.S. Air Force (1986-1990), Commander-in-Chief 
     of the U.S. Strategic Air Command (1985-1986).
       Dr. Paul Wolfowitz PhD., Political Science, dean of the 
     Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at 
     Johns Hopkins University (1994-Present), Under Secretary of 
     Defense Policy (1989-1993), U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia 
     (1986-1989), Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and 
     Pacific Affairs (1982-1986), Director of State Department 
     Planning Staff (1981-1982), member of the Commission on the 
     Roles and Capabilities of the United States Intelligence 
     Community (1995).
       The Honorable R. James Woolsey, partner in the law firm 
     Shae & Gardner (1995-present; 1991-1993; 1979-1989), Director 
     of Central Intelligence Agency (1993-1995), Ambassador and 
     U.S. Representative to the Negotiations on Conventional Armed 
     Forces in Europe (1989-1991), Under Secretary of the Navy 
     (1977-1979), Delegate-at-Large to the U.S. Soviet START and 
     Nuclear Space Arms Talks (1983-1985), member of Snowcroft 
     Commission (Presidential Commission on Strategic Forces, 
     1983), member of the Packard Commission (Presidential Blue 
     Ribbon Commission on Defense Management, 1985-1986).

  Mr. INHOFE. Recognizing my time is about up, I would only like to say 
that is only part of the problem. The other problem is--and I say this 
with some knowledge as chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee in the 
Senate Armed Services Committee--that we have roughly 60 percent of the 
capability that we had, in terms of force strength, that we had during 
the Persian Gulf war in 1991. And when I say that, I can quantify. 
Talking about 60 percent of the Army division, 60 percent of the 
tactical air wing, 60 percent of the ships floating around there; and 
yet we are in a more threatened world today.
  So I believe that little pittance that the President is talking about 
of $110 billion over 6 years, of which only $2 billion of new money 
would be in the coming fiscal year, does not meet the expectations of 
the American people. It has not fulfilled the requirements of his own 
Secretary of Defense, his own Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
and the four chiefs who said: We are going to have to put a minimum of 
$25 billion of new money in each year for the next 6 years in order to 
get to a point where we can defend America on two regional fronts.
  With that, I thank the Senator from Georgia for this very scarce time 
that he has given me.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma and associate myself 
with his grave concern on this issue. Now I turn to the distinguished 
Senator from Texas. I yield up to 5 minutes to her.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I want to thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia for talking 
about our very important congressional agenda. I was very pleased to 
hear the closing remarks from my colleague from Oklahoma, because I 
think one of the priorities of Congress has been laid right at our feet 
by the Senator from Oklahoma. And according to the Constitution it is 
the one major responsibility that Congress must perform--to provide a 
national defense for the United States and all of its citizens. That 
core responsibility has been jeopardized in the last 5 years because we 
have not kept up the investments needed to ensure that we keep and 
recruit the best people for our military. Equipment is deteriorating, 
and the big strategic defenses that are vital to our national security 
have not been deployed. Again, I am very pleased that the Senator from 
Oklahoma talked about defense, and I am going to add some things that I 
believe are necessary to regain and maintain a strong national in 
defense.
  What we have seen with the President's State of the Union, and the 
congressional statement of priorities, are some places where we will be 
able to work together. While we can agree on some goals, I also believe 
there are some profound differences in how we get there.
  The Republican plan is very simple while the President's plan is very 
complicated. It seemed like it was a new idea a minute. It was a 
shotgun approach to all of the major issues we face. I would like to 
take each one of those and show how we will be different and hopefully 
how we can come together.
  Let us say, first and foremost, that our No. 1 priority is Social 
Security reform. I think that is also the President's first priority. 
How we achieve reform is going to be very different, because the 
President has opted for a big federalized plan whereas the Republicans 
in Congress are trying to say: We want people to be able to have their 
own retirement accounts. We want them to be able to make some of the 
choices in investing their Social Security taxes. And, most of all, we 
want people to be able to pass their retirement accounts onto their 
children.
  This is a very important difference from the President's plan, which 
is to take 60 percent of the surplus and have the Government invest it 
in the stock market. While it might make Social Security more secure, I 
think it could have a disastrous impact on the stock market. The 
federal government could use its investments to micro-manage certain 
industries and markets. Free enterprise is the hallmark of our economy 
and having the government enter the stock market could pose a 
significant risk to the nature of our economy.
  Tax relief. I think it is very important that we have simple, 
straight-forward tax relief for every working American family. Every 
working American in the Republican plan will get a 10 percent across-
the-board tax cut. In order to determine how this plan will benefit 
you, while you are figuring your taxes in preparation for the April 
15th filing deadline, take 10 percent off of your tax liability; and 
that is what our tax cut will give you. Now, compare our tax cut plan 
to the President's very complex tax cutting proposals. His plan will 
add thousands of pages of new rules and regulations to an already 
burdensome and complex tax code. Only if you spend your money on his 
priorities will you get any tax relief. With our plan everybody wins. 
Our plan puts more of the money in the pockets of the people who earn 
it, rather than giving it to ``Big Brother'' Government to decide how 
to spend the money you earn and you worked for.
  Education: The primary difference between our education proposal and 
the President's proposal has to do with who is in control of the 
resources. Both plans seek to achieve the same goals, but ours would 
keep control with those who directly educate children--local school 
officials, principals, teachers, and parents. We have the same goals, 
but we will reach them in different ways.
  The congressional plan is the right one for America. We are going to 
push

[[Page 1090]]

ahead and hope that the President will work with us to reform Social 
Security and make it secure, to give tax cuts to hard-working 
Americans, and increase educational opportunity so that every child in 
America can get a good public education and reach his or her full 
potential.


                            order for recess

  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
stand in recess at 12:55.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COVERDELL. I yield to the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, 
the chairman of the Budget Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Let me start by saying in the past the President has 
said the era of big government is over, and last night what he meant 
was that he was proposing an era of really big government and no tax 
cuts for the American people for 15 years. Frankly, I don't believe 
that will sell. I think when the American people understand what the 
President recommended last night, they will ask: What happened to the 
surplus that is not needed for Social Security, that we paid to the 
Government in taxes? Why don't we get some of it back?
  That is the issue. They should get some of it back. We have 
underestimated the tax take of this country; thus, we have an excess of 
taxes in the coffers of the United States. Who paid that money to us? 
The taxpayers. They should get some or all of it back. I believe the 
best way to do that is an across-the-board tax cut. I don't write tax 
laws here, but obviously what we are talking about is equity and 
fairness; but, in addition, something that is very good for the 
American economy.
  The world is in some kind of strange recessionary mood, with whole 
pieces of it not working. The United States has been immune from that. 
Now is the time to have a tax cut, and the best kind is across-the-
board to make sure that we are adding to the American economy an 
ingredient that is apt to keep us going at this formidable rate of 
sustained growth and jobs and prosperity. That means a tax cut now for 
the American people and for the future prosperity of our country.
  In addition, I suggest that people ought to look at what the 
President proposed to do with this surplus. I am amazed. This surplus--
which is taxpayers' money, that is in excess of Social Security--the 
President has now decided he knows precisely how to use it. Every bit 
of it is spent, I say to my friend, Senator Thurmond: New programs, new 
ideas, new needs, even some money for Medicare. And we have never 
heretofore put general taxpayers' money in Medicare. So he wants to 
spend it all and the taxpayers will get none of it back.
  It seems to this Senator that that is a good issue to take to the 
public, to take to the people of this land. What do you want to do with 
this surplus? Do you want a bigger Government and spend more of it? Or 
spend all of it? Or do you want to give some of it back to the 
taxpayers who work hard in this land to make ends meet and truly, truly 
are the engines of this growth period we have had? Hard-working 
Americans caused this to happen. There is higher productivity because 
they are more skilled and their employers are using new equipment and 
new technology--higher productivity, more jobs.
  Surplus means to me that taxpayers should get some benefit. We are 
going to work very hard to see to it that the people understand it and 
we have a real opportunity to help them if they will help us.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
New Mexico.

                          ____________________