[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 14553-14554]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                          THE ECONOMIC AGENDA

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to speak a little about the 
President of the United States, his staff and his renewed focus on the 
domestic and economic issues of this country.
  Across the land, it has been heralded that the President is once 
again coming back to address economic issues and wants to become a part 
of the economic agenda. He wants to be involved with what we are doing 
here in Congress in our work on approving money for programs, talking 
about Medicare, Social Security, and other things. I will say at the 
outset that it wasn't too many months ago that the President of the 
United States was promoting a plan that was considerably different from 
what he is espousing today. It wasn't long ago that you felt satisfied 
with saving only a portion of the Social Security surplus and using the 
rest for your spending initiatives. Yet, as of today, the President's 
plan has come the Republican way. We both say now that we should save 
100 percent of the money that belongs to the Social Security recipients 
of our country and we should not let it be squandered on anything else.
  This means that we are going to save the $1.8 trillion dollar Social 
Security surplus over the next decade. In the Congressional plan, the 
only way that we can touch these funds is if they are needed to 
undertake substantive reforms of Social Security to ensure that the 
program works well for seniors. Nothing else.
  In order to guarantee such restraint, we have developed a lockbox 
proposal--I came up with the basic idea and Senator Abraham has taken a 
lead in promoting it. While the President's lockbox is different from 
ours, at least we are speaking the same language--even the President is 
saying that we must make sure not to spend any of the Social Security 
surplus. That puts us on the same path. He is following us. We thank 
him for that and are pleased to have him on board.
  However, now is the chance for him to show his commitment to this 
principle. Up until now, we have faced opposition on our lockbox bill, 
both in our budget resolution and on the Senate floor. I would remind 
you that we have not been able to vote on this proposal here yet 
because the Democratic minority doesn't want to let us vote on our 
lockbox. We are going to ask them another time, very soon, to give us 
an opportunity to vote on it. This lockbox has the name, Abraham-
Domenici. It is a real lockbox.
  We are also joined by the distinguished junior Senator from Missouri 
as our third cosponsor, Mr. Ashcroft. We wish others would join. We 
wish Senators from the other side would join. Let us make sure that 
when we say to the seniors that we are putting their Social Security 
funds in a lockbox, that it is real and is the most real one we can do. 
As a matter of fact, our bill is so tough that the administration has 
opposed it on the basis that it might put our Government in a 
straitjacket. They fear that it might cause some harm to our Government 
and to our country because we tied the knot on our lockbox so tightly.
  We do not agree. We think we need a tough lockbox to guarantee 
safety. However, the Administration should take comfort in the fact 
that the Office of Management and Budget--the President's experts on 
budgetary matters--has just revised up their surplus projections over 
the next decade in light of recent economic strength. As our economy 
grows and new jobs are added, people pay more in taxes. This means that 
once again, there is more revenue expected in the year 2000 than we 
contemplated 3 months ago. This means that we will now have an on-
budget surplus in fiscal year 2000 above and beyond the Social Security 
surplus--both the President's budget shop and the Congressional Budget 
Office expect forecast this. This is true, even accounting for the $7 
billion we spent recently in FY2000 on Kosovo. This money came out of 
on-budget funds--we have not touched the funds that are accumulated by 
Social Security.
  The President believes that we have a $5 billion on-budget surplus 
remaining next year. I can't tell you what the Congressional Budget 
Office is going to say with certainty, but I can tell you it is more 
than that. I can tell you it is between $10 and $15 billion. That means 
we can lock up Social Security's money in the Trust Fund and still have 
a $10 or $15 billion buffer to absorb any unanticipated expenses. This 
should allay the Administration's concerns about our lockbox.
  Having said that, let me talk for a moment about a profound change 
which has occurred in our country in recent years. Something very 
dynamic is happening to the US economy. Some say we're having a new 
industrial revolution of sorts in the high tech arena that is 
fundamentally changing the way we do business. It has fueled tremendous 
growth in all sectors. Now, no one knows for certain why this recovery 
is so long-lived. However, even though I am usually pretty cautious as 
budget chairman of the Senate, it does appear that this growth will 
propel us toward higher and higher surpluses going forward. It is 
realistic to assume that American taxpayers will be paying far more in 
taxes than we need to run the Government for many years to come.
  That means, year over year, your Government spends less than it takes 
in. It is great to run persistent surpluses. However, we will surely 
lose the faith of the American people if we end up spending those 
surpluses. We must save Social Security's money now and in the future. 
However, we should think carefully about what we do with the extra 
surplus--the surplus above Social Security's funds. The President is 
thinking about this and has formulated 15 year budget plans. I should 
say as an aside, we will not use 15 year budget numbers--we will not go 
beyond ten years, regardless of what the President does. Ten-year 
estimates are long

[[Page 14554]]

enough--we will have almost a trillion-dollar surplus beyond Social 
Security during the coming decade.
  Now, I have not seen the entire new plan of the President, but I can 
tell you that is has some odd features. In the first five years, no one 
in America will get any tax relief. The Government of America will 
retain control of all the enormous projected surpluses. Tax relief is 
relegated to the second five years in the President's plan.
  That is not fair to the American working man or woman. Now certainly, 
we will need to retain some of the projected surpluses to put toward 
Medicare reform. The President envisions one type of reform where he 
spends $51 billion of surplus dollars on a Medicare prescription drug 
benefit. We don't know if that is right or not. But we can sit at the 
table and fix Medicare given our wonderful fiscal situation. But let's 
not kid ourselves. We don't need a trillion dollars. We should be 
giving some of this money back to the American people--they are the 
ones who generated all these extra tax payments, they ought to get some 
of them back.
  In that regard, it appears we are on a collision course with the 
President. We will let the American people be the judge of who is 
correct. I don't think that these hardworking men and women will stand 
by as their taxes climb higher and higher--I think they will support 
our call for tax relief.
  It is unfair to assume that the Government, having collected more 
than we need, ought to start saying: Well, let's find out how we can 
spend all of it in Government. How does that make sense? Should we wait 
for Washington to figure out which new program it needs? Should we do 
what the President is doing? He wants to put $340 billion of IOUs into 
the Medicare trust fund, and then say, in 30 years when the IOUs come 
due, we will just raise income taxes to pay for it. Putting that money 
into the trust fund for Medicare does not enhance one payment, does not 
increase its solvency for one week. And here we sit failing to say 
exactly what it is. The President's proposal will lead to income tax 
increases down the road to cover these IOUs.
  I should say a number of Democrats and almost every Republican have 
been critical of this presidential proposal. It is similar to writing a 
postdated check. Guess who is signing the check? The American people, 
because they back up the U.S. Government who signed that check. It is 
postdated 30 years. When it comes due, there isn't any money to pay it. 
So then you go out and tax the American people to pay it. But, in the 
meantime, you can for some reason run around and say there is a lot of 
money in the trust fund, ignoring the long-run consequences of this 
plan. Frankly, I don't believe this is the right way to do things.
  I look forward to a good, healthy debate. Normally, I would wonder 
whether the President is going to once again politicize the issue of 
Medicare so much so that it will turn out that we will not do anything, 
and we will all be frightened to death. But I actually believe that the 
President and Congress can work together. However, we do not endorse 
the President's reliance on trust fund accounting. Instead of forcing 
all the surpluses into some trust fund or another, why don't we give 
them back to the people who paid us? Maybe they could set up their own 
trust funds. Maybe they could start their own savings plan. Maybe they 
could put a little more into the kind of things they think they need 
for their families.
  In a sense, I don't know about the rest of the Senators on both sides 
of the aisle, but I look forward to these issues we are going to 
discuss between Members of the Congress and the President. On some of 
them, I look for us to walk right down this aisle in bipartisan fashion 
and get some things done. However, we will not walk into an end 
agreement where no relief is given to American taxpayers. We will not 
be able to agree with the President of the United States if he is 
leading all the Democrats--which I somehow doubt--saying, no matter how 
big the surplus is, let's just wait around and see if Government 
doesn't need it. I submit that, if you do that, Government will need 
it. Government will use it. And the taxpayers who collectively paid 
more into Government than we need will see bigger Government, more 
money spent and less money in their own pockets, which is where more of 
it ought to be.
  I think my time has expired. I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________