[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6648-6680]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000--CONFERENCE 
                                 REPORT

  The Senate resumed consideration of the conference report.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the budget that 
is before the Senate. I am sorry that our dear chairman, Senator 
Domenici, is not here, but I want to say some very strong, positive 
things about this budget, and I wish he were here to hear it. I want to 
say it mostly because it is true. It would just be a plus if he were 
here to hear it.
  It has been my great privilege since I first came to Congress to be 
actively involved in budget debates. In fact, I remember the first 
debate I ever was involved in as a Member of the House was a debate 
about raising the debt ceiling, and I remember as if it were yesterday 
the House majority leader, Congressman Wright from Texas, stood up and 
said that we had no choice except to raise the debt ceiling of the 
Government, that we were in a position that a man would be in if his 
wife went out and ran up all these debts on the credit card and the 
debt collector was at the door.
  Today, in this era of political correctness, no one would ever 
suggest such a thing. They would say their spouses ran up these bills, 
and probably the reality would be the man did run up the bills in any 
case. But the point is that the then-majority leader of the House, in 
1979, made the point that these bills had been run up and the bill 
collector was at the door, and so we didn't have any choice except to 
pay the bills as any good, honest family would.
  And so I stand up and say that the first thing I ever said in debate 
in the Chamber of the House was, well, it is not really the way it 
works. It is true that honest families would pay their bills, but what 
they would do is they would sit down at the kitchen table, they would 
talk about how they got in this financial mess, they would get out the 
credit card, they would get out the butcher knife, they would cut up 
the credit card, they would get an envelope and pencil and they would 
work out a new budget on the back of an old used envelope, and they 
would start over again. The problem in Congress was we kept simply 
spending money, incurring debt, raising the debt ceiling, and nobody 
ever sat down around the kitchen table, nobody ever got out the butcher 
knife and cut up the credit cards, and so, as a result, we never 
changed anything.
  So anyway, I opposed raising the debt ceiling. It failed. And then we 
tried to offer an amendment trying to tie the debt ceiling to the 
budget and saying you can only raise the debt ceiling if you balance 
the budget.
  Well, to make a long story short, from that time in 1979 until today, 
I have been involved in debate about every budget that has passed in 
this Congress or been enforced in this Government since 1979. And let 
me say that of all those budgets, this is the best budget that has ever 
been written by American Government in that period.
  Now it is probably not, certainly not the most profound budget. The 
most profound budget was the Reagan budget that was written in 1981. 
But in terms of what you want a budget to be, it would be very hard to 
improve on what this budget does. And it is one of my frustrations that 
everything is now so focused on the war in Kosovo and on many other 
issues, and we are not having any kind of adequate debate or focus of 
attention on the profound nature of the budget that is in front of us 
and what great promise this budget holds for America if we actually 
enforce this budget.
  So let me begin by just ticking off some things this budget does, and 
then I want to get into a discussion of a comparison of this budget 
with what the President proposed. I want to get into some of these 
areas like Social Security and Medicare that have been talked about a 
lot and will be talked about again. But let me outline what this budget 
does.
  First of all, this is a 10-year budget that, if enforced, will 
balance the budget every single year for 10 years. To sort of turn on 
its head the language of the 1980s, this is a budget that has surpluses 
as far as the eye can see. And it has those surpluses because it 
maintains a restriction on spending in a period where revenues are 
gushing into the Federal Treasury, a period where if we are not very 
careful we are going to see the launching of a massive new spending 
spree which could squander the surpluses of today that give us the 
opportunity to pay down debt, to rebuild Social Security, and do it 
right this time by basing it on wealth instead of debt, that give us 
the ability

[[Page 6649]]

to let working men and women in America keep more of what they earn 
through a reduction in taxes. If we can keep these spending control 
measures in place, we can provide adequate Government--in fact, the 
highest levels of Government spending in American history. And yet by 
controlling the growth of spending, with the power of the American 
economy and our competitiveness on the world market and the 
attractiveness of our capital market with huge amounts of wealth 
flowing into our equity markets, inflating values, making American 
families richer, and inducing them to take income and capital gains and 
pay record levels of taxes on it, we can keep the budget balanced, we 
can rebuild Social Security based on wealth, and we can cut taxes for 
working Americans. This budget does all those things.
  Now, a budget is like a marriage license. It gets you into the deal, 
but it doesn't make it successful. The easy part is saying ``I do.'' 
The hard part of a successful marriage is what comes after the wedding. 
But you cannot have the successful marriage if you don't have the 
wedding. We are being brought to the altar here with a document that 
promises all the right things. It is now going to be up to us to 
enforce those promises. But the key promise, the linchpin of this 
budget, the element of this budget on which everything else hinges is 
it enforces the spending caps. If we do not control spending, we are 
not going to have the surplus. We are not going to be able to rebuild 
Social Security based on wealth instead of debt. We are not going to be 
able to preserve a balanced budget, and we are not going to be able to 
cut taxes.
  Now, the second thing this budget does, which I rejoice in, is it 
strengthens our ability to do these things. Every Member of Congress, 
and I wish every American, understood what happened last year. The 
President stood up really on the opening day of Congress last year in 
the State of the Union Address and said save Social Security first. 
Don't spend a penny of the surplus on either Government programs or tax 
cuts. Save every penny of it for Social Security.
  Well, we all know that the President was not telling the truth. We 
all know that in the end we ended up spending very much of that 
surplus. We ended up on the last day of Congress taking a third of the 
surplus that was meant for Social Security and spending it on other 
programs, and we did it in the name of emergency spending.
  One of the most important features in this budget is that we have in 
this budget an enforcement mechanism that says that if someone wants to 
designate an emergency in nondefense spending, they are going to have 
to get 60 votes, if somebody raises a point of order. My basic view is, 
if something is not important enough or enough of an emergency that 60 
out of the 100 Members of the Senate will vote for it, then it is not 
an emergency.
  I say right now that I personally intend, if others don't, to raise a 
point of order against each and every emergency spending bill that 
would raid the Social Security trust fund. I give notice right now that 
anybody who has an idea that we are going to make all these wonderful 
promises, that we are going to promise to love, cherish, and obey in 
this little wedding we are having here on the budget, but that we are 
going to turn around and start cheating in the fall by breaking this 
budget by claiming all kinds of expenditures are an emergency, that 
they better be ready to get 60 votes in the Senate if they are going to 
be successful. They better be ready for a real battle, because I, for 
one, believe in this budget, and I intend to fight for it very, very 
hard.
  This budget puts a focus on some priorities. It basically says that 
even in a tight budget not all spending is equal. It puts a focus on 
veterans' health care, and it does it by, quite simply, taking the 
position that in a time when you are trying to control spending, you 
have benefits and you have earned benefits. The basic position of our 
budget is that those who have served the country, who have preserved 
its life by wearing with pride its uniform and fighting its wars and by 
keeping its peace, that even at a time when we have tight budgets, they 
ought to come first. So this budget provides more money for veterans' 
health care, and I support it.
  This budget provides more money for education. It doesn't create the 
money magically. It takes it away from other programs, with the basic 
idea that we ought to let the States decide how to spend money on 
education rather than the Senate being a huge 100-member school.
  This budget calls for an increase in defense. One of the great 
unknowns now, not knowing what the war in Kosovo is going to cost, is 
what is this going to do with our budget and where do we go from here. 
I want everybody to understand that this budget is written in such a 
way that we contemplate an increase in defense spending. We want to 
give a pay increase to everybody in the military. We want to try to 
provide the pay and benefits and recognition that will help us retain 
in uniform and recruit the finest young men and women who have ever 
worn the uniform of the country. Today they wear that uniform with 
pride, but we have grown increasingly concerned that we are falling 
behind in recruitment, in retention. We are having trouble, especially, 
keeping pilots. Now that the President has us deployed in some 30 
different engagements around the world, where defense spending has been 
cut by over a third since its peak in real terms, and yet we have 
massive military deployments, what is happening is, people are 
beginning to leave the military.
  This pay increase that we call for in this budget is vitally 
important in terms of helping us recruit and retain the best people. 
Having all these miracle weapons does us no good if we don't have 
quality people to man those systems. We have the best people in uniform 
today that we have ever had. We want to keep it that way. That is what 
this budget does.
  That is the choice we have. The choice that is presented to us in 
this budget is, even though we are in a period of record prosperity, 
even though the level of revenue flows is a record level, what we call 
for is to limit the growth of Government spending, put a focus on areas 
like veterans' health care and education and defense, use the surplus 
to deal with the looming crisis that faces us in Social Security, and 
to the extent that we have surpluses flowing from the general budget 
instead of from Social Security, take the bulk of that money and give 
it back to working families in tax cuts.
  That is what this budget does. I believe that it is an excellent 
budget. I think looking at the whole package, it is the finest budget 
presented in America in the 20 years that I have served in Congress.
  Talking specifically about several different areas, I want everybody 
to understand that there is a shell game going on with Social Security. 
I want to explain, because people have trouble understanding what it is 
the President is doing on Social Security and what this budget does on 
Social Security. Let me first explain what this budget does on Social 
Security, and then explain the fraud that is perpetrated in the 
President's budget.
  What this budget does on Social Security is very, very simple. It 
says every penny that we collect in Social Security taxes that we don't 
have to have to pay Social Security benefits should be dedicated to 
Social Security. It ought to be locked away, and it ought to be 
available to any effort to rebuild the financial base of Social 
Security. But we should not spend it on any other Government program, 
nor should we use it for tax cuts. In fact, Senator Domenici, in a 
proposal that is enshrined in this budget, but we will have to vote on 
separately, sets up a lockbox where we literally change the lending 
limits that the Government faces, the debt ceiling, so that we will not 
be able to spend one penny of the Social Security surplus.
  This is vitally important because, as anybody in the Senate knows, 
and I wish every American knew, our Government has been stealing every 
penny of money coming in to the Social Security trust fund. We 
currently have IOUs

[[Page 6650]]

for this money that are sent to West Virginia and put in a metal filing 
cabinet, but the Government then takes the money and spends it on 
everything but Social Security. None of that money is being used for 
Social Security purposes.
  Senator Domenici's lockbox would change that permanently and say that 
this money would be set aside to reduce debt, and it would be available 
when we can agree with the White House on a way to rebuild the 
financial base of Social Security. That is a critically important 
proposal.
  If the American people knew the extent that we have been stealing 
money out of the Social Security trust fund, there would be outrage in 
the country. That is exactly what is happening. The Domenici lockbox 
ends that forever, and it is vitally important. I hope every Member 
will support it.
  Now, let me talk about this shell game the administration is playing 
on Social Security. Let me say, to begin with, that if you have been 
involved in every budget since 1979, you have seen phony assumptions, 
smoke and mirrors, shell games, or whatever the words are that we use. 
But let me say, so that no one is confused, that in Republican and 
Democrat administrations I have seen people make assumptions that were 
wildly unrealistic about the future, about what inflation was going to 
be, about what interest rates were going to be, about what economic 
growth was going to be, about what spending was going to be; but those 
were always assumptions about what was going to happen in the future 
where at least people could say, well, it may be based more on hope 
than reality, but it could happen.
  What the Clinton administration has done is they have brought 
phoniness, distortion and untruth into the budget at a level which has 
never existed in the American budget in the history of this country. 
And no better example exists than under Social Security.
  I think I can explain it to you very simply. Here are the facts. In 
the year 2000, the first year of this budget, we projected a $131 
billion surplus in the unified Federal budget. If you take every penny 
we get from every source, and you take every penny we spend on every 
program or giveaway, or lose, or forget about, and you bring those two 
together, we are taking in $131 billion more than we are spending. Now, 
Social Security is taking in $138 billion more than it is spending. So 
while we show that we have a $131 billion surplus, the reality is that 
if you don't count the Social Security trust fund, we are actually 
spending $7 billion more than we take in.
  So let me show it to you this way. We are taking in $138 billion more 
than we are spending on Social Security alone. We are then spending $7 
billion of that money from Social Security on general government. Now, 
that would leave you with $131 billion of money for Social Security.
  What the administration does is it sends to West Virginia this piece 
of paper that actually prints out on a computer, and it says, ``IOU 
Social Security $138 billion.'' So they get this piece of paper, they 
tear it off--and it has actually been on television, and they won't let 
you photograph the bonds, interestingly--they tear off the perforated 
edges and they take that $138 billion IOU and put it in the filing 
cabinet.
  Now, what happens is, we then spend $7 billion of it immediately, and 
that brings us down to $131 billion. Now, the President says, well, 
let's take 62 percent of that and give it back to Social Security and 
we will spend 38 percent of it. So we started with $138 billion, we 
spent $7 billion, and then the President says let's spend 38 percent of 
what is left and then we will send another IOU to Social Security for 
$81 billion. So out of the $138 billion that they initially had, they 
send IOUs to Social Security for $219 billion. Now, they started with 
$138 billion and then they spent $7 billion, and then of that $131 
billion that was left, they spent another $50 billion, and then they 
give Social Security an IOU for $219 billion.
  Now, any freshman accounting student in any accounting class in 
America would be given an ``F'' if they proposed on an examination 
paper such an accounting system. Yet, some of the most highly educated 
people in America--men and women of great stature--stand up in front of 
God, a television camera, and everybody else in the world and defend 
this totally phony, fraudulent, embarrassing proposal. I guess we all 
have our own standards, but I would not do it. I don't admire people 
who do it. I think it does a terrible injustice and disservice to the 
American public that this is happening.
  I wanted to show this graph to sort of bring the whole thing 
together. What I have here is plotted between the years 2000 and 2009, 
the years where this budget is in effect, the Social Security surplus. 
It starts out at $138 billion and it grows over the period to over $200 
billion a year. That is the amount of money that Senator Domenici locks 
away in his lockbox. Now, in addition to the Social Security surplus, 
because the economy is growing so quickly and because we are 
controlling spending, if we actually do it, we will get an additional 
surplus in the rest of the Government in this area that I call ``B'' on 
this chart.
  Interestingly enough, what the President does is, he says let's take 
38 percent of this unified budget, Social Security plus non-Social 
Security budget, and let's spend it and then give the rest to Social 
Security on top of the Social Security surplus that we have already 
measured. So that is how they start out with the Social Security 
surplus and then end up with these huge IOUs that they claim they are 
giving to Social Security. It is interesting because if you look at the 
President's plan--and this chart is from the Social Security 
Administration--if you look at their plan, they claim that under their 
plan they are building up the assets of Social Security from $864.4 
billion to $6,697.8 trillion. Yet, when you look at the Office of 
Management and Budget figures--and all this is put out by the same 
administration--when you look at their actual level of paying down the 
debt, that level turns out to be only $2,183.6 trillion. So the 
question is, What happened to the $3.6 billion? What happened to it?
  The President says that under his system, with all this double 
counting of money, he was putting $5.8 trillion into Social Security; 
yet, his budget shows only $2.163 trillion actually saved for Social 
Security. What happened? Well, what happened is that none of this money 
ever went to Social Security to begin with. It was all a paper, double-
counting bookkeeping. Their own numbers show it. Yet, nobody is 
embarrassed enough about it to simply say, well, this is phony and we 
apologize and we should have never tried to perpetrate this fraud on 
the American people.
  Now, I think we can be proud of the fact that in this budget every 
penny of the Social Security surplus is locked away to be used for 
Social Security. And when we decide how to save Social Security--and I 
wish we could decide today; maybe we will tomorrow--those funds will be 
there for that purpose. I think that is very important and I want to 
congratulate Senator Domenici for his leadership on this issue. I want 
to address two other issues and I will speed it up if anybody else 
comes over and wants to speak. If not, I will give a fairly detailed 
description of both.
  The next issue is tax cuts. The budget before us simply says that 
every penny of the Social Security surplus will be there for Social 
Security; that of the surplus that is left, we keep a reserve of money 
that is available for a contingency use which could be used for one of 
many purposes, and then after we set aside that contingency, we provide 
the rest of the money for tax cuts for working Americans. After all, 
the surplus we have is due to the fact that Americans are working 
harder, working smarter, working in a more productive way, earning more 
and paying more taxes.
  There have been several proposals to cut taxes. None of them are 
endorsed in this budget. This budget simply gives to the Finance 
Committee the ability to cut taxes. And there have been a lot of 
proposals discussed. But the one that especially our Democrat 
colleagues have talked the most about is

[[Page 6651]]

a proposal to cut taxes across the board. This has given rise to a 
debate in which I love to engage. Obviously, my Democrat colleagues 
love to engage in it as well. This is the debate that basically takes 
the view, as our Democrat colleagues often do, that investment is a 
good thing but investors are somehow bad people; that wealth is a 
wonderful thing but people who create it, that somehow there is 
something wrong with them, or that there is something wrong with 
letting them keep part of it. I don't understand how you can love 
investment and not love investors.
  I view people who are successful as being public benefactors. I never 
got a job being hired by somebody who made less money than I did. 
Everybody who ever hired me was richer than I was, which is why they 
were hiring me rather than me hiring them. And I never resented the 
fact that people had gotten rich by working in America. But here is 
what you are going to hear all day today, and here is what you are 
going to hear as we debate the tax cut.
  We have a very, very progressive tax system in America. 
``Progressive'' is really a phony word. It is a made-up word that is 
meant to really cloud the issue so you don't really understand. Under 
our system, if you make more money, you not only pay more taxes 
proportionately, but the rate of taxes goes up. So that as you make 
more money, your taxes don't go up proportionately but they go up 
exponentially.
  Our system of taxes is so progressive that roughly 50 percent of 
Americans pay virtually no income taxes. And they pay no income taxes 
because there are many provisions which were adopted when Ronald Reagan 
was President in terms of changing the Tax Code. We were able to make 
some changes with the child tax credit and in our tax cut of 2 years 
ago that further exempted income from taxes. But the bottom line is 
that about 95 percent of income taxes are paid for by people who are in 
the upper half of the income distribution in the country.
  What our Democrat colleagues have discovered is that we do have a 
progressive income tax. So that if I pay $5,000 of income taxes, and 
someone else pays $50,000 of income taxes, and we give a 10-percent tax 
cut, I get $500 as a tax cut and they get $5,000 as a tax cut. And our 
Democrat colleagues think that is somehow outrageous.
  But the point is, the only way you are getting more of a tax cut is 
if you are paying more taxes. So that what they are really talking 
about is that the system is progressive.
  Should it be progressive? You know there are many people who believe 
we ought to have a flat tax and that everybody ought to pay the same 
rate. But the point is, if we are going to cut taxes and Senator 
Rockefeller pays 10 times as much in taxes as I do, or 100 times as 
much in taxes as I do--I don't know, and I hope he pays 100 times as 
much because then he is better off and so is America. But, whatever it 
is, the fact that he would get a bigger tax cut than I do from an 
across-the-board tax cut is the most reasonable thing on Earth to me if 
he is, in fact, paying more taxes than I am paying.
  I believe our No. 1 priority in cutting taxes is we ought to cut 
everybody's taxes by 10 percent. So, if you do not pay any taxes, you 
should have learned in the third grade--since I repeated the third 
grade I remember it--that anything times zero is zero. So with a 10-
percent tax cut, if you are not paying any taxes, you don't get a tax 
cut. You are going to hear our colleagues say, well, 50 percent, or 40 
percent, or whatever the number is they choose or make up today, people 
will get no tax cut under a 10-percent tax cut. The only person in 
America who will get no cut in income taxes from a 10-percent tax cut 
by definition is a person who pays no income taxes.
  Here is my point. Most Americans don't get Medicaid. Most Americans 
don't get food stamps. Most Americans don't get welfare. Why don't they 
get those things? They don't get those things because they are not 
poor. Tax cuts are for working people. Welfare is for poor people. 
Medicaid is for poor people who are sick. Medicare is for elderly 
people for their health care. We have many different programs that do 
not go to everybody. We have very few programs in America that 
everybody benefits from directly.
  The point is, if not everybody gets welfare, why should we be shocked 
that if you do not pay income taxes, that when we cut income tax rates 
you don't get a tax cut? I don't find that to be shocking. I don't have 
any trouble saying to somebody in my State who says, ``You cut income 
tax rates by 10 percent and I didn't get a tax cut.'' I know, because I 
understand arithmetic, that they are not paying any income taxes 
anyway. So I don't have any problem saying, ``Yes. That is right,'' 
because tax cuts are for one unique group of Americans, ``wagon 
pullers,'' I call them--the people who are pulling the wagon in which 
so many other Americans are riding; the people who are paying for the 
Medicaid they don't get, for the welfare benefits they don't get, for 
the food stamps they don't get. Tax cuts are for the people who are 
pulling the wagon in which all other beneficiaries of Government are 
riding.
  So I don't feel the least bit squeamish about saying that tax cuts 
are for taxpayers. If you do not pay income taxes, you don't deserve a 
cut in income taxes, because you are not paying any.
  We have a surplus because Americans are working harder and paying 
more taxes. In fact, they are doing it today, tax day. I want everybody 
who is going to the post office today to send their taxes to the 
government--if you happen to be on mountain time, or if you are on 
Pacific time and you have nothing better to do than to turn on C-SPAN--
I want you to remember this when you pay your taxes: I want you to 
remember, you didn't get food stamps, you didn't get welfare, you 
didn't get Medicaid, but I believe--and the party I am a member of, the 
Republican Party believes--that you ought to get a tax cut. Our 
Democrat colleagues are going to say--you are going to hear it, so pay 
close attention. They are going to say, yes, you get a tax cut. You--
this person working in Los Angeles, CA, on your way to mail your check 
in right now--you get a tax cut.
  Think of these people that don't get a tax cut. How is it fair that 
Joe Brown and Susie Brown, who make $21,000 a year, pay no income 
taxes, and get an earned-income tax credit--which is really a welfare 
benefit--why is it they don't get a tax cut when you do? The answer is, 
they don't pay any income taxes and you do.
  We have this basic viewpoint which our Democrat colleagues find to be 
radical. That point is, if you don't pay income taxes, you don't get a 
tax cut; if you do pay income taxes, you do get a tax cut. The more 
taxes you pay--and God bless you for doing it, because if people are 
paying record taxes it means they are earning record incomes--I 
believe, and the great majority of the Republicans in Congress believe, 
if you pay more taxes, you ought to get a bigger tax cut. That is what 
an across-the-board, 10-percent tax cut would do.
  A final point: This used to be a bipartisan idea. John Kennedy 
proposed an across-the-board tax cut in 1961 which was adopted and 
became law. His famous words are, ``A rising tide lifts all boats.'' 
That is still believed by one-half of the political spectrum in 
America. It is no longer believed by the other half--and that is the 
half that he was once a part of.
  To conclude, let me talk a little bit about Medicare. There is no 
more fraudulent portion of the President's budget than the proposal 
about Medicare. Let me give Members a tiny bit of history. We, through 
an act of Congress, signed by the President, set up a Medicare 
Commission. In a gesture toward bipartisanship, Republicans--who 
control both Houses of Congress--agreed to appoint a Democrat, Senator 
Breaux, as chairman of that Commission. Senator Breaux did a great job 
as chairman of the Medicare Commission. It was my privilege to serve on 
that Commission. I remember as if it were yesterday President Clinton 
called the whole Commission down to the White House and talked to us 
about the terrible problems we had in Medicare and challenged each of 
us not to let the work of the Commission fail because of us. He 
challenged each of us to find a way to be for the final proposal.

[[Page 6652]]

  As it turned out, as most people now know, the final work of the 
Commission did fail. It failed by one vote. Not one single person 
appointed by President Clinton found a way to be for the final 
proposal, and they all voted against the Commission proposal. The 
President, in 3 months, had an opportunity to change American history 
on Social Security and Medicare, and in both cases he failed.
  What did the President do in his budget? What the President did in 
his budget is literally this: He said we are going to pay off debt--
though not as much as the Domenici budget--but we are going to name the 
debt reduction in honor of various programs. That is in essence what it 
was. In essence, what the President's budget does is send a little note 
to Medicare that says: You will be happy to know that Federal debt was 
reduced by such and such an amount and it was done in your name. It 
would be sort of like our Presiding Officer having someone send a check 
to his university saying, ``We made a contribution in your name,'' and 
then you say, ``When do I get the money?'' You don't ever get the 
money.
  What the President did in Medicare--which was one of the cruelest 
hoaxes I can imagine in public policy--the President didn't give 
Medicare a penny over 10 years, provided no additional money to 
Medicare. In fact, he cut Medicare, cuts that are not in the budget 
before the Senate. So he cuts Medicare funding over 10 years, and yet 
by sending this IOU to HCFA, the agency that runs Medicare, he somehow 
creates the impression that he has given Medicare more money, when none 
of this IOU can be spent. In fact, the only way we could ever provide 
money under this is to raise taxes, to cut Medicare or cut other 
Government programs. Yet the President creates this impression that he 
has provided this money that could be used for pharmaceutical benefits 
or all these other wonderful benefits. It is a cruel hoax.
  What we do in our budget is set out a procedure where this reserve 
fund, this reserve money that we didn't use for tax cuts that we kept 
as a buffer could, in part, be used for Medicare. Our problem in 
Medicare is we need to adopt the Breaux Commission report. We had a 
vote on instructing conferees for us to preserve our commitment to 
that. It is in this budget. We are going to bring that proposal to the 
Finance Committee. I hope we are going to adopt it.
  What that proposal will do, in addition to planting the seeds to save 
Medicare, for moderate- and low-income retirees it will, for the first 
time, give them assistance on pharmaceuticals. For middle-income 
retirees and upper-income retirees, by expanding the options that are 
available, by literally letting them have the same health insurance 
that I have as a Member of the Senate, it will allow them for the first 
time to have an opportunity to buy into a plan that will give them some 
assistance with their pharmaceuticals.
  I have talked a long time and covered a lot of subjects. Let me 
conclude by simply congratulating Senator Domenici. This is a great 
budget. If we can enforce this budget, America will be richer, freer, 
and happier. If we can enforce this budget, we will have an opportunity 
to begin the long process of rebuilding the financial base of Social 
Security based on wealth and not debt. If we can enforce this budget, 
we will pay off Government debt. If we can enforce this budget, we will 
be able to give working Americans tax cuts.
  It is one thing to enter the marriage; it is another thing to make it 
a successful one. This is a very important day, a very important 
budget. I am very proud to be for it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I just came to the floor to hear my 
distinguished colleague from Texas say this is the finest budget in 20 
years.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this is the same act, same scene, under 
different auspices, different rules and regulations, with the manifest 
intent, in this particular Senator's opinion, that what is on course 
here is a Milton Friedman-like plan of the distinguished Senator from 
Texas to privatize Social Security, to establish private savings 
accounts. The Republicans do this in violation of all the rules and 
regulations that you can think of that have been put in over the past 
several years to bring about fiscal discipline.
  Let's get right to the point: We, up until now, have been on course 
with some fiscal discipline. Credit President Clinton and the 1993 
Congress that enacted the Balanced Budget Act, which cut spending, 
increased taxes, increased taxes on Social Security--the very measure 
that they said was going to end the world and throw us into a 
depression whereby even the distinguished chairman on the House Budget 
Committee said he would change parties. I don't know whether he is 
running today for President as a Democrat or Republican, but to my 
knowledge Mr. Kasich is still a Republican. He said he would change 
parties if it worked. It is working. The market is over 10,000, we have 
housing starts and inflation is down, unemployment is down, and 
everything else of that kind.
  When they reported this budget, trying to continue the fiscal 
discipline, here is the language:

       In addition to the fiscal policies contained in the budget 
     resolution, I also am troubled by the process the Republican 
     majority wants to use in this year's budget. The 
     reconciliation process have been used sparingly in the past 
     to improve the fiscal health of the budget. It was created to 
     give the Senate a process for making difficult fiscal 
     decisions--decisions that often require cutting popular 
     programs and increasing taxes to balance the budget.
       That is not the case this year. The Republicans want to use 
     the reconciliation process to dramatically reduce revenues 
     over the next ten years and impair the progress we have made 
     so far in reducing the deficit and beginning to pay down the 
     debt.
       The budget resolution also would modify the pay-go point of 
     order. Pay-go was required to insure the Senate would provide 
     off-sets to reduce taxes or increase spending. The modified 
     budget resolution now will make it possible to cut taxes 
     without a fiscal off-set. By making it easier to use future 
     surpluses to cut taxes instead of paying down the debt, this 
     will eliminate the fiscal discipline that has reduced the 
     deficit and contribute to the fiscal cancer eating away at 
     America.

  I say cancer, and I say that advisedly, because when President 
Johnson last balanced the budget, the interest cost on the national 
debt was only $16 billion. Today it is just about $1 billion a day. The 
last estimate of the Congressional Budget Office was $357 billion each 
year. When President Johnson last balanced the budget, after 200 years 
of history--the cost of all the wars from the Revolution on up, World 
War I, World War II, the cost of Vietnam, Korea--the interest cost on 
the national debt was only $16 billion. Now, since that time, without 
the cost of a war--we made money on Desert Storm--so, without the cost 
of a war it is now $1 billion a day, eating away. With that wasted 
money, the interest cost on the debt, I could give the distinguished 
Presiding Officer his $80 billion tax cut, I could give our Democratic 
friends our $80 billion in increased spending, I could give $80 billion 
to save Social Security, I could give $80 billion to pay down the 
debt--that is only $320 billion. But we are going to spend at least 
$357 billion this year on nothing, and if interest costs start going 
back up we will be to $500 billion.
  But, to the original point, read this conference report. Here are the 
shenanigans that go along and are given dignity by my distinguished 
colleague from Texas saying it is the finest budget he's seen. I was 
sorry to see him do that because I joined him in passing Gramm-Rudman-
Hollings for fiscal discipline, and this is the most undisciplined 
shenanigan that you will ever find.
  On page 18, section 202 of the conference report:

       Whenever the Committee on Ways and Means of the House or 
     the Committee on Finance of the Senate reports a bill, or an 
     amendment thereto is offered, or a conference report thereon 
     is submitted that enhances retirement security through 
     structural programmatic reform, the appropriate

[[Page 6653]]

     chairman of the Committee on the Budget may--
       (1) increase the appropriate allocations and aggregates of 
     new budget authority and outlays by the amount of new budget 
     authority provided by such measure (and outlays flowing 
     therefrom) for that purpose;
       (2) in the Senate, adjust the levels used for determining 
     compliance with the pay-as-you-go requirements of section 
     207; and
       (3) reduce the revenue aggregates by the amount of the 
     revenue loss resulting from that measure for that purpose.

  I want the Parliamentarian to listen to that one. I can tell you how 
he will rule. He will say it means whatever Mr. Domenici says it means. 
What does that gobbledygook mean? Listen to this. I will read it again:

       Whenever the Committee on Ways and Means of the House or 
     the Committee on Finance of the Senate reports a bill or an 
     amendment thereto is offered, or a conference report thereon 
     is submitted that enhances retirement security through 
     structural programmatic reform, the appropriate chairman of 
     the Committee on the Budget may [blah blah blah blah].

  He can do away with the pay-go rule, he can cut the revenues, he can 
do whatever he pleases. And that is what my distinguished colleague 
from Texas calls the finest budget he has seen, because he doesn't want 
this crowd to read and understand what is going on.
  Bring out the Roth IRA for the rich. Under this budget, pass a law, 
don't care about the rules, don't care about pay-go, don't care about 
any available monies. I say that IRA is for the rich because one 
American--to bring it into focus, Bill Gates, $51 billion--is worth 
more than 100 million Americans. One man in this society that we are 
developing is now worth more than 100 million Americans.
  So there are a lot of people who do not have anything to say about 
this. But you sort of enhance your security and retirement--for the 
idle rich. Whoopee and the dickens with the pay-go rule, Mr. 
Parliamentarian. You don't have to worry about that. You don't have to 
worry about the loss of revenue or anything like that, the 
reconciliation process. It is reserved. Now the Republicans can come on 
in and privatize Social Security, all under the auspices of saving 
Social Security.
  It is still off on this public debt, as if there is some difference 
from the national debt. Let me explain one more time. When you pay down 
your public debt, you increase your Social Security debt. That is where 
the money comes from. The whole gimmick here is to pay down Wall 
Street's credit card with the Social Security credit card. It is like 
having a Visa and a Master and you want to pay down the MasterCard with 
your Visa card, so you pay down the MasterCard with the Visa card. But 
it is still your card; it is your debt. All you've done is shift debt 
from spending column to another. That is why the debt this particular 
fiscal year, 1999, goes up $100 billion. That is the Congressional 
Budget Office figure.
  Let's sober up here. Everybody is running around saying, ``Surplus, 
surplus.'' How are we going to do it? They all have different ideas: 
``Surplus, surplus.'' The truth of the matter is there is no surplus. 
There is a deficit. We are spending $100 billion more than we are 
taking in.
  I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from South 
Carolina. This country could have avoided an awful lot of the pain of 
the 1980s and 1990s if this country had listened to the Senator from 
South Carolina on budget matters. There has been no Member of this body 
who has had a better handle on the budget problems of this country than 
the Senator from South Carolina. Years ago, if we would have followed 
the Hollings plan and put in place a budget freeze, we could have 
avoided the massive deficits that came in the 1980s and the early 
1990s, and this country would have been in a far better fiscal 
position.
  He has been an activist and a leader on the Budget Committee of every 
effort to provide fiscal discipline to this country. I venture to say, 
in this Chamber there is no single Member who has made a greater 
contribution moving this country from massive deficits to now surpluses 
than the Senator from South Carolina. Senator Hollings has been, I 
think, a model of what a United States Senator should be, in terms of 
budget discipline for this country. This country owes him a debt of 
thanks for the leadership he has provided.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. If the distinguished Senator will yield, he has been 
far too generous. Our floor leader, Senator Conrad of North Dakota, has 
really been leading the fight for us in the Budget Committee. That is 
why we are able to get some semblance of some discipline there. I hope, 
with the conference--maybe I could ask the Senator a question. Did they 
have a conference? Did the distinguished Senator from North Dakota go 
to a conference on the budget?
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes. I was on the conference committee. It went to the 
conference.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Oh, they had one.
  Mr. CONRAD. They had one, but they did not have a budget there. It is 
most amazing. As my colleague knows, a conference is the 
representatives of the Senate and the representatives of the House 
coming together to work out the differences between the two. We were 
there, the Members were there.
  I think you would have been quite amazed, I say to the Senator from 
South Carolina, because there was no budget there, there was no 
document there. There was no discussion about the differences between 
the House and Senate. What we had was an immaculate conception. What we 
had was a document that appeared out of nowhere after we had met.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. As one big charade, rather than save Social Security, 
they plan to privatize it. There is no question in this Senator's mind.
  Mr. CONRAD. To privatize it or raid it in some other way. We really 
do not know. I was very interested to listen to the Senator from Texas 
say--say--that they had reserved every penny of Social Security surplus 
for Social Security. That is what we said.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is what he said.
  Mr. CONRAD. Unfortunately, that is not what the budget document 
provides. It is very interesting; the Senator from South Carolina 
probably knows better than anybody how one can play games with these 
documents. It is fascinating what they have done here, because on one 
line, they suggest that they have provided a lockbox for Social 
Security. That is on one line on page 16 and it runs on to page 17. But 
then on the bottom of page 17, in the next section, they gut what they 
did earlier on the page. This is the oldest budget game in the book: 
``Now you see it, now you don't.''
  Mr. HOLLINGS. It is an old insurance game. I remember that when I was 
Governor, we were trying to clean up the insurance industry in my 
State. A new company was looking for a slogan, and we finally came up 
with the winning slogan: ``Capital Life will surely pay, if the small 
print on the back don't take it away.''
  Now we have it all the way up here 35 years later in the budgetary 
process of the U.S. Government.
  Mr. CONRAD. I wish it were not the case but, unfortunately, it is. We 
had, I think, hoped--certainly the Senator from South Carolina and I--
that we would be at a point where we really would reserve every penny 
of Social Security surplus for Social Security. We thought that is 
where we were headed. Unfortunately, what our friends across the aisle 
have done is indicate that that is what they are doing, but that is not 
what the budget document says. No, no, no, they have changed it all, 
and they have made it possible to continue the raid on the Social 
Security trust fund on a simple majority vote which, of course, their 
lockbox was intended to protect against.
  Unfortunately, what they say they have done and what they have done 
are two very, very different things.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. They gave the key for the lockbox to everybody save the 
Social Security recipients.
  Mr. CONRAD. Social Security is clearly in danger. Clearly, the 
priority on the other side is a tax cut, a massive tax cut at all 
costs. That is their priority.

[[Page 6654]]

  Looking at this budget, the budget that is before us, the major 
problem with it is that it does not represent the priorities of the 
American people. I think the best way to understand this is we now have 
projected a surplus over the next 10 years of $2.6 trillion. Our 
friends on the other side say all of the non-Social Security surplus--
virtually all of it--ought to go for a tax cut. Nothing, not a dime out 
of that surplus is for Medicare--not a dime--even though it is in 
greater danger than Social Security. They do not have the resources 
available for the high-priority domestic concerns of education, health 
care, defense, because if you look over time, they are going to have 
massive cuts in those categories. They are disguised, they are hidden, 
but they are there.
  Mr. President, I think perhaps it would be useful to recount a little 
bit of the budget history, how we got to where we are today and where 
we are headed.
  This chart shows over the last 30 years the budget history of the 
United States at the Federal Government level. We can see the last time 
we had a surplus was back in 1969, a little bitty surplus of $3 
billion. We bumped along. Then we got into the seventies and the 
deficits started rising. Then we got into the Reagan years and the 
deficits exploded.
  We then had the Bush years and the deficits got even worse, so that 
on a unified basis--unified basis simply means all spending, all 
revenue put in one pot; that is a so-called unified budget--and on a 
unified basis in 1992, the last year of the Bush administration, we had 
a $290 billion deficit.
  In 1993, President Clinton put before the Congress a 5-year plan to 
reduce the deficit. We passed that plan. It was done with all votes on 
this side of the aisle. Not a single Republican voted for that plan. 
Not one. That plan has reduced the deficit each and every year of the 5 
years of the plan. In fact, now we are seeing a slight surplus.
  What did that plan contain? It cut spending. It cut spending and it 
raised income taxes on the wealthiest 1 percent in this country. The 
Senator from Texas who was talking earlier opposed that plan. He said, 
as did many on that side of the aisle, that it would not work. In fact, 
they said it would increase the deficit. They said it would increase 
unemployment. They said it would increase inflation. They said it would 
be an economic disaster. They were wrong. They were not just a little 
bit wrong, they were completely wrong.
  The fact is that plan worked and worked extremely well, and the proof 
is in the pudding. We can see what happened to the deficit after that 
plan passed in 1993. Each and every year the deficit came down. In this 
last year, we ran on a unified basis a $70 billion surplus, and we are 
headed for much larger surpluses if the projections come true.
  On a unified basis, we ran a surplus last year. But remember, that 
counts all revenues and all expenditures. If we take out Social 
Security, because that is a separate trust fund, we will see we still 
ran a deficit last year of $29 billion--if we take out Social 
Security--because it was in surplus by about $100 billion.
  The good news is, we are very close to balancing without counting 
Social Security this year, and in 2001, we anticipate we will balance 
without counting Social Security. That is an enormous, enormous 
development and enormous progress.
  You can see back in 1992, if we were not counting Social Security, we 
had a $340 billion deficit. That is the kind of progress that has been 
made, and it has been made because, as I indicated, we had a 1993 5-
year plan that cut spending, raised taxes on the wealthiest 1 percent, 
raised income taxes on the wealthiest 1 percent, and in 1997, we had a 
bipartisan deal. In that case, we came together and agreed on a budget 
plan to finish the job of balancing the budget.
  This chart shows what the 1993 plan did and what the 1997 plan did. 
You can see most of the savings are the result of the 1993 package. 
Again, our friends on the other side of the aisle--all of them, to a 
person--voted against it. The bipartisan agreement was 1997, but most 
of the work has been done by the 1993 5-year plan and that, in 
combination with the 1997 plan, has put us in this very favorable 
circumstance we face now.
  I thought just for the record we should look back on what the 
deficits were under each of the last three Presidents.
  With President Reagan, from 1981 through 1988, we saw the deficits 
explode.
  They went from $80 billion a year--that is the deficit he inherited--
and very quickly he shot it up to $200 billion. Then we, at the end of 
his term, saw some improvement--back down to about $150 billion.
  When President Bush came in, the deficits exploded again, and went 
from $150 billion, as I indicated, up to $290 billion a year by 1992.
  Under President Clinton, as I indicated, in 1993 we passed a 5-year 
plan; and we can just look at the results. In 1993, the deficit was 
$255 billion. And you can see each and every year thereafter the 
deficit went down under that 5-year plan. We almost achieved unified 
balance under that 5-year plan.
  So the proof is in the pudding. Our friends on the other side of the 
aisle talk about ``sham'' and ``hoaxes,'' and all the rest of it. The 
proof is in the pudding. My friends, Democrats passed a plan in 1993, 
without a single Republican vote. Democrats did the heavy lifting to 
get this country back on a fiscally responsible course. Facts are 
stubborn things. And the facts show, without question, that the 
Democrats passed a plan that, in fact, restored fiscal health to this 
country.
  It is true in 1997 we did get together on a bipartisan basis to 
finish the job. I wish it could have been bipartisan in 1993. But our 
friends on the other side of the aisle said then that if you pass this 
plan, you are going to make the deficit worse. They said if you raise 
taxes, even if it is on just the wealthiest 1 percent, that is going to 
collapse the economy.
  They were wrong. Their economic prescription for this country was 
wrong. And the facts clearly show that they were wrong. Thank goodness 
there were people who were willing to stand up and cast very tough 
votes to cut spending and, yes, to raise taxes on the wealthiest 1 
percent so we could get this country back on course. It worked; and it 
worked splendidly. The results are dramatic. Not only have we reduced 
the red ink and eliminated it--no more running of deficits--but we also 
got remarkable economic results.
  We now have an unemployment rate that is the lowest in 41 years. The 
other side said, when we passed the 5-year plan in 1993, if you pass 
it, unemployment is going to go up. Unemployment went down. 
Unemployment went way down, the lowest it has been in 41 years.
  The other side said, the inflation rate, if you pass this plan, will 
go up. They were wrong. The inflation rate has gone down. We have the 
lowest rate of inflation in 33 years.
  But the good news does not end there.
  In addition, we passed welfare reform. In fairness and in truth, that 
was done on a bipartisan basis. We came together on welfare reform. And 
the result, coupled with the good economy that came from the 1993 
budget plan, that coupled with welfare reform, has led us to the lowest 
percentage of our people on welfare in 29 years. Look at this dramatic 
improvement in terms of the percentage on welfare in this country.
  As well, Federal spending has come down because, as I indicated, in 
1993, part of that package was to cut the growth of spending in this 
country. And we did even more in the 1997 bipartisan plan. So the two 
together, the 1993 plan and the 1997 plan, have brought down Federal 
spending as a percentage of our national income to its lowest level 
since 1974. So now we are spending, as a percentage of our national 
income, the lowest level in 25 years of the Federal Government.
  Because we have reduced deficits and gotten our fiscal house back in 
order, debt held by the public has also declined. We reached a debt, in 
relationship to our gross domestic product, of

[[Page 6655]]

 50 percent in 1993. We saw, through the Reagan and Bush years, that 
the debt was climbing in relationship to the size of our gross domestic 
product. In 1993, when we passed that plan, we stopped the growth of 
the debt in relationship to the size of our income and reversed it. So 
now we have seen the debt come down to a level of 44 percent of our 
gross domestic product. And we anticipate, if we stay the course that 
we are currently on, we will get the debt down to only 9 percent of our 
gross domestic product in 2009.
  The budget before us threatens that course. Because the colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle are so fixated on a massive tax-cut scheme, 
they would rather do that than to make this progress in reducing our 
national debt. I think that is precisely wrong. I think what we did in 
1993 demonstrates that taking debt burden down gives a greater lift to 
this economy than any tax-cut scheme that anybody can come up with. 
That is not to say we should not have tax reduction, because we should.
  The question is one of priorities and proportion. Our friends on the 
other side of the aisle say--we have $2.6 trillion of surpluses 
projected over the next 10 years--there are only two priorities. Their 
two priorities are to safeguard $1.8 trillion of that for so-called 
``retirement security''--I don't know exactly what that means. That 
entire $1.8 trillion is generated by Social Security. It should be set 
aside for Social Security. That is the plan we Democrats offered in the 
Budget Committee. We offered to safeguard every penny of Social 
Security surplus for Social Security. That is $1.8 trillion.
  In addition, we said we also ought to put about $400 billion aside 
for Medicare. The budget that is before us does not provide one penny 
of these projected surpluses for Medicare --not one penny. These are 
not the priorities of the American people.
  Instead, our Republican colleagues say all the non-Social Security 
surplus, or virtually all of it--because you have about $800 billion of 
non-Social Security surplus over the next 10 years--they say, use 
virtually all of it for a tax-cut scheme. And the best description we 
have of what they do with it is a 10-percent, across-the-board tax cut. 
That is what the chairman of the Finance Committee has said he thinks 
should be done. That is what their leadership in the House have said 
they think should be done.
  We have a different view of what the priorities for the American 
people are. For that $2.6 trillion, we say every penny that comes from 
the Social Security surplus ought to be reserved for Social Security. 
Interestingly enough, that is what was passed here in the Senate. But 
it went to the conference committee, and somewhere in the dead of night 
they backed away from that commitment; they backed away from that 
commitment and they came up with this very clever, very complicated 
little scheme. And this very complicated and very clever scheme says, 
on one page, yes, we are going to devote the Social Security surpluses 
to Social Security, but in the very next line they undermine it all--
they undermine it all--they create a big loophole so that on a simple 
majority vote here the Social Security fund can be raided, can be 
looted, just like it has been done for the last 15 years. That is 
wrong. That is not the priority of the American people.
  The American people want to preserve every penny of Social Security 
surplus for Social Security. That is what the Democrats offered in the 
Senate Budget Committee. In addition to that, we said the next $400 
billion of surplus ought to be reserved to strengthen and protect 
Medicare. Our friends on the other side have not provided one penny of 
the projected surpluses to strengthen Medicare. Instead, they say, 
let's have this massive tax cut scheme to benefit primarily the richest 
and wealthiest among us.
  Now, the Senator from Texas says, you cannot love investment and not 
love the investor. That is true. I think we all respect those who 
invest. We respect those who save. We respect those who are successful. 
The question is, how do we use Government policy? Who do we benefit 
when we make decisions? Do we use governmental power to benefit the 
wealthiest among us? Is that what we do?
  That is not what I favor. As I said, I believe the first priority 
ought to be every penny of Social Security surplus for Social Security; 
that is, $1.8 trillion of the $2.6 trillion we now estimate will be in 
surplus over the next 10 years. But the next $400 billion we say ought 
to be used to strengthen and protect Medicare. That leaves another $400 
billion that would be available for high-priority domestic needs under 
our plan, like education, like health care, and, yes, defense and tax 
relief for the American people.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle have a different view. 
They say, yes, reserve the $1.8 trillion, but not just for Social 
Security, no, not just for Social Security. They call it ``retirement 
security.'' If they want to reserve every penny for Social Security, 
why don't they say Social Security? Why have they come up with this new 
term ``retirement security''? I think most of us know why they have 
done that--because the Senator from Texas has a scheme to privatize 
part of Social Security, and he wants the money reserved for his plan. 
He doesn't want to say reserve every penny of Social Security surplus 
for Social Security. Instead, he wants to make people believe he is 
going to do that, but then he provides a big loophole so that later on 
this year he can come along and raid the Social Security trust fund for 
his plan to create private accounts. That is what is really going on 
here.
  None of us is fooled. They do not provide anything, not a penny of 
these projected surpluses, to strengthen and protect Medicare, when we 
know Medicare is in the most imminent danger of being insolvent. We say 
the priority ought to be Social Security and ought to be Medicare and, 
after that, we also ought to have some money for high-priority domestic 
needs like education and health care, and, yes, tax relief. But it is a 
matter of priority, and our friends on the other side of the aisle say 
the priority ought to be a massive tax cut.
  This is the comparison for what happens. Let me focus on the 10 
years. The blue column represents what the Republicans would do to pay 
down debt, and the red column shows what we offered as Democrats in the 
Budget Committee to pay down debt. A lot of people might be as 
surprised by this, because the Democratic plan paid down more debt than 
the Republican plan. We paid down more debt over the next 10 years, by 
nearly $400 billion over and above what is in the Republican plan, 
because we believe that is a key priority for the country.
  Again, our Republican friends think there is a different priority. 
They want to have this massive tax cut scheme. That is really what is 
most on their mind. Unfortunately, because of this, they do not have, 
as I have indicated before, one penny of the surpluses set aside to 
strengthen Medicare, not a dime. They have what I call ``the Republican 
broken safe.'' Here it is. You look in it and what do you find? There 
is nothing there.
  Now, with what they have done in the conference committee, we ought 
to have this up for Social Security, too, because, goodness knows, we 
could find, after the clever game they have played here in this budget 
document, that we may go into the Social Security trust fund in the 
future and open the vault door and find there is nothing there, either. 
Because they have this set up so that they can raid every penny of the 
Social Security trust fund surplus and put it over into private 
accounts. They could do that. They could use it for a tax cut and call 
it retirement security. Who knows what that means, ``retirement 
security''? If they wanted to reserve the money for Social Security, 
why didn't they say it?
  Well, I guess if we wanted to be fair to them, they do say it, don't 
they? On one line they say they are going to reserve the money for 
Social Security, but they say, by a simple majority vote, you can 
overturn that. Before it was a supermajority vote. Now in the dead of 
night they changed it, simple majority vote, and now you can loot 
Social Security. You can raid it, because in the very next line, 
section 202,

[[Page 6656]]

they created another reserve fund. It is clever.
  I don't think it is going to work for them, because the American 
people are too smart. They know the kind of games that get played here 
in Washington.
  This is one of the most cynical games I have seen yet. In the Budget 
Committee, when we vote and the people are there watching and the 
reporters are there watching, we vote to protect every penny of Social 
Security surplus for Social Security. That is the vote when everybody 
raised their hands in the Budget Committee. Maybe that is the reason, 
when we held the conference committee meeting between the House and the 
Senate, the Members were there, but there was no budget there. How can 
you have a meeting about a budget and not have the budget there? It was 
very interesting. There were no TV cameras there. We were there, the 
Members representing the House and the Senate, but there was no budget 
document there.
  I think I now know why there was no budget document there--because 
they did not want this little trick revealed. They did not want this 
little loophole found out. They were hoping they had buried this so 
deep in the document that nobody would find it in time for this 
discussion and this debate and this vote. But we are going to vote, and 
we are going to see who is ready to protect Social Security and who has 
a mind to raid it later this year. We are going to see, by Members' 
votes, who is committed to protecting Social Security and who is 
committed to protecting Medicare and who isn't. We are going to see 
whose priority is a massive tax cut scheme for the wealthiest among us, 
because that is really what is afoot here. That is really what is 
afoot.
  What happens if you give a 10-percent across-the-board tax cut? For 
those in this country who earn less than $38,000 a year, they are going 
to get $99. That is going to be their tax cut. But for folks who are 
earning over $300,000, they are going to get $20,000 of a tax cut. The 
Senator from Texas thinks this is a fair deal. I don't think this is a 
fair deal. I don't think this represents the priorities of the American 
people.
  The other side is saying the priorities of the American people are to 
have a massive tax cut that would give a $20,000 check to those earning 
over $300,000 a year in this country, send $99 to those who have an 
income of less than $38,000, and not have one penny of the surplus 
available to strengthen Medicare, and to leave vulnerable the Social 
Security trust fund that everybody says ought to be inviolable, ought 
not be touched, that every penny ought to be set aside to redeem the 
promise made by Social Security.
  That is what I thought we were going to do. That is what the 
Democrats offered in the Senate Budget Committee. We offered a plan 
that said of the $2.6 trillion of surpluses, take the $1.8 trillion 
that comes from Social Security and dedicate every penny to Social 
Security.
  Take the next $400 billion and use it to strengthen Medicare. Take 
the final $400 billion and use it, yes, for tax relief, but also for 
high-priority domestic needs such as education and health care and, 
yes, defense. Those are America's priorities.
  But that is not what is in this budget resolution. These are not 
America's priorities. These are the priorities of, frankly, those who 
are getting ready to get a $20,000 tax break, and they are salivating. 
Of course, for the very wealthy, it is much more than this. For those 
who have had good fortune in this country--and we are grateful for 
that; it is one of the great things about America, that people have had 
enormous advantages. The priority of this country isn't to make those 
who have had great success even more comfortable; the priority of the 
American people is to strengthen Social Security, strengthen and 
protect Medicare, provide for high-priority domestic needs such as 
education and health care and, yes, defense, and also to provide tax 
relief. My Republican friends have just focused on a tax cut scheme. 
That is what is wrong with this budget at the most fundamental level.
  I see that my colleague from the State of Washington is here. How 
much time would she like?
  Mrs. MURRAY. I would like 15 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from 
Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized for 
15 minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep 
disappointment with the budget we are going to be voting on today. And 
while I applaud the efforts of the Republican leadership to have a 
budget resolution, I believe that in the haste to get something out by 
April, we have put together a budget that really lacks any sense of 
fiscal responsibility.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this conference 
report. This report before us fails our families and it fails our 
children. This is the first budget for a new century, but it does very 
little to prepare us for the challenges we are going to face. It 
ignores key investments in education, health care, environmental 
protection, and child care. Regrettably, it ignores our obligation to 
current retirees and those who will retire within the next 20 years.
  Mr. President, I have listened to many of my colleagues who talk 
about returning the people's money to the people, and I could not agree 
more. We should allocate part of the surplus to saving Social Security 
and Medicare. Hard-working Americans have paid their FICA and Medicare 
payroll taxes with the understanding that when they reach the age of 
65, or become disabled, they will be guaranteed Social Security 
benefits and Medicare. Social Security and Medicare allow the elderly 
independence and dignity in the years spent after a lifetime of work. 
We must reserve part of today's surplus to honor this commitment, and 
this budget does not do that.
  We all know that Medicare is in real crisis. Yet, the only 
recommendations this budget offers are vague statements about reform. 
There is no talk about investing in prevention benefits that ultimately 
will save Medicare dollars. There is no language to improve the program 
so that senior citizens and the disabled can take advantage of new 
advances in biomedical research to improve the quality of their lives 
and their health. The priority of this budget before us appears to be 
to simply raid the Federal Treasury for an across-the-board tax cut.
  We need to follow the example of working families. We have a budget 
surplus for the first time in decades because of tough fiscal 
discipline and wise economic investment. Just like families, we 
tightened our belt and restored fiscal soundness to the Federal 
Government. We should now use this surplus to save for and invest in 
the future. These are simple choices: Invest in our children and save 
for our retirement. That is the goal of most families.
  I also point out to my colleagues the unfortunate fact that the 
conferees, in the middle of the night, behind closed doors, stripped 
out important language we had passed in the Senate regarding women and 
Social Security. Based on my reading of the conference report, it 
appears that my language was dropped. At the end of the report, there 
is a listing of all sense-of-the-Senate amendments adopted during 
consideration of the budget, but there is no explanation from the 
managers as to the status of these amendments. In addition, these 
amendments are clearly not part of the conference report pending before 
us.
  Mr. President, an amendment I offered in committee and on the floor 
put every Senator on the record as being committed to protecting the 
safety net for women and making real change, to pull more older women 
out of poverty as we move forward with Social Security reform. My 
amendments were aimed at expressing our support of maintaining a 
guaranteed inflation-protected benefit for women and working to reform 
benefit calculations for Social Security. The amendment I offered on 
the floor made it clear that, through the process of Social Security 
reform, we would recognize the sacrifices women make to take care of 
their families.

[[Page 6657]]

  I was proud to offer these amendments and had hoped that instead of 
just talking about taking care of women in the course of Social 
Security reform, there would be a solid, bipartisan commitment to 
addressing the unique economic situation faced by most women today. But 
it seems that, once again, the needs of women have been ignored or 
forgotten. With no women on the Senate Finance Committee, I wanted a 
strong statement from the Senate that the real interest of women who 
depend on Social Security would not be negotiated away. I wanted to be 
sure that all Members understood the changing dynamics of the workforce 
and the difficult choices women must make every single day.
  Women make decisions in their thirties and forties for the welfare of 
their families, like raising children, only to find out in their 
sixties and seventies that this sacrifice has cost them their economic 
security in old age. A surviving spouse can also face a dramatic change 
in her standard of living immediately following the loss of her 
husband.
  Women, on the average, give 11 and a half years of their working 
lives to their families. They jeopardize their long-term economic 
security and retirement income to meet the immediate needs of children 
or aging parents. A surviving spouse can see a reduction of as much as 
50 percent of her Social Security income following the death of her 
husband. Is this the reward women deserve for caring for their 
families? Social Security reform gives us the chance to make things 
right for working women and protect their guaranteed benefit. We owe 
this to all families.
  Unfortunately, when given the chance to assure women that their 
interests and real economic situation would not be forgotten, it would 
appear that the Republicans have now turned their backs. The failure to 
include my amendments will only make me work harder to educate women 
and to fight for women during the debate on Social Security reform.
  I will not let the administration or Members of the Senate off the 
hook. There is no greater threat to women and families than a Social 
Security reform proposal that ignores the economic disadvantages still 
faced by working women and older women. I hope that all working women 
and older women are watching the debate on Social Security reform and 
taking note.
  Mr. President, I also want to say again how disappointed I am in this 
budget process. When I decided to serve on the Budget Committee, I 
wanted to return some common sense to our fiscal policy. I wanted to 
bring the voice of working families to the table, and I don't think 
this budget passes the test. It is seriously flawed when it comes to 
the issue of education.
  When I talk to my constituents about education and the efforts of 
Congress, most people are very surprised and angered to learn that less 
than 2 percent of overall Federal spending goes to education. They 
think education should be a higher priority, that we should improve and 
increase education spending, and so do I.
  Instead, other than an increase for the Individuals with Disabilities 
in Education Act--an important $500 million increase that I think we 
all support--we will see cuts in education funding, and cuts in other 
important areas in social services and job training.
  Even with the increase for IDEA, this budget agreement assumes $200 
million in other funds--or $700 million if IDEA is included--in cuts 
below a freeze that would have to come from other discretionary 
programs in education, social services and job training.
  Where will the axe fall? The Senate's budget specifically focused on 
subfunction 501--K-12 education. But after working with the House, this 
conference proposal now is silent on K-12 education as a specific 
subfunction. Can we then assume that our public schools will bear the 
burden of these cuts? Or will the cuts be in other important areas? The 
list is long. Will it be Head Start or national service, job training 
or juvenile justice, student aid or nutritional programs?
  The American people in overwhelming numbers support increased funding 
for education. The Congress of the United States has not yet heard the 
message. This budget conference agreement does not place education as a 
high enough priority. Among other things, this budget completely 
ignores the pressing need to continue in the national effort to help 
local school districts hire 100,000 new, well-qualified teachers.
  In the classroom, when students wonder why their teacher is not 
prepared to help them learn math and science--they can look to this 
budget. When they are stuck in an over-crowded classroom, they can look 
to this budget. When they learn that there will be less student aid 
this year than last year, they can look to this budget. When the 
American people see that fewer children are graduating with the skills 
they need to participate in our fast-changing economy, they can look to 
this budget and the short-sighted priorities of the 106th Congress.
  A small bright spot in this otherwise bleak budget is the important 
expansion to child care funding. The Senate overwhelmingly supported 
the Dodd child care amendment to the budget resolution. I cosponsored 
that amendment, and while only part of it was retained, I think we have 
the beginnings of real, bipartisan progress on child care funding.
  What the Senate supported yesterday in an overwhelming 66-33 vote, 
was a historic first step that would have increased child care funding 
by $12.5 billion over 10 years--nearly doubling our federal investment 
in quality child care.
  What the Senate is being asked to support today is not the complete 
Dodd amendment, but with a $3 billion investment in the child care and 
development block grant, and $3 billion in tax incentives, we are 
making a good start.
  Child care questions are becoming more and more pressing for more 
parents every day. With concerns about affordability, quality, and 
access--and with more low-income parents going into the workforce--the 
needs are changing and increasing. More child care is needed during 
``off hours''--such as evenings and weekends. More child care is needed 
in rural settings, impacting transportation, work schedules, and the 
amount of licensed family child care providers.
  It is vital that we make improvements for child care; the provisions 
of this conference agreement are a beginning to real progress.
  But Mr. President, the glimmer of hope offered by the language on 
childcare is not enough reason to support the FY2000 Budget before us 
and I urge a no vote on the Conference Report. Under the unrealistic 
limits set under this budget, as a member of the Appropriations 
Committee, I know we will be unable to protect the real concerns of 
working families. Our hands will be tied when it comes time for us to 
invest in important priorities like education, health care, 
environmental protection, agriculture, biomedical research, and early 
childhood development.
  Mr. President, finally, I commend Senator Lautenberg for his 
leadership in attempting to work for real progress and for a true 
fiscal plan that will guide us in the new millennium. I know he shares 
my disappointment in this resolution. But I thank him for the 
tremendous amount of work and leadership he has given us on the Budget 
Committee as we move forward.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask that it 
be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Who 
yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I will be pleased to yield whatever time the Senator 
wants.
  Mr. GRAMS. Less than 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

[[Page 6658]]


  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I rise this morning to support the budget 
conference report. Before I speak on the report, I would like to take 
this opportunity to commend the Senate Majority Leader and Chairman 
Domenici for their outstanding leadership in crafting and delivering 
this well-balanced budget proposal.
  I believe this budget blueprint is a great achievement of this 
Congress, and it will ensure our continued economic growth and 
prosperity in the new millennium.
  Protecting Social Security, reducing the national debt and reducing 
taxes are imperative for our economic security and growth. Our strong 
economy has offered us a historic opportunity to achieve this three-
pronged goal.
  This budget conference report has showed us how we can provide major 
tax relief while preserving Social Security and dramatically reducing 
the national debt, as well as providing sufficient funding for all 
necessary Government functions.
  President Clinton has proposed to spend over $158 billion of the 
Social Security surplus in his budget over the next five years for 
unrelated Government programs, instead of protecting Social Security. 
Remember the phrase, ``Save Social Security first''? That is not in the 
President's budget.
  This budget conference report includes a safe-deposit box to lock in 
every penny of the $1.8 trillion Social Security surplus earned in the 
next 10 years to be used exclusively for Social Security.
  Stopping the Government from raiding the Social Security Trust Funds 
is an essential first step to ensure Social Security will be there for 
current beneficiaries, baby boomers and our children and grandchildren.
  I was pleased to join Senator Abraham and others to offer an 
amendment during the Senate floor consideration that made this our 
number-one priority under this budget.
  It is also notable, that under this budget, the debt held by the 
public will be reduced dramatically, much more than what President 
Clinton has proposed in his budget.
  This budget conference report reserves nearly $800 billion of the 
projected non-Social Security surplus--those are the tax overpayments 
of working Americans--earmarking $800 billion for tax relief. This is 
the largest tax relief enacted since President Reagan's tax cuts in the 
early 1980s.
  As one who has long championed major tax relief, I am pleased all 
Senators supported my resolution to protect this tax relief in the 
Budget Resolution.
  My language offers options for middle-income tax relief such as 
broad-based tax relief, marriage penalty relief, retirement savings 
incentives, death tax relief, health care-related tax relief, and 
education-related tax relief.
  The purpose of the provision is to assure the American people that we 
have made a commitment to major tax relief, and that there is room in 
this budget to fulfill this commitment while protecting Social Security 
and Medicare, providing debt relief and respecting some new spending 
priorities.
  I am particularly pleased, Mr. President, that this budget conference 
report has retained my proposal which could allow us to lock in for 
immediate tax relief any additional on-budget surplus as re-estimated 
in July by the Congressional Budget Office for fiscal year 2000.
  I believe this is solid protection for the American taxpayers. I 
thank the Senate majority leader and, again, Chairman Domenici for 
retaining this important provision in the budget conference report.
  As the economy continues to be strong, we may have more revenue 
windfalls to come in the next 10 years that are above and beyond the 
Social Security surplus. We must return these tax overpayments to hard-
working Americans. They should benefit from the surpluses they are 
paying in rather than allowing Washington to stand first in line 
saying, ``Let's spend your money rather than giving it back.''
  The logic for tax relief is fairly simple. Despite a shrinking 
Federal deficit and a predicted onbudget surplus, the total tax burden 
on working Americans today is at an all-time high. Americans today have 
the largest tax burden ever in history--even larger than during World 
War II--and the tax burden is still growing.
  Federal taxes today consume about 21 percent of the total national 
income. A typical American family now pays about 40 percent in total 
taxes on everything they earn. That is more than it spends on food, 
clothing, transportation, and housing combined. So they are spending 
more to support Uncle Sam than they do on the basic necessities of 
life. It is still imperative to provide tax relief for working 
Americans and address our long-term fiscal imbalances.
  Not only does this budget fund all the functions of the Government, 
but it also significantly increases funding for our budget priorities, 
such as defense, education, Medicare, agriculture, and others.
  Although I have reservations about some new spending increases, 
including this conference report, I think overall the report is well 
balanced.
  This conference report also retains the Senate-passed amendment that 
Senator Grassley and I offered. This provision would reserve up to $6 
billion for crop insurance reform. Including this funding increase in 
the budget conference report is an important step, I believe, in 
realizing our goal of real crop insurance reform to help ailing 
farmers.
  One of the promises made during the debate of the 1996 farm bill was 
that Congress would address the need for a better system for crop 
insurance. Last year, we witnessed devastating circumstances come 
together in my home State of Minnesota to create a crisis atmosphere 
for many of our farmers and for farmers around the country, as well. We 
also saw the current Federal Crop Insurance Program fail for far too 
many farmers. Funds for crop insurance reform are the best dollars we 
can spend to help American agriculture, and this is a far better way to 
assist farmers than any of the spending that we have included in the 
emergency spending bills. We need to pass this.
  Finally, Mr. President, unlike President Clinton's budget, which, 
again, has broken the spending caps by over $22 billion, this budget 
maintains the fiscal discipline by retaining the spending caps. There 
are those who claim we cannot avoid breaking the caps as we proceed to 
reconcile this budget. I say if we do our job to oversee Government 
programs, we will know which areas can be streamlined and which program 
funding can be shifted to new priorities. Let's make sure we do our job 
to justify all Government funds are wisely spent.
  In closing, cutting taxes, reducing the national debt, and reforming 
and protecting Social Security and Medicare at the same time are all 
possible. It is not either/or. It is not either Social Security or 
giving tax cuts. We can do all with what we have in the budget. This 
budget conference report has showed us how we can do it.
  The bigger challenge facing us now is that we must have the strong 
political will to follow through on this budget. We must defend the 
principles and priorities highlighted in this budget blueprint through 
the entire appropriations and reconciliation processes, as well as in 
other legislative initiatives during the first session of this 
Congress.
  Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues to 
achieve the goals set forth in this budget. Again, I commend the Senate 
majority leader and also committee Chairman Domenici for putting this 
budget together.
  Thank you very much, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes of our time to the 
Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the ranking Democrat on the Senate 
Budget Committee, Senator Frank Lautenberg, who has announced his 
retirement. He is headed for the last budget roundup. This is the 
second to the last stop. I have one more year with Frank Lautenberg as 
spokesman

[[Page 6659]]

on that committee who has made an enormous contribution to the 
committee, his State, to this Nation, and certainly this budget 
deliberation. We are going to miss him. He has done a great job for 
America.
  I have known for many years the chairman of this committee, Senator 
Domenici of New Mexico. When I was a member of the House Budget 
Committee, his reputation was well known. He has been a deficit hawk 
for as long as I have known him. I am sure he has some sense of relief 
today dealing with a budget that is in much better circumstances than 
it was a few years ago. That is due in no small measure to his 
contribution. Though I may disagree with him on this particular budget 
resolution, it does not diminish my respect for what he has done in 
this budget process in demanding honesty. I hope he will continue on 
that pursuit, and I hope we will share goals in the near future. I am 
looking forward to doing just that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator very much. I 
appreciate his comments very much.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, having said all these wonderful things 
about Senator Domenici, I am going to tell you what is wrong with his 
budget resolution, and he is not going to be a bit surprised by all 
that.
  There are a few things where we do disagree. As Senator Grams of 
Minnesota just mentioned, there is overriding concern by all of us 
about the future of Social Security. I think Senator Conrad on the 
Democratic side offered a very novel, imaginative, and positive 
contribution to this debate when he suggested we lock up the Social 
Security surplus for Social Security.
  This would be done by requiring that an extraordinary vote of 60 
votes would be required to spend the Social Security trust fund surplus 
for anything other than Social Security. We understand Social Security 
is a solid covenant between generations. Without it, 16 million more 
Americans would live in poverty, and Social Security is the principal 
source of income for two-thirds of older Americans and the only source 
of income for nearly one-fifth of our seniors.
  This trust fund will go bankrupt in the year 2034 when people like 
myself, if we are lucky to be alive, will be part of the huge baby-boom 
generation looking to a smaller pool of American workers to sustain us. 
That is why the actions we take today for the future of Social Security 
are so critically important.
  I am afraid the Republican alternative in this budget resolution is 
not nearly as good as Senator Conrad's suggestion of a 60-vote lockbox. 
I am afraid we have fallen short of the mark when coming to 
guaranteeing the future of Social Security in this budget resolution.
  There is another element, though, that is even more mystifying. There 
is an old poem that goes something like this:

       As I was walking up the stair, I met a man who wasn't 
     there. He wasn't there again today. I wish that man would go 
     away.

  The man I am talking about is Medicare. The problem with Medicare 
will not go away. The Medicare trust fund is expected to go bankrupt in 
the year 2015. If that is not bad enough, as baby boomers like myself 
retire, the strain will become even greater. By 2034, the number of 
Medicare beneficiaries is expected to double to almost 80 million 
American seniors.
  The Democrats had a proposal to deal with that. The Democrats came 
forward and said we should dedicate a substantial portion of any future 
surplus to go to Medicare so that in addition to reforming Medicare, we 
would be putting our surplus funds into it so that it would be strong 
for many years to come. Our lockbox proposal for Medicare would save 
$376 billion of the budget surplus for the next 10 years, and it would 
extend Medicare solvency by 12 years to the year 2027.
  By locking these funds away, we make sure the country will have time 
for a serious debate on the future of Medicare reform while we are 
certain that it is going to be solvent. Unfortunately and sadly, and 
almost without explanation, the Republican budget proposal before us 
today does not put away a single penny--not one cent--for Medicare. It 
does not extend the life of the trust fund by a single day. That, I 
think, is an abdication of responsibility, not just to the 40 million 
seniors who depend on Medicare but to their children who want their 
parents and grandparents to live in dignity and without worry about 
medical bills.
  If we ignore Medicare, we are ignoring a looming crisis. This budget 
resolution does not address it. We will be hearing from the other side 
about how this budget resolution ``fully funds Medicare.'' But a fully 
funded Medicare is still going to go bankrupt in just 16 years. The 
truth is, this budget does not do anything substantial for the Medicare 
system. It could leave it withering on the vine from neglect.
  This chart indicates the difference in approach between the 
Republican side in blue and the Democratic side in red about the 
dedication of surpluses for Social Security and Medicare.
  You can see a substantial difference between the two; in the years 
2000 to 2004 composite--the first graph--and then later the 2000 to 
2009 composite. It indicates the different dedication of funds to make 
certain Medicare is included in any plan that is a part of this budget 
resolution.
  Let me speak for a moment about tax cuts, too. As I have said many 
times, there is just no more appealing phrase for a politician than, 
``I favor a tax cut.'' People cheer, ``Oh, we love you. This is 
great.'' But we have to be honest with the American people. Some 
politicians in the past have talked about, ``Read my lips: No new 
taxes.'' The American people learned a lesson there. They want honest 
talk about taxes. They do not want promises that cannot be kept or 
promises that we should not keep. The Democratic plan has targeted tax 
cuts, after we dedicated funds for Social Security, after we dedicated 
funds for Medicare. We kept a substantial portion aside for tax cuts 
targeted for the American families truly in need.
  That would include USA accounts, the President suggested, so that 
more working families can save for retirement.
  Long-term care tax credits, think of how many people are worried 
about their parents and grandparents now in nursing homes or in need of 
special care. This $1,000 tax credit would be a helping hand to 
literally millions of Americans in that predicament.
  The child and dependent care tax credit, we proposed $6.3 billion to 
help pay for child care. We want Americans to work. But while they 
work, we want their children to be in safe and loving hands. And that 
means quality day care and stepping in to help low-income families so 
they can pay for that day care. And a tax credit for work-related 
expenses for people with disabilities. This will defray special 
employment-related costs incurred by those people with disabilities, 
such as transportation and technology costs.
  Our tax cuts are geared to make certain that we meet our obligations 
first to Social Security and Medicare, and then to the American working 
families who most deserve them. It is still a mystery as to what the 
Republican tax cut will be. I am not sure. Perhaps we will have an 
explanation of it sometime later today before we vote on this budget 
resolution.
  But, in fact, we have heard one proposal from John Kasich, the 
chairman of the House Budget Committee, about a 10-percent, across-the-
board tax cut. What would that tax cut mean? It is a good day to ask 
the question--on April 15.
  For those with incomes under $38,000 a year, the Republican tax cut 
of Mr. Kasich is $99 a year. That is almost $8.25 a month that people 
will have to spend under the Republican tax cut, if they happen to be 
among the 60 percent of working Americans who make less than $38,000 a 
year. Think of it--a Republican tax cut that might pay half of your 
cable TV bill each month. Isn't that something to look forward to?
  But if you happen to be in an income category in the stratosphere--
over $300,000 a year--a 10-percent tax cut is $20,697.
  So the people with the money are given the tax cuts. The folks who 
are

[[Page 6660]]

working to raise their families and pay their bills, under this 
Republican tax-cut plan, get $99 a year. I do not think that is fair. 
April 15 is a good time to talk about taxes. I want to remind my wife 
to get the forms in the mail before midnight back home. We want to make 
sure we do file our taxes on time, as all Americans should. But I hope 
that we will take a minute to reflect on the tax burden in America and 
what has happened to it.
  The median family income in America--that is the average--is $54,000. 
If you look at the tax burden on working families in America over the 
last 22 years, you will see an interesting thing has occurred. The 
taxes had gone up in the early 1980s, and then started coming down; and 
then look where they have dropped by 1999--the lowest tax burden in 23 
years.
  Anyone writing a check today will say, ``I wish it was even lower,'' 
but the fact is it has been coming down. The U.S. Treasury reports a 
family of four, with the median income of $54,900, will pay the lowest 
percentage of its income in taxes since 1976. It shows that many 
families with half the median income--these are folks making about 
$27,000 a year--let me show this chart here--some of our hardest 
working families, I might add--will actually pay no income tax at all 
or get a check back from the government. They have an average income 
tax burden of a negative 1 percent. Their overall tax burden is the 
lowest in more than 30 years. This chart indicates it is the lowest in 
35 years. A family of four can make up to as much as $28,000 and not 
owe a dime in taxes.
  Incidentally, one of the reasons many of these family tax burdens are 
lower is because of our expansion of the earned income tax credit in 
1993. This tax credit focuses on helping working families.
  What a contrast: A Republican proposal by a Congressman from Ohio for 
a tax cut to benefit the wealthiest; the earned income tax credit 
designed to help working families. It really tells a world of 
difference in philosophy when it comes to tax cuts.
  The interesting thing is if you look at those who are doing pretty 
well in America, those making twice the median income; that would be 
over $109,000 a year. Their tax burden is also declining. The average 
Federal tax burden of a family of four with twice the median income is 
the lowest it has been since 1988, and the second lowest since 1977.
  We back these figures up by an analysis, not from some Democratic 
Party organ but, rather, the accounting firm Deloitte and Touche, a 
group recognized as reputable in the field. Their analysis shows that 
the average Federal tax rate is lower today than it was 20 years ago 
for virtually every type of taxpayer.
  We want to continue that, target the tax cuts to the families that 
need it the most, but it is not in this budget resolution--an approach 
which is so general as to suggest we would be giving tax cuts to the 
wealthiest among us instead of those who work the hardest, the working 
families struggling to put their kids through school.
  We are going to face a crisis here on this budget debate, and it will 
come soon. I am afraid when we take a look at the Republican budget 
resolution, with tax cuts for wealthy people, we are going to find 
ourselves cutting back on a lot of spending. Some on the Republican 
side have stood up and very honestly said that is OK, ``We believe that 
cutting back on Federal spending is good at any cost.'' I have second 
thoughts about that, because some of the programs which we will cut 
with this budget resolution are critically important to many American 
families.
  As a result of this resolution, as many as 100,000 fewer American 
kids would have access to Head Start--Head Start-- that early childhood 
development program where kids get a chance to prepare themselves for 
kindergarten and first grade. One-hundred thousand more kids in America 
would be off the program as a result of this budget resolution.
  Another program, that is near and dear to my heart, the WIC Program--
Women, Infants, and Children Program--brings in pregnant mothers, 
mothers with young children, and helps them with nutritional assistance 
during the pregnancy and after the children are born. One out of four 
American babies is in this program. Lower-income families need this 
helping hand to make sure their kids get nutritious food and so that 
the mother is healthy when she delivers the baby.
  Is there any better investment of money in this country than doing 
what we can to make sure that our pregnant mothers and their children, 
at their earliest age, are off to a healthy, nutritious start? This 
Republican budget resolution will cut over 1.2 million low-income 
women, children, and infants from the WIC Program. How can that make 
this a better country?
  And when it comes to some basic things, we all abhor drugs in America 
and drug crimes, and yet with this budget we will be forced to cut the 
number of Border Patrol agents who are trying to ferret out those 
smuggling narcotics into America. So 1,350 fewer Border Patrol agents, 
780 fewer drug enforcement agency personnel out there fighting the war 
on drugs--think about that for a second. Does that make any sense? More 
drugs in America, so we would have more people ultimately committing 
crimes and going to prison because we give a tax cut to the wealthiest 
people in this country. This is upside down thinking and a reason why 
many of us question its wisdom.
  Funding eliminated for 21 Superfund sites; 73,000 summer jobs and 
training opportunities cut.
  The list goes on.
  Cuts in food safety. You ask the American people, what do you expect 
of your Federal Government? In the State of Iowa a poll said: The first 
thing is to make sure the food we eat is safe to eat. People are 
concerned about that. They hear about scandals where children eat 
tainted food, or the elderly do, and get seriously ill, if not die, and 
yet we cut back in the Department of Agriculture in areas of food 
safety. How can we possibly rationalize and explain that in the name of 
giving greater tax cuts to wealthy Americans?
  Let me close by saying that I respect the hard work that has gone 
into this budget. I respect the serious difference of opinion between 
the Republican side and the Democratic side.
  I think ours is a more balanced and rational approach. It takes care 
of the future of Social Security. It provides help for Medicare where 
the Republican budget resolution provides none. It provides tax cuts 
for families that really need it and doesn't give tax cuts to the 
wealthiest among us. It also provides that we will have the money 
available to meet the basic needs of America when it comes to educating 
kids, feeding pregnant mothers and children, providing for the kind of 
law enforcement that is essential for the security of this country.
  I hope that before this is all said and done, President Clinton can 
bring the leaders on Capitol Hill, the Republican leaders in the Senate 
and the House, together and that we can work out some reasonable 
bipartisan compromise. I am afraid this budget resolution does not 
reflect that, and that is why I am going to respectfully oppose it and 
vote against it.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as I use.
  First, let me speak to those who are wondering what the time 
sequencing is and when we might vote. We know of only one additional 
Senator on our side who wants to speak, and that will be Senator Slade 
Gorton. I understand that we know, in fact, where he is. He is at a 
committee hearing, but as soon as he comes, he will be our last 
speaker. We are anxiously waiting to see how many more there are on the 
other side, and we are hoping that in all events we will be through 
debating this budget resolution within an hour or less. That will set a 
time certain that is accommodating to the leaderships in terms of when 
we vote.
  Having said that, let me just comment a bit with respect to a few 
things that have been said by the distinguished Senator from Illinois.

[[Page 6661]]

  Mr. President, 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.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to speak a few words to the 
Senate and anybody interested with reference to some of the comments 
made by my good friend from Illinois, Senator Durbin. I do mean that. 
He is a very new member of our committee, and I find him to be a very 
dedicated and hard-working Senator. I reciprocate with my compliments 
to his work and effort.
  I do believe we have a propensity on the floor to argue and, in many 
cases, to exaggerate so as to prove our point. Let me make sure that 
the American people understand the tax cut we are talking about.
  It is projected that in the next decade we will have $2.5 trillion in 
surplus money coming into the Federal Government. Let's for a moment 
understand basically what that means, $2.5 trillion. The entire budget 
of the United States for everything is about $1.8 trillion a year. We 
will have a surplus that dramatically and extensively exceeds the total 
amount we are spending annually for all programs of government.
  Where did that $2.5 trillion come from? It did not drop on us from 
outer space, nor did a big rain cloud come over and rain came down and 
it was full of dollars and that is where the $2.5 trillion in surplus 
came from. I think most people, if given three or four things they 
could choose from, would choose the right answer--the taxpayers paid it 
in. The taxpayers pay $2.5 trillion more in the next decade in taxes 
than we need to run government based upon a reasonable program.
  Obviously, if you believe there is a never-ending need for government 
spending, then you can whisk away that $2.5 trillion and say, let's 
spend it. Frankly, for all of the desires of the American people, they 
are not crazy. In fact, they understand implicitly what is going on. 
When, in fact, you have this kind of excess taxes being paid in, there 
is a difference, dramatic difference, between the two parties. The 
Republicans say don't grow government, give the money back to the 
taxpayer.
  That is what all this argument is about. What do you do with that 
excess, which is more money per year and per the next decade from the 
taxpayers, all taxpayers, than we need for our current budget plans?
  You could invent new budget plans, I say to the occupant of the 
Chair, and spend every cent of it. Or you can do something as wild as 
the President has recommended, which not even the Senate believes is 
responsible--indeed, both sides. You can take a huge chunk of that 
money and put it into the Medicare trust fund without reforming or 
changing Medicare, just put it in there and put out, as the President 
did, 15 percent of that surplus in IOUs. The IOUs have value, because 
what are the IOUs? The IOUs are postdated checks which are going to 
come due at some point.
  Who is going to pay for them? It is the American taxpayer who is 
going to have to redeem them in 10, 15, or 20 years, because it is just 
a postdated check. You understand that, but if they understood it, they 
would say: What is this all about? We thought we were fixing Medicare, 
reforming it and making it more efficient. Sometime out there in the 
future, those IOUs are going to come due, and we are going to have to 
pay them. New taxes are going to have to be imposed.
  What do the Republicans think? Republicans think that during the next 
decade you ought to take every single solitary penny of Social Security 
surplus, which is part of that $2.5 trillion that I have been talking 
about, and put it in a position in the budget where it can't be spent 
for anything other than senior needs.
  There are arguments that isn't enough for Medicare, that we don't 
provide for Medicare in this budget. Let me just tell you what we do 
provide. We provide $462 billion more in that trust fund than the 
President did, and he heralded his budget as being responsive to the 
proposition that every single penny of trust fund money would be 
deposited in the trust fund for Social Security, excepting he had a 
nice little funny thing in there. That was over 15 years--we never have 
budgeted like that--which meant that he only put 62 percent of the 
Social Security surplus into a Social Security accumulating trust fund, 
and then he did this IOU business with Medicare. Essentially, it is as 
if there is a plan, an intentional approach to say to the American 
people: Don't worry about the taxes you are paying in and the excess; 
we have it all taken care of; we are going to spend it.
  As a matter of fact, it is most interesting; the President of the 
United States spent in the first 10 years $158 billion of the Social 
Security surplus for programs.
  Unequivocal. Nobody denies it. The President's OMB people don't deny 
it. They say that doesn't matter because over many years we are going 
to save the money for Social Security, but we will spend some of it in 
the first decade. In fact, that $158 billion is in the first 5 years of 
the budget--it is going to be spent.
  Having said that, the other issue that seems to always come up is, if 
you are going to give tax cuts, it just has to be that the Republicans 
are going to take care of the rich people and not the middle income and 
family people, because there have been various Senators and House 
Members speaking about what they might want. I will remind everybody 
listening to that kind of stuff on the floor, you should know that that 
budget resolution, by operation of law, does not say how the taxes will 
be cut. It says how much. And in the processes of the Congress, later 
on--in fact, under this budget, it is in July of this year--the tax-
writing committees, after hearings, after citizen input, after talking 
with Senators from both sides of the aisle, will produce the tax bill. 
That will be the time to decide what is in it. And it is actually a red 
herring to talk about what is in that tax bill--because we don't know--
as a justification for not having any tax cuts. But that doesn't sound 
right, does it? Well, it is right.
  Those who use the argument that it is going to be a bad tax bill, so 
don't have any tax cut, are essentially saying we don't want to give 
you a tax cut because we don't know what will be in it. But I will tell 
you what the budget resolution says. That is the best I can do. It 
recommends that such tax relief could include any or all of the 
following: an expansion of the 15-percent bracket, marginal rate 
reductions, a significant reduction or elimination of the marriage tax 
penalty, retirement savings incentives, estate tax relief, an above-
the-line income tax reduction for Social Security payroll taxes, tax 
incentives for education, parity between the self-employed and 
corporations with respect to tax treatment of health insurance 
premiums, capital gains taxes, and fairness for family farmers.
  Now, that is what we are discussing. Do we want to allow some or all 
of that to be debated and looked at? That is why we have a tax 
provision in this budget resolution.
  Let me just quickly go through one other thing and then summarize 
what we have done. First, in the Medicare program, by virtue of a good 
economy, meaning high unemployment, a lot of people paying into these 
trust funds, we have extended the life of Medicare, Part A--that is the 
hospitalization part in the trust fund--for 8 years without Congress 
doing a thing. The current program lives for 8 years longer than 
expected just 6 months ago because the economy is powerful.
  Now, almost everyone knows we have to reform, change, make better, 
make more efficient the Medicare program. There are some who would like 
to deposit $400 billion in the trust fund of Medicare and let it sit 
there as IOUs for the future, without first determining what does 
Medicare need or, to put it another way, without any reform or changes 
in Medicare. None. That is

[[Page 6662]]

what it contemplates. And an extension of the trust fund is 
contemplated by just pouring that money in and taking IOUs. It isn't 
spent. It extends the life of Medicare some 8 or 9 years, and it 
doesn't contemplate or envision reform. It doesn't pay for prescription 
drugs. And, incidentally, as an aside, anybody who would like to ask 
the OMB of the United States, the Office of Management and Budget, the 
Congressional Budget Office, the Comptroller General, ask them if the 
President paid for prescription drugs in his budget--zero. He suggests 
we might want to do that sometime as part of reform.
  Now, one Democrat Senator said, ``Republicans want to raid the 
Federal tax treasury for a tax cut.'' Now, isn't that an interesting 
concept? Raiding the Federal Treasury for a tax cut. What is the 
Federal Treasury? What is the Federal Treasury into which the taxpayers 
are paying $2.5 trillion more than you need for Government? What is the 
Federal Treasury?
  My friends, the Federal Treasury belongs to the American people. It 
does not belong to the Government. If we reduce the size of Government 
and there is money left over and we say let's give it back to the 
public, are we raiding the Treasury of the United States, or are we 
giving back to our citizens the overpayment they have paid in income 
taxes that is lodged temporarily, or housed in the U.S. Government?
  I wonder how the people who are hurrying today to the post offices 
trying to get their tax returns in would feel if they knew that over 
the next 10 years as they file their returns, they are overpaying the 
Government; and, as a matter of fact, if you add it all up, they are 
paying $2.5 trillion over current expenditures. I think they would be 
wondering, what is the U.S. Treasury? We thought maybe it was ours.
  In summary, we think we have a very good plan to enter the 
millennium. If the President would like to enter that millennium with 
us, that would be great. Everybody listening and everybody who follows 
budgets should know that there has not been a vote in this Congress, or 
in our Committee on the Budget, on a Democratic budget. They don't have 
to produce one. When I was in the minority, I didn't produce a budget 
every year. So everybody will know, we didn't vote on a Democrat 
budget; we voted on the President's budget. While there was a lot of 
argument about whether we were voting on it or not, that is what it 
said--that we were voting on it. Now it will be interesting to know 
what results from that vote: No, every member of the committee; Yes, 
zero members of the committee.
  Now, if in fact it was a great budget on Social Security, a great 
budget on Medicare--just those two--if it was great on those, Democrats 
would have voted for it because, after all, it is pretty clear that is 
what they believe to be the biggest issue going. They didn't vote for 
it.
  Now, what this budget does is save Social Security and puts in a 
trust fund $462 billion more than the President put in, and the number 
is $1.8 trillion. You can't spend it. It is there. You can't use it for 
tax cuts, that is for sure. As a matter of fact, we will soon vote on 
legislation to lock it up so that it can't be used without 60 votes.
  Save the Social Security trust fund first. That is the No. 1 plank, 
the No. 1 priority in the budget. Second, make sure we have done 
everything we can to promote Medicare reform and see to it that we do 
have the resources for it. We have done that. I am not going to repeat 
the three or four things in the budget and just say those were No. 1 
and No. 2. Three, we have dramatically increased national defense. 
Everybody understands that. If they didn't understand it 2 weeks ago, 
they ought to understand it now. The costs that we are incurring in 
Kosovo now, over and above defense spending we contemplated year by 
year, are astronomical. We soon may have to add to that, in an 
emergency, as much as $5 billion. And if we went on for a whole year, 
depending upon which kind of activity we have had, the number could be 
more than twice or three times that amount. So we have increased it 
substantially.
  In our prioritizing, in our setting forth what we think should be 
paid for first, we have increased education $3.8 billion in the first 
year, $38 billion over the next 5, beyond that requested by the 
President. Our only hope is that none of that money will be used unless 
we have a new approach to public education funding, and that we would 
send the money down to the locales with ``flexibility and 
accountability.'' Those are the two new words we want to attach--to 
give them flexibility and make them accountable. Don't tell them how to 
use it because one shoe doesn't fit everything in the school districts 
from East to West and North to South in this great land.
  We have sustained and added to all of our criminal justice 
activities, and we have added $1.7 billion to veterans' hospital care, 
substantially more than the President, because we think that is one of 
our real values in this country--to take care of veterans' health 
benefits.
  I may have missed one thing or two. But I will summarize the effect 
of all of that.
  We will have cut the national debt in half by creating that surplus 
and setting it there. We have reduced the national debt in half, 
substantially more than the President reduced the national debt. We 
think that is very, very good for our future.
  I might say it is obvious that a number of our domestic accounts, 
aside from those that we treat with priority and that I have just 
stated, will go up. It will be very difficult to do all of the things 
Government is currently doing and meet this budget. In the appropriated 
accounts of our Government, between defense and nondefense, it is now 
about 30 percent of the budget, and it is going to be hard for those 
accounts to fit within this very tightly and stick to the balanced 
budget numbers. But it was my opinion, with the Senate of the United 
States, with one Democrat supporting us and the rest of us on our side 
unanimously voting for this, that we thought the best way to approach a 
successful American economy was to stick to the balanced budget plan in 
terms of people believing we meant what we said--that we were going to 
``ratchet down'' Government and make sure we had a credible plan to do 
it.
  Having said that, if Senator Gorton does not arrive shortly, I will 
be able to tell Senator Lautenberg that we don't have any other 
speakers. We will check with him right now so I can inform the Senator.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield for a few minutes so that the 
Senator from California can have 10 minutes now while we are waiting 
for Senator Gorton?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Sure. Of course.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my chairman, Senator Domenici, and 
my ranking member, Senator Lautenberg, for yielding me 10 minutes of 
time.
  Mr. President, I have served on the Budget Committee since I came to 
the Senate. That was almost 7 years ago. In the House I served for the 
maximum period allowable on the House Budget Committee, 6 years. So I 
have seen budgets come; I have seen budgets go. I have seen good ones, 
bad ones, middle-of-the-road ones. And I have to say that my heart is 
heavy as I look at this budget. My heart is heavy because I think it is 
not a good roadmap for our future.
  I say that because I think this budget fixates on tax cuts to the 
wealthy, to the exclusion of other important critical priorities such 
as Social Security, Medicare solvency, and the environment. Under this 
proposal, virtually all of the onbudget surplus would be used for tax 
cuts. Tax cuts are good and I certainly do support targeted tax cuts to 
people who need it, such as the kind of program we unveiled yesterday 
at the White House with the President, the USA accounts, the Universal 
Savings Accounts that will go to people with $100,000 a year and less, 
and give them incentive to save by having matching funds from the 
Federal Government. It will make life good for our people. That is the 
kind of tax cut we ought to be talking about.

[[Page 6663]]

  But that is not an across-the-board tax cut that we hear talked 
about. And my friend from New Mexico says it is premature to criticize 
the tax cut portion of this; we don't know what it will look like.
  I have listened to Congressman Kasich and others wax eloquent about 
the importance of an across-the-board cut, and we know what that means. 
It will mean $99 back for most of the people earning approximately 
$40,000 a year or less. But for those in the very high brackets, those 
who earn $800,000, we are talking about $20,000 a year back.
  Mr. President, $20,000 back to some who earn more than $300,000, the 
top 1 percent, is that something that we can truly say is going to 
bring the American dream to the people who do not have it? I don't get 
it. That is more than people make on a minimum wage, who sweat and toil 
every day--at the minimum wage. And we have had great objection every 
time we tried to raise the minimum wage.
  I don't even get into the people who make $1 million a year. High-
wage earners are good people. They have worked hard. But I don't find 
when I talk to them that they are saying to me, ``Senator, you have to 
give us more money back.'' They are doing well. They are doing well in 
the stock market. They understand that this country does well when you 
bring everyone along.
  So I have a problem.
  Let me give you another clue as to why I believe these tax cuts will 
go to those at the very, very top of the ladder. If you look carefully 
in this budget proposal and they talk about taxes, they go out of their 
way to mention cuts in estate taxes--taxes that are paid when someone 
dies. Mr. President, almost ninety-nine percent of the people in this 
country will never have to pay an estate tax. In other words, we have 
exempted much income from the estate tax. Here we see the Republican 
majority fighting again for the top 1 percent of income earners.
  Mr. President, I offered a very simple amendment in the committee. Do 
you know what it said? If there are going to be tax cuts, the 
substantial benefit should go to the first 90 percent of income 
earners. The Republicans didn't want to vote on that. As a matter of 
fact, my chairman, whom I respect and like and admire, said, you know, 
last year that was a good idea; this year it is not a good idea. They 
wouldn't take that. They substituted some other language. Then when we 
got to the floor of the Senate, guess what. They didn't want to vote on 
it. They accepted it only to drop it in the conference.
  So this budget fixates on tax breaks for the people who do not need 
them. And even bipartisan votes were dropped in the conference. It is 
hard for me to understand how this is a good roadmap for our future. 
Education, yes there is a good increase needed in education. But every 
single amendment that was moved forward, such as the one from our 
ranking member on school modernization, was dropped in the conference.
  My language on after school, which we know works for our children--
and we have so many local districts that want that program--was dropped 
in the conference. Why? The new thing: We don't want to tell local 
districts what to do. Mr. President, these programs don't tell local 
districts what to do. We simply make funding available if they believe 
after school is a priority, if they believe school modernization is a 
priority, if they believe putting more teachers in the classroom is a 
priority.
  The new words are ``flexibility'' and ``accountability.'' How is it 
holding anyone accountable if you give them money and you don't even 
tell them you think they ought to look at after school, or you think 
they ought to look at lowering the number of children in the classroom? 
We were elected because we have views on these subject matters, not 
just to simply write a blank check and say, ``Oh, take the money. We 
don't care.'' Do with it what you will: Put a new carpet in the 
administrator's office, have him hire a new assistant, put a shower in 
his office. I don't think that is the way we ought to legislate. We ran 
on these issues. We understand them. If we don't, we don't belong here.
  I am not going to give a blank check to some school administrator. I 
am going to say, look, this is what we have available for you if you 
feel these are your priorities. Do Members know who set that standard, 
that kind of model? Dwight David Eisenhower, Republican President in 
the 1950s who authored the National Defense Education Act, who said 
there is a shortage of math teachers and science teachers; the Federal 
Government will help you pay to train those teachers--a Republican 
President. He didn't say, ``Here, take the money, we don't care what 
you use it for.'' He said there is a national problem here, let's 
address it.
  We know there is a national problem, as the Senator from New Jersey 
knows, fixing up the schools. We know there is a national problem, no 
afterschool programs, our kids get in trouble. We know there is a 
national problem, too many children in the classroom. We simply try to 
put some language in and it gets dropped in the conference.
  Yes, my chairman is right: There is a huge difference between 
Democrats and Republicans. More and more I realize this. All you need 
to do is look at this budget to find it. They don't save Social 
Security. They put it in a lockbox for 1 year. They have language that 
mandates that the Social Security surplus be used only for the payment 
of Social Security benefits, retirement security, or to reduce the 
Federal debt.
  What does retirement security mean? It could mean anything. You could 
argue you give a tax cut to someone earning over $300,000, that will 
help him with his retirement. Not only that, if we want to break out of 
the lockbox, it looks to me like they only need 51 votes to do it. They 
don't save Social Security. They do nothing for Medicare.
  I was surprised to hear my chairman say, ``Without doing anything, 
the economy is good, Medicare is doing great.'' Medicare needs 
attention. We are living longer--that is the good news; the bad news is 
there are strains on Medicare. We should have put money into that 
program.
  My chairman was right, we never offered a Democratic alternative 
budget. We had amendments on every one of these issues. My ranking 
member offered them on every one of these issues. We know where we 
stand. We said we want Medicare funding from the surplus put into a 
lockbox, too, because we think Medicare, as well as Social Security, 
are safety net issues that need to be addressed.
  The point is they don't do in this budget what they should do for 
Social Security and Medicare. They don't do in this budget what they 
should do for working men and women. They don't do anything for the 
environment.
  Senator Chafee, a Republican Senator, had his language dropped. Yes, 
they put $200 million in from one account to another but the language 
that directing that the money be used for land and water conservation 
stateside spending was dropped. There is no instruction here.
  Senator Johnson, who will be speaking shortly, and I worked together 
on a very important amendment to set up mandatory spending for the 
environment, for a land and water conservation fund, for the purchase 
of open space. It was bipartisan, adopted in the committee and was 
dropped in the conference.
  I point out Senator Murkowski has a bill on this matter, I have a 
bill on this matter, several other Republicans and Democrats have bills 
on this matter. We were simply making room for the environment in this 
budget and it is gone. This is a roadmap that I do not think is a good 
roadmap for America today. I am very sorry to stand here and say that 
because I believed we had an opportunity to do some very good things 
because we are on such strong fiscal ground. We had a chance to do some 
important things. We are going to see huge cuts in domestic spending as 
these numbers go over to appropriations. They are hidden in this budget 
right now, but as soon as you get over to appropriations it is going to 
be very, very difficult. There will be cuts in domestic priorities.
  I will vote against this budget. We had an opportunity to work 
together;

[[Page 6664]]

we didn't do it. We didn't save Social Security, we didn't save 
Medicare, we didn't talk about the real needs in education, we turned 
our back on the environment. This is a budget that I do not believe the 
American people will support.
  I don't hear the American people saying give tax breaks to the people 
who earn over $300,000, $500,000 or $1 million a year. I don't hear 
them saying that. Do you know what I hear them saying--keep up fiscal 
responsibility and give help to the people who really need that help so 
they can climb up that economic ladder and this country can truly be 
all it can be.
  I yield back my time to Senator Lautenberg.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request 
that the list of those who are going to speak on the budget be 
identified as follows: Senator Wellstone, Senator Gorton, Senator 
Hutchison, Senator Johnson, and Senator Lautenberg.
  Once these Senators have spoken, I ask unanimous consent that all 
debate time on the pending conference report be yielded back. I ask 
further consent that the vote occur on adoption of the conference 
report at 2 p.m. today. I include in that unanimous consent request 
that after those Senators have spoken, the request then include a 
period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 
10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield such time as needed to the Senator from South 
Dakota, up to a maximum of 15 minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I thank Senator Lautenberg for his 
leadership on this budget resolution. As a member of the Senate Budget 
Committee, it has been an honor and, I have to say, also, 
unfortunately, somewhat of a frustration to have participated in this 
process in the committee and to see now what has come to the floor.
  I am saddened that what could have been a watershed opportunity for 
the American people--to lay out a budget that makes sense, which 
establishes the proper priorities for the coming years--apparently is 
going to be missed and profoundly missed in a very unfortunate way.
  It is remarkable how we arrived at this point. When I first came to 
the Congress as a Member of the other body some 12 or 13 years ago, I 
had some doubts that I would ever see the collapse of the Soviet Union, 
the fall of the Berlin Wall, or debate how to utilize a Federal budget 
surplus, but here we are. We do have that opportunity, last year having 
been a surplus year, at least under a unified budget. And this year, 
which ends September 30, the projections are that we will be at least 
$130 billion in the black for this coming fiscal year. Again, let me be 
clear that in the unified budget, all of those surplus dollars are 
attributable to Social Security, lest anyone gets too carried away 
about spending the surpluses that are here in the near term.
  It seems to me that throughout this debate that there are four 
principles that ought to be followed as we craft a roadmap for where we 
go from here, from this fork in the road that we thankfully have come 
to. This crossroads follows on the heels of the 1993 budget agreement 
and was supplemented by the 1997 budget agreement, both of which I 
voted for. It seems to me we ought first protect Social Security and 
Medicare--not just Social Security, but protect them both.
  It seems to me that a significant portion of resources that we come 
into ought to be used to pay down already-existing debt. When Jimmy 
Carter concluded his Presidency, this Nation had an accumulated debt of 
around $1 trillion. That exploded to $5.5 trillion, mostly through the 
borrow-and-spend policies of the 1980s. Now we have an obligation to 
pay that debt down, reduce debt service, reduce the cost of money, and 
free up resources for the private sector so buying a house, buying a 
car, sending a kid to college, and expanding a business become more 
affordable.
  Third, we do need to look at tax relief, but we need to do so in a 
careful manner. We should not commit dollars that we do not have, those 
that are only projected far, far into the future. There is talk on this 
floor about how we are going to spend surpluses available to us 15 
years down the road, surpluses of massive proportions. We have seen in 
the past what has happened with budget projections from both the OMB 
and CBO. We know the availability of those dollars may or may not 
occur. It seems to me a great deal of restraint ought to be used on the 
part of both political parties, for both spending and tax relief, when 
making plans premised on dollars that may or may not be available in 
the future.
  But I do believe over the near term we ought to try to design a 
budget package that will provide some level of tax relief for people in 
this country, primarily for middle-class and working families. There is 
a very legitimate role to be played for a tax relief package, but it 
can only be part of an overall strategy.
  Last of the four items that I think we need to take into 
consideration are the key investments that need to be made. I think the 
American people feel the same way. The American people want some tax 
relief, but they also want to see Social Security and Medicare 
protected. They also want to do some things for our schools, 
environment, kids, and communities. It is that kind of balanced agenda 
that makes some sense. To repudiate the ability to make the key 
investments that need to be made, I think, reflects an ideological 
orientation to this budget that is far away from where the American 
people are.
  There is little wonder in my mind, frankly, why poll after poll shows 
the American people overwhelmingly rejecting what has become the 
Republican budget agenda in the House and the Senate. The Republican 
agenda is lopsided--not balanced, thoughtful, or progressive--and it 
does not do the things the American people want to see happen. All of 
the money essentially goes toward tax relief, aside from an increase in 
defense and a couple of other assorted very narrow increases. Because 
of this budgeting, we are going to wind up by the year 2004, which is 
only 5 years down the road, with cuts growing from 11 percent this year 
to some 27 percent. These are, in effect, shutdown types of cuts for 
programs like Head Start and Meals on Wheels and toxic waste cleanup 
and for Women, Infants, and Children, and Border Patrol, not to mention 
community health clinics, environmental initiatives, funding for our 
national parks and rural development. All of these programs are at 
tremendous jeopardy because of the very one-sided, very lopsided, and, 
I think, unthoughtful approach that we are being presented on the floor 
of the Senate today.
  On top of that, while there is some provision for an increase in 
education funding in this budget resolution, it is far smaller than 
that included in the Senate budget resolution; the increase of $2.6 
billion is now only $259 million for fiscal year 2000. This budget puts 
out of reach our ability to deal constructively with the need to 
renovate and build new schools, to provide the numbers of new teachers 
we need, and to supply the technology we need in our schools.
  In my State of South Dakota we are seeing bond issue after bond issue 
go down all across the State because people find they simply do not 
have the resources to make the investments in school facilities that 
need to be made. Yet we are walking away from what could be a very 
constructive and commonsense partnership--where the decisionmaking is 
left at the local school level but the financial partnership is among 
Federal, State, and local governments--that could make quality 
educational opportunities for our kids a realistic possibility in the 
next century.
  The situation is similar for child care. While the Senate accepted 
the amendment of Senators Dodd and Jeffords that provided an additional 
$12.5 billion over 10 years for existing childcare and development 
block

[[Page 6665]]

grants, the conference report cuts that by $9.5 billion. So, again, we 
are denied the ability over the long haul to make the investments 
needed, even in a block grant fashion. It leaves the decisionmaking and 
flexibility to the States to invest in the kinds of programs that I 
think every American sees need to be made for our kids--afterschool 
programs, day-care programs. These are the things we need to do if we 
are going to invest in the minds of children so they can go on to have 
successful lives and take care of their own needs.
  I am pleased because the amendment that Senator Wellstone and I 
offered on the Senate floor, which would have resulted in a total 
increase of $3 billion in VA health care funding and which was accepted 
here, has been, for the most part, retained. This conference report 
calls for a $2 billion level of increase. That is not as much as I 
would like to see or Senator Wellstone would like to see. It is not 
what our veterans' groups would like to see. It is an improvement, 
however, over where this body was earlier. It will make a significant 
positive difference. We will come back and see what we can do in future 
years to augment funding for veterans' health care. But I think getting 
$2 out of $3 billion when we started with zero is progress. It is a 
step in the right direction, I would have to say.
  I want to share with Senator Boxer my profound disappointment at the 
deletion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Reserve Fund. This was 
an opportunity we had. We had bipartisan support in the Budget 
Committee and bipartisan support on the floor of the Senate to have the 
opportunity to set aside offshore drilling resources to be utilized for 
the benefit of the environment and our National Park System in this 
country. Yet we are going to be denied that opportunity because of the 
deletion of that provision from this budget resolution. No matter how 
we come together in future debates, authorizing legislation about 
reinvigorating our park system with some additional resources from oil 
revenues, we are not going to have the opportunity to be as effective 
as we could have been. So I am disappointed about that portion of the 
conference report as well.
  It is remarkable that we arrived at this point where we can talk 
about surpluses. There are many people who are no longer with us 
because they voted, with courage and with integrity, for past budget-
balancing legislation--most notably the 1993 budget agreement that 
passed with no support from any Republican in either the House or the 
Senate. A great many Democrats lost their seats because of that vote. 
Yet now we find ourselves not with the $292 billion annual deficit that 
this country had 6 years ago but with a $131 billion surplus.
  President Bush, to his credit, supported the 1990 budget agreement. I 
have to say, in all candor, a contributing factor to his loss of the 
Presidency was the fact that he supported the precursor to our 1993 
budget agreement. Again, in politics sometimes, no good deed goes 
unpunished, and that has been the case with some of our past budget 
legislation.
  I will have to say now we are at this watershed opportunity. There 
are some positive provisions in the budget resolution, and I applaud 
the sponsors for that. I applaud Senator Domenici for that. But there 
are so many missed opportunities; a roadmap to where the American 
people want to go simply is not there. This is not a Republican or 
Democrat issue. I think commonsense, moderate, mainstream Americans 
know where they want to go--providing some tax relief but also paying 
down some debt; making key investments in our kids, our communities, 
and our schools. Those opportunities, unfortunately, in this roadmap 
are lost.
  I yield such time as I may have.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as the majority 
has as I may utilize.
  Mr. President, here in the Congress of the United States, this April 
15 can be a day for modest congratulations for us. We will have passed 
a budget resolution on the day mandated by the Budget Act for only the 
second time in more than 2 decades.
  Moreover, we will be adopting a budget resolution that balances the 
budget not only for the 1 year in which it is firmly binding, fiscal 
year 2000, but we hope for at least a decade to come.
  We will be adopting a budget resolution that does more to secure the 
future of our Social Security safety net than has any budget resolution 
since the Budget Act itself was passed, first, by assuring that the 
entire Social Security surplus is used to pay down the debt and not to 
be spent on a wide range of other matters, as was recommended by the 
President's budget itself and, second, by calling for a lockbox to see 
to it that the condition of preventing the Social Security surplus 
being used for any other purpose is permanent and not temporary only.
  Second, this budget resolution offers real tax relief to the American 
people. In that connection, it is especially appropriate that we will 
be adopting this budget resolution on time.
  Today, of course, is tax day. April 15 is the day that the complexity 
and incomprehensibility of our mammoth Federal Tax Code hits home to 
almost every American. Today, my constituents in Washington State and, 
of course, citizens all across the United States rush to the post 
office, as I did myself this morning, to get their income tax 
postmarked on time.
  I think it is appropriate to address my own hopes and the intentions 
of this budget resolution that this Congress will act on tax relief and 
perhaps begin to look forward to an even more fundamental tax reform.
  Families whom I represent in the Northwest deserve a rebate from the 
Federal budget surplus in the form of tax relief, allowing them to 
decide how best to use their hard-earned dollars. I also believe that 
it is time to scrap the current Federal income tax code as being far 
too complicated, too burdensome, and too unfair.
  Let me discuss for a few moments the reasons for providing tax relief 
to American taxpayers. I would like to share with the Senate a few 
telling facts about the nature of that tax burden today.
  A recent Congressional Research Service study found that an average 
American family will pay $5,370 more in taxes over the course of the 
next 10 years than the Federal Government needs to operate under the 
budget resolution that we adopted just a year ago and this even after 
assuring that all our obligations to Social Security and Medicare have 
been met.
  Next, the Independent Tax Foundation found that this year Americans 
on average will work 129 days to pay off their total tax bill imposed 
at Federal, State, and local levels, while my Washington State 
taxpayers will have to work even longer, 132 days on average.
  Third, American workers now pay more in Federal, State, and local 
taxes than for food, clothing, and shelter combined.
  And fourth, the Federal Government collects more in taxes than ever 
before, currently nearly 21 percent of America's gross domestic 
product, the highest percentage since World War II.
  These are simply facts, not arguments. Reasonable people can agree 
that Americans are having to turn over too much of their hard-earned 
dollars in taxes. Tax relief is not a question of need, it is a 
question of justice. Is it right and just for citizens from Wenatchee 
to Woodinville to Walla Walla to work more than a third of the year 
just to pay their taxes? I think not.
  Unfortunately, President Clinton and his Vice President Gore proposed 
in their budget to increase--that is right, a net increase in taxes of 
$96 billion over the next 10 years. You might wonder why a President 
and Vice President want to raise taxes when we already have the highest 
burden since World War II. Why do they want to raise taxes when the 
Federal budget is operating in a surplus? It should be no surprise 
considering that ever since they were sworn into office in 1993, they

[[Page 6666]]

have not proposed a net tax cut. In spite of the fact that President 
Clinton and Vice President Gore campaigned in 1992 on the promise of a 
middle-class tax cut, they ignored that promise and promptly increased 
taxes by as much as any administration in the history of the United 
States.
  Why? It is very simple. In his State of the Union Address, President 
Clinton proposed 77 new Federal programs. Why does this administration 
believe that the Government needs to spend more money on so many new 
programs? Because the President and the Vice President do not trust the 
American people to spend their own money wisely. They believe that they 
can spend it better.
  I disagree. To the taxpayers in towns across my State and across the 
United States, I say that the Republicans who are adopting this budget 
do so because they trust you and your family and your neighbors better 
to spend your own money on your own needs and priorities than 
bureaucrats in Washington, DC, will ever be able to do.
  This is one reason that I so strongly favor this budget. This budget 
sets aside every penny of the Federal budget surplus generated from 
Social Security into a lockbox for the purpose of strengthening that 
Social Security system for the future, but it provides that we will 
return any additional surpluses in the form of tax reductions, up to 
$142 billion over the next 5 years and $778 billion over ten years, to 
the people who have paid those taxes.
  What form of tax relief are we talking about? I must confess that I 
do not know. Congress will debate that later this year. Four major 
proposals, however, are: eliminating the marriage tax penalty, ending 
or reducing the death tax, reducing capital gains taxes, and an across-
the-board cut in income tax rates.
  While I certainly am not able to predict what the final tax relief 
bill will look like, I hope that it will include some elements of all 
four of these proposals. But the important point is that this budget 
resolution allows that debate to take place, allows the Congress to 
permit the American people to spend their own money, return it to them 
in the form of tax relief, as against the proposal of the President and 
the Vice President to increase taxes so that they can determine where 
that money is spent.
  I must also say, incidentally, at least that I am every bit as 
committed to replacing our current Federal income tax code as I am to 
reducing that tax burden. It is time to scrap it. It is too 
complicated, too burdensome, too unfair. We need to focus our attention 
in Congress on developing an alternative. That alternative needs to be 
fair, simple, uniform and consistent. It is that support on my part 
that has led me to cosponsor the Tax Code Termination Act. The bill 
would sunset the current income tax code, except for those funding 
mechanisms for Social Security and Medicare, by December 31 of the year 
2002. It would require a simple majority vote by Congress to reinstate 
the current code if agreement on a replacement code cannot be reached. 
But the real points are two: It makes absolutely certain the need to 
scrap the current Tax Code, and it will act as a catalyst to jump-start 
debate on a new one.
  Mr. President, Americans deserve a Tax Code they can understand and 
predict. Today, about the only thing Americans can predict about the 
Tax Code is that they will send a big check off to Uncle Sam by April 
15, and about the only thing they understand is that the IRS will find 
them if they do not.
  This should change, and it is why I am working to help pass a tax 
relief bill and why I will be working in favor of a new Federal Tax 
Code that is fair, simple, uniform, and consistent. But a true debate 
on tax relief, a chance to say exactly what it is we want, depends on a 
budget resolution which calls for or requires it.
  This budget resolution does so, Mr. President. This budget resolution 
is on time. This budget resolution says to the American people: We will 
secure Social Security for you; we will balance the budget so the 
economy can keep growing; but the money that is not needed to meet the 
requirements of the agreements that we made a year ago or 2 years ago 
is going to be returned to you in the form of tax relief.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank you.
  I think what I will do is pick up on the comments of my colleague 
from Washington because otherwise you just come to the floor and you 
have something that is well rehearsed; and it is better, I think, to 
respond to what other Senators have said. That makes for more of a 
debate, though I find it frustrating to speak on the floor of the 
Senate because it is sometimes hard to engage in debate.
  On the question of spending money more wisely, the tax cuts that my 
colleague talks about, he mentioned the first 5 years, $143 billion 
over 5 years. It will be $778 billion over 10 years. It is backloaded. 
It is really not what I would actually call fiscally responsible or 
very conservative.
  The theory is to get the money back to the people. ``You can spend it 
more wisely.'' Here is my question. I do not know about Illinois, but 
in the State of Minnesota, only 35 percent of senior citizens, 35 
percent of Medicare recipients--there are probably close to 700,000 
Medicare recipients in our State--have any prescription drug benefit 
coverage at all, only 35 percent.
  It is not uncommon to talk to an elderly woman or a couple and find 
that they are spending up to 30, 40 percent of their monthly budget 
just on prescription drugs. They cannot afford it. So we have a budget 
resolution here that says to the senior citizens in Minnesota, ``Spend 
your money more wisely. If you can't afford prescription drug costs, 
spend your money more wisely.'' There is a disconnect here. This is why 
this Republican budget resolution is going to be in big-time trouble 
with people in this country. It does not make any sense to people.
  To senior citizens in Minnesota, this budget resolution says, ``When 
it comes to prescription drug costs that put you under, spend your 
money more wisely.'' When it comes to family farmers who have been 
buffeted about, and many of them destroyed by the ``freedom to fail'' 
bill--a great bill for multinational corporations, a terrible bill for 
family farmers--when we come to the floor and say we have to get farm 
income up, we have to take the cap off the loan rate, and then it gets 
scored by CBO, we are told we cannot afford to do it. The Republican 
response to the family farmers in Minnesota who are going under is, 
``Spend your money more wisely, because we're going to give you a tax 
cut that will enable you to spend your money more wisely,'' while 
people go under.
  Mr. President, I meet families in Minnesota and families all across 
the country when I get a chance to travel. And one of their top issues, 
one of the most important issues they have, is affordable child care. 
It is a huge issue, not just for low-income, not just working-income; I 
am talking middle-income families. He is 30; she is 28; they have two 
children. It costs them $12,000, $13,000 a year for child care--not to 
mention the fact that way too high a percentage of these child-care 
centers really are not that great. Some of them are downright 
dangerous. The care is not necessarily developmental child care, and 
the people who work there are severely underpaid.
  So what are we saying to working families in our country, in 
Minnesota, in New Jersey, or in Illinois, who can't afford child care? 
We are saying, ``Spend your money more wisely.'' I have news for you: 
For a typical family, a young couple making $35,000 a year, with 
$12,000 child care expenses, this does not work.
  What about for the children? What about for the children? I am glad 
to hear of my colleague's concern for Social Security. And I am glad to 
hear that the Democrats are also focused on Medicare, unlike my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle. But in all due respect, it 
is our children who are going to be in the next century. The next 
millennium is going to belong to our children. And we have close to one 
out of every four children under the

[[Page 6667]]

age of 3 growing up poor in our country, and one out of two children of 
color under the age of 3 growing up poor in our country today; and 
because of this budget resolution, with all of these tax cuts and all 
of these caps, we are going to see a lot of these domestic programs 
taking a hit of about $43 billion.
  So what are we saying? We are going to cut Head Start? We are going 
to cut child nutrition programs? We are going to cut the Women, 
Infants, and Children Program? Where are we going to cut? I do not 
understand the distorted priorities of this budget resolution. There is 
an old Yiddish proverb that says: ``You can't dance at two weddings at 
the same time.'' You can't have all of these backloaded tax cuts, the 
vast majority of which are going to flow to people with very high 
incomes--that has always been the record of my Republican colleagues--
and make your investment in the Pentagon, and do what you say you are 
going to do for Social Security, and at the same time make any 
investment in the health and skills and intellect and character of 
children. We are going to cut programs for children.
  By the way, as to ``Spend your money wisely,'' do not tell some child 
who is poor--the poverty being involuntary--that he or she should spend 
their money more wisely. They do not have any money to spend wisely. I 
doubt whether we are going to cut the National Institutes of Health 
budget, but we are certainly not going to increase it.
  So to my colleague, who is no longer on the floor, talking about 
``Spend your money wisely,'' you say to people who are struggling with 
Alzheimer's or breast cancer or Parkinson's disease or diabetes--and I 
can list many other illnesses as well--all sorts of people come to 
Washington, and they try to get more money spent for research for the 
cure to these diseases, to the point where we have one group of people 
struggling with an illness pitted against another group of people 
struggling with an illness. It is just horrible. And we are saying to 
these people, we are going to have these backloaded tax cuts over the 
next 10 years--``Spend your money more wisely.''
  In all due respect, I think, even though the Chair of the Budget 
Committee is one of the Senators whom I have the most respect for--he 
is really kind of my working partner when it comes to the mental health 
work--this budget resolution and the priorities of this budget 
resolution are not consistent with what I would call the sort of basic 
core values of the American people, of people in this country, of 
people in Minnesota.
  People want to see some investment in children. They do not want to 
see Head Start cut. They do not want to see WIC cut. They do not want 
to see backloaded tax cuts over the next 10 years, most of it going to 
high-income, wealthy people. And people get it; they know that we have 
to be fiscally responsible. They want the deficits gone. They want to 
see us focus on Social Security to make sure it is solvent. We know we 
absolutely should be committed to Medicare. And then with what we have, 
we ought to make the kind of investments that make sense for our 
Nation.
  Where do we want to be in the year 2050? If you want to have a 
solvent Social Security system, then you want to have the children who 
are small today as adults who are independent, productive, highly 
trained, morally caring men and women. And you are not going to get 
there if you are going to leave one-fourth of the children of America 
behind.
  Where is the investment in these children? Where is the investment in 
these families? Where do we want to be in the year 2050? On every 
single issue I can think of, Social Security, Medicare, our country 
doing well in the international economy, economic performance, economic 
growth, reducing crime, reducing violence, you would want to make sure 
that we do our very best by all of our children in the United States of 
America. And you know what? This budget resolution fails that test, and 
therefore I will vote against it.
  I yield the floor and 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. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, understanding the order, I ask unanimous 
consent to speak on the budget for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today I rise in support of the conference 
report on the budget resolution. I extend my sincere congratulations to 
the chairman of our Budget Committee for the work that he and that 
committee have so successfully completed in the last number of weeks. 
In fact, I am extremely pleased with where we are as a Senate at this 
moment in time.
  Many of our constituents around the country were frustrated as the 
Senate convened this year to start with an impeachment process of the 
President, fearing that we would be so bogged down in that that we 
would not get to the work of our people and get to the work of 
Government and to processes like the budget resolution.
  Quite the opposite has happened. The Senate responded in a timely and 
constitutionally proper manner to the impeachment issue and then moved 
rapidly into its work. As a result, we are here today voting on a 
budget resolution which will be adopted as a conference report. It will 
be the second earliest date of adoption of a budget resolution in the 
23 years of the Budget Act. That is why I think the chairman of our 
Budget Committee deserves the congratulations of the Senate and why the 
American people ought to at least be assured that we are here and at 
work and doing what we should be doing in behalf of them to make sure 
their Government responds appropriately to the needs of all of our 
taxpayers.
  This budget demonstrates that we can and should have a balanced 
fiscal program that addresses our Nation's major priorities. If we and 
future Congresses and the President follow the plan that is now laid 
before us in this budget resolution, we will pay down the public debt. 
There will be $463 billion more in debt reduction than the President's 
budget offered us over the next 10 years.
  I have had the privilege of serving in Congress for a number of 
years. I tell my colleagues, I have watched the debt grow, and I voted 
against most of that growth. Today to be able to vote for debt 
reduction is a very positive move for this Congress and laying the 
course for future Congresses to do the same. One-half of the debt held 
by the public can be paid off in the next decade if we follow the 
general outlines of the budget that Senator Domenici has put before us. 
We will make sure Social Security revenues are reserved exclusively for 
Social Security benefits. We will safeguard the current Social Security 
system for today's seniors and for those who plan to retire in the near 
future.
  Mr. President, I, like you, have just returned from my State and from 
the Easter recess. While I was there, I held what I think is the 
beginning of a series of town meetings that I will hold across the 
State on Social Security and its need for modernization. I invited 
seniors in high school and senior citizens to attend, and they did in 
large numbers. I was extremely pleased not only by their turnout but by 
their willingness to listen and react and give me ideas about what they 
see the Social Security system being and what it ought to be.
  I told them that we, by our budget here and by balancing the budget 
and producing surpluses, are providing the country with a generational 
opportunity to maintain a strong Social Security system while at the 
same time offering a modernization package that can take young people 
entering the workforce and paying Social Security through a lifetime of 
developing an annuity program that would be much like a positive 
retirement program that

[[Page 6668]]

they could take with them when they retired and would be substantially 
more than if they were in the current Social Security system. More 
importantly, it would not have to address substantial tax increases in 
Social Security in the outyears beyond 2034 and 2035.
  So for the first time since 1960, the budget will be balanced without 
counting Social Security surpluses. We will provide a reasonable and 
necessary amount for tax relief for working Americans and their 
families. You heard the Senator from Washington and others in just the 
last few hours talk about an American taxpayer that is paying his or 
her taxes today, being taxed at the highest level ever in the history 
of our country. We are turning that around.
  I am pleased to be able to be here on the floor today, on a day when 
most people are going to the post office to pay their taxes, or at 
least to file their tax returns, to say that we are going to change 
some of that. While this is a tax cut, I also agree with my colleague 
from Washington, Senator Gorton, that we ought to be looking at tax 
reform in the near future that will simplify the Tax Code and make it 
much less intimidating than it is today to all of us; those who are 
relatively sophisticated and those who are less sophisticated find it 
all very intimidating and difficult to comply with.
  All tax relief will be provided out of the onbudget surplus, that is, 
the non-Social Security surplus. And $778 billion over 10 years sounds 
like a lot of tax relief, but it is a tax reduction of less than 3.5 
percent. So when some of our colleagues come running to the floor 
wringing their hands about giving tax breaks when we ought to be 
spending all this money, as the President wants to do for new programs, 
let me say to them that we are only offering a 3.5-percent tax 
reduction against the highest taxes in the history of our country, and 
we are offering it over a 10-year period. Frankly, it is nowhere near 
what I hoped it would be, but it clearly moves us in the right 
direction.
  This budget continues. The American people demanded fiscal discipline 
and responsibility in 1994 when they changed the character and culture 
of the Congress and they said quit building deficits and get your 
fiscal house in order and control the size of Government. So we abide 
by the budget caps adopted in 1997 in a bipartisan balanced budget 
agreement. It continues the spending restraints we began in 1995, a 
product of that 1994 election and the 1994 Congress--the first 
Republican Congress in 40 years, which has helped produce the balanced 
budget and the projected surpluses.
  This budget fully funds and protects the solvency of Medicare. In 
that respect, it stands in clear contrast to what the President has 
proposed, which actually proposed to cut Medicare funding and promised 
only General Treasury IOUs for the future. I am amazed that that has 
missed the attention of the press and a lot of the American people 
since our President proposed it. But it really was a first-class shell 
game, probably one of the best I have seen produced by this 
administration, when they said they were doing one thing when, in fact, 
they were actually doing another.
  To hand this next generation a whole fist full of IOUs after mounting 
the hugest debt in the history of our country just doesn't make a lot 
of sense. So we are not doing that in this budget. We won't do that. It 
would not be fair, and most important, it would not be responsible. Of 
course, Medicare still needs the attention in the long term, and 
Senators--Republicans and Democrats alike--have stepped up and said we 
ought to do so. Democrat Senator Kerrey of Nebraska and Democrat 
Senator Breaux of Louisiana worked hard to work with us on a 
bipartisan, long-term Medicare plan, and it is necessary. Congress 
ought not to go home this year without doing it. But my guess is that 
we will because of the politics of it. That should not happen.
  The fact that a bipartisan Medicare Commission broke down because the 
President's appointees would not walk up to the line and do what was 
right--I am not sure why, but my guess is they would like to perpetrate 
another ``medi-scare'' as a tactic going into the next political cycle. 
It is pretty unconscionable that anybody would want to do that. But 
there is really no other explanation for why they failed to do what had 
to be done because those of us who face the electorate and understand 
the complications of Medicare stepped to that line and said reform is 
necessary and offered a reform package, Democrat and Republican alike. 
I have mentioned several of those Democrats. So that work is yet to be 
done. Medicare reform is yet to be dealt with, and I hope we can do it 
because it is necessary.
  This budget strengthens America's defense forces too long neglected 
under this administration. Yet, this is an administration that has used 
our defense forces more than nearly any other President in a peacetime 
era. It is time that we make sure that America's sons and daughters who 
put themselves in harm's way in the protection of our Nation have their 
interests served. When I speak of their interests being served, I mean 
making sure that we back them up with equipment and technology, 
compensate them adequately, and give them the dignified quality of life 
that anybody in that service deserves. This budget meets the challenges 
of the 21st century with positive initiatives in agriculture, child 
care, and education.
  What I am telling you, Mr. President, is I think this is a pretty 
darn good budget. It is sound and it is a conservative budget. It 
recognizes the value of balancing, and it recognizes the reward to the 
taxpayers that a balanced budget ought to offer. It is good for the 
economic security of the American family by recognizing that we are 
going to let them keep some of their hard-earned dollars instead of 
cycling them to Washington and try to get them back.
  All of the money that we spend here comes from somebody's hard work, 
somebody who gets up every morning bright and early and goes to work 
and works hard for 8, 10, 12 hours a day. They willingly pay a very 
large chunk of their income to Government. Now that we have balanced 
the budget, why should we be chasing new Government programs, or bigger 
Government programs, or programs that ultimately take freedom away from 
people and their choice? Why should we not be rewarding the taxpayer by 
saying that we have enough and we are going to send some of it back to 
you, and we are not going to take it away from you in the future, 
unless we come to you and ask you for it because there truly is a 
national need. That is the way good Government works and, very frankly, 
I think this is a pretty good Government budget. I strongly support it.
  I urge my colleagues to vote with us for it, and I urge my colleagues 
to work with the Finance Committee and with the Senate to devise a tax 
package that is fair and equitable across the board, that recognizes 
issues such as the marriage penalty, that recognizes an issue such as 
small family business owners who grow too old to operate their business 
and want to pass it through to their children and are being denied that 
because the children would have to sell it to pay the taxes on it.
  That is a great tragedy in the American dream--how our Government 
ever got crosswise with the idea of a family being able to pass down 
through the generations a business that they have built and has grown 
over the years and now have to sell to pay the inheritance tax, the 
death tax.
  Now, I am not suggesting that if it doesn't move in the family and it 
is simply sold at the end of a generation, it ought not to receive some 
tax. But when we are talking small, privately held businesses, farms 
and ranches, Main Street small businesses that make our country work so 
well, and then find out that mom and dad can't hand it to a son or 
daughter without the Government taking nearly all of it, or the son and 
daughter then spending their lifetime to buy it back, frankly, that is 
wrong. I and others have worked a long time to reduce the death tax. We 
have been able to do some of that. Why don't we just eliminate it, or 
deal with it in a way which says that if that asset moves out to be 
sold in the marketplace as an asset for sale then it

[[Page 6669]]

comes under the normal tax of the income of an individual with the 
proper considerations against depreciation and all of that? That would 
be fair. That would be just. We should deal with our countrymen in a 
way that says we recognize that those who work for the American dream 
ought to be allowed to pass that dream forward to the next generation. 
That is one of those kinds of tax reforms I hope we can get at this 
year.
  There are a good many others that our colleagues are working on and 
that will be embodied in the tax relief package that is placed in this 
to this budget resolution.
  Once again, let me praise the chairman of our Budget Committee, and 
that committee and the will of the Republican Congress that says that a 
balanced budget is something we will keep and continue to work for and 
that surpluses should be handed back as rewards to the American 
taxpayer instead of spent. That is what this budget does. I am proud to 
have been a part of it.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I believe everyone knows that today is 
tax day in America. I think we have been talking about it. And I think 
it is very appropriate that we have a budget resolution on the floor 
today that we can say will give tax relief because that is set aside in 
this budget.
  The tax burden on Americans is too high. The average American family 
pays 38 percent of its income in taxes to some government--the Federal 
Government, the State government, and the local government. As a 
percentage of gross domestic product, taxes are higher today than they 
were at any time in this country since World War II.
  That is why the budget resolution that we are going to pass is 
significant. The American people should know that on April 15 this 
Congress is going to pass a plan that provides a $770 billion tax cut 
over the next 10 years. There couldn't be a clearer message from this 
Congress about what our priorities are, and that is tax relief for 
hard-working American families.
  There are some, including the President, who oppose our plan. They 
say that Washington will save money for working Americans. But we know 
that is not going to happen. We have heard that before. And we know 
that we haven't had a budget surplus nor tax cut in this country--until 
this Republican Congress was elected--for 40 years. So we know who 
cares about tax cuts for the American family.
  I think we have chosen the right course. Giving the extra money to 
the Government would not ever get it back to the people. But we believe 
that people who earn the money have the right to it. And that is why we 
will have a tax bill when this budget is passed.
  There are many tax proposals that come before the Senate, many of 
which I support. Certainly reducing capital gains taxes would be good 
for our country. Reducing or eliminating the estate taxes would be good 
for this country; and across-the-board tax relief, 10 percent across 
the board, so that when you are writing your check today, you can just 
take 10 percent of the check you wrote and know that would not be in 
your tax bill next year and you would be able to spend that money the 
way you think it is best for your family.
  But there is one that is my priority, and it is to eliminate what I 
think is the worst transgression we have in our Tax Code. That is the 
marriage tax penalty. Right now, 21 million American families pay up to 
$1,400 on average more just because they are married. So we say to 
people, you have to choose between love and money in our country.
  If you want to get married, start a family, and build up your savings 
to make a downpayment on a new home, we will make you $1,400 less able 
to do that. That is a lot of money to the hard-working couples who are 
hardest hit by this tax.
  I have introduced legislation to eliminate this penalty. We could 
allow couples to split their incomes evenly or we could double the 
standard exemption to widen the tax brackets for married couples so 
they match those of single filers. We could also let people choose if 
it is better for them to file as singles or as married couples. That 
way, no one would pay a penalty for getting married. I hope it will be 
our highest priority with the tax cuts that are provided in this 
budget.
  I read in USA Today an op-ed piece this morning on the marriage tax 
penalty. Their contention is that this only affects the higher-income 
couples. They say that the bulk of those suffering this marriage tax 
penalty are dual-income families at the middle-income level, $50,000. I 
have a legislative correspondent in my office and his combined family 
income is $50,000. He makes about $25,000 and his wife must work for 
them to be able to make ends meet. She makes about $25,000. They are a 
young couple. I don't think that people who make $25,000 a year are 
wealthy, and I most certainly think if they have to have two incomes in 
order to make ends meet that we are not increasing the standard of 
living in this country. To go forward and say two people who make 
$25,000 a year should owe Uncle Sam $1,400 more, I think is absolutely 
wrong, particularly a young couple that is trying to get started, to 
make a downpayment to buy a home.
  I hope we can correct this inequity. I think two-income earners at 
the $25,000 level deserve some help. I am going to try to get it for 
them.
  This is a red letter day. This is the day that we see how much it 
costs for us to support government. All of us want to do our fair 
share. I would never say we should have no taxes because we do enjoy 
good service--hopefully--for the taxes that we pay. However, 38 percent 
of a person's income in taxes is hard to explain. It is hard to explain 
that you are getting that much service for your dollars. I think you 
could get a lot less service and a lot more choice if we lower the 
taxes for everyone in this country so that hard-working Americans could 
see the benefits of working harder and doing better. That is the 
American dream. That is what made this country great--that we would say 
to people, if you work harder you can do better and you can give a 
little more to your family or your children. That is why adding on some 
of these taxes is so important.
  Today, we are going to pass a budget resolution that will do that, 
that will say to the hard-working American that help is on the way. I 
just hope we can come to terms with the President so that we will be 
able to pass a tax bill that really will go to the hard-working 
American who is struggling to make ends meet.
  I appreciate the leadership of Senator Domenici and Senator 
Lautenberg for putting this budget resolution forth. I think it is a 
good one. It is a responsible spending of our hard-earned tax dollars. 
Most important, on tax day, I hope people realize that we are going to 
try to cut that burden. This budget resolution is a start in the right 
direction.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we are coming to ``H'' hour here. That 
is not happy hour, as far as I am concerned. I can think of other words 
that start with an H--like horrific, horrendous, horrible, hurtful--but 
I won't use that vocabulary. I will just infer it.
  The occupant of the Chair has been in government for some time, and I 
am sure he has seen it from a different perspective. We see good people 
sincerely

[[Page 6670]]

believing in what they are doing at odds with one another, in such 
contrasting views that it is hard to reconcile the difference of what 
is and what isn't the reality. This is no suggestion of prevarication 
or fabrication. I am not talking about that. I know there is genuine 
belief.
  I differ sharply with my friends and colleagues on the other side 
regarding this budget. Few people have I more respect for than the 
chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici. Boy, we have some 
scraps. They are really good ones. The fact of the matter is, he is a 
bright guy. He understands a budget as few here do. He is one of the 
few Senators who has to teach his staff what it is all about. That is 
intended to be a joke.
  The rest of us do it differently. I hope the public doesn't take that 
too seriously, Mr. President.
  The fact of the matter is Senator Domenici very well knows 
``budgeteering,'' but I think in this case it is fair to say there is 
an error in the approach. I think the policy as proposed by the budget 
conference report is fiscally dangerous. I think if we go the way it 
appears that we will go, we could be approaching in the not-too-distant 
future a shutdown of the Government. Everybody who has been around for 
any length of time remembers how painful the last shutdown was: People 
were not getting Social Security checks, veterans' benefits were not 
being paid, services people count on for their everyday existence were 
just unavailable. Other matters that seemed to be routine, such as 
entrances to national parks, families planning for a year to visit one 
of our national parks and finding out they were closed. Became 
important. Airplanes, trains, buses, cars--all that planning, gone.
  I predict we are going to be playing Russian roulette to see who 
pulls the trigger on whether or not we have a Government shutdown 
because this budget ``ain't for real,'' to use the language, when we 
look at what happens as a result of the intent to give a tax cut across 
the board--a lot of it to wealthy people--and we know that some time 
ago Senator Domenici said we were taking people's word for what the 
intention is without seeing it clearly spelled out.
  Few people have as much authority around here as the distinguished 
Senator of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth. He was speaking to 
Reuters and he said he was very much in favor of using bigger than 
expected budget surpluses to fund an across-the-board income tax of 10 
percent or more. That is what Reuters reported:

       ``I don't think it is too big,'' the Delaware Republican 
     said of the 10 percent income tax cut. ``If anything, I would 
     like to have it bigger.''

  That is a pretty good indicator of where we are going. We are not 
protecting Social Security in the way that we proposed here on the 
floor of the Senate 2 days ago. We had a vote. I offered the amendment. 
I said no Social Security surplus shall be used for anything other than 
Social Security, pure and simple.
  The language is very direct. Mr. President, 98 people voted for it. 
We had zero opposition, 98-0. It went to conference with the House. For 
those who don't understand the arcane process here, the House and the 
Senate get together and have a conference to decide on what the various 
legislative programs will be, we agree between us on a conference 
report, and that is what we are voting on today.
  As it happens, there is a Republican majority in the Senate. There is 
a Republican majority in the House. As was noted, we, the Democrats, do 
not participate. That is the game. It is understood. Next year, when we 
are in the majority, I expect to be more forgiving and perhaps we will 
even invite one of the Republicans to the conference meeting.
  But the fact is, the product that came out is one that is a 
Republican delivery. Make no mistake about it. And the consequence of 
that is the bill we have in front of us with huge tax breaks for 
wealthy people. If you make $800,000, you will get a $20,000 tax break. 
If you make $800,000, you get $20,000 worth of extra spending money. 
That can buy, perhaps, a nice little boat or a downpayment on a summer 
home or something of that nature. But the person who makes $38,000: 
$99, that is what he or she is going to get in terms of a tax break, 
$99. Don't spend it all in one night, friends, because it is supposed 
to last for a whole year. That is a tax cut: $99.
  So when we look at it, it is obvious that we are not dealing with the 
needs of the average working person, the hard-working person, a family 
making $38,000. We have heard the distinguished Senator from Texas talk 
about a person working in her office who, with his spouse, put together 
an income of $50,000. That is not a lot of money today. Those are the 
kinds of folks to whom we have to be sensitive, to target tax cuts for 
them and make sure the woman who wants to work can get some decent 
child care and get some credit on her taxes for it. If you have an 
elderly parent who needs long-term care, get a tax credit for that; a 
tax credit for education; those are the kinds of tax credits or tax 
breaks I think we ought to be giving. That is what the Democrats are 
proposing.
  One of the things we are doing is proposing a tax cut that, in the 
course of 10 years, will be three-quarters of a trillion dollars--$750 
billion in round terms. The consequence of that, the result of that, is 
going to be that we will not have sufficient funds to pay for 
Government services. We will not have enough funds to pay for full 
staff for the FBI. We will not have enough funds to pay for full 
staffing of drug enforcement agents. We will not have enough funds to 
include 800,000 low-income women, infants, and children in programs for 
nutrition assistance.
  We are not talking about extra money to take a trip to Europe; we are 
talking about food. Mr. President, 800,000 of those people are going to 
lose assistance from the Government. The number of students in work/
study programs decreases by 12,000 people. Head Start is designed to 
take children who come from poverty-ridden homes to start to learn--
Head Start. It is preschool. It is before they get to kindergarten or 
first grade. We are going to take away services for 100,000 children. 
For those who need energy assistance, 600,000 low-income families could 
lose that energy assistance.
  The FBI, the cut to the FBI could result in the reduction of 2,700 
FBI agents. Mr. President, 73,000 summer jobs lost. And the list goes 
on: More than 2,200 air traffic controller positions would be cut. I am 
very active in air transportation matters and very concerned about 
where we go. Y2K, will we have the right kind of personnel to handle 
the shift? Here we are, getting a budget in front of us. It is there in 
print for everybody to see. It is designed by the majority. We are 
saying that more than 2,200 air traffic controller positions would be 
cut and $255 million.
  The IRS customer service: Today everybody is probably as angry at the 
IRS as can be, but when they see what it is we are paying for, we are 
paying for a country designed to give everybody opportunity. We are 
doing better at it. Jobs are more available, there is low unemployment, 
our national health is better than it has ever been. That is what you 
pay your taxes for. You do not pay it for some idle bureaucrat sitting 
in a chair. We pay for services. Do we get 100 cents on a dollar? 
Probably not. I ran a big corporation and it was a successful 
corporation. We didn't get 100 cents' worth of value on every dollar 
that we spent, but that's life.
  Mr. President, we now are preparing ourselves to vote for a budget 
that I think is shameful, that could be called a sham. Again, there is 
no accusation here of dishonesty or skullduggery. What it is is a 
misinterpretation of what things are about. It is playing dice with our 
national economy. It says if you give tax cuts, it is going to generate 
something else and it will be good for us. Baloney.
  What happened under President Reagan's regime, when we gave tax cuts? 
I will tell you what we got for it. Some of the biggest debt this 
country ever had, and it grew by leaps and bounds. When President 
Clinton took over, there was a $290 billion deficit in front

[[Page 6671]]

of us, and this year we are looking at a surplus of about $100 billion. 
Things have changed materially in the 7 years that have passed.
  So I am hoping we will get a vote that reflects what is best for the 
American people, and that would be to deny acceptance of this budget 
report that is in front of us. I hope we will perhaps be able to 
convince some of our Republican friends to come over, take another look 
at the budget and see what we can do to improve the situation, because 
right now we are headed for a potential fiscal disaster just when 
things are really going good.
  I want to say something in response to an earlier argument I heard 
from the other side when it was said there is going to be more money 
put into Social Security than the Democrats are proposing. It is not 
true, because hidden in there is some arcane language that says 
``retirement security.'' They want to put the money away that can be 
used for retirement security--not Social Security. They are both two 
words but they have different significance. One is a Government program 
established for people who are dependent on the Government for their 
retirement and their pension. The other could be Heaven knows what.
  So I caution everybody, as we prepare to vote, which is imminent, 
that the American public ought to be looking very closely at what it is 
we are going to do. I hope they will respond as they see it, to those 
Senators who are casting a vote at this moment. I hope the vote will 
wind up with a majority saying no.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the floor.


                    land and water conservation fund

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to engage my distinguished 
colleagues, Senator Smith of New Hampshire and Senator Domenici, in a 
colloquy, with their indulgence. As my colleagues are aware, the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund is the primary vehicle through which the 
Federal Government funds the acquisition of land and water resources 
throughout the Nation. It does so through two programs, one allowing 
for Federal land acquisitions and one providing for matching grants by 
State and local governments. However, funding for the LWCF has been 
sporadic, and for the State-side program, funding has been non-existent 
since 1995.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I would like to emphasize that the State-
side program of the LWCF receives widespread support across the Nation, 
particularly from State and local governments.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I would like to bring to my colleagues' attention an 
amendment I offered, with great assistance by Senator Smith of New 
Hampshire, as well as Senators Leahy and Feingold, that increased 
Function 300 by $200 million, with a commensurate decrease from 
Function 370. The amendment included language that this increase was to 
fund the State-side program of LWCF.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Accompanying the amendment were floor 
statements expressing our intent that the offset be derived from within 
the Department of Commerce, and specifically within Function 370. After 
negotiations with Senators Leahy and Feingold and other Democratic 
colleagues who cosponsored the amendment, we reached a bipartisan 
agreement that the $200 million would come from within the Commerce 
Department.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I would like to ask the distinguished manager of the 
budget resolution whether these assumptions still apply, even if they 
do not appear in the resolution?
  Mr. DOMENICI. As far as the Senate is concerned, these assumptions 
are still valid. Although the conference report is silent with respect 
to the $200 million being directed to the State-side program, there is 
nothing to assume that the money is not for the State-side program. 
Indeed, the best indication of the Senate's intent with respect to the 
LWCF is the Senate-approved resolution.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Is the same true with respect to the 
offset?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes. In fact, as my friends, the Senators from New 
Hampshire and Rhode Island may have already noted, the House receded in 
its disagreement with the Senate numbers for function 370. The Senate 
numbers were $200 million lower in both budget authority and outlays 
for this function than the House.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Is there a presumption that the Senate, in accepting the 
House-passed, higher funding level for Function 300, is also adopting 
the assumptions that may have been used by the House in reaching its 
Function 300 spending levels?
  Mr. DOMENICI. There is no such presumption. The Senate assumptions 
are as equally valid as the House assumptions. The real challenge lies 
ahead when the Appropriations Subcommittees begin marking up their 
separate appropriations bills. Since our budget assumptions are just 
that--assumptions--and do not bind appropriators to specified funding 
levels for individual programs, Senators must vigorously continue to 
make their case for funding favored programs with the relevant 
Appropriations Subcommittee. I do know that the State-side land 
acquisition program could not have better advocates than the Senators 
from Rhode Island and New Hampshire.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I thank my colleague from New Hampshire, as well as the 
distinguished manager of the budget resolution, for engaging in this 
colloquy. I also wish to wholeheartedly thank the manager for his 
support on this issue throughout the consideration of the budget 
resolution.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his kind 
remarks. I would add that the inevitable challenges of moving a budget 
resolution through the Senate to final passage were made far less 
difficult by the hard work of Senator Chafee and his staff, whose 
understanding and accommodation allowed us to complete our work in a 
timely fashion. It is a great pleasure to work with him again on the 
conference version of the resolution.


      technical correction to section 104 of the budget resolution

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to alert my colleagues in 
the Senate to a technical error which occurred during the drafting of 
section 104 of the Conference Report to accompany H. Con. Res. 68--the 
Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2000.
  Section 104 of the resolution sets out the reconciliation 
instructions for the Committee on Finance in the Senate. This 
instruction calls for a net reduction in revenues over the 10-year 
period of fiscal years 2000 through 2009. As is always the case with a 
reconciled revenue reduction, the amounts contained in the instructions 
to both the Senate Finance and the House Ways and Means committees are 
intended to be the same. However, due to a technical drafting error 
with respect to the instruction to the Finance Committee, the amounts 
are not the same. Three ``zeros'' were omitted from the instruction 
such that the amount for fiscal years 2000 through 2009 is $777.868 
million instead of $777.868 billion.
  If my colleagues look to other sections of the budget resolution and 
the statement of managers which accompanies it they will see that the 
conferees clearly intended the amount in the instruction to the Finance 
Committee be $777.868 billion not $777.868 million. In addition to the 
language found in the statement of managers, this intent is evidenced 
by the figures set out in section 101(1)(B) of the resolution (which 
states on a year-by-year basis, the amount by which the aggregate 
levels of Federal revenues should be changed--the sum of these figures 
is $777.868 billion) and the figures set out in section 101(5) of the 
resolution (which displays the appropriate levels of the public debt).
  Moreover, I have consulted with the Parliamentarian of the Senate and 
have been assured that for the purpose of determining whether or not 
the legislation reported by the Senate Committee on Finance complies 
with the reconciliation instruction contained in section 104 of the 
budget resolution the Parliamentarian will honor the intent

[[Page 6672]]

of the conferees--that the 10-year figure is $777.868 billion, not 
$777.868 million. I am gratified that the Parliamentarian will support 
a rational result.


   Corrections to FY 2000 Budget Resolution Senate Committee Budget 
    Authority and Outlay Allocations and Reconciliation Instructions

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to submit for 
the Record corrections of typographical errors on tables that 
originally appeared in the April 13, 1999 Congressional Record on pages 
H1963 and H1964 in the Statement of Managers to accompany the FY 2000 
Congressional Budget Resolution, H. Con. Res. 68. I further ask that 
these corrected tables be considered to be the allocations required by 
section 302 (a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  On the table titled ``Senate Committee Budget Authority and Outlay 
Allocations Pursuant to Section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act, 
Budget Year Total 2000 (in millions of dollars),'' the figure for 
Appropriations Outlays, General Purpose Discretionary should be 
$536,701. Appropriations Outlays, Total should be $875,243.
  Direct spending jurisdiction, Budget Authority for the Finance 
Committee should be $683,102. Direct spending jurisdiction, Outlays for 
the Finance Committee should be $676,153.
  Direct spending jurisdiction, Budget Authority Total should be 
$1,426,720. Direct spending jurisdiction, Outlays Total should be 
$1,408,082.
  On the table titled ``Senate Committee Budget Authority and Outlay 
Allocations Pursuant to Section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act, 5-
Year Total: 2000-2004 (in millions of dollars),'' the figure for Direct 
spending jurisdiction, Budget Authority for the Finance Committee 
should be $3,389,039.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the 
corrected tables, which I now send to the desk, be printed in their 
entirety in the Record.
  There being no objection, the tables were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

SENATE COMMITTEE BUDGET AUTHORITY AND OUTLAY ALLOCATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Direct spending     Entitlements funded
                                                                          jurisdiction            in annual
                                                                    ------------------------  appropriations act
                             Committee                                                      --------------------
                                                                       Budget      Outlays     Budget
                                                                      authority              authority   Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                             BUDGET YEAR TOTAL: 2000
                           Appropriations
                                                                                                     0         0
General Purpose Discretionary......................................    531,771     536,701           0         0
Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund.................................      4,500       5,554           0         0
Highways...........................................................          0      24,574
Mass Transit.......................................................          0       4,117
Mandatory..........................................................    321,502     304,297           0         0
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
    Total..........................................................    857,773     875,243           0         0
                                                                    ============================================
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry...............................     10,843       7,940      26,696     9,419
Armed Services.....................................................     49,327      49,433           0         0
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs................................      4,676      (1,843)          0         0
Commerce, Science, and Transportation..............................      8,420       5,774         721       717
Energy and Natural Resources.......................................      2,336       2,258          40        63
Environment and Public Works.......................................     36,532       2,041           0         0
Finance............................................................    683,102     676,153     156,910   157,096
Foreign Relations..................................................      9,354      11,976           0         0
Governmental Affairs...............................................     59,501      57,941           0         0
Judiciary..........................................................      4,759       4,235         234       234
Labor and Human Resources..........................................      9,023       8,363       1,309     1,309
Rule and Administration............................................        114         289           0         0
Veterans' Affairs..................................................      1,106       1,381      23,667    23,540
Indian Affairs.....................................................        151         150           0         0
Small Business.....................................................          0        (155)          0         0
Unassigned to Committee............................................   (310,297)   (293,097)          0         0
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
    Total..........................................................  1,426,720   1,408,082     209,577   192,378
                                                                    ============================================
 
                                             5-YEAR TOTAL: 2000-2004
Agriculture, Nutrition and Forest..................................     40,012      24,704     100,467    52,240
Armed Services.....................................................    263,769     263,577           0         0
Banking, Housing, and Urbran Affairs...............................     31,606      (2,459)          0         0
Commerce, Science,and Transportation...............................     64,653      50,445       3,887     3,868
Energy and Natural Resources.......................................     11,023      11,009         200       236
Environment and Public Works.......................................    179,132       8,214           0         0
Finance............................................................  3,589,039   3,569,977     905,958   909,007
Foreign Relations..................................................     42,596      52,913           0         0
Governmental Affairs...............................................    317,701     309,374           0         0
Judiciary..........................................................     23,791      22,792       1,170     1,170
Labor and Human Resources..........................................     48,269      45,687       6,784     6,784
Rules and Administration...........................................        488         660           0         0
Veterans' Affairs..................................................      5,097       7,108     125,438   125,110
Indian Affairs.....................................................        716         717           0         0
Small Business.....................................................          0        (625)          0         0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that for 
the purpose of executing and enforcing the Senate's reconciliation 
instruction set out in section 104 of the conference report to 
accompany H. Con. Res. 68--the fiscal year 2000 budget resolution --
that the dollar amount of the revenue reduction for the period of 
fiscal years 2000 through 2009 be considered to be $777,868,000,000 
rather than $777,868,000.
  This corrects a technical drafting error (three ``zeros'' were 
omitted) in the resolution and conforms with the instruction for the 
House of Representatives and the description of section 104 that is 
contained in the statement of managers which accompanies the budget 
resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, first I must congratulate the Chairman 
of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, for producing an on-time 
budget for only the second time in the 24-plus-year history of the 
Budget Act.
  I rise today to support the fiscal year 2000 budget resolution now 
before the Senate. I am pleased that this budget will pay down the 
Federal debt, boost education spending, and increase veterans health 
care spending. I am disappointed that budget conferees could only fund 
$6 billion of the $10 billion proposed by myself and Senator Dodd in 
child care grants for low-income families and child care tax cuts. 
However, I appreciate the hard work Senator Domenici and others put 
into getting these funds.
  While I realize that our amendment would not have guaranteed an 
increase in child care spending, Congress needs to face up to the 
reality that low-income mothers need to work, and to make work pay they 
need child care assistance. As Chairman of the Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions Committee, I can assure supporters of child care 
subsidies that this will not be the last word on this issue during the 
106th Congress.
  On a more positive note, this budget adheres to the historic Balanced 
Budget Act of 1997, while at the same time, over the next ten years, 
pays down $1.8 trillion of the $3.6 trillion in publicly held debt and 
provides for modest tax cuts until larger on-budget surpluses emerge.
  Additionally the Republican budget will fence off the portion of the 
surplus generated through Social Security payroll taxes. I would like 
to reassure all Vermonters that not a dollar of these funds will be 
used to fund tax cuts. Instead, Social Security payroll taxes will go 
towards shoring up the program and possibly go toward providing capital 
for an overhaul plan. While this alone will not ensure the long-term 
financial health of the program, it will have the effect of reducing 
Federal debt and extending the solvency of the program.
  Mr. President, the budget before the Senate also protects Medicare 
for our nation's seniors. Funding for Medicare is increased 
significantly, but like Social Security, the long-term health of the 
program is dependent not on providing additional funds, but on enacting 
needed structural changes. As the resolution indicates, Medicare 
beneficiaries must have access to high-quality skilled nursing 
services, home health care services and inpatient and outpatient 
hospital services in rural areas. The availability of these services is 
at risk, especially for rural populations, and I will do all I can to 
ensure that they are addressed as a part of any Medicare legislation. I 
am particularly pleased that the resolution includes a Medicare drug 
benefit reserve fund. The availability of a drug benefit for seniors is 
one of my highest priorities, and I plan to work with other members of 
the Finance Committee to have it included as a part of any Medicare 
reform effort.
  Mr. President, I am very pleased that section 210 of the budget 
resolution sets forth a reserve fund ``to foster the

[[Page 6673]]

employment and independence of individuals with disabilities.'' The 
language makes clear that, in the Senate, revenue and spending 
aggregates and other appropriate budgetary levels and limits may be 
adjusted and allocations may be revised for legislation that finances 
disability programs to promote employment. This direction will 
facilitate the consideration of S. 331, the Work Incentives Improvement 
Act of 1999, which now has 72 cosponsors.
  I am also pleased that the resolution contains Senator Collins and my 
Sense of the Senate in support of increased funding for the Pell grant 
program, the campus based programs, LEAP and TRIO. These programs have 
helped make the dream of college a reality for many of our nation's 
neediest students. Providing an increase in funding for these tested 
and proven programs will open the doors of higher education to more 
academically motivated young people, specifically those who have the 
most financial need.
  Lastly, Mr. President, given world events and the ever increasing 
demands we place on our military, I am pleased that this budget calls 
for an increase in military pay. We need to do more to alleviate the 
quality of life concerns of our men and women in uniform. However, I am 
concerned that some of the military increases in this budget are not 
going to the things that the military needs most, as evidenced by the 
current crisis in Kosovo.
  This budget, like all budgets passed by Congress, is an expression of 
political intent and a starting point for bargaining. Much work remains 
to be done to pass the 13 appropriations bills that actually fund the 
government. In areas where I disagree with the budget resolution, I 
plan to work hard with appropriators to adjust spending levels and turn 
this budget into reality.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, it is with some degree of regret that 
I rise to oppose this budget resolution conference report.
  Thanks to continued economic growth and the tough choices we made on 
the budget in 1993, this year, for the first time in a generation, we 
have been given the opportunity to structure a budget which is 
balanced, fiscally responsible, and makes important investment in 
America's domestic priorities.
  When I first came to the Senate some 6 years ago, we faced $200 
billion annual deficits as far as the eye could see. Now, thanks to the 
tough choices we made in 1993, then fiscal discipline we imposed on the 
budget, and a vibrant economy, we are able to reap the benefits of the 
difficult choices. Now we are running surpluses--projected to be as 
much as $4.7 trillion over the next 15 years by the Office of 
Management and Budget.
  Thanks to these surpluses we have an unparalleled opportunity to set 
our budgetary house in order and meet the challenges of the future.
  We have the opportunity to save Social Security and Medicare. To 
invest in education, environment, and health care. To provide for a 
strong national defense.
  And I also believe that we have an important opportunity to provide 
responsible tax relief for working families--and I intend to introduce 
legislation to provide just such a tax cut with my colleague from Iowa, 
Senator Grassley.
  But this conference report ignores these opportunities. It fails to 
meet the test of saving Medicare. It fails to make the important 
investments in health care, education, and child care. And it endangers 
other programs vital for law enforcement, environment, and continued 
economic growth.
  This conference report does not do anything to meet Medicare's 
solvency crisis or extend the life of this vital program beyond the 
projected 2015 bankruptcy. I agree with those who say that we must 
reform Medicare, but we also must provide it with the additional funds 
it needs. The President has proposed allocating 15 percent of the 
surplus for Medicare to add 12 years to life of program. This budget 
rejects that initiative, creates some vague ``reserve'' which may or 
may not help Medicare, but really uses the money that should go to 
Medicare for tax cuts instead.
  This budget does not do enough to extend Social Security. Again, I 
would agree with those who say we need to adopt Social Security reform 
to strengthen the Social Security system and assure it is on sound 
footing. But this budget allows some of the Social Security surpluses 
to be used for purposes other than Social Security, and, frankly, I do 
not think that that is wise.
  Yesterday, the Senate voted by 98-0 to instruct our conferees to use 
all Social Security surplus funds for Social Security. This conference 
report, however, creates a ``lockbox'' for Social Security, but then 
proceeds to remove the lock by allowing any legislation that ``enhances 
retirement security'' to raid Social Security surplus funds..
  Finally, although this conference report protects some important 
domestic priorities, such as transportation, it cuts other essential 
but ``unprotected'' programs, such as the border patrol, the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation, job training programs, child care assistance, 
head start, and on and on. The strictures of this budget--driven by an 
overlarge tax cut--may necessitate cuts of 11 percent in many of these 
important programs.
  Mr. President, I think our current economic strength has presented us 
with a unique opportunity--we can save Social Security and Medicare, 
make important investments in domestic priorities, provide for a strong 
national defense, and also provide the American people with tax relief.
  Unfortunately, this conference report, by adopting unrealistic tax 
cuts, puts at risk all these goals, and may well set us down a path of 
fiscal irresponsibility that will endanger all our gains of the past 
few years. I urge my colleague to oppose this conference report.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the FY2000 
budget conference report we are now considering and to urge for its 
adoption.
  I would first like to thank the Chairman of the Senate Budget 
Committee, Pete Domenici, for his unwavering commitment to a balanced 
budget and fiscally responsible decision-making over the years. Thanks, 
in part, to his leadership and efforts, the turbulent waves of annual 
deficits and mounting debt have been temporarily calmed. And, by 
maintaining these principles in the House-Senate budget conference 
report, we may be able to maintain the current budgetary calm for many 
years in the future.
  The conference report not only maintains fiscal discipline, but it 
also ensures that critical priorities are protected and addressed in 
fiscal year 2000 and beyond.
  Specifically, the conference report contains the following key 
provisions:
  First, it sets-aside every penny of the Social Security surplus, 
unlike the President's budget proposal.
  Second, by retaining an amendment I offered to the Senate budget 
resolution, it provides monies from the on-budget surplus for a new 
Medicare prescription drug benefit--something that President Clinton 
failed to include in his own budget proposal after touting the need for 
this benefit in his State of the Union address.
  Third, it adheres to the spending levels established just two years 
ago in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, while increasing funding for 
critically needed priorities including education and defense.
  Fourth, it provides tax relief for Americans at a time when the 
typical family's tax burden exceeds the cost of food, clothing, and 
shelter combined. And by retaining language from an amendment I offered 
to the Senate budget resolution, it highlights marriage penalty relief 
as being one of the forms of tax relief that could be accommodated in 
any forthcoming tax cut package. When considering that 42 percent of 
all married couples incurred a marriage tax penalty averaging $1,400 in 
1996, I think of no tax cut that would be more appropriate in any 
upcoming tax package.
  Collectively, I believe these principles and priorities reflect those 
of most Americans--especially the protection of Social Security's 
monies. Accordingly, I believe this conference

[[Page 6674]]

report deserves broad bipartisan support by the entire Congress.
  Mr. President, to appreciate the provisions in this conference 
report, I believe it is appropriate to compare it to the only other 
major budget proposal on the table: the budget proposal put forth by 
President Clinton on February 1. In particular, I believe the manner in 
which these proposals treat the Social Security surplus should be 
carefully compared.
  As mentioned, the first priority that is protected in the Republican 
conference report is Social Security and the annual surpluses it is 
currently accruing.
  As my colleagues are aware, the Social Security surplus was 
responsible for the unified budget surplus of $70 billion we accrued in 
FY98. In fact, without the Social Security surplus, the federal 
government actually ran an on-budget deficit of $29 billion last year.
  By the same token, Social Security's surpluses will account for the 
bulk of our unified budget surpluses in coming years as well. 
Specifically, over the coming 5 years, Social Security surpluses will 
total $769 billion and account for 82 percent of CBO's projected 
unified surpluses--and over 10 years, they will total $1.7 trillion and 
account for 69 percent of unified surpluses.
  To protect Social Security's surpluses, the budget resolution sets 
the stage for ``lock-box'' legislation that will accomplish what many 
of us have desired for years: a bonafide means of taking Social 
Security off-budget. Put simply, this resolution ensures that Social 
Security surpluses are set aside and not raided to pay for other 
federal programs.
  In contrast, President Clinton's budget offers no protection for the 
Social Security surplus and, in fact, proposes that it be spent on 
other federal programs in upcoming years.
  Specifically, over the coming 5 years, the President proposes we take 
a $158 billion ``bite'' out of Social Security surpluses and spend 
these monies on other federal programs. That means that, under the 
President's budget, fully 21 percent of Social Security's upcoming 
surpluses would be spent on other programs over the next 5 years.
  Although the President has proposed that we spend a portion of the 
Social Security surplus on other programs, I was pleased that an 
overwhelming majority of my Democratic colleagues on the Senate Budget 
Committee voted for an amendment I offered during markup of the Senate 
resolution that rejected the President's proposed use of Social 
Security's surpluses.
  Specifically, my amendment outlined the fact that the President's 
budget would spend $40 billion of the Social Security surplus in 
FY2000; $41 billion in FY01; $24 billion in FY02; $34 billion in FY03; 
and $20 billion in FY04. Furthermore, the amendment called on Congress 
to reject any budget proposal that spent Social Security surplus monies 
on other federal programs. Appropriately, after my amendment was 
adopted by a vote of 21 to 1, the President's budget proposal--which 
spends Social Security's surplus monies--was unanimously rejected by 
the Budget Committee when offered as an amendment later in the markup, 
and by a vote of 97 to 2 by the full Senate later on the floor.
  Mr. President, the manner in which Social Security surpluses are 
treated is but one of the ways in which these two proposals could be 
compared, but the bottom line is that the House-Senate conference 
report is simply superior to the Clinton plan. By maintaining fiscal 
discipline, protecting Social Security surpluses, providing funds for a 
Medicare prescription drug benefit, and enhancing funding for shared 
priorities such as education, I believe this conference report deserves 
strong support by the full Senate.
  Ultimately, while members from either side of the aisle may disagree 
with specific provisions in the resolution that has been crafted, the 
simple fact is that this is a budget framework--or ``blueprint''--that 
establishes parameters and priorities, but is not the final word on 
these individual decisions. Rather, specific spending and tax decisions 
will initially be made in the Appropriations and Finance Committees, 
and ultimately by members on the floor.
  Therefore, I urge that my colleagues support this carefully crafted 
and fiscally responsible FY2000 conference budget report --and work to 
ensure that the parameters it establishes are used to protect and 
advance the priorities we share.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the conference 
report now before us on the budget resolution.
  The Congressional budget process as we know it is 25 years old this 
year. Silver anniversaries such as this one are important milestones, 
but this year's budget resolution provides no cause for celebration. 
For a number of reasons, I am deeply disappointed in the resolution 
that my Republican colleagues appear determined to adopt today.
  First are issues of process. As a member of the Budget Committee, I 
have been disappointed in the amount of time that we have had available 
to study the budget proposals before us. Consideration in committee, on 
the Senate floor, and now in relation to this conference report has 
been marked by the absence of detailed, written proposals that would 
provide the basis for sound decisions.
  Indeed, I understand that at the conference on this resolution, there 
was not even a draft resolution to which members could react. After 
less than 6 hours of consideration, and with no text available, the 
conference committee hurriedly approved this report early Wednesday 
morning. The Senate has not had the chance to give the measure a proper 
review, yet here we are the very next day asked to approve a $1.4 
trillion budget. It is troubling that the majority's desire to beat 
today's statutory April 15 deadline has prevailed over thoughtful 
consideration and debate. The result of this haste and the deficient 
policy making process will be quite clear to the American people once 
they understand this budget's real implications.
  Mr. President, I believe that this budget will take the country in 
the wrong direction. We are now in the 96th month of the longest 
peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history. We are truly in a 
virtuous economic cycle, as growth reached 6.1 percent in the last 
quarter of 1998, and 3.9 percent for the year. 1998 was the sixth year 
of such steady growth, a pattern of robust increases that many 
economists once thought unsustainable over such long periods.
  I am proud to have been a part of the effort in 1993 that helped to 
create this positive economic climate. Working together, President 
Clinton and congressional Democrats crafted a package that finally 
brought the federal deficit under control. By making difficult but 
critical decisions to cut federal programs and raise revenues, we tamed 
the deficits that plagued the Nation throughout the 1980s, placed 
enormous pressure on important federal initiatives, and hampered our 
economic growth. Most Republicans argued at the time that this 
responsible package would ruin the economy and send markets tumbling. 
They were dead wrong.
  Thanks to the strong economy and the fiscal discipline begun in 1993, 
the country is in a fiscal position no one dreamed possible even two 
years ago. In 1997, the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of 
Management and Budget, and nearly everyone else were predicting 
substantial budget deficits far into the next decade--as high as $159 
billion in fiscal year 2000, $153 billion in fiscal year 2002, and 
continuing for the foreseeable future. Earlier in the decade, OMB 
estimates for the 2002 deficit ran as high as $576 billion. This year, 
those forecasts have been turned upside down. CBO's recent projections 
call for unified budget surpluses rising from $131 billion in fiscal 
year 2000 to $381 billion if fiscal year 2009.
  The budget resolution before us will seriously endanger this hard-won 
progress, and will short-change national priorities that the American 
people have clearly indicated they want to see addressed. Depending 
upon one's point of view, this is either the last budget of the old 
millennium, or the first of the new. In either case, it is

[[Page 6675]]

an opportunity for us to think seriously about our Nation's needs and 
priorities as we look into the next century, and chart an appropriate 
course for the future. This budget, however, is less a forward-looking 
policy blueprint than a political document aimed at short-term gain.
  This is unfortunate, because as we look toward the future we face 
some very real challenges, the most significant of which will come in 
Medicare and Social Security. Together, these are two of the crowning 
achievements of American government, and have lifted literally millions 
of older Americans out of poverty. These programs have worked, and 
continue to work every day for our senior citizens and their families.
  To prepare the country for the future, any budget that we pass must 
meet several criteria. It must extend the solvency of Social Security 
and Medicare. It must recognize the magnitude of these obligations in a 
forthright way, and include a mechanism to boost national savings and 
economic growth, so that we are in a better position to meet them. It 
should be designed to reduce, not increase, the growing income 
disparities that can fray our social fabric. Finally, it should protect 
other important national priorities. Support for communities, 
scientific research, veterans benefit, education, environmental 
protection, and the like should not be sacrificed for tax breaks for 
the well-to-do.
  This proposal fails to meet any of these criteria. Instead, it 
appears tailor-made to accommodate the majority's priority of huge tax 
cuts for the wealthy. While the total available for tax cuts starts off 
at $15 billion in fiscal year 2000, that mushrooms to $142 billion over 
5 years and $778 billion over the next 10 years. Who will benefit from 
these tax cuts? If past is prologue, lower and middle income Americans 
will not. Capital gains cuts, repeal of estate taxes, and more 
corporate loopholes all give tax relief where it is least needed--to 
those already at the top of the income scale. These have been part and 
parcel of previous Republican tax cut packages, and there is no reason 
to suspect that this year will be any different.
  The Republican budget would require devastating, unsustainable cuts 
in critical programs that serve millions of Americans. In order to 
provide massive increases in defense outlays while trying to stay under 
the discretionary caps passed 2 years ago, this plan makes dramatic 
cuts in almost every other area of government. According to estimates 
from the Office of Management and Budget, the combination of defense 
increases, protection of a select few programs, and retention of the 
budget caps would force spending reductions in non-defense 
discretionary programs of $26.9 billion in fiscal year 2000 alone. This 
would require an unprecedented across-the-board cut of over 11 percent 
in real terms from fiscal year 1999 levels across a broad array of 
important government functions.
  On top of these huge cuts, this budget will cripple important 
programs far into the future in order to fund the majority's tax cuts. 
After the current spending caps expire, any future increases would be 
held to well under the rate of inflation. This means that every year, 
important functions will continue to suffer real cutbacks amounting to 
billions of dollars. Incredibly, discretionary levels in 2009--10 years 
from now--will be just 2.6 percent over those enacted this fiscal year, 
1999. This will not even begin to make up for losses to inflation, to 
say nothing of increased needs caused by a growing population.
  I also must note that the conference report does not specifically 
call for continuation of the traditional parity in pay increases 
between military and civilian government employees. I successfully 
sponsored an amendment to maintain this parity in S. 4, the military 
pay increase bill passed by the Senate earlier this session, and I urge 
the Senate to continue its support for this principle as the 
appropriations process moves forward.
  Mr. President, this budget proposal falls far short of the mark in 
almost every important respect. It would harm important programs 
ranging from Head Start to the FBI, from air traffic control to food 
safety inspections, while providing a huge tax cut for the wealthy.
  The plan utterly fails to meet the most fundamental tests--it does 
not extend the solvency of Social Security in any way, and does nothing 
meaningful to address the more immediate problems in Medicare. When 
Democrats introduced amendments in the Budget Committee and on the 
floor that would specifically put saving Social Security and Medicare 
ahead of the Republican tax cut, the measures were defeated. 
Republicans opposed Social Security and Medicare at their inception, 
and this budget resolution shows that they still do not see how 
important these programs are to millions of individuals. The Republican 
priorities evident in this resolution simply are not shared by most of 
the American people.
  I strongly oppose this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to reject 
it.


                           AVIATION BUDGETING

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I wish to draw my colleagues' attention 
to an opinion piece in today's Washington Post on air safety. The 
article, titled ``Yes to Air Safety'' by Congressman Shuster, Chairman 
of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, talks about 
the critical need to fully fund our air traffic control system and to 
build our nation's airports. It is a simple proposition that is being 
put to Congress--if you take money from airline passengers, you must 
use that money to build and sustain the system.
  We all leave here every weekend, journeying across the country. Each 
of us encounters delays at Reagan National. Right now, the FAA operates 
the safest air transportation system in the world. Maintaining this 
high standard requires money--plain and simple. We can underfund the 
agency and we can take the airline passenger money and give people a 
tax cut. If we do this, then we can not complain about delays--it is 
our fault for the shortchange. If we take the Trust Fund money and use 
it for a tax cut or other purposes, it is our fault, not Jane Garvey or 
Rodney Slater's, but ours alone.
  We have an opportunity to restore the ``Trust'' in the Airport and 
Airways Trust Fund, and to give to our constituents what they need and 
have paid for--a safe, and efficient air transportation system. We 
should not let it pass us by. Congressman Shuster has got it right.
  Here are the facts:
  From Fiscal Year (FY) 1982 through 1999, Congress appropriated more 
than $27 billion for the modernization program. FAA estimates that the 
effort will need an additional $14 billion for FY 2000-2004. The FAA 
requested $2.3 billion for FY 2000, which represents an increase of 11 
percent over the FY 1999 appropriation level of $2.1 billion. But it is 
not enough to fully modernize the national air system (NAS).
  Accident rates for the U.S. air transportation system, compared to 
other areas of the world or other modes of transportation, all indicate 
that the U.S. aviation system remains the safest in the world. For 
example, aircraft hull loss rates for the U.S. and Canada are 0.5 per 
million departures, compared to 3.8 per million for Asia and the 
Pacific islands. For 1998, there were no commercial passenger 
fatalities within the U.S.
  As the FAA aviation forecast information, released just a few weeks 
ago, indicates, there will be almost 1 billion passengers (up from 607 
million in 1998) and an increase in the total number of flights from 65 
million to about 82 million by 2010. Today, the FAA, in many instances, 
is using outdated equipment that must be replaced in order to meet the 
expected demand.
  In 1997, the Congressionally created National Civil Aviation Review 
Commission (NCARC) found that gridlock in the skies is a certainty in 
the near future unless the ATC system is modernized. According to the 
report, an increase in delays of just a few minutes per flight would 
seriously inhibit the ability of carriers to operate hub and spoke 
systems. I must note that one DOT study suggests that adding 48

[[Page 6676]]

more flights at Reagan National would create approximately 3 to 4 
minute more delays per aircraft. This report was further supported by 
an American Airlines study detailing how a four minute increase in 
delays would seriously impact the ability of carriers to operate hubs. 
The FAA estimates that if demand increases as expected, no new runways 
are added to major airports, and no advances are made in air traffic 
control, then 15 of the U.S.'s major airports will be severely 
congested by 2006. In January 1997, the White House Commission on 
Aviation Security and Safety recommended that we expedite the 
modernization of the ATC system and complete the project by 2005, ten 
years earlier than originally planned.
  If we do manage to fix the air traffic control system to make it more 
efficient, we still need to have more runways and terminals to 
accommodate the expected growth. Again, it is simple, if one has too 
many planes trying to land on one runway, one will have delays. Runways 
do not come cheap. The runway in Seattle, which we agree is sorely 
needed, will cost more than $830 million. A new runway in Atlanta, 
Chicago, or Dallas likewise will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. 
Without that added capacity, delays will increase. We know this. No one 
disputes this. It gets back to money--we have a Trust Fund which will 
have $79 billion by 2008 just sitting there. The General Accounting 
Office has also told us of the looming funding crises for airports. We 
simply can not ignore our duty--we can not use that $79 billion for 
anything other than funding our air transportation system.
  I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           Yes to Air Safety

                            (By Bud Shuster)

       Although the safest in the world today, America's aviation 
     system is hurtling toward gridlock and potential catastrophes 
     in the sky. Unfortunately, The Post's April 2 editorial ``A 
     No to Mr. Shuster'' did not accurately describe the efforts 
     of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 
     during the budget debate to unlock the ticket taxes paid by 
     airline passengers into the Aviation Trust Fund so they could 
     be used for their intended purpose of improving America's 
     aviation system.
       Contrary to the editorial's assertions, our bipartisan 
     proposal would not cut one penny from other federal programs. 
     Rather, it would provide that the ticket taxes be used for 
     aviation improvements instead of being used to pay for a 
     small part of the $800 billion tax reduction proposed over 
     the next 10 years. In fact, we provide for an open debate and 
     floor vote on whether the money going into the trust fund 
     should be used for aviation improvements (which we support) 
     or for a reduction in the aviation ticket tax. It is grossly 
     unfair to take airline passenger ticket taxes and then give 
     them away as part of a general tax cut.
       The Post was absolutely correct, however, in acknowledging 
     that ``no one disputes a need to increase aviation 
     spending.'' Since airline deregulation, passenger travel has 
     increased from 230 million annually to 600 million last year 
     and is projected to be 660 million this year and more than a 
     billion annually in the first decade of the next century. A 
     30 percent increase in aircraft operations is forecast for 
     our top 100 airports in the next decade, with a 50 percent 
     increase in the number of commercial jets in our skies. Air 
     cargo, which increased 74 percent in the last 10 years, is 
     growing even faster.
       Airport congestion is already skyrocketing. The FAA reports 
     that our 27 largest airports each are experiencing more than 
     20,000 hours of recorded flight delays annually, costing the 
     airlines $2.5 billion and the American people more than $7 
     billion in lost productivity. But that's only the tip of the 
     iceberg. Airlines are building delays into their schedules. 
     For example, Washington to New York should be only a 45-
     minute flight, but it's scheduled for an hour. The actual 
     cost of congestion may be approaching $20 billion annually. 
     One study estimates that we need a 60 percent increase in 
     airport infrastructure investment just to maintain the 
     current levels of delay.
       The General Accounting Office states that $17 billion will 
     be needed during the next five years just for air traffic 
     control modernization. Last year our air traffic control 
     system experienced more than 100 significant system failures. 
     Dulles went down for more than 10 hours just a few weeks ago. 
     The National Civil Aviation Review Commission states that 
     ``without prompt action, the United States' aviation system 
     is headed toward gridlock . . . [and] a deterioration of 
     aviation safety [which would] harm the efficiencies and 
     growth of our domestic economy, and hurt our position in the 
     global market place.'' Last month, two jet cargo planes came 
     within a hundred feet of a mid-air collision over Kansas 
     because the Kansas City Air Traffic Control Center lost radio 
     contact with them.
       The good news, however, is that the ticket taxes flowing 
     into the Aviation Trust Fund can provide a substantial 
     increase for aviation improvements. Specifically, more than 
     $10 billion is going into the trust fund annually, while 
     spending is around $7 billion. If nothing changes, during the 
     next 10 years more than $90 billion will accumulate in the 
     Aviation Trust Fund.
       The speaker has agreed to bring our ``Aviation Investment 
     and Reform Act for the 21st Century''(AIR 21), which passed 
     our committee unanimously; to the floor for a fair and open 
     debate. It will unlock the Aviation Trust Fund so the ticket 
     taxes paid into it can be used for aviation improvements, 
     provide for increased capacity at our airports, modernize our 
     air traffic control system and ensure continued safety for 
     the world's best aviation system. Increased airport capacity 
     will mean more airline competition, which is part of the 
     long-term solution to better customer service.
       The Post can't have it both ways, saying we should spend 
     more on aviation while opposing using the money paid into the 
     trust fund for that purpose. But I'm beginning to get it: The 
     Post thinks it's good government to spend $900 million out of 
     the Highway Trust Fund for one Woodrow Wilson Bridge in the 
     Washington area but bad to use the Aviation Trust Fund to 
     improve aviation across America.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will vote today, somewhat reluctantly, 
in support of the Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Resolution. I say reluctantly 
because I am very concerned about the inadequate level of funding 
provided in this resolution for national defense.
  On the positive side, this budget resolution establishes a road map 
for this Congress to enact the largest tax cut since the Reagan 
Administration, lock up the Social Security surplus, shore up Medicare, 
substantially reduce the public debt, and still keep spending within 
the limits established in the 1997 bipartisan budget agreement. It also 
provides the largest increase in history, $1.8 billion above the 
President's budget, for veterans' health care, which has been 
consistently underfunded for years.
  Most important, the resolution takes an important step toward 
preserving Social Security for current and future recipients. It 
reaffirms the 1990 law, now expired, that prohibited using the Social 
Security Trust Fund surpluses to offset other spending, and it 
establishes a new point of order against spending any of the Social 
Security surplus on anything other than payment of Social Security 
benefits or reforming the system. This resolution walls off the Social 
Security Trust Fund so that money paid in by taxpayers for their 
retirement cannot be stolen by spendthrift politicians to pay for their 
favorite pork-barrel projects or new government programs of dubious 
merit.
  Saving Social Security and providing greater retirement security for 
our citizens should be our first priority. We must find a viable 
solution to the impending bankruptcy of Social Security which 
restructures the system in a manner which provides working Americans 
with the opportunity, choices, and flexibility necessary to ensure 
their future retirement needs are fully met. Everyone who has worked 
and invested in the Social Security system must be guaranteed to 
receive the benefits they were promised, but reform must not place an 
unfair burden on today's workers. Until we find that solution, however, 
it is imperative that we shore up the system to ensure payment of 
benefits will continue, on time and in full, to everyone who has earned 
them.
  To do this, we must not only protect the existing Social Security 
surplus, as this resolution does, but ensure that additional funds are 
available, if needed, to shore up the system in the absence of 
meaningful reforms. The President's ``smoke and mirrors'' budget 
promised to save 62 percent of the non-Social Security surplus to shore 
up Social Security, but that has been shown to be a baseless claim when 
his budget is carefully analyzed. Unfortunately, this budget resolution 
did not dedicate additional funds to save Social Security either. I 
believe we should set aside a significant portion of the additional 
surplus to extend the

[[Page 6677]]

fiscal viability of the system and ease the fears of our senior 
citizens, and I intend to work to see that happen.
  Locking up the Social Security Trust Fund surplus and setting aside a 
significant portion of the non-Social Security surplus does not mean we 
cannot also provide significant tax relief to those who need it most--
lower- and middle-income Americans and their families. The Budget 
Resolution provides for $142.3 billion in tax relief over the next five 
years, amounting to $779.9 billion over ten years. The tax cuts are 
appropriately targeted toward eliminating the marriage penalty, 
expanding the lowest 15% tax bracket, estate tax relief, more favorable 
tax treatment of health insurance cost for the self-employed, and 
capital gains tax fairness for farmers.
  But Americans need and deserve an even bigger tax cut. Federal taxes 
consume nearly 21% of America's gross domestic product, the highest 
level since World War II. A recent Congressional Research Service study 
found that, over the next ten years, an average American family will 
pay $5,307 in taxes over and above what the government needs to 
operate. Congress did not balance the budget so Washington spending and 
government bureaucracy could continue to grow at the taxpayers expense. 
Letting the American people keep more of their own money to spend on 
their priorities will continue to fuel the economy and help create more 
small business jobs and other employment opportunities.
  The tax cuts in this Budget Resolution are significant, but I think 
we should return even more of the surplus back to the taxpayers. I 
believe we should reserve part of the non-Social Security surplus to 
shore up the system and give a bigger tax cut to American families, 
which would be paid for partially by closing tax loopholes and 
eliminating inequitable corporate subsidies to offset the cost.
  Saving Social Security, cutting taxes, providing for our veterans, 
and many other aspects of this Budget Resolution are sufficient reason 
to vote for it. However, the shortfall in defense spending in this 
budget raises very serious concerns.
  It is no secret that there are serious readiness, retention and 
recruiting problems throughout the military. The Service Chiefs 
testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in September last 
year, and again in January, that they require an additional $20 billion 
over the fiscal year 1999 budget in fiscal year 2000 to stop declining 
force readiness. The President, after promising an additional $12 
billion, only added $4 billion in his budget request. Then, during this 
year's budget hearings, the Service Secretaries and Chiefs confirmed 
that readiness unfunded requirements still exist and submitted lists to 
meet their readiness requirements. Yet the Budget Resolution does not 
provide sufficient funding to meet the minimum requirements of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff to adequately fund critical readiness, personnel 
and modernization programs.
  The Conference Report veils its underfunding of vital defense 
programs by putting an additional $8.3 billion for Fiscal Year 2000 in 
the Pentagon's bank in the form of increased budget authority, but 
because of the arcane scorekeeping rules of the Congressional Budget 
Office, the Services would not be able to actually spend that money 
because it would exceed the outlay cap. Fortunately, the conference 
agreement provides $2 billion more in outlays than the Senate version, 
but the spending limit is still $6.7 billion less than the President's 
budget when estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. And the 
resolution shortchanges defense next year and every year thereafter.
  Earlier this year, the Senate passed legislation of which I was a 
primary architect, along with Senator Roberts, Majority Leader Lott and 
Senator Warner. This legislation, the ``Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's, 
and Marines' Bill of Rights Act of 1999'', would restore military 
retirement benefits to a full 50 percent of base pay for 20-year 
retirees, includes a 4.8 percent pay raise effective January 1, 2000, 
pay table reform, Thrift Savings Plan proposals, and a Special 
Subsistence Allowance to help the neediest families in the Armed Forces 
who now require federal food stamp assistance. This Budget Resolution 
puts all these recruitment and retention tools in jeopardy because it 
does not provide the dollars needed to fulfill these promises to our 
service members and their families.
  Mr. President, the nuclear carrier U.S.S. Enterprise (CVN-65) is 
currently deployed in the Persian Gulf, undermanned by some 800 
sailors. We are losing pilots to the commercial airlines faster than we 
can train them. The Navy has one-half the F/A-18 pilots, one-third of 
the S-3 pilots, and only one-quarter of the EA-6B pilots it needs. Only 
26 percent of the Air Force pilots have committed to stay beyond their 
current service agreement. The Army says that five of its ten divisions 
lack enough majors, captains, senior enlisted personnel, tankers and 
gunners.
  The military's problems do not stop at recruiting and retention 
issues. For example, the Army's number one modernization program, the 
Comanche helicopter, is undergoing flight testing with just one asset. 
If that helicopter has a serious malfunction or is lost, who knows how 
long the program will be delayed. The Army has another test platform 
but has testified that they simply cannot afford to fly it.
  With the recent deployment in the Balkans, the world watched night 
after night as the Air Force's main bomber, the B-52, was once again 
called to duty to deliver air launched cruise missiles in combat. How 
many times has the Air Force called upon this 40-year old workhorse to 
deliver devastating firepower? The B-52 bomber was already old when I 
saw it fly in Vietnam, and yet the Air Force plan will carry the 
current bomber fleet through the next 40 years, with a replacement to 
the B-52 tentatively planned in 2037.
  The Navy is struggling to maintain a fleet of 300 ships, down from 
over 500 in the early 1990s. The fiscal year 2000 budget will not 
support a Navy of even 200 ships. The Marine Corps saves money in spare 
parts by retreading light trucks and Humvees, so as to afford small 
arms ammunition for forward deployed Marines.
  The list goes on and on, but what we must recognize is that it 
illustrates very serious readiness problems that continue to grow and 
must be stopped if we hope to preserve the world's finest military and 
continue to support the men and women in uniform, many of whom are in 
harm's way in Operation Allied Force in Kosovo today.
  Mr. President, I could go on, but suffice it to say that the military 
needs more money to redress the serious problems caused by more than a 
decade of declining defense budgets. Those of us who have been 
criticized for sounding alarm bells about military readiness now have 
the empty satisfaction of seeing that there is more to maintaining a 
strong defense than a politician's history of falsely promising to do 
so. What is at risk, without exaggeration, are the lives of our 
military personnel and the national security of the United States.
  Mr. President, for many years, the Services have struggled to make do 
with the funding we provide to them, as Congress persists in draining 
away resources for low-priority, wasteful, pork-barrel spending 
projects. After hearing from the Service Chiefs in testimony this year, 
I hope my colleagues are prepared to halt the long-standing practice of 
earmarking funds for home-state programs and special interest items. If 
not, we will exacerbate the dangers of failing to provide the resources 
necessary to maintain military readiness and our war-fighting 
capability.
  Mr. President, I will vote for this Budget Resolution because it 
provides a measure of tax relief, additional veterans funding, and, 
most important, locks up the Social Security Trust Fund for Social 
Security. But I am gravely concerned about the defense spending levels 
in this budget, and I intend to do everything I can to ensure that 
every dollar in the Defense and Military Construction Appropriations 
bills is used for high-priority defense requirements, like recruiting 
and retention incentives, operations and

[[Page 6678]]

training, and urgent modernization programs. I urge my colleagues to 
put aside their parochial interests and join me in that effort.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is an unfortunate fact around here 
that budget resolutions are frequently seen as little more than 
meaningless manipulations of numbers. They are perceived by some to 
have no real impact on Congress and even less on the American people. 
Whether you agree or disagree with this perception of previous budget 
resolutions, I think we can all agree that the budget resolution before 
us is different.
  What we have been debating and are about to vote on, is our nation's 
first budget of the 21st century. The FY 2000 budget resolution 
represents a blueprint for our future. The decisions made on this 
resolution could determine how we live--not just next year--but for a 
generation--maybe longer.
  Before getting into the specifics of the budget proposals before us, 
let me say a few words about what a budget resolution should do. In my 
view, a budget resolution should be visionary. It should look at 
today's circumstances, assess where improvements are needed and apply 
the appropriate amount of resources.
  A budget resolution must be fiscally responsible. Prior to 1993, 
previous Presidents and Congresses have frequently failed to live 
within their means. The result was large annual deficits and a $4 
trillion national debt. Since 1993, we have reduced the deficits 7 
years in a row. Future budget resolutions must continue this pattern.
  A budget resolution must save money to keep promises we've already 
made. The federal government has legally binding commitments on 
Medicare, Social Security, child nutrition and student loans to name a 
few. A budget resolution must live up to the federal government's legal 
obligations in these areas.
  Finally, Mr. President, a budget resolution must invest in the 
future--in things like education, transportation, technology, and 
health care--so we can pass the promise of America onto our children.
  Unfortunately, the budget resolution before the Senate today does 
none of these things. This resolution is deceptive and fiscally 
irresponsible in the extreme. It claims to protect Social Security and 
Medicare. It claims to live within our means. In reality, this budget 
fails on both scores. It does not adequately lock away Social Security 
trust funds and fails to add any resources to Medicare. It also 
includes hundreds of billions of exploding tax cuts that are paid for 
with projected surpluses. There is a huge problem with this approach. 
The tax cuts come and keep on coming whether or not the surpluses ever 
appear.
  This approach adopted by my Republican colleagues represents a 
radical departure from the policies that lifted America out of 
recession in the late 1980s and early 1990s and created the strongest 
economy in a generation. After a decade of massive deficits caused 
primarily by ballooning tax breaks, President Clinton and a then 
Democratic Congress embarked on a new path, a path that coupled 
spending cuts with targeted investments and tax cuts for working 
families. This budget abandons that successful approach and will return 
this country to the large deficits of the 1980s.
  Even more distressing to me, if we follow this plan, we will squander 
the best opportunity--perhaps in our lifetimes--to keep our commitments 
on Medicare and Social Security and effectively deal with some of the 
most serious social and economic needs facing our country--now, before 
they become crises.
  It is my impression that debate on this year's resolution has been 
short, indeed, perhaps the shortest in my memory. The reason may well 
be that there are not a lot of small details to debate. Instead, we 
face a single major question: What should we do with the $4.6 trillion 
in surpluses projected over next 15 years? Without a doubt, this is the 
most important fiscal decision confronted by Congress in generations. 
With this budget resolution we face real choices with real 
consequences. Every family, every business, in America will be 
profoundly affected by how we answer this one question.
  Unfortunately, the Republican budget resolution conference agreement 
makes too many wrong choices. It is wrong on Social Security and 
Medicare. It is wrong on debt reduction. It is wrong on tax relief with 
its emphasis on tax breaks that favor the wealthiest over working 
families. It is wrong on education, health care, and other critical 
investments. Therefore, I've concluded this resolution is wrong for 
America. And I will vote against it.
  I would like to say a few words about the choices we face in the 
future. However, first, I think it's important to take a brief look 
back. When President Clinton took office in 1993, the budget deficit 
was a whopping $290 billion--the highest level in this nation's 
history. And, it was projected to grow to more than $500 billion by 
this year. In that year, 1993, President and Democratic Congress--
without a single Republican vote--took action; together we passed the 
largest deficit reduction package in our nation's history.
  Our political opponents condemned our plan; they predicted economic 
ruin. They said it would destroy our economy and trigger a second Great 
Depression. Many who made those predictions are still here today. Many 
who bravely voted for our plan are not. They knew they were risking 
their careers when they voted for our plan. But they did it anyway, 
because they believed we could not continue the ruinous economic 
policies of past.
  Today, the results of Democrats' 1993 economic plan should be clear 
to all. The deficit has declined 7 years in a row--the first time 
that's happened in our nation's history. Last year, this nation enjoyed 
the first unified balanced budget in 30 years. This year, we expect a 
$111 billion unified surplus. In addition, we are experiencing the 
strongest economy in a generation. Eighteen million new jobs have been 
created since 1993. We have the lowest unemployment rate in nearly 30 
years--4.5 percent. We have the lowest core inflation rate in more than 
2 decades--2.5 percent. We have witnessed a 2.5 percent rise in wages--
the fastest growth in wages in more than 20 years. We are living during 
the longest peacetime economic expansion in our history. Largely as a 
result of this string of economic good news, the Congressional Budget 
Office is now projecting budget surpluses for as long as the eye can 
see--a total of $4.6 trillion over the next 15 years.
  So Mr. President, we faced the tough questions in 1993. The question 
facing Congress this year ought to be easy. Then the question was: how 
do we reduce the deficits? How do we get America working again. Now, 
the question is: what should we do with the surplus? How do we keep 
America working?
  We've already proved tough decisions don't have to be cruel 
decisions. We can continue to make economic progress today, without 
sacrificing our economic future. With the plan we offered this year, 
Democrats balanced the budget--and cut taxes on working families--
without gutting our investments in our children's education. We 
balanced the budget--and cut taxes on working families--without raiding 
Social Security and Medicare. We balanced the budget--and cut taxes on 
working families--without sacrificing our ability to protect our 
environment. We balanced the budget--and cut taxes on working 
families--without adding more Americans to the rolls of the uninsured. 
In fact, we found a way to help parents who work full-time, but don't 
have insurance, to provide health insurance for their children.
  Our budget plan builds on our past success. We make tough decisions. 
But we also make smart decisions. We honor the commitments our nation 
made in the past, and we invest in the future. The Democratic vision 
for our fiscal future is based on 4 principles. First, we protect and 
preserve Social Security and Medicare. The Democratic plan locks away 
every penny of the $2.9 trillion Social Security surplus, plus an 
additional $700 billion for Medicare. We are first to admit: our plan 
doesn't solve all the issues facing these two important programs. We 
know we also need to make structural reforms. But, by locking away 
every

[[Page 6679]]

penny of Social Security and saving 15 percent of the unified surplus 
for Medicare, we can avoid a crisis--which dramatically reduces chance 
of having to make radical changes.
  Second, our plan pays down the national debt. In 10 years, we can 
reduce our public debt from $3.5 trillion, to $1.6 billion. In 18 
years, under our plan, we can eliminate the debt entirely. By 2018, 
America could be debt-free. Debt reduction keeps interest rates down. 
This means lower mortgage rates, lower rates on car loans, lower 
monthly credit card bills, and lower student loan bills. It also means 
more investments for businesses, more economic growth, more jobs, and 
more opportunity for the future.
  Third, our plan cuts taxes for America's working families. Our plan 
provides $400 billion in targeted tax relief to help families save for 
retirement and pay for child care. Our plan also includes a $1,000-a-
year tax credit for elderly and disabled Americans who need long-term 
care--or the family members who provide that care. It cuts the marriage 
penalty tax. And, it provides tax credits for research and 
experimentation.
  Fourth, our plan invests in America's future--over $400 billion in 
key priorities. These resources can be used to provide for more 
teachers for our kids, more pay and better housing for our troops, and 
more law enforcement agents. It provides more for job training, more 
for safe drinking water and clean air quality. It will result in better 
roads and safer airports and rail lines.
  The Republicans are offering a very different plan. It makes very 
different choices. Their plan sets aside nothing for Medicare. As I 
said earlier, we save 15 percent of the surplus--$700 billion--for 
Medicare. We put it in a real lockbox; these funds can't be used for 
anything but Medicare. Their plan does not save one penny specifically 
for Medicare. Moreover, when Senate Republicans introduced their budget 
resolution, they said they were setting aside $133 billion for 
Medicare. Later, they revised that figure down to $100 billion. In the 
conference agreement before us today, there's nothing to preserve the 
existing Medicare program. The truth is Republicans are not setting 
aside any money specifically for Medicare. Their budget resolution 
recommends we extend the solvency of Medicare through benefit cuts 
alone.
  If we act as this resolution proposes and fail to set aside real 
money for Medicare now, and fail to enact real reforms soon, the 
Medicare trust fund will go broke. That would be an emergency of 
staggering proportions. And the Republican budget does nothing--
nothing--to prevent it.
  Their plan does not guarantee one additional day of solvency for 
Social Security. Under the Democratic plan, Social Security's solvency 
is extended until at least 2055--23 years longer than what's now 
projected.
  Now, Republicans say they will set aside 62 percent of the surplus 
for Social Security--the same as our plan. But nowhere in their plan do 
they say what they intend to do with that money. While they say they 
will put every dime of Social Security taxes in the Social Security 
trust fund, nowhere in their plan do they promise to keep the funds 
there. Nowhere do they guarantee that Social Security will continue to 
provide a monthly benefit. Nowhere do they commit to preserve 
unemployment benefits workers now get, or death benefits for their 
survivors. In fact, the conference report before us specifically allows 
Republicans to divert Social Security resources out of Social Security 
and use them to pay for private retirement accounts or additional tax 
cuts.
  If the Republican majority believes the federal government should 
keep the commitments it has made, they should say so, clearly, in 
writing. Social Security taxes for Social Security benefits is not a 
difficult concept to grasp, and an even easier one to say. Despite all 
their rhetoric during the budget debate, the Republican budget 
resolution chooses not to say it. And even worse, it does not do it. 
Instead, the Republican resolution treats Social Security as just 
another piggy bank to pay for their tax breaks or private retirement 
accounts. That is its second major failing.
  The third major problem with Republican budget resolution is the 
choice it makes about who gets tax relief. Our budget targets tax cuts 
to the needs of working families. Republicans say their plan is better 
because it contains tax cuts for everyone. That's not true! Under the 
10 percent across-the-board tax cut endorsed by many in their party, 
nearly two-thirds of benefits would go to the wealthiest 10 percent of 
Americans. If you earn $800,000 a year, you save $20,000 a year in 
taxes. But if you earn $38,000 a year or less --like 60 percent of 
American families--you'll save $99 a year--27 cents a day. That's if 
you're lucky. According to the Joint Tax Committee, Congress's official 
tax-estimating body, 48 million middle-class families would get nothing 
under a 10 percent tax cut. Not a nickel!
  What would that 27 cents cost America's families? It means there will 
be nothing left over to protect and preserve Medicare. It also means 
crippling cuts in education, health care, environment, agriculture, 
food safety and countless other critical areas. According to an 
analysis by the Office of Management and Budget, the Republican budget 
will cut domestic investments by 11 percent across-the-board this year. 
By 2004, these cuts will grow to 27 percent. The Republican budget 
resolution would eventually force the federal government to cut more 
than one out of every four dollars it now spends on critical domestic 
priorities. Frankly, it's amazing to me that some of the same people 
who only weeks ago said Congress would be forced to break budget caps 
this year can now claim, with a straight face, that they can cut 
federal spending by 27 percent over next five years.
  Their tax cut plan is unfair and unworkable, and we all know it. The 
last time we tried their tax plan--the last time we tried to grow the 
economy by cutting trillions of dollars in taxes and giving most of the 
money to wealthiest Americans--we quadrupled the national debt and ran 
the economy into the ground.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, there are terrible problems with the 
Republican budget resolution. Democrats tried to correct these problems 
in the Budget Committee. We tried to make adjustments on the Senate 
floor. In both places, we were defeated on party-line votes. So, we 
will pass this conference agreement in a few minutes.
  And while we may disagree on its merits, we all know, Democrats and 
Republicans alike, this plan will never become law. So, we have a lot 
of work ahead of us in the next several months. Democrats will listen 
to any reasonable, responsible plan anyone wants to propose. We're 
willing to negotiate across the aisle, and make compromises, to come up 
with budget proposals that can be signed by the President. However, we 
will not compromise on our commitments. We will not repeat mistakes of 
the past. We cannot squander this opportunity.


                         the discretionary caps

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to add one response to those who 
criticize this budget resolution as necessary resulting in all manner 
of dreamed-up, horror-story kind of cuts in federal border agents, food 
safety inspections, and other programs selected for the maximum scare 
value.
  Here is the truth instead. In 1997, just 2 years ago, the bipartisan 
budget agreement, and the law that implemented it, set out caps on 
discretionary spending for 1998 through 2002. And yes those caps were 
expected even then to be tight as they were encountered each year. In 
his budget request for 2000, the President appeared to pledge fealty to 
those caps for 2000, claiming that the caps could be complied with even 
as CBO demonstrated the President could not deliver on all his spending 
promises without exceeding the caps by at least $17 billion.
  Further, the respective minority leaders of both the House and the 
Senate castigated the congressional majority for even exploring the 
idea of increasing the caps in this resolution and instead the minority 
leaders reiterated their devotion to the caps set 2 years

[[Page 6680]]

ago. So this budget resolution does comply with the caps, just as the 
President and the Democratic congressional leadership insist it should.
  But a fair question would be: how do we fund all the discretionary 
appropriation needs while complying with the discretionary cap 
discipline? As always, that will be up to the appropriations process. 
The budget resolution never dictates to the appropriations committee 
how individual programs or bills should be funded. What the budget 
resolution does do is suggest in broad categories what some spending 
priorities ought to be, and in some cases, it suggests, as sort of a 
menu, some spending reductions or other offsets that the appropriators 
could consider in constructing the 13 appropriation bills. For example, 
the Senate-passed resolution indicated that repeal of the Davis-Bacon 
Act and the Service Contract Act would save significant construction 
and contract dollars that could be applied to increases in education or 
defense. Other sources of savings mentioned include food safety 
inspection fees and spectrum lease fees to encourage more efficient use 
of spectrum by both private and government users. And in certain 
specific budget functions, to offset discretionary spending, some 
functions call for the sale of certain federal assets and other assume 
specific savings amounts in mandatory programs, which include requiring 
securities registration for five government-sponsored enterprises and 
other incentives to encourage competition and rededication to their 
missions. Other functions call for reducing excessive flood insurance 
subsidies and imply reactions in certain grants to local governments 
that are often misdirected to those not the most financial needy. If 
the appropriations fairly consider these as well as many other savings 
items contemplated in this budget resolution, they will have 
opportunities to provide the increases demanded by some and avoid the 
decreases in vital programs imagined by others, while still complying 
with the caps.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the conference 
report. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) is 
absent due to surgery.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New 
York (Mr. Moynihan) would vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced, yeas 54, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 86 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--44

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Hutchinson
     Moynihan
       
  The conference report was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe that completes our work. I 
want to thank everyone, whether they were with the budget that I 
prepared or whether they were against it, for their cooperation. And I 
thank our leadership for getting that budget down here, and the 
minority leader and the majority leader for helping expedite it.
  This is the 15th. We know it is a very ominous day out there in 
America. It is tax day. But on a smaller scale, the Budget Act of the 
United States says the budget shall be finished in both Houses on this 
date. I do not think it had anything to do with tax day, but they occur 
together every year. Only twice in the 25-year history of the Budget 
Act have we produced budgets in both Houses, the blueprints.
  They are congressional in nature. They are not Presidential budgets, 
nor does he sign them. It is historic and significant that as we 
attempt to get our work done this year and make sure that the American 
people understand that we are on target for the issues they are 
concerned about--Social Security, Medicare, tax reduction, defense 
spending, education and the like--we want them to know that the budget 
is ready to lead us into a new approach for the next millennium.
  Everyone doesn't agree, but a very large percentage of the Senators 
here have voted in favor of this new approach, which I believe will add 
significantly to the economic future, economic growth and jobs, and at 
the same time set a pretty good priority for the American Government's 
expenditures.
  This does have a philosophical bent to it; that is, if you have 
excess revenues, you pay down the debt. We have done that. We have 
almost paid down one-half of the national debt in the next decade--
rather significant, good for the economy. We believe when you have even 
more excess than that, some of it ought to go back to the American 
people by way of tax reductions, tax reform measures and the like.
  I regret to say that I believe when the American people have 
understood all of this, and when they understand these surpluses are 
not Social Security surpluses, they are over and above that, I think 
they will agree with us that some of that ought to go back to the 
American taxpayer. I think it is a good balance between the 
Government's needs and the taxpayers' rights and the taxpayers' needs.
  I thank the staff, minority and majority, for the very dedicated 
service in getting this complicated resolution to the floor.
  With that, I yield the floor and thank everyone for helping.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.

                          ____________________