[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15063-15070]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                            FEDERAL SURPLUS

  Mr. DURBIN. The United States has changed a lot in the last 7\1/2\ 
years. Mr. President, 7\1/2\ years ago we were deep into deficits. We 
were spending more each year than we collected in taxes. We were 
running up the largest national debt in the history of the United 
States. We have $6 trillion in debt to show for that experience.
  Many people have lost faith in the ability of this institution to 
correct this problem and to respond to what was truly a national 
crisis. In fact, some went so far as to suggest we should amend the 
Constitution of the United States to pass what was known as the 
balanced budget amendment.
  On the floor today with me is Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, 
acknowledged to be probably the most gifted Senator when it comes to 
the rules of this body and knowledge of the Constitution. He fought a 
battle, sometimes lonely but ultimately successful, in stopping Members 
from amending the Constitution and giving power to the Federal courts 
to tell the Congress to stop spending. Some in this body thought that 
was the only way we could stop the red ink cascading over the Treasury 
in Washington, DC. Senator Byrd prevailed. The amendment was defeated.
  Amazingly, we stand today in this Senate, in this Capitol, in 
Washington, DC, with a complete change of events. We are no longer 
talking about the yearly deficits. We are talking about the yearly 
surpluses, the fact that the economy is so strong, so many people are 
working, so many people are earning a good income, businesses are 
successful, people are building homes, America is on the move. For 7\1/
2\ years or more now, we have seen that prosperity not only lift the 
boats of the American people but also bring a new opportunity in 
Congress. For the first time in many years, we can honestly sit back 
and discuss and debate what to do with the surplus in the Treasury.
  I think many Democrats share the feeling that we should be 
conservative in our approach with this surplus. I am not sure what 
tomorrow, next year, 3 years, or 5 years down the line will bring. I 
think the decisions we should make as to this surplus should be 
thoughtful. First and foremost, let's retire our national debt, the $6 
trillion debt. We collect $1 billion a day in taxes from Americans, 
businesses, families, and individuals to pay interest on our old 
national debt. It is as if to say to our children, we are going to 
leave you the mortgage on the home we enjoyed our entire lives.
  I agree with President Clinton and most Democrats; our first priority 
should be reduce the publicly held national debt to zero. We can do it. 
We can do it in a short period of time. It will call for some 
discipline and some honest dialog with the American people. We can take 
the money from our surplus, pay down the debt in Social Security, pay 
down the debt in Medicare, strengthen those two very important 
programs, and bring down our national debt. That is our policy on the 
Democratic side of the aisle. That, we think, should be the first step 
that we make, the most important, the most conservative, the most 
disciplined.
  The Republican side sees things quite differently. They believe if we 
are going to have a surplus, the first and most important thing we 
should do with that surplus is to give tax cuts. There isn't a 
politician alive who wouldn't like to address a crowd in his hometown 
and announce a tax cut. There is just no more popular set of words we 
can use in this business than: I'm going to cut your taxes. Is it the 
right thing to do? Is it the responsible thing to do?
  Equally important, if we are to give tax cuts, who should be the 
beneficiaries? If we are going to have a surplus for the first time 
virtually in modern memory, what are we going to do with that surplus? 
Who will benefit from that surplus?
  Over the last week and a half, we have heard the Republican answer to 
those questions. They have suggested if we have a surplus in America, 
if times are good and we can help somebody in America, the very first 
people in line for help should be the wealthiest in America. Now, is 
that the conclusion most American families would reach? I don't think 
so.
  If you take a look at the proposal of the Republicans to eliminate 
the estate tax, and the bill that just passed to eliminate the so-
called marriage penalty, you can see who the winners are. This chart I 
am presenting shows the Republican tax plan, their spending of our 
surplus. Almost half of our surplus is going to benefit the wealthiest 
people in America. The biggest winners? Mr. President, 43 percent of 
the total tax cut proposed by the Republicans goes to people making 
over $319,000 a year. They get 43 percent of the tax breaks. It means 
for them, on average, an annual tax cut of $23,000. That is almost 
$2,000 a month.
  The Republicans believe in good times, after we have been through all 
this pain, and we now have a surplus, the first group who deserves a 
break, the first group to deserve a benefit is the wealthiest people in 
America, those making over $319,000 a year.
  What about those on the other end? What about the people who get up 
and go to work every single day and may make a minimum wage or a little 
better than that? How will they fare under the Republican proposal? How 
were they considered when the Republicans sat down and said where our 
priorities will be, here are the people we will help. The lowest 20 
percent of wage earners in America, those making less than $13,600 a 
year, get less than 1 percent of the Republican tax cut. It is worth 
$24 a year to them, $2 a month. The Republicans didn't forget them, 
they will send them $2 a month. For the wealthiest, it is almost $2,000 
a month.
  The next group, those making up to $24,400, see about $82 a year from 
the Republican tax cuts. That comes to $7 a month. Think about that for 
a second. If we are going to help the people in America who need help 
the most, shouldn't we be rewarding hard-working families who get up 
and go to work every single day, play by the rules, try to buy a home, 
try to build a community, try to provide for their children and their 
future or should we take this surplus and give it, first, to those who 
are making over $300,000 a year?
  Some people say that being in Congress is about a question of being 
``in touch'' or ``out of touch.'' The Republican tax plan is in touch 
with the wealthiest people. It is out of touch with regular families.
  The Democratic side believes after bringing down the national debt, 
we should target tax cuts to help these working families who have been 
virtually ignored by the Republicans in their tax benefits.
  On the floor of the Senate, we offered an amendment to say every 
family in America, every single family, can deduct every year $12,000 
in college education expenses. I have seen a lot of families with new 
babies. Everybody is happy to see the child arrive. After a few 
minutes, people turn and say: What a cute little boy. How in the world 
are we ever going to pay for his college in 18 years? People know that 
cost is going up. The average family knows how tough it is to pay it.
  We say on this side, you deserve a helping hand to help your son or 
daughter be the absolute best they can be. We offered an amendment. 
Instead of the Republican plan for the wealthiest, we said let the 
people of America deduct $12,000 a year in college education expenses 
from their taxes. It is a deduction which would mean, for some 
families, as much as $3,000, and a helping hand to pay for tuition. 
Rejected, rejected on the floor of the Senate last week. They don't 
want that kind of tax cut. They want the kind of tax cut that gives 
$23,000 a year to the wealthiest people in America but would not give 
to average families, worried about their kids going to good schools

[[Page 15064]]

and having a bright future, a helping hand.
  We also considered a prescription drug benefit. I think everybody 
knows what that is about. Your parent and your grandparents, on 
Medicare, are struggling to pay for their prescription drugs. On the 
Democratic side, we think there should be a program under Medicare to 
make sure the elderly have a chance to fill those prescriptions, stay 
healthy, stay strong, stay independent. We have been fighting for that. 
We offered it as an alternative. Instead of giving money to the 
wealthiest in this country, why don't you help those under Medicare, 
give them a helping hand in paying for some of the drugs? Rejected. The 
Republicans had a chance to vote for that tax benefit and rejected it 
on the floor of the Senate.
  Having been across the State of Illinois, with public hearings on 
prescription drug benefits, the stories will break your heart. Men and 
women coming to those hearings get their prescription from the doctor. 
They go to the pharmacy, and before they ask them to fill it they ask 
how much will it cost. If it is too much, they either don't fill it or 
take half the prescription many times, depriving themselves of the 
basics of life so they can have prescription drugs.
  That was the choice: To give to people earning over $300,000 a year 
in income a tax break of $23,000 or to give to seniors and the disabled 
a chance to pay for the prescription drugs. These are the values we 
tested on the floor of the Senate, and Republicans rejected the idea of 
a prescription drug benefit proposed by the Democrats.
  On child care, do you know a working family with small children? 
Unless they have someone in the family they can count on, who doesn't 
worry about safe, quality child care for the kids? I think about it as 
a grandfather. I have a little 4-year-old grandson, and it finally 
dawned on me when my daughter told me she was looking for day care, 
somebody was going to have my little Alex for 8 hours a day. I said, 
``Who are these people? I want to know who they are if they are going 
to have my grandson.''
  Every mother and father asks that same question, and they struggle to 
come up with the money to pay for good child care to guard each day the 
most precious thing in their lives, and Senator Dodd said, can't we 
give a tax break to working families to help them pay for child care? 
Wouldn't that be something good for America, so the kids are in good, 
safe hands during the course of the day so working families have that 
peace of mind? Rejected by the Republicans in the Senate. No, sir, we 
are not going to give a child care tax break for working families. We 
are going to give to the wealthiest in America $23,000 a year in tax 
cuts.
  When it comes to putting people in the front of the line for help 
from this Government, the Republican leadership has said time and 
again: We are not there helping working families pay for college 
education. We are not there helping working families pay for child 
care. We are not there for prescription drug benefits. We are there for 
changes in the Tax Code that literally help the wealthiest people in 
America.
  Another challenge many of us face is the whole question of taking 
care of aging parents. If you are a baby boomer, you probably know what 
I am talking about. Your parents, now, who want to live as long as they 
possibly can as independently as they can, basically come to you at 
some point and say, ``We are going to need a hand.'' People make 
sacrifices for their parents in those circumstances. We think the Tax 
Code should recognize that, and reward that as well, and give to 
families who are struggling to take care of their aging parents and 
those with serious illness a helping hand. That is another idea for a 
tax cut that helps real American families, another idea rejected by the 
Republican leadership in the Senate. No, these people are not on their 
radar screen. First and foremost, the tax break suggested by the 
Republicans has to go to the very wealthiest among us.
  So half the surplus we are now generating and hope to see in the next 
10 or 20 years is not going to the working families of America. It is 
going to those who already are well off, those who are doing well, 
those who, frankly, don't need a helping hand.
  Imagine, if you will, if you are making $300,000 a year, what an 
extra $2,000 a month means to you. What are you going to do with it? 
Surely you will find something to do with it. But could it possibly be 
as valuable as providing what a family needs to help pay for a college 
education expenses? Prescription drugs? Day care? Taking care of an 
aging parent? That is the battle that is underway.
  President Clinton said he is going to veto these bills, and he 
should, because he was elected by people across America, 98 percent of 
whom will see no benefit whatsoever from these bills. Let us at least 
start listening to families across America when it comes to our tax 
policy. Let us sit down and correct the inequities in the Tax Code. But 
also let us decide who is most deserving of our tax assistance. I do 
not believe it is people making over $300,000 a year. They are doing 
quite fine by themselves. Let's be sensitive, though, to those families 
struggling every day to realize the American dream and to have 
opportunity.
  When you take a look at this Nation we live in, it is the greatest on 
Earth. God blessed each one of us who had a chance to call this home. 
But we have an obligation to people who live in this country to make 
sure they have a chance for opportunity, too. You heard the wonderful 
story Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island told about John O. Pastore, one 
of the giants in the history of the Senate. A son of immigrants, he 
rose to serve in this Chamber and be an ideal and to serve as a model 
for so many people and so many generations.
  There are many others like John Pastore out there who need their 
chance to prove themselves in America. They are not worried about 
estate taxes paid by fewer than 2 percent of the American people. They 
are folks who are worried about making sure they have a safe, healthy 
home, making sure they have health care, have college education 
expenses taken care of. Those people have been forgotten in the debate 
over the last 2 weeks. It is up to President Clinton to remind us of 
our priorities. It is up to him to lead us, now, into meaningful tax 
relief targeted to help families who really need it.
  When it comes to prescription drug benefits, I do not think there is 
a more important issue we can consider during the course of this 
remaining congressional session. Prescription drug expenditures have 
been growing at double-digit rates for almost every year since 1980, 
and the drugs that seniors need the most have increased at four times 
the rate of inflation. The average prescription drug cost for Medicare 
beneficiaries will reach $1,100 per year this year.
  The Republicans have proposed, in a manner to try to deal with this, 
the suggestion that we should turn to the health insurance companies to 
let them take care of prescription drugs. Pardon me, we have seen what 
those same managed care companies and health insurance companies do to 
families when the families really need help. They turn them down when 
they need medical care. They let decisions be made by insurance clerks 
rather than doctors. They force people to go to court to sue for basic 
health care. That is the same group to whom Republicans would turn over 
the prescription drug benefit. That will never work. It is best for us 
to put together a plan that is guaranteed and universal and under 
Medicare that we can count on.
  It is also important we have the leverage and the power to make sure 
we can negotiate for reasonable drug prices. It is just inconceivable 
to me that some of the same drugs we approve in the United States, some 
of which we spent taxpayers' dollars to research and develop, end up 
being sold in Canada for a fraction of the cost. Americans are now 
getting in buses and driving over the Canadian border to buy their 
drugs, fill their prescriptions for prescription drugs made by American 
drug companies at taxpayers' expense because they have to pay three and 
four times as much in the United States as they would in

[[Page 15065]]

Canada. That is disgraceful. If this Congress does not address it with 
not only a prescription drug benefit but also some effort to have 
reasonable control of price increases, we are not listening to the 
people we were sent here to represent.
  We can talk about estate taxes. We can talk about people making over 
$300,000 a year. But we have lost touch with reality and we have lost 
touch with America if we do not understand the cost of prescription 
drugs is something that haunts literally millions of Americans every 
single day. That is something we can and must do something about in the 
immediate future.
  We have to bring Medicare in line with reality. The reality is that 
prescription drugs can keep you out of the hospital, keep you home and 
healthy, keep you independent and strong. When Medicare was created, 
there was no prescription drug benefit. Forty years ago, there were not 
that many drugs around, for that matter. But the world has changed. You 
would not buy a health insurance policy today that did not have some 
prescription drug benefit in it. Today, the most vulnerable people in 
America are seniors and disabled under Medicare who virtually have no 
prescription drug protection whatsoever.
  We want to change that. We, on the Democratic side, believe if we do 
nothing else this year, we should enact a prescription drug benefit. We 
can then say to our parents and grandparents and the elderly we love in 
this country: We have heard your message. Again, I say while we should 
have been debating that, we were debating an estate tax change that 
ends up giving almost $23,000 a year to some of the wealthiest people 
in America.
  Look at how this works out in terms of the different income groups 
and how much they receive. As I mentioned, the lowest 20 percent of 
wage earners in America, under the Republican plan, get $2 a month. 
What can you buy with that nowadays? Maybe a coke at McDonald's, I 
guess. Then up here at the highest level, those making over $300,000 a 
year, $23,000 in breaks on the Republican tax plan. Again, the inequity 
is so obvious--the fact that the people who are struggling the hardest, 
working the hardest, doing the most to make America strong, are the 
people who are being ignored by the Republican tax relief.
  This is not the first time that has occurred. Take a look at some of 
these charts involving Republican tax cuts from years gone by. You will 
see every single time the Republicans have had a chance--in August of 
1999; in May of 2000, the House minimum wage proposal; in March of 
2000, and the Republican Congress estate tax repeal--at least 41 
percent of all the tax benefits went to the very richest, the top 1 
percent in America.
  When it came to the minimum wage, the same thing was true. Think 
about that minimum wage for a second. How long could you survive on 
$5.15 an hour on a job? Well, 350,000 people in my home State of 
Illinois got up this morning and went to work, and they are being paid 
today $5.15 an hour. These are not lazy people. These are some of the 
hardest working people in my State. These are people cleaning the 
tables, making the beds, doing the laundry, doing the dry cleaning, 
watching our children in day care, and these people are being paid 
$5.15 an hour.
  We have tried, with Senator Kennedy, for over 2 years to increase the 
minimum wage in this country, and we have been told America just cannot 
afford it. We cannot afford to give people who go to work every single 
day a livable, decent wage of $6.15. That is hardly a great sum of 
money, but at least it tries to keep up with the cost of living.
  The same Congress and the same leadership that has rejected a 50-
cent-an-hour wage increase for some of the hardest working people in 
America wants to turn around and give a tax break of $23,000 a year to 
those making over $300,000.
  Doesn't it strike you as odd that they are willing to give a tax 
break to folks making over $300,000 a year, which is the equivalent of 
more than twice the income of a person earning the minimum wage? Where 
is the sensitivity to America? I can't understand how the Republicans 
can feel the ``pain'' of the wealthy but can't feel the pain of those 
who are working hard every single day to try to make a living and to 
try to make America better.
  Again and again, given the chance to come up with the Republican tax 
cuts, we find that the richest in America are the ones who profit. We 
just ended up passing the so-called marriage penalty tax cut and 
exactly the same rules apply. Who are the people who will benefit from 
this? Under the Republican plan, this so-called marriage penalty turns 
out to be a marriage bonus.
  The idea, of course, behind it is if two individuals are earning a 
certain income and decide to get married and they combine their income 
on a joint return, many times they find themselves moving up to a 
higher income tax bracket. That is wrong. We should change it. The 
Democrats support that change and that reform.
  The Republicans say that is not enough. They say: For those who 
happen to get married--and one is working and one isn't--we want to 
lower the tax rate in their situation, even though there is no tax 
penalty. You end up giving a break where, frankly, it is not needed. So 
the tax break goes to whose who are not being penalized.
  When you look at the ultimate benefit of it, you see, once again, the 
top 20 percent of earners in America are the ones who benefit the most 
from the Republican plan. And 25.7 percent of all the benefits under 
this plan go to the richest 5 percent in the country, and 78 percent of 
it goes to the richest 20 percent in the country.
  Again and again, given a chance to help working families and young 
married people who are struggling to get a start in life, the 
Republicans have said, no. They say the first people to help are the 
richest people in our society. That, to me, does not make sense.
  What we have suggested, under the marriage penalty, is that we should 
have a simple, straightforward plan. We should define the marriage 
penalty as when a married couple pays more as a married couple than 
they would as two singles. Very simple. We say let married couples 
earning below $100,000 have a choice in filing. They can file as two 
singles or as a couple. The proposal could not be more simple.
  The Democratic alternative completely eliminates each and every one 
of the 65 marriage penalties in the Tax Code for taxpayers making 
$100,000 a year or less. It reduces the marriage penalty for taxpayers 
making between $100,000 and $150,000. I think it is realistic, 
generous, and makes a lot of sense. I supported that, but that is not 
what passed the Senate a few minutes ago.
  What passed is a benefit that will, frankly, go to the wealthiest 
people in this country. Again and again, we forget those who are making 
America great, working every single day. We forget those who need help 
in paying college education expenses.
  We forget those who, frankly, have to make a tough decision at some 
point in the life of their son or daughter: Where are they going to go 
to college? Every parent dreams of their son or daughter getting into 
the very best school, and then they try to think of how they are going 
to pay for it. Many times they can't; they are unable to pay for it. 
They have to have that sad meeting in their household where they 
discuss it and say: Maybe you will have to stay home for a year. Maybe 
you will go to a school closer to home for a couple years, and then 
maybe, just maybe, if we save enough, you will get your chance to 
realize your dream and go to the very best school where you have been 
accepted.
  That is a sad situation for a lot of families, but it is a real 
situation. We know what has happened to college education expenses. 
Anybody you talk to can tell you that particularly private schools but 
many public educational institutions have seen their costs increase 
dramatically. Families struggle with paying for that.
  We came up with a suggestion on the floor of a tax deduction to help 
families pay for college education expenses. Rejected by the Republican 
majority, their belief was, if we are going to give tax relief, let's 
give it to the folks who are making over $300,000 a year.

[[Page 15066]]

  Prescription drugs, college education expenses, child care, helping 
to pay for your aging parents, that is my top list when it comes to tax 
relief in this country. But, sadly, with the Republican majority in 
control of the Congress now, that will not be the list that is listened 
to or followed when you talk about tax relief.
  In just a few weeks, the major political parties will go through the 
quadrennial exercise of heading off for their national conventions--the 
Republicans to Philadelphia, the Democrats to Los Angeles. Of course, 
there will be a lot of speeches. The networks have decided it is not 
worth listening to, and they are going to tune us out most of the time. 
But you will read about it and probably catch some items in the news. 
You will hear a lot of claims being made.
  You can count on the message coming out of Philadelphia--the 
Republican Convention--where they will say: President Clinton had a 
chance to cut your taxes, and he didn't do it. He vetoed the bills that 
the Republicans passed in the Congress.
  A lot of people back home might say: That is a shame because I need a 
tax cut.
  But for 98 percent of the American families listening to those shows, 
guess what, you were not protected or improved in any way by those tax 
cuts. They go to the top 2 percent of the American people. Those are 
the ones, the biggest wage earners in America, who will benefit.
  Of course, at the Democratic Convention, you will hear us talk about 
issues that this Congress has refused to even consider--the 
prescription drug benefit, an increase in the minimum wage, and gun 
safety legislation. Think about that. Of course, if you turn on the 
television in the morning or pick up a newspaper, you hear of another 
incident of a child shooting up a school. And you think to yourself: 
What is America coming to that this can happen, in what is supposed to 
be one of the safest places in our country, that kids can take guns to 
school?
  We were paralyzed a year ago--a little over a year ago now--at the 
tragedy at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO. To think that 12 
kids could be killed, and so many others terrorized by those who would 
come upon these weapons and take them to school and open fire.
  Every mother and father, and every schoolteacher and administrator, 
and many students across America said: What are we going to do to 
protect ourselves? They turned to Congress because we are representing 
these people and their families and said: Can you do something?
  We came up with gun safety legislation. Let me tell you what it 
proposed. It wouldn't end gun violence in America, but it was an effort 
to try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children. We 
said: If you are going to buy a gun from a gun dealer in America, we 
are going to check on who you are. We want to know something about your 
background. It is the Brady law. We stopped a half a million people 
from buying guns who should not have bought them because they were too 
young, they had a criminal history or a history of mental illness. That 
law has worked.
  But the same people could have turned around and gone to a gun show 
at the local armory and bought the same guns without any background 
check. Those are the guns that we are finding more and more popping up 
in high schools and schools across America, guns purchased at gun 
shows, by those who were ineligible or questionable. They turn around 
and sell them. Kids get their hands on them. So we enacted legislation 
that said: We will do a background check at gun shows, too, to try to 
keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children and those who 
would misuse them.
  That bill passed. It was a tie vote, 49-49, when Vice President Gore 
came and cast the tiebreaking vote. That was over a year ago. Nothing 
has happened to that bill since. It went over to the House of 
Representatives, and the gun lobby ripped it to shreds. They sent it to 
a conference committee, where it has been sitting moribund for 
literally a year, while gun violence continues in America and claims 
the lives of 12 or 13 of our children every single day.
  One of the other provisions in that bill came from Senator Kohl of 
Wisconsin. He said: When you sell a handgun in America, it should have 
a child safety device or a trigger lock on it so kids can't get their 
hands on them and hurt themselves or their playmates or their 
classmates. That was part of the bill that we passed out of here. That 
was stopped by the gun lobby, as well.
  When you think about it, many parents who decide not to have a 
firearm in their homes because they have small children never know, 
when their son or daughter goes to play next door, what the 
circumstances might be--whether those same kids are going to be 
vulnerable to some child finding a gun in a drawer or up on a shelf, 
play with it, and kill their playmate. You read about it almost every 
single day.
  So this commonsense idea that we will have child safety devices or 
trigger locks on handguns in America was in the bill we sent over to 
the House. It was stopped cold--stopped dead in its tracks--by the gun 
lobby. They said: We have just gone too far. It is just too radical a 
suggestion that we would sell child safety devices with handguns.
  The third provision was from the Senator from California, Mrs. 
Feinstein, who said: It is against the law to manufacturer and sell 
high-capacity ammo clips in the United States, but there is a loophole. 
You can import them from overseas. And it is pretty simple to do.
  She put into law the provision that you won't be able to buy high-
capacity ammo clips that hold up to 100 cartridges and bullets. You 
have to ask yourself: What sportsman or hunter needs 100 cartridges or 
bullets? I believe if you need a high-capacity ammo clip and a 
semiassault weapon to go and shoot a deer, perhaps you ought to stick 
to fishing.
  In many instances in America, the people who are buying these high-
capacity ammo clips are turning around and using them for these gang 
banger activities and drive-by shootings that you read about, sadly, 
here in Washington, DC, and Chicago and cities across America.
  That was the third provision in the gun safety bill. That was the 
third provision that the National Rifle Association said was 
unacceptable: We cannot restrict the right of American hunters and 
sportsmen to have high-capacity ammo clips that hold over 100 
cartridges.
  To my way of thinking, common sense requires us to say to people who 
want to exercise their right to legally and safely use a firearm that 
they, too, have to face some restriction on their activity. Those who 
have visited Washington, DC, as tourists may have gone through an 
airport and through a metal detector. It is an inconvenience we accept 
because we want to be safe when we get on that airplane. To ask that 
those who own firearms face similar inconveniences is not unreasonable, 
unless you happen to be the National Rifle Association. They think it 
is unreasonable to impose any restrictions whatsoever.
  As a result, sadly, every morning in America, when you pick up the 
paper, you see instances where children are being killed, instances 
where kids are taking guns to school, instances where with some 
foresight and some political courage, this Congress might have been 
able to do something. We have not.
  This has been a do-nothing-for-the-people Congress, as Vice President 
Gore has said. It has failed to take into consideration what the 
average working family in this country expects of us, not only to 
balance the books but to balance our priorities, to make sure the 
people who prosper because of our judgments and our decisions and our 
legislative leadership are the families across America.
  I think also of the uninsured in this country. To think that in this 
time of prosperity in America, after the longest run of economic 
progress in the history of the United States, at a time when we are 
envisioning surpluses that have never been seen in our history, that we 
still live in a country with 40 million people who are uninsured. I 
offered an amendment to my friends in

[[Page 15067]]

the Senate that said we ought to give a tax credit to small businesses 
to help pay for health insurance for their employees. These are the 
businesses that pay the highest health insurance premiums to protect 
the family who owns the business as well as their employees. These are 
the employees working for small businesses who make the lowest incomes. 
Not surprisingly, they turn out to be the largest source of uninsured 
people in this country, those workers and their children.
  What I propose, as part of our tax package on the Democratic side, is 
to say to small businesses: We will give you a helping hand. We will 
give you a tax credit so that you can offer health insurance to your 
employees. It strikes me as one of the basics we should consider.
  Just a few years ago, we initiated a nationwide plan to help the 
States pay for covering the children of working parents with health 
insurance. It is called the CHIP program. It is working well in my 
State of Illinois and across the Nation. Congress is trying to plug the 
holes of 40 million uninsured people in America.
  We had a hearing the other day that would have broken many hearts. 
The mothers and fathers of very disabled children came to tell us about 
their plight. They depend on SSI, a program under Social Security and 
Medicaid, to provide for kids who are profoundly retarded or disabled. 
They find, sadly, they earn too much money. We heard from a woman who 
talked about a situation where her State came to her and said: You can 
no longer provide for your child with your income; you just don't have 
enough money. We want you to turn your child over to be a ward of the 
State.
  Imagine, in America, in the country in which we live, parents who are 
struggling to raise disabled children are told that the only answer is 
to turn their child over to become a ward of the State. That was what 
she faced. Her health insurance did not cover her needs.
  Then there was a sergeant in the Air Force who came to see us with 
his lovely little 9-year-old daughter, Lauren, who has some serious 
medical difficulties. This is a man who has given most of his adult 
life to his country in the Air Force. He was recently given a promotion 
to E-6, where he would make $200 more a month. With that $200 more a 
month, he was disqualified from receiving Medicaid and SSI. He said it 
would cost him over $500 a month to take care of his little daughter. 
So as he gets a tiny increase in pay of $200 a month, he sees that $500 
of medical bills fall on his shoulders.
  These are people in America without health insurance. These are 
people who I think about when I think about the surplus that we are 
experiencing. What are we going to do with this to extend health 
insurance coverage to more and more Americans so it is no longer a 
question that parents ask their emancipated kids, as I have asked my 
daughter, Jennifer: Do you have health insurance now? She is a student 
who works from time to time, does her very best, but I worry about it 
as a father. I shouldn't have to. No one should have to in this 
country. Health insurance ought to be a given in America--not the 
fanciest and most expensive policy but a basic policy.
  Is Congress debating that? Is Congress even thinking about it? Is 
Congress sensitive to it? No. We are debating tax breaks for people 
making over $300,000 a year. That is our priority. The priority is not 
the parents of the handicapped children, the children of America who 
are uninsured, the 40 million uninsured Americans in general. That is 
where we lost sight of the true reality of the challenges facing 
American families.
  The choices on the floor of the Senate are clear, and the choices for 
the American people in the election will be clear in terms of the 
values that should be represented when we decide who will benefit from 
the surplus we have generated and the strong economy of the last 8 
years.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. 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. VOINOVICH. 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. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, in the year-and-a-half that I have been 
in the Senate, I have taken several opportunities to come to the floor 
to talk about the need to reduce our national debt.
  Every chance I get, I remind my colleagues that we cannot let the 
excitement of having a record-high surplus allow us to lose sight of 
the fact that we must keep spending in check, and use our Social 
Security surplus and on-budget surplus dollars to pay down our $5.7 
trillion national debt.
  I can't help but wonder why the media is quick to report that we have 
such tremendous surpluses, but is virtually silent when it comes to 
reporting that we have such a huge national debt.
  I think the people need to know that we have a national debt that is 
costing us $224 billion in interest payments a year, and that 
translates into $600 million per day just to pay the interest. Out of 
every federal dollar that is spent this year, 13 cents will go to pay 
the interest on the national debt. In comparison, 16 cents will go for 
national defense; 18 cents will go for non-defense discretionary 
spending; and 53 cents will go for entitlement spending. Right now, we 
spend more federal tax dollars on debt interest than we do on the 
entire Medicare program.
  This debt didn't accumulate overnight. In fact, it took decades of 
misguided fiscal policies on the part of the Congress and the Executive 
Branch to get this way. But, fortunately, we have an opportunity, with 
our strong economy and low unemployment, to make some headway on paying 
down our debt.
  Nearly every family in America or every business owner in America, 
when they come into some extra money, would use that surplus money to 
pay off their loans, their credit cards, etc.--whatever debt they had 
accumulated.
  And that's precisely what the U.S. government should do.
  I don't think our Nation is any different from our families. If we 
have some extra money, we ought to get rid of the debt we are carrying 
on our back.
  As my colleagues know, because of the expanding economy, CBO's April 
surplus estimates showed that we had attained a $26 billion on-budget 
surplus in fiscal year 2000.
  And I would like to remind my colleagues that $22 billion of that $26 
billion surplus was from payroll tax overpayments to the Medicare Trust 
Fund.
  However, of that $26 billion surplus amount, the fiscal year 2001 
budget resolution assumed we would spend $14 billion of it.
  That left $12 billion, which I felt should be used for debt 
reduction, and so I sought to find a legislative remedy to have those 
funds allocated solely for the purpose of debt reduction.
  On June 15th, by a vote of 95-3, the Senate passed an amendment to 
the Transportation Appropriations bill that Senator Allard and I 
sponsored, directing the remaining $12 billion on-budget surplus to be 
used for debt reduction. It was a tremendous victory, but, recognizably 
short-lived.
  Over the last two months, Congress has spent $13.8 billion in an 
``emergency'' supplemental appropriations package that was included as 
part of the Military Construction Appropriations Conference Report, and 
an additional $5.5 billion has been allocated for payments for another 
``ag bailout'' bill with the passage of the Crop Insurance Reform 
package.
  Thus, nearly all but $4 billion of the $26 billion surplus has been 
spent, including just about all of the $22 billion in overpayments to 
the Medicare Trust Fund--money that we in Congress have been talking 
about ``lock-boxing'' to prevent it from being spent in just such a 
manner.
  With all this added spending, I would like to remind my colleagues 
that we

[[Page 15068]]

are significantly raising discretionary spending this year--a habit 
Congress seems reluctant to break. For example, in fiscal year 1998, 
Congress spent $555 billion on discretionary spending. In fiscal year 
1999 we increased discretionary spending to $575 billion--a 4% increase 
over that one year.
  In fiscal year 2000, if you factor in the emergency supplemental 
appropriations we approved two weeks ago, discretionary spending will 
be $618 billion. Compared to last year's $575 billion, if my figures 
are right, that is a 7.5% increase so far in discretionary spending.
  How many people in this country can say that they received a 7.5% pay 
increase from last year?
  This is outrageous, and all the more reason we can't allow spending 
to grow any further in FY 2000.
  When given the opportunity to spend more or bring down our national 
debt, Congress has to learn to make the tough choices--the fiscally 
prudent choices.
  Fortunately, we will have another opportunity to curb spending and 
make a dent in our national debt.
  Today, we have received the expected news from CBO that our fiscal 
year 2000 on-budget surplus has grown to $84 billion--$60 billion more 
than was projected in January.
  With such a large amount of on-budget surplus dollars at stake, I 
fear that, again, the temptation will be enormous to spend these 
dollars--and with even greater zeal than before. We must ignore the 
allure of spending these surpluses, and remember that the best thing we 
could do with these funds is use them to pay down the debt.
  For those of my colleagues who support tax cuts, I would like to 
remind them that the only thing that we can do with these FY 2000 
surplus funds this year is use them to increase spending or pay down 
the national debt. That's it. They cannot be used for tax cuts because 
the fiscal year is almost over.
  I have recently read an excellent paper written by Peter B. Sperry, 
who is the Grover M. Hermann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs at the 
Heritage Foundation, regarding our obligation to use our surplus 
dollars to pay down our national debt.
  I believe each of my colleagues should read this compelling article, 
and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the article be printed in 
the Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit I.)
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I agree with the conclusion that Mr. 
Sperry reaches in his paper, and that is, Congress needs to enact 
legislation that will automatically take the $60 billion windfall we 
just received for fiscal year 2000 and use it to pay down the debt.
  The bill that Mr. Sperry says that Congress needs to pass is H.R. 
4601, the Debt Reduction Reconciliation Act of 2000. Fortunately, on 
June 20th, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 4601, by a vote of 
419-5. An overwhelming majority--just think of it.
  I have reviewed this bill, and I believe H.R. 4601 is our last hope 
to pass meaningful debt-reduction legislation this year. That is why I 
asked that this bill be held at the desk and put on the Senate's 
calendar, instead of being sent to Committee. We must consider this 
legislation now, and we need to let the American people know that 
Congress is serious about reducing the national debt and not merely 
paying lip-service towards that goal.
  In particular, the bill establishes an off-budget account at the U.S. 
Treasury that would be called the Public Debt Reduction Payment 
Account. Any funds that are over the amount specified in CBO's January 
surplus estimate of $24 billion would be transferred to the Account, 
where they would be automatically used to reduce the debt. Thus, $60 
billion in on-budget surplus funds for FY 2000 would be directed 
towards debt reduction.
  My fear is that before any of the extra FY 2000 funds actually go 
towards debt reduction, Congress and the President--especially the 
President--will say, ``well, we've got the money, let's spend it and 
get out of town.'' But Mr. President, that's definitely not how it 
should work.
  We have a moral obligation to use this money to pay down the debt, 
and I would like to read a quote from General Accounting Office (GAO) 
Comptroller General David Walker that hits the nail right on the head 
regarding that obligation. In testimony before the House Ways and Means 
Committee last year, Mr. Walker said:

       This generation has a stewardship responsibility to future 
     generations to reduce the debt burden they inherit, to 
     provide a strong foundation for future economic growth, and 
     to ensure that future commitments are both adequate and 
     affordable. Prudence requires making the tough choices today 
     while the economy is healthy and the workforce is relatively 
     large--before we are hit by the baby boom's demographic tidal 
     wave.

  To me, the most important thing that we can do on behalf of our 
children and our grandchildren is to remove the yoke of this debt 
burden from their backs. If we do so, it will strike a blow for their 
future and for the future of our nation.
  It is the responsibility of the House and the Senate to ``stop the 
hemorrhaging of spending'' by agreeing to let the remaining on-budget 
surplus for FY 2000 go towards paying down the national debt. H.R. 4601 
will meet that challenge, and it is now up to the Senate to pass this 
bill. Let's get it done, Mr. President, and let's get it done now.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit I

             [From The Heritage Foundation, June 13, 2000]

           How To Protect the Surplus From Wasteful Spending

                          (By Peter B. Sperry)

       Although most Americans assume that a federal budget 
     surplus in any year is automatically used to reduce the 
     national debt, or at least the debt held by the public, this 
     actually is not the case. The U.S. Department of the Treasury 
     must implement specific financial accounting procedures if it 
     is to use a cash surplus to pay down the debt held by the 
     public. If these procedures are not followed, or if they 
     proceed slowly, then the surplus revenue just builds up in 
     the Treasury's operating cash accounts.
       This excess cash could be used in the future to further 
     reduce the debt, but only if it is protected from other uses 
     in the meantime. Until the excess cash is formally committed 
     to debt repayment, Congress could appropriate it for other 
     purposes. Consequently, the current surplus will not 
     automatically reduce the publicly held national debt of $3.54 
     trillion unless Congress acts now to make sure these funds 
     are automatically used for debt reduction and for no other 
     purpose.
       There is a parallel to this in household finance. When a 
     family with a large mortgage, credit card debt, and several 
     student loans receives an unexpected financial windfall, it 
     usually deposits the funds in a checking account and takes a 
     little time to consider how best to allocate the revenue--
     whether to refinance the mortgage, pay off credit cards, or 
     establish a rainy day fund. Meanwhile, the family's debt 
     remains, and will not be reduced until the family formally 
     transfers funds to one or more of its creditors. If the 
     family does not take some action in the interim to wall off 
     the cash, it often ends up frittering away the money on new 
     purchases, and the debt remains.
       The federal government faces a similar situation. Surplus 
     revenues are accumulating in the Treasury Department's 
     operating cash accounts faster than the Bureau of the Public 
     Debt can efficiently dedicate them to reducing the public 
     debt. Consequently, surplus balances in these accounts have 
     reached historic levels, and they are likely to accumulate 
     even faster as the size of the surplus grows. Unless Congress 
     takes formal action to protect these funds, they are 
     available to be used or misused at anytime in the 
     appropriations process. Fortunately, the House soon will 
     consider a bill (H.R. 4601) that would protect the budget 
     surplus from being raided by appropriations until prudent 
     decisions can be made about its use.


                    WHY DEBT REDUCTION NEEDS A BOOST

       Thanks to unexpected budget surpluses, the U.S. Department 
     of the Treasury issued less new debt than it redeemed each 
     year. It conducted several ``reverse'' auctions to buy back 
     old high-interest debt. And it successfully reduced the 
     amount of federal debt held by the public in less than three 
     years by $230 billion, from $3.77 trillion in October 1997 to 
     $3.54 trillion in April 2000. Chart 1 clearly shows that its 
     efforts have been successful and impressive.
       Despite this effort, the Treasury still is awash in cash. 
     Examining the Treasury Department's monthly reports over this 
     same period (see Appendix) reveals that, after accounting for 
     normal seasonal fluctuations, the closing balances of its 
     operating cash accounts have grown dramatically and, more 
     important, the rate at which cash is accumulating in them has 
     accelerated. The linear

[[Page 15069]]

     trend line in Chart 2 shows both the growth in the closing 
     balances in the cash accounts and the projected growth under 
     current conditions. Essentially, if no provisions are made to 
     protect these balances, in August 2002--two months before the 
     midterm elections--appropriators would have access to almost 
     $60 billion in non-obligated cash.
       Unfortunately, even this projection may be too 
     conservative. Examination of month-to-month changes in the 
     closing balances indicates that the rate of cash accumulation 
     has started to accelerate, which will cause the closing 
     balances to grow even faster. The trend line in Chart 3 shows 
     that the amount of positive monthly change in closing cash 
     balances has, after accounting for normal fluctuation, 
     increased since October 1997, and cash balances could start 
     to increase by an average of $20 billion per month within two 
     years.
       The Treasury Department faces extraordinary cash management 
     challenges as it attempts to repay the debt held by the 
     public steadily and without destabilizing financial markets 
     that depend on federal debt instruments as a standard of 
     measurement. By protecting accumulated cash balances from 
     misuse, Congress could provide the Treasury Department with 
     the flexibility it needs to do its job more effectively.


                treasury's limited debt management tools

       The Treasury relies on three basic debt management tools to 
     reduce the debt held by the public in a controlled manner.
       Issuing Less Debt. As old debt matures and is redeemed, the 
     Treasury Department issues a slightly smaller amount of new 
     debt in return, thereby reducing the total debt held by the 
     public. This is the federal government's most cost-effective 
     and preferred method of debt reduction. However, it is not a 
     simple process to determine how much new debt should be 
     issued. If the Treasury Department returns too much debt to 
     the financial market, it misses an opportunity to retire 
     additional debt. If it returns too little to the markets, the 
     cost of federal debt instruments will rise, driving down 
     their yields and disrupting many private-sector retirement 
     plans.
       Reverse Auctions. The Treasury Department periodically 
     conducts reverse auctions in which it announces that it will 
     buy a predetermined amount of specific types of debt 
     instruments from whoever will sell them for the best price. 
     This method quickly reduces debt held by the public, but it 
     can be expensive. Investors holding a T-bill that will be 
     worth $1,000 in 20 years may be willing to sell it for $995 
     if they need the money now and believe that is the best price 
     they can get. However, if they know the Treasury Department 
     has made a commitment to buy a large number of T-bills in a 
     short period of time, investors may hold out for $997--a 
     premium of $2 million on every $1 billion of debt the 
     Treasury Department retires.
       Purchasing Debt Instruments. The Treasury Department can 
     use private-sector brokers to purchase federal debt 
     instruments on the open market without having it revealed 
     that the client is the federal government. This method is 
     slow, but it allows the Treasury Department to take advantage 
     of unpredictable fluctuations in financial markets to buy 
     back federal debt instruments for the best possible price. 
     This method must be used carefully and discreetly to avoid 
     having investors, upon realizing that the true buyer is the 
     federal government, hold out for higher prices.


                WHY TIMING AND FLEXIBILITY ARE IMPORTANT

       The Treasury Department needs time and flexibility to use 
     debt management tools effectively. It often will need to 
     allow large balances to accumulate in the operating cash 
     accounts while it waits for the opportunity to buy back 
     federal debt instruments at the best possible price. If these 
     balances are unprotected, they may prove irresistible 
     temptations for appropriators with special-interest 
     constituencies.
       A prudent Secretary of the Treasury would not risk 
     disrupting financial markets by recklessly reducing the 
     amount of new debt issued each year, but might increase the 
     number and size of reverse auctions to ensure that surplus 
     revenues are used for debt reduction rather than remain 
     available to congressional appropriators. The taxpayers 
     would, at best, pay more than necessary to retire the federal 
     debt, and they might find that appropriators have spent the 
     surplus before it could be used to pay down debt.


                    MAKING DEBT REDUCTION AUTOMATIC

       Fortunately, Congress has the opportunity to ensure that 
     the Treasury's large cash balances are not misused in the 
     appropriations process. The U.S. House of Representatives 
     will soon consider H.R. 4601, the debt Reduction 
     Reconciliation Act of 2000, recently approved by the House 
     Ways and Means Committee. This legislation, sponsored by 
     Representative Ernest Fletcher (R-KY), is designed to give 
     the Treasury Department the time and flexibility it needs to 
     use debt management tools most effectively. It would protect 
     the on-budget surplus revenues collected during the remainder 
     of fiscal year (FY) 2000 and appropriate them for debt 
     reduction by depositing them in a designated ``off budget'' 
     Public Debt Reduction Account.
       Although the surplus revenues could still cause an increase 
     in cash balances, the cash would be dedicated in the Debt 
     Reduction Account rather than in the Treasury Department's 
     operating cash account. Appropriators would be able to 
     reallocate these funds only by first rescinding the 
     appropriation for debt reduction in legislation that would 
     have to pass both houses of Congress and gain presidential 
     approval. Once surplus revenues are deposited in the Debt 
     Reduction Account, appropriators would have very limited 
     ability to increase spending without creating an on-budget 
     deficit, which many taxpayers would perceive as a raid on the 
     Social Security trust fund.
       H.R. 4601 would effectively protect the surplus revenues 
     that are collected during the remainder of FY 2000; moreover, 
     it serves as model for how Congress should allocate 
     unexpected windfalls in the future. It does not preclude tax 
     reform because it is limited to the current fiscal year and 
     therefore affects only revenues that have already been 
     collected or that will be collected before any tax reform 
     legislation takes effect. Nevertheless, once the Debt 
     Reduction Account is established, Congress could continue to 
     appropriate funds to the account at any time. Consequently, 
     Congress would retain the option to reduce revenues through 
     tax reform and still have a mechanism to prevent unexpected 
     surplus revenues, once collected, from being used for any 
     purpose other than debt reduction.
       H.R. 4601 would give the Treasury flexibility to use its 
     debt reduction tools in the most effective manner. Surplus 
     revenues deposited in the Debt Reduction Account would remain 
     available until expended, but only for debt reduction. The 
     department would be able to schedule reverse auctions at the 
     most advantageous times, make funds available to brokers 
     buying back debt on the open markets or decrease the size of 
     new debt issues--depending on which mechanism, or combination 
     of tools, proves most cost effective. There would no longer 
     be pressure to ``use it or lose it.''


                        how to improve h.r. 4601

       Although H.R. 4601 demonstrates a real commitment of 
     members of the House to fiscal discipline, the legislation 
     could be improved. Congress should consider requiring the 
     Secretary of the Treasury also to deposit all revenue 
     received from the sale of Special Issue Treasury Bills (which 
     are sold only to the Social Security Administration) in the 
     Debt Reduction Account. This would preclude the possibility 
     of any future raids on the Social Security trust fund.
       Congress should also consider adding language to H.R. 4601 
     to automatically appropriate future real (rather than 
     projected) surplus revenues to the Debt Reduction Account. 
     This would allow Congress the flexibility to implement tax 
     reforms while also guaranteeing that surplus revenues, once 
     collected, could be used only for debt reduction.


                               conclusion

       Many Americans assume that if surplus revenues are not used 
     for spending or tax cuts, they automatically reduce the 
     national debt. Indeed, this has become an unstated premise in 
     discussions of fiscal policy, whether in the press, academia, 
     or Congress. Unfortunately, the premise is incorrect.
       To make the premise true, the Treasury Department should be 
     able to make specific provisions for retiring debt. If it is 
     not given the power and obligation to do so, the surplus 
     revenues accumulating in its operating cash accounts will be 
     subject to misuse by appropriations. Congress has an 
     opportunity and obligation to give the Treasury Department 
     the time and flexibility it needs to utilize its debt 
     management tools effectively when it considers H.R. 4601. 
     This bill offers an effective first step toward the goal of 
     making sure that budget surpluses do not disappear in new 
     spending programs.


                       what is the national debt?

       The national debt consists of Treasury notes, T-bills, and 
     savings bonds that were sold to raise cash to pay the ongoing 
     operational expenses of the federal government. National debt 
     held by the public consists of debt instruments sold to 
     anyone other than a federal trust fund. Most federal debt 
     held by the public is owned by state and local governments, 
     pension plans, mutual funds, and individual retirement 
     portfolios.
       Most investors consider federal debt instruments to be cash 
     equivalents that pay interest, and they are strongly 
     motivated to hold them until maturity--up to 30 years in the 
     case of T-bills. Many institutional investors, particularly 
     pension funds, are required to maintain a certain portion of 
     their portfolio in cash equivalents, and they depend on the 
     federal government to issue new debt when their old 
     investments mature and are redeemed. In additional, many 
     lenders, particularly mortgage companies, use the market 
     price of federal debt instruments as a measurement device to 
     determine appropriate rates of return on alternative 
     investments. These lenders rely on the federal government to 
     maintain enough federal debt in circulation to make this 
     measurement valid.

                                Appendix

[[Page 15070]]



                                       U.S. TREASURY OPERATING CASH AND TOTAL PUBLIC DEBT: OCTOBER 1997-APRIL 2000
                                                                [In millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Total borrowing  Total borrowing
                                                        Treasury         Treasury                          from the         from the
                                                    operating cash:  operating cash:       Change      public: opening  public: closing       Change
                                                    opening balance  closing balance                       balance          balance
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997:
    Oct...........................................          $43,621          $20,261         -$23,360       $3,771,141        3,777,456           $6,315
    Nov...........................................           20,261           19,778             -483        3,777,456        3,806,564           29,108
    Dec...........................................           19,778           31,885           12,107        3,806,564        3,804,792           -1,772
1998:
    Jan...........................................           31,885           40,307            8,422        3,804,792        3,779,985          -24,807
    Feb...........................................           40,307           16,280          -24,027        3,779,985        3,810,549           30,564
    Mar...........................................           16,280           27,632           11,352        3,810,549        3,830,686           20,137
    Apr...........................................           27,632           88,030           60,398        3,830,686        3,770,099          -60,587
    May...........................................           88,030           36,131          -51,899        3,770,099        3,761,503           -8,596
    Jun...........................................           36,131           72,275           36,144        3,761,503        3,748,885          -12,618
    Jul...........................................           72,275           36,065          -36,210        3,748,885        3,732,515          -16,370
    Aug...........................................           36,065           36,427              362        3,732,515        3,766,504           33,989
    Sep...........................................           36,427           37,878            1,451        3,766,504        3,720,092          -46,412
    Oct...........................................           38,878           36,217           -2,661        3,720,092        3,735,422           15,330
    Nov...........................................           36,217           15,882          -20,335        3,735,194        3,757,558           22,364
    Dec...........................................           15,882           17,503            1,621        3,757,558        3,752,168           -5,390
1999:
    Jan...........................................           17,503           57,070           39,567        3,752,168        3,720,919          -31,249
    Feb...........................................           57,070            4,638          -52,432        3,720,919        3,722,607            1,688
    Mar...........................................            4,638           21,626           16,988        3,722,611        3,759,624           37,013
    Apr...........................................           21,626           58,138           36,512        3,759,624        3,674,416          -85,208
    May...........................................           58,138           25,643          -32,495        3,674,416        3,673,865             -551
    Jun...........................................           25,643           53,102           27,459        3,673,865        3,651,619          -22,246
    Jul...........................................           53,102           39,549          -13,553        3,651,619        3,652,812            1,193
    Aug...........................................           39,549           36,389           -3,160        3,652,812        3,679,282           26,470
    Sep...........................................           36,389           56,458           20,069        3,681,008        3,633,290          -47,718
    Oct...........................................           56,458           47,567           -8,891        3,632,958        3,638,712            5,754
    Nov...........................................           47,567            6,079          -41,488        3,639,079        3,645,212            6,133
    Dec...........................................            6,079           83,327           77,248        3,645,212        3,680,961           35,749
2000:
    Jan...........................................           83,327           62,735          -20,592        3,680,961        3,596,976          -83,985
    Feb...........................................           67,735           21,962          -40,773        3,596,570        3,613,701           17,131
    Mar...........................................           21,962           44,770           22,808        3,613,701        3,653,447           39,746
    Apr...........................................           44,770           92,557           47,787        3,653,447        3,540,781        -112,666
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Sources: U.S. Department of the Treasury, Monthly Treasury Statements, at http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/.

  Mr. VOINOVICH. 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. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________