John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, thank you very much. I thank the Senator from Michigan. Mr. President, it would be amusing, if it weren't tragic, to hear the representations made by those on the other side of the aisle that the Republicans are indifferent to our senior citizens and to Medicare, or indifferent to Social Security. Let us not forget the Social Security lockbox is a Republican concept. They come to us saying how aggressively they are supporting what happened in the House. It is about time they started to support a lockbox of some sort. They filibustered that at least six times previously to keep it from being here. It is time we have a lockbox. We enacted a credible lockbox to protect Social Security so our seniors won't be jeopardized by a reckless sort of effort to spend. There is real distress on the part of our colleagues on the Democrat side of this Chamber who are afraid we are not going to leave enough money to spend. Their spending habit is hard to break. But I think we ought to understand the American people are paying in over the next 10 years $3.3 trillion of surplus, and they don't want to buy that much more government. They want some change to go to the store. You by a gallon of milk, and you give them 10 bucks. You don't expect them to start adding other items to your order to fill up what you could have bought with your 10 bucks. You expect to get your money back when you pay in a surplus, and the American people should do that. They suggested we don't have any money to deal with a Medicare problem. It is pretty clear we have $505 billion available to deal with Medicare, if we choose to, over the next 10 years. Just for example, the President said he could fix it for $48 billion. And $505 billion is 10 times that much. But I don't recommend that we allocate a specific amount to fix Medicare before we have decided how to reform Medicare. The Senator from Tennessee eloquently stated the position of the Comptroller General of the United States, our sort of auditor, the person who looks at things and asks: How are you doing? Is this reasonable? Does it make sense? He indicates that just pouring more money into a system that is broken--well, you know, if you just step on the gas in a car that is going in the wrong direction, it doesn't get you to your destination any more quickly. The key is to reform Medicare and have a resource available when you reform it. That is the Republican plan. Are we being irresponsible by taking 23.8 cents out of every surplus dollar and saying to the American people who earned it that we are going to return it? There is an old slogan in Washington. ``You send it; we spend it.'' People are a little tired of that. We have the highest tax rate in the history of the country. Even State and local rates are higher in many cases caused by our mandates on State and local government. We have a $3.3 trillion surplus, and someone says we should save tax cuts for when it is the right time for tax cuts as if the timing is contingent on the Government. I tell you. It is the American people's money. Their timing ought to be considered. I think the American families need resources to do for themselves now, that they should have the money to do it for themselves, and not have to rely on government. We should make that choice. I rise to say that this business about us not having a regard for Medicare should be dismissed. We want to reform Medicare. We don't want to pour more resources into a bucket, the bottom of which is like a sieve. Sure. We will do what we can to sustain the system. It is sustainable, according to the most recent data, until the year 2014. It is good. But we shouldn't decide to just pour money into that system. We should reform it. There was a bipartisan commission led by Senator Breaux that would have reformed it. The proposed reform led by Senator Breaux wasn't to take a lot of money. As a matter of fact, it was to save money. We are willing to make resources available. But the idea that somehow we have to lock up $300 billion in order to make possible a reform of the system when the $300 billion will keep people from wanting to reform it, and just wanting to spend what is there is not the way to handle the problem. The chairman of the bipartisan commission, Senator Breaux, I don't believe supported that provision when it was before the Finance Committee. I don't think we should support it now. But it is time for us to say to the American people what we said in our budget process, what the Senate voted, I believe, 99-0 to do; and that is to lock up the Social Security surplus. It is a program which we promised to the American people. It is a program that can go forward. We ought to have that resource available to them. We agreed on that. The House agreed on that. Talk about the House agreement on the other side of the aisle, yes. This is what the House agreed to--lock up Social Security. I think that is what we ought to do. We expect to have $2 trillion in Social Security surpluses over the next 10 years. We ought to make sure we don't spend it on anything else. That is the Republican plan. It ought to be the Republican plan. It is the Democrat plan, and the President's plan. The President agreed to it. He said we needed a durable lockbox, ``period.'' He didn't say a lockbox for Social Security and add Medicare. The President didn't say that. He said we need a Social Security lockbox, period. The ``period'' was his language, not mine. It is not some Republican plot. The President said it. The House of Representatives said it. The Republican Senate has been asking for it, filibustered on the other side of the aisle time after time after time after time after time after time, and now trying to keep us from doing it again. I think we need to make sure we honor and respect the retirement security of individuals who expect us to protect Social Security. Having done that, and we find out there is roughly half of the next 10 years' surplus that is not earmarked for Social Security and it is not paid in for Social Security, that money could be divided between tax relief and resources for contingencies that come up in this body, or to the United States Congress. That is why we planned $792 billion in tax relief. Some say: Is that too much? Is it too little? It is 23-plus percent of the total surplus. The lion's share of the total surplus should go right into this lockbox. This proposal that Senator Domenici, Senator Abraham, I, and other Senators have been talking about, taking Social Security money and earmarking it for Social Security benefits alone, and then reserving the $505 billion that is available in addition to that for future contingencies and needs including, if necessary, transitional costs for reform in Medicare. The Senator from Tennessee eloquently related comments by the Comptroller General of the United States. This is a resource we now have that we do not have a right to keep, in my judgment. The American people have overpaid their taxes. Like a shopkeeper, who has a responsibility to give back change when they are paid too much for an ordered item, rather than trying to foist off an extra gallon of milk, another ham or another box of cereal, another box of nails or hammer if you are at the hardware store, when a person has paid more for the item than requested, they get their money returned. Return the money to the American people. The American people earned this money. This is not money that came from Government. This is not from the magic of the Congress. This is not from the creativity of the President. This isn't the product of the bureaucracy. This is the product of the hard work of American families. In many families, both parents work. In some families, both parents are working two jobs or extra work. They have sacrificed and sweat. It is their money. We have to make a decision. Are we going to fund families in this country or are we going to fund bureaucracy? Are we going to let families have an opportunity to spend the resources which they have created? We must. In order for them to be confident about the fact we are not giving away the future, make clear that the President has said we need what the House of Representatives voted 416-12 in favor of, and that is a lockbox to protect Social Security. With that in mind, I say we have a responsibility to the American people to put the Social Security proceeds in the lockbox, to have a prudent approach to the rest of the expenses. Say to the American people with that $800 billion over the next 10 years: You earned it; we returned it. Let's end this idea of: You send it; we spend it. Our desire and appetite should not be unlimited. I thank the Chair for this opportunity to support the concept of a lockbox. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. This one unique, idiosyncratic accounting method is a 1930s accounting system.

Mr. ASHCROFT. That is still mandated in spite of the fact that for other purposes, to be competitive and to be successful in offering their stock and other things, they maintain a set of books that is generally accepted for accounting purposes.

Mr. ASHCROFT. The Senator's amendment is to basically say we want to relieve them of this duplicitous, inefficient demand which results in their consumers having to pay a lot more and reducing the competitiveness of these companies.

Mr. ASHCROFT. And that is a substantial impairment on their capacity to do business?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. ASHCROFT. I find this to be rather confounding. I just want to make sure I understand this clearly. These companies are required to maintain two sets of books?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Accounted different ways; is that correct?

Mr. ASHCROFT. And this adds as much as $20 million to $30 million to the cost of doing business?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Some of these companies try to be competitive, not only nationally but internationally.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Is it true these additional charges are eventually paid by consumers?

Mr. ASHCROFT. What we are imposing is almost like a tax that the people of America are paying, $25 million or $30 million extra, that is really unnecessary in these companies now.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator for his amendment. I think it is good policy. It is the direction in which we should be going to be competitive. We need to move into the next century, not try to reinvent the last century. I thank the Senator for his excellent work and for allowing me to interrupt his remarks to clarify this to make sure I understand clearly what the Senator from Wyoming said. He has made an outstanding contribution to the understanding of other Senators and to the people of the United States about an archaic system imposed by Government which costs us all resources and which makes competition difficult for our own companies.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I too thank the Senator from New Hampshire for his attention to this problem. I would like to bring a matter to the attention of the Chairman. Under the Violent Crime Control Trust Fund section of this bill, the Chairman has included $6 million for the Midwest Methamphetamine Initiative. The language states that the funding is to be used by the Drug Enforcement Administration to train state and local officers on the proper recognition, collection, removal and destruction of methamphetamine and materials seized in clandestine labs. Is my colleague familiar with the title?

Mr. ASHCROFT. I have heard repeatedly from local law enforcement officers, as has Senator Bond, that DEA provides excellent training and prepares well officers to raid, bust and clean up these labs. I know that the Chairman is also aware of the funding required for the DEA to assist state and local law enforcement with the clean up of these labs after they have been busted.

Mr. ASHCROFT. It is my understanding from local law enforcement officers that DEA funds are needed not only in the training of state and local law enforcement officers, but also in the removal and destruction of the materials seized in the labs. Is it the Chairman's understanding that the resources made available to the Midwest Methamphetamine Initiative will also be available for the DEA to assist state and local law enforcement in the clean up methamphetamine labs?

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chairman for his assistance.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, Chairman of the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary Appropriations Subcommittee, for joining me to discuss the urgent need to provide funding for defense conversion in the greater St. Louis area. Over 7,000 Missourians are in danger of losing their jobs if the F-15 production line shuts down at the Boeing plant in St. Louis. These are high-paying, high-skilled jobs, and I am committed to doing everything I can to help these hard-working Missourians find other sources of employment in the greater St. Louis area. These workers have helped keep America strong through their work on the F-15 and other military systems that are so integral to our national security. Their skill and knowledge are a national asset--a national asset which I think should be preserved through keeping the F- 15 line open. I have worked toward that end, and Senator Bond and I successfully secured funding for additional F-15 purchases in the Defense Appropriations bill last month. But hundreds of F-15 workers will lose their jobs even with additional purchases of the plane, and those workers should be assisted in the transition process. The distinguished Senator from New Hampshire is well aware of the Economic Development Administration (EDA) and the good work EDA does to facilitate economic adjustment in so many parts of the country.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I appreciate the Senator's reference to the defense conversion work performed by the EDA. In fact, EDA has assisted St. Louis before, as the regional economy has adjusted from defense layoffs over the past decade. St. Louis has one of the most effective and highly respected economic adjustment offices in the country, as the Defense and Commerce Departments would attest. The city has a demonstrated track record of using federal dollars effectively and is well-prepared to use EDA funding to meet the current, pressing needs of these F-15 workers. I would like to ask the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire if he will work with me in the coming months to address the defense conversion needs in the St. Louis area.

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Senator for his kind remarks and his willingness to work with me to address this important matter in Missouri. rapid response system for young children exposed to violence

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the F-15, the world's dominant air superiority fighter. The future of this fighter, perhaps the most successful in the history of U.S. aviation warfare, is in jeopardy. While both the Senate and the House have taken steps to save the F-15, the Administration has resisted efforts to preserve a plan that is critical for our national security. I was heartened by the recent action of the House Appropriations Committee to follow the Senate's lead and provide additional funding for the F-15. Last month, Senator Bond and I successfully added an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill to provide $220 million for four F-15s. Last week, the House Appropriations Committee provided $440 million to purchase eight F-15 fighters. While securing domestic dollars is essential to keep the F-15 alive, foreign sales are just as important for the long-term health of the program. Hence, my disappointment that the Israeli Government had selected the F-16 to fill their latest Air Force needs goes without saying. As Angelo Codevilla writes today in the Wall Street Journal-- and I will ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks--the F-15 gives Israel critical long-range strike capability to counter regional threats. As one who is keenly interested in the security of Israel, it was my hope that the new Barak Government would select the F-15 to enhance its long-range deterrent capability. Mr. Codevilla also implies that the Administration was pushing Israel to buy the F-16, a less capable plane that would not defend Israel as well--particularly against the threat posed by missiles from Iran, Iraq, and Syria. While Israel must make its own decisions with regard to its security, I sincerely hope the Administration was not pushing our ally to purchase a less capable plane just so that Syria or Iran would not be offended. Lasting peace in the Middle East will be based on a sustainable settlement that can be defended through strength, not by pushing Israel to take steps which limit its ability to defend itself. Mr. President, sustaining the F-15 is essential for U.S. airpower as we enter the 21st century. Preserving the F-15 is also essential to my home state of Missouri. The 7,000 Missourians who build the F-15 are a national security asset. Both houses of Congress have sent clear signals to the Administration that this plane should be saved. It is time for the President to start listening and take steps immediately to ensure funding for the F-15 is included in the defense budget. I ask unanimous consent that the article to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I thank the Chair, and I thank the Senator from Georgia. I thank the Senator from New York for his allowing me to accommodate a previously developed schedule. When I had asked for time during this special order, I had anticipated being able to begin at about 11, so I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues. This morning the Senate voted on a Social Security lockbox to protect every dollar of Social Security, protect the surplus and the integrity of Social Security. We were not able to do that. We had a majority of the Senate vote in favor of it, but there is still the filibuster on the part of others who are unwilling to guarantee a vote on this issue. The supporters of the lockbox believe the money Americans pay for Social Security ought to go for Social Security, period. That happens to be the language of the President of the United States who has endorsed that position. But Social Security taxes are only one of the many taxes, as we all know, that are placed upon the American people. Too many taxes, forms of taxation, proliferate in this place. These taxes place an enormous $1.8 trillion burden on the American people annually. That is 1.8 trillion, trillion being a thousand billions and a billion being a thousand millions. It is more money than one can virtually imagine. These taxes also bring in more money than the Government needs. It is amazing. What we have is a Government which is charging more in taxes than it needs in order to provide services. I find it interesting that over the next 10 years there will be a trillion dollars more than are needed to provide the services we now provide. Normally, if you go into a store and you give them $20 and you are buying something worth $8, they give you change. When you pay in excess of what you need to buy the product you are getting, they give you change. I think the U.S. Government ought to do that. We ought to say: There is a surplus coming in. The people have paid more than is needed for these services. We ought to give the money back. If a store owner came to me and said: You have bought two bottles of milk and you get some change from your $10 bill, but instead of the change, I want to give you six more bottles of milk, I would say: Wait a second. I think the American people want some change. They want change in the way Government is consuming their resources. I believe it is time for us to begin to address the idea that we have tax relief for the American people. Never before in history have we paid as high a tax as we pay today-- State, local, Federal taxes--and a lot of the State taxes are really disguised Federal taxes. I say that because the Federal Government forces the State governments to do things. Then the State government has to charge the people for that. The truth of the matter is, it is a mandate from the Federal Government. It is an expense occasioned by the demand of the Federal Government through the system. And when you put all of our taxes together, they are higher than any time in the history of the country--higher than in wartime, the First World War, Second World War, Korean war, Vietnamese war, Gulf war; you name it, we are higher than ever before. Now, it seems to me we ought to be asking ourselves with whom we are at war. I had one taxpayer say to me: I think you are at war with the American people, because we are taxing them the way we are. I think the American people deserve a break. The Republicans in Congress agree with that. We believe we should return the tax overpayment. Senator Roth has offered an $800 billion tax cut over the next 10 years. This tax cut is deserved; it has been earned. The American people are the ones who are responsible. This Congress didn't create the surplus. The American people earned the surplus. It is just as if you hand $20 to the grocer and you are entitled to change; it is money you earned. It is the same with the American people who are overpaying for Government services now, creating a surplus. It is money they earned. They earned it, and we should return it. So we should change the slogan of Washington from, ``You send it, we spend it,'' to, ``You earned it, we returned it.'' I think one of the things we ought to do as we begin to provide relief to the American people is to scrub out of our system those things that are discriminatory and those things that are harmful, pernicious punishments in the Tax Code, especially punishments for things that are very important to our culture. One of those things is marriage. I don't believe there is an institution in this country more important to the future of America than marriage. We want people to be married. We want the durable, lasting commitments of families to undergird this culture with the kind of principles and responsibilities and values that will keep us from having really serious social problems. I believe we will minimize the difficulties and trauma we have in this culture if we have strong marriages, things we need to minimize such as the tragedies we experience. What we find out when we look at our Tax Code is, for the last several years Americans have been paying a tremendous penalty in taxes merely because they are married; $29 billion is paid by people as a penalty to the Tax Code simply because they are married, and 21 million couples pay that penalty. It is an average of $1,400 per couple, per year. That is over $100 a month. Think of the food, the shoes, the schoolbooks, the entertainment that could pay for. That is at least a very nice vacation for that family. Think of the relief to families if we simply say, we are not going to punish you for being married. It is time for us in Congress to say that among those items of tax relief, we sure ought to be doing something about the marriage penalty. This CRS study projected that over the next 10 years the average household will be paying $5,000 extra in taxes than it needs to pay. We ought to address that. I think the Roth plan will return that hard-earned money to those who earned it, the American people. I urge the American people to call the Congress and urge us to give them the change they deserve, give them their money back. They earned it, and we should return it. It is time for us to get together with Senator Roth and support an idea that he has, and get our ideas in that measure, of refunding the $800 billion in tax overpayments that the American people are scheduled to make in just a very few years. I thank the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I object.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for his insightful comments. There are two distinct funds. To commingle those funds would be irresponsible--not only irresponsible, but it would go against the intentions of the American people in developing those two separate funds for separate purposes. I believe we should proceed to do what we responsibly should do with the money we have taken from the American people for Social Security, and that is to make sure that we spend the money for Social Security, for which we taxed the American people saying we would use it for Social Security. We have spent a little time this morning in the Senate jargon of exchanges on procedure. It is enough to make the head of a Philadelphia lawyer swim, with all deference to the Senator from Pennsylvania. The American people are not interested in convoluted explanations of Senate procedure. They want to know why is it that this body alone stands between them and the integrity of protecting Social Security resources for the exclusive use of Social Security. They have heard the President of the United States come forward-- belatedly come forward, but he has come forward--and say: I want a lockbox for Social Security. Those are his words. Not a lockbox for Social Security that starts doing other things for other trust accounts, a lockbox for Social Security. They have watched as the House of Representatives voted 416 to 12. Talk about bipartisan support; talk about a near unanimous vote. You have it in the House of Representatives. They see on the Republican side of the Senate a very strong desire, reflected now in our sixth effort to get the Democrats to break the filibuster against reserving Social Security taxes for the use of Social Security. We are determined to keep voting to break this logjam. The American people have seen that everyone wants this: The President, the overwhelming majority of House Democrats, and Republicans, all but 12 of a 435-Member body want a lockbox, and we need it in the Senate. President Clinton's budget this year, prior to his endorsement of the lockbox, would have spent $158 billion out of the Social Security trust fund over the next 5 years. That is the kind of thing we need to guard against. The President has now said we need to guard against that. In March, Senator Domenici and I introduced S. 502, the Protect Social Security Benefits Act, which would have instituted a point of order preventing Congress from spending any Social Security dollars for non-Social Security purposes. In April, the Senate budget resolution included language endorsing the idea of locking away the Social Security surplus. The language in the Budget Act passed unanimously. Those on the other side of the aisle have passed this language already, including the point of order process. Also in April, Senators Abraham, Domenici, and I introduced the Social Security lockbox amendment, about which we have been talking today. In May, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed Congressman Herger's measure to protect the Social Security surplus, and the vote there was 416 to 12. That is an amazing vote for the House of Representatives. In late June, after Senate Democrats had blocked four efforts to proceed to the lockbox, after Senate Democrats had said, we won't let you move to this, President Clinton announced that he had changed his position and that he finally supported a lockbox that would protect 100 percent of the Social Security surplus. His quote is this: ``Social Security taxes should be saved for Social Security, period.'' Not Social Security taxes should be saved for Social Security and tax cuts, no, and Medicare, no, and anything else; it is Social Security, period. That happens to be what Senator Abraham, along with Senator Domenici and I, has brought to the floor as an amendment. That happens to be what we are asking Senate Democrats to allow us to move forward on. A few days after the President's announcement, we obtained a motion to proceed on the lockbox. But now we are faced, again, with the prospect of Senate Democrats blocking a forward motion on this lockbox concept. The House has voted for it. The President has come out in favor of it. Senate Republicans support it. The American people are demanding it. Senate Democrats still stand in the way. Over the next 5 years, Social Security taxes will bring in an estimated $776 billion in surpluses--not just in revenue, $776 billion in surpluses. The lockbox would protect every dollar of those current Social Security surpluses for future obligations to America's retirees.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Thirty seconds.