John Ashcroft

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am honored to cosponsor the Abraham- Domenici Social Security surplus preservation amendment. This amendment will protect Social Security for millions of Americans who now receive its benefits and who now pay taxes hoping that they someday, too, will receive Social Security. I believe protecting Social Security is the highest priority we could have in the Congress. Protecting Social Security means we must make sure the current surpluses that will be needed to pay benefits later are not used to pay for new budget deficits in the rest of government. That is what this bill does. It is why I am for it, and it is why I urge swift passage of this legislation. The legislation we are debating today logically follows and, in fact implements, previous policy decisions that have been made by this Congress. Let's review a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that the Senate passed by an overwhelming 99-to-0 vote just 2 weeks ago. That resolution made these points: No. 1, Congress and the President should balance the budget excluding surpluses generated by the Social Security trust funds. No. 2, reducing the Federal debt held by the public is a top national priority. No. 3, the surpluses now held in the Social Security trust fund will reduce the debt held by the public by $1.7 trillion. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that President Clinton's budget would spend $158 billion of Social Security surpluses on new spending programs over the next 5 years. That is the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. It simply says that the President's plan for spending is to use the Social Security surplus to go out and spend $158 billion which would not otherwise be spent over the next 5 years. Social Security surpluses should be used for retirement security, for payment of current benefits, or to reduce the debt, and should not be used for other purposes. These mandates should be implemented in two ways: First, by providing for a Senate supermajority point of order against any bill or resolution that would use Social Security surpluses on anything other than the payment of Social Security benefits. Second, by establishing a supermajority point of order in the Senate against raising the limits established on the level of debt held by the public. This resolution passed the Senate 99 to nothing. It passed unanimously. Not only did it pass unanimously, there was no dissenting debate. The conference report on the budget resolution which we passed last week took the first steps necessary to protect Social Security by balancing the budget without using the Social Security surpluses, and it established for the next 2 years a point of order against budget resolutions that use Social Security surpluses to balance the budget. Mr. President, I believe that is what we need to do. We need to basically say that it is out of order to go back and take Social Security surpluses to cover deficits in other parts of government. The amendment we have before us implements the sense-of-the-Senate resolution. It simply takes what we did 2 weeks ago and makes permanent the Social Security protection measures that were included in the conference report. Specifically, this amendment accomplishes the following: No. 1, this amendment creates a 60-vote point of order against future budget resolutions that use Social Security surpluses to balance the budget. This provision makes the temporary point of order included in the conference report permanent, and it is made a part of the law, not just part of the Senate and House rules on the budget. We simply would be able to say that it is out of order, it requires a supermajority setting aside or suspending the rules in order to devote the Social Security surplus to covering deficits in other parts of the operations of government. This provision is identical to legislation I introduced earlier this year to protect Social Security. This amendment lowers the amount of debt held by the public by amounts roughly equal to the Social Security surpluses. So as you have a Social Security surplus, instead of spending it on new government, you use it to lower the amount of debt held against this country. The effect of this provision is twofold: It helps ensure that the Social Security trust funds are not used to pay for aggressive spending programs or for tax cuts; and, secondly, it reduces overall Federal debt. By reducing debt, this amendment will strengthen our economy, strengthen Social Security, and our capacity to meet our obligations to it in the future. Reducing the public debt makes it easier for America to meet its Social Security obligations in three ways. I think Speaker Hastert was most eloquent about this. He said if you ever came into a surplus in your own life--maybe a rich uncle died, left you $50, $60,000--and you either could spend it on a bunch of new spending or pay down the mortgage on your house, which would help you meet the challenges of the future better? It is pretty clear, not going to Las Vegas and taking a lot of vacations but paying down your debt, paying down your mortgage, would be the best thing. Over the long run, paying off the debt will lower interest payments, which are now over $200 billion annually. They equal about 15 percent of our budget now. No. 2, they would ease the burden of the $3.8 trillion national debt, which would free up more resources to help us meet Social Security obligations in the future. Of course, No. 3, a debt-free America will have a stronger, faster-growing economy and will be better equipped to come up with the money to redeem the trust fund's IOUs when needed. We cannot afford not to pay off the Federal debt. Federal debt incurs very real costs in the form of interest payments and higher interest rates. Under President Clinton's proposed budget, $158 billion from the fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2004 budget would be diverted from debt reduction and directed towards spending. According to the Senate Budget Committee, that represents 21 percent of the Social Security surplus over that period. In fiscal year 2000 itself, it represents $40 billion, or 30 percent of the surplus. In contrast, our amendment would require us to reserve every penny, all of the Social Security surplus, for debt reduction. Under this plan, publicly held debt, which now stands at 44.3 percent of GDP, would be reduced to 10.3 percent of GDP by the year 2009. That is a 70- percent reduction over just 10 years. Once this amendment is adopted, the President and Congress will no longer raid Social Security surpluses to pay for non-Social Security spending. This amendment would, therefore, protect Social Security at the beginning and at the end of the budget process. At the front end, Congress could no longer pass budgets that use Social Security surpluses. At the back end, the ratcheting down of the debt ceiling would ensure that Social Security surpluses go to debt reduction, thereby helping to keep our financial house in order. A strong financial house for the United States of America is fundamentally the best guarantee we can ever have that Social Security will be a house of integrity itself. One of the most important lessons a parent teaches a child is to be responsible, responsible for his or her conduct and responsible for his or her money. America needs to be responsible with the people's money. The debt reduction proposed by this amendment is among the greatest gifts we can give to our children, and it is a great gift for our seniors. Imagine what our children could do if we were able to provide for them a next generation that is free, free to build their own dreams instead of pay for our past. In addition to protecting our children from debt, this amendment will also protect the Social Security system from irresponsible government spending. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment, and I thank the Chair for this time on the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, on this April 15, Tax Day 1999, I rise in support of one aspect of our deservedly maligned tax code--the mortgage interest deduction. The mortgage interest deduction provides invaluable assistance to American families seeking the stability and comfort of a home they can call their own. I purchased my first home, a small fieldstone farmhouse in the Ozarks, in the Spring of 1967, just before proposing to my wife, Janet. Like most families, paying for it was the single largest task in our young lives. It was, with the wisdom of 30 plus years, a transformational event. For it represented our first real taste of what James Truslow Adams called the ``American Dream.'' The experience Janet and I had paying for that farm is not uncommon. In fact, the largest debt most families take on in their lifetimes is a home. Two-thirds of Americans own a home, as do approximately 80 percent of Americans over the age of 50 (unfortunately, Janet and I now fall into both categories). This represents real progress. In 1940, fully 56 percent of Americans were renters. Clearly, America has come a long way. People buy homes for different reasons. For us, our Ozark farmhouse offered many things: a place of safety to raise a family, the potential of financial security, a sense of community. As I travel across this great country, couples of all ages suggest that they are looking for the same things Janet and I sought over a quarter century ago. They seem to know, as we did, that buying a home is among the essential steps a family takes to ensure stability and prosperity in their lives. Unfortunately, while homes are a worthwhile investment, they also are expensive. Real estate experts recommend that families buy homes valued at over three times their annual income--a sum far greater than what families could pay back in a year, or two, or even five. So, most Americans take out a mortgage. It is, frequently, a commitment to repay the loan (with interest) over a 30-year period. Historically, the Federal Government has encouraged such behavior. It has done so to promote stable families in stable homes. Through the home mortgage tax deduction, one of the best and most praise-worthy parts of our highly-flawed tax code, the government allows taxpayers to deduct the cost of interest on their mortgages from their income taxes. In the early years of a mortgage, nearly 90 percent of payments go to interest charges and are therefore tax deductible. The home mortgage deduction not only encourages home buying, it also helps to promote community and family. In my home state of Missouri, 526,744 tax filers claim the interest deduction out of 2,416,434 returns. These are families trying to build their homes, getting what advantages they can out of the overly-burdensome tax code. Across the rest of the country, homeownership is an important factor in promoting economic security and stability for American families. In fact, homeownership is one of the most valuable sources of saving for American families and, unlike other forms of saving, it is encouraged and facilitated by our tax code. The home mortgage deduction is also of great assistance to many of our citizens who are trying hardest to establish the stability and security of homeownership. The greatest growth sectors in homeownership today are among minorities and first-time homebuyers, who are frequently just on the cusp of attaining the American dream. Similarly, immigrants, who come to this country seeking a new way of life, are beneficiaries of the mortgage deduction. In fact, the level of homeownership among foreign-born naturalized citizens who have been in the United States for at least six years is the same as the level of homeownership of the Nation as a whole. When families such as these, who are new to our shores, prosper, we as a nation prosper. In short, the home mortgage deduction is an important benefit to citizens across this great land. It is in our national interest to maintain this portion of the tax code so that new generations can also experience the safety and security of homeownership. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this resolution.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, on this April 15, I would like to raise the issue of tax freedom and fairness. The American people are paying over one-fifth of Gross Domestic Product in taxes--the highest share of taxation since World War II and the highest peacetime levels in history. Too much of this burden falls on middle-income earners, who are struggling to juggle the high tax burden with the more important demands of their own families. It is for these hard-working Americans that I am introducing the Taxpayer Freedom and Fairness Act--legislation that is designed to reduce the tax burdens on lower and middle-income taxpayers. This goal can be accomplished in two ways, through marginal rate reductions for low and middle income earners, or by making the payroll tax deductible for individuals. Those individuals and families on the lower half of our income ladder need and deserve tax relief and I am committed to providing them that relief. Tax relief is necessary because many middle-income earners are paying levels of taxes that severely diminish their ability to care for and support their families. Under current law, single taxpayers will pay 15% on the first $25,750 of taxable income they earn. Combining this with the 15% payroll tax, those earning under $26,000 are paying 30% of taxable income to the federal government. Those earning a taxable income of $26,000 are by no means rich--and should not be taxed as if they were. Given the burden on workers, it is incumbent upon us to provide them with tax relief. The Taxpayer Freedom and Fairness Act provides two ways to deal with these unconscionably high tax levels. The first is to provide these lower and middle income earners with real rate relief. I have proposed reducing the 15% tax rate to 10%. According to Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation, reducing the 15% income tax rate to 10% over five years would provide taxpayers with $980 billion in tax relief over the next decade. That means the average two-income family of four would save $2,200 annually. An individual with a taxable income of $25,000 would save $1,250 annually once the rate reduction was fully in place. This is a tax cut designed primarily to benefit hard-working low- and middle-income Americans. Reducing the rate from 15% to 10% would save the average Missouri households $1,170. This kind of tax relief is especially welcome in Missouri, where, according to the Tax Foundation, the burden of state and local taxes has grown dramatically in recent years. In recent years, the tax burden in Missouri has risen from the low rank of 47th in the nation to the 16th highest. Across the country, nearly two-thirds of the relief would flow to households earning less than $75,000. Less than 4% of the tax relief would flow to households earning more than $200,000. This is real tax relief directed at middle class earners. A second way to accomplish this important goal is through marriage penalty relief. It should be our goal as a society to encourage young couples to get married. Marriage is a sacred institution that promotes family and community stability. More marriage is an unmitigated good for this country. Unfortunately our tax system does not see it as such. The current federal income tax system forces many married couples to pay a ``marriage penalty.'' That is, they are required to pay more federal income tax than they would have paid had they been single and filed their taxes separately. This is fundamentally unfair. The tax code should not punish marriage, our society's most basic and essential institution. Under current law, two single taxpayers, each earning $35,000 and claiming standard deductions, will each pay $4,558.50 in federal income tax. If those taxpayers marry each other, the tax code would boost their combined tax bill by $1,478 to $10,595. This almost $1,500 penalty is a serious disincentive to middle-income couples looking to get married. This disincentive represents an unacceptable attack on the institution of marriage. This issue resonates particularly strongly in Missouri. 1,052,518 out of 2,416,434 Missouri tax filers file joint returns. The marriage penalty has been part of the tax code since 1969. Since then, the burden of the penalty has grown enormously. In fact, the Joint Economic Committee estimates married couples now pay $29 billion in taxes every year that they otherwise would not have paid had they been single. It is time to abolish the marriage penalty and create a new day of freedom for American families to keep more of the money they work so hard to earn. I have long advocated elimination of the marriage penalty. In addition to the Taxpayer Freedom and Fairness Act, I am also a co- sponsor of Senator Hutchison's bill to eliminate the marriage penalty. I also included the elimination of the marriage penalty as a provision in my Fair Flat tax proposal. Eliminating the marriage penalty should be one of the Senate's top tax priority for 1999. It is time to provide real tax relief to those who need it most. The middle class should no longer have to pay 43% of incomes to the federal government. Married couples should no longer pay a penalty just for being married. The best ways to solve these problems are to reduce marginal tax rates and to eliminate this penalty on married couples. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Taxpayer Freedom and Fairness bill, and bring freedom and fairness to taxpayers this April 15th.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, on this April 15, I would like to raise the issue of tax freedom and fairness. The American people are paying over one-fifth of Gross Domestic Product in taxes--the highest share of taxation since World War II and the highest peacetime levels in history. Too much of this burden falls on middle-income earners, who are struggling to juggle the high tax burden with the more important demands of their own families. It is for these hard-working Americans that I am introducing the Taxpayer Freedom and Fairness Act--legislation that is designed to reduce the tax burdens on lower and middle-income taxpayers. This goal can be accomplished in two ways, through marginal rate reductions for low and middle income earners, or by making the payroll tax deductible for individuals. Those individuals and families on the lower half of our income ladder need and deserve tax relief and I am committed to providing them that relief. Tax relief is necessary because many middle-income earners are paying levels of taxes that severely diminish their ability to care for and support their families. Under current law, single taxpayers will pay 15% on the first $25,750 of taxable income they earn. Combining this with the 15% payroll tax, those earning under $26,000 are paying 30% of taxable income to the federal government. Those earning a taxable income of $26,000 are by no means rich--and should not be taxed as if they were. Given the burden on workers, it is incumbent upon us to provide them with tax relief. The Taxpayer Freedom and Fairness Act provides two ways to deal with these unconscionably high tax levels. The first is to provide these lower and middle income earners with real rate relief. I have proposed reducing the 15% tax rate to 10%. According to Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation, reducing the 15% income tax rate to 10% over five years would provide taxpayers with $980 billion in tax relief over the next decade. That means the average two-income family of four would save $2,200 annually. An individual with a taxable income of $25,000 would save $1,250 annually once the rate reduction was fully in place. This is a tax cut designed primarily to benefit hard-working low- and middle-income Americans. Reducing the rate from 15% to 10% would save the average Missouri households $1,170. This kind of tax relief is especially welcome in Missouri, where, according to the Tax Foundation, the burden of state and local taxes has grown dramatically in recent years. In recent years, the tax burden in Missouri has risen from the low rank of 47th in the nation to the 16th highest. Across the country, nearly two-thirds of the relief would flow to households earning less than $75,000. Less than 4% of the tax relief would flow to households earning more than $200,000. This is real tax relief directed at middle class earners. A second way to accomplish this important goal is through marriage penalty relief. It should be our goal as a society to encourage young couples to get married. Marriage is a sacred institution that promotes family and community stability. More marriage is an unmitigated good for this country. Unfortunately our tax system does not see it as such. The current federal income tax system forces many married couples to pay a ``marriage penalty.'' That is, they are required to pay more federal income tax than they would have paid had they been single and filed their taxes separately. This is fundamentally unfair. The tax code should not punish marriage, our society's most basic and essential institution. Under current law, two single taxpayers, each earning $35,000 and claiming standard deductions, will each pay $4,558.50 in federal income tax. If those taxpayers marry each other, the tax code would boost their combined tax bill by $1,478 to $10,595. This almost $1,500 penalty is a serious disincentive to middle-income couples looking to get married. This disincentive represents an unacceptable attack on the institution of marriage. This issue resonates particularly strongly in Missouri. 1,052,518 out of 2,416,434 Missouri tax filers file joint returns. The marriage penalty has been part of the tax code since 1969. Since then, the burden of the penalty has grown enormously. In fact, the Joint Economic Committee estimates married couples now pay $29 billion in taxes every year that they otherwise would not have paid had they been single. It is time to abolish the marriage penalty and create a new day of freedom for American families to keep more of the money they work so hard to earn. I have long advocated elimination of the marriage penalty. In addition to the Taxpayer Freedom and Fairness Act, I am also a co- sponsor of Senator Hutchison's bill to eliminate the marriage penalty. I also included the elimination of the marriage penalty as a provision in my Fair Flat tax proposal. Eliminating the marriage penalty should be one of the Senate's top tax priority for 1999. It is time to provide real tax relief to those who need it most. The middle class should no longer have to pay 43% of incomes to the federal government. Married couples should no longer pay a penalty just for being married. The best ways to solve these problems are to reduce marginal tax rates and to eliminate this penalty on married couples. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Taxpayer Freedom and Fairness bill, and bring freedom and fairness to taxpayers this April 15th.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I commend the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee for the decisions made in this conference report that will protect the Social Security trust funds. First, it will be an honor for me to vote for this budget resolution which, for the first time in 30 years, balances the Federal budget and does so without using the Social Security surplus. Second, this budget further protects Social Security by creating a point of order against future congressional budgets which use Social Security surpluses to pay for budget deficits of the federal government. These are great first steps to take to protect Social Security. Americans who have devoted a lifetime of working and paying their Social Security taxes deserve to have their Social Security reserved for nothing but their Social Security. That has not happened in recent years. Without reform, this practice of raiding Social Security would continue. In fact, President Clinton's budget for next year proposed using $158 billion of the Social Security Trust Fund to finance new government spending. We must stop these raids on Social Security. The point of order included in this conference report is similar to legislation I have introduced with the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. The Ashcroft-Domenici bill writes into law the Social Security protection point of order. This conference report puts the point of order in the House and Senate rules for this year and next, the maximum amount of time allowed under House rules. This is a wise decision, and the right step to take now. Because a budget resolution does not become law, the only option available to the budget conferees to protect Social Security was to amend House and Senate rules. I support this action. Later this year I will seek Senate passage of my bill to put this point of order into law, to make it permanent and to strengthen it by requiring that it can only be waived in the Senate with 60 votes, a super majority. I will also support the efforts by Senators Domenici and Abraham to win passage of their Social Security lockbox bill which uses the debt limit as an enforcement mechanism to make sure neither the President nor Congress can use Social Security to finance new deficits. I am also pleased that the conferees included in the final bill a resolution I offered and the Senate passed expressing the Sense of the Senate that the government should not invest the Social Security Trust Funds in the stock market. The President has proposed investing as much as $700 billion of the surplus in the stock market. This is an unwise gamble to take in my view, in the view of the Senate and, in light of its inclusion in this conference report, the Congress of the United States.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from the State of Missouri. I rise to commend, thank, and praise Senator Domenici for crafting a budget resolution that we can stand up for and speak about and be grateful for. I appreciate it. The conference report balances need for responsibility, the need for setting priorities. When families gather around the kitchen table to make budgets, they set priorities. They say: If we are going to get the new car, we don't take the same vacation; we can't spend the same money twice. For too long, I think the U.S. Government, thinking that it could always just go further and further into debt or raid the Social Security trust fund, didn't have to set priorities. This is a budget that sets priorities. It sets priorities that are important. The conference report reduces the debt of this country. It will increase funding for education, it will reduce taxes, it will increase funding for national defense, and it will maintain the spending caps that are so very necessary if we are going to have the kind of discipline that keeps us from further invading the province of the next generation and their desire to be able to build their own future, instead of paying for our past. That is the real question when we decide whether we are going to have discipline in spending. It is a question of whether we will let the next generation build its dream or pay for our past. This in great measure is due to Senator Domenici's great efforts. I especially appreciate his willingness to work with his colleagues. At the start of this process, several other Senators and I sent Senator Domenici a letter asking for a budget that saved Social Security surpluses, that reduced the $3.8 trillion public debt, that pursued at least $600 billion in tax relief over the next 10 years, that maintained the statutory spending caps, and included increases in funding for both education and national defense. These were specific items that we requested in a letter addressed to the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici. I know the occupant of the Chair understands what was included in that letter and endorses that as well. What is gratifying about what the chairman of the Budget Committee did is that the budget that has been prepared both meets and exceeds these goals. It calls for the following: A substantial Federal tax relief package, $142 billion over the next 5 years, $778 billion over the next 10 years. The resolution requires the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee to report out their tax cut plans by mid-July, a major step forward for the American people, to say to them, ``You earned it, we returned it''--instead of, ``You sent it, we spent it.'' For so long the Congress has said, ``You send it, we will spend it.'' No matter how much they sent, we spent. We viewed the American people as somehow our ``sugar daddy'' for more and more programs and greater and greater spending. I think it is high time we said to the American people: We believe in you for the future of this country, we believe in families more than we believe in bureaucracy, we believe in the private sector. You have earned so much, you have worked so hard, that we have an operating surplus down the road and we will share it with you by way of tax relief. Second, it stays within the spending caps. The spending caps have enabled us to bring the budget into balance. I am happy that this budget maintains those caps. It increases spending for education and defense. This is most important. We understand the ability to defend the country from foreign aggression and the ability for the country to have the kind of intense vigor and vitality that comes from well-trained, bright citizens. These are the two cornerposts of our existence. Education spending goes up 40 percent. The budget fully funds the $17.5 billion in defense spending requested by the Joint Chiefs of Staff over the next 5 years. We accommodated both of those by setting priorities. Senator Domenici and the Budget Committee, including the senior Senator from the State of Missouri, have done a good job. The conference report contains an amendment which I introduced directing that this new education resource be directed to the States and local education districts and not new Federal bureaucracy. We do need to increase the bureaucracy. We need to elevate the students' performance levels; their achievement levels need to soar. We don't do that by building bureaucracy in Washington. We need to get that resource directly to the classroom. I am pleased that the conference report will contain this amendment which I proposed, saying that the increase will go to school districts in schools where parents and teachers, principals, and school administrators will make decisions-- instead of bureaucracy directing it from Washington. The conference report also reduces the debt by $450 billion, $450 billion more than the President's proposal would have reduced the debt. It is time for us to reduce the publicly held debt of this country. Perhaps most importantly, this budget saves $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years for our Nation's elderly. This money is vital to shoring up the Social Security system. This stands in stark contrast to the President's plan, which spends $158 billion over 5 years of Social Security surpluses for non-Social Security purposes. On the one hand, we save $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years for our Nation's elderly; the President's program over the next 5 years alone would have spent $158 billion of Social Security surpluses for non-Social Security spending. In addition to the money that this budget saves for Social Security, the budget also takes procedural steps to build in onbudget surpluses from the year 2001 and beyond. In other words, there are Social Security surpluses saved, then there will be other surpluses that relate to the rest of the budget--and the budget is careful to make sure that those surpluses will materialize beginning in the year 2001. This is setting priorities. This is kitchen table economics. This is understanding that in order to make some things work, you have to adjust other things and you have to work them together. It is not just a wish list, this is a real spending plan. It is a spending plan that honors the next generation and the future of this great country. Under these new important procedures, Congress could no longer spend billions of dollars on so-called ``emergencies'' that were not really emergencies. These new procedures stop the mislabeling of ordinary expenses in the category of ``emergencies'' so that you could invade funds or take Social Security surplus and spend, which happened last year. There will be a point of order in this budget that says you cannot do that, you cannot mislabel, you cannot automatically categorize things as emergencies. Last year, the President and the Congress together spent $21 billion from the Social Security trust fund on these so-called emergencies. We need to stop that. We must stop that. This budget will stop that kind of practice. The conference report contains a 60-vote point of order ensuring that emergency spending will be limited to actual emergencies. In addition, surpluses that are accumulating in the Social Security trust fund will no longer be used to finance onbudget deficits in governmental operations. It is a fundamental first step of Social Security reform that the Social Security surpluses should not be used to funding deficits in the rest of government. This budget stops that. In order to establish this first step, Senator Domenici and I introduced legislation that would establish a 60-vote point of order against any budget when the Social Security surpluses are used to finance onbudget governmental deficits. I rise to say how much I appreciate the work of the chairman of the Budget Committee, the members of the Budget Committee, and their cooperation with the Members of the House to work together to bring a budget that really does what family budgets do--sets priorities, looks to the future, understands we cannot have everything all the time, but protects Social Security and its surplus, protects our budget generally from mislabeling that gets us into emergency spending which puts us into debt or raids the Social Security surplus, keeps the caps in place, elevates the capacity for spending for education, and strengthens the military. These are the fundamentals that are important to America's strength in the next century. This budget does that. There have been a number of years in which I have not voted for the budget. I haven't been able to in good conscience. I voted against last year's budget with the $21 billion raid on the Social Security trust fund. However, I will be able to vote for this budget. This is a budget for which we ought to be grateful. This is the kind of budget that we are grateful to have the opportunity to vote in favor of. I commend Senator Domenici and the other members of the Budget Committee and the House for its cooperation in getting us to a place where we can present this kind of spending plan to the people of the United States of America, for it is their money that we spend. This is a budget that they would be proud to develop, were they to sit around the table and make those kinds of hard-nosed judgments about the Nation that they make regularly about their families. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, for decades Americans have watched with awe and amazement at the invigorating achievements of the world's Olympic athletes. When Gail Devers and Wendy Williams won Olympic medals, they inspired their hometown of Bridgeton, Missouri. When Nikki Ziegelmeyer won a speed skating Olympic medal, her hometown of Imperial Missouri cheered. And when Ray Armstead helped win the 4 by 400 meter relay, St. Louis was proud of its native son. Gail, Wendy, Nikki and Ray won through sheer talent, toil and sweat. They pursued Olympic fame with honor and integrity, competed fairly, and won with dignity. Their athletic grace on the world stage helped spark dreams of future Olympic glory in young people today. But now the Olympic torch has been dimmed, and the five Olympic rings have been tarnished by bribes and graft given to secure victory at any price. The victory pursued with moneyed vengeance was not in athletic competition. In this scandal, the Olympic athletes are the innocents, yet the scandal tarnishes their achievement. The villains at ground zero are those who decided where the games were to be played and those who hosted or will host the games. Such irony: Scandal torches the competition to host the world's most competitive and honorable games. The facts are bleak--in their attempts to land the 2002 Olympics, leaders of the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee spent $4 million on gifts, scholarships, cash payments and other inducements for International Olympic Committee members; allegations by senior Olympic officials have raised questions about payments that may have been made to influence the selection of other Olympic cities; the Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation into payments by Salt Lake City Olympic Officials; an independent investigation conducted by former Senator George Mitchell and former White House Chief of Staff Ken Duberstein concluded that receipt of ``valuables'' by International Olympic Committee members has become ``widespread, notorious, continuous, unchecked and ingrained in the way Olympic business is done.''; and the International Olympic Committee has expelled six of its members for corruption. Now that these problems have been exposed to the world, the question is what should be done to stop this bribery from destroying the Olympic movement. Today, Senator McCain took a step in the right direction by convening a hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee. I regret the decision by the President of the International Olympic Committee, Juan Antonio Samaranch, to not attend that hearing. And I take exception with the comments of one of the IOC witnesses who told the Associated Press, and I quote, ``What I'm afraid is that they're doing it for political advantage and not for the benefit of anybody except for themselves. They just get on a soap box and preach their righteousness.'' Well, it is crystal clear to me that Congress should, for our Olympic athletes and the hometowns they represent, use soap and scrubbing and scrutiny to clean up this mess. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that is a vital step in restoring integrity to the IOC host city bidding process. The International Olympic Committee Integrity Act will expand the coverage of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to include the IOC. The FCPA prohibits U.S. businesses from offering bribes or kickbacks to foreign officials. The U.S. Olympic Committee has asked President Clinton to issue an executive order to cover the IOC under the FCPA. To date, the President has not done so. My bill accomplishes what the U.S. Olympic Committee has requested and that is to outlaw the gifts and payments such as those that have been made in the past to International Olympic Committee officials. In addition, I am keeping open the option of removing the federal tax deduction that federal tax law provides for contributions made to the International Olympic Committee. I will review the testimony of IOC witnesses from today's Commerce Committee hearing before making a final decision. In closing, Mr. President, we should give credit where it is due. When faced with a serious mistake that has been made, a test of character is whether you do the next right thing. Once the Salt Lake City problem was discovered, officials at the U.S. Olympic Committee responded quickly. The USOC asked for the Mitchell-Duberstein investigation I mentioned earlier. The USOC has implemented a series of internal and external reforms of procedures used to apply for hosting the Olympic Games. The USOC has strengthened ethics rules, and created a compliance officer to monitor U.S. bid cities. And, in the future, all honoraria received by committee members must be forfeited to the group's chief financial officer. We have much more to do in order to restore confidence and dignity to the Olympics. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the International Olympic Committee Integrity Act. We owe it to Gail Devers, Wendy Williams, Nikki Ziegelmeyer, Ray Armstead and all future Olympic athletes.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, for decades Americans have watched with awe and amazement at the invigorating achievements of the world's Olympic athletes. When Gail Devers and Wendy Williams won Olympic medals, they inspired their hometown of Bridgeton, Missouri. When Nikki Ziegelmeyer won a speed skating Olympic medal, her hometown of Imperial Missouri cheered. And when Ray Armstead helped win the 4 by 400 meter relay, St. Louis was proud of its native son. Gail, Wendy, Nikki and Ray won through sheer talent, toil and sweat. They pursued Olympic fame with honor and integrity, competed fairly, and won with dignity. Their athletic grace on the world stage helped spark dreams of future Olympic glory in young people today. But now the Olympic torch has been dimmed, and the five Olympic rings have been tarnished by bribes and graft given to secure victory at any price. The victory pursued with moneyed vengeance was not in athletic competition. In this scandal, the Olympic athletes are the innocents, yet the scandal tarnishes their achievement. The villains at ground zero are those who decided where the games were to be played and those who hosted or will host the games. Such irony: Scandal torches the competition to host the world's most competitive and honorable games. The facts are bleak--in their attempts to land the 2002 Olympics, leaders of the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee spent $4 million on gifts, scholarships, cash payments and other inducements for International Olympic Committee members; allegations by senior Olympic officials have raised questions about payments that may have been made to influence the selection of other Olympic cities; the Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation into payments by Salt Lake City Olympic Officials; an independent investigation conducted by former Senator George Mitchell and former White House Chief of Staff Ken Duberstein concluded that receipt of ``valuables'' by International Olympic Committee members has become ``widespread, notorious, continuous, unchecked and ingrained in the way Olympic business is done.''; and the International Olympic Committee has expelled six of its members for corruption. Now that these problems have been exposed to the world, the question is what should be done to stop this bribery from destroying the Olympic movement. Today, Senator McCain took a step in the right direction by convening a hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee. I regret the decision by the President of the International Olympic Committee, Juan Antonio Samaranch, to not attend that hearing. And I take exception with the comments of one of the IOC witnesses who told the Associated Press, and I quote, ``What I'm afraid is that they're doing it for political advantage and not for the benefit of anybody except for themselves. They just get on a soap box and preach their righteousness.'' Well, it is crystal clear to me that Congress should, for our Olympic athletes and the hometowns they represent, use soap and scrubbing and scrutiny to clean up this mess. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that is a vital step in restoring integrity to the IOC host city bidding process. The International Olympic Committee Integrity Act will expand the coverage of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to include the IOC. The FCPA prohibits U.S. businesses from offering bribes or kickbacks to foreign officials. The U.S. Olympic Committee has asked President Clinton to issue an executive order to cover the IOC under the FCPA. To date, the President has not done so. My bill accomplishes what the U.S. Olympic Committee has requested and that is to outlaw the gifts and payments such as those that have been made in the past to International Olympic Committee officials. In addition, I am keeping open the option of removing the federal tax deduction that federal tax law provides for contributions made to the International Olympic Committee. I will review the testimony of IOC witnesses from today's Commerce Committee hearing before making a final decision. In closing, Mr. President, we should give credit where it is due. When faced with a serious mistake that has been made, a test of character is whether you do the next right thing. Once the Salt Lake City problem was discovered, officials at the U.S. Olympic Committee responded quickly. The USOC asked for the Mitchell-Duberstein investigation I mentioned earlier. The USOC has implemented a series of internal and external reforms of procedures used to apply for hosting the Olympic Games. The USOC has strengthened ethics rules, and created a compliance officer to monitor U.S. bid cities. And, in the future, all honoraria received by committee members must be forfeited to the group's chief financial officer. We have much more to do in order to restore confidence and dignity to the Olympics. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the International Olympic Committee Integrity Act. We owe it to Gail Devers, Wendy Williams, Nikki Ziegelmeyer, Ray Armstead and all future Olympic athletes.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fairness in Asbestos Compensation Act of 1999. I want to thank all of the Senators who have cosponsored this bill. This bill is a bipartisan effort and the diverse group of Senators who support the bill reflects a serious effort to solve a serious problem, not an effort to gain partisan advantage. I particularly want to thank Senator Dodd for his assistance on this bill and Senator Hatch for his leadership in introducing similar legislation in the last Congress. I am introducing this bill and I support this bill for a simple reason--it makes sense. The problems caused by the manufacture and use of asbestos are well-documented. Although some companies initially denied responsibility and resisted suits to recover for asbestos- related injuries in court, the injuries associated with asbestos and the liability of manufacturers for those injuries are now well- established. The courts--both state and federal--have done an admirable job of establishing the facts and legal rules concerning asbestos. That is a job the courts do well. However, now that the basic facts and liability rules have been established, the courts are being asked simply to process claims. That is not a job the courts do particularly well. The rules governing court actions give parties rights to dispute facts that have been conclusively established in other proceedings. All the while the meter is running for the lawyers on both sides. Dollars that could go to compensate deserving victims, instead go to lawyers and court costs. In the asbestos context, these problems are exacerbated by the finite resources available to compensate victims. What is more, the legal rules concerning both punitive damages and what constitutes a sufficient injury to bring suit make for jury awards that do not correspond to the seriousness of the injury. Someone filing suit because of a preliminary manifestation of a minor injury, such as pleural thickening, that may never lead to more severe symptoms may receive more compensation than another person with more serious asbestos-related injuries. None of this is to suggest that it is somehow wrong for plaintiffs with a minor injury to file suit. To the contrary, some state rules concerning when injury occurs obligate plaintiffs to file suits or risk having their suit dismissed as time- barred. What is more, in light of the finite number of remaining solvent asbestos defendants, potential plaintiffs have every incentive to file suit as soon as legally permissible. The Fairness in Asbestos Compensation Act of 1999 attempts to address these problems by establishing an administrative claims systems that aims to compensate victims of asbestos rationally and efficiently. The Act accomplishes this goal by classifying claimants according to the severity of their injuries, ensuring that those with more serious injuries receive greater awards, securing a compensation fund so that victims whose conditions are not yet manifest can recover in the future, and eliminating the statute of limitations and injury rules that force plaintiffs into court prematurely. Although I wish I could claim some pride of authorship in these mechanisms, these basic features were all part of a proposed global asbestos settlement agreement worked out by representatives of both plaintiffs and defendants. The Supreme Court rejected the proposed global asbestos settlement in Amchem Products versus Windsor. The District Court had certified a settlement class under Rule 23 that included extensive medical and compensation criteria that both plaintiffs and defendants had accepted. The Supreme Court ruled that this type of global, nationwide settlement of tort claims brought under fifty different state laws could not be sustained under Rule 23. The Court recognized that such a global settlement would conserve judicial resources and likely would promote the public interest. Nonetheless, the Court concluded that Rule 23 was too thin a reed to support this massive settlement, and that if the parties desired a nationwide settlement they needed to direct their attention to the Congress, rather than the Courts. I believe the Supreme Court was right on both counts--the proposed settlement criteria were in the public interest, but the proposed class simply could not be sustained under Rule 23. The Rules Enabling Act and the inherent limits on the power of federal courts preclude an interpretation of Rule 23 that would result in a federal court overriding or homogenizing varying state laws. However, as the Supreme Court pointed out, Congress has the power to do directly what the courts lack the power to do through a strained interpretation of Rule 23. This bill takes up the challenge of the Supreme Court and addresses the tragic problem of asbestos. The bill incorporates the medical and compensation criteria agreed to by the parties in the Amchem settlement and employs them as the basis for a legislative settlement. In the simplest terms, the legislation proposes an administrative claims process to compensate individuals injured by asbestos as a substitute for the tort system (although individuals retain an ability to opt-in to the tort system after using the administrative claims system to narrow the issues in dispute). The net effect of this legislation should be to funnel a greater percentage of the pool of limited resources to injured plaintiffs, rather than to lawyers for plaintiffs and defendants. I want to be clear, however, that I am not here to suggest that this is a perfect bill. This bill represents a complex solution to a complex problem. A number of groups will be affected by this legislation, and it may be necessary to make changes to ensure that no one is unfairly disadvantaged by this legislation. But that said, I am confident that we can make the needed changes. We have a bipartisan group of Senators who have agreed to cosponsor this legislation, and the bill represents a sufficient improvement in efficiency over the existing litigation quagmire that there should be ample room to work out any differences. Finally, let me also note that this bill also plays a minor but important role in preserving a proper balance in the separation of powers. I have been a strong and consistent critic of judicial activism. Judges who make legal rules out of whole cloth in the absence of constitutional or statutory text damage the standing of the judiciary and our constitutional structure. On the other hand, when judges issue opinions in which they recognize that a particular outcome might well be in the public interest, but nonetheless is not supported by the existing law, they reinforce the proper, limited role of the judiciary. Too often, federal judges are tempted to reach the result they favor as a policy matter without regard to the law. When judges succumb to that temptation, they are justly criticized. But when they resist that temptation, their self-restraint should be recognized and applauded. The Court in Amchem rightly recognized a problem that the judiciary acting alone could not solve. By offering a legislative solution to that problem the bill provides the proper incentives for courts to be restrained and reinforces the proper roles of Congress and the Judiciary. In short, this bill provides a proper legislative solution to the asbestos litigation problem. It ensures that, in an area in which extensive litigation has already established facts and assigned responsibility, scarce dollars compensate victims, not lawyers. I want to thank my co-sponsors for their work on the bill. I look forward to working with them to ensure final passage of this legislation. The courts have completed their proper role in ascertaining facts and liability. It is time for Congress to step in to provide a better mechanism to direct scarce resources to deserving victims.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Senator Domenici, first let me reiterate my admiration for the remarkable budget you have produced. You have produced a budget that, in the first decade of the new millennium, balances the entire federal budget, protects Social Security, increases funding for education by 40%, seeks to protect the Social Security surplus from paying for other government operations, reduces federal debt, provides funds requested by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to strengthen our national defense, and provides an $800 billion tax cut. This is a strong budget that I will support. As you know, I intended to offer an amendment that would eliminate a $2.9 billion deficit currently projected for FY 2000. It appears likely, however, that when the final budget resolution is written and we have the latest budget and economic forecasts, that this deficit will be eliminated and, in fact, the budget will be in surplus. As I understand, the budget resolution, as reported by the committee, provides that any FY 2000 surplus should be devoted to tax cuts. Mr. Domenici. I appreciate your support for this budget. Given current estimates the budget resolution will show a $2.9 billion deficit. That $2.9 billion represents only 1.7% of the entire $1.7 trillion budget, and even that small deficit will probably be eliminated when we get CBO's updated estimates this summer. With the numbers available at the time of the production of this resolution, specifically CBO's February baseline, it was impossible to declare that the budget we produced would be fully in balance according to those numbers. I want to salute the Senator from Missouri's efforts to make absolutely certain that we balance the budget excluding the Social Security surplus and I look forward to working with him to bring about that result.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I rise today to pose a question to my colleague, Mr. Baucus. I would like to thank my colleague, Mr. Baucus for working with me on our amendment concerning Korea's compliance with their trade agreements. For our beef and pork producers, this couldn't come at more pressing time. Particularly since the South Korean Government reportedly has been subsidizing its pork exports to Japan and these subsidies are hindering U.S. pork producers from capturing their full potential in the Japanese market. However, I would like to take a moment to pose a question to Mr. Baucus in order to clarify paragraph (4). My question is what kind of report do we intend to request? And how shall we define what ``resources'' shall be reported upon?

Mr. ASHCROFT. I concur with your suggestions and urge all of my colleagues to support the measure as defined.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I would be pleased to operate in a way consistent with your wishes. I will begin debate now, or we can defer it until after the vote. Unanimous Consent Agreement

Mr. ASHCROFT. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, this amendment relates to the education funding included in this budget proposal. I have joined with other Republican Senators in calling for an increase in Federal spending for education and urging that those additional dollars go directly to the classroom. This is a proposed sense-of-the-Senate amendment, and I am offering this measure with Senator Gorton. It is a measure which already is at the desk. Mr. President, as I mentioned earlier, this budget is very generous in terms of education, providing additional resources for the purpose of enhancing the capacity of our students to perform. This budget provides, for instance, for my own State--I think if the money were to be divided equally between the States, Missouri would get $56 million next year, more than it gets now. Over the next 5 years, it would get about $660 million more. So that is a substantial increase in the resource. I have joined with Senator Gorton of Washington to say that when we have that kind of resource flowing to the States, it is important for us that this increased resource in Federal education dollars be directed to the States and local schools out of the Federal budget and not to the Federal bureaucracy. You see, our intention with this resource is to elevate the capacity of students to perform, not to elevate the capacity or the propensity of the bureaucracy to intermeddle in directing, and sometimes misdirecting, the resources that would otherwise be best directed at the local level. Our hope is that this additional resource will give States and local communities, will give teachers and principals, and will give people at the classroom level--places where decisions can be made effectively about allocation of the resources--the maximum flexibility to design and run education programs that will literally elevate performance of our students. One of our Nation's highest priorities is that every child would have the opportunity to receive the kind of challenging, rigorous education that would prepare them for not only success personally, but would also prepare them as team members of Team U.S.A. to keep America where it ought to be--leading the world. Congress should develop and support Federal policy that will best promote education practices that succeed in our States and schools. Sometimes those practices are different in one State than they would be in other States. So we really want to invite the States, the school boards, the parents, and the teachers, those whose children are in the schools, to participate in developing the right deployment of these resources--spending the money wisely in ways that will help the students. Successful school systems are characterized by parental involvement, where parents really care, where parents get involved with the school system, where they energize their children, where they assign a high value to achievement in education. That is where our children soar. We should have Federal policy that gives the parents, the schools, the school boards, the school districts, the local governments, and the States the right to tailor the expenditure of resources so as to meet the needs of our children. Successful schools are also characterized by fundamental skills, excellent teachers, dollars spent in the classroom, and not dollars wasted in the bureaucracy. So many of our current Federal educational resources are misspent. They drive a demand for paperwork. They don't drive a demand for performance. They don't contain elements that further our goal of giving our children a world- class education. A number of our Federal education programs contain these mountainous paperwork burdens--regulations and restrictions that hinder States' and local schools' ability to design programs. Here are a couple of examples about the bureaucracy. Listen to these numbers. They are almost mind staggering. In Florida, 374 employees administer $8 billion in State funds. So it takes 374 to administer the $8 billion in State funds. However, there are 297 State employees needed to oversee only $1 billion in Federal funds, six times as many employees, six times as much bureaucracy, six times as much administration per dollar of funds spent in Federal dollars as there are for State dollars. I think if we want to avoid that kind of overlay of inefficiency, if we want to avoid the weight of paper that is weighing down the educational system that keeps teachers writing reports to bureaucrats instead of teaching our students, we ought to be working for this amendment which says that resources should go to State and local efforts; they should be tailored to meet the needs of the schools and to elevate student performance. The enhanced resources in this bill should not be devoted to the Federal bureaucracy where we have that 6- to-1 ratio demonstrated in the Florida experience where there are six times as many administrators for federal dollars as there are for State dollars. The Federal Department of Education requires over 48.6 million hours of paperwork each year just to receive the Federal dollars. That translates into the equivalent of 25,000 full-time employees every year just doing the paperwork. This bureaucratic maze for Federal education bureaucracy takes up to 35 percent of Federal education dollars. If I were to hand my son $1 and before it got from my hand to his it changed from $1 to 65 cents, I would hear about it. I would hear about it with justification--``You say you are giving me a dollar. You are only giving me 65 cents.'' That is what has been happening with Federal education dollars. The Governors of the country know about it. That is why they were so adamant in unanimously supporting the Ed-Flex bill which we passed in the Senate. Flexibility is important. That is what we would be providing to support student achievement if we are able to support this amendment. A recent example of inflexible Federal funding is the $1.2 billion earmarked exclusively for classroom size reduction for early elementary grades. It may have been a noble aspiration, but it may not be what some schools need. Listen to what Gov. Gray Davis, a Democratic Governor of California, recently said. He said it this way. His State had already achieved smaller classroom sizes in the early grades and needed to use the new Federal funds for reducing class size in 10th grade math and English classes. But no. The Federal bureaucrats and we, in conjunction with them, said no; this is only to be used in another specific arena. Let's give the flexibility to a school district, to the Governors, to teachers, to principals, to people at the local level. Let's give them the flexibility to meet student needs instead of to satisfy the bureaucratic demand. Why should we handcuff States and local schools from using money in the way they best see fit? According to the 1998 National Assessment of Educational Progress Reading Report Card, nearly 40 percent of our fourth grade students cannot even read at a basic level. United States 12th graders outperformed only 2 out of 21 nations in mathematics on a recent Third International Math and Science Study Test. The Brookings Institution has reported that public institutions of higher education have to spend $1 billion each year on remedial education for students who want to go to college. They have to have remedial work because it didn't happen at the elementary and secondary level. Let's not continue to spend money, Federal funds, in the old way of running it through the bureaucracy, first shrinking it and then allowing it to go from the bureaucracy forward in ways that aren't serving students. We should direct any new and existing Federal education resources to States and local schools to design and implement education programs that work, and that they know can work, because they are working with the program. And they also know what programs they need for their students. When Governor Gray Davis said he didn't need the money for smaller class sizes in early grades, he wasn't saying the program wouldn't work. He is just saying we already did that; we need to use the resource for something else. We cannot afford to keep spending our dollars in the same way that we have been doing for years. A profound friend of mine said, ``Your system is perfectly designed to give you what you are getting. If you do not like what you are getting, you had better change your system.'' We can't do it the same way. It has been giving us the wrong results. Let's let States and local communities decide how to spend dollars to improve performance--not give us the same result but give us an elevated outcome. I think we should give States and local schools the kind of flexibility they need to spend Federal dollars on programs that are needed at the local level rather than programs that are mandated from the bureaucracy. I think we need programs that boost student achievement, and that somehow foster academic excellence, giving local individuals the right to deploy the resources to do that. Under this approach, schools will be able to deploy resources to hire new teachers and to raise teachers' salaries. They could buy textbooks, or new computers, enhance the library, or even build--do all kinds of things, whatever they believe is most important in order to achieve that fundamental goal that we will all agree we want to pursue: that is, elevated student performance. That is what education is for--not for the bureaucracy in Washington. It is not really even for the bureaucracies at the State level, or the school boards, or even for the teachers. Our education effort is designed to elevate the performance and capacity to build the future of the United States by enhancing the future of individual students. In conclusion, parents, teachers, school boards, and administrators are in the best position to say what is needed. You wouldn't think of going to a doctor who is 1,000 miles away who is prescribing only one thing for all the people in the country regardless of their symptoms. We would say that is the most foolish thing of all. Yet we go to the bureaucracy in Washington, have them prescribe what we are going to do with our educational resources, no matter what the situation is in the State, or the school, or the local school area, or in the classroom. We need the capacity to say, here is what is wrong. Let's make the diagnosis at the local level, and then let's get at the problem at the local level. We can provide those resources. The resources in this budget should be devoted to that. Senator Gorton of Washington has been a champion of this idea. Several years ago, really in a breakthrough in the Senate, we voted for this concept, and it was on his motion that we did so. I am pleased to join with him in this sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Sessions as a cosponsor of this amendment. There may be others as well.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am pleased to have the opportunity to join my colleague from Washington State, Slade Gorton, in making sure that we give the Senate an opportunity to express itself clearly in favor of the kind of funding for schools that boosts student achievement. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, Daniel Webster argued to the Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland that the power to tax involves the power to destroy. Chief Justice Marshall was so taken with Webster's argument that he made it the central premise of his landmark opinion for the Court. Fully cognizant of the potential for abuse inherent in the power to tax, the framers carefully circumscribed this power. The Constitution limits the tax power to the Congress and requires revenue bills to originate in the House of Representatives, the body most responsive to the people. The notion that unelected bureaucrats could levy taxes absent any congressional authority would have been a complete anathema to the framers. It is a long way from ``no taxation without representation'' to taxation without notice, representation or even participation from the Congress. Unfortunately, the National Science Foundation appears to have forgotten that the power to tax belongs to the Congress and to Congress alone. Since 1992, the National Science Foundation has employed a private sector firm to registering second-level domain names, which are the unique identifiers that precede ``.com'' or ``.org.'' In 1995, the National Science Foundation amended its agreement with the firm to allow it to charge a $100 registration fee, and a $50 renewal fee. If those fees had been designed simply to allow the private firm to cover its costs and make a modest profit they would be unproblematic. However, that is not what happened here. The National Science Foundation, without any congressional authority, required the private firm to set aside 30 percent of the total fees collected and turn them over to the National Science Foundation's Intellectual Infrastructure Fund. In short, without any congressional authorization, the National Science Foundation levied a substantial tax (at greater than a 42- percent rate) on a necessary item for doing business on the Internet. Allowing this agency action to go unremedied would set a terrible precedent. Why should any agency suffer through the vagaries of the appropriations process if it can just impose its own taxes? As long as the agency has a monopoly over a necessary permit or license, it can set just about any tax rate it pleases. The agency could then use these tax revenues to fund its activities without too much concern for the appropriators and authorizers in Congress. The potential for abuse in such unauthorized and unconstitutional taxes was not lost on the Federal District Court that heard a challenge to the National Science Foundation's actions. The Court correctly determined that the National Science Foundation's actions amounted to an unconstitutional tax. Remarkably, Congress, rather than taking the National Science Foundation to task for its arrogation of taxing authority, actually ratified the Foundation's actions in a provision in last year's supplemental appropriations bill. The message this sends to federal agencies is intolerable. It creates a perverse and unconstitutional incentive for agencies to impose unauthorized taxes with every reason to believe that a Congress that has never seen a revenue source it did not like will ratify its misbehavior. What is more, the National Science Foundation's actions and Congress' ratification of those actions are inconsistent with the spirit of the Internet Tax Moratorium Act we passed last year. At the same time that we are telling States and localities that they cannot impose discriminatory taxes on the Internet, Congress is ratifying a 42% tax on the registration of domain names. Congress must be consistent with respect to Internet taxation. We must act to repeal the ratification of this unconstitutional tax. The bill I introduce today, the Home Page Tax Repeal Act of 1999 does just that. It sends a clear message that Congress will not tolerate taxation of the Internet and will not allow federal bureaucrats to wield the power of taxation. Finally, let me be clear that my criticism of the National Science Foundation's actions in levying this tax should not be mistaken for criticism of the policies they have pursued or of the uses to which they have put the revenues. I am fully supportive of efforts to ensure that we study the growth of the Internet and that the infrastructure supporting the Internet keeps up with rapid growth of this incredible medium. Indeed, spending for these purposes is so clearly justified that I have every confidence that sufficient funds will be appropriated through the normal appropriations process. But that is the process that should be followed. Allowing an agency to short-circuit that process and impose unconstitutional taxes--even with the best of motives--is simply unacceptable. The power to tax is indeed the power to destroy. The power to tax is oppressive enough in the hands of elected officials who must face the voters. That same power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats is intolerable. On behalf of the people we represent, Congress should reclaim its proper constitutional authority and reject--not ratify--this unconstitutional tax.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask that two letters be printed in the Record. Senator Bond and I worked on an amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill that would help the plight of the hog farmers in the state of Missouri and across the nation. The Missouri Farm Bureau, the Missouri Pork Producers, the American Farm Bureau, and National Pork Producers Council requested our assistance, and we have responded by working with the Appropriations Committee to get an amendment included in the supplemental appropriations bill that makes $250 million available for farmers struggling to survive the severe drop in pork prices. Under the amendment, the U.S. Department of Agriculture would be provided with $150 million new funds and would be given the authority to use another $100 million, that the USDA already has, to help hog farmers. It is the understanding of those of us that have offered this amendment today that the majority of the funds available to the Secretary of Agriculture will be used on behalf of our nation's pork farmers. Last year, all of the major commodity groups received disaster assistance, but the hog farmers received nothing. The letters from the Missouri Farm Bureau, the American Farm Bureau, and the National Pork Producers Council define further the farmers' interest in our amendment. The letters follow: Missouri Farm Bureau Federation, Jefferson City, MO, March 18, 1999. Hon. John Ashcroft, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Christopher Bond, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senators Ashcroft and Bond: On behalf of Missouri Farm Bureau, the state's largest general farm organization, I am writing to express our strong support of your efforts to make additional funding available to the U.S. Department of Agriculture for economic disaster payments to pork producers. We believe that waiving the existing cap on USDA Section 32 funds and appropriating an additional $150 million to Section 32 will pave the way for the Secretary of Agriculture to provide much-needed relief to pork producers. According to the University of Missouri, cash receipts for the U.S. pork industry are expected to average less than $9 billion in 1998, a reduction of over $4 billion from the 1997 level of $13.2 billion. Although hog prices have recovered from the historic lows experienced over the October 1998- January 1999 period, they remain far below the average cost of production. Economists have now estimated the market failed to reflect normal supply and demand conditions last Fall when hog prices plummeted to 8 cents per pound. Studies indicate that under normal supply and demand conditions prices would have fallen to between $25.87 a hundredweight and $29.41 a hundredweight. Funds that will be available for direct payments under Section 32 will not compensate pork producers for all the staggering losses experienced in recent months. However, these funds will enable producers to relieve some financial pressure making it easier to survive until profitability returns. It is critical the Secretary of Agriculture understand the purpose of the pending amendment is to supplement existing Section 32 funds and provide emergency assistance to pork producers. We encourage the Secretary to work with Members of Congress and the agricultural community to develop the guidelines under which the funds will be administered. We do not support using the same parameters used for the recent Small Hog Operator Program. Thank you for your leadership on this issue. Sincerely, Charles E. Kruse, President.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. I yield the floor.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the amendment which I have sent to the desk is a simple one. It is an amendment forbidding the Government to invest Social Security trust funds in the stock market. We have talked a lot about Social Security in relation to the budget and that it is important that we not invade the Social Security trust fund to undertake spending to cover deficits in other areas, and that is really a way to protect the trust fund. This amendment is another way to protect the trust fund and to protect the retirement security of Americans from the risks of the stock market. So this amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that the Federal Government should not invest the Social Security trust fund in the stock market. Having the Government invest the trust fund in the stock market is a gamble. It is a gamble Congress should be unwilling to make on behalf of the millions who receive and depend on Social Security to meet their retirement needs. First, let me say that there is no more worthy Government obligation than ensuring that those who paid a lifetime of Social Security taxes will receive their full Social Security benefits. Social Security is our most important social program, and I believe it is a contract, an agreement between the citizens and their Government. Americans, including 1 million Missourians, depend on this commitment. And I am determined to ensure that Social Security meets that commitment. The President has suggested, and for the first time in history, that the Government should invest as much as $700 billion worth of Social Security surpluses in the stock market. In my view, and in the view of many Missourians who depend on Social Security, this would unnecessarily gamble with the Social Security trust funds. For more than 60 years, Social Security law has forbidden the trust funds from being invested in the stock market. The pending amendment will express our support for that law, making explicit what is now implicit, that this kind of governmental meddling into private markets should not be allowed to happen. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan says that investing Social Security funds in the market is bad for Social Security and, he says, bad for the economy. Now, when Alan Greenspan talks, virtually everyone listens. And Congress ought to listen. Chairman Greenspan has said this plan ``will create a lower rate of return for Social Security recipients,'' and he ``does not believe that it is politically feasible to insulate such huge funds from a governmental direction.'' I think what he is saying is it is not time to let some bureaucrat play broker-for-a-day with the Social Security trust fund. The last thing we need in America is the Federal Government directing the investment of Social Security trust funds based on some trendy politically driven notion of which industries or which countries or which policies are in political favor at the moment. Of course, Alan Greenspan is not the only Government official entrusted with and ensuring our economic well-being who is gravely concerned or who has expressed grave concerns about this proposal. Arthur Levitt, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the country's top investment official, has said, We have an obligation to think long and hard about the implications of Social Security reform. Investing Social Security in the stock market, by its very nature involves heightened obligations, difficult questions and new challenges. Chairman Levitt is worried about the ``large-scale market effect.'' In other words, what does this proposal do to the market, including whether the Government would ``have an even greater incentive, if not the market itself.'' We know that America has prospered because of free markets, not Government-directed markets. The prospect of the market trying to control market fluctuations is disturbing. In this scenario, the Government could subsidize companies that were losing market value, regulate companies that pursued risky or innovative strategies, and pursue policies based on which companies would benefit. If the Federal Government tried to pick market winners and losers, all of us, companies and citizens alike, Social Security recipients, and those paying the taxes would end up as losers. When officials of the stature of Chairman Greenspan and Levitt, officials who are responsible for the health of the Nation's economy and of the stock market, warn us when they speak, we ought to tread very carefully. In addition to the concerns of the experts, I am listening to the concerns of individual Missourians. I recently received a letter from Todd Lawrence of Greenwood, MO, who wrote, It has been suggested that the government would invest in the stock market with my Social Security money. No offense, but there is not much that the government touches that works well. Why would making my investment decisions for me be any different. Looking at it from a business perspective, would the owner of a corporation feel comfortable if the government were the primary shareholder? Todd Lawrence understands what President Clinton apparently does not. No corporation would want the Government as a shareholder, and no investor would want the Government handling their investment. Even if the Government were able to invest without adding new levels of inefficiency to the process, the Government putting Social Security taxes in the stock market adds an unacceptable level of risk to retirement. This risk is a gamble I am unwilling to make for the one million Missourians who are the recipients of Social Security. This amendment puts Congress on record that Government will not gamble Social Security in the stock market. While I understand the impulse to attempt to harness the great potential of the stock market, significant Government involvement in the stock market could tend toward economic nationalization, excess Government involvement in private financial markets, and short-term, politically motivated investment decisions that could diminish Social Security's potential rate of return. It is hard to overestimate how dangerous this scheme really is. Imagine, if you will, what would happen if the Government had $2.7 trillion in the market on Black Monday, October 19, 1987, when the stock market lost 22 percent of its value. The trust fund's owners, America's current and future retirees, would have lost a collective total of $633 billion that day alone. Imagine seniors who depend on Social Security watching television, watching the news of the stock market collapse, wondering, even fearing, their Social Security would be in danger. While individuals properly manage their financial portfolios to control risk, the Government has no business taking these gambles with the people's money. Even President Clinton has expressed skepticism with this idea. In Albuquerque last year, the President said the following, I think most people just think if there is going to be a risk taken, I'd rather take it than have the government take it for me. He was right then and he is wrong now. While Americans as individuals should invest as much as they can, as much as they can afford in their private equities to plan for their own retirements, the Government should stay out of the stock market. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ASHCROFT

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kriz Ardizzone, Tevi Troy, and Jim Carter, members of my legislative staff, be granted the privilege of the floor during the pendency of the budget resolution.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, being made aware of the pending amendment which is now before the Senate, I withdraw my request to send an amendment to the desk. Privilege Of The Floor

Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for his excellent work. I look forward to working with him as we bring this budget to the American people. I believe it has the potential of being the best budget in years.

Mr. ASHCROFT. Thank you very much, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Minnesota. I rise in support of the resolution offered by Senator Abraham that has been called the Abraham-Domenici-Ashcroft Social Security amendment. That protects our strong support for saving Social Security. It expresses our strong support for protecting Social Security. I am grateful for the opportunity to cosponsor this amendment, which will put the Senate on record in favor of protecting the Social Security surplus and not invading it for spending for other Governmental programs. The Senator from Minnesota is absolutely correct. The President's budget over the next 5 years would spend $158 billion of the Social Security surplus--not the general Governmental surplus but the Social Security surplus. Social Security is a national, cultural and, I might add, legal obligation. Social Security is our most important social program, a contract between the Government and its citizens. Americans, including 1 million Missourians, depend on this commitment. This is more than just a Governmental commitment. We have a responsibility as a culture to care for the recipients of Social Security--the elderly and other individuals in regard to Social Security who are its beneficiaries. Social Security is the only retirement income for most of the seniors in this country. It is our obligation, passed down from generation to generation, to provide retirement security for every American. As individuals, all of us care about Social Security because we know the benefits it pays to our mothers and fathers, relatives and friends. And we think of the Social Security taxes we and our children pay--up to 12.4 percent of our income. We pay these taxes with the understanding that they help our parents and their friends, and we hope that our taxes will somehow, someday make it possible to help pay for our own retirements. In my case, thinking of Social Security brings to mind friends and constituents such as Lenus Hill of Bolivar, Missouri, who relies on her Social Security to meet living expenses. Billy Yarberry lives on a farm near Springfield and depends on Social Security. And there is Reverend Walter Keisker of Cape Girardeau, who will be 100 years old next July and lives on Social Security. The faces of these friends make Social Security have a special, personal meaning to me. Whenever I meet with folks in Missouri, I am asked, ``Senator, you won't let them use my Social Security taxes to pay for the United Nations, will you?'' Or, ``Why can't I get my full benefits if I work after 65?'' Or, ``You know I need my Social Security, don't you?'' And then there are the letters on Social Security I get every day. Ed and Beverly Shelton of Independence, Missouri, write: Aren't the budget surpluses the result of Social Security taxes generating more revenue than is needed to fund current benefits? Therefore, the Social Security surplus is the surplus! . . . Yes, we are senior citizens and receive a very limited amount of Social Security. We are children who survived the Great Depression and World War II so we know how to stretch a dollar and rationed goods--just [listen to this] wish Congress were as careful with spending our money as we are! These concerns are why I am cosponsoring this amendment, which will express the Senate's view that we must put an end to the practice of using surpluses in the Social Security trust funds to finance deficits in the rest of the Federal budget. This resolution--the Abraham-Domenici-Ashcroft resolution--puts the Senate on record as supporting legislation that would accomplish the following: (a) Reaffirming the provisions of section 13301 of the Onnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. This section provides that the Social Security trust funds shall be off budget. (2) Mandating that the Social Security surpluses are to be used only for the payment of Social Security benefits, Social Security reform, or to reduce the federal debt held by the public, and not spent on non- Social Security programs or used for tax cuts. (3) Providing for a Senate super-majority point of order against any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that would use Social Security surpluses on anything other than the payment of Social Security benefits, Social Security reform, or to reduce the federal debt held by the public. That is very important. We include in this proposal not just a statement that we want to reserve Social Security for the right purposes, but we want to create a point of order that makes out of order a proposal that we spend Social Security to cover deficits in other parts of the Government. Additionally, this particular measure ensures that all Social Security benefits are paid on time. I am in favor of two provisions that will accomplish these objectives. First, I am a cosponsor of the Abraham-Domenici lockbox provision, which will lock away Social Security surpluses by ratcheting down the publicly held debt by the amount of our Social Security surpluses. This resolution puts the Senate on record in favor of this legislation. In addition, Senator Domenici and I have introduced the Protect Social Security Benefits Act, which would make it out of order for the Senate to pass, or even debate, a budget that uses Social Security surpluses to finance deficits in the rest of the budget. Under this proposed legislation, a three-fifths vote in the Senate would be required to overcome this point of order, thereby making it extremely difficult to use the Social Security surplus to fund new deficit spending. We must make clear that the Federal Budget should be balanced without counting any Social Security surpluses. Social Security should not finance new spending. But that is exactly what has happened in the past, is now happening, and will continue happening in the future, unless changes are made. The funding of Federal deficits in Government spending generally by consuming Social Security surpluses must end. Walling off the trust funds is the first step, not the only step, needed to protect Social Security. This is the right way to start the effort to improve Social Security so it is strong for our children and grandchildren. To do this, we need to be honest, realizing that, for now, time is on our side to make thoughtful improvements. Social Security does now and will in the near future accumulate annual surpluses. Together, income from payroll taxes and interest is greater than the amount of benefits being paid out. The Social Security trustees believe that these surpluses will continue each year for the next 14 years. In that time, a $2.8 trillion total surplus will accumulate. In the year 2013, however, when more baby boomers will be in retirement, annual benefit payments will exceed annual taxes received by Social Security through taxes and interest to the fund. As a result, Social Security will run an annual deficit. By 2021, annual benefit payments will exceed annual taxes received by Social Security and interest earned on the accumulated surpluses. Then, by the year 2032, Social Security payroll taxes will not only be insufficient to pay benefits; the surpluses will be used up. Social Security will be bankrupt. That is, even counting the notes in its fund, incapable of meeting the demand for benefits. In recent years, Social Security surpluses have been used to finance deficit spending in the rest of the Federal budget. Take fiscal year 1998 for example. The Social Security surplus was $99 billion. The deficit in the rest of the Government budget was $29 billion. So $29 billion--or 30 percent of the Social Security surplus--financed other Government programs that were not paid for with general tax revenues. This occurred despite President Clinton's promise to save ``every penny of any surplus'' for Social Security. For next year, this money shuffling is even greater. According to CBO, the President's budget dips into the Social Security surplus to the tune of $158 billion over 5 years to pay for government spending. This kind of money shuffling must end. I cannot go back to Lenus Hill or Billy Yarberry and tell them that I stood by silently as the government devoted spent $158 billion of their retirement money to pay for the President's new spending initiatives somewhere else. We must stop the dishonest practice of hiding new government deficits with Social Security surpluses. This amendment is designed to express the sense of the Senate that we must not use surpluses in the Social Security trust funds to pay for deficits in the rest of the federal budget. Three times Congress has passed laws that tried to take Social Security off-budget. These efforts have called for accounting statements that require the government to keep the financial status of Social Security separate from the rest of the budget. But these efforts are inadequate unless Congress puts in place safeguards that protect surpluses in Social Security from financing new government spending. This amendment will put the Senate on record in favor of helping us save the trust funds, by directing the entire Social Security surplus to shrink the publicly held federal debt. Reducing the publicly held debt would cut annual interest costs that now cost $200 billion and 15 percent of entire federal government budget. Eliminating this interest costs would provide more flexibility to address the long-term financing difficulties Social Security now faces that could someday jeopardize payment of full benefits. This amendment is designed to express our support for protecting the Social Security system. More importantly, it is designed to protect the American people from attempts to spend our retirement dollars on current government spending. While I value the Social Security system, I value the American people, people like Lenus Hill and the 1 million other Missourians who receive Social Security benefits and depend on them more. I value those individuals far more than I value the system. My primary responsibility is to them. This amendment will protect the Social Security system and the America people first. Mr. President, I send another amendment to the desk.