Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, because we have collapsed this time--and I think appropriately so--and several colleagues need to be elsewhere later today, let me close my comments. Now some of our bills have been vetoed. We have yet to return to the American people all the tax increases they suffered as the result of the 1993 hike. But the last five-plus years also have produced a solid record of tax relief and IRS reform, thanks to Republican principles and bipartisan partnerships. Perhaps most important, that record highlights the Democrat and Republican contrasting views of people priorities. Decades of liberal government meant more and more Americans were over-taxed on the one hand, and more and more dependent on ``government programs'' on the other. But a determined Republican Congress has been turning the tide, slowly but surely--even in the face of frequent vetoes and partisan obstruction--because it has believed in its mission of returning power to the people. People are empowered when they can keep most of the fruits of their own labor, and use those resources to provide for families and their future the way they feel is best. People are empowered when the tax laws are a help, not a hindrance, to them choosing and being able to afford a good education, medical care that meets their specific needs, the right balance between work and family, and secure retirement planning. People are empowered when the government--especially the tax collector--respects the dignity and rights of the individual taxpayer. The Republican-majority Congress has been making strong, steady, incremental progress in areas like these. While several major bills have been vetoed, several have become law. Among them: In 1996, Congress enacted the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. This law increased health insurance deductions for the self- employed, created new Medical Savings Accounts so folks can set aside money for future needs, made it easier for workers to transfer from one job to another without losing benefits, allowed penalty-free IRA withdrawals for medical expenses, and reduced the cost of long-term health care. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 included, among other things, the $500 per-child tax credit, credits and deductions for higher education, expanded IRA limits and the new Roth IRA and the first significant steps in death Tax relief for family-owned farms and small business. The IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 finally began shifting the burden of proof from the taxpayer to the IRS, required the IRS to pay court costs more often, provided protection for innocent spouses from IRS collection efforts, and created a new, taxpayer-oriented oversight board. The Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act of 2000 repealed the ``earnings limit'' on the amount of outside income seniors of retirement age can earn without having their Social Security benefits cut. That's a good record but--we can and should do more. The tax collector should not be the uninvited guest at every wedding and the rude intruder at every funeral. But the Clinton-Gore Administration vetoed bills to repeal the Death Tax and the Marriage Penalty. I promise you, however, those issues will not go away. And now, in the waning hours of the 106th Congress, we are hard at work on wrapping up one more bill to provide tax relief to make health insurance affordable to millions of uninsured Americans, help more with retirement planning, help family farmers and small businesses, and encourage investment in economically depressed areas. In a matter of days it will be up to the President to decide the fate of that bill, with his signature pen or his veto pen. I hope, this time, he chooses power to the people over power to the tax collector. I will conclude by saying this: This very meager tax package in front of us, which has been objected to so strenuously by the other side, is a small step in trying to put money back into the pockets of taxpayers during a time of unprecedented surplus. It is also an opportunity to facilitate; that is, to allow small businesspeople and others who want to provide health care and to provide farmers and ranchers and other people in agriculture the flexibility to do all kinds of positive things. But most importantly, the reason the gnashing of teeth and the wringing of hands has been heard so loudly on the other side of the aisle is they don't want to give any tax cut. They don't want to provide any of that opportunity. They want to spend it all and they want to spend it all in a way that will grow Government and grow it in a way that will reduce our freedoms and, most importantly, deny the American taxpayer what should justifiably be theirs. Once you have balanced the budget and you have a surplus, you ought to give just a little bit of it back--that is, the surplus--to those from which it came. With that, I yield the floor for other allocations of time.

Mr. CRAIG. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank Senator Bond for yielding. I have been listening to the Senator from North Dakota. I have to remind him by quoting his own leader. Here is what his leader said in USA Today on September 8: We will stall the spending bills until we get our way. I suggest to the Senator from North Dakota that he ought to listen to his leader because his leader said it and that is exactly what is going on at this moment. Let me also say to the Senator from North Dakota, after all these spending bills and after this tax cut we are debating, we will pay down the national debt by $700 billion. That is one whale of an accomplishment. No, it doesn't go to bigger Government. No, it doesn't go to create a new program. It goes to pay down the debt. So between what his own leader has said and the facts of what we are doing, let me remind the Senator from North Dakota, stalling your way through this session has complicated matters. The box canyon that he referred to is a box canyon that his own leader created. From USA Today: Senate Minority Leader Daschle, Democrat of South Dakota, has a simple strategy for winning the final negotiations over spending bills: stall, until the Republicans have caved in because they can't wait any longer to recess. That is the reality of where we are. They have stalled their way into a big problem. Now we will work the weekend, if we have to. We have to resolve these issues for the sake of the American people. For just a few moments, let me talk about the tax bill that is before us. I so vividly remember the first Clinton-Gore campaign in 1992, running for election and saying: We will give America a middle-class tax cut. It was the mantra of their campaign. Remember, they said in that banner during the campaign: It is the economy, stupid; we have to make this economy work. And we are going to make it work by giving a middle-class tax cut. Well, let's remember what happened once they were elected. They pushed through the largest tax increase in the history of this country. The new bigger bite on the middle class included a fuel tax, a new tax on Social Security benefits, a hefty variety of small business taxes. And when the new administration nearly pulled off the greatest scheme of all, and that was to nationalize one-sixth of our Nation's economy-- that was that great, new health care bureaucracy that became affectionately known across the country as ``Hillary Care'' that was to give every American the opportunity to live inside the greatest HMO of all, a federalized Government health care program--when Americans heard the detail of that, thanks to a few Senators and a few Congressmen on this side of the aisle who stood up hour after hour and went through page after page of what Bill and Hillary Clinton were talking about, Americans rejected that resoundingly. We know what happened. America said things had to change. And they did change in 1995; A Republican Congress was elected. Slowly but surely, we have tried to roll back those massive tax increases. What we have in front of us today is an installment in that effort. At a time of unprecedented surpluses, at a time when we are paying down $700 billion on the debt and that side of the aisle does not want to give a dime back to the American taxpayer, shame on them. But then again, their Presidential candidate says: I need it all because I want to spend it all for all kinds of new Federal programs. That is the reality of what they are dealing with.

Mr. CRAIG. Reserving the right to object, I certainly will not object as long as we conform to the 3:15 p.m. vote time. Rearranging the time that remains between now and then is certainly the prerogative of the manager. I just want to secure that time for the vote under the original UC.

Mr. CRAIG. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Recognizing my time has expired, I will continue this dialog probably on Monday night. I have now quoted 20 of about 40 of these kinds of situations in which the Vice President has found himself. I will make them a part of the Record to compare them to what the Senator from Nevada has stated, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thought for the next few moments I would speak basically in response to my colleague from Nevada, who is here on the floor. He has taken the floor in the last two evenings to quote rather liberally and at length statements made by Republican Presidential candidate George W. Bush, and of course those statements stand in the Record as he has presented them. He quoted them verbatim, saying he believed it was necessary to demonstrate the policy positions of this Presidential candidate. I thought it would be appropriate to lay into the Record this evening similar quotes from Al Gore, the Presidential candidate for the Democrat Party, who on many occasions has made a variety of embellishments about certain facts. For the next few moments, I want to take this opportunity to read some of his quotes, which I think is appropriate as a comparative between the two Presidential candidates. I will start with a CNN quote on ``Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer,'' March 9, 1999. Vice President Al Gore, at that time, said: During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. In the New York Times, December 1, 1999, he said: I found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal. I had the first hearing on that issue and Toone, Tennessee. I assume he meant in Tone, Tennessee. But that was the one that started it all. I think that was the one where we knew the Vice President took credit for discovering Love Canal and acting on it. During a flight on Air Force One, Gore was chatting with reporters. This is what he said: He . . . spent two hours swapping opinions about movies and telling stories about old chums like Eric Segal, who, Gore said, used Al and Tipper as models for the uptight preppy and his free-spirited girlfriend in ``Love story.'' That is a quote out of Time magazine, December 15, 1997. This is from the first Presidential debate on October 3, 2000: I accompanied James Lee Witt down to Texas when the fires broke out. Of course, he recanted that the next day, saying he really didn't do that. He was down there on the ground, but not with Mr. Witt, Director of FEMA. Then during the first Presidential debate on October 3, he said: They can't squeeze another desk in for her, so she has to stand during class. Of course, immediately that school rejected that, saying that was simply not true. The first day of classes, her desk was not available, but the second day it was. On the NBC ``Today Show,'' January 24, 1997, he said: I did not know it was a fundraiser. Of course, we know what he is talking about because then in an FBI deposition transcript on May 23, 1997, he said: I didn't realize it was in a Buddhist temple. Those are actual quotes from a man who wants to be President of the United States. He went on to say this in the Washington Post on September 24, 2000, talking about the Strategic Oil Reserve which was established in 1975, 2 years before Al Gore was elected to Congress: I've been a part of the discussion on the Strategic Oil Reserve since the days when it was first established. In reference to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, he said: I've worked on this for 20 years because, unless we get this one right, nothing else matters. That was on the Al Gore 2000 web site, October 14, 1999. Of course, during his career here in the Senate, Mr. Gore openly opposed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. In reference to the death penalty, Mr. President, candidate Gore has said this: I have always supported it because I think society has a right to make careful judgments about when that ultimate penalty ought to be applied. That was from the Associated Press, November 19, 1999. Senator Al Gore voted against the death penalty for drug kingpins on June 28, 1990, and against the death penalty for terrorists on February 20, 1991. Remember, he said, ``I support it,'' and then he twice voted against it. In reference to the earned-income tax credit, he said: I was the author of that proposal. I wrote that, so I say, welcome aboard. This is something for which I have been a principal proponent for a long time. That was in Time Magazine, November 1, 1999. Carthage Courier, February 21, 1980. Al Gore cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate on August 6, 1993, to raise taxes on Social Security benefits. He said: Social Security Benefits will remain untaxed . . . I sincerely believe that any plan to tax Social Security benefits would place an unforgivable burden on our senior citizens who are currently trying to enjoy their retirement years in the face of ever-increasing prices. . . . It is totally inconceivable. . . . It is unfair. Yet, of course, he was the one who cast the tie-breaking vote August 6, 1993. In reference to investing Social Security funds in the stock market, he said: We didn't really propose it. We talked about the idea. See Clinton-Gore fiscal years 2000 and 2001 budget proposals. They not only talked about it; they proposed it in their budget, Mr. President. Here is another interesting quote: Does he (George W. Bush) have the experience to be President? You know he has never put together a budget. The Governor of Texas is by far the weakest chief executive position in America and does not have the responsibility of forming or presenting a budget. Now, if you look at Texas law, section 401.041, it reads: The Governor of Texas is the chief Budget Officer of the State. Also, section 401.406 reads: The Governor shall deliver a copy of the Governor's budget to each member of the legislature not later than the sixth day of each regular legislative session. In reference to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation, he said, ``Unlike Senator Bradley, I was a cosponsor of it.'' That was in the New York Times, November 24, 1999. Cosponsor? I didn't know that Vice Presidents could become cosponsors of legislation. But be that as it may, that is what he said. Here is another quote; The American Prospect, June 5, 2000. One-hundred and sixty-three bills for free or reduced-cost TV have been introduced in Congress since 1960. Here is what the Vice President said about it: Some of you may know that I don't come new to this issue; I introduced the very first free TV legislation in the Senate, exactly nine years ago this past Saturday, October 18, 1998. Interestingly enough, the first bills were introduced in 1960. Again, another mistake by our Vice President from the Columbia Journal Review, January 1993: In an interview published last Sunday by the Des Moines Register, Gore was quoted as saying he ``got a bunch of people indicted and sent to jail'' while working as a reporter for the Tennessean in the 1970s. Two people were indicted for alleged corruption during the same period Al Gore covered the Nashville Metro Council. Neither of the two were imprisoned. I carried an M-16 . . . I pulled my turn on the perimeter at night and walked through the elephant grass, and I was fired upon. Los Angeles Times, October 15, 1999. According to witnesses, Al Gore was a reporter who never saw combat and was kept out of harm's way. A speech to the New England Business Council, November 30, 1999: ``I was a home builder after I came back from Vietnam. . . I know a good bit about how to make money that way''--meaning home building-- ``to build this country is a great thing.'' Tanglewood Homebuilders was a Gore family corporation. The contractor said Al Gore visited the construction site once or twice. I live on a farm today. I have my heart in my own farm. ABC News, December 23, 1999. Of course, we know that Mr. Gore was raised here in the city of Washington.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator for clarifying the committee's intent. I want to add my personally strong feeling that it would be inappropriate for the FTC to launch individualized investigations and enforcement actions on the basis of notions about industry practices that are not-fully-informed, before it can sort out what appropriate law and policy should be. Unfocused, premature, or ad hoc actions could be counterproductive, possibly disrupting markets and chilling some positive industry practices that actually benefit consumers. It is important now for the FTC to focus on resolving uncertainties and acquiring a better understanding the facts, law, market practices, and impacts related to these issues. medical corrections options program

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, the conference report that includes fiscal year 2001 Commerce-Justice-State appropriations picks up some Senate report language providing up to $900,000 for completion of a Federal Trade Commission investigation into slotting allowances and fair competition in the retail grocery business. I understand that the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Bond] originally requested that language. I would like to engage the Senator from Missouri and the chairman of the subcommittee [Mr. Gregg] in a colloquy simply to clarify the scope and intent of that provision. Because this language is brief, I wanted to make sure it would not be misread to suggest that we are providing these funds for use in any company-specific investigation. It is my understanding that committee's intent is for the FTC to use these funds solely to undertake a general study, collecting comprehensive data on the current competitive environment related to such practices, assessing their impact, and reporting back to Congress on appropriate policy considerations. I am concerned that our current understanding of the practice of slotting fees, as well as the payment of other discounts, fees, and promotional allowances, is still limited. A thorough understanding of industry practices and their effects should inform policymaking.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. I cannot yield. This is the time of the majority leader. But I think it is important, Mr. Leader, to clarify that. Let's be proud of what we have done. It is a major and positive step for caring and loving families who want children through adoption.

Mr. CRAIG. Yes. I do appreciate the majority leader speaking to that. I saw the Senator from California wishing to make a comment on it. I cochair the Adoption Caucus with Senator Landrieu. We worked together this year to change the character of the adoption tax credit. We did not get all we wanted--and I know the Senator has been out on the floor speaking of concern about it--but we got a great deal. We went from a $5,000 to a $10,000 tax credit for a normal adoption. But most importantly, we focused our efforts this year on children of special needs, I say to our majority leader. And there we went from a $6,000 to a $12,000 tax credit, and we phased it in more rapidly than we did the normal adoption. But what is important here is the character of the adoptions. For children with special needs, oftentimes their costs up to adoption are less than normal children because the Government fronts a lot of that cost. To parents adopting children of special needs, it comes after the adoption. We tried to characterize this provision a little differently. And we will do that in the coming year. No, we did not get all we wanted. But for any Senator to say it is not good to double the adoption credit on children with special needs, and to phase it in faster than we are doing for the children of normal adoptions, somehow is really not understanding what we are accomplishing. This Senate, in the last 5 years, has taken a quantum leap to allow Americans to form families through adoption and to render tax credits. We did not even recognize it a few years ago. People forming families the normal way could write off the expenses of their pregnancy and the birthing of children, but people spending $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 to adopt a child were on their own. We have said no to that. Truly, for these children of special need, who are oftentimes almost unwanted, we have now said to loving and caring people, we are going to give you a $12,000 tax credit, and we are going to accelerate it. Come on, folks. We ought to be cheering about this for the formation of families through adoption. This is a major step in a loving and caring direction. No, Mary Landrieu and Larry Craig did not get everything they wanted, but there is not a Senator on this floor who got everything they wanted this year. But let me tell you, I am voting for this bill on that alone because it shows that this Senate cares about children and about families who want to form through adoption.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, $40 trillion in 54 years. Where do we get it, and how do we handle it?

Mr. CRAIG. I know proper procedure, Mr. President, is to ask the question, but it is important to suggest this Senator did not say Social Security does not work. Quite the opposite. I believe it has worked. What I talked about today is who pays for it because what the Senator from North Dakota is suggesting, I think--and I agree with him, the tremendous benefit that has come, but he has also seen the doubling and the quadrupling of taxes on the working people to pay for that benefit. I suggest this to the Senator from North Dakota. I think it is important. CBO has just scored the Gore transfers within his plan. They have suggested those transfers are around $40 trillion over the next 54 years. If that is true, 40 trillion bucks would have to flow out of other sources, such as the general fund, because we know the Vice President is not talking about a tax increase. The question is, How do you handle it? Do you create higher Government debt? Do you do direct investments? The Senate voted 99-0 against Government investments. So the legitimate question in this debate is not whether Social Security has successfully benefitted current and past retirees. The Senator from North Dakota and I just flat agree that it has. Senator Dorgan and I know of too many cases of individual citizens who find that Social Security is almost their sole source of income. Thank goodness it is there. I am talking about is the growing tax burden on our children. We are imposing a 20-percent payroll tax liability on the young working men and women in this country and we have to be extremely cautious.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, my colleague from North Dakota has just left the floor. I was off the floor for a few moments, but I know he talked about the Presidential campaign and the proposal by the Governor from Texas to reform Social Security, especially for the young people of our country as it relates to their future participation in it and the amount of money they will ultimately pay into it versus that which they get out. I thought I would come to the floor for a few moments to share with the Senate several experiences I have had over the last couple of years dealing with Social Security. About a year ago, I did a series of town meetings across my State called senior-to-senior. I invited high school seniors and senior citizens to come together in the same place to talk about Social Security. Every time you go to a high school, one of the top two or three questions asked is about Social Security. Now, my guess is that the average American would not believe a senior in high school would be that interested in Social Security. But they have probably heard their mom or dad saying you really ought to not plan on Social Security; it is certainly not going to be there when you get to be your grandparents' age. That has been a fairly standard refrain across America for the last decade. Why? Why would parents of today suggest to their young people not to expect to get a Social Security benefit? Largely because they have been told it would go bankrupt, that it would create so much liability that it could never pay for itself. What I think they failed to recognize is that since the Social Security reforms of the mid-1980s, Social Security has been building a reserve trust fund and we are taking in more than we are paying out. But sometime in the near future--sometime in the future of the Senator from Idaho and the Senator from North Dakota--when we get to be Social Security age along with other baby boomers, there is going to be a peak of Social Security liability, or Social Security obligation. It will be some $7 trillion-plus. That is a fact. We know that. But we also know that the seniors of today and immediately tomorrow, at least for the next decade or two, are well protected because of the reforms we made in that system in the mid-1980s and the very dramatic tax increases that workers and employers have paid since that time. Social Security is strong today. But we didn't do it by cutting benefits very much, we did it by dramatically raising taxes on the working men and women of this country. If you want to keep this cycle up, if you do not want to make it self-supporting, and if you do not want it to yield what the other annuities and private annuities are yielding, then you keep it up and you say to the young people: You are going to pay in hundreds of thousands of dollars of your wages in taxes, and for every dollar you put in during your lifetime, you are going to get only three quarters back. Is that being very honest with the young people of America today? They are going to work all of their lives and put all of their money in, and they are going to be taxed at an even higher rate. And in return, even the likelihood of getting back a 5-, 4-, or 3-percent return just isn't going to be there. Yet you can say to them: If you invest in private investment funds, the average return over the last 100 years invested in the industry of this country is about a 10-percent analyzed rate. Young people aren't dumb. They are pretty darned bright. With today's Internet and their ability to calculate, to communicate, and to invest independently, they pretty well understand that what their parents are telling them has some truth, makes some sense. Social Security may be there. But it is not a very good investment unless you are paying for your parents' retirement--or, should I say ``enhanced income,'' because your parents paid for your grandparents. The only problem is that every senior in high school today can expect a 20-percent increase in their taxes over what their parents are paying today, when they get to be their parents' age, to fund the current Social Security system. That is why Social Security has become a debate issue in this Presidential campaign. And it darned well should be. No responsible Presidential candidate is going to stand out there and say all is well. It is well for the immediate future--for the next decade or two. But for young people today to invest in this system without significant reform in it is not only bad policy, it is bad politics. But I hope we reside on the side of good policy and ultimately good politics. It tends to go hand in hand. It has been fascinating for me to watch the debate between Governor Bush and Vice President Gore, with Gore saying Bush is going to bankrupt Social Security and Bush suggesting that what Gore might do would simply increase the system's liability and increase the debt burden on future citizens. Where does the balance lie? I really believe it is time for this Senate and this Government to investigate the opportunity to take a small piece of Social Security taxes and allow taxpayers to invest them in what we call personal savings accounts. I always notice when the Senator from North Dakota or others talk about this issue, they only talk about investments in the stock market. But that is not Governor Bush's proposal. It was Bill Clinton who said invest it in the stock market. What Governor Bush has consistently said for the last month is personal accounts invested somewhat like the Federal retirees have-- like the Senator from North Dakota and the Senator from Idaho have, which means they don't invest their individual accounts in individual stocks. They have categories of investment that are high risk, moderate risk, and low risk. Yes, some of that money is invested in the stock market, because that is where you invest money--you invest it in the economy of this country--but some is also invested in private and government bonds and other less risky investments. We all know the demographics. We will soon have a record number of seniors in this country. What we are suggesting is that, as we shift back and forth, as older people get older and younger people move into the system, that over the next few decades we transform the system; we adjust it. Over that period of time, we can create less dependency on the American taxpayer and as future retirees--if we adjust it properly--increasingly rely on their individualized account. That makes awfully good sense. Here is what doesn't make good sense to me. When Vice President began to talk about his Social Security proposals--increasing benefits for widows, and increasing benefits for stay-at-home parents by attributing earnings to them while they stay at home--oh, did that sound like good politics in an election year. My guess is it is pretty good politics in an election year. But the question is, Is it good policy for the Social Security system? Does it keep Social Security stable? Does it keep it well funded? Or down the road does Mr. Gore--if he becomes President and long after he has left--create such a liability that the person who will be serving here from Idaho long after I am gone has to say to the young people and wage earners of this country that we are either going to have to cut your benefits or raise your taxes? My guess is that is exactly what is going to happen. Let me for a few moments suggest why. Everybody wants to help moms and widows, especially during election years. But, Mr. President, let me suggest to you that Social Security is the wrong tool for that job. The Gore Social Security surplus scheme would fail to provide meaningful assistance to the people they are targeting to aid. Worse, it would increase the Social Security's unfunded liability by almost a third; reduce Social Security trust fund balances by hundreds of billions of dollars; and simply accelerate the cash-flow problem in which Social Security will find itself in the near decades if we don't make reasonable reforms. Social Security is one of the few Federal programs that already takes stay-at-home parents into account. In the current system, married spouses generally receive about the same Social Security benefits regardless of whether they worked full time, part time, or took a break in child rearing and did not work at all. For example, in 1996, women who received Social Security benefits based upon their own work record received an average of $675 in benefits while women whose benefits were based on their husbands' work record received $569. What I am saying is women who stayed at home received almost the same benefit. Let's remember that Social Security is not designed to be the sole source of retirement income. It was designed to be supplemental income, and it should be understood to be just that. Nevertheless, for many seniors, Social Security is their sole source of income. For those seniors, our first priority should be to ensure we don't further endanger the program by adding additional obligations on top of the ones we already cannot afford. If the Vice President wants to help mothers, why didn't he embrace the tax relief the Senate Marriage Tax Relief Act would have provided? That would have been immediate relief. Instead, his proposal takes a program already under financial stress, and it would put it, in my estimation, at substantially greater financial risk. What does it cost? Everybody has seen what the Vice President has proposed for Social Security. And yet, while the short-term cost of Governor Bush's proposal has been discussed--there has been a trillion dollar figure floated around--Nobody wants to talk about what the Vice President's plan will cost. This is what we believe and this is what others believe the Vice President's plan will cost. The Vice President said it would just cost a few billion over the next 10 years. While the Social Security Administration has not estimated the motherhood proposal, economist Henry Aaron offered a seat-of-your-pants estimate in Slate Magazine of about 0.25 percent of taxable wages. That is about $150 billion over the next 10 years. Meanwhile, Vice President's Gore's proposal to increase widow's benefits would constitute about 0.32 percent of taxable wages, according to the report of the 1994 through 1996 Advisory Council on Social Security, Volume 1: ``Findings and Recommendations.'' That translated into about $166 billion over the next 10 years. Now the Vice President has put a limit on his benefits so it would cost maybe a little bit less than that. The bottom line is, if you spread this concept out over the lifetime of the beneficiary, we truly are talking about these proposals costing trillions of dollars. He doesn't propose to raise taxes. He proposes a finance scheme which simply advances the liability and expands the liability into future generations. If you are going to raise benefits in Social Security, at least have the political integrity to propose a tax increase to offset the benefits so you don't stress out the trust funds beyond where they currently are and you don't create outyear liabilities. But then again, how could you be all things to all people and propose this great benefit, if on the backside you looked the worker in the eye and said, ``And now you are going to have to pay for it''? So, once again, it is a Ponzi scheme. We shift a little around and we move a little over here. Now, the Governor from Texas has different approach. He clearly recognizes that by setting aside a couple of percentage points and allowing them to be invested within a fixed universe of investments, that we begin to build for the future of Social Security by compounding our investment income instead of compounding our liabilities and our debts by adding to the benefit structure. If we are going to improve the condition of widows and spouses, let's do it in a way that is realistic and honest. If we want to use Social Security as that vehicle, then at least provide a revenue flow that effectively justifies those benefits in the outyears, the several hundreds of billions of dollars that ultimately the motherhood proposal and the proposal that relates to widow's benefits would cost. That is what we ought to be talking about. That is the fair way to do it. The amount of new liabilities required under the Vice President's proposal is truly staggering. Some economists have suggested it is in the trillions of dollars. A trillion here, a trillion there adds up to be real money. In the past, those involved in public policy--and, more importantly, those involved in the electorial process--said that Social Security is off limits unless you are willing to increase benefits. Don't talk about new taxes, only add to the benefit structure. Thank goodness, a few years ago Congress stopped that. We reformed Social Security, and we said we are going to leave it alone. As a result, we stabilized it. We made the tough votes in the mid- 1980s. We raised the taxes dramatically on the working men and women of this country--but we stabilized the system. So today, I say don't add benefits to that system unless you are clearly willing to offset those benefits by revenue flows. The Governor is talking about an idea, a concept that he would work with the Congress of the United States. Recognizing we are in historic surpluses at this moment, there is a unique opportunity to reform the Social Security system so we can go to the young men and women entering the workforce in this country and say, in your lifetime, your Social Security annuity will amount to something very significant instead of getting back just three quarters for every $1 you pay in. For my parents, Social Security has been a tremendous benefit. For their parents, it was a windfall. For me, it will be about a break even for the amount of money I have invested my lifetime. For my children, unless we reform it as the Governor from Texas has proposed, it will be one very bad investment. I don't want to ask that of my children. Certainly the Senator from North Dakota and I are better thinkers than that. We ought to be able to come together to devise a system that doesn't create outyear liabilities of the kind the Vice President is proposing. Those are the real issues. Sure, it is worthy of a Presidential debate. That is where it ought to be debated. Clearly, the facts and figures ought to be well established. At the same time, I am pleased there is a candidate out there who isn't willing to live in the shell of the past and the concept of a system that was crafted way back in the 1930s, under a Bismarckian plan that simply said it is going to work because you will never live out its benefit cycle. Thank goodness my parents will live it out. People are living longer. Because of the demographics of this country today, it is critically important that the Congress develop the political will to reform Social Security, to establish personal savings accounts underneath a governing body to ensure sound investments and the security of the system. That makes good sense to me. And it sounds, by the numbers out there, it is making even better sense to Americans. I want my children to have a strong Social Security supplemental income system for them so they receive a healthy return instead of a three quarters for the dollar. That makes good sense. They can do it in the private sector. Why aren't we smart enough to design a plan so we can do it in the public sector? I yield the floor.

Mr. CRAIG. For 1 minute only. The Vice President starts the benefit, accrues the debt into the trust fund, and then you have an increased debt over in the trust fund of Social Security. An increased debt because the new benefits are going out. On the other hand, I believe Governor Bush is proposing the following: He will take $1 trillion out of a $2.4 trillion surplus to create these personal accounts. It is not current money to pay for current programs. No. No. The Senator from North Dakota and I agree that under current law, and under current benefit rates, Social Security is building a trust fund surplus that will peak at $2.4 trillion. Therein lies the difference. Those are the facts. The Gore plan is a Ponzi scheme, Mr. President. It is a Ponzi scheme.

Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I understand we are in morning business.

Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent to speak for the next 10 minutes.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Daschle to introduce the Harmful Non-native Weed Control Act of 2000--to provide assistance to eligible weed management entities to control or eradicate harmful, non-native weeds on public and private land. I am pleased that Senators Baucus, Burns, Crapo, Johnson, and Gordon Smith, are joining us as original cosponsors. Currently, noxious weeds are a dangerous threat to the viability of both public and private lands across the country. Over a century ago, a wave of noxious weeds entered North America from Europe and Asia. Unlike native species, which have natural predators and control mechanisms, these weeds lack native insects, fungi, or diseases to control their growth and takeover of native plants. Noxious weeds are estimated to spread at the rate of 4,600 acres per day on federal lands alone in the Western United States. Idaho's own rush skeltonweed has increased from a few plants in 1954 to roughly 4 million acres today. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent each year by Western states to prevent and stop the growth of noxious weeds. These nonnative weeds threaten fully two-thirds of all endangered species and are now considered by some experts to be the second most important threat to biodiversity. In some areas, spotted knapweed grows so thick that big game like deer will move out of the area to find edible plants. Noxious weeds also increase soil erosion, and prevent recreationists from accessing land that is infested with poisonous plants. Bikers are often met with a formidable foe when 2-inch-long thorns pop their tires on bike paths overrun with puncture vine that can pierce all but the most rugged materials. In response to this environmental crisis, I have worked with the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Public Lands Council, and the Nature Conservancy to develop the Harmful Non-Native Weed Control Act of 2000. This legislature will provide a mechanism to get funding to the local level where weeds can be fought in a collaborative way. Working together is what this entire initiative is about. Specifically, this bill establishes, in the Office of the Secretary of the Interior, a program to provide assistance through States to eligible weed management entities. The Secretary of the Interior appoints an Advisory Committee of ten individuals to make recommendations to the Secretary regarding the annual allocation of funds. The Secretary, in consultation with the Advisory Committee, will allocate funds to States to provide funding to eligible weed management entities to carry out projects approved by States to control or eradicate harmful, non-native weeds on public and private lands. Funds will be allocated based on several factors, including but not limited to: the seriousness of the problem in the State; the extent to which the Federal funds will be used to leverage non-Federal funds to address the problem; and the extent to which the State has already made progress in addressing the problems. The bill directs that the States use 25 percent of their allocation to make base payments and 75 percent for financial awards to eligible weed management entities for carrying out projects relating to the control or eradication of harmful, non-native weeds on public or private lands. To be eligible to obtain a base payment a weed management entity must be established by local stakeholders for weed management or public education purposes, provide the State a description of their purpose and proposed projects, and fulfill any other requirements set by the State. Weed management entities are also eligible for financial awards which are funds awarded by the State on a competitive basis to carry out projects which cannot be funded within the base payment. Projects will be evaluated, giving equal consideration to economic and natural values, and selected for funding based on factors such as the seriousness of the problem, the likelihood that the project will address the problem, and how comprehensive the project's approach is to the harmful, non-native weed problem within the State. A 50 percent non-Federal match is required to receive the funds. The Department of Agriculture in Idaho (ISDA) has developed a Strategic Plan for Managing Noxious Weeds through a collaborative effort involving private landowners, State and Federal land managers, State and local governmental entities, and other interested parties. Cooperative Weed Management Areas (CWMAs) are the centerpiece of the strategic plan. CWMAs cross jurisdictional boundaries to bring together all landowners, land managers, and interested parties to identify and prioritize noxious weed strategies within the CWMA in a collaborative manner. The primary responsibilities of the ISDA are to provide coordination, administrative support, facilitation, and project cost- share funding for this collaborative effort. Idaho already has a record of working in a collaborative way on this issue--my legislation will heighten the progress we've had, and establish the same formula for success in other States. We are introducing this legislation today to get the discussion started. We hope to refine the bill over the winter and introduce an improved bill next year. Constructive suggestions are welcome and we look forward to working with other Members of Congress to get this bill passed next year. Noxious weeds are not only a problem for farmers and ranchers, but a hazard to our environment, economy, and communities in Idaho and the West. The Harmful Nonnative Weeds Act of 2000 is an important step to ensure we are diligent in stopping the spread of these weeds. I am confident that if we work together at all levels of government and throughout our communities, we can protect our land, livelihood, and environment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I note that the bill allocates approximately $100 million to HUD to fund its lead abatement program. In a number of areas around the country some of our children are still at increased risk of exposure to high levels of lead, which can lead to development problems. The bill further provides that from this account, HUD will provide financial assistance to the Clear Corps lead abatement and education network administered by the University of Maryland at Baltimore. This assistance is set at $1 million. Clear Corps is a public-private partnership which organizes and manages cleanup and education affiliates around the country in close cooperation with local organizations and government. Significant resources are provided to this program by various companies in the paint industry, and by the National Paint and Coatings Association. Based on reports I have seen, it has proven highly efficient and cost effective. At my invitation, Clear Corps representatives visited Northern Idaho to meet with officials of several private and public organizations, including U.S. EPA, to determine if an affiliate arrangement might prove helpful in addressing the lead exposure issue in that area. While significant progress has been made, there remain pockets where further testing, cleanup (particularly inside some older houses), and focused education could reap large rewards in the near future. It appears that with its growing national network and in-depth experience in providing cost effective solutions, my state and its children would benefit from such a project. Clear Corps is currently evaluating the resources which might be required to establish a new site in Idaho. It is my hope, Mr. Chairman, that we are able to at least begin to establish this program this year in Northern Idaho. Next year, I hope to work with the Chairman and the other members of the VA- HUD Subcommittee to review the Clear Corps approach with a view towards increasing the federal share of its resources. We need to see more of creative and cost effective approaches to issues such as reducing lead exposure of children. Public-private ventures to address such issues make a lot of sense.