Mike Crapo

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we lay aside the pending amendment.

Mr. CRAPO. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am pleased tonight to join with my good friend, Senator Grams of Minnesota, in offering an amendment that will help provide taxpayers relief from their tax obligations, as well as debt reduction for the American people. Back when Senator Grams and I both served in the House of Representatives together and, I might add, at the same time we served with you, Mr. President, in the House of Representatives, we noticed a very interesting peculiarity in the budget process: When the House or the Senate reduced spending or adjusted spending downward in the budget, all that really happened was those particular projects or programs were eliminated or reduced, but the spending never was reduced and the deficits that we were dealing with at that time never really was reduced. The deficit spending did not end. All that happened was that through some very intricate budget processes, those reductions in spending got reallocated to other spending proposals. So we came up with an idea back then called the lockbox. We passed it four times in the House of Representatives as an effort to try to make sure that when the House or the Senate reduced spending, that reduced spending went to reduce the deficit and was not slid over into or moved over into other spending. Now we have reached a point at which we have actually ended the deficits that we were working on 4 or 5 years ago, and we are dealing with surpluses. But the lockbox concept has gained significant support and is now proving to be a very valuable tool in dealing with the budget in a surplus climate. Today, we have already adopted a very important lockbox amendment relating to Social Security. It was offered by a number of Senators. The primary sponsor was Senator Abraham. That amendment provided that Social Security surpluses would be locked away in a lockbox and would not be allowed to be spent by Congress on other spending, in essence. That was an important first step. We are now debating many different aspects of a very important budget. There is a debate as to what to do with the Social Security surplus and, as I indicated, we made a big step today in locking up that surplus so that it does not get squandered by Congress in other areas. That will stabilize and strengthen the Social Security trust funds. As you know, the debate today, tomorrow, and probably the rest of the week, will show there is a debate underway on whether to reduce the national debt or to engage in significant tax relief for the American people or whether to allocate some of the surplus to those needed and important areas, such as our national defense or education or Medicare and other areas of needed concern. But among that debate, Senator Grams and I believe that it is very important that we focus on what is going to happen with the surpluses in the future. Senator Domenici has shown courage in producing a budget that is going to protect Social Security, it is going to pay down the public debt, it is going to stay within the budget caps, and it is going to provide an opportunity for needed critical tax relief. But on July 15, 1999, the Congressional Budget Office is going to update its economic and budget forecast for the fiscal year 2000 and beyond. It is our expectation that this report will forecast an onbudget surplus that is even in excess of the current CBO estimates. If this is true and if that develops and we see even larger surpluses than we are now expecting, and after we have now put together a budget that allocates it as we think proper among tax relief, debt retirement, needed spending on the items that I have indicated and protection of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, and if we still see a growing surplus, we believe that this unanticipated surplus should be set aside, should be put into another lockbox and be authorized to be used for only further tax relief or further debt retirement. Our amendment will create a lockbox, a reserve fund in addition to the non-Social Security surpluses so that we lock in the additional non-Social Security surpluses, and in the outyears 2001 through 2009, those additional unexpected surpluses that are non-Social Security surpluses would then be made available to be taken from this lockbox only for tax relief or debt retirement. These excess surpluses could then benefit the American people in the best way possible and would then be protected from further raiding by Congress for big spending. These unanticipated surpluses could not be used for other types of proposals, and it would guarantee the American people that we would see the retirement of debt or the increase of tax relief as they have been asking for. We have had some other speeches recently on the floor tonight about the critical importance of recognizing the national debt that has grown over the last little while. The Senator from Ohio talked about his grandchildren, and all of us have talked about the fact that our children and our grandchildren are today being expected to pay the debt that we have grown over the last few decades. That is wrong. This bill will help assure that these unanticipated surpluses, if they develop, will be utilized for that debt retirement. What about the current quality of life? With the tax rates now the highest they have been in a peacetime circumstance in America, the only time tax rates have ever been higher in America is during war. We are now siphoning off from the economy so much for the excessive Federal spending that we are jeopardizing the current quality of life of our children and our grandchildren because their families have to pay such heavy and excessive tax burdens. It is these two key problems--the excessive taxes and the excessive debt rate that we have in this country--to which we should dedicate these unanticipated surpluses. Taxes are still too high and still too cumbersome and still impact America's working families too heavily. I urge all our colleagues to support this needed and valuable amendment. It would utilize the critical lockbox concept to put into place one more parameter on our budget negotiations this year to assure if our economy does stay strong and we see those surpluses in the future we do not now anticipate, that we can set them aside for retirement of our national debt and reduction of the tax burden on all Americans. I yield the floor at this time to my good colleague from Minnesota, because I know he is here and would like to speak further on this issue.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friends, Senators Abraham, Domenici, and Ashcroft, in supporting this amendment. I appreciate the courtesy allowing me to make these remarks before we set the amendment aside. I particularly thank Senator Domenici for putting together a well- crafted budget that achieves the important principles of protecting Social Security, paying down the debt, and staying within the budget caps. I have a very specific interest in the lockbox legislation that is being proposed, because over the last 6 years as I served in the House of Representatives, I advocated a lockbox concept which was, at that time, focused on taking the spending we save through budget battles and locking it away for paying down the national debt or reducing the deficit at that point in time, rather than allowing it to be spent on further Federal spending. This lockbox legislation which I worked on in the House for the last 5 or 6 years passed the House four times, never to make it through the Senate or signed into law. So it is particularly pleasing to me to see the concept now being used as we move into a surplus environment in our budget process to allow us to lock away the Social Security surpluses and make sure that Congress does not continue the practices of the past in spending those surpluses on other Federal spending. This amendment which is being discussed in this proposal recommends locking the Social Security surpluses by requiring that they are to be used to pay down the public debt, rather than allowing Congress to continue to spend those funds elsewhere. It is no different from what should happen under current practices when the entire Government runs a total surplus, but there is no mechanism to lock these funds away and prevent Congress from spending them. Social Security surpluses help to pay for the rest of Government when it runs a deficit. Starting in 2001, it is expected that the Federal Government will run surpluses in the rest of the Government and will not rely on Social Security surpluses. The amendment recommends establishing a declining limit on the level of debt held by the public. These limits would decline in 2-year intervals by the amount equal to the Social Security trust fund surpluses for those years, and those declining limits would dedicate Social Security surpluses to reducing the public debt, thereby not only reducing our debt but strengthening and stabilizing the Social Security trust funds at the same time. The amendment also recommends establishing a 60-vote point of order against any legislation which results in the public debt limits specified in the law being exceeded. This amendment reaffirms the off-budget treatment of Social Security and prohibits the inclusion of Social Security funds in budget totals. A point I think that needs to be made is this: Today, across America, you hear many, many people calling for us to strengthen and protect Social Security. There are lots of different ideas being discussed about how we should accomplish that, but this proposed amendment does what everyone else is talking about. It makes it absolutely clear that those Social Security trust fund dollars will be set aside, they will be locked up, so they can be used for nothing other than reducing the public debt or funding a Social Security reform piece of legislation. I do not see how anyone who professes to support stabilizing and strengthening our Social Security system cannot support this amendment. It is time we put into effect a lockbox mechanism to assure that neither this Congress, nor future Congresses, can take the Social Security trust funds and use them for any purposes other than that for which they were intended. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CRAPO. Reserving the right to object, I want to speak briefly on that amendment before we lay it aside, if possible, or can we come back to it?

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 774, which is at the desk.

Mr. CRAPO. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time, and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 808, which is at the desk.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the report to accompany S. 92 be star printed with the changes that are at the desk.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed en bloc to the consideration of the following resolutions which are at the desk: H.J. Res. 26, H.J. Res. 27, and H.J. Res. 28. I further ask consent that the Senate proceed to their consideration en bloc, and I further ask consent that the joint resolutions be read the third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and the above occur en bloc.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9 a.m. on Thursday, March 25. I further ask that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of the proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 20, the concurrent budget resolution.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will reconvene on Thursday at 9 a.m. and immediately resume consideration of the budget resolution, with 10 hours remaining for consideration. Members should once again expect a busy day of debate and votes on remaining amendments to the budget bill, with a possibility of completing action on this legislation by late Thursday night. The cooperation of all Members will again be necessary in order to ensure a smooth and orderly process during the budget debate. The leader would also like to announce that if the Senate completes action on the budget resolution Thursday night, there would be no rollcall votes on Friday.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume consideration of the budget resolution to allow the consideration of two amendments to be offered by Senator Graham, and following his remarks, the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on the Executive Calendar: Nos. 17, 19, 20, and 22.

Mr. CRAPO. I further ask unanimous consent the nominations be confirmed, the motions to consider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the State Water Sovereignty Protection Act, a bill to preserve the authority of the States over waters within their boundaries, to delegate the authority of the Congress to the States to regulate water, and for other purposes. Since 1866, Congress has recognized and deferred to the States the authority to allocate and administer water within their borders. The Supreme Court has confirmed that this is an appropriate role for the States. Additionally, in 1952, the Congress passed the McCarran amendment which provides for the adjudication of State and Federal Water claims in State water courts. However, despite both judicial and legislative edicts, I am deeply concerned that the administration, Federal agencies, and some in the Congress are setting the stage for ignoring long established statutory provisions concerning State water rights and State water contracts. The Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Federal Land Policy Management Act, and wilderness designations have all been vehicles used to erode State sovereignty over its water. It is imperative that States maintain sovereignty over management and control of their water and river systems. All rights to water or reservations of rights for any purposes in States should be subject to the substantive and procedural laws of that State, not the Federal Government. To protect State water rights, I am introducing the State Water Sovereignty Protection Act. The State Water Sovereignty Protection Act provides that whenever the United States seeks to appropriate water or acquire a water right, it will be subject to State procedural and substantive water law. The Act further holds that States control the water within their boundaries and that the Federal Government may exercise management or control over water only in compliance with State law. Finally, in any administrative or judicial proceeding in which the United States participates pursuant to the McCarran Amendment, the United States is subject to all costs and fees to the same extent as costs and fees may be imposed on a private party.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the State Water Sovereignty Protection Act, a bill to preserve the authority of the States over waters within their boundaries, to delegate the authority of the Congress to the States to regulate water, and for other purposes. Since 1866, Congress has recognized and deferred to the States the authority to allocate and administer water within their borders. The Supreme Court has confirmed that this is an appropriate role for the States. Additionally, in 1952, the Congress passed the McCarran amendment which provides for the adjudication of State and Federal Water claims in State water courts. However, despite both judicial and legislative edicts, I am deeply concerned that the administration, Federal agencies, and some in the Congress are setting the stage for ignoring long established statutory provisions concerning State water rights and State water contracts. The Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Federal Land Policy Management Act, and wilderness designations have all been vehicles used to erode State sovereignty over its water. It is imperative that States maintain sovereignty over management and control of their water and river systems. All rights to water or reservations of rights for any purposes in States should be subject to the substantive and procedural laws of that State, not the Federal Government. To protect State water rights, I am introducing the State Water Sovereignty Protection Act. The State Water Sovereignty Protection Act provides that whenever the United States seeks to appropriate water or acquire a water right, it will be subject to State procedural and substantive water law. The Act further holds that States control the water within their boundaries and that the Federal Government may exercise management or control over water only in compliance with State law. Finally, in any administrative or judicial proceeding in which the United States participates pursuant to the McCarran Amendment, the United States is subject to all costs and fees to the same extent as costs and fees may be imposed on a private party.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will resume consideration of the supplemental appropriations bill. Under the previous order, the time until 12:30 p.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders, or their designees, for debate on the Lott amendment regarding Kosovo. The Senate will recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. today to allow the weekly party caucuses to meet. Upon reconvening at 2:15, the Senate will proceed to a rollcall vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Lott amendment. Notwithstanding the outcome of the cloture vote, it is still anticipated that the Senate will turn to the consideration of S. Con. Res. 20, the budget resolution. Therefore, Members should expect rollcall votes throughout Tuesday's session, with the first vote occurring at 2:15 p.m. I thank my colleagues and I yield the floor. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAPO

Mr. CRAPO. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, this amendment is cosponsored by Senator Lott. It is an amendment that will repeal the current statute that reduces retirement payment for regular officers of the uniformed service who choose to work for the Federal Government. The uniformed services include the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, the Public Health Service, and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency. If a retired officer from the uniformed services comes to work for the Senate, his or her retirement pay is reduced by about 50 percent, after the first $8,000, to offset for payments from the Senate. The retired officer can request a waiver but the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government handle the waiver process differently on a case by case basis. The dual compensation limitation is also discriminatory in that regular officers are covered by reservists and enlisted personnel are not covered by the limitation. My amendment should be scored at zero because no additional discretionary funds are required to implement the change and the uniformed services retirement system is fully funded to pay retirees their full retirement benefit that they have earned. In fact, because of this law, many of them are discouraged from seeking employment from the federal government. I have been unable to find one good reason to explain why we should want our law to discourage retired members of the uniformed services from seeking full time employment with the federal government. It deprives them of an important opportunity for employment and it deprives our government from their able expertise and service. This amendment would fix this inequity, and give retired officers equal pay for equal work from the federal government and it would give the federal government access to a workforce that currently avoids employment with the federal government. I hope this amendment will be accepted by all involved. I yield back my time.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, no, I have not discussed removing the administrative cap with those who placed it, but I would be very willing, as I said before, to do so and to work toward that end because I agree that that is one more inequity that should be removed. I think it is an inequity that already exists and, as the chairman indicated, only applies--if this amendment passes, it only applies at the very highest levels of salary, then only to a very small number of personnel, but that inequity should also be removed, and I would be glad to work on that effort.

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CRAPO. I thank the Chair and the Senator from Michigan. I appreciate the Senator's commitment. This amendment simply eliminates the dual compensation prohibition in the statute. It does not specifically address the administrative cap that Congress has on top of that limitation placed on those who seek employment with Congress. It should be clarified that although it does not remove the cap that the Senate and House have administratively placed on their own circumstances, it does solve the problem for our military retirees in all other branches of Government. And with regard to the Congress, it solves the problem up to the cap that Congress has put into place, which is a significant benefit to those who now are not able to get any support from the circumstance after the first $8,000 of compensation. I agree with what I assume to be the ranking member's concerns and would be very willing to work with them to try to address that situation with regard to the administrative cap imposed by the Senate and by the House. But we must solve these problems one step at a time, and the first step must be to eliminate the dual compensation prohibition in the statute.