Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. No, unequivocally no.

Mr. DOMENICI. It means any programmatic reform that the Congress of the United States passed and a President signed that increases the longevity of the trust fund and makes the Social Security program available for longer periods of time, increasing the solvency of the fund and guaranteeing the payments.

Mr. DOMENICI. Let me close this. If nobody objects, we can vote 30 seconds early. I thank everybody for their participation. From my standpoint, I wish we had a reform-Social-Security package before us. That is my wish. But since we do not, we ought to leave the money there until we do. I hope everybody understands it is easy to make excuses; it is hard to come up with things that will really lock this money up. We have one before us today. I yield back my time. And obviously, the yeas and nays have been ordered; have they not? Cloture Motion

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Juvenile Crime Control and Community Protection Act of 1999.'' I believe that juvenile crime is one of the most important issues facing our nation today. It's one we should address in the 106th Congress. In recent years, I have held field hearings in my home state of New Mexico to hear the concerns and problems faced by all of the people affected by juvenile crime--the police, prosecutors, judges, social workers and most importantly--the victims who reside in our communities. I think that the sentiments expressed by most of my constituents at the hearing are the same ones felt by people all over the country: (1) many of our nation's youth are out of control; (2) other children and teenagers do not have enough constructive things to do to keep them from falling into delinquent or criminal behavior; (3) the current system does very little, if anything, to protect the public from youth violence; and (4) the current system has failed victims. The time has come for a new federal role to assist the states with their efforts to get tough on violent young criminals. The federal government can play a larger role in punishing and preventing youth violence without tying the hands of state and local governments or preventing them from implementing innovative solutions to the problem. This new federal role should, however, expect states to get tough on youth violence and reward them for enacting law enforcement and prosecution policies designed to take violent juvenile criminals off of the street. With those goals in mind, the bill I introduce today makes some fundamental changes to the crime fighting partnership which exists between the states and the federal government. It combines strict law enforcement and prosecution policies for the most violent offenders with more federal resources--more than three times the amount available under current law--to help states fight crime and prevent juveniles from entering the justice system in the first place. This bill authorizes a total of $500 million to provide the states with two separate grant programs--one, with virtually no strings attached, based on the current state formula grants--and a second new incentive grant program for states which enact certain ``best practices'' to combat and prevent juvenile violence. I want to talk a little bit about each. The bill authorizes $300 million, divided into two $150 million pots, for a new grant program for states which enact certain ``get tough'' reforms to their juvenile justice systems. States will have access to the first $150 million if they enact three practices: (1) Mandatory adult prosecution for juveniles age 14 and older who commit certain serious violent crimes; (2) Graduated sanctions, so that every offense, no matter how small, receives some punishment; and (3) Adult records, including fingerprints and photographs, for juvenile criminals. States which implement these practices and enact another five of 20 suggested reforms will be eligible to receive additional funds from the second $150 million. Some of these suggested reforms include: (1) Victims' rights, including the right to be notified of the sentencing and release of the offender; (2) Mandatory victim restitution; (3) Public access to juvenile proceedings; (4) Parental responsibility laws for acts committed by juveniles released to their parents' custody; (5) Zero tolerance for deadbeat juvenile parents--a requirement that juveniles released from custody attend school or vocational training and support their children; (6) Zero tolerance for truancy; (7) Character counts training programs; and (8) Mentoring. These programs are a combination of reforms which will positively impact victims, get tough on juvenile offenders, and provide states with resources to implement prevention programs to keep juveniles out of trouble in the first place. The bill also increases to $200 million the amount available to states under the current OJJDP grant program. It also eliminates many of the strings placed on states as a condition of receiving those grants. While the Justice Department has said that the overall juvenile crime rate in the United States dropped again last year, the juvenile crime statistics also tell us that our young people are more violent than ever. In 1996 in my home state of New Mexico, there were 36,927 referrals to the state juvenile parole and probation office. 39% of those referred have a history of 10 or more contacts with the justice system. The number of these referrals for VIOLENT offenses, including murder, robbery, assault and rape increased 64 percent from 1993 to 1997. I mention these numbers not only because they make it clear that many of our children are more violent than ever, but also because they have led to a growing problem in my home state, a problem which this bill will help fix. More juvenile arrests create the need for more space to house juvenile criminals. But, because of burdensome federal ``sight and sound separation'' rules, New Mexico has been unable to implement a safe, reasonable solution to alleviate overcrowding at its juvenile facilities. Instead, the state has been forced to consider sending juvenile prisoners to Iowa and Texas to avoid violating the federal rules and losing their funding. That is unacceptable and this bill will fix that. Mr. President, juvenile crime is the number one concern in my state. From Albuquerque to Las Cruces, Roswell to Farmington, and in even smaller cities like Clovis and Silver City, I hear the same thing from my constituents: our children are out of control and we need help. This bill will provide that help, in a way which will preserve the traditional role state and local law enforcement authorities play in the fight against crime. More resources to get tough on violent offenders and provide youth with more constructive things to do to keep them out of trouble, with fewer strings from the federal government. That's what this bill will do, and I hope my colleagues will support my efforts to make this a priority issue for this Congress. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DOMENICI. I was here for most of your remarks. First I want to commend you. In my recollection of the discussions we had with those who were in the administration prior to this involvement, with reference to Russia, there was almost kind of a trite answer--don't worry, they will not do anything. I want to ask you if there is not a serious problem coming about now. They are going to have elections next year. We have always wondered how long will it be before their nationalist temperaments come back to the surface and they move in the wrong direction politically. I wonder if you might speculate or reason with me about that. My evaluation, based upon a number of people who have talked about Russia and an analysis that has been given to me, is that they are now so anti-American and so antiwest that they are apt to move in a rather concerted manner by large numbers of votes in a direction that is not moving toward a marketplace economy and democracy. Is that your concern also?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wonder if I might ask the Senator a question?

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the Senators who have taken the floor and spoken on behalf of this lockbox amendment. I have worked for many years with a number of Senators, some of whom are on the floor--some on the other side, like Senator Hollings--in an effort to see what we could do to make it as difficult as humanly possible to spend Social Security trust fund money for other kinds of expenditures of the Federal Government, be it programs, or be it tax cuts. Frankly, I have heard it said on a number of occasions that the things we tried to do heretofore were all process and didn't get the job done. I don't want to take credit for doing something extraordinary. But I will say this idea of tying the Social Security trust fund to the debt held by the public over a 10-year period, and limiting the amount of debt that can occur in each of those years for a decade, which essentially is the current debt minus the amount of Social Security trust fund subtracted each year from that debt--what is left over, that residual is the debt held by the public. But I did, at a committee hearing, for some reason come up with the idea that maybe that is what we ought to do--tie it to a debt limit. There will be plenty of people who will take the floor and say this is too rigid, this is too tough, this puts too big a shackle around the Government of the United States. Let me tell you honestly. If you want to tell the seniors of America we don't want to spend your Social Security money for programs, or tax cuts, or anything other than when we need it for you, we will use it for you, then you ought to really be serious about it. You ought to say that is what we are trying to do. Obviously this is the first time that the rhetoric and the contentions by Senators from both sides of the aisle that we ought to not spend Social Security money has been reduced to a statute that, if it passes and is signed by the President, will govern for 10 years, whether or not the United States can easily use trust fund money from Social Security for other causes, other reasons, as just as they may be. It will become very difficult when this legislation becomes law for us to ever again in a wholesale, willy-nilly manner spend Social Security trust fund money. In fact, every time you exceed that debt limit, and even if you have 60 votes, you are going to have to tell the American people we are exceeding it; we have 60 votes now. It is something very important, and people are going to be able to look and see. Was it something very, very important, or are we back to business as usual? That is the essence of this proposal. When I was saying we talk a lot about it, let me say on the debate on the budget resolution on the floor of this Senate--and the occupant of the Chair helped, because he voted the right way, but on this vote it was an easy vote because 99 Senators voted for it, as I recall. There was a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, kind of the precursor to this bill that was adopted by the Senate. It was an Abraham-Domenici and others sense-of-the-Senate resolution. It did the following things: One, it reaffirmed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 that Social Security trust funds are off budget. Second, it provides a Senate point of order against any budget resolution that violates that section of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. Third, it mandates that Social Security surpluses are used only for Social Security, or reducing the public debt. Fourth, it provides for a Senate supermajority vote on a point of order against any measure that would use Social Security surpluses for anything other than the payment of Social Security benefits, Social Security reform, or the reduction of the debt held by the public. Fifth, it ensures that all Social Security benefits are paid on time. Last, it accommodates Social Security reform legislation. That was passed 99-0. Mr. President, what happened was we attempted in that sense-of-the- Senate resolution to encapsulate what this legislation that is before us today did. It said that it is the sense of the Senate that we should adopt a bill that does all of these things. Now we have that bill before us. So those who would now want to either unduly delay this vote, or say we should not do it, or vote against it, no, it is not so easy to explain that they just less than 10 days ago voted--2 weeks ago and a few days--voted 99-0 to adopt legislation just like this. I understand that there can be a lot of explaining between the language and the statute--the language in this lockbox legislation. Right off, I want to mention one thing. There are a number of Senators--I am hoping it is a minimum--within the next couple of days who are going to cite the fact that our distinguished Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Rubin, said some legislation that he had seen that was the Domenici legislation on the lockbox wouldn't work mechanically, that part of the year you don't get in a real strong flow of income tax, and later on you get in a big flow of income tax, and that maybe you would not be able to control the expenditures and the need for cash during those early days if in fact you had a very rigid year-long debt limit. We have done the best we can. We are open to suggestions to adjust to that need for flexibility without altering the ultimate dollar number that will be the debt held by the public. Again, rather than use it to destroy this legislation, which it should not do--I read the letter, and we can fix the concerns of the Secretary--if that is all the concerns the administration has, if that is all of them, we already fixed most of them right here. But if it is not quite right, we welcome the legislative liaison from the Treasury or the White House to come and tell Mr. Rubin to tell us how to fix it better, just as long as it is understood that we don't want somebody from the administration saying that what we are really telling you is too tough, it is too rigid, it holds your feet to the fire too much, we ought to have more flexibility in terms of why and for what purpose we should use this Social Security surplus. If that is the reason the legislation is bad, we want to suggest that we are at opposite ends of the polls; for that is the reason we think it is good, because it is very tough. If you are going to throw away much of the Social Security funds in the next decade instead of applying it to the debt of $1.8 trillion, it is not going to be easy, which means that Government is going to be pretty much tied to a reasonable budget that does not spend the Social Security budget surplus over time over this decade. For those who say, well, you know, there will be no money for this or that or the other, maybe there won't, but maybe there will be because we are not saying that surpluses that are not Social Security surpluses are subject to any kind of restriction. They are subject to what Congress wants to do and what a President recommends. So if there are surpluses that do not belong to them--and there is a very large chunk of surplus now that doesn't belong to Social Security--we are not trying to limit that. We Republicans think most of that should go back to the public in tax cuts, but that is a year-long battle with the President and others. That is not Social Security money. Mr. President, that same sense-of-the-Senate language that I told you about that was adopted in the budget resolution in its final form, after it got 99 votes freestanding, it was adopted by a vote of 54-44 when the budget resolution was adopted. When 99 people vote and tell the Senate what we should do, and then we do it, it would seem to me that it ought to be a rather simple proposition that we ought to do it, tell the public we meant what we said, and get on with making sure we find other ways to take care of our governmental needs, but not the Social Security trust fund for the next decade. Unless the Senate and the sense-of-the-Senate resolution was meaningless, this statute should get rather broad-based support, it seems to this Senator. Let me speak from the standpoint of what could be better for America than us doing this. I can think of hardly anything that could be better for America, not just for the seniors, better for America. Mr. President, $1.8 trillion during the next decade, and I truly believe that if this statute is adopted it will be perilously close to $1.8 trillion, that will be cut from the national debt. That is an incredible number. Senator Ashcroft just told us how big it is, in terms of percentage of our gross national product. But $1.8 trillion of public debt during this decade will be wiped clean and there will be no public debt against that $1.8 trillion because the surplus of Social Security money will be there, only to be used for major reform for Social Security if, in fact, that occurs during this decade. Why is that good? If you asked almost every rational, reasonable, mainstream American economist from Alan Greenspan to that long list that said the President was doing good things in reducing the debt, you ask them if reducing the debt by $1.8 trillion is not a very positive thing for our economy and they will all say: The best thing to use surplus for is debt reduction. Because that means we borrow less. In a very interesting way it means we save more, because if you were to spend it, you would have to be borrowing to take its place. And if you do not borrow, you are saving. Since we individually save little, it is very good, starting into the new millennium and the first few years, that we have a low debt with low borrowing which may very well keep the American economy moving ahead, strong, powerful, with lower interest rates. What could be better for America? Nothing. What could be better for seniors? Nothing--other than a reformed Social Security program that was in existence for 75 years with no problems. And, frankly, an appropriate plan might use this surplus in transition for that and we might get that out of this also. Why else is it good for seniors? Did anybody hear the President go to the Rose Garden when he got a statement from the trustees of Social Security and Medicare the other day and announce to America that things were looking better for Medicare and Social Security? I believe there was an announcement that we added 8 years to the longevity of the trust fund for Medicare. And we did not do a thing. We just continued to have a prospering American economy. So one can say seniors should want a prospering American economy more than anyone else in this society, because a prospering American economy, with high employment and low unemployment, is the best medicine for the Social Security trust fund and Medicare trust fund of anything, any set of activities we could do as American people, as business people, and as American taxpayers and workers, producing goods and services in this very vibrant and powerful economy. So, when you look at that, this may just be, in some people's minds, some small approach to making the case that we are trying to save Social Security trust fund money from being spent arbitrarily for things that are not Social Security. It is more than that. It is a combination of things that I just described, including the very positive result of greatly reducing the national debt while we wait to see what is needed for Social Security reform; a very, very positive piece of legislation. It is important to allow the Federal Government maximum flexibility in times of low growth or recession. The Federal budget is one of the most important economic policy tools we have. In fact, we have procedures in place which allow us to suspend our budgetary enforcement rules during such times. This legislation contains a low-growth, recession trigger as well. If the Department of Commerce reports two consecutive quarters of real economic growth of less than 1 percent, the limit of debt held by the public is suspended. The current law statutory debt limit would still be in place. The limit on debt held by the public is suspended until the Commerce Department issues a final GDP report indicating that the level of real GDP has risen back to its level prior to the low growth or recession period. The limit on debt held by the public is restored at its actual level (at the time the Commerce Department report is issued that de- triggers the suspension.) The limit on debt held by the public then begins to decline at the same rate that it would have had the suspension not been triggered. Mr. President, the Act is effective for 10 years and then sunsets. This is the same time period covered by the recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2000--H. Con. Res. 68. It is a period of time in which the Social Security trust fund balances are expected to grow by nearly $1.8 trillion. These balances would retire debt held by the public which would help prepare the country for the retirement of the baby boom generation early in the next century. It reaffirms off-budget treatment of the social security program. The act reaffirms current law that the receipts and disbursements of the Social Security trust funds shall not be counted for the purposes of the Federal budget submitted to Congress by the President or any congressional budget. The act creates a new Budget Act point of order against Congress adopting a budget that uses social security surpluses to achieve balance, and requires the President to submit a budget that does the same. It uses the Social Security surplus to reduce the debt held by the public. The act establishes a new enforceable limit on the amount of debt held by the public over the period from 2000 to 2010. These debt limits specified in the act are current estimates of the level of borrowing from the public over this period that result from the Social Security surplus only being used to retire debt. The surplus could not be used for non-Social Security spending or tax cuts. Legislation increasing these limits would require a super-majority vote in the Senate. The act establishes the first limit becomes effective as of May 1, 2000, and effectively ratchets down this limit May 1 and periodically thereafter. The effective date accommodates Treasury Department's Federal cash management responsibilities. The newly established debt held by the public limits would not disrupt the cash management operations of the Bureau of the Public Debt nor would it jeopardize Social Security benefit payments. The limits follows: May 1, 2000 through April 30, 2001, $3.628 trillion; May 1, 2001 through April 30, 2002, $3.512 trillion; May 1, 2002 through April 30, 2004, $3.383 trillion; May 1, 2004 through April 30, 2006, $3.100 trillion; May 1, 2006 through April 30, 2008, $2.775 trillion; and May 1, 2008 through April 30, 2010, $2.404 trillion. There are adjustments to Limits for Social Security reform, recessions, emergencies and war. Social Security reform--the Act authorizes adjustments to the limits established for legislation enacted that reforms Social Security during this time period. If Social Security reform legislation is enacted, and if that legislation has the effect of changing the debt held by the public specified in this act, then the Secretary of the Treasury shall adjust the limits in this act to reflect those changes. Recessions--the provisions of this act are suspended during a period of low economic growth. Two consecutive quarters of less than 1 percent real economic growth would automatically make the debt limits in this act inoperative. After the recession has ended, the act would reinstate new debt limit levels adjusted for the impact of the recession. Emergencies--the act also provides for an automatic adjustment to the debt limit levels specified if, after the adoption of this act, the Congress enacts into law ``emergency'' spending defined under the Balanced Budget Act. If emergency spending uses a non-Social Security surplus, then no adjustment to the limits would be necessary. If, however, emergency spending requires the usage of Social Security surpluses, then the limits specified in the act would be adjusted for that amount. Declaration of war--the act would be suspended upon Congress enacting a declaration of war. I want to suggest there are those who wonder what we will do if we have a recession. I provided in this a triggering mechanism. If there is anybody who would like to improve upon it, I welcome it. But it says you have a recession if you have two consecutive quarters of significant downturn in the economy, in which event you may very well be dramatically impacting upon the tax take of the country. In that case you may, indeed, trigger a halt to the reduction, the constant reduction of the debt limit. And you may leave it in place until you get into a recovery mode and then set it back on its trendline toward total elimination of the $1.8 trillion. In addition, you will find some language in it regarding war, or regarding substantial moneys being needed for our military. Those may occur from time to time and we would not want people to say this is making it impossible to fund that, even though holding it is a good thing. It might be that you would want to use it for those kinds of things, and there is a provision permitting us to do that. When you add it all up, I think we have been considerate of the problems associated with trying to truly lock this money in and that we have a good bill. We hope we get some support from the Democratic side before we are finished, and we stand ready to debate it. I hope our leader stands ready to debate it as long as necessary for us to get an up-or-down vote and see just where we all stand so our people will understand our position when the legislation appears, rather than when we have a sense of the Senate that we ought to do this. Let's see what happens on the legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Juvenile Crime Control and Community Protection Act of 1999.'' I believe that juvenile crime is one of the most important issues facing our nation today. It's one we should address in the 106th Congress. In recent years, I have held field hearings in my home state of New Mexico to hear the concerns and problems faced by all of the people affected by juvenile crime--the police, prosecutors, judges, social workers and most importantly--the victims who reside in our communities. I think that the sentiments expressed by most of my constituents at the hearing are the same ones felt by people all over the country: (1) many of our nation's youth are out of control; (2) other children and teenagers do not have enough constructive things to do to keep them from falling into delinquent or criminal behavior; (3) the current system does very little, if anything, to protect the public from youth violence; and (4) the current system has failed victims. The time has come for a new federal role to assist the states with their efforts to get tough on violent young criminals. The federal government can play a larger role in punishing and preventing youth violence without tying the hands of state and local governments or preventing them from implementing innovative solutions to the problem. This new federal role should, however, expect states to get tough on youth violence and reward them for enacting law enforcement and prosecution policies designed to take violent juvenile criminals off of the street. With those goals in mind, the bill I introduce today makes some fundamental changes to the crime fighting partnership which exists between the states and the federal government. It combines strict law enforcement and prosecution policies for the most violent offenders with more federal resources--more than three times the amount available under current law--to help states fight crime and prevent juveniles from entering the justice system in the first place. This bill authorizes a total of $500 million to provide the states with two separate grant programs--one, with virtually no strings attached, based on the current state formula grants--and a second new incentive grant program for states which enact certain ``best practices'' to combat and prevent juvenile violence. I want to talk a little bit about each. The bill authorizes $300 million, divided into two $150 million pots, for a new grant program for states which enact certain ``get tough'' reforms to their juvenile justice systems. States will have access to the first $150 million if they enact three practices: (1) Mandatory adult prosecution for juveniles age 14 and older who commit certain serious violent crimes; (2) Graduated sanctions, so that every offense, no matter how small, receives some punishment; and (3) Adult records, including fingerprints and photographs, for juvenile criminals. States which implement these practices and enact another five of 20 suggested reforms will be eligible to receive additional funds from the second $150 million. Some of these suggested reforms include: (1) Victims' rights, including the right to be notified of the sentencing and release of the offender; (2) Mandatory victim restitution; (3) Public access to juvenile proceedings; (4) Parental responsibility laws for acts committed by juveniles released to their parents' custody; (5) Zero tolerance for deadbeat juvenile parents--a requirement that juveniles released from custody attend school or vocational training and support their children; (6) Zero tolerance for truancy; (7) Character counts training programs; and (8) Mentoring. These programs are a combination of reforms which will positively impact victims, get tough on juvenile offenders, and provide states with resources to implement prevention programs to keep juveniles out of trouble in the first place. The bill also increases to $200 million the amount available to states under the current OJJDP grant program. It also eliminates many of the strings placed on states as a condition of receiving those grants. While the Justice Department has said that the overall juvenile crime rate in the United States dropped again last year, the juvenile crime statistics also tell us that our young people are more violent than ever. In 1996 in my home state of New Mexico, there were 36,927 referrals to the state juvenile parole and probation office. 39% of those referred have a history of 10 or more contacts with the justice system. The number of these referrals for VIOLENT offenses, including murder, robbery, assault and rape increased 64 percent from 1993 to 1997. I mention these numbers not only because they make it clear that many of our children are more violent than ever, but also because they have led to a growing problem in my home state, a problem which this bill will help fix. More juvenile arrests create the need for more space to house juvenile criminals. But, because of burdensome federal ``sight and sound separation'' rules, New Mexico has been unable to implement a safe, reasonable solution to alleviate overcrowding at its juvenile facilities. Instead, the state has been forced to consider sending juvenile prisoners to Iowa and Texas to avoid violating the federal rules and losing their funding. That is unacceptable and this bill will fix that. Mr. President, juvenile crime is the number one concern in my state. From Albuquerque to Las Cruces, Roswell to Farmington, and in even smaller cities like Clovis and Silver City, I hear the same thing from my constituents: our children are out of control and we need help. This bill will provide that help, in a way which will preserve the traditional role state and local law enforcement authorities play in the fight against crime. More resources to get tough on violent offenders and provide youth with more constructive things to do to keep them out of trouble, with fewer strings from the federal government. That's what this bill will do, and I hope my colleagues will support my efforts to make this a priority issue for this Congress. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 15, 1999 at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 15, for purposes of conducting a full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 501, a bill to address resource management issues in Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska; and S. 744, a bill to provide for the continuation of higher education through the conveyance of certain lands in the State of Alaska to the University of Alaska, and for other purposes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, April 15, 1999, in open session, to receive testimony on U.S. policy regarding Kosovo, and a revised strategic concept for NATO.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 15, 1999 at 2 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to add one response to those who criticize this budget resolution as necessary resulting in all manner of dreamed-up, horror-story kind of cuts in federal border agents, food safety inspections, and other programs selected for the maximum scare value. Here is the truth instead. In 1997, just 2 years ago, the bipartisan budget agreement, and the law that implemented it, set out caps on discretionary spending for 1998 through 2002. And yes those caps were expected even then to be tight as they were encountered each year. In his budget request for 2000, the President appeared to pledge fealty to those caps for 2000, claiming that the caps could be complied with even as CBO demonstrated the President could not deliver on all his spending promises without exceeding the caps by at least $17 billion. Further, the respective minority leaders of both the House and the Senate castigated the congressional majority for even exploring the idea of increasing the caps in this resolution and instead the minority leaders reiterated their devotion to the caps set 2 years ago. So this budget resolution does comply with the caps, just as the President and the Democratic congressional leadership insist it should. But a fair question would be: how do we fund all the discretionary appropriation needs while complying with the discretionary cap discipline? As always, that will be up to the appropriations process. The budget resolution never dictates to the appropriations committee how individual programs or bills should be funded. What the budget resolution does do is suggest in broad categories what some spending priorities ought to be, and in some cases, it suggests, as sort of a menu, some spending reductions or other offsets that the appropriators could consider in constructing the 13 appropriation bills. For example, the Senate-passed resolution indicated that repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act and the Service Contract Act would save significant construction and contract dollars that could be applied to increases in education or defense. Other sources of savings mentioned include food safety inspection fees and spectrum lease fees to encourage more efficient use of spectrum by both private and government users. And in certain specific budget functions, to offset discretionary spending, some functions call for the sale of certain federal assets and other assume specific savings amounts in mandatory programs, which include requiring securities registration for five government-sponsored enterprises and other incentives to encourage competition and rededication to their missions. Other functions call for reducing excessive flood insurance subsidies and imply reactions in certain grants to local governments that are often misdirected to those not the most financial needy. If the appropriations fairly consider these as well as many other savings items contemplated in this budget resolution, they will have opportunities to provide the increases demanded by some and avoid the decreases in vital programs imagined by others, while still complying with the caps.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that for the purpose of executing and enforcing the Senate's reconciliation instruction set out in section 104 of the conference report to accompany H. Con. Res. 68--the fiscal year 2000 budget resolution -- that the dollar amount of the revenue reduction for the period of fiscal years 2000 through 2009 be considered to be $777,868,000,000 rather than $777,868,000. This corrects a technical drafting error (three ``zeros'' were omitted) in the resolution and conforms with the instruction for the House of Representatives and the description of section 104 that is contained in the statement of managers which accompanies the budget resolution.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his kind remarks. I would add that the inevitable challenges of moving a budget resolution through the Senate to final passage were made far less difficult by the hard work of Senator Chafee and his staff, whose understanding and accommodation allowed us to complete our work in a timely fashion. It is a great pleasure to work with him again on the conference version of the resolution. technical correction to section 104 of the budget resolution

Mr. DOMENICI. There is no such presumption. The Senate assumptions are as equally valid as the House assumptions. The real challenge lies ahead when the Appropriations Subcommittees begin marking up their separate appropriations bills. Since our budget assumptions are just that--assumptions--and do not bind appropriators to specified funding levels for individual programs, Senators must vigorously continue to make their case for funding favored programs with the relevant Appropriations Subcommittee. I do know that the State-side land acquisition program could not have better advocates than the Senators from Rhode Island and New Hampshire.

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes. In fact, as my friends, the Senators from New Hampshire and Rhode Island may have already noted, the House receded in its disagreement with the Senate numbers for function 370. The Senate numbers were $200 million lower in both budget authority and outlays for this function than the House.

Mr. DOMENICI. As far as the Senate is concerned, these assumptions are still valid. Although the conference report is silent with respect to the $200 million being directed to the State-side program, there is nothing to assume that the money is not for the State-side program. Indeed, the best indication of the Senate's intent with respect to the LWCF is the Senate-approved resolution.

Mr. DOMENICI. Sure. Of course.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise to speak a few words to the Senate and anybody interested with reference to some of the comments made by my good friend from Illinois, Senator Durbin. I do mean that. He is a very new member of our committee, and I find him to be a very dedicated and hard-working Senator. I reciprocate with my compliments to his work and effort. I do believe we have a propensity on the floor to argue and, in many cases, to exaggerate so as to prove our point. Let me make sure that the American people understand the tax cut we are talking about. It is projected that in the next decade we will have $2.5 trillion in surplus money coming into the Federal Government. Let's for a moment understand basically what that means, $2.5 trillion. The entire budget of the United States for everything is about $1.8 trillion a year. We will have a surplus that dramatically and extensively exceeds the total amount we are spending annually for all programs of government. Where did that $2.5 trillion come from? It did not drop on us from outer space, nor did a big rain cloud come over and rain came down and it was full of dollars and that is where the $2.5 trillion in surplus came from. I think most people, if given three or four things they could choose from, would choose the right answer--the taxpayers paid it in. The taxpayers pay $2.5 trillion more in the next decade in taxes than we need to run government based upon a reasonable program. Obviously, if you believe there is a never-ending need for government spending, then you can whisk away that $2.5 trillion and say, let's spend it. Frankly, for all of the desires of the American people, they are not crazy. In fact, they understand implicitly what is going on. When, in fact, you have this kind of excess taxes being paid in, there is a difference, dramatic difference, between the two parties. The Republicans say don't grow government, give the money back to the taxpayer. That is what all this argument is about. What do you do with that excess, which is more money per year and per the next decade from the taxpayers, all taxpayers, than we need for our current budget plans? You could invent new budget plans, I say to the occupant of the Chair, and spend every cent of it. Or you can do something as wild as the President has recommended, which not even the Senate believes is responsible--indeed, both sides. You can take a huge chunk of that money and put it into the Medicare trust fund without reforming or changing Medicare, just put it in there and put out, as the President did, 15 percent of that surplus in IOUs. The IOUs have value, because what are the IOUs? The IOUs are postdated checks which are going to come due at some point. Who is going to pay for them? It is the American taxpayer who is going to have to redeem them in 10, 15, or 20 years, because it is just a postdated check. You understand that, but if they understood it, they would say: What is this all about? We thought we were fixing Medicare, reforming it and making it more efficient. Sometime out there in the future, those IOUs are going to come due, and we are going to have to pay them. New taxes are going to have to be imposed. What do the Republicans think? Republicans think that during the next decade you ought to take every single solitary penny of Social Security surplus, which is part of that $2.5 trillion that I have been talking about, and put it in a position in the budget where it can't be spent for anything other than senior needs. There are arguments that isn't enough for Medicare, that we don't provide for Medicare in this budget. Let me just tell you what we do provide. We provide $462 billion more in that trust fund than the President did, and he heralded his budget as being responsive to the proposition that every single penny of trust fund money would be deposited in the trust fund for Social Security, excepting he had a nice little funny thing in there. That was over 15 years--we never have budgeted like that--which meant that he only put 62 percent of the Social Security surplus into a Social Security accumulating trust fund, and then he did this IOU business with Medicare. Essentially, it is as if there is a plan, an intentional approach to say to the American people: Don't worry about the taxes you are paying in and the excess; we have it all taken care of; we are going to spend it. As a matter of fact, it is most interesting; the President of the United States spent in the first 10 years $158 billion of the Social Security surplus for programs. Unequivocal. Nobody denies it. The President's OMB people don't deny it. They say that doesn't matter because over many years we are going to save the money for Social Security, but we will spend some of it in the first decade. In fact, that $158 billion is in the first 5 years of the budget--it is going to be spent. Having said that, the other issue that seems to always come up is, if you are going to give tax cuts, it just has to be that the Republicans are going to take care of the rich people and not the middle income and family people, because there have been various Senators and House Members speaking about what they might want. I will remind everybody listening to that kind of stuff on the floor, you should know that that budget resolution, by operation of law, does not say how the taxes will be cut. It says how much. And in the processes of the Congress, later on--in fact, under this budget, it is in July of this year--the tax- writing committees, after hearings, after citizen input, after talking with Senators from both sides of the aisle, will produce the tax bill. That will be the time to decide what is in it. And it is actually a red herring to talk about what is in that tax bill--because we don't know-- as a justification for not having any tax cuts. But that doesn't sound right, does it? Well, it is right. Those who use the argument that it is going to be a bad tax bill, so don't have any tax cut, are essentially saying we don't want to give you a tax cut because we don't know what will be in it. But I will tell you what the budget resolution says. That is the best I can do. It recommends that such tax relief could include any or all of the following: an expansion of the 15-percent bracket, marginal rate reductions, a significant reduction or elimination of the marriage tax penalty, retirement savings incentives, estate tax relief, an above- the-line income tax reduction for Social Security payroll taxes, tax incentives for education, parity between the self-employed and corporations with respect to tax treatment of health insurance premiums, capital gains taxes, and fairness for family farmers. Now, that is what we are discussing. Do we want to allow some or all of that to be debated and looked at? That is why we have a tax provision in this budget resolution. Let me just quickly go through one other thing and then summarize what we have done. First, in the Medicare program, by virtue of a good economy, meaning high unemployment, a lot of people paying into these trust funds, we have extended the life of Medicare, Part A--that is the hospitalization part in the trust fund--for 8 years without Congress doing a thing. The current program lives for 8 years longer than expected just 6 months ago because the economy is powerful. Now, almost everyone knows we have to reform, change, make better, make more efficient the Medicare program. There are some who would like to deposit $400 billion in the trust fund of Medicare and let it sit there as IOUs for the future, without first determining what does Medicare need or, to put it another way, without any reform or changes in Medicare. None. That is what it contemplates. And an extension of the trust fund is contemplated by just pouring that money in and taking IOUs. It isn't spent. It extends the life of Medicare some 8 or 9 years, and it doesn't contemplate or envision reform. It doesn't pay for prescription drugs. And, incidentally, as an aside, anybody who would like to ask the OMB of the United States, the Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget Office, the Comptroller General, ask them if the President paid for prescription drugs in his budget--zero. He suggests we might want to do that sometime as part of reform. Now, one Democrat Senator said, ``Republicans want to raid the Federal tax treasury for a tax cut.'' Now, isn't that an interesting concept? Raiding the Federal Treasury for a tax cut. What is the Federal Treasury? What is the Federal Treasury into which the taxpayers are paying $2.5 trillion more than you need for Government? What is the Federal Treasury? My friends, the Federal Treasury belongs to the American people. It does not belong to the Government. If we reduce the size of Government and there is money left over and we say let's give it back to the public, are we raiding the Treasury of the United States, or are we giving back to our citizens the overpayment they have paid in income taxes that is lodged temporarily, or housed in the U.S. Government? I wonder how the people who are hurrying today to the post offices trying to get their tax returns in would feel if they knew that over the next 10 years as they file their returns, they are overpaying the Government; and, as a matter of fact, if you add it all up, they are paying $2.5 trillion over current expenditures. I think they would be wondering, what is the U.S. Treasury? We thought maybe it was ours. In summary, we think we have a very good plan to enter the millennium. If the President would like to enter that millennium with us, that would be great. Everybody listening and everybody who follows budgets should know that there has not been a vote in this Congress, or in our Committee on the Budget, on a Democratic budget. They don't have to produce one. When I was in the minority, I didn't produce a budget every year. So everybody will know, we didn't vote on a Democrat budget; we voted on the President's budget. While there was a lot of argument about whether we were voting on it or not, that is what it said--that we were voting on it. Now it will be interesting to know what results from that vote: No, every member of the committee; Yes, zero members of the committee. Now, if in fact it was a great budget on Social Security, a great budget on Medicare--just those two--if it was great on those, Democrats would have voted for it because, after all, it is pretty clear that is what they believe to be the biggest issue going. They didn't vote for it. Now, what this budget does is save Social Security and puts in a trust fund $462 billion more than the President put in, and the number is $1.8 trillion. You can't spend it. It is there. You can't use it for tax cuts, that is for sure. As a matter of fact, we will soon vote on legislation to lock it up so that it can't be used without 60 votes. Save the Social Security trust fund first. That is the No. 1 plank, the No. 1 priority in the budget. Second, make sure we have done everything we can to promote Medicare reform and see to it that we do have the resources for it. We have done that. I am not going to repeat the three or four things in the budget and just say those were No. 1 and No. 2. Three, we have dramatically increased national defense. Everybody understands that. If they didn't understand it 2 weeks ago, they ought to understand it now. The costs that we are incurring in Kosovo now, over and above defense spending we contemplated year by year, are astronomical. We soon may have to add to that, in an emergency, as much as $5 billion. And if we went on for a whole year, depending upon which kind of activity we have had, the number could be more than twice or three times that amount. So we have increased it substantially. In our prioritizing, in our setting forth what we think should be paid for first, we have increased education $3.8 billion in the first year, $38 billion over the next 5, beyond that requested by the President. Our only hope is that none of that money will be used unless we have a new approach to public education funding, and that we would send the money down to the locales with ``flexibility and accountability.'' Those are the two new words we want to attach--to give them flexibility and make them accountable. Don't tell them how to use it because one shoe doesn't fit everything in the school districts from East to West and North to South in this great land. We have sustained and added to all of our criminal justice activities, and we have added $1.7 billion to veterans' hospital care, substantially more than the President, because we think that is one of our real values in this country--to take care of veterans' health benefits. I may have missed one thing or two. But I will summarize the effect of all of that. We will have cut the national debt in half by creating that surplus and setting it there. We have reduced the national debt in half, substantially more than the President reduced the national debt. We think that is very, very good for our future. I might say it is obvious that a number of our domestic accounts, aside from those that we treat with priority and that I have just stated, will go up. It will be very difficult to do all of the things Government is currently doing and meet this budget. In the appropriated accounts of our Government, between defense and nondefense, it is now about 30 percent of the budget, and it is going to be hard for those accounts to fit within this very tightly and stick to the balanced budget numbers. But it was my opinion, with the Senate of the United States, with one Democrat supporting us and the rest of us on our side unanimously voting for this, that we thought the best way to approach a successful American economy was to stick to the balanced budget plan in terms of people believing we meant what we said--that we were going to ``ratchet down'' Government and make sure we had a credible plan to do it. Having said that, if Senator Gorton does not arrive shortly, I will be able to tell Senator Lautenberg that we don't have any other speakers. We will check with him right now so I can inform the Senator.

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as I use. First, let me speak to those who are wondering what the time sequencing is and when we might vote. We know of only one additional Senator on our side who wants to speak, and that will be Senator Slade Gorton. I understand that we know, in fact, where he is. He is at a committee hearing, but as soon as he comes, he will be our last speaker. We are anxiously waiting to see how many more there are on the other side, and we are hoping that in all events we will be through debating this budget resolution within an hour or less. That will set a time certain that is accommodating to the leaderships in terms of when we vote. Having said that, let me just comment a bit with respect to a few things that have been said by the distinguished Senator from Illinois. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator very much. I appreciate his comments very much.

Mr. DOMENICI. I will be pleased to yield whatever time the Senator wants.