Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet for an executive business meeting to mark up S. 625, a bill to amend Title 11, United States Code (bankruptcy reform), during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 15, 1999, at 10 a.m.

Mr. DOMENICI. The Finance Committee requests unanimous consent to conduct a hearing on Thursday, April 15, 1999 beginning at 10 a.m. in room 215 Dirksen.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation and Recreation of 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 subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2:00 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 109, a bill to improve protection and management of the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area in the State of Georgia; S. 340, a bill to amend the Cache La Poudre River Corridor Act to make technical corrections, and for other purposes; S. 582, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to enter into an agreement for the construction and operation of the Gateway Visitor Center at Independence National Historic Park; S. 589, a bill to require the National Park Service to undertake a study of the Loess Hills Area in western Iowa to review options for the protection and interpretation of the area's natural, cultural, and historical resources; S. 591, a bill to authorize a feasibility study for the preservation of the Loess Hills in western Iowa; and H.R. 149, a bill to make technical corrections to the Omnibus Parks and Public Land Management Act of 1996 and to other laws related to parks and public lands.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be allowed to meet on Thursday, April 15, 1999, at 10 a.m. on R&D FY/2000 budget.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure be granted permission to conduct a hearing regarding the implementation of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century Thursday, April 15, 9:30 a.m., hearing room (SD-406).

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I believe that completes our work. I want to thank everyone, whether they were with the budget that I prepared or whether they were against it, for their cooperation. And I thank our leadership for getting that budget down here, and the minority leader and the majority leader for helping expedite it. This is the 15th. We know it is a very ominous day out there in America. It is tax day. But on a smaller scale, the Budget Act of the United States says the budget shall be finished in both Houses on this date. I do not think it had anything to do with tax day, but they occur together every year. Only twice in the 25-year history of the Budget Act have we produced budgets in both Houses, the blueprints. They are congressional in nature. They are not Presidential budgets, nor does he sign them. It is historic and significant that as we attempt to get our work done this year and make sure that the American people understand that we are on target for the issues they are concerned about--Social Security, Medicare, tax reduction, defense spending, education and the like--we want them to know that the budget is ready to lead us into a new approach for the next millennium. Everyone doesn't agree, but a very large percentage of the Senators here have voted in favor of this new approach, which I believe will add significantly to the economic future, economic growth and jobs, and at the same time set a pretty good priority for the American Government's expenditures. This does have a philosophical bent to it; that is, if you have excess revenues, you pay down the debt. We have done that. We have almost paid down one-half of the national debt in the next decade-- rather significant, good for the economy. We believe when you have even more excess than that, some of it ought to go back to the American people by way of tax reductions, tax reform measures and the like. I regret to say that I believe when the American people have understood all of this, and when they understand these surpluses are not Social Security surpluses, they are over and above that, I think they will agree with us that some of that ought to go back to the American taxpayer. I think it is a good balance between the Government's needs and the taxpayers' rights and the taxpayers' needs. I thank the staff, minority and majority, for the very dedicated service in getting this complicated resolution to the floor. With that, I yield the floor and thank everyone for helping.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the corrected tables, which I now send to the desk, be printed in their entirety in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the Record corrections of typographical errors on tables that originally appeared in the April 13, 1999 Congressional Record on pages H1963 and H1964 in the Statement of Managers to accompany the FY 2000 Congressional Budget Resolution, H. Con. Res. 68. I further ask that these corrected tables be considered to be the allocations required by section 302 (a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. On the table titled ``Senate Committee Budget Authority and Outlay Allocations Pursuant to Section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act, Budget Year Total 2000 (in millions of dollars),'' the figure for Appropriations Outlays, General Purpose Discretionary should be $536,701. Appropriations Outlays, Total should be $875,243. Direct spending jurisdiction, Budget Authority for the Finance Committee should be $683,102. Direct spending jurisdiction, Outlays for the Finance Committee should be $676,153. Direct spending jurisdiction, Budget Authority Total should be $1,426,720. Direct spending jurisdiction, Outlays Total should be $1,408,082. On the table titled ``Senate Committee Budget Authority and Outlay Allocations Pursuant to Section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act, 5- Year Total: 2000-2004 (in millions of dollars),'' the figure for Direct spending jurisdiction, Budget Authority for the Finance Committee should be $3,389,039.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to alert my colleagues in the Senate to a technical error which occurred during the drafting of section 104 of the Conference Report to accompany H. Con. Res. 68--the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2000. Section 104 of the resolution sets out the reconciliation instructions for the Committee on Finance in the Senate. This instruction calls for a net reduction in revenues over the 10-year period of fiscal years 2000 through 2009. As is always the case with a reconciled revenue reduction, the amounts contained in the instructions to both the Senate Finance and the House Ways and Means committees are intended to be the same. However, due to a technical drafting error with respect to the instruction to the Finance Committee, the amounts are not the same. Three ``zeros'' were omitted from the instruction such that the amount for fiscal years 2000 through 2009 is $777.868 million instead of $777.868 billion. If my colleagues look to other sections of the budget resolution and the statement of managers which accompanies it they will see that the conferees clearly intended the amount in the instruction to the Finance Committee be $777.868 billion not $777.868 million. In addition to the language found in the statement of managers, this intent is evidenced by the figures set out in section 101(1)(B) of the resolution (which states on a year-by-year basis, the amount by which the aggregate levels of Federal revenues should be changed--the sum of these figures is $777.868 billion) and the figures set out in section 101(5) of the resolution (which displays the appropriate levels of the public debt). Moreover, I have consulted with the Parliamentarian of the Senate and have been assured that for the purpose of determining whether or not the legislation reported by the Senate Committee on Finance complies with the reconciliation instruction contained in section 104 of the budget resolution the Parliamentarian will honor the intent of the conferees--that the 10-year figure is $777.868 billion, not $777.868 million. I am gratified that the Parliamentarian will support a rational result. Corrections to FY 2000 Budget Resolution Senate Committee Budget Authority and Outlay Allocations and Reconciliation Instructions

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Domenici pertaining to the introduction of S. 796 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, before Senator Ashcroft leaves the floor, I thank him for his kind remarks. I, too, agree we have a very good budget. Mr. President, I am going to yield to Senator Bond who wants to manage the bill for me for a while. He has a lot of time this afternoon. But I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, let me respond. We left last night from our place in the Senate from work on this without the conference report being signed--and that was the only issue. And about 10:30 last night signatures were necessary and we got half a loaf.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to Senator Dodd, here I got a half loaf, maybe a quarter loaf--but we got something.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Missouri, I appreciate your leadership in protecting Social Security. After the President's budget was released and it proposed to raid $158 billion from the Social Security trust funds, you told me that Congress needed to protect Social Security. You were right. If memory serves me correctly, you introduced the first bill in the Senate this year to protect Social Security by using a point of order mechanism. I was pleased to be your first cosponsor. The inclusion in this conference report of the point of order is the first step to protect Social Security. I look forward to working with you, Senator Abraham and other Senators in putting into law, not just the House and Senate rules, provisions that will further protect the Social Security trust funds.

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference on the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 68) establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2000 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2009, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to announce to the Senate that the budget resolution, which we have called up and which is being considered, was approved just a while ago by the House, passed there by 220-208. So the remaining real business before we leave for this weekend is to get our budget passed here. I will say, if it is passed today, it would be historic. If it is passed tomorrow, it will still be historic, because we will have produced our budget resolution through both Houses, setting the blueprint for the year before the 15th, which is the statutory date. I will say to the Senate, we have only done that once in the 24-plus years history of the Budget Act. I think our commitment to the Senate was helped by our various committee members, and help came from our ranking member, Senator Lautenberg, to get the job done. No use to delay it. We have been on the floor, gone through it. Yesterday we took a number of votes that we don't normally take, with Senators exercising their prerogatives to make us vote again on some of the issues. Today there will be a vote on final passage. I remind Senators who might want to speak, whether they are on this side of the aisle or that side of the aisle, we have a unanimous consent agreement already entered into, with the full concurrence of the minority, that whenever we finish this evening--and that could be any time--there will be 5 hours remaining tomorrow. That is because there is a statutory mandate of 10 hours unless agreed to to the contrary. That means that tomorrow we will be on for 5 hours and then vote. If Senators do not make it to the floor in the next hour or so--obviously, they can come down here, and if they want to make it easy on everybody, maybe they can tell Senator Lautenberg when they want to come and tell me when they want to come on this side, and we will accommodate them so they don't have to stay down here and wait a long time while others speak. Having said that, I probably will reserve most of my time to answer what others might say about this budget resolution, but I would like to give a summary of where things are. I do not think that will take over 10 or 15 minutes. Then I will yield to Senator Lautenberg. I have already told my friend that I have to go across the hall for a Republican policy conference, and I will try to do that as soon as my remarks are completed. Mr. President, let me briefly outline the conference report on the year 2000 budget before us this afternoon. The conference report before us is very similar to the Senate-passed budget resolution back on March 25 on a rollcall vote of 55-44. A similar but different House-passed budget resolution required a conference. That conference resulted in some modifications to the Senate-passed resolution which I will highlight later in my remarks. The basic outline for entering the millennium with a fiscal policy and a tax policy and a defense policy and an education policy, the basic content of that with some modifications is, indeed, what the Senate has before it again today. First, this is a 10-year budget resolution. We have done a 5-year resolution and 7-year resolution, but this year is the first time we have used 10 years to make our projections and upon which to build the building blocks for the first part of this new millennium. Now, we have done 5-year budgets and we have done 7-year. Why did we do 10? Well, the President's budget presentation in February was very unique, very different than any President has ever done before. The President and his staff tried to use 15 years, and that is 15-year numbers, and in some cases, 15-year estimates. This 15-year timeframe was a very convenient way to shade the fact that they were and are counting on raiding the Social Security surplus in the early years by $158 billion over the first 5 years of the President's budget. Without any attempt to obfuscate, clearly it uses $158 billion of the Social Security surplus for programs, for expenditures, so it was, indeed, a raid on that Social Security surplus, and then leave it to future Presidents and future Congresses to reimburse that trust fund for this administration's early spending plans which would have used some of Social Security's surpluses. That is most interesting, especially because the President will be claiming that he is trying to save the Social Security surplus. I put out the challenge to anyone who wants to review the President's proposal and this proposal and see if anybody is entitled to the claim that we are saving Social Security's trust fund accumulations, exempting it, can't use it for taxes, can't use it for appropriated accounts. If you would like to look at it and see which does the most, I think you will find that the President puts $400 billion, that is ``billion,'' less in the trust fund during the next decade, or let me put it another way, on a 10-year basis, it shortchanges the trust fund by $400 billion. That is as compared with what really ought to be in the fund. We put in what really ought to be in the fund, and that is all of it, all of the surplus year by year, not a portion of it over 15 years. So we think we can properly say the first responsibility of this budget was to make sure that we did everything possible to protect the Social Security trust fund and to make it available for those who might want to reform, or in a major way change the Social Security program to add to its longevity and perhaps its fairness. But only for that purpose can any of that trust fund be used. That is the first big item. The conference agreement accomplishes that first objective, protects Social Security trust fund balances. Then we go on to three other major items. Two, we didn't see any way that we could produce a budget to enter the millennium that did not maintain the fiscal discipline of the 1997 budget agreement. The distinguished occupant of the Chair, a distinguished member of the Budget Committee and other committees, knows that it wasn't very long ago that we set a fiscal discipline pattern which has brought us a great deal of success. We said we are only going to spend so much over the next 5 years. It wasn't over a prolonged period, just 5 years. That, plus some other good fortunes that are attributable to economic growth and prosperity, has brought us the best fiscal policy of any industrialized Nation in the world-- sustained growth, manifold numbers of jobs, low inflation, and low interest rates. We thought it was best that we stay on that path. So the second point is that the fiscal discipline is retained from the 1997 agreement. Why shouldn't it? There are those who say it is too tough. There are those who say we can't live by it. There are those who say the President is going to force us to break this budget. Well, we aren't going to let the President do that. If that is what he thinks we ought to do, we will have to hear from him. We are going to try hard to live within those prescribed limits, which brought such credibility to the fiscal policy ideas of this Government that I believe we ought to stick with them for awhile. Now, the third is another idea that somehow or another has been challenged here in the Congress, and that is that we want to return to the American taxpayer their overpayments to the Federal Government. Now, what we on our side of the aisle--and we hope some Democrats join us before the year is over--would like to say is that when you have an economy like this one, with surpluses that we have, you should not just be thinking about spending money; you ought to be thinking about the taxpayer, too. In fact, maybe you ought to say let's look at government and let's look at the taxpayers and let's make sure we have as little government as possible, so that we consider the taxpayers to the maximum extent and have them paying the lowest taxes possible within a good, sound policy. So while some will say, ``I would like a tax cut but not this one,'' or, ``I would like a tax cut, but not now; I would like it later, but I would like a little bit now and then wait for 5 or 6 years,'' we say the policy is a clear one. The United States succeeds when we have low taxes and we exceed our competitor countries in the world predominantly on the premise that our businesses and our individuals pay less taxes than those competing with us. That is a truism with regard to all of the European countries that try to compete. They are heavily taxed; we are taxed at a low level. They have huge burdens on business to take care of social welfare programs; we have far less. As a result, business is flourishing in America and we are adding, if not hundreds of thousands, then in a few of the past 6 years, even a few million new jobs. And it is interesting to note, Mr. President, as we consider this budget, if a poll were taken of American business, in particular the medium-sized businesses that are flourishing in our country, and we were to ask them, ``Can't you grow a little more?'' they would all answer, ``Yes.'' And then if we said, ``Why aren't you?'' the No. 1 answer would be, ``We can't find enough skilled workers to add to our workforce to grow as we could.'' Now, that is a very interesting thing for America, and it does mean that there is one long-term problem we ought to be concerned about, which is the validity of our education system to give basic-skill education and basic-skill development to more and more of the young people and those who would like to be retrained in America. I guess, as an aside, if that doesn't happen, then I know we should not be talking about how we will be able to meet the needs of our businesses. But I surmise that if we don't create more educational skill opportunities for more and more of our people within a decade, we will be looking at an American policy that is going to let more people come in from outside our country to take our jobs. I hope everybody listening to these remarks knows in what sequence I have said it. Clearly, I would like very much to get to the next point in our budget, because within these fiscal restraints we have taken a look at where the priorities for the expenditure of money, even in this crimped manner, the budget following this fiscal restraint, should be. I believe Americans would agree with us that we ought to increase spending on education. In fact, if you looked at the President's budget, you would probably say that is not enough; it is sort of a nominal increase. We have said that, and we have increased our recommendations for public education assistance significantly over the President's. In fact, if the recommendation of the Budget Committee were accepted, we would increase, over the next 5 years, spending on education by $28 billion. Everybody should know, we don't pay for a lot of public education. Local expenditures are, by far, most of it. Perhaps our country pays 7 percent of the bill; 93 percent is paid by local school districts, States, et cetera. We asked that we put more in, but we expressed a big concern--that in doing that we not provide targeted U.S. Government programs mandating the school districts to do things our way, but rather that we have accountability and flexibility built into the education programs that we add money for. So our budget does that. Next, we created a non-Social Security surplus of about $92 billion for unexpected contingencies, that is, we didn't spend it for tax cuts or on anything else. It starts in the fifth year. It is $92 billion for unexpected contingencies. That could be used for transition costs for implementing fundamental reform in Medicare. Or if we did not use it for any of those things, that is, contingencies and/or Medicare reform, then they would further reduce the national debt. Understanding that I started my remarks by saying we set aside $400 billion more than the President in the first decade of the Social Security trust fund and lock it in a box that we are going to vote on later, all of that is used to reduce the public debt until we use it for Social Security. It dramatically reduces the public debt. That is one of the best things we can do, and we did $400 billion more of debt reduction during the first decade than the President. We are proud of that and we think it is the best use of the surplus, and the second best use is to return it to the taxpayers, so we return to them a substantial amount in tax reform, tax cuts, which is $778 billion. So there will be no confusion, add up all of those numbers I speak of and you keep the Social Security trust fund intact, you leave $102 billion for expected contingencies, and you cut the taxes of the American people by $752 billion over a decade. I don't want anybody to be surprised, but the Republican tax package will not be big at the inception; it will be small. But in one bill, we will pass tax changes that will wedge out and grow each year, and in the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh years, you will be providing significant tax relief to the American taxpayer. Frankly, I believe that is just about perfect. Some are fearful of it because we provide it over 10 years. But I think the American economy is experiencing a tremendous boon right now. I think these tax cuts are going to trigger in --I don't mean ``trigger in'' in the sense that anything will have to happen. I will use another word. It will come into play at just about the time when we need tax cuts for the American people and American business, so we can continue the prosperity, growth, and opportunity that is so prevalent today. In summary, those are the things we tried to do, and those are the things that show up in this budget resolution. After conferring, almost all of those principles that started here in the Senate are kept. I am pleased to indicate that some of the other things the Senate had in its budget resolution are kept in this resolution. So let me tell you a couple of those. First, the conference adopted the Abraham-Ashcroft-Domenici sense-of- the-Senate framework for protecting Social Security surpluses through a mechanism for retiring debt held by the public and made it a sense of the entire Congress. That means that both the House and the Senate will use every effort possible to try to pass what we will nickname here today ``lockbox'' legislation, which would be statutory preservation of that fund, requiring a majority vote to dip into it. We will have more to say about that. It will then be perfected and introduced soon, after consultation with more experts. We think we will have one that is flexible enough, yet rigid enough, to make sure that we don't spend that money. In addition, yesterday afternoon, for the second time, the Senate voted on a child care proposal that had passed the Senate with a 57-40 vote, including 15 or 16 Republicans. Yesterday, in revisiting it, more Senators expressed their will for that. While in conference, I was not able to get the House to give on it in its entirety. We got $6 billion. Half goes for the block grant that Senator Dodd and Senator Jeffords discussed, and half is indicated in the tax package and should be used for tax relief that is child care oriented for as many families in America as possible. Now, I believe that the leadership of both the Senate and the House have made a commitment in this conference report to go beyond the resolution before the Senate today to try to pass legislation to make sure for the first time in history we truly have made it almost impossible in the future to spend the Social Security trust fund for the ordinary expenditures of our budget as a ``basket'' from which we borrow for overextending our receipts. This resolution maintains the fiscal discipline required by law. Statutory caps cannot be changed by a budget resolution, and they are now written into the law. It does not assume any firewalls between defense and nondefense discretionary spending. We are not trying to protect defense from domestic spending in this era of great demands on both. We will just let the good judgment of the Congress, in its collaborative efforts, do its will with reference to the defense spending and the domestic spending. However, in our recommendations, we do substantially increase defense beyond that which the President requested. We do that forthrightly and openly. We believed, even before the Kosovo situation, that the U.S. Department of Defense was being underfunded. We finally asked the Joint Chiefs what they really needed. They expressed genuine concern, so we added most of their requests to the defense assumptions. This resolution makes no decision on the expansion or extension of the caps beyond 2002. It assumes, on the other hand, that discretionary spending will grow over the decade, increasing at a rate of about half the rate of inflation and expanding to a total of $2.9 trillion over the next 5 years and $5.9 trillion over the next decade. Within the aggregate numbers on the face of the resolution, and again as required by law, the level of appropriation is distributed by budget function for illustrative purposes, but everyone should know the final decision will be a matter for the Appropriations Committee and the subcommittees. Everybody is beginning to understand that the budget resolution was not intended to be a determiner of how much money each program gets, but rather the total that they must not exceed. The conference report assumed the priorities I mentioned. I will add one clarification on elementary and secondary education. In the first year, we increased it $3.3 billion in our allocation assumption and $28 billion over 5 years. That would be over and above the estimated $100 billion that would be expended for these programs during the same time period. We assume full funding of transportation programs adopted last year. We assume full funding of the violent crime trust fund next year. We also have assumed $1.7 billion in additional veterans' health care benefits over the President's request for this year. Within the spending restraints, it is assumed that the historic pay equity between civilian and military pay will be maintained. It assumes that the Congress funds the President's request for the upcoming census, and it assumes we double the request for the National Institutes of Health--double his increase. I think that clearly puts us on the side that most Americans desire. We increase defense, we increase education, we increase those functions of our Government that take care of crime and criminal justice in our country. In addition, we take care of our veterans. The President did not even increase, to any extent, the veterans' medical appropriations. We added about $1.7 billion. Adding those up, and adding a return of tax dollars to the American people with the kind of protection for Social Security and Medicare that we have provided, I believe we have a very good format to begin the millennium, the year 2000 budget. To maintain the fiscal discipline of the caps and reorder spending toward these and other national needs, it is clear that the Congress will need to set priorities. If not, then some of the proposals I have outlined will likely not be possible. What are some of those lesser priorities on the Federal taxpayers' dollars? First, last year we appropriated over $106 billion for programs whose authorizations did not exist. A good place to start looking for lower priority programs in the Federal Government might be in those areas where no authorization exists. In addition to the unauthorized programs, as I have stated previously, it would be helpful if the Congress reviewed the GAO's recent high-risk series which lists 26 areas this year--nearly 40 percent which have been designated high risk for 10 years--areas that GAO has found to be vulnerable to waste, fraud, and error. Second, it is clear that some programs will not grow, will remain at their 1999 level, and some will have to be reduced below a freeze as the President's budget suggested. I would suggest that committees and the administration take to heart the Government performance and results act that specifically identifies low performing and inefficient programs. Some programs, such as various transportation projects funded last year outside TEA-21, were one time and we should not assume continued funding of such programs next year. The conference assumes that Ginnie Mae will become a private operation and its auction creates nearly $2.8 billion in offsets next year. And yes, the conference resolution assumes, some of the administration's proposed offsets, fees, are assumed for various agencies in the Federal Government--FSIS and the President's proposed $200 million broadcasters lease fee. In the area of mandatory savings. The resolution does not assume any of the President's nearly $20 billion reductions in Medicare over the next 5 years. Medicare spending will indeed increase from $195 billion this year by over $200 billion to a total of $395 billion in 2009, an annual increase of 7.3 percent. And the resolution assumes $6.0 billion in additional resources will be allocated to the Agriculture Committee to address the issue of depressed incomes in that sector. The Senate-passed resolution assumed that expiring savings provisions in 2002, that were enacted in the 1997 balanced budget agreement, would be extended. This applied to all such provisions except expiring Medicare savings provisions. Between 2003 and 2009 these provisions would save $20 billion. In conference the Senate receded to the House position that did not assume any of these savings provisions. In part this accounts for the fact that the non-Social Security surplus over the next decade has declined to $92 billion. The Senate-passed resolution included the Dodd-Jeffords amendment to add $12 billion to child care spending over the next decade. The spending was offset with a reduction in the reconciled tax cut. The House had no such assumption. The Senate voted yesterday to instruct the conference to adopt this provision. The conference assumes half of these resources for families with children to cover child care expenditures--$6 billion. These expenditures reduced the non-Social Security surplus and did not reduce the reconciled tax reduction. For revenues the conference resolution assumes that tax reductions will be phased in and over the next 5 years will return overpayments to the American public of nearly $142 billion and $778 billion over the next 10 years. For 2000, paid for tax cuts of up to $15 billion are possible. How these tax reductions are carried out will, of course, be determined by the Finance Committee and ultimately the Congress and the President. However, I believe elimination or reduction in the marriage penalty could easily be accommodated within these levels as well as extension of expiring R&D tax credits, self-employed health insurance deductions, certain education credits, and or general reductions in tax rates phased in over time. Finally, the resolution, being cautious, over a 10-year period, projects a non-budget surplus of over $92 billion. This money could be needed for unexpected emergencies or contingencies, it also could support the cost of funding transition costs for Medicare reform, or if nothing else it will continue to further retire debt held by the public. Two procedural issues need to be noted--a rule change as it relates to defining emergencies and a clarification that when there is an on- budget surplus, those amounts are not subject to pay-go rules. The Senate-committee-reported resolution included a provision to make emergency spending items subject to a supermajority point of order. This provision was adopted by the conference, while exempting Defense spending. Let me close by saying that under this resolution, debt held by the public will decline by nearly $463 billion more than under the President's budget. This is true even if one treats the President's Government equity purchases as debt reduction. Why do we reduce debt more than the President? First, the President spends $158 billion of the Social Security surplus over the next 5 years. In contrast, the conference resolution saves the entire Social Security surplus. And second, let me remind the Senate of one other thing about the President's spending proposal which may surprise many--his spending costs more than the resolution's assumed tax reductions. This is true over both the 5-year and 10-year period. The President's budget spends 35 percent of the Social Security surplus over the next 5 years on programs unrelated to Social Security or Medicare. That is why we can save the entire Social Security surplus and why he can not. Let me summarize. The conference report does four things: It protects 100 percent Social Security surpluses; it maintains the fiscal discipline this Senate overwhelmingly supported in 1997 and was most recently reaffirmed by the minority leader; it returns to the American public their tax overpayments; and finally, it prudently and cautiously projects on-budget surpluses for further debt reduction or for supporting unexpected emergencies, and possible transition costs for true Medicare reform like the one recently voted on by 11 of the 17 members of the National Commission on the Future of Medicare. It is a good resolution to close out the Budget Act's 25-year silver anniversary this year. It is a good fiscal blueprint for the next century. Commenting for a minute about the tax proposals in this bill, in the next 5 years Congress will be permitted under this budget resolution to reduce taxes on the American people by $142 billion, and in the second 5 years the total will be $778 billion. The first and second year cannot be very big, depending on what loopholes are closed by the Finance Committee and the Ways and Means Committee. We can have a goodly tax in the first 2 years, moving up in a ``wedged'' manner to some very substantial return of taxes to the American people over this next decade. There may be remarks on the floor about what these tax cuts will look like. Certain Republican Senators, including some of our leadership, may say what they prefer. That permits the Democratic leadership and Democratic Senators to get up and say they don't think we ought to give tax cuts to the rich, that we ought to spend it elsewhere rather than giving it to the rich people of our country. This budget resolution gives the Congress of the United States and its committees full latitude to have a tax cut bill of whatever type the Congress and its committees ultimately approve and, hopefully, that the President will sign. I am quite sure when that package is finally put together the good judgment of the tax-writing committees, with Congress exerting its concerns, it will be a balanced package, focused on average Americans and on continuing the economic prosperity of our country. If we do that, then I believe there may be disagreement between Republicans and Democrats, but I do believe it will not be the package that is constantly suggested by Democrats--that we are going to take care of only the high-bracketed people, instead of spending it on programs that are good. I can do no better than that. I don't know that I will answer every time we are accused of having a tax cut that takes care of only the wealthy in our country. The facts are as I have indicated. Whether or not Senators have taken to the floor or given stump speeches or otherwise saying what they would prefer, we probably ought to give some serious consideration to reducing the brackets, with taxation more proportionally on every group of people. I am sure the package will be fair in building American prosperity by cutting taxes in the right places for economic growth. I make one last comment about the return of tax dollars to the American people. I have been heard to say that as a Budget Committee member and chairman somehow or another when we finally get to that place where we can have surpluses for as far as the eye can see-- according to those who estimate for us--I have been heard to say that maybe it is harder to manage surpluses than it is deficits. Yesterday my good friend, Senator Lautenberg, indicated that probably that is how it should be, because it is human nature that when you have real assets, you fight over them; with deficits you do the best you can. I have found it more difficult to give taxpayers tax relief when we have had a surplus than I found as a budget chairman to give tax relief when we had deficits. That is rather incredible. But I think the history will indicate that we have had many tax cuts, giving back money to the taxpayers, when we had deficits. Now we have a criticism of Republicans who want to give back tax money to those who have overpaid, because we have more money than we need; that we should not be doing it now. If you cannot do it when you have a surplus, when can you? If you cannot do it with a surplus, when should you? It seems to me the answer is we probably ought to have a major tax reduction bill. I would think before the year is out the President of the United States will get into the act. He is probably still looking back to his first campaign, before he was elected, when he promised a middle-income tax cut. I know, in reading about the politics of the White House during the intervening years, that some of his consultants brought up that issue regularly during his campaign and first year in office--what about the tax cuts? Maybe they were not right in his scheme of things then, but I submit, with this kind of surplus, they are right now. We look forward, after this budget resolution is passed--and hopefully that will be tomorrow--to working within the Congress--and hopefully Congress with the Executive--to take care of our public needs and take care of our taxpayers' needs. But we will always be vigilant that we not put one over the other, since it is the taxpayers who make our Government capable of doing what it does. With that, I yield the floor and repeat to Senators, if you do not get to speak this evening, there are 5 hours tomorrow. We will be glad to start taking names for tomorrow. It will be better than tonight. We can get through early tomorrow and early tonight and still have a lot of debate time if most of you will sign up for tomorrow, which means we could get out of here rather early this evening. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, am I correct the pending business is the conference on the budget for the year 2000?

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

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to the conference report to accompany the budget resolution and, when the Senate reconvenes on Thursday, there be 5 hours remaining for debate as provided under the statute. This has been cleared on the other side.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I rise with great pleasure to introduce the Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 1999. I also thank Senator Wellstone, my cosponsor, and the other Senators who have already joined me in an effort to make this case. This will say to the insurance companies and the businesses of America, unless they have 25 or fewer employees, their insurance coverage of their employees and their employees' families, if there is going to be mental illness or mental disease coverage, they will have to, as to severe illnesses, have coverage with full parity. As to other mental illnesses, they will have to stop trying to get around the parity law by cutting some of the copays and the like. This will prohibit that. Essentially, we are going to take a piece of America that is currently discriminated against in health care because those Americans do not have a disease that is a disease of the heart but have a disease of the brain. We now can define it sufficiently that there is no reason to cover one and not the other, and in the process we will stop discriminating against about 10 million American families. Mr. President, I rise today with great pleasure and excitement to introduce the Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 1999. I would also like to thank Senator Wellstone for once again joining me to cosponsor this important piece of legislation. The human brain is the organ of the mind and just like the other organs of our body, it is subject to illness. And just as illnesses to our other organs require treatment, so too do illnesses of the brain. Medical science is in an era where we can accurately diagnose mental illnesses and treat those afflicted so they can be productive. I would ask then, why with this evidence would we not cover these individuals and treat their illnesses like any other disease? We should not. So, I would submit there should not be a difference in the coverage provided by insurance companies for mental health benefits and medical benefits. The introduction of this bill marks a historic opportunity for us to take the next step toward mental health parity. As my colleagues know, this is an issue I have a long involvement with and I would like to begin with a few observations. I believe that we have made great strides in providing parity for the coverage of mental illness. However, mental illness continues to exact a heavy toll on many, many lives. Even though we know so much more about mental illness, it can still bring devastating consequences to those it touches; their families, their friends, and their loved ones. These individuals and families not only deal with the societal prejudices and suspicions hanging on from the past, but they also must contend with unequal insurance coverage. I would submit the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 is a good first start, but the act is also not working. While there may be adherence to the letter of the law, there are certainly violations of the spirit of the law. For instance, ways are being found around the law by placing limits on the number of covered hospital days and outpatient visits. That is why I believe it is time for a change. Some will immediately say we cannot afford it or that inclusion of this treatment will cost too much. But, I would first direct them to the results of the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996. That law contains a provision allowing companies to no longer comply if their costs increase by more than 1 percent. And do you know how many companies have opted out because their costs have increased by more than 1 percent? Only four companies out of all the companies throughout the country. Mr. President, with that in mind I would like to share a couple of facts about mental illness with my colleagues: Within the developed world, including the United States, 4 of the 10 leading causes of disability for individuals over the age of 5 are mental disorders. In the order of prevalence the disorders are major depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and obsessive compulsive disorder. Disability always has a cost and the direct cost to the United States per year for respiratory disease is $99 billion, cardiovascular disease is $160 billion, and finally $148 billion for mental illness. One in every five people--more than 40 million adults--in this Nation will be afflicted by some type of mental illness. Nearly 7.5 million children and adolescents, or 12 percent, suffer from one or more mental disorders. Schizophrenia alone is 50 times more common than cystic fibrosis, 60 times more common than muscular dystrophy and will strike between 2 and 3 million Americans. Let us also look at the efficacy of treatment for individuals suffering from certain mental illnesses, especially when compared with the success rates of treatments for other physical ailments. For a long time, many who are in this field--especially on the insurance side-- have behaved as if you get far better results for angioplasty then you do for treatments for bipolar illness. Treatment for bipolar disorders--this is, those disorders characterized by extreme lows and extreme highs--have an 80-percent success rate if you get treatment, both medicine and care. Schizophrenia, the most dreaded of mental illnesses, has a 60-percent success rate in the United States today if treated properly. Major depression has a 65-percent success rate. Let's compare those success rates to several important surgical procedures that everybody thinks we ought to be doing: Angioplasty has a 41-percent success rate; atherectomy has a 52-percent success rate. I would now like to take a minute to discuss the Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 1999. The bill seeks a very simple goal: (1) provide full parity for severe biologically based mental illnesses; (2) prohibit limits on the number of covered hospital days and outpatient visits; and (3) eliminate the Mental Health Parity Act's sunset provision. The bill would provide full parity for the following mental illnesses: schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression, obsessive compulsive and severe panic disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, autism, and other severe and disability mental disorders. Like the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996, the bill does not require a health plan to provide coverage for alcohol and substance abuse benefits. Moreover, the bill does not mandate the coverage of mental health benefits, rather the bill only applies if the plan already provides coverage for mental health benefits. In conclusion, the bill expands full parity to those suffering from a severe biologically based mental illness and it closes a loophole in the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 by prohibiting limits on the number of covered hospital days and outpatient visits and I would urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, today I rise with great pleasure to introduce the Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 1999. I also thank Senator Wellstone, my cosponsor, and the other Senators who have already joined me in an effort to make this case. This will say to the insurance companies and the businesses of America, unless they have 25 or fewer employees, their insurance coverage of their employees and their employees' families, if there is going to be mental illness or mental disease coverage, they will have to, as to severe illnesses, have coverage with full parity. As to other mental illnesses, they will have to stop trying to get around the parity law by cutting some of the copays and the like. This will prohibit that. Essentially, we are going to take a piece of America that is currently discriminated against in health care because those Americans do not have a disease that is a disease of the heart but have a disease of the brain. We now can define it sufficiently that there is no reason to cover one and not the other, and in the process we will stop discriminating against about 10 million American families. Mr. President, I rise today with great pleasure and excitement to introduce the Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 1999. I would also like to thank Senator Wellstone for once again joining me to cosponsor this important piece of legislation. The human brain is the organ of the mind and just like the other organs of our body, it is subject to illness. And just as illnesses to our other organs require treatment, so too do illnesses of the brain. Medical science is in an era where we can accurately diagnose mental illnesses and treat those afflicted so they can be productive. I would ask then, why with this evidence would we not cover these individuals and treat their illnesses like any other disease? We should not. So, I would submit there should not be a difference in the coverage provided by insurance companies for mental health benefits and medical benefits. The introduction of this bill marks a historic opportunity for us to take the next step toward mental health parity. As my colleagues know, this is an issue I have a long involvement with and I would like to begin with a few observations. I believe that we have made great strides in providing parity for the coverage of mental illness. However, mental illness continues to exact a heavy toll on many, many lives. Even though we know so much more about mental illness, it can still bring devastating consequences to those it touches; their families, their friends, and their loved ones. These individuals and families not only deal with the societal prejudices and suspicions hanging on from the past, but they also must contend with unequal insurance coverage. I would submit the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 is a good first start, but the act is also not working. While there may be adherence to the letter of the law, there are certainly violations of the spirit of the law. For instance, ways are being found around the law by placing limits on the number of covered hospital days and outpatient visits. That is why I believe it is time for a change. Some will immediately say we cannot afford it or that inclusion of this treatment will cost too much. But, I would first direct them to the results of the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996. That law contains a provision allowing companies to no longer comply if their costs increase by more than 1 percent. And do you know how many companies have opted out because their costs have increased by more than 1 percent? Only four companies out of all the companies throughout the country. Mr. President, with that in mind I would like to share a couple of facts about mental illness with my colleagues: Within the developed world, including the United States, 4 of the 10 leading causes of disability for individuals over the age of 5 are mental disorders. In the order of prevalence the disorders are major depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and obsessive compulsive disorder. Disability always has a cost and the direct cost to the United States per year for respiratory disease is $99 billion, cardiovascular disease is $160 billion, and finally $148 billion for mental illness. One in every five people--more than 40 million adults--in this Nation will be afflicted by some type of mental illness. Nearly 7.5 million children and adolescents, or 12 percent, suffer from one or more mental disorders. Schizophrenia alone is 50 times more common than cystic fibrosis, 60 times more common than muscular dystrophy and will strike between 2 and 3 million Americans. Let us also look at the efficacy of treatment for individuals suffering from certain mental illnesses, especially when compared with the success rates of treatments for other physical ailments. For a long time, many who are in this field--especially on the insurance side-- have behaved as if you get far better results for angioplasty then you do for treatments for bipolar illness. Treatment for bipolar disorders--this is, those disorders characterized by extreme lows and extreme highs--have an 80-percent success rate if you get treatment, both medicine and care. Schizophrenia, the most dreaded of mental illnesses, has a 60-percent success rate in the United States today if treated properly. Major depression has a 65-percent success rate. Let's compare those success rates to several important surgical procedures that everybody thinks we ought to be doing: Angioplasty has a 41-percent success rate; atherectomy has a 52-percent success rate. I would now like to take a minute to discuss the Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 1999. The bill seeks a very simple goal: (1) provide full parity for severe biologically based mental illnesses; (2) prohibit limits on the number of covered hospital days and outpatient visits; and (3) eliminate the Mental Health Parity Act's sunset provision. The bill would provide full parity for the following mental illnesses: schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression, obsessive compulsive and severe panic disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, autism, and other severe and disability mental disorders. Like the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996, the bill does not require a health plan to provide coverage for alcohol and substance abuse benefits. Moreover, the bill does not mandate the coverage of mental health benefits, rather the bill only applies if the plan already provides coverage for mental health benefits. In conclusion, the bill expands full parity to those suffering from a severe biologically based mental illness and it closes a loophole in the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 by prohibiting limits on the number of covered hospital days and outpatient visits and I would urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and additional material be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be allowed to meet on Tuesday, April 13, 1999, at 9:30 a.m. on Telco/Broadband.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I don't believe I need to respond. I gave my response to the principal sponsor. We have agreed to accept the instruction. I yield back any time I might have and I yield the floor.