Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

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

Mr. GRAHAM. How much time remains?

Mr. GRAHAM. At the appropriate time, I will ask a question about what is the logic behind giving a 1-percent cut to the people at the 39.6- percent bracket but not any cut at all to the people in the 15-percent bracket, but I cannot at this time. Amendment No. 679

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will briefly outline the plan that the Senator from New Jersey and I have developed which we think meets the test of an economic insurance policy. We underscore the words ``insurance policy.'' No one, frankly, knows what is over the horizon for the American economy. As the Senator from New Jersey just outlined, there are enough signs of concern, signs that would raise apprehension, that a prudent family would say this is a time to buy an insurance policy that will protect us, that will begin to shift the risk, to the degree possible, of a possible economic decline. We are suggesting what the elements and the specifics of that economic insurance policy should be. We think it needs to be immediate. We are proposing that our bill take effect as of January 1, 2001, and that the benefits in this calendar year would be fully available in this calendar year. Second, it needs to be frontloaded. One of my criticisms of the bill before us, which talks about being an economic stimulus bill, is that the total amount of tax relief that will be distributed in the form of marginal rate reductions in this fiscal year 2001 is less than $10 billion, in an economy approaching $8 trillion--in my judgment, a clearly inadequate commitment if we are serious about buying an economic insurance policy. We think it needs to be a substantial commitment. We have suggested that the substantial commitment would be in the range of $60 billion in the year 2001 and in every year into the future. Economic experts from some of the most prestigious governmental and nongovernmental agencies in the country have told us they believe that a $60 billion stimulus this year would increase gross domestic product by between one-half and three-quarters of 1 percent, everything else being unaffected. We think that is a significant amount of economic growth at a time when that growth has substantially declined. We believe this should be placed in the hands of those Americans most likely to spend it. So we build upon a concept that is in the President's budget or the President's tax bill, and that is the addition of a 10-percent rate. But we alter the President's proposal in two critical regards. First, his 10-percent rate doesn't go fully into effect until the year 2006. Ours is fully in effect as of January 2001. Second, his 10-percent rate covers the first $6,000 of taxable income for a single person; $12,000 for a married couple. We would increase those numbers to $9,500 for a single American, and $19,000 for a family. What would that mean for an American family, every American family that is earning $19,000 or more up to the richest American in the country? It would mean a $950 savings in their income tax. We think that is a significant amount of money, $35 every biweekly pay period, $35 that would be going into the pocket of that American family to buy clothes for their children, to make a downpayment on a refrigerator, all of the things they might want to use that money for, which is exactly what we need them to do in order to stimulate a demand starved economic decline. We also believe this plan needs to be simple. Complexity works against being able to get these funds into the hands of the Americans quickly enough to make a difference. We believe the critical quarters are going to be the last quarter of this fiscal year and the first quarter of 2002. That is the last 6 months of calendar 2001. That is the 6-month period we need to impact. That is the 6-month period in which we will be putting $60 billion into the pockets of American families. We think that is a true economic insurance policy. If you believe the principle of let's go one step at a time in prudently shaping our tax policy, as opposed to feeling that we have to throw a 100-yard-pass tax bill tonight that will govern us for the next 11 years and that the prudent first tax bill should be one that would relate to the primary challenge facing Americans today, which is the concern of a declining economy, an economy that might drift into a recession or a recession which could be deep and prolonged, then we have the opportunity today in this tax bill to play a positive role to ensure against those negative events. I urge the amendment be adopted, and I send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. GRAHAM. Parliamentary inquiry: If we do not use all of our time this evening, will we have any of that time available on Monday prior to the actual consideration of these amendments or do we use it or lose it without using it tonight?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, with that introduction, I would like to turn to my colleague and partner in this effort to discuss, if we have a series of tax bills, what should the first tax bill, the tax bill of May 2001 encompass.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. GRAHAM. I obviously was mistaken. I did not realize the people at the higher income brackets did not also get the benefit of the $600 reduction which comes by inserting the 10-percent bracket at the commencement of the tax table.

Mr. GRAHAM. People in the 39.6-percent bracket, do they get the same tax reduction as the people in the 10-percent bracket in dollar terms?

Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. GRAHAM. So the answer is, if we don't use the time available tonight, it will not be carried over until Monday.

Mr. GRAHAM. That is not a threat to use all 9 minutes but a small sliver.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I have great regard for Senator Grassley. I know how hard he has worked on this bill, as he has on other issues. As he said earlier tonight, he is prepared to work on issues such as prescription drugs for Medicare. I appreciate that, and I have enjoyed the many times we have been colleagues to achieve public policy objectives. I just say I think this is one of those issues on which maybe we have to agree to disagree. This is not a new relationship. Since 1924, the States have been participating with the Federal Government in the estate tax, and 35 States have no other estate tax than the share they get through their participation in the Federal tax. In fact, in my State, it is in the State constitution that the only estate tax that can be collected is that which comes as a State credit on the Federal estate tax. So while it might appear to be easy for the States as we are repealing the estate tax, it is obviously not going to be easy and for some States virtually impossible. I go back to the example Senator Voinovich gave to me earlier today of his own State, which is a binding budget situation. They had written their budget, or are about to, for 24 months beginning July 1 of this year, and now they are going to lose approximately half--we do not have the exact State-by-State numbers, but a significant percentage of this source of revenue. That is a very difficult fiscal position for us to put our friends and colleagues in the 50 States in and I think unnecessarily. President Bush had recommended this reduction be done proportionately. I, frankly, assumed it was being done proportionately until someone pointed out that we were deviating from what the President had recommended. I believe this is kind of a ``gotcha'' approach to the States as they are so deep into already committing themselves for at least 1 and maybe 2 fiscal years. In the case of my State, our legislature finished its business on May 4 or 5, with the budget to go into effect on the first of July. It has in it approximately $775 million as our State's share of the estate tax. Almost half of that is going to evaporate as of the first of January, halfway through the fiscal year. The irony of this is that we talk about we want to do something for the American taxpayer. The American taxpayer pays taxes at all levels of government. If we take a substantial share of this source of revenue away from the States in a precipitous move for which they have been unable to plan, what are the States going to do? Are they going to have to raise property taxes to fill the gap? Are they going to have to raise sales taxes to fill the gap? Are they going to have to find some other source of revenue or begin well into their fiscal year to make significant cuts in services? And what is the service that States provide? For my State and most States, half or more of the total State revenue is spent on one function. What is that function? We ought to know it well because we just spent the last 2 weeks talking about how committed we were to it. What is the function? Education. That is what States do with over half of their money. If we think it is important for us to spend 2 weeks debating the 7 percent of public education which is financed from Washington, we certainly deserve to spend some time discussing the approximately 55 percent of education which is paid by the States. The balance between the Federal 7 and the State's 55 is what is paid at the local level, largely through property taxes. We seem to be, at least in the amount of attention that is being given to this, indifferent to what we are doing to our American taxpayers in terms of their State responsibilities and what we are doing to American education by destabilizing the primary source of financing for American education, which is the 50 States. Mr. President, hoping that I have not used all of the 9 minutes, I will conclude by saying I think this is going to be a test of whether we really are serious, committed Federalists and think that respect and dignity across levels of government is an important part of the oil that makes this very intricate Federal system work and that indifference, bordering on rudeness, toward the States is what could cause it to begin to grind the gears. I believe the adoption of this amendment, which is the proposal made by President Bush, which is a proposal that gets to exactly the same destination as the advocates of repeal of the estate tax would do but do it in a fair and equitable manner as between our 50 States and our Federal Government, is an extremely important statement of our commitment to federalism. I urge the adoption of this amendment when it comes for a vote on Monday.

Mr. GRAHAM. Tonight, and I also ask for 30 minutes on Monday.

Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. GRAHAM. I request 30 minutes on Monday.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to share with you a remarkable story. As sweeping a statement as this is, the story of Miami Edison Middle School is truly the story of America in the 20th Century. It is the story of immigration, with all its challenges, and all its rewards. It is the story of hard work, of culture differences, and cross- cultural understanding. It is the story of a city, and a neighborhood and how each generation that passes through leaves behind a layer to build on. With its Art Deco auditorium and full-sized gymnasium, Miami Edison High School, originally called Dade County Agricultural High, was as magnificent a structure as you could imagine when it was built in 1928. Through the school, one can trace the growth and transformation of the face of Miami, and indeed, the country. When it opened in what was then Lemon City, a swath of land surrounded by lemon and orange groves, the entire student body was white. My wife, Adele, was a student there, as were many of the men and women who are today some of Florida's most respected citizens, including Congressman Clay Shaw and his wife, Emilie, historian Arva Moore Parks and Miami Dolphins football star Nat Moore. By the 1960s, most of the students were Hispanic. A new high school for the area was built in 1978 and Edison became a middle school. Today, the majority of students are of Haitian descent or are recent Haitian immigrants. Edison High School has the highest percentage in the state of students still learning English. It has the lowest math and reading tests scores. It has far too many students living in poverty. The original high-school building, however, looks much the same as it did when it was built, only better. For years Edison, like many urban schools, was left to crumble. Finally, school and county officials decided it was time to put this piece of Florida history in the path of the wrecking ball. To many Edison alumni, organized as the ``Over the Hill Gang, this was unconscionable. In an age when too many children are being taught in makeshift classrooms, trailers and former utility closets, we were sacrificing what could truly have been called a temple of learning. We were carelessly trampling our history and taking down with it the too-long- lost tradition of teaching our children in school buildings that reflect that grandeur of what goes on inside their walls. A group of Edison alumni including Arva Moore Parks, one of Florida's great voices for preserving our history, fought to save the school. In 1992, Dade County agreed to keep the original school standing and refurbish it to meet the needs of today's students. While the alumni group had the best intentions, the parents of today's Edison students were wary, and not without cause. The neighborhood had been promised a new middle school in 1988. It was supposed to be completed by 1992. Instead, children were still trying to learn in a decaying, leaking building. The move to preserve the old school looked, to many neighborhood parents, like another broken promise. In the end, the families of that area got the best of both worlds. The building, restored by architect Richard Heisenbottle of Coral Gables, is a magnificent melding of old and new. The architectural elements of the past are bolstered by a new wing, new lighting, plumbing and air-conditioning. Old classrooms were gutted and refurbished. The original wood floor of the gymnasium remains in place along with a 1,700-seat auditorium with Deco light fixtures and a carved, wraparound balcony. In 1997 the architect, the alumni group, the Dade County School Board and the Dade Heritage Trust received one of the National Trust for Historic Preservation's prestigious honor awards for the project. The building itself is a tribute to all involved, but strangely enough, it may not be the most important structure that grew out of this effort. The men and women who fought to save the school also built a sturdy bridge connecting Miami's immigrants to its old guard, its present to its past. One United Band: The Edison Linkage Foundation was formed to reassure the community's parents that today's students mattered as much to the alumni as the school building. The foundation raises money for an aggressive mentoring program that offers a stipend to successful students at Edison High School to tutor younger, at-risk children and to serve as role models for navigating the challenging and often frightening world of adolescence. For some immigrant children, that world is even more frightening than for most young people. Language barriers are just a small part of the problem many of these children face. Some came from Haiti directly to middle school without having had any formal education before. They are illiterate in their own language as well as a new one. Many live in poverty, with families who cannot spend as much time with them as they'd like to and cannot help them with their homework. Tutors can help fill in the blanks, bridge the gaps that keep them from reading, understanding, learning and staying in school. They can offer a living, breathing vision of something to strive for. The program has been a resounding success. In the 1999-2000 school year, 26 middle-school students showed measurable academic gains after being tutored. Of the student's tutored, 15 percent were non-readers. Those students are now reading at a level three and above. Meanwhile, the graduating seniors who served as tutors are all headed for college this fall. The money to pay for the tutors' time is raised from Edison alumni scattered around the country and through fund-raisers including shows and sales of Haitian art. The art shows are both a fund-raising tool for the mentoring program and college scholarships, and a source of pride for children from Haitian families. The third of these will take place May 21, 2001, in the Florida House in Washington, D.C. All of this has been thanks to the hard work of a number of dedicated volunteers and professionals. These include: Martha Anne Collins, Linkage Foundation administrator; Ron Major, Edison Middle School principal; John Walker, coordinator of the tutoring program and an assistant principal at Miami Edison High School; Alma King-Jones, Middle School coordinator and administrative assistant to the principal; Betsy Kaplan of the Dade County School Board; historian Arva Moore Parks and my wife, Adele Khoury Graham, who co-chaired the Linkage Foundation; Charles Keye, Linkage Foundation treasurer; Fred and Mary Exum and the ``Over the Hill Gang'', who have helped coordinate the brick donation program for the Dade County Public School system. All these people, and many more, are responsible for the vision, and then the reality, that became the Edison Middle School and the Linkage Foundation. These men and women reached across generations and through racial and cultural divides to unite Miami today with the Miami of yesterday. In doing so, they have helped create a source of hope and opportunity for the Miami of tomorrow.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution that designates June 3, 2001, as National Child's Day. National Child's Day celebrates the children of this country, recognizing them as one of our nation's most valuable resources, a resource that should be cherished and protected. Too often, we tell the world that children are our future, and yet our actions do not always convey our belief in the statement. Children are often made to feel that their challenges, concerns, and ideas are not valid. National Child's Day shows the children of our country that we recognize the value of each of our children and the contributions they make to this great nation. It is important therefore, that we establish a day of national admiration. This simple, yet important, resolution will ensure that our children receive the message of love, support, and encouragement they deserve. Nearly 5 million children return to an empty home after school each week while their parents work because most communities lack adequate after-school programs. These children are more likely to engage in a host of risky behaviors that threaten their future. Many children face crisis of grave proportions. Sadly, over 5 million American children go to bed hungry at night. There has been an increase in the number of children in or in need of foster care services. Our children deserve more, and we must make a commitment to reverse these trends. When we fail to invest in our children, we fail to invest in our country. National Child's Day focuses on children's accomplishments and addresses their needs. The establishment of a National Child's Day will encourage families to spend more quality time together and will highlight the special importance of the child in the family unit. I urge my colleagues to join me in establishing June 3, 2001, as National Child's Day.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased to have this opportunity to recognize the exemplary contributions of an extraordinary couple, John and Mary Jane Stokesberry of Miami, FL. Given John's significant impact on public policy development and implementation in the areas of gerontology and aging and Mary Jane's passion for teaching those with special educational needs, I know their joint retirement on June 30, 2001 will leave a void which will be difficult to fill. John L. Stokesberry has to his credit over 30 years of administrative leadership in human service delivery in Florida. In his most recent public role, John has served as the Executive Director of the Alliance for Aging, Inc., the Area Agency on Aging for Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties in Florida. Through his compassionate and adept oversight, many seniors and developmentally challenged individuals have been provided the benefit of quality care and the timely provision of services. Florida has long been a favored retirement destination for seniors who have worked hard throughout their lives. They are more than deserving of living out their days in dignity and with whatever comfort and respect we are able to provide. Consequently, in Florida, increasing attention and focus is being placed on aging issues. John L. Stokesberry's contributions in helping to chart Florida's course in this relatively new frontier have been pivotal. We have benefitted from his remarkable expertise, coalition building and advocacy for over three decades. Whether at the district or state administrative levels, his leadership has always been felt and has enhanced the mission of our state in meeting the needs of our seniors. Mary Jane Stokesberry has worked at the Van E. Blanton Elementary School for 39 years and currently serves as the Chair of the Special Education Department. While instructing young people who have special needs can present unique challenges, Mary Jane's genuine warmth and patience has consistently led to the most positive development of her students. It came as no surprise when she was formerly designated as a Regional Teacher of the Year. Though many of her former students are now adults, I am sure they would agree that Mary Jane has left an indelible mark on their lives. Through her exceptional legacy, I am reminded of the proverb, ``if you give a child a fish you feed them for a day; if you teach a child how to fish, you feed them for a lifetime.'' Mary Jane has fed countless children for a lifetime. For these reasons, I am proud to join the chorus of other voices in Florida and Miami-Dade County who extend to John and Mary Jane Stokesberry best wishes on the occasion of their retirements. I congratulate them today and wish for them many more productive and healthy years.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleagues Senators Feinstein, Kyl, and others, to reauthorize the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, or SCAAP. SCAAP was created as part of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act because the federal government recognized the responsibility we have to alleviate the impact of immigration policy on state and local governments. The federal government has sole jurisdiction over national immigration policy, and we should do all possible so that our federal decisions and actions do not cause a financial burden on states and localities. SCAAP is a reimbursement program that sends dollars to our counties and states to help offset the costs associated with jailing illegal or criminal aliens. SCAAP also established and now facilitates a process to better identify undocumented criminal aliens and to expedite the transfer of illegal aliens from state facilities and county jails to federal institutions in preparation for deportation, or other federal proceedings. Thus, I was greatly concerned looking through the President's budget that this program was cut by more than 50 percent this year. At the moment, SCAAP only provides reimbursement for about 37 cents of every dollar a state spends on criminal aliens. We barely cover half the costs as is, and this is before the program was cut in half in this most recent budget. For FY99, state and local governments incurred $1.5 billion in costs associated with criminal aliens which were eligible for reimbursement under the SCAAP program. In FY98, costs to state and local governments were even higher: $1.7 billion. This past year, $1.6 billion was spent by state and local governments on these concerns. Yet, we funded the program at $585 million in each of those years. It's not as much reimbursement as is needed, but the reimbursement gives an appropriate and respectful amount of relief to state and local law enforcement budgets for the benefits they are providing to the federal government. The National Governors Association has the reauthorization of this program as one of their top priorities for this year. I am certain that they also join me in asking that the program at least maintain funding levels of last year, if not a funding increase that will get them a more fair reimbursement for the dollars they spend. The National Association of Counties supports reauthorization and full funding of SCAAP. They make the point that state and local taxpayers should not have to bear the costs of criminal aliens. They are a federal responsibility, and should be transferred to federal custody in an expeditious manner. Last year, every state, and more than 220 local governments received reimbursement under SCAAP. This affects us all. I do not want to see the federal government backtrack on our obligation to state and local governments in the area of immigration. Lastly, statements in the President's budget about this program concern me. Two reasons were given for the cut of $299 million which this program endured. The first was that it ``reimburses a relatively small portion of states' incarceration costs.'' This statement is true. As I've said, it only reimburses state or local governments about 37 cents of each dollar they spend on illegal immigrants and criminal aliens. However, this is no reason to further cut the program! If anything, if we agree on the premise that immigration policy is a federal responsibility, then it is reason to fully fund the program. I have never seen a rationale given where there is clear federal jurisdiction, like in this case, that specifically says: we can only reimburse states a small portion of what we owe them, so let's cut the program in half. I fail to see how this accomplishes the most effective public policy. The second reason that is given for the program cut is that it has contributed ``little to reducing violent crime.'' Again--on it's face--this statement may be true, although I have not been able to obtain any supporting documentation that verifies it. But, regardless, that was never the Congressional intent of the program. The intent of the program, clearly spelled out in the 1994 Crime bill, was to reimburse state, and later on through amendments in 1996, local governments for the costs they incur because of federal immigration policy. And, secondly, to expedite the transfer of criminal aliens from the state and local facilities where they may be originally held, into the federal system. I would argue that this, in and of itself, does reduce crime. But I find it unfair that a program should be penalized with a 50 percent budget cut because it failed to achieve a goal that was never intended for the program. Whichever side of the immigration debate you may be on--a more expansive immigration policy, or a more restrictive immigration policy--if you agree with the premise that immigration is the responsibility of and obligation of the federal government--then you should join us in our efforts to reauthorize and fully fund the SCAAP program. I commend my colleagues, especially Senator Feinstein and Senator Kyl, for their tireless work on this issue. I look forward to seeing the program reauthorized and funded at an appropriate level this Congress.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today, with my colleagues Senators Feinstein, Kyl, and others, to reauthorize the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, or SCAAP. SCAAP was created as part of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act because the federal government recognized the responsibility we have to alleviate the impact of immigration policy on state and local governments. The federal government has sole jurisdiction over national immigration policy, and we should do all possible so that our federal decisions and actions do not cause a financial burden on states and localities. SCAAP is a reimbursement program that sends dollars to our counties and states to help offset the costs associated with jailing illegal or criminal aliens. SCAAP also established and now facilitates a process to better identify undocumented criminal aliens and to expedite the transfer of illegal aliens from state facilities and county jails to federal institutions in preparation for deportation, or other federal proceedings. Thus, I was greatly concerned looking through the President's budget that this program was cut by more than 50 percent this year. At the moment, SCAAP only provides reimbursement for about 37 cents of every dollar a state spends on criminal aliens. We barely cover half the costs as is, and this is before the program was cut in half in this most recent budget. For FY99, state and local governments incurred $1.5 billion in costs associated with criminal aliens which were eligible for reimbursement under the SCAAP program. In FY98, costs to state and local governments were even higher: $1.7 billion. This past year, $1.6 billion was spent by state and local governments on these concerns. Yet, we funded the program at $585 million in each of those years. It's not as much reimbursement as is needed, but the reimbursement gives an appropriate and respectful amount of relief to state and local law enforcement budgets for the benefits they are providing to the federal government. The National Governors Association has the reauthorization of this program as one of their top priorities for this year. I am certain that they also join me in asking that the program at least maintain funding levels of last year, if not a funding increase that will get them a more fair reimbursement for the dollars they spend. The National Association of Counties supports reauthorization and full funding of SCAAP. They make the point that state and local taxpayers should not have to bear the costs of criminal aliens. They are a federal responsibility, and should be transferred to federal custody in an expeditious manner. Last year, every state, and more than 220 local governments received reimbursement under SCAAP. This affects us all. I do not want to see the federal government backtrack on our obligation to state and local governments in the area of immigration. Lastly, statements in the President's budget about this program concern me. Two reasons were given for the cut of $299 million which this program endured. The first was that it ``reimburses a relatively small portion of states' incarceration costs.'' This statement is true. As I've said, it only reimburses state or local governments about 37 cents of each dollar they spend on illegal immigrants and criminal aliens. However, this is no reason to further cut the program! If anything, if we agree on the premise that immigration policy is a federal responsibility, then it is reason to fully fund the program. I have never seen a rationale given where there is clear federal jurisdiction, like in this case, that specifically says: we can only reimburse states a small portion of what we owe them, so let's cut the program in half. I fail to see how this accomplishes the most effective public policy. The second reason that is given for the program cut is that it has contributed ``little to reducing violent crime.'' Again--on it's face--this statement may be true, although I have not been able to obtain any supporting documentation that verifies it. But, regardless, that was never the Congressional intent of the program. The intent of the program, clearly spelled out in the 1994 Crime bill, was to reimburse state, and later on through amendments in 1996, local governments for the costs they incur because of federal immigration policy. And, secondly, to expedite the transfer of criminal aliens from the state and local facilities where they may be originally held, into the federal system. I would argue that this, in and of itself, does reduce crime. But I find it unfair that a program should be penalized with a 50 percent budget cut because it failed to achieve a goal that was never intended for the program. Whichever side of the immigration debate you may be on--a more expansive immigration policy, or a more restrictive immigration policy--if you agree with the premise that immigration is the responsibility of and obligation of the federal government--then you should join us in our efforts to reauthorize and fully fund the SCAAP program. I commend my colleagues, especially Senator Feinstein and Senator Kyl, for their tireless work on this issue. I look forward to seeing the program reauthorized and funded at an appropriate level this Congress.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Fifteen.

Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, a week ago today on May 2, the front page of the Washington Post had three significant articles about the debate we are conducting tonight. The first says, ``Bush Calls for Missile Shield.'' The second says, ``Bush to Unveil Panel on Social Security Change.'' And the third says, ``Tax Cut Compromise Reached.'' What is the relationship of those three articles? The relationship is that the decisions we are going to be making tonight, tomorrow, and next week on the tax cut compromise which has been reached will have significant effects on our ability to finance the missile shield and the Social Security changes which, on the same front page, the President has asked our Nation to consider. Although we do not have a number, we have heard that the Secretary of Defense may be asking for as much as $250 billion above the amount in this budget resolution for additional defense expenditures. Whether that includes the national missile defense is a question mark. We do not know the exact number, but the projection is, to pay for the privatization of a portion of Social Security as this Commission has been charged to develop will cost upwards of a trillion dollars over the next 10 years in the transition costs. What these three stories show is the need to set priorities and to set priorities at the same time so that, just as any family, you would know how much you were going to spend for every component of the family's budget as you started the new year, as you began the new intelligent planning for your family's resources. I suggest one intelligent step to take tonight is not to take one 10- year tax cut based on projections of what the Federal Government surplus will be from this year through the year 2011 but, rather, to take a step-by-step approach. Yes, passing a significant tax bill--and I will discuss later what I think its components should be--then reviewing what the state of the economy is after that tax cut, evaluating what our projected surpluses would be after that first tax cut, and deciding whether, when, and for what purpose a second tax cut would be prudent. It has been said that we are engaged in a zero-sum game, and we are. Much attention has been given over the last several weeks to how big a tax cut Congress should build into the budget. Much less has been given to the fact that these budget decisions are a zero-sum game. Every dollar we spend on a tax cut is a dollar we cannot spend for something else. Every dollar we spend for something else is a dollar we cannot spend on the tax cut. The greater the tax cut, the fewer dollars are available for other priorities. What are some of those priorities? In my opinion, they would be paying down the $5.5 trillion national debt we have developed over the last 20 years and have just started the process of reducing so we do not leave to our children and our grandchildren a credit card bill of ours to pay; meeting the No. 1 priority, which the President has stated and which this Congress has reaffirmed, and that is education; providing prescription drug coverage for older Americans; dealing with the serious issues of energy security and the contractual responsibilities we have for Social Security and providing for an adequate national defense. In addition to being a zero-sum game, there is also a zero-sum minus because one of the flaws in this budget resolution that includes using the Medicare trust fund without a question, and arguably also the Social Security surplus trust fund as a means of being able to finance this enormous tax cut. This violates the fundamental spirit of the agreement that we have with Medicare taxpayers, with Medicare beneficiaries, and with our Social Security beneficiaries. Congress, instead of spending those trust funds or making them vulnerable to being spent, should use this opportunity to place the Medicare trust fund in a protected status and to recommit ourselves to do the same for the Social Security trust fund. Senator Stabenow and I will be offering legislation, to be introduced shortly, which will do just that by providing a point of order against any attempt to use the Medicare trust funds for any purposes other than for paying current Medicare Part A benefits. So part of this game is zero-sum minus, minus the proposal of using the Medicare trust fund and the Social Security trust fund to pay for this. Another part is zero-sum plus, and that is we are looking at the world as if it ends in the year 2011. Taking such a narrow focus prevents us from addressing the longer term budget challenges facing this country. I understand that under the Budget Act we look at our Nation's finances for 10 years, but that does not put us in unneeded handcuffs to recognize the fact that there are responsibilities just beyond that horizon. A very significant event in world history occurred in late March of this year. My daughter, Suzanne, and her husband, Tom, hosted a sixth birthday party for their triplet daughters, my triplet granddaughters. Ansley, Adele, and Kendall Gibson all became 6 years old on the same day. What is the significance of that for this debate? The significance is they are all going to become 16 10 years from now. If the Gibson family looked at the life of their triplets and said, let's just plan for the next 10 years, it would be a fairly smooth ride because the expenses from 6 to 16 are not that daunting. The problem is that 2 years later, in the year 2013, those triplets are all going to want to go to college at the same time. Anybody who is putting one child through college can appreciate what the challenge is going to be to put through triplets at the same time. That is almost an exact parallel to what our Nation is facing. We are on the verge of one of the most significant demographic surges in the history of America, and it can be seen in this chart. If we just use as our amount to pay down the national debt the sums in the Social Security surplus, we are going to go back into deficit in the year 2017. The reason we are going to go back into deficit is because we will be 5 years into the baby boomers reaching their retirement age and starting to draw down Social Security. Conversely, if we put all of the unified surplus into paying down the national debt, we will stretch that out to the year 2050 before we will be back into a deficit position. But we are just looking at this narrow window into which we are now entering and saying things look great for the next 10 years, but it is the period just after the 10 years that is going to be the challenge for Congress and for this Nation. What are some of the implications of this chart? In the year 2017, the year we are going to go back into deficit, 52 million Americans will be receiving Social Security retirement benefits. That is up from 36 million in the year 2000, a 16 million increase in the number of Social Security retirees in just a 17-year period. Mr. President, that is 44 percent above current beneficiary levels. In addition, 56 million Americans will be eligible for Medicare benefits, up from 39 million in the year 2000. Those are some of the challenges in the zero-sum-plus game. We have to add a longer vision to our fiscal telescope than just the 10 years immediately ahead. I am also concerned in this approach of one humongous tax bill. We are not putting first priorities first in our Nation's economic life. I think the most challenging issue for America today is the fact we are facing the potential of a further and even more serious economic decline. There have been mixed economic figures in the past few weeks. The figures of last week show unemployment has risen to 4.5 percent, with a whole series of major American companies announcing yet another round of layoffs. Certainly that sends alarm signals. We ought to be using our energy and using the people's resources to help buy an economic insurance policy to do everything we can on the fiscal side of the American economy as the Federal Reserve Board is doing on the monetary side in order to give the American people the greatest confidence that they will not be facing a hard, perhaps a crash landing. My suggestion is rather than pass the $1.35 trillion, 10-year ``spend it all right now'' tax plan, which I think will be seen quickly in history as being the equivalent of the 1981 tax cut which brought these enormous deficits and now a $5.5 trillion national debt, we ought to be patient and proceed step by step. I suggest the first step ought to be to buy an economic insurance policy by passing a simple, immediate, broad-based and substantial tax cut of approximately $60 billion this year and in the next years, which will go, primarily, to American families in a sufficient amount to provide a $950 per year, or approximately $35 every other week in the paycheck, increase in the disposable income of American families so they will have not only the additional dollars to contribute to strengthening the demand side of our American economy but also the psychological reassurance that they are going to be that much better off on a permanent basis. That is the kind of tax plan this Senate ought to be considering. The American people have worked hard for the last few years to get where we are. In 1992, we had the largest single deficit in any year in the history of the United States of America, almost $300 billion. Now we are in the happy circumstance of surplus. We are facing the prospect of surpluses for the foreseeable future. We have the potential of making that future stretch all the way to the middle of the 21st century if we act prudently tonight, tomorrow, and next week. This is not the time to go back where we have been and where we do not want to go again, a nation on its economic knees through deficits and excessive debt.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I am pleased to have this opportunity to honor the outstanding history of the Leon High School Band in Tallahassee, Florida. Now in its 61st year, Leon High School Band's tradition of distinction is second only to the academic and personal integrity of its members. Officially organized in 1940, Leon Band and its colorful history remain a source of great pride for everyone involved with the program. During those early years, the ``Marching Redcoats'' took the field at the 1946 Orange Bowl in Miami, Florida, attended the Cherry Blossom Festival in Washington, D.C. and was proclaimed the official band of the State of Florida. The honors, acclaim and achievements, however, did not stop there; the band visited Mexico in 1974 to enter the Festival of Bands and toured Austria for the International Music Festival in 1977. More recently, under the direction of Timothy Paul, the Leon High Band has continued its quest for excellence. Not only have they won the Sudler Order of Merit for Historical Bands, but in December, 2000, the band was presented with the prestigious Sulder Flag of Honor, an international award honoring musical expertise. Individually, band members consistently attain superior ratings in district and state competition. The grand tradition of the Leon High School Band continues and richly deserves our commendation and recognition.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, we have been receiving a disturbingly consistent and an increasingly high volume of bad economic news. Even what appeared to be good news at its base is bad news. In today's Washington Post, is an article--and I ask unanimous consent that this and the other articles to which I will refer be printed in the Record immediately after my remarks.