Bob Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I will object if that unanimous consent request is placed.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would like to respond to the statement that was made earlier relative to the role of the Florida sugar industry and the Florida Everglades. As one who grew up in the Florida Everglades and feels deeply about the importance of the State and national effort which is underway to restore them, I think it is important to set the record straight. The sugar industry has appropriately been designated for a major part of the effort to restore the Everglades. Thus far, they have not only met but exceeded the requirements that have been imposed for the reduction of phosphorus from the waters before they enter the main part of the Everglades. Sugar has participated in the development of a restudy plan, which will soon be debated by this Senate, and sugar has been a strong supporter of the restoration of the Everglades through the Corps of Engineers restudy plan. It is important for the success of the salvation of the Everglades that each of the stakeholders play their role. I can state at this time that sugar is playing its appropriate role and a strong sugar industry is going to be a key element in achieving the objective of saving the Florida Everglades.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I object to the unanimous consent request.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. So I think the answer to the question is yes. That raises the question: I notice before the amendment was sent to the desk there was a handwritten insertion in the title of the amendment. The original title had said, ``to promote adequate availability of food and medicine abroad by requiring congressional approval. . ..'' In the handwritten insertion, the prepositional phrase was added so it now reads ``promote adequate availability of food and medicine for humanitarian assistance abroad by requiring congressional approval. . ..'' It seems actually the substance of the amendment does quite the opposite of the prepositional phrase. The substance of the amendment says if you are rich enough to be able to buy at commercial standards, you can avoid the necessity of licensing and all of the constraints that have been imposed by action of Congress, action of the President, or both on terrorist states. But if you are a poor terrorist state and have been sanctioned by Congress or the President, or both, and would require some assistance in order to be able to get food, then you are still subject to all of these licensing requirements. So the actual substance of the amendment is inconsistent with the modification that was made in the title. I suspect I know why that was done.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I appreciate the answers to the questions, and I think the summary of those answers is that we have established an inconsistent policy as between actions of the Congress relative to new sanctions and to existing sanctions. Second, we have established a policy that, if you are a rich terrorist state and have the money to buy food at straight commercial standards, you can do so; if you are a poor terrorist state that would require the access to some of these various trade assistance programs, then you cannot buy American food. I do not believe this is an amendment that, once fully understood, the Members of the Senate will wish to be associated with. Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAHAM. Is it a fair characterization of subsection 4 that commercial sales of food and medicine to a rich terrorist state are acceptable; i.e., would be exempt from the current licensing provisions but humanitarian sales, that is, sales that qualify for one of the various forms of U.S. Government assistance to a poor terrorist state, would continue to be subject to those licensing requirements?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kim Alexander be granted floor privileges during the consideration of the Agriculture appropriations bill.

Mr. GRAHAM. To continue my question, I don't think that was quite responsive to the issue I am raising. In the Senator's opening statement, the principal argument was that we should not allow the President to unilaterally be imposing these sanctions, and in terms of new sanctions as outlined on page 4, you clearly restrict the application by the President of the prohibition to those that are unilateral. As it relates to existing sanctions, this language appears to sweep up both sanctions that were unilaterally imposed by the President, such as the one against Sudan last year, as well as those that were imposed by action of Congress, such as the legislation that bears the name of the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee which was adopted some time ago. That was an action which had the support of the Senate, the House of Representatives, and was signed into law by the President of the United States. Who else does the Senator want to have sanctioned in order to be an effective statement of policy of the United States of America?

Mr. GRAHAM. Continuing with the questions, would the Senator from Missouri be amenable to a modification of this amendment to make the existing sanctions provision on page 5 consistent with the new sanctions standards on page 4?

Mr. GRAHAM. If I could move to another provision, which is beginning at line 12, we have the ``Countries Supporting International Terrorism'' section, which reads: This subsection shall not affect the current prohibitions on providing, to the government of any country supporting international terrorism, United States government assistance, including United States foreign assistance, United States export assistance, or any United States credits or credit guarantees. What is missing from that set of prohibitions is prohibitions against direct, unaided commercial sales. As I gather from the Senator's earlier presentation of this amendment, it is his intention that a nonassisted commercial sale between a U.S. entity and one of these terrorist states would be acceptable, i.e., would not be subject to continued prohibitions?

Mr. GRAHAM. I am struck with some of the inconsistencies within this amendment. I appreciate my colleague's elucidation as to their significance. Under ``New Sanctions,'' it states: . . .the President may not impose a unilateral agricultural sanction or a unilateral medical sanction against a foreign country or a foreign entity for any fiscal year, unless-- And there are certain exceptions. In terms of ``new sanctions,'' we are speaking as to presidentially imposed. Under ``Existing Sanctions'' it says: . . .with respect to any unilateral agricultural sanction or unilateral medical sanction that is in effect as of the date of enactment of this Act for any fiscal year. . . . As my colleague knows, some of the sanctions that would be covered by this existing sanctions language are congressionally imposed, not presidentially imposed. The question I have is, Why make the distinction for new sanctions, that they must be presidentially imposed, assumedly reserving to Congress the right to impose a new sanction? Yet with old existing sanctions, the amendment wipes out both those that were presidentially as well as those which had been sanctioned by action of Congress. What is the rationale?

Mr. GRAHAM. The concern I have is that what essentially we have, or what the Senator proposes to do--I hope we do not follow this suggestion--is to say, if you are a sufficiently rich terrorist state, you can afford to buy the products without any of the credit or other assistance that is often available in those transactions. If you are rich enough to be able to make the purchase without depending upon that, then these prohibitions that are currently in place--by action of the Congress or action of the President or, in the case of several of these, by action of both the Congress and the President--will not apply. But if you are a poor terrorist country and cannot afford to buy the food unless you have one of these subsidies, then you are prohibited. Is it that a rich terrorist state gets a preference over a poor terrorist state?

Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, it is my intention to raise a point of order. Before I do so, I will provide some context. We have entered into a unanimous consent agreement to govern the disposition of this legislation. That unanimous consent agreement states that during the consideration of the agricultural appropriations bill, when the Democratic leader or his designee offers an agricultural relief amendment, no rule XVI point of order lie against the amendment or amendments thereto relating to the same subject. The question is, Does this amendment to the amendment offered by the Democratic leader on agricultural relief constitute an amendment relating to the same subject? Let me anticipate what might be considered by the Parliamentarian. In the underlying amendment, there is reference made to two agricultural programs: The Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 and section 416 of the Agricultural Act of 1949. Both of those statutes are again referenced in the amendment that has been offered by the Senator from Missouri. Where are they offered in the amendment offered by the Senator from Missouri? They are offered in the section of the amendment which is the definitions, so they are stated to be agricultural programs and then listed in the definition section. I can find no other reference to those specific statutes other than in the definition section, raising the question as to whether they were inserted in the definition section in order to attempt to overcome what was the clear purpose of the unanimous consent agreement, which was to provide a narrow exception to the rule XVI prohibition against legislating on an appropriations bill. Even beyond that, I point out on page 6, in one of the most significant provisions of this amendment, the provision that relates to countries supporting international terrorism, the only potential relevance of defining those pieces of legislation is to exclude them from the operation of this amendment. So they are put in the definition section so they can be removed from the operation of this amendment on page 6. Clearly, in my opinion, that is a specious attempt to gain the advantage of the unanimous consent agreement. One final point. During the colloquy I had with the Senator from Missouri, I think he was quite candid in saying that the purpose of that support for the international terrorism section was to draw a distinction between commercial sales of agricultural and medical products, which were approved under this amendment, could be made without any of the existing conditions such as a license, and sales that were made on a humanitarian basis through one of these various U.S. trade or export of agricultural products provisions which continued to be prohibited. We have the ironic circumstance that the humanitarian provision is prohibited but commercial sales are rendered acceptable by this amendment. Yet in the headline, the footnote, the summary of this amendment, by a handwritten insertion, the prepositional phrase is inserted which says ``for humanitarian assistance.'' The purpose of inserting that specific reference is clearly just to establish the most tenuous connection to the underlying bill and to attempt to create the facade that this amendment has something to do with humanitarian assistance, where, by the very description of the Senator from Missouri, it is for commercial, not assisted humanitarian agricultural, sales. Mr. President, with that description of what I think the amendment is, what the underlying amendment and what the purpose of the unanimous consent agreement was, which was a narrow exception for agricultural relief amendments and amendments to that amendment which related to the same subject, since this fails to meet that standard, I raise the point of order under rule XVI that this amendment constitutes, clearly, explicitly, legislation on an appropriations bill and therefore, under rule XVI, is out of order.

Mr. GRAHAM

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

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask that Mr. Sean McCluskie, Mr. Adam Foslid, and Ms. Brooke Russ of my office be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the Agriculture appropriations bill.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, it is a tremendous honor to welcome a distinguished religious leader and member of the South Florida community to the United States Senate: Rabbi Solomon Schiff of the Greater Miami Jewish Federation's Community Chaplaincy Service. This morning, my colleagues and I were privileged to have Rabbi Schiff participate in a long-standing tradition by leading the Senate in prayer. His eloquence reminds us that while our legislative efforts to make the United States a better place to live, work, and raise our families is important, it pales in contrast with our responsibilities to the Almighty. On behalf of every member of the United States Senate, I want to thank Rabbi Schiff for his words of inspiration. It is no accident that Solomon Schiff was asked to lead us in our daily devotions. His long record of service to individuals in Florida, America, and around the world has distinguished him as not only a prominent spiritual leader but also a leader in his community. Since his graduation from Brooklyn College, the University of Miami, and the Hebrew Theological Seminary in Illinois, Rabbi Schiff has served as Chairman of the Board of License of the Central Agency for Jewish Education, President of both the South Florida and Florida Chaplains Association, Chairman of the Metropolitan Dade Community Relations Board, Chairman of the Chaplaincy Service Advisory Council for the Florida Department of Corrections, and Secretary, Vice President, and President of the Rabbinical Association of Greater Miami. Rabbi Schiff's current leadership positions confirm his dedication to service. In addition to his duties as Director of the Greater Miami Jewish Federation's Community Chaplaincy Service, he serves as Chairman of the National Council of Executives of Boards of Rabbis, Chairman of the Community Hospice Council in South Florida, and as a member of the Executive Committee of the National Rabbinic Cabinet of United Jewish Appeal. Mr. President, Rabbi Solomon Schiff is a shining example of the moral and community leadership that our communities need as we enter a new century. I will conclude today by asking that a November 27, 1998, article from the Sun-Sentinel of South Florida be included with my remarks. It discusses Awakening 2000, an interfaith initiative that encourages Floridians to engage the power of prayer and spiritual healing in their daily lives and interactions with others. Rabbi Schiff, a leader in this faith-based effort, was quoted as saying that ``a total commitment by responsible people to try and bring society to a level of decency is the only way . . . that our society will survive with a positive future.'' Mr. President, it gives me great reassurance that Solomon Schiff's wise counsel will help guide us into that future. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the article I referred to be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to thank our distinguished guest Chaplain, Rabbi Solomon Schiff, a personal friend, who has been a great contributor to the religious and civic life of our community and Nation and who has brought us an inspirational message to commence a long day of Senate deliberation.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. This is the statement of the Concord Coalition. In conclusion it provides: The bottom line is that, at the moment, political leaders have no idea how to meet the long-term spending promises that have been made for Social Security and Medicare, and no idea how to meet the tough discretionary spending caps on which the baseline surplus is premised. Major tax cuts should await the resolution of these issues. If the politically hard choices are not made before the easy ones, there is a very real danger that we'll end up spending a surplus we don't really have. Let me repeat: If the politically hard choices are not made before the easy ones, there is a very real danger that we'll end up spending a surplus we don't really have. So those are why the issues of sequencing--what do we do first, where do we put our primary priorities--are central for the fiscal future of this country and the debate we have this week. I will briefly say why I think the proper order is Social Security and Medicare first. First, the Social Security taxpayers and the Medicare taxpayers, through their payroll taxes, have created the totality of the surplus we have today. There is no other surplus than the Social Security surplus today, and there will only be a meager surplus beyond Social Security for the foreseeable future. So should not the people who created the surplus have some moral standing to be at the front of the line, not the back of the line, when we decide how to spend the surplus? Second, a substantial amount of the non-Social Security surplus is going to be the result of the Social Security surplus being invested in paying down the debt held by the public and therefore relieving the National Government of enormous interest payments--that $2 trillion of Social Security surplus when it is fully committed to reducing the debt held by the public. Let us say the average interest on the debt of the Federal Government today is 6 percent. Mr. President, as a certified public accountant, what kind of interest savings do you get at 6 percent on $2 trillion? A very substantial amount of money. And that is a significant part of the non-Social Security surplus. Don't the people who are creating those interest savings deserve to be at the front of the line, not at the back of the line? Third, we do have a solemn contract between the American Government and its people on these programs. If we think we should not have that contract, then I think someone should stand up and be candid and honest and say: Let's repeal the 1935 Social Security Act, let's repeal the 1965 Medicare Act, so there will not be any false expectations. We are going to abrogate these contracts. I do not believe there is any Member of this Senate or the House of Representatives who would do so. Therefore, I believe we, as the trustees for the American people in these important programs, have an obligation to see that they can fulfill their expectations. Finally, we are not suggesting, with the amendment that Senator Robb and I have offered, what the resolution of this issue should be. There are probably a dozen or more good ideas in this Chamber as to how we should strengthen Social Security, how we should strengthen Medicare. What we are saying is there should be a performance standard. The performance standard, I say to the Senator from Tennessee, my good friend, is not one we stole from somebody else. We have been saying for many years that Social Security should be solvent for three generations. When you apply that three-generational test to 1999, it happens to come out to the year 2075. If somebody has a different standard they believe Social Security solvency should be judged by, let them come forward and make the case. But I believe we should guarantee this program for current beneficiaries, their children--like my child who, in the year 2034, will start drawing her Social Security benefits and become eligible for Medicare. I am pleased to say that same daughter is now about to make us grandparents, Adele and myself. This will be our 10th grandchild. In November she will have a baby. So we are concerned about the new baby who will soon come into our family. I believe that is a concern all of us share who are or hope soon to be grandparents. So I believe in the three-generational standard, which has been the standard against which Medicare solvency has been historically judged, is a sound one and represents the intergenerational contract. We are not suggesting how that contract should be fulfilled because there are many ways. But we are saying that is the standard against which all proposals should be judged. Similarly, with Medicare--that is a more difficult proposition because Medicare, unlike Social Security, is not totally funded out of a trust fund but rather a mixture of a trust fund for hospitalization and general revenue, plus premiums by the beneficiaries for the physicians' portion of Medicare. We are saying that, for the hospitalization plan, we should set as a standard the year 2027 for solvency of that trust fund. Again, if someone wishes to argue for a different standard, that is certainly their prerogative. But we need to have a measurement. We need to have something like an external audit, some standard to which we can submit our proposals and have them evaluated as to whether they meet the test of the American people. So what we are saying is let's maintain our options. Let us not place ourselves in a position where we are unable to achieve those standards of solvency for Social Security and Medicare. Once we have done that, we can declare hallelujah, and then we can proceed, if there are funds left after we have accomplished those purposes, to tax cuts or whatever else the Congress and the American people believe to be their priorities. But these are the first two priorities. There is both a moral and a legal obligation, and maybe most important, an obligation to our future, as seen in the faces of our children and grandchildren. It is to them that this amendment is directed. I urge my colleagues to adopt the simple principle: Let's do first things first, and Social Security and Medicare solvency are the first two responsibilities of this Congress. I thank the Chair. Exhibit 1 [From the Concord Coalition, July 28, 1999] Tax Cuts Should Await Hard Choices on Spending Washington.--With the House and Senate headed toward passage of a $792 billion, 10-year tax cut, The Concord Coalition today challenged Congress and the President to make the hard choices on discretionary and entitlement spending before enacting a major tax cut. ``Cutting taxes in anticipation of spending cuts that have not been made, and may never be made, is a recipe for the return of chronic annual budget deficits,'' said Policy Director Robert Bixby. The Concord Coalition pointed out that Congress and the President have yet to agree on several key spending issues, including: Discretionary caps--The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline assumes that the discretionary spending caps will be complied with through 2002. It is increasingly clear, however, that this goal will not be met. Spending will exceed the caps either explicitly or by stealth through the emergency loophole. The projected baseline surplus varies by hundreds of billions of dollars depending upon the path of discretionary spending. Tax cuts should therefore await a more realistic assessment of the non-Social Security surplus, which will be available only after the dust settles on the appropriations bills. Medicare prescription drug benefit--Congressional leaders and the President seem to agree that a prescription drug benefit should be added to Medicare. According to CBO, the President's plan would cost $111 billion over ten years. Republican leaders have suggested a less expensive approach, but the question remains--how much will the new benefit cost? Social Security reform--The CBO baseline assumes that the entire surplus will be used for debt reduction. But what about Social Security reform? Many responsible reform plans would use at least the Social Security portion of the surplus as the down payment on a funded system of individually owned Social Security accounts. If combined with appropriate long- term cost savings in the rest of the program, such a reform plan would do more to improve the outlook for future generations than a strategy of debt reduction alone. Enacting a major tax cut now, however, could drain away resources that may well be needed for the costs of transitioning to a more sustainable, generationally equitable Social Security system. ``The bottom line is that, at the moment, political leaders have no idea how to meet the long-term spending promises that have been made for Social Security and Medicare, and no idea how to meet the tough discretionary spending caps on which the baseline surplus is premised. Major tax cuts should await the resolution of these issues. If the politically hard choices are not made before the easy ones, there is a very real danger that we'll end up spending a surplus we don't really have,'' Bixby said.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the issue before us with this amendment is what is the proper order of consideration of the issues challenging our Nation? In the Bible it talks about the fact that there is a season for all things. There is a season to plant; there is a season to harvest. The question is, What is the season of America here in late July of 1999? The position Senator Robb and I and our cosponsors take is that the season is not for a massive tax cut until we have planted and harvested the seeds of a strengthened Social Security program and a strengthened Medicare program. The bill that was reported by the Senate Finance Committee and its companion, which has already passed the House of Representatives, would cut taxes by approximately $800 billion over the next 10 years. Some have claimed--and claimed on this floor earlier today --that a tax cut of $800 billion is the ideal way to usher in a new era of budget surpluses and to maintain the economic growth and prosperity through which we are currently living. I could not disagree more. With all due respect to my colleagues, the tax cut jeopardizes the long-term solvency of two of the critical programs for millions of Americans--Social Security and Medicare--programs for which there is a solemn contract, a contract between the American Government and its people, a contract which is now in question. There are a series of rather straightforward questions that lie at the heart of this debate: Do we live for today? Do we consume for today's satisfaction? Or do we plan, do we save, do we prepare for tomorrow? Do we support fiscal gluttony or fiscal discipline? The question our children might ask is, do we eat our dessert before or after spinach? The amendment Senator Robb offers delays the effective date of any tax cut until after legislation strengthening Social Security and Medicare has been enacted. This proposal, I suggest, is not dissimilar to the approach which has been proposed by the leadership in the House of Representatives. They have agreed that debt reduction, at least as measured by interest expense, should take priority over tax cuts. Under the House proposal, tax cuts are not made if interest payments do not decline. Similarly, our amendment places the preservation of Social Security and Medicare as higher priorities than tax cuts. The amendment states that before any tax cut proposal can be implemented, Congress must pass, and the President must sign, legislation extending the solvency of Social Security three generations, or to the year 2075. The Congress must also pass, and the President must also sign, legislation that modernizes the Medicare program and extends the solvency of the hospitalization program within Medicare through the year 2027. Unfortunately, the tax cut proposal on the Senate floor does not just delay our efforts to preserve these important programs for future generations; it brings these efforts to a screeching halt. The $800 billion tax cut in the plan before us represents over 80 percent of the projected non-Social Security surplus over the next 10 years. I point to this chart, which indicates that through the combination of the tax breaks of $792 billion, and then the interest which we will have to pay--rather than as our budget has been calculated, those $792 billion would have been used to reduce the Federal debt--since that use will now be diverted to tax cuts, that means we will be required to pay out an additional $100 billion in interest during the next 10 years. With the combination of the lost interest savings associated with these tax cuts and the lost revenue from the tax cuts themselves, the surplus disappears completely, leaving no resources to strengthen Social Security or modernize Medicare for our Nation's older citizens. Although we cannot accurately predict how the economy will perform over the next 10 years, we do know that demographic changes taking place in America will place a tremendous strain on Social Security and Medicare. Our elderly population is growing quickly. Those seniors are living longer than ever before. As a result, Social Security is projected to run its first ever deficit in the year 2014. It has been stated that all we have to do to save Social Security is to lock up the $1.9 trillion that will be derived by the Social Security surpluses in a lockbox, that we can wipe our hands of any further responsibility for the solvency of Social Security. As you well know, the fact is that that will only extend the Social Security solvency to approximately the year 2034. Yet our commitment is to preserve Social Security for three generations, not only to those who are the current beneficiaries, not only to those who will soon become beneficiaries but to their children and their grandchildren. A three- generational solvency for Social Security cannot be achieved through the singular step of investing all of the Social Security surplus into strengthening the Social Security trust fund. Even worse than the challenge faced by Social Security is the challenge faced by Medicare. The twin pillars of security for older Americans--financial security through Social Security, health security through Medicare. The trustees of the Medicare fund have reported that Part A, the hospital payments, already exceed the program's revenue and will do so in each of the next 15 years. In addition, not only does the program have a serious financial problem, Medicare is an increasingly out-of-date program and one that fails to take advantage of the benefits of modern medical science. We have a program which is from the model year 1965 when we desperately need one worthy of the 21st century. For example, we should increase the number of important preventive benefits available to Medicare. We should provide for programs such as hypertension, programs like glaucoma, for smoking cessation, for the management of hormones--all of which would extend the quality and the length of life, all of which are within the current extents of modern medicine. Yet the Medicare program does not provide those or many other of the important, proven preventative measures. We need to support that preventive effort by extending Medicare to include a prescription drug benefit, which is not only an important part of treating chronic diseases but a critical part of maintaining the health of our older citizens. Private health care plans long ago recognized that prescription drugs are a vital tool in efforts to save lives, improve health quality, and prevent and treat sickness and disease. Medicare will not be relevant in the 21st century if it does not cover the treatments physicians use and patients require. Yet the tax plan before us says nothing about preserving Social Security to the year 2075 or protecting and strengthening Medicare to the year 2027. Instead, it blindly devotes virtually all of the non- Social Security surplus to tax cuts without considering the larger budget issues, issues which hang over us like the sword of Damocles. Despite a record economy, the best fiscal situation since the late 1960s, this tax bill passes on the hard choices, passes on the choices that are going to be important to our children and our grandchildren. The deficit may be gone, but we are still operating under the same pass-the-buck-to-the-next-generation mentality that created it. Talk of an $800 billion tax cut versus a $500 billion tax cut versus a $250 billion tax cut, all of those miss the fundamental point. The fundamental point is, Congress should not pass any tax cut until we have strengthened Social Security by making it solvent for three generations. We should not pass any tax cut until we modernize Medicare by increasing the number of preventive benefits, incorporating a prescription drug benefit, and securing the program's fiscal health. Those should be our priorities. When this amendment was introduced during last week's Finance Committee markup, it was defeated on a strict party-line vote. It is my hope that bipartisanship, common sense, respect for future generations of Americans will prevent a similar outcome on the Senate floor this week. But if it does not, I am very confident and, frankly, very proud that President Clinton has stated he will veto any tax cut proposal that does not put Social Security and Medicare first. He is in the fiscally responsible position, one that values wise preparation over instant gratification. Now is the time to extend the life of Medicare and Social Security. Later, if our fiscal situation permits, it might be time to enact tax cuts. But my first priority, shared by Senator Robb, is to my nine grandchildren and the other children of their generation. I hope my colleagues will join me in making this the priority of Congress as well. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Alison Egan and Patricia Daugherty of the Finance Committee be granted the privilege of the floor during pendency of S. 1429, a bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 104 of the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2000.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, in 1983 Alan Greenspan chaired a commission to study the state of Social Security. He began the deliberations of that commission with this admonition: Every member of the commission is entitled to their opinion. No member of the commission is entitled to their facts. We are going to work off a common base of facts and then from that common base arrive at an informed set of judgments. What are some of the facts that drive this amendment? One, there is a tidal wave of Americans who will reach 65 and become beneficiaries under the Medicare program and the Social Security program beginning in the year 2010. That generation, the generation born immediately after World War II, will more than double the number of current beneficiaries in Social Security and Medicare. That is a fact. Second, it is a fact that under the current financing in the year 2014, 4 years after that tidal wave begins to hit, Social Security will go negative. That is, it will begin to pay out more benefits than it will take in annually in revenues. Third, it is a fact that even if we do as is suggested, put all of the Social Security surplus into strengthening the Social Security system primarily by paying down the national debt, even that step will only extend the solvency of Social Security to the year 2034. That happens to be a significant date for me because my youngest daughter will become 65 in the year 2034. I hope she might not necessarily be listening to my remarks, she would not be happy for me to remind her of that. Fourth, it is a fact that Medicare is a program of the 1960s based on 1960s knowledge of medical science, 1960s concepts of how to provide insurance for health care. With a few exceptions, it is still a 1965 program. It is a program in which the trust funded portions--that is, those that relate to hospital services--is already in a negative position. It is a program which will crack under the weight of the beneficiaries who will begin drawing its services in the year 2010. Finally, it is a fact that the longer we delay dealing with Social Security and Medicare, the more difficult the problem becomes. We may think we have eased our burden by delaying these hard decisions. We may have eased our burden because we may not be here. But the sooner we act for the benefit of all Americans, particularly those Americans who properly are anticipating the contract they have with their Government for the financial security of Social Security and the health security represented by Medicare, their problems, their challenges, grow daily more severe as we delay dealing with these fundamental issues. I want to join my colleague, Senator Robb, in saying much of what the Senator from Tennessee said was compelling. However, he asked a question: Why is there a relationship between Social Security solvency, Medicare and its strengthening and solvency, and the tax cut? These are unrelated, disparate policy issues. I beg to say I could not disagree more. There are two ways in which these issues are inextricably intertwined. One is fiscal. This chart indicates with the tax cut of $792 billion and the foregone interest savings of $141, the total cost to the treasury over the next 10 years of the plan before the Senate is $933 billion. If someone wishes to challenge those numbers, I stand silent and yield for them to do so. I assume, thus, that we agree those are the right numbers. With a total surplus from non-Social Security purposes--and we have already agreed we will put all the Social Security surplus into saving Social Security--that is $964 billion over 10 years, meaning the total amount that is left will be $32 billion over 10 years, or a little over $3 billion a year in order to do everything else that we may find needs to be done. The fact is, once we have committed ourselves to this plan, there are no fiscal resources to either further strengthen Social Security to move beyond the year 2034, or to strengthen Medicare. So there is a fiscal relationship. But beyond the fiscal Siamese twins of these issues, Social Security and Medicare, and this tax cut, is a political reality. There is nothing easier in politics, there is nothing that is less likely to get you a chapter in ``Profiles In Courage,'' than cutting taxes. Everybody likes to cut taxes. That is the classic case of eating your political desert. The question is, Do you eat your desert before you have had to first eat your vegetables? That is what we are being asked to do by passing this tax cut before we have dealt with the vegetables of Social Security and Medicare. One of the most responsible groups is a group which is now led by two of our colleagues, former Republican Senator from New Hampshire, Warren Rudman, and Democratic Senator from Georgia, Sam Nunn, the Concord Coalition. The Concord Coalition was one of the driving forces that has given us the opportunity to have this debate tonight about surpluses because they helped focus national attention on the rot we were suffering year after year because of the deficits and the mounting national debt. What does the Concord Coalition advise us about the issue we face tonight? Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record immediately after my remarks, a statement released today, July 28, 1999, by the Concord Coalition.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senators from Arizona and South Carolina agree to review this matter on the FAA reauthorization bill and by the end of year?