Phil Gramm

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. I say, in conclusion, that the Domenici budget has a real process to lower the debt limit that the Government operates under to assure that not one penny of Social Security money will be spent on anything else. We will have a vote on that lockbox. Many people who say, ``We want to stop the plundering of Social Security,'' will have an opportunity to do it, because the Domenici proposal will stop Social Security money being spent for any other purpose. I intend to support it. I congratulate Senator Domenici. And I yield the floor. Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, as I understand the discussion that Senator Domenici just had, the target was to try to finish all of these amendments at 6:30. Obviously, since we are going back and forth and sharing the time, the Senator, and anyone else, can debate his amendment. The objective was and the unanimous-consent request which was agreed to, as I understand, was that between now and 6:30, we would have these amendments offered, but you can debate your amendment at any point and anyone on your side can debate it, and Senator Domenici and I will debate it. We have been setting aside amendments to stack them, and that, I understand from the Chair, is where we are. No one is trying to preclude the Senator from debating his amendment.

Mr. GRAMM. That was the target that was set.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I want to speak on the pending amendment by Senator Conrad, and then I understand the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee wants to speak on the Conrad amendment. Then we will set the Conrad amendment aside, if there is no objection, and yield to Senator Bond, who will offer his amendment. If anyone wants to give an immediate response, they can. Then we will yield to Senator Kennedy, let him offer his amendment. At that point, Senator Domenici will be back to speak on the Conrad amendment. If Senator Conrad wants to respond, he can. Then we are at least at that point closing in on a vote of all these amendments. None of this is agreed to, but follows that general parameter. If no one objects to it, let me proceed.

Mr. GRAMM. I am happy to yield.

Mr. GRAMM. Certainly.

Mr. GRAMM. Let me yield to Senator Conrad and then I want to speak.

Mr. GRAMM. The only problem will be that Senator Domenici wants to speak and he is not here. We are simply trying to accommodate everyone in terms of offering amendments and having a debate. In any case, there are always limits to what we can do. We will do the best we can.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, a continuing problem with the emergency supplemental appropriations is that it is not paid for. I would like to remind my colleagues--and I will try to be brief-- that last year the President in the State of the Union Address took the hard and fast position that we should save Social Security first. The idea was that the whole surplus of the Federal budget should go to Social Security and should be used to reduce the outstanding debt of the Government. As everyone remembers, in the waning hours of the session last year we passed an emergency appropriations bill that contained numerous nonemergency items. And the net result was to spend $21 billion-- roughly one-third of the surplus--every penny of which was Social Security surplus. Therefore, in the words of the President, we had plundered the Social Security trust fund to fund all of these other programs of Government. As I am sure everyone is aware, along with the budget that will come to the floor of the Senate immediately following disposition of the issue on Kosovo, we will consider a lockbox provision that requires a reduction in the debt held by the public by the amount of Social Security surplus. That will automatically lower the debt limit we will set by law each time we have a Social Security surplus. So the net result will be that each and every penny of the Social Security surplus will, in fact, be locked away, going to debt reduction in the name of Social Security. While none of that saves Social Security, it does mean that none of it is spent on general government and that we actually reduce the indebtedness of the Federal Government in the process. Right in the face of this effort to lock away the Social Security surplus for Social Security, we found ourselves with an emergency supplemental appropriations bill which is not paid for. And, in fact, in its current form, the bill increases spending and therefore takes $441 million right out of the Social Security surplus in fiscal year 1999. And then, adding this year and the next 4 years, it would take almost $1 billion out of the surplus; $956 million would, in fact, be taken out of that surplus. It seems to me we can't be credible talking about a lockbox to lock this money away for Social Security at the very same moment that we are spending the money. So I have sent two amendments to the desk. One makes across-the-board reductions in the previous emergency bill we passed in areas other than agriculture and defense to such a degree that we pay for the $441 million. So the emergency supplemental at that point will be deficit neutral in fiscal year 1999. The second-degree amendment, which I have submitted on behalf of myself and Senator Nickles, because in fact it was his amendment that he reserved the right to offer--the second-degree amendment is an amendment which waives the emergency designation, which will mean that this $515 million of spending in the years 2000 through 2005, will count toward the spending caps in those years. So by spending the money now, we will lose the ability to spend that amount of money in future years. These are two straightforward amendments which have one overriding virtue, and that is, they pay for the supplemental. Let me say of my colleague, the Senator from Alaska, that I am very grateful he has decided to accept these amendments. I know this only means postponing the battle until conference. There was a clever little poem I learned as a boy. And I am sort of ashamed to say that I forget exactly what the rhyme was. But it was, ``He that is convinced against his will is unconvinced still.'' And I know that in this case, wanting to get on with this bill, our dear colleague, our loving colleague from Alaska, is convinced against his will to take these amendments, and I know he is unconvinced still. But the point is, we would have the ability to go to conference with our bill fully paid for and with no emergency designation. That would put those of us who believe that this should be the way we do business in this country in a position in conference to try to sway others. On that basis, I will be willing, with the adoption of these amendments, to let the bill go to conference where, obviously, at that point this will be fought out again. Let me conclude, before the Senator from Alaska changes his mind, by simply saying we are going to have to come to a moment of truth here. We cannot write budgets that say we are going to control spending and then continue to spend. We cannot lock away money for Social Security and then spend the money for Social Security. I know it is hard--when the President says one thing and does another--for Congress to say something and then actually do it because, obviously, it is easier to say it and not do it than it is to say it and then do it. But I do believe the American people have a higher standard that they apply to us, and I think the adoption of this amendment, especially if it can be held in conference, is a major step forward in getting credibility back into the budget. On that basis I yield the floor.

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

Mr. GRAMM. Oh, OK.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the votes by which the amendments were agreed to.

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

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

Mr. GRAMM. Well, first of all, I don't know of any effort in the past, prior to 1979, when I came to the Congress. There had been no legislative action since 1979 that would have locked in a process to enforce debt reduction. This is the first in my experience of service in the Congress. My guess is there has never been a similar proposal before, but we do have an extraordinary circumstance. We have a President who is committed to saving Social Security money and using it for debt reduction. We have 100 Members of the Senate who say they are for it. Your amendment gives us a happy opportunity to marry all this up with a binding constraint. The question is, who is for real and who is not for real on this issue. That is what will be determined.

Mr. GRAMM. Anybody who is opposed to your bill is refusing to write into law in a binding manner what everybody pledges verbally to do. The provision of the Senator from New Mexico is an enforcement mechanism. And the only reason anybody would be against enforcing an antiplundering provision on Social Security is if they intend to plunder. I think that is what the whole issue is about.

Mr. GRAMM. Yes, I can tell you I not only have an idea, I think it is clear there is only one reason anybody would be against it, and that is they want to say they are saving Social Security, but they do not want to do it. They want to have it both ways. They want to give great and flowery speeches about ``Save Social Security first, save Social Security now,'' but when it gets right down to it, what the provision of my colleague in the budget does by changing the debt ceiling is it actually makes it impossible for them not to do it unless they can get 60 votes in the Senate to raise the debt ceiling. So the only reason they would oppose it is they do not intend to do it.

Mr. GRAMM. But then you would be dead, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Hutchison, Bingaman, Domenici, Kyl, McCain, Boxer, Feinstein, and Gorton, I am introducing legislation today which will authorize the United States Customs Service to acquire the necessary personnel and technology to reduce delays at our border crossings with Mexico and Canada to no more than 20 minutes, while strengthening our commitment to interdict illegal narcotics and other contraband. This bill represents the progress that we made in this regard in the last Congress, and it builds on efforts that we initiated last year. This legislation passed the Senate unanimously on October 8, 1998, and a similar companion bill passed the House of Representatives on May 19, 1998 by a vote of 320-86. In addition to the resources dedicated to our nation's land borders, this bill also incorporates the efforts of Senators Grassley and Graham in adding resources for interdiction efforts in the air and along our coastline, provisions that were passed by the Senate in last year's bill. I am very concerned about the impact of narcotics trafficking on Texas and the nation and have worked closely with federal and state law enforcement officials to identify and secure the necessary resources to battle the onslaught of illegal drugs. At the same time, however, our current enforcement strategy is burdened by insufficient staffing, a gross underuse of vital interdiction technology, and is effectively closing the door to legitimate trade. At a time when NAFTA and the expanding world marketplace are making it possible for us to create more commerce, freedom and opportunity for people on both sides of the border, it is important that we eliminate the border crossing delays that are stifling these goals. In order for all Americans to fully enjoy the benefits of growing trade with Mexico and Canada, we must ensure that the Customs Service has the resources necessary to accomplish its mission. Customs inspections should not be obstacles to legitimate trade and commerce. Customs staffing needs to be increased significantly to facilitate the flow of substantially increased traffic on both the Southwestern and Northern borders, and these additional personnel need the modern technology that will allow them to inspect more cargo, more efficiently. The practical effect of these increases will be to open all the existing primary inspection lanes where congestion is a problem during peak hours and to enhance investigative capabilities on the Southwest border. Long traffic lines at our international crossings are counterproductive to improving our trade relationship with Mexico and Canada. This bill is designed to shorten those lines and promote legitimate commerce, while providing the Customs Service with the means necessary to tackle the drug trafficking operations that are now rampant along the 1,200-mile border that my State shares with Mexico. I will be speaking further to my colleagues about this initiative and urge their support for the bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Reserving the right to object, may I pose a question to the Senator?

Mr. GRAMM. With that assurance from the manager of the bill, I do not object.

Mr. GRAMM. This is a motion to table the amendment?

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, on behalf of Senators Hutchison, Bingaman, Domenici, Kyl, McCain, Boxer, Feinstein, and Gorton, I am introducing legislation today which will authorize the United States Customs Service to acquire the necessary personnel and technology to reduce delays at our border crossings with Mexico and Canada to no more than 20 minutes, while strengthening our commitment to interdict illegal narcotics and other contraband. This bill represents the progress that we made in this regard in the last Congress, and it builds on efforts that we initiated last year. This legislation passed the Senate unanimously on October 8, 1998, and a similar companion bill passed the House of Representatives on May 19, 1998 by a vote of 320-86. In addition to the resources dedicated to our nation's land borders, this bill also incorporates the efforts of Senators Grassley and Graham in adding resources for interdiction efforts in the air and along our coastline, provisions that were passed by the Senate in last year's bill. I am very concerned about the impact of narcotics trafficking on Texas and the nation and have worked closely with federal and state law enforcement officials to identify and secure the necessary resources to battle the onslaught of illegal drugs. At the same time, however, our current enforcement strategy is burdened by insufficient staffing, a gross underuse of vital interdiction technology, and is effectively closing the door to legitimate trade. At a time when NAFTA and the expanding world marketplace are making it possible for us to create more commerce, freedom and opportunity for people on both sides of the border, it is important that we eliminate the border crossing delays that are stifling these goals. In order for all Americans to fully enjoy the benefits of growing trade with Mexico and Canada, we must ensure that the Customs Service has the resources necessary to accomplish its mission. Customs inspections should not be obstacles to legitimate trade and commerce. Customs staffing needs to be increased significantly to facilitate the flow of substantially increased traffic on both the Southwestern and Northern borders, and these additional personnel need the modern technology that will allow them to inspect more cargo, more efficiently. The practical effect of these increases will be to open all the existing primary inspection lanes where congestion is a problem during peak hours and to enhance investigative capabilities on the Southwest border. Long traffic lines at our international crossings are counterproductive to improving our trade relationship with Mexico and Canada. This bill is designed to shorten those lines and promote legitimate commerce, while providing the Customs Service with the means necessary to tackle the drug trafficking operations that are now rampant along the 1,200-mile border that my State shares with Mexico. I will be speaking further to my colleagues about this initiative and urge their support for the bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRAMM

Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I want to thank my Scottish cousin, Senator Graham, for letting me go first so I can go back to the Budget Committee. I am very happy to be here and join both Senator Graham of Florida and my colleague from Texas in strongly opposing this amendment. The idea that the Federal Government is trying to seize $18.9 billion from the States to spend in Washington, DC, when we had nothing to do with their settlement and when we were in the process of trying to impose our own taxes and, in fact, when the President has in his budget the imposition of new taxes on tobacco, is absolutely outrageous. The amazing thing is the President proposes taking the money away from the States and then giving them a bunch of money, but then telling them how to spend it. This amendment is the height of absurdity. In my State, this amendment would tell Texas that we have to spend $4 billion on smoker cessation. We could literally hire thousands of people and have a personal trainer for each person who are chewing tobacco or dipping snuff. Why should the Federal Government have the right to tell the States how to spend this money? I suggest our colleagues read the tenth amendment of the Constitution--powers not specifically delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the several States and to the people. This amendment is an outrageous power grab. Where we in Washington, the day before yesterday, were trying to be the school board for all America, now we are trying to tell the States how to get people to stop smoking, when we have done a very poor job of it in the Federal Government. We are trying to tell the States how to spend their money. Somewhere this has got to stop. My suggestion to our colleagues is, if you want to run the schools in America, quit the Senate and go run for the school board. If you want to be a State legislator, leave the Senate and run for the State senate or the State house or run for Governor. Our job is not to tell the States how to spend their money. This is an outrageous amendment. I just cannot understand the logic of this, other than the belief that only we know what is best. The idea that we on the floor of the Senate will tell Texas how they have to spend $4 billion over this period is absolutely absurd--that Texas has to file a report every year with Health and Human Services, and then they have to approve how Texas is spending its own money that the Federal Government had nothing to do with, had no part in claiming, no role in the settlement. In fact, in the President's budget this year where he tries to reclaim this money, he is talking about imposing a tobacco tax. Are we going to let the States tell us how to spend that money? I think not. I congratulate my colleague from Texas. This is an amendment that deserves to be defeated overwhelmingly. I hope 80 or 90 of our fellow Senators will vote against this amendment. Again, if you want to tell Texas how to spend its money, quit the Senate, move to Texas, establish residence, run for the State legislature; if you can get elected, go at it. But do not get elected from another State and come here and try to tell our State or any other State how to spend its money. The Federal Government needs to butt out. We have plenty of our own problems to deal with here. Social Security is going broke, Medicare is going broke quicker, and what are we doing? The day before yesterday, we were trying to run all the schools in the country as a national school board. Today we are trying to spend money in every State to tell them how to deal with their tobacco settlements. It seems to me we are running away from real problems that we ought to be solving and trying to find somebody else's problems to solve where we don't have any responsibility if things go bad. Again, I congratulate my colleague from Texas. I congratulate the Senator from Florida. I thank him for letting me come in and speak at this time. I yield the floor. Mr. GRAHAM addressed the Chair.