Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. That is $169 billion, according to the CBO numbers, between the period 2004 and 2008.

Mr. GREGG. Didn't the Senator ask me to answer his question? I believe I answered his question by pointing out to where it has shown a surplus. So, obviously, there is an opportunity here to show a surplus independent of the Social Security investments.

Mr. GREGG. As the Senator knows, there are a lot of other functions. But I am looking at the surplus, at the deficit surplus function, on budget, July: $37 million, $46 million, $45 million, $1 million, $11 million, zero; then we go into surplus, $5 million, $44 million, $55 million, $65 million. We can spend the entire day here debating what the CBO means when it puts a surplus number out which says an on-budget surplus number. But the numbers are there. The Senator said find me a place where we can show a surplus. I found him a place. He wants to try to talk now about gross debt--

Mr. GREGG. Certainly.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I just wanted to return to the specifics of the resolution, because I do think it is important to note that the resolution put forward by the Democratic membership is a resolution which tracks the statements made by the President in his State of the Union Address, which were that we should save Social Security first, we should reserve the surplus until we have saved Social Security first. That is a paraphrase, but I think it is an accurate paraphrase. In other words, the President did not say, ``We shall use the surplus to save Social Security.'' No, he chose his words very precisely. He said, ``We would reserve the surplus until Social Security is saved.'' If you look at this proposal brought forward by the Democratic leadership, it says, ``Save Social Security first by reserving any surplus.'' It doesn't say the surplus is going to be used. It says they are going to reserve it, again. What is the difference here? We are saying use the surplus to save Social Security. They are saying reserve the surplus until Social Security has been saved. So all of the arguments they have made relative to the surplus and how it ties into the need to have the surplus for the purposes of benefiting the Social Security system really are not supported by the terms and specifics of their language because they are not even saying they intend to use the surplus to save Social Security. They are saying they are going to reserve the surplus until Social Security is saved, which leads one to the conclusion that maybe what they are planning is some change, some horrific change to the Social Security system where they are going to cut benefits and slash here and slash there so that they can pump up the surplus and have saved the Social Security system and still have a surplus to spend. You can read their language to say that. You can't read our language to say that. Our language says, ``Use the surplus to save Social Security.'' So the histrionics around here are a bit much, and I don't know what they mean. I don't know what they mean when they say ``reserve.'' I don't know what they mean when they say, ``The surpluses in the year 1999 budget legislation'' because that doesn't necessarily mean the year 1999. That could mean the next 5 years, for all I know, that the budget legislation expires. So this is a resolution that is, to be kind, imprecisely drafted, or maybe it isn't imprecisely drafted. Maybe they intended to obfuscate the issue by using the term ``reserve,'' obfuscate the issue by using the term ``1999 budget legislation.'' We do not obfuscate the issue. We say, ``Save Social Security first,'' period. None of this qualifying language about reserving anything. And then we say, and we don't obfuscate this either, to the extent that there remains a surplus, ``Give it back to the American taxpayers.'' Give them a tax cut. Across this country in State legislatures where the surpluses are being added up--along with our Federal surplus, most States are running surpluses --we are seeing tax cut after tax cut because the States understand that they are taking in more than the government needs. You shouldn't spend it. You shouldn't create new programs. You should return it to the taxpayers. Now, the Senator from South Carolina has spent a considerable amount of time--in fact, he was kind enough to give me his numbers, and they are very nice numbers, presented very nicely, well formatted--on how there is no surplus out there besides the Social Security surplus. Well, I know the Senator from South Carolina is a student of the budget. In fact, he is one of the most knowledgeable people around here. I would simply refer him to the CBO numbers which say in the outyears there is a surplus independent of the Social Security system, independent of the Social Security system. In other words, there is a surplus beginning in the year 2005, which is a surplus that is not generated in any relationship to the surplus in the Social Security trust fund, and in 2006, in 2007, and in 2008, and beyond that maybe-- we hope. But in any event, over that 4-year period, and that adds up to almost, by my calculations, $150 billion of surplus, which is an onbudget surplus generated not by the Social Security surplus but generated after you have taken into account Social Security payments. So the CBO is telling us there is a distinct potential for there to be a surplus which has nothing to do with the Social Security trust funds. Not only is there a potential; they say there is going to be one, specifically saying. So I believe the Senator from South Carolina has misspoken on that point, or I disagree with his position on that point. He may not have misspoken. I am disagreeing with his position, because I am looking at the CBO July update which says there is a surplus. Should we use that surplus for something other than Social Security? My own personal opinion is no. No. The onbudget surplus, that I just talked about, should probably be also used for the purposes of addressing the Social Security issue. That happens to be my personal position. The way it should be done is by cutting taxes, which is what we happen to mention here in our amendment. We should cut taxes. What tax should we cut? We should cut the Social Security tax. Why? Because it is the most regressive tax which we have. It is assessed across the board. Every wage earner pays it, and it is extraordinarily high. In fact, for most wage earners in America today, the Social Security tax is higher than their income tax. And it has no relationship to your total income; it simply is applied to your wage base. So it should be cut. That is our proposal. It happens to be a bipartisan proposal. In fact, I think it now has something like seven or eight sponsors almost evenly divided between the Democrat and Republican side of the aisle here. And what we propose is to cut the Social Security tax by 2 percent, allow people to take that money, invest it in a savings vehicle managed by the Social Security Administration, which will give them a better return and give them physical ownership of that asset as we have discussed earlier. So substantively I believe the proposal that I have brought forward here that is cosponsored by Senator Lott, Senator Domenici, Senator Gramm, and Senator Mack is a better idea. It says, ``Save Social Security,'' period. That has to be done. It has to be done first. And then if there is a surplus, let's return it to the American taxpayer. It doesn't say there will definitely be a surplus, but if we look at the CBO numbers, we know there is a distinct possibility that there will be a surplus because they are scoring one for us. It does not obfuscate the issue with words like ``reserve'' and words like ``fiscal year 1999 budget legislation.'' Pretty blunt. So I think if the membership wants to choose a clear, concise, specific statement that says Social Security will be saved and will be saved first, and that then we will look at cutting taxes for the American taxpayer, they will want to choose the amendment offered by myself. If they wish to choose an amendment which is a little more opaque in its presentation and does not address the issue of cutting taxes, then they will choose one presented by the Democratic leadership.

Mr. GREGG. No; that is independent of Social Security.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I yield the Senator from Texas 8 minutes.

Mr. GREGG. I offer this amendment on behalf of Senator Lott, Senator Domenici, Senator Mack, Senator Gramm, and myself. I will now propound a consent allowing for two votes, hopefully shortly, on this Social Security issue, the first vote being a vote in relation to the majority version of the amendment, to be followed by a vote in relationship to the Hollings amendment. If an objection is heard, I will have no choice but to fill up the amendment tree so that our vote is guaranteed to be the first vote. I would note that the amendment we have sent to the desk seeks the same goal in that what we seek is to preserve the surplus for the Social Security system so that Social Security can be saved first. That should be the first and primary purpose of the use of the surplus. However, we make the point in our amendment that after Social Security has been saved, after we have reached an agreement for how to save Social Security--and I happen to have a bill which accomplishes that. It would save it for the next 100 years. It happens to be a bipartisan bill of Senator Breaux and myself. There are other proposals floating around. The Senator in the Chair is a strong supporter of a number of initiatives to save Social Security. But after an agreement has been reached by the Congress and we have put in place a system for saving Social Security, our sense-of-the-Senate says then let's send the money back to the taxpayers. That seems to be a reasonable approach to me. So we do not disagree with the desire to save Social Security first. We only want to make sure that after Social Security has been saved, additional surpluses go back to the taxpayers. So with that being said, I now ask unanimous consent that there be a total of 60 minutes, and I would be willing to adjust that if there is a desire to adjust it, but we have been on this for almost 2 hours now, 60 minutes for total debate, to be equally divided between the majority leader or his designee and Senator Hollings, and following the conclusion or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a vote on or in relationship to the Lott amendment, to be followed by a vote on or in relationship to the Hollings amendment.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, regular order.

Mr. GREGG. An hour-and-a-half equally divided?

Mr. GREGG. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. GREGG. I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. GREGG. May we have a look at it?

Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President,

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

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

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I could respond at some length to the comments made by the Senator from Alabama. His intensity of concern and his legitimate efforts, which have been extraordinary in the area of juvenile justice, are something that I admire. He obviously has strong feelings expressed by the Senator from Delaware. I know that there are a number of other Senators who wish to speak on this issue to express their thoughts. But I have had the courtesy of a number of Senators who have come up to me and said they would withhold their statements because there is a group of Members who wish to get down to the White House for the bill signing on the IRS, which is a fairly significant bill. I would like to get this vote completed before that occurs. Let me simply say that I believe this is an extraordinarily balanced approach. We have eventually divided the money between prevention and incarceration, for the lack of a better term. It is an attempt to address both sides of the issue of juvenile justice within this bill. Yes, there are other programs outside of this bill that address both sides. In fact, there is a lot more incarceration money in this bill that wasn't talked about. But the fact is that this is a very balanced approach, both sets of programs are extremely credible, and we will move forward on the issue that we are concerned about, which is trying to reduce juvenile crime, which is clearly one of the major issues facing this country today. Mr. President, at this time I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I believe that under the unanimous consent request we are functioning under, we were to vote at 9:40. I yield back our time and suggest that we move to a vote.

Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that we have 10 minutes, 5 minutes on each side.

Mr. GREGG. As I understand it, under the previous order we are now to return to the Kyl amendment, as amended by Craig, for debate with the votes to occur tomorrow morning. I ask unanimous consent that the debate on this amendment, for this evening's purposes, be limited to 20 minutes, 10 minutes on each side.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will proceed to potentially two rollcall votes on amendments offered last night to the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill. Under a previous order, following the votes, Senator Sessions will be recognized to offer an amendment relative to juvenile justice. After the Sessions amendment is disposed of, the Senate will continue with amendments to the bill in an effort to complete action on this important legislation by late afternoon. The Senate may also turn to any other appropriations bill or other legislative or Executive Calendar item cleared for action. Therefore, Senators should expect rollcall votes into the evening during Wednesday's session. I thank my colleagues for their cooperation and attention.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business with Senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 22, 1998 at 4 p.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the Finance Committee requests unanimous consent to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, July 22, 1998 beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room 215 Dirksen.