Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Like all the Democrats, I strongly support the purported goal of this amendment to secure the future funding of Social Security. I, like some of the other speakers on our side, believe this legislation is seriously flawed. We cannot rely on this plan to protect Social Security. This lockbox, by any other name, could be called a leaky sieve. First, the amendment poses a direct threat to Social Security beneficiaries. Treasury Secretary Rubin has explained that under the proposal, an unexpected economic downturn could block the issuance of Social Security checks, as well as Medicare, veterans, and other benefits. Additionally, the amendment changes a huge loophole, a minefield that would allow Social Security contributions to be diverted for purposes other than Social Security benefits. It is described as Social Security ``reform'' that would be exempt from the lockbox. That tells us beware, be on your guard, because it says something along the way might permit us, in the interest of reform, to divert funds that should be directed exclusively to Social Security. Things suggested could be risky privatization plans, tax cuts--who knows what? The second problem with the amendment is that it does absolutely nothing to protect Medicare. Instead, it allows Congress to use what might be necessary funds for Medicare on tax breaks for wealthy individuals. I had hoped to be able to offer an amendment to establish a lockbox, one that is truly locked, one that is truly secure, to protect both Social Security and Medicare. That lockbox proposal would reserve all of Social Security surpluses exclusively for Social Security, and 40 percent of the non-Social Security surpluses for Medicare. Unfortunately, the majority is unwilling to even give us an opportunity to offer an amendment. They are not willing to subject it to the wishes of the Senate. Why? Is there something they are afraid of? Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this amendment could present us with a Government default in the long term. In the short term, it could undermine our Nation's credit standing and increase interest costs. Ultimately, blocked benefit payments could lead to a world economic crisis. Our Nation has never defaulted on an obligation that is backed by the full faith and credit of our country. Yet, according to the Treasury Secretary, Bob Rubin, who is very respected, the creditworthiness of the United States could be subject to very serious risks if this legislation were enacted, and that is why he would recommend the President veto the bill if it ever reached his desk. We Democrats have a proposal, a lockbox that protects both Social Security and Medicare, and our lockbox would not require a new debt limit, and it would not risk a default. It would use supermajority points of order and across-the-board cuts to guarantee enforcement. That is a better, more responsible approach. Unfortunately, the majority is not going to give us an opportunity to present our plan to the Senate. I do not think it is right. I wish we could have a reversal of the majority opinion or the majority view on that. Social Security lockbox legislation is a new proposal. It has not gone through a committee. It has not been subjected to hearings. In fact, it was not even introduced until a couple of days ago, and it resulted from a conference in the privacy of a single room. Yet the majority is using parliamentary tricks to prevent us from offering any amendments to improve the bill. It is not the right way to do business, especially given the high stakes involved both for Social Security and for our entire country. So I am going to ask my colleagues to oppose cloture on this legislation. Let us continue this debate. Let us find out what really is in this proposal. Let us make it a real lockbox, not one that could be threatening Social Security benefits and does not do anything for Medicare and risks our national credit. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, as we continue to debate the so-called Social Security lock box legislation, let me again emphasize that we Democrats strongly support the purported goal of protecting Social Security surpluses. But many of us also feel that this legislation would be a serious mistake, for three reasons. First, it does nothing to protect Medicare. Instead, it allows Congress to squander funds needed for Medicare on tax breaks for the wealthy. Second, it threatens Social Security. Under the amendment, an unexpected economic downturn could block the issuance of Social Security checks. Also, the amendment contains a loophole that would allow Social Security contributions to be diverted for purposes other than Social Security benefits, such as risky new privatization schemes or tax breaks. And, third, the amendment threatens a government default. This could undermine our nation's credit standing, increase interest costs, block benefit and other payments, and ultimately lead to a world-wide economic crisis. For all these reasons, as I explained in more depth yesterday, I believe the pending amendment is seriously flawed. Today I want to talk a little more about some of the practical problems involved with the amendment, and why the last minute changes proposed by its sponsors fail to adequately address these problems. Mr. President, the amendment before us would establish limits on public debt that were constructed based on the Congressional Budget Office's projections for the next ten years. Under the proposal, those limits would be locked into law, and could be changed only for a few very narrow reasons, such as wars or emergencies. But it's important for our colleagues to understand that CBO's projections are highly uncertain. And it doesn't make sense to create inflexible and legally-binding debt limits based on those projections. Consider what happened to CBO's budget estimates last year. On March 6, CBO revised its earlier estimate and said that we would have a fiscal year 1998 surplus of $8 billion. That was March 6. Two months later, on May 6, that $8 billion estimate mushroomed to a new estimate of $43 to $63 billion. So, in just two months, CBO's surplus projection changed by up to $55 billion. And, I would note, even the upper range of the May estimate turned out to be too low. The actual surplus was about $70 billion. Keep in mind that these projections were for a figure five to seven months in the future. Now we're being asked to rely on projections of up to ten years. And if we're wrong, what's the result? A government default and a world wide economic crisis. Mr. President, you don't have to be a critic of CBO to question the accuracy of their estimates. CBO itself devoted an entire chapter of its Economic and Budget Outlook to uncertainties in budget projections. CBO compared the actual surpluses for 1988 through 1998 with the first projection of the surplus it produced five years before the start of the fiscal year. Excluding the effects of legislation, the remaining errors averaged about 13 percent of actual outlays. According to CBO, a deviation of 13 percent of projected outlays in 2004 would produce an increase or decrease in the surplus of about $250 billion. In 2009, a 13 percent error would produce a swing of about $300 billion, In fact, since the errors made ten years in advance are probably larger than the errors in estimates made five years ahead-- which, again, is where the 13 percent figure came from--the deviation in 2009 is likely to produce an even larger swing. It is simply dangerous to establish a rigid 10-year plan based on such speculative projections. The whole approach is fundamentally flawed. Our Republican colleagues have added two provisions to their legislation that they argue would provide a sufficient cushion to prevent an unintended default. But these provisions won't solve the problem. The new proposal would delay the implementation of each year's new debt limit by seven months, to kick in on May 1 of each one- or two- year period rather than on October 1. The sponsors argue that this would make the new limit effective at a time when the Treasury tends to be flush with cash. This, they say, would ensure that the new, lower limit would not immediately trigger a default. Unfortunately, this change is like plugging a small hole on the Titanic. And it won't prevent disaster. First, it can only work if the CBO projections on which the debt limits are based prove accurate. And, as I've already discussed, we know they won't be. But even if by some miracle the estimates are right, that still may not take care of the problem. Let's take, for example, a year in which there is a recession. Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle will point out that they have provided an exception for recessions. But that exception won't work very well. Mr. President, we're not very good at predicting recessions. And, typically, by the time we know we're in one, we've actually been in it for a while. The recession exception in the amendment only kicks in after we have two quarters of low economic growth. But a slowdown could easily begin in one quarter, but late enough to keep growth for that quarter above the threshold for the exception. We then might have two quarters of low growth followed a few weeks later by the release of the official data triggering the exception. By that time, we would be eight or nine months into a recession. We would have had months of lower tax revenues and higher outlays for unemployment compensation and other programs. And, together, those changes already could have pushed us over the new debt limit and into default. Mr. President, a recession exception does no good if it is declared a few months after we've gone into default. We cannot take default back and say an exception should have been in place. It already would have happened. And Americans would have to pay for it through higher interest rates on their mortgages, car loans, and credit cards. Businesses would have to pay for it through higher borrowing costs. And taxpayers would have to pay for it because investors will demand higher interest rates on Treasury bonds. This would be an economic disaster for our country. And it would create an international economic crisis of unknown dimensions. Mr. President, under the Republican lock box, I'm afraid the question is not ``will this happen?'' The question is ``when will it happen?'' That more than anything is why this proposal is so irresponsible. It's why Secretary Rubin is recommending a veto. And it's why it's so important that senators be allowed to offer amendments to improve it. Mr. President, this proposal was finalized only yesterday afternoon. And when they presented it, the sponsors themselves expressed openness to further tinkering. Unfortunately, there will be no opportunity to make any improvements unless we reject cloture tomorrow. So I would urge all my colleagues to oppose cloture. This proposal is seriously flawed. If we're serious about protecting Social Security, let's take the time to do it right. Mr. CRAIG addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues to discuss the Democratic environmental agenda on the eve of Earth Day. We have an ambitious agenda to protect open spaces, reduce sprawl and relieve congestion. While Congressional Democrats have an excellent agenda for the future, we also have a proud history of accomplishment since the first Earth Day in 1970. Our nation's major environmental laws were written and passed under Democratic leadership. Democrats passed the first Clean Water Act. Democrats wrote the first Superfund law. Democrats authored the Clean Air Act. And the Clinton Administration has an impressive record of enforcing these laws. The EPA has an outstanding record of cleaning up toxic waste sites under the Superfund program. For example, by the end of this Fiscal Year, September 30, 95 percent of all Superfund sites will have remedies selected and cleanups beginning or underway. Overall, the Clinton Administration has cleaned up more Superfund sites in the past two years than in the first 12 years of program. Administrator Browner has also had success protecting our nation's drinking water, reducing smog so that children breathe healthier air, and cleaning up our lakes and rivers for swimming and fishing. Mr. President, today, I would specifically like to talk about my brownfields bill and its promise to reduce sprawl and protect our environment. My common sense brownfields bill, S. 20, will help accomplish all of these goals. My bill will help turn a contaminated, abandoned parcel of land into a new school, an new business or a new playing field. And the benefits will multiply from there. Cleaning up brownfields protects open spaces by keeping commercial development inside our cities, where it creates jobs and can lower property taxes. With more reuse and redevelopment in our cities, there will be less pressure to develop farmland and parkland outside our cities. How do we make this happen? By making grant money available for States and cities to start the redevelopment of brownfields, and using their own zoning codes and no Federal regulations with that so that they can make sure people who are interested in buying and developing these sites aren't sued for the contamination that was never their fault. Brownfields need not be a blight on our communities but an opportunity for smart growth. Mr. President, fortunately, brown- fields is not a partisan issue. In fact, many Republican Senators have supported the thrust of my legislation. This means, on this Earth Day, we have a chance to do something that will protect our environment and open spaces, and leave a better world for our children and grandchildren. We should not miss the opportunity to do so. Mr. President, we have pending before us the reauthorization of Superfund. It is now 2 years since the Superfund bill expired, and we still continue to operate. But we don't derive any of the revenues that were supposed to be part of the bill. We can't get a Superfund bill that is decent that doesn't protect the polluters, which is what Superfund was all about. It says, let the responsible parties pay for their damage. It has worked pretty well. I was at a site in New Jersey that was the No. 1 Superfund site in the country. A company there agreed, finally, to pay $100 million toward the restoration of this site. I was there on Saturday to commemorate this new development. It was a spectacular day. I was there with the Little League. They even let me throw out the first pitch. That is the only first pitch I have thrown out. I haven't been invited by the Yankees, or otherwise. But to be able to throw out a pitch to the Little League, to see a softball field next to that, a hardball, a regular baseball field next to that, a soccer field next to that, all developed out of what was a horrible toxic waste site. The lake is clean. Before, there were signs for the children to avoid getting too near the lake because there was poisonous material in there. No fish could live--nothing. When he celebrated the cleanup of that lake 2 years ago, the mayor of Pitman, NJ, a fellow named Bruce Ware, stood next to me, and, he said, ``I am going to fulfill a promise that I made years ago that if this lake ever got cleaned up I am going in it.'' With that, he turned, fully dressed, with his tie and his jacket and his suit, and he jumped in the lake. He was so ecstatic about the fact that this community was going to be rid of this blighted parcel of land--about 100 acres, a big piece of land. It is fantastic. I believe it will result in not only more revenues for the community but also a lifting of the spirit in that community. That is what we ought to be doing. We ought not tinker with Superfund, to reduce it, to emasculate it such that it has no power and no strength. I hope we are going to be able to do that in the next few days. I hope the American people will insist that as we attempt to clean up our land and avoid the sprawl that we are living with that we will pay attention to what we have as a society in terms of an obligation to future generations. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for the opportunity to have the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, our mission this morning is to discuss the environment, and to celebrate the birth of Earth Day, which takes place tomorrow. I will use my time for that purpose. But I want to take just a minute, because I, like everyone else in this country, am heartbroken by what we saw take place yesterday. In my conversation with the Senator from Colorado, I expressed my sympathies. But I want to point out something. Those children were killed by deranged young people of their own class. But they used guns, and they used weapons that are, frankly, I think out of control in our society. This isn't just happening in Colorado. It is a terrible happening in Colorado. But look at the other days. It happened in Utah. It has happened in Arkansas, Mississippi, Kentucky, Oregon, and Illinois. Just search your mind and you can find almost every State having had a problem. It is a plague in our society. It is a blight across our country. There is a bit of a paradox as we talk about Earth Day and the positive aspects of what Earth Day can mean so that children can bathe in the waters, fish in the streams, play on the Earth, and breathe the air--all positive things looking toward an improvement in their health--just under the shadow of the murderous rampage that took place yesterday. Privilege Of The Floor Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Lisa Haage, a detailee in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the 106th Congress.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. President, for recognizing me. Mr. President, I support the underlying bill to reform the rules governing emergency spending that has been reported out of the Committee on Governmental Affairs. Two amendments to that bill have now been offered, a first-degree amendment and a second-degree amendment, which blocks further amendments. The pending amendments are proposing to establish what is being called a Social Security lockbox. Unfortunately, this lockbox is not secure. And it actually could undermine Social Security. We Democrats have a far better alternative. Ours is a true lockbox. And it protects both Social Security and Medicare in a much more responsible way. Before I comment further on the lockbox proposals, I want to review the underlying bill before us, which would make significant improvements in the treatment of emergency spending. Emergency spending is not casual spending. It is so important that it is exempt from budget rules. And that is as it ought to be, because it involves responding to things like floods, earthquakes and volcanoes. We can all identify parts of the country--the floods in the Midwest, the volcano in the State of Washington, and the terrible earthquake damage in California. Those are emergencies. They are immediate threats to American public health and safety, and Congress often has to act promptly to avoid the loss of life and property. Unfortunately, the emergency exception has been abused. Last year, Congress stretched the rules past the breaking point in the omnibus appropriations bill, which included many items of questionable emergency designation, especially those for military spending. These were declared emergencies when, in fact, we were not looking at Kosovo and these items were not needed to respond to an imminent threat. Mr. President, Congress has been able to abuse the emergency designation in part because the rules have been totally open-ended. To address the problem, the Governmental Affairs bill proposes a new definition of ``emergencies'' and a point of order to help prevent conference committees from inserting unjustifiable new emergency spending. It is a good bill. And I commend Senator Thompson and Senator Lieberman for their leadership. Mr. President, while we were considering the budget resolution, the Senate approved an amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Illinois, Senator Durbin, that was based on this legislation. Yet the conferees on the budget resolution ignored the Senate's position. Instead, the conferees constructed a 60-vote point of order that now applies to all emergency spending--but with a huge loophole. Military spending was completely exempted, whether it was for new weapons systems or whatever. Mr. President, Heaven knows that all of us want to support our military, and want to make sure that what we are doing in Kosovo is fully supported. I, for one, hope that we will do whatever we can to bring this wave of atrocities to a halt. So I am not complaining about military spending. But, Mr. President, I thought that what the conferees on the budget resolution did was wrong. It was an abuse of the conference process since neither Senate nor House had approved anything like this. They just came up with it on their own. I also thought it was bad policy. Mr. President, there is no reason to allow 41 Senators to overrule 59 Senators who want to provide emergency spending for a flood, tornado, hurricane, or earthquake. And there is no reason to create a higher hurdle for a legitimate disaster than for a new weapons system. I am afraid, Mr. President, that a 60 vote point of order against emergency designations is itself subject to abuse. One can conceive of all kinds of mischief to punish a particular senator or state for political reasons. And we should not to allow that kind of abuse. Unfortunately, Mr. President, the amendment before us would leave this problematic approach from the budget resolution in place. Even worse, it would write it into law. I think that would be a serious mistake. Now, Mr. President, I want to turn to the proposal to establish what proponents call a lockbox. I strongly support the purported goal of this amendment; that is, to secure the future funding of Social Security. But I have three major problems with this proposal. First, it does nothing to protect Medicare. Instead, it allows Congress to divert funds needed for Medicare in order to provide tax breaks for the wealthy. Second, it threatens Social Security. Under the amendment, an unexpected economic downturn could block the issuance of Social Security checks. This would deal a serious blow to so many of our elderly who are dependent on Social Security. Also, the amendment contains a booby trap that would allow Social Security contributions to be invaded for purposes other than Social Security benefits, like a risky new privatization scheme. And third, the amendment could create a Government default --a U.S. Government default. It could undermine our Nation's credit standing, increase interest costs, and ultimately lead to a worldwide economic crisis. I want to explain each of these in turn. The Medicare trust fund is now expected to be bankrupt by 2015--only 16 years away. We ought to move quickly to reform and modernize the program. But it is also clear that we will need additional resources. That is why most Democrats believe it is critical to save some of the surplus for Medicare. Our Republican friends say they agree about the importance of saving some of the surplus for Social Security. But when it comes to saving for Medicare, they are not willing to reserve a single penny. Instead, they want to use funding that is needed for Medicare to provide any other things they favor, including tax breaks which are largely for the wealthy. We Democrats think that is a mistake. And that is why I have developed a lockbox that would reserve funding for Medicare as well as Social Security. And I hope to have an opportunity to offer that proposal with Senator Conrad of North Dakota. Beyond its failure, Mr. President, to protect Medicare, the second major problem with the pending amendment is that it fails to protect Social Security. Actually, in some ways it threatens Social Security benefits. First, it threatens to block the issuance of Social Security checks if the economy slows, or if the Congress fails to act responsibly. If the limit on public debt is exceeded, even by the smallest of margins, the Government could not issue more Social Security checks, and checks already issued could not be honored. The Republicans say they protected Social Security benefits by providing that such benefits would be given--and I quote-- ``priority.'' But this language will be of no use if the debt limit has been exceeded. In that situation, no new checks could be issued. And that applies not only to Social Security checks, but unemployment compensation, Medicare payments and all other Government payments as well. The lockbox amendment also includes a huge loophole. I call it a mine field. And it could allow Social Security funds to be used for a wide variety of purposes, anything that Congress labels as Social Security reform. Mr. President, these are code words. They say we are going to lock the door, but we are going to leave it open just a crack or two-- something people wouldn't do in their safe deposit box, something they wouldn't do in their homes. We want to leave a couple of catch phrases in here like ``retirement security,'' like ``reform,'' and so that we do not really guarantee that Social Security surpluses are going to be reserved for Social Security beneficiaries. We had a vote here, 98 to nothing. We said that all Social Security surpluses should be reserved for Social Security recipients. 98 to nothing. But it didn't take long for the conferees on the budget resolution--those from the majority party--we weren't included--to put that vote in the trash basket. They included vague language that would allow Social Security surpluses to be used for, and I quote, ``retirement security.'' Similarly, the language of this amendment includes an escape hatch that will allow Congress to divert Social Security surpluses for anything that Congress labels as Social Security reform. I heard the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee say earlier today that much of our surpluses ought to be reserved to give tax cuts to the people. It is not a bad idea. We like tax cuts, targeted tax cuts. But the leading Republican tax proposal, S. 3, would give those in the top one percent, with average incomes of $800,000 a year, a $20,000 tax cut. Meanwhile, some poor guy who works for a living, and his wife, or maybe a single parent who is working out there and making $38,000 a year, is going to get 99 bucks. That is what the Republican leadership has proposed. So I would say to that $800,000 wage earner: Sorry, buddy, we are not going to give you the $20,000 that you could use to put a downpayment on a yacht or whatever else you want to do. My conscience doesn't bother me at all when I say that tax cuts ought to be reserved for people who need proper day care for their children or need to help an elderly parent who has special medical problems. Mr. President, when the Social Security trust fund goes bankrupt in 2034, it will be able to pay only about 70 percent of the promised benefits. Diverting payroll taxes for other uses, as this amendment allows, could make matters much worse. The date of insolvency could be moved up and arrive earlier. And instead of being able to pay only 70 percent of promised benefits, we would be able to pay even less. The issue here is not whether to establish private savings accounts, as many have suggested. President Clinton has recommended one form of such accounts, his USA accounts. Others have similar ideas. But when Social Security already is 30 percent short of being able to provide promised benefits to baby boomers, we can't afford to invade its funds for other uses. If we want to establish private accounts, we can use other funds. We shouldn't permit even deeper cuts in guaranteed benefits. It also is important to understand that this amendment would do nothing to extend the life of Social Security trust funds. That is not just my opinion, it is a fact. To back that up, I have a letter from Mr. Harry Ballantyne, chief actuary of the Social Security Administration. As Mr. Ballantyne writes, the adoption of this proposal would have no significant effect on the long-term solvency of the program--none. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this letter from the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it is critical that Congress act promptly to extend the solvency of Social Security. President Clinton has presented two related proposals that would extend Social Security's life through 2059. Some of my colleagues don't like those proposals. That is fair. But if they do not like his ideas, they should propose some of their own. So far, they haven't done it. And no one should be fooled into believing that this lockbox proposal is an answer. Finally, the most serious problem with this proposal is that it threatens to lead to a Government default. In the short term, that could damage our Nation's credit standing and increase interest costs. Treasury Secretary Rubin has written an excellent letter that explains the severity of the risks posed by this proposal. I note that the distinguished Senator from South Carolina already talked about this and has asked that Rubin's letter be printed in the Record. It was accepted on a unanimous consent basis. No Senator should vote on the pending amendment until they have read this letter. And it is hard to see how anyone could endorse the amendment after reading that letter. Unfortunately, this amendment could very well lead to a serious debt crisis in the future. Proposed limits on publicly held debt would be exceeded if current projections of the non-Social Security budget proved too optimistic. And, even if Congress tried in good faith to comply with new public debt limits, those limits could be reached due to changes in the economy, demographic shifts, or a variety of other factors. Mr. President, the sponsors of the amendment say that they have included a provision to ensure that a recession would not trigger a default. However, that provision won't always work. The provision would only become effective after two quarters of low economic growth. We could be in a deep recession for nearly 7 months before the exemption kicks in. By then, it could be too late. We could already be in default. Mr. President, our Nation has never defaulted on a debt backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. But this amendment could trigger default based on factors completely beyond our control. That wouldn't just block Social Security and other checks; it could easily lead to a worldwide financial crisis. That could prove catastrophic. Mr. President, this is crazy. If suddenly the economy slows, revenues decline, or expenditures increase unexpectedly, for any reason, why should we risk the world's economy? It is like forcing the whole world to play a game of economic Russian roulette. I would note that the Republican chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Congressman Bill Archer, recognizes the folly of this approach and strongly opposes it. So this shouldn't be a partisan issue. He is not a Democrat. And I hope others on that side of the aisle will also join in opposition. There are other more responsible ways to enforce budget discipline. And that is what we Democrats are proposing. Senator Conrad and I have developed an alternative lockbox to protect surpluses for both Social Security and Medicare, and we hope to have an opportunity to present it to the Senate. Our proposal would reserve all Social Security surpluses for Social Security and a portion of other surpluses for Medicare. Our lockbox would be enforced first by requiring 60 votes to invade the lockbox. Then, if Congress raided projected surpluses, other programs would be cut across the board. We think this makes more sense than the potential triggering of a default and a worldwide economic meltdown. So I will briefly review the main problems with the proposal in front of us. It does nothing to protect Medicare. It allows Congress to spend money needed for Medicare on tax breaks for the wealthy. Second, it threatens Social Security. It could block Social Security checks when the economy performs worse than expected. And it includes a trap door that allows Social Security taxes to be invaded for purposes other than Social Security benefits, like risky new privatization schemes. Finally, the amendment threatens a default on debt backed by the full faith and credit of our country. This could increase interest costs immediately, and ultimately lead to a worldwide economic catastrophe. For all of these reasons, Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will recognize the serious problems with this amendment, and that we will be given an opportunity to offer amendments to improve it. Unfortunately, right now, we Democrats--45 of us--are being prevented from offering amendments that we think are needed to protect Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. We are prohibited by a trick called filling the amendment tree. This prevents us from offering amendments, under the Senate rules. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will give us the opportunity to offer amendments. We need a lockbox for Social Security. But it should be a real lockbox, without an escape hatch. It should protect Medicare as well. And it should be designed in a way that doesn't pose a threat of a Government default and a worldwide economic crisis. Mr. President, I hope that we can come together on an understanding-- that the 98 Senators present last week voted on--that Social Security surpluses should be reserved exclusively--no ifs, ands, or buts--for Social Security beneficiaries. No loopholes. No escape hatches. No little crack in the door of the lockbox. I hope our colleagues will think seriously about this when they vote. And I want the American public to take note of what is going on here. They are the final arbiters of whether or not we are doing the right thing. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for his courtesy. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the floor. land and water conservation fund

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we are coming to ``H'' hour here. That is not happy hour, as far as I am concerned. I can think of other words that start with an H--like horrific, horrendous, horrible, hurtful--but I won't use that vocabulary. I will just infer it. The occupant of the Chair has been in government for some time, and I am sure he has seen it from a different perspective. We see good people sincerely believing in what they are doing at odds with one another, in such contrasting views that it is hard to reconcile the difference of what is and what isn't the reality. This is no suggestion of prevarication or fabrication. I am not talking about that. I know there is genuine belief. I differ sharply with my friends and colleagues on the other side regarding this budget. Few people have I more respect for than the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici. Boy, we have some scraps. They are really good ones. The fact of the matter is, he is a bright guy. He understands a budget as few here do. He is one of the few Senators who has to teach his staff what it is all about. That is intended to be a joke. The rest of us do it differently. I hope the public doesn't take that too seriously, Mr. President. The fact of the matter is Senator Domenici very well knows ``budgeteering,'' but I think in this case it is fair to say there is an error in the approach. I think the policy as proposed by the budget conference report is fiscally dangerous. I think if we go the way it appears that we will go, we could be approaching in the not-too-distant future a shutdown of the Government. Everybody who has been around for any length of time remembers how painful the last shutdown was: People were not getting Social Security checks, veterans' benefits were not being paid, services people count on for their everyday existence were just unavailable. Other matters that seemed to be routine, such as entrances to national parks, families planning for a year to visit one of our national parks and finding out they were closed. Became important. Airplanes, trains, buses, cars--all that planning, gone. I predict we are going to be playing Russian roulette to see who pulls the trigger on whether or not we have a Government shutdown because this budget ``ain't for real,'' to use the language, when we look at what happens as a result of the intent to give a tax cut across the board--a lot of it to wealthy people--and we know that some time ago Senator Domenici said we were taking people's word for what the intention is without seeing it clearly spelled out. Few people have as much authority around here as the distinguished Senator of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth. He was speaking to Reuters and he said he was very much in favor of using bigger than expected budget surpluses to fund an across-the-board income tax of 10 percent or more. That is what Reuters reported: ``I don't think it is too big,'' the Delaware Republican said of the 10 percent income tax cut. ``If anything, I would like to have it bigger.'' That is a pretty good indicator of where we are going. We are not protecting Social Security in the way that we proposed here on the floor of the Senate 2 days ago. We had a vote. I offered the amendment. I said no Social Security surplus shall be used for anything other than Social Security, pure and simple. The language is very direct. Mr. President, 98 people voted for it. We had zero opposition, 98-0. It went to conference with the House. For those who don't understand the arcane process here, the House and the Senate get together and have a conference to decide on what the various legislative programs will be, we agree between us on a conference report, and that is what we are voting on today. As it happens, there is a Republican majority in the Senate. There is a Republican majority in the House. As was noted, we, the Democrats, do not participate. That is the game. It is understood. Next year, when we are in the majority, I expect to be more forgiving and perhaps we will even invite one of the Republicans to the conference meeting. But the fact is, the product that came out is one that is a Republican delivery. Make no mistake about it. And the consequence of that is the bill we have in front of us with huge tax breaks for wealthy people. If you make $800,000, you will get a $20,000 tax break. If you make $800,000, you get $20,000 worth of extra spending money. That can buy, perhaps, a nice little boat or a downpayment on a summer home or something of that nature. But the person who makes $38,000: $99, that is what he or she is going to get in terms of a tax break, $99. Don't spend it all in one night, friends, because it is supposed to last for a whole year. That is a tax cut: $99. So when we look at it, it is obvious that we are not dealing with the needs of the average working person, the hard-working person, a family making $38,000. We have heard the distinguished Senator from Texas talk about a person working in her office who, with his spouse, put together an income of $50,000. That is not a lot of money today. Those are the kinds of folks to whom we have to be sensitive, to target tax cuts for them and make sure the woman who wants to work can get some decent child care and get some credit on her taxes for it. If you have an elderly parent who needs long-term care, get a tax credit for that; a tax credit for education; those are the kinds of tax credits or tax breaks I think we ought to be giving. That is what the Democrats are proposing. One of the things we are doing is proposing a tax cut that, in the course of 10 years, will be three-quarters of a trillion dollars--$750 billion in round terms. The consequence of that, the result of that, is going to be that we will not have sufficient funds to pay for Government services. We will not have enough funds to pay for full staff for the FBI. We will not have enough funds to pay for full staffing of drug enforcement agents. We will not have enough funds to include 800,000 low-income women, infants, and children in programs for nutrition assistance. We are not talking about extra money to take a trip to Europe; we are talking about food. Mr. President, 800,000 of those people are going to lose assistance from the Government. The number of students in work/ study programs decreases by 12,000 people. Head Start is designed to take children who come from poverty-ridden homes to start to learn-- Head Start. It is preschool. It is before they get to kindergarten or first grade. We are going to take away services for 100,000 children. For those who need energy assistance, 600,000 low-income families could lose that energy assistance. The FBI, the cut to the FBI could result in the reduction of 2,700 FBI agents. Mr. President, 73,000 summer jobs lost. And the list goes on: More than 2,200 air traffic controller positions would be cut. I am very active in air transportation matters and very concerned about where we go. Y2K, will we have the right kind of personnel to handle the shift? Here we are, getting a budget in front of us. It is there in print for everybody to see. It is designed by the majority. We are saying that more than 2,200 air traffic controller positions would be cut and $255 million. The IRS customer service: Today everybody is probably as angry at the IRS as can be, but when they see what it is we are paying for, we are paying for a country designed to give everybody opportunity. We are doing better at it. Jobs are more available, there is low unemployment, our national health is better than it has ever been. That is what you pay your taxes for. You do not pay it for some idle bureaucrat sitting in a chair. We pay for services. Do we get 100 cents on a dollar? Probably not. I ran a big corporation and it was a successful corporation. We didn't get 100 cents' worth of value on every dollar that we spent, but that's life. Mr. President, we now are preparing ourselves to vote for a budget that I think is shameful, that could be called a sham. Again, there is no accusation here of dishonesty or skullduggery. What it is is a misinterpretation of what things are about. It is playing dice with our national economy. It says if you give tax cuts, it is going to generate something else and it will be good for us. Baloney. What happened under President Reagan's regime, when we gave tax cuts? I will tell you what we got for it. Some of the biggest debt this country ever had, and it grew by leaps and bounds. When President Clinton took over, there was a $290 billion deficit in front of us, and this year we are looking at a surplus of about $100 billion. Things have changed materially in the 7 years that have passed. So I am hoping we will get a vote that reflects what is best for the American people, and that would be to deny acceptance of this budget report that is in front of us. I hope we will perhaps be able to convince some of our Republican friends to come over, take another look at the budget and see what we can do to improve the situation, because right now we are headed for a potential fiscal disaster just when things are really going good. I want to say something in response to an earlier argument I heard from the other side when it was said there is going to be more money put into Social Security than the Democrats are proposing. It is not true, because hidden in there is some arcane language that says ``retirement security.'' They want to put the money away that can be used for retirement security--not Social Security. They are both two words but they have different significance. One is a Government program established for people who are dependent on the Government for their retirement and their pension. The other could be Heaven knows what. So I caution everybody, as we prepare to vote, which is imminent, that the American public ought to be looking very closely at what it is we are going to do. I hope they will respond as they see it, to those Senators who are casting a vote at this moment. I hope the vote will wind up with a majority saying no. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield such time as needed to the Senator from South Dakota, up to a maximum of 15 minutes.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request that the list of those who are going to speak on the budget be identified as follows: Senator Wellstone, Senator Gorton, Senator Hutchison, Senator Johnson, and Senator Lautenberg. Once these Senators have spoken, I ask unanimous consent that all debate time on the pending conference report be yielded back. I ask further consent that the vote occur on adoption of the conference report at 2 p.m. today. I include in that unanimous consent request that after those Senators have spoken, the request then include a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from California.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield for a few minutes so that the Senator from California can have 10 minutes now while we are waiting for Senator Gorton?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes of our time to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that will help our nation deal with the problem of racial profiling during traffic stops. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senators Feingold, Kennedy, and Torricelli. Across the country, too many motorists fear that they will be stopped by law enforcement for nothing more than the color of their skin. The offense of ``D.W.B.'' or ``Driving While Black'' is well known to minorities, and the fact that this term has entered the common vocabulary demonstrates the pervasiveness of the problem. In my home state and other states along the Interstate-95 corridor, there have been many serious and credible allegations of racial profiling. For example, statistics recently released by the state of New Jersey, reveal that 73 percent of motorists arrested on the New Jersey turnpike in early 1997 were minorities. Similarly, a court- ordered study in Maryland found that more than 70 percent of drivers stopped on Interstate-95 were African American though they made up only 17.5 percent of drivers. Not surprisingly, the practice of racial profiling has led to litigation. In the case of State versus Soto, a state court judge ruled that troopers were engaging in racial profiling on the southernmost segment of the New Jersey Turnpike. That decision spurred the United States Department of Justice to begin a ``pattern and practice'' investigation, in December 1996, to determine whether the New Jersey State Police had violated the constitutional rights of minority motorists. The Department of Justice is also investigating police agencies in Eastpointe, Michigan, and Orange County, Florida. Additionally, a number of individuals and organizations have filed private lawsuits seeking to end the inappropriate use of racial profiling. While litigation may bring about limited reforms, it is clear that Congress must develop a nationwide approach. The legislation I am introducing today will help define the scope of the problem, increase police awareness, and suggest whether additional steps are necessary. It would require that the Attorney General collect data on traffic stops and report the results to Congress. Because better relations between police and citizens will help ease racial tensions, the measure will also authorize grants to law enforcement agencies for the development of better training programs and policing strategies. In recent decades, we have made great progress in strengthening the civil rights of all Americans. Many dedicated law enforcement officials have contributed greatly to this effort by applying the law fairly and working to strengthen the bonds of trust in the communities they serve. To their credit, some police agencies have spoken out against the practice of racial profiling. In New Jersey, the State Troopers Fraternal Association, the State Troopers Non-Commissioned Officers Association, and the State Troopers Superior Officers Association have stated that ``anyone out there using racial profiling or in any way misusing or abusing their position, must be identified and properly dealt with.'' But we cannot allow the actions of some police officials to undermine these achievements, and we should work to ensure that minority motorists are no longer subjected to unwarranted traffic stops. I urge my colleagues to support this measure, and help protect the civil rights of all Americans. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would be happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. He has the right to use the time. He is the manager.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield so much time as the Senator from Connecticut needs.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have the time to yield to the Senator.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to respond to the analysis just given us by our good friend and colleague, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Domenici. One thing about Senator Domenici, he is always direct. He always calls it like he sees it. And therein lie, perhaps, some differences. The expression, ``beauty is in the eyes of the beholder,'' is one that fits well, I think, because I see it quite differently than Senator Domenici. As we begin consideration of the conference report, for the benefit of those who do not know how we work here, the conference report is that report on the budget that has been agreed to by the House of Representatives, their Budget Committee people, and the Senate Budget Committee people. So I have to say at the outset that it is quite obvious that it is the majority's report we are looking at. Even though there are 45 Democrat Senators here, the fact is, with rare exception, all of the Democrats voted in opposition to the initial Budget Committee report and my view here is that we are probably going to see at least something as strong in opposition to the report that has now been agreed upon by the House representatives on the budget and the Senate representatives. Look at this. Here we have a budget resolution, one that says this is the way we ought to be spending our money. Mr. President, I remind those who are in earshot, this is a toothless tiger. It does have the force of a Senate-House conference committee agreeing that is what we ought to be spending, but it is without law to support it, and it is now an instruction to the various committees that have the jurisdiction to set up the spending as recommended by the Budget Committee. But what a time this is. The economy has never been stronger. I have been around a long time--thank goodness, for my kids and me--but we have never seen an economy like this. Unemployment is low, inflation is almost unheard of, the stock market is booming, people are able to invest in housing and education and plan their future and vacations. Our fiscal house is in order. We are now running surpluses, having come a long way from 1992 when President Clinton took over, when we were running annual deficits in the high $200 billion. Now we are running surpluses. So we have done something good. I commend my colleague, the chairman of the Budget Committee, for the hard work that he did--that we did bilaterally, with the President of the United States--to get a balanced budget in place. That, I think, has had a large effect on how it is we got to this current period of prosperity. But at the same time we face serious long-term challenges. Most importantly, the baby boomers' retirement is going to put tremendous pressure on Social Security and on Medicare in the years ahead. The key question facing Congress is whether we will meet those challenges and prepare for the future at this time or whether we are going to yield to short-term temptation at the expense of the longevity of these programs. Democrats are committed to focusing on the future. Our top priority is to save Medicare and Social Security for the long term by reducing our debt, keeping our debt in control, and increasing national savings. We also want to provide targeted tax relief for those who need it most and that is the middle-class families, those who work hard for a living, those who are dependent totally on wages and salary for their living. We want to invest in education and other priorities that will enhance the lives of those who are not yet university age but who are looking forward to having a job and career that gives them a decent lifestyle. The Republicans, our friends on the other side of the aisle, have a different view. Their plan as embodied in this conference report focuses on huge tax breaks, largely for the wealthy. I want to give an example of what it is I am talking about because so often our Republican friends get irritated when we say ``focused on the wealthy.'' But if you are in the top 1 percent of the income earners-- that is starting at $300,000 but averaging $850,000 a year--if you are one of the lucky ones, one of the skilled ones, or one of those who inherited wealth, and your income is $800,000 a year, you get a $20,000 tax break in this budget that is proposed before us. On the other hand, if you work hard and you go to work every day and you worry about how to educate your kids and you worry about how to pay your mortgage and you earn $38,000 a year, you get $100--oh, $99, I am sorry; it is not even $100--a $99 tax break. Somehow or other that doesn't seem right to me: $800,000 on the one hand gets a $20,000 tax break and on the other hand, if you make $38,000, slightly over $700 a week to support your family, you get $99 and you can spend it in any way you want, the $99; buy a yacht, buy a vacation--whatever you want to do with the $99. So it does not seem right to me. These tax breaks on top of the unfair balance between those who are the wealthy and those who work hard for a living would cost the taxpayer enormous sums in the future. It would absorb funding that is needed to save Medicare. And that, when you get right down to it, is really the main issue this conference report presents to the Senate. Question: Should we provide huge tax cuts, many of which will benefit the wealthy? Or should we use that money to save Medicare? Of course, there is a lot more to the conference report before us, so I will take a little time now to explain why I strongly oppose and intend to vote against the acceptance of this conference report. There are four primary reasons. First, it does not do anything to increase Medicare's life. In other words, in 2015 Medicare is ready for bankruptcy, if things go as they are. I have suggested that we ought not use funds needed for Medicare for tax cuts that are primarily for the wealthy. Secondly, it threatens Social Security because it fails to extend Social Security's life, but it allows the use of surpluses generated by those who currently pay about 13 percent of wages; that is the worker and the company, for purposes other than Social Security. Thirdly, it is fiscally dangerous. I used to run a big corporation, and I will tell you that this is not the way to plan the long-term future. It proposes tax cuts that do not cost much in the beginning, as the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee said, but he said it is going to cost over $700 billion. In 10 years, over $750 billion will be used to provide that tax break. Fourthly, it proposes extreme and unrealistic cuts in essential programs that are necessary for the well-being of all our citizens. It would devastate public services on which so many depend. Moreover, Congress will be unable to pass the bills that provide the funding that these programs need, and it could lead eventually to a repeat of a terrible experience that we had a few years ago--a Government shutdown. These are the kinds of programs that would be affected. Medicare's hospital insurance trust fund is now expected to become bankrupt in 2015. It is critical that we address this problem and do it now. There is no doubt that we have to modernize and reform Medicare to make it function more efficiently, but whatever reform process we pass, we still need more resources--more money, to put it bluntly. In an attempt to find an overall solution, President Clinton proposed allocating 15 percent of projected budget surpluses, that is, the unified budget, for surpluses for Medicare. This would extend the life of the Medicare trust fund for another 12 years. Our Republican colleagues deride this proposal. They say it amounts to adding meaningless IOUs to Medicare, but they are wrong. First, the President's proposal would reduce the debt that the public holds in bonds and investment in Government securities, which would significantly reduce interest costs in the future, which would help us actually pay for Medicare with the real dollars saved. Unfortunately, the Republican budget resolution we have in front of us totally rejects the President's proposal to extend Medicare solvency. Instead of directly using these surpluses for Medicare, it uses almost all of that money for tax cuts. The document we have in front of us--that was prepared exclusively by Republicans, I remind you--does not specify how we are going to provide those tax cuts. They will be drafted later in the Finance Committee. However, based on the comments of the chairman of the Finance Committee, it is fair to assume that most of the total benefits will flow to the wealthiest Americans. Mr. President, these GOP tax breaks would come at the direct expense of Medicare. It is wrong. Under the Republican plan, not one penny of projected surpluses is guaranteed for Medicare--not one cent. The resolution claims to reserve about $90 billion for unspecified uses over 10 years and suggests that maybe we can take some of that $90 billion for Medicare. However, that is far less than the $350 billion the President wants to put into Medicare over a 10-year period. And none of this $90 billion is actually reserved for Medicare. In any case, there is nothing left for the Medicare program after these funds are used up for unexpected emergencies. For example, emergency spending now averages $9 billion a year. That is emergency spending for natural disasters or some other disaster--fire, whatever you have--in a community that is needed each and every year. It is reasonable to assume that future emergencies will consume all of this so-called reserve. Mr. President, the Republicans' refusal to provide additional resources for Medicare would have a direct impact on the millions of Americans who will depend on Medicare for their health needs in the future. The resolution almost certainly would mean higher health care costs, higher copayments--that means for the beneficiary. If you have an incident or a matter that can be reimbursed by Medicare, you will have a higher copayment, you will have higher deductibles, lower quality health care services, and probably fewer hospitals, all because the Republicans insist on providing these huge tax breaks. Beyond Medicare, the second major problem with the Republican resolution is that it poses a direct threat to Social Security. Just yesterday, I offered a motion to instruct the conferees, those from the House and those from the Senate--but particularly it applied to the Senate because that is where we give our directions--that they ensure that all Social Security surplus is used only to extend the life of Social Security. It was not a close vote. The motion was adopted by a 98-0 vote. Ninety-eight Senators said, yes, this is the right kind of attitude we want to see. Ninety-eight out of 100 Senators said, yes, we want to use all of our Social Security surpluses to extend the life of Social Security. But within just a few hours of that vote--the vote took place here, then it went to conference over there in the House, and the conferees, the group that was sitting around the table, our Republican friends, approved a provision that would allow Social Security surpluses to be used for other purposes. I find it astounding and, frankly, it is outrageous that 98 Senators stood up and voted aye, yes, we want all Social Security surpluses to be spent on Social Security, and it went in the wastebasket within a few hours. Quite incredible. The conference report establishes, as we heard, a lockbox that supposedly protects Social Security surpluses. But it does not do that. It establishes a largely meaningless 50-vote point of order against future budget resolutions but has a huge loophole for any legislation that ``enhances retirement security.'' We do not know what the definition of ``retirement security'' is. What does it mean to enhance retirement security? It does not say ``Social Security.'' This is a word game we play here. We say one thing, but it has a different meaning when we say it over here. Just a change of a word or two: ``Retirement security'' versus ``Social Security.'' Presumably this retirement security plan could mean a wide range of purposes. Mr. President, it is unacceptable, it is outrageous, it deserves to be condemned in the strongest possible terms. Social Security surpluses should not be used for ``retirement security'' or anything that we do not understand clearly. Sure, it should not be used for tax cuts. They should not be used for risky new schemes and programs. They should be used to pay Social Security benefits, period. The third problem with the conference report is that it is fiscally irresponsible. The resolution calls only for small tax cuts in the first year or two. We heard the chairman of the Budget Committee say so. But the cost of these tax cuts explode in the future. Over the first 5 years, the total tax cuts that we would have would cost $142 billion, but over the second 5 years that cost increases to $636 billion, about 4\1/2\ times as high as the first 5 years. And that is another way of getting at things. It is kind of a little bit sleight of hand, I would say. That is to say, ``Oh, we can give these tax breaks, give these tax cuts, and it's not going to cost anything.'' No, not while most of us are still Members of this Senate. But 10 years hence, when we add up the scorecard, we will have spent almost three- quarters of a trillion dollars for tax cuts. Mr. President, the final problem with the Republican plan is that it forces extreme cuts in programs for Americans here at home. Tax cuts, on one hand, cost something for the ordinary Americans on the other hand. I want to point out something. We Democrats are not opposed to tax cuts that are targeted, that means something for middle-class people, that means something for hard-working people who have to watch if not their pennies, at least their nickels. That is the way we want to do our tax cuts. We want to encourage savings, we want to encourage child care, we want it so people can have child care in case they do want to work. We want to make sure there are funds there for long-term health care for an elderly person. That is the kind of tax cut that we seek, not this broad, across-the-board tax cut that will give these $800,000 wage-earners a $20,000 tax cut. So we will be losing, as a result of that--programs that are here called nondefense discretionary programs-- about 7\1/2\ percent in the first year. But the real cut in most programs would be much deeper. Keep in mind, the Republican leadership has said they will increase or maintain funding for a handful of favored programs like new courthouses, the transportation bill for the next half dozen years--we call it TEA-21--the census, the National Institutes of Health, and some crime and education programs. That leaves other unprotected programs facing cuts of about 11 percent. I want to point out what we are talking about. This is not just an amorphous discussion about arithmetic. When we say 11 percent, we are talking about everything from environmental protection to the National Parks and the FAA. The FAA is responsible for the maintenance of our aviation fleet and working hard to keep up with the new technologies and the needs as aviation expands its marketplace. The Coast Guard. My gosh, everyone knows the Coast Guard is one of the most important branches of service that we have in this country. They do everything. They do drug interdiction. They maintain waterways. They are out there picking up illegal immigrants who are trying to float their way to the American coast. They are on pollution patrol. They watch it all. You want to cut that down? I do not think so. Eleven percent--that would be devastating. I heard our Senators from States that border Central America about the inadequacy of the number of Border Patrol members that they have. This would take a big slice out of that so that we could no longer do even the protection of our borders as efficiently as we do now. We would be losing lots of FBI agents, NASA would be hurt, our space program, job training, head Start, the program that gives kids who come from a disadvantaged background a little bit of a head start. So what would it mean in real terms? Here are a few examples based on the administration's estimates: 2,700 FBI agents would be lost; 1,350 Border Patrol agents; 780 drug enforcement agents would be lost; 90,000 fewer dislocated workers would receive training for new jobs, job search assistance, and support services; 34,000 low-income children would lose child care assistance--what a devastating thing that would be to lots of families--over 1.2 million low-income women, infants and children--we call it the WIC Program--would lose nutrition assistance each month. How can we face our conscience? FAA operations would be cut by almost $700 million. It would lead to travel delays, weakened security, lack of critical modernization technologies. The Superfund Program that cleans up these toxic waste sites left by our industrial past--unusable ground--that raise potential dangers to those who live nearby; we would lose 21 opportunities to clean up Superfund toxic waste sites, needlessly jeopardizing public health. Up to 100,000 children would lose the opportunity to benefit from Head Start; 73,000 training and summer job opportunities for young people would be lost. Mr. President, these types of cuts clearly are unacceptable. They are not what the American people want. Unfortunately, under this resolution the problem gets dramatically worse in later years. By 2004, these nondefense cuts--again, defense, on one hand, nondefense on the other. Defense is a very favored account in this place, and I support a strong defense. And, boy, if we ever doubted our need to fund it, we see now that we have to do it. But we do not have to give them all of the new resources that we have. By 2004, the nondefense program cuts grow to 27 percent. There isn't a Senator here, who, when faced with reality, is going to vote for those kinds of cuts. But they put their heads in the sand. They are not looking at what the longer consequences of this budget resolution are going to be. And it does not even include any effects of inflation. Mr. President, you really have to wonder whether our Republican friends are serious about cutting domestic programs by 27 percent. It is hard to believe, especially when they are not giving us any details about where those cuts would come from. Some Republicans have argued that these cuts are required because of the discretionary spending caps which remain in effect through 2002. But that is not true. ``Spending caps,'' again, is part of the vernacular here. Those are the levels of spending that we agreed we would adhere to until 2002. But we are now in surplus. We are out of debt because of the good fiscal policies that we have had here. That occurred because Democrats and Republicans and the President worked together. Much of the problem for domestic programs is created because the conference report increases military spending significantly over last year's level. Since all discretionary spending is now under one cap, that extra money must come directly from the other programs that we talked about. Cutting domestic programs by 27 percent in 2004 is not realistic. It is an extreme decision. When it comes time for cutting specific programs, Congress sure will not likely follow through. In other words, this budget resolution is a roadmap to gridlock. If we can't pass the appropriations bills, the funding bills, we face the prospect of a horrible nightmare that we once experienced here, and that is a Government shutdown. Why, then, are we considering a budget resolution that even some Republicans admit can't be enacted into law? The answer is simple. Republicans are desperate to claim that they are for tax cuts. And they see that as the ``Holy Grail.'' That is what they say Americans want. I tell you, I see it differently. I see an America where someone comes from a home that is not wealthy, sometimes widowed. I had the experience personally. My mother was widowed at age 36. My father died when he was 43. There was not a chance at all that I was going to be able to get an education or progress in life. But, fortunately, I served in the military--World War II--and I was able to get my education under the GI bill. It is an incredible thing that we offer when we propose to young people that they have a chance to get a job and to progress and to live a life that is better than their parents in most cases. Here we are saying, well, tax cuts will take care of it all. No. Tax cuts won't take care of it all. Some tax cuts will help, but some tax cuts are just giveaways to wealthy people. The result is that we can create stresses in our society that make living uncomfortable. Right now we see violent crime going down in the most unlikely places. Why? Because we have more police on the streets? Yes. Because we put more criminals in jail? Yes. Because the judges are tougher? Yes. But it is also because people see a way to make a living legitimately and they do not turn to criminality. It is because there are education programs and there are job opportunities that have been created. That is the difference. In one case you have a stable society. Those of us--and I include myself, having had a successful business career--who can afford to pay for the privilege of living in this country ought to step up and pay for it and not be looking for tax cuts but be looking for harmony and stability in our society. That is what it is all about. Here we have the tax cut proposal, the Republican tax cut proposal. They think it is politically going to keep up their majorities here. It is not going to happen, because we do not have a clue on how to pay for them. And as long as we don't know how to pay for them, we can only expect the worst. Mr. President, we are left with a budget that can be described a little bit as show business, fantasy, a budget that almost everybody knows isn't worth the paper on which it is written. I have to say that some of the other provisions in the conference report as well are highly problematic. The conference report establishes a new process, a 60-vote point of order against all emergency spending except for defense. Now I pose a situation. Take a volcano in the State of Washington or an earthquake in the State of California or the floods that hit Missouri or the droughts that hit other States or the storms that hit the Northeast or the Southeast. If we say, well, these are emergency conditions, it disturbs the community, it destroys their economic viability; we want that to be taken care of by programs that we have in the Federal Government. Now we are saying, well, it is not enough to have 51 votes. Let's make sure you have to have 60 votes so that 41 votes can stop any program they want. Let's suppose that there is a political problem existing in a campaign for President or Senator, and one party is in power here. They know that State X, Y or Z has a stronger possible voting block than the other party; 41 Senators can get up and stop it cold. Emergency spending is emergency spending. We ought to leave it to a majority of the Senate to decide that, not require 60 votes. It flies directly in the face of the Senate-passed resolution. That is the way we did it. We left it 50 votes. So not only do I strongly disagree with it as a matter of policy, but I think it is an abuse of the conference process. If 59 Senators think that we need to pass emergency assistance to help those ravaged by a flood or earthquake, we can't let 41 Senators block it. Why should we be buying new weapons with a higher priority than saving the lives of Americans who are suffering from a natural disaster? We know there have been abuses of the emergency designation, but the Governmental Affairs Committee developed a reasonable approach to cutting down on those abuses. They established a new definition and a new process for extracting new emergency items that were added at the last minute in conference reports. The Senate approved that approach, and the House didn't have anything about this in their resolution. Yet, when they got together in conference, the conferees on their own decided that they would delineate a new and entirely different approach. It is not right. That is not the way the system is supposed to work. We talk about majority rule. I am also concerned that the conference report rejected yesterday's Senate vote in support of the Dodd child care amendment. It was supported, in part, by our Republican friends, but the amendment that was carried through this body called for $12.5 billion in new funding for child care on top of any new related tax cuts. Instead, what the conferees did is provide only $3 billion in child care funding. We had 66 votes for the proposal yesterday at $12.5 billion. Today, it is down to $3 billion. That is not what the 66 Senators voted for, and it is a sad commentary on our commitment to families in need. Finally, I am also disturbed that the conference report includes a provision saying that any reestimate of our budget surplus can be used only for tax cuts. I think it is a mistake. I think it is wrong. Why should tax breaks for wealthy people be given a higher priority than education or Social Security or Medicare or defense or veterans' needs? Mr. President, I do not think we should be spending any surpluses until we save Social Security and Medicare. And I certainly do not think that surpluses should be reserved only for tax cuts, especially when we know that many of those cuts are going to go to wealthy folks. There are many serious problems with this conference report. Before I close, I want to quickly recount the four problems that are most fundamental. First, it doesn't guarantee a single additional penny for Medicare, even though Medicare faces bankruptcy in the year 2015. Instead, it takes money needed for Medicare and uses it for tax cuts that will benefit the wealthy. Second, it threatens Social Security. It doesn't extend Social Security's solvency by a single day, and it calls for using Social Security surpluses for purposes other than Social Security directly. Third, it is fiscally dangerous. It calls for huge tax cuts, the costs of which explode in the future, just when the baby boomers will be retiring. Finally, its cuts in domestic programs are extreme. If they were ever enacted, they would seriously disrupt important public services. More likely, Congress will never approve them, and we will again be facing the disastrous threat of a Government shutdown. The people who voted for it, for the most part, know very well that this is not a budget that is going to survive. It is too bad that we are taking all of this time and expending all of this energy to produce this sleight- of-hand budget proposal that we see in front of us. I am strongly opposed to this conference report, and I hope that it will be more than a party-line vote that votes against it. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. How much time do we have, Mr. President?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the motion be dispensed with.