Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, since a challenge was put down by the chairman of the committee on the information presented by the Senator from Massachusetts, that the Senator from Massachusetts be allowed 5 minutes to respond.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 2\1/ 2\ minutes be made available before we send our amendments to the desk.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will make a unanimous consent request just to take 1 minute to parallel my friend and chairman of the Budget Committee.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, the President of the United States has a plan to extend Medicare's solvency to 2020. I heard the impassioned and always eloquent appeal by the chairman of the Budget Committee that this was a bipartisan effort. It is true that there are a couple of Democrats that are supporters of the amendment under discussion, but this is by no means to be judged in this moment to be a bipartisan effort. Each of us is going to look at it as we see it. The Republicans do not have anything in the plan to extend the solvency. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. Amendments Nos. 183 through 205, en bloc

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, under the provisions of the consent agreement of yesterday, I send a package of amendments to the desk and ask they be considered and offered individually, set aside en bloc.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I now yield to Senator Robb from Virginia so that he may offer an amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. May we have order, Mr. President?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. privileges of the floor

Mr. LAUTENBERG. If you will give me a moment, I have an inquiry. I ask the Parliamentarian, is there a UC now that lists amendments in order?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Regular order is the Ashcroft amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is the pending amendment. I think the Parliamentarian will agree.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, what is the time situation on this amendment?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I stand here, and I request recognition.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I was, obviously, very much interested--I will not say moved--by the discussion that I just heard on this amendment, because the drill is a familiar one. The drill is the people who earned it want it back; and, why not give it to them? Of course, we want to give it to them. But whether you give it to them in direct tax cuts or you shore up Social Security, you say that no matter when you retire, for the next 75 years, you will know that the retirement program is going to be there for you. Or you say, ``Well, we are going to take the Medicare fund, and we are going to increase its solvency from 2008 to 2020, 12 years more, during which time, or during this time, because we are looking at something 21 years away. We want to institute the reforms that are so often talked about so that health care can be provided in a reasonable fashion with longevity, with the solvency that is required. I heard the distinguished Senator from Minnesota in our Budget Committee the other day presenting a poll in which he said 63 percent of the people--I think I have it accurately and fairly--polled wanted a tax cut. I read a newspaper story about that poll. Once the question was put as to whether you would rather have a tax cut, or pay down the debt, or make sure that Social Security is there for you, or make sure that Medicare is there when you need it, the numbers changed radically. The numbers that said pay down the debt, increase the longevity for Social Security, increase the longevity and solvency of Medicare, and, boy, they went the other way. When I hear that the typical American family pays 40 percent in taxes--I don't know what the income is for the typical American family, but I can tell you that almost 60 percent of the people are in the $38,000 or below income strata. They are not paying 40 percent taxes. Come on. Let's be reasonably direct and accurate about these things. Look at what happened. If we use the GOP tax program as outlined by the distinguished Senator, the chairman of the Finance Committee, he says that if you are in the top 1 percent of the income, over $300,000 or more, an average of $800,000 a year, you get a $20,000 tax cut. But if you make $38,000, which is the bottom 60 percent of the people in this country, $38,000, you save $99. The guy on the top who gets a $20,000 refund could buy another car for that, or add a wing to his house. But the family that is earning $38,000 is not going to do a lot with 100 bucks--$99 to be precise. I think we ought to be fairly clear when we have this debate. Yes, everyone is entitled to offer amendments they think are appropriate, but we ought not to color the facts such that we ignore the reality of what it is we are talking about. Mr. President, I think that it is quite obvious that this gets back to the essential dispute between the parties with the Republicans wanting tax breaks primarily for the wealthy, ignoring the fact that they can improve the condition of Medicare. We on this side want to have as our principal programs: save Social Security; extend the life of Medicare; make sure there are targeted tax breaks so that families who have an elderly parent can take care of that parent and get a tax deduction, a tax break for that responsibility; or who needs day care for their children, and get a tax break so that mama can work. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about things that pertain to the average American. I am one of the people lucky enough to be in the top 1 percent. I was in business before I was here. I will tell you something. I am so happy every time I have the ability to earn that kind of money to pay my taxes, because I belong to the best club in the whole world, the club called ``America,'' where everything is available to you. Opportunity should be--education should be--everything should be available for those who want to climb the ladder and who are clever enough to do it. That is what I am paying for when I send in my tax bill. I don't think it is being squandered by a bunch of bureaucrats. Some, maybe. That happens in corporate life. I ran a big corporation. I can tell you. What I want is a secure country. I want a country where people feel good about themselves and aren't looking at the guys on top and saying they are getting all the breaks. That is not a stable society. The stable society says, I want a chance to educate my children, I want a chance to have a roof over my head, and I want a chance to have a job. That is what I want. I want to know that when I am of retirement age that Social Security is going to be there for me. And I am happy to pay my dues. That is what it is--dues. We are so lucky to be here. People are willing to die, and are fleeing in inner tubes across the straits near Cuba, near Florida, to get to this country, and risk death coming out of ships' holds and things such as that to get to this country. We are not talking about squandering money and throwing away the citizens' dollars. I think we ought to defeat this amendment. Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am pleased to do that.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I just heard, I think I will call it the chairman's lament, and that is here we have all this money and we can't give tax breaks. But I see the tax breaks as having a funny shape to them. They are big for the guy at the top and they are little for the people who need it most. But I would say this, that the only people who can add a new room to the house, get a child some special assistance with education, prepare retirement, ensure health care is available are those who have some surplus. That is when you do the good things. And the good things to me are not to take care of the guys at the top, who would get another 20 grand, to use the expression, on top of the $800,000 they make. I don't think they need help. But the person who is making $38,000, a family of four, they are struggling. They are struggling. They are trying to find a way to take care of all the needs as the kids grow, and it is a difficult, difficult problem. So I do not object to appropriate tax breaks. I don't object to tax breaks for long-term health care. I don't object to tax breaks for child care so that mom can go to work and help dad support the family, or vice versa. I don't object to any of those things. So with that I think we have probably heard each other enough. Can we yield back all the time?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. No. I have some time on my side, I think.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I feel benevolent, and I am going to yield back my time and we will try to resolve our problem so that we can accept the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota. Amendment No. 231, As Modified

Mr. LAUTENBERG. We are all set.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. And it is accepted. They can urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts. Mr. President, I support Senator Kerry's amendment to delay new tax cuts if projected surpluses do not materialize. Medicare has a compelling need for revenues in the future that should not be jeopardized by tax cuts, especially knowing that these costs for tax cuts would explode substantially in the outyears. I want to mention for my colleagues some history. The fiscal year 1982 budget projected surpluses were just around the corner. We all know what happened to those projected surpluses after the massive 1982 tax cut. We have also seen in recent years how wrong both CBO and OMB estimates have been as the economy has consistently outperformed all projections. Projecting long-term budget results is really an art, not a science. This budget resolution relies heavily on estimates of surpluses going so far out as to adjust them during the summer. If such short-term estimates are being taken into account, we also ought to take into account the long-term realities. If the surpluses do not materialize, the tax cuts they are based on should be delayed until the surpluses are there. We just heard the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee talk about tax cuts being permanently in law. We still do not fully understand why the commonly referred to ``revenue surprise'' has occurred, and we don't know honestly how long it is going to last. My Republican colleagues often say, we are returning excess revenues to the taxpayers. I put it to them, if the tax revenues are not there in the future, should we drain away resources from Medicare to provide tax cuts? Today we are phasing in tax cuts over long periods to obscure their revenue effects. If we implement tax breaks which create huge outyear revenue losses and the economy fails to perform as well as predicted, we could return to the world of deficits as far as the eye can see, just in time for the baby boomers to begin retiring. Very simply, Mr. President, I think this is a sound amendment. It says, don't give it away unless you know very well that you are on target. I think it is a reasonable position. I think it is fiscally sound. I hope that our colleagues will vote for the Kerry amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.