Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I will be offering an amendment. Have we dealt with the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota? I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be laid aside.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, if I might say to my colleague, I support the unanimous consent agreement. I want to point out to Senators who are interested in offering amendments that we are here as long as amendments are going to be offered. If there are none offered at the conclusion of the votes, then we are going to be prepared to close shop, as we say. As long as amendments are offered, we are here. If they are not, we are closing up. But there will not be time to drag out tomorrow. We are willing to work all night, if necessary. But we are going to conclude with 10 hours tomorrow, which would then be roughly 35 hours' worth of time spent. With that, I assume, Mr. President, that the unanimous consent request was agreed to.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. No objection. Mr. President, I just say that I commend both the Senator from Oregon and the Senator from Maryland for offering this. I think that it is appropriate that we, as we assert our military might into the world arena, try to establish the fact that we obey and want to see the rule of law observed, and yet we do not always pay our bills as we should. I think that is kind of a contrary action to be taking. So I know the chairman is going to agree with me. As I see members of our committee, I say to Senator Domenici, I see people who are thoughtful and working hard, regardless of which side of the aisle. We can get argumentative at times, but I am proud to work with the members of the Budget Committee. I am particularly, obviously, impressed with the work that is done by my colleagues on my side, but that does not mean that I am not equally as impressed with what happens with colleagues on the other side. It is just that we disagree on some things. So I wanted to make that statement. Mr. Chairman? Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to respond to the amendment which was offered by the Senator from Missouri, who had essentially presented President Clinton's budget recommendations to us. I want to make note of a couple of things. While I support the direction of the President's budget, I am going to oppose this amendment, because I believe it isn't a serious attempt to enact the President's plan. Rather, I see it as a transparent political gimmick that has been reviewed in our committee and voted upon. Democrats, like Republicans, voted against the budget. That does not mean we are against the general theme or the thrust of the President's budget. There are things in the budget that we want to examine specifically. Frankly, I think it is pretty obvious that it is designed to discredit the President's budget. It dismisses the contribution to Medicare that we have established in some of the amendments we tried to offer in the Budget Committee discussions on the budget resolution. What I heard said was that if we are serious about reform, then we ought to get on with it. The fact that we are going to increase the longevity of Medicare from 2008 to 2020, a period of 12 years, is dismissed as casual, trite--``chaff'' was the word that was used--as not being serious. On the other hand, what I heard the Senator say is that he was looking at reform. He thought there was a good program that was proposed there, a proposal that would take higher deductibles, higher co-pays, perhaps reducing some of the hospital availability. That sounded like what the Senator was proposing in terms of his view of what we had to do with Medicare, that his reform was designed to, other than adding financial stability to it, to do these other things. Well, maybe he wants to discuss the Medicare reform this evening, because it looks like, in its present condition, some of the changes in the program would be fairly painful to the Medicare beneficiaries. One of the things I do not think I made clear in my remarks before, when I responded to the challenge to capitalists, one of the things that causes me to want to pay my share, whatever that fair share is, to support the programs that this country offers, like health care through Medicare, like a chance at an education, like a chance at a job, like a chance to bring children up in a safe environment--that is why we have our police program adding 100,000 policemen to the streets of our cities--like adding teachers, like reducing class size, I want to live in that kind of a country. I want to live in the kind of a country that says people who are in the middle, people who are hard-working, people of modest income, people are not looking at this society and saying: Wow, it is really unfair; those guys, those people at the top, get everything, and we are left with the dregs. Not so. That is why this country, despite its growth, its absorption of different cultures and ethnicities, is able to get on so relatively peacefully. Why? It is because people believe they have a chance at success. That is the way I want to do it. I want to make my contribution. It is made by way of taxes. It is made by way of other things that many of us do, whether it is philanthropic activity or otherwise. I want to do it, because I want to do it for my children. I do not want them to live in a society where everybody is so angry that they want to take it out on my family and other families. We have enough of that violence on our streets and in our communities. I want to get rid of that. You either pay or you hire security guards or you make sure your burglar alarm is on every minute of the day and night. That is the condition we have arrived at. I see a lessening of that. I see a lessening, very frankly, of the racial distrust that exists. It is not perfect by a longshot. That is what I see as America. I am happy to say that if you make $800,000, you pay and you don't get a $20,000 rebate. I want to trust this Government that those of us here have a share of running and say, OK, we will watch you; we will watch the way you spend the money and so forth. But I do not see the kinds of result that others talk about here at times, throwing your money to the Government where they put it down the drain, where they squander it on things, where they just disregard the importance of the resource. I don't see it. What I see is that this is a trick tactic. This presentation of the President's budget is designed to embarrass Democrats, and the majority is proposing an amendment that they intend to oppose. This is an amendment that is being offered that is going to be opposed by the offerer. That should make it clear enough that this is political hijinks and not a serious amendment. We should not spend our time debating every dot and comma in the President's budget, because every one of us can find something to criticize in that budget. Republicans have the luxury of not presenting a budget that goes into the same level of detail as the President's budget. Their budget, the Republican budget, is a rough outline, and that is what we should be debating here--basic principles, broad outlines of the budget. I think it is clear that there is broad Democratic support for the framework in the President's budget. The President wants to reserve 77 percent of projected surpluses to reduce debt, save for Social Security and Medicare, and I think that is the right approach for our future. But the Bond amendment is not asking us to support the general approach of the President's budget. It is asking us to support the entire budget, that presumably means that every single item in that budget is satisfactory. Mr. President, if I can lift it, I want you to take a look at the President's budget. This is the size of the President's budget. It has 1,291 pages, and that is what we are being asked to approve tonight in this gimmicky amendment that we are looking at. I think the public sees through this. Certainly Senators see through it, even some of those who are on the side of the proposers. I ask if any Senator wants to endorse every single number in this volume. I doubt it. I turn to page 105 of the budget. It says that we should provide $400 million for the Dairy Recourse Loan Program. There might be some in here who like that program, but I bet you that the majority are not going to like it, and I am not sure we should be endorsing that specific kind of a figure here today. There are literally thousands of other very specific numbers in this budget, and nobody here is fully familiar with it. Nobody is going to agree to all of these numbers and these conclusions. But that does not mean we are repudiating the general theme of the President's budget, and no one should be confused about that. I am going to ask my Democratic colleagues to join me, and all those who want to make sense out of what we are doing here and want to be serious, to vote against this amendment because it is, again, designed, I think, to be hijinks, tricks, gimmicks. I yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes off the resolution to our colleague from Oregon.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Is it the intention of the chairman that we have these votes consolidated, the first one maybe the regular 15, and then 10-minute votes after that?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I want just a few minutes to respond. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of Senator Conrad's lockbox amendment, which reserves approximately 45 percent of the non-Social Security budget surplus for Medicare over the next 10 years. Mr. President, we have heard a lot about the Republican lock box here on the floor. But so far, it's been all conversation and no action and no amendment. Nothing was offered in Committee, except for a sense of the Senate that merely endorses current law. And we don't expect to see anything on the floor. What we have before us is a budget that spends nearly every dollar of the projected $1 trillion surplus on tax cuts. And the numbers don't lie. On page 5 of the budget resolution, the amounts of surpluses remaining after the Republican tax cut are as follows: A $6 billion on-budget deficit in 2000; A surplus of zero in 2001; A surplus of zero in 2002; A surplus of zero in 2003; and A small $3 billion on-budget surplus in 2004. Mr. President, nothing in this budget is reserved for Medicare, although the program goes bankrupt in just eight years. But Senator Conrad's amendment would correct this obvious oversight by reserving approximately 45 percent of the onbudget surplus for Medicare over the next 10 years. This amendment is more than rhetoric, Mr. President. And it's more than a press release. It's a new Senate rule that reserves $707 billion for the Medicare program over the next 15 years. That's fully $707 billion more than the Republican budget. Over ten years, this amendment would reduce debt by over $300 billion more than the Republican plan. Over the long-term, these reserves would be instrumental in crafting a comprehensive Medicare reform package that modernizes the program for the 21st century. In the Budget Committee mark-up last year, Chairman Domenici stated that ``for every dollar you divert to some other program you are hastening the day when Medicare falls into bankruptcy.'' Well, Mr. President, we are one year closer to bankruptcy but a giant step back from where we were last year, when this program was a priority for both Republicans and Democrats. Not only does our lockbox do more to protect Medicare and reduce debt, it also has a stronger lock and more responsible enforcement procedure for both Social Security and Medicare. Mr. President, we enforce the lockbox through the tried and true mechanisms of the pay-go rules. If Congress attempts to spend part of the Social Security surplus or Medicare reserve, the sequester rules of the Balanced Budget Act would make automatic spending cuts in order to keep the reserve intact. But in their budget, Republicans have weakened the pay-go rule by allowing all funds not saved for Social Security to be used for tax cuts, right away, regardless of whether we ever act to reform Social Security and Medicare. Our lockbox, however, creates a powerful incentive for Congress to address the long-term problems of Social Security and Medicare by prohibiting surpluses outside of the lockbox from being used until we reform Social Security and Medicare. To sum up, Mr. President, the Republican budget ignores Medicare, but the Democratic lockbox protects both Social Security and Medicare. The Republican budget reduces public debt, but our lockbox reduces it more. The Republican budget does nothing to further protect Social Security, but our proposal adds a new super-majority point of order to make certain that Social Security surpluses remain out of the budget. And finally, the Republican budget puts tax breaks first and tax breaks only, but our lockbox puts Social Security and Medicare first. Mr. President, this is an easy choice. Our proposal is better for Social Security, better for Medicare, and better for debt reduction. And our proposal is a more responsible alternative to a Republican budget that does absolutely nothing to protect or strengthen Medicare. Mr. President, I think securing Social Security, the Social Security trust fund, the Medicare trust fund, is of great help. And whether issuing more IOUs or not, we could put cash in there. And if we left it in cash, then what we would do is lose the purchasing power that is eroded by inflation or that would fail to replenish the fund as the number of recipients grows, even though the promise is made to each individual. But it also does something else, I think. What it does do is it attempts to secure longer life for Social Security and for Medicare, to at least remove it from the likelihood that the appropriators one day-- someday in the future, if things get tough--would be able to say, ``Well, listen, we just can't afford to do that. We're going to legislate reductions in the benefits.'' And I think it is the right way to go. Mr. President, I must take a couple minutes because one of the things that I find terribly bothersome here is the fact that we are now down to where we are saying, ``stole money,'' ``phony accounting,'' ``fraud,'' and the Director of the OMB--a brilliant, educated man--was called the ``most deceptive witness to ever appear before the Finance Committee'' by one of our Senators. I think that that language ought to be out of order because it accomplishes nothing except to get everybody a red neck. That is what happens. We all get excited about it because we are offended, insulted, by the trivial language that goes through this place when we are talking about something so serious. ``Taxes on poor people'' it was proposed because we were going to impose a burden on the tobacco users for the amount of the health care system that they used. ``Taxes on poor people,'' the plea was. ``We've got to feel sorry for those people who are going to pay more for their tobacco, for their cigarettes,'' even though they have consumed more of our health care costs in the country in lost productivity, et cetera; it is estimated as much as $100 billion a year. ``Poor people, they are addicted to tobacco; and, therefore, we ought not to ask them to pay more for the programs they use.'' I agree with that of sorts, but, on the other hand, in the State of Texas, $15 billion was accepted by the State of Texas as a resolution, a settlement of the case they had against the tobacco companies--$15 billion. And I did not hear anybody say, ``Well, Texas ought not to take that money because ultimately the consumers, the smokers, are going to pay for it.'' I did not hear anybody say that when tobacco companies raise the price of cigarettes 45 cents a pack, ``Oh, what a pity for those poor people to have to pay it.'' Of course, it goes into the profits of the tobacco companies, but I did not hear anybody pleading the case for those poor people who are going to pay it. I heard a description of capitalists who hate capitalism. Well, you are looking at one. You are looking at one. And there is one sitting in the chair of the President, as well, a capitalist. He made his money through hard work and diligence. And I know, in my discussions with his wife, how she tends the business while he serves the country. I came from a poor immigrant family. And I was struck by the comparison between the Senator from New Mexico and myself. I was born at home, but it was not in rural country: it was in New Jersey. I was born at home. The doctor came to visit and delivered this beautiful package to my mother. That is what happened. But I did not have the benefit of the hospital, and she didn't either. And maybe that is the result of what we have here. But the fact is, I came from immigrant parents. I came from a father who worked in a silk mill. And perhaps that was the reason that this man, at 43 years of age, died of colon cancer. He was a weight lifter, he played basketball, he wrestled, he loved the outdoors, and he ate healthy foods, even in the 1930s when no one was talking about it. And my father would laugh at you if you smoked, but he died very young. He died young because he worked in a place that is believed was unhealthy to work in. There was no OSHA protection. There was nothing against fumes or film or dust in those mills. My uncle worked in the same industry. My father was 43. My uncle died when he was in his early 50s. And my grandfather, who worked in this same business, died in his early 50s. I know what it is like to have come from the other side of the tracks. I helped create one of the great businesses in America. And I brag here for a moment. And, please, I hope everybody will forgive this immodesty. We started the company without a dime, two other friends and I. Those two were brothers, and their father, as my father, worked in the silk mill. His health, however, was better and was not harmed. None of us had 15 cents to call our own, and we created a business that today employs 33,000 employees, and has one of America's most successful records for return on investment to the investors. If you invested $300 in my company in 1961--we went public--it is worth almost $2 million today. So I am a capitalist. I served my country 3 years in the military, and I was in Europe during the war despite my youthful appearance. The fact of the matter is I did everything I was supposed to, and I did it the old-fashioned way--by working hard. It took us a long time to build that business, but we did succeed. I used to serve with the Hall of Famer here, Bill Bradley, a great, great Senator, a great person, who was a member of the Basketball Hall of Fame. New Jersey was the only State in the whole country that had two Hall of Famers. I was a member of the Hall of Fame of information processing. You should have seen the kids running after me for my autograph. We were the only two. I got there because I helped create not just a company but an industry. So I know a capitalist when I see one, and I like them because they contribute and they create jobs. As I mentioned, 33,000 people work for ADP today. I don't know where they would have had jobs elsewhere, but they like their jobs in that company. When you disparage attempts to say we have a progressive system, that is what has made this country great. People pay their taxes based on their ability to pay and pay the lowest tax rate on a relative basis that we have seen in this country. Yes, there is more tax being paid because we have more people earning more money. It was never dreamed that people would be worth $30 billion or $10 billion. One of the reasons I am worried about abolishing an inheritance tax is a guy leaves his heirs $30 billion, and the heirs have to do nothing but sit there, accumulate interest worth $1.5 billion a year, and pretty soon they own a large part of America and you can't take it away. When we describe people as having ulterior motives or being of lesser character than others, I think it is the wrong way to go. I don't think it is a good example for people across America or children who might be interested. This is an honorable body and everyone on that side of the aisle or this side of the aisle I consider an honorable person. Do we have differences? Absolutely. I think we have to tone down the rhetoric. I guess I have to tone down the decibels of my voice. Whether or not we feel sorry for the farmer, for the rancher, who when he or she sells their property has to pay a tax, then we ought to feel just as sorry for the guy who owns the hotdog stand on the boardwalk in Atlantic City who works and supports his family that way. What is the difference between the person who owns a retail store or the person who owns a farm? There isn't any, in my view. That is my perspective, living in the most densely populated State in the Union. I plead with my colleagues. I agree with Senator Conrad. I think we have to make sure that Social Security is protected. My friends on the Republican side--and we all talk about Pete Domenici, Senator Domenici, affectionately, as well as respectfully. The fact is we differ with him, because I don't see one thing in this Republican budget that says we are going to put 5 cents in Medicare. They say nothing about it. Wishful thinking. They will continue present levels of funding; OK. The fact of the matter is that doesn't help protect Medicare in the years ahead. I will yield back the floor, much to the distress of the listening audience.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my time come off the budget resolution itself and not off the amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, how much time do we have left on our side?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. So the thing that triggers this is whether or not we prepared Social Security and Medicare for its survival. That is the triggering mechanism that enables other things to be considered--tax cuts, targeted tax cuts or other programs to be exercised, is that right?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Would this amendment cause us to have to wait 75 years before tax cuts could be put in place?

Mr. LAUTENBERG

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask that Senator Murray of Washington be recognized.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today we begin our annual pilgrimage to establishing a budget for the next fiscal year. The first year of the new millennium is almost upon us, and we are moving at a fairly rapid pace to get this budget into place, as contrasted to some of the experiences we have had in the past. I commend our chairman, Senator Domenici, for his lending the urgency that he has to getting this job underway. Lest it be misunderstood, Mr. President, that does not mean I agree with everything that we have come up with. But we are moving the ball, as they say, and we will have a chance to amend or debate the budget resolution as it passed the Budget Committee. As we begin our work on a budget for a new century and a new era in our Nation's economic history, we do it with the knowledge and the satisfaction that at long last, America has put its fiscal house in order. At the same time, we still face serious long-term questions. The key question facing Congress is whether we meet those challenges and prepare for the future, or whether we will yield to short-term temptation at tomorrow's expense. Democrats are committed to focusing on the future. Our top priority is to save Medicare and save Social Security for the long term by reducing our debt and increasing national savings. We also want to provide targeted tax relief for those who need it most, and that is the average middle-class family in America. We want to invest in education and other priorities. Our friends, the Republicans, have a different view. Their plan focuses on tax breaks, largely for the wealthy. These tax breaks, whose costs would increase dramatically in the future, would absorb resources that are needed to preserve and to save Medicare. That, when you get right down to it, is really the main issue before the Senate: Should we provide tax cuts, many of which will benefit the wealthy, or use that money to save Medicare? It is as simple as that. Of course, there is a lot more to the budget resolution before us, so let me take some time to explain why I, like every other Democratic member of the Budget Committee, strongly opposed this resolution. There are four primary reasons. First, as I have suggested, it fails to guarantee a single extra dollar for Medicare. Instead, it diverts the funds needed for Medicare to pay for tax cuts that, again, benefit the wealthy fairly generously. Second, it does nothing to extend the solvency of the Social Security trust fund. In fact, it could block President Clinton's proposed transfer of surplus funds to help extend solvency. Third, I think it is fiscally dangerous. The resolution proposes tax cuts that begin small but that explode in the future. Some are around $13 billion in the first year the budget goes into place, up to $180 billion--$177 billion--expected in the tenth year, just when the baby boomers are beginning to retire. And fourth, it proposes extreme and unrealistic cuts in domestic programs. These could devastate public services if enacted. More likely, Congress, in my view, is going to be unable to pass appropriations bills, and we will face a crisis at the end of this year that could lead to a complete Government shutdown. I want to address each of these problems in turn, Mr. President. Medicare's hospital insurance trust fund is now expected to become insolvent in the year 2008. It is critical that we address this problem and we do it soon. We need to modernize and reform the program to make it function more efficiently, but it is clear that also we will need additional resources. As part of an overall solution, President Clinton proposed allocating 15 percent of projected unified budget surpluses for Medicare. This would extend the solvency of the trust fund for another 12 years, to 2020. Unfortunately, the budget resolution rejects that proposal. Instead of using projected surpluses for Medicare, it uses almost all of them for tax cuts. The budget resolution does not specify the details of the tax cuts because they will be drafted later in the Finance Committee. However, the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, has said recently that he wants to provide a 10-percent cut in tax rates. Under that proposal, the top 1 percent of Americans with incomes over $300,000, and average incomes of more than $800,000, would get a tax cut of more than $20,000. And those in the bottom 60 percent, incomes under $38,000, would wind up with $99, less than 100 bucks. Other major GOP proposals for tax cuts, which involve estate taxes and capital gains taxes, are similarly regressive and unfair. Giving away disproportionate tax breaks to the wealthy would be bad enough, but the GOP tax breaks would come at the direct expense of Medicare, and that is wrong. Under the Republican plan, not one penny of projected surpluses is guaranteed for Medicare. The resolution does reserve about $100 billion for unspecified uses over 10 years. But that is far less than the $350 billion the President wants for Medicare over 10 years. More importantly, none of the $100 billion is actually reserved for Medicare. In fact, the chairman indicated that this amount may be used for unexpected emergencies or contingencies, and those alone could easily use up all this money. Emergency spending averages $9 billion a year, more than the resolution's annual reserve for each of the next 5 years. Even over 10 years, we can expect to consume at least 90 percent of this projected reserve to respond to emergencies. Mr. President, the Republican 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 services in the future. The resolution almost certainly would mean higher health care costs, higher copayments for the individuals, their share of the bill, higher deductibles--that means it does not kick in until the levels of costs directly to the individual have risen--and potentially lower quality health care services, and probably fewer hospitals, all because the majority insists on providing huge tax breaks for wealthier Americans. Beyond Medicare, the second major problem with the Republican resolution is that it does nothing to extend the solvency of the Social Security trust fund. Currently, Social Security is projected to become insolvent by the year 2032. President Clinton is determined to extend the solvency until 2075 and has proposed specific policies to get us to the year 2055, as certified by Social Security actuaries. The Republicans have been critical of the President's proposals to invest some of the Social Security funds in the private market and to transfer debt held by the public to the trust fund. Unfortunately, they propose nothing to increase the resources available to Social Security. In fact, their resolution is specifically designed to block the President's proposed transfer of surplus funds for Social Security. The bottom line, when it comes to Social Security, is clear. President Clinton's budget extends solvency through the year 2055. The Republican plan does not add a single day of security. The third major problem with the resolution is that it is fiscally risky. The resolution calls only for small tax cuts in the first year or two. But the cost of those tax cuts explode in the future. And by 2009, as I said earlier, when the baby boomers will begin retiring, the tax cuts will drain the Treasury of more than $180 billion in that year. That is not fiscal responsibility. The final problem with the Republican plan is that it includes extreme cuts in programs for Americans here at home. Total nondefense discretionary programs--to be absolutely clear, the discretionary programs include defense and nondefense--total nondefense discretionary programs would be cut in the first year from $266 billion in the current year, not including emergency spending, to $246 billion in the year 2000. One does not have to be a mathematician to recognize that is a significant change--from $266 billion to $246 billion in 1 year. Arithmetically, it looks like a 7.5-percent cut--and that does not sound like a lot--but the real cut in most programs would be much deeper. And I assure you that 7.5-percent cut, at a minimum, is a very significant, painful exercise for those who are depending on some of our Government programs. And I am not talking about wasteful programs; I am talking about fundamental programs like WIC and border guards and FBI agents and DEA agents. Keep in mind, the resolution claims to increase or maintain funding for a handful of favored programs, like new courthouses, TEA 21, our transportation program, for the next 6 years, the census, National Institutes of Health, and some crime and education programs. Those are the protected programs. That leaves the other unprotected programs facing cuts of about 11 percent--everything from environmental protection to the national parks, the FAA, the Coast Guard, the Immigration and Naturalization Service Border Patrol, FBI, NASA, job training, and Head Start. These are successful and important programs. When we say that these cuts are going to be 11 percent in the first year, that is being pretty conservative, because we are ignoring the fact that the cuts increase significantly in the future to 27 percent in the year 2004, a 27-percent cut for the American people. Just to put the picture straight, imagine a 27-percent cut in wages, a 27-percent cut in spending power. It would be an awful tragedy for most families. Second, the 11-percent figure that we talked about in the first year represents a cut from 1999 levels. To make it clear, our fiscal year ends September 30 for 1999; and on October 1 we kick in with the budget for the year 2000. That does not anticipate any inflation impact. Thirdly, there is another problem with the Republican budget. It significantly underestimates the outlays that would flow from its present levels of defense appropriations. If those outlays are estimated to be consistent with historical levels, the cuts in nondefense discretionary outlays would be as high as 21 percent in the first year. I know that we are talking about a lot of different changes in the percentages. But it looks like the minimum could be 11 percent, and we could be looking at a figure as high as 27 percent in the nondefense discretionary programs. Mr. President, I am going to give our Republican friends, the majority, the benefit of the doubt. I am going to, for the moment, not talk about the deeper cuts in the outyears. I am going to leave out, ignore, the effects of inflation. And I am not even going to consider this dramatic underestimate of defense outlays. I am going to start with this very conservative figure of 11 percent and consider what a cut of this magnitude would mean for domestic programs next year. Next year, again, starts October 1. Here are a few examples, based on administration estimates: That we would lose 2,700 FBI agents. I ask you, is this a time when it seems appropriate to be cutting back on FBI agents? When terrorism in this country is a real threat? When we are trying to stop crimes? We are adding crimes to the list of crimes that are going to be tried in Federal courts. So 2,700 FBI agents. Thirteen hundred and fifty Border Patrol agents. We have heard from many of our colleagues, Republican and Democrat, who live in border States and talk about the problems they have from California, through New Mexico, through Arizona, Texas, about those who illegally cross the border, pleading for more help, pleading for an opportunity to contain this illegal immigration flow. We are talking about reducing Border Patrol agents to the tune of 1,350? How do our friends who represent those border States feel about this? Drug agents: 780 DEA drug enforcement agents would be lost. Now, if there is a more distracting problem in our society than drugs, I don't know what it is. The overrunning of our young people by drug influences is something that we can't tolerate, that we search for solutions to, at our wit's end. One thing we know: While having enough drug enforcement agents alone doesn't solve the problem, take them away and we will see what happens to the flow of illegal drugs into this country. Ninety thousand, two hundred fewer workers, dislocated as a result of industry shifts, plant closings, et cetera, would receive training, job search assistance, and support services--90,000 people would be left without the training necessary to move to different job situations if their job is lost. Thirty-four thousand low-income children would be without child care assistance. Over 1.2 million low-income women, infants, and children would lose nutrition assistance every month. That program is commonly known as the WIC Program. It is a very effective program. In a country like ours, with the bounty that we have from lots of natural resources, industry progress, people who are skillful, intelligent, who are hard working, lots of people making money--we talk today about the billionaire class as we used to hear 40 years ago about the millionaire class--and we want to permit 1.2 million low-income women, infants, and children who need the nutritional assistance that this program offers to lose it? I will not stand by and let that happen. FAA operations: Our aviation industry is booming. People cannot get seats in lots of situations. What do we worry about? We have lots of delays, we have concerns about safety and security and the lack of critical modernization technologies. FAA operations would be cut by almost $700 million. If we think the delays are bad now, hold on to your seat, because they are going to get worse. Safety: We will focus on safety to make sure things are maintained, but we also want to protect ourselves against possible terrorist attacks, keeping people off the airplanes to make us more secure. On the environment, roughly 21 Superfund toxic waste sites would not be cleaned up as a result of these cuts. They needlessly jeopardize public health. Up to 100,000 children would lose the opportunity to benefit from Head Start. Head Start is an early preschool program that gives children who are typically from a disadvantaged situation a chance to understand the learning process, to get incentives to learn, to understand that learning is fun, that knowledge is beneficial. Take away that from 100,000 children? I don't know how we can do it. I don't know how, with a clear conscience, we can say, ``Go ahead, listen, too bad, take your chances.'' We know who pays the price. All of us pay the price. It is only a matter of when. It is much cheaper to give these kids a head start than to later deal with those who might turn to crime or drugs as a way to work their way up the social and economic ladder. We would eliminate 73,000 training and summer job opportunities for young people. As I earlier said, these are conservative figures, yet these types of cuts are clearly painful. In my view, they are dangerous. Unfortunately, under this resolution, the problem gets dramatically worse in later years. By the year 2004, the nondefense reductions grow to about 27 percent. Again, that doesn't include the effects of inflation nor any underestimation of defense outlays which loom large in front of us now. We have to wonder whether the Republicans are serious about cutting domestic programs by 27 percent. It is hard to believe, especially when there are virtually no details provided about where those cuts would fall. Some Republicans have argued that these cuts are required because of the discretionary spending caps which remain in effect through the year 2002. That is not true. Much of the program for domestic programs is created because the resolution increases military spending by $18.2 billion over last year's level. Since all discretionary spending is now under a single cap--that is, defense and nondefense--that extra money must come directly from domestic programs. President Clinton has also made it clear that we should increase funding for high-priority discretionary programs such as education and the military once we save Social Security. By contrast, the Republican plan establishes unrealistically low discretionary spending levels that would apply, regardless of whether we approve Social Security reform legislation. Cutting domestic programs by 27 percent in 2004 is not realistic. When it comes to cutting specific programs, Congress almost certainly will not follow through. The votes won't be there to do it. In other words, this budget resolution is a roadmap to gridlock. The results could be disastrous. If we can't pass appropriations bills, we face the prospect of yet another Government shutdown. Nobody wants that, of course, but it could happen. Why, then, are we considering a budget resolution that even some Republicans admit can't be enacted into law? The answer is simple: They are desperate to claim that they are for tax cuts. They just don't have a clue on how to pay for them. They don't want to guarantee Medicare a single new dollar, but they are still not even close to identifying sufficient offsetting savings to pay for their tax cuts. We are left with a budget that deals with fantasy, a budget that everybody knows isn't going to be worth the paper it is written on. In the end, there is only one way out. The majority party, the Republicans, have to get real. They can't continue to insist on huge tax cuts if they are not willing to pay for them. So, in sum, Mr. President, let me quickly recount the four reasons why I oppose this budget. I do it with respect for the chairman. We worked hard together, but we just could not agree on what a budget would look like. First, it doesn't guarantee a single additional penny for Medicare. Instead, it takes money needed for Medicare and uses it for tax cuts that will benefit the wealthy. Second, it does nothing for Social Security. In fact, it doesn't extend Social Security's solvency by a single day. Third, it is fiscally risky. It calls for huge tax cuts whose costs 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 and essential public services. But, more likely, Congress will never really approve them and we will again be facing a disastrous threat of a Government shutdown. For all of these reasons, Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed by this budget resolution. I hope that we are going to be able to work together and make what I consider badly needed improvements. We have 35 hours in which to determine what the outcome of our budget discussions are going to be like, what the result is going to be. I hope that we will be able to strike a balance that can get us a budget that can pass both Houses, which can also be approved by the President. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank the chairman. I have an understanding that we are going to go from side to side. At this point, I yield to the Senator from California.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I take time from what would normally be the opposition. I want to take this opportunity to say to the Senator from Ohio that we think that is pretty clear thinking. Paying down the debt--he is right. I heard his remarks. He recounts what we have heard from the economists, Greenspan included, about the most important way to get our fiscal house in order and that is to pay down the debt. If we keep going like things are projected, we could be through with public debt in about 15 years. We would be, within 15 years, at the debt level in 1917. And no, I don't remember it; I have read about it. But within a couple of years thereafter we could be out of public debt, which would be such a bonus for all of our succeeding generations, including our grandchildren. I congratulate the Senator. Is this his second grandchild? The second. One of mine, my 3-year-old grandchild, was watching television tonight and he said to his mother, ``Papa looks mad.'' And then he said, ``No, I think papa is happy.'' Anyway, we do it for them. I think the amendment of the Senator is a very positive amendment and I hope it will get full support.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it is my understanding that in terms of the manager, the chairman of the Budget Committee, this is acceptable. As far as I am concerned, it would be acceptable on our side. Therefore, it is fair to say we will accept it.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send the following amendments to the desk. I ask that they all be considered as offered and laid aside and that related statements be printed in the Record at the appropriate place.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, earlier we considered an amendment that asked the Senate to endorse every line in the President's budget. This amendment asks the Senate to endorse only the general principles of that budget and its proposals for using projected budget surpluses. The President's budget calls for no net increase in spending and no net tax cut until we have acted to reform Social Security. It is vital that we make Social Security our top priority so that the program will still be strong when our children and grandchildren are ready to retire. The amendment I have now proposed would address what many describe as the President's other budget, his framework for using projected budget surpluses once we have taken care of Social Security. This amendment lays out the President's overall principles, which are designed to prepare our Nation for the next century. The amendment says that Congress should reserve the entire off-budget surplus for Social Security and, over 15 years, allocate: 77 percent or $3.6 trillion of the total surplus for Social Security and Medicare; and 23 percent of the surplus, or $1 trillion, for investments in key domestic priorities, such as education, the environment, and law enforcement; investments in military readiness, and pro-savings tax cuts for working families. The amendment also says that tax cuts or spending increases should not be enacted before the solvency of Social Security is assured and Medicare solvency is extended 12 years. In addition, the amendment states that the 77 percent or $3.6 trillion of the total surplus for Social Security and Medicare should be used to reduce publicly held debt. That would provide great dividends for our economy. Reducing the future debt burden and future interest costs would essentially provide a tax cut for our children. And, finally, the amendment says that any tax cuts should be targeted to provide tax relief to middle-income working families and should not provide disproportionate tax relief to people with the highest incomes. Mr. President, this framework emphasizes saving for the future. It's fiscally responsible. It would help protect Social Security and Medicare. And it calls for tax relief and investments where they are most needed. The amendment does not endorse every dot and comma of the President's budget. But it would endorse the overall priorities of that proposal. I hope my colleagues will support it. amendment no. 167 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate tha the COPS Program should be reauthorized) At the appropriate place, insert the following:

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I agree with that.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. OK.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Right.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to table the amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I think by the description the Senator just offered he tells you what he thinks. He is offering this amendment and saying vote no. What he wants the Democrats to do is to be tricked into moving on this. Here is one part of it--1,291 pages. If anyone wants to vote for this without inspecting it, unless all of you have reviewed it in detail and have decided that whatever you are concerned about is taken care of in here. This is not a sincere amendment being offered. What this is, I think, is political chicanery. I urge my opponents to vote against it.