Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I think Michael Eisner in 1 year earned $50 million. He might get a couple of million in tax relief. Is that not right?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. We are not surprised by incomes that exceed $1 million, $5 million, $10 million--some of the top corporate executives in this country, some of the athletes, some of the people in entertainment. So if someone earned $10 million in a year and the tax rate was 39.6 percent for income tax, and if there was roughly a 4- percent decline in that, so that person then would have--if they earned $10 million, they would get $400,000 in tax relief? Is that the way the calculation is, as you see it?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will yield such time as the Senator from North Dakota needs.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. None exists.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. There is apparently a misunderstanding on a UC for a 6:30 deadline.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I, too, extend my appreciation to the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, for the hard work he did to try to get people to understand that we do not want to deprive anybody at all of their opportunity to offer amendments, but we make the case, as we all heard from the majority leader, that we are prepared to stay here as late as necessary tonight. And Senator Domenici and I, as usual, have been working cooperatively. I just wonder whether the majority leader asked the freshman class over there whether they would stay all night. But I thank you. I ask permission, if it is all right with the Senator from Missouri, if the Senator from Wisconsin, who has a fairly short 6-minute presentation to make, could be recognized at this time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections to that act for the consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is our amendment. I yield back the remaining time.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I don't think I will use all that time, but I will take a moment to respond in case my colleague from Massachusetts needs any shoring up. The fact of the matter is that the reserve fund, this mythical reserve fund, that was going to be $132 billion has, by osmosis, shrunk to $101 billion and it is headed in the wrong direction. If there is going to be any participation at all in establishing solvency for another 12 years for Medicare, we have to make our judgment based on where things stand, not the kind of things that are said in honest debate.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from Montana.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. If the Senator will just give me about 2 minutes to respond to Senator Domenici. I just say that though the quote from Senator Breaux is that it is not an either/or proposition, the fact is that the Republican priority--and I will do the unheard of; I will hold up my own sign-- that the Republican priority for the surplus has made it either/or. We have tax breaks for the 10-year period, over $800 billion, $831 billion, and Medicare, zero. So if we want to discuss what we are going to do for Medicare, I guess there is some thought that you can help it by giving it nothing, because that is what is planned. So if we are going to use the quote here, then I think we have to use it in the context of reality. With that, since the Senator from Massachusetts had asked for the floor, Mr. President, I yield--how much time?

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank my friend from North Dakota. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. There is an understanding--just to confirm it--that the next speaker will also be from this side of the aisle. I assume the Senator from Illinois would have our amendment laid aside. Is that the idea?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is right.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes, I am delighted to yield.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, this amendment stands for the proposition that before we spend a penny of any surplus we ought to work hard to save Social Security and Medicare. That is what our primary obligation ought to be. This amendment would make it out of order to consider any new spending or revenue reductions before we have enacted legislation to ensure the long-term solvency of Social Security, and to extend the solvency of the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund by at least 12 years. It has been said by our friends on the other side that we don't add a penny. Well, it is not so. We can disagree. I wouldn't call my friends on the other side dishonest if they disagree with me. I don't like it when we are called dishonest or deceptive or that the President of the United States is lying when he lays down a budget. You can argue this thing from all sides of the discussion. Some think that OMB has a more reliable forecasting ability; some think CBO. We are obliged to respond to our needs by using CBO as a reference. The fact of the matter is, if there is a difference, it is not because someone is trying to cheat here or someone is being dishonest; it is a difference of view. Let the public hear it. Let the public listen to this debate. As I look at things now, times are good today, but we still face tremendous long-term challenges. This is the time to deal with those challenges. We don't know how much of projected surpluses we will need. The Social Security trust fund is projected to become insolvent in 2032, and I don't hear many arguments about that. At that point, revenues will only be sufficient to fund about three- quarters of the benefits that were initially promised. Mr. President, 2032 is not a long time in the scheme of things. It is long when you have as much white hair as I have, or as much as the chairman has, but it is only three decades away. Relatively small changes today can have a significant impact in the long run. If we wait too long, the changes necessary to establish long-term solvency may be too wrenching and too difficult to accomplish. Meanwhile, Mr. President, Medicare's problems are even more urgent. The program's trust fund faces insolvency in 2008. That is not a long time away. We can't afford to wait much longer before we act to extend its life and to make those changes that would prolong the life of Medicare beyond even 2020, which we are trying to establish here. This amendment simply asks the Senate to set its priorities straight. It says our first priority should be to save Social Security and Medicare. It says before we squander surpluses on new initiatives, on major tax cuts, let's do first things first and prepare for the future, because the retirement of millions of baby boomers and other younger Americans depends upon it. Once we have protected Social Security and Medicare, we can consider using any remaining surpluses for other purposes. Mr. President, I want to be clear that this is not an anti-tax-cut amendment. Like the President, I strongly support targeted tax relief for middle-class families. I hope we are going to approve the child care and long-term tax credits that the President proposed, along with further tax cuts to promote savings. Nothing in this amendment would block those or any other tax cuts. The amendment simply says that before we use any of the surpluses--and I have to take one moment to remind everybody about where we were and where we are. In 1992, when President Clinton won the election, we were $290 billion in annual debt. Despite the optimistic forecasts of some, nobody really who thought a lot about the budget a year or two ago would have thought they would be looking at a potential budget surplus of over $100 billion in this year--$100 billion. So I want to give credit where it is due. I don't always agree with the President. I don't agree, necessarily, with some of the budget proposals that his budget laid out before us. We voted against it in the Budget Committee. But the fact of the matter is, yes, with the work of people like Senator Domenici and others on the Republican side, as well as those of us on the Democratic side, we worked together in 1997, as I think we had never done before--at least in my memory here--to get a balanced budget in front of us, to get our fiscal house in order. It was a tremendous accomplishment. It is reflected in the confidence that people have in our stock markets and in investments in the country. Mr. President, we can pass all kinds of tax cuts, but we must remember that all of these things come in priority order. This amendment, again, says before we use our surpluses, we should save Social Security and Medicare. So Congress can still pass as many tax cuts as it wants, even before we address those long-term problems--we would just have to pay for them--just so we don't use up projected surpluses. That should help give us the incentives we need to get the job done. I also point out, Mr. President, that this amendment applies not just to tax cuts but also to new spending. We should not go on any big spending binges, even for worthy causes, until we know we have saved Social Security and Medicare. That is done in a prospective manner. It is a point in time when we can say with a degree of confidence that this is going to take care of the elongation of the life of Medicare; this is going to take care of the solvency of the Social Security program until 2075. That is what we want to do. We want to know that those things are accomplished, and it doesn't matter whether the spending on top of that is pursued through direct appropriations or through the Tax Code. So, Mr. President, this amendment says let's keep our focus on the future, let's keep our priorities straight, let's save Social Security and Medicare first--that we do that before we pass either new spending or tax cuts that use projected budget surpluses. I hope we can assemble a point of view that constitutes agreement in that direction, and that we will join together and get enough votes from our friends on the other side of the aisle. I hope we can do it.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk, and I ask for its consideration.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank you, Mr. President. I want to try to organize a point of view here that is substantially different than we have heard for the past while, and I say that with all due respect to my colleagues. And I mean that sincerely. We have developed in the Budget Committee, I think, an operating mode that says that everybody, every member of that committee, is entitled to respect for their point of view, with adequate time to discuss it. I have served on that committee for many years, and I think it is perhaps the most amiable, the most cooperative operation of the Budget Committee that I have seen. I commend the chairman, Senator Domenici, for his effort. We have struck an agreement, kind of informally, about it, but it has worked. And we disagree sharply on points of view. And sometimes, as Senator Domenici has said, our faces get red. But he was warned, he told me, that red faces do not win amendments or win points of view. So we kind of dropped the red-face approach, the swollen veins, that kind of thing. But here I will venture a little bit into dangerous territory, because what we have heard so far is the accusation of double counting and talking about the structure, not the significance, not the meaning, not the value of the program, but whether or not this counts doubly when we credit Social Security or credit Medicare by giving them Government IOUs. The U.S. Government IOUs have the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. I do not know where it is better, because I have met lots of people who have made lots of money. I was in the business world for years before I came to the Senate. I ran a big company, and a lot of the people I know who got surpluses, significant surpluses, invested them in Government bonds because they wanted to know that a certain part of their portfolios are protected by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. So even though interest rates are lower than you might normally get, that is the reserve, the kitty, as we call it sometimes, that they can always count on, no matter what happens with the stock market. So I do not know why it is such a sin to say to the Medicare trust fund or the Social Security trust fund, ``Hey, invest your money in Government IOUs,'' because they are protected--first line--by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. To me, it makes sense, because to have the money lie there, funds lie there fallow, without gathering interest or return on the funds, depreciates the amount of spending that can be offered to beneficiaries in the later years. I don't understand some of the scorn with which Government IOUs are treated. It doesn't make sense to me. I know and meet rich folks who keep much of their money in the U.S. Government IOUs. In order to make the argument, there are some negatives applied with reference to those who made money paying the biggest taxes. If we have a tax reduction of 10 percent, why shouldn't the people who make all that money get a commensurate reduction, an equal reduction? I want to confirm something because there is a question raised about whether a 10-percent tax cut is really there by direction of the Budget Committee. It certainly is not, because the Budget Committee doesn't have the right to do that; the Finance Committee does. And the chairman of the Finance Committee, the distinguished Senator from Delaware, Mr. Roth, told Reuters that he was very much in favor of using the bigger- than-expected budget surplus to fund across-the-board income tax of 10 percent or more. He goes on to say, ``I don't think it's too big [the 10 percent income tax cut]; if anything, I would like to see it bigger.'' That says something about someone of influence in the Republican Party and in this Senate. Again, he is a very distinguished Senator, long-serving Senator, and chairman of the Finance Committee. He is probably the most powerful Chair position that we have in the Senate. He said it, 10 percent. Now, back to where we were. Someone who earns an average of $800,000 a year, the top 1 percent of the income earners in the country, would get $20,000; and someone who earns $38,000 would get $99. The sarcastic or the sardonic tone that was used was if they made more, why shouldn't they get more? The difference is that when someone has earned $800,000, they don't need the $20,000 as much as the person who is making $38,000 or $39,000 needs some relief. Any family that has a $38,000-a-year income is not looking at luxury. They are not looking for a tax cut so they can buy a car or a boat. I have heard it said that a rising tide lifts all boats. I know if you want to buy an expensive yacht, one that is over 100 feet long, the typical wait is 2 to 3 years. If someone has to wait 2 or 3 years to buy a yacht, I assure you that is quite a different position than someone who is making $700 or $800 a week supporting a family of four, trying to make sure that the kids can get an education, make sure there is a roof over their heads, and a decent homelife so they can enjoy some degree of the comforts of life. They can use the tax cuts. Boy, I am for it 100 percent--targeted tax cuts to people who work hard and who need the money. I approve of the tax cuts that would support long-term care. I approve of the tax cuts that would support child care for modest-income people. Those are the kinds of tax cuts that distinguish this side of the aisle, the Democrats, from those on that side of the aisle. I heard someone say something that struck me as being rather amusing--that the Democrats are the ones with the personal money. Some have it and some don't. That is true on both sides of the aisle. I am trying to think it through, but those I know who have worked hard to make their fortune earn respect for having done that, whether they are Republicans or Democrats. Some Members who didn't work hard but have money anyway are also decent people. It doesn't matter how much money you have; it is how much you have in your heart. I come from a poor family, a family that hardly ever had a dinner together because we were always working in the store; one of us would be standing while the others were sitting and eating. I have an understanding of what poverty or small incomes mean. I always thought that a good idea for incoming Senators and Congresspeople would be to spend a month or two in poverty, live in the kind of circumstances that we see in our cities and our rural communities. Live where you don't know what kind of food you will be able to give your children. Live where you don't know whether you will be dispossessed because you haven't paid the rent, and live where the best fun a child can have is to play ball in the street. We need a sprinkling of that in this place to bring an element of reality about what life is about and not talk about tax cuts for the rich in the same terms that we discuss tax cuts for hard-working people who need a little help with long-term care for a sick relative or an elderly parent. It is quite a different thing when we discuss things from that point of view. The thing that matters most to modest-income people who have worked hard all their lives is to save Social Security. Turn the promise into reality, the promise that was made in 1935 when Social Security was conceived, the program that was conceived that said to people, work as hard as you can. Whether you work for a company and you lose your job along the way or you don't lose your job, Social Security is there for you. Full faith and credit of the U.S. Government will pay for it. One of the worst afflictions we have in our society today, one of the worries we have, is that people are afraid they will lose their health insurance. It was said by one of my colleagues before, over 40 million people in this country are without health insurance. It is a devastating thought--the prospect of someone getting sick and not being able to maintain their health care coverage, watching not only their health go down the drain but their finances as well. We have an obligation, I think, to make sure that every one of our citizens in this country has a chance at some kind of minimum health care, so they don't have to worry about going bankrupt if they run into an illness along the way. Amendment No. 144 (Purpose: To ensure that Congress saves Social Security and strengthens Medicare before using projected budget surpluses for new spending or tax breaks)

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to speak before I offer my amendment, so I ask my time be taken off the bill itself.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Two hours. All right. I ask unanimous consent that we lay aside the pending amendment.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I assume this is working off a 2-hour or 1-hour----

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Is that Senator here now?