Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Senator.

Mr. SARBANES. That is right; exactly. It would literally explode out of sight.

Mr. SARBANES. Not that of the Senator from Texas, but the other one.

Mr. SARBANES. I ask the ranking member on the Finance Committee this question with respect to the Gramm amendment. In the course of the debate, was there any discussion on what this amendment would cost--not in the first 10 years but in the next 10 years?

Mr. SARBANES. As I understand it, it would take a cut of about 40 to 50 percent in the program levels in order to reach that figure on the GOP baseline.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Budget Reconciliation bill that is before us today. This bill would spend nearly all of the on-budget surplus projected by the Congressional Budget Office over the next ten years and would use none of this projected surplus to protect the Social Security system, shore up Medicare, or give senior citizens the prescription drug benefits they so desperately need. Instead of taking this opportunity to invest in the future of America at the threshold of the 21st century, Republicans want to enact deep and unreasonable tax cuts that largely benefit the wealthy. One major problem with basing a decade's worth of budgetary decisions on a projected surplus is that we have no way of knowing what will happen in the next ten years to affect these projections. Consider that just three years ago, when we enacted the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, there were forecasts of large deficits stretching into the future. This year, both the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget are projecting large surpluses over the same period. This turnabout should illustrate clearly that there is a large element of uncertainty in any economic projection, and that large scale shifts in tax policy that would tie our hands in the event of an economic downturn are, at the very least, unwise. Furthermore, the surplus estimates are based on the assumption that the Federal government will adhere to the spending caps enacted in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The Leadership in both Houses has admitted that this is not a realistic assumption: a number of appropriations bills will not be able to pass unless their funding is restored to pre- cap levels. Already this year, appropriators are eyeing the projected budget surpluses to help fund large appropriations bills. And, as difficult as these spending caps have been for appropriators this year, the spending caps in future years call for even more drastic cuts. We are in the midst of the longest peacetime economic expansion in history. This remarkable turnaround has come about in large part because of deficit reduction efforts which began with legislation proposed by the Administration and enacted by the Congress in 1993 - without a single Republican vote. Thanks to these efforts, we have been able to achieve record low levels of unemployment while at the same time maintaining dramatically low levels of inflation. Tax cuts of the magnitude put forward by the Majority would be unwise and potentially destabilizing in an economy that has strong growth, low unemployment and dramatically low levels of inflation. The real question before us today is whether we are going to take advantage of this opportunity to exercise responsible fiscal policy. If we begin to stimulate the economy with a tax cut at the very time that unemployment is at unprecedented low levels, we run the risk of reigniting inflation. If we start over-stimulating the economy, the Federal Reserve will surely raise interest rates to keep inflation in check and we will be right back in the box we faced prior to this recovery. It is my strongly held view that any surplus realized over the next ten years should be seen as an opportunity to pay down the Nation's debt, invest in our Nation's future, and shore up vital programs. The Republican tax plan would squander this unprecedented opportunity to ensure that the Federal government will meet its obligations after the baby boomers retire and beyond. The Republican plan does nothing to preserve the integrity of the Social Security trust fund. The Social Security program is one of this Nation's greatest achievements. For more than 60 years, we have ensured that our senior citizens have a means of support in retirement after a lifetime of hard work. We must honor this commitment and ensure that seniors who count on Social Security receive their benefits. The Republican tax plan would set aside no new resources for the Medicare program--the plan does nothing to extend the solvency of the Medicare trust fund or provide prescription drug benefits. The President's proposal to enact a modest prescription drug benefit for Medicare would cost $46 billion over the next ten years--less than 6 percent of the total cost of the Republican tax proposal. Beyond Social Security and Medicare, this projected budget surplus could allow us to invest in the country's infrastructure. We should invest in schools to provide our children with the best possible education; we should improve our Nation's highways and infrastructure; we should invest in America's workers to train them for the 21st century; we should continue to put more police officers on the streets and give them the resources they need to bring crime rates down; and we should protect our environment and natural resources. While I am not opposed to passing legislation that uses a portion of the projected surplus to cut taxes, such cuts must be responsible, and we should ensure that America's hard-working families who are struggling to take part in the Nation's prosperity benefit first. Mr. President, we are embarking on an extremely important decision in terms of the future course of the Nation. If we make it responsibly, we can continue on the path of prosperity. We can continue to invest in the future strength of our country through education, research and development, and infrastructure. We can shore up Social Security, address the problems in the Medicare program, and bring down the Federal debt. We can also implement targeted tax cuts that help strengthen our families. All of these things are possible, but we cannot, for the sake of our future economic prosperity, go to extremes. The Republican proposal is an extreme proposal. Subjected to analysis, it does not stand up. I strongly oppose this proposal and I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. SARBANES. None whatever?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SARBANES. I would like to ask the Senator about his chart about the GOP baseline, if I might.

Mr. SARBANES. As I understand it, what the Republicans are now proposing represents a cut of over $1 trillion below--below what? Current spending levels?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues, Senators Mikulski, Warner, Robb and Akaka, in introducing the Federal Employee Retirement Contributions Act of 1999. This bill would return Federal employee retirement contribution rates to their 1998 levels, effective January 1st, 2000. Mr. President, in the 1997 Budget Reconciliation bill, as part of the deficit reduction effort, Congress enacted temporary increases in Federal employee retirement contribution rates. In order to meet its fiscal year 1998 reconciliation instructions, the Governmental Affairs Committee reluctantly agreed to phased-in, temporary increases in employee retirement payments of .5 percent through December 31, 2002. The 1997 provision effectively takes retirement contribution rates under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) from 7 percent to 7.5 percent and under the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) from .8 percent to 1.3 percent. Rates are to return to 7 percent and .8 percent respectively in 2003. Mr. President, the sole rationale for this additional tax on Federal employee income in 1997 was to achieve deficit reduction. It is important to point out that Federal employees received no additional benefits from their increased contributions. Thus, the size of a Federal employee's retirement annuity is not greater because of their increased contributions. Instead, these contribution increases were merely one of several measures included in the Balanced Budget Act in order to raise revenues and reduce the deficit. The goal of deficit reduction is being realized, and after 30 years of spiraling deficits the economy is now strong and the budget has been balanced. With budget surpluses projected for the near future, the rationale for increasing Federal employees' retirement contribution is no longer valid. During the past weeks as tax cut proposals have begun moving in the Senate, I have worked to repeal the increased contributions as part of these proposals. While the Majority's tax cut packages would grant billions of dollars in tax relief over the next ten years, and even more in future years, the bill proposals fail to remove the burden that was placed on Federal employees under the Balanced Budget Act. Mr. President, if we are going to move forward with tax reduction proposals, it is my strong view that we should first make certain that Federal employees, who were singled out to bear an additional burden in the deficit reduction effort, are relieved of that burden. Federal employees should not be forced to continue to contribute more than their fair share, at a time when others are having their taxes reduced. As of January 1, 1999, half of the .5 percent increase (.25 percent) has already taken effect. Unless action is taken, an additional .15 percent will be deducted from Federal employees' salaries for their retirement on January 1, 2000, followed by .10 percent more in 2001. In these times of strong economic growth, Federal workers should no longer be required to carry this additional burden. Federal employees were asked to make numerous sacrifices in order to contribute to our Nation's fiscal health. In addition to the increase in retirement contributions, the Federal Government has cut approximately 330,000 employees from its rolls and delayed statutory pay raises over the last several years. Certainly, these were substantial contributions to our country's economy and have helped us turn the corner toward the bright economic future that is now predicted. As we consider how to best utilize projected budget surpluses, we should first remove this burden from Federal employees who have already contributed so much. Repealing the increases in Federal employee retirement contributions is the fair thing to do. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues, Senators Mikulski, Warner, Robb and Akaka, in introducing the Federal Employee Retirement Contributions Act of 1999. This bill would return Federal employee retirement contribution rates to their 1998 levels, effective January 1st, 2000. Mr. President, in the 1997 Budget Reconciliation bill, as part of the deficit reduction effort, Congress enacted temporary increases in Federal employee retirement contribution rates. In order to meet its fiscal year 1998 reconciliation instructions, the Governmental Affairs Committee reluctantly agreed to phased-in, temporary increases in employee retirement payments of .5 percent through December 31, 2002. The 1997 provision effectively takes retirement contribution rates under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) from 7 percent to 7.5 percent and under the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) from .8 percent to 1.3 percent. Rates are to return to 7 percent and .8 percent respectively in 2003. Mr. President, the sole rationale for this additional tax on Federal employee income in 1997 was to achieve deficit reduction. It is important to point out that Federal employees received no additional benefits from their increased contributions. Thus, the size of a Federal employee's retirement annuity is not greater because of their increased contributions. Instead, these contribution increases were merely one of several measures included in the Balanced Budget Act in order to raise revenues and reduce the deficit. The goal of deficit reduction is being realized, and after 30 years of spiraling deficits the economy is now strong and the budget has been balanced. With budget surpluses projected for the near future, the rationale for increasing Federal employees' retirement contribution is no longer valid. During the past weeks as tax cut proposals have begun moving in the Senate, I have worked to repeal the increased contributions as part of these proposals. While the Majority's tax cut packages would grant billions of dollars in tax relief over the next ten years, and even more in future years, the bill proposals fail to remove the burden that was placed on Federal employees under the Balanced Budget Act. Mr. President, if we are going to move forward with tax reduction proposals, it is my strong view that we should first make certain that Federal employees, who were singled out to bear an additional burden in the deficit reduction effort, are relieved of that burden. Federal employees should not be forced to continue to contribute more than their fair share, at a time when others are having their taxes reduced. As of January 1, 1999, half of the .5 percent increase (.25 percent) has already taken effect. Unless action is taken, an additional .15 percent will be deducted from Federal employees' salaries for their retirement on January 1, 2000, followed by .10 percent more in 2001. In these times of strong economic growth, Federal workers should no longer be required to carry this additional burden. Federal employees were asked to make numerous sacrifices in order to contribute to our Nation's fiscal health. In addition to the increase in retirement contributions, the Federal Government has cut approximately 330,000 employees from its rolls and delayed statutory pay raises over the last several years. Certainly, these were substantial contributions to our country's economy and have helped us turn the corner toward the bright economic future that is now predicted. As we consider how to best utilize projected budget surpluses, we should first remove this burden from Federal employees who have already contributed so much. Repealing the increases in Federal employee retirement contributions is the fair thing to do. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Absolutely. In fact, the rule XXVIII issue is also very important. That was also overturned by the majority to permit matters to be included in a conference report that were not within either of the two bills that the House and the Senate sent to the conference. Of course, what that means is that a conference can come back with something that is outside of the scope of the conference and present it to these bodies--a matter that neither the House nor the Senate considered in the course of sending that legislation to conference. Talk about potential mischief. You could bring back in here, contained in a conference report with all of the sort of protections that a conference report has in terms of its consideration, and so forth, matters that were outside of what was sent to conference. The minority leader is trying to remedy that matter. I can't for the life of me see why someone who supports S. Res. 160 would oppose the proposal of the minority leader. But I guess we will discover that when we come to a vote on the matter later this afternoon. It eventually comes back to the very basic question. That is, What are to be the rights of the minority in this body? One of the great strengths of the Senate traditionally has been that it has accorded to the minority a real opportunity to participate in the consideration of matters on the floor of the Senate. The minority has not traditionally been closed out of participating. In fact, some have argued that minorities traditionally have been given too much of an opportunity to participate. They argue that. But what has been happening in recent years is, the majority has been using its majority to overrule these precedents of the Senate, which effectively then allows the majority to do what it wants to do and completely leaves the minority outside of the process. That is, in a sense, the issue that is at stake. That is why there has been such a strong reaction to this proposal, because S. Res. 160 comes in the context of these other matters that have been happening, all of which have moved in the same direction; namely, to preclude the minority from having a fair opportunity to present its positions to the Senate, to have them considered, and to have judgment rendered upon them. It is fundamentally changing the nature of the Senate. One of the great things about American democracy that any political commentator always points to is that, unlike many systems, it isn't run in such a tight, rigid, disciplined fashion that the minority can be excluded from any opportunity to be heard and to have its positions considered. Particularly the Senate has been the great bulwark of strength in that regard. Now we have a proposal to overturn the very precedent which the majority themselves established only a few years ago, and to do so at the very time that increasingly the majority is using other techniques to block the minority from presenting its position, including, of course, this technique of filling up the amendment tree so that no amendments can be offered. We really are moving very much in the direction of saying to the minority, in effect, well, you can come here and sit at your desks, but that is about all you can do around here; there is not much else you can do in terms of trying to constructively affect the legislative process. I am very frank to say that I think we must resist that development. I think it is significantly undercutting the nature of the Senate as an institution and the role it has played in the country's history. I think this is a very important debate. I think the matter that is coming before us has a great deal to do with saying how the institution ought to run. I must say that if the procedures were all fair and if we were given a fair opportunity to present our positions, there might be something that could be said for going back and treating what was done as a mistake, as some of us assert it was at the time. But in light of these subsequent developments, it seems to me that the minority has to really insist that no opportunity to offer its position should be denied to them. Therefore, that is the position I intend to take when this matter comes to a vote at the end of the day. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SARBANES. As I understand it, the way that has been structured now, the minority is totally precluded from offering any alternative proposal or any different proposal because they have completely blocked us out from offering any amendments; isn't that correct?

Mr. SARBANES. I agree completely with that. In fact, even in the House the procedure has gotten so rigid that there is significant complaint that they do not have an opportunity when important measures are before----

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the resolution that will be before us for a vote at the end of the afternoon, S. Res. 160, to restore enforcement of rule XVI. Mr. President, I believe in the Senate as an institution. I think it is an important part of the workings of our democracy that the Senate carry out its duties and responsibilities in a way that it has done throughout the more than 200-year history of our Republic. In a sense, this is a difficult issue for me because I voted not to waive rule XVI, or, in effect, not to overrule the ruling of the Chair, at the time the ruling was made. That, of course, was a motion offered by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I thought, well, we really should not change the way we do business. But what has happened since that time is, increasingly, that the minority has been really frustrated by the lack of opportunity to come to the floor of the Senate to offer its positions, to have them considered and voted upon. Therefore, I am going to vote against this resolution when it comes to a vote this afternoon simply, among other things, to make a very strong statement of protest against the procedures that are now being followed in the Senate, which are effectively preventing us from considering important issues. Now, repeatedly, we have had a situation in which the majority leader, once a measure is offered, fills up the amendment tree by gaining first recognition, which is the majority leader's entitlement under our process, and then the minority has no opportunity to offer its proposals. I ask the minority whip and the assistant minority leader, isn't it the case that time and time again we have simply been blocked out from even putting an issue before the Senate? I am not complaining about being blocked out if we then go to a vote on it-- well, I would complain, but you decide these things by majority vote. We are even being precluded from offering amendments in order to have positions considered; is that not correct?

Mr. SARBANES. Well, the thing that struck me when I came to the Senate from the House was, in a sense, how much more wide open the Senate was in terms of considering proposals of the Members of the Senate. In the House, of course, you have title rules. You adopt a rule, and that limits the amendments that can be offered. We even had the so-called closed rule in which no amendment could be offered. You either had to vote up or down on the measure that was reported by the committee to the floor of the House. But usually you would get a rule that would perhaps give the minority an opportunity to offer a couple of amendments. One came to the Senate and discovered that both the majority and minority Members had much more of an opportunity to have amendments offered by the body and considered and voted upon. Of course, in order to control that procedure, we had a rule that you could not legislate on an appropriations bill, which seemed to make good sense. Now, that was overturned a few years back when the majority wanted to have a certain measure considered and the Chair ruled that it constituted legislation on an appropriations bill; therefore, it was not in order. The majority--the other side of the aisle--then went forward and appealed the ruling of the Chair and they overruled the Chair. That established the precedent that you could offer legislation on an appropriations bill.

Mr. SARBANES. Certainly.

Mr. SARBANES. It raises this question in a democracy: What happens when you can't pose issues and have them debated and voted upon? It seems to me an elementary way of proceeding. Traditionally, the Senate has always offered that opportunity, as a matter of fact. I have been in this body a long time and I can recall when, not too long ago, we were in the majority, and even earlier when that was the case, when the Senate was essentially run in a way that enabled Members to bring up proposals and have them considered and voted upon. It by no means guaranteed that your proposal was going to prevail; You might lose, and that was obvious. But that is part and parcel of the democratic process. But not to even be able to offer your amendments--and, of course, this resolution would, in effect, limit down the opportunities as well. Essentially, if you had a Senate that was operating in the traditional way, you could offer your proposals. That sort of limitation is one that we traditionally lived with. But this was lifted by the majority, and at the same time they did this, subsequently, they have increasingly developed other ways of blocking the minority out from simply laying their positions before the Senate for consideration. Is that not the case?

Mr. SARBANES. I yield for a question.

Mr. SARBANES. The Senator is absolutely correct. What has happened is longstanding precedent was overturned. Therefore, you could legislate on an appropriations bill. That is the precedent we have been working under for the last 3 or 4 years. On occasion, the minority--our side-- has offered legislation on an appropriations bill. Now the majority wants to go back to the old ruling. Having overturned the old ruling themselves, they now want to return to it. Well, as an institutionalist, you know the old rule made some sense. But what has happened to the Senate in the interim, in the meantime, since the overturning of this old rule, is that other techniques have also been developed to block the minority from offering amendments on the various matters that come before the Senate. So, in effect, they are closing out the minority from having any voice, any opportunity to present our positions, any opportunity to have a judgment made on our positions. I am very frank to tell you that is not the way the Senate ought to work. Previously, even when we had the old rule, we didn't have a couple with these other techniques that are now being used in order to keep the minority from bringing their position before this body. Until we can remedy that situation and get some assurance that we are going to have an opportunity to really present our amendments in an orderly and reasonable fashion, I am not going to support any measure that could have the possibility of closing out some opportunity that we now have in order to present our positions.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the amendment of the Senator from Indiana and am confident that it will be approved by a majority of my colleagues. This is the second time in 3 years that funding for the National Endowment for Democracy has been eliminated in the Senate Commerce- Justice-State appropriations bill. And this is the second time this year that we are debating the NED issue on the floor of the Senate despite consistently overwhelming votes in favor of the NED. I find it difficult to understand why we keep returning to this matter when the record is clear--there is a consensus of support for the endowment in the Senate. As my colleagues are aware, last month there was an effort on a different measure (State Department authorization bill) to seriously undermine and weaken the National Endowment for Democracy and the work of its core institutes. That amendment was soundly defeated on a vote of 76-23. In 1997, NED funding was restored by the Senate on a vote of 72-27. Over the years, the NED and its core institutes have done some extremely effective work around the world in strengthening and assisting in the development of democratic institutions, and protecting individual rights and freedoms. The relationship between NED and its core institutes has worked rather well. These four core entities, including the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI), represent key sectors of our democratic society: business and labor, and the two political parties which have formed a major part of the American democratic system. Each sector offers a special expertise in helping develop fledgling democratic systems and has assisted grassroots and indigenous organizations, civic groups, and individuals across the globe in more than 90 countries. Indeed, many individuals and groups, recognized in the Congress for having fought for human rights, freedom, and democracy, have received vital support from the NED family. They, in turn, have praised the NED because of the critical assistance which made it possible for them to pursue valuable efforts in their own countries. I should note that the NED has provided support to Chinese dissidents since its establishment in 1983. In fact, the endowment's first grant in 1984 was for a Chinese-language journal edited in the United States and circulated in China. The NED serves an important role because of the fact that it can operate as an entity independent from any government. And it can support nongovernmental groups which provide opportunities that would not otherwise be available if these activities were undertaken by a government, or governmental agency. In fact, NED grants have been helpful in leveraging resources from the private sector and encouraging other international institutions to participate as well. And in-kind contributions, for example, come in the form of experts who offer their free time and efforts on a probono basis to conduct training seminars and to monitor elections worldwide. The National Endowment for Democracy has enjoyed broad bipartisan support since it was established in 1983 under President Ronald Reagan. Former Secretaries of State, including Henry Kissinger, Cy Vance, Ed Muskie, George Shultz, and Jim Baker all have been very supportive of NED's work and its ``strong track record in assisting . . . significant democratic movements over the past decade.'' In a letter this week to my colleague from Florida, national security adviser Sandy Berger reaffirmed the President's and his administration's strong support for the NED. As he indicates, ``from supporting election monitoring in Indonesia, to promoting independent media in the Balkans, the NED represents and promotes the most fundamental of American values throughout the world. . . . The President remains one of the strongest champions of the endowment''. The sweeping and profound changes resulting from the end of the cold war provide ample reason as to why we continue to need institutions like the NED which can operate in a cost-effective manner and, at the same time, promote our interests and values. Many of the new democratics which have emerged from the implosion of the Soviet Union, and the collapse of the Iron Curtain, have benefited from the assistance NED and its grantees have provided. It is my hope that my colleagues will see the wisdom of continuing support for the NED.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I commend the Senator from Illinois. We have a marvelous opportunity at this point, having come out of this deficit box as a consequence of the fiscal policies pursued by this administration, to reduce the national debt for the first time in a great number of years. Indeed, if we maintain proper discipline, we can in effect eliminate the national debt for the first time since the first part of the 19th century. All of that is at risk of loss, as the Washington Post says, because of the ``egregious recklessness of the Republican proposal'' which goes way out to the extreme. I ask unanimous consent that this editorial be printed at the end of this discussion.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois has pointed out very carefully, first of all, this is an exploding tax cut. The cost of this tax cut escalates very quickly as time goes by. While the projections are over the first 10 years, in the second 10 years it virtually triples in terms of cost. Secondly, it is premised on the proposition there will be about a 20- percent cut in existing programs; Head Start, VA medical care, title I for the disadvantaged--all the investments we need to make for the future strength of our country. The Republican appropriations bills are zeroing out the COPS program which is putting community police on the streets all across America and bringing down the crime rate. Thirdly, it does not adequately provide for Medicare. In fact, it doesn't provide at all for Medicare looking out into the future. The real question is whether we are going to take advantage of this opportunity to exercise a responsible fiscal policy. Furthermore, if we start stimulating the economy with a tax cut at the very time that we have gotten unemployment down to 4.2 percent--an unprecedented low level, the best in the last 30 years--then we are going to run the risk that we will start pressure on prices, have an inflation problem, and the Federal Reserve will start raising the interest rates. In fact, at the last Open Market Committee, the Federal Reserve raised the interest rates a quarter of a point. If the Republicans controlling the Congress start stimulating the economy, you can assume that the Fed will take up these interest rates in order to dampen down economic activity, and we will be right back in the box with a problem we had in terms of how to encourage economic growth and have a responsible economic policy. We have done a good job.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, as the Senator from Illinois pointed out, in 1993 when we enacted the President's economic program, not one single person from the other side of the aisle supported that program. Not only did they not support the program, they made all sorts of dire predictions of what would happen to the Nation's economy. In the debate on this floor, Members stood up and it was as though the sky was going to fall in if this program was carried through. Only a few have been willing subsequently to own up to the inaccuracy of their prediction--only a few. The others sort of, I guess, forget they ever made the prediction. But the fact of the matter is, the policy has worked extraordinarily well: Unemployment at a 30-year low; inflation at a 30-year low; we have come out of deficit and into surplus. Now we have the opportunity to move ahead in a responsible manner, not in an egregiously reckless manner, as the Washington Post points out in this editorial. So I commend my colleague from Illinois for his comments. This is an extremely important decision we are about to make in terms of the future course of this Nation. If we make it responsibly, we can continue on the path of prosperity. We can continue to invest in the future strength of our country through education, research and development, and developing our Nation's infrastructure, our transportation, and our communication infrastructure. We can shore up the Social Security system. We can address the problems of Medicare. We can bring down the debt. We can even do targeted tax measures to help middle-income people and to help improve and increase productivity in our Nation. All of those are possible. But things must be done in moderation. We cannot go to extremes, and the Republican proposal is an extreme proposal. Subjected to analysis, it does not stand up. We must not go down that path. I commend the Senator from Illinois for making that point so effectively here on the floor this morning. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Post, July 20, 1999] A Tax Party In part to placate party moderates whose votes they need, House Republican leaders are proposing modest cuts in the cost of the tax bill they are scheduled to bring to the floor this week. But no one should be fooled by this, least of all the moderates whose stock in trade is that they take governing seriously. The leadership trims don't begin to undo the egregious recklessness of this bill. There are three main problems. (1) The surplus the sponsors are using to finance the tax cut the bill would grant is mostly phony. It is predicated on a willingness of future Congresses to make deep spending cuts from just the first phase of which this Congress already is retreating. Most programs would have to be cut more than 20 percent in real terms. Without such cuts, about three-fourths of the imaginary surplus in other than Social Security funds disappears; the amount goes from $1 trillion over the next 10 years to perhaps $250 billion. If they set aside some money for Medicare, as they are bound to do, even less will be available for tax cuts--most likely nothing. (2) The bill when fully effective would actually cost much more than the projected surplus. The cost is masked by the fact that so many provisions have been carefully backloaded-- written to take effect only toward the end of the 10-year estimating period. The estimated cost of the first 10 years of the Ways and Means Committee bill is $864 billion. The likely cost of the next 10 years would be three times that; one estimate puts it at $2.8 trillion. This is a ludicrous bill, a lemming-like effort to put political points on the board whose effect would be to return the government to the destructive cycle of borrow-and-spend from which it only now is painfully emerging. The economy and the ability of the government to function both would be harmed. (3) The principal beneficiaries would be people at the very top of the income scale. The rhetoric and some of the analysis surrounding the bill suggest otherwise. But here again, backloading comes into play. Some of the provisions slowest to take effect are those that would be of greatest benefit to the better-off. In the end, one analysis indicates that nearly half the benefit of the bill would accrue to households in the top one percent of the income distribution. This is a bill that would mainly benefit relatively few people at the expense of many. It would once more strand the government--leave it with obligations far in excess of its means--and in the process do serious social as well as fiscal and economic harm. Not even as a political billboard that the president can be counted upon to veto should it pass. There ought not be a tax cut. The parties ought not use imaginary money to cut a deal at public expense. The greatest favor that this Congress could do the country would be to pass the appropriations bills and go home.