[Pages S2071-S2081]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   FISCAL YEAR 2001 BUDGET--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I inquire how much time we have 
used up totally off the resolution?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has used 1 hour, 31 minutes; the 
minority, 1 hour, 23 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. For a total of what?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. About 3 hours.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is 2 hours 54 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I understand from the minority they want to let Senator 
Conrad complete his speech, and I am more than willing to do that. Will 
he be along shortly?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am told he will be. But I do not want to hold up 
the process if there is someone on the other side who seeks 
recognition.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Hutchison has an amendment. I have indicated to 
her we are trying to work on a process for 5 amendments, and hers would 
probably be one of those from our side. So I would rather we not 
proceed with any amendments for now.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I appreciate that. There has to be an orderly 
structure here. There are lots of Senators who want to offer amendments 
and Senators who want to just speak on the resolution itself. We will 
need some time to do that. If we can ask our Members to just hold off 
until an agreement has been reached, then I think we will have a more 
orderly process.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Would Senator Hutchison like to deliver a speech about 
her subject rather than offering the amendment? She can do both, speak 
to the issue and then we can work out if hers is one of the amendments. 
We will know about that shortly. If not, she is going to be free to 
offer it, subject to a second-degree amendment, of course.
  Would the Senator want to speak to the marriage penalty a little bit 
just as a matter of substance for the Senate?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Let me ask a question. If I started with the speech 
on the marriage penalty, then Senator Conrad would start on his speech 
and we would be negotiating how the amendments are handled, is that 
what the Senator is suggesting?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. If I might, Mr. President, Senator Conrad wanted to 
finish his opening remarks. Certainly we invite anybody, from either 
side, to do that. But if we can hold off until he makes his remarks, 
assuming he will be here momentarily, then we can talk together about 
whether or not we can make an agreement that would constitute a 
specific number of amendments, equally distributed here, so we can 
begin a process of amendments. I would certainly like to do that.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Senator Hutchison's remarks, if she makes them now, 
would not prejudice her coming along later, with reference to the same 
subject, and offering an amendment. But I can't assure her hers would 
be the first amendment up. I am trying to work out a five and five, so 
we can get on using up some of the time on the resolution. I can yield 
to the Senator if she desires. If not, I will suggest the absence of a 
quorum call.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would love to talk for maybe 5 
minutes, prefatory, but I prefer to have my real debate on the issue 
come during the debate on the amendment.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, while the negotiations are going on, I 
will say it is my intention to offer an amendment, which would be a 
sense-of-the-Senate amendment, that we would eliminate the marriage tax 
penalty in this country. Certainly, the sense-of-the-Senate is quite 
short and pretty

[[Page S2072]]

clear. The Senate would find that marriage is the foundation of 
American society; that the Tax Code should not penalize those who 
choose to marry; that a report to the Treasury Department's Office of 
Tax Analysis estimates that, in 1999, 48 percent of married couples 
will pay a marriage penalty under the present system; that averages 
$1,400 a year. The sense-of-the-Senate amendment will be that Congress 
shall pass marriage penalty tax elimination legislation that begins a 
phaseout of this penalty in 2001, pass marriage penalty tax legislation 
that does not discriminate against stay-at-home spouses, and consider 
such legislation prior to April 15, 2000.

  We are scheduled to debate marriage penalty relief next week. It is 
certainly appropriate that we say to these people the week they are 
beginning to write their checks to the IRS: If you are paying $600 more 
or $1,000 more or $1,400 more just because you are married, help is on 
the way; the Senate is committed to eliminating this tax.
  I do not even think we ought to call it a tax cut. This is a tax 
correction. This is a correction of an inequity in our code.
  That clearly and simply is what my sense-of-the-Senate amendment is. 
It is provided for in the budget resolution before us. The Senator from 
New Mexico has provided $150 billion in this budget for tax relief for 
hard-working Americans.
  If one looks at the tax relief we have already passed in the Senate, 
it still would not reach $150 billion. We passed tax relief for Social 
Security recipients so people between the ages of 65 and 70 could work 
without being penalized. We have passed tax relief for small 
businesspeople who are hard hit with the many regulations and taxes 
that are put on their businesses. We have provided tax relief for 
families who are trying to provide enhancements for their children's 
education. Senator Coverdell has been the lead on that bill which gives 
people the ability to take tax credits and tax deductions when they 
have to buy their children computers, books, tutors, or enhance college 
tuition or private school tuition--whatever the cost is to parents, to 
give children the enhancement their parents believe they need and that 
their parents would be able to give from tax cuts. And we add on top of 
those marriage penalty relief.
  We met with some wonderful people this morning--real people--who are 
suffering from the marriage penalty. The bill that will come up next 
week has the elimination of that penalty.
  Kervin and Marsha Johnson met with us today. Kervin is a District of 
Columbia police officer. His wife is a Federal employee. They were 
married last July. This year they will owe $1,000 more in taxes because 
they got married. They are newlyweds. They were shocked that this 
happened.
  We also met with Eric and Ayla Hemeon. Eric is a volunteer 
firefighter who also works for a printing company. She works for a 
small business. They have been married for 2 years and are expecting 
their first child in about a month. Ayla talked to us about what this 
means. What it means to them is $1,100 they are paying to Uncle Sam 
instead of doing something to benefit their first child who is almost 
here.
  We had the two newlyweds, and then we had an older couple who met 
with our group this morning, Lawrence and Brendalyn Garrison. He is a 
corrections officer at Lorton, and she is a teacher in Fairfax County. 
Last year, they paid about a $600 marriage penalty.
  When we talked to them about what the bill which will come up next 
week would do for them, they said: Gosh, do you think you could make it 
retroactive? Because they have been married for 25 years.
  These are real people with real faces who would get marriage penalty 
relief.
  Mr. President, I will stop and yield the rest of my time to Senator 
Sessions. I ask the Senator from New Mexico if he will allow me to take 
5 extra minutes for the Senator from Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Does the 
Senator from New Mexico yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Alabama?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I yield as much time as the Senator from Texas wants.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will be happy to yield such time to the Senator 
from Alabama.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas for her 
leadership in this effort, Senator Roth for his determination to make 
it a reality, and Senator Domenici for providing us an opportunity in 
this budget to try to end a penalty on marriage in America.
  The time has come. We have talked about it long enough. We have a 
national consensus to end this penalty. I have 425,000 Alabama 
families, 48 percent of the married couples, who are paying excess 
taxes simply because they got married. I know a couple who divorced and 
found they had received a $1,600 bonus by being divorced.
  Think about that. The U.S. Government is saying to married couples: 
If you divorce, on average you will receive a $1,400 tax benefit. At 
the same time, if you get married, you are going to pay a $1,400 tax 
increase--unbelievable in a society that is experiencing substantial 
social problems from the breakup of families.
  I chair the Youth Violence Subcommittee in the Judiciary Committee. 
We have had a lot of testimony, and I have done a study over the years 
as a prosecutor, about why crime is occurring. Why are so many young 
people involved in crime? Why is the crime rate higher with young 
people than among older people?
  One reason is we have an extraordinary decline in the unity of the 
family. More families have broken up in the last 20, 30 years than in 
the history of the world. In fact, the distinguished senior Senator 
from New York, Mr. Moynihan, who studied these issues, said one time 
that in the history of the world, no nation has ever gone forward with 
the kind of family breakups we have in America today.
  We do not know what the long-term consequences are. But more and more 
studies indicate that all in all, it is better if we have an intact 
family. We have a U.S. Government policy to penalize marriage. That is 
not the right way for us to go.
  I am so thankful we are now moving to a vote on this piece of 
legislation. People are going to have to stand up and be counted and 
defend the practice of taxing people who decide to get married and 
raise a family in America.
  The numbers, as the Senator from Texas said, are stunning. We have a 
policeman and civil servant paying $1,000 extra a year, married for 2 
years; a volunteer fireman, a printer, and a small businessperson 
paying $1,100 extra per year.
  What does that mean? That is $100 a month. That is $100 a month 
aftertax money that could have been in their pockets, but the Federal 
Government reached in and took it out to spend on programs.
  I am of the belief that is wrong. What can that young couple do with 
$100 a month? They can maybe start a savings account, maybe buy a new 
set of tires for their car--at least maybe a couple tires each month--
or put a muffler on their car, or send their child to school with money 
for a project or a program, let them go to a movie or two every other 
week. This is real money for real people. I am glad we had Senator 
Hutchison and others this morning who brought forth couples who are 
paying this tax to help us recognize that we are dealing with a problem 
that needs to end.
  I believe, and our Nation has always believed until recent years, 
that public policy does affect behavior.
  What we want to do when we adopt a public policy position is, we want 
to ask ourselves, will this foster good behavior or will it encourage 
bad behavior? I suggest we have a policy that is not only unfair but it 
is damaging to our goal as a nation to affirm and encourage marriage, 
to encourage partnership in the marital union in the raising of 
families. Taxing that is not good public policy. The end of it is long 
overdue.
  I am glad we will soon have a vote. I do hope and pray that the vote 
will be overwhelmingly to end this penalty.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield such time as he needs to the 
Senator from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the budget process is our chance to set

[[Page S2073]]

clear priorities for America's future. The budget which the Senate 
adopts this week will say a great deal about the values of those who 
vote for it. Our vote on this budget will emphasize what each of us 
supports. It is easy to pay lip service to meeting the Nation's unmet 
needs, but are we willing to allocate resources in a manner that will 
effectively address those needs?
  This is a time of unparalleled prosperity. Both the CBO and OMB 
project budget surpluses far into the future. We will never have a 
greater opportunity to meet America's unmet needs than we have today--
to improve the quality of education for all children; to strengthen 
Social Security and Medicare in a way that will provide a secure and 
healthy retirement for future generations, as well as a prescription 
drug benefit; to provide access to good health care for millions of 
uninsured families; to make communities safer by keeping guns out of 
the wrong hands, and by increasing the number of police officers on our 
streets; and to expand scientific research to keep America on the 
cutting edge of progress.
  These are the great challenges of our time. Unfortunately, the budget 
presented by the Republican majority does not meet those challenges. It 
would actually cut spending on domestic discretionary programs by more 
than 6 percent, by well over $100 billion over the next 5 years.
  These cuts are far from necessary to curb uncontrolled Federal 
spending or to reduce inflationary pressure on the economy. In fact, 
even according to the Senate Budget Committee, and its Republican 
staff, the amount provided for nondefense discretionary spending as a 
percentage of GNP is the lowest share for this category since such 
statistics have been compiled.

  We are already spending less on domestic discretionary programs as a 
percent of GNP than we ever have before. So why do our Republican 
friends propose more drastic reductions? The answer is, so they can 
provide more tax cuts for the wealthy.
  The Republican budget would use up essentially the entire surplus 
with extravagant tax cuts, primarily benefiting the wealthiest 
individuals and corporations in our society.
  CBO projects an on-budget surplus over the next 5 years of $171 
billion. The proposed GOP budget would use all but $3 billion of that 
total amount to finance ill-conceived tax cut schemes. They propose a 
minimum of $150 billion in tax cuts over the next 5 years. Because 
those tax cuts will delay repayment of the national debt, they will 
cost an additional $18 billion in higher interest payments on the debt, 
as well.
  Also, according to this GOP budget, if the projected surplus 
increases, the additional amount must be used for even larger tax cuts. 
The extra amount cannot be used to restore any portion of the serious 
cuts in domestic programs.
  But this is only the tip of the tax-cut iceberg.
  Last year, Republicans proposed a ten-year budget to the Congress. 
They did so because using 10-year numbers enabled them to emphasize how 
large their proposed tax cut was--$792 billion. It demonstrated how 
rapidly the size of their tax cut would grow--from $156 billion in the 
first 5 years, to $635 billion in the second 5 years--or more than four 
times as much revenue.
  But the Republicans badly miscalculated the reaction of the American 
people. By large margins, the public agreed that the tax cut was far 
too large, because it would harm the economy and make it impossible for 
us to achieve the priority national investments needed to keep our 
economy and the country strong for the future.
  The American people consistently said that Congress should use the 
surplus to put Social Security and Medicare on a sound financial 
footing, before acting on large tax cuts. In fact, the American people 
displayed a great deal more common sense than the Republican 
leadership.
  This year, Congressional Republicans have responded to these concerns 
by using a 5-year projection instead of a 10-year projection. By 
considering only the first 5 years, they hope to conceal the true 
magnitude of their tax cut scheme. Rather than reducing the size of 
their tax cut, they are simply attempting to change the terms of the 
debate from 10 years to 5 years. But this Republican accounting gimmick 
won't work. The GOP tax cuts being proposed this year are just as 
large, if not larger, than last year. The Republican strategy is now to 
enact a stealth tax cut, concealing its true long-term cost from the 
public.
  How do we know their intent, since the budget is silent beyond fiscal 
year 2005? Consider the tax cut plans which the Republicans have 
already brought to the floor this year. The House version of marriage 
penalty relief would cost $51 billion over the first 5 years--but rises 
sharply to $182 billion over 10 years. The plan produced by Senate 
Republicans would cost $70 billion over 5 years, and dramatically 
increases to $248 billion over 10 years.
  The Senate tax package attached to the minimum wage legislation costs 
$18 billion over the first 5 years--but grows to $76 billion over 10 
years. The annual cost by the 10th year would be nearly as large as the 
cost over the entire first 5 years. Similarly, the House tax package 
tied to the minimum wage costs $46 billion from fiscal year 2000 to 
2005--but $123 billion over the full 10-year period.
  Clearly, Republicans have not abandoned their plan for tax breaks 
costing far more than the country can afford. They are now spending the 
tax cuts over several bills, rather than combining them in one massive 
measure, and they're attempting to limit discussion of the budgetary 
impact to the first 5 years. All of these GOP tax breaks are steeply 
backloaded. They mushroom in cost after the first 5 years. It is a 
stealth tax break strategy, and it cannot stand the light of public 
debate.
  Defenders of the budget resolution contend that it does not mandate 
the form which the tax cut will take, and it is wrong to claim that the 
tax cuts will disproportionately benefit the wealthiest taxpayers. That 
argument is truly disingenuous. It asks us to ignore the abundant 
evidence provided by the recent history of Republican tax cut 
proposals. Let us look at the record.
  Last year, Republicans passed their ill-fated $800 billion tax cut. 
Under that legislation, 81 percent of the tax benefits would have gone 
to the wealthiest 20 percent of taxpayers. The richest 1 percent of 
taxpayers--those with incomes averaging $800,000 a year--would have 
received 41 percent of the total tax benefits, a tax saving of as much 
as $46,000 a year. In stark contrast, working families comprising 60 
percent of taxpayers would have shared less than 8.5 percent of the tax 
savings, an average tax cut of only $138 a year.
  The Republican Presidential nominee, Governor George W. Bush, tells 
us his tax cut is designed to ``take down the toll booth on the road to 
the middle class.'' However, 73 percent of the overall tax benefits in 
his massive tax cut proposal--$1,8 trillion over 10 years--would go to 
the wealthiest 20 percent of taxpayers--37 percent of the tax breaks 
would go to the richest 1 percent of taxpayers. That ``toll booth'' 
Governor Bush loves to talk about is on a highway most Americans never 
travel. Just 11 percent of the tax benefits under the Bush plan would 
go to the less affluent 60 percent of working men and women.
  This year, congressional Republicans have rushed to pass tax cut 
proposals before the budget is even adopted. These tax cuts have 
already consumed $115 billion of the surplus over the next 5 years and 
$443 billion over 10 years. The Marriage Penalty Relief Act passed by 
the House would cost $182 billion over 10 years, and 77.8 percent of 
the tax benefits would go to the most affluent 20 percent of taxpayers. 
The Senate version reported out of the Finance Committee last week 
would cost even more, $248 billion over 10 years, and gives an even 
larger share of the tax savaings--78.3 percent--to the wealthiest 
taxpayers. In both bills, the majority of the tax benefits actually go 
to couples who are not even paying a marriage penalty.
  In addition, as the Republican leadership's price for allowing a 
modest increase in the minimum wages the House recently passed a $123 
billion/10-year package of tax cuts. Eighty-nine percent of the tax 
breaks in that bill would go to the richest 5 percent of taxpayers, 
while 90 percent of taxpayers would share less than 8.5 percent of the 
tax benefits.
  In light of this history, there is no doubt that the benefits of any 
tax cut passed by this Republican Congress will be distributed in a 
blatantly unfair

[[Page S2074]]

way, and will be designed to benefit the richest individuals and 
corporations in our society.
  I support reasonable, targeted tax cuts that benefit low- and middle-
income working families. But by enacting tax cuts of the magnitude 
proposed by the Republicans, we will lose the best opportunity in 
decades to meet America's unmet needs. We will also forfeit the 
opportunity to strengthen Social Security and Medicare for future 
generations of retirees. Our shortsightedness will be justifiably 
condemned by future generations as they struggle to deal with the 
national needs we are so irresponsibly ignoring.

  The larger the tax cut, the less is available for debt reduction and 
investments in national priorities, such as education, prescription 
drugs for senior citizens, and research on energy and health.
  The Republican budget shortchanges all of these priorities. Alongside 
their massive tax cuts, Republicans make reductions in domestic 
investments that are historically unprecedented. They want to reduce 
discretionary spending on domestic priorities, as I mentioned, by more 
than 6 percent in real dollars over the next 5 years, even though our 
population is growing and even though present funding for many programs 
is already inadequate.
  We are not talking about creating new programs or expanding existing 
programs. By reducing the Government's ability to maintain even the 
current level of services, Republicans forfeit any hope of addressing 
the Nation's unmet priorities. Even in this time of prosperity, we are 
not meeting the basic needs of large numbers of our people.
  One in five of the Nation's children lives in poverty. Three out of 
four third graders read below grade level. Hunger in low-income working 
families has become a national crisis, with food pantries and soup 
kitchens unable to meet the daily needs for their services. Forty-three 
million people have no health insurance. That number is increasing by a 
million a year. The number of low-income renters who pay more than half 
of their income for housing or who live in dilapidated housing has 
reached an all-time high--a searing problem in many different parts of 
the country.

  One of the darker sides of this extraordinary economic boom has been 
the explosion of the cost of housing, the cost of rent for working 
families. The need for decent, affordable housing for working families 
is prohibitive in so many parts of America. There is very little in 
this budget that would address that particular need.
  Low-income families are forced to place thousands of children in 
poor-quality child care while they meet their work responsibilities 
under the welfare reform. Every State in this country has long lines of 
working parents who desire to have child care for their children while 
they continue to work--and work hard--to provide for them.
  This Republican budget would eliminate our ability to respond to 
these grave concerns. Make no mistake about it, the spending cuts that 
would be required to pay for these Republican tax breaks would have 
very real consequences for the Nation.
  Compared to the President's budget, Republicans would force the 
following cuts in the next year alone:
  20 million fewer meals delivered to ill and disabled seniors;
  2 million fewer uninsured people with access to health care;
  1.6 million fewer children in quality afterschool programs;
  750,000 fewer infants receiving nutrition supplements;
  644,000 fewer at-risk students helped with college preparation;
  400,000 fewer families assisted with heating costs;
  152,000 fewer State and Federal law enforcement officers;
  120,000 fewer housing vouchers for families in poverty;
  118,000 fewer dislocated workers helped to reenter the workforce;
  88,000 fewer job opportunities for youth;
  71,000 fewer college students assisted with Pell grants;
  62,000 fewer children in Head Start;
  30,000 fewer children immunized;
  20,000 fewer elementary school teachers hired to reduce class sizes; 
and
  11,000 fewer public schools prepared and ready for the 21st century.
  That is what happens. We talk about a percentage of cuts in existing 
programs. When you apply those cuts to programs that are targeted for 
these needy groups, these figures that I have related indicate what the 
results will be.
  These are only a small part of the opportunities that will be lost if 
the Republicans' risky tax cut becomes law. All nondefense 
discretionary programs will be cut by an average exceeding the 6 
percent under the Republican plan. These cuts include meat and poultry 
inspection, Superfund toxic waste cleanups, National Science Foundation 
research, the Coast Guard, antidrug efforts, NASA, National Parks, and 
HIV/AIDS treatment and prevention.
  Republicans have had a long history of cutting needed programs. They 
tried to abolish the Department of Education and the Department of 
Energy, both of which are essential for addressing today's urgent 
problems. Last year's GOP resolution also called for a massive cut 
in non-defense discretionary spending. After months of fighting 
Democrats and further threats of government shutdowns, the Republicans 
gave up their attempt to slash Head Start, education, worker 
protection, environment, and energy programs. In the end, Democrats 
succeeded in protecting non-defense discretionary programs from real 
cuts last year. I want to put my Republican friends on notice that, 
just like last year, we will stay here as long as it takes this year to 
ensure that the reckless and heartless cuts in this budget resolution 
do not become law.

  This is not the first, but the fourth, time that Republicans have 
tried and failed to sacrifice domestic investments for tax breaks for 
the wealthy. So we can anticipate how they'll attempt to avoid the 
consequences of their actions this time. They'll begin by promising to 
increase funding for a few programs. They will emphasize only these 
increases, while neglecting to mention the hundreds of other programs 
that will be drastically cut. OMB estimates that if Republicans keep 
their promises to increase or hold harmless programs in elementary and 
secondary education, the National Institutes of Health, and veterans' 
health, all other non-defense discretionary programs will have to be 
cut by 10 percent.
  Another Republican gimmick used to conceal their harsh spending cuts 
is to compare spending levels without accounting for inflation. Even 
George W. Bush does not use this tactic. When candidate Bush claimed 
that spending only increased 2.5 percent during his years as Texas 
Governor, he accounted not only for inflation, but also for population 
growth over this time. If Republicans followed this reasonable 
accounting method, the average domestic discretionary spending cuts 
required by Republicans under this budget resolution would far exceed 6 
percent.
  After Republicans finish trying to convince us that their spending 
cuts will be painless, we can expect them once again to oppose waste, 
fraud, and abuse. All of us support eliminating waste, fraud, and 
abuse--in defense and non-defense programs alike. But the proponents of 
this GOP budget resolution are living in a fantasy world if they 
believe that preventing waste fraud, and abuse is going to make up for 
anything more than a small fraction of the massive cuts in their budget 
resolution.
  Thanks in large part to Vice President Gore's leadership in his 
Reinventing Government Initiative, the federal government is leaner, 
more efficient, and more citizen-friendly than ever. If Republicans 
think they can find $105 billion over 5 years in waste, fraud, and 
abuse, then they should condition their tax cut on finding it. They 
should not condition the education or health or other priorities on 
abstract, unproved, and never-before-realized savings in waste, fraud, 
and abuse.
  The party that gives us this budget resolution is the same party that 
last year brought us ``smoke and mirrors,'' and untold numbers of 
accounting gimmicks. The Republican bag of tricks is doubtless full 
again this year, and we need only stay tuned to see how they can make 
their numbers add up to protect their tax breaks for the rich.
  Our Democratic alternative budget is in sharp contrast to the 
Republican budget resolution. These two alternatives provide Americans 
with a clear

[[Page S2075]]

picture of the opposite directions that the two parties want to take 
the nation.

  Rather than squandering the surplus on tax breaks for the rich, 
Democrats continue to strengthen the basic priorities to ensure that 
all Americans can reach their full potential. Not only is this the 
right way to treat our fellow citizens, it is the only sound policy for 
strengthening the nation's future and maintaining its world leadership. 
On investments in the nation's future, the differences between 
Republicans and Democrats are like night and day.
  I believe that the American people will support our Democratic 
alternative, and will reject the wholesale ravaging of domestic 
programs proposed by the Republican budget. The Democratic alternative 
sets forth a more balanced and fiscally prudent way to allocate our 
resources. It provides more for debt reduction than the Republican 
budget. It does not endanger the Social Security surplus, by making 
unrealistic budget assumptions which cannot be met.
  It provides substantial support to assist senior citizens with the 
cost of prescription drugs, and it sets a firm date for the Finance 
Committee to act on a prescription drug proposal. The Republican 
prescription drug proposal underfunded, and it is subject to so many 
contingencies that it is unlikely to ever materialize.
  The Democratic budget also makes a concrete commitment to 
strengthening Medicare by reserving a portion of the surplus expressly 
for Medicare each year. The Republican budget does not. The Democratic 
budget fully funds the President's requests for education, health care, 
and other domestic priorities, and contains his proposed increase in 
defense spending. It does not shortchange investment in the vital 
domestic programs which improve the lives of millions of Americans. 
While accomplishing all of these goals, our Democratic plan still is 
able to offer $59 billion in tax cuts over the next 5 years, targeted 
to working families.
  There is no reason to threaten the well-being of the American people 
by enacting tax cuts far larger than we can afford. The magnitude of 
the Republican tax cut would deprive us of the flexibility we will 
need, if revenues do not meet projections due to a slowing in the 
economy, or if emergency spending is required to address domestic and 
international crises.
  The precarious balance achieved by the Republican budget depends on a 
reduction in the rate of spending on domestic programs which would be 
unprecedented. Congress will not and should not cut domestic priorities 
that deeply. By setting unrealistically low spending levels, the 
Republicans actually undermine compliance with the budget process. Just 
as they did last year, members on both sides of the aisle will refuse 
to make the deep domestic cuts called for by the Republican budget. If 
the surplus has already been used for excessive tax cuts, revenues will 
not be there to restore funding for these urgent domestic programs.
  This type of irresponsible budget also jeopardizes the Social 
Security surplus. Both parties have pledged to use the Social Security 
surplus solely to meet Social Security's future needs. That is the 
right thing to do. But, as the events of last year amply demonstrate, 
the Social Security surplus is threatened when we fail to reserve 
sufficient funds to adequately support domestic priorities and cover 
emergency needs. In fact, CBO determined last fall that the lock box 
protecting the Social Security surplus was in danger of being broken. 
The threat was not eliminated until January, when revenue estimates 
increased beyond earlier projections. If we are serious about 
protecting the Social Security surplus, we should not consume the 
entire on-budget surplus in tax cuts. These massive tax cuts are 
irresponsible. They do not deserve to pass.
  Mr. President, if we are serious about protecting the Social Security 
surplus, we should not consume the entire projected on-budget surplus, 
and these massive tax cuts are irresponsible. They do not deserve to 
pass. The Democratic alternative does.
  Mr. President, the point I was making was that virtually every 
economist who has come before the Budget Committee or the Finance 
Committee has told us our highest priority in this budget ought to be 
to pay down the debt. Not only have the economists told us that, but 
Chairman Greenspan, head of the Federal Reserve, has told us that 
clearly and unequivocally.
  This is from the January 27, 2000, Washington Post, Business Section. 
The headline is: ``Pay Down the Debt First, Greenspan Urges.'' It 
reads, ``He says the best use of the surplus is to reduce red ink.''
  I think the Federal Reserve Chairman has it exactly right. In this 
budget the Democrats will be proposing, we save every penny of Social 
Security for Social Security. We put an emphasis and priority on paying 
down the debt. We also have sufficient resources to protect Medicare, 
to provide prescription drugs, and to make an investment in education, 
which I think all of us believe is our future. Also, we provide for a 
tax cut for working families.
  In the Democratic budget proposal, debt reduction is the highest 
priority. This may come as a surprise to many. Debt reduction is the 
priority of the Democratic budget because this is what will most assure 
our financial security into the future. Over the 10 years of the 
Democratic budget plan, 82 percent of all the projected surpluses are 
dedicated to debt reduction; debt service is 3 percent; 14 percent is 
for health initiatives, tax cuts, and other high-priority domestic 
needs.
  Mr. President, in looking at the non-Social Security surplus, our 
priorities are as follows: Again, the top priority is given to debt 
reduction--36 percent of the non-Social Security surplus to debt 
reduction; 29 percent to tax cuts; 23 percent to prescription drugs and 
other initiatives; 11 percent to interest costs. We think those are the 
appropriate priorities for the country, the appropriate priorities for 
the Senate, and the appropriate priorities for the Congress. We very 
much hope that people will give close consideration to that alternative 
when it is voted on.
  Let me conclude by again publicly commending the chairman of the 
Budget Committee, Senator Domenici. It is not easy to bring a budget 
resolution to the floor. I think there is perhaps no more difficult job 
in the Senate than bringing a budget resolution. Once again, Senator 
Domenici has done it and he has done it under challenging 
circumstances. It is always challenging to bring a budget resolution to 
the floor. I commend him for his leadership. I also thank our ranking 
member, Senator Lautenberg, who has given extraordinary leadership to 
those of us on the Democratic side.
  I am proud of the budget alternative we will offer. It is a budget 
that is in line with the priorities of the American people, which puts 
debt reduction first, focuses on securing Social Security, extending 
the solvency of Medicare, and providing for high-priority domestic 
needs such as defense and education and agriculture, and that also has 
room for tax cuts targeted to working families with an emphasis on 
incentives for savings. That is one area where we are not doing so well 
in the national economy. We are not doing a good job with savings as a 
society. We should provide the incentive for people to save more.

  I yield the floor. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues for their 
courtesy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, although we should be rotating, on our 
side Senator Grams has been willing to have Senator Byrd go next, and 
then Senator Grams, if that is all right with Senator Lautenberg.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, if I may speak for 2 minutes, I don't 
have any big charts to show you, but I want to put this up. It may be 
the best way to explain our budget. It is very simple.
  The non-Social Security surplus total for the years 2001 through 2005 
is $400 billion. That is the amount of surplus that will be available 
during the next 5 years, locking up Social Security in a lockbox. Don't 
use it. That is $400 billion.
  That $400 billion, as we see it, will be spent using $230 billion for 
new spending, $150 billion for tax reductions and tax relief and debt 
reduction, with an additional $20 billion to go along with the Social 
Security money. That is going toward the debt.

[[Page S2076]]

  Frankly, the other side will not have a chart such as this because 
they will assume we have to spend $230 billion to increase every 
function of Government, by inflation, for each of the next 5 years, and 
that it is automatic. They don't call that ``spending,'' they call it 
``automatic.'' Everybody is entitled to that.
  We start with a real zero. We start with no growth and say how much 
we put back. We put back $230 billion. If my arithmetic is right, that 
is about $46 billion a year of new money appropriated.
  In addition to what we are already spending to start with, we are 
already spending this amount. There is $46 billion more a year for each 
year. That comes out of this surplus.
  We have tax relief of $150 billion, which is only $13 billion in the 
first year, and then we have an extra $20 billion going on the debt.
  I think that is a pretty fair approach. In fact, Democrats keep 
saying they are doing what the American people want. I think if the 
American people understand ours--and they will--they will say that is 
plenty of new spending; some of this overpayment we ought to get back. 
That is what we provide.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it has been said that the more things 
change, the more they stay the same. We are warned by the American 
philosopher George Santayana (1863-1952) that, ``those who cannot 
remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'' Those words of warning, 
I think, are appropriate to have in mind as the Senate debates the 
Fiscal Year 2001 Budget Resolution.
  It was less than two decades ago that the Nation inaugurated a new 
President, who campaigned on a pledge to cut taxes, cut federal 
spending except for defense, and pay down the Federal debt. The so-
called ``Reagan Revolution'' was based on the supply-side economic 
ideology that massive tax cuts would generate large increases in 
revenues to the Federal Treasury, sufficient to allow a large build-up 
in military spending; while, at the same time, balancing the Federal 
budget. That was the blueprint--the budgetary plan of the Reagan-Bush 
Administration. To be sure, there were those who doubted that this 
supply-side program would achieve the results that were projected in 
the Reagan-Bush budget. Indeed, during his campaign against Reagan for 
the GOP nomination, Mr. Bush called Reagan's supply-side economic plan 
``voodoo economics.'' Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker called the 
Reagan-Bush budget blueprint a ``riverboat gamble.''
  Despite those ominous warnings in 1981, Congress did enact a massive 
tax cut, and Congress increased the military budget. But, entitlement 
spending continued to grow, while projected increases in revenues did 
not materialize. As a result, the Reagan-Bush Director of the Office of 
Management and Budget, David Stockman, resorted to what amounted to 
``cooking the books'' in the annual Reagan-Bush budgets. Mr. Stockman, 
I believe, was the person who came up with the strategy, later termed 
``Rosy Scenario'' to describe the fanciful budget forecasts during his 
service as OMB Director.
  As a result of those budgetary policies, rather than being able to 
pay down the federal debt, or even to reduce deficit spending, the 
twelve Reagan-Bush years brought the Nation the largest annual deficits 
in its history and, consequently, the Federal debt grew to levels that 
endangered the Nation's economic prosperity.
  In fact, as this chart entitled ``National Debt'' shows, on the day 
that Mr. Reagan was sworn into office on January 20, 1981, the national 
debt stood at $932 billion. As Mr. Reagan alluded in his State of the 
Union Address that year, it would take a 63-mile high stack of one 
dollar bills to equal $932 billion.
  That $932 billion represented the debt that had been accumulated 
through all of the previous administrations from George Washington's 
administration, the first administration, on down through those years.
  What was the fiscal health of the Nation when this supply-side fiscal 
conservative, President Reagan left office? As shown on the chart, on 
January 20, 1989, the day that Mr. Reagan left office and Mr. Bush was 
sworn in to succeed him, the Nation's debt was some two trillion, six 
hundred and eighty three billion dollars. It took the Nation over 200 
years to get to $1 trillion in national debt. It took the Reagan-Bush 
Administration just 8 years to nearly triple the national debt--from 
$932 billion on the day Mr. Reagan took office to $2.683 trillion on 
the day he left office.
  Let me say that again. From $932 billion on the day that Mr. Reagan 
took office to $2.683 trillion on the day he left office.
  In other words, the stack of $1 bills, which was supposed to be 63 
miles high, as Mr. Reagan spoke to a nationally televised audience, an 
accumulation through all of the administrations prior to the Reagan 
administration--that stack of $1 bills he portrayed very vividly, I 
recall, as being 63 miles high--on the day he left office, that stack 
of $1 bills would be 182 miles into the stratosphere.
  Then, we had the Bush-Quayle Administration for the next four years. 
Did that Administration make progress in reducing deficit spending and 
begin to pay down the national debt? Unfortunately, such was not the 
case. The national debt just kept right on going. It was as if someone 
were feeding it growth hormones! The debt reached over $4 trillion by 
the time Mr. Bush was voted out of office and President Clinton was 
sworn in on January 20, 1993.
  That stack of $1 bills then as represented by the national debt would 
have been 277 miles high. In other words, it had grown from 63 miles 
high at the beginning of the Reagan administration to 277 miles high at 
the end of the Reagan-Bush administration.
  Supporters of the Reagan and Bush Administrations, over the years, 
have attempted to lay the blame for this massive increase in debt at 
the doorstep of Congress, claiming that Congress holds the purse 
strings. I have two responses. First, during the first 6 of the 8 years 
of the Reagan Presidency, the Republicans were in the Majority in the 
United States Senate. Second, during the entire 12 years of the Reagan 
and Bush Administrations, only a handful of times did President Reagan 
veto an appropriations bill for containing too much funding; and 
President Bush did not do so even once. Furthermore, the total of all 
the appropriations bills during the 12 years of the Reagan/Bush and 
Bush/Quayle Presidencies amounted to more than $60 billion in cuts 
below the budget requests of both Presidents.
  Since the Presidencies of Reagan and Bush, the fiscal condition of 
the Nation has greatly improved, for a myriad of reasons. Among those 
are the monetary policies of the Federal Reserve, and the great 
increases in productivity of the American workforce and in our 
industries. Some of the credit, I believe, can also rightly be 
attributed to the Federal budgetary policies of the past several years. 
The deficit reduction packages of 1990, 1993, and 1997 set out very 
stringent targets on Federal spending, which helped reduce deficits to 
the point that in 1998, we enjoyed the first unified budget surplus in 
30 years--a surplus of $69 billion.
  Both of the latest OMB and Congressional Budget Office forecasts 
project huge federal budget surpluses far into the future. The CBO now 
projects unified budget surpluses ranging from $3.2 trillion to more 
than $4.2 trillion, over the next 10 years, depending on spending 
levels under various scenarios.
  Of those 10-year surpluses, some $2.3 trillion will be generated by 
contributions into the Social Security Trust Fund, in excess of the 
payments to retirees over the period of Fiscal Years 2001-2010. There 
is virtually unanimous agreement that any and all Social Security 
surpluses over the next 10 years should go toward reducing the national 
debt, rather than being spent. This means that, if CBO's projections 
turn out to be correct, the national debt would go down by more than $2 
trillion over the next 10 fiscal years.
  The question, then, is what to do with any remaining, or non-Social 
Security surpluses over the next 10 years. Should we cut spending 
further; should we maintain spending at current levels; or should we 
increase spending? Should we use some of the non-Social Security 
surpluses to pay down the debt, and perhaps even eliminate the publicly 
held debt by 2031? Or, should we enact

[[Page S2077]]

huge tax cuts that eat up all of the projected non-Social Security 
surpluses?
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, the Budget Resolution now before the 
Senate, as was the case last year, chooses the worst possible fiscal 
course for the Nation. This Budget Resolution proposes a huge tax cut, 
which would drain the Treasury of more than $150 billion over the next 
5 years, and could easily cost in excess of $800 billion over the next 
10 years. Combining that size tax cut with the resulting increase in 
interest payments on the debt that it would cost, could drain the 
Treasury of as much as $950 billion over 10 years. That figure is 
larger than the total $893 billion in non-Social Security surpluses 
that CBO has projected for the next 10 years.
  What that means is that, in order to pay for the tax cut in this 
fiscal blueprint, we will either have to go back to deficit spending, 
or raid the Social Security Trust Fund. That is assuming the CBO 
projected surpluses actually occur. Is that likely? What has been the 
record of CBO projections in the past? Have their projections been 
fairly close to what actually occurred? The answer is ``no.'' Not so 
close as to enact tax cuts that would use up all of the CBO projected 
surpluses, and then some. In fact, over the period of 1980 through 
1998, the CBO projections of revenues contained in budget resolutions 
were off by an absolute average of $38 billion per year! Over 5 years, 
that is $190 billion, Similarly, the CBO's deficit projections erred by 
an absolute average of $54 billion per year over the period of 1980-
1998.
  Like last year, the tax cuts proposed in this budget resolution are 
unwise in the extreme. The American people won't buy this plan. They 
are not clamoring for tax cuts. The American people have learned that 
locking in huge tax cuts before the money to pay for them has 
materialized is just plain, old, common, country gambling. They want to 
make sure that the money is there before we mandate huge tax cuts. The 
people don't wont to go back into debt, with the interest charged to 
them.
  Now, let's turn to discretionary spending. That's the portion of the 
Federal budget that is funded in the annual appropriations bills. 
Discretionary appropriations amount to about one-third of the Federal 
budget and include spending for Defense, as well as a wide array of 
domestic investments, including education, health, veterans' medical 
care, highway and airport construction, parks and recreation, the FBI 
and other law enforcement agencies, water projects, environmental 
programs, Head Start, and the operational costs of all of the 
departments and agencies of the Executive Branch, as well as those of 
the Legislative Branch and the Judiciary. These are the programs that 
support the physical and human infrastructure of this Nation.
  What is being proposed for the discretionary portion of the budget in 
this Budget Resolution? As this chart shows, this budget plan would 
increase spending for the military by $24 billion above what is 
required to maintain current levels, over the next five years. For all 
other discretionary spending, this budget plan would cut $105 billion, 
or 6.5%, over the next 5 years below what is needed to maintain current 
services, adjusted for inflation.
  To get right to the point, let's look at what is being proposed in 
this Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2001. That is the fiscal year 
which will begin on October 1 of this year. This budget proposes budget 
authority totaling $597 billion for discretionary programs for the 
upcoming fiscal year. That is a cut of $10 billion below what will be 
needed to maintain this year's discretionary spending levels, adjusted 
for inflation.
  It would take $607 billion just to keep up with inflation and avoid 
real cuts in discretionary spending for Fiscal Year 2001; only $597 
billion is allowed in this budget resolution. Of that amount, what is 
allowed for Defense? The CBO tells us it would take $298 billion in 
budget authority to maintain this year's level of Defense spending. 
But, the Budget Resolution before the Senate would provide $307 
billion--a real increase of $9 billion above what it would take to 
maintain this year's level of Defense spending, adjusted for inflation.
  For all other discretionary programs, CBO says it would take $309 
billion in budget authority to maintain this year's spending levels. 
This resolution provides only $290 billion, a cut of $19 billion in 
budget authority. Yet, at the same time, the budget resolution promises 
to increase funding for education, veterans' health care, and other 
popular initiatives. This means that all of the other unprotected 
programs will have to be cut even more in order to accommodate the 
protected ones.
  What does that mean in real terms? For an example, let's take a look 
at national crime-fighting programs. According to the Office of 
Management and Budget, the Senate Budget Resolution does not appear to 
provide any funds for the hiring of additional police officers, or for 
community crime-prevention programs. For the Coast Guard, this budget 
resolution would severely impact their ability to carry out their 
missions in the areas of drug interdiction, national security, and 
fisheries enforcement.
  Despite claims to the contrary, funding for education would be cut by 
more than $5 billion below the President's request in Fiscal Year 2001. 
This would require cuts of some 62,000 children from Head Start; and it 
would make it impossible to hire some 20,000 additional teachers for 
public schools or provide urgent repairs for some 5,000 schools across 
the Nation.
  For Science, a reduction of this magnitude would result in more than 
19,000 fewer researchers; educators and student receiving support from 
the National Science Foundation. It would appear that a lot of this 
rhetoric about protecting education is just that--rhetoric.
  Is it realistic to suggest that the Nation's important domestic 
investment needs will be cut by almost $20 billion this year? Is that 
what we want to propose to the American people? I do not support any 
such proposition. To follow this budget plan will mean endorsing large 
permanent tax cuts, based on budget surplus projections which may or 
may not come to pass. If the tax cuts are enacted, they will be real. 
They will be in law. But, the money to pay for them may be only a 
figment of the forecasters' imaginations. The result may make it a 
virtual certainty that this flawed budget plan would lead the Nation, 
once again, down the road of annual triple-digit billion dollar 
deficits. We slew that gremlin after the twelve Reagan-Bush years. Let 
us heed the warning of Santayana and not condemn ourselves and the 
American people to repeat those failed policies. Let the evil, bloated 
deficit monster sleep.

  If we follow the plan before us today, we will probably see another 
in a series of session-ending omnibus appropriations negotiations with 
the White House. Such a process demeans the Congress, elevates the 
Executive, and allows the President's aides to sit at the table and 
become instant appropriators while Congress completes its 
appropriators' work. That process always reminds me of a high stakes 
poker game--``I'll see your veterans' programs and raise you five 
billion more for defense.'' Unfortunately, it is often the American 
taxpayer who ends up the loser. I implore my colleagues to reject this 
Budget Resolution. Let's get off this treadmill to nowhere. We should 
not give tax cuts with money we don't yet have, and may never have. To 
do so is like writing checks before the money is firmly in the bank.
  In recent testimony before the Senate Special Committee on Aging, 
Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan repeated his longstanding view 
that, ``The most effective means of raising the level of future 
resources, in my judgment, is to allow the budget surpluses projected 
in the coming years to be used to pay down the Nation's debt.'' I agree 
with Mr. Greenspan in that statement. We should adequately invest in 
our Nation's infrastructure needs and use the balance of future 
surpluses to pay down the Federal debt, thereby enhancing the ability 
of the Nation to be in the position to meet the future needs of both 
Social Security and Medicare. The American people, I believe, recognize 
the wisdom of such an approach. They instinctively realize that massive 
tax cuts at this time, based on flimsy projections and on promises to 
cut spending far below levels that could sustain the economy into the 
21st century, are precisely the opposite of sound fiscal policy. The 
American people will not buy these Disney World policies anymore. They 
expect a fair deal in budgeting, and

[[Page S2078]]

this Senate should, as well. To fail to do so would amount to deja-voo-
doo all over again!
  I yield the floor. I thank the distinguished Senator from Minnesota 
for yielding to me.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I wish to take a few minutes this afternoon 
to talk, not of the budget in general but about a particular part of 
the budget. I wish to speak in support of the amendment of Senator Kay 
Bailey Hutchison of Texas. I commend her efforts and leadership on a 
very important issue; that is, the marriage penalty tax that is part of 
this overall budget. I know we are still working on an agreement 
dealing with this amendment but, because of other commitments, I wanted 
to take time to come to the floor and speak on this issue, the marriage 
penalty tax, a little bit out of order. I want to at least voice my 
strong support for the issue. I support, strongly, the elimination of 
the marriage penalty entirely and I believe that Congress should pass 
this legislation and we should do it as quickly and as early as 
possible.
  There is compelling reason to repeal the marriage penalty tax: The 
family has been and will continue to be the bedrock of our society. 
Strong families makes strong communities; strong communities make for a 
strong America. We all agree that this marriage penalty tax treats 
married couples unfairly. Even President Clinton agrees that the 
marriage penalty is unfair, although he said--well, we just can't help 
it; we need the money here in Washington.
  If we do not get rid of this bad tax policy that discourages 
marriage, millions of married couples will be forced to pay more taxes 
simply for choosing to commit to a family through marriage.
  In fact, the Tax Code contains 66 provisions that can affect a 
married couple's tax liability.
  Let me give a real example of how average Americans have been hit by 
the marriage penalty. Newly wedded Alicia Jones from my state of 
Minnesota and her husband graduated from college and had just begun 
working full-time 2 years ago. In 1998, Alicia and her husband both 
worked full time in professional careers. They had no children and were 
renting an apartment, saving to buy a house. They had to pay at least 
an additional $1,400 for simply being married. As a result, on top of 
the over $10,000 tax they already paid, they had to take an additional 
$700 from their limited savings account to pay for Federal taxes--taxes 
that they wouldn't have had to pay if they weren't married.--The 
marriage penalty.
  She wrote to me:

       I am frustrated by this, I'm frustrated for the future--how 
     do we get ahead, when each year we have to take money from 
     our savings to pay more for our taxes. I hope that you will 
     remember my concern.

  Alicia's story is not uncommon. There were 21 million American 
families in the same situation.
  A 1997 study by the Congressional Budget Office entitled For Better 
or Worse: Marriage and the Federal Income Tax, estimated 21 million 
couples or 42 percent of couples incurred marriage penalties in 1996. 
This means 42 million individuals paid $1,400 more in tax than if they 
are divorced, or were living together. It has grown to even more in the 
year 2000.
  But marriage penalties can run much higher than that. Under the 
current tax laws, a married couple could face a Federal tax bill that 
is more than $20,000 higher than the amount they would pay if they were 
not married.
  This is extremely unfair. This was not the intention of Congress when 
it created the marriage penalty tax in the 1960s by separating tax 
schedules for married and unmarried people.
  The marriage penalty is most unfair to married couples who are both 
working, it is discriminative against low-income families and is biased 
against working women.
  The trend shows that more couples under age 55 are working and the 
earnings between husbands and wives are more evenly divided since 1969. 
As a result, more and more couples have received, and will continue to 
receive, marriage penalties and fewer couples benefit under the Tax 
Code.
  The marriage penalty creates a second-earner bias against married 
women under the Federal tax system. The bias occurs because the income 
of the secondary earner is stacked on top of the primary earner's 
income. As a result, the secondary earner's income may be taxed at a 
relatively higher marginal tax rate. In many cases it even forces the 
whole family budget into a higher tax bracket so the whole family faces 
this marriage penalty. Married women are often the victims of the 
second-earner bias.
  As more and more women go to work today, their added incomes drive 
their households into higher tax brackets. In fact, women who return to 
the work force after raising their kids face a 50 percent tax rate--not 
much of an incentive to work.
  The marriage penalty tax has discouraged women from marriage. It even 
has led some married couples to get friendly divorces. They continue to 
live together, but save on their taxes.
  Repealing the marriage penalty will allow American families to keep 
an average of $1,400 more each year of their own money to pay for 
health insurance, groceries, child care, or other family necessities.
  This is what we hear all the time, whenever we want to cut a tax or 
reduce the tax burden on average Americans--it is a windfall for the 
rich. No one else is going to benefit. This is completely false. The 
fact is, the elimination of the injustice of the marriage penalty will 
primarily benefit minority, low- and middle-class families. Studies 
suggest the marriage penalty hits African-Americans and lower-income 
working families hardest.
  Couples at the bottom end of the income scale who incur penalties 
paid an average of nearly $800 in additional taxes which represented 8 
percent of their income. Eight percent, Mr. President. Repeal the 
penalty, and those low-income families will immediately have an 8 
percent increase in their income. They would be able to keep it to 
spend on what their families need, rather than shipping it off to 
Washington.
  It is unfair to continue marriage penalty tax. It is time now to end 
it. I strongly support Senator Hutchison of Texas and her efforts to 
repeal the marriage penalty too. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I yield myself as much time as I need.
  I was here for most of Senator Byrd's remarks. I do not choose to 
discuss the history of 10, 12, or 14 years ago. That does not mean 
there is not a different version to his well charted speech. There is 
another version.
  All I want to talk about is right now and what we plan and how we see 
things a little differently in terms of what we are going to do with 
the surplus that does not belong to Social Security.
  Remember that we already have established a new dynamic, and it is 
probably a very salutary one and maybe, as the Federal Reserve Chairman 
has said, the most significant fiscal policy change if we follow 
through for a decade or so. That is, if all of the Social Security 
surplus goes to debt service, that means we do not spend it and the 
debt owed to the public that we have out there in Treasury bills that 
banks have bought, that countries have bought, that we really have to 
pay interest on every year, all this money from Social Security reduces 
that.
  I believe when the President suggested we only save 62 percent of the 
Social Security surplus, that was the first time we ever invented and 
used the budget for longer than 5 years. He wanted to do 10 years then. 
Almost everyone thought: How in the world will we do 15 years, and why? 
I can tell my colleagues why.
  One starts with a proposition that if we only put 62 percent of the 
Social Security money into a fund that belongs to Social Security, we 
have to tell the American people that sooner or later we are going to 
pay all the Social Security money back. It took 15 years to do that. It 
just happened almost miraculously. So the President drew up a 15-year 
budget. After the fifth year, it was pretty irrelevant. In the 7th, 
10th, 14th, and 15th years, it got to be speculative. Nevertheless, it 
kept showing a very big and increasing surplus.
  I got the idea, as all of us heard the 62-percent speech, why not 100 
percent? I am very proud that as to the new dynamic to which I was just 
alluding, that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve says is positive 
thinking and a positive approach to the future, I said

[[Page S2079]]

why not 100 percent of the Social Security fund? Then we thought up the 
idea of a Social Security lockbox. Whether one likes the lockbox or 
not, it is pretty descriptive. We make it darn hard to get the money 
out of the lockbox. We put it in there every year.
  This budget does that again. For the next 5 years, it says every 
penny of Social Security surplus goes to the debt; it cannot be used 
for anything of a general government nature. That turns out to be a 
very large number. I will give you the number in just a moment.
  Believe it or not, for the next 5 years, in addition to that big 
number, the surplus that goes to Social Security, there is another big 
number, and it is a surplus that does not belong in Social Security. I 
share with the Senate and with my friend, Senator Byrd, how big the on-
budget surplus is, that which does not belong to Social Security. It is 
$400 billion over the next 5 years--$400 billion.
  The point is, we are deciding what ought to happen to that $400 
billion. The Democrats would say there really isn't $400 billion--I am 
not saying where Senator Byrd would be, but I think his speech 
indicates this is a fair statement. They would say there isn't $400 
billion because, each of the years, all of the accounts of Government 
must grow by inflation. They say anything above that--that is, $171 
billion--is all that would be left over out of the $400 billion if you 
give every account in Government an inflation increase every year.

  We said that is not quite what we think the American people want to 
measure us by. So we said: Let's start at zero. Let's not have any 
additions, and then let's go to the $400 billion and put it back in the 
budget and put it back in other places. What we did, I say to my good 
friend, Senator Byrd, is we put $230 billion of that $400 billion back 
into the domestic and defense accounts.
  That may not be enough for some, and who knows, the prediction that 
before we are finished it will not be enough, I do not know about that. 
But to get the votes to bring a budget to the floor, there is 
essentially $230 billion in new money on top of inflation divided by 5, 
which is $46 billion a year--if one does it on an average--$46 billion 
that we can add to the freeze and see where it turns out.
  We think it turns out with almost a 6-percent growth in defense 
spending this first year and almost 4-percent real growth in the 
appropriated accounts--I should say growth in each instance. We do 
that, and there is some money left over.
  Frankly, we believe that money ought to be looked at very carefully 
because it is the American people who are overpaying their taxes. That 
is why we have a surplus. We decided that over the whole 5 years we 
would provide a tax reduction of $150 billion, spread out over 5 years. 
In the first year, it is $13 billion.
  Do my colleagues know how much the debt reduction is in the first 
year? It is $174 billion. What is the ratio? It is $13 billion in debt 
reduction for $1 of tax relief.

  Would the American people say: That's unfair? We ought to spend more 
of that money? We said: Over the full 5 years, the debt of the American 
people will be reduced by $1.1 trillion--a huge reduction. We put that 
alongside of $150 billion in tax relief; and the ratio, over the 5 
years, is $8 in debt reduction for $1 in tax relief--a pretty fair 
ratio.
  The whole difference is, when you have $400 billion in surplus, what 
should you do with it? Some would say: Inflate every account of 
Government by the rate of inflation for each of the next 5 years, and 
don't even worry about that. They say: You make that automatic.
  We do not make it automatic. We add back each year. As I indicated, 
if you did it, on average, you could almost add $50 billion a year to a 
base of about $500 billion. That is the combined defense and 
nondefense. That is pretty good.
  Will it be tough? Of course, it will be tough because in the last 5 
years, the tendency was to significantly reduce expenditures in the 
first 3 years of that 5 years, and then in the last 2 years to start 
spending it, maybe a 7-percent or 8-percent or 6.5-percent-per-year 
increase.
  I close by saying there is a stark difference between the President 
of the United States and the Republicans. Believe it or not, the 
President of the United States would increase domestic discretionary 
spending in the first year--the year for which we are doing the budget, 
next year--by 14 percent.
  The 14 percent includes inflation, plus a whole bunch more. In fact, 
that is the biggest increase since one of the years of President Jimmy 
Carter when there was super inflation.
  We say that is too much. In fact, they say there is something bad 
about $150 billion in tax cuts. But I say, if there is anything that is 
risky, it is to spend the surplus. A 14-percent-a-year increase, if 
kept for 3 years, will spend the entire non-Social Security surplus, 
and we will start using up some of the Social Security surplus. Just 
think of that.
  Why does the President offer $14 billion in 1 year? In fact, I do not 
even think his loyal minority on the Democrat side has anything like a 
14-percent increase in mind. He does because it is an election year, 
and you get to do it one time on your way out the door; the next 
administration has to live with what you have left.
  But we decided not to do that. We decided we would do it the way we 
just described: $230 billion in spending over a freeze for the next 5 
years, $150 billion in tax relief, and an extra $20 billion in debt 
reduction besides the Social Security money.
  Frankly, why would the President offer such a huge increase in the 
last year of his Presidency? I would think one of two things is 
possible: It is a political budget. He would like to make hay out of 
bean for almost everything or, secondly, he really thinks that is what 
we ought to spend.
  I do not know that there is any other reason in between. If he thinks 
it is what we ought to spend, then he ought to stop saying we will not 
spend Social Security money because you cannot increase the budget 14 
percent a year and not use Social Security money.
  What I know is, we have sound fiscal policy today for which a lot of 
people can take credit. There are a lot of things which happened that 
caused it to be this way. But it surely is not solely and significantly 
because the President offered a proposal that all of his party voted 
for, and we did not, to raise taxes $195 billion. That happened. 
Clearly, that cannot be the singular item that caused this 7 years of 
growth.

  In fact, we are very proud that once the Congress became Republican 
we started really reducing the amount of Federal expenditures per year, 
year after year. We made a bipartisan deal in 1997 of which we are very 
proud. It reduced all parts of Government significantly, including some 
entitlements that we are going back and looking at, such as Medicaid, 
Medicare, and home health care.
  So that, plus the Federal Reserve Board acting prudently--I do not 
know whether the last increases in the interest rate are as prudent as 
the previous ones by the Federal Reserve Board Chairman, but he and his 
Board deserve ample credit for this fantastic growth. But ultimately 
the growth is because we turned loose American innovation. They changed 
things. They brought equipment and technology into the marketplace that 
saves human effort by the thousands of hours per week per business. 
Thus, more profit is made and more pay can be made. The gross domestic 
product can grow without inflation. That is where we are today.
  We think our budget will keep us there. We think it is too risky to 
spend more money, especially when we have provided more than 
adequately, with some discretion to pick and choose between accounts of 
Government.
  The approach of allowing inflation to be added to every account, and 
that unless you start with that you are cutting something, is an 
acknowledgement that every one of the 2,800 programs of America--some 
30 years old, some 40 years old, some in the Education Department that 
the Presiding Officer has seen as duplicative, where there are 20 or 30 
of the same kind--deserve an increase equally and none deserve to be 
restrained.
  We say many of them should be abolished. If that is what it takes the 
appropriators to do to live within these numbers, that would be pretty 
good for America.
  Those are my observations. I do not know that we are going to be able 
to

[[Page S2080]]

reach an agreement on amendments. But I am going to now ask the 
distinguished minority leader what he would like to do next, and we 
will proceed.
  Mr. REID. I say to the manager of the bill for the majority, our 
manager wishes to speak on the bill some more.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Sure.
  Mr. REID. Perhaps during that time we can work something out as to 
the order of amendments. We have already worked on that. We will see 
what we can do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to take a moment for those who 
may be wanting to take a look at the Budget Committee Democrats' new 
web site--I do not know how rapidly people can write down the address, 
but here it is in full colored splendor: <a href='http://budget.senate.gov/
democratic'>http://budget.senate.gov/
democratic</a>.
  That is the address. We know people will immediately run, in large 
numbers, to see what is being said there.
  At the site they will see a summary of the budget resolution, the 
Democratic alternative, background on the budget process, links to 
other budget-related information, presented on a colorful chart. We 
even provide a budget quiz for those who want to test their perception 
of what we are doing. We will also be maintaining a mailing list for 
those people who want to stay up to date about budget matters.
  Please take a look, if you will, at the address. Once again, we will 
provide it in case people want to jot it down. I need not read it. I 
think it is visible. They ought to be able to contact Democratic Budget 
Committee members. I thank Rock Cheung of our staff for doing such a 
great job in putting that web page together.
  I now wish to talk about something that has troubled me, something 
that, frankly, I do not understand. But to put it simply, there was a 
change from the budget resolution--if I might have the attention of the 
distinguished Senator.
  I want to point out the fact that there was a change from the budget 
resolution as passed by the committee by a majority vote--a change in 
numbers, which is hardly allowable, and certainly not acceptable--after 
the committee deliberation, after the committee passed the bill, after 
the committee presented it to the Senate body, as we see it now. To 
make a change in the numbers--whether it is small or large doesn't 
matter, but the process is not allowed, as I understand it, by virtue 
of rule XXVI. I want to point out that this resolution is not the same, 
and it was not only a technical change but, rather, it is dramatically 
different. It was changed after our markup, after we all sat around and 
voted; some voted for it and some voted against it. It is a change to 
the tune of $60 billion in lower spending in each of the fiscal years 
2001 and 2002.
  There was a reason this was done, Mr. President. While it is 
understandable, it is not acceptable to change it after the markup, 
after the contract is signed, essentially. If a contract is signed and 
somebody decides let's change the terms of the contract, that would be 
unacceptable in a business structure. As a matter of fact, it would 
engender a lawsuit in very easy fashion if it were done in the business 
world. This was done to avoid a point of order against the resolution.
  Whenever we talk in this arcane language around here, I believe we 
need to spell it out. What we are saying to those who don't work here 
on a regular basis is that instead of 51 votes, you need 60 votes if 
you want to make a change. Well, in other words, if there is a call for 
a waiver of the budget, it falls to one side or the other to get 51 
votes, which can easily be accomplished by the majority because they 
have 55 Members. But it doesn't include any of the Democrats. While 
none of the Democrats voted to move this bill, nevertheless we don't 
give up our proprietorship on what goes out of there. No Senator does. 
No Senator gives up their rights without respect for the rule.
  This is not appropriate. It is a terrible precedent for the Senate as 
a whole. When a bill passes out of a committee, it must carry the same 
message when it arrives on the Senate floor. It ought not be changed on 
that short trip from the Dirksen Building to this building. It is 
called a technical modification. We saw initially that $4.4 billion 
worth of additions were going to be made. When we finally got it here, 
it was almost a $60 billion cut from programs. It went into a catchall 
category that can then be distributed. It was $60 billion. So we are 
looking at something bordering on a 10-percent shift without the 
public, frankly, being aware of it.
  Under the Budget Act, there is a point of order against any budget 
resolution that exceeds the discretionary spending caps. It is very 
clear this budget resolution is intended to break those caps. In fact, 
it says so in section 209, on page 41 of the budget resolution. I will 
read directly from that subsection:

       The functional totals with respect to discretionary 
     spending set forth in this concurrent resolution, if 
     implemented, would result in legislation which exceeds the 
     limit on discretionary spending for the fiscal year set out 
     in section 251(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985.

  That is a quote from the budget resolution itself. In effect, it says 
that we are breaking the caps and the spending limits as modified in 
1997. In fact, when the Budget Committee approved this resolution, it 
did break the caps, just as it claimed it did. It told the truth. But a 
funny thing happened on the way to this forum--the difference between 
the close of the markup and arrival on the floor of the Senate. As if 
by magic, the spending totals were changed dramatically so that they no 
longer break the caps. The changes were made to what we call function 
920 and left completely unspecified, just thrown in there. This is a 
catchall. But when it has to be distributed--and it does--then it will 
hit all of the categories for which we appropriate. I am talking about 
a significant change.

  When the committee approved the resolution, the total for function 
920, as indicated on the chart, was $4.4 billion in budget authority. 
In fact, if you look at the committee report--on page 38 and again on 
page 50--that is what it says: $4.4 billion in budget authority.
  Budget authority means that which we are allowed by law to spend. 
That is what the committee approved. Now, when we look at the 
resolution before us, which is claimed to be the same, the one approved 
by the Budget Committee, on page 27, line 7, it says that the total for 
function 920 is negative $59.931 billion. So in the fiscal year 2001--
the one we are preparing the budget for--the resolution includes $59.9 
billion in unspecified cuts. But the Budget Committee, I remind you 
again, only approved $4.4 billion in such cuts for the fiscal year 
beginning October 1.
  If you look at fiscal year 2002, the same type of thing happened. The 
committee approved a plan this time that had no budget authority for 
function 920. That means they weren't allowing any expenditure, 
positive or negative--well, you can't have negative expenditures, but 
reductions in the account--in fiscal 2002. Now we have a resolution 
before us that has $59.729 billion in negative budget authority--
unspecified cuts that appeared, seemingly, out of thin air.
  I have to ask, What is happening here? Well, obviously, the majority 
is making huge cuts in order to claim they are abiding by the 
discretionary spending caps, so that they can avoid a point of order 
and then the need to get 60 votes. They can't get 60 and they know 
that.
  I don't criticize them for exceeding the caps. But they are wrong to 
hide this back-room change to pretend they are not breaking the caps. 
That is not being honest with the Senate or the American people.
  The fact is, under the Budget Act--which I negotiated with Senator 
Domenici in 1997--it is supposed to take 60 votes to break the caps. 
That is the law. Yes, it gives the minority, or at least a few of the 
Members of the minority, a little bit of leverage. It means the 
Republicans are supposed to seek some Democratic votes to approve their 
budget resolution.
  But instead of playing by the rules, the majority today is flouting 
them. They are trying to have it both ways--breaking the caps, but then 
pretending in the resolution that they are not doing that, all to avoid 
giving the minority a say in this resolution. I think it is wrong that 
we are here today considering a resolution that isn't the one approved 
by the Budget Committee; it is a different resolution.

[[Page S2081]]

  At the end of a budget markup, the staff is given the right to make 
technical changes. That is not unusual, and I don't object to that. But 
by cutting spending by $60 billion a year, they are eliminating the 
prospect that this could be a technical change. I know some people 
around here are used to sloughing off a few million dollars here and 
there. But $60 billion in a year? Even here that is a large sum of 
money. That doesn't just sidestep the rules; in my opinion, it goes 
over the line. I am going to ask the Parliamentarian now whether or not 
there are prohibitions to changing a Committee-passed resolution or 
bill without consulting the committee before it is presented to the 
floor for consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Rule XXVI requires a quorum to report out a 
measure, and it is not in order to change a measure once reported.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the 
Parliamentarian.
  All this then, as I see it, is designed to deny the minority the 
right to participate meaningfully in this debate and hide the facts 
from the American people.
  Anytime the Senator from New Mexico has a question, I am happy to 
answer; or shall I finish what I am doing?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I am sure. The Senator may finish his speech. I am 
going to make my point as to why it is in order, if the Senator from 
New Jersey is talking about this.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Shall I finish?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Sure.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am going to have more to say later 
about the breakdown of the budget process and what I consider the abuse 
of the minority rights.
  I personally believe the exclusion of the minority through the budget 
resolution and reconciliation process is one reason the whole budget 
process is in such a difficult mess, and it largely explains why we 
have these terrible train wrecks and huge omnibus bills at the end of 
each fiscal year.
  Be that as it may, I would be happy, before I leave this place, to 
have a series of discussions with my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle about what maybe we can do to get the fiscal year kicked off in a 
proper fashion with the budget, and as we should do with the Budget 
Committee.
  But that is not for the moment because that doesn't have anything to 
do with the $60 billion per year ``technical change'' being simply 
wrong. I think it is an abuse of the committee process. It is not fair 
to the minority. Frankly, it does raise a bit of a sad commentary on 
the whole budget process.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am just without words about such an 
argument that we did something really wrong. We did nothing wrong. The 
staff of the minority had an invention in their mind. They kept it 
quiet.
  Have you ever hunted quail? You know that they spread after you 
shoot. They hunker down and hide and don't want anybody to hear them.
  They had in mind knocking this whole budget resolution out because of 
this issue right here. If we had not made the technical change that is 
in this resolution, indeed, they would have made the whole thing die 
and we wouldn't have a budget resolution.
  Let me tell you, their budget resolution would fail on the same 
grounds. The President's would fail on the same grounds. And the truth 
of the matter is that I sought and received, with a quorum present 
before the final vote, unanimous consent to make technical amendments. 
I asked for that. I received consent. And the technical changes are 
very clear. The language of the chairman's mark made it clear that the 
caps would be met. That is $540 billion, and an adjustment would be 
made of nearly $60 billion. We don't cut anything. We say the first 
appropriations bill will lift the caps, and a $60 billion fund that is 
in title 14 will become operative.
  That is not untoward. It is not making shambles of the budget 
process. If people want to know what makes a shambles with it, I can 
stay here for a month and talk about it. But this isn't one.
  As a matter of fact, this Senator has been a very loyal supporter of 
getting things done right. I am absolutely amazed that he would read 
such language from a piece of paper--that this particular technical 
change has wreaked havoc.

  I would like to meet with both sides to talk about how to fix the 
budget resolution. Let me tell you, we will meet with both sides. He 
can be present, and I will be present. We will have a list of 50 items 
before we ever get around to technical changes that are harming the 
budget process.
  It is absolutely clear to everyone what we are doing. If we were 
trying to deceive anyone and were really in some way cutting $60 
billion out of this budget, and in some clandestine way we were going 
to do it, then I would be here saying I did something that is untoward. 
I didn't do that. That is not the case.
  There is no objection to this budget resolution based upon what I did 
and the unanimous consent that was granted. There is no question about 
it, in my opinion. I wouldn't have done it if there were any question.
  Soon I would like to suggest we get on to a couple of amendments. But 
I don't have them ready yet. So I will sit down and let the minority 
speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as if in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________