IN WHICH I TRIED TO DESCRIBE THE IDEA OF BE STARVING THE BEAST,
           AS THE TERM WAS. THAT IS TO SAY DEPRIVING THE FEDERAL
           GOVERNMENT OF THE REVENUES NEEDED, PUT SIMPLY, TO GOVERN. THE
           ARGUMENT IS QUITE SIMPLE. IT GOES BACK TO THE 1970'S, WHEN A

           NUMBER OF THEORISTS IN THE -- IN THE CONSERVATIVE WINGS OF THE
           DEMOCRATIC PARTY DETERMINED THAT IT WAS NOT GOING TO BE
           POSSIBLE FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EVER TO BE CONTROLLED IN
           ITS SIZE AS LONG AS IT HAD THE REVENUES TO SUSTAIN OR EVEN TO
           INCREASE THAT. AND SO IT CAME BACK THAT A POLICY DOCTRINE

           DEVELOPED WHICH ARGUED THAT DEFICITS, SIZABLE ENOUGH, HAD
           ACQUIRED A NEW UTILITY, DEFICITS CAN WHICH HAD PRESUMABLY BEEN
           THE HORROR OF CONSERVATIVE FINANCIAL THOUGHT, NOW BECAME
           SOMETHING ATTRACTIVE BECAUSE THEY COULD BE USED TO REDUCE THE
           SIZE OF GOVERNMENT ITSELF. E.J. DION JR. IN AN OP-ED ARTICLE IN
           YESTERDAY'S "WASHINGTON POST" CLEARLY RECOGNIZES THAT THIS IDEA
           IS STILL AFOOT.
           

           HE WRITES: "THE LONG-TERM GOAL ABOUT WHICH REPUBLICANS ARE
           CANDID IS TO PUT GOVERNMENT IN A FISCAL STRAITJACKET FOR YEARS
           TO COME." I TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A SIGN MADE. "THE
           LONG-TERM GOAL ABOUT WHICH REPUBLICAN LEADERS ARE CANDID, IS TO
           PUT GOVERNMENT IN A PHYSICIANLY CAL STRAITJACKET FOR YEARS TO
           COME." NOW, SIR, I THINK IN FAIRNESS, THIS IS MORE TO BE
           ENCOUNTERED ON THE HOUSE SIDE THAN ON -- IN THIS BODY, BUT IT

           IS -- BUT IT STILL WOULD BE THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT IMPACT OF THE
           TAX CUTS THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED IN BOTH BODIES. I CAN REMEMBER
           THE -- THE ONSET OF THIS THE IN THE LATE 1970'S. IT WAS CLEAR.
           ONE COULD WRITE ABOUT IT. ONE DID. AND THEN CAME THE
           ADMINISTRATION OF PRESIDENT REAGAN IN WHICH, IN EFFECT, THE

           POLICIES WERE CARRIED OUT, OR THEY BEGAN TO BE CARRIED OUT. IN
           A TELEVISION ADDRESS 16 DAYS BEFORE HIS INAUGURATION, PRESIDENT
           REAGAN SAID, "THERE WILL ALWAYS BE THOSE WHO TOLD US THAT TAXES
           COULDN'T BE CUT UNTIL SPENDING WAS REDUCED. WELL, YOU KNOW, WE
           CAN LECTURE OUR CHILDREN ABOUT EXTRAVAGANCE UNTIL WE RUN OUT OF
           VOICE OR BREATH, OR WE CAN CUT THEIR EXTRAVAGANCE BY SIMPLY
           REDUCING THEIR ALLOWANCE ALLOWANCE." AND THERE YOU HAVE

           PRESIDENT REAGAN IN HIS MOST AGREEABLE AND HEARTWARMING
           QUALITY. HE THOUGHT THIS COULD BE DONE BECAUSE HE THOUGHT THERE
           WOULD, IN FACT, BE REDUCTIONS IN GOVERNMENT. THERE -- THERE
           WERE NONE. MOREOVER, VERY SHORTLY, HIS ECONOMIC ADVISORS
           REALIZED THAT THE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS THEY'D USED TO PROJECT
           REVENUE INCREASES FROM TAX REDUCTIONS WEREN'T GOING TO WORK.

           AND THEY FACED THIS -- A PROSPECT OF DEFICITS, AS DAVID
           STOCKMAN ONCE SAID, "$200 BILLION AS FAR AS THE EYE CAN SEE."
           HAYNES JOHNSON, IN HIS SUPERB BOOK, "SLEEPWALKING THROUGH
           
           HISTORY: AMERICA THROUGH THE REAGAN YEARS," RIGHTS THAT THE
           REAGAN TEAM -- NOT THE PRESIDENT PER SE -- SAW THE IMPLICIT
           FAILURE OF SUPPLY-SIDE THEORY AS AN OPPORTUNITY NOT A PROBLEM.
           NOW, THIS WE HAVE TO ABSORB. THEY SAW THE FAILURE OF
           SUPPLY-SIDE THEORY -- WHICH SAID, THE MORE YOU CUT TAXES THE

           HIGHER THE REVENUES WOULD BE -- AS AN OPPORTUNITY NOT A
           PROBLEM. THE SECRET SOLUTION WAS TO LET THE FEDERAL BUDGET
           DEFICIT RISE, THUS LEAVING CONGRESS NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO CUT
           DOMESTIC PROGRAMS. BUT IN THE END, THEY -- THEY WERE NOT CUT.
           SOME GREW. THERE WAS THE VIEW -- AND IT CERTAINLY WAS A
           RESPECTABLE ONE -- THAT DEFENSE HAD TO BE INCREASED. WE NOW

           INCIDENTALLY SUGGEST THERE WOULD BE A 20% REDUCTION IN DEFENSE
           SPENDING OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS. THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION
           INCREASED DEFENSE SPENDING AND THEY HAD A PERFECTLY GOOD
           ARGUMENT FOR DOING THAT. BUT NOT SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH HUGE TAX
           CUTS THAT VERY SHORTLY THEREAFTER HAD TO BE TAX INCREASES. BUT
           THE COURSE WAS SET FOR THE 1980'S. AND, AS I SAY, THE DEFICIT
           DOUBLED, FROM UNDER $1 TRILLION TO NOW ABOUT $3.7 TRILLION IN

           PUBLICLY-HELD DEBT. AND SO I -- I RISE AGAIN TO SAY SAY, AS I
           HAVE DONE BEFORE, THAT WHAT WE DID IN 1981 WITH THAT TAX CUT --
           FOR WHICH I VOTED. BECAUSE THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET,
           SEEING OUR HUGE INFLATION CONTINUING, PROJECTED SURPLUSES IN
           THE FUTURE. IT WAS EVEN SO RUINOUSLYLY WRONG. -- IT WAS EVEN SO
           RUINOUSLY WRONG. WE NOW HAVE A DEBT WHICH WILL LEVEL OFF AT

           ABOUT $6 TRILLION WHILE THE DEBT HELD BY THE PUBLIC WILL FALL
           BY $2 TRILLION OR MORE DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE TAX CUT.
           THE OTHER AND IMPORTANT REASON -- AND I WILL CLOSE NOW -- IS
           THAT THE 1997 BUDGET -- BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT LEFT US WITH
           WHAT "THE WASHINGTON POST" THIS MORNING CALLS "AN ACCOUNTING
           ILLUSION THAT WE CAN REDUCE THE REAL -- THE SPENDING ON

           DOMESTIC PROGRAMS BY 20% IN REAL TERMS OVER THE NEXT TEN
           YEARS." THE ILLUSION IS COMING APART ALREADY. JUST THE OTHER
           DAY, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DETERMINED THAT THE MONEY TO
           PAY FOR THE DECENNIAL CENSUS IN THE YEAR 2000 REQUIRED AN
           EMERGENCY APPROPRIATION OUTSIDE THOSE LIMITS. WE'VE HAD THAT
           CENSUS PROVIDED IN THE CONSTITUTION. IT HAS TAKEN PLACE EVERY

           DECADE SINCE 1790. ALL OF A SUDDEN, WE HAVE MADE IT INTO A --
           AN EMERGENCY. THIS MORNING, OUR FORMER MAJORITY LEADER, OUR
           BELOVED COLLEAGUE, ROBERT C. BYRD, HAD AN ARTICLE CALLED "TIME
           FOR TRUTH IN SPENDING." IN WHICH HE SAID, "WE NEED TO JETTISON
           THE POLITICAL RHETORIC RHETORIC. WE NEED TO -- WHAT WE NEED TO

           IMPOSE IS TRUTH IN SPENDING." AND HE SET DOWN A FEW PRINCIPLES.
           HE SAID, "FIRST, WATCH OUR INVESTMENTS CAREFULLY AND MANAGE
           THEM PRUDENTLY. WE SHOULD CONTINUE OUR BEST EFFORTS TO MANAGE
           THE ECONOMY AND WATCH OUT FOR INFLATION. SECOND, DO NOT SPEND
           OUR MONEY BEFORE WE MAKE IT, BEFORE THE SURPLUS IS SPENT
           WHETHER ON TAX CUTS OR CONTINUING IMPORTANT PRIORITY PROGRAMS,
           WAIT FOR THE MONEY TO BE IN THE BANK." WE ARE PROPOSING TO
           SPEND THE SURPLUS, SIR, THAT DOES NOT EXIST. "THIRD, PAY OUR

           DEBTS. THE UNITED STATES SHOULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS
           OPPORTUNITY TO RETIRE THE NATIONAL DEBT. FOURTH, COVER THE
           NECESSITIES. CONGRESS SHOULD NOT CUT -- SHOULD NOT SHORTCHANGE
           THE NATION'S CORE PROGRAMS, SUCH AS EDUCATION, HEALTH CARE,
           VETERANS AND THE LIKE. FIFTH, PUT ASIDE WHAT WE NEED FOR A
           RAINY DAY. CONGRESS SHOULD TAKE STEPS TO REDESERVE THE SOCIAL
           SECURITY AND MEDICARE SURPLUSES EXCLUSIVELY FOR FUTURE COSTS OF
           THOSE PROGRAMS. SIX, DON'T GO ON A SPENDING SPREE. RESIST THE

           TEMPTATION TO CREATE COSTLY NEW GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS PROGRAMS.
           FINALLY, TAKE PROSPERITY IN MEASURED DOSES. CONGRESS SHOULD
           REDUCE TAXES WITHOUT PULLING THE RUG OUT FROM THE PROJECTED
           SURPLUS." I CAN THINK OF NO WISER TALK. AND IN THAT RESPECT AND
           WITH GREAT NOT REGARD BUT WITH GREAT RESPECT FOR THE CHAIRMAN
           OF THE COMMITTEE, I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST, MR. PRESIDENT, THAT

           THE BUDGET RECONCILIATION PROCESS WAS DEVISED TO EXPEDITE
           CONSIDERATION OF DEFICIT REDUCTION MEASURES. THE BILL BEFORE US
           USES THOSE SAME EXPEDITED PROCEDURES TO SECURE ENACTMENT OF A
           DEFICIT DEFICIT-INCREASING MEASURE. SECTION 313-BE OF THE BYRD
           RULE PROVIDES THAT ANY PROVISION IN A RECONCILIATION BILL WHICH
           WOULD DECREASE REVENUES IN YEARS BEYOND THE BUDGET WINDOW -- IN
           THIS CASE, BEYOND THE YEAR 2009 -- MAY BE AUTOMATICALLY

           STRICKEN FROM THE BILL UPON A POINT OF ORDER BEING RAISED. NOW,
           SECTION 1502 OF THE BILL BEFORE US PROVIDES FOR PERMANENT
           CONTINUATION OF TAX CUTS IN THE YEARS BEYOND 2009, CAUSING
           REVENUE LOSSES OF HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. ACCORDINGLY,
           SIR, AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME, I INTEND TO RAISE A BIRD RULE
           POINT OF ORDER AGAINST SECTION 1502 OF THE BILL. I THANK THE
           CHAIR FOR ITS CORDIAL CONSIDERATION OF MY REMARKS. AND I SEE MY

           FRIEND, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BUDGET COMMITTEE, IS ON THE FLOOR.

           I YIELD THE FLOOR. A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
           I WOULD YIELD TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE 20 MINUTES.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO IS
           RECOGNIZED FOR 20 MINUTES.
           

           MR. DOMENICI: MR. PRESIDENT, BEFORE MY FRIEND, SENATOR ROTH,
           LEAVES THE FLOOR, LET ME SAY TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE,
           SENATOR ROTH HAS COME THROUGH AGAIN FOR THE UNITED STATES
           SENATE AND FOR THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY. THIS TAX BILL
           CLEARLY IS ONE THAT RECOGNIZES FAIRNESS, THAT PUTS THE MONEY
           WHERE IT OUGHT TO BE PUT, GIVES BACK TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
           SOME OF THEIR MONEY AND HE DOES IT IN A WAY THAT CLEARLY IS
           PRUDENT AND RESPONSIBLE. AND IT WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT WHEN WE
           ARE FINALLY FINISHED EXPLAINING THIS BILL, FOR THE PRESIDENT OF
           THE UNITED STATES TO VETO THIS BILL. WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT

           THAT A LITTLE BIT LATER IN THE DAY. SINCE HE HAS CHALLENGED US,
           WE WILL TELL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE LOUD AND CLEAR WHAT HE IS
           GOING TO BE DOING WHEN HE VETOES THIS BILL. NOW, MR. PRESIDENT,
           I RISE TODAY TO DISCUSS THE BUDGET BLUEPRINT THAT CONGRESS HAS
           PASSED FOR THE FIRST DECADE OF THE 21ST CENTURY. AND IT
           EMBODIES THREE MAJOR
           
           THEMES: SOCIAL SECURITY, FIRST AND FOREMOST. MUCH WILL BE SAID
           ABOUT IT, BUT NOBODY CAN DENY THAT WITH THIS REFUND TO THE

           AMERICAN TAXPAYERS, WE HAVE LEFT INTACT EVERY SINGLE PENNY OF
           SURPLUS THAT BELONGS TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND. AND WE
           WILL EVEN DEBATE ON THE FLOOR LOCKING IT UP SO IT'S VERY HARD
           TO SPEND. THE BUDGET BEFORE US AND THAT WE ADOPTED DEMANDED
           THAT THAT 100% OF ALL THE FUNDING THAT SOCIAL SECURITY
           RECIPIENTS WILL NEED WILL BE EXCLUSIVELY SET AASIDE FOR THAT
           PURPOSE. SECOND, IT SET ASIDE ENOUGH MONEY TO MEET THE DEMANDS

           OF MEDICARE FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS. MEDICARE IS FULLY FUNDED
           UNDER THE BUDGET ATHAT WAS ADOPT BY THE UNITED STATES -- BUDGET
           THAT WAS ADOPTED BY THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS THIS YEAR. THAT
           MEANS THERE ARE NO CUTS. THE PROGRAM IS FULLY FUNDED FOR THE
           DECADE. AND, AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE PRESIDENT CUT MEDICARE IN
           THE FIRST FIVE YEARS OF HIS BUDGET. WE DID NOT DO THAT. AND
           THEN WE WOULD HAVE A RAINY-DAY FUND TO IMPLEMENT ANY MEDICARE
           REFORM THAT CONGRESS MIGHT ENACT. AND I WILL ALLUDE TO THAT
           SOONMENT -- SOON. AND, THIRD, OF AFTER ALL THE BILLS OF THE

           DECADE HAVE BEEN PAID, AFTER SOCIAL SECURITY RECIPIENTS HAVE
           THEIR MONEY SET ASIDE, AFTER WE FUNDED EVERY PENNY OF
           ANTICIPATED FOR MEDICARE AND HAVE AN AMPLE RAINY-DAY FUND
           AVAILABLE IF WE WANT TO DO SOMETHING ON PRESCRIPTION DRUGS,
           THEN WE WOULD SEND BACK THE EXCESS TO THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS,
           TO THE WORKING FAMILIES AND THOSE IN MIDDLE- AND LOW-INCOME
           BRACKETS WILL GET A VERY SUBSTANTIAL TAX REDUCTION. THE BUDGET
           RESOLUTION RECOGNIZED ECONOMIC CONDITIONS NOW IN PROJECTING THE

           PLANNING -- AND PLANNING TORE THE INEVITABLE RECESSION THAT
           MIGHT OCCUR -- PLANNING FOR THE INEVITABLE RECESSION THAT MIGHT
           OCCUR IN THE FUTURE. IT OUTLINED A DECADE-LONG, PHASED-IN TAX
           CUT. ONLY A VERY SMALL TAX CUT WAS ENVISIONED IN THE FIRST TWO
           YEARS OF THIS BUDGET TIME FRAME BECAUSE ECONOMY IS ALREADY
           OPERATING ABOUT OPTIMUM CAPACITY. AND WE WANT TO KEEP INFLATION
           SUBDUED AND INTEREST RATES LOW. THE BUDGET EXPECTED CONGRESS TO
           PASS A TAX BILL THAT WAS VERY SMALL IN THE FIRST TWO YEARS AND
           GREW AS THE DECADE
{END: 1999/07/28 TIME: 12-45 , Wed.  106TH SENATE, FIRST SESSION}