Tobacco Documents Online

voiced doubts about the president's Social Security plan. Some are saying -- (off mike) -- more -- (off mike) -- to get this done. What happens then if you go to the caucus and you can't -- REP. SPRATT: Well, the way to keep the pressure on for a Social Security solution is to say "none of this gets done until we've done Social Security." So I think that's the right tactic. MORE - EOF Copyright (c) 1999 Federal News Service Received by NewsEDGE/LAN: 2/1/99 4:15 PM

as few surprises as possible. But emergencies are emergencies and they have to be met, and I don't hear any of the senators or any of the people in the Congress saying they shouldn't be. John, do you want to comment on this? REP. SPRATT: Well, as to the initiatives in the president's u ge this year, they're like the initiatives last year. They had un mg items identified last year and most of them didn't pass muster. We couldn't get them through the Congress. So to the extent that we can't fund them with these specific funding devices -- it may be offsetting receipts, it may some kind of tax loophole that the president proposes to close -- to the extent we can't pass them, we'll have to pare back the proposals. That's basically what we did last SENATOR FRANK LAUTENBERG (D-NJ) REP. JOHN SPRATT (D-SC) PRESS CONFERENCE ON PRESIDENT CLINTON'S=1~T 1999 PROPOSAL SENATE RADIO-TV GALLERY 2:30 P.M. (EST) MONDAY, F 1, XB-01-03 page# 2 year. But as you move out in time, next year does not involve the use of any of this surplus. The surplus would not be used until we actually have a plan for committing the 62 percent to Social Security and the 15 percent to Medicare. Then there will be 11 percent of that surplus -- once we've done these things -- that would be available of reallocation within discretionary spending, defense and non-defense. Now, that's the big numbers, several hundred million dollars. Q Some senior Democrats over in the House seem quite upset about the defense spending hikes. In fact, they're having a big event in a couple of days decrying that. How are you going to keep from having some sort of revolt within your own ranks --

REP. SPRATT: Well the precondition is that we settle Social Security, whether it's 62 percent or some other number or some other structure, we'd like to see Social Security come first. There are obviously tax cuts that we support and we'd like to implement. I think Democrats would like to -- certainly we'd like to do something about dependent care tax credits. That's in the president's proposal. There are expiring provisions that we'd certainly vote to extend -- the R&D tax credit. There are other things that various Democrats -- on bills to mitigate the marital penalty, there are proposal to change, rewrite the alternative minimum tax as it applies to individuals because it's going to preclude the child tax credit for some middle-income families. These are all things that we would support in the way of targeted taxes. SENATOR FRANK LAUTENBERG (D-NJ) REP. JOHN SPRATT (D-SC) PRESS CONFERENCE FY 1, 1999 PROPOSAL SENATE RADIO-TV GALLERY 20:30 P M(EST) MONDAY,, EBRUAR XB-01-03 page# 4 And beyond doing Social Security, you've got the 11 percent account set aside for discretionary spending, and you've got the 12 percent set aside for the USA accounts. That's 23 percent. I'm not saying they're up for grabs or negotiable, but that is something outside the two major retirement programs that could be recast for tax relief in a different form. But I strongly support the USA accounts -- and they are tax relief. Maybe the benefit is deferred, but people certainly get the sense of security from having that that they wouldn't have it without this kind of savings device. Q You said that the precondition is -- (inaudible) -- Social Security, but a lot of Republicans and Mr. Greenspan himself have

REP. SPRATT: Well, I don't think there will be a revolt. And I would only ask them to keep their powder dry until they've heard the facts and listened to the case that the Depa ftmen of Defense has to make for readiness, personnel. I think a mos a I emocrats will be voting for the personnel pay package that comes as the first element of that increase. I can't imagine most of those who will be taking part in that protest not voting for it. So I think there will be strong for that. And then when they understand -- if we can explain it, the readiness problem and the other requirements -- I think we can make the case for an increase. The amount would still be in dispute, but I think they'll understand the need for some kind of an increase, particularly if we have operations like Iraq and Bosnia. This costs money, and it has to be met. Q Would they be more likely, however, to go along with a defense increase, which would require some adjustment in the spending caps, if they also got some increases in education, environmental and other programs? And there doesn't seem to be much of a prospect of the latter. SEN. LAUTENBERG: Sure. "They" -- you're talking about the Democrats in the House. I ought to let John Spratt -- I'm on the Senate. Q (Off mike.) SEN. LAUTENBERG: The Senate Democrats are pretty much in line. They know that we're going to try and accomplish the goals of the president's plans. We agree with that -- the education, environment, et cetera. I have some concerns about the increase in defense; and I agree also that when it comes to retention, recruitment, those are the things where I think we need most of the attention. So we'll be

SENATOR FRANK LAUTENBERG (D-NJ) REP. JOHN SPRATT (D-SC) PRESS CONFERENCE ON PRESIDENT CLINTON'S (FY ~2060I IBUDGEI] PROPOSAL SENATE RADIO-TV GALLERY 2:30 P.M. (EST) MONDAY, FEgI~UARY 1, 'f939 XB-01-03 page# 3 discussing that. But we could -- look, it'd be easy to find ways to spend more money. The hard part is finding the money. And we are determined to stick with the caps. Q I know you don't want to focus too much on the impeachment trial, but I do have one question, and that is I've heard various numbers floated as to how many Democratic senators might support a fact-finding measure. I hear that -- I've heard numbers as high as 10 senators. What do you do -- what's your sense of those numbers is, and what think of -- (inaudible.) SEN. LAUTENBERG: We don't talk about those things in u ge_. (Laughs.) It's a forbidden subject. I don't know. There are some of our members talking about it now who didn't before. I don't want to declare my position here, but it's different than those. Okay. (Laughter.) Q Politically, do you think it will be possible for Democrats to resist the kind of broad-based tax rate cuts the Republicans favor once the u ge starts racking up -- (inaudible) -- SEN. LAUTENBERG: I think if the message is clearly delivered, and people understand what we've got -- certainly it's a legitimate question. There is interest. But I think that when you look at the tax-cut package that we have -- pardon me -- as I enumerated them before -- the USA accounts, the child-care accounts, the elderly/disabled -- I think that we will be able to persuade enough that we don't divide our own caucus. And I think that the battle lines are fairly clearly drawn. We're making sure that the Democrats in the Senate are fully informed about what the programs entail. We'll have presentations by OMB, and this is not without some marketing requirement, obviously.

SENATOR FRANK LAUTENBERG (D-NJ) REP. JOHN SPRATT (D-SC) PRESS CONFERENCE ON P.NI (EST) MON OY,,FEBl~l7~A1~~1g9g PROPOSAL SENATE RADIO-TV GALLERY XB-01-03 page# 1 dest=usag, o acc ,taxes,omb,medcr,hlthcr,iraq,mideast,fln,envrmt,epa dest+=educ, o , osherc,yugo,islam,swh,wh,fedres data ) Q Do you think the _ulc get~ -- SEN. LAUTENBERG: Do you? Q -- (inaudible) -- the '97 agreement will have to be rewritten to accommodate the president's initiatives? SEN. LAUTENBERG: I don't think so. I believe that there will be -- we'll be able to protect the caps with whatever adjustments there are year to year and be able to finance what we have to do. The president -- (laughs) -- knows very well that if those~ bue1 caps go, then many other problems will creep into this, and pa i icuTarly the tax cut. Yes. Q Senator Lautenberg, the funding of the president's u ge does exceed the statutory caps and is offset in part by things i e revenues from the obacco tax, which the Republican majority has made very clear they're no m erested in. So, if there is no t~obacc tax, how would the president's u ge to make up for the shorifall? SEN. LAUTENBERG: Well, as we've seen, they expect to be able to raise the revenues necessary. And I think that we can get a o acc bill. We're looking at the possibility, not spending it, of rough y $8 billion a year over a five-year period. And once again, the White House knows very well that they're going to have to pay for things. One of the things that we're going to be discussing is for instance definitions of emergency spending to make sure that there are