Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 63 (Wednesday, May 9, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 63 (Wednesday, May 9, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4560-S4581]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002--CONFERENCE
REPORT--Continued

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, so Members on our side of the aisle
understand, I want to say that we are going to go on this evening
because there is kind of a gentleman's agreement that we are going to
use up most of the time tonight; that is, most of the 10 hours allowed,
and set a small amount aside tomorrow just before the vote. I am not
dictating that. I am merely saying under the rules we can stay here
until the 10 hours are used tonight. I hope we don't use all of it. I
don't intend to do so. But if there are Senators who would like to
speak, and for whatever reason they want to talk about one portion of
this budget, they want to talk about defense, they want to talk about
taxes, we have time. I don't have anyone planning at this time to
address the Senate.
I want to make a couple of comments, however, before I move to the
other side to see if Senator Conrad has additional speakers. I want to
talk about a habit we get into, depending upon what we have been saying
and how we have been acting in the past. But, essentially, there were
some comments about what the tax bill would look like and how one part
of this institution--to wit, Republicans--were for the rich. I assume
by that they meant that the other party is for the poor. But, in any
event, I think it would be good for the American people, and those who
are watching the evolution of a tax bill pursuant to this budget
resolution, to know who is going to make the decision about the tax
bill. So give me a moment while I tell everyone who is going to make
that decision.

The makeup of that bill--that $1.25 trillion over 11 years and the
$100 billion that is going to go back to the American taxpayers this
year and next year--is not decided or determined by this budget
resolution. It tells them how much to do. But the Finance Committee of
the Senate decides what are the cuts.
I believe it will serve a purpose to read their names. Then people
can think about them as a group, and then remember that at least 11 of
them have to agree. Frankly, I believe it is a very representative
group. I believe it represents the various philosophical and
ideological attitudes of Senators from both sides of the aisle, and
even subgroups between it as to Senators.
So let me start: The chairman is Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa;
the ranking member is Senator Max Baucus of Montana. Senator Orrin
Hatch is second on the Republican side; and Senator John Rockefeller is
the counterpart on the Democrat side. Senator Frank Murkowski is a
Republican; and Senator Tom Daschle, the minority leader, is a
Democrat. Senator Don Nickles is a Republican; Senator John Breaux is a
Democrat. Senator Phil Gramm is a Republican; Senator Kent Conrad, who
has been speaking here about the budget, is a Democrat; Senator Trent
Lott, a Republican, was also here speaking about the budget; Senator
Bob Graham of Florida; Senator James Jeffords of Vermont; Senator Jeff
Bingaman of New Mexico; Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee; Senator
John Kerry of Massachusetts; Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine; Senator
Robert Torricelli of New Jersey; Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona; Senator
Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas.
All I want everybody to know is they are going to decide what the tax
cuts are. They are going to decide who benefits over the next 11 years
and how we give people back money in an urgent manner this year and
next year.
Frankly, I believe if we were to decide we wanted a well-balanced
committee, that clearly would make its own decisions based upon very
big differences of opinion, that is what you would have. Those would be
the Senators. And more than half--half plus one--must agree on what is
the tax plan.
I am not fearful they are going to bias this result in favor of the
rich against the poor or they are going to bias it in some way that is
not common to the desires of this place we call the Senate. I do not
see how they could and expect it to be adopted.
So after all the words are finished about who is going to be helped
by the tax bill, let me say, no matter what we say in this Senate
Chamber in a budget resolution, no matter what we agree to, no matter
what we are accusatory about, that group of Senators, with a simple
majority required--which means one more than half--will decide what is
the tax bill.
Having said that, I want to speak for a moment and then I will yield
the floor. I will be pleased, once again, before we finish, to wrap up
on what is in this budget and how we got there and how it will be
implemented.
I believe it is a good budget. If one were to look at a previous
budget and determine that we wanted to look at every single item in it,
and analyze it, and take it to the floor and talk about what should
have been done versus what somebody else would do, sure, it is subject
to others looking at it and saying: We would have done it differently.
But I say, whatever the adjectives are that have been used to describe
it, it is an honest budget. It may not be what some want, and it may
not answer questions the way some would want them answered, but it is a
well-intentioned, honest, honorable budget.

I am hopeful that those who helped us get where we are will help us
get the vote tomorrow and let the Congress, with the President, decide
what is going to happen during the next 8 or 9 months.
For those who are concerned about Social Security or Medicare, let me
repeat, on the Medicare side, we have set aside $300 billion that can
be used for Medicare reform and for prescription drugs.
How well did we do? The House had $146 billion. They went to our
number of $300 billion--a pretty good compromise. We won. They gave up.
We have a lot more available if we get a bill.
With reference to farms in America, and the farm program, which
clearly, for some reason or another, requires that we supplement the
money that would come under the existing law every year by way of
emergencies and the like, we have put in a number for the next decade
that uses $5 billion in the first year, $80 billion over a baseline
that would be the law as we have it implemented on the books. The House
even asked that we put in more than we had passed which had received
very broad bipartisan support.
If you look at education--we will prepare, before we close, a
separate chart about it, but I want to repeat, the special ed program
of the United States is going up $1.25 billion year over year. I

[[Page S4561]]

know that is not enough for some, but it is a pretty good sum of money
for others. The rest of the programs in education, those within the
control of the appropriators, surely some that are not real education
will come down, but essentially the rest of education will go up 11
percent.
People can say that isn't enough and there are other programs in
there that should go up, but let me suggest, as I started today, when
might it be right to give the taxpayers back some of this surplus? I
think it is now. I think that is what the vote is going to be about: Do
we want to really seriously give back to the American taxpayers some of
this surplus tax money? And if not now, with a $5.6 trillion surplus,
then when? That is what we are trying to do.
We are very grateful we had bipartisan support, albeit it reduced the
tax number from $1.6 trillion, which the President wanted, to $1.25
trillion, plus $100 billion in stimulus this year and next year, which
would go into the pockets of American working men and women, those who
invest, small businesspeople, and the like.
The President did not get all he wanted. Republicans did not get all
they wanted. We came to the floor with a budget resolution with $1.6
trillion. I just told you what we ended up with.
Let me also say that when it comes to defense, some have continued to
speak about this as if we gave a blank check to the military. I want to
repeat, what should we have done when there was almost bipartisan
concurrence that the President's top-to-bottom review, if it were going
to be credible, should ask us to do some things differently but we did
not know what they were, and we could not have them for 4 or 5 months.
Would we have said, let's wait around and do another budget resolution
for defense? I do not think so. So we said, let's use the President's
number for this year, which is a low number, I acknowledge. Then let us
say, subject to appropriations when the President is finished, we can
put his number in and see what the appropriators want to do but not
more than the number he recommends.
I guess we could have done it differently. There are a number of ways
to do it, but I do not think it is a blank check because I think
Congress has to vote on it, on any additions above his request, which
is a very meager request for this year.
I want to also close by saying that I think, because some Senators
from both sides of the aisle insisted we do something in the field of
health care for the uninsured, we did something.
We have an additional $28 billion over and above the current programs
for the uninsured, thanks to Senator Smith and Senator Wyden, on which
the House had zero. They conceded and said OK. We also have home health
care which one of our Senators championed, Senator Collins, with
support. We put in $13 billion to complete it over the decade with the
increases instead of the cuts currently contemplated. In the conference
they said: We should have give and take. They gave us the whole number
and conceded that we could proceed on that front.
Then there is the bill of Senator Grassley and Senator Kennedy, the
Family Opportunity Act. We went into conference with nothing on that.
We came out with $9 billion on top of the other items for just that
program. The House gave in and gave us the whole thing.
We had some great successes in the direction of championed causes
that came from the Senate to the Senate budget resolution, to
conference, and back to us intact.

agriculture reserve fund

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to thank Senator Domenici for all
his efforts helping to bring about this historic conference agreement
on the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution, H. Con. Res. 83. The
agreement's reserve fund for agriculture, Section 213, provides the
Agriculture Committee with mandatory spending authority totaling $66.15
billion over fiscal year 2003-2011 in addition to the current law
baseline to support the Agriculture Committee's work to formulate a new
multi-year farm bill.
I want to make certain that there is full agreement and understanding
as to how the Budget Committee will interpret the reserve fund for
agriculture on a couple of key points. First, I understand that the
$66.15 billion in new mandatory spending authority over fiscal year
2003-2011 will be available to support reauthorization, modification,
extension, expansion, and innovation concerning any or all titles of
the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. FAIR Act
titles are the Agricultural Market Transition Act, Agricultural Trade,
Conservation, Nutrition Assistance, Agricultural Promotion, Credit,
Rural Development, Research, Extension and Education, and
Miscellaneous. Is my understanding correct?
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, Senator Lugar's understanding is correct. Section
213 is intended to give the Agriculture Committee the flexibility to
use this additional mandatory spending authority in the ways the
Senator mentioned, if it so chooses in reporting a new farm bill.
Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Senator. I also understand that the Joint
Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference which accompanies
this conference agreement suggests that the agriculture reserve fund's
$66.15 billion be divided among two budget functions--$63 billion for
agriculture (budget function 350) and $3.15 billion for natural
resources and environment (budget function 300). It is my understanding
that the conference agreement permits the Agriculture Committee to
spend more or less in each of these functional areas when it reports
out a new farm bill as long as the $66.15 billion total is not exceeded
over the specified time period. Is my understanding correct?
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, the Senator's understanding is correct.
Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Senator for clarifying these key points.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I hope on our side, if anyone wants to
speak, they will let me know. I will be here and try to reserve time.
The Democrats can go with one Senator. Then we go with one. In the
meantime, if there is none, I will tell Senator Conrad he can have as
many Senators as he wants in a row if he wants to line some of them up.
If I don't hear from our side,I may agree in advance with Senator
Conrad.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we have Senator Dorgan ready to go for 20
minutes and then Senator Sarbanes. If we could put those two in at this
point, that would be helpful to moving the process along.
Mr. DOMENICI. Let's agree now so they will know where they are.
Mr. CONRAD. Twenty minutes for Senator Dorgan, and Senator Sarbanes
only requested 10.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I make that request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Senator Dorgan is recognized.
Mr. DORGAN. I thank Senator Conrad.
What I would like to do at the beginning is to ask a few questions
and see if I can get some information from Senator Conrad. It is
interesting to me, we now have this budget agreement on the floor of
the Senate. We have a Senate that is divided 50/50--50 Democrats, 50
Republicans, elected by the American people to come and serve. We have
a Budget Committee, and that Budget Committee worked and produced a
budget. We had a vote on the floor. Then we had a conference between
the Senate and the House.
I ask Senator Conrad whether, as the ranking Democrat on the Budget
Committee of the Senate, he was part of the conference. Was he, along
with the other Democrats, part of the budget conference which produced
this conference report?
Mr. CONRAD. No. What happened was, we had an initial meeting in which
statements were made, the opening statements that are traditionally
done in any conference. Then we were invited not to return. So this is
a budget that has been written wholly by the other side of the aisle.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I further ask the Senator, isn't it the
case that at the start of this year we heard all of this talk about,
``this is a new day, a new approach; we are all going to work together,
have a great deal of bipartisanship; we are not going to do things like
we used to do them''?
Isn't it the case that when you have a 50/50 Senate and you have a
Budget Committee that is 50/50, equal membership on each side, and then
you have a

[[Page S4562]]

conference but only one side is invited to the conference, that that
somehow sounds like the old way, sounds like the partisanship we used
to see? Would the Senator from North Dakota agree with that?
Mr. CONRAD. It certainly is not a new way. It is certainly not what
we were given to believe we were going to see when the President came
to town, saying he was a uniter, not a divider. We have seen precious
little of his moving in any way but insisting that it be his way or no
way.
This budget is certainly an example of that. Not only was there no
involvement of our side or any Member of our side in the budget
conference, there was not even a markup in the Budget Committee--none.
There was not even an attempt to mark up a budget resolution in the
Budget Committee.
Mr. DORGAN. The reason I ask the question is I think most people
would be very surprised by that. They see a Senate that is 50/50, a
Budget Committee that has 50 percent of its membership Democrats, 50
percent Republican. Then you go to a conference, and the Democrats are
told they are not welcome. The American people would be mighty
surprised by that.
Let me ask a couple other questions because this is a very important
area. I want to try to understand it. I heard the chairman of the
Budget Committee talk about this conference report with respect to
defense. He said: This is not a blank check with respect to defense. He
said: What we have done is we have created a circumstance where
whatever number the President would ask us for will be ``subject to
appropriation.'' In other words, we don't have the right number in
here. Whatever it is the President wants, he is going to get, subject
to appropriation.
I ask Senator Conrad, is there any other area of this budget that is
treated quite that way? For example, have they decided that for
education we won't put the right number in, whatever somebody else
wants at some point, subject to appropriation? Is there any other area
that is treated quite that generously?

Mr. CONRAD. No, not to my knowledge. I find it really rather
incredible that we have a circumstance in which one person is going to
be able to decide the defense budget for the United States--one person
in the Senate, one person in the House of Representatives. In the
Senate, the Budget Committee chairman for 1 year will be able to decide
what number goes in, and in the House, the chairman of the Budget
Committee there can decide for 10 years what the defense budget is
going to be. It is fairly breathtaking.
Think about what we read in the textbooks: That we have a
representative democracy, that every State has two Senators and they
have Members of Congress determined by the population of their States.
They come here, they vote, and they decide. But in this circumstance,
with the Republicans in control of the House and in nominal control of
the Senate, because they have the Vice President prepared to break a
tie, they are in complete control. They are in total control. This is
their document.
Mr. DORGAN. Without using all of my time, let me further propound a
question on the subject of debt. I have here the conference report, and
it says the following with respect to (5), under title I, recommended
levels and amounts: (5), public debt, the appropriate levels of public
debt are as follows: Fiscal year 2001, $5.660 trillion; 10 years later,
$6.720 trillion.
It looks to me as if we have gross Federal debt increasing by $1.1
trillion with this conference report. Would that be accurate?
Mr. CONRAD. The Senator would be correct, if he is on page H1958 of
the Congressional Record.
Mr. DORGAN. That is correct.
Mr. CONRAD. Dated May 8, it shows there the public debt increasing
during this period. There has been a lot of talk out here that we are
reducing the debt. That is true of the so-called publicly held debt,
that debt which is held outside of Government coffers, outside of
Government hands. The publicly held debt of the United States as we sit
here today is some $3.4 trillion. By the end of this year, it will be
$3.2 trillion. That is being reduced to the $800 billion referred to by
the chairman.
But the gross debt, the combination of the publicly held debt and the
debt to the trust funds of the United States from the general fund, is
actually growing.
Mr. DORGAN. Further asking a question, that gross debt, the debt that
is owed to the trust funds, the debt that is a debt that represents a
liability by Government agencies, is that real debt or is that just a
number someplace? We hear people saying: We can have very large tax
cuts; that is not a problem; and we are also paying down the debt.
I look at this and I see gross debt is increasing by $1.1 trillion. I
just heard a statement a few minutes ago by a Senator who said: Here is
what we are going to give the taxpayers, referring to tax cuts.
Are we also in this budget going to give the taxpayers $1.1 trillion
in an increase in gross indebtedness in this country during the 10
years?
Mr. CONRAD. I don't know of any other way to read it. This chart I
have shows the two debts that we have.
The debt held by the public is the red line on this chart. The debt
held in Government accounts, debt that is owed to the trust funds, is
the green line. We see the debt held by the public going down, which is
what has been described by the Senator from New Mexico. We see the debt
that is owed to the trust funds going up. And the reason for that is,
what is being done to pay off the publicly held debt is to use the
surpluses from the Social Security trust fund--money that is not used
now. That money is going to pay down publicly held debt--debt that is
held by companies and individuals and other countries that is in U.S.
securities--that debt is being paid down. But it is being paid down by
using trust fund surpluses of the United States and, of course, they
are then owed from the general fund of the United States, the money
that has been borrowed from them to pay down the publicly held debt. So
at the end of this time, the gross debt of the United States--the
combined debt--will actually be more than when we started.
So I think it is a little misleading for people just to talk about
the publicly held debt.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask how much time remains.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 11 minutes remaining.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the answers to the questions
I have raised. They are very important questions. I think it suggests
that there is false advertising involved here. In the commercial
sector, we have the Federal Trade Commission that regulates that kind
of thing, but in politics it cannot be regulated. It seems clear to me
that you have a $1 trillion increase in gross indebtedness.
If anybody comes to the floor of the Senate--and if they would, I
would love to spend time with them, and I will be available--to talk
about indebtedness and whether the liabilities incurred by Federal
agencies and programs that we must meet--whether those are real
liabilities--and I think they are--then we have an increase in gross
indebtedness by $1.1 trillion in the next 10 years. At the same time,
we have people advertising that there is so much money that we need to
create a huge tax cut, the bulk of which will go to the top 1 percent
of the taxpayers, and that is fine because we are paying down the debt
at the same time.
That is fundamentally untrue. Gross debt will increase by over a
trillion dollars. That is the bottom line. Let's talk about that. I
will be here if someone wants to talk about it.
Let me talk about this general budget. Here is a budget written in a
conference by the majority party, telling the minority party: You are
not welcome. See you later. We are going to write this. It is true that
you have 50 percent of the membership on the Budget Committee, but you
are not welcome as part of the conference.
That is the way it was written. The way it was brought to us is kind
of a virtual budget, in the sense that it suggests certain things that
exist that don't exist.
I was thinking about the story about raccoons and something raccoons
do that is quite unusual. They apparently have a tendency--and I
watched this as a kid--when they get their food, to take it to a stream
and begin to wash it meticulously with their hands. They wash it and
wash it. But if raccoons find something to eat and there is no water
around, they still walk away and

[[Page S4563]]

pretend there is water, and they do the same actions with their hands,
pretending they are washing. Somehow it makes them feel they have done
the right thing.

We have kind of a pantomime activity in this budget like the
raccoons, I guess. We believe if we pantomime it, somehow people will
believe it. Let me talk about what this pantomime is about. Education.
We have replaced the Elementary and Secondary Education Act on the
floor of the Senate--that is what we were debating--with this budget
conference report. In the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we
have made commitments as a Senate. We have said we commit ourselves to
education. We, by the way, are going to require accountability. We are
going to insist on accountability, and we have a whole series of things
to do that.
We want better schools and we also say, by the way, we are willing to
authorize funding to pay for those schools--at least to pay for the
improvement of those schools. We know most of the funding for schools
comes from State and local governments and school boards. We know that,
but we provide some important niche funding.
We have said we insist on accountability and we want to improve this
country's schools and we commit ourselves to authorizing the funding to
do it.
Then we bring a budget conference report to the floor of the Senate
and say, no; I know we committed ourselves, but we are not going to pay
for it. We are going to require these things, but we will not pay for
it. Talk about unfunded mandates.
I have been around here year after year when we have had people
standing on the ceiling talking about unfunded mandates, how awful that
is. Well, the fact is, we are, in the underlying bill--the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act--going to make certain representations
about what we expect of schools and what we are going to do to help
them; and then in this budget we say, by the way, we didn't mean that.
That was kind of a virtual argument we made. That is kind of the
raccoon washing without water--a pantomime. We didn't really mean that.
This budget would have been a much better budget had that conference
been able to get the best ideas that everyone had to offer. We work
better, it seems to me, when we take the ideas from all sides and try
to find out what works and what doesn't, who has a good idea and who
doesn't, gather all the ideas, make it a competition of ideas. That is
not what happened. The reason it didn't happen that way is because we
had a mission at the start by the President and majority party--I
should say the majority party, Republican Party, which has 50 votes in
the Senate. They said: We want a $1.6 trillion tax cut, which got
shaved a little bit. We insist on that and we are going to try to make
everything else fit in that format.
Well, it doesn't fit. They know it; we know it; everybody knows it.
In fact, the gross debt is going to go up $1.1 trillion, even as we
shortchange schools and give a blank check to defense. Can you imagine
a city council doing this? Voters would run them out of town. Can you
imagine a family making these choices? It doesn't make any sense. It is
the wrong way to do business. It is the wrong result. It is not giving
anything to the American taxpayers except a future in which we
underfund the most important things that exist in this country's
future--educating our children.
We underfund a range of areas that are very important to this
country, including agriculture, which is critically important to my
State. At the same time, we provide substantial room for a very large
tax cut, at the very time that our economy is softening, and the tax
cut is going to spend surpluses that don't yet exist. It anticipates 10
years of straight surpluses at a time when our economy is beginning to
have significant troubles, when yesterday productivity was down for the
first time in some long while, and we know and everybody should know
that we will not likely have 10 straight years of surpluses. I hope we
do. I wish we would. But we may not.

If we don't, this $1.1 trillion in increased gross debt in the budget
will balloon and grow, and we will find ourselves back in the same
circumstance we were in during the late 1980s and early 1990s, with a
mushrooming budget deficit strangling the economy of this country and
driving up interest rates and causing economic havoc.
We worked long and hard to get back to a point where we had a
balanced budget. That wasn't easy to do. We ought to have a budget that
comes to the floor of this Senate that represents the priorities of a
50/50 Senate and priorities of the American people, and one that
doesn't undercut the opportunity for this economy to grow and expand
and produce new jobs and new economic opportunity.
Now, this budget was not prepared the right way and it didn't come
out with the right answer for this country's future. It is a partisan
document, produced by people who excluded half of the committee from
the room, and then said to us: We are going to be true to the
President's mission by bringing a document to the floor of the Senate
that you didn't help write on the other side of the aisle because we
would not let you. Now we insist that you accept our representations of
what it contains.
We don't accept that. My colleague, Senator Conrad, describes it very
accurately. This issue about added money for education is a mirage,
just a myth. I will give you one example.
We have a huge energy problem in this country and we have folks
cutting research for renewable energy by 40, 50 percent. That is a
small example but an important one. It represents all of the wrong
priorities.
We can do much better than this. I hope we will turn this conference
report down and say, look, we have a Budget Committee that has half
Democrats, half Republicans. Let's get the best ideas that each has to
offer. Politics doesn't have to produce the worst of both. You can get
the best of each, and it seems to me that we could go back and do this
in a week or 2 and come up with an approach that, yes, has a tax cut--I
support a tax cut--but not one that crowds out all other opportunities
for investing in matters of importance to the country; one that makes
the right investments in education; one that says schools for our
children are important and we intend to hold them accountable. But we
also do intend to help them and to meet our promises to those kids. We
need one that says let's fix our energy problem but not cut back on
renewable energy research, for example to contribute to solving our
energy problem.
We have a whole series of opportunities. We ought not to be wringing
our hands and gnashing our teeth and wiping our brow about this. This
represents an opportunity. We live in a time and place that is a
blessing. We have an opportunity to do the right thing. I fear at this
point that if this Senate passes this conference report, it moves this
country in the wrong direction.
Let's do it over and do it right. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Maryland is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, because I know he has a pressing
commitment, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. SARBANES. I yield him 2 minutes out of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maryland.
I voted for the original budget resolution a month or so ago. I did
so because I believe we ought to cut taxes and cut marginal tax rates,
eliminate the marriage penalty, and provide estate tax relief. I would
like to see us increase the child tax credit.
I also voted for a budget resolution that dramatically increased
Federal funding for education. We are in the throes, last week and this
week, of redefining the Federal role in education in this country. Part
of that legislation says to States: We expect you to narrow the
achievement gap for all your students over the next 10 years. We expect
your students to perform at higher marks, making progress along the
achievement path toward being able to read well and doing math well.
If States, school districts, and schools do not measure up, under the
accountability provisions of the education bill on which we are
working, there is real accountability and real

[[Page S4564]]

consequences for those schools that do not measure up, that do not make
progress, and that do not narrow the achievement gap.
Meanwhile, in our Nation's Capital, we fund one out of every three
children for Head Start. We do not provide for the others.
We fund one out of every three kids who are eligible for title I
funding. These are kids who need extra help, especially in reading and
math.
For special ed students, we meet one-third of what we promised to
fund. We are supposed to be providing 40 percent. We do about 13
percent. We are pretty good at thirds.
We had hoped the budget resolution that came back to us would meet
some of those shortcomings. It does not. Regrettably, there is not more
money for Head Start, there is precious little more money for title I,
and there is precious little more money to meet our obligations under
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
I cannot support this conference report on the budget resolution. I
wish I could, but I cannot.
This is what I fear we are going to end up doing. I fear we are going
to end up cutting taxes more than we ought to and, in the end, come
back and say we are spending more money than we can afford. We went
down that path in 1981, and my fear is we are going to go right down
that same path in 2001.
We do not have to do it. The real tragedy is we could have had a
broad bipartisan agreement on a tax cut of a trillion dollars. We could
invest in education, defense, and needed investments in health care,
and we could have had a bipartisan majority do that. My fear is we are,
in the end, shortchanging the States, the schools, and the kids about
whom we say we care so much.
I wish it did not have to be this way. Unless we defeat this budget
resolution tomorrow, it will be.
I, again, thank the Senator from Maryland for yielding me this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in very strong opposition to the
conference report pending before us. Unfortunately, this budget falls
far short of the mark in almost every respect.
We had just a brief meeting of the conference committee in which the
Democrats participated. We were excluded from everything else that took
place. I said then that I thought we were at a crossroads in
considering this budget; that I thought we had a historic opportunity
before us if we made wise decisions, and that I was fearful we were
going to lose that opportunity. This conference report bears out that
fear.
If we pass this misguided budget, I have no doubt that in a few years
we will all be put in mind of the words of John Greenleaf Whittier, who
wrote:

For of all sad words of tongue or pen,
The saddest are these: ``It might have been.''

We are throwing away a magnificent opportunity to develop a sane,
rational fiscal policy for the Nation which will help to deal with a
whole series of problems. We have this unparalleled opportunity to pay
down the Nation's debt, to invest in our Nation's future, and to shore
up vital programs. If we act prudently, we can ensure that the Federal
Government will have the resources in the future to meet our
obligations after the baby boomers retire and beyond. We can do a
reasonable tax cut in response to the problems confronting working
families all across the Nation, and we can do this all in a very
balanced way.
Instead, because of this excessive zeal for a massive tax cut, we
risk knocking our economy off track and sending ourselves back into the
deficit ditch from which we have only recently emerged.
The budget outlined in this conference report would squander our best
chance for investing in America's future, lifting the debt burden off
the next generation, and providing a reasonable tax cut for our working
families.
We are constantly told these revenues are the people's money. Of
course they are the people's money. From where else does it come? But
the debt is the people's debt. The challenge of educating our children
is the people's challenge. Providing Social Security and Medicare for
our seniors is the people's challenge. It all flows from the people.
That sort of bumper-sticker comment does not come to grips with the
real problems. There are other bumper-sticker comments we can make.
Every time they say, ``Well, the tax money is the people's money,'' we
can say, ``The debt is the people's debt,'' and on and on.
One cannot use a bumper-sticker slogan as a substitute for tough
analysis and a real calculation of what serves the Nation's interest.
I commend the ranking member of the Budget Committee, the very
distinguished Senator from North Dakota, for his terrific leadership
through this budget process. I know how frustrating it was. He
continually implored the chairman of the committee to work together to
deal with these difficult problems.
The Budget Committee, the only committee in the Senate that is
uniquely focused on the Federal budget, never held a markup. It never
held a markup. Thus, the committee was prevented from fulfilling its
primary duty of developing a responsible Federal budget. That is what
the committee is there for. It was not allowed to do its job.
The budget resolution was debated for the first time in this Chamber
before we had even seen the President's detailed budget submission.
Of course, others have spoken about how the conference functioned. We
were clearly closed out of the conference. In fact, the chairman, at
the one meeting they had, said there was going to be a meeting over the
weekend. I said: ``Mr. Chairman, I didn't quite catch that; when will
the meeting be and where,'' preparing myself, of course, to attend the
meeting the chairman indicated we were going to have over the weekend.
He was very blunt in his response. He said: ``You all are not going
to be at the meeting. This is not a meeting for you. This is all going
to be done by the Republican side.''
I regret that. I thought the ranking member of the House Budget
Committee, Congressman Spratt of South Carolina, a very able Member,
made a very eloquent statement about how the product of the conference
would be better if it went through a proper conference deliberation. We
at least would have had the opportunity to get the benefit of thinking
on both sides.
That was really brought home when the House last week had to suspend
its consideration of the budget because they left a couple of pages out
of the budget document. So much for handling it all on one side.

Surely if there had been a consultative process, it would have been
pointed out that these pages were missing. But instead, they tried to
rush this through, staying in until a wee hour in the morning trying to
pass this thing, and all of a sudden they discovered two essential
pages were missing out of the budget document.
That led Paul Krugman in the New York Times to write an article which
I enjoyed called ``More Missing Pages.'' I ask unanimous consent this
article be printed in the Record at the end of my comments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit No. 1.)
Mr. SARBANES. There is a subheading called ``The Farce is With Us.''

It was, if you believe the official story, a case of farce
majeure: House Republican leaders had to call off Thursday's
planned vote on the budget resolution because two pages that
were supposed to be in the document were accidentally
omitted. . . .
Whatever really happened, the fundamental cause of the
mishap was that the Republican leadership was trying to pull
a fast one--to rush through a huge tax cut before anyone had
a chance to look at the details.

Krugman, in this column, goes on to talk about, in effect, other
missing pages in the budget document.
Now we have had a little chance to look at the details, and I want to
ask the ranking member, my good friend from North Dakota, a couple of
questions. First, on defense, am I correct in understanding that the
way this document is drawn, there is a blank check for a defense figure
that will be filled in later? Is there a defense number coming later
that will simply be slugged into the budget?
Mr. CONRAD. The Senator is correct. This is a budget with many
missing pieces. Not only do we have missing pages, we have missing
numbers. The defense buildup that the administration will ask for next
week, after we

[[Page S4565]]

finish with the budget, will ask for a massive defense buildup. So they
have created a special reserve fund with a black hole in this budget
that says whatever they decide later--whatever the President
recommends--they can stick into this budget. They will not have a vote
on it. We will sort of have a vote, we will vote now, before we know
what the number is.
Mr. SARBANES. What does this budget do about education? We are voting
on education this week, the President says we will not leave any child
behind, and everyone is making terrific speeches about education and
beating on their chests about education. But to do a lot of these
programs, we need resources. What does the budget do on education?
Mr. CONRAD. It is interesting, it is mostly speeches. All the
speeches that were given, all the votes that were cast when we had the
budget resolution on the floor, all the money added for education, all
of it has been taken out.
We are in the middle of a budget debate on the floor of the Senate,
last week adding $150 billion. Meanwhile, we are passing a budget with
no new money for education. The President said his top priority was
education. The priority is every place but in the budget. There is no
new money for education.
Mr. SARBANES. Defense is a missing piece; education is a missing
piece. And this tax cut will create a problem, as I understand it, with
the alternative minimum tax. I am told that there is no provision in
this budget for alternative minimum tax reform, and that such reform
may cost as much as $300 billion over the 10-year-period; is that
correct?

Mr. CONRAD. Unfortunately, the Senator is correct. In fact, the
alternative minimum tax that affects now 2 million Americans, if the
President's plan is passed, will affect 35 million American taxpayers,
nearly 1 out of every 4. Just to fix the part of the alternative
minimum tax caused by the President's tax bill will cost nearly $300
billion.
Mr. SARBANES. That $300 billion is not allowed for in the budget?
Mr. CONRAD. That is a missing page.
Mr. SARBANES. I am told that, while there is some adjustment for
inflation in this budget, there is no adjustment for a growing
population and the additional stress and strain that places on program
levels; is that correct? There is no adjustment for population growth,
which we know will happen?
Mr. CONRAD. Not only is there no adjustment for population growth, in
truth, there is not a full adjustment for inflation. This was done in
the dark of the night in one of these closed rooms when none of us was
able to be there. They actually took out another chunk of money, nearly
$60 billion, so they don't even have an inflation-adjusted budget.
Mr. SARBANES. Imagine that. It is incredible to come out with a
fiscal program for the country with all these missing pages and
vanished pieces.
This conference report, which provides for this excessive tax cut, is
premised on a projected surplus, two-thirds of which is in the last 5
years of the 10-year-period. And now we discover that there is no money
for education, and the defense figure will rise by who knows how much?
Clearly, it will rise. It will be slugged into this budget. We don't
even provide for inflation, let alone a growing population, and there
is no allowance for the alternative minimum tax fix.
I ask my friend from North Dakota, given all these missing pages,
won't this budget plan eat into the Medicare trust fund and the Social
Security trust fund? I don't see any other way. Once all the pieces are
put into place, are we not going to be eating into the trust funds?
Mr. CONRAD. I think there is no question that is what will happen.
There is no question that is why the budget has been presented the way
it has. They don't want all the numbers put together in one place so we
can add them up because it doesn't add up.
They have been presented with a difficult problem. They have a budget
that does not add up. How do you avoid making that obvious? You avoid
making it obvious by not having all of the elements of the budget in
the budget resolution. That is exactly what we have. It is kind of a
phantom budget. There is the budget we have been presented with, and
then there is the real budget. One of them doesn't add up. That is why
they don't want to present it to the membership.
Mr. SARBANES. It is absolutely irresponsible to be doing the budget
this way. I think we are going to pay the price in the years to come. I
thank my very able colleague for his constant effort to try to get the
Budget Committee to come to grips with these problems.
We have a budget before the Senate based on projections that may
never materialize. They made assumptions about growth and productivity
which have been severely undercut by the report of the productivity
figures in the first quarter, which failed to grow. They are assuming a
growth of 2.2 percent in productivity as we project out, which is a
very unusual growth. Now all of a sudden, we have a first quarter
figure that was negative. Imagine what that will do to the surplus
projections.
We are running the risk, by this excessive tax cut, that we will not
pay down the debt at the rate we could have done. We won't invest in a
number of important programs for the future strength of the country--
education, the environment, health care. All will be undercut. There is
no money here for education because instead, we give an excessive tax
cut. It will knock the economy off track, and we will lose this
magnificent opportunity we had to move forward in a reasonable,
sensible, and constructive way.
I thank the Senator for his leadership. I regret this document before
the Senate. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

[From the New York Times, May 5, 2001]

More Missing Pages

(By Paul Krugman)

It was, if you believe the official story, a case of farce
majeure: House Republican leaders had to call off Thursday's
planned vote on the budget resolution because two pages that
were supposed to be in the document were accidentally
omitted. Strangely, the two missing pages happened to contain
language crucial to the compromise that had persuaded
moderates to agree to the budget. Just as strangely, the
budget resolution contained only a 4 percent increase in
spending--the amount George W. Bush originally wanted, not
the 5 percent he had agreed to.
Whatever really happened, the fundamental cause of the
mishap was that the Republican leadership was trying to pull
a fast one--to rush through a huge tax cut before anyone had
a chance to look at the details. Now the case of the missing
pages has delayed things for a few days. So may I suggest
that Congress--and Senate moderates in particular--check
carefully around that Xerox machine? You see, there seem to
be a few other pages missing from the budget plan.
For starters, we seem to be missing the page that factors
in the likely cost of a missile defense system. (The page
that explains how missile defense will work in the first
place is missing from some other document.) Nobody knows how
much this system will cost, but few think it will come in
under $100 billion.
We also seem to be missing the page that explains how the
conventional defense buildup being planned by Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld--reports suggest an extra $25 billion
per year on weapons systems alone, that is, $250 billion or
more over the next decade--is consistent with a budget that
makes no room for increases in defense spending beyond those
already proposed by the Clinton administration.
Then there's the page about prescription drug coverage
under Medicare--a solemn pledge by Mr. Bush during the
campaign. Everyone in Congress agrees that the $115 billion
allotted by the administration is laughably inadequate, that
a realistic program would cost hundreds of billions more. But
the extra money doesn't seem to be in the budget plan; maybe
the missing page explains the discrepancy.
Somewhere near the page on prescription drug coverage we
might find an explanation of the administration's position on
the Medicare hospital insurance surplus--$400 billion that
both parties have promised to put in a ``lockbox,'' but which
the administration plans to devote to other uses. Presumably
there's a missing page that explains why this isn't a naked
plan to raid Medicare to pay for tax cuts.
Then there's the puzzle of how the administration plans to
maintain government services in the face of a growing
population while increasing spending no faster than
inflation. Either some unspecified drastic cuts are planned
or the spending numbers are at least $400 billion too small.
I'm sure there's a page somewhere that explains what's going
on.
Not all the missing pages involve spending. Everyone
familiar with the issue knows that the Bush tax cut will
cause a crisis involving the Alternative Minimum Tax, causing
the much-hated tax to apply to tens of millions of additional
taxpayers. The inevitable fix will reduce revenue by at least
$300 billion,

[[Page S4566]]

but there doesn't seem to be any allowance for that revenue
loss in the budget. I guess there must be a missing page that
explains why.
Finally, there's the page on Social Security reform.
Because Social Security has been run on a pay-as-you-go
basis, with each generation's taxes financing the previous
generation's retirement, the system has a huge ``implicit
debt''--the money promised to people whose past contributions
were used to support their elders. If Mr. Bush wants to
partially privatize the system, he must pay off some of that
implicit debt; to make his campaign proposal work would
require infusing more than a trillion dollars into the Social
Security system. But that money isn't in his budget plan.
There must be a missing page with some explanation of the
omission.
Oh, and there's one more page missing: the one that
explains why moderates should support a tax cut that, while
slightly smaller than Mr. Bush wanted, is still irresponsibly
large--and why they should put their names to a budget
resolution that is patently, shamelessly dishonest.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the senior Senator from Maryland, one of the most
senior Members of the Senate Budget Committee, who has been a strong
voice for fiscal responsibility on the Budget Committee of the
Senate. He is one of the key reasons that we restored fiscal sanity in
1993 and put us on a program to reduce the deficits, ultimately
eliminate them and start running surpluses.

I thank the Senator from Maryland who was named as a conferee on the
budget because of the respect with which he is held.
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.
Mr. SARBANES. I thought when I was named as a conferee I would have
important work to do as a member of the conference committee on the
budget. As it turned out, there was nothing to do. We went to one
meeting. The chairman told us there was nothing for us to do. He said,
you are dismissed, you can leave now. Don't bother to come around
again.
It was an incredible way to do business--an incredible way not to do
business, to put it more accurately.
Mr. CONRAD. It was a disappointing way to do business. I think the
result has suffered.
I will follow up on the point the Senator made about slower
productivity growth. We saw in the first quarter, instead of 1 percent
increase, it was negative one-tenth of 1 percent. If we were to have 1
percent less productivity growth per year, the projected surplus of
$5.6 trillion would be reduced to $3.2 trillion. That is the hard
reality of how dramatically affected the ultimate results are by very
small changes in the assumptions in these forecasts. That is something
we should all understand.
How much time is the Senator from Illinois seeking?
Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator for 15 minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. The Senator from Illinois wishes 15 minutes. The Senator
from Minnesota?
Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask I follow the Senator from Illinois, just for 10
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for yielding to me.
Mr. President, during the course of this presentation, I would like
to call on the Senator from North Dakota from time to time.
Let me thank the Senator from Maryland for coming to the floor. He
made an eloquent statement to put in perspective the issue on which we
now have to vote. It may be one of the most important votes we will
cast this year.
People say: A budget resolution? What in the world is a budget
resolution? What does it mean to my family or my business?

A budget resolution is basically the blueprint which says this is how
far we can go and no further under the rules of the Senate and the
House, in spending. So once you put that blueprint in place, when the
Appropriations Committee sits down to put the spending bills in place,
they look to this blueprint, this budget resolution, as does the
Finance Committee when it looks to the tax consequences of this same
budget resolution. So we have to pay careful attention to this
blueprint.
I salute the Senator from North Dakota. I tell you, we are fortunate
on this side of the aisle. In fact, the Senate is fortunate to have a
man of his ability and commitment in the midst of this debate.
I have just spoken to my colleague from Minnesota. I will gladly
speak to others and tell them I have been so proud of the job Senator
Conrad has done. He is good at this. He is extremely good at this. I
never want to get on the other side of debate with Senator Conrad when
there is a row of numbers up on a page because I am going to lose. He
understands them. He doesn't just see the numbers on the page, he sees
the policy behind them. He can think beyond the box we are in many
times, to the ultimate impact of some of these decisions.
I would like for a moment to reflect on what we have been doing for
the last week and a half or 2 weeks on the Senate floor. We have been
discussing the issue which the American people identify as their single
highest priority, not just this month or this year, but for all time.
At every level, when it comes to local government, State and Federal
Government, their highest single priority is education--education, our
schools. I often wonder why do we always keep identifying education as
our biggest issue? I think the reason is fairly obvious. Education
really defines this country. Education says we will give you an
opportunity as a young child to walk into a classroom and prove
yourself and improve yourself and then be a better person for it.
We happen to believe--I do not think it is uniquely American, but we
sure believe in this country--if you give kids the right opportunity to
prove and improve themselves, they will succeed. You are looking at
one. My mother was an immigrant to this country. Neither my mother or
father went beyond the eighth grade and I stand here on the floor of
the U.S. Senate. That is because when I brought home a report card, it
was an event in my house. We stopped everything and they pored over the
numbers and the letters. They gave me a frown or a smile.
A lot of families in America know the same experience. So when we
come to the floor of the Senate and debate education, we are debating
something we know personally to be important, and every American family
will identify as their single highest priority. So it is no surprise
Democrats and Republicans come to the floor and want to stand up and
talk about how to improve schools and education.
For the last 2 weeks, that discussion has ranged from accountability
and standards to teacher improvement, the number of kids in a
classroom, the quality of the school, the computers and the technology
available to our children, how long the school day will last, will we
give the kids an adequate lunch, what will we do after school to
improve their lives and keep them safe, what are we going to do during
the summer months, how can we recruit new teachers. This floor has just
been alive with this debate on both sides and both parties believe they
are committed to this.
The interesting thing is that debate for the last 2 weeks has been an
important debate, but it may not be as important as the bill on the
Senate budget resolution on which we are about to vote. Let me tell you
why.
When I served in the U.S. House of Representatives, I served with a
Congressman, still there, from Wausau, WI, by the name of David Obey.
Congressman Obey used to like to take to the House floor and admonish
his colleagues for what he called ``posing for holy pictures.'' In
other words, efforts made by Members of the House--and it applies as
well to the Senate--to be on the side of the angels, to put a halo
above their heads, to say they were for all the right things.
For the last 2 weeks, there has been a lot of debate about education
and a lot of effort to be on the side of the angels, on the side of
American families, when it comes to education.
But mark my words, all of that debate is worth nothing, absolutely
nothing, if tomorrow we vote for this budget resolution because this
budget resolution which was proffered by the Republicans provides no
additional funding for education--none.
You look at it and say, How can this be? President Bush came to
office. He invited Senator Kennedy and Congressman Miller and all the
Democrats. He wrapped his arms around them. He invited them to movies
and lunch and gave them all nicknames and he said: I

[[Page S4567]]

just love education. I can't wait to make it the linchpin of my
Presidency.
He convinced a lot of people in this town and a lot of people across
America that he was genuine. But in this town you have to look beyond
the holy pictures. You have to look at the facts. When you look at the
facts of this budget resolution, you find there is no money there.
All the promises have been made: We are going to test the kids year
after year after year; we are going to hold them to high standards, as
we should; we are going to demand accountability; we are going to want
the very best teachers, the very best technology. Then take a look at
this budget resolution.
I ask the Senator from North Dakota, if I might, if he will answer a
question. I want to make certain it is clear on the record. In the
budget resolution before us, House Concurrent Resolution 83, which
projects spending over the next 11 years, would the Senator from North
Dakota, having analyzed this, tell me what commitment is being made by
the Republican leadership and the Bush administration to new funding
for education to improve the schools and the lives of children across
America?
Mr. CONRAD. There is no increase for education beyond simple
inflation. I think the most honest direct answer that I can give is
that there is no real increase for education, period.
In addition to that, the pool of money from which education spending
comes is actually below inflation. The cuts are going to have to come
from somewhere.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from North Dakota, so there is clarity
on the record: We have been debating for 2 weeks about education on the
floor of the Senate. But it is a debate about authorizations and this
is a debate about a budget resolution.
Will the Senator from North Dakota explain the difference, if we say
we are going to commit hundreds of millions of dollars to education as
part of the elementary and secondary education authorization, will that
money then automatically go to the schools and improve the schools for
our children?
Mr. CONRAD. No. The way it works, authorizations mean nothing without
appropriations. And the money for appropriations is not available
unless it is made available by the budget resolution.
The hard reality here is all of this talk about money for education
is just that, it is talk. We can pass 100 amendments that say we are
going to provide money for education, but if the money is not in the
budget, it does not get allocated to the Appropriations Committee to be
available for actual expenditure. We have a lot of great speeches out
here, but without the money in the budget resolution, they don't mean
much.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. CONRAD. Yes.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I draw the analogy: For 2 weeks now we
have been out on the floor on this education authorization bill. It is
like putting the sides of a box into place. You put the sides of a box
into place like this. You build up your education box. But then you
need a budget resolution because you need the resources to make this
work. You look in the box when the budget resolution comes along after
2 weeks of putting up these sides, and the box is empty. It is empty.
There is nothing in here for education. It is a phony box. People need
to understand that.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator from
Minnesota, because he has followed this education debate. He and I may
disagree to some extent on this. We believe testing is an important
part of education. It has proven itself in the city of Chicago with our
public schools. But if we in fact agree to test students as we have
debated for a long time, and don't provide any resources once we have
identified the problems those kids are running into so they can improve
their reading and math scores, what kind of situation are we going to
be in when we talk about education reform? We will have the standards
and the testing, but with this budget resolution we will not have the
money to provide good teachers, good resources, and good class time to
improve the kids.
Is that how the Senator from Minnesota sees it?
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I thank him for
the question.
This also goes to what the Senator from Maryland says. It is not just
a question of nothing in the box; it is how it affects the lives of
people. I am heartbroken. I don't mean to be melodramatic, but I am
heartbroken about what is going on here because I say to the Senator
from Illinois that it is quite one thing to have our picture taken with
children--we all love to do that; we all love to be in the schools--it
is quite another thing to make a real investment to help improve their
lives.
The Senator is quite right. If all you do is tell every school and
every school district and every State you will have these tests age 3
to 13 every year, and you don't provide the resources, and we don't
live up to our commitment, in fact we provide a pittance--next to
nothing--to give them the tools so the teachers and the schools and,
most important of all, the children, do you want to know something?
This is cruel. It will be cruel and it will be punitive. It will be
downright dishonest. It is symbolic politics, with children's lives, at
its worst.
Mr. DURBIN. The President's motto is ``Leave No Child Behind.'' Only
one out of three kids is currently enrolled in Head Start--that early
learning experience which gives kids a chance to be successful in the
classroom. Only a third of the kids who are struggling in school
because of poverty in their family and circumstances beyond their
control receive any help whatsoever from the Federal Government. What
we are told by the Senator from North Dakota is there are no additional
funds; we will still be stuck at one out of three when this is all
over. I say to the Senator from Minnesota, two out of three kids are
going to be left behind by the Republican budget resolution which we
are going to be asked to vote for tomorrow.

I do not know if the Senator sees it that way. We certainly aren't
getting the resources necessary to making sure no child is left behind.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I can say to the Senator from Illinois
that at least 100 times I have said on the Senate floor you cannot
realize a goal of leaving no child behind if you cut budgets. You
can't.
Again, think about it for a moment. Then I will promise not to take
much time. We are going to start testing these children. Let's have the
best test. Let's make sure it is done the right way so you know how
these children are doing. Take 8-year-olds. You have two, and one of
them has 4 years of schooling--grades 1, 2 and 3, then also
kindergarten. The other child is probably receiving 7 years of early
schooling because he came from a family with a lot more income, and you
can count on the home. There was all the intellectual stimulation, with
reading to them, and where there was really good child care. They came
to kindergarten ready to learn.
If you are going to fund Head Start--not at the 50-percent level--and
Early Head Start, grades 1 and 2, at the 3-percent level, and that is
all, do you know what you are measuring with 1- and 2-year-olds when
you do these tests? It is poverty. You are not measuring anything else.
This is a really critical time. I hope people in the country will
realize that.
I thank the Senator for his question.
This is all about who we are. It is all about priorities and values.
This budget reflects the most distorted and perverted values imaginable
because it is Robin-Hood-in-reverse tax cuts, with over 40 percent of
the benefits going to the top 1 percent, and not the investment in
children and education.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute, 10 seconds.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from North Dakota for 2 additional
minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection. I would like to make sure that
under the current time agreement, when the time agreed upon time has
expired, the next Senator to speak from our side, Senator Inhofe, has
10 minutes.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, I believe I was in
order to follow. To give other Senators time, I have had an opportunity
to speak. So

[[Page S4568]]

if you want to go to the other side after the Senator from Illinois,
that is all right.
Mr. CONRAD. After the Senator from Minnesota, because he has time, we
will give 2 additional minutes to the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. With my 3 minutes remaining, Mr. President, let me say to
my colleagues and those who are following this debate that I want to
give you a political science 101 introductory course on how you can
evaluate what politicians say and what they mean.
Don't pay attention to the words coming out of our mouths because
many times we give speeches that may lead you to conclusions that may
not be factual. Instead, look at what we do. Read the conference report
for H. Con. Res. 83, the budget resolution. Ignore, if you will, some
of the great speeches and some of the posing for holy pictures on the
floor of the Senate and this commitment to education we have heard
about for 2 weeks. Instead, look at the budget resolution we will vote
on tomorrow.

The budget resolution we will vote on tomorrow has no commitment to
improving education in America. The speeches notwithstanding, we have
walked away from that rhetoric. We have not backed it up with reality.
We have not backed it up with facts. We have given our speeches. We
have heard the applause. Many of us have been elected and reelected as
education Senators. Then tomorrow, watch the rollcall on H. Con. Res.
83 and find out how many are voting yes or actually voting against any
increases in funding for education.
Why? Because this White House and this President have a higher
priority than education. What is it? A tax cut for the wealthiest
people in America. President Bush has proposed a tax cut that gives to
people making over $300,000 a year a $46,000 tax break. Imagine. You
have $25,000 a month coming in, and the President says you need a tax
break.
I will tell you who the people are who need a tax break. It is the
folks who are paying for gasoline in the Midwest and heating bills
during the winter and families struggling to put their kids through
school. We need a commitment in this Congress from Democrats and
Republicans to get beyond campaign rhetoric and put money into
education.
This budget resolution does not deserve the vote of those who claim
to be standing for education.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico wants to go
to the Senator from Oklahoma; is that correct?
Mr. DOMENICI. That is correct.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I wonder if I might have 3 minutes after the Senator
from Oklahoma.
Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for 3 minutes now and then 3 minutes for Senator
Wellstone.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to answer the distinguished
Senator from Illinois who just spoke.
We haven't said very much about who is responsible for gasoline
prices. The fact is we don't have enough electricity for America. But
to come down here and talk about it as if this President has anything
to do with it or this budget has anything to do with it is absolutely
wrong.
What happened is the previous President who was in for 8 years--we
don't like to be partisan, but he sure wasn't a Republican--did
absolutely nothing to give America an energy policy. It was a nothing
policy. It finally caught hold and gave us California, giving us higher
prices for gasoline. And we are going to have to fix it--this Congress
and this President--because no one did anything about it during the
last 8 years.

I gather Senator Inhofe is next.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for
yielding.
Let me be the first to say, I am not on the Education Committee. I am
not on the committees dealing with this resolution. But I have been
listening to some of this debate. I feel compelled to at least share
some thoughts that I have as someone who does not serve on all these
committees.
First, I want to respond to the distinguished Senator from Illinois,
who was talking about the tax cuts for the wealthy. I just wish that
President Kennedy were still around so he could hear this debate
because I can remember so well back in the 1960s when we had new
programs. I say to Senator Wellstone, they had decided that they were
going to expand into areas, expand into the Great Society.
I remember the exact quote, just from memory, of President Kennedy.
He said: We have a desperate need for more revenue. We have to have
more revenue to take care of some of the needs that we have. He said:
The best way to increase revenue is to reduce marginal rates. And he
did it. In fact, the tax reduction during the Kennedy administration
was twice the reduction that is being advocated by President Bush right
now. And it worked. At the end of that period of time, the increase
almost doubled over the next 5 years as a result of cutting marginal
rates.
Let's remember some of those rates. They were cutting down the
highest rate from 91 percent down to 70 percent. It did stimulate the
economy. And it did increase the revenues that came from that. But that
is not supposed to be the discussion today. The discussion is supposed
to be on education.
The budget resolution that we are talking about provides a total of
$661 billion in discretionary spending. It provides an additional $6.2
billion above the President's request for nondefense programs. This
$6.2 billion can be used for additional spending on our domestic
priorities. Everyone agrees that education is one of these priorities.
Certainly we have heard the President say this over and over again,
both during the campaign and currently.

At the bare minimum, this resolution will fully fund the President's
request for education, which is an 11.5-percent increase over last
year, the largest of all Federal agencies.
Just so Senators understand the minimum in education spending they
will be voting for if they vote for this resolution, the President's
request will support the highest ever level of funding for the
education of disabled children; a $460 million increase for title I,
including a 78-percent increase in the assistance to low-performing
schools; a $1 billion increase in Pell grants for low-income college
students; $1 billion for new reading programs, a tripling of current
funding; $320 million to ensure accountability with State
assessments; $2.6 billion for quality teachers, a $400 million
increase; a 14-percent increase in Impact Aid; doubling funds for
charters schools; $472 million to encourage school choice and
innovation; a down payment on increasing aid to black and Hispanic-
serving colleges and universities by 30 percent by 2005; $6.3 billion
to serve 916,000 children under Head Start; and under the National
Science Foundation, $200 million for new K-12 math and science
partnerships.

In addition to all of the above, we have up to $6.2 billion for
further increases to high-priority education programs, such as IDEA,
title I, class size, school construction, assessments, and reading--
whatever priorities emerge from the current debate on ESEA
reauthorization.
For example, the conference report has singled out IDEA as a
particular priority, so we say that an additional $250 million should
be added to the President's request of $1 billion for grants to States
to educate disabled children.
I listened to the statements in this Chamber where Senators were
saying: We have cut every penny of money to strengthen these programs.
That is just not true. We are increasing funding. One of the increases,
as I have listed, is a 14-percent increase for impact aid. That happens
to be what my amendment did. In looking at impact aid, I think it is
very important that we realize this is a part of this program.
Back in the 1950s, we established impact aid. This is a program with
which I heartily agree. It said simply that if the Federal Government
comes along with either a military base or Indian lands, something that
the Federal Government has required to be taken off of the tax rolls,
that impact aid should replenish that portion of the money that would
go to education. There is not a Senator who would disagree with that.
However, because we are all kind

[[Page S4569]]

of sneaky, and have been over the years, different politicians have
gone down, since the 1950s, and taken money out of impact aid. So it
dropped down to about a 20-percent funding level. In my State of
Oklahoma, I have five major military installations. We have a lot of
Indian land there. It is something where we should live up to the
obligation that we said we would live up to back in the 1950s and fully
fund impact aid.
I started lasted year, with the help of some Democrats, and virtually
all the Republicans, saying: Let's go ahead and fully fund impact aid
over a period of time. I want to do it over 4 years, but it looks as if
it is going to be closer to 7 years. I had the amendment last year. I
have the amendment this year. It has been very popular.
I have some letters that I pulled out of a long stack of letters
coming from the various States. I know the Senator from North Dakota
has been in this Chamber talking about it. I have a letter from the
superintendent of Garrison Public School district in Garrison, ND,
saying:

Again, thank you for taking on the challenge of putting
Impact Aid on a time line that hopefully will get it to a
point where the federal obligation of full funding is
realized.

That is from Garrison Public School district in North Dakota.
Here is one from the Minot public school system in North Dakota:

The amendment you offered on the Senate floor to the Fiscal
Year 2002 Budget Resolution is appreciated by federally
connected school districts all across the country.

We have another one from Cass School District 63. They are in
Illinois. I know that the Senator from Illinois has been talking about
this. The superintendent writes: Thank you for doing this.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that those three letters be
printed at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. INHOFE. I guess what I am saying is, we have letters from every
State saying this is something that should be done.
This budget resolution stays on line to ultimately fully fund the
impact aid.
I want to share an experience that I am going to abbreviate because I
know we are short on time. I do not have that much time.
I was having a townhall meeting in Frederick, OK. Frederick, OK, is
in the southern part of the State. At the meeting, I noticed on the
sign-in sheet--I know the Senator from North Dakota and Senators from
all the other States have townhall meetings. People sign in so we know
where they are from.
There were two ladies there in Frederick, OK, who were from Texas. I
said: I am glad to have you ladies here. You are certainly welcome to
stay; however, I am a Senator from Oklahoma. I don't have a lot of say
about what goes on in the State of Texas. They said: No, we want to be
here because we want to give a testimonial. These two ladies stood up
and they said: We are Democrats. We are very strong supporters of the
NEA. When Governor Bush came out with some new programs we were
violently opposed to them because they deviated from the programs we
have been used to. The values have been increased. And we decided,
since we were leading the opposition to what Governor Bush was trying
to do in Texas, we would now come up here and say to you, in every
place we can, that we were wrong, because essentially what we have been
doing--and what I hear a lot of these Democrats over here talking
about--is taking a failed system, a system that has not worked, and
just pouring more and more money into it.
The criticism I hear on this budget is that we are trying to pour on
more and more money without making major changes. I think we ought to
have vouchers. We ought to do a lot of things we are not doing. At
least we are trying some things that are new and different. That is
what President Bush was doing when he was Governor Bush in the State of
Texas.
These two ladies, these Democrats came up to make their testimonial
at my public hearing in Frederick, OK. They said: What he has done is
try new things. It is having a huge, positive impact on the quality of
education, on testing in the State of Texas.
We need to try something new and innovative, and we are.
I will share an experience. Some of these things that are new and
innovative really go back and latch on to things that have been
discarded over a period of time. I happen to have four children and
eight grandchildren. Back when my kids were young, I can remember
coming home after I had been out of town. My older son at that time,
Jimmy, who is now in his forties, was 7 years old or something like
that. He came up to me and he had a smile across his face. I said:
Jimmy, you look like something good happened.
He said: Yes, you know, daddy, I am in the fourth grade.
I said: Yes, Jimmy, I know that.
He said: Did you know that in reading and in arithmetic I am in the
fifth grade?
I said: No, how does that work?
He said: Well, it is something that is brand new and innovative. What
they do is, if you excel in one particular area, they move you up a
grade so you can compete with those who are at your level, and you are
not down there competing with someone who is at a lower level. He said:
It is brand new and innovative.
I said: That is really great, Jimmy.
Then I remembered back. I always remember the timeframe of this
because it was during the bombing of Pearl Harbor. I happened to be
going to a country school. It was called Hazel Dell. And in this school
there were eight grades in one room. There was a big potbellied, wood-
burning stove. The school master's name was Harvey Bean, a giant of a
man, I thought. Probably he wasn't all that big after all, if I were to
meet him again today, if he were still alive. But I remember that they
had eight grades in one room.
The first row was for the first grade; second row for the second
grade, on up. So my brother was in the second row. I was in the first
row. My sister was in the eighth row at this country schoolhouse called
Hazel Dell. Every time you missed a spelling word, you would have to go
up in front of the class and Harvey Bean and you would have to bend
over. He had a big wooden paddle and he would swat you.
I tell my colleagues, I was the best speller in the first row. And so
I was moved up to the second row so I could spell with the second
graders, with my brother and some of the rest of them. So that program
that my son called brand new and innovative was alive and well back in
the early 1940s.
I understand in the State of Texas some of these things that they
have tried that deviate from what we are trying to do now is just going
back and getting things that worked in the past. I have to say that
this President is going to do things that are new and innovative. He is
going to try things that haven't been tried before. Our system has not
worked. Our test scores have not gone up. Rather than just pour more
money on a failed system, we need to try these things that worked in
Texas. I think they are going to work in our Nation.
It is high time we try something new and that we get in a position
where we can actually compete now with some of these other industrial
nations.
I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

Garrison Public School,

Garrison, ND, April 23, 2001.
Hon. James M. Inhofe,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Inhofe: On behalf of the Garrison School
District including the students and the community we serve, I
want to thank you for your leadership and support for the
Impact Aid Program. The amendment you offered on the Senate
floor to the Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Resolution is
appreciated by federally connected school districts all
across the country. You have consistently been there for the
Impact Aid Program, but the leadership you have brought to
the Senate floor the past two years has put Impact Aid on the
list of priority education programs among your Senate
colleagues. Although the program does enjoy a broad base of
bi-partisan support in the Senate, because of your role
Impact Aid has been taken to a new level.
All of us working with Impact Aid realize that much work
still remains if the $1.293 billion figure you placed in the
Senate Budget Resolution is to become reality. Please know
you can count on our school district and the community it
serves to do whatever it takes to help make that happen. You
have been there for us and now is the time for the

[[Page S4570]]

Impact Aid community to be there for you. Again, thank you
for taking on the challenge of putting Impact Aid on a
timeline that hopefully will get it to a point where the
federal obligation of full funding is realized. Not since the
late 1960's has the program been fully funded, but due to
your efforts we find ourselves at the threshold of a new era
for Impact Aid.
Sincerely,
Mike Klabo
Superintendent.
____

Minot Public Schools,

Minot, ND, April 27, 2001.
Hon. James M. Inhofe,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Inhofe: On behalf of the Minot Air Force Base
School District, including the students and the community we
serve, I want to thank you for your leadership and support
for the Impact Aid Program. The amendment you offered on the
Senate floor to the Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Resolution is
appreciated by federally connected school districts all
across the country. You have consistently supported the
Impact Aid Program. The leadership during the past two years
has put Impact Aid on the list of priority education programs
among your Senate colleagues. Although the program does enjoy
a broad base of bi-partisan support in the Senate, because of
your role Impact Aid has been taken to a new level.
All of us working with Impact Aid realize that much work
still remains if the $1.293 billion figure you placed in the
Senate Budget Resolution is to become reality. Please know
you can count on our school district and the community it
serves to do whatever it takes to help make that happen. You
have been there for us and now is the time for the Impact Aid
community to be there for you. Again, thank you for taking on
the challenge of putting Impact Aid on a timeline that
hopefully will get it to a point where the federal obligation
of full funding is realized. Not since the late 1960's has
the program been fully funded, but due to your efforts we
find ourselves at the threshold of a new era for Impact Aid.
Sincerely,
Richard Larson,
Superintendent of Schools.
____

Cass School District 63,

Darien, IL, April 25, 2001.
Hon. James M. Inhofe,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Inhofe: On behalf of the Cass #63 School
District including the students and the community we serve, I
want to thank you for your leadership and support for the
Impact Aid Program. The amendment you offered on the Senate
floor to the Fiscal Year 2002 Budget Resolution is
appreciated by federally connected school districts all
across the country. You have consistently been there for the
Impact Aid Program, but the leadership you have brought to
the Senate floor the past two years has put Impact Aid on the
list of priority education programs among your Senate
colleagues. Although the program does enjoy a broad base of
bi-partisan support in the Senate, because of your role
Impact Aid has been taken to a new level.
All of us working with Impact Aid realize that much work
still remains if the $1.293 billion figure you placed in the
Senate Budget Resolution is to become reality. Please know
you can count on our school district and the community it
serves to do whatever it takes to help make that happen. You
have been there for us and now is the time for the Impact Aid
community to be there for you. Again, thank you for taking on
the challenge of putting Impact Aid on a timeline that
hopefully will get it to a point where the federal obligation
of full funding is realized. Not since the late 1960's has
the program been fully funded, but due to your efforts we
find ourselves at the threshold of a new era for Impact Aid.
Sincerely,
Kelley M. Kalinich,
Superintendent.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Let me say to the Senator, I appreciate his comments.
It is good to have somebody who understands the overarching activities
that this budget resolution provides, and his constant concern about
overspending and his concern about the taxpayers has been evident from
the day he arrived. I am very pleased because we need to get this
finished so we can start down the path of finishing the year, working
with a President who is going to try to help us get a tax bill that is
representative of the Senate.
People keep talking about a rich man's bill. Before you arrived, I
read the names of the members of the Finance Committee. I think you
know it has had a lot of changes of late, but clearly they will produce
a tax bill. It is going to be representative of this Senate. It is not
going to be one little faction's bill because of the makeup. So that is
going to be a good thing. That will prove out the contentions in the
Chamber about rich versus poor and what kind of tax cuts we do.
Clearly, it is going to have a marriage penalty. Clearly, it will
have some rate reductions. Clearly, it is going to have childcare
credits. However they do that, they are going to be there for American
families with children. Obviously, there is going to be some estate tax
reform of significance because we have already voted on that.
Mr. INHOFE. If the Senator will yield, particularly in western
Oklahoma, when I have my townhall meetings, these farmers out there,
they work 7 days a week. They are not wealthy people. For 13 townhall
meetings in a row in western Oklahoma, at least one person stood up and
said: Our family farm has been in our family now for three generations.
We won't be able to do it anymore because maybe on paper, maybe on the
IRS evaluation it is worth $1 million but not to us.
Then when all the corporate farms are buying up this land, 25 cents
on the dollar, that is the greatest thing we could do for the farmers.
It is not just in Oklahoma. I am sure it is in New Mexico and North
Dakota, too.
Lastly, I hope you didn't miss the point, it was not a Republican but
a Democrat who observed that the best way to increase revenues is to
have marginal tax reductions. That was President Kennedy.
Mr. DOMENICI. Joined by Dr. Alan Greenspan, saying that is the best
thing for the American economy. I thank the Senator and yield the
floor.
What would the Senator like to do next?
Mr. CONRAD. How much time would the Senator from Iowa like?
Mr. HARKIN. Fifteen minutes, maybe.
Mr. CONRAD. And the Senator from Florida?
Mr. GRAHAM. Fifteen.
Mr. CONRAD. I wonder, could we give 12\1/2\ to both? Would that be
all right? At this point we are starting to run out of time.
Mr. HARKIN. That is fine.
Mr. CONRAD. I yield the Senator from Iowa 12\1/2\ minutes and I yield
the Senator from Florida 12\1/2\. And can we lock that in at this
point?
Mr. DOMENICI. We will do that. If we have no Senators to go on our
side, they can go sequentially, the two of them? That is our unanimous
consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand I have been yielded 12\1/2\
minutes. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for yielding me some
time to speak on this budget.
I guess you could sum up this budget in very few words. It is bad for
what ails us in this country. It is bad for our people. It is bad for
our future. It is bad for our kids, and especially bad for our elderly.
Hubert Humphrey, one of my great political heroes, once said that the
moral test of government is how the government treats those who are in
the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life,
the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life, the sick and the
needy.
Let's be clear: This conference report flunks the moral test of
government. It turns its back on far too many of these Americans. And
to the extent that it implements the Bush tax proposal, it basically
says: If you earn $1 million a year, if you are very secure, we are
going to help you get wealthier. But if you are in the dawn of life and
you are a child, perhaps, who needs some help because you are in the
lower socioeconomic strata of America, if you are poor, sick, elderly,
if you are one of the baby boomers getting ready to go on Medicare,
well, they are telling you, so long, sucker, we will see you later.
That is what this budget to the extent that we stick to the President's
plan, says.
I think stacking the deck even more against those who already have
the deck stacked against them, through no fault of their own, is not
the purpose of government. It is not why I came here, and I don't think
that is what we ought to be about. I hope we will see a strong shift
from this Bush budget.
This budget was fashioned under a plan to make room for huge tax cuts
that to far to large an extent go to the wealthiest. In my saying these
things, you might say that is just rhetoric. I am just saying those
things. I am a Democrat, and the people who put this together are
Republicans, so I am just saying these things.

But let's look at the facts. Don't accept what I say, look at the
facts. This

[[Page S4571]]

Senate, by a majority vote, said that we wanted to cut the Bush tax
proposal by $225 billion and put that into education. That was the
amendment this Senator offered, and it was adopted by the Senate.
Senator Jeffords and Senator Breaux offered an amendment that also put
$70 billion into education over the next 10 years. Well, that adds up
to almost $300 billion--$295 billion--and that was in the Senate-passed
budget. The House of Representatives had only provided $21.3 billion
for education over those next 10 years. That was what President Bush
wanted, $21.3 billion.
Well, now, you would think that, since we passed $225 billion over 10
years and the House passed $21.3 billion, they would compromise
somewhere. Well, they compromised all right--at zero. Not only did they
take out the $225 billion over 10 years under my amendment to zero,
they took out the Jeffords-Breaux amendment of $70 billion down to
zero, and the Bush plan of $21.3 billion.
They say they put it in a contingency fund. Good luck in getting
anything out of that contingency fund. Why do I say that? Because also
last week the Senate passed, on a bipartisan vote, a unanimous vote--a
voice vote, and no one objected to it--we appropriated for the next 10
years about $181 billion to fully fund the Individuals With
Disabilities Education Act, to move towards and meet our obligation of
40 percent of the average per pupil expenditure for IDEA over 10 years.
A welcome sigh of relief echoed from our local school districts and our
State boards of education. Finally, the Federal Government was going to
provide this money for special education. We just did that last week
here in the education bill that is in front of us. But this budget,
with its projected contingency fund, is not going to allow us to meet
our obligations in other areas.
This is kind of a busy chart. But what this chart really points out
is that if we pass this budget as it is presented to us, doing the
things that are talked about, we are going to raid Social Security and
we are going to raid Medicare. The facts are here. If we take the final
conference and look out over the next 10 years to what we are going to
spend on defense--we are not going to cut defense; let's not kid
anybody around here. We are not going to cut defense below this. The
alternative minimum tax is going to be paid by an ever growing number
of people exasperated lowering the top tax rates, creating a pressure
to change the AMT. Look at special education that we passed last week,
which is mandatory. It is mandatory spending. We have to spend this
money if we are to meet a commitment that this Senate has voted without
objection to finally meet. Think about the emergencies that will occur.
We always have to come up with additional money for emergencies. Then
there are the interest payments we have to make.
So when you add all of this up, they gave us a $504 billion surplus
in this budget--they say. OK, it looks like a nice little slush fund we
can use for all these things, but when you add up all of the mandatory
things we are going to be spending over 10 years, it comes to a deficit
of minus $552 billion.
So that means in order to make up this deficit in each of these
years, we are going to have to take money out of Medicare for the first
3 years and then, from year 4 on, both Medicare and Social Security.
Again, this is not rhetoric; the numbers are there.
What the House of Representatives gave us, what they voted on in the
House of Representatives--every Congressman and Congresswoman who voted
for that budget voted to raid Medicare and to raid Social Security over
the next 10 years. Make no mistake about it. That is what they did, and
that is what we have in front of us here.
So if you vote for this budget, you are voting to take money out of
Medicare and you are voting to take money out of Social Security, to
pay for what? The House has already passed a set of tax cuts that
dramatically favor tax break that goes to the wealthiest in our
society.
President Bush is always talking about waitresses and the people
working out there and how they need a tax break, too. Here is a letter
which appeared in the Des Moines Register on May 3. It was written by
Deb Stehr of Lake View, IA. She is a waitress. She wrote this. The
headline is ``Bush's Tax Cut Won't Help This Waitress Mom.'' I ask
unanimous consent that this entire letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Des Moines Register, May 3, 2001]

Bush's Tax Cut Won't Help This Waitress Mom

if he's not going to talk to me, shouldn't he stop talking about me?

(By Deb Stehr)

President Bush has said his tax plan would be great for a
waitress with two kids and income of $26,000.
I'm a waitress, married, with one child still at home and a
family income that's a little lower than $26,000 in most
years.
If Bush visited the cafe where I work in Lake View, I would
tell him that when it comes to my family and folks like us,
he has it all wrong.
The fact is, we wouldn't get anything from his tax cuts.
Instead, they would hurt programs we depend upon and gladly
pay taxes to support, such as Medicare and Medicaid. They
would kill the chances for programs such as prescription-drug
coverage for our parents, which would make all our lives a
little easier.
I'm the kind of person the politicians woo like crazy when
there's an election coming up, and then forget about the rest
of the time. So let me explain a little about my life to help
them remember moms like me.
I am a waitress who has worked in the same local cafe for
13 years, and my husband owns a small auto-body repair shop.
We don't have private health insurance so, like lots of
working families, we have to rely on Medicaid. It has been a
lifeline for one family member.
Our youngest son, Jonathan, was born with severe cerebral
palsy 18 years ago. He receives Medicaid because of his
disability, a program that has covered his extensive health-
care needs over the years. For now, it also covers the
necessary support services that enable us to keep him at
home. Jon, like most young adults, looks forward to finishing
his education, getting a job and living on his own. He will
need Medicaid to help him become independent.
We're part of the ``sandwich generation''--baby boomers who
care for aging parents as well as our kids. For the past
year, my dad has been treated for a rare cancer. Fortunately,
Medicare has paid for what would have been tens of thousands
of dollars of medical bills. Ironically, the largest out-of-
pocket expenses he had to pay were for prescription drugs.
That's my story, and when I hear Bush talk about families
who would benefit from his tax plan, I know he's not talking
about me. He might think he is talking about a waitress mom.
But I know better. We pay payroll taxes, sales taxes and
other taxes. I make more in tips on a bad day than I would
ever get back from his tax cut. I don't think most of the
customers who come to the cafe--mostly working people and
seniors--would make out any better.
I am afraid that we'd lose out because Bush would have to
cut programs that help our families survive. When I read that
he plans to cut $17 billion from Medicaid over 10 years and
``borrow'' from the Medicare surplus, it makes me scared and
angry. What would happen to my son if they cut Medicaid? What
would happen to my dad, and many of the seniors I care about,
if they cut Medicare?
Bush likes to say that the money the government gets from
income taxes is the people's money. Some of the money in the
Medicare surplus came from my payroll taxes and the taxes of
workers in situations similar to mine. I'd just as soon see
that money help people like my dad who worked hard and paid
taxes all their lives.
Worst of all, I'm afraid Bush's tax plan would make the
future less hopeful for working families like mine. This is a
good country, with a big heart and supposedly a helping hand.
Now that we finally have a surplus, we should use some of it
to help seniors buy prescription drugs by adding a
comprehensive, prescription-drug benefit to Medicare. We
should provide health-care coverage for the uninsured and
invest in education for all students. It makes more sense to
help millions of people than to give millionaires a tax cut.
That's what I'd tell Bush if I ever had the chance. Even
though he likes to say his plan would help someone like me,
he's not likely to visit with a waitress in a small town in
northwest Iowa. But if he's not going to talk to me, then
shouldn't he stop talking about me?

Deb said:

President Bush has said his tax plan would be great for a
waitress with two kids and an income of $26,000.
I'm a waitress, married, with one child still at home and a
family income that's a little lower than $26,000 in most
years.
If Bush visited the cafe where I work in Lake View--She
goes on to say later that she has worked there for 13 years,
and she also has a son who was born with severe cerebral
palsy and lives at home. She said:
If Bush visited the cafe where I work in Lake View, I would
tell him that when it comes to my family and folks like us,
he has it all wrong.

[[Page S4572]]

The fact is, we wouldn't get anything from his tax cuts.
Instead, they would hurt programs we depend upon and gladly
pay taxes to support, such as Medicare and Medicaid. They
would kill the chances for programs such as prescription drug
coverage for our parents, which would make all our lives a
little easier.

Deb goes on to say that she has been a waitress for 13 years and her
husband owns a small auto body repair shop. They don't have private
health insurance. They have to rely on Medicaid because their son
Jonathan was born with severe cerebral palsy 18 years ago. He receives
Medicaid because of his disability. Medicaid helps him to be
independent. She has an elder parent who has cancer, and he relies upon
Medicare money.
Well, she said in the end:

That's what I'd tell Bush if I ever had the chance. Even
though he likes to say his plan would help someone like me,
he is not likely to visit with a waitress in a small town in
northwest Iowa. But if he is not going to talk to me, then
shouldn't he stop talking about me?

I think that sums it up, Mr. President. If you want to help the
working people of America who are out in the small towns and
communities, who have their small businesses and are working hard to
keep their families together, this is not the budget you want for their
future. This budget is going to hurt them. This is not the budget you
want to help educate our kids and to make sure they are going to have
the funds necessary for their future growth and development.
If you want to make sure our elderly get the prescription drugs they
need so that their lives are healthier and better, this is not the
budget you want. If you want to make sure that we secure Social
Security for the baby boomers and that we have the ability to make sure
the Social Security System is sound for the next 40 to 50 years, this
is not the budget you want.
This budget has everything in there for people who have everything in
this country. The President likes to say he wants to ``leave no child
behind.'' I think we have to revise that. What he really is saying is
he wants to leave no child in the wealthiest suburbs behind, no child
whose parents have a great income; he doesn't want to leave them
behind. But if you are poor, black, Hispanic, and you are from the
lower socioeconomic strata, if you in elementary school, if you nearing
retirement with an average income, you are left behind with this
budget.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. President, the other thing I want to say is if you are interested
in reducing the national debt, because we also put $250 billion in the
Senate bill through the amendment I proposed to reduce the national
debt so that our kids are not saddled with interest payments every year
of their lives, if you are interested in paying down the national debt,
this is not the budget for you because this budget does not pay down
the national debt.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Florida is recognized for 12\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, a week ago today on May 2, the front page of the
Washington Post had three significant articles about the debate we are
conducting tonight.
The first says, ``Bush Calls for Missile Shield.''
The second says, ``Bush to Unveil Panel on Social Security Change.''
And the third says, ``Tax Cut Compromise Reached.''
What is the relationship of those three articles? The relationship is
that the decisions we are going to be making tonight, tomorrow, and
next week on the tax cut compromise which has been reached will have
significant effects on our ability to finance the missile shield and
the Social Security changes which, on the same front page, the
President has asked our Nation to consider.
Although we do not have a number, we have heard that the Secretary of
Defense may be asking for as much as $250 billion above the amount in
this budget resolution for additional defense expenditures. Whether
that includes the national missile defense is a question mark.
We do not know the exact number, but the projection is, to pay for
the privatization of a portion of Social Security as this Commission
has been charged to develop will cost upwards of a trillion dollars
over the next 10 years in the transition costs.
What these three stories show is the need to set priorities and to
set priorities at the same time so that, just as any family, you would
know how much you were going to spend for every component of the
family's budget as you started the new year, as you began the new
intelligent planning for your family's resources.
I suggest one intelligent step to take tonight is not to take one 10-
year tax cut based on projections of what the Federal Government
surplus will be from this year through the year 2011 but, rather, to
take a step-by-step approach. Yes, passing a significant tax bill--and
I will discuss later what I think its components should be--then
reviewing what the state of the economy is after that tax cut,
evaluating what our projected surpluses would be after that first tax
cut, and deciding whether, when, and for what purpose a second tax cut
would be prudent.
It has been said that we are engaged in a zero-sum game, and we are.
Much attention has been given over the last several weeks to how big a
tax cut Congress should build into the budget. Much less has been given
to the fact that these budget decisions are a zero-sum game. Every
dollar we spend on a tax cut is a dollar we cannot spend for something
else. Every dollar we spend for something else is a dollar we cannot
spend on the tax cut. The greater the tax cut, the fewer dollars are
available for other priorities.
What are some of those priorities? In my opinion, they would be
paying down the $5.5 trillion national debt we have developed over the
last 20 years and have just started the process of reducing so we do
not leave to our children and our grandchildren a credit card bill of
ours to pay; meeting the No. 1 priority, which the President has stated
and which this Congress has reaffirmed, and that is education;
providing prescription drug coverage for older Americans; dealing with
the serious issues of energy security and the contractual
responsibilities we have for Social Security and providing for an
adequate national defense.

In addition to being a zero-sum game, there is also a zero-sum minus
because one of the flaws in this budget resolution that includes using
the Medicare trust fund without a question, and arguably also the
Social Security surplus trust fund as a means of being able to finance
this enormous tax cut.
This violates the fundamental spirit of the agreement that we have
with Medicare taxpayers, with Medicare beneficiaries, and with our
Social Security beneficiaries.
Congress, instead of spending those trust funds or making them
vulnerable to being spent, should use this opportunity to place the
Medicare trust fund in a protected status and to recommit ourselves to
do the same for the Social Security trust fund.
Senator Stabenow and I will be offering legislation, to be introduced
shortly, which will do just that by providing a point of order against
any attempt to use the Medicare trust funds for any purposes other than
for paying current Medicare Part A benefits. So part of this game is
zero-sum minus, minus the proposal of using the Medicare trust fund and
the Social Security trust fund to pay for this.
Another part is zero-sum plus, and that is we are looking at the
world as if it ends in the year 2011. Taking such a narrow focus
prevents us from addressing the longer term budget challenges facing
this country.
I understand that under the Budget Act we look at our Nation's
finances for 10 years, but that does not put us in unneeded handcuffs
to recognize the fact that there are responsibilities just beyond that
horizon.
A very significant event in world history occurred in late March of
this year. My daughter, Suzanne, and her husband, Tom, hosted a sixth
birthday party for their triplet daughters, my triplet granddaughters.
Ansley, Adele, and Kendall Gibson all became 6 years old on the same
day. What is the significance of that for this debate? The significance
is they are all going to become 16 10 years from now. If the Gibson
family looked at the life of their triplets and said, let's just plan
for the next 10 years, it would be a fairly smooth ride because the
expenses from 6 to 16 are not that daunting.

[[Page S4573]]

The problem is that 2 years later, in the year 2013, those triplets
are all going to want to go to college at the same time. Anybody who is
putting one child through college can appreciate what the challenge is
going to be to put through triplets at the same time.
That is almost an exact parallel to what our Nation is facing. We are
on the verge of one of the most significant demographic surges in the
history of America, and it can be seen in this chart.
If we just use as our amount to pay down the national debt the sums
in the Social Security surplus, we are going to go back into deficit in
the year 2017. The reason we are going to go back into deficit is
because we will be 5 years into the baby boomers reaching their
retirement age and starting to draw down Social Security.
Conversely, if we put all of the unified surplus into paying down the
national debt, we will stretch that out to the year 2050 before we will
be back into a deficit position. But we are just looking at this narrow
window into which we are now entering and saying things look great for
the next 10 years, but it is the period just after the 10 years that is
going to be the challenge for Congress and for this Nation.
What are some of the implications of this chart? In the year 2017,
the year we are going to go back into deficit, 52 million Americans
will be receiving Social Security retirement benefits. That is up from
36 million in the year 2000, a 16 million increase in the number of
Social Security retirees in just a 17-year period. Mr. President, that
is 44 percent above current beneficiary levels. In addition, 56 million
Americans will be eligible for Medicare benefits, up from 39 million in
the year 2000.

Those are some of the challenges in the zero-sum-plus game. We have
to add a longer vision to our fiscal telescope than just the 10 years
immediately ahead.
I am also concerned in this approach of one humongous tax bill. We
are not putting first priorities first in our Nation's economic life. I
think the most challenging issue for America today is the fact we are
facing the potential of a further and even more serious economic
decline. There have been mixed economic figures in the past few weeks.
The figures of last week show unemployment has risen to 4.5 percent,
with a whole series of major American companies announcing yet another
round of layoffs. Certainly that sends alarm signals. We ought to be
using our energy and using the people's resources to help buy an
economic insurance policy to do everything we can on the fiscal side of
the American economy as the Federal Reserve Board is doing on the
monetary side in order to give the American people the greatest
confidence that they will not be facing a hard, perhaps a crash
landing.
My suggestion is rather than pass the $1.35 trillion, 10-year ``spend
it all right now'' tax plan, which I think will be seen quickly in
history as being the equivalent of the 1981 tax cut which brought these
enormous deficits and now a $5.5 trillion national debt, we ought to be
patient and proceed step by step.
I suggest the first step ought to be to buy an economic insurance
policy by passing a simple, immediate, broad-based and substantial tax
cut of approximately $60 billion this year and in the next years, which
will go, primarily, to American families in a sufficient amount to
provide a $950 per year, or approximately $35 every other week in the
paycheck, increase in the disposable income of American families so
they will have not only the additional dollars to contribute to
strengthening the demand side of our American economy but also the
psychological reassurance that they are going to be that much better
off on a permanent basis.
That is the kind of tax plan this Senate ought to be considering. The
American people have worked hard for the last few years to get where we
are. In 1992, we had the largest single deficit in any year in the
history of the United States of America, almost $300 billion. Now we
are in the happy circumstance of surplus. We are facing the prospect of
surpluses for the foreseeable future. We have the potential of making
that future stretch all the way to the middle of the 21st century if we
act prudently tonight, tomorrow, and next week. This is not the time to
go back where we have been and where we do not want to go again, a
nation on its economic knees through deficits and excessive debt.
Mr. CONRAD. I yield 12\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from Florida.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allen). The Senator from Florida is
recognized.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the chairman of my committee
has given courageous leadership in trying to sort through all of the
funny money and the distorted figures as we try to make some sense out
of this budget resolution. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for
his leadership.
I strongly support a tax cut that would benefit all Americans fairly,
but I support a tax cut that doesn't sacrifice the fiscal discipline
that enables us to provide tax relief for this year. I support a tax
cut that doesn't abandon our commitment to such critical areas as
Social Security, Medicare, education, national defense, and the
environment. I was among those voting for such a tax cut when we first
debated the budget a few weeks ago. It would have given taxpayers
substantial relief--$900 billion over 10 years--while enabling us to
meet our Nation's most pressing needs.
With the administration demanding $1.6 trillion instead of $900
billion, that sensible proposal of a balanced way of approaching the
budget for all of these different needs that I want to talk about, and
that my colleague, my senior Senator from Florida, has already talked
about, was rejected. Instead, we are now considering a budget
resolution calling for a $1.4 trillion tax cut over 10 years that is
certain to cost far more if it is carried out.
We are about to vote for an illusion, a political head fake, because
this budget before the Senate provides none of the additional money we
approved for educational reform. Every day now we are on the education
bill, S. 1. We have added needed money for lowering classroom size, as
we are about to vote on the amendment from the Senator from Washington.
We have added money to bring title I up, fully funded, over the course
of the next decade. We have put additional money into Head Start, to
get children ready to start school at the kindergarten and first grade
level.
Yet this budget doesn't provide any of that money. This is one of the
most inconsistent, legislative decisionmaking times we have ever seen.
On the one hand, we are considering a budget resolution that strips out
all of the additional money we promised our people last year in the
election that was going to be invested in education while, at the same
time, we are voting on an educational bill that adds all of this
additional investment into education.
There is no money here for the public school improvements we all
agreed were critically needed. This budget conveniently overlooks
anticipated costs for such big ticket items as the President's plans
for overhauling the military and the President's plans for building a
missile defense system. It is based on distant revenue projections that
are uncertain in the best of times and, increasingly, revenue
projections of surplus that are very unlikely in our slowing economy.
My senior Senator from Florida, who is so kind to be here, knows that
I made promises to our people in Florida. I promised to fight any raids
on Medicare and Social Security trust funds. Instead of strengthening
Medicare and Social Security, which we must do, this unconscionable
budget would raid them.
Look at the chart referred to in an earlier speech. With everything
in this present budget at the end of 10 years, there isn't enough left
in the present budget projections, to the tune of $\1/2\ trillion. At
the end of 10 years, where will we get it? We will get it by raiding
the Medicare trust fund, $326 billion over 10 years. I promised I
wasn't going to do that.
We are going to get it by raiding the Social Security trust fund,
$225 billion over 10 years. I promised I would not do that, and I will
not.
And I promised to give all children a chance for a quality education.
And we are stripping out that money for education.
I promised to protect our precious natural resources. There is not
any money for that.

[[Page S4574]]

I promised to strengthen our Nation's military. And there is not any
money for that, either.
I promised to modernize Medicare with a real prescription drug
benefit, and there is no money for that. I promised one of the most
sacred promises to all of the people of Florida who have labored under
budget deficits and who have worried, as they worry about paying off
their mortgages on their homes--I promised to pay down the national
debt with this surplus so our economy can grow and prosper. We are not
doing that with this budget.
No, the budget plan before us would eat up our entire surplus. It
would cripple our ability to do all of those things I promised our
people in Florida. So I am going to vote against it. Because of the
promises I made to our people in Florida, I will continue to fight for
reforms and I will continue to fight for tax cuts in the days and the
weeks ahead. I will continue to fight for those reforms and tax cuts
that will better serve all of our people.
I say to the chairman of our committee, my senior Senator, the
distinguished Senator from the State of Washington, it has been a
privilege to be a part of this process. Thank you for letting me
express some very deeply felt convictions, most of which were discussed
in detail as I had the privilege of visiting all of the back roads and
cities, the rural areas, and the backwaters of Florida as I traversed
the State last year in the campaign. What a high honor it was to be
elected to represent the State of Florida. I came here with those
promises. I intend to keep them.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. If the Senator will yield for just a moment--
Mr. SESSIONS. I will be glad to.
Mr. CONRAD. I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator very much. I
would like to say that Senator Nelson of Florida has been a very
valuable member of the Senate Budget Committee. Nobody has been more
serious about the work of the committee. I think nobody is more
dedicated to fiscal responsibility. His senior colleague as well, who
sits next to me on the Senate Finance Committee--I think on the
questions of fiscal responsibility, they are two of the most sound
thinkers who come before the Senate. I admire the remarks of both
tonight.
I especially want to say to the junior Senator from Florida, Mr.
Nelson, how much I appreciate the effort he has extended to be involved
in the budget process. It has been a great help to me, and I will not
forget the assistance he has provided.
I yield the floor. Again, I thank the Senator for his courtesy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. DOMENICI. How much time did the Senator ask for?
Mr. SESSIONS. I haven't asked but 7 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 10 minutes, if you like. Will you yield me 1
minute of that time--or let me ask consent that the Senator be
permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. And then who is next? Do we have another Senator?
Mr. CONRAD. We are ready on our side with Senator Murray.
Mr. DOMENICI. How long would she like? Why don't we just set it in
place.
Mr. CONRAD. I yield 12\1/2\ minutes for Senator Murray, and then
Senator Corzine on our side, 12\1/2\ minutes as well.
Mr. DOMENICI. We will do that following the Senator from Alabama, and
if any other Republicans want to speak, any way that is fair. Does the
Senator yield me 2 minutes?
Mr. SESSIONS. Yes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, it is just amazing to this Senator. I
don't know where they get the numbers. Somebody is giving them to them.
Somebody is making a lot of assumptions that are not in this budget
resolution.
We do not need a lesson from anyone about whether or not we should
dip into Social Security trust funds for purposes of spending in this
budget. We were the first to put before the Congress of the United
States a lockbox concept. By the time we were finished, everybody took
credit for it--lock in the Social Security trust fund. That is a
lockbox. Before we were finished, President Clinton was for it. He had
not been for it before. We start it; everybody takes credit.
Let me say to the American people, whenever you want to give the
American people a tax cut of sizable proportions--not as big as the
Kennedy tax cut, not as big as the Reagan tax cut--just try to give the
taxpayers some of their money back out of this huge surplus, there is
no end to excuses as to why we cannot do it.
The latest one is: Seniors, you ought to be angry about this tax cut,
even though it is going to your children and grandchildren and to your
friends because, they are saying on that side, we are spending it; we
are spending part of your trust fund money for tax cuts.
Not true. And it should not be a condition precedent to cutting
taxes.
Next, what do they insist on? You can't touch Medicare. We didn't
have to learn that from anyone. We did not, we do not, and wherever
those numbers came from, they are not the numbers in the budget. They
are not what we assume will be spent. They are assuming the alternative
minimum tax will be passed. They are assuming defense will get $370
billion. They are assuming education will get $146 billion more. How
are we responsible when we do not even have that in our budget? We
don't know what is going to happen there. What is in our budget does
not use Medicare, does not use Social Security.
I believe every time we have a significant tax cut going to Americans
so the economy will keep going, that is the best thing for seniors.
Keep an economy that is booming. What do we boom on? Low tax rates.
That is what America's economy expects. So you do that to help over the
long run, and you get excuses that you have not done everything yet
that is necessary.
Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DOMENICI. I am pleased to yield on your time.
Mr. SESSIONS. This tax cut that you proposed and the analysis that
has been made of it, does it have dynamic scoring? Does it provide any
projected boost in the economy by virtue of the tax cut?
Mr. DOMENICI. No, it does not.
Mr. SESSIONS. That is a very conservative posture to take.
Mr. DOMENICI. Also, let me say the economy is not booming as much as
we like, and there is $100 billion in it that was sought after by
Democrats for upfront stimulus between this year and next year. That is
going to go right into the pockets of Americans. It is going to go into
the pockets of the neighbors and nephews and grandchildren of the
seniors whom they are trying to scare in that we cannot keep our faith
with Social Security and give people back some of their money. We can.
We will. And it will not touch Social Security. So don't get worked up
about it, our friends who are seniors. If you want to call our offices,
we will give you the numbers.

Those numbers are invented. Since they use all kinds of invective
here on the floor about our budget resolution, they are invented
numbers. That is not accusing anyone. They just borrowed them from
somewhere. They are not in the budget.
I will be pleased to yield the remainder of my time, except I want to
say we were asked to balance the budget before we would give any tax
relief. We have. It will be. We were asked to reduce the debt. We have.
It will be. It will be reduced dramatically.
The real numbers are $3.2 trillion in debt. It will be down to $0.8
trillion under this budget resolution, a huge reduction in debt. What
are we arguing about? It is as big as you can get. Probably you cannot
do any more.
Go onto everything they ask, that everybody says this budget should
do before we give Americans a tax break. We have done them all. We
tried. They are inventing new ones. Every time we are on the floor,
they are inventing new ones.
I don't kid anybody. This is not a budget that Senator Harkin would
put forward. This is not a budget resolution he would write. I don't
know what he would write, I don't know what he would support. Clearly,
he came and spoke his piece, and that is fine. He didn't vote for it
even when it left the Senate when 15 Democrats did. Nor did most of the
people who are speaking

[[Page S4575]]

against it. They didn't even vote for it when it passed the Senate with
15 Democrats in support of it, with a lower tax number than the
President wanted and that we wanted.
So I want to wrap my arguments up very simply. Everything a budget
could be asked to do before we give any money back to our American
people to grow our economy even better, we have done it all.
Every time we try to do a reasonable tax reduction plan, we find new
conditions and new things we ought to be doing as a Government. What?
Before we can give the American people a tax break? Give us a break.
How many more conditions? There will be more tonight. We have a couple
of hours. There will be more tomorrow morning. We have an hour or so.
There will be more things we should have been doing before we give the
American people a tax break. I guarantee you that is what it will be
about--more things the Government ought to do and less and less about
what people should get. Give back to them some of their money.
I yield the rest of your time. I am sorry I used it. I ask unanimous
consent that he have 10 minutes nonetheless.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and the distinguished
Budget Committee chairman. There is no one who has given more of his
heart and soul to battling for a sound economy in this country and a
sound balance between the individual American citizen and our
Government than the chairman of the Budget Committee.
We are looking at numbers. They are extraordinary. Money is pouring
into our National Government. Even in this time of slowdown,
preliminary numbers I heard recently indicate that we will still have
more money coming into the Government this year than was projected even
last year. All the projections for the last 4 years have been below the
size of the actual surplus.
What are we talking about? We are talking about an unusual period of
time in which the Federal Government is growing at an unprecedented
rate.
It is a fundamental period for us to make a decision. Are we going to
go down the road of the socialistic economic philosophies of European
nations and others in the world, or are we going to maintain the great
American tradition of individual freedom and free enterprise? It is a
fundamental question. There are Members of this body who either have
not thought about that, or have thought about it and won't admit it and
want to see us go in that direction because every time a tax cut is
proposed, they say: No, we can't trust the American people with their
money. We have to take it and spend it on this program, this program,
this program, and this program.
Are there not families in America and senior citizens in America who
need to put a set of tires on their car and need a $75-a-month tax
reduction to help them do that? Are there not people who will benefit
from that? Aren't children going to benefit from the tax credit that
families will have with two children with a $1,000-a-year tax credit?
I don't mean you get $1,000 and have to pay taxes on it. I mean they
get to keep $1,000, if they have two children, for the year. It adds up
to almost $100 a month to help them raise their children, to take care
of us when we retire, educate their children, and raise them in the
proper way.
But the most important thing for us to know is that in 1992 this
Federal Government alone took 17.6 percent of the total gross domestic
product in the form of taxes. Mr. President, 17.6 percent of all the
goods and services produced in this country were sent to Washington,
DC. Since 1992, it has grown every single year. We are now at 20.7
percent of the gross domestic product going to the Federal Government
in Washington.
Is there any wonder why we have a surplus? There is no doubt about
it. The Government is taking a larger percentage of America's wealth.
Are we going to let it go to 22 percent or 25 percent so politicians
can spend it and go out and claim they did great things for you, and
have buildings named for them that they built with your money? I don't
think so. I think this is a defining moment of great historical
importance.
The bipartisan majority, I am confident, will approve this budget of
$1.3 trillion in tax reductions over 10 years, with $100 billion in the
first 2 years for an economic stimulus to help get this economy moving
again, and to help do something about these high energy prices which
are a direct result of a no-growth environmental extreme policy that
did not allow production of energy sources and left us in a shortage
and left us with high prices. We do not need that kind of shortsighted
mentality, in my view.
We are in a position to do something very special. We are in a
position to allow the American people, vis-a-vis their central
government, to have a little bit more money, to be able to keep a
little more of what they earn, and to reverse that trend. Because when
money is taken from an individual, a free American citizen, and is sent
to Washington, Washington is empowered. Washington is enriched.
Washington is strengthened. And the individual American is diminished.
His wealth is diminished; his freedom, his autonomy, his ability to do
as he or she wishes is diminished.

I think we are at a point where we are sending enough here. I don't
believe the people who elected me said, Jeff, go up there and preside
over one of the greatest increases in accumulation of wealth in
Washington, DC, in the history of our country. I don't believe that is
what I was sent here to do.
The 20.7 percent coming to this Government right now as a percentage
of gross domestic product is the highest figure since the height of
World War II. One year in World War II it hit 20.9 percent.
We are drifting into a state-dominated, socialist-type economy, if we
don't watch it. The trends are not healthy. Let's slow that down.
Compared to the Reagan tax cut, this one is small. Compared to the
John F. Kennedy tax cut, this is small. It is not a breathtaking tax
cut. We are looking at it over 10 years. But it is significant. I
believe it will help contain that trend of ever increasing
concentration of wealth in Washington, with more and more Federal
programs--all for the greatest sounding good that seldom produces the
results they set out to do.
I think we are on the right track. I believe we are going to have a
strong vote for this. I think it is the right direction for our country
to go in. I could not be more excited about it.
I have no doubt that we will not cast a more important vote. We will
not deal with a more important governmental issue than trying to
contain this powerful growth in spending and wealth in this Nation's
Capital.
By the way, we are paying down the debt as fast as it can be paid
down without paying penalties on the Treasury bills that are out there.
It is a tremendous reduction of wealth. The estimates are that instead
of paying 14 percent down now to fund our debtload, we will be down to
under 2 percent at the end of this budget projection at the rate we are
going. It is a good trend to be on. Less than 2 percent for debt
service is a healthy trend for us. In a couple more years, we could
have all the debt eliminated. That is a wise economic step for us to
take at that time.
I certainly believe in paying down debt. I certainly believe we ought
to lock up the Social Security surplus and not spend it.
Senator Domenici is correct. Senator Domenici founded the idea of a
lockbox, and fought for it on this floor. I supported him. Senator
Spence Abraham of Michigan supported him. We worked hard on the
lockbox. We didn't get it passed. The Democrats opposed it. The
Democrats opposed that lockbox.
Then, stunningly, we were in a political campaign and the Vice
President said he was all for a lockbox. He should have told some of
his friends in the Senate.
But we are going to do that. We are locking that money up.
I will say one thing. I am not voting for a budget that is going to
spend the Social Security surplus. That debt needs to be paid down. It
should be for that purpose and should not be spent. I will oppose any
spending or any tax program that reduces or spends any of that surplus.
It is not going to happen. It is a commitment on both sides of the
aisle not to allow that to happen. We are not going to allow that to
happen. That would be wrong. We have done

[[Page S4576]]

that too long. It is time to end that. In fact, a good frugal
congressional battle has resulted in better spending ideas and the
containment of spending which has helped produce this surplus.
The budget is pretty good on spending increases. The President wants
us to hold to 4 percent. It looks like the budget is going to have us
at a little over 5 percent. We have to watch ourselves. It is so
tempting to spend. If we can just maintain spending at the rate of
inflation, or only slightly above the rate of inflation, I think we can
do well. But if we go crazy and we spend like we did last year--nearly
an 8-percent budget increase in spending--and do that every year, we
are not going to have any Social Security or tax cut possibilities.
I am excited about what is happening. I think we will have bipartisan
support for this. I know some people just cannot stand the thought of a
tax cut. I think it is a great idea. I think it is time, and we have
the money to do it. We ought to let the American people keep some of
their money, and quit this unprecedented growth in the accumulation of
wealth going to Washington, DC.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I thank the Senator from Alabama.
Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. I ask if Senator Murray will yield to me briefly, so I
can respond to a number of points that have been made.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield?
Mrs. MURRAY. Yes.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Senator from Alabama used some pretty
strong language out here. Socialistic? Please. I do not know of a
single socialist in the Senate or anybody that has any thought of
proposing anything socialistic in this Chamber. That is talk that is a
little beyond the pale.
Let's review what has happened in fact--not the rhetoric, the fact.
This chart I have here demonstrates what has happened to Federal
spending as a share of national income since 1966. Ronald Reagan took
over in 1980. I do not think he was a socialist. But look what happened
to Federal spending as a share of national income under Ronald Reagan
and, effectively, Republican control of both the House and the Senate.
Federal spending as a share of gross domestic product shot up under
President Reagan.
Now look what happened when a Democrat took over in 1992. Federal
spending as share of GDP plunged. We have gone from 22 percent of GDP
going to the Federal Government when Bill Clinton came into office to
last year going down to 18 percent--a dramatic reduction of money
coming to Washington for the Federal Government as a share of national
income. Those are facts. As President Reagan used to say, facts are
stubborn things.
The Senator from Alabama said the Democrats defeated the lockbox. You
bet we defeated the lockbox they proposed because the lockbox they
proposed would have prevented us from honoring our national debt. The
Secretary of the Treasury wrote us and said that would endanger the
ability of the United States to meet its financial obligations. I was
the author on this side of the lockbox legislation that passed, with
the strongest vote in the Senate on a bipartisan basis. That lockbox
passed.
So when they say the Democrats opposed the lockbox, we opposed a
fiscally irresponsible lockbox, and we supported the lockbox that with
bipartisan support passed in the Senate. Facts are stubborn things.
Senator Domenici said, in answer to Senator Nelson, that Senator Nelson
put up a chart that had things that were not in their budget. That is
exactly the point. The defense buildup they are calling for, this
administration is calling for, is not in the budget. The strengthening
of Social Security that this President is calling for are not in the
budget. The additional resources for education this President is
calling for are not in the budget.
That is the problem with this budget: It is not a true accounting of
what is going to happen here. The result is precisely what Senator
Nelson described: We are going to be deep into the Medicare trust fund,
deep into the Social Security trust fund, because what we have here is
not a real budget.
I thank the Senator from Washington for the time.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from
Washington be given an additional 5 minutes because I used her time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time do I have total at this
point?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota used 3\1/2\
minutes. The Senator had 12\1/2\ minutes reserved. So now the Senator
has about 16 or 17 minutes.
Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Presiding Officer. And I thank the Senator
from North Dakota for his tremendous leadership on this issue and for
working with us who serve on the Budget Committee in one of the best
ways I have ever seen, including, in the process, helping us to
understand the true impact of this budget. I really want to let him
know how much I appreciate that.
Mr. President, as my colleagues know, the budget resolution before us
provides the framework for Federal budget priorities for the coming
fiscal year. In fact, this debate and this budget are the most
important things the Senate will do this year. The vote we take will
have a significant impact on our Nation's ability to meet our
challenges and to provide opportunity for America's working families.
But this vote isn't just about what happens to Americans a year from
now. It is about what happens to our country generations from now
because this budget will have a major impact on the projected surplus
and on future budgets.
Over the last 8 years, we learned what a difference a responsible
budget can make. We learned it starts with the basics--such as using
real numbers and not ``betting the farm'' on rosy projections. We
learned that if we invest in the American people and their needs, our
country and our economy will also benefit. We learned we need to be
fiscally responsible. That means making tough choices and holding the
line on deficit spending. And we learned that we have to work together
to get things done.
The last 8 years have shown us that if we follow those lessons--using
real numbers, investing in people, meeting our needs, being fiscally
responsible, and working together--we can turn deficits into surpluses,
and we can transform the American economy into a job-creating machine.
Today, there is a new President in office. There is a new Congress.
And there are new economic challenges as our economy slows and an
energy crisis grows.
Mr. President, the times are different, but the lessons are the same.
This isn't the time to throw away the handbook we have used for the
past 8 years. It is time to follow the lessons it offers.
Unfortunately, the administration and the Republican leadership are
running in the opposite direction. And I fear we are going to repeat
the same mistakes of the past--mistakes that we are just now getting
over. Let me say that again. The Republican budget ignores the lessons
of the last 8 years. Instead of focusing on real numbers and realistic
estimates, the Republican budget puts all its faith in projected
surpluses that may never materialize.
The things we know so far about this budget are disturbing. We know
it is based on surplus estimates that may not come true. We know that
it abandons fiscal responsibility in the name of a tax cut primarily
benefitting a few. We know that it fails to adequately meet the
priorities and needs of the American people and the people of my home
State. We know it fails to invest in our future economic security and
competitiveness. And we know it fails to eliminate the $5.3 trillion in
debt that has accumulated over the past 20 years.
What we already know about this budget is enough to give us pause,
but what we don't yet know about this budget is enough to stop it cold.
We don't know what the surplus or the overall economy will look like a
few years from now. And today there are very real reasons to be
concerned. In my home State, and up and down the West Coast, we are
experiencing an energy crisis. Gasoline prices are skyrocketing,
factories are closing down,

[[Page S4577]]

and energy bills are up significantly. This energy crisis is having a
negative impact on the economy of the country--but this budget
resolution and its projections do not take any of that into account.
This budget resolution is also silent on two major Bush proposals:
developing an unfettered missile defense system and privatizing Social
Security.
Now, what is significant about these announcements is not just that
they represent major departures from past policy, but that they came
with no price tag. So, we have the President proposing to spend huge
sums on these initiatives, but they are not accounted for in the budget
proposal, that he presented, nor in the one being considered by this
Congress.
Why would we as a country pass a budget that we know is based on
shaky projections, that excludes huge bills we know we are going to
have to pay, and that forces cuts in vital services just to fund a tax
cut that is tilted to just a few? Why are we proceeding down the
slippery slope of rosy predictions and fiscal irresponsibility?
Frankly, it is because it is the only way this President can pay for
his tax cut.
Democrats support a fair tax cut. All of us have been working on
that. We want a fair tax cut for middle-class Americans, and we are
fighting for an immediate tax rebate that would put an average of $600
in your family's pocket this year. A tax cut is one of the many things
Americans deserve, but it is not the only thing. We also deserve a
Government that stops corporate polluters, that supports the hiring of
more police officers and good teachers, and that strengthens Medicare
with a real prescription drug benefit. Americans do deserve to get a
tax cut this year. After all, it is our money. But it is also our
national debt, our overcrowded classrooms, our prescription drug costs,
and our drinking water. And we cannot walk away from those
responsibilities.
Finally, this budget does not address the needs of the American
people. I want to talk about some of those.
This budget eliminated the amendment that this Senate passed to
increase our investment in education. This budget falls short of our
targeted debt reduction goals. It fails to give communities the tools
they rely on to prepare for natural disasters and to limit their
damage. In fact, President Bush's budget eliminated a program called
Project Impact, which is a predisaster program that saved lives and
prevented damage during the February 28 earthquake that occurred in my
home State of Washington.
The President's budget also cut the Federal share of a program that
helps communities rebuild after disasters strike. The Senate passed my
amendment to restore those vital programs, but this budget resolution
took them out.
This budget eliminates the successful community-oriented COPS Program
and other law enforcement programs that have helped thousands of
communities achieve some of the lowest crime rates in a generation. The
police on our streets have worked to restore a measure of safety and
security in our communities, and this budget takes away that funding.
This budget also cuts the budget for Eximbank which allows our
Nation's industries to compete with highly subsidized foreign
competitors. This budget also jeopardizes the Federal class size
initiative which has helped school districts hire 40,000 new qualified
teachers so our kids can learn in a safe environment.
This budget cuts rural health care initiatives, including
telemedicine grants that literally provide a lifeline for remote and
underserved areas, and it cuts support to our family farmers who need
it now more than ever. This budget does not invest enough in
environmental restoration and conservation. It cuts research and
development of renewable energy sources and energy conservation
efforts.
This budget does not provide adequate funding for veterans programs
for which the House and the Senate voted. In fact, both Chambers told
the budget conferees to do better than the President's funding level.
The Republicans met behind closed doors and stuck us with the
President's insufficient number. Not only did the conferees refuse to
honor the increases for veterans programs that were approved by both
the House and Senate, but they also discarded an amendment that I
proudly cosponsored about concurrent receipt. The amendment that was
offered by Senator Reid would have allowed our military retirees to
collect both their retirement pay and their disability benefits. Today,
we single out veterans by denying them these benefits.

The Senate passed an amendment that would have corrected that
injustice, but the Republican conferees, behind closed doors, when no
one was looking, dropped that critically important provision. America's
veterans are big losers in this budget.
To me, that is another example of why this process should have been
bipartisan and open from the start. By closing the door on
bipartisanship, the conferees have left America's priorities behind.
Let me mention two more: prescription drugs for seniors and the
Federal Government's obligation to clean up nuclear waste. On
prescription drugs, we all know that the lack of affordable drug
coverage is a problem not just for those with low incomes, all seniors
and the disabled face the escalating costs of prescription drugs and
lack of affordable coverage. This issue did not go away the day after
the election. We know that a prescription drug benefit was estimated to
cost $153 billion; that was originally. Now estimates show that it will
take about twice that amount to provide a real benefit. We know that
seniors need an affordable drug benefit that is part of Medicare. The
Republican budget that we are looking at does not set aside enough
money to provide that budget and that benefit. That is a promise all of
us made in the last several years.
Let me turn to another example. This budget reduces the Federal
Government's responsibility for the cleanup of nuclear materials and
waste. In Washington State, we face a tremendous challenge of cleaning
up the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Hanford cleanup has always been a
nonpartisan issue, and I hope we can keep it that way. There were some
press reports back in February that the Bush budget was going to cut
these important critical cleanup funds. I talked to the White House
budget Director, Mitch Daniels. He assured me there would actually be
an increase in funding for the Hanford cleanup.

The President's proposed budget cut the nuclear cleanup program,
which is assumed, by the way, in this conference report, and that would
make it very difficult to meet the Federal Government's legal
operations in this area. Any retreat from our cleanup commitment will
result in a legal action by the State of Washington. To avoid that and
to meet our legal obligations to clean up the Hanford Nuclear
Reservation, we need an increase of approximately $330 million. The
price of America's victory in World War II and the cold war is buried
in underground storage tanks and in facilities, and we have a
responsibility, both morally and legally, to clean it up. That is not
in the budget we are considering.
As you can see, this budget leaves a lot of American priorities
behind. It takes rosy projections. It leaves out major bills we know
will come due, and it puts a squeeze on hard-working families. We can
do a lot better.
We ought to be working together to come up with a proposal that is
fair and balanced, that meets the needs of the American people.
This administration came to town and promised to restore
bipartisanship and promised to reach across party lines to meet the
challenges of governing. This budget doesn't do that. As a member of
the joint House-Senate conference committee, I can tell my colleagues,
Senator Conrad and I were not invited to that table. We were told our
presence was not necessary. This partisan, back room dealing spells
disaster for the entire budget process. Adoption of this budget
resolution is only the first step in a lengthy budget process. It is
far too early for this bipartisanship to break down now.

I am really disappointed in the decision to ignore many of the
bipartisan amendments that were adopted in the Senate. As a member of
the Senate Appropriations Committee, I fear this kind of partisan tone
will make past budget battles pretty mild.
We have learned a lot about responsible budgeting over the last 8
years. I

[[Page S4578]]

think those lessons are being ignored in this budget resolution. I fear
that it is going to put us on the road to repeating the same costly
mistakes of yesteryear.
I urge my colleagues to reject this budget agreement. I hope we can
sit down and work on a budget agreement that is bipartisan and that
works for the needs of the American people.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for
her contribution tonight and, more importantly, for her contribution on
the Senate Budget Committee. She is one of the most valued Members on
our side of the aisle. I believe she could have made a significant
contribution in the conference committee but, of course, we were
excluded from the conference committee.
Again, I thank Senator Murray for everything she has done as a member
of the Budget Committee.
I believe the Senator from New Mexico wanted to deal with a unanimous
consent request.
Mr. DOMENICI. Would the Senator permit me to talk to Senator Murray
about a mutual problem?
Mr. CONRAD. Certainly.
Mr. DOMENICI. I know we have an area of mutual concern with reference
to defense cleanup that has to do with your State and has to do with
two or three others, not as much with my State as other defense issues.
I told you awhile ago that I was going to do my very best. We are short
a significant amount of money in the President's budget in terms of
cleanup which will have a big effect on Idaho, your State, and South
Carolina. I want you to know, I am still working on that.
Contrary to what some people would think, we can do it under this
budget. We are going to work very hard with you to see that we can.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if I could respond quickly, I thank the
Senator from New Mexico. He has been a champion for our State in
assuring that we have the cleanup dollars that are so drastically
needed. I know he understands the moral obligation we have to clean up
that site. So I thank him for his comments.

Mr. DOMENICI. On behalf of the leader, I have a unanimous consent
request in hand. I ask unanimous consent that all time be used or
yielded back by the close of business this evening with the exception
of the following: 40 minutes under the control of Senator Conrad or his
designee, 30 minutes under the control of Senator Byrd or his designee,
and 40 minutes under the control of Senator Domenici or his designee,
with 15 minutes of that time consumed just prior to the vote.
I further ask consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of
the conference report at 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, tomorrow, the vote
occur on adoption of the conference report following the use or
yielding back of the time as described in this unanimous consent
agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CONRAD. We have no objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, in light of this agreement, there will
be no further votes this evening. I think most Senators will not be
surprised by that announcement. The next vote will occur at 11:30, or
thereabouts, on Thursday, on the adoption of the budget resolution
conference report. It is also my understanding, and the Senators should
note, that the two leaders would have leader time available for their
use prior to the vote. However, we would still expect the vote to occur
at 11:30, or shortly thereafter, if the leaders use their allotted
time.
Mr. President, with that, I inquire, how many more Senators might
speak tonight?
Mr. CONRAD. I am pleased to report that Senator Corzine is next for
12 and a half minutes, and then we have Senator Levin, who has reserved
12 and a half minutes. We are told by his staff he should be on his
way. So then we will be able to wrap up quickly thereafter.
Mr. DOMENICI. Fine. I have no objection to finishing up with two more
Democrats in a row. We have no Senators desiring to speak. They may
speak as part of my 40 minutes tomorrow.
With that, I thank the Senator for his cooperation today and his side
of the aisle for the way they have handled the use of time, and I thank
my side of the aisle for placing so much faith in me that you left it
all up to me. I wish you could have come down and I could have taken a
rest.
I will have substantially more to say tomorrow with reference to
education, and one other item--the $500 billion contingency fund that
remains in the budget to be used for other items beyond this budget.
That will be part of my wrap-up tomorrow.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield 12 and a half minutes to the
Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Corzine. Before he starts that, I say to
my colleague, Senator Domenici, I think we have moved pretty well
today. I thank the Senator very much for his leadership and his
graciousness during the day.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the
conference report on the budget resolution.
Before I make specific comments on the resolution, let me express my
sincere appreciation to the distinguished senator from North Dakota for
his leadership in revealing the hard truth about this budget. He has
done a truly outstanding job of analyzing, clarifying and revealing
this budget proposal for what it is--a overreaching, transparent
defense of a misguided and oversized tax cut.
I know all of us on this side of the aisle are grateful for Senator
Conrad's and his staff, disciplined and intellectually honest efforts.
I am new to the federal budget process. But I find virtually
everything about this resolution, and the so-called process by which it
was developed, utterly mystifying. It appears to have been produced in
a partisan way with no meaningful input from Democrats--and with little
regard for the Senate-passed version of the budget resolution. The
conference report now has been put on the Senate floor with little
opportunity to study the final numbers and language. And it leaves more
questions than it answers.
What we do know, is that its numbers are based on surplus projections
that are little more than guesses based on assumptions with incredibly
real world variability. What we do know, is that the resolution puts no
new money into education, the environment or other priorities. What we
do know, is that the resolution raids the Medicare Trust Fund.
What we do know, it that it does nothing to prepare for the future of
Social Security and the retirement of the baby boomers. And if changes
in productivity and economic growth lead to a reduction in future
revenues, and Congress later, as expected, increases defense spending
substantially, we clearly will be invading the Social Security Trust
Fund--an outcome anathema to senators on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. President, as most of my colleagues know, I used to run a major
investment banking firm. We didn't plan with abstract numbers or set
inflexible budgets that fixed policies for ten years without review.
And I can tell you that if I ever presented a prospectus or budget plan
to my management team or the investing public, and gave them 24 hours
to review and approve it, I'd be opening myself up to an enforcement
action by the SEC. And if I produced prospectus which ignored major
costs or risks that I knew our company would be facing, I could have
faced potential criminal liability.
Unfortunately, that's what's happening here in the United States
Senate as we debate this budget resolution. And it's simply wrong.
We haven't had time to study it. There are a whole bunch of risks
that are ignored, and we are making commitments that go on far too long
relative to the priority mix that I think the country needs to address.
There are so many unanswered and unaddressed issues in this
resolution that it's hard to know where to begin. But I'm profoundly
concerned that it fails to make needed investments in education. In my
view, the people of New Jersey believe that nothing is more important
for the future of our country than investing in our kids, and

[[Page S4579]]

they want a real partnership between the federal, state and local
governments to pay for that investment.
New Jersey's citizens are fed up with property taxes having to bear
the major brunt of the costs of education. They want relief. They
expect the unfunded mandate of special education to be paid for by
those who create the mandates.
Unfortunately, the conferees rejected the Harkin amendment, a
bipartisan effort to increase the Federal government's investment in a
variety of education programs. And the end result is a totally
inadequate commitment to the many educational needs facing our country,
from dilapidating schools to the need to reduce class sizes, to the
need to fully fund IDEA and Title I.
Unfortunately, education is just one of many priorities being ignored
by this conference report. It also does too little to move forward in
protecting our environment, to keep our air and water clean, too little
to provide prescription drug coverage for our seniors, too little to
expand health care coverage for the uninsured, and too little to
strengthen our national defense.
And, incredibly, we are turning our backs on the successful economic
formula of the last few years: paying down the debt, and keeping
interest rates low so that the private sector isn't competing with the
federal government for scarce investment dollars.
All of these priorities have been sacrificed on the alter of huge tax
breaks--tax breaks that, in all likelihood, will be provided
disproportionately to the top one percent of taxpayers in our nation--
the most fortunate--those who have done the best, and who need help the
least.
I support cutting taxes--cutting them for the middle class. But the
proposed mix of tax cuts we are about to debate and the subsequent
limitations on priority investments is flatout irresponsible.

In light of my experience in the private sector, it is hard for me to
comprehend why we would make such enormous long-term commitments based
on 10-year projections that nobody accepts as reliable.
After all, 1 year ago, CBO's then 10-year projection was lower by
$2.4 trillion than this year's. Think about that. One year ago, we were
projecting $2.4 trillion less than what we are now using as the
baseline to make these tax cuts and set our investing priorities.
If last year's projection was so far off, for the life of me, I do
not understand why we can be so certain about this year's, and we want
to set all these variables in place.
I also think it is remarkable that, even as we vote to establish this
budget, many around here already are talking about pushing beyond the
resolution's limits. This conference report says we should have $1.35
trillion of tax cuts over the next 11 years. I believe that is more
than we can afford. Yet many assume that Congress will soon violate
even that limit with a series of additional tax breaks beyond those
anticipated in this resolution, sort of the Lego approach to how we
build things.
Forgive me for asking the obvious, but what is the point of having a
budget if you know you are going to ignore it? I am new around here; I
admit it. I am reluctant to cast aspersions based on only a few months
of Senate service, but the more I see, the more I share Americans' deep
frustration with the political rhetoric that does not match the
discipline that I think they expect us to bring to this budget process.
No legitimate business, no individual, no family would budget this
way. None would completely ignore such huge unfunded liabilities. None
would rely on speculative 10-year projections to lock itself into vast,
permanent commitments. None would adopt a budget knowing that it later
would be ignored. In the real world, it just would not happen. People
would get fired and creditors would just say no.
I hope my colleagues will forgive my frustration with this process
and substance of this budget resolution. Maybe that is the way it works
around here, but I believe this budget is wrong for our Nation and
wrong for our future. I suspect it will pass, but for me I think we are
making a very serious mistake--a serious mistake with regard to
priorities, a serious mistake in locking in on a plan that gives us
very little flexibility down the road.
Simply put, I hope that many of my colleagues will rethink their
views, bring some flexibility to their own thinking and have a truly
bipartisan approach to putting together this budget resolution.
The Senator from North Dakota has done a terrific job of informing
us. I appreciate his help. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Corzine from New Jersey
for his remarks. He brings a special credibility to financial questions
given the fact he was one of the most successful businessmen in America
before he came to this Chamber, and given the fact that he was known
for his brilliant financial analysis. I thank him for commenting on
this process and outlining to colleagues the extraordinary divergence
from how things would be done in the private sector, the really almost
breathtaking decisions that are being made based on a 10-year
projection that the people who made the forecast warn us of its
uncertainty, the people who made the forecast telling us there is only
a 10-percent chance of this number coming true, a 45-percent chance
there will be more money, a 45-percent chance there will be less money,
and we are rushing and betting the farm that it all comes true on a 10-
year forecast.
If that is conservative, I do not understand the meaning of the word.
It is not conservative. I think what is being done here borders on
radical. I do not think there is a company in America that would make
decisions in the way they are being made in this budget.
Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan was recognized to be the
next speaker on our side. Does the Senator from Michigan seek 10
minutes?
Mr. LEVIN. I would appreciate 10 minutes. That will be fine.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the budget resolution before us does not
offer a fiscally responsible budget, and it should be rejected. It uses
most of the projected surplus for tax cuts that not only go mainly to
upper income people but are also based on surplus projections which are
highly speculative.
I want to turn the attention of the Senate to this chart for a
moment. In 1985, we projected a deficit 5 years hence, in 1990, of $167
billion. It turned out the deficit was much worse--by $50 billion. That
was an error rate of 30 percent in this 5-year projection.
Every single year in the last 10 years that we looked at these
projections, the error rates have averaged over 100 percent, with the
smallest error rate being 28.1 percent and the largest error rate being
the most recent one, a 268-percent error rate.
We talk about speculative projections. This is a 5-year projection.
That is how far off these projections have been for the last 10 years
using a 5-year projection. The budget resolution before us has a 10-
year projection. A 100-percent-plus error rate for the last 10 years
and we are betting the economy on that kind of a wildly speculative
projection of surpluses down the road. To base permanent tax cuts on
such projections is simply fiscally irresponsible.
Tax cuts should be based on real surpluses, not on far-off
projections. It would be far preferable to use most of the projected
surplus for debt reduction and a smaller immediate tax cut which would
give our economy a boost. That way, if the surplus projection is wrong,
we will not go back into a deficit ditch out of which we just climbed.
As for tax cuts beyond this year, we should have a smaller tax cut
which helps middle-income and lower income people more and upper income
people less than the Bush tax proposals, and we should also give tax
relief to the 25 million working Americans who pay Federal payroll
taxes but who get no tax cut at all under the Bush proposal.

The budget resolution before us is fiscally irresponsible for other
reasons as well. It is timed to be passed before we receive an expected
request for a huge defense spending increase, which is going to follow
the strategic review due to be completed by the Secretary of Defense in
the next few months. The request for added defense dollars could well
be $250 billion over 10 years. It is going to be in that range,
reliable reports indicate; $250 billion more for defense is likely to
be requested by the administration following the strategic review which
is going to be completed

[[Page S4580]]

within the next few months. It just is simply not sound planning to
rush to a judgment on a tax cut, as this resolution forces us to do,
with its 8-day deadline to the Finance Committee to write a huge Tax
Code when we know, with reasonable certainty, that the administration
will be seeking a huge increase in the defense budget.
Because the projected surplus will have been used for the tax cut,
the defense increase will dig further into Medicare and Social Security
surpluses. I say ``further'' because does anyone here really seriously
doubt that there are going to be tax extenders which are going to be
added to the tax cut? Does anyone doubt that the tax-writing committees
are going to avoid pushing additional millions of people into paying
alternative minimum taxes? Does anyone here really doubt that there is
going to be added interest costs that result from the budget resolution
and its tax cuts?
I think it is clear, almost beyond any doubt, that there are going to
be tax extenders, there are going to be further interest costs as a
result of this budget resolution and its tax cuts, and that we are
going to force millions of Americans to pay alternative minimum taxes.
When all that happens, we have additional huge raids on Medicare and
Social Security. That is before the expected defense increase is
presented to this Congress by the administration.
The budget resolution also violates the pledges to add money for
education. For instance, the Senate version of this budget resolution
included the Harkin amendment and the Breaux-Jeffords amendment. Those
two amendments alone projected $300 billion in added spending for
education. They were summarily dropped in conference.
The budget resolution will result in significant cuts in renewable
energy funding. Funds for energy research will be cut. There will be
cuts in clean water infrastructure. It provides for cuts in clean air
research and investment. All the rhetoric about a prescription drug
program will go up in smoke because other Medicare programs are used in
this resolution to pay for the prescription drug benefit.
The opportunity to keep our economy sound, keep Social Security
sound, to keep Medicare sound, to keep education commitments to our
children, and to keep the commitment of a prescription drug program to
our seniors, to keep our promises of environmental and alternative
energy initiatives--they are all thrown out the window in the frenzy of
this administration to give big tax cuts to upper income people.

This budget resolution represents a terrible application of fiscal
and social responsibility. And it should be defeated.
I thank the Chair. I not only thank the ranking member of the Budget
Committee, but I know that I add my voice to probably every voice on
this floor, even those who may vote for this budget resolution, but
particularly those of us on this side who rely so heavily on the
ranking member for his tenacious determination to simply get to the
facts--just the facts.
The good Member of this body from North Dakota has spent a huge
amount of his time and his life looking at numbers and looking at the
facts. He has given us some unvarnished information which is of immense
value to this body. And as time goes on, I think we will realize the
truthfulness of it, and the honesty of those facts will regard him in
greater esteem, even if that is possible, for the courage that he
brings to this process, and the determination that this body, before it
votes on a budget resolution, understands fully the implications of
what it is voting for and the fundamental underlying numbers which are
either there or hidden and which are an important part of the future
economy of this country.
I want to add my personal thanks to him.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a chart setting forth the
history of the unreliability of budget projections over the 10-year
period I referred to be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

HISTORY OF UNRELIABILITY IN BUDGET PROJECTIONS: FIVE-YEAR PROJECTED V. ACTUAL SURPLUS OR DEFICIT
[Projected in 1985 for 1990, 1986 for 1991, etc.--$ billions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected Actual Difference % error
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990............................................................... -167 -220 -53 31.7
1991............................................................... -109 -269 -160 146.8
1992............................................................... -85 -290 -205 241.2
1993............................................................... -129 -255 -126 97.7
1994............................................................... -130 -203 -73 56.2
1995............................................................... -128 -164 -36 28.1
1996............................................................... -178 -107 71 39.9
1997............................................................... -319 -22 297 93.1
1998............................................................... -180 -29 151 83.9
1999............................................................... -182 124 306 168.1
2000............................................................... -134 236 30 276.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CBO.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair and thank my good friend from North
Dakota for his extraordinary effort.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the senior Senator
from Michigan. Praise from him is high praise indeed. There is nobody
that I respect more in this Chamber than the Senator from Michigan. The
Senator from Michigan is the ranking member on the Armed Services
Committee. He is our leader on defense issues.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise with regret to oppose this
conference report on the budget resolution. I regret this Congress
appears willing to turn its back on 8 years of fiscal responsibility
and prudent stewardship of our Nation's resources.
The favorable surpluses that we enjoy today did not come quickly or
easily. Many of our citizens experienced cuts in their benefits, and
many Members of Congress took some hard votes to get there.
Regrettably, this Congress seems all too willing hurriedly to dissipate
that achievement.
The fiscal responsibility over the last 8 years has allowed the
Government to pay down hundreds of billions of dollars of Federal debt,
and it has allowed interest rates to remain lower than they otherwise
would have been, saving so many Americans billions of dollars on their
mortgages, car loans, and student loans. We should continue to pay down
the debt.
Yes, taxpayers deserve tax relief. The surplus does give us a golden
opportunity to cut taxes. I supported Senator Conrad's proposal to cut
taxes by $745 billion over the next 10 years. With its associated
interest costs, that package would have devoted roughly $900 billion to
tax relief.
The tax cut in this conference report is too large and not
responsible. It seeks to devote $1.35 trillion to this one purpose.
Interest costs could add another $400 billion to the cost. The budget
resolution tax cut is thus almost twice the size of Senator Conrad's
more measured approach.
The budget resolution seeks to commit these resources all in one fell
swoop before the projections of future surplus dollars have proved
real, before we have ensured the long-term solvency of the vital
Medicare system, before we have brought that program up-to-date with
needed prescription drug and long-term-care benefits, and before we
have done a single thing to prepare the vital Social Security safety
net for the impending retirement of the baby boom generation. This
budget resolution addresses the Nation's needs in exactly the wrong
order.
Some on the other side of the aisle have argued that we need to
engage in this rush to cut taxes because if we don't, then Congress
will simply spend the money. I share the concern of many of my
Colleagues that the Government will spend more than it should.
But it appears that this massive tax cut is by no means abating the
Government's appetite for spending. Just last Tuesday, for example, the
Wall Street Journal reported that the Pentagon wants $25 billion more a
year for new weapons alone a whopping 42 percent jump in the Pentagon's
procurement budget. And almost unbelievably, this budget resolution
gives the Pentagon what amounts to a blank check to spend just what it
wants. It contains a special reserve fund that allows for increases in
military spending if the President's National Defense Review just asks
for them.
Some argue that this tax cut will prevent unconstrained government
spending. I am concerned that we will end up with both.
I share the unease expressed by Senator Sarbanes at a Budget
Committee hearing earlier this year, when he said that the powers-that-
be here in Washington appear to be taking the lid off of the punch
bowl. Remembering the party that Washington had with the taxpayers'
money in 1981, I am concerned about the hangover that will follow these
festivities today.

[[Page S4581]]

Recall that back in 1981, they had surplus projections, too. In
President Reagan's first budget, incorporating his major tax cut, the
administration projected a $28 billion surplus in the fifth year, 1986.
In the actual event, the federal government ran up a $221 billion
deficit in 1986. The Reagan budget was thus off by $249 billion in its
fifth year alone. Over the 5 years covered by the Reagan budget, its
projections were off by a total of $921 billion.
Expressed relative to the government's total outlays, the first
Reagan budget's surplus projection for 1986 was off by an amount equal
to fully a quarter of all the government's spending. Expressed as a
share of the gross domestic product, the first Reagan budget's surplus
projection for 1986 was off by 5.6 percent of the economy.
If this budget resolution conference report is off by the same share
of the economy as President Reagan's budget was, it will miss the mark
by $744 billion in the year 2006 alone and $2.9 trillion over 5 years.
As both Senators Conrad and Byrd have ably pointed out, the people
who make the surplus projections, the Congressional Budget Office, say
in their own report that they regularly miss the mark in their
projections. CBO says that over the history of their 5-year
projections, they have been wrong in the fifth year by an average of
more than 3 percent of the gross domestic product. Thus, CBO says right
in their own report that just their average error in the past would
lead you to expect that they will be off by $412 billion in 2006.
We should not commit to massive tax cuts of the size in this
conference report on the strength of these flimsy projections. Rather,
we should enact a moderately-sized tax cut now, and revisit the
possibility of additional tax cuts in a few years if the projected
surpluses actually materialize.
And this budget resolution conference report also puts the Nation's
needs in the wrong order by committing to these massive tax cuts before
we have updated and ensured the long-term solvency of the Medicare
system. In their 2001 annual report, concluded under the Bush
Administration, the Trustees of the Medicare Hospital Insurance trust
fund project that its costs will likely exceed projected revenues
beginning in the year 2016. The Trustees say: ``Over the long range,
the HI Trust Fund fails by a wide margin to meet our test of financial
balance. The sooner reforms are made the smaller and less abrupt they
will have to be in order to achieve solvency through 2075.''
This budget resolution conference report puts the Nation's needs in
the wrong order by putting these massive tax cuts before extending the
solvency of Social Security. Social Security's Trustees remind us again
this year that when the baby-boom generation begins to retire around
2010, ``financial pressure on the Social Security trust funds will rise
rapidly.'' The Trustees project that, as with Medicare, Social Security
revenues will fall short of outlays beginning in 2016. The Trustees
conclude: ``We should be prepared to take action to address the OASDI
financial shortfall in a timely way because, as with Medicare, the
sooner adjustments are made the smaller and less abrupt they will have
to be.''
We know, these are not alarmist projections. These projections were
signed by, among others, Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill,
Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, and Secretary of Health and Human
Services Tommy Thompson. If the right hand of this Government knew what
the left hand was saying about our future commitments, we would not be
acting first to cut taxes and only later taking steps to extend the
lives of Medicare and Social Security.
This budget resolution addresses only one side of the Nation's needs.
It is a lopsided budget. And we can do better.
Let us not neglect our long-term commitments to Medicare and Social
Security. Let us not squander years of efforts to balance the budget in
one great fiscal jubilee.
I urge my Colleagues to reject this conference report. And let us
begin to address the long-term needs of our Nation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada, Mr. Ensign.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I have a number
of items for wrapup. I ask the following consents as in morning
business.

____________________