[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.

                          ____________________