[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 66 (Tuesday, May 6, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5744-S5747]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               THE BUDGET

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I come to the Chamber today to talk about 
the budget circumstance in which we find ourselves, the President's 
proposal for additional tax cuts and, more largely, why I believe we 
are on a course that is utterly disconnected from reality.
  First, let me say the news media reports of the tax cut debate are 
among the worst I have ever seen. I believe the American people 
listening to news reports would believe that we are debating a tax cut 
of either $350 billion or $550 billion and that the President proposed 
a tax cut of $726 billion. That is what you read about; that is what 
you hear about; that is what is broadcast. But it is wrong. It is not 
even close to being right.
  The President proposed a tax cut of $1.6 trillion. This at a time 
when we are running record budget deficits. Let me make this clear. The 
deficit this year is going to be between $500 and $600 billion on a 
budget of $2.2 trillion. That is a massive deficit, a record. We have 
never had a unified deficit above $290 billion. Yet in that context, 
the President proposes large and exploding tax cuts that will dig the 
hole deeper and deeper. And the press reports that he has proposed $700 
billion in tax cuts. How can this be?
  It is very simple. In the budget that was passed, there are two pots 
of money for tax cuts: the so-called reconciled tax cuts, the ones 
given special protection from the normal legislative process; and the 
unreconciled tax cuts, those that have to move in the regular order. If 
you put the two pots together, here is what passed the Senate and the 
House: $1.3 trillion of tax cuts.
  What passed the House was $550 billion of so-called reconciled tax 
cuts; $725 billion unreconciled. The press has completely forgotten and 
left out the $725 billion. You don't see it reported anywhere. So it is 
not unusual.

  I had a banker say to me this morning: Gee, Kent, I didn't realize 
that the President was seeking $1.6 trillion of tax cuts. I thought it 
was $726 billion and that the difference was between the $350 billion 
that there was an agreement on in the Senate and the $550 billion in 
the House. That sounds like a reasonable compromise.
  Of course, that was missing the basic facts because the news media 
has failed utterly in its responsibility to share full information with 
the American public so they can make judgments about what the policy of 
the country should be. This is a broad failure. It is truly remarkable. 
I read story after story in the most respected newspapers in America 
that the tax cut is $550 billion or $350 billion. That is just one part 
of a much larger tax cut proposal that is before us.
  In the Senate, we passed the following: $550 billion of reconciled 
tax cuts, protected from filibuster, given special protections in the 
Senate, and $725 billion of unreconciled tax cuts.
  Why does any of this matter? It matters because of what has happened. 
Two years ago we were told we could expect almost $6 trillion of 
surpluses over the next decade. In fact, the specific number we were 
told by the administration was $5.6 trillion of surpluses over the next 
decade. The Congressional Budget Office agreed with that. Now we see, 
just 2 years later, instead of surpluses, if we enact the Republican 
budget, the Congressional Budget Office tells us we will run $2 
trillion of deficits over that same period, 2002 to 2011. That is a 
reversal of $7.6 trillion in just 2 years.
  Where did the money go? The President said in a speech the other day 
that the reason for the disappearance of the surplus is the attack on 
the country and the weak economy. Those are two reasons, but they are 
not the biggest reason. He forgot the biggest reason. The biggest 
reason is the tax cuts, both already implemented and the additional 
ones proposed by the President.
  If you look over the same 10-year period, 36 percent of the 
disappearance of the surplus is because of the tax cuts, both those 
already implemented and those proposed in the Republican budget. 
Twenty-eight percent is from the increased spending as a result of the 
attack on this country; that is, the increased defense spending, 
increased homeland security spending, the money to rebuild New York and 
the money to rebuild the Pentagon. Twenty-seven percent is because of 
revenue being lower than expected. Quite apart from the tax cuts, the 
revenue is also lower than anticipated. That trend is continuing. In a 
few moments, I will refer to the latest numbers on what is happening to 
our revenue. They are truly alarming.
  I hope people are paying attention to the overall circumstance we 
face. We are in record budget deficit now. The President is proposing 
massive additional tax cuts, although he is also proposing increased 
spending, not reduced spending to pay for the tax cuts, but increased 
spending. We are on the eve of the retirement of the baby boom 
generation which will dramatically increase the cost to the Federal 
Government. Only 9 percent of the disappearance of the surplus is 
because of the economic downturn.
  Some have suggested deficits are going to be relatively small and 
short term. That is not what we see. We see very large deficits 
continuing throughout the entire decade. In fact, they never get below 
$300 billion on an operating basis. Those are massive budget deficits 
by any calculation. These numbers probably substantially understate the 
deficit.

  Let me repeat that. These numbers are according to the Congressional 
Budget Office. They exclude Social Security, setting Social Security 
aside, as it should be. You never have deficits over the entire next 10 
years of less than $300 billion.
  But that badly understates how serious the deficit situation is going 
to be. There is no money in here for the reconstruction or the 
occupation of Iraq. There is no money in here to fix the alternative 
minimum tax, which is a ticking timebomb. Right now 2 million people 
are affected by the alternative minimum tax. By the end of this decade, 
it is going to be 40 million people affected. It costs $600 billion to 
fix. There is no money in this budget for that. In truth, the revenue 
is still falling far short of expectations. That is not in these 
numbers, either.
  This, although it is dire, understates the seriousness of the budget 
deficits we will face. Goldman Sachs just did an analysis. This is what 
they found. They concluded that instead of $2 trillion of deficits over 
the 2002 to 2011 period, if we enact the President's plan over the next 
decade, the deficits will be over twice that: $4.2 trillion over the 
2004 to 2013 period. Remember, just 2 years ago we were told there was 
going to be $5.6 trillion of surpluses. Now Goldman Sachs has done an 
analysis saying the true deficits are going to be closer to $4 trillion 
over the 2004 to 2013 time period. That is an absolutely stunning 
reversal in just 2 years.
  We were told 2 years ago that if we enacted the President's plan, we 
would pay off virtually all of the publicly held debt by 2008.
  Now we see instead the gross debt of the United States exploding--
$6.7 trillion today. If the President's plan is enacted, and what has 
been passed in Congress goes through, the debt will increase--gross 
debt--to $12 trillion in 2013, and this at the worst possible time. Why 
the worst possible time? Because the baby boom generation is going to 
start to retire. They are going to double the number of people eligible 
for Social Security and Medicare.
  It is not surprising, then, that at the very time the President is 
asking for a big, new tax reduction, Republicans are asking for the 
biggest expansion of the debt in the history of the United States. 
Think about this. We cannot pay our bills, we are running record 
deficits, we are piling up debt at a record rate, and the President 
says let's cut revenues some more. Now, as a short-term matter, that 
might make some sense, to give lift to the economy. We know it 
stimulates the economy to cut taxes and to spend the money. Those two 
things stimulate the economy.
  In the short-term, that would make sense to me. In fact, very little 
of the

[[Page S5745]]

President's so-called stimulus package is effective this year. It is a 
very odd thing. Only 5 percent of the President's so-called growth 
package is effective this year at a time of economic weakness. Ninety-
five percent of the cost is in future years which, of course, adds to 
the deficit, adds to the debt, at the very time the President says the 
economy will be growing stronger.
  So there is an incredible disconnect between what the President says 
is the problem--economic weakness now--and his plan, which is to 
provide tax cuts that have very little impact now and have most of 
their cost later on, 5 years from now, 6 years from now, 10 years from 
now--at the very time we know the cost of the Federal Government will 
be going up as a result of the retirement of the baby boom generation.
  Is anybody watching? Is anybody listening? Is anybody thinking about 
what happens to this country right over the horizon? I am not talking 
about next year. I am not talking about the year after that. I am 
talking about 5 and 6 years from now when the President's plan explodes 
in cost, at the very time the cost to the Federal Government explodes 
as a result of the retirement of the baby boom generation, doubling the 
number of people eligible for Social Security and Medicare. This is 
clearly a plan that does not add up. It doesn't connect with the 
reality that we all know is going to occur. As a result, Republicans 
are asking for the biggest increase in the debt in the history of the 
country. They have just asked for nearly a trillion-dollar increase in 
the debt. The biggest previous increase was $915 billion in the 
President's father's administration.
  I must say I find this circumstance alarming for the future economic 
strength of the country. Now, this is a chart that I did not prepare. 
This is a chart that is right out of the President's own budget. It is 
from page 43 of his analytical perspectives. It is the long-term view, 
according to the President's own analysis, of what happens to the 
budget deficits if his plan is passed--his spending plan, his revenue 
plan. Here is what he says will happen. You can see we never get out of 
deficit and that once we get past this 10-year period, when the trust 
funds are throwing off big surpluses, the Social Security and Medicare 
trust funds are now producing big surpluses--once we get past that 
point, the baby boomers start to retire, the cost of the President's 
tax cut explodes, and the deficits explode into large, unsustainable 
amounts that will fundamentally threaten the economic security of this 
country.

  Again, this is not my chart, this is the President's chart showing 
what happens, in his view, if his policies are passed--his spending 
plan, his tax plan. The deficits explode. Remember, what is most 
sobering is that we already have record deficits. Where you see the 
relatively small amount of red ink, that represents record budget 
deficits--the biggest we have ever had in the history of the country. 
What the President is saying is it is going to get worse with his 
plan--much worse.
  A fundamental reason for that is shown on this chart. On this chart, 
the blue bar is the Medicare trust fund. The green bar is the Social 
Security trust fund. The red bar is the tax cuts that have passed 
Congress in the budget. What this shows us is the trust funds right now 
for Social Security and Medicare are running big surpluses. This year 
alone, Social Security is going to run a surplus of over $160 billion. 
But we are not taking that money and paying down the debt or prepaying 
for the liability that is to come. Instead, that money is being taken 
to pay for tax cuts and to pay for other expenses of Government. You 
can see that this is the level of the tax cuts that have been enacted 
so far and that are proposed. Look what happens. As the trust funds 
start to move from big surpluses in this decade and start to be reduced 
as the baby boomers retire--and you can see that, ultimately, in the 
next decade they go negative, cash negative--then the trust funds are 
losing money. That is at the very time the cost of the President's tax 
cuts explode, leading us deeper and deeper into deficits, deeper and 
deeper into debt, when we are already experiencing record deficits. 
This is a disconnect from reality that is very hard to understand.
  Mr. President, some are now saying, well, deficits don't really 
matter; you can run budget deficits like this as long as the people 
will continue to loan you money. It is OK and it doesn't have an 
adverse effect on the economy. I don't believe that. What is amazing to 
me is most of my Republican colleagues didn't used to believe that. 
They believed deficits matter. I always have. But I am certainly not 
alone in that judgment.
  This quote is from Chairman Greenspan, head of the Federal Reserve, 
the man who has the dominant responsibility in this country for 
managing the economy--at least from the monetary point of view. That is 
the obligation of the Federal Reserve. What does he say? He said:

       There is no question that as deficits go up, contrary to 
     what some have said, it does affect long-term interest rates. 
     It does have a negative impact on the economy, unless 
     attended.

  Of course, that is right. How does it affect long-term interest 
rates? I think if you just think about it in commonsense terms, to the 
extent the Federal Government is going to be borrowing money, it is 
competing with everybody else who is trying to borrow money--people 
trying to borrow money to buy a home, people who are trying to borrow 
money to buy a car, people who are borrowing money to run a small 
business, or even a large business; and to the extent there is more 
competition for those dollars that are available, the higher cost of 
borrowing money; the higher cost of borrowing money, interest rates go 
up. When the Government runs big deficits, that is reducing the pool of 
money available for investment.
  It reduces the pool of societal savings when the Federal Government 
is running deficits. If you reduce the pool of money available for 
investment, you reduce investment. Without investment, you cannot grow. 
That is why many of us believe the President's so-called growth plan is 
an antigrowth plan. It is not going to help growth; in the long-term, 
it is going to hurt growth because it is all financed with borrowed 
money. It is all financed by putting it on the credit card. It is all 
financed not by cutting spending or raising other revenue, it is 
financed by borrowed money.
  Chairman Greenspan just came before the House Financial Services 
Committee. As noted in the New York Times, he said:

       Tax cuts without spending reductions could be damaging.

  He said very clearly:

       The economy was poised to grow without further large tax 
     cuts, and the budget deficits, resulting from lower taxes 
     without offsetting reductions in spending, could be damaging 
     to the economy.

  We are not talking about a growth package here. We are talking about 
a package that is going to undermine growth. That is not just my view. 
It is not just the view of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. The 
distinguished economist Mark Zandi did an analysis of the competing 
plans before us to boost economic growth.
  He found that the Democratic plan would provide about twice as much 
job growth in 2003 and 2004 as the President's plan but not have the 
negative consequences of the President's plan over the next decade. He 
found the President's plan actually hurts economic growth because it is 
all financed with borrowed money. It increases deficits, reduces the 
pool of societal savings, reduces the pool of money available for 
investment, and hurts the economy long term.
  It is not just Chairman Greenspan, it is not just me, it is not just 
distinguished economists like Mr. Zandi. In fact, we have now had 10 
Nobel laureates in economics come out and say the Bush tax plan will 
not help the economy, it will hurt the economy; that long term, it will 
reduce economic growth, not increase it.
  Interestingly enough, that is also the conclusion of Macroeconomic 
Advisers, who have been hired by the White House and the Congressional 
Budget Office to do this kind of economic analysis.
  Do you know what they found? The President's plan will give a boost 
in the short term, but it is worse than doing nothing after 2004. After 
2004, it will actually hurt economic growth, will hurt job opportunity, 
will hurt the strength of the American economy. Why? Because, once 
again, it is financed with

[[Page S5746]]

borrowed money. It runs up the deficit. It runs up the debt. It reduces 
the money available for investment, and that hurts economic growth, not 
help it.
  The Congressional Budget Office has just done what is called dynamic 
scoring. You will recall that some have said, and the President has 
said if we cut taxes, it will actually increase revenue. We will get a 
big boost from cutting taxes in the economy, and that will raise 
revenue.
  The President's own economists do not believe that. They say if you 
cut taxes, as the President has proposed, you will reduce revenue and 
reduce it dramatically.
  The Congressional Budget Office is now headed by a man who was 
previously on the President's Council of Economic Advisers. He was 
appointed by our Republican friends. They control the Senate and the 
House. They had the ability to choose the new head of the Congressional 
Budget Office. He came from the President's Council of Economic 
Advisers. He did an analysis of what our Republican colleagues and what 
the President are telling America.
  The President is saying: If you go out there and cut taxes, you get 
more revenue. That is not what the head of the Congressional Budget 
Office found. He found you get increased deficits. Guess what? If you 
cut the revenue when you already have massive budget deficits, the 
deficits get bigger. That is his conclusion.

  Our Republican friends have said: If you just use dynamic scoring, if 
you just take into account the effect of the tax cuts, you will see 
that you get more revenue.
  Their own appointee did just that. He used dynamic scoring. He took 
into account the effect of the tax cuts, and here is what he found:

       The net effect of the proposals in the President's budget 
     on economic output could be either positive or negative . . . 
     Importantly, regardless of its direction, the net effect 
     through long-term changes to the supply side of the economy . 
     . . would probably be small.

  He did not stop there. He did seven different ten-year analyses of 
the President's budget proposal. Using the old method called static 
scoring, CBO projects the President's budget has a $2.7 trillion impact 
on the deficit--negative impact. In other words, it is going to take 
$900 billion of forecasted surplus. It takes that first and then goes 
$1.8 trillion in the hole. So it is a negative total impact of $2.7 
trillion.
  The new head of CBO, who just came from the President's Council of 
Economic Advisers, did an analysis using the dynamic scoring our 
Republican colleagues wanted him to do. Do you know what he found? In 
four of the seven ten-year models, the deficits would be even larger 
than under the old method of analyzing deficits. Why? Because the 
deficits are increasing. It is increasing the debt, and the dead weight 
of those deficits and debt hurt the economy. They hurt the economy 
because they reduce societal savings. They reduce the money available 
for investment, and without investment, you cannot grow.
  Is anybody paying attention to these linkages? Is anybody paying 
attention to the long-term implications of what is being proposed?
  They did dynamic scoring. In four of the seven long-term models, they 
found deficits even larger than what occurred using the old method of 
analysis because the effect of these tax cuts is not positive. Over 
time it is negative because they are not offset by spending reductions. 
They are all financed by borrowed money. You cannot borrow your way to 
prosperity. Nobody ever has. No country certainly ever has.
  When they did this analysis, they found three models that showed 
somewhat smaller deficits than would occur using static scoring. Using 
dynamic scoring in three of the seven long-term models, they had 
somewhat smaller deficits, although not much smaller; instead of $2.6 
trillion, $2.5 trillion, and $2.3 trillion. Do you know what their 
assumption was here? That over the next decade--this is using dynamic 
scoring--over the next decade, people would work harder in anticipation 
of the large tax increases to come as a result of the President's 
policy now; that the President's policy now will require huge tax 
increases in the future to balance the books and, as a result, people 
will know that and work harder over the decade; meaning, they will make 
more money, there will be more tax revenue, and, as a result, the 
deficits will be somewhat smaller.
  Let's do a reality check on this question of if we just put these tax 
cuts into effect, we will get more revenue.
  I remember very well 2 years ago. I came to this floor on many 
occasions. In the Budget Committee, I showed this chart on many 
occasions. This was CBO's analysis of where the deficit was headed, the 
range of possibilities from the best-case scenario, in terms of the 
surplus, to the worst-case scenario.
  This is what they told us 2 years ago was the range of possibilities, 
and they adopted the midrange of this possible series of outcomes as 
their $5.6 trillion ten-year surplus projection.
  I had so many of my Republican colleagues come to me and say: But, 
Kent, you are being way too conservative. You are saying that we might 
not get this midrange of outcomes, that it might be worse, and so we 
ought to be cautious about what we do. Do you not understand that when 
we put in place these big tax cuts, there will be more revenue, not 
less revenue; that there will be more revenue and so there will not be 
$5.6 trillion of surpluses, there will be $7 trillion of surpluses or 
$7.5 trillion of surpluses? It will be much higher than the midrange of 
the forecast.
  What has happened? Here is reality. That is the red line on this 
chart. This is what is projected based on what has actually happened in 
the real world and what the President has proposed. This is where 
things come in, not at the midpoint of the range, not at the bottom end 
of the range of CBO's forecast of possible outcomes for the surplus and 
the deficit, but below the bottom end of the range.
  So much for dynamic scoring saving the day. We did the big tax cuts 
that the President said would produce more revenue. It did not work. It 
did not come close to working. We are going down a blind alley. We are 
going down a path that will inexorably lead to massive budget deficits, 
a massive buildup of debt, and fundamentally threaten the economic 
security and strength of this country. That is where we are headed, and 
it is just as clear as it can be.
  Newspapers all across the country are questioning the wisdom of what 
the President is proposing. The Cleveland Plain Dealer from April 24:

       Although the dividends tax cut Bush seeks might some day be 
     a reasonable step, that day is not now. Not amid talk of a 
     Federal deficit approaching $500 billion next year. Not when 
     Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chairman Bush just 
     reappointed, sees no economic stimulus in a plan he said, if 
     enacted, should be paid for by offsets elsewhere to avoid the 
     danger of deeper deficits. Not when there is no end in sight 
     to the costs of recreating Iraq as a democracy.

  It is not only the Cleveland Plain Dealer. It is others as well. The 
St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

       The national debt isn't free. We'll pay interest on it for 
     decades. Every dollar of interest is a dollar that can't be 
     used for education, law enforcement, defense, or help for the 
     poor and elderly. The public senses this, and that is why it 
     is not eager for a new tax cut. . . . In fact, Mr. Bush is 
     steering the economy toward an iceberg. Massive deficits year 
     after year contribute to higher interest rates. Higher rates 
     can choke off prosperity.

  They have it right.
  Here is what has happened to jobs during the current administration. 
We have lost 2.7 million jobs since January 2001. Let me be clear, the 
President's economic policy is not responsible for all of this. This is 
a combined effect of the bubble bursting, of a runup in investments 
that was unprecedented. It is, in part, the effect of the attack on 
this country which, without question, hurt this country's economy. It 
is also, I believe, in part a result of an economic policy that does 
not generate confidence going forward. We cannot run record budget 
deficits and go out and propose increasing the spending and cutting the 
revenue dramatically, but that is what the President is proposing.

  We have record budget deficits now. He is not talking about cutting 
spending. He is increasing the spending by over $600 billion above the 
baseline. He is cutting the revenue. Think about this. If one were at 
home and they couldn't pay their monthly bills--their bills were more 
than their income--would their answer be to go out and increase 
spending and reduce their income? Is that what one does? That is

[[Page S5747]]

what the President is proposing we do as a nation.
  We are going to have the biggest budget deficits in the history of 
America this year. The President's answer is, increase spending and cut 
the revenue. That might make sense as a short-term measure. That might 
make sense for the moment to give a lift to the economy. The President 
is not proposing this as a short-term measure. He is proposing 
increasing spending and cutting revenue over the entire next decade and 
beyond, driving us deeper into deficit, deeper into debt, right at the 
time we know the baby boomers are about to retire.
  This is the record on job growth of this administration compared to 
previous administrations. We can see in every previous administration 
we have had positive records of job growth. In this administration, we 
have had negative job growth. This plan is not working.
  I said at the beginning I would talk about the latest numbers we have 
seen on revenue, and they are truly alarming. We have just received the 
results of the first 7 months of this year in terms of the revenue. 
What we are finding is that revenue is running $100 billion below the 
forecast for the first 7 months of the year. We already have a 
projection of record budget deficits, the biggest in the history of the 
country. Now we learn that in the first 7 months the revenue is running 
$100 billion below the forecast. That means, obviously, the deficits 
will be $100 billion higher if those trends continue. All of us hope 
they do not, all of us hope they are reversed, but if they do continue, 
here is what we see: Revenues, as a percentage of our national income, 
as a percentage of our gross domestic product, are headed toward the 
lowest level since 1959.
  Remember, 3 years ago revenue was at the highest level we have had 
since 1969. In fact, the President used that as a reason to have a big 
tax cut. Remember? He said revenue is coming in at a higher rate as a 
percentage of our national income, as a percentage of our gross 
domestic product, as it has been since 1969--I think he used since 1970 
at the time in making the argument. And so he said: We have to cut 
taxes.
  Guess what. Now the revenue is going to be the lowest it has been 
since 1959, and his answer is cut taxes some more, increasing spending 
and cutting taxes. This is a prescription for deficits that are deep 
and abiding and that will fundamentally hurt this economy. That is what 
Chairman Greenspan is telling us. That is what 10 Nobel laureates are 
telling us. That is what over 500 economists are telling us. That is 
what the Committee for Economic Development, made up of 250 of this 
country's leading corporations and academics, is telling us. They are 
saying this is a policy that is unwise. That is what former Secretary 
of the Treasury Bob Rubin, former head of the Federal Reserve Paul 
Volcker, and former Republican Senator Warren Rudman who served on the 
Budget Committee with great distinction are all warning us about. When 
you run record budget deficits, you cannot add on top of that record 
tax cuts and increase spending and wind up with anything more than even 
deeper deficits and deeper debt. That is especially unwise given the 
fact the baby boomers are about to retire.

  The Washington Post said this morning in an editorial labeled ``Tax 
Cut Trickery: Part II'':

       The House Ways and Means committee plans to take up a tax 
     plan that makes President Bush's look like a model of budget 
     honesty, fiscal probity, and distributional fairness. The 
     plan concocted by Chairman Bill Thomas junks the president's 
     proposal to end taxes on dividends in favor of a proposal to 
     cut the top rate on both dividends and capital gains to 15 
     percent. The Thomas plan is more straightforward than the 
     administration's complicated proposal but has not much else 
     to recommend it. First, it is tilted even more heavily to the 
     very wealthy. An analysis by the Urban Institute-Brookings 
     Tax Policy Center shows that households with annual incomes 
     of more than $1 million would see their taxes drop an average 
     of $42,800 under the Thomas capital gains-dividend cut, 
     compared with $26,800 under the Bush dividend plan. Taking 
     the two plans as a whole, those households would receive an 
     average tax cut in 2003 of $105,600 under the Thomas plan and 
     $89,500 under the Bush plan.

  Let me repeat that. The Washington Post is reporting that under the 
Thomas plan, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, taxes 
on those earnings over $1 million a year would be cut by over $100,000 
for 2003 alone. Taxes under the President's plan for people earning 
over $1 million would be cut by almost $90,000. This is at a time when 
we are in record budget deficits, at a time we are on the eve of the 
retirement of the baby boom generation that will double the number of 
people eligible for Social Security and Medicare. This is going to 
dramatically increase the cost to the Federal Government. This is 
disconnect from reality.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business is closed.

                          ____________________