Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 43 (Wednesday, March 31, 2004)

[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 31, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3393-S3407]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the hour
of 10 a.m. having arrived, the Chair lays before the Senate a message
from the House to accompany S. Con. Res. 95.
The Acting President pro tempore laid before the Senate a message
from the House of Representatives, as follows:

S. Con. Res. 95

Resolved, That the resolution from the Senate (S. Con. Res.
95) entitled ``Concurrent resolution setting forth the
congressional budget for the United States Government for
fiscal year 2005 and including the appropriate budgetary
levels for fiscal years 2006 through 2009'', do pass with the
following amendment:
Strike out all after the resolving clause and insert:

SECTION 1. CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2005.

(a) Declaration.--The Congress declares that the concurrent
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005 is hereby
established and that the appropriate budgetary levels for
fiscal years 2004 and 2006 through 2009 are set forth.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this
concurrent resolution is as follows:

Sec. 1. Concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2005.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

Sec. 101. Recommended levels and amounts.
Sec. 102. Major functional categories.

TITLE II--RECONCILIATION AND REPORT SUBMISSIONS

Sec. 201. Reconciliation in the House of Representatives.
Sec. 202. Submission of report on savings to be used for members of the
Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS AND CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE

Subtitle A--Reserve Funds for Legislation Assumed in Budget Aggregates

Sec. 301. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for health insurance for the
uninsured.
Sec. 302. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for the Family Opportunity Act.
Sec. 303. Deficit-neutral reserve fund for Military Survivors' Benefit
Plan.
Sec. 304. Reserve fund for pending legislation.

Subtitle B--Contingency Procedure

Sec. 311. Contingency procedure for surface transportation.

TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 401. Restrictions on advance appropriations.
Sec. 402. Emergency legislation.
Sec. 403. Compliance with section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act
of 1990.
Sec. 404. Application and effect of changes in allocations and
aggregates.

TITLE V--SENSE OF THE HOUSE

Sec. 501. Sense of the House on spending accountability.
Sec. 502. Sense of the House on entitlement reform.

TITLE I--RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS

SEC. 101. RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS.

The following budgetary levels are appropriate for each of
fiscal years 2004 through 2009:
(1) Federal revenues.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution:
(A) The recommended levels of Federal revenues are as
follows:
Fiscal year 2004: $1,272,966,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $1,457,215,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $1,619,835,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $1,721,568,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $1,818,559,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $1,922,133,000,000.
(B) The amounts by which the aggregate levels of Federal
revenues should be reduced are as follows:
Fiscal year 2004: -$179,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $19,919,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $34,346,000,000.

[[Page S3394]]

Fiscal year 2007: $33,376,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $27,231,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $30,927,000,000.
(2) New budget authority.--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the appropriate levels of total new
budget authority are as follows:
Fiscal year 2004: $1,952,700,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $2,010,338,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $2,071,186,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $2,193,395,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $2,311,770,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,431,782,000,000.
(3) Budget outlays.--For purposes of the enforcement of
this resolution, the appropriate levels of total budget
outlays are as follows:
Fiscal year 2004: $1,911,235,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $2,007,926,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $2,083,910,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $2,169,446,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $2,277,071,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $2,393,946,000,000.
(4) Deficits (on-budget).--For purposes of the enforcement
of this resolution, the amounts of the deficits (on-budget)
are as follows:
Fiscal year 2004: $638,269,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $550,711,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $464,075,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $447,878,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $458,512,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $471,813,000,000.
(5) Debt subject to limit.--Pursuant to section 301(a)(5)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the appropriate
levels of the public debt are as follows:
Fiscal year 2004: $7,436,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $8,087,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $8,675,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $9,244,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $9,823,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $10,419,000,000,000.
(6) Debt held by the public.--The appropriate levels of
debt held by the public are as follows:
Fiscal year 2004: $4,385,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005: $4,775,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006: $5,060,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007: $5,312,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008: $5,560,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009: $5,807,000,000,000.

SEC. 102. MAJOR FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES.

The Congress determines and declares that the appropriate
levels of new budget authority and outlays for fiscal years
2004 through 2009 for each major functional category are:
(1) National Defense (050):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $461,544,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $451,125,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $419,634,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $447,114,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $442,400,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $439,098,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $464,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $445,927,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $486,149,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $465,542,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $508,369,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $487,186,000,000.
(2) Homeland Security (100):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $29,559,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,834,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $34,102,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,997,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $33,548,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $33,298,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $35,160,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $35,635,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $36,520,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $36,979,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $40,420,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $38,401,000,000.
(3) International Affairs (150):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $43,604,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $29,281,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $26,529,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,848,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $27,776,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,017,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $27,927,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $26,714,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $28,077,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,323,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $28,228,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $25,099,000,000.
(4) General Science, Space, and Technology (250):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $22,822,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,897,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $22,813,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,453,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $22,927,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,683,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $23,042,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,743,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $23,157,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,763,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $23,274,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,863,000,000.
(5) Energy (270):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $2,323,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $59,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $2,863,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,201,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $2,604,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,397,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $2,583,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $1,040,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $2,629,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $662,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $2,285,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $891,000,000.
(6) Natural Resources and Environment (300):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $32,021,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,210,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $31,212,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,868,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $31,568,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $31,911,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $31,897,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,153,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $32,101,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,128,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $32,777,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $32,804,000,000.
(7) Agriculture (350):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $19,908,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,434,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $21,087,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $20,501,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $23,374,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,310,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $24,278,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,199,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $24,042,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $22,957,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $24,903,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $23,956,000,000.
(8) Commerce and Housing Credit (370):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $17,077,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,748,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $10,792,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $5,782,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $10,242,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $6,842,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $9,727,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $4,769,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $9,705,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $3,190,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $9,580,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $2,740,000,000.
(9) Transportation (400):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $62,937,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $59,280,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $65,021,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $61,988,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $66,075,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $64,204,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $68,263,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $66,131,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $69,578,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $67,545,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $70,445,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $68,452,000,000.
(10) Community and Regional Development (450):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $13,758,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,443,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $11,867,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $14,233,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $11,655,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $12,484,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $11,715,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,616,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $11,692,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,392,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $11,752,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $11,510,000,000.
(11) Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services
(500):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $89,463,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $86,405,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $92,523,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $90,492,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $93,596,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $92,878,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $94,243,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $93,365,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $94,738,000,000.

[[Page S3395]]

(B) Outlays, $93,975,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $95,366,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $94,685,000,000.
(12) Health (550):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $236,822,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $235,551,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $245,095,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $244,936,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $252,639,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $252,495,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $266,117,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $265,196,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $284,970,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $284,222,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $304,034,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $303,460,000,000.
(13) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $269,567,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $268,759,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $288,166,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $289,126,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $322,974,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $322,549,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $362,759,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $363,016,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $387,838,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $387,858,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $414,278,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $413,853,000,000.
(14) Income Security (600):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $329,744,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $336,074,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $337,318,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $341,716,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $335,387,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $339,098,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $340,140,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $342,945,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $352,809,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $355,046,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $361,830,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $363,465,000,000.
(15) Social Security (650):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $13,396,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $13,396,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $15,094,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $15,094,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $16,589,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $16,589,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $18,049,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $18,049,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $19,988,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $19,988,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $21,989,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $21,989,000,000.
(16) Veterans Benefits and Services (700):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $61,179,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $59,858,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $70,536,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $68,563,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $68,501,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $67,597,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $66,621,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $66,007,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $69,842,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $69,459,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $70,506,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $70,106,000,000.
(17) Administration of Justice (750):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $29,932,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,103,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $30,139,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $30,025,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $27,430,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $28,036,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $27,480,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,744,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $27,616,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,540,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $27,755,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $27,621,000,000.
(18) General Government (800):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $23,806,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,540,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $17,198,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,916,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $17,419,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,392,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $17,573,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,401,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $17,230,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,075,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $17,383,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $17,044,000,000.
(19) Net Interest (900):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $240,471,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $240,471,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $270,698,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $270,698,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $318,909,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $318,909,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $364,463,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $364,463,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $398,574,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $398,574,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $427,464,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $427,464,000,000.
(20) Allowances (920):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $0.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, $50,000,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $24,850,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $18,600,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $5,100,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $1,000,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, $0.
(B) Outlays, $250,000,000.
(21) Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (950):
Fiscal year 2004:
(A) New budget authority, -$47,233,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$47,233,000,000.
Fiscal year 2005:
(A) New budget authority, -$52,349,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$52,475,000,000.
Fiscal year 2006:
(A) New budget authority, -$54,427,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$54,477,000,000.
Fiscal year 2007:
(A) New budget authority, -$62,642,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$63,767,000,000.
Fiscal year 2008:
(A) New budget authority, -$65,485,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$66,147,000,000.
Fiscal year 2009:
(A) New budget authority, -$60,856,000,000.
(B) Outlays, -$59,893,000,000.

TITLE II--RECONCILIATION AND REPORT SUBMISSIONS

SEC. 201. RECONCILIATION IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

(a) Submissions Providing for the Elimination of Waste,
Fraud, and Abuse.--(1) Not later than July 15, 2004, the
House committees named in paragraph (2) shall submit their
recommendations to the House Committee on the Budget. After
receiving those recommendations, the House Committee on the
Budget shall report to the House a reconciliation bill
carrying out all such recommendations without any substantive
revision.
(2) Instructions.--
(A) Committee on agriculture.--The House Committee on
Agriculture shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct
spending for that committee by $110,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal year 2005 and $371,000,000 in outlays for the period
of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
(B) Committee on education and the workforce: instruction
to provide fairness in federal workers compensation.--The
House Committee on Education and the Workforce shall report
changes in laws within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce
the level of direct spending for that committee by $5,000,000
in outlays for fiscal year 2005 and $43,000,000 in outlays
for the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
(C) Committee on energy and commerce.--The House Committee
on Energy and Commerce shall report changes in laws within
its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of direct
spending for that committee by $410,000,000 in outlays for
fiscal year 2005 and $2,185,000,000 in outlays for the period
of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
(D) Committee on government reform: instruction to increase
resources to authorize information sharing to allow federal
benefit programs limited access to federal and state
administrative data to verify eligibility.--The House
Committee on Government Reform shall report changes in laws
within its jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the level of
direct spending for that committee by $170,000,000 in outlays
for fiscal year 2005 and $2,365,000,000 in outlays for the
period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
(E) Committee on ways and means.--The House Committee on
Ways and Means shall report changes in laws within its
jurisdiction sufficient to reduce the deficit by
$1,126,000,000 for fiscal year 2005 and $8,269,000,000 for
the period of fiscal years 2005 through 2009.
(b) Submission Providing for the Extension of Expiring Tax
Relief.--(1) The House Committee on Ways and Means shall
report a reconciliation bill not later than October 1, 2004,
that consists of changes in laws within its jurisdiction
sufficient to reduce revenues by not more than
$13,182,000,000 for fiscal year 2005 and by not more than
$137,580,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2005 through
2009.
(2) If a reconciliation bill, as reported pursuant to
paragraph (1), does not increase the deficit for fiscal year
2005 or for the period of fiscal

[[Page S3396]]

years 2005 though 2009 above the levels permitted in such
paragraph, the chairman of the House Committee on the Budget
may revise the reconciliation instructions under this section
to permit the Committee on Ways and Means to increase the
level of direct spending outlays, make conforming adjustments
to the revenue instruction to decrease the reduction in
revenues, and make conforming changes in allocations to the
Committee on Ways and Means and in budget aggregates.

SEC. 202. SUBMISSION OF REPORT ON DEFENSE SAVINGS.

In the House, not later than May 15, 2004, the Committee on
Armed Services shall submit to the Committee on the Budget
its findings that identify $2,000,000,000 in savings from (1)
activities that are determined to be of a low priority to the
successful execution of current military operations; or (2)
activities that are determined to be wasteful or unnecessary
to national defense. Funds identified should be reallocated
to programs and activities that directly contribute to
enhancing the combat capabilities of the U.S. military forces
with an emphasis on force protection, munitions and
surveillance capabilities. For purposes of this subsection,
the report by the Committee on Armed Services shall be
inserted in the Congressional Record by the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget not later than May 21, 2004.

TITLE III--RESERVE FUNDS AND CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE

Subtitle A--Reserve Funds for Legislation Assumed in Budget Aggregates

SEC. 301. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR HEALTH INSURANCE
FOR THE UNINSURED.

In the House, if legislation is reported, or if an
amendment thereto is offered or a conference report thereon
is submitted, that provides health insurance for the
uninsured, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may
make the appropriate adjustments in allocations and
aggregates to the extent such measure is deficit neutral in
fiscal year 2005 and for the period of fiscal years 2005
through 2009.

SEC. 302. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE FAMILY
OPPORTUNITY ACT.

In the House, if the Committee on Energy and Commerce
reports legislation, or if an amendment thereto is offered or
a conference report thereon is submitted, that provides
medicaid coverage for children with special needs (the Family
Opportunity Act), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget
may make the appropriate adjustments in allocations and
aggregates to the extent such measure is deficit neutral in
fiscal year 2005 and for the period of fiscal years 2005
through 2009.

SEC. 303. DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR MILITARY
SURVIVORS' BENEFIT PLAN.

In the House, if the Committee on Armed Services reports
legislation, or if an amendment thereto is offered or a
conference report thereon is submitted, that increases
survivors' benefits under the Military Survivors' Benefit
Plan, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may make
the appropriate adjustments in allocations and aggregates to
the extent such measure is deficit neutral resulting from a
change other than to discretionary appropriations in fiscal
year 2005 and for the period of fiscal years 2005 through
2009.

SEC. 304. RESERVE FUND FOR PENDING LEGISLATION.

In the House, for any bill, including a bill that provides
for the safe importation of FDA-approved prescription drugs
or places limits on medical malpractice litigation, that has
passed the House in the first session of the 108th Congress
and, after the date of adoption of this concurrent
resolution, is acted on by the Senate, enacted by the
Congress, and presented to the President, the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget may make the appropriate adjustments
in the allocations and aggregates to reflect any resulting
savings from any such measure.

Subtitle B--Contingency Procedure

SEC. 311. CONTINGENCY PROCEDURE FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION.

(a) In General.--If the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure of the House reports legislation, or if an
amendment thereto is offered or a conference report thereon
is submitted, that provides new budget authority for the
budget accounts or portions thereof in the highway and
transit categories as defined in sections 250(c)(4)(B) and
(C) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
of 1985 in excess of the following amounts:
(1) for fiscal year 2004: $41,569,000,000,
(2) for fiscal year 2005: $42,657,000,000,
(3) for fiscal year 2006: $43,635,000,000,
(4) for fiscal year 2007: $45,709,000,000,
(5) for fiscal year 2008: $46,945,000,000, or
(6) for fiscal year 2009: $47,732,000,000,

the chairman of the Committee on the Budget may adjust the
appropriate budget aggregates and increase the allocation of
new budget authority to such committee for fiscal year 2004,
for fiscal year 2005, and for the period of fiscal years 2005
through 2009 to the extent such excess is offset by a
reduction in mandatory outlays from the Highway Trust Fund or
an increase in receipts appropriated to such fund for the
applicable fiscal year caused by such legislation or any
previously enacted legislation.
(b) Adjustment for Outlays.--For fiscal year 2004 or 2005,
in the House, if a bill or joint resolution is reported, or
if an amendment thereto is offered or a conference report
thereon is submitted, that changes obligation limitations
such that the total limitations are in excess of
$40,116,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 or $41,204,000,000 for
fiscal year 2005 for programs, projects, and activities
within the highway and transit categories as defined in
sections 250(c)(4)(B) and (C) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, and if legislation has
been enacted that satisfies the conditions set forth in
subsection (a) for such fiscal year, the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget may increase the allocation of
outlays and appropriate aggregates for such fiscal year for
the committee reporting such measure by the amount of outlays
that corresponds to such excess obligation limitations, but
not to exceed the amount of such excess that was offset
pursuant to subsection (a).

TITLE IV--BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

SEC. 401. RESTRICTIONS ON ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) In General.--(1) In the House, except as provided in
subsection (b), an advance appropriation may not be reported
in a bill or joint resolution making a general appropriation
or continuing appropriation, and may not be in order as an
amendment thereto.
(2) Managers on the part of the House may not agree to a
Senate amendment that would violate paragraph (1) unless
specific authority to agree to the amendment first is given
by the House by a separate vote with respect thereto.
(b) Limitation.--In the House, an advance appropriation may
be provided for fiscal year 2006 or 2007 for programs,
projects, activities or accounts identified in the joint
explanatory statement of managers accompanying this
resolution under the heading ``Accounts Identified for
Advance Appropriations'' in an aggregate amount not to exceed
$23,568,000,000 in new budget authority.
(c) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``advance
appropriation'' means any discretionary new budget authority
in a bill or joint resolution making general appropriations
or continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2005 that first
becomes available for any fiscal year after 2005.

SEC. 402. EMERGENCY LEGISLATION.

(a) Exemption of Overseas Contingency Operations.--In the
House, if a bill or joint resolution is reported, or an
amendment is offered thereto or a conference report is filed
thereon, that makes supplemental appropriations for fiscal
year 2005 for contingency operations related to the global
war on terrorism, then the new budget authority, new
entitlement authority, outlays, and receipts resulting
therefrom shall not count for purposes of sections 302, 303,
and 401 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for the
provisions of such measure that are designated pursuant to
this subsection as making appropriations for such contingency
operations.
(b) Exemption of Emergency Provisions.--In the House, if a
bill or joint resolution is reported, or an amendment is
offered thereto or a conference report is filed thereon, that
designates a provision as an emergency requirement pursuant
to this section, then the new budget authority, new
entitlement authority, outlays, and receipts resulting
therefrom shall not count for purposes of sections 302, 303,
311, and 401 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
(c) Designations.--
(1) Guidance.--In the House, if a provision of legislation
is designated as an emergency requirement under subsection
(b), the committee report and any statement of managers
accompanying that legislation shall include an explanation of
the manner in which the provision meets the criteria in
paragraph (2). If such legislation is to be considered by the
House without being reported, then the committee shall cause
the explanation to be published in the Congressional Record
in advance of floor consideration.
(2) Criteria.--
(A) In general.--Any such provision is an emergency
requirement if the underlying situation poses a threat to
life, property, or national security and is--
(i) sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up
over time;
(ii) an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring
immediate action;
(iii) subject to subparagraph (B), unforeseen,
unpredictable, and unanticipated; and
(iv) not permanent, temporary in nature.
(B) Unforeseen.--An emergency that is part of an aggregate
level of anticipated emergencies, particularly when normally
estimated in advance, is not unforeseen.

SEC. 403. COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 13301 OF THE BUDGET
ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1990.

(a) In General.--In the House, notwithstanding section
302(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and section
13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, the joint
explanatory statement accompanying the conference report on
any concurrent resolution on the budget shall include in its
allocation under section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 to the Committee on Appropriations amounts for
the discretionary administrative expenses of the Social
Security Administration.
(b) Special Rule.--In the House, for purposes of applying
section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974,
estimates of the level of total new budget authority and
total outlays provided by a measure shall include any
discretionary amounts provided for the Social Security
Administration.

SEC. 404. APPLICATION AND EFFECT OF CHANGES IN ALLOCATIONS
AND AGGREGATES.

(a) Application.--Any adjustments of allocations and
aggregates made pursuant to this resolution shall--
(1) apply while that measure is under consideration;
(2) take effect upon the enactment of that measure; and
(3) be published in the Congressional Record as soon as
practicable.
(b) Effect of Changed Allocations and Aggregates.--Revised
allocations and aggregates resulting from these adjustments
shall be considered for the purposes of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 as allocations and aggregates contained in
this resolution.

[[Page S3397]]

(c) Budget Committee Determinations.--For purposes of this
resolution--
(1) the levels of new budget authority, outlays, direct
spending, new entitlement authority, revenues, deficits, and
surpluses for a fiscal year or period of fiscal years shall
be determined on the basis of estimates made by the
appropriate Committee on the Budget; and
(2) such chairman may make any other necessary adjustments
to such levels to carry out this resolution.

TITLE V--SENSE OF THE HOUSE

SEC. 501. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON SPENDING ACCOUNTABILITY.

It is the sense of the House that--
(1) authorizing committees should actively engage in
oversight utilizing--
(A) the plans and goals submitted by executive agencies
pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act of
1993; and
(B) the performance evaluations submitted by such agencies
(that are based upon the Program Assessment Rating Tool which
is designed to improve agency performance);

in order to enact legislation to eliminate waste, fraud, and
abuse to ensure the efficient use of taxpayer dollars;
(2) all Federal programs should be periodically
reauthorized and funding for unauthorized programs should be
level-funded in fiscal year 2005 unless there is a compelling
justification;
(3) committees should submit written justifications for
earmarks and should consider not funding those most
egregiously inconsistent with national policy;
(4) the fiscal year 2005 budget resolution should be
vigorously enforced and legislation should be enacted
establishing statutory limits on appropriations and a PAY-AS-
YOU-GO rule for new and expanded entitlement programs; and
(5) Congress should make every effort to offset nonwar-
related supplemental appropriations.

SEC. 502. SENSE OF THE HOUSE ON ENTITLEMENT REFORM.

(a) Findings.--The House finds that welfare was
successfully reformed through the application of work
requirements, education and training opportunity, and time
limits on eligibility.
(b) Sense of the House.--It is the sense of the House that
authorizing committees should--
(1) systematically review all means-tested entitlement
programs and track beneficiary participation across programs
and time;
(2) enact legislation to develop common eligibility
requirements for means-tested entitlement programs;
(3) enact legislation to accurately rename means-tested
entitlement programs;
(4) enact legislation to coordinate program benefits in
order to limit to a reasonable period of time the Government
dependency of means-tested entitlement program participants;
(5) evaluate the costs of, and justifications for,
nonmeans-tested, nonretirement-related entitlement programs;
and
(6) identify and utilize resources that have conducted
cost-benefit analyses of participants in multiple means- and
nonmeans-tested entitlement programs to understand their
cumulative costs and collective benefits.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senator from North Dakota controls 60 minutes, and the Senator from
Oklahoma controls 30 minutes for debate only. Who yields time?
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, I
believe we are going to have debate that will last about an hour and a
half. My colleague from North Dakota will be in control of an hour and
myself or Senator Gregg will be in control of 30 minutes. At the
conclusion of that debate time, we expect to appoint conferees. The
House has already appointed conferees. They appointed conferees on
Monday. We expect to appoint conferees at the conclusion of our debate
time. And for the information of our colleagues, and especially the
conferees--hopefully they have been notified--we will have a conference
this afternoon beginning at 2:30. We will go as long as necessary to
hear everybody's viewpoints on both the House and Senate budget
proposals and any constructive suggestions they might have to improve
them. I look forward to that discussion.
I would love to see us come out of conference with a bipartisan
budget. That usually has not happened in the recent past, but I would
love for it to happen in this case.
Again, we look forward to going to conference and resolving the
differences between the House and the Senate. There are not a lot of
differences. The numbers are pretty close on the outlay side, and the
numbers are pretty close on the revenue side. There are some
differences, and we will have to work those out. There are some
differences in enforcement provisions. We will work those out. That is
what conferences are for. They are compromises between the House and
the Senate.
I compliment our colleagues in the House for passing a budget. We
actually passed a budget the week before last. I thank all of our
colleagues. We actually ended up passing the budget after 4 days. The
last day was a fairly long day. It lasted into Friday morning, about
1:30 in the morning. We did it with 25 votes. That was half the number
of votes we had the previous year. The previous year we had 51 votes.
Those votes dealt with a lot of different issues. Hundreds of billions
of dollars in new taxes were proposed, and hundreds of billions of
dollars in new spending were proposed, most of which were defeated. We
accepted some amendments, and we will work through those amendments.
We have other issues, I will tell my colleague, and he is well aware
of it. My colleague from North Dakota is very familiar with the budget.
There is a reserve fund, and there are a lot of different issues. The
House has some, and we have some. We have to work those out. That is
what budgets are for.
The House intends to pass this bill this week. That means we have to
do a lot of work. Some work has already happened behind the scenes.
Chairman Nussle and I have been trying to resolve issues and lay the
groundwork, but a lot of major decisions have yet to be made. Again,
that is what conferences are for.
So I look forward to working with all of our colleagues in the
Senate, especially the conferees, to come up with a budget resolution
that will significantly reduce the deficit. I say significantly reduce
the deficit, the budget we passed in the Senate would reduce the
deficit, which is far too high, by half in 3 years.
I hope we can meet that goal coming out of the conference committee.
That is not easy. It is not easy in any way, shape, or form. So I want
to make sure everyone is aware of that.
Again, I thank our colleagues for their cooperation. I thank my
colleague from North Dakota for his cooperation today because we will
get conferees appointed, we will go to conference, and, frankly, we
will meet as long as necessary to get this job done. That certainly is
our intention.
I had hoped that possibly the Senate could pass the budget resolution
on Friday. I believe it is the majority leader's intention, if the
conference agreement is reached and the House passes it this week, that
we would take it up on the Senate floor next Thursday. That is
certainly acceptable with this Senator, and I will be happy to work
with all of our colleagues to make that happen.
For the information of our colleagues, once a conference agreement is
reached, the rules of the Senate provide for 10 hours of debate and a
vote on the budget resolution. Unless things change, I expect that
would be sometime next Thursday.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Might I inquire of the chairman and make sure I have
heard this correctly, that the chairman has indicated the leader
intends to bring the budget conference agreement up for final debate
and a vote on Thursday next?
Mr. NICKLES. That is correct, a week from Thursday.
Mr. CONRAD. A week from Thursday?
Mr. NICKLES. Correct.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the chairman for his courtesies as we have gone
through the process. I think because we both worked together
productively yesterday, we came to a reasonable conclusion about how to
proceed today.
I want to thank the chairman for his patience yesterday as we worked
through a number of issues with a lot of colleagues to avoid many more
votes that, in my judgment, would have been unnecessary and not
advanced the ball in any constructive way. So I thank the chairman for
his patience yesterday.
I was somewhat surprised to read in the New York Times this morning
comments of certain House Republican leaders, specifically the majority
leader, yesterday about where we are headed in this country with these
massive deficits. We have the largest deficits in the history of the
country by almost any measure, and we see going forward deficits even
much larger than these as the baby boomers retire, which is of much
greater concern to this Senator. That is the course the President is
taking us on. In my judgment, it is a reckless course and a course that
will

[[Page S3398]]

threaten the economic security of this country for a long period of
time. So this morning when I read the New York Times and I saw that
Republican Congressman DeLay of Texas, the majority leader in the
House, `` . . . restated a view that has been cited by other Republican
House leaders: tax cuts pay for themselves by generating economic
growth that more than makes up for lost revenue.''
Mr. DeLay went on to say:

We, as a matter of philosophy, understand that when you cut
taxes, the economy grows, and revenues to the government
grow. The whole notion that you have to cut spending in order
to cut taxes negates that philosophy, so I'm not interested
in something that would negate our philosophy.

I am a lot less interested in philosophy than I am in what works in
the real world. The philosophy that Mr. DeLay has espoused, and others
have as well, that somehow taxes are cut and that produces more
revenue, the problem is it has not worked. Let's be direct. Let's go
back to what the Congressional Budget Office told us back in 2001.
Looking forward, they said there was a range of possible outcomes with
respect to the budget surpluses. Remember then they were telling us we
were going to have these massive budget surpluses, but they said there
was a range of possible outcomes expressed. By this chart, I call it
the fan chart, the forecast that was adopted was right in the middle of
this range of possible outcomes.
Now, this is how this is relevant to what Mr. DeLay is telling us. I
was told by a Republican colleague, a Senator: You are being much too
conservative. Do you not understand that these surpluses are going to
be bigger than CBO is forecasting because of the tax cuts?
I was told repeatedly by my Republican colleagues when I warned them
that betting on a 10-year forecast of these surpluses was risky, that
it was dangerous, that it was unlikely that it was going to be such a
rosy scenario, and over and over again my Republican colleagues told
me: Senator, you are too conservative. Do you not understand that when
taxes are cut, there is more revenue? Do you not understand these
surpluses, after we pass the tax cut, will be even bigger than the
Congressional Budget Office has forecast, even bigger than the
President's Office of Management and Budget has forecast?

I said: Well, that is a nice theory but I do not believe it. I do not
think we are going to wind up with bigger surpluses because of these
tax cuts. In fact, I think we are going to find the surpluses
evaporate, and I said so dozens of times on the Senate floor. I said so
dozens of times in the Budget Committee.
Now we can go back and check the record. Let's see what happened in
the real world, not based on some philosophy, not based on some
ideology. Here are the range of projected surpluses the Congressional
Budget Office told us about. The midline is their official forecast. We
passed the tax cuts. In fact, we have passed three rounds of tax cuts.
Did we get more revenue and, as a result, did we get even bigger
surpluses, which is what our Republican friends told us was going to
happen? No. Here is what has happened in reality.
This is the red line. With all the tax cuts, we have wound up with
not surpluses but deficits. So the philosophy that apparently was the
guiding hand, that said cut taxes and there will be more revenue, and
as a result even bigger surpluses, did not work in the real world.
In the real world, what we got was not surpluses but massive
deficits. What we got in the real world was not a tax-cut-driven surge
in surpluses, what we got is massive record deficits. So everybody is
entitled to their own philosophy, everybody is entitled to their own
ideology, but all of that gets measured against what happens in the
real world.
What has happened in the real world is the surpluses have evaporated
and now we have record deficits. All of these claims by our friends,
that if we had just had this massive package of tax cuts we would get
more revenue, we would get more surpluses, did not work out. It did not
work out.
So now I say to my friends, we better get serious about getting this
train back on the track because we are headed for very big trouble.
If we look at the record on deficits over a very long period of time
going back to 1969, here is what we see: Under the President's plan, we
have now seen the deficits absolutely skyrocket. This theory that we
were going to get more revenue and bigger surpluses did not work out.
Instead, we got a massive increase in deficits and a massive increase
in debt. Some of our friends on the other side say not to worry, that
as a share of the gross domestic product the deficits are not as big as
they have been in the past.
I say to my colleagues, if one does a fair analysis of the operating
deficits of the country--that is, take out Social Security instead of
using Social Security funds to float this boat; do as the law requires
when calculating the deficits and not include the Social Security funds
and look at this budget on an operating basis--what we find is that as
a share of GDP, the deficit this year has been only exceeded once since
1947. That was back in 1983, when it was 6 percent of gross domestic
product. Now it is 5.5 percent.

Those who seek to minimize the size of these deficits by this claim
are misleading the American people as to the true fiscal condition of
the United States.
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.
Mr. SARBANES. On the previous chart, am I to understand that in
dollar terms the deficit now is at a record level?
Mr. CONRAD. Yes. In dollar terms the deficit this year----
Mr. SARBANES. Is the highest it has ever been?
Mr. CONRAD. By $100 billion.
Mr. SARBANES. It is the highest it has ever been.
Mr. CONRAD. It exceeded last year's deficit, which was the previous
record, by $100 billion.
Mr. SARBANES. I also understand when they try to put it in percentage
terms as a share of the economy, that it is almost at the highest level
it has been since the end of World War II. Of course, we had to fight
World War II. We had a significant deficit and ran up the debt. But it
is almost at the highest it has ever been, and it is projected, as I
understand it, to go higher; is that correct?
Mr. CONRAD. Yes. If we look ahead, look over just the next few years,
what we see, under the President's own calculations, the deficit as a
share of our Nation's income is even going to get larger. These are
record deficits. As we can see, even as a share of the national income,
this deficit is the second highest it has been since World War II, only
exceeded by 1983.
Interestingly enough, I would say to my colleague, in 1983 the Social
Security surplus was only several hundred million dollars.
Mr. SARBANES. Million?
Mr. CONRAD. Million. Now the Social Security surplus is $160 billion,
and under the President's plan, under the Republicans' plan, they are
taking every dime of Social Security money and using it to pay for tax
cuts and using it to pay for other expenditures.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Isn't it interesting, if you will put the
other chart up there--Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding
for a question--how the old labels don't mean anything anymore--what is
conservative and what is liberal. We are now looking at record
deficits, and they say this is a conservative budget? It seems to me it
is exactly the opposite, that the reckless spending and tax policies
that end up with fiscal policy that is running the country into debt
are exactly the opposite of conservative fiscal policy. To the
contrary, it is reckless liberal policy that is driving our country
into economic doldrums.
Does the Senator agree?
Mr. CONRAD. I say to the Senator, we look at each of these budget
proposals from the other side and, under any one of them, they are
going to add $3 trillion to the national debt over the next 5 years.
And the next 5 years is the good times. After that, the baby boomers
retire and the full cost of the President's tax cuts explode. Then you
see the real effect of these policies.
Frankly, I am less concerned about the deficits we face in the near
term. I

[[Page S3399]]

am much more concerned that under the President's plan we don't see any
end to these deficits. In fact, the additions to the debt absolutely
explode and at the worst possible time, right before the baby boomers
retire.
The President has said it is the slowdown in the economy that is the
problem. The Congressional Budget Office issued a report just the other
day. This is the New York Times report on the CBO research. It says:

When President Bush and his advisers talk about the
widening Federal budget deficit, they usually place part of
the blame on economic shocks ranging from the recession of
2001 to the terrorist attacks that year. But a report
released on Monday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget
Office estimated that economic weakness would account for
only 6 percent of a budget shortfall that could reach a
record $500 billion this year.
The new numbers confirm what many analysts have predicted
for some time: That budget deficits in the decade ahead will
stem less from the lingering effects of the downturn and much
more from the rising Government spending and progressively
deeper tax cuts.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle don't want to talk about
the effect of the tax cuts. That is missing in action as part of the
contributor to these massive deficits. The fact is, deficits are the
creation of the relationship between spending and revenue. It is the
two of them that have to be focused on if we are going to deal with
these deficits. We are hearing from the other side that the President
says he is going to cut the deficit in half over the next 5 years.
Here is what we see. He does that by just leaving out things. He
leaves out any war costs past September 30 and he leaves out the
alternative minimum tax, which was the old millionaire tax, and has now
become a middle-income tax trap.
When you put those things back in, what you see is additions to the
debt are not being reduced. Additions to the debt are not being cut in
half. Additions to the debt continue at extraordinarily high levels for
the entire rest of the decade, and, again, right before the baby
boomers retire.
Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. SARBANES. I say to the Senator, I think it is an extremely
important point. Even if you reduce the deficit--and the President is
making these enormously favorable assumptions about how much he can
reduce the deficit. Every analysis has, in effect, undercut the
administration's statement and said the deficit, year to year, will be
larger. But any deficit you run becomes an addition to the debt, so the
debt continues to grow.
As the chart of the Senator shows, it grows in alarming proportions.
That is a burden that then is saddled on the next generation which they
have to pay off almost indefinitely into the future.
I say to the Senator, I think he is making an extremely important
point, to underscore the fact that the debt continues to explode even
under favorable assumptions by the administration.
Mr. CONRAD. It is one of the most startling things, if you examine
the President's proposals. The President, who has represented himself
to the American people as conservative, has the most radical budget
plan ever put before this country. That is because he is absolutely
exploding the debt right before the baby boomers retire. When he says
he is going to cut the deficit in half, what he has done is he has left
out things that we all know are going to be expenses. For example, he
has left out funding for the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the
war on terror. He says there is no cost past September 30 of this
year--none.
The Congressional Budget Office says the cost is $280 billion over
this next period of time. The House and the Senate have put in these
much smaller amounts, $50 billion in the House, $30 billion in the
Senate. But the Congressional Budget Office says that is not what this
is going to cost. It is going to cost $280 billion.
We see that same pattern with other elements in the President's plan.
Here is the cost in the 10 years of the President's tax cuts. Do you
notice a pattern? This dotted line is the end of the 5-year budget
proposal of the President. In previous years he did 10-year budgets.
Now he is down to 5 years because I am afraid he wants to hide from the
American people the full effect of his budget plan. Just looking at the
tax side of it, you can see the cost of his proposed tax cuts
absolutely explode outside the 5-year budget window. In effect, he is
hiding from the American people the true fiscal condition of the
country.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, as the Senator did yield, I ask
the Senator, our ranking member on the Budget Committee, isn't it
interesting that when we voted on all these issues in the Budget
Committee and on the floor of the Senate, that organizations that rate
the votes, even respected organizations such as the National Journal,
when they determined what is liberal and what is conservative, in the
votes the Senator from North Dakota and I were casting against raising
the deficit in the outyears, lo and behold, they rated our vote as
liberal when, in fact, our vote is conservative, not to run the
country, over the next 10 years, into this extraordinary national debt
that is going to build up like it is a rocket taking off.
Mr. CONRAD. What one calls these things and what label one puts on
them is striking. The fact is, whatever one calls it, what is being
done is not conservative--to run record deficits not just at a time of
economic weakness, and not just at a time that we are engaged in a
conflict, but for the foreseeable future, for 10 years in the future,
massive increases in debt under the President's plan.
I showed this chart which talks about the pattern of the President's
tax cuts that explode beyond the 10-year window. We see the same thing
with the alternative minimum tax--a billionaire's tax--now becoming a
middle-income tax trap with 3 million people affected. At the end of
this period, it is going to be 40 million people.
The President's budget only provides for dealing with that crisis in
the first year.
Look at the pattern of the cost of fixing it beyond that first year.
It absolutely skyrockets. The President provides nothing past the first
year, again hiding from the American people the full effect of his
budget plan. The President told us repeatedly he would not use Social
Security money for other purposes. But when you look at his budget
plan, that is not the case. He is taking every penny of Social Security
surplus over the next 10 years and using it to pay for tax cuts and for
other things--$2.4 trillion, every penny of which has to be paid back,
and the President has no plan to do so. That is a reckless plan; again,
something the President pledged not to do.
The result is this is what we see happening to the debt of the United
States.
Remember in 2001 when the President told us he would have maximum
paydown of the debt. He would be able to pay off all of the debt that
was available to pay off.
Now what we see is not debt being paid off but debt exploding from
about $6 trillion when he took over. We now anticipate it will be
approaching $15 trillion by 2014.
Where is the money coming from?
I have already indicated we are borrowing every penny of Social
Security surplus. It is not surplus at all because all that money is
going to be needed when the baby boomers retire. It is borrowing every
penny of Social Security surplus--$2.4 trillion. But he does not stop
there. He is borrowing money from all over the world: over $500 billion
from Japan, and over $140 billion from China. Under the President's
plan, we have even borrowed $69 billion from so-called ``Caribbean
Banking Centers.'' He has borrowed over $40 billion from South Korea.
Think about this: America, the most powerful Nation in the world, and
here we are reduced to borrowing money from countries all over the
world, including South Korea.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. CONRAD. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. SARBANES. Those are huge sums we are borrowing from these various
nations in order to cover our deficit. This is debt they hold which the
United States has to pay back.

[[Page S3400]]

The fact is, if you connect everything, what is happening in effect
is, in order to give tax cuts to the elite, to the very wealthy, we are
borrowing money, and we end up borrowing money from all of these
countries in order to finance the deficit that results from the tax
cuts, and then saddling the next generation with the responsibility of
paying on this debt out into the future.
It is incredible when you stop and think about it; that in order to
finance tax cuts here we are borrowing money from over there in order
to do that.
Mr. CONRAD. I don't think the American people have yet had a chance
to fully focus on where this is all headed. That is the thing that is
most alarming. I am less concerned about the current deficits even
though they are a record and they are appalling. I am much more
concerned about where the President's plan takes us. Even when he sees
economic growth reviving, his plan runs massive deficits and runs up
the debt in a dramatic way--meaning more borrowing and more borrowing
and more borrowing.
Let me conclude. The result is we are seeing the effect on the value
of our own dollar. The dollar has declined in value almost 30 percent
against the euro in just the last 2 years.
Let me conclude with this: Economists are worried about the long-term
effects of this weakening dollar and this heavy U.S. borrowing because
not only are we borrowing to finance the budget deficit, we are also
borrowing because we are running massive trade deficits. This was in
the Washington Post on January 26 of this year:

Currency traders fretting over that dependency have been
selling dollars fast and buying euros furiously. The fear is
that foreigners will tire of financing America's appetites.
Foreign investors will be dumping U.S. assets, especially
stocks and bonds, sending financial markets plummeting.
Interest rates will shoot up to entice them back. Heavily
indebted Americans will not be able to keep up with rising
interest payments. Inflation, bankruptcies, and economic
malaise will follow.

This is a warning that is being sent to us about the recklessness of
the course that we are on.
If we need to have a reality check, 3 weeks ago, in the Wall Street
Journal, they indicated Asian central banks have made a decision to
diversify out of dollar-denominated securities.
Warren Buffett, the second wealthiest man in this country, is
reported, 2 weeks ago, as having made a $12 billion bet against the
value of U.S. currency.
In article after article, we are seeing the danger and the warning
signs of the reckless course the President is taking us on.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, is it the case
that the former Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neill, was fired for
saying essentially what the Senator from North Dakota is saying on the
floor today, talking about a fiscal policy that doesn't add up, about
proposals to increase spending on defense, homeland security, and then
cut taxes mostly for wealthy Americans, saying that it would result in
balance; is it not the case the Treasury Secretary under this
administration was fired for believing that this is irresponsible
fiscal policy?
Mr. CONRAD. I think it is very clear that the Secretary of the
Treasury was fired because he resisted additional tax cuts.
I think in the short term, all of us supported tax cuts to give lift
to the economy. We supported a much different package of tax cuts than
the President did because we thought it ought to go more toward middle-
income people and less to the high-end people to give more lift to the
economy.
If you put it in the hands of middle-income people, they are more
likely to spend it and give lift to the economy. In the short term, we
proposed tax cuts that are actually larger than the President's to give
lift to the economy. For the long term, we proposed about half as much
in tax cuts because we were worried about sending this country into a
tailspin created by exploding deficits and debt.
Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield for a further question, to
clarify what the Senator from Maryland asked and the question about
borrowing money from South Korea, in fact the perversity is we actually
borrow money from South Korea so we can reconstruct Iraq. It is not
even money to invest in the strength of this country.
Aside from that, President Reagan talked about $1 trillion in debt
when he took office. He said $1 trillion in debt is $1,000 bills
stacked 67 miles high. As I look at what this President is proposing,
he is proposing a fiscal policy that says let us have another stack of
$1,000 bills that goes 335 miles high in debt. Who is going to carry
that? Who is going to take care of that? Isn't it the case that the
President is saying somebody else, somebody behind the tree, maybe our
kids, maybe our grandkids but not us?
Is it the case that these proposals, this budget on the floor and the
budget submitted by the President, is a budget which is so seriously
out of balance that we will in the long term have the largest deficit
and the biggest debt in the history of humankind with no provision at
all of asking anybody to own up to that responsibility?
Is it the case that the question Senator Conrad is asking here has to
do with accountability? When do we decide we have to make a u-turn and
begin moving toward responsibility? That is the point.
If I might make one final comment. I say to Senator Conrad, you are
right, we proposed tax cuts, but in 2001 we also said: Let's not put in
place something permanent that could get us in trouble because we might
have some unforeseen circumstances. The other side said: No. Katie bar
the door. Let's do it all and don't worry. Be happy. Then we had a
recession, a terrorist attack, a war in Afghanistan, a war in Iraq.
The fact is, we had all kinds of unforeseen circumstances, and now we
have a situation that is calling for dramatically increased spending,
as requested by this President. We have these long-term tax cuts and
the largest debt in history.
The Senator uses the term ``irresponsible.'' This is an irresponsible
fiscal policy. The Senator does the Senate a great service, in my
judgment, by coming to the floor with these charts and describing
exactly to the American people what this fiscal policy is about.
Mr. CONRAD. Perhaps nothing reveals more clearly than this next slide
where this is all leading. This chart shows--and this is not my
projection; this is not a Congressional Budget Office projection--this
is the President's own projection of where his budget policies are
taking it. This is from his budget, and the assumption is his tax
policies and his spending policies are adopted.
Look what it shows. These are record deficits, the biggest we have
ever had. But they are dwarfed by what is to come, under the
President's own analysis of where his policy is leading.
This shows as the baby boomers retire and the full cost of the
President's tax cuts are realized, the President's plan takes us right
over the cliff into deficits that dwarf the ones we are having now,
which are of record size.
What could be more clear than we are on a course that is utterly
unsustainable?
Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield, do those projected deficits
rise into double figures as a percent of the GDP? Am I correct in
reading that chart? It is well up over 10 percent of GDP would be in
deficit? Is that correct?
Mr. CONRAD. It is actually over 12 percent of GDP. Economists say it
is utterly unsustainable. This is the course the President is taking us
on. The President's plan is not conservative. This is a reckless plan.
It is a radical plan. It is a plan that cannot be allowed to continue.
This plan will jeopardize not only Social Security and Medicare, but
most of the rest of what the U.S. Government does, including our
ability to defend ourselves.
One does not need to take my word for it. We have been alerted by the
head of the Federal Reserve, who has told us we ought to now consider
cutting Social Security benefits because we are, in his words,
``overcommitted.'' And it is not just him. We can go to group after
group that are responsible on budget issues that are saying: Look, you
are on a course that is utterly reckless.
The President told us on the issue of Social Security: None of the
Social Security surplus will be used to fund other spending initiatives
or tax relief.
That is what he told us in his 2002 budget. But what we see is
something

[[Page S3401]]

quite different. In fact, he is taking every penny of Social Security
surplus--again, it is really not surplus; it is surplus for the moment
because when the baby boomers retire, all that money is going to be
needed--he is taking every penny, $2.4 trillion over the next decade,
and using it to fund primarily tax cuts.
It is very interesting, when you do the analysis, the cost of his tax
cut proposals over the same period is almost the identical amount--$2.5
trillion of income tax cuts, being funded by $2.4 trillion of Social
Security money.

So you have the specter of taking money from payroll taxes and using
it to fund income tax cuts that overwhelmingly go to the wealthiest 1
percent in this country.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. CONRAD. Yes, I am happy to.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a
question, I ask our leader on the Budget Committee: How in the world
could our friends, who call themselves conservatives, vote for anything
but a conservative budget such as this that, as the Senator from North
Dakota has characterized it, is radical?
How could our friends, who claim they want to protect the Social
Security surplus, vote for a budget that raids all of that surplus to
finance tax cuts, primarily for the more well-to-do?
How could our friends, who call themselves conservative, in fact,
finance a lot of this budget for a prescription drug benefit that was a
bailout to the pharmaceutical and insurance companies, and, lo and
behold, was not what it was sold as--$400 billion over 10 years--but,
instead, $535 billion?
How could our conservative friends vote for a budget like this?
Mr. CONRAD. I do not know. But I know this: History will not treat
them kindly. When people have a chance to look back and see the
decisions that were made here and now, and where it is leading, history
will not treat them kindly.
On this question of spending and revenue, here is the historical
chart on spending, again, as a share of gross domestic product. You can
see it goes back to 1981. In the 1980s, spending, as a share of GDP,
got to 23.5 percent. At the end of the Clinton years, spending was down
to 10.4 percent of GDP. It is very interesting. Spending, as a share of
gross domestic product, went down each and every year of the Clinton
administration.
Now we have had a significant bump up. Ninety-one percent of that
increase is defense, homeland security, rebuilding New York, and the
airline bailout. That is where the money has gone. But even with that
increase, you can see spending is well below where it was in the 1980s
and 1990s as a share of GDP.
The revenue side of the equation, however, which our friends never
want to talk about--and I started this morning by quoting Mr. DeLay,
who said: You cut taxes, you get more revenue.
Well, that is a theory. It is a philosophy. It is an ideology. The
problem is, it does not work in the real world.
Here is what has happened to revenue. Revenue has collapsed to the
lowest level as a share of national income since 1950. So their
theories are not working in the real world, and the result is, we have
a weakening economy.
I ask the Chair, how much time is remaining?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Twenty-three minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. I have 23 minutes. The other side has?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Twenty-six minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. Twenty-six. Mr. President, I will just move through this
quickly, and ask others to comment if they would like the opportunity,
and give time to the other side to respond. I see Senator Gregg is here
and Senator Grassley is here.
We see a job loss that is very unusual. The pattern of this job loss,
in comparison to every other recession since World War II, is very
interesting. The dotted red line on this chart is the average of every
recession since World War II. You can see, 17 months after the business
cycle peaked, of all the other recessions, you saw us pulling out of
job loss. Jobs were being created in a very favorable way in each of
the other nine recessions.
But look at this downturn. We still do not see job recovery
occurring, and we are 35 months past the business cycle peak. Something
is wrong. Something is not working. We are now 5.4 million jobs short
of the typical recovery. We have all seen this chart. For private
sector jobs, 3 million have been lost since January of 2001.
Now we turn to the budget our friends have proposed on the other
side. They say they are going to cut the deficit in half over the next
3 years. Well, I say to our friends, I look at what is being added to
the debt under their plan: $612 billion this year, and every year
thereafter over $550 billion being added to the debt. I do not see any
big improvement here in terms of what is being added to the debt. In
fact, I see almost no change under the proposal by our Senate
Republicans.
I hear them say they are reducing the deficit, cutting it in half
over the next 3 years. The fact is, if you put this thing on automatic
pilot and we made no policy changes, the deficit would decline more
rapidly. They are actually increasing the deficit with this plan by
$178 billion over the next 5 years, compared to doing nothing.
If you look at the priorities, you have to question those as well.
Those who are the wealthiest 1 percent, earning over $337,000 a year,
their tax cut for this coming year is $45 billion. On the other hand,
to restore the cuts of the education program No Child Left Behind would
cost $8.6 billion. So we are saying it is more important that the top 1
percent, those earning over $337,000, get every penny of their tax cut
than to restore the money for No Child Left Behind.
The same is true with other important priorities: The firefighters,
$250 million to restore the cuts on them compared to $45 billion for
the cost of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent, those earning
over $337,000 a year.
If we look at the House budget resolution, we see the same thing in
terms of additions to the debt, only it is even worse. I don't see any
big improvement here. They say they are going to cut the deficit in
half. But if you look at increases to the debt, what you see is they
are going to be adding $600 billion to the debt year after year of the
entire budget window. Just like our Senate colleagues add to the
deficit, they add $301 billion to the deficit over the next 5 years, in
comparison to doing nothing.
Interestingly enough, when I look at the discretionary spending limit
that was set in the Senate a year ago, the budget the Republican House
has sent us exceeds that limit, that self-imposed limit that was put on
here. They are going to spend $871 billion under their plan. A year ago
they put a spending limit of $814 billion.
The other point that needs to be made is, additions to the debt.
There is almost no difference between the Bush budget. He is adding $3
trillion to the debt in the next 5 years; the Senate budget, $2.9
trillion; the House, $3 trillion. So there is very little difference.
Finally, on the issue of PAYGO--this is the procedure to make it
harder to spend the money and to pass tax cuts given our fiscal
condition--Mr. Greenspan has said:

I would, first, Mr. Chairman, restore PAYGO and
discretionary caps. Without a process for evaluating various
tradeoffs, I see no way that any group such as Congress can
come to set priorities which will effectively reflect the
will of the American people.

We restored the provisions to make it more difficult to spend new
money for past tax cuts in the Senate. The House did not. They failed
on a tie vote of 209 to 209. This is going to be the critical test in
conference. For those who say they are fiscally conservative, this is
their chance to prove it. Because if we don't put in place the budget
disciplines that have worked in the past to eliminate deficits and to
get us on a more firm financial footing, we will have failed the
American people.
I ask the Chair how much time is remaining on this side?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Seventeen minutes.
Mr. CONRAD. And the Senator has 26 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Twenty-six minutes, that is
correct.
Mr. CONRAD. Senator Gregg has been waiting patiently. I think it is
probably more useful that they would take some of their time at this
point.

[[Page S3402]]

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time? The Senator from
New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am, of course, always impressed by the Senator from North Dakota,
although there is a darkness to his presentation. There is a sense of
doom he puts forward I am not necessarily a subscriber to. But he
certainly is a person who has committed himself to understanding the
numbers and trying to present them in a form that most adequately and
appropriately reflects his view of where we are as a Nation fiscally.
It is hard to guess, but I suspect it was in the range of 50
different charts. There were a lot of charts. Some of them were charts
that were charts on top of charts which restated the chart that came
before the chart, but they were good charts. They were excellent
charts--very colorful and nicely presented.
What we did not see was a chart that presented the Democratic budget.
Where is it? Where is the budget from the other side of the aisle that
addresses all these concerns which have been raised by the other side
of the aisle about the Republican budget? It does not exist. No budget
has been offered. No budget was offered in the committee, and no budget
is going to be offered here in the Chamber. Why is that? Because if you
look at the substance of what is being presented by the other side,
they are basically saying, in order to address this problem, they are
going to raise taxes. That is the only logical conclusion you can reach
by looking at their position.
What does a tax increase in the middle of a recovering economy do? It
stifles it. It creates a compression of that economic recovery, causes
it to retract itself, and it will cost jobs. The worst fiscal policy we
could pursue would be to raise taxes. Maybe that isn't their proposal,
but we don't have a proposal from them to reflect what it would be. No
responsibility is put forward for actually answering the questions
which have been raised, assuming they are even legitimate questions,
from the other side of the aisle.
So let's turn to the nominee of their party to see if that individual
has maybe put forward his concepts on how we address the fiscal
policies of the United States. Yes, he has. In his campaign through New
Hampshire--where he spent a considerable amount of time, and we very
much appreciated it because he spent a considerable amount of money--he
presented programs which totaled $1.7 trillion of new spending over the
next 10 years. That is a budget proposal--a budget buster, but a budget
proposal. He offset that with tax increases of approximately $700
billion during that same time. So he is going to add to the deficit,
which has been outlined by the Senator from North Dakota in very
colorful terms, an additional trillion dollars over the next 10 years.
I can understand why they don't want to bring their budget forward.
If their nominee, who is a Member of this body, is proposing he is
going to increase the deficit by a trillion dollars, by increasing
spending by $1.7 trillion and taxes by $700 billion, such a budget
could be appropriately called a tax-and-spend budget.
Let's look at the substance of what the practical effect of the
proposal would be that has been brought forward by the Senator from
Massachusetts, his $700 billion tax increase, for example. What would
that effect be? If you are going to look at the Senator's charts over
the next 4 years, where he claims if we went on under current law, the
deficit would go down by another $135 billion, which is essentially a
tax increase, because what he is saying is under current law, taxes
will go back up because taxes expire, what taxes are they talking about
increasing on that side of the aisle under that theory? They are
talking about repealing our expansion of the 10-percent bracket so the
people in the low-income areas would have a 10-percent bracket. That
would be repealed. They are talking about repealing our increase in the
child tax credit, rolling it back from a $1,000 credit to a $700
credit.
They are talking about repealing our efforts to reform the marriage
tax penalty so when you get married, you don't get hit with an extra
tax. All of those taxes would have to be repealed to meet the Senator's
proposal relative to reducing the budget over the next few years by
$135 billion, because those are the ones that expire.
If you look at the proposals of the Senator from Massachusetts, the
same effect would occur. His proposal for $700 billion of new taxes is
a proposal to repeal, as a practical matter, the child tax credit, to
restart the marriage penalty, and to make it difficult for people in
low-income brackets, in the 10-percent area, to get a 10-percent tax
burden versus kicking it back up to 15 percent.
Now, all these initiatives, under the leadership of the Senator from
Iowa, which are targeted to low-income Americans, were taken as an
attempt to address those legitimate concerns about people who are in
the middle- and low-income brackets and want to have a fair tax rate.
We passed those laws, but they will expire. I guess it is clearly the
position of the other side of the aisle that those expirations should
be allowed to occur, and therefore the taxes should go back up. That
appears to be the core of their budget. It is coupled, of course, with
this spending initiative.
We had debate on the budget on the floor of the Senate. During the
budget debate, the other side of the aisle, which never brought forward
a budget, proposed spending increases of $379 billion. They proposed
tax increases of $276 billion. I believe those are the numbers, but
they may not be exact. Those were the amendments brought forward from
the other side of the aisle--massive tax increases, massive spending
increases. They have now been confirmed by the policies of the nominee
of their party--or the presumptive nominee--who has proposed $1.7
trillion of new spending, $700 billion of additional tax increases, for
a $1 trillion add-on to our deficit.
So I don't think, when the other side of the aisle comes forward and
presents--very expansively and very well, obviously, because the
Senator from North Dakota is a well-spoken individual who understands
how to make a good presentation, and he always has--I don't think they
can do that in good conscience if they don't also present their budget
at the same time, their answers to this problem. If they are going to
be fair about it, they have to bring forward the answers of their
candidate for President, because they keep referring to our President,
President Bush, who happens to be everybody's President right now and
hopefully will be for the next 4 years. But they have to present it in
juxtaposition to what their candidate for President is talking about.
If he had a budget on the floor today, it would be a $1.7 trillion
increase in spending, increase in taxes, adding $1 trillion to the
debt, and a lot of people who don't deserve to have their tax
increased--people in the 10-percent bracket, married people, people who
have children going to college--would be stuck with a brandnew tax
bill.
That is a brief response. There is a much more extensive response,
but my time is limited. The Senator from Iowa wishes to proceed.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, how much time is left on this side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 17 minutes remaining.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield myself 10 minutes.
Mr. President, we heard testimony from the other side on the fiscal
condition of the U.S. Government, how bad it is and they are sounding
alarms. I think all that is very legitimate. I am not here to dispute
specific figures, I am not here to say that the other side has been
intellectually wrong, but at least to say they have left some
misimpressions about some aspects of this budget. I will start with the
chart shown about borrowing from foreign countries.
The U.S. Government does not go to other countries and say, hat in
hand: Will you lend us X number of dollars? What the U.S. Government
does is say to the 270 million Americans, and anybody else in the
world: We have X amount of debt that we have to refinance, or finance,
and people come to bid on that. The market determines who gets what.
Now, we do have a lot of foreigners that own American debt. Why do
they want to invest in America's national

[[Page S3403]]

debt? Because they have confidence in America and because they want a
return on their money. It ought to be somewhat satisfying to the
American people that the rest of the world thinks so well of the
American economy and the soundness of our Government that they are
willing to invest in the national debt, just as American citizens
invest in the national debt, because they want the return; they want
the certainty of it.
The impression was left that we go, hat in hand, to a lot of foreign
countries to beg for money. We don't do that. It is our policy, through
the Secretary of the Treasury, to say that we are offering so much
investment, and you can come and make your claim to it under these
conditions.
The other misimpression is that something different is happening to
the Social Security surplus. Why is that being said? Because people
want to get seniors concerned about what Congress might be doing to
ruin their Social Security. I say to the seniors of America--and people
on the other side of the aisle, if they don't know it--that nothing has
changed since 1936 as far as the way the Social Security surplus is
handled. Nothing has changed since 1936.
Starting in 1936 and for every year since then except 1981 and 1982,
there has always been a positive cashflow coming in from the payroll
tax to what was paid out. We decided in 1936 to invest that surplus in
Treasury bonds. Why? Because it is a good, safe investment for seniors,
for their retirement. It is the way the Federal Government can show to
the seniors of America and to all of the people of America that we are
going to make sure your Social Security surplus is safe and that the
obligations in the future are met. Except for in 1981 and 1982, when
there was a negative cashflow, that has been done. We made it up by
borrowing to keep the checks going.
As far as the Social Security surplus is concerned, today, yesterday,
and tomorrow--at least until 2018, as best we can project--there will
be a positive cashflow, and that money is going to be invested in
Treasury notes that are obligations to keep Social Security benefits at
100 percent at least through 2042, until all that surplus is used up.
So for the seniors of America, nothing has changed.
I think we also ought to remember that we dealt with dozens of
amendments on the other side of the aisle when the budget was up. Every
one of those amendments was for spending more money. They will say,
yes, they wanted to raise taxes; they had tax offsets to spend that
money. But they were not interested in raising taxes to lower the
national debt; they were interested in raising taxes to spend more
money. So just the tax cut cannot be considered a reason for the debt.
In fact, if you want to know why we have a debt, we have a debt of 25
percent because of tax cuts, 25 percent because of increased spending
for the war as well as homeland security, and 50 percent because of the
downturn in the economy.
When did that downturn in the economy start? In the year 2000, not in
the year 2001. The manufacturing index started going down in March of
2000. Do you know NASDAQ lost half of its value in 2000? President Bush
saw that economic situation and, hence, the tax cut of 2001 to turn the
economy around, and it has worked. But that is only 25 percent of the
reason for the deficit. The other is just the downturn in the economy
and what happened on September 11 and a recovery that was delayed
because of attacks by terrorists on America, the second time only since
the War of 1812 that Americans have been attacked and it had an impact
on the economy. And it was a negative impact on the economy that led to
3 years of downturn of income coming into the Federal Government for
the first time since the 1930s; in other words, less income this year
than the year before, than the year before.
That has never happened, even when we had tax cuts in the past. We
have to go back to the 1930s. I hope the other side is willing to admit
these are very unusual times we are in.
Then, what about the fact that we are in a war? What about the fact
that we were attacked on September 11? Do you want to fight the
terrorists in the United States or do you want to fight them in Iraq
and Afghanistan? This Commander in Chief decided to fight them in
Afghanistan and Iraq instead of in New York City and Washington, DC.
Wars cost money. We only go to war to win. If we are going to go to
war to win and put American men and women on the battlefield, we are
going to give them the resources it takes to win. We have been attacked
by the other side because somehow we do not account for the cost of a
war. On December 8, 1941, when FDR was addressing the Congress of the
United States after the attack on Pearl Harbor, if Members of Congress
had said at that time, How much is this war going to cost, they would
have been laughed at. How come they are not laughed at now, Mr.
President? We are going to spend what it takes to win the war. We are
not going to leave our men and women hanging without support. If we had
taken that attitude toward World War II, Hitler would have been in New
York City. So we ought to have some leeway when it comes to budgets to
win a war and backing our men and women and not being harassed because
of what the war is going to cost, just as we are going to know that in
the month of September we are going to fire off so many cruise
missiles.
The last point I will make is, I might be willing to consider an
increase in taxes, but I have never found anybody on the other side of
the aisle who has said to me how high taxes can go to satisfy their
desire to spend more money. For 50 years, we have had a policy in this
country of taxing in the Federal Government at about 17 to 19 percent
of gross national product. It seems to me that is pretty good policy
because of two reasons: No. 1, the American people do not tend to
attack us for taxing too high when it is in that band; and, No. 2, it
has not been harmful to the economy, as we have seen tremendous growth
in the economy for the last 50 years.
What we are trying to do is keep the level of taxation within that
band of 17 to 19 percent. Right now it is a little bit lower. Sometimes
it might be a little bit higher, but our policy is to keep it within
that band and to keep spending within that band. But in times of war,
that spending policy has to have some give if you want to win a war.
Even though the presentation that has been made by the other side may
be totally accurate as far as the statistics are concerned, I think
there is a bigger picture than just charts and statistics. There is
what America is all about and the role of Government in America and the
importance of responding to attacks on America and winning a war and
backing up our troops.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time? The Senator from
North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I always enjoy listening to the chairman
of the Finance Committee, who is my friend, and despite our
disagreement today, he will be my friend at the end of the day, just as
he was when we began this day.
I say to my friend, this is not a question of whether we win wars or
do not win wars. All of us are committed to winning this war. We must
win this war. But part of winning a war is not just leaving the cost of
the war out of the budget. That is not credible.
The President says it is difficult to say how much the war is going
to cost. Certainly it is difficult, but the right answer is not zero.
That is what the President put in his budget. He says for the next year
there is no cost to the war on terror, there is no cost to the war in
Iraq, there is no cost to the war in Afghanistan. That is not credible.
That is not a serious budget. That is not leveling with the American
people on our true fiscal condition to put out a budget that says there
is no war cost past September 30 and present that as an accurate
picture to the American people of our fiscal condition. That is not
serious. That is not credible. People deserve better.
The Senator also indicated nothing has changed with respect to Social
Security financing. That is not true. In the last 3 years of the
Clinton administration, we stopped the raid on Social Security. We
stopped taking Social Security funds and using it for other purposes.
What has changed now is we have gone right back to the bad old days
of taking every dime. And under the President's plan, he is not just
taking

[[Page S3404]]

every dime of Social Security surplus this year to pay for tax cuts, he
is doing it for the whole next decade--every dime, something he pledged
not to do.
The Senator also said we have had a policy of only spending 17 to 19
percent of GDP and having taxes of that same amount. I don't know what
he is talking about. That is not the fact. The fact is, spending as a
share of GDP in 1928 was 23.5 percent. During this whole period of the
eighties, it was above 21.5 percent. It was only during the Clinton
years that we brought spending down to 18 percent of GDP. Now we are
back up to a little over 20 percent of GDP. If we want to have balanced
budgets, we have to have that amount of revenue. Hello. Deficits are a
function of spending and revenue, not just of spending.
When we look at the revenue side of the equation, revenue has
collapsed. Of course, we are talking about needing more revenue. We
have the lowest revenue since 1950. We are at 15.8-percent revenue as a
share of the gross domestic product, and spending is 20 percent. That
is why we have a deficit.
Obviously, we need more revenue. I would say the first place to look
is not a tax increase, but going after the tax gap, the difference
between what is owed and what is being paid because we know for 2001,
that difference was over $250 billion.
Now we ought to go to those who are not paying what they owe, that
small share of the American people, that small share of companies, and
say, look, you ought to pay what you owe.
The Senator from New Hampshire said, where is our budget? We offered
amendment after amendment in the committee and on the floor to alter
this budget plan. That was our strategy, to try to alter the outcome,
and we were defeated.
When the Senator from Iowa says we did nothing to reduce the deficit
in our amendments, please, that is not true. Go back and look.
Virtually every amendment we offered was to reduce the deficit, and
that is a fact. I challenge the Senator to come up with a list of the
amendments we offered and show we did not repeatedly offer amendments
to reduce the deficit.
The Senator from New Hampshire attacked Senator Kerry, said Senator
Kerry had a trillion-dollar hole in his budget over 10 years. First,
Senator Kerry, as the Senator knows, has not presented a budget. They
have fabricated a budget in his name. It is not Senator Kerry's budget.
We all know it is not Senator Kerry's budget.
They have double-counted Senator Kerry's proposals. They have
included things he did not include. So claiming that is Senator Kerry's
budget is a fiction. It is a fabrication. Senator Kerry has not yet
presented his budget proposal.
In the analysis the Senator from New Hampshire provided, he included
programs Senator Kerry has never proposed, including a multibillion-
dollar, high-speed rail network. He excluded savings Senator Kerry has
specifically proposed, like hundreds of billions of dollars in health
care savings, closing corporate loopholes, and eliminating corporate
welfare. They double-counted some of his proposals, for example,
double-counting energy proposals Senator Kerry has made.
Interestingly enough, he says there is a trillion-dollar hole in a
Kerry budget Senator Kerry has not even presented. We know the budget
this President has presented in 5 years adds $3 trillion to the debt.
They are talking about a $1 trillion hole in a nonexistent Kerry budget
over 10 years. They ought to be up here explaining the $3 trillion this
President adds to the national debt in just 5 years.
If we applied the same rationale to the President's proposals he
applied to Senator Kerry's proposals, we would see there is a $4.5
trillion hole in the President's plan compared to their alleged $1
trillion difference in Senator Kerry's plan.
Is the Senator from Delaware seeking time?
Mr. CARPER. He sure is.
Mr. CONRAD. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Delaware.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. I thank the Senator for yielding.
I spoke several weeks ago as we were taking up the budget resolution.
I quoted a fellow from Great Britain, Dennis Healey, who used to be the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. Dennis Healey used to talk about the
theory of holes. The theory of holes is pretty simple. It says, when
you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
In 1990, we as a country were in a pretty big hole with respect to
our budget deficit. Some people in the House and the Senate, the White
House, Democrats and Republicans, decided to stop digging. What they
decided to do was to adopt a commonsense approach to budgeting, which
we call ``pay as you go.''
The idea is if Senator Coleman, our Presiding Officer, were to come
to the Senate and propose new spending, he would have to come up with
an offset, either cut spending some place else or raise revenue to
offset it. Or if Senator Carper came up with a tax cut, I would have to
come up with an offset to make sure we did not make the hole any
deeper. For about 12 years, it was the law of the land.
During those 12 years, from 1990 to 2002, we actually were able to
reduce the deficit and for the first time in 30 years we actually
balanced the Federal budget for several years in the late 1990s and the
beginning of this decade.
That law lapsed in 2002. We voted in the Senate that it should be
reinstated. They very nearly voted in the House yesterday, kept the
vote open over an extended period of time so they could twist some arms
on the other side in order to defeat the effort to instruct the House
conferees to go back and adopt this pay-as-you-go principle.
We ought to do that. If the House conferees will not, we should at
least adopt those provisions, this standard, for the Senate, for the
way we conduct business.
There was a great editorial in the Washington Post called ``Dodge as
You Go.'' I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed for the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, Mar. 31, 2004]

Dodge as You Go

For a vote it derided as meaningless symbolism, the House
Republican leadership certainly pulled out all the stops
yesterday. At issue was a motion that would have put the
House on record as supporting real ``pay as you go'' budget
rules--that is, rules that would require tax cuts as well as
spending increases to be paid for at the time they're
adopted, with offsetting spending cuts or tax increases. The
Senate narrowly adopted such a rule in its budget resolution,
the House didn't, and the matter is about to go to
conference. Yesterday's motion to instruct the conferees
would have put the House on record as supporting the Senate
rule.
You wouldn't think this is such a big deal. After all, the
motion wasn't binding on the conferees. And the budget rule,
even if it survives the conference, would apply only to the
Senate, not the House. As to the merits: In the 1990s,
Republicans seemed to agree that budget discipline was good
for the country. They supported a stricter version of this
pay-as-you-go rule, they made sure it applied to the House as
well as the Senate, and it did some good. But Republican
leaders are no longer concerned about fiscal integrity.
Making certain that tax cuts can be enacted and extended
without any procedural hurdles has become the central--you
might say the only--budgeting principle of the Bush
administration and its congressional allies.
Thus yesterday's scene of legislating-by-strong arm. In a
familiar episode of rule-stretching and bullying, a vote
scheduled for five minutes was stretched to nearly half an
hour. At one point, 19 Republicans defied their leadership to
support the motion. But eight eventually switched their
votes, creating a 209 to 209 tie. That meant the motion
failed--and at that point, the vote was hurriedly gaveled to
a close. ``A meaningless vote but an important principle,''
said a spokesman for House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.)
explaining the need to make certain that tax cuts would be
exempt from pay-as-you-go constraints.
Other principles used to carry some weight in the U.S.
House of Representatives: allowing lawmakers to vote their
consciences, not manipulating voting rules to get the desired
result, and opposing a reckless amassing of budget deficits
selfishly left for other generations. But that was under the
leadership of other speakers, and other presidents.

Mr. CARPER. I will quote one or two sentences out of the editorial.

Other principles used to carry some weight in the U.S.
House of Representatives: allowing lawmakers to vote their
consciences, not manipulating voting rules to get the desired
result, and opposing a reckless amassing of budget deficits
selfishly left for other generations. But that was the
leadership of other speakers, and other Presidents.

We can do something about it. Our conferees can do something about
it. My hope is they will stick by our guns

[[Page S3405]]

to try to make sure at least for the Senate we adopt those rules that
served us so well for 12 years.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we had another one of our colleagues in
the Senate assert support for the PAYGO provisions means one is opposed
to the middle-class tax cuts. I would ask my colleague from Delaware,
does he believe support for the budget disciplines that requires new
spending or new tax cuts to be paid for means he opposes the extension
of middle-income tax cuts?
Mr. CARPER. If I could respond, the answer is absolutely no.
My dad used to say something to my sister and me when we were kids
growing up. The Senator's father and mother probably did the same
thing. Senator Nickles' mom and dad probably did the same thing, as
well as Senator Coleman's. They harp on something over and over again.
When my sister or I used to pull some boneheaded stunt, my dad would
always turn to us and say, just use some common sense. He must have
said that to us, because we pulled a lot of boneheaded stunts, day
after day, week after week, year after year. Finally, it worked and
internalized.
Whenever we approach an issue in the Senate or when I was Governor of
Delaware, I would oftentimes say to my cabinet, just use some common
sense.
Pay as you go is common sense. It is flat in-your-face common sense.
It works in State governments. Frankly, it worked here for about 12
years and it will work again. It is not the only thing we need to do
but, by golly, it is a big part of it.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator.
I say in response to our colleague who suggested those of us who
favor the reenactment of the budget disciplines that worked so well in
the 1990s, I also favor extension of the middle-class tax cuts, but I
am willing to pay for them. I am willing to pay for extension of the
10-percent rate. I am willing to pay for extension of the marriage
penalty relief. I am willing to pay for the child tax credit. I am
prepared to vote to do precisely that. That is what we need to do.
The other fact is, under PAYGO, if we get a supermajority, tax relief
can be extended or have new spending of an emergency nature. There has
to be a supermajority vote. That is what the budget discipline is
about. It is to make it more difficult to enact new spending or new tax
cuts that are not paid for. It can be done, but there has to be a
supermajority.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma has 5
minutes.
Mr. NICKLES. How much on the other side?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Three minutes 36 seconds.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague from North
Dakota. I appreciate the cooperation. We will soon be appointing
conferees. That is my objective.
I want to thank Senator Gregg and Senator Grassley for their remarks.
A couple of things. It is important we pass a budget. We will appoint
conferees and then we will go to work out the differences between the
House and the Senate. We have differences between the House and the
Senate, but in my 24 years in the Senate we are probably closer with
the House in the 2 budget resolutions--the Senate resolution is
probably closer to the House resolution than most times in the past. In
the past, we have had cases where the House resolution was 5 years, our
resolution was 10, and we never reconciled that difference, or we had a
hard time reconciling it. We had 1 year we didn't pass a budget in the
Senate. They did in the House. This year the numbers are pretty close.

I have a couple of comments. I heard a statement in the budget debate
on the floor. I would say, my staff has compiled the amount of spending
that was in the amendments that were debated on the floor. Our Democrat
colleagues offered amendments that would have 1-year tax increases of
$86 billion and 1-year spending increases of $81 billion for 2005. For
5 years, that figure would be tax increases of $443 billion, and 5-year
spending increases, $382 billion. That is assuming no inflation. If you
take the first year and extrapolate, some said we only spend for 1
year, but there are programs which would obviously be spent further. I
have a chart that extrapolates and continues those. That is how I came
up with those figures. I ask unanimous consent to have those printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Senate Budget Committee Tallies Democrat Amendments Offered During
Budget Debate

1-year tax increases: $86 billion:

$20 billion from ``closing loopholes''
$57 billion from ``raising taxes on millionaires''
$9 billion in ``other'' (tobacco, Superfund)

5-year tax increases: $443 billion:

$104 billion from ``closing loopholes''
$291 billion from ``raising taxes on millionaires''
$47 billion in ``other''

1-year spending increases: $81 billion.
5-year spending increases: $382 billion.

Note.--Totals for Senate Democrat amendments to the 2005
budget resolution, adjusted to exclude duplicative
amendments. Five-year cost assumes increased discretionary
spending in 2005 would continue in future years, but does not
include baseline inflation or debt service costs.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ba/revenue
No. and description Sponsor Party Adopt Tax/ spend M/loop/other -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 5-yr.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TAX INCREASES
2803 Health security............... Lincoln........... D N Tax.......... Loopholes.............. -12.000 -12.000 -12.000 -12.000 -12.000 -60.000
2774 Indian health................. Daschle........... D N Tax.......... Looopholes/million..... -3.062 -0.344 -0.035 0.000 0.000 -3.440
2725 Pell Grants................... Kennedy........... D N Tax.......... Loopholes.............. -2.352 -7.253 -0.196 0.000 0.000 -9.801
2790 Higher education reserve fund. Reed.............. D N Tax.......... Loopholes.............. -1.332 -4.560 -0.220 -0.052 0.000 -6.164
2775 Survivor benefit plan......... Landrieu.......... D Y Tax.......... Loopholes.............. -0.876 -1.054 -0.998 -1.066 -1.520 -5.154
2719 NCLB full funding............. Murray............ D N Tax.......... Loopholes.............. -0.516 -13.244 -2.924 -0.516 0.000 -17.200
2762 21st Century Community Dodd.............. D N Tax.......... Loopholes.............. -0.060 -1.301 -0.541 -0.100 0.000 -2.002
Learning Center.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Loopholes............ -20.198 -39.756 -16.914 -13.734 -13.520 -104.121
=============================================================================
2777 Eliminate tax breaks for Corzine........... D N Tax.......... Millionaires........... -20,000 -31.000 -34.000 -39.000 -36.000 -160.000
millionaires.
2786 IDEA full funding............. Dayton............ D N Tax.......... Millionaires........... -11.485 -11.136 -11.864 -12.629 -13.415 -60.529
2783 Jobs.......................... Boxer............. D N Tax.......... Millionaires........... -8.000 -8.000 -8.000 0.000 0.000 -24.000
2804 Raise taxes for more disc. Byrd.............. D N Tax.......... Millionaires........... -5.656 -13.365 -3.596 -1.200 -0.429 -24.246
spending.
2710 Veterans medical care Daschle........... D N Tax.......... Millionaires........... -4.860 -0.486 -0.022 -0.005 0.000 -5.373
``reserve fund''.
2807 Homeland spending and tax Lieberman......... D N Tax.......... Millionaires........... -3.664 -4.533 -4.089 -1.160 -0.175 -13.621
increases.
2774 Indian health................. Daschle........... D N Tax.......... Loopholes/million...... -3.062 -0.344 -0.035 0.000 0.000 -3.440
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Millionaires......... -56.727 -68.864 -61.606 -53.994 -50.019 -291.209
=============================================================================
2799 Tobacco tax for health........ Harkin............ D N Tax.......... Other.................. -7,800 -7,800 -7,800 -7,800 -7,800 -39.000
2703 Superfund fees................ Lautenberg........ D N Tax.......... Other.................. -1.501 -1.629 -1.696 -1.735 -1.754 -8.315
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal other................ -9.301 -9.429 -9.496 -9.535 -9.554 -47.315
=============================================================================
Total Tax Increase............ -86.225 -118.049 -88.015 -77.263 -73.093 -442.645
=============================================================================
SPENDING INCREASES
2803 Health security............... Lincoln........... D N Spend........ Loopholes.............. 12.000 12.000 12.000 12.000 12.000 60.000
2804 Raise taxes for more disc. Byrd.............. D N Spend........ Millionaires........... 11.223 ........... ........... ........... ........... 11.223
spending.
2786 IDEA full funding............. Dayton............ D N Spend........ Millionaires........... 10.485 10.485 10.485 10.485 13.589 55.529
2719 NCLB full funding............. Murray............ D N Spend........ Loopholes.............. 8.600 ........... ........... ........... ........... 8.600
2783 Jobs.......................... Boxer............. D N Spend........ Millionaires........... 8.000 8.000 8.000 0.000 0.000 24.000

[[Page S3406]]

2807 Homeland spending and tax Lieberman......... D N Spend........ Millionaires........... 6.800 ........... ........... ........... ........... 6.800
increases.
2799 Tobacco tax for health........ Harkin............ D N Spend........ Other.................. 6.000 6.000 6.000 6.000 6.500 30.500
2725 Pell Grants................... Kennedy........... D N Spend........ Loopholes.............. 4.900 ........... ........... ........... ........... 4.900
2774 Indian health................. Daschle........... D N Spend........ Looopholes/million..... 3.440 ........... ........... ........... ........... 3.440
2790 Higher education reserve fund. Reed.............. D N Spend........ Loopholes.............. 3.082 ........... ........... ........... ........... 3.082
2775 Survivor benefit plan......... Landrieu.......... D Y Spend........ Loopholes.............. 2.757 ........... ........... ........... ........... 2.757
2710 Veterans medical care Daschle........... D N Spend........ Millionaires........... 2.700 ........... ........... ........... ........... 2.700
``reserve fund''.
2762 21st Century Community Dodd.............. D N Spend........ Loopholes.............. 1.000 ........... ........... ........... ........... 1.000
Learning Center.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Spending Increase 80.987 36.485 36.485 28.485 32.089 214.531
(without extrapolation).

TAX INCREASES
2803 Health security............... Lincoln........... D N Tax.......... Loopholes.............. -12.000 -12.000 -12.000 -12.000 -12.000 -60.000
2774 Indian health................. Daschle........... D N Tax.......... Loopholes/million...... -3.062 -0.344 -0.035 0.000 0.000 -3.440
2725 Pell Grants................... Kennedy........... D N Tax.......... Loopholes.............. -2.352 -7.253 -0.196 0.000 0.000 -9.801
2790 Higher education reserve fund. Reed.............. D N Tax.......... Loopholes.............. -1.332 -4.560 -0.220 -0.052 0.000 -6.164
2775 Survivor benefit plan......... Landrieu.......... D Y Tax.......... Loopholes.............. -0.876 -1.054 -0.998 -1.066 -1.520 -5.514
2719 NCLB full funding............. Murray............ D N Tax.......... Loopholes.............. -0.516 -13.244 -2.924 -0.516 0.000 -17.200
2762 21st Century Community Dodd.............. D N Tax.......... Loopholes.............. -0.060 -1.301 -0.541 -0.100 0.000 -2.002
Learning Center.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Loopholes............ -20.198 -39.756 -16.914 -13.734 -13.520 -104.121
=============================================================================
2777 Eliminate tax breaks for Corzine........... D N Tax.......... Millionaires........... -20.000 -31.000 -34.000 -39.000 -36.000 -160.000
millionaires.
2786 IDEA full funding............. Dayton............ D N Tax.......... Millionaires........... -11.485 -11.136 -11.864 -12.629 -13.415 -60.529
2783 Jobs.......................... Boxer............. D N Tax.......... Millionaires........... -8.000 -8.000 -8.000 0.000 0.000 -24.000
2804 Raise taxes for more disc. Byrd.............. D N Tax.......... Millionaires........... -5.656 -13.365 -3.596 -1.200 -0.429 -24.246
spending.
2710 Veterans medical care Daschle........... D N Tax.......... Millionaires........... -4.860 -0.486 -0.022 -0.005 0.000 -5.373
``reserve fund''.
2807 Homeland spending and tax Lieberman......... D N Tax.......... Millionaires........... -3.664 -4.533 -4.089 -1.160 -0.175 -13.621
increases.
2774 Indian health................. Daschle........... D N Tax.......... Loopholes/million...... -3.062 -0.344 -0.035 0.000 0.000 -3.440
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Millionaires......... -56.727 -68.864 -61.606 -53.994 -50.019 -291.209
=============================================================================
2799 Tobacco tax for health........ Harkin............ D N Tax.......... Other.................. -7.800 -7.800 -7.800 -7.800 -7.800 -39.000
2703 Superfund fees................ Lautenburg........ D N Tax.......... Other.................. -1.501 -1.629 -1.696 -1.735 -1.754 -8.315
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal other................ -9.301 -9.429 -9.496 -9.535 -9.554 -47.315
=============================================================================
Total Tax Increase............ -86.225 -118.049 -88.015 -77.263 -73.093 -442.645
=============================================================================
SPENDING INCREASES
2803 Health security............... Lincoln........... D N Spend........ Loopholes.............. 12.000 12.000 12.000 12.000 12.000 60.000
2804 Raise taxes for more disc. Byrd.............. D N Spend........ Millionaires........... 11.223 11.223 11.223 11.223 11.223 56.115
spending.
2786 IDEA full funding............. Dayton............ D N Spend........ Millionaires........... 10.485 10.485 10.485 10.485 13.589 55.529
2719 NCLB full funding............. Murray............ D N Spend........ Loopholes.............. 8.600 8.600 8.600 8.600 8.600 43.000
2783 Jobs.......................... Boxer............. D N Spend........ Millionaires........... 8.000 8.000 8.000 0.000 0.000 24.000
2807 Homeland spending and tax Lieberman......... D N Spend........ Millionaires........... 6.800 6.800 6.800 6.800 6.800 34.000
increases.
2799 Tobacco tax for health........ Harkin............ D N Spend........ Other.................. 6.000 6.000 6.000 6.000 6.500 30.500
2725 Pell Grants................... Kennedy........... D N Spend........ Loopholes.............. 4.900 4.900 4.900 4.900 4.900 24.500
2774 Indian health................. Daschle........... D N Spend........ Loopholes/million...... 3.440 3.440 3.440 3.440 3.440 17.200
2790 Higher education reserve fund. Reed.............. D N Spend........ Loopholes.............. 3.082 3.082 3.082 3.082 3.082 15.410
2775 Survivor benefit plan......... Landrieu.......... D Y Spend........ Loopholes.............. 2.757 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.757
2710 Veterans medical care Daschle........... D N Spend........ Millionaires........... 2.700 2.700 2.700 2.700 2.700 13.500
``reserve fund''.
2762 21st Century Community Dodd.............. D N Spend........ Loopholes.............. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 5.000
Learning Center.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Spending Increase (with 80.987 78.230 78.230 70.230 73.834 381.511
extrapolation).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. NICKLES. I want my colleagues to know we keep tally and keep
measures of how much some of these amendments cost. This is an accurate
portrayal. We had amendments that would increase taxes and spending by
hundreds of billions of dollars. Those are now entered in the Record.
I also heard some comments on pay-go. I might mention for our
colleagues, last week Senator Murray had an amendment. I raised a point
of order on it that most all of our colleagues on the Democrat side
said, let's waive pay-go. Let's spend an extra $18 billion. We have a
tax credit, but basically it was to spend more money, $18 billion.
We didn't waive it, but most of our colleagues on the Democrat side
who profess belief in pay-go voted to waive pay-go--for a bill,
incidentally, that had never had a hearing before the Finance
Committee, never been vetted. It is just proposed on the floor. I
happen to be a supporter of pay-go.
Incidentally, people act like we have not had pay-go for the last
year. That is false. The budget we passed last year had pay-go for
anything that wasn't assumed in the budget resolution, period. We used
pay-go and other points of order, some of which are redundant. You can
make a budget point of order because a committee exceeds its
allocation, or you can make a pay-go point of order. I used both. We
made 61 or 62 budget points of order, on most of which we prevailed,
which saved over $800 billion in new spending.
It seems a lot of people who are now pro pay-go are trying to make
sure the tax cuts that are presently law are not extended. I hope that
will not be successful.
I just make those comments. I think I would much prefer to have the
debate, whether it is on pay-go, the amount of money we spend for
defense or the amount of money we spend on nondefense, or new budget
rules--incidentally, these rules apply only to the Senate--but I think
it would be appropriate for us to have those in conference.
For the information of all our colleagues, the Budget House and
Senate conferees will be meeting at 2:30 this afternoon in the Senate
budget room on the sixth floor of the Dirksen Building. We tried to
find a room in the Capitol and were not successful.
For the information of our colleagues, I think we had a good debate
today. I look forward to a constructive, positive conference, one in
which we will hear all sides and all viewpoints and consider
constructive suggestions for making improvements. It is my hope we can
conclude the Budget conference in a very short period of time. The
House would like to vote on it Thursday or Friday. I think that is
possible. I think it would be important for us to actually pass a
budget that will show we can get the deficit down, in half, in 3 or 4
years. I expect that will be our result. That is my objective. I hope
to do that and I hope we can accomplish that.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma and the chairman
of the Budget Committee will not be surprised that I completely
disagree with his characterization of the amendments offered on our
side during the budget fight. We did not offer a package of amendments,
so you can't total the spending of each individual proposal. We would
offer an amendment, but in each case we would pay for the amendment. We
were not adding to the deficit.
If you take our proposals in total--which you cannot do because they
were not offered as a package, they were offered individually. We are
just going to be intellectually honest here. You can't cumulate
something that was not offered as a cumulative amendment. We offered an
amendment, it would be defeated, but in each of the amendments we
offered, we offered offsets.
I ask unanimous consent to have that chart printed in the Record as
well.

[[Page S3407]]

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

FLOOR AMENDMENTS TO SENATE GOP FY 2005 BUDGET
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(FY 2005-09; $ billions) Vote Amount Offset Net cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Democratic Amendments:
2703 Lautenberg--Polluter's Pay/ 44-52............. 0.000 -8.315 -8.315
Reinstate Superfund taxes.
2710 Daschle--Veteran's medical care 44-53............. 2.687 -5.373 -2.686
(reserve fund).
2717 Wyden--Healthy Forests Restoration Adopted u.c....... 0.343 -0.343 0.000
Act/Function 920.
2719 Murray--No Child Left Behind 46-52............. 8.600 -17.200 -8.600
(reserve fund).
2725 Kennedy--Pell Grants/Close tax 44-53............. 4.900 -9.802 -4.902
loopholes (reserve fund).
2745 Nelson--Veterans Medicare care 46-51............. 1.791 -1.791 0.000
reserve fund/Close tax loopholes
(reserve fund).
2762 Dodd--After School Programs/Close 42-54............. 1.000 -2.002 -1.002
tax loopholes (reserve fund).
2774 Daschle--Indian Health Service 42-54............. 3.440 -6.880 -3.440
(reserve fund).
2775 Landrieu--Military Survivor Adopted v.v....... 2.757 -5.514 -2.757
Benefit Plan/Close tax loopholes
(reserve fund).
2777 Corzine--Tax savings to strengthen Withdrawn......... 0.000 -160.000 -160.000
Social Security.
2780 Clinton--Minority Health/Deficit Adopted u.c....... 0.000 0.000 0.000
neutral requirement (reserve fund up to
$400 M).
2783 Boxer--Job creation (reserve fund) 41-53............. 24.000 -24.000 0.000
2786 Dayton--IDEA Part B/Reduce tax Rejected v.v...... 39.423 -60.529 -21.106
breaks for the wealthiest (reserve
fund).
2789 Sarbanes--Fully fund FIRE and 41-55............. 1.430 -2.860 -1.430
SAFER Act/Reduce tax breaks for top 1%
(reserve fund).
2790 Reed--Higher Ed Financial Ed/Close Rejected v.v...... 3.082 -6.164 -3.082
tax loopholes (reserve fund).
2793 Dorgan--Increase funding for COPs, 41-55............. 1.100 -2.200 -1.100
Byrne grants, and local law enforcement
grants (reserve fund).
2799 Harkin--Increase funding for 32-64............. 30.500 -39.000 -8.500
health programs/Cigarette tax (reserve
fund).
2803 Lincoln--Expand health care 43-53............. 60.000 -60.000 0.000
coverage/Close tax loopholes.
2804 Byrd--Increase discretionary caps/ 43-53............. 24.246 -24.246 0.000
Close tax loopholes & other (reserve
fund).
2807 Lieberman--Restore cuts in 40-57............. 6.800 -13.621 -6.821
homeland security/Reduce tax breaks for
millionaires (reserve fund).
2817 Levin--Homeland security grants/ 52-43............. 1.545 -1.700 -0.155
SPRO sales (reserve fund).
2820 Mikulski--Tuition tax credit/ Adopted v.v....... 0.000 0.000 0.000
Deficit neutral requirement (reserve
fund).
2833 Bingaman--Pediatric vaccine Adopted u.c....... 0.000 0.000 0.000
distribution/Deficit neutral
requirement (reserve fund).
2848 Byrd--Correct scoring for Project Adopted u.c....... 2.528 0.000 2.528
Bioshield (make consistent with 2004
resolution assumptions).
2850 Dorgan--Homestead Act/Function 920 Adopted v.v....... 1.915 -1.915 0.000
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Democratic Amendments....... .................. 222.087 -453.455 -231.368
===============================================
Republican Amendments:
2697 DeWine--Child Survival & Health Adopted v.v....... 0.330 -0.330 0.000
Program/Function 920.
2715 DeWine--Reconstruction of Haiti/ Adopted v.v....... 0.500 -0.500 0.000
Function 920.
2731 Graham--TRICARE & GI Bill/Rescind Adopted v.v....... 6.800 -6.800 0.000
Iraqi reconstruction (2 reserve funds).
2733 Sessions--NASA Space exploration/ Adopted v.v....... 0.600 -0.600 0.000
Function 800.
2741 Specter--NIH--Discretionary health/ 72-24............. 1.300 -1.300 0.000
Function 920.
2742 Warner--Restore cuts to Defense/No 95-4.............. 7.638 0.000 7.638
offset.
2784 Crapo--Clean Water State Revolving Adopted v.v....... 2.850 -2.850 0.000
Funds/Function 920.
2794 Thomas--Rural health programs/ Adopted u.c....... 0.100 -0.100 0.000
Function 920.
2821 Coleman--Pell Grants/Function 920. Adopted v.v....... 1.884 -1.884 0.000
2822 Murkowski--Indian Health Service/ Adopted v.v....... 0.281 -0.281 0.000
Function 920.
2823 Inhofe--ESPC Directed Scorekeeping Adopted v.v....... 1.660 0.000 1.660
(CBO costs of $1.7 B over 5 years).
2832 Enzi--Workforce Investment Act/ Adopted u.c....... 0.247 -0.247 0.000
Function 920.
2839 Snowe--SBA programs/Function 920.. Adopted v.v....... 0.115 -0.115 0.000
2843 Hatch--Restore cuts to law Adopted v.v....... 0.600 -0.600 0.000
enforcement grant programs/Function 800.
2844 Dole--Child Nutrition Programs/ Adopted u.c....... 0.820 -0.820 0.000
Function 920.
2845 Lugar--Restore cuts to Adopted u.c....... 1.524 -1.524 0.000
International affairs/Function 920.
2846 Murkowski--Veterans Medical Care/ Adopted u.c....... 1.194 -1.194 0.000
Function 920.
2849 Kyl--Veterans Medical Care Withdrawn......... 0.000 0.000 0.000
(reserve fund).
2852 Collins--Postal Service reform/ Adopted v.v....... 0.000 0.000 0.000
Deficit neutral requirement (reserve
fund).
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Republican Amendments....... .................. 28.443 0.000 0.000
===============================================
Grand Total, All Amendments........... .................. 250.530 -472.600 -222.070
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Outlays (excludes associated interest costs/savings). Amount of each amendment includes estimated costs of any
contingent reserve funds (which may or may not be released).

Mr. CONRAD. What it shows is if you do cumulate the spending over 5
years, it was $222 billion, but the deficit reduction was $231 billion.
That is a fact.
On the other side, they increased by $28 billion, and added to the
deficit by $9.3 billion. So the only folks who had cumulative totals
here on the floor that added to the deficit were our friends on the
other side of the aisle. That is a fact.
We have been very careful to insist amendments on our side be paid
for and reduce the deficit. We insisted that not only amendments
offered on this side be deficit neutral, but they actually reduced the
deficit in addition to any change in funding priorities.
The Senator once again says the budget before us will reduce the
deficit in half in 3 years. The problem is, if you look at increases to
the debt in each of those years, you don't see a reduction. The debt
continues to be increased between $500 and $600 billion a year in every
year of this budget proposal--$3 trillion. On the Senate budget, in
fairness, $2.9 trillion added to the debt in just the next 5 years.
The President's plan adds $3 trillion to the national debt in just
the next 5 years. That is a mistake. That is a mistake because it is
coming at a critical time, right before the baby boomers start to
retire. That will happen in the fifth year of this 5-year budget plan.
Mr. President, how much time remains?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 30 seconds.
Mr. CONRAD. I want to conclude by thanking the chairman. We have had
differences on budget policy; we have had differences in how we should
proceed; but we have done it, I think, in a way that should be done in
the Senate. We have done it in a way where there is respect and a
serious listening to both sides in order to achieve a result and a
rational process for this body.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. All time has expired.
Under the previous order, the Senate disagrees to the House amendment
to S. Con. Res. 95, agrees to the request for a conference with the
House, and the Chair is authorized to appoint conferees on the part of
the Senate with a ratio of 4 to 3.
The Acting President pro tempore appointed Mr. Nickles, Mr. Domenici,
Mr. Grassley, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Hollings, and Mr. Sarbanes
conferees on the part of the Senate.

____________________