[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.

                          ____________________