[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 152 (Tuesday, October 29, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7609-S7610]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       FINDING A BUDGET SOLUTION

  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I read with great interest the recent 
opinion piece on congressional budget negotiations written by my good 
friend Kent Conrad, our former colleague here in the Senate and 
distinguished chair of the Budget Committee.
  I have been fortunate to serve in this Chamber for the past 38 years 
with principled leaders like Kent Conrad. I was elected to the Senate 
in 1974, the same year the Congressional Budget Act passed into law, 
and I have served here with all of the Budget Committee chairs--from 
Edmund Muskie to Patty Murray.
  I think Kent Conrad is right that at this critical juncture we need 
to have a grown-up discussion about our Nation's finances--both about 
the debts we incur and the ways in which we pay for them. We have all 
heard a lot of talk in the last few years about getting our fiscal 
house in order. It makes for a great campaign slogan. But I am afraid 
that too many are not following through on their responsibility to 
govern.
  After jumping from one manufactured crisis to another for the past 
few years, which has hurt the U.S. economy and America's standing in 
the world, it is time for reason and sanity to return to the Senate--on 
the budget process, on nominations, and on a whole host of other 
issues. Returning to regular order on the budget conference--and 
letting conference members from the House and the Senate work out a 
final agreement free from rigid ideological positions--would be a good 
first step to bringing some comity and order back to this body so we 
can serve the American people.
  I remain ready to work with people on both sides of the aisle in the 
hopes that we can find a workable budget solution in the coming weeks, 
and I suggest that everyone heed the calls for bipartisanship and 
compromise made by Senator Conrad.
  With that, I ask unanimous consent that Kent Conrad's full opinion 
piece from the October 24, 2013, Washington Post be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Oct. 24, 2013]

Opinion: A Fair Trade for Entitlement Reform Includes Increased Revenue

                        (By Senator Kent Conrad)

       Kent Conrad, a Democrat, represented North Dakota in the 
     Senate from 1987 to 2013.
       The Post's Oct. 20 editorial on the budget challenge [``A 
     fiscal quid pro quo''] made important points but was way off-
     base on the issue of revenue. It suggested that a fair trade 
     would be reductions to the ``sequester'' budget cuts in 
     exchange for reforms to Medicare and Social Security and said 
     that Democrats should not insist on additional revenue 
     because that's a non-starter with many Republicans. Democrats 
     would make a serious mistake by following that advice.
       Our country needs more revenue to help us get back on 
     track. Citing Congressional Budget Office calculations, The 
     Post said that ``federal revenue as a share of [gross 
     domestic product (GDP)] will hit 18.5 percent by 2023, near 
     the upper-end of the postwar range.'' That's true, but the 
     last five times our country had a balanced budget, revenue 
     averaged 20 percent of GDP. The Bowles-Simpson plan, which 
     The Post strongly endorsed, achieved revenue of 20.6 percent 
     of GDP--not by raising tax rates but by broadening the tax 
     base and lowering tax rates.
       Tax reform should be part of any budget deal. Tax reform is 
     necessary to unlock the full potential of our economy. The 
     current tax system is not fair and damages U.S. 
     competitiveness. A five-story building in the Cayman Islands 
     claims to be home to more than 18,000 companies. Is it the 
     most efficient building in the world? No! That and other tax 
     scams cost our country more than $100 billion each year, the 
     Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has found.
       If we don't fix the revenue side of the equation at the 
     same time as we repair Social Security and Medicare, it will 
     never happen. To suggest, as The Post does, that Democrats 
     should trade adjustments to the sequester for reforms to 
     these programs assumes that the sequester affects only 
     Democratic priorities. More than half of the $1.2 trillion in 
     sequester cuts are to defense, long a Republican priority.

[[Page S7610]]

       A fair trade would be modest additions to revenue as part 
     of a balanced plan. A revenue increase of $300 billion to 
     $400 billion over 10 years would amount to only 1 percent of 
     the $37 trillion the federal government is expected to 
     collect over that time. We can't do 1 percent? Of course we 
     can. And by reforming the tax code, we could do it without 
     raising tax rates on a single American.
       A similar $300 billion to $400 billion in savings out of 
     Medicare and Medicaid would amount to about 3 percent of the 
     $11 trillion the federal government is expected to spend on 
     health care over that time. We can't do 3 percent? Of course 
     we can. And we must: Health spending is the fastest-growing 
     part of the federal budget, projected to increase from 1 
     percent of GDP in 1971 to more than 12 percent of GDP in 
     2050. And the trustees of the Medicare system say it will be 
     insolvent by 2026.
       The Post was correct that adoption of a ``chained CPI,'' or 
     consumer price index, system of measuring inflation should be 
     part of any agreement. Most economists say that chained CPI, 
     which accounts for behavioral changes people make when faced 
     with increasing prices, is a more accurate way of measuring 
     inflation. Going to chained CPI would raise revenue because 
     our tax system is indexed for inflation, and it would cut 
     spending because many programs, including Social Security, 
     are indexed for inflation.
       Federal spending has been cut by $900 billion in the Budget 
     Control Act, by $1.2 trillion in the sequester and by more 
     than $500 billion in the 2010 continuing resolution. That is 
     spending cuts of $2.6 trillion, while only $600 billion in 
     revenue has been added. That is hardly balanced.
       To suggest that Democrats should give up on revenue because 
     it's a non-starter with many Republicans is like telling 
     Republicans they should give up on entitlement reform because 
     it is a non-starter with many Democrats. The truth is, both 
     sides need to give a little ground on their must-haves for 
     real progress to be made.
       A mini-``grand bargain'' would require all of these 
     elements: changes to Social Security and Medicare to ensure 
     their solvency for future generations; a modest increase in 
     revenue so all parts of society participate in getting our 
     country back on track; and changes to the sequester cuts that 
     force nearly all of the deficit savings on less than 30 
     percent of the budget.
       We can do this, but everyone must be prepared to give a 
     little so that our nation can gain a lot.

                          ____________________