[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Page 7766]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                        BUDGET CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. CONRAD. One of the great problems of this budget is the defense 
buildup that we all know the administration is going to call for--in 
fact, we are told it is going to come out next week--and the Secretary 
of Defense was asked by the President not to come out with his defense 
numbers before we passed the tax cut. Why? I suppose reasonable people 
could conjecture why they didn't want the defense numbers out before 
the tax cut was agreed to. But I think I know. I think the truth is 
that they know if you have the defense numbers, and if you have what is 
likely to happen in education spending, and if you have some commitment 
to strengthening Social Security, which everybody says they are for as 
part of a budget document, then the budget document before us simply 
does not add up. That is their problem.
  When you put all of those numbers together, what you find is that you 
are into the Social Security and the Medicare trust funds.
  In conclusion, I take my colleagues back to the budget proposal we 
made on our side because I think it was a fiscally responsible 
proposal, one that took the $5.6 trillion forecast but understood that 
it was a projection, and that it is very unlikely to come true.
  The Senator from Michigan has just shown how inaccurate these 
forecasts have been year after year. They average being off by 100 
percent or more. That tells me that we ought to be cautious in what we 
do.
  In the budget proposal we made, we reserved all of the Social 
Security trust fund money for Social Security, $2.5 trillion, all of 
the Medicare trust fund money for Medicare, $400 billion, and then with 
what was left, we had a proposed tax cut of $745 billion in comparison 
to the $1.3 trillion that is before us.
  In other words, we had about 60 percent of the tax cut that is being 
proposed. We had $300 billion more of investment on high-priority 
domestic needs. And the area where there were the big differences was 
education. We had $139 billion of new money for education. Actually, 
what passed the Senate was much more than that. But this conference 
committee came back with nothing--no new money for education.
  I know there are colleagues who believe this conference report has 
more money for education. It does not. It does not.
  I have gone over these numbers in great detail. There is only allowed 
in this budget resolution the inflationary increase so that we are not 
cutting the effective amount for education every year. The truth is, 
even with that inflationary adjustment, we are cutting what is 
available because the student population is growing.
  With no new money for education in real terms in what can be 
delivered per student, this budget cuts education, after the President 
has said education is his top priority.
  We had a smaller tax cut. We had more resources than is provided in 
this conference report dedicated to these high-priority needs, 
including education, including national defense, and including health 
care coverage. We set aside $750 billion to deal with this long-term 
debt that we all know is coming our way about when the baby boom 
generation retires. We set aside $750 billion for that purpose because 
we think it is kind of like the squirrel in the fall. You had better be 
putting some nuts away to prepare for the winter.
  In this conference report there is zero set aside to strengthen 
Social Security for the long term, to address this long- term debt that 
is coming our way.
  The fundamental difference between us is that we had about twice as 
much money set aside for debt reduction. The other side has about twice 
as much money set aside for a tax cut. We had more new money set aside 
for education and more money set aside for national defense than is in 
this conference report.
  But this conference report isn't the full story because we know the 
Secretary of Defense has said he is going to come out next week and 
propose a huge increase in defense. But they are not in the budget.
  We know the President has a Social Security commission that is going 
to come back and propose privatization. That has a transition cost of 
about $1 trillion. There is no money in the budget for it, just as 
there is no money in the budget for the defense buildup they are going 
to ask for, just as there is no new money for education, although the 
President says it is his top priority.
  There is something wrong with a budget that does not have what we 
really intend to do in it. That is the way we get into financial 
trouble. There is no private sector enterprise in America that would 
budget this way. It is profoundly irresponsible.
  I hope we reject the conference report. I sincerely do. I call on my 
colleagues to do just that. Let's go back to the drawing board. Let's 
wait until we have that defense number next week. Let's wait until the 
President proposes how much he needs to strengthen Social Security for 
the long term. Let's wait until we finish action on the education bill 
that is on the floor of the Senate right now and see how much money 
that is going to require, so that we have a full accounting, a full 
budget, and make certain that it adds up.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________