[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7832-7850]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002--CONFERENCE 
                                 REPORT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of the conference report to 
accompany H. Con. Res. 83, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Conference report to accompany the concurrent resolution 
     (H. Con. Res. 83) establishing the congressional budget for 
     the United States Government for fiscal year 2002, revising 
     the congressional budget for the United States Government for 
     fiscal year 2001, and setting forth appropriate budgetary 
     levels for each of fiscal years 2003 through 2011.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senator from West Virginia is now recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, would the Chair kindly inform me when I have 
used 25 minutes of my time?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will notify the Senator.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote on the conference 
report for the fiscal year 2002 budget resolution. I will vote against 
this conference report. This budget is a bad deal for America. It fails 
to address critical deficiencies in our Nation's schools, our Nation's 
highways, our Nation's drinking water and sewage systems, our Nation's 
law enforcement, and energy independence. The list goes on and on like 
Tennyson's brook--almost forever. Instead of addressing these 
deficiencies, instead of planning for the future, this is a budget 
resolution that places short-term, partisan political gratification 
ahead of the long-term needs of the Nation.
  This Nation faces daunting challenges--if you drove in just this 
morning to work, or yesterday morning, you can see what I am talking 
about, the daunting challenges that confront this country on the 
highways--in the next two decades. We will continue increasingly to 
face those daunting challenges.
  The baby boom generation will begin to retire around the year 2008. 
That is not far away. Because of the demands of that generation, both 
the Social Security and Medicare trust funds are expected to be running 
in the red by 2016--15 years from now. Not a single dime--not one thin 
dime--is devoted to shoring up Social Security, and the resources 
allotted to Medicare and prescription drugs are totally inadequate.
  We know that 75 percent of our Nation's school buildings are 
inadequate to meet the needs of the Nation's children. But how many 
dollars are devoted to building and renovating school buildings? How 
many dollars are devoted to making classrooms smaller? Zero. Zilch. 
Zip.
  The American Society of Civil Engineers, earlier this spring, graded 
the Nation's infrastructure. How did we do? Abysmally. Roads, D+; 
aviation,
D-; schools, D-; transit, D-; drinking water, D. Overall, in 10 
different categories, the Nation's infrastructure received an average 
grade of D+.
  Now my old coal miner dad would have given me a good thrashing if I 
had brought home a report card with a D on it. I could have depended on 
that. Well, the dog must have eaten that report card on the way to the 
White House because this conference report ignores low grades on the 
Nation's infrastructure.
  Now the President--and I have great respect for the President--is 
fond of saying we ought to give the people their money back. I think we 
ought to give the people their money's worth. Instead of a massive tax 
cut today, we ought to look toward tomorrow and repair our outdated 
infrastructure. Instead of a massive tax cut today, we ought to help 
provide for safe highways and bridges, airports and transit systems 
that work, clean air, safe drinking water, safe schools. We ought to 
plan ahead to ensure that Social Security and Medicare will be 
available in the long term. The American people expect us to make smart 
choices. This conference report is not a smart choice.
  What is in this conference report?
  It contains a $1.35 trillion tax cut spread out over the next 11 
years, based solely on an illusory surplus estimate that even the 
Congressional Budget Office considers highly unlikely.
  This budget also establishes discretionary spending levels that are 
totally inadequate and unrealistic. For the next fiscal year, the 
budget limits spending to a 4.2-percent increase. For nondefense 
programs, the level provided in the conference report is $5.5 billion 
below the level necessary to keep pace with inflation.
  Now I am wearing my Appropriations Committee hat today. I am the 
ranking member on the Senate Appropriations Committee. Let me say to my 
colleagues, you will be coming to the waterhole--I think of the animals 
in the forest. Occasionally, they have to go to the waterhole. They 
can't avoid it. And so the people of this country have to go to the 
waterhole. The waterhole is the Appropriations Committees of the two 
Houses. And Senators and House Members who represent the people who 
elect them and send them here also have to go to that waterhole, the 
Appropriations Committee. Well, I am wearing my appropriations hat 
today.
  Let me say to my colleagues, if you vote for this budget conference 
report, don't come to the watering hole. It is not that I would not 
love to help you, but you are going to make it impossible. Those who 
vote for this conference report are going to make it impossible for me 
and for the Appropriations subcommittee ranking members to help you. 
Hear me: I would love to help you, but you are going to make it 
impossible when you vote for this conference report, because you are 
going to cut discretionary spending levels to the point that we cannot 
help you.
  Again, for nondefense programs, the level provided in the conference 
report is $5.5 billion below the level necessary to keep pace just with 
inflation. This level will leave no resources for increases that we all 
recognize are necessary for education, for infrastructure, for research 
and development, and for the promotion of our energy independence. We 
have an energy shortage in this country right now--rolling brownouts. 
You are going to hear more about them. But what are we doing about it? 
We are not doing anything positively in this budget conference report. 
I will tell you what we are doing. We are cutting the moneys for basic 
research--fossil fuel research--in the budget.
  The increases being debated on the floor for elementary and secondary 
education cannot be fully funded. The resolution provides for an 
increase of less than $13 billion above fiscal year 2001 for all 
nondefense programs. The elementary and secondary education bill now 
pending in the Senate assumes over $10 billion in increases for fiscal 
year 2002 just for elementary and secondary education programs alone. 
And all we have is less than $13 billion.
  Members should be under no illusions. The budget conference report is 
not the budget resolution that passed the Senate 65-35 last month. 
Several of our Democratic colleagues voted for that, and a great 
majority on the other side did so, too. But you are not voting today 
for that concurrent resolution on the budget that you voted for a 
couple of weeks ago on this Senate floor. For fiscal year 2002 alone, 
the conference report you will be voting for today is $27 billion below 
the resolution that passed the Senate a few days ago--$10 billion lower 
for defense and $17 billion lower for nondefense.
  Now the President has called this a ``people's budget.'' Imagine 
that. The President called this a ``people's budget.'' I would almost 
laugh out loud if it weren't so serious. Imagine that--the President 
calling this a ``people's budget.'' Well, that may be true if your 
definition of ``the people'' is limited to those lucky individuals who 
earn six-figure salaries. If you limit ``the people'' in your State to 
those who are spending their mornings sipping Starbucks coffee and 
perusing the Wall Street Journal to check on the status of their stocks 
and bonds, then you are talking about the people.

[[Page 7833]]

  It may be a people's budget if the people are limited to those lucky 
souls who spend their winters in the Bahamas and their summers on a 
Caribbean cruise. But this is not a people's budget for the coal 
miners, not for the locomotive engineers, not for the brakemen on the 
railroads, not for the cleaning ladies, not for the schoolteachers. It 
is not a people's budget for the folks flipping hamburgers for minimum 
wage. Ask them. They are the people, too, and they have been left out, 
o-u-t, and left behind in this whale of a deal for the well-to-do.
  President Bush, the President of all the people of the Nation, says:

       It's a good budget for the working people of America.

  He said it. I didn't say that. That may be true if your definition of 
``working'' means calling your broker on your cell phone to tell him to 
put another million on titanium futures. That may be true if your 
definition of ``working people'' is the folks who hop in their Learjets 
to check out their business interests on three continents.
  In my State of West Virginia, we know who the working people are. The 
working people are the people who earn their living by the sweat of 
their brow. They are the people who get up early and stay up late 
trying to make ends meet. They are the working people. They are the 
people who get their hands dirty while trying to feed their families. 
Those are the working people.
  Working people are the teachers struggling on low pay in a hot 
classroom while trying to impart some wisdom to our Nation's children.
  The working people are the cops on the beat who risk their lives 
daily and nightly, who try to keep some order in these mean and 
dangerous streets and alleys.
  Working people are the coal miners who end up crippled, who end up 
sick after long, long years of digging coal from the rugged Earth to 
produce the electricity for this Senate Chamber, and to produce the 
electricity for this Nation. They are the people who get their hands 
dirty. They are the people who wash the grime, the coal dust out of 
their eyelashes, out of the wrinkles in their faces, grown old too 
early. They are the working people.
  Mr. President, they are the working people, the coal miners, the 
welders in the shipyard, the produce salesmen in the country, the 
farmers who toil in the hot Sun of the June and July and August days. 
They are the working people, Mr. President. They are not the people Mr. 
Bush is talking about.
  The President lauds this budget. He says it contains ``reasonable 
levels of spending.'' That may be true if you think that costing the 
American driving public nearly $6 billion a year because one-third of 
this Nation's roads are in poor condition, is ``reasonable.''
  Why don't we fix America's roads? If you think highway congestion is 
bad now, what will it be 5 years from now? Those of you who spent an 
hour and 10 minutes yesterday morning to drive ten miles to work in 
this Capitol, if you think congestion is bad now, think of what 
congestion will be 5 years from now. What will it be 10 years from now?
  The President calls the spending levels in this budget 
``reasonable.'' In this Nation, we have so many unsafe or obsolete 
bridges that it will cost $10.6 billion every year for the next 20 
years to fix them.
  We have 54,000 drinking water systems which will cost $11 billion to 
make them comply with Federal water regulations.
  We have more than 2,100 unsafe dams in this country. Do we recall 
Buffalo Creek Dam in southern West Virginia? It broke several years 
ago. Scores of lives were lost. And there are 2,100 unsafe dams in this 
country today which could cause loss of life.
  We have energy delivery systems which rely on old technology.
  We have outdated and crumbling schools which will require $3,800 per 
student to modernize.
  This budget provides little or no money to address any of these 
needs. It allows for current services adjusted for inflation for all 
discretionary programs, including defense. Do you know what that means? 
But for nondefense programs, the conference report is $5.5 billion 
below the amount necessary to keep pace with inflation. It means this 
Nation is essentially frozen in its ability to address backlogs or to 
anticipate needs.
  The backlogs are worsening, and the needs are going unaddressed 
because the funding levels endorsed by this White House are far too 
low.
  Anyone who calls these levels ``reasonable'' needs a reality check. 
Take off the rose-colored glasses, Mr. President; take them off, and 
once the warm cheery glow of tax cut fever has subsided, we will still 
have a nation that is very steadily sliding backwards.
  This huge tax cut will savage our nation's real and growing needs; it 
will siphon energy away from the engine that makes this economy run; it 
will benefit the jet set, but leave the rest of America riding on rusty 
rails. There is nothing ``reasonable'' about such a policy.
  I am also very concerned that this conference report does nothing to 
address the growth of mandatory spending. The President claims that he 
wants to restrain the size of Government, but his budget focuses only 
on limiting the part of the budget that is subject to the annual 
appropriations process. That is only one-third of the budget, and 
growing smaller by the day. The rest of the budget is on auto pilot.
  I assure Senators that discretionary spending will not be the cause 
of any future deficits. If we return to deficits--and we very well 
could--it will be because of the massive tax cuts contained in this 
conference report and the growth of mandatory programs. Discretionary 
spending is currently only 6.3 percent of the gross domestic product, 
less than half of what it was in 1967. Under the Budget resolution, it 
would fall to 5 percent by 2011. Mandatory spending is currently 9.7 
percent of GDP, more than double the level in 1966 and under the Budget 
conference report, mandatory spending will grow to 11 percent of GDP in 
2011.
  Not only does this resolution not constrain mandatory spending, it 
includes seven new reserves that empower the House and Senate Budget 
Committee chairmen to increase spending for mandatory programs.
  I have a great deal of faith in our budget chairman, Mr. Domenici, 
and I have seen all the budget chairmen we have had in the Senate since 
the Budget Act became law, but I do not care if it is a Republican or 
Democrat chairman, I do not support giving that kind of power to any 
budget chairman, Democrat or Republican. I would not want it myself if 
I were a chairman.
  I am very concerned that these powers which are being given to the 
Budget Committee chairmen will be used in a partisan way.
  This budget resolution was produced in negotiations between White 
House officials and the Republican leadership.
  There was no involvement--none--of the Democratic Leadership or the 
ranking members of the House and Senate Budget Committees. To add 
insult to injury, this Budget Resolution would empower the Budget 
Committee chairmen to allocate funding to mandatory programs with no 
assurances that the minority will be consulted. This is just one more 
example of the one-sided nature of this Budget Resolution. But as 
Milton said in Paradise Lost ``who overcomes by force has overcome but 
half his foe.'' There is no balance in this budget. It is tipped too 
far to the tax cut side. As a see-saw, it lifts some people up with 
generous tax givebacks, but it leaves this nation's needs sitting 
firmly on the ground.
  It is a ``for show'' budget designed to please a select group, and it 
was gussied up and trotted out by one party from behind locked doors.
  Since January's inauguration, we have heard plenty of lip service 
being paid to bipartisanship. Lip service. We have all heard the mantra 
that the tone of Washington is being changed. You better believe--it is 
not being changed. We have seen the photo-ops of Democrats being 
courted at the White House. All 535 Members of the House and Senate 
were invited to the White House a few days ago. All 535 Members. What a 
sham. That was to be a photo op. Nothing more, nothing less. What a 
sham. What hypocrisy. This budget deal was crafted without input from 
the Democratic Leaders, or the Ranking Members of the House and Senate

[[Page 7834]]

Budget Committees. When it was time for the rubber to meet the road, 
bipartisanship had a flat tire. Bipartisanship never was able to wiggle 
under the cracks in that door. Some Democrats may be willing to vote 
for this budget--they may be willing to sit at the President's table 
for this tax-cut feast. But, make no mistake, they were not in the 
kitchen when the meal was being cooked. They did not get to decide what 
went in the stew and what stayed out.
  The President, in his remarks congratulated the Republican Budget 
Committee chairmen of the House and the Senate. He congratulated the 
Republican Leaders of the Senate and the House. He lauds a few 
Democrats, but there is no mention in his remarks of the Democratic 
Leaders or the Ranking Members of the House and Senate Budget 
Committees. They were not privy to the budget pseudo-conference. There 
was no room for them at the inn. That is no accident. The plain 
unvarnished truth is that there has been barely a pinch of 
bipartisanship in the cooking of this final budget omelet, and the 
result certainly shows in the one-sided way the budget eggs were 
scrambled.
  There simply is not enough money to adequately fund the 13 
appropriations bills, get that--there is not enough money to adequately 
fund the 13 appropriation bills, and so, once again, appropriators will 
have to scrimp and parse and cannibalize in order to do our work.
  For those Senators who vote for this budget deal, I say go ahead and 
write your press releases. Pat yourselves on the back. Tell your 
constituents how you voted to cut taxes. That is an easy vote. But 
don't forget to tell your constituents about the other side of that 
coin. Be sure and include that in your press release. Don't forget to 
tell your constituents that you voted to shortchange our schools, 
roads, and water systems; don't forget to include in your press 
release, that you voted for lower funding for health care and energy 
research; and be sure to include in your press releases that you turned 
a blind eye to the looming crises facing Social Security and Medicare. 
In 1981, we took what Majority Leader Howard Baker called a riverboat 
gamble with President Reagan's tax cut and we ended up with triple 
digit deficits for fifteen years. Now the Republican Leadership has 
forced upon us another bad deal. A deal that will reduce revenues, 
according to the Joint Tax Committee, by nearly $300 billion per year 
in 2011 and beyond at just the moment that the baby boom generation 
begins to retire.
  This conference report makes a mockery of the Budget Act because it 
undermines the purpose of the act. The Budget Act was intended to 
impose predictability and discipline. But the continual manipulation of 
the Budget Act to achieve political goals has made it a sham and a 
shame. Gimmicks and bad policy are the result--gimmicks and bad policy. 
The demands of a great nation have to be satisfied in spite of fantasy 
world budgets. The result will probably be that at the end of the 
process, yet another Budget Resolution will have been ignored because 
it had to be. It was never grounded in reality. In spite of the 
President's claims that he would change things in Washington, he has 
already succumbed to the same old partisan polo game, and the same old 
swap shop budget bingo we have seen for years. This conference report 
ought to be defeated.
  Mr. President, Senators who vote for this budget conference report, 
call your mother in advance of Mother's Day. If she is one of the baby 
boom generations, tell her you voted for this tax cut for the bigwigs. 
Tell her: ``Yes, mother, I voted for the Bush tax cut.''
  But as to Social Security? There wasn't a dime in the bill for Social 
Security. Forget it.
  I close by this compliment from Milton from ``Paradise Lost,'' and I 
offer it to our budget ranking member, Kent Conrad.

       Well hast thou fought the better fight, whose single hast 
     maintained against revolted multitudes the cause of truth.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). Who yields time?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
South Carolina, the very distinguished senior member of the Senate 
Budget Committee.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia said: Tell your mother on Mother's Day that you increased 
taxes. If you turn to page 4 of the conference report, you will find 
that the debt goes up from $5.6 trillion to $6.7 trillion--$1.1 
trillion.
  As we left the last fiscal year, we ended with a $23 billion deficit, 
which we had reduced, over the 8 years, from $403 billion, and now this 
very minute we are running a slight surplus. But when you vote for this 
particular measure, and this is our main reason for appearing here this 
morning, it is to remind everybody that this is Reaganomics II. It is 
happening here today.
  Let me speak advisedly. As the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia reminded us, I have been on the Budget Committee since its 
institution 25 years ago. I have been the chairman. I hasten to comment 
that our distinguished ranking member, the Senator from North Dakota, 
has done an outstanding job under the most difficult of circumstances.
  Let me tell you about the difficult circumstances, because the very 
reason for our budget process 25 years ago was to give all the Members 
a look-see at every facet of Government spending here in Washington. 
Prior to that time, we had 13 appropriations bills, we had 13 
authorizing bills, and the authorizers authorized without regard to 
appropriating and the appropriators appropriated without regard to the 
authorization and the one--namely, defense--didn't know what education 
was doing, or housing didn't know what the highways were doing.
  So we got together in a comprehensive look-see, where the President 
would submit his budget, we would go before the Budget Committee, and 
in detail, each one of the particular appropriations measures would be 
debated, marked up, reported out, and then come to the floor of the 
Senate.
  Here we passed this budget without having the President's budget. He 
didn't give it until it had passed the House, until it had passed the 
Senate--absolutely ridiculous. Why? Because he couldn't sell his tax 
cut. He knew the great reason for the prosperity and comeback of our 
Democratic Party is that we showed we were fiscally responsible. For 8 
years we gave us the greatest prosperity. But it is a sophomoric 
approach, this ``tax cuts, tax cuts, the Government is too big, the 
money belongs to you'' and all that nonsense--and not paying the bills. 
So the President went to 28-some States. You can't sell a tax cut? He 
couldn't sell beer on a troop train, I can tell you that right now.
  He went everywhere, and he didn't sell his tax cut, so he rammed it, 
and the leadership on the other side of the aisle went along with it, 
and the media didn't report it. That is another reason I appear here, 
because this instrument is an atrocity, a clear, absolute abuse of the 
process.
  We had a deliberate debate back when President Clinton came to office 
to find in what direction the country was going to head. Lyndon Johnson 
used to say: It is not whether I am conservative or whether I am 
liberal, it is whether I am headed in the right direction.
  We debated. The President submitted his budget. We had 30 amendments 
before that Budget Committee. We reported it out, and the last 
instrument--namely, reconciliation--was not passed until August. We had 
a real old hoedown, and we said we were going to cut the size of 
Government. Yes, we were going to cut spending. And, yes, we were going 
to increase taxes.
  When we increased Social Security taxes, the distinguished Senator 
from Texas said: They are going to hunt you Democrats down like dogs in 
the street and shoot you.
  Where is the Republican tax cut for Social Security? Instead, they 
are going to spend the Social Security trust fund. If you don't think 
so, come on up and I will give you a bet.
  Congressman Kasich, chairman of the House Budget Committee, said: If 
this thing works, I'll change parties.

[[Page 7835]]

  Senator Packwood, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said: If 
this thing works, I'll give you my house in downtown Washington.
  But it worked. We made a great comeback paying down the debt. Now 
some strayers want to go along with this ``Cut taxes, cut taxes,'' and 
buying the people's vote, when in essence the debt increases. It goes 
up.
  We had no debate. We had no markup. We had no report. We passed it 
without all that. Then we got to the conference to be told we were not 
going to be conferees. Oh, they invite you to the White House when you 
cannot vote, you just stand up and grin and smile and bow. But when you 
got a vote in the conference committee, they said no, you are not 
invited back because you're not going to vote with us.
  Thank God we weren't parliamentarians. He wouldn't agree. They fired 
him. They would like to fire us. That is why they said we will give you 
all the rhetoric about education, because you look at the report after 
it comes out: Zero increase for education. What does that mean to us in 
the game? It means you are going to have to get a majority of 60 votes 
in order to get your increase, whether it is for class size or whether 
it is for construction or whether it is for teacher counseling or any 
of these other things that we need in public education--namely, 
teachers' pay. No, you are not going to get it.
  All of this exercise has been the best off-Broadway show, as they see 
it, because they are just smiling to themselves: We are going to 
destroy this Government and we are just as much against education as we 
were for that 20-year crusade to abolish the Education Department.
  What happens on the so-called immediate rebate to get the economy 
going? By 94 votes to 6, every Republican voted for my $85 billion 
rebate plan. But instead of the instant rebate of $85 billion, they 
came in here with $100 billion over 2 years, and they are going to go 
to the Finance Committee--you can read the reconciliation instructions, 
and they translate: We are going to use the stimulus dollars for tax 
cuts.
  The main thing to be said this morning in the few minutes given me is 
that we have tried our best under Senator Conrad's leadership. We have 
called their hand at every turn. We have been very courteous, very 
tactful in trying to get the report. We know the distinguished chairman 
of the Budget Committee has to practically do what the Senator from 
Texas tells him. And the Senator from Texas is tied into the Office of 
Management and Budget. And the Office of Management and Budget tells 
the President what he wants. So you want to get on the record how it is 
being worked this year: It is a total abuse, an absolute atrocity. 
There is no question about it. Everybody seems to go along. And the 
headline will say: We passed the budget. No. We don't even have a 
defense figure.
  We don't have a budget. We have a tax cut. That is what the President 
wanted. That is what they had back with Reaganomics I: $750 billion. 
Now this is going to go up to about $1.6 trillion. If you analyze it 
carefully, it will probably be nearer to $2.6 trillion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the very outstanding Senator, who 
is a member of the Senate Budget Committee, Mr. Hollings from South 
Carolina, for his remarks this morning.
  As I understand it, Senator Breaux wants time off of Senator 
Domenici's allocated time. The staff director for Senator Domenici 
tells me that is acceptable to their side.
  We had lined up Senator Clinton to go next on our side. I don't know 
if Senator Breaux would like to go at this point.
  I would like to recognize Senator Clinton.
  Mr. BREAUX. Absolutely.
  Mr. CONRAD. How much time would the Senator like?
  Mrs. CLINTON. Oh, 6 minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from New York, an 
outstanding member of the Senate Budget Committee, who has made a real 
contribution to the work on our side of the aisle on the Senate Budget 
Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized for 6 
minutes.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank my ranking member, the Senator 
from North Dakota, who, as my good friend from South Carolina has put 
so well, has led with honesty and directness, and believes so 
passionately in the issues that we are addressing today.
  I rise because I cannot remain silent in the face of both a budget 
process and a budget product that I think will be so harmful to our 
country. I really wish I did not have to rise today. I wish, given the 
opportunities that lie before us as a nation, what we were debating was 
the kind of balanced approach to the budget that I could wholeheartedly 
support--a balanced approach that included an affordable, reasonable 
tax cut, that fairly went to all Americans, giving every one of our 
families a Mother's Day present, as Senator Byrd so wonderfully 
reminded us is around the corner.
  I wish this budget were filled with the kind of careful analysis 
about the investments that we need to make our country rich and smarter 
and stronger in the years ahead. And I wish this budget continued to 
pay down the debt in the way that we had been doing.
  In the last 3 years, we paid off more than $600 billion of our debt. 
We took it off the backs of all these schoolchildren who are watching 
us. We said: We are not going to pass on the debts of your parents. 
Your grandparents, the greatest generation, did not leave us in debt 
the way that this country did in the 1980s with the quadrupling of our 
national debt. I cannot stand here and say that.
  I look at all these faces. I meet with schoolchildren from throughout 
New York nearly every day. I wish I could say: I am going to go to the 
Senate Chamber and support a budget that will invest in education the 
way we need it, that will continue to pay down the debt so that you are 
not faced with that debt when you are my age, or even younger, and that 
it will invest in Social Security and Medicare so that you do not have 
to worry about your parents, your grandparents, or yourselves. 
Unfortunately, I cannot say that.
  I have thought hard about what it is that has happened in the Senate 
in the last several months because I sat through 16 hearings in the 
Budget Committee. They were informative, very helpful hearings, laying 
out the priorities of our Nation, talking about the amount of money we 
had that we could count on, not pie in the sky, not projections that 
were unlikely ever to come true but realistically what it was we, as a 
nation, could count on. And then how could we have a tax cut, pay down 
the debt, and invest in education, health care, the environment, as 
well as taking care of Social Security and Medicare?
  I do not exactly know what happened, how we arrived at this point. We 
had those hearings, and then we were shut out of the process. We did 
not have a markup, which is a device in a committee to get everybody 
together to try to hammer out a bill.
  Then the Democrats, with decades of experience--with distinguished 
Senators such as Senator Hollings and Senator Conrad--were shut out of 
the process between the House and the Senate.
  So here we are today on the brink of passing a tax cut that will, I 
believe, do to our country what was done in the 1980s. I can only think 
that this is a tax cut proposal that was born in the passion of a 
primary political campaign, in the snows of New Hampshire, when the 
President was running for his life to be President and had to come up 
with something, so he plucked out of the air $1.6 trillion and said 
that was what it was going to be and felt compelled to come and present 
it to us.
  I was proud of the Senate when, in the process of the budget debate, 
we made some good changes. We made those changes not only on the tax 
cut side but on the investment side. I thought: If the House can go 
along with that, maybe at the end of the process

[[Page 7836]]

we can have a better balance. I did not think it went far enough, but I 
was proud of the fact that we had a negotiation.
  What we have today has zero increases in education. We have spent a 
heck of a long time talking about education. The President says it is 
his first priority. I can only look at the documents I am handed. I 
have only been handed them recently. I was not part of the process, 
even though I serve on the Budget Committee. And it looks to me as if 
we are turning our back on education.
  As I thought back, I could not think of any analogy, I could not 
think of any guidance that would help illuminate what it is we are 
going through. So I went back and looked at 1981. I read about what 
happened when another President said: Pass this big tax cut, and we are 
going to have surpluses. And we went further and further and further in 
debt.
  It is always easier to pass a tax cut. Who doesn't want a tax cut? I 
want a tax cut. But I don't want to have a tax cut at the expense of 
hurting my country. I don't want a tax cut at the expense of preventing 
the kind of investment in education that we need. I don't want a tax 
cut where I have to go and tell my mother that Medicare may not be 
viable for the rest of her natural life. I don't want that kind of tax 
cut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I give an additional minute to the Senator 
from New York.
  Mrs. CLINTON. So I, with great regret, stand in this Chamber and 
express the disappointment I feel in that we had an opportunity to do 
what our country needs--to invest in education, health care, the 
environment, pay down our debt, and provide affordable tax cuts--but, 
instead, we are taking a U-turn back to the 1980s. Mark my words, we 
will be back here--maybe under the same President, or maybe under a 
different President--having to fix the fiscal situation we are throwing 
our country into today. I lived through that once. I do not look 
forward to it. But I will be a responsible Member of this body in 
trying to fix the problem that we are causing for our Nation because of 
this tax cut and budget.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. CONRAD. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized for 10 minutes 
off Senator Domenici's time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the ranking Democrat on the Budget 
Committee for his consideration in allowing me to have the time that I 
need to make comments on this budget. I also thank Senator Domenici for 
being willing to yield me some time.
  Let me start, first, by commending Senator Conrad for the work that 
he has done, under some very difficult circumstances, with regard to 
putting together this product. It has not been easy. It has been very 
difficult. It has been very emotional--with a great deal of pressure on 
both sides to try to come up with something that makes sense and that 
is a rational guideline for how we handle the affairs of this country 
over the next 2 years.
  I also commend the Democratic leader, Senator Tom Daschle, as well as 
the Republican leader, Senator Lott, because I know that within their 
own caucuses there are vast differences as to how we should approach 
the passage of the budget for this coming year. It has not been an easy 
job for either of the budget leaders--Senator Conrad and Senator 
Domenici--or for our two respective leaders. I think they have both 
done about as good a job as anyone could ever ask for them to do 
considering the circumstances.
  Mr. President, and my colleagues, I will make the point that 
governing in a democracy is about the art of the possible; it is not 
about the art of the perfect. Is this budget a perfect document? Of 
course not. But does it advance the cause of governing in a democracy 
that is almost evenly divided among the two parties?
  The answer is, yes, it does. Republicans, as we need to remind 
ourselves, control the House with the narrowest of margins in years. 
The President was elected after losing the popular vote and narrowly 
winning the electoral college vote. Our Senate, indeed, is the perfect 
tie, 50/50.
  Now is not the time, with these circumstances, to figure out how we 
can disagree. There are plenty of opportunities to find where we 
disagree with this document, but now is not the time to concentrate on 
how we disagree but, rather, now is the time to figure out how we can 
reach an agreement for the good of all the people whom we represent.
  It is very clear that we could have 535 budgets and each author would 
think theirs is the best one. But we can only have one.
  The two principal parts of this budget consist of how we handle 
revenues or taxes and how we go about spending what is left, a 
challenge every American family must make for themselves when they work 
out their family budgets. We are fortunate today to have what CBO tells 
us is a projected surplus of $5.6 trillion over the next 10 years. That 
$5.6 trillion is more than is necessary to run all of our Government 
functions at the current level.
  Most Members, but not all Members, would say it is appropriate to 
give a portion of that surplus back to the citizens who created that 
surplus when they paid their taxes. The question then before this body 
is, How much do we give back?
  President Bush said: Give back $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years. 
Vice President Al Gore, as a candidate, suggested a tax cut of $500 
billion. This budget consists of a $1.25 trillion tax cut over the next 
10 years, plus a $100 billion stimulus package in the first 2 years. 
Some would think that is too high; others argue that it is far too low 
and not enough.
  It is, in fact, sufficient to give money back to all Americans with a 
balanced and a fair tax cut.
  We can, within this budget, reduce all marginal rates. We can, within 
this budget, create a new 10-percent bracket for lower income 
Americans, which would also benefit all income Americans. We can, 
within this budget, reduce the estate tax to a level that almost 
eliminates everyone from paying it. We can, within this budget, fix the 
alternative minimum tax problem. And we can, within this budget, 
increase the child credit that families take. We can make it 
refundable, and we can make it retroactive within this budget. And we 
can help education within the tax structure of this budget by making 
tuition taxes deductible for all American families. We can, within this 
budget's tax structure, fix the marriage penalty.
  With regard to spending contained in this budget, it is important for 
us to put the figures in proper perspective. Last year our Democratic 
President, President Clinton, proposed a budget for discretionary 
spending calling for $614 billion. The House and Senate Republicans and 
the budget, indeed, ended up saying we were going to spend $596 billion 
for discretionary spending. We ended up spending $635 billion.
  We did that because of emergencies that occurred during the year. We 
did that because of new spending priorities that were brought to our 
attention during the year that were unforeseen at the time of the 
budget enactment. This Congress responded to those needs as they 
occurred. This Congress will respond to those needs as they occur in 
the upcoming months of this fiscal year.
  This budget provides $661 billion in discretionary spending. That is 
without any emergency money being designated. It is not designated 
because it is clear that this Congress will add that emergency money as 
the emergencies occur. If there is a hurricane, if there is an 
agricultural emergency, if there is an earthquake, if there are any 
other kinds of emergencies, it is clear, from the history of this body, 
that this Congress will address those needs because they are true 
emergencies.
  That $661 billion is a $26 billion increase over last year. That is a 
$47 billion increase more than President Clinton asked for last year 
when he submitted his budget to the Congress.

[[Page 7837]]

  I know some of my colleagues will argue that it is not enough, that 
we don't have enough money, for instance, for education in this budget. 
My reading on education is that there will be a lot more money than 
last year for education, a lot more. President Bush has offered a $4.6 
billion increase for the Department of Education over last year's $18.3 
billion in spending. That is larger than the $3.6 billion President 
Clinton won for this fiscal year.
  As Senator Kennedy, who is the master of putting together good policy 
deals, has said:

       We have exceeded the budget every year in education 
     appropriations, and we are going to do it again.

  That is a correct assessment of what we are going to do and have done 
in the past, when it comes to meeting the educational needs of the 
people of this country. We will provide sufficient funds to educate our 
children.
  It is important to bear in mind that most of the money for education 
comes from the local and State levels. In fact, 94 percent, on average, 
of the money on education doesn't come from Washington; it comes from 
the States; it comes from the local communities that fund the 
educational programs they determine are their priorities. On average, 
only 6 percent of the total education budget comes from Washington, DC. 
The money will be adequate to address the demands.
  My recommendation is that we pass this imperfect document to allow 
the Finance Committee and the Appropriations Committee to begin their 
work. This document is important as an outline of our priorities, but 
it is written on paper. It is not written in concrete. It can and will 
be modified as we have done so every single year as we move through the 
legislative process.
  This is a time of great emotion. It is a time of great pressure. Our 
leaders, Tom Daschle and Kent Conrad on the Budget Committee and also 
Senator Domenici and Senator Lott, have had a very difficult job trying 
to reach an agreement in truly a divided Government. I respect all of 
them for their sincerity and their honesty and their dedication to try 
to reach an agreement that everyone can support.
  It is, however, time for us to move ahead. There is other work to be 
done. Now is the time to begin that work by adopting this budget and 
moving on to the next step.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank Senator Breaux for his 
assessment of where things are. I think he included in his remarks that 
there is still a contingency fund of $500 billion. For those who think 
we ought to do other things and that we have to, that is still in this 
budget. I think what Senator Breaux said about the appropriated account 
is right on the money. We don't know where the appropriators are going 
to put the money, no matter what we say in this Chamber.
  But there is a $31 billion increase year over year, and $6.2 billion 
more than the President asked for, if you really are talking apples and 
apples and the money to be spent by the appropriators. I think Senator 
Breaux summarized that just about right. I thank him for his support.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thought the distinguished Senator, my 
ranking member, was going to yield to somebody on his side before he 
and I used our final time.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator. The Senator from Minnesota requested 
time. I yield 5 minutes to Senator Dayton.
  Let me alert Senators on our side that I now have, other than the 
wrap-up reserved for Senator Domenici and myself, only have 2 minutes. 
I alert colleagues to the circumstance that exists.
  I yield to the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Dayton, for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
North Dakota for granting me this time, and also for his outstanding 
leadership on this issue on behalf of our Democratic caucus.
  I rise to say that I intend to vote against this budget today because 
I believe it allocates too much to the richest Americans and too little 
to our schoolchildren, senior citizens, veterans, and most of our other 
citizens. It also wrongly provides a blank check for additional 
military spending without congressional review or approval.
  This budget purports to be a bipartisan creation. In fact, I am told 
that the Democratic Senators on the Senate-House conference committee 
were completely excluded from the deliberations and decisions about 
this budget agreement. As a result, a bipartisan Senate amendment to 
increase funding for elementary and secondary education was eliminated. 
The amendment of my colleague, Senator Wellstone, which increased 
funding for veterans' programs, was eliminated. Funds for farm aid, 
prescription drug coverage, Head Start, health care, child care, 
transportation, and other important government services were reduced. 
Except for military spending, all other federal government 
discretionary services were cut by 2 percent below their inflation-
adjusted baselines.
  Why? Why, despite huge projected budget surpluses, must the funds for 
these essential public services be denied? For a tax cut which favors 
the rich, rather than working, middle-income Americans.
  There is enough surplus projected to provide immediate tax cuts and 
rate reductions for all American taxpayers, so long as they are 
targeted to the first tax brackets. Unfortunately, this budget places 
greed ahead of need. People who already have the most get even more, 
while people who have the least receive even less.
  There is no compassion in this budget. There is no bipartisanship in 
this budget. There is no new education funding to ``leave no child 
behind'' in this budget. Its pretenses are a sham. Its promises are a 
scam.
  Furthermore, this budget expressly does not protect either the Social 
Security or the Medicare Trust Funds from being raided for other 
spending programs. Instead, it sets up an all-purpose contingency fund, 
which pretends to cover every imagined funding need. First, however, it 
must fund a literal blank check for whatever additional military 
spending the Secretary of Defense shall recommend to the chairmen of 
the Senate and House Budget Committees. In an unprecedented procedure, 
with no further congressional review or approval, these two men alone 
can add whatever amounts of additional spending are proposed by the 
Secretary of Defense. Thus, this budget provides blank checks for the 
military, big checks for the rich, and bounced checks due to 
``insufficient funds'' for all other Americans.
  I support, and will vote for, a large tax cut benefiting all 
Minnesota taxpayers. I also support, and will fight for, additional 
federal funds for special education, for student aid, for prescription 
drug coverage, for farm price supports, for veterans' health care, for 
flood victims, and for other important government services. I believe 
in a balanced budget. I believe we have enough resources available to 
us to improve the quality of life for our citizens and to reduce taxes. 
I believe this budget squanders that opportunity. That is why I am 
voting against it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eighteen minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from North Dakota.
  I think this budget proposal on the part of my Republican colleagues 
should be called ``leave no dollars behind'' when it comes to Robin-
Hood-in-reverse tax cuts with over 40 percent of the benefits going to 
the top 1 percent of the population. That is what we have.
  I had an amendment to provide $17 billion for veterans' health care 
over

[[Page 7838]]

the next 10 years, filling in the gaps to make sure we would do well 
and say thanks to our veterans--eliminated.
  I joined with Senator Harkin to provide $250 billion for education, 
afterschool programs, and title I kids with special needs--you name it. 
It was eliminated from the budget proposal.
  This is about the most hard-hitting thing I can say, because I really 
believe in the chair of this committee, a Senator for whom I have 
tremendous respect. He is a great Senator. But I am in profound 
disagreement with his proposal.
  I have been following the discussion about education. I hope my 
colleagues on the Democratic side will have the courage to challenge 
this education bill on the floor, which will not have the resources.
  Senators, if you love children, then you don't rob them. If you love 
this little boy or girl, then you don't take their childhood away. If 
you love these children, you help them for 10 years from now, or 7 or 8 
years from now. You must be willing to step up to the plate and make 
sure you invest some money so these kids will all have the best 
opportunity to learn. That means that they are kindergarten ready. That 
means you help the kids who come from low-income backgrounds. That 
means, just as Senators' children when they go to school, and our 
grandchildren, they have the best teachers and the schools and the 
technology and all of the facilities. This is no way to love children. 
That is to say, do not rob them by not making the investment in 
children in Minnesota and around the country and instead giving 40 
percent-plus of the benefits to the top 1 percent of the population.
  These are distorted priorities. There is going to be a pittance for 
children and education, a pittance for health care, and not anywhere 
near enough for affordable prescription drug costs for the elderly.
  Whatever happened to that campaign promise?
  I resist this budget. I will vote against this budget.
  I am going to have a lot of amendments on this education bill that 
are going to make people step up to the plate, and we will see who is 
willing to talk about the resources for children and education.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-nine minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I understand Senator Frist is going to come down and 
wants to use a little time. Would you please instruct me when I am down 
to 15 minutes remaining. I hope not to use that.
  I first want to say to the distinguished new Senator, Mr. Dayton, 
that I listened carefully to his remarks. Everyone is entitled to their 
opinion. But we have not given a carte blanche to the Defense 
Department of the United States.
  We were confronted with a very interesting situation. One, the 
President asked for a low number for defense, with the assumption in 
this budget that his task force, headed by the Secretary, his top-to-
bottom review, could not come up with the answers of what we needed by 
way of change by the time we were doing this work. What would one do? 
Would one shut all of that out and say whatever it is when that task 
force is finished, they can wait until next year?
  We allocated to the appropriators the amount of money the President 
asked for in defense--a low number. Then we said if and when the task 
force is finished--and we are still in this year--whatever the task 
force recommends in changes we will put in the defense pot allocated in 
this budget. But it would have to be appropriated by the Congress of 
the United States item by item, line by line, and system by system. You 
might say that is an open door for defense with no controls.
  You said subject to no congressional controls. I don't believe that 
is the case. What I just described is true. And is that without 
congressional concurrence? I think not.
  I don't know any other way we could have done it. We could have said 
we will produce a new budget with a new defense number and debated that 
thoroughly and then came back, and we would have had the year behind us 
before we could have done anything. Guess what. They would come along 
and appropriate for defense and say: Too late. It has taken too long. 
We are putting it in, in excess of the budget.
  We are trying to have a little common sense on defense.
  In my closing remarks, I will allude to some other aspects, but a lot 
has been said about spending. Is there enough in this budget for the 
appropriators to spend?
  Let me suggest it is pretty clear that there are many who would 
accept a much higher number. But I want to tell you the numbers as they 
are.
  It is $31.3 billion above the 2001 budget available to be 
appropriated. Take out all of the things that are not spending and just 
do apples and apples. It is $31.3 billion.
  Of that number, $6.2 billion is new money over and above the 
President's budget. That means you have what the President recommended, 
plus $6.2 billion more, which gives you $31.3 billion over last year to 
spend. This $661.3 billion, which is the number, is real money. It will 
be sent to the appropriators to be spent. With that figure, we assume--
and that is all we can do--that $44.5 billion of it will go to the 
Department of Education for the year 2002. We assume--and that is all 
we can do--that there will be an 11.5-percent increase. This is new 
money. Nobody can say that 11.5 percent isn't well above inflation. 
What kind of money are we talking about in the 4.6? The highest ever 
level of funding for education of disabled children, a $460 billion 
increase in title I, including a 78-percent increase in assistance to 
low-performing schools; a $1 billion increase in Pell grants; $1 
billion for new reading programs; $320 billion to ensure accountability 
with State assessments. We can go on. There is $472 million to 
encourage schoolchildren, some kind of innovative choice that we might 
pass; $6.3 billion to serve 916,000 Head Start children.
  I guess it is easy to stand up and say there is nothing in this 
budget for education. I just read it to you. Actually, the 
appropriators will probably do more because we gave them more to spend, 
and they have always favored more money for education. So, frankly, 
whatever we have heard rhetorically on the floor about education, we 
have done better by education than we have in modern times. This is the 
highest, most dedicated budget for education that we have ever 
produced.
  I note the presence of the Senator from Tennessee. Would the Senator 
like to speak to the matter before us?
  Mr. FRIST. For 4 or 5 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 23 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Senator wants 5 minutes. And then Senator Nickles 
wants 5 minutes. I yield to them in that order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise because I think in 30 minutes or so 
we will be voting on the conference report. I want to give my 
colleagues my strongly felt support for what we have arrived at today. 
I believe it does, in a very consistent way, represent what at least I 
hear as I travel around the country, and through the State of 
Tennessee, from every day people who are looking at their lives, the 
qualities of life, looking at Washington, DC, and Government and what 
it can be both for them and against them, and they tell you simple 
things. Those things are: We do have a debt today, which one generation 
has given another. Please address that debt.
  They say we have some important things to pay for, and that is the 
role of Government. That includes things such as Medicare, research in 
health care, education, defense of the country. And they say: After you 
pay down that debt--and in this conference report we pay down that debt 
from $2.4 trillion from where it is, and they say: Thank you, that is 
what we want.

[[Page 7839]]

  They say: What about teacher quality? We have $2.6 billion in the 
budget for teachers and we know, when we look at that teacher-pupil 
interaction in the classroom, that this is important. In higher 
education for Pell grants, they say: After graduating from high school, 
let's give people that opportunity to have, in essence, a pool of 
resources to take wherever they choose to go, and that is Pell grants--
and indeed it is in this bill--for disadvantaged students; we assume 
$9.8 billion for Pell grants. They say: In health care, make sure you 
address this issue of prescription drugs. Very specifically in this 
budget $300 million is provided for expansion of Medicare prescription 
drug benefits. The exact mix, the exact bill, the exact nature--yes, 
couple it with modernization but do it in a way that we can see it 
soon. They say think about the future.
  In this bill we think about the future in the field of health 
research. The resolution includes the President's $2.8 billion increase 
in the National Institutes of Health. It goes through the defense 
spending, agriculture, attention to the veterans. Then they say: After 
addressing the debt, after protecting the Social Security trust fund, 
after protecting that Medicare trust fund, both of which give security 
to our seniors today, let us keep, instead of sending to Washington, 
DC, a little bit more of our hard-earned money.
  Indeed, we do that. All of this is our money, say the people 
throughout Tennessee, not yours because you represent the Federal 
Government. So if after we invest in those priorities of health care, 
education, quality of life, agriculture, defense, and the veterans--
after we make that commitment to substantially pay down that debt, 
allow us to keep the dollars with us. Trust us, the American people, to 
spend, to save, to invest.
  ``Trust us,'' the people across Tennessee tell me. We do that by 
allowing the taxpayer to keep $1.35 trillion over the next 11 years in 
their pockets, instead of on April 15 sending it to Washington, DC, 
when it is not needed.
  In addition to that $1.35 trillion that we allow taxpayers to keep is 
the $100 billion stimulus, which answers the question of: What are you 
doing today to restore that hope in our economy, that hope in job 
creation? And the answer is that we are taking $100 billion and 
targeting it for a short-term stimulus to help turn this economy 
around--something that everybody feels each and every day--a change, 
something different than 2 years ago, than 3 years ago.
  Finally, in this bill we authorize the additional tax relief, or debt 
relief, if surpluses exceed those expectations.
  Mr. President, this conference report reflects what the American 
people want. There is compromise and negotiation in there. I, for one, 
would like to see taxpayers keep a little bit more money in their 
pockets as we look to the future. But recognizing the realities of this 
body pulling together people on both sides of the aisle, I believe the 
conference report is strong, and it reflects the will and spirit of 
people throughout Tennessee. Therefore, I look forward to heartily 
supporting this conference report as we go forward.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my friend and colleague, the 
chairman of the committee, Senator Domenici, for his work. We have been 
on the Budget Committee for many years. I have been on it for 20 years 
and have had the pleasure of working with him. Most of the time, 
unfortunately, the budgets are pretty partisan. I wish they weren't. I 
know Senator Domenici wishes they weren't. Many times they are 
difficult to put together. This has been one of the toughest. It is not 
an easy task in any way, shape, or form. Certainly, with a 50/50, 
evenly divided Senate, it is a very difficult task.
  I compliment my friend and colleague who has had battles with 
Democrats, Republicans, with liberals on both sides of the aisle and 
conservatives on both sides. He has wrestled with a very difficult 
task. He has come up with a product that I think is a giant step in the 
right direction. It is not perfect. The Senator from Tennessee, whom I 
compliment, is a member of this committee. He said he would like to 
have a larger tax cut. This is a small tax cut in relation to the 
surplus. We have an estimated surplus of over $5 trillion. The total 
tax cut, at maximum, is $1.35 trillion, with one-fourth going to 
taxpayers. The majority is used to pay down the national debt. We have 
colleagues on both sides who said let's do it.
  The Senator from New Mexico said we are paying down the national debt 
from publicly held debt, as of this year, $3.2 trillion, and in 10 
years it will be less than $1 trillion. We are paying it down to the 
maximum extent that we possibly can. Nowhere in the history of our 
country have we ever paid down the national debt the way we are 
projecting to do it this year, next year, and throughout the next 10 
years.
  So I compliment my friend from New Mexico. We still have a 
significant surplus. He says let's give a portion of that to taxpayers. 
I have heard people objecting and saying we are not taking care of our 
Nation's domestic needs. Either we need more money for education, or 
veterans, or defense, and so on; we need more money to spend.
  The spenders have been winning for the last 3 years. The people who 
have wanted for the last 3 years to give some of the surplus to the 
taxpayers or let the taxpayers keep some of the surplus have lost.
  We passed tax cuts in 1999 and 2000. President Clinton vetoed them. 
We did not have the votes to override, so the taxpayers did not get a 
break. They just kept sending in more money. As a matter of fact, 
taxpayers today, on a per capita basis, send in $1,000 more than the 
Federal Government is spending. The Federal Government today is 
spending $7,000 for every man, woman, and child in the United States. 
That is a surplus of about $1,000.
  Let's give a portion of that back to the taxpayers. Let's let them 
keep some of their own money. They are sending in too much. Granted, 
there is no limit to the ideas we have in Congress on spending people's 
money, and people obviously think Congress can spend it better than the 
American people.
  Let the taxpayers keep a portion of it and take the bulk of the 
surplus and pay down the national debt. That is exactly what we are 
doing in this proposal. Spending continues to grow. Maybe it has not 
grown as much as it has in the past. Thank goodness. Spending got out 
of hand in the last couple of years. I will put in a chart showing 
domestic spending last year grew 14.1 percent. Defense spending grew at 
3.5 percent.
  Some people say spending grew at 8 percent last year. Nondefense 
spending grew at 14 percent last year. That is not sustainable. The 
education function last year grew in budget authority 29.9 percent. 
That is not sustainable.
  Yet on top of those enormous increases we had last year and large 
increases in the previous year, this budget says let's grow spending 
more, actually 5 percent more.
  I heard people say: We are not doing enough in education despite the 
enormous increases we had in education. Education funding is projected 
under this budget to grow at 11 percent, and all of us suspect, with 
the large support we have in education led by our President and others, 
that education within these functions will probably grow by even more 
than that amount.
  My point is, we are spending a lot of money, over $7,000 for every 
man, woman, and child, and it should be enough. Surely, we can give 
some tax relief to taxpayers.
  I heard some of my colleagues say the tax bill benefits the rich. I 
am in the process of working with others on the Finance Committee to 
put together a bill. It does not just benefit the rich; it benefits 
taxpayers. It is weighted towards taxpayers who are in the lower income 
categories. We are talking about large percentage cuts for individuals 
who pay the lowest rates, not the highest rates. The largest 
beneficiaries, certainly in the first few years, are the people at the 
lower end of the brackets who are now paying 15 percent. They will pay 
10 percent, or 12 percent under the House bill, or people who are 
paying 28 percent will pay 15 percent. We

[[Page 7840]]

are going to expand the 15-percent bracket.
  My point is, please do not prejudge the tax bill as benefitting the 
rich. A lot of that is class warfare demagoguery that is not going to 
be sustained by the facts. Let's allow taxpayers to keep a portion of 
the surplus and take the bulk of the surplus to pay down the debt and 
limit the growth of spending to 4 or 5 percent as proposed under this 
budget. It is affordable and sustainable.
  I thank my colleagues for supporting this budget resolution. We had 
65 votes in favor of the budget a week or two ago. There is no reason 
those individuals who supported this budget a week or so ago would not 
support it today. The differences in the tax cut are minimal from what 
we passed a couple weeks ago. I urge my colleagues to support the 
budget resolution.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the chart to which I 
referred earlier be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         APPROPRIATIONS BY SUBCOMMITTEE
                                            [In billions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Growth from                     Growth from
                                    Fiscal year     Fiscal year     fiscal year     Fiscal year     fiscal year
                                       2000            2001       2000 (percent)   2002 request   2001 (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture:
    BA..........................            15.0            16.1             7.3            15.4            -4.3
    OT..........................            14.7            16.3            10.9            16.4             0.6
Commerce/Justice/State:
    BA..........................            38.8            37.6            -3.1            37.9             0.8
    OT..........................            36.9            37.5             1.6            39.6             5.6
District of Columbia:
    BA..........................             0.5             0.5             0.0             0.3           -40.0
    OT..........................             0.4             0.5            25.0             0.3           -40.0
Defense:
    BA..........................           278.8           287.5             3.1           301.0             4.7
    OT..........................           273.5           276.2             1.0           296.1             7.2
Energy/Water:
    BA..........................            21.6            23.6             9.3            22.5            -4.7
    OT..........................            21.7            23.3             7.4            23.2            -0.4
Foreign Operations:
    BA..........................            16.2            14.9            -8.0            15.2             2.0
    OT..........................            14.8            15.7             6.1            15.7             0.0
Interior:
    BA..........................            15.4            19.0            23.4            18.1            -4.7
    OT..........................            15.6            17.9            14.7            18.3             2.2
Legislative Branch:
    BA..........................             2.5             2.7             8.0             3.0            11.1
    0T..........................             2.5             2.6             4.0             3.0            15.4
Labor/HHS:
    BA..........................            87.1           109.4            25.6           116.4             6.4
    OT..........................            87.4           100.3            14.8           110.3            10.0
Military Construction:
    BA..........................             8.7             9.0             3.4             9.6             6.7
    OT..........................             8.5             8.9             4.7             8.6            -3.4
Transportation:
    BA..........................            14.4            18.3            27.1            16.2           -11.5
    OT..........................            44.0            48.2             9.5            52.7             9.3
Treasury/Postal:
    BA..........................            13.7            15.8            15.3            16.6             5.1
    OT..........................            13.7            16.1            17.5            16.3             1.2
VA/HUD/IND:
    BA..........................            71.8            80.7            12.4            83.1             3.0
    OT..........................            81.1            85.9             5.9            89.0             3.6
Emergency Reserve:
    BA..........................           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)             5.3           (\1\)
    OT..........................           (\1\)           (\1\)           (\1\)             2.4           (\1\)
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total:
          BA....................           584.4           634.9             8.6           660.6             4.0
          OT....................           614.8           649.4             5.6           691.7             6.5
                                 ===============================================================================
Defense:
    BA..........................           300.8           311.3             3.5           325.1             4.4
    OT..........................           295.0           299.6             1.6           319.2             6.5
Domestic:
    BA..........................           283.6           323.6            14.1           335.5             3.7
    OT..........................           319.8           349.8             9.4           372.5             6.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: OMB.
 
\1\ Not applicable.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, a month ago I voted in support of the 
budget resolution which passed the Senate and which contained $688 
billion in discretionary spending for fiscal year 2002 and $1.18 
trillion in tax cuts.
  I continue to support the elements of the tax package that made for 
half of the budget agreement. I support providing broad-based tax 
relief, eliminating the marriage penalty, and providing significant 
estate tax reform. And I believe that a stimulus package will be 
important in assuring that the economy does not slip into a recession.
  But it was the allocation of resources in the Senate budget 
resolution--particularly funding for education programs--that made it 
possible for me and many of my colleagues to support the tax cuts.
  Without the allocation of adequate spending to allow us to meet 
pressing domestic needs, especially in education, it seems to me that 
the other half of the understanding that made my support of the budget 
resolution is now missing.
  As I understand it, the conference report currently before the 
Senate, provides discretionary budget authority of $661.3 billion ion 
2002, $27 billion below the amount agreed on by the Senate, and even 
below the amount that the CBO estimates is needed to keep pace with 
inflation.
  In fact, overall funding for all non-defense discretionary spending 
is $5.5 billion less than last year's level, adjusted for inflation.
  And on education, the bottom line appears to be that although the 
President's budget included an increase in education spending, the 
conference report which is currently before the Senate does not.
  There is no new funding for education in the conference report, and, 
in fact, the discretionary education totals in the budget resolution 
are nearly $1 billion less than the increases provided in the 
President's budget.
  There is no new funding provided for Head Start, and only minimal 
increases for Title I and the Individuals with Disabilities Education 
Act, IDEA. This is not an approach which is calibrated to ``leave no 
child behind.''

[[Page 7841]]

  And while it is true that this conference report provides up to $6.2 
billion in additional unallocated discretionary budget authority for 
funding domestic priorities beyond the President's budget request, 
which some have argued can all be used on education, discretionary 
education funding is only one of the priorities that this money will be 
needed for. This $6.2 billion is all that is available for all domestic 
priorities, not just education.
  I supported the Senate budget resolution because I thought that it 
represented a good balance at a time of unprecedented surpluses, 
providing both significant tax relief and making significant 
investments in our children and in our nation's future.
  This conference report, unfortunately, no longer contains that 
balance, and I find that I cannot, in good conscience, support it.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, first I must congratulate the chairman 
of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, for his hard work on the 
budget. It is a thankless task that earns the Senator few if any points 
with his New Mexico constituents. Unfortunately, I am greatly troubled 
by certain elements in this budget, and will vote against the fiscal 
year 2002 budget resolution conference report now before the Senate.
  In approving this budget, Congress is missing a significant 
opportunity to address some of our nation's most critical needs. Key 
among these needs is education. A nation that does not invest in its 
people, that does not provide its citizens with an excellent education, 
that does not ensure that its children can read, and that does not 
train them for eventual entry into the workforce, is acting 
irresponsibly.
  We must grant the American people a tax cut. We must pay down the 
debt. We must protect social security. But we must not ignore a most 
critical responsibility, to provide a free and adequate education to 
every child in America.
  I was proud to play a key role in making the tax cut contained in 
this budget more responsible. I have the greatest respect for my 
centrist colleagues who joined me in striking this agreement. But I 
cannot support a budget that puts large tax cuts and unlimited defense 
spending ahead of educating our nation's children. By voting against 
this budget agreement today, I am committing to the nation that I will 
continue my efforts to bring more resources to our schools and children 
to improve education.
  I can not hide my disappointment that the Congress once again will 
not fulfill its pledge to fully fund special education. This year, I 
tried and failed to have language included in the budget that would 
have made the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, 
mandatory spending.
  When I first arrived in Congress, one of the very first bills that I 
had the privilege of working on was the Education of All Handicapped 
Children Act of 1975. As a freshman Member of Congress, I was proud to 
sponsor that legislation and to be named as a member of the House and 
Senate conference committee along with then Vermont Senator Bob 
Stafford.
  At that time, despite a clear constitutional obligation to education 
all children, regardless of disability, thousands of students with 
disabilities were denied access to a public education. Passage of the 
Education of All Handicapped Children Act offered financial incentives 
to states to fulfill this existing obligation. Recognizing that the 
costs associated with educating these children was more than many 
school districts could bear alone, the Federal government pledged to 
pay 40 percent of the additional costs of educating these students.
  The budget resolution that is before the Senate continues to make a 
mockery of this pledge. However, I will work with members of the Senate 
Appropriations and Finance Committees both to increase annual spending 
for IDEA and convert the program into mandatory spending. Additionally, 
the budget sets overall discretionary education spending at a level 
below what was passed in the Senate and below what is needed for our 
children and the future of our country.
  The budget resolution allows up to $1.35 trillion in tax cuts over 
eleven years. While I agree some level of tax cuts are warranted, I 
continue to be troubled with making surplus assumptions ten years into 
the future. The level of tax cuts called for in this resolution gives 
the Congress little leeway should projected surpluses not materialize.
  While the budget resolution sets the overall level of tax cuts that 
will be considered by the Congress this year under reconciliation 
rules, I intend to be an aggressive advocate for children when the tax 
bill is debated in the Finance Committee. I also will strongly advocate 
that the Congress not attempt this year to exceed $1.35 trillion in tax 
cuts by writing additional tax bills. We can and should enact all of 
this year's tax cuts within a ceiling of $1.35 trillion.
  We dare not risk a return to the era of deficits, especially with the 
coming retirement of millions of baby boomers and the burden that this 
will place on the Social Security and Medicare systems.
  On the positive side, I am pleased that this resolution protects 
Social Security. Not one penny of the Social Security surplus is 
touched. Second, it balances the budget every year without using the 
Social Security surplus. Thirdly, this resolution retires the national 
debt held by the public--about $2 trillion over the next ten years.
  I should add that it has been a pleasure these past weeks to work 
with a bipartisan group of centrist Senators who believe that tax 
relief is warranted, but not at the expense of education, veterans 
health, job training, child care, environmental and other important 
discretionary programs.
  This budget, like all budgets passed by Congress, is an expression of 
political intent, priorities, and a starting point for bargaining. Much 
work remains to be done to pass the 13 appropriations bills that 
actually fund the Federal Government. In areas where I disagree with 
the budget resolution, I plan to work hard with appropriators to adjust 
spending levels and turn this budget into reality.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today with great disappointment to 
oppose this budget. I am disappointed that I am forced to vote against 
a tax cut number, $1.25 trillion over the next ten years, that I 
support and think is reasonable. I am disappointed that Congress, by 
the slimmest of margins, is passing a spending plan that includes zero 
funding for education reforms, school modernization, teacher training, 
or any education initiative that will empower our local communities to 
improve their schools.
  But mostly I am disappointed that a budget that left this chamber a 
reasonable compromise, with significant investment in education, 
veterans, and Medicare and an over $1 trillion tax cut, has returned a 
political document in bipartisan clothing.
  I want to make it clear that I do not oppose the tax cut set up by 
this budget. I believe that we can afford, and should give, a tax cut 
of over $ 1 trillion. In fact, I have every intention of voting for the 
tax cut bill that will be on the floor in the next couple of weeks. Our 
strong economy, and our fiscal discipline over the last few years makes 
it possible to let taxpayers keep more of their money while still 
making essential investments in our children, our communities, our 
veterans and our seniors.
  The Senate vote last month proved that. We had 65 votes, mine 
included, for a budget that envisioned a $1.2 trillion tax cut, an 
unprecedented increase in education investment, a substantial 
commitment to veterans health, significant debt reduction, and the 
deserved title of bipartisan.
  The budget before us today chooses to keep the tax cut, and I support 
that, but to sacrifice investment on education, health care, NIH, and 
other domestic priorities. Why? In order to allow a blank check for 
defense spending.
  Let me repeat that. This budget allows an unspecified and unlimited 
amount of resources to go to defense while holding flat spending on 
education and other domestic programs, completely flat. The budget 
before us

[[Page 7842]]

right now has less education spending than any other budget considered 
this year--the Senate Budget Resolution passed last month had more, the 
House Budget Resolution passed last month had more, the President's 
budget submission had more. I pride myself on being a tightwad when it 
comes to spending taxpayer money, but I have always said the one area I 
will not shortchange is our children's education. I cannot support the 
lowest offer for education on the table, yet that is exactly what we 
have before us today.
  I very much wanted to support this budget today. I look forward to 
supporting portions of it in the future. And I sincerely hope that, as 
we work through the tax and spending bills this year, we return to the 
compromise and broad support that marked the Senate Budget Resolution--
and reject the extremism and political polarization that scars the 
final budget before us now.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, when I came to the Senate almost 30 years 
ago, we were just entering what became a generation of Federal deficit 
spending. We lost the key to balanced budgets, the discipline to match 
our spending with our income.
  The economic impact of those decades of deficits was profound. The 
accumulating debt grew faster than our economy, and we slipped from our 
position as the world's leading creditor nation to the world's biggest 
borrower.
  While the Federal Government borrowed money as if nobody else needed 
it, private borrowers from first-time home buyers to major corporations 
all paid more for their loans. Our inability to balance our budgets was 
a dead weight burden on the economy here, and our high interest rates 
affected international finance as well.
  But perhaps the most important cost of those deficits was the loss of 
faith suffered by Americans in their Government. A lot of factors 
contributed to that cynicism and skepticism, but I am convinced that 
the cumulative effect of decades of unbalanced budgets was a major 
reason Americans for so long held their Government in such low esteem.
  Those deficits had another major effect. As we struggled every year 
to match our spending with our income, the priorities I came to the 
Senate to fight for, support for those among us who need it most, 
protection of the environment, quality education for everyone, safe 
streets and homes, those priorities were the first hit by spending 
cuts.
  And as we cut back on those programs, we cut back on the basic 
responsibilities of a democratic government. The era of budget deficits 
was marked by a deficit of democracy itself.
  Today, we can congratulate ourselves on not only balancing our 
budgets, but on producing substantial budget surpluses. On the 
foundation of an historical economic boom, the longest period of high-
productivity growth in our history, we have restored the health of our 
Federal budgets.
  History will judge how we manage this success, what we do with the 
opportunity before us. Will we build a foundation for future growth, 
will we pay down the burden of debt that we built up in the generation 
of deficits, will we continue to meet the demands of our citizens for 
world class education, health care, and technology, for safe streets, 
clean air and water? Or will we put all of this at risk, along with the 
hard-won victory over deficits?
  I will vote against the Budget Resolution before us today, because it 
gives the wrong answer to those questions.
  As the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee 
reminded us so eloquently last week, Americans rightly expect us to 
make sure that the basic functions of government are taken care of. 
When we fail to provide the safe streets, the clean water, the good 
schools, that the citizens of the world's richest nation have every 
reason to expect, we have failed to live up to our responsibilities. I 
am sorry to say that this budget marks such a failure.
  Because of the size of the tax cuts, $1.35 billion, and their shape, 
they increase in cost in future years, this budget puts at risk all we 
have gained through years of hard work on the budget. And it puts at 
risk our ability to meet the basic demands our citizens make of us to 
manage our common affairs effectively and efficiently.
  We have real needs in this country, as the distinguished Senator from 
West Virginia reminded us last week. Almost a third of our bridges are 
in need of repair, many of our school rooms are crumbling, our water 
and sewer systems are in disrepair. In the midst of all of the private 
wealth our economy has created in the last decade, our public 
investments have failed to keep pace.
  This budget fails to provide any new funds for education, for health 
care, for clean air and water, for police protection, for safer roads 
and bridges--none. This budget spends less per citizen, after 
inflation, for all of those priorities.
  The President claims, and I believe him, that he wants to spend more 
on education. I support him in that effort. However, because there is 
not enough money in this budget to keep present levels of support for 
any domestic priorities, any increase in education spending will have 
to come out of police protection, out of drug interdiction, out of 
health care research.
  There is no increase in spending for education, unless you count a 
vague promise that we would like to spend more. But a budget is not 
about vague promises. It should tell us the facts about how much we 
have to spend on our priorities. And the sad fact is that this budget 
has no new money for education, period.
  This budget fails to meet the basic test of facing up to reality, 
there are more demands on our budget than there are funds to meet them, 
and this budget gives us no idea of where the cuts will fall to pay for 
any of the new priorities we face.
  When the Senate voted on its version of the budget last month, we 
called for $225 billion in additional investments in education. That 
money is gone from the Budget Resolution before us today, gone.
  In fact in this resolution, there is actually $5.5 billion less than 
last year's spending for education, allowing for inflation.
  The Federal budget is already smallest it has been since 1960 as a 
share of our economy. It is simply not realistic to assume that it will 
continue to shrink, in real terms, not just next year but for the next 
ten years. But that is just what this budget assumes.
  These cuts in domestic priorities will happen even if the economic 
projections on which this budget is based, ten-year projections that 
have proved wrong every time in the past, even if those projections 
turn out to be true. If the economy grows more slowly, if we face 
natural disasters, national security threats or other inevitable but 
unpredictable emergencies, there will be even more cuts.
  But there are other assumptions built into this budget, assumptions 
that I believe will be wrong no matter what happens to those economic 
projections. This budget assumes we will do nothing to protect millions 
of Americans from increases in the alternative minimum tax, that we 
will fail to renew popular and important programs such as the research 
and development tax credit, it assumes that we can undertake a major 
overhaul of our defense policy with a relatively small increase in 
spending. But recent statements by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld suggest 
hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending, that is not in this 
budget.
  If any of those assumptions, or a lot of other similar costly issues 
that are assumed away in this budget, prove to be wrong, there will be 
even less money for education, for health care research, for clear air 
and water, for cops on the beat.
  But this budget does not face up to those problems, it assumes them 
away.
  With the underlying health of our economy, with the hard work we put 
into restoring balance to our budgets, I am convinced we can afford tax 
cuts, tax cuts that would in any other context sound huge.
  Prudent budgeting, that makes full allowance for domestic and defense 
priorities and that is cautious about ten-

[[Page 7843]]

year economic forecasts that have huge margins of error, would still 
leave room for hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts.
  There is no economic reason behind the tax cut numbers in this 
resolution. Those numbers date back to the Republican primaries, in 
1999, when the economy was booming, the stock market was soaring and 
unemployment was falling. The Bush campaign picked a tax cut number 
they thought would help them beat Steve Forbes in the New Hampshire 
primary.
  They certainly were not concerned with formulating a ten-year budget 
plan during a slack economy. But those are the numbers we are told are 
still basically right for today.
  If we go into this thinking that we can afford a tax cut of this 
size, and a defense build-up many times greater than this budget allows 
for, with promises to increase spending on education, expectations that 
health care spending will go up, some kind of plan to shore up Social 
Security and Medicare with funds from outside those systems, I think we 
can all see where we are headed.
  One of the first things to go will the surpluses that we ought to use 
to pay down the debt, the burden that raises interest payments today 
and that our children and grandchildren will have to pay off. For all 
the talk about the surpluses belonging to the American people, we have 
to remember that the national debt belongs to them, too.
  Playing fast and loose with the assumptions in the budget could leave 
us with a bigger debt, and higher continuing interest payments on the 
debt burden, than we would have if we stayed on the course that 
restored balance to our budgets.
  We have come too far to go that way again.
  This budget does not build on the successes of the last decade; it 
threatens to return us to the time when we failed to make the hard 
choices that Americans expect us to make. I will vote against this 
budget resolution, and I hope my colleagues will join me.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President. Last month, I joined a bipartisan group 
of centrist Senators to support a $1.25 trillion tax cut along with an 
economic stimulus for this year. The tax cut agreed upon after 
negotiations with the White House and House of Representatives totals 
$1.35 trillion. I support a tax cut of this size and think that the 
people of Missouri also believe it to be a commonsense compromise.
  This tax cut should provide immediate tax relief to help stimulate 
the economy, cut personal income taxes for all taxpayers, eliminate the 
marriage penalty, and eliminate the estate tax for all family farms and 
family-owned small businesses. I also want to ensure that the tax cut 
is distributed fairly and responsibly by focusing on the people who 
need tax relief the most--the working men and women of America.
  The other key component of the budget voted on by the Senate last 
month was an approximately $300 billion investment in education over 
the next decade. That budget plan included sufficient funds to meet the 
Federal Government's commitment to fund 40 percent of the cost of 
special education. Meeting this commitment would enable states and 
localities to spend billions of dollars of their own funds on improving 
educational quality at the local level. The Senate budget also included 
funds for student loans, programs for disadvantaged students, and the 
testing and accountability reforms currently being debated on the 
Senate floor.
  Unfortunately, the conference report before us completely eliminated 
the educational investments contained in the Senate passed budget. 
Indeed, this conference report does not even fund the education 
increases contained in President Bush's budget proposal.
  Not only is this approach to education inconsistent with the 
bipartisan actions taken on the budget by the Senate a few weeks ago, 
but it is dramatically at odds with the votes being cast by the Senate 
on the education reform bill. Last week, the Senate unanimously voted 
to fully fund the Individual with Disabilities Education Act at a cost 
of $120 billion over ten years. Earlier this week, the Senate agreed to 
fully fund the largest federal education program for disadvantaged 
students at a cost of $130 billion. The vote on that amendment was 79-
21.
  I am a newcomer to the Federal budget process, but it defies common 
sense to be voting to support major increased investments in education 
on the one hand, while on the other hand voting for a budget that does 
not meet these commitments.
  Some of my colleagues have stated that the lack of education funding 
in the budget should not be of concern because, eventually, Congress 
will provide additional support for education during the appropriations 
process. But I ask, what purpose does a budget serve if we vote based 
on an intention not to abide by it?
  So, while I strongly support the $1.35 trillion in tax cuts for the 
American people contained in the conference report, I cannot support 
this budget agreement. I look forward to working on the tax cut 
legislation scheduled for later this month and on the appropriations 
bills that follow. Hopefully, in the end, we will provide both a tax 
cut of $1.35 trillion that provides needed tax relief to the public and 
an investment plan that meets our vital national priorities.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today the Senate will complete action on the 
conference report to the 2002 budget resolution. While we all know that 
a budget resolution is a non-binding document that does not require the 
President's signature, it is, nonetheless, still an important document 
because it should serve as the blueprint that reflects the priorities 
for America. Sadly, the document before us does not fulfill that 
purpose.
  At the outset, let me first express my disappointment with the 
process that was undertaken to produce this misguided conference 
report. In the Senate, Budget Committee members were denied the 
opportunity to mark up a budget resolution and the decision was made to 
bring one directly to the floor for consideration without any committee 
input. The conference report itself was negotiated by the White House 
and Republican congressional leaders without allowing Democratic 
members a meaningful seat at the table. As a result, the Senate will be 
voting on a partisan conference report that is flawed, unbalanced, and 
out of touch with the needs of the American people. We need to take a 
lesson from this year's experience to improve upon how we deal with one 
of the most important pieces of legislation that we consider as a body 
each year. This conference report isn't worthy of the Senate and it's 
certainly not worthy of the Americans it is intended to serve.
  The budget outlined in this conference report fails on a number of 
important counts and I take this opportunity to briefly discuss why I 
believe this budget is wrong for this country and why I will be voting 
against it.
  First, this conference report is unrealistic as it fails to take into 
account numerous costs that will most likely be incurred in the months 
and years ahead. Specifically, it ignores the cost of Alternative 
Minimum Tax reform, something that we all know will be absolutely 
necessary as more and more taxpayers find themselves subject to this 
tax. It does not address the additional interest costs associated with 
the tax cut required in the conference report or the funds that will be 
needed for the extension of popular expiring tax provisions. It also 
does not consider the costs that are likely to arise as a result of the 
President's National Defense Review. Preliminary estimates indicate 
that this new defense spending could carry a price tag of at least $250 
billion over the next 10 years. Yet, none of these costs are reflected 
in the document up for consideration today.
  Second, the conference report provides no safeguards for Social 
Security and Medicare. Once one adds up all the real costs which, 
again, are noticeably absent from this budget, raiding both the Social 
Security and Medicare trust funds will become an unfortunate reality. 
What is more troubling is the fact that this budget does not provide 
any real protections for these trust funds that would guarantee that 
their surpluses would be used only for the

[[Page 7844]]

purposes of Social Security and Medicare. We seem to be moving in the 
wrong direction on Social Security and Medicare at a time when the 
demands being placed on them will be at their greatest. These trust 
funds should not become a piggy bank, but I fear that this conference 
report does nothing to ensure that they won't.
  Third, one of this conference report's most obvious failures, is the 
fact that it limits our ability to invest in the priorities that are so 
important to the American public like preserving the environment, law 
enforcement, new highways, and quality health care. One of the areas in 
which I, personally, take the greatest exception is the conference 
report's utter disregard for education.
  Many of us in the Senate agree that education is one of the most 
critical priorities facing our nation. Proof of this was evident during 
the Senate's consideration of the budget resolution when, on a 
bipartisan basis, the Senate voted for a smaller tax cut and increased 
investments for children and education.
  In a bipartisan vote, the Senate approved an amendment offered by 
Senator Harkin which added $250 billion to support student achievement 
and to help failing schools. Again, on a bipartisan basis, the Senate 
supported an amendment from Senators Breaux and Jeffords which 
increased funding for the education of children with disabilities by 
$70 billion. In addition, last week, by an overwhelming vote of 79-21, 
the Senate supported an amendment to the ESEA reauthorization bill that 
I offered with Senator Collins to add $135 billion over the next 10 
years to the title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 
which helps to meet the educational needs of the poorest, most 
vulnerable children in our country.
  And does this conference report reflect any of these bipartisan 
votes? No. It rejects them and provides no new dollars for us to commit 
to education in this country. It prevents us from making any of those 
investments on behalf of the neediest school children in America that 
the Senate has gone on record as supporting.
  I have heard my Republican colleagues claim that this conference 
report increases funding for education. While we may be reading the 
same document, we do not share the same interpretation of its meaning. 
As a result, there are no increases to be found. None.
  In fact, when I read this conference report, all I see are cuts. 
There are no increases for education because total non-defense 
discretionary funding in this conference report is actually $5.5 
billion below what is needed to maintain even current programs and 
services. This decrease becomes $62 billion less over the next 10 
years. Consequently, to pay for any proposed increases in education 
will require severe cuts in other programs which are already operating 
on less than adequate funding. So, in effect, this conference report 
will squeeze resources from critical priorities such as education, 
health care, and the environment in order to help finance a massive tax 
cut that heavily favors the most affluent.
  I am aware that the conference report provides a $6.2 billion earmark 
for education. Unfortunately, this money is a mirage. It is in the form 
of non-binding, unenforceable ``sense of the Congress'' language 
expressing that Congress should spend this money on education. This is 
in no way a guarantee and it is a far cry from the resources that the 
Senate believed were necessary to truly improve education in this 
country.
  The one thing that is abundantly clear in this conference report is 
the amount of money that will be spent on a tax cut. I find it 
interesting that the language in the report with respect to the tax cut 
is straightforward and directs Congress to cut taxes by $1.25 trillion 
over the next 10 years. Yet, we can't seem to make the same kind of 
unequivocal commitment to education.
  I support tax relief and I believe that Americans need tax relief. 
But tax relief must be affordable fair. The tax cut in this conference 
report is neither. I believe it is unwise to commit $1.25 trillion to 
tax cuts that will benefit the wealthiest Americans, that we may not be 
able to pay for in years to come, and that may risk a return to runaway 
deficits.
  The conference report also can't seem to commit to the idea of an 
immediate economic stimulus which many economists feel would boost our 
slowing economy. With the way the language is structured in the 
conference report, the $100 billion that should be used as a stimulus 
in 2002 could potentially be spread over the next decade, thereby 
losing its stimulatory impact.
  One way to make this tax cut more fair would be to double the child 
tax credit and make $500 of it refundable. Senator Snowe and I have 
introduced legislation to do precisely that. This bill would, with just 
a few words, lift one million children out of poverty.
  It seems fair to me that at the same time that we consider cutting 
taxes by $1.25 trillion over the next 11 years, we could work to find 
the resources to provide these working families with some kind of 
modest relief. Senator Snowe and I introduced what I believe is a bill 
that acts as a first step in truly helping these families. This 
legislation won't eliminate child poverty entirely, but it's a start. I 
hope that the Finance Committee will keep the millions of children who 
live in poverty in this country in mind as it begins work on a tax 
bill.
  I represent a State with the highest per capita income in the nation. 
Yet, surprisingly, I do not many people asking for a $1.25 trillion tax 
cut. What I do hear is that people want Social Security and Medicare to 
be strengthened, they want cleaner drinking water, they want better 
roads, and they want quality teachers and safer schools for their kids.
  Unfortunately, this conference report virtually ignores all of their 
concerns and offers only vague, empty promises. This conference report 
has got it all wrong. It's wrong on the environment, it's wrong on 
defense, it's wrong on Social Security and Medicare, it's wrong on 
education, and it's most especially wrong on tax cuts.
  As such, I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing this 
conference report so that we can begin work again, in a bipartisan 
fashion, to prove to the American people that we are truly listening. 
And should it pass--as it probably will on a largely partisan basis--I 
hope that we will, before the year is out, honor and support the 
important priorities of the American people.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I must oppose this budget resolution 
conference report because it is an irresponsible gamble with our 
economic future. Despite the best efforts of the Senate to reduce the 
President's risky tax cut plan, this conference report does not 
adequately protect the interests of low- and medium-income American 
men, women, and children.
  This resolution sets aside trillions of projected budget surpluses 
for tax cuts proposed by President Bush that are steeply tilted to the 
wealthy. It pays for the Bush tax plan at the expense of needed 
investments in Social Security, Medicare, education, and the 
environment. In addition, the cost of the Bush tax plan imperils our 
ability to pay off the national debt so that this nation can finally be 
debt free by the end of the decade.
  We should remember that the nation still carries the burden of a 
national debt of $3.4 trillion. Like someone who had finally paid off 
his or her credit card balance but still has a home mortgage, the 
federal government has finally balanced its annual budget, but we still 
have a national debt to pay off. In the meantime, the Federal 
government has to pay almost $900 million in interest every working day 
on this national debt.
  Paying off our national debt will help to sustain our sound economy 
by keeping interest rates low. Vermonters gain ground with lower 
mortgage costs, car payments and credit card charges with low interest 
rates. In addition, small business owners in Vermont can invest, expand 
and create jobs with low interest rates.
  I want to leave a legacy for our children and grandchildren of a 
debt-free nation by 2010. We can achieve that

[[Page 7845]]

legacy if the Congress maintains its fiscal discipline. But this budget 
resolution tosses out fiscal responsibility for skewed tax breaks. It 
is based on a house of cards made up of rosy budget scenarios for the 
next ten years. Any downturn in the economy, are of which we are now 
beginning to experience, threatens to topple this house of cards.
  Mr. President, the $5.6 trillion surplus that President Bush and 
others are counting on to pay for huge tax cuts is based on mere 
projections over the next decade. It is not real. Many in Congress have 
been talking about the $5.6 trillion surplus as if it is already money 
in the United States Treasury. It is not.
  While none of us hope that the budget surpluses are lower than we 
expect, to be responsible we need to understand that this is a real 
possibility. In its budget and economic outlook released in January 
1st, CBO devotes an entire chapter to the uncertainty of budget 
projections. CBO warns Congress that there is only a 10 percent chance 
that the surpluses will materialize as projected by saying: 
``Considerable uncertainty surrounds those projections.'' This is 
because CBO cannot predict what legislation Congress might pass that 
would alter federal spending and revenues. In addition, CBO says--and 
anyone whose watched the volatility of our markets over the past few 
months knows--that the U.S. economy and federal budget are highly 
complex and are affected by many factors that are difficult to predict.
  With all of this uncertainty in projecting future surpluses, it is 
amazing to me that the budget resolution insists on a fixed $1.35 
trillion tax cut. I was one of five Senators still in the Senate who 
voted against the Reagan tax plan in 1981. We saw what happened there: 
We had a huge tax cut, defense spending boomed, and the national debt 
quadrupled.
  The conference report includes the full $1.5 billion increase in 
budget authority ($32.4 billion total) for essential Department of 
Justice programs to help state and local law enforcement programs 
contained in the Leahy/Harkin amendment that unanimously passed the 
Senate. However it reduces the outlays increase to $1.1 billion ($31.8 
billion total) in FY 2002. The conference report also waters down the 
Sense of the Senate language to drop all references to specific grant 
programs that are targeted for cuts by the President.
  I cosponsored and supported a successful, bipartisan amendment in the 
Senate to increase funding for agriculture conservation programs on 
private lands by $1.3 billion. This funding was to support nationally-
successful programs like the Environmental Quality Incentive Program, 
the Farmland Protection Program, and the Wildlife Habitat Incentive 
Program--programs that truly help farmers and ranchers keep their 
working lands and that help private landowners enhance their 
communities' water quality, open space, and wildlife habitat.
  Unfortunately, though communities all over the nation have asked 
Congress for help to protect and restore water quality and open space, 
Republican negotiators chose to strike funds for our amendment in the 
final conference report.
  The conference report also ignores communities' cries for cleaner 
energy and energy conservation--especially communities in the Northeast 
who breathe the downwind fumes of 1960's-era, dirty energy production 
further west. By following the Bush plan to significantly cut funding 
for the Department of Energy's conservation, energy efficiency, and 
clean energy programs, the Republican negotiators continue to ignore 
the 21st century energy needs of our people.
  During consideration of the budget resolution in the Senate, I joined 
many of my colleagues in supporting amendments to increase funding for 
education programs. Despite the passage of these important amendments, 
this budget resolution conference report ignores the Senate's actions 
and does not provide sufficient funds for our students, teachers and 
schools.
  This conference report contains no increase for K-12 or higher 
education discretionary spending. Mandatory spending for education and 
training is essentially the same as the House-passed resolution and 
therefore reflects none of the Senate's bipartisan actions. The 
conference report rejects the Harkin education amendment that provided 
increased funds for so many important education programs. It rejects 
the Jeffords/Breaux amendment, which increased funding for the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education (IDEA) Act--fulfilling the 
Federal government's responsibility. This conference report also fails 
to accommodate the Hagel-Harkin amendment--adopted unanimously by the 
Senate to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)--without 
additional cuts to student loan programs.
  At a time when the Senate is debating reauthorization of ESEA and 
considering a significant change to our education system, it makes no 
sense to me that we reduce education funds as is the case in this 
conference report. If we really want to leave no child behind, then we 
must acknowledge that we have a financial responsibility to support our 
children's education. This conference report fails to do that.
  The conference report includes a $1 billion increase in discretionary 
veterans health spending. That increase barely covers inflation in the 
Department of Veterans Affairs' current programs, let alone provides 
the department flexibility to increase the availability and quality of 
care. I am also concerned that this budget squeezes this money out of 
critical veterans health research programs, leaving investigations into 
spinal injuries and war wounds at inadequate levels.
  This conference report also drops a provision passed by the Senate 
that would have allowed military retirees to receive their full VA 
disability and retiree pay earned during their lifelong service. Once 
again, the other side has made it a priority to top-off the bulging 
piggy-banks of the wealthy with change pilfered from the fixed income 
checks of those who have sacrificed for our country.
  Mr. President, after years of hard choices, we have balanced the 
budget and started building surpluses. Now we must make responsible 
choices for the future. Our top four priorities should be paying off 
the national debt, passing a fair and responsible tax cut, saving 
Social Security, and creating a real Medicare prescription drug 
benefit. This budget falls far short of these priorities. For the sake 
of our economy and the working families of America, I will vote against 
this budget resolution.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, yesterday I cited chapter and verse how 
this Republican budget flunks the test of education reform. It puts tax 
cuts for the wealthy first, and the needs of America's children last. 
But that is not the only fundamental flaw in this budget. America's 
seniors, too, will be left out and left behind.
  Too many elderly Americans today must choose between food on the 
table and the medicine they need to stay healthy or to treat their 
illnesses. Too many senior citizens take half the pills their doctor 
prescribes, or don't even fill needed prescriptions--because they can't 
afford the high cost of prescription drugs.
  Too many seniors are paying twice as much as they should for the 
drugs they need, because they are forced to pay full price, while 
almost everyone with a private insurance policy benefits from 
negotiated discounts.
  Too many seniors are ending up hospitalized--at immense cost to 
Medicare--because they aren't receiving the drugs they need at all, or 
can't afford to take them correctly.
  Pharmaceutical products are increasingly the source of miracle cures 
for a host of dread diseases, but senior citizens are left out and left 
behind in this republican budget.
  The crisis senior citizens face today will only worsen if we refuse 
to act, because insurance coverage continues to go down, and drug costs 
continue to go up.
  Twelve million senior citizens--one third of the total--have no 
prescription drug coverage at all. Only half of all senior citizens 
have prescription drug coverage throughout the year. Coverage through 
employer retirement

[[Page 7846]]

plans is plummeting. Medicare HMOs are drastically cutting back. 
Medigap plans are priced out of reach of most seniors. The sad fact is 
that the only senior citizens who have stable, reliable, affordable 
drug coverage today are the very poor on Medicaid.
  Prescription drug costs are out of control. Since 1996, costs have 
grown at double-digit rates every year. In the stunning report released 
earlier this week, cost increases continue to accelerate, with 
prescription drug costs growing an enormous 18.8 percent last year. No 
wonder access to affordable prescription drugs has become a crisis for 
so many elderly Americans.
  Every Member of Congress understands that this is a crisis--but this 
budget offers no solution. It refuses to give senior citizens the help 
they deserve. Yet it gives lavish tax breaks to millionaires.
  Compare the language in this budget for prescription drugs to 
language on tax cuts and you have a sense of the relative priorities in 
this budget.
  If the Republicans gave a real priority to coverage of prescription 
drugs under Medicare, there would be a reconciliation instruction--not 
a reserve fund. The budget resolution could require the Finance 
Committee to report a prescription drug bill and set a date certain for 
action, just as the GOP resolution does for tax cuts.
  If Republicans gave a real priority to this proposal, they would not 
condition life-saving prescription drugs for seniors on ``reforming'' 
Medicare. The supporters of the resolution are saying that prescription 
drugs for seniors will be held hostage to controversial reforms in 
other parts of Medicare. But the resolution contains no requirement 
that the tax code must be reformed before millionaires get their tax 
breaks.
  If the Republicans were serious about a prescription drug proposal, 
the resolution would specify that the reserve fund is for coverage of 
prescription drugs under Medicare. That is what senior citizens want 
and deserve. But this resolution doesn't require that. These funds are 
available for any program that ``improves access to prescription drugs 
for Medicare beneficiaries.'' That could be a welfare program. It could 
be an expansion of Medicaid. It could even be President Bush's proposed 
block grant that would reach only one-third of senior citizens.
  At bottom, the amount the resolution allocates for Medicare 
prescription drugs is grossly inadequate. The maximum it provides is 
$300 billion over ten years. But, according to the Congressional Budget 
Office, senior citizens will have to spend $1.1 trillion on 
prescription drugs over the next ten years. The maximum amount that can 
be provided under this budget resolution is only about a quarter of 
that amount. That is not the kind of help senior citizens need, and it 
is not what Congress should provide. To add insult to injury, the 
Republican budget resolution allows the Medicare drug benefit to be 
funded by taking money from the Medicare Hospital Insurance fund, which 
seniors have paid into over their working lives to protect them against 
the high cost of health care.
  There is a reason for the inadequate promises of this budget 
resolution. The budget does not contain enough funds to provide a real 
prescription drug benefit under Medicare, because it squanders too much 
of the budget surplus on new tax breaks for millionaires.
  Medicare is a solemn promise to senior citizens. It says, ``Work 
hard, pay into the trust fund during your working years, and you will 
have health security in your retirement years.'' But this promise is 
being broken every day, because Medicare does not cover prescription 
drugs, and this budget does not mend that broken promise.
  It has been said that the measure of a society is how it treats its 
young and its old. By this measure, the Republican budget is a sad 
commentary on our values. It shortchanges young and old alike. It is a 
budget that is anti-child, anti-education, and anti-senior citizen. Its 
priorities are not the priorities of the American people, and it should 
be rejected.
  This budget spends $1.6 trillion over the next ten years on tax cuts, 
but only $153 billion on Medicare prescription drugs. Almost half the 
tax cut goes to the richest one percent of Americans--people with 
incomes averaging more than a million dollars a year. The GOP budget 
gives this small number of wealthy families more than five times as 
much as it provides for essential prescription drugs for forty million 
elderly and disabled Americans.
  The President and the sponsors of this budget say that they want to 
provide prescription drug coverage for every elderly American under 
Medicare. But adoption of this budget will make this goal much more 
difficult to achieve. This budget squanders the surplus and saves only 
token amounts for Medicare prescription drugs.
  In fact the budget does not even fund the low income program fully. 
If the block grant program is adjusted for inflation, it will cost $210 
billion over 10 years, not the $153 billion that this budget provides. 
Clearly, there is not enough money in this budget to fund a Medicare 
benefit for all senior citizens.
  The choice could not be clearer. Do we stand with America's senior 
citizens--or with the privileged few? Do we believe the budget surplus 
should be used to benefit all Americans--or just the wealthiest 
Americans? Do we believe it is more important for people who already 
have incomes of more than a million dollars a year to get an additional 
$50,000 a year, than it is for senior citizens scraping by on limited 
incomes to get the life-saving drugs their doctors prescribe?
  For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
anti-senior citizen budget.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my serious 
disappointment with the budget resolution and to explain why I cannot 
vote for it. This resolution is irresponsible. It is irresponsible to 
the citizens and businesses of this nation, to the fundamental economic 
principles for which we stand, and to the values that define us as 
Americans. As I have stated often, the government does not create jobs 
or economic success. However, through fiscal discipline the government 
can create an environment in which the private sector thrives. Fiscal 
responsibility produced an environment that enabled the historic 
economic growth of the past several years and the unprecedented surplus 
we have today. I am sorry to say this resolution abandons that 
discipline.
  Government should tend to the people's money with the same care and 
consideration that individuals, families, and businesses demonstrate 
when handling their own dollars and cents. As I look at the budget 
resolution that we are voting on, I conclude that it lacks not only 
fiscal responsibility, but also a sense of reality. It is based 
entirely on large projected surpluses that we are not confident will 
materialize. And, if these surpluses are not realized, this budget 
resolution puts us at risk of returning to deficit spending financed by 
borrowing from the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds.
  The tax cut provided for in this budget resolution is simply too 
large. At the very least, it will cost $1.35 trillion over 11 years. In 
addition, if you add in other required or likely to pass tax 
provisions, including AMT reform, increased interest payments, 
extension of expiring tax provisions, pension reforms and business tax 
cuts, this package easily rises to above $2 trillion. While I support 
significant tax cuts, that amount is more than we can afford. This 
budget resolution spends too much of the projected surplus on a tax cut 
that is too large and it uses too little of the surplus for other 
priorities.
  Additionally, this resolution does not seriously address debt 
reduction. Aside from funds already committed to the Medicare and 
Social Security Trust Funds, this budget does not devote a single 
dollar over the entire decade towards paying down our national debt. 
Because this resolution is so irresponsible, it is not at all clear 
that even the Medicare and Social Security Trust funds will be 
available for debt reduction if they are used instead to pay for the 
tax cut. Sadly, this budget resolution sacrifices the unique 
opportunity that we have at this point in time to successfully pay down 
our publicly held debt--the key to low interest rates and economic 
growth.
  This budget resolution sets us on course for an appropriations train

[[Page 7847]]

wreck later this year and in the future. The spending levels do not 
even keep up with inflation. The resolution provides total 
discretionary spending levels for FY02 that are $2 billion below CBO's 
baseline with inflation. For the 10-year period, they are $24 billion 
below inflation. Despite the rhetoric, it removes nearly $300 billion 
in additional education funding that the Senate had added to its budget 
resolution. It provides an increase of only $3.3 billion above 
inflation for defense in FY02 and only $40 billion over ten years--$22 
billion less than the President's request prior to the Rumsfeld review. 
According to the resolution, any increased spending as a result of the 
Rumsfeld review which is likely to be at least $250 billion over 10 
years--would come out of the contingency reserve fund. This fund may 
not even exist if surplus projections do not materialize or if Congress 
taps it for other purposes, including additional tax cuts.
  This budget resolution does not represent reality, but fantasy. It 
abandons fiscal discipline and blithely overspends a surplus whose size 
six months down the road or six years down the road is at best 
theoretical. This agreement sets our country on a dangerous path toward 
resurrecting the deficits we worked so hard to eliminate over the past 
several years. Finally, this resolution does not add up because the 
Administration and the Majority here in Congress prefer to sound the 
call for compassionate conservatism rather than engage in honest 
accounting. It is ``dejavoodoo economics.'' It commits us to the same 
fiscal mistakes of the early 1980s that had a horrendous and long-
lasting impact on our economy.
  So I call on centrists of both parties here in the Senate to not 
waste a decade's worth of hard work invested in re-building our 
economy. I urge my colleagues to look closely at this resolution. It is 
not what the American people deserve, nor is it what they expect it to 
be. In support of progress and prosperity, I must vote no and I 
encourage my centrist colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I want to express my support 
for the conference report on the budget resolution. My affirmative vote 
on this report will be cast for several reasons, but the most important 
one among them is that this resolution provides the American people 
with a substantial tax cut--without neglecting our national budgetary 
obligations. The concerted effort from Senators and Members of Congress 
on both sides of the aisle in the negotiating process has culminated in 
a victory for American taxpayers.
  The vote on the budget resolution will succeed in doing a great deal 
for our country and for our future. Today we are authorizing the third 
largest tax cut in the history of our Union. The men and women of 
Nebraska, as well as the men and women across the Nation, will directly 
benefit from the $1.25 trillion tax cut over 11 years that will enable 
us to still pay down the national debt and meet our domestic budgetary 
priorities. The American people deserve a tax cut, and it is the role 
of Congress and the administration to deliver it. This conference 
report is our delivery vehicle.
  Of even greater consequence than the tax cut spread over 11 years is 
the inclusion of a $100 billion up-front stimulus package, which will 
help strengthen our economy sooner rather than later. I firmly believe 
that our economy, which has been showing all the symptoms of a slow-
down, needs a jump-start from a stimulus package to blunt the effect of 
what could become a serious economic recession. As any doctor will tell 
you, you should not wait until the patient is on life support before 
you begin treatment. It is critical that we heed the warning signs of a 
slowing economy, and use the tools within our legislative power to 
prevent the situation from metastasizing. The 2-year, $100-billion 
economic stimulus package prescribed by this conference report will put 
the American economy back on the road to recovery.
  Another important aspect of the resolution, in addition to the 
substantial tax cut and the upfront stimulus package, is the increased 
support of agriculture. When our budget negotiations started, 
agriculture was a mere footnote in the margin. While it remains a 
footnote, it is now a little bolder and a little bigger. I am anxious 
to see agriculture removed altogether from ``footnote'' status, or more 
accurately, out of emergency spending mode; but I am pleased in the 
interim that at least we are increasing agriculture funding to a more 
substantial--and realistic--level. While a new farm bill would be more 
welcome than prolonging the endless cycle of emergency spending, the 
$79 billion over 11 years that has been included in this Report does 
recognize and consider the unfavorable odds and inequities that our 
farmers and ranchers are forced to contend with due to a problematic 
farm bill and unpredictable hardships dispensed by Mother Nature.
  As with any compromise, the conference report on the budget 
resolution is not representative of my ideal budgetary blueprint. I 
accept, however, that ``giving and taking'' is an integral part of the 
bicameral, bipartisan negotiating process. While this report could be 
stronger in some areas--namely, education--I am comfortable casting an 
affirmative vote, because it meets an important criterion I have 
consistently promoted throughout the process. This report authorizes a 
substantial tax cut--including an up-front economic stimulus package--
that allows us to still provide for our critical domestic priorities, 
such as preserving Social Security and Medicare, paying down the 
national debt, and funding agriculture. As a result, I will vote in 
favor of this conference report.
  While the final outcome of the budget resolution cannot be described 
accurately as a triumph for bipartisanship, it can be characterized as 
a triumph for American taxpayers. It is my hope that we will forge 
ahead on other issues in a stronger and more cohesive spirit, more 
united in our efforts and less divided in our cause. It is time to make 
``politics as usual'' synonymous with progress, not partisanship.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). Who yields time?
  The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield myself the remaining time and I 
ask the Chair if he would inform me when I have 5 minutes remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will be so notified.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, first, I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee 
for his courtesy as we have considered the budget conference report. I 
respect him. I admire him. I have affection for him. I disagree with 
him with respect to this budget, and I disagree with him strongly with 
respect to this budget.
  I do not believe this is the right budget plan for our country, and 
it is not an opinion limited to me. We have heard on our side of the 
aisle how deficient we believe this budget is.
  I noticed in this morning's New York Times the lead editorial was 
entitled ``An Irresponsible Budget Plan.'' I will read the first 
sentence:

       After several days of back room negotiations, the House 
     approved a federal budget plan yesterday that is a model of 
     fiscal evasion and irresponsibility.

  I echo those words.
  Earlier the Washington Post called this budget we are considering 
today an unreal budget. They concluded their editorial by saying:

       The theme of this budget is tax cuts first, sweep up 
     afterward. It's the wrong way around. Budget resolutions are 
     supposed to foster fiscal responsibility. This one will have 
     the opposite effect.

  Unfortunately, that is the case. The reason for it is quite clear. 
First, this entire budget is based on a 10-year forecast--10 years. 
This is not money in the bank; these are projections over 10 years. The 
people who made the projections have warned us of the uncertainty. In 
fact, they told us that in the fifth year alone, based on the previous 
variances in their forecasts, we could have anywhere from a $50 billion 
deficit to more than a $1 trillion surplus.
  In fact, they have told us there is only a 10-percent chance the 
forecast number that is being used, that is being relied on, will come 
true. There is a 45-percent chance there will be more money; a 45-
percent chance there

[[Page 7848]]

will be less money. And that forecast was made 8 weeks ago before we 
saw additional weakness in the economy.
  Just yesterday, we saw the productivity growth forecast come out on 
the first quarter of this year. They were expecting a 1-percent 
increase. Instead, they got a reduction. If there is just a 1-percent 
reduction in productivity over the forecast period, instead of having a 
$5.6 trillion surplus, we will have a $3.2 trillion surplus. It seems 
to me that advises caution in what we do on this budget resolution.
  Those are not the only defects of this budget. There are huge chunks 
of spending that are not even in this budget, that have not been 
included. For example, here is a story from USA Today, Friday, April 
27. ``Billions Sought for Arms.'' The story says that the Secretary of 
Defense and this administration are expected to seek a large boost in 
defense spending, $200 billion to $300 billion over the next 6 years.
  That money is not in the budget. None of that money is in the budget. 
Why not?
  Perhaps we heard the reason in an interview this last weekend on 
``Meet the Press.'' The Secretary of Defense was there. He was asked:

       Will you get the $10 billion more in defense money this 
     year that you need?

  His response:

       I don't know. I have not gone to the President as yet. He 
     wanted to wait until after some of the studies had been 
     completed and until the tax bill was behind us. . . .

  That is the real reason this budget is unreal. It is the real reason 
this budget is irresponsible, because they are not telling us the full 
story. They do not really have the budget before us. What they have is 
a part of the budget because they know what we know. If they put the 
full budget in place on one piece of paper, on one document, it would 
not add up. That is the problem with this budget.
  It goes to education. The President says education is his highest 
priority, and yet there is no new money in this budget for education. 
In the Senate, when we considered the budget, we passed the Harkin 
amendment that added $225 billion for education. It took $450 billion 
away from the tax cut and put $225 billion into education and put $225 
billion into paying down more of the debt. What came back from the 
conference committee? Not one penny of that amendment survived.
  We passed a bipartisan amendment on the floor of the Senate when the 
budget resolution was considered, with $70 billion of additional 
funding for education to address the disabilities act. Not one penny of 
that increase came back from the conference committee. That is true 
throughout the education budget.
  We have heard a lot of talk that somehow there is money in this 
budget, new money for education. Here is the document. Here it is by 
fiscal year. What it shows is the increase in budget authority and 
outlays over what is in the so-called baseline is zero. It is zero for 
2002; it is zero for 2003; it is zero for every single year.
  There were a lot of brave speeches about education being the 
priority, but it is clearly not a priority in the budget because there 
is no new money in the budget for education.
  It doesn't stop there. Not only is it the case that the defense 
buildup that we all know is going to be announced, perhaps as early as 
next week, is not in the budget, the President says education is a 
priority, but that is not in the budget. And then we see the President 
has a meeting at the White House and says he is going to strengthen 
Social Security but there is no money in the budget for that.
  We have an editorial from the Columbus Dispatch that says:

       The tax-cut proposal works against [the President's] plan 
     to begin privatizing Social Security. . .experts differ on 
     how much this ``transition cost'' will be, but it won't be 
     cheap. . .thus, the Bush's 10-year, $1.3 trillion tax cut 
     would deprive the Government of the cash it would need to pay 
     for the $1 trillion transition cost for the first 10 years of 
     Bush's Social Security privatization plan. The goals are 
     contradictory.

  Do you see a pattern? The administration is calling for a major 
defense buildup but the money is not in the budget. The President says 
education is a top priority but the money is not in the budget. The 
President says he is going to fix Social Security but the money is not 
in the budget.
  Why? I think we all know the reason why. Because if the money were in 
the budget for the defense buildup, if the money were in the budget for 
the education initiatives, if the money were in the budget to 
strengthen Social Security, then the budget does not add up. In fact, 
it would show they are raiding the Medicare trust fund by over $200 
billion. They are raiding the Social Security trust fund by over $200 
billion. That is the dirty little secret of this budget. It is the 
reason whole chunks of what is really intended have been left out.
  Over in the House they had two missing pages. It stalled the budget 
work for a week. Two missing pages? There are more than two missing 
pages. There are whole chunks of the real budget that have been left 
out because they know it doesn't add up.
  As we look ahead, it is critical to understand we are in a period of 
surplus now. These projections of surpluses may hold. They may not. But 
at least we have a projection of surpluses. We know when the baby 
boomers start to retire that these surpluses turn to massive deficits. 
Then the question will be: What did we do when we had the opportunity 
to prepare for what was to come?
  This is what we are doing.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair for advising me of the time.
  If we go back to the budget that is before us and put back the 
defense buildup the administration is going to call for and which is 
authorized in this budget, although the numbers are not included, if we 
would go back and correct the alternative minimum tax that is going to 
affect over 35 million taxpayers in this country, one in every four 
taxpayers who think they are going to get a tax cut but are going to be 
surprised when they find out they are caught up in the alternative 
minimum tax and it costs $290 billion to fix it; if we put in the 
education amendment that passed on the Senate floor last week on a 
unanimous consent basis; if we put in the emergencies that we all know 
are going to occur that run on average $5 billion a year; and if we put 
in the associated interest costs with those items, what we find is that 
we would be deep into the Medicare trust fund; that we would be deep 
into the Social Security trust fund.
  That is the reason all of those items have been left out--because 
this budget does not add up.
  There has been a lot of talk about reducing the public debt, but the 
part of the debt they have been talking about is the publicly held 
debt. It is true, the publicly held debt is going down under this 
budget. It is going down from $3.2 trillion at the end of this year to 
$800 billion at the end of this 10-year period.
  Do you know what? While the publicly held debt is going down, the 
debt to the trust funds of the United States is going up. As a result, 
the gross debt of the United States, which is currently $5.6 trillion, 
will be $6.7 trillion at the end of this time. It is very interesting--
just about the amount of the tax cut is the amount of additional debt 
our country will have at the end of this 10-year period.
  I believe these are the top six reasons to oppose the budget 
resolution conference report.
  No. 1, no new money for education;
  No. 2, unaffordable tax cuts crowd out priorities, especially paying 
down this national debt;
  No. 3, it hides defense spending increases by providing a blank check 
to the Bush administration;
  No. 4, it sets up a raid on the Social Security and Medicare trust 
funds;
  No. 5, it cuts spending for high-priority domestic needs by $56 
billion over the next 10 years. They are $56 billion short of just 
keeping pace with inflation, not to mention population growth.
  Finally, No. 6, it fails to set aside funds for the long-term Social 
Security and Medicare reform needs we all understand are before us.
  Perhaps it is time to review history. Those who are advocating this 
budget

[[Page 7849]]

are the very ones who, back in the 1980s, advocated a similar policy, a 
policy of a massive tax cut combined with a substantial buildup in 
defense. What was the result? The result was an explosion of the 
deficits in the Reagan administration and a further growth of the 
deficits in the Bush administration. It was only when we had a new 
administration and a new fiscal plan that deficits started coming down 
and we began to pay down debt.
  Here is the record. It is as clear as it can be. President Reagan 
came in; he had about an $80 billion deficit. That exploded to over 
$200 billion, with exactly the same kind of economic analysis that has 
been done and with the same advocates that put in place that plan.
  Then the deficit further exploded under President Bush to over $290 
billion. It was only when a new administration came in and we put in 
place a 5-year plan to bring our fiscal house back into order that we 
began to reduce deficits, reduce debt, and put this Nation in a 
position to have the longest economic expansion in our history.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask our colleagues to oppose this budget resolution so 
we do not repeat this history.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico controls time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Am I correct now, there is no time remaining on the 
other side and I have how many minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 12 minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. So our fellow Senators ought to know, we are going to 
finish in a timely manner and the vote will be sometime after 11:30.
  First, I thank all the wonderful staff on both sides of this budget 
battle. Much more work goes into this than anybody thinks.
  In particular, I say to Bill Hoagland, the staff director on our 
side, and to his staff, thank you so much for all you have done. It has 
been a great effort.
  Mr. President, fellow Senators, those who are listening, this is a 
budget for prosperity now and prosperity in the future, plain and 
simple. It is the largest commitment of money for education in our 
Nation's history. I will go into some details on that momentarily. It 
keeps our word. Social Security and Medicare are not touched. Their 
funds are not used.
  I know that Senator Byrd said today on the floor that when your 
mother calls you--implying on Mother's Day--tell her that the Social 
Security trust fund is being raided, and whatever else he said we 
should be responding to our mothers on Mother's Day.
  I have another response. My mother is not alive. But if she were to 
call me, I would say: Your Social Security is intact and fully 
protected. Medicare is fully protected. But also, mother, there is $300 
billion in this budget for prescription drugs and reform of the 
Medicare program--$300 billion. The House wanted only $146 billion. 
There is $300 billion to get started on the program. There is $300 
billion that can be used.
  I say, in addition, to my mother, that this budget is good for me, 
one of your children, and for the other three children, and for the 
grandchildren, six of whom are working. I am just describing a family. 
Do you know why it is good for them, mother? Because we are going to 
give them back some of their hard-earned tax money. You know they are 
hurting because of gas prices. They are hurting because of electric 
bills. Everybody is working on some way to fix that.
  But wouldn't it be nice if, in fact, your sons and daughters and 
grandchildren this year and next year got a very significant tax 
reduction?
  Frankly, I could go on and on as to what this budget does.
  But let me suggest that to bring into this debate the subject of 
Social Security and Medicare is just another part of the same old 
argument. Whenever tax cuts for the American people are close at hand 
and we are going to do something for them, every argument in the world 
that can be invented from a budget standpoint is offered in opposition. 
It is a wonder that the American people ever get a tax cut; we have our 
minds on so many things that we can do with that money.
  But we decided today to take about 25 percent of the surplus--it 
sounds like we are using all of it--about 25 or 26 percent, and give it 
back to the Americans in an orderly way for such things as child 
credits, marriage tax penalty, which everybody knows should be done, 
and marginal rate reductions with bigger cuts at the bottom end than at 
the top end.
  I don't know what else we can do. I believe we have done everything 
in this budget that you can do in a rational way to make sure that the 
surplus is handled in a proper manner and that it is there to have the 
right things feed on it, use it, and get money out of that surplus for 
things we must have.
  I have already disagreed with my friend on the other side. But I 
don't disagree from the standpoint of his hard work, his own views, and 
his own opinions. I would not be asking people to vote for a budget 
resolution that touched the Social Security trust fund. I wouldn't be 
asking them to vote for one that touched Medicare because it does not. 
But neither would I ask them to vote for a budget resolution that some 
would want that would spend all the money instead of having any of it 
for the taxpayers of America.
  We have heard all kinds of ideas of what should be in this budget. If 
anybody is adding it up and listening to us, I guess you would conclude 
that the Government of the United States is going to take care of every 
problem in the United States, and if we just didn't gave the taxpayers 
back any money, we would be out there solving all of them.
  We know that isn't true. This budget is an increase over last year. 
In fact, I know that the House and the Senate would do it in their own 
way.
  I see the chairman of the House Budget Committee. I want to tell the 
Senate that I believe on the nondiscretionary side of this budget there 
is a little bit more than 5 percent over last year they can spend. The 
House started at 4; the President started at 4. That is $6.2 billion 
more we have for education and other things of significance.
  I want to close my remarks where I started. This budget is for 
prosperity. Now, because it has $100 billion that will go back to the 
American taxpayers in these next 2 years, this one and the next, and it 
is a budget for the future because for America to prosper we have to 
have low taxes and low tax rates. It has been our history that we 
compete not through government but through innovation, and through 
people investing their money, time, talents, and working hard. If you 
have high taxes, you get less of those things in an economy. That is 
just it.
  Senator Nickles also told us about how much we are paying in taxes as 
a group of people, as Americans. It is very high. We are going to 
reduce it a little bit--not very much; $1.25 billion over ten years is 
not very much. In fact, when you look at that as part of the total tax 
take, what we are going to give back to the American people is rather 
insignificant.
  I close by saying to everyone here: This is your chance today but not 
the last chance because there is a $500 billion surplus remaining. But 
this is your chance to say to the American people before we spend all 
of your tax money that isn't needed, we are going to give you a little 
bit of it to be used as you see fit because we trust you. Not only do 
we trust you, but we think the less you are taxed, the harder you work, 
and the more you will invest in your life, in productivity, in growth 
and doing things, and the more you will sit around the family table 
saying what you can do with your money instead of saying the Government 
is taking so much of your money.
  In conclusion, this has been as tough as it comes. I have been at 
budgeting for many years. It is tough because there are people on both 
sides of the aisle, in the White House, and in the House of 
Representatives, who have their own opinions and nothing was going to 
change anybody's opinion. A lot of opinions have been changed. There 
have been many compromises, which is what we have to do to get our work 
done. This compromise package is the best we can do this year. I 
believe it is good for our future. I believe

[[Page 7850]]

the American people, in about 6 months, will say it is a very good 
budget. And, yes, I believe those wondering where the education money 
is coming from will be very happy. There will be over an 11-percent or 
perhaps as much as a 12-percent increase in education with some 
highlighted at higher increases than that.
  I think that is what we ought to be doing. The highest priority on 
the domestic side is education.
  I want to say to President Bush, you didn't get everything you 
wanted, Mr. President, but I want to compliment you because you have 
made us change direction. You have moved us in the direction of giving 
back taxes to the American people rather than giving them the last cut 
after the debt. They are going to get some of those taxes back now, 
next year, and the year after. That is a new direction. Mr. President, 
you ought to be proud of it.
  We will implement it in due course, and, frankly, I think that we 
will all say this was a job well done, as hard as it was.
  I close by saying if we don't want to do this now, when will we do 
it? How much more surplus will we have to have? I believe we have 
enough surplus that we should leave part of it in the hands of the 
taxpayers.
  I yield such time as I might have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second. The question is on agreeing to the 
conference report. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 98 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--47

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The conference report was agreed to.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank everyone who participated in 
this debate. I believe we have a good product and now we will implement 
it over the next year.
  Once again, I thank everybody who participated on both sides of the 
aisle. We have a good product. Now everybody can begin to implement it. 
It means different things to different people, but in the end, it is 
pretty clear we are going to have a significant tax reduction plan in 
place. Let's hope, as we work through it, we will get some of the other 
things that most of us believe are in this budget resolution and see if 
we can carry them out in the ensuing months.
  I thank the ranking member on the Budget Committee for the way he 
conducted himself, the information he put together, and the knowledge 
he has obtained. It has been a pleasure working with him. I thank him 
very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I congratulate the chairman of the Budget 
Committee for his victory today and for the way he has conducted 
himself. I appreciate the relationship we have. We disagree on this 
budget, but I have great respect for him as a Senator and as a person.
  I also thank the staff on both sides. They worked incredibly hard in 
these last 2 days, in some cases almost around the clock. I thank my 
staff director, Mary Naylor, for her extraordinary efforts, Sue Nelson, 
Jim Horney, and the entire group of budget staffers on our side.
  I also want to recognize the professionalism of the staff director on 
the Republican side. Bill Hoagland is a consummate professional, as are 
the other members of the staff on the Republican side. We have a very 
professional working relationship. They have worked very hard to 
produce this document.
  One of the great things about the Senate and the Congress is we will 
be back. These battles are not over. We have a different sense of what 
the priorities should be for the country, and we will be speaking out 
on those issues in the days ahead.
  Again, I congratulate those on the other side who prevailed on this 
vote. I look forward to a continuing debate on what should be the 
fiscal course for the country.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

                          ____________________