Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from Florida, who is a very valued member of the Senate Budget Committee and also throughout his career has been dedicated to fiscal discipline. We did make some mistakes earlier this year, unfortunately, collectively, in going too far, I believe, on the tax cut package in the face of a very optimistic set of forecasts but a set of forecasts over a 10-year period that I think almost anybody could have anticipated was unlikely to ever come true. We tried to warn our colleagues repeatedly that it was unlikely to come true; that you could not trust a 10-year forecast, that it was filled with risks, that it was filled with uncertainty, and we ought to be cautious. Unfortunately, caution was thrown to the wind, and as a result we now face a circumstance where we will have budget deficits in this fiscal year, and perhaps for several years thereafter, and for the next 10 years we will see all of the Medicare trust fund money being used to fund the other operations of Government and a very substantial portion of the Social Security trust fund being used to fund the other operations of Government. That should not be done. That is a mistake. We will regret it when the baby boomers start retiring in 10 years because, unfortunately, we had a budget in place before September 11 that did not add up, and now it is even further off in the red because of the tragic events of September 11 and the aftermath.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, today I am introducing the Medicare Beneficiary Liability Reduction Act. This legislation will help America's seniors better afford the costs of receiving needed medical services. As you may know, most seniors are required to pay a portion of the costs associated with medical care they receive under the Medicare program. In particular, Medicare Part B, which covers physician, laboratory, outpatient and other services, requires most beneficiaries to cover 20 percent of the cost of care they receive. However, there is an anomaly in the Medicare system that has required many beneficiaries to pay much more out-of-pocket for hospital outpatient department, HOPD, services. in particular, prior to 1997, many beneficiaries were required to pay more than 50 percent of the approved Medicare costs for hospital outpatient care. I am concerned that this situation made it difficult for lower income seniors to receive needed outpatient medical services. To address this problem, I am happy to say that the Congress included measures in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that sought to bring beneficiary cost sharing for HOPD care in line with the out-of-pocket requirements for other Medicare Part B services. Unfortunately, while this legislation was a step in the right direction, it will still take nearly 40 years of the cost sharing level to be reduced to the targeted level for some outpatient procedures. Clearly, this prolonged time lag is unacceptable. In subsequent years, I have supported additional measures to expedite the reduction in seniors' cost sharing liability by placing a limit on how much a senior can be charged in any given year and requiring that the coinsurance level be brought down to 40 percent by 2006. These were important achievements. The legislation I am introducing today takes the final step to bring seniors' copayment rates for HOPD services down to the desired 20 percent level. In particular, the Medicare Beneficiary Liability Reduction Act would continue to reduce HOPD cost-sharing requirements so that by 2010 and thereafter seniors would be required to pay no more than 20 percent of the allowable Medicare costs for HOPD care. I strongly believe that this legislation will help ensure our nation's seniors are not over- burdened with unfair Medicare cost sharing requirements. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important effort. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me go back to what this larger discussion is about and the resolution that is before us. When we are faced with two consecutive quarters of growth below 1 percent, the Budget Act then requires that the Senate Budget Committee consider a resolution which would eliminate all of the budget protections--all those things we use to maintain fiscal discipline. That has happened. The last two quarters have been below 1-percent growth. So we have before us the resolution to eliminate the budget protections. The Senate Budget Committee met and on a bipartisan basis rejected the notion of abandoning all of our budget protections--those approaches we use to maintain fiscal discipline. We rejected it and sent what is called the resolution of disapproval to the Senate by a vote of 22-0. Now the Senate has to vote because there are expedited procedures that bring these provisions to the floor. We will vote at 5 o'clock. The vote will be: Do we set aside the budget points of order that allow us to maintain fiscal discipline? Do we set those aside for the next 2 years? The Budget Committee has said no. I hope the Senate in a resounding way says no this afternoon at 5 o'clock. That is what we have done in the past. In 1991, when we had a similar circumstance, the Senate Budget Committee rejected the idea and reported unfavorably abandoning fiscal discipline 21-0. The Senate vote was 97-2 against giving up those budget points of order and those protections for fiscal discipline. Later that year, a second low-growth resolution came before the Senate Budget Committee. It was rejected 21-0. The Senate rejected it 92-5. In September, again, there was a low-growth resolution. The Senate Budget Committee rejected abandoning fiscal discipline on a vote of 19- 2. The Senate rejected it on a vote of 88-8. Once again, because the economy has been growing at less than 1 percent, this automatic resolution has come before the Budget Committee and has come before the Senate. The question is, Do we eliminate all of those budget points of order that help us to maintain fiscal discipline? The Senate Budget Committee has acted saying no on a vote of 22-0. They voted out a disapproval resolution. Now the full Senate is going to have its chance to register its opinion at 5 o'clock this evening. I hope that we reject it unanimously and send a clear message to the country and to the market that we intend at the same time we provide fiscal stimulus and a short-term lift for this economy to also maintain long-term fiscal discipline and the integrity of our trust funds.

Mr. CONRAD. Again, I don't know what could be more clear. What some are endorsing is a continuation of the policy that failed catastrophically on September 11. Some would say that system is good enough; stay with the status quo and have some of these same private contractors, who have failed abysmally, continue. We saw an incident with one of the companies in Chicago where a guy got on board with seven knives and a stun gun. That system is not working. I don't know what could be more clear. We need tighter airport security. That costs money, but it is an expenditure that we need to make. Yes, it will stimulate the economy. More than that, it will provide greater security to the American people. As chairman of the Budget Committee, I have had many people come to me with things that need to be done to strengthen local law enforcement, strengthen our national defense, strengthen protection of our borders through the Border Patrol. Those need to be done. We need to do a better job of policing those who come into our country with visas. Right now people come and say they will go to school and nobody checks to see if they showed up at school. One terrorist who engaged in the attack on September 11 was scheduled to go to a school and never showed up. We have no system for tracking to find out if somebody doesn't show up, why they didn't show up. That costs money. That also will strengthen the security of this country. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. CONRAD. Precisely. I do not know what could be more clear. There are some on the other side who will stand up and decry spending. I did not hear them decrying spending to increase our military preparedness. I think we are all joined as one, understanding we have to strengthen our military to respond to what is happening. But it is not our uniformed military that is on the front lines of response to this crisis. It is also our firefighters and our policemen and all local law enforcement, and those elements of this fight against terrorism need to be buttressed. Does anybody doubt we need to add money to fight bioterrorism? Does anybody really believe we are prepared to do all of the things necessary to cope with bioterrorism? I do not believe there is a single Member who can possibly believe we do not need to spend more money to protect ourselves against anthrax and smallpox and all the other things that could be used as weapons against this Nation. Now, that happens to give a double hit. Not only is that spending stimulative to the economy because it buys goods and services; it also provides people greater protection, and we need to do that. We need to strengthen national defense. We need to strengthen law enforcement. We need to strengthen our ability to wage war against those who would engage in terrorist attacks against us. Yes, that is spending but it is spending for a purpose, and it is an important purpose.

Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to. We had a hearing on this before the Senate Budget Committee. We had very distinguished economists from both sides come and give their testimony. It is very clear, both tax cuts and spending can be stimulative. The first test is: Do they get out in time to be stimulative? That test applies to spending and to tax cuts. The first test is: Do they get out in time to give lift to the economy when it is weak, No. 1? No. 2, the question is: Do they go to companies and individuals who will spend the money or invest the money? Because if people save the money, that is not stimulative to the economy in the near term. So that is critically important. This is not a question of tax cuts versus spending. Our proposal on the Democratic side has a combination of tax cuts and spending, but they are designed to meet both principles, No. 1, that it gets out quickly and, No. 2, that it goes to companies and individuals who will actually spend or invest the money to stimulate the economy. With respect to tax cuts on the Democratic side, the package of tax cuts we have endorsed include the following: bonus depreciation. Now, why are we doing that? Why are we giving a bonus if one buys capital goods now? If a company makes an investment now to buy equipment, why do we give them a bonus on the depreciation? The reason is, all of the economists who came before us said behavior has to be changed. People who are not buying now have to buy. One way to do that is to give bonus depreciation. Actually, that provision is common in the two approaches, the Republican approach and the Democratic approach. No. 2, we provide for what we call net operating loss carrybacks so a company that has been hard hit by the events of September 11 and has losses now but had income in previous years can take back the losses now and get a refund against earnings in previous years. That is a provision that is common between the two sides. The third provision we have is to increase expensing for small businesses. Small businesses that now expense can write off $25,000 worth of purchases a year. We increase that to $35,000. Again, that is a provision common to us both. The fourth tax cut that is in our plan is to provide rebates to those who were left out of the last round. People who pay payroll taxes but not income taxes, they were left out. They did not get anything last time. They are, by the way, the very people most likely to spend the money to actually stimulate the economy. So those are provisions that are in our bill, that are in the Republican bill as well, with some differences, because both of us recognize those are stimulative. In addition, we have some spending provisions on homeland security issues. What we are talking about with respect to homeland security is strengthening security at airports, strengthening security at harbors, improving local law enforcement. Those are things the economists have told us may give a double hit. That is, not only will the spending be stimulative but if people are given a greater sense of security and, in fact, improve their security, that will also help the economy, because one thing we are suffering from now is a lack of confidence, a reduction in consumer confidence. Frankly, people do not feel safe. That is inhibiting air travel. That is inhibiting economic activity. So to the extent we have spending, that stimulates the economy because it is moving into businesses and buying goods and services from them but it also gives people a greater sense of security that may be the most stimulative part of the package according to economists who came before the Senate Budget Committee.

Mr. CONRAD. I don't think there can really be any question about which approach is going to be more effective from an economic standpoint. What virtually every economist who has come before the Finance Committee and the Budget Committee has told us is the following: No. 1, you need to get the money out there into the hands of people and companies quickly so that it gets spent. That is what will stimulate the economy. So to the extent you are getting money into the hands of people who are the most likely to spend it and companies that are the most likely to spend it, you are getting the job done, you are stimulating the economy. So with respect to individuals, it doesn't make much sense to give the lion's share of the tax cut to the wealthiest because they are the least likely to spend it. Therefore, they are the least likely to stimulate the economy. With respect to companies, it doesn't make much sense to write billion-dollar checks to companies that are already profitable because, again, they are the least likely to spend the money that will stimulate the economy. Unfortunately, that is what the House Republican package does, as I have indicated, overwhelmingly. Beyond that, they also suffer from the second part of the equation. The first part of the equation is to stimulate the economy in the short term, give it a boost, a lift. The test is getting money into the hands of individuals and companies quickly who will spend the money. That is the economic test. On the longer term question, every economist, including Chairman Greenspan and former Secretary Rubin, has told us: But you have to couple that with long-term fiscal discipline. You have to demonstrate to the markets that you are not going to just go out and spend money and undermine the tax base and make our long-term fiscal condition worse, because that will put upward pressure on interest rates and you will undo all of the good you are trying to accomplish with a short- term fiscal stimulus. If you abandon fiscal discipline for the long term, that has the effect of raising interest rates; that has the effect of smothering the economy. So we have to be smart about this, and we have to adopt two principles: One, yes, stimulate the economy in the short term, but, two, couple it with long-term fiscal discipline so we don't put upward pressure on interest rates and don't undo what we are trying to accomplish.

Mr. CONRAD. Well, I thank the Senator for his question. As I indicated earlier, on a bipartisan basis the House budgeteers and Senate budgeteers agreed to a set of principles to apply to any stimulus package. We did that, and we did it without an angry word exchanged. I applied those principles to what the House package for economic stimulus was. What we found was that it failed every one of the tests we had agreed to apply. We said the proposal should sunset within 1 year so that we didn't dig the fiscal hole deeper in the outyears. The House bill, unfortunately, fails that principle because 71 percent of its total costs are permanent tax cuts--permanent tax cuts, not temporary measures--designed to lift the economy now, but permanent tax cuts. Second, we said a substantial portion of the fiscal stimulus should be out within 6 months. If you are going to give stimulus to the economy, you need to do it quickly. In our history, we have found that every time we have tried to use a fiscal stimulus to give a lift to the economy, we have been too late. That is the history. So we said let's not be too late this time, let's get the money out in the next 6 months when we know we face a problem. Unfortunately, looking at the House package, 40 percent of the 10-year cost occurs after the first year. So, unfortunately, it flunks that test. Third, we said the size should be about $60 billion. The House bill costs $160 billion over 10 years. And targeting--we said the stimulus should go to those most likely to spend the dollars and those most vulnerable in an economic downturn. If you look at the House bill, 35 percent of the tax cuts go to the wealthiest 1 percent; 35 percent goes to the wealthiest 1 percent. Now the problem with that is the wealthiest 1 percent are the least likely to spend the money. That is the whole idea of stimulus--to give lift to the economy. Only 19 percent goes to the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers under the House package. They are giving crumbs to those at the lower end of the economic ladder, who are the very ones most likely to spend it. Every economist who has come before us has said: Look, get money into the hands of people and companies that will spend it. Don't do what the House did. Part of their package, as the Senator from Illinois referenced, would write a $2 billion check to a major automobile company in America and $1.5 billion to another large industrial company in this country--not to hire people or to invest, but to just write them a check. Amazingly enough, so much of their package has nothing to do with the current economic downturn. It has to do with writing checks to wealthy companies and wealthy individuals, and every economist we have talked to has said that can't be taken as a serious stimulus package.

Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico, the ranking member of the Budget Committee and the former chairman of the Budget Committee for his remarks, and for his strong support in rejecting the resolution that would abandon fiscal discipline. I think this is another example of our working together in a way that is absolutely great for the country. After the series of events on September 11, the House and Senate budget committees and Senator Domenici and I joined with our House colleagues. We met together to give an update to our colleagues on the fiscal condition of the country. We met with the head of the Office of Management and Budget. We were able to give a report to our colleagues on where we stand at the moment. We also agreed on a set of principles to apply to a stimulus package. We were able to do that on a bipartisan basis, and I might say without a raised voice and without an angry word between us. We weren't in perfect agreement; certainly not. We compromised. But we did in the end come together around a set of principles that we thought were important. One of the reasons we thought it was important to come together was that we believed our Nation needed a stimulus package. I think the evidence overwhelmingly proves that is the case. This chart shows what has happened to economic growth from 1999 to the most recent quarter. What has triggered our being here today are these last two quarters where you can see that we are below 1-percent growth. We are at .3 percent in the quarter previous to the most recent one. During the most recent one, we saw a negative growth in the Nation's economy. That triggered the resolution that has brought us here today. The Budget Act requires that when you have two quarters of low growth, you then must consider in the Budget Committee and on the floor these provisions to suspend all of the budget points of order-- those things that we use to maintain fiscal discipline. All of the indices are telling us that the economy has hit a difficult period. We can see what happened to civilian unemployment. We can see back in 2000 that we were down at less than 4 percent--a remarkable period. In fact, we are at the lowest level of unemployment in this Nation in 30 years. But look at what has happened since. Look at what has happened since the events of September 11. Unemployment has risen dramatically, and is still rising. The distinguished occupant of the chair knows this well. She represents the State of Washington. One of the major employers there is Boeing. Boeing has announced the layoffs of tens of thousands of their employees. That is through no fault of theirs. It is not through any inability to compete, but it is because hundreds of contracts for airliners have been canceled by the airline industry. Their loads have been reduced 30 to 50 percent. That is the economic reality for one critical industry in this country; and it is very serious business. It is not just the airline industry. It is industry after industry that is engaged in massive layoffs. I recently met with financial leaders in New York. They told me they are in the process or getting ready to lay off 20 percent of their employees. These are major financial institutions in this country and in the world, and they are getting ready to lay off massive numbers of their employees because of the economic slowdown. Those numbers are not yet seen in this increase in unemployment that is already in evidence. It does not end there because we also see consumer confidence has plunged. This chart shows consumer confidence--going back again to 1999, and coming forward to the most recent data--has gone to the lowest level since February of 1994. So clearly, we are being victimized by a very serious economic slowdown. We know the economy was weakening before September 11, and that the attack on this country on that date further weakened our economy. And now we see a very serious circumstance develop. It is critically important that we respond with an economic stimulus package. It is also critical, we believe, that we couple that with long-term fiscal discipline. One part of maintaining long-term fiscal discipline is to maintain the structures in the law that help us to keep in place fiscal discipline. And those are the very things that would be thrown out if this resolution before us is adopted. But we have no alternative but to consider it. Even though the Budget Committee rejected it on a unanimous vote--a totally bipartisan vote-- we still understand that if we do not reject it here, it would go into place if the House took similar action and it got to the President and he signed it. I do not believe any of those things will happen. It is not going to pass here. It would not pass in the House. The President would not sign it because it would be a serious policy error. I know some will say: Gee, why were these procedures put in law? Why is it a requirement that the Budget Committee take it up? Why is it a requirement that it come to the floor under expedited procedures for a vote? The reasons for that are very simple. The concern was, if we got into a serious economic downturn, that there might be a failure to act, that we should not have any hurdles in the way of Congress acting. That may not be such a bad thought under certain circumstances. We might find ourselves someday in a situation in which we are being blocked from taking action that the majority of us thought was absolutely necessary for the economy to recover. That is not the case now. We have seen already a stimulus package pass in the House of Representatives. Although some of us would strongly disagree with that stimulus package, we know we are going to be considering a stimulus package on the floor of the Senate this afternoon. We also know we have already taken bipartisan action to provide $40 billion of assistance to New York and additional funding for defense and intelligence and the funds and resources necessary to combat terrorism. So Congress has taken rapid action, and has demonstrated the ability to act. Beyond that, we also recognize that Congress has acted in terms of support for the airline industry which has been so devastated by the events of September 11 and the aftermath. We know that Congress can act, that Congress is going to take the additional steps necessary to give lift to the economy, but we also know it needs to be in the framework of long-term fiscal discipline. Some of us believe--I certainly do--one of the worst things we could do is to take action on long-term changes in our funding and in our tax structure to respond to an immediate downturn, that that could hurt this country very substantially going forward. We do not want to deepen the hole we already see developing. We can see very clearly that this country faces a serious fiscal challenge going forward. We have already projected that we will be using literally hundreds of billions of dollars of Social Security and Medicare trust fund money to pay for the other functions of Government. That is a mistake. That is not a route we should go down, but that is where we are headed. And to abandon these fiscal disciplines, in the face of an already serious long-term fiscal problem, would be a very serious mistake. So, Mr. President, and colleagues, I hope very much that when we vote at 5 o'clock this evening, that this body will follow the leadership of the Budget Committee in rejecting the resolution that would eliminate all of these budget enforcement mechanisms. Later on this afternoon we are going to consider the Senate version of a stimulus package. As I indicated, on a bipartisan basis, those of us who have the most responsibility for the budget aspects of what we do here--the leaders of the House Budget Committee and the Senate Budget Committee--agreed, on a bipartisan basis, that we should have a stimulus package and we should give lift to the economy in the short term when it is needed, but we should also couple that with long-term fiscal discipline so we do not go deeper into the trust funds of Social Security and Medicare, so we do not put upward pressure on interest rates that could undo all of the good that is attempted to be accomplished by a fiscal stimulus package. With that, I, again, call on my colleagues to join us in defeating this resolution that is required to be brought before us by the Budget Act, that has already been rejected by an overwhelming bipartisan, unanimous vote in the Senate Budget Committee. We will have the opportunity to consider that at 5 o'clock this evening. We hope our colleagues in the Senate will join us in a commitment to long-term fiscal discipline. (Mr. EDWARDS assumed the chair.)

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased this morning to welcome a good friend and distinguished North Dakotan, Francis Cree, to the Senate. I thank him for his moving and inspirational prayer. Francis Cree is the Spiritual Leader and Tribal Elder of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa of North Dakota. He is the official Pipe Carrier for the Tribe, a position of honor and leadership. He led the tribe as chairman in the 1950s and served several terms on the Tribal Council. Francis spends countless hours teaching young tribal members about Chippewa culture and traditions. Last year, he even made an award- winning CD called, ``The Elders Speak.'' Francis is married to Rose Cree, a well-known artist who makes beautiful willow and birchbark baskets, several of which are displayed in my office. They were recently featured at the Smithsonian's Festival of American Folk Life on the Mall here in our Nation's Capital. Francis and Rose have 14 children, and, according to Rose, ``too many grandchildren and great-grandchildren to count, but there are well over a hundred.'' In May, Rose and Francis will celebrate 63 years of marriage. Congratulations to you both. I am very pleased to welcome Francis Cree to the Senate this morning. I thank him for being here and for sharing his inspiring message with us. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank my colleague from Nevada. My colleague, Senator Dorgan, is chairing a hearing in another part of the Capitol complex and will come to the Chamber later today to also memorialize this occasion. I do not want this moment to pass without indicating Senator Dorgan was here earlier but had to leave to chair a meeting of his subcommittee elsewhere in the Capitol complex or else he would be here as well. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the record the Budget Committee's official scoring for the conference report to H.R. 2620, the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002. Including an advance appropriation into 2002 of $4.2 billion, the conference report provides $85.434 billion in discretionary budget authority, of which $143 million is for defense spending. The conference report will result in new outlays in 2002 of $40,489 billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, discretionary outlays for the conference report total $88.463 billion in 2002. The conference report is within its section 302(b) allocation for both budget authority and outlays. Included within the $85.434 billion in budget authority for 2002 is $1.5 billion in emergency-designated sending authority for the Federal Emergency Management Agency for disaster relief activities. The emergency funding, which is not estimated to result in any outlays in 2002, is consistent with the revised 2002 budget reached between President Bush and Congressional leaders last month. Per section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act, I have adjusted the Appropriations Committee's allocation for 2002 by the amount of the emergency funding. In addition, the conference report provides an advance appropriation for section 8 renewals of $4.2 billion for 2003. That advance is allowed under the budget resolution adopted for 2002. Finally, the report would reduce federal revenues by $32 million in 2002. By law, the revenue loss, which results from changes made to certain HUD and EPA fees, will be placed on the PAYGO scorecard. Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that a table displaying the budget committee scoring of this bill be inserted in the Record at this point.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended, requires the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to adjust the budgetary aggregates and the allocation for the Appropriations Committee by the amount of appropriations designated as emergency spending pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended. The conference report to H.R. 2620, the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act of 2002, provides $1.5 billion in designated emergency funding in 2002 for FEMA disaster relief. Because that budget authority is not estimated to result in any new outlays in 2002, the adjustment made herein is for budget authority only. Pursuant to section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act, I hereby revise the 2002 allocation provided to the Senate Appropriations Committee in the concurrent budget resolution in the following amounts. Pursuant to section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act, I hereby revise the 2002 budget aggregates included in the concurrent budget resolution in the following amounts. I ask to print tables 1 and 2 in the Record, which reflect the changes made to the committee's allocation and to the budget aggregates.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the Record the Budget Committee's official scoring for S. 1543, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002. The Senate bill provides $408 million in discretionary budget authority, which will result in new outlays in 2002 of $368 million. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, discretionary outlays for the Senate bill total $416 million in 2002. The Senate bill is at its section 302(b) allocation for both budget authority and outlays. The bill does not provide any emergency- designated funding. In addition, the bill approves the District government's budget for 2002, including granting it the authority to spend $7.154 billion of local funds. The Congress is far behind in passing the 13 regular appropriations bills for 2002. Much of this delay is the result of the extraordinary events of this year. I am hopeful that the bipartisan agreement reached between the President and congressional appropriations on the 2002 budget earlier this month will result in a quick completion of the 2002 appropriations. It is particularly important that the Senate act expeditiously to pass this bill, which not only provides a limited amount of federal funding to the District, but also, through the enactment of its budget, allows the city to obligate and spend its own local revenues. I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the budget committee scoring of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the record the Budget Committee's official scoring for the conference report to H.R. 2590, the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002. The conference report provides $17.069 billion in discretionary budget authority, which will result in new outlays in 2002 of $12.601 billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, discretionary outlays for the Senate bill total $16.256 billion in 2002. The conference report is within the subcommittee's section 302(b) allocation for budget authority and outlays. It does not include any emergency designations. We are already 1 month into the new fiscal year and the Senate is just now considering its third appropriations conference report. Ten more remain. It is important, therefore, that the Senate pass this report, which provides important resources to the Department of the Treasury, including its law enforcement bureaus, as well as to the Postal Service, General Services Administration, Office of Personnel Management and other agencies, as quickly as possible. I commend Senators Dorgan and Campbell for their bipartisan work on this bill and urge the Congress to expeditiously complete the remaining 10 bills to prevent any disruptions for Federal agencies or for the American public that depends on their programs and services. I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the budget committee scoring of this bill be inserted in the Record at this point.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the record the Budget Committee's official scoring of the conference report to H.R. 2311, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002. The conference report provides $24.596 billion in discretionary budget authority, which will result in new outlays in 2002 of $15.973 billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, discretionary outlays for the conference report total $24.77 billion in 2002. Of that total, $14.7 billion in budget authority and $14.715 billion in outlays is for defense spending. The conference report is at the appropriations' subcommittee's section 302(b) allocations for both budget authority and outlays. Further, the committee has met its target without the use of any emergency designations. I am relieved that we are moving forward on this and other appropriations bills, so that we can meet our obligation to the country to enact a spending plan for the government in a reasonably timely manner. I commend subcommittee Chairman Reid, Ranking Member Domenici, and their House counterparts for their hard work in forging reasonable compromises between the House and Senate versions of this bill. This report addresses some of our country's most pressing nuclear security and water resources needs, as well as important energy issues. I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the budget committee scoring of this report be inserted in the Record at this point.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the record the Budget Committee's official scoring for the conference report to H.R. 2647, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002. The conference report provides $2.974 billion in discretionary budget authority, which will result in new outlays in 2002 of $2.509 billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, discretionary outlays for the Senate bill total $2.941 billion in 2002. The conference report is at the appropriations subcommittee's Section 302(b) allocation for budget authority and outlays. The conference report does not include any emergency designations. I commend Senators Byrd and Stevens, as well as Senators Durbin and Bennett, for their bipartisan effort in moving the conference report to the Legislative Branch bill so quickly. It is important that the Senate act as expeditiously in completing the remaining appropriations bills. I ask for unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of this bill be inserted in the record at this point.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I rise today to talk about the economic stimulus package that is being discussed and debated in both Houses of Congress. When it became apparent that our economy was weakening, those of us who have special responsibilities for the budget--the leaders of the House Budget Committee and the Senate Budget Committee--got together and agreed on a bipartisan, bicameral basis on certain principles for an economic stimulus package. These were the chairman and ranking member of the House Budget Committee and the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee. After several weeks of work, we were able to agree on a bipartisan basis on a set of principles to apply to the stimulus package. We agreed on an overall principle that an economic stimulus package should be based on the recognition that long-term fiscal discipline is essential to sustained economic growth. We agreed that measures to stimulate the economy should be limited in time so that as the economy recovers, the budget regains a surplus at least equal to the surplus in Social Security. And that any short-term economic stimulus should not result in higher long-term interest rates. We went on to agree to the objectives, the timing, the rapid impact, the sunset, the targets, and the size of any economic stimulus package. Again, this was on a bipartisan basis and involved the leaders of both the Senate Budget Committee and the House Budget Committee. On objectives, we agreed that an economic stimulus package should restore consumer and business confidence, increase employment and investment, and help those most vulnerable in an economic downturn. On timing, we agreed that Congress should assemble an economic stimulus package with dispatch, aiming for passage within 3 to 4 weeks of our report which was done on October 4. On rapid impact, we agreed that a substantial portion of the fiscal impact should be felt within 6 months. On sunset, we agreed that all economic stimulus proposals should sunset within 1 year to the extent practicable. On targets, we agreed that an economic stimulus package should be broad based, rather than industry specific, and that policies should achieve the greatest possible stimulus per dollar spent be, and should be, directed to individuals who are most likely to spend the additional after-tax income and businesses most likely to increase spending and employment. On size, we agreed that the economic stimulus package should be equal to roughly 1 percent of gross domestic product, which would be $100 billion, but take into account what we had already done at that point, which was some $40 billion. That would mean a floor of at least $60 billion of economic stimulus. And on offsets, we agreed to uphold the policy of repaying the greatest amount of national debt feasible between 2002 and 2011; that outyear offsets should make up over time for the cost of any near-term economic stimulus. With those principles in mind, we can now apply them to the various proposals that are out there. Senator Baucus, the chairman of the Finance Committee, has released a proposal, and we find in looking at the elements of Senator Baucus' proposal--we matched them with the principles that were agreed to on a bipartisan basis--that his package passes on each and every principle that had been agreed to. On the question of temporary, on a bipartisan basis we agreed that proposals should sunset within 1 year. Senator Baucus' package provides for that. On rapid impact, we said a substantial portion should be out within 6 months. Senator Baucus' proposal has all of his impact in the first year. On size, we said approximately $60 billion. Senator Baucus' proposal has $70 billion in this fiscal year but actually costs less than that over the 10 years because some of the things that provide lift now actually will generate revenue later on. On targeting, we said the stimulus dollars should go to those most likely to spend them. Senator Baucus' proposal includes $14 billion of rebates to those who were not included in the first package of rebates and $33 billion in worker relief targeted to low- and middle-income Americans who are the most likely to spend the money. On the question of not hurting our long-term fiscal condition, Senator Baucus' proposal has virtually no effect on the surplus after this fiscal year. His proposal clearly passes each of the tests. If we apply those same principles to the House package, we get quite a different result. In fact, we find that they fail each of the tests. Not just one of them, not two of them; the House proposal fails each and every test that was agreed to on a bipartisan basis by those of us most responsible for the budget. With respect to temporary, the House bill has 71 percent of its tax cuts as permanent. There is no temporary package. It is largely a permanent package. So that fails the first test of being temporary. Second, on the question of rapid impact, we said a substantial majority of the fiscal impact should be felt within 6 months. But in the House package, nearly 40 percent of the 10-year cost is after this year. That is not a stimulus package. A stimulus is designed to give lift to the economy now, not 2003, not 2004, and yet 40 percent of the cost of the House package is after the year 2002. That clearly fails the principle of rapid impact. On size, we said $60 billion as a starting point, as a floor. The House package is $162 billion over 10 years. That is far in excess of what the President called for. He said $60 billion to $75 billion. This has a cost of $162 billion. On the question of targeting, the House package has 35 percent of the tax cuts going to the wealthiest 1 percent. We on a bipartisan basis agreed to the principle that stimulus ought to go to those most likely to spend the money. That is what will lift the economy. That is what will provide stimulus. But the House package disproportionately goes to the wealthiest 1 percent. Those are the very people most likely to save the money, not to spend it. However meritorious savings may be--and goodness knows I am an advocate for savings--that does not stimulate the economy. The thing that stimulates the economy, according to every economist who came and testified before the Budget Committee, is if people and companies spend the money that they get, and spend it now--not 2 years from now, not 3 years from now, but now. Now is when the economy is weak. Now is when we need stimulus. This morning's economic report on the last quarter of economic growth shows we are in negative territory. It makes the point as clearly as it can be made that we need economic stimulus now--not 2 years from now, not 3 years from now but now. Madam President, while the House package has 35 percent of the benefits going to the wealthiest 1 percent, the bottom 60 percent of the income category get only 19 percent of the benefits. Yet those are the people who are the most likely to spend the money and give lift to the economy. So the House package violates that principle. Finally, on the question of a package not worsening our long-term fiscal condition, the House package has a cost of $171 billion when you include the interest costs beyond the year 2002. In other words, every dollar of that part of their stimulus package would be coming out of the Social Security trust fund surplus. In essence, they are taking payroll tax dollars from people in this country and giving the money in an income tax cut that goes disproportionately to the wealthiest 1 percent. That stands stimulus on its head. That is taking money from the people who are most likely to spend it and giving it to people who are most likely to save it. That is not what stimulus is all about. That cannot be the result. I just want to make clear to my colleagues, as chairman of the Budget Committee, I will not accept this kind of result. I will use every device available to me to stop any package similar to what the House passed. Given the ability of a Senator to stop a package, I can assure my colleagues, this is not going to happen because I am not going to let it happen, and there will be plenty of others who will join me. We are not going to let it happen because it should not happen. This is not a stimulus package; it is a political package. The Secretary of the Treasury said it very well when asked about the House package. He called it show business. This is no time for show business; this is time for real business. This is time for the business of America. This is the time to have a stimulus package that really does the job and does not abandon fiscal discipline for the long term by putting upward pressure on interest rates that would undo all the good we are trying to accomplish by a package of fiscal stimulus. When we go to the question of the plan that was released yesterday by Senator Grassley, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, and apparently now adopted by the Senate Republican caucus, we have looked at each of the measures, each of the principles that had earlier been agreed to on a bipartisan basis, and we have graded the Grassley package. Here is what we found. On the question of temporary--the principle was the stimulus should sunset within 1 year--what we find is that 82 percent of the Grassley package is not temporary; 82 percent is permanent tax cuts. That absolutely fails the test of temporary. Why do we have that test? We have that test because every economist who has come to us has said: Look, you have to marry fiscal stimulus with long-term fiscal discipline; otherwise, you will put upward pressure on interest rates, and, guess what. You will undo all of the potential good of a fiscal stimulus package. You will put fiscal policy at war with monetary policy, and while you are giving lift to the economy with fiscal stimulus, you will be suppressing the economy by increasing interest rates. This principle is there for a reason, and the reason is, as Secretary Rubin, who is the former Secretary of the Treasury who did such a brilliant job in the Clinton administration, made clear to us, you have to be careful while you are providing fiscal stimulus to couple it with long-term fiscal discipline. We all understand, because of the tax cuts that were provided earlier, because of the attacks on our country, because of the need to rebuild, because of the continuing economic weakness, this country is headed into deficits in the fiscal year we have just ended. We are not talking just about trust fund deficits; we are talking about deficits that mean we are going to be using every penny of the Medicare trust fund surplus this year to pay for other items. We are going to be using every penny of the Social Security trust fund surplus this year to pay for other items, and we are going to be spending beyond that. We are not only taking all of the trust fund surpluses, but we are taking billions of dollars beyond that. That may be acceptable at a time of war, at a time of economic slowdown, but we cannot permit that to continue. We cannot allow a circumstance to develop in which we are raiding and looting every trust fund in sight, even when the economy is forecasted to be in recovery. That will devastate this country's position when the baby-boomers start to retire in 10 years. Please, I say to my colleagues, let us not get stampeded to do things that make our long-term fiscal condition far worse. That would be a disaster for this country. On the question of rapid impact, looking at the Grassley package, again we had the principle of the money should go out, the vast majority of it in 6 months. Why? Because in looking at past results, what we have found is every time there was an attempt to use fiscal policy to stimulate the economy, we have been too late--not just some of the time, every time. Every time there has been an economic slowdown and we tried to use fiscal policy to give stimulus, each and every time we have been too late. So this time we are saying if we are going to stimulate the economy, get the money out in time to make a difference. That is why we have this principle. Yet if one looks at the Grassley plan, nearly half of it, 48 percent of the 10-year cost, occurs after the first year. That is not a stimulus package. That is a tax cut package--I will grant that--but it is not a stimulus package. It is going to be too late. It is going to be like all the other times when we tried to use fiscal stimulus, and every time it has been too late. Let us not make that same mistake again. On a bipartisan basis we said: Let us not do that again. If we are going to have stimulus, let us get it out there to be effective. The Grassley plan does not do it. Half of it comes after the year 2002. On the size, we said $60 billion. The cost of the Grassley plan is $175 billion over 10 years. That does not count the interest cost. On targeting, we said stimulus dollars should go to those most likely to spend them. Well, the Grassley package flunks that big time. Forty- four percent of the value of the tax cuts in the Grassley plan goes to the wealthiest 1 percent. Eighteen percent goes to the bottom 60 percent. Talk about taking a principle and standing it on its head. That is what the Grassley proposal does. It does not funnel the money to those who receive the lowest income, who are the ones most likely to spend it. It gives the disproportionate share to the wealthiest 1 percent who are the ones most likely to save it, not spend it. Again, however meritorious saving is--and I believe in it and applaud those who save--every economist has said to us you have to put this money in the hands of companies and people who will spend it and spend it now; not 2 years from now, not 3 years from now but now. The Grassley plan absolutely flunks that test. Finally, the package should not worsen our long-term fiscal condition. The Grassley plan costs over $200 billion, counting the interest. It costs over $200 billion after fiscal year 2002. That is digging the hole deeper. That is taking every penny of it from the Social Security trust fund surpluses. When one thinks about it, here is what he is doing: He is taking money from payroll taxes--and over 70 percent of the people in this country pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes--he is taking payroll tax money and using it to fund an income-tax cut that disproportionately goes to the wealthiest 1 percent. Think about that. He is taking money, over $200 billion, after this economic slowdown is over--according to the administration's projections, he is taking $200 billion of people's payroll tax money and going over and giving half of it to the wealthiest 1 percent in an income-tax cut when every economist has told us we ought to give the money in tax cuts to the lower income people who are most likely to spend it. Instead, what he is doing is taking it from the low-income people, the 60 or 70 percent of the people who pay more in payroll taxes than they pay in income taxes, and giving it to the wealthiest 1 percent, who are the ones most likely to save it and not spend it. That is not a stimulus package. That is a tax cut package for the most privileged and the wealthiest among us. It is certainly not a stimulus package. It flunks every test, every principle that we agreed to on a bipartisan basis. I hope our colleagues are thinking very carefully about this matter of a stimulus package. It is needed. It is needed soon. We have an economy that is in decline. We were in trouble before September 11. That circumstance has gotten seriously worse after the events of September 11, after the sneak attack on this country. We have an obligation to develop a stimulus package that is really stimulus, not a political plan, not a partisan plan but a plan that is going to help lift this economy. To do that it is critically important that while we are giving a short-term lift, a lift that will take effect in a way that is timely, that we also couple that with long-term fiscal discipline so we do not push up interest rates, so we do not undo all of the good we are attempting with a stimulus package. I feel very strongly about this issue because I have seen in the 15 years I have been in the Senate the difference between healthy fiscal policy and fiscal policy that is built on debt and deficits and decline. The last thing we should do in this country is put our Nation back on the course of massive fiscal deficits, draining every trust fund in sight in order to cover other costs. That is especially important in the decade before the baby-boomers retire. I am going to be ferocious on the question of not digging the fiscal hole deeper beyond the time of economic weakness. That would be a profound and tragic mistake to this country. The distinguished occupant of the chair is the Senator from New York. New York has been devastated by the attacks on September 11. I think all of us are proud of the reaction of the people of New York. They have stood tall. They have responded with courage, and they deserve our help. Every time in our Nation's history when one of our States has been hit by natural disaster or some tragedy, all of the other States have rushed to help. I remember when my own State was devastated in the 1990s by floods, the worst floods in 500 years. Colleagues from all across this country reacted in a generous way to help the people of my State who were so badly hurt. I remember when California was devastated by fires and earthquakes how all of us rallied around to help the State of California because it was the right thing to do and because we also recognized we are the United States of America and we are united at a time of difficulty for many of our people. The people of New York have suffered not a natural disaster; it is a man-made disaster, a disaster made by fanatics who took innocent lives by the thousands and devastated tens of millions of dollars worth of property and put New York's economy on a course that is going down. It is our obligation to help. We will help. We will fashion a stimulus package that will help all of our country recover. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the Record the Budget Committee's official scoring for S. 1536, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002. The Senate bill provides $123.071 billion in nonemergency discretionary budget authority, which will result in new outlays in 2002 of $50.014 billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, discretionary outlays for the Senate bill total $107.716 billion in 2002. The Senate bill is at its section 302(b) allocation for both budget authority and outlays. In addition, the bill provides $300 million in emergency-designated funding for the low-income home energy assistance program (LIHEAP), which will result in new outlays of $75 million in 2002. In accordance with standard budget practice the budget committee will adjust the appropriations committee's allocation for emergency spending at the end of conference. The Senate bill also provides $18.474 billion in advance appropriations for 2003 for employment and training, health resources, child care, and education programs. Those advances are specifically allowed for under the budget resolution adopted for 2002, and, combined with all other advance appropriations considered by the Senate to date, fall within the limit imposed by the resolution. Finally, the bill extends the Mark-to-Market Program for multifamily assisted housing, which is estimated to save $355 million in 2002. I ask for unanimous consent that a table displaying the budget committee scoring of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended, requires the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to adjust the budgetary aggregates and the allocation for the Appropriations Committee by the amount of appropriations provided to the Social Security Administration for continuing disability reviews, up to $520 million in 2002, and the amount of appropriations provided to the Department of Health and Human Services for adoption incentive payments, up to $20 million in 2002. S. 1536, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 2002, provides a total of $453 million for the two activities. That budget authority will result in new outlays in 2002 of $384 million. Pursuant to section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act, I hereby revise the 2002 allocation provided to the Senate Appropriations Committee in the concurrent budget resolution. Pursuant to section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act, I hereby revise the 2002 budget aggregates included in the concurrent budget resolution. I ask unanimous consent to print tables 1 and 2 in the Record, which reflect the changes made to the committee's allocation and to the budget aggregates.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, will the manager of the bill and others who are waiting permit me 15 seconds to mention what has occurred?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the manager of the bill for including the provisions that Senator Bond, myself, and Senator Snowe authored to tighten our borders, to provide coordination with schools and employers when visa holders come to this country, to coordinate the work of our intelligence agencies with the INS and the State Department so we are confident of who is coming in, and to impose these new provisions using biometrics so we really know who is coming to our country. I thank the managers very much, and I thank Senator Bond for his leadership.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the record the Budget Committee's official scoring for S. 1191, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002. The Senate bill provides $16.137 billion in discretionary budget authority, which will result in new outlays in 2002 of $11.863 billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, discretionary outlays for the Senate bill total $16.107 billion in 2002. The Senate bill is within its section 302(b) allocation for budget authority and outlays. In addition, the committee once again has met its target without the use of any emergency designations. I again commend Chairman Byrd and Senator Stevens, as well as Senators Kohl and Cochran, for their bipartisan effort in moving this and other appropriations bills quickly to make up for the late start in this year's appropriations process. The tragic events of September 11 demand that this bipartisanship continue and that the Congress expeditiously complete work on the 13 regular appropriations bills for 2002. I ask for unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of this bill be inserted in the Record at this point.