Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Yes.

Mr. CONRAD. You have the same pattern on the alternative minimum tax, as the Senator showed. Interestingly enough, that costs $658 billion over the 10 years. The President only provides for 1 year in his budget--$23 billion. He shows the $23 billion necessary to keep this thing from cutting more and more into the middle class. In fact, we have 2 million or 3 million people affected by the alternative minimum tax. By the end of that 10-year period, 40 million people are going to be caught up in the alternative minimum tax. Boy, are they in for a big surprise. They thought they were getting tax cuts. They are going to get a whooping tax increase. What the President's budget does, and the budget from the Republican side in the Budget Committee, is just deal with this problem for 1 year.

Mr. CONRAD. Real money.

Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CONRAD. At least. The Congressional Budget Office tells us the true ongoing cost of the war over the 10-year period will be $280 billion. There is not a dime of it in the President's budget. The Senator is quite right. It is this pattern of hiding from the American people the full cost of these budget proposals that is a great concern.

Mr. CONRAD. It is truly stunning. It is not just the tax cuts that have that same pattern. Fixing the alternative minimum tax, which was the original millionaire's tax, is rapidly becoming a middle-class tax increase that has that same pattern. In addition, they are hiding the cost of the war. The war, they say, has no additional cost. The war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, and the war on terrorism has no additional cost past September 30. Who believes that? We know right now they are preparing a request for additional funding, a vote to be held after the election in which they are going to ask for another $50 billion.

Mr. CONRAD. If the Senator will put the chart up again, what that shows----

Mr. CONRAD. The Senator makes a very powerful point. As you can see just on the tax side of the ledger, the President's tax cut proposal explodes right beyond the 5-year window.

Mr. CONRAD. That is correct.

Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the very able chairman of the Budget Committee has just given his review of his proposal on both the revenue and the spending side. Let me put up this chart which shows a bit of a different perspective. The chairman put up a chart which shows the deficit being cut in half over the next several years. This is the problem I have with that chart. I think it fundamentally misleads the American people about the fiscal condition of the country. The chairman's chart is entirely accurate about the unified deficit. What does that mean? That is when you put all the money in the same pot, all the income tax collections and all the payroll tax collections to support Social Security, Medicare, and then you take all the spending out of that same pot. That is how we have done the budget here for years. The problem now is we are in a different situation. The different situation is Social Security, in the 1980s, was changed to run large surpluses during this period in preparation for the retirement of the baby boom generation. So when you put all the money in the same pot, it gives a misleading result. It misleads you as to your true fiscal condition. Let me take this chart from the chairman's own budget. It shows, for 2004, that the overall debt is going to increase by $612 billion between 2004 and 2005. It is going to increase by $612 billion. Let's go out. Under the chairman's mark, I think he is saying that the deficit will be cut in half in--Mr. Chairman, 4 years or 3 years? The deficit will be cut in half in 3 years. But look at this. When you look at the total picture, you see a different result. You see, between 2004 and 2005, the debt being increased by $612 billion; in the next year, $569 billion; in the next year, $553 billion; and in what was supposed to be the third year, where it is supposed to be cut in half, the debt is increasing by $563 billion. There is almost no difference here in how much the debt is increasing. In fact, in the 5 years the debt is increasing $2.86 trillion under the chairman's mark. The chairman is putting the most positive complexion on this budget he can, and I understand that. But when you look at what he is proposing, he is talking about the unified deficit, he is talking about jackpoting all the money, he is talking about the so-called unified deficit being cut in half. To me, that does not give an accurate picture of the fiscal condition of the country.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to thank our very able senior Senator from West Virginia, former majority leader, ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, for his wisdom. Every time I have a chance to listen to Senator Robert Byrd, I treasure it. Senator Byrd has a mix of wisdom and experience that informs his remarks.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to talk for a few moments about many of the subjects Senator Byrd addressed. I think this week has been a wake-up call to the United States, for the Senate, for the House of Representatives, and I hope for the White House, because this week the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Chairman Greenspan, as the Washington Post headlined from the next morning indicates: ``Fed Chief Urges Cut in Social Security.'' The subhead says: ``Future Benefits Must Be Curtailed, Greenspan Warns.'' Chairman Greenspan is talking in this article about the overcommitment this country has. He said: I am just basically saying we are overcommitted at this stage. Chairman Greenspan went on to suggest that he favors making permanent the tax cuts the President has proposed. He also says he recommends we cut Social Security benefits as one way of beginning to deal with these long-term imbalances. Not so long ago, the President, in his FY2002 budget, ``A Blueprint for New Beginnings'' said: None of the Social Security surplus will be used to fund other spending initiatives or tax relief. None. Oh, how wrong the President was in that assertion because when we look at his budget what we find is he is going to borrow from Social Security $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years--$2.4 trillion--and he has no plan to pay it back. It is very interesting to look at the relationship between the money the President is taking from the Social Security surplus over the next 10 years to float this boat, nearly $2.4 trillion, and to compare it to his tax cuts during this same period. Notice how similar the figures are. They are almost identical. The amount being borrowed from the Social Security trust fund is almost identical to the money going out in the tax cuts, primarily income tax cuts, that go overwhelmingly to the wealthiest among us, as this chart shows. This chart shows the benefits of the Bush income tax cuts. What it demonstrates is the top 1 percent, those with incomes of over $337,000 a year, get 33 percent of the tax cuts. That is pretty stunning. Let me repeat it. Those who are in the top 1 percent, earning over $337,000 a year, got 33 percent of the benefits of the income tax cuts. And now we find out it is being financed by taking Social Security money funded by the payroll taxes overwhelmingly paid by middle-income Americans. This is an enormous wealth transfer from the many to the few. This is class warfare writ large. Take from the many, give to the few, and then have us head in a fiscal direction that leads the Chairman of the Federal Reserve to say, at the end of the day, cut the Social Security benefits that were supposed to have been financed by the payroll taxes of the people who paid them. It is very interesting to see the effect of Social Security on this society. Two-thirds of retirees rely on Social Security for more than half of their income; 31 percent of Social Security beneficiaries get at least 90 percent of their income from Social Security; 33 percent get 50 to 89 percent of their income from Social Security. If you put those two together, nearly two-thirds of retirees rely on Social Security for more than half of their income. We know Social Security has been the engine driving people who are Social Security beneficiaries out of poverty. This chart shows without Social Security, 48 percent of our Nation's seniors would be in poverty. With Social Security, only 9 percent are. Is anybody paying attention here? We talk about connecting the dots. We talk about what has happened with the fiscal policy this President has constructed, a fiscal policy that has led to the largest deficits in the history of our country, budget deficits that have no end in sight, that have led the Chairman of the Federal Reserve to say: Cut Social Security benefits but make the tax cuts permanent, and the tax cuts have about the same cost over the 10-year period as the amount of money that is being taken from the Social Security trust fund surpluses over that same period. If we connect the dots, it becomes very clear. Middle-class people are paying heavily into Social Security with payroll taxes on the promise they will get Social Security benefits, but the money is being taken and instead of being used to prepay the liability or to pay down the debt to prepare for their retirement, the money is being used to finance income tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. I showed a chart that demonstrated the top 1 percent, those earning over $337,000 a year, get a third of the tax benefits. But it is even much more dramatic than that. If you are earning over $1 million a year, those who in this country are fortunate enough to earn over $1 million a year will get a tax cut this year of over $100,000. Those earning over $1 million a year will get an average income tax cut of over $100,000, and yet we are running deficits that are the biggest in the history of the country with no end in sight, so serious that the Chairman of the Federal Reserve board says: Cut Social Security benefits. This is all about choices. This chart shows the cost of the President's tax cuts over a 75-year period, $12 trillion. The Social Security shortfall over that same period is just under $4 trillion. It is a 3-to-1 ratio. The difference between the cost of the President's tax cuts over a 75-year period and the Social Security shortfall. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve looks at that shortfall and says: Cut benefits, but make the tax cuts permanent. That is the logic of where the President's budgets are leading, and nobody should be under any illusion that is where this is all headed because here is what is about to happen. This chart is the number of Social Security beneficiaries whose numbers will explode with the retirement of the baby boom generation. We are going to go from about 40 million in 2005, look at 2045, there will be 82 million people receiving Social Security. This isn't a projection. These people are alive. They have been born, and they are going to be eligible, and the President has no plan, none, to deal with it. Under the President's budget, we are spending $991,000 a minute more than we are taking in--$991,000 a minute. If we look at budget deficits and the relationship over a long period of time, from 1969 to this year, we can see the deficits in dollar terms are at an all-time high, by far the biggest budget deficit we have ever had--$100 billion more than last year, and last year was a record. Some try to minimize it, saying: As a percentage of our gross domestic product, these deficits are not so large. Wait just a minute, these deficits are huge by any measure. If you look as a percentage of gross domestic product on an operating basis, protecting Social Security as it was intended to be, what one sees is this deficit is only exceeded once since World War II as a percentage of gross domestic product, only exceeded by a deficit of 6 percent of GDP back in 1983. The big problem with the President's plan is he is hiding from the American people the true effect of his policies. I do not make that charge lightly. The President is hiding from the American people the full effect of his policies. Here is just one way. Here is what happens to his tax cut proposal just beyond the budget window. This dotted line is the end of the 5-year period. Here is what happens to the cost of the President's tax cut once you get beyond the 5-year window. It absolutely explodes. But it is not just his tax cut that explodes just beyond the budget window. So does the cost of fixing the alternative minimum tax, the old millionaires' tax, designed to make certain that people with high incomes paid some taxes. And yet that old millionaires' tax is rapidly becoming a middle- class tax because, as we know, there will be 3 million people affected by it now, and at the end of the 10-year period there will be 40 million Americans affected by the alternative minimum tax. The President does something about it for 1 year. He does nothing about it for all of the future years. This is the pattern of the cost increases to deal with the alternative minimum tax, which everybody knows has to be dealt with. The President has no plan to do anything about it. It is not just in terms of paying the $2.4 trillion he is borrowing from back Social Security. He has no plan there. He has no plan to deal with the exploding cost of the alternative minimum tax. He has no plan to pay the war cost, the war on terror. He says we are going to fight a robust battle against terror, but he is not going to fund it because he has zero in his budget past September 30 of this year. Does anybody believe the war on terror, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, is going to neatly end at the end of the fiscal year? Does anybody seriously believe that? That is what the President says is going to happen. He says there is going to be no cost past September 30, no cost for Afghanistan, no cost for the war on terror, no cost for the war in Iraq, none. When we ask him how can that be, his response is, gee, I really do not know what the cost is going to be. Well, the right answer is not zero. The right answer is not no cost. The Congressional Budget Office tells us the cost is going to be $280 billion, but the President does not acknowledge that cost. It is no wonder that he is able to say he is going to cut the deficit in half in 5 years. He just does not count things. He does not count the war cost. He does not count dealing with the alternative minimum tax crisis. He does not count paying back the $2.4 trillion he is taking from Social Security, every penny of which he has to pay back but none of which he has a plan to do. The President says he is going to cut the deficit in half in the next 5 years. We have gone back and included the cost of his war policies, his tax cut proposals, and the alternative minimum tax, just those three areas. What emerges is a more realistic view of where the deficit is headed. As we can see, there is no cutting the deficit in half. In fact, we do not see the deficit ever getting below about $600 billion. That is a realistic expectation, instead of what the President is telling the American people. Here is what is happening to the debt: The gross debt of the United States is absolutely exploding, at the very time the President promised us he would have maximum paydown of the debt. Remember 2001, that is what he told us, that he would have maximum paydown of the debt. Instead, the debt is exploding from some $6 trillion in 2001 to $15 trillion by 2014. This chart is one of the most sobering of all. The green bars show the Social Security trust fund, the blue bars the Medicare trust fund, and the red bars show the tax cuts already enacted and those proposed by the President. What this shows is right now we are being buffered from the full effect of what the President has proposed by the surpluses in the trust funds. Look what happens when those trust funds go cash negative out in 2016. At that very time the cost of the President's tax cut proposals explode, driving us right over the cliff into deficits and debt never before seen in this country. Do not take my word for it. Here is the Congressional Budget Office report on the long-term budget outlook showing the President's tax cuts exploding the deficit at the very time the baby-boomers retire. This is not just reckless and irresponsible. It is wildly reckless and irresponsible. This is what happens under the President's scenario. Where is the money coming from? Well, he is going to borrow $2.4 trillion from Social Security with no plan to pay it back, but that is not the only place he is borrowing. Now he is borrowing from countries all over the world. We are into Japan for over $500 billion and this is from 2003. We know this is a much higher number now because Japan is buying dollars at a furious pace. So is China. We are into them for over $140 billion, and that number would be much higher if we had a current number. We borrowed $62 billion from Caribbean banking centers. We are in hock to Hong Kong for $56 billion, to Taiwan for $46 billion, but we have even borrowed $43 billion from South Korea. When I was growing up, if anybody had told me America would be having to borrow money from South Korea, that we would be having to be borrowing money from Japan and China, why nobody would have believed it. But that is what is happening. This was the President's statement just the other day in Louisville, KY: We've got plenty of money in Washington, DC, by the way. This is not the statement of a serious person, ``We've got plenty of money in Washington, DC, by the way.'' That is not the statement of a serious person when he is running the biggest deficit in the history of the United States of America, with no end in sight, and his proposal is to dig the hole deeper, to have no more spending and cut the revenue even more when we already are running record deficits, right on the eve of the retirement of the baby boom generation. This President tells the American people that we have plenty of money? The only reason there is plenty of money is because he is borrowing it from every place that he can find somebody who will loan it to him. There is $2.4 trillion being borrowed from the Social Security trust fund with no plan to pay it back, and now Chairman Greenspan warns that the over commitments are so large that Social Security benefits ought to start being cut. That is the logic of the President's course, and it is a disastrous course. It is one that risks the economic security of this country. It is one that risks putting upward pressure on interest rates that will choke off economic growth, that will cost this Nation even more jobs, and force this Congress and a future President into the most excruciating of choices. This is a reckless course. This is not conservative. This is radical. It is reckless and it has to be stopped. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the managers for those commitments. With those assurances, I will not object to the unanimous consent request to make technical corrections in the Senate-passed bill.

Mr. CONRAD. I greatly appreciate the help and cooperation of the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from Vermont on this very important issue and their willingness to accept my amendment. Let me now turn to the second issue, that of making sure this legislation is fully paid for within the six year period for which programs are authorized in the highway bill. During Finance Committee consideration of the tax title of the SAFETEA bill, I was joined by the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Nickles, in insisting that the bill should be properly paid for over 6 years with no gimmicks. We filed an amendment to accomplish this, but I agreed to withhold from offering it in return for a commitment from the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee to work with me to find appropriate offsets before the SAFETEA bill was voted off the Senate floor. During floor consideration of the SAFETEA bill, I filed an amendment that would have fulfilled the commitment made to committee members during the Finance markup. Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus worked with me to include my amendment in a managers' amendment. Unfortunately, because some items in my amendment were nongermane, only a portion of the amendment was ultimately accepted as part of the managers' amendment before the Senate voted on final passage of the SAFETEA bill. It would be my preference to address that issue in the unanimous consent agreement that will be offered shortly, but I understand that is not possible at this time. However, it is my understanding that there will be another opportunity to fulfill the commitment to fully offset spending in the Senate's highway bill before it is sent to the House for consideration. As the bill now stands, approximately $7.6 billion of spending over the next 6 years in the SAFETEA bill is not offset. I believe it is critical that this commitment be honored and that the remaining $7.6 billion in outlays be offset within the next 6 years. I am eager to continue working with the chairmen and ranking members of both the Finance and Environment and Public Works Committees to address my concerns.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the chairman and ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee will shortly ask unanimous consent to correct certain errors in the enrollment of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act, S. 1072. As the managers know, this unanimous consent agreement does not address two issues that are very important to me, and I would like to engage the managers of the highway bill in a colloquy on these matters. First, the consent agreement does not cover my amendment to address an emergency road situation in the Devils Lake Basin of ND. During consideration of the highway bill, the chairman and ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee agreed to include a modified version of my amendment in a managers' amendment. The modified amendment would allow the State of North Dakota to use certain funds within its annual highway allocation to repair and reconstruct roads currently serving as dams and to receive reimbursement from the Emergency Relief program for that work. Unfortunately, this language was inadvertently left out of the managers' amendment.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the service men and women who have served our country so bravely in Afghanistan and Iraq. I also want to thank Peter Angelos and the world-class organization that he leads, the Baltimore Orioles. All too often we hear negative stories revolving around professional athletes. With this in mind, I have to tell you about a wonderful event that took place a few nights ago. Tuesday night, my colleagues in the Senate Democratic caucus, along with members of the Baltimore Orioles, visited Walter Reed Army Medical Center. We went to Walter Reed to personally thank and honor the brave men and women of our Armed Forces who have sacrificed so much for our country in Afghanistan and Iraq. When Peter Angelos was asked if anyone from the Orioles would be willing to visit soldiers at Walter Reed, there was an overwhelming response from players, coaches, and front office personnel alike. In fact, there were so many volunteers that not everyone could be accommodated. Specifically, I would like to recognize the following members of the Orioles organization who joined us at Walter Reed last night: pitchers John Parrish, Rick Bauer, Julio Jorge, Sidney Ponson, and Matt Riley; outfielders Larry Bigbie and Jay Gibbons; infielders Bran Roberts and Miguel Tejada, accompanied by his wife Santa; Jim Beattie, executive vice president of baseball operations, his wife Martha; Mike Flanagan, vice president of baseball operations, his wife Alex and daughter Kerry; and bullpen coach, Elrod Hendricks. As a Senator from the great State of North Dakota, I know all too well the sacrifices that are made by members of this country's military. I am proud to say that North Dakota has the highest National Guard membership per capita in the Nation, and not surprisingly, during the Iraq crisis has had the most mobilized personnel per capita of any State. Thus, it was truly heartwarming, as we went from table to table at Walter Reed, to see the enthusiasm of not only my fellow Senators, but also of the Baltimore Orioles in paying tribute to and recognizing the courageous men and women of the United States military. It is their professionalism, dedication, and hard work that provide the very freedoms that make this country great and it was obvious that these ideals were not lost on the members of the Baltimore Orioles.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. My friend from Oklahoma is correct. My amendment would have replaced the provision shifting corporate estimated tax receipts with an extension of IRS and Customs User fees, and with several tax loophole closers that are included in S. 1637, the JOBS Act. These measures have already been reported by the Senate Finance Committee. I thank the Senator from Iowa for trying to include our amendments in his package of technical tax measures. Unfortunately, because certain provisions of my amendment are considered non-germane, we were unable to consider it on the floor today. I hope that the chairman and ranking member of the Committee will continue working with me as the legislative process moves forward to address my concerns.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, during the Finance Committee consideration of the tax title of this bill, there was significant debate on the provision in the bill that would shift a portion of corporate estimated tax payments from 2010 into 2009. This provision raises $11.4 billion in the year 2009, but loses $11.4 billion in the year 2010. The Chairman included this provision in his bill in response to concerns raised by me and the Chairman of the Budget Committee that the highway spending is not fully paid for over six years. I appreciate his sensitivity to my concerns. I believe that the spending in this bill, which occurs over six years, should be fully paid for over the same six year period. However, I do not believe that the shift in corporate estimated tax payments in the most appropriate way to achieve the goal of fully funding this bill over six years. The provision proposed by the Chairman shifts a hole in general revenues from one year into another. In lieu of me offering an amendment during the Finance Committee mark up to replace the shift in corporate estimated tax payments with different revenue offsets, the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Committee made a commitment to work with me to find new offsets before the highway bill is voted off the Senate floor. The second degree amendment that I have filed to the amendment by the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Nickles, would have executed the commitment that was made to members of the Committee during the Finance mark up.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise as the ranking member of the Budget Committee. There is no question that this budget point of order is well taken, in the sense that the legislation before us as it is at this moment is not paid for. It is not paid for in any way that is serious. In the Finance Committee, Senator Nickles and I raised this point repeatedly and secured a commitment from the chairman and the ranking member that, before this legislation would leave the floor, it would be paid for. I had offered an amendment to pay for this bill in the Finance Committee and only withheld that amendment based on the commitment that we were given by the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee that this bill would be fully paid for before it leaves this Chamber. I am trusting in the chairman and the ranking member to keep their word--to keep their word to me, to keep their word to Senator Nickles--that before this bill is passed, it will be paid for. It is on that basis that I will vote to waive the Budget Act. But I think it should be abundantly clear Senator McCain is correct in saying that, as it is before us, this bill is not paid for. I do want my colleagues to know that in the Finance Committee the chairman and the ranking member pledged that before this bill leaves this Chamber, it will be paid for. I trust them at their word. They have made that commitment. I can say that they have kept commitments to me in the past. I am counting on them to keep that commitment that in this Chamber, before this bill leaves the floor, that it will be paid for--and not by any timing changes; not by moving corporate receipts from 2010 to 2009, or any funny-money financing, but really paid for. I should add, I am disturbed that this waiver takes down other potential budget points of order except out of the conference committee. Out of the conference committee, if it is not paid for, we would still have budget points of order apply. But I must say I am very disturbed that this waiver will be for all budget points of order because there are other legitimate points of order that could be raised unless this problem is fixed, as the chairman and ranking member have promised this will do.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this amendment contains provisions that are within the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee, on which I serve as ranking member. Specifically, it amends the Budget Enforcement Act, establishing spending levels for highways and mass transit for fiscal years 2004 through 2009. It also expresses the sense of the Senate that comprehensive budget enforcement measures should be enacted this year, addressing discretionary spending, mandatory spending, revenues, and all areas of the Federal budget. This bill is not the proper vehicle for considering budget process reform. All of the members of the Budget Committee--including those who will not be conferees on the bill pending before us--deserve the opportunity to weigh in on discretionary spending caps, pay-as-you-go, and other budget enforcement. Those issues should not be presented to the Senate without having been considered by the Budget Committee. They therefore have no place on this bill.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, as I visit with veterans in North Dakota and here in Washington, too often I hear that waiting periods for medical care, and particularly for specialty care, are too long. We owe an unbelievable debt to American's veterans, and it is just not right that they cannot get the medical care they need when they need it. The legislation I am introducing today begins to address this problem. Last month, as Ranking Member of the Senate Budget committee, I scheduled a field hearing in Bismarck, ND, to listen to the concerns of veterans regarding funding for the VA. Because more than fifty percent of veterans in North Dakota live in highly rural areas with limited access to VA medical facilities, I was particularly concerned about funding for VA medical care and the continuing reports from veterans regarding access to care and delays in the scheduling of appointments for medical care, especially speciality care. Last September, I expressed similar concerns in testimony to the VA CARES Commission during field hearings in Minneapolis. I emphasized to Commission members that many North Dakota veterans have to travel hundreds of miles to access health care from the Fargo VA Medical Center or another FA facility in VISN 23 and that the VA must do more to ensure timely access for appointments and other VA medical services. Reports in the national press make clear, however, that significant problems remain in the scheduling of appointments for medical care, particularly specialty care. Further complicating matters, there are many questions regarding the reliability of VA data on waiting list for appointments and the causes for the waiting periods according to reports in 2003 by the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General and in 2000 by the General Accounting Office. In North Dakota, several veterans service officers have reported a number of veterans waiting months for eye care, orthopedics and one veteran waiting almost ten months for back surgery. Another veteran, from the Bismarck area, was required to travel to Iowa for cancer treatment. In view of these continuing concerns, I am today introducing legislation that would require the VA to undertake a two year pilot demonstration to study the implementation, cost and impact on VA services of several recent directives by the VA relating to the scheduling of medical appointments. The demonstration would be undertaken in three VISN networks, one highly rural, one rural, and one urban, that represent a cross-section of VA providers. Under the demonstration, the VA would offer participating veterans, both new enrollees and established patients, service-connected and non- service connected, an appointment for primary care evaluation, hospitalization including specialty care or outpatient care within a 30 day period. If the VA facility is unable to provide the medical care within the designated period, the Department would make arrangements for the care at another VA facility or non-VA facility. Every effort, however, would be made to provide the medical care for the veteran through the VA healthcare network. Finally, because of concerns regarding the accuracy of VA data on appointment periods, the bill requires the VA to report to Congress by FY 2007 on waiting periods for health care appointments, primary care and speciality care services. The VA would be required to report on the waiting periods for appointments by VA facility and VISN, include a breakdown of waiting periods by speciality, and submit recommendations to Congress for addressing the shortages of medical personnel. Finally, the legislation requests the Secretary, on the basis of the two year demonstration, to report to Congress by FY 2007 on the costs associated with implementation of the VA directive in the three VISNs and to report on the estimated cost to fully implement the directive throughout the VA system. I am very pleased that my distinguished colleagues, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs, Senator Bob Graham and Senators Jay Rockefeller, Tim Johnson and Daniel Akaka are joining me in sponsoring this legislation. I am also honored to have the strong support of the Disabled American Veterans and the AMVETS for this legislative proposal. I want to express my appreciation to Dave Gorman, DAV Executive Director; Joseph Violante, DAV National Legislative Director; Mike Dobmeier, former National Commander of the DAV and Rick Jones, AMVETS, National Legislative Director for their support. It is critical that Congress and the Administration address the concerns of our veterans on the issue of waiting periods for medical care before adjourning of the 108th Congress. Veterans returning from Iraq, Afghanistan and from other peacekeeping deployments around the globe should not have to wait months for needed medical care. The needs of injured military personnel are great and the VA system will play a key role in their recovery. I encourage the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs to review this legislation carefully and to act favorably on the measure before Congressional adjournment this fall. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation along with the letters of endorsement from the Disabled American Veterans and the AMVETS be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, as I visit with veterans in North Dakota and here in Washington, too often I hear that waiting periods for medical care, and particularly for specialty care, are too long. We owe an unbelievable debt to American's veterans, and it is just not right that they cannot get the medical care they need when they need it. The legislation I am introducing today begins to address this problem. Last month, as Ranking Member of the Senate Budget committee, I scheduled a field hearing in Bismarck, ND, to listen to the concerns of veterans regarding funding for the VA. Because more than fifty percent of veterans in North Dakota live in highly rural areas with limited access to VA medical facilities, I was particularly concerned about funding for VA medical care and the continuing reports from veterans regarding access to care and delays in the scheduling of appointments for medical care, especially speciality care. Last September, I expressed similar concerns in testimony to the VA CARES Commission during field hearings in Minneapolis. I emphasized to Commission members that many North Dakota veterans have to travel hundreds of miles to access health care from the Fargo VA Medical Center or another FA facility in VISN 23 and that the VA must do more to ensure timely access for appointments and other VA medical services. Reports in the national press make clear, however, that significant problems remain in the scheduling of appointments for medical care, particularly specialty care. Further complicating matters, there are many questions regarding the reliability of VA data on waiting list for appointments and the causes for the waiting periods according to reports in 2003 by the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General and in 2000 by the General Accounting Office. In North Dakota, several veterans service officers have reported a number of veterans waiting months for eye care, orthopedics and one veteran waiting almost ten months for back surgery. Another veteran, from the Bismarck area, was required to travel to Iowa for cancer treatment. In view of these continuing concerns, I am today introducing legislation that would require the VA to undertake a two year pilot demonstration to study the implementation, cost and impact on VA services of several recent directives by the VA relating to the scheduling of medical appointments. The demonstration would be undertaken in three VISN networks, one highly rural, one rural, and one urban, that represent a cross-section of VA providers. Under the demonstration, the VA would offer participating veterans, both new enrollees and established patients, service-connected and non- service connected, an appointment for primary care evaluation, hospitalization including specialty care or outpatient care within a 30 day period. If the VA facility is unable to provide the medical care within the designated period, the Department would make arrangements for the care at another VA facility or non-VA facility. Every effort, however, would be made to provide the medical care for the veteran through the VA healthcare network. Finally, because of concerns regarding the accuracy of VA data on appointment periods, the bill requires the VA to report to Congress by FY 2007 on waiting periods for health care appointments, primary care and speciality care services. The VA would be required to report on the waiting periods for appointments by VA facility and VISN, include a breakdown of waiting periods by speciality, and submit recommendations to Congress for addressing the shortages of medical personnel. Finally, the legislation requests the Secretary, on the basis of the two year demonstration, to report to Congress by FY 2007 on the costs associated with implementation of the VA directive in the three VISNs and to report on the estimated cost to fully implement the directive throughout the VA system. I am very pleased that my distinguished colleagues, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs, Senator Bob Graham and Senators Jay Rockefeller, Tim Johnson and Daniel Akaka are joining me in sponsoring this legislation. I am also honored to have the strong support of the Disabled American Veterans and the AMVETS for this legislative proposal. I want to express my appreciation to Dave Gorman, DAV Executive Director; Joseph Violante, DAV National Legislative Director; Mike Dobmeier, former National Commander of the DAV and Rick Jones, AMVETS, National Legislative Director for their support. It is critical that Congress and the Administration address the concerns of our veterans on the issue of waiting periods for medical care before adjourning of the 108th Congress. Veterans returning from Iraq, Afghanistan and from other peacekeeping deployments around the globe should not have to wait months for needed medical care. The needs of injured military personnel are great and the VA system will play a key role in their recovery. I encourage the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs to review this legislation carefully and to act favorably on the measure before Congressional adjournment this fall. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation along with the letters of endorsement from the Disabled American Veterans and the AMVETS be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the latest numbers from the Congressional Budget Office that reveal the seriousness of the explosion in deficit and debt that is occurring in this country. Before I do that, when I came to the floor I heard the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, speaking about the change in overtime rules in this country and discussing the unfairness of what has happened. Just days ago, one of the people who works in this Capitol, who works with us every day, talked to me about how this change in overtime would affect him and his family. This man is one of the camera technicians for one of the networks that covers much of what we do in this body. He took me aside the other day and said: Senator, this change in overtime fundamentally threatens me and my family. If those changes go forward, if they are not stopped, I probably won't be able to keep my house, where I live with my wife and my two kids. He said: In our business, an awful lot of our income is overtime pay because we don't work an 8-hour day. Sometimes we are here 16 hours. Very frequently we are here, and part of our pay is overtime pay. It is that overtime pay that allows me and my family to own the home we are in and to have bought a new car last year and to have made improvements to the house. If these overtime changes go forward, it is going to dramatically change my life. I wonder what they are thinking of in terms of fueling the economy. I think my family and I have done a pretty good job of fueling the economy. We bought a home, furnished the home, bought a car--all because there was overtime pay. Now, if they take that away, my family and tens of thousands of other families like mine are going to be in a much weakened situation. I hope people are listening. I hope we have a chance to revisit these changes in overtime that were permitted by the Omnibus appropriations bill that recently passed. There were lots of things in that omnibus bill that should be revisited. It is one of the unfortunate examples of what happens when a few people go in a back room someplace and come out with a product that has had too little scrutiny, too little involvement and, frankly, too little fairness. CBO Report on the Budget Mr. President, I rise to talk about the Congressional Budget Office report on the budget condition of the United States. They have indicated that the deficit for this year will be $477 billion. That is $100 billion more than the biggest deficit we ever had. That was last year's deficit. Now it is $100 billion more for 2004. Now the record of the President on the question of fiscal responsibility is becoming more and more clear. In the last year of the Clinton administration, we had a $236 billion budget surplus. Now in the third year of this President, we have a $477 billion budget deficit, the biggest by far, a record. This chart shows the long-term relationship of the deficit. We can see the $477 billion; last year it was $374 billion--both of those much bigger than the previous record deficit of $290 billion back in 1992 when the President's father was President, Bush 1, as they term it. The President and some of his aides have said: Well, yes, in billion- dollar terms, they are record deficits, but as a percentage of gross domestic product, it is not so big. If we exclude Social Security instead of lumping it in with everything else, what we see is, even as a percentage of gross domestic product, this deficit is the biggest since World War II, with the one exception of 1983. In 1983, there was virtually no Social Security surplus. This year, not only is the deficit off the charts at $477 billion, that understates how much is being taken because under this President's plan he is also taking every penny of the Social Security surplus, over $150 billion. So on an operating basis, the deficit is over $620 billion, on a budget of about $2.2 trillion, approaching $2.3 trillion. Some say it is not that big. What are they talking about? An operating deficit of over $600 billion on a budget of $2.2 trillion, and that is not big? What would convince them it is big? It is the biggest ever in dollar terms and one of the biggest ever, even if you look at it as a percentage of gross domestic product. But the biggest worry is not the deficit this year. The biggest worry is where this is all headed. If you add to what the Congressional Budget Office has told us, the President's recommendations for additional tax cuts and the looming crisis in the alternative minimum tax, which will hit 40 million people in this country by 2013 if we fail to act, if we put just those two things in, no other additional spending, no more supplementals by the President, if we just take what the Congressional Budget Office has told us plus the tax cuts the President is recommending, plus fixing the alternative minimum tax, we can see there is no end to the red ink. In fact, it explodes as the baby boom generation starts to retire, and a deficit on an operating basis of more than $600 billion for this year will climb to $861 billion by the end of this forecast period. This is a record of fiscal irresponsibility that is utterly reckless. That is the course the President has us on. I hear the President say it is spending; spending is all the problem. Let us look at where the increases in spending have occurred. Ninety- two percent of the increase in discretionary spending has occurred in defense, homeland security, and a third category that is rebuilding New York, the airline bailout after September 11, and the increase in international affairs, a dramatic increase there, again, as a result of the attack of September 11. As you can see, the vast majority of the increase, 69 percent, is in defense alone. But 92 percent of the increase in discretionary spending is in just these three categories. Interestingly enough, the President says he is now going to restrain growth in what he calls discretionary spending. But if you look at what has happened to the categories of discretionary spending, domestic spending has not been growing. Domestic spending is not the problem. Non-defense domestic spending, as the Administration defines it, excluding international affairs and homeland security, has grown in real terms in the last 2 years by just three-tenths of 1 percent. Now he is going to restrain the growth by 1 percent in this category. Again, remember, he has a special definition of the discretionary spending that he is constraining. Most of us think of defense and homeland security as a part of discretionary spending that is growing. Indeed, that is where spending has grown. But on the discretionary spending that he has identified, excluding homeland security, excluding international affairs, excluding defense, there has been almost no real growth in spending in the last 2 years, three-tenths of 1 percent. Now he says he is only going to allow it to grow 1 percent this year. That is not going to do much. That is a very small part of Federal spending. In fact, that is only 17 percent of the Federal spending he is talking about restraining. So he is going to do very little to cope with these mushrooming deficits. That is a fact. That is reality. If you look at the revenue side, it is very interesting. That is where the deficit has exploded. It is largely on the revenue side. This year, according to CBO, revenue will be at 15.8 percent of gross domestic product. That is the lowest revenue as a percentage of gross domestic product since 1950. Remember, when we had high revenue as a percentage of GDP, the President said the answer was tax cuts. Now that we have revenue at the lowest it has been since 1950, the President's answer is more tax cuts. Dig the hole deeper. Make the deficits bigger. The President's plan doesn't add up. It doesn't come close to adding up. It fundamentally threatens our economic security long-term. We can go back and check the President's record on what he has told us and what happened. In 2001, he told us: We can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits. He was wrong. In 2002, he told us: Our budget will run a deficit that will be small and short- term. He was wrong. In 2003, he told us: Our current deficit is not large by historical standards and is manageable. It is hard to top a record. Not large by historical standards? It is the biggest it has ever been by a huge margin--$100 billion bigger than last year, and last year was a record. He was wrong again. He said: The deficit will be cut in half over the next 5 years. Will he be wrong again? His track record is pretty clear; he has been wrong consistently. Does it matter? There is a story in the Washington Post this morning about the dollar and how the dollar has gone down dramatically. What they said in this article was: Currency traders who are fretting over that dependency-- They are referring to the need to borrow money from abroad for our trade deficit, borrow money from abroad for our budget deficit, and also borrow money internally for our budget deficit. Currency traders who are fretting over that dependency have been selling dollars fast and buying euros furiously. The fear is that foreigners will tire of financing America's appetites. Foreign investors will dump U.S. assets, especially stocks and bonds, sending financial markets plummeting. Interest rates will shoot up to entice them back. Heavily indebted Americans will not be able to keep up with rising interest payments. Inflation, bankruptcies, and economic malaise will follow. Mr. President, that is the risk this President is running by conducting a fiscal policy that is absolutely irresponsible. I want to make clear that I am less concerned about the deficit this year than I am about the long-term implications of this fiscal policy. That is what these economists are warning us about. But it is not just them. We have the Comptroller General of the United States, a Republican, warning us that we are on an unsustainable course. We have the International Monetary Fund warning us that the buildup of deficits and debt in this country doesn't just threaten our own economic security, it fundamentally threatens the economic security of the globe. We have already seen the effect on the dollar from these policies. The dollar has plummeted. It is down nearly 30 percent against the euro in just 2 years. In the short term, that can be helpful to U.S. manufacturers. But in the longer term, it is fundamentally threatening to our economic security. If you think about it, if you were holding dollar-denominated investments, and you are a foreign investor, how would you feel if the underlying value of that currency plummeted? Does that make sense to continue holding dollar-denominated investments? Warren Buffet, one of the most successful investors in America, is quoted in the article as indicating he started to diversify his investments away from dollar- denominated investments. He is not alone. It is time for us to think carefully and clearly about our response to this growing fiscal crisis. Record budget deficits--some say they don't matter. I think any sober person knows that deficits do matter. Deficits of this magnitude are simply stunning. We are running deficits under this President this year of $900,000 a minute--$900,000 a minute. Every minute that goes by, under this President's budget plan, we are spending $900,000 more than we take in. That is a course that is not sustainable. It must be changed. The President says he has a plan--it appears to be a secret plan at this point--to cut the deficit in half over the next 5 years. But that avoids the much larger issue because we know from all of the work that has been done that the deficit will recede from these record levels. Cutting it in half is not much of an accomplishment when you are running an operating deficit of over $600 billion a year. And what is of deepest concern is that the President's budget plan, which, if he is good to his word, will reduce the deficit somewhat over the next few years, puts us on course for the deficit absolutely to explode as his tax cuts become permanent and as the baby boomers retire. That is the much greater threat to the economic security of this country. When the Federal Government runs massive deficits, that puts upward pressure on interest rates. When interest rates go up, that slows economic growth and economic activity. That is a reality. This is a reckless course the President has taken us on, and not just in the short term. In the short term, we can afford deficits to give lift to the economy. The President is proposing massive deficits even at a time when he projects strong economic growth. CBO is telling us the economy will grow at 3\1/2\ percent a year over the next 5 years. Well, 3\1/2\ percent growth is considered relatively strong in an advanced economy. Yet we see no end to the budget deficits under the President's plan. In fact, once we get past this 5-year period and the baby boomers start to retire, the deficits absolutely explode. That is a reality. It is time for the President and this Congress to address that very deep challenge to America's economic future. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.