Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the very outstanding Senator, who is a member of the Senate Budget Committee, Mr. Hollings from South Carolina, for his remarks this morning. As I understand it, Senator Breaux wants time off of Senator Domenici's allocated time. The staff director for Senator Domenici tells me that is acceptable to their side. We had lined up Senator Clinton to go next on our side. I don't know if Senator Breaux would like to go at this point. I would like to recognize Senator Clinton.

Mr. CONRAD. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized for 10 minutes off Senator Domenici's time.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator. The Senator from Minnesota requested time. I yield 5 minutes to Senator Dayton. Let me alert Senators on our side that I now have, other than the wrap-up reserved for Senator Domenici and myself, only have 2 minutes. I alert colleagues to the circumstance that exists. I yield to the Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Dayton, for 5 minutes.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield myself the remaining time and I ask the Chair if he would inform me when I have 5 minutes remaining.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, first, I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for his courtesy as we have considered the budget conference report. I respect him. I admire him. I have affection for him. I disagree with him with respect to this budget, and I disagree with him strongly with respect to this budget. I do not believe this is the right budget plan for our country, and it is not an opinion limited to me. We have heard on our side of the aisle how deficient we believe this budget is. I noticed in this morning's New York Times the lead editorial was entitled ``An Irresponsible Budget Plan.'' I will read the first sentence: After several days of back room negotiations, the House approved a federal budget plan yesterday that is a model of fiscal evasion and irresponsibility. I echo those words. Earlier the Washington Post called this budget we are considering today an unreal budget. They concluded their editorial by saying: The theme of this budget is tax cuts first, sweep up afterward. It's the wrong way around. Budget resolutions are supposed to foster fiscal responsibility. This one will have the opposite effect. Unfortunately, that is the case. The reason for it is quite clear. First, this entire budget is based on a 10-year forecast--10 years. This is not money in the bank; these are projections over 10 years. The people who made the projections have warned us of the uncertainty. In fact, they told us that in the fifth year alone, based on the previous variances in their forecasts, we could have anywhere from a $50 billion deficit to more than a $1 trillion surplus. In fact, they have told us there is only a 10-percent chance the forecast number that is being used, that is being relied on, will come true. There is a 45-percent chance there will be more money; a 45- percent chance there will be less money. And that forecast was made 8 weeks ago before we saw additional weakness in the economy. Just yesterday, we saw the productivity growth forecast come out on the first quarter of this year. They were expecting a 1-percent increase. Instead, they got a reduction. If there is just a 1-percent reduction in productivity over the forecast period, instead of having a $5.6 trillion surplus, we will have a $3.2 trillion surplus. It seems to me that advises caution in what we do on this budget resolution. Those are not the only defects of this budget. There are huge chunks of spending that are not even in this budget, that have not been included. For example, here is a story from USA Today, Friday, April 27. ``Billions Sought for Arms.'' The story says that the Secretary of Defense and this administration are expected to seek a large boost in defense spending, $200 billion to $300 billion over the next 6 years. That money is not in the budget. None of that money is in the budget. Why not? Perhaps we heard the reason in an interview this last weekend on ``Meet the Press.'' The Secretary of Defense was there. He was asked: Will you get the $10 billion more in defense money this year that you need? His response: I don't know. I have not gone to the President as yet. He wanted to wait until after some of the studies had been completed and until the tax bill was behind us. . . . That is the real reason this budget is unreal. It is the real reason this budget is irresponsible, because they are not telling us the full story. They do not really have the budget before us. What they have is a part of the budget because they know what we know. If they put the full budget in place on one piece of paper, on one document, it would not add up. That is the problem with this budget. It goes to education. The President says education is his highest priority, and yet there is no new money in this budget for education. In the Senate, when we considered the budget, we passed the Harkin amendment that added $225 billion for education. It took $450 billion away from the tax cut and put $225 billion into education and put $225 billion into paying down more of the debt. What came back from the conference committee? Not one penny of that amendment survived. We passed a bipartisan amendment on the floor of the Senate when the budget resolution was considered, with $70 billion of additional funding for education to address the disabilities act. Not one penny of that increase came back from the conference committee. That is true throughout the education budget. We have heard a lot of talk that somehow there is money in this budget, new money for education. Here is the document. Here it is by fiscal year. What it shows is the increase in budget authority and outlays over what is in the so-called baseline is zero. It is zero for 2002; it is zero for 2003; it is zero for every single year. There were a lot of brave speeches about education being the priority, but it is clearly not a priority in the budget because there is no new money in the budget for education. It doesn't stop there. Not only is it the case that the defense buildup that we all know is going to be announced, perhaps as early as next week, is not in the budget, the President says education is a priority, but that is not in the budget. And then we see the President has a meeting at the White House and says he is going to strengthen Social Security but there is no money in the budget for that. We have an editorial from the Columbus Dispatch that says: The tax-cut proposal works against [the President's] plan to begin privatizing Social Security. . .experts differ on how much this ``transition cost'' will be, but it won't be cheap. . .thus, the Bush's 10-year, $1.3 trillion tax cut would deprive the Government of the cash it would need to pay for the $1 trillion transition cost for the first 10 years of Bush's Social Security privatization plan. The goals are contradictory. Do you see a pattern? The administration is calling for a major defense buildup but the money is not in the budget. The President says education is a top priority but the money is not in the budget. The President says he is going to fix Social Security but the money is not in the budget. Why? I think we all know the reason why. Because if the money were in the budget for the defense buildup, if the money were in the budget for the education initiatives, if the money were in the budget to strengthen Social Security, then the budget does not add up. In fact, it would show they are raiding the Medicare trust fund by over $200 billion. They are raiding the Social Security trust fund by over $200 billion. That is the dirty little secret of this budget. It is the reason whole chunks of what is really intended have been left out. Over in the House they had two missing pages. It stalled the budget work for a week. Two missing pages? There is more than two missing pages. There are whole chunks of the real budget that have been left out because they know it doesn't add up. As we look ahead, it is critical to understand we are in a period of surplus now. These projections of surpluses may hold. They may not. But at least we have a projection of surpluses. We know when the baby boomers start to retire that these surpluses turn to massive deficits. Then the question will be: What did we do when we had the opportunity to prepare for what was to come? This is what we are doing.

Mr. CONRAD. How much time would the Senator like?

Mr. CONRAD. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from New York, an outstanding member of the Senate Budget Committee, who has made a real contribution to the work on our side of the aisle on the Senate Budget Committee.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair for advising me of the time. If we go back to the budget that is before us and put back the defense buildup the administration is going to call for and which is authorized in this budget, although the numbers are not included, if we would go back and correct the alternative minimum tax that is going to affect over 35 million taxpayers in this country, one in every four taxpayers who think they are going to get a tax cut but are going to be surprised when they find out they are caught up in the alternative minimum tax and it costs $290 billion to fix it; if we put in the education amendment that passed on the Senate floor last week on a unanimous consent basis; if we put in the emergencies that we all know are going to occur that run on average $5 billion a year; and if we put in the associated interest costs with those items, what we find is that we would be deep into the Medicare trust fund; that we would be deep into the Social Security trust fund. That is the reason all of those items have been left out--because this budget does not add up. There has been a lot of talk about reducing the public debt, but the part of the debt they have been talking about is the publicly held debt. It is true, the publicly held debt is going down under this budget. It is going down from $3.2 trillion at the end of this year to $800 billion at the end of this 10-year period. Do you know what? While the publicly held debt is going down, the debt to the trust funds of the United States is going up. As a result, the gross debt of the United States, which is currently $5.6 trillion, will be $6.7 trillion at the end of this time. It is very interesting-- just about the amount of the tax cut is the amount of additional debt our country will have at the end of this 10-year period. I believe these are the top six reasons to oppose the budget resolution conference report. No. 1, no new money for education; No. 2, unaffordable tax cuts crowd out priorities, especially paying down this national debt; No. 3, it hides defense spending increases by providing a blank check to the Bush administration; No. 4, it sets up a raid on the Social Security and Medicare trust funds; No. 5, it cuts spending for high-priority domestic needs by $56 billion over the next 10 years. They are $56 billion short of just keeping pace with inflation, not to mention population growth. Finally, No. 6, it fails to set aside funds for the long-term Social Security and Medicare reform needs we all understand are before us. Perhaps it is time to review history. Those who are advocating this budget are the very ones who, back in the 1980s, advocated a similar policy, a policy of a massive tax cut combined with a substantial buildup in defense. What was the result? The result was an explosion of the deficits in the Reagan administration and a further growth of the deficits in the Bush administration. It was only when we had a new administration and a new fiscal plan that deficits started coming down and we began to pay down debt. Here is the record. It is as clear as it can be. President Reagan came in; he had about a $80 billion deficit. That exploded to over $200 billion, with exactly the same kind of economic analysis that has been done and with the same advocates that put in place that plan. Then the deficit further exploded under President Bush to over $290 billion. It was only when a new administration came in and we put in place a 5-year plan to bring our fiscal house back into order that we began to reduce deficits, reduce debt, and put this Nation in a position to have the longest economic expansion in our history.

Mr. CONRAD. I ask our colleagues to oppose this budget resolution so we do not repeat this history.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I give an additional minute to the Senator from New York.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina, the very distinguished senior member of the Senate Budget Committee.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I congratulate the chairman of the Budget Committee for his victory today and for the way he has conducted himself. I appreciate the relationship we have. We disagree on this budget, but I have great respect for him as a Senator and as a person. I also thank the staff on both sides. They worked incredibly hard in these last 2 days, in some cases almost around the clock. I thank my staff director, Mary Naylor, for her extraordinary efforts, Sue Nelson, Jim Horney, and the entire group of budget staffers on our side. I also want to recognize the professionalism of the staff director on the Republican side. Bill Hoagland is a consummate professional, as are the other members of the staff on the Republican side. We have a very professional working relationship. They have worked very hard to produce this document. One of the great things about the Senate and the Congress is we will be back. These battles are not over. We have a different sense of what the priorities should be for the country, and we will be speaking out on those issues in the days ahead. Again, I congratulate those on the other side who prevailed on this vote. I look forward to a continuing debate on what should be the fiscal course for the country. I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleagues as a cosponsor of the Rural Mental Health Accessibility Act of 2001. This bipartisan effort would take important steps toward improving access to mental health care in rural America. This issue is particularly important to me and my constituents in North Dakota. Sadly, as compared to the rest of the United States, North Dakota has the second-highest suicide rate among children ages 10 through 14, and the sixth-highest suicide rate among teenagers 15 through 19 years of age. As a result, over the 10 year period from 1987 to 1996, the percentage of deaths due to suicide among North Dakota's children and teens was double the national average. Clearly, suicide makes a much greater impact on child mortality in North Dakota than it does in the rest of the United States, and it is a leading cause of death in this age group. In the vast majority of cases, suicide is directly related to mental illness, particularly mood disorders such as depression. Depressive symptoms are remarkably common in North Dakota's school-age children, with one screening finding that 21 percent of students had mild depression and 5 percent had moderate-to-severe depression. This level of depression is likely a contributing factor to the 2,600 suicide attempts by North Dakota's teens reported in 1999. North Dakota is not alone in this crisis. Rather, it is one of a group of western and Plains states that have elevated youth suicide rates. As agricultural difficulties continue to plague rural areas, the stress on families and individuals grows greater with each passing season. Farm financial stress has been related to individual psychological problems and an increased risk of mental disorders, including depression, substance abuse, and suicide. It is important to keep in mind that rural areas have a prevalence of mental illness similar to urban areas. The difference is that people in rural areas have less access to health care, especially mental health care. Availability of mental health treatment is scarce in remote rural areas. Additionally, there remains a strong stigma surrounding mental illness and its treatment. The bill we introduce today would address both of these problems: reducing the stigma and increasing access to mental health services in rural areas. Our bill addresses the problem of stigma through $50 million in grants designed to support community mental health education programs. Existing state and community efforts could be sustained and expanded through these grants, and new efforts could obtain early support. In addition, our bill establishes $30 million in demonstration projects for the provision of mental health education in rural public schools and nursing homes using televideoconferencing technology. Rural schools and nursing homes would have access to information regarding mental illness, information that would reduce stigma, enhance understanding, and increase recognition of mental disorders. Importantly, suicide education and prevention are to be key parts of these programs. Other provisions of our bill address the access problem to mental health services found in the majority of rural communities. Since mental health care in rural communities is often provided solely by primary care clinics, our bill establishes a $150 million grant program to foster close interaction between mental health professionals and primary care physicians. The grants would be available to public universities or educational institutions to develop side-by-side training programs for mental health care professionals and primary care providers. These provider teams would give care to patients in underserved, rural areas without regard to the patient's ability to pay for such services. It is expected that primary care providers participating in such a training program would develop greater comfort and improved coordination with colleagues in treating mental illness in rural settings. Finally, our bill would increase access to mental health care professionals by taking advantage of the latest telehealth technologies. Our bill would fund telehealth demonstration projects that would be focused on providing mental health services to hard-to- reach populations, such as children, adolescents, and the elderly. These individuals would be able to receive mental health services in convenient sites, such as rural public schools and nursing homes. It is my hope that the Rural Mental health Accessibility Act will strengthen existing community efforts to fight mental illness while encouraging the formation of new and innovative programs. I am pleased to join Senator Thomas and others in this effort. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleagues as a cosponsor of the Rural Mental Health Accessibility Act of 2001. This bipartisan effort would take important steps toward improving access to mental health care in rural America. This issue is particularly important to me and my constituents in North Dakota. Sadly, as compared to the rest of the United States, North Dakota has the second-highest suicide rate among children ages 10 through 14, and the sixth-highest suicide rate among teenagers 15 through 19 years of age. As a result, over the 10 year period from 1987 to 1996, the percentage of deaths due to suicide among North Dakota's children and teens was double the national average. Clearly, suicide makes a much greater impact on child mortality in North Dakota than it does in the rest of the United States, and it is a leading cause of death in this age group. In the vast majority of cases, suicide is directly related to mental illness, particularly mood disorders such as depression. Depressive symptoms are remarkably common in North Dakota's school-age children, with one screening finding that 21 percent of students had mild depression and 5 percent had moderate-to-severe depression. This level of depression is likely a contributing factor to the 2,600 suicide attempts by North Dakota's teens reported in 1999. North Dakota is not alone in this crisis. Rather, it is one of a group of western and Plains states that have elevated youth suicide rates. As agricultural difficulties continue to plague rural areas, the stress on families and individuals grows greater with each passing season. Farm financial stress has been related to individual psychological problems and an increased risk of mental disorders, including depression, substance abuse, and suicide. It is important to keep in mind that rural areas have a prevalence of mental illness similar to urban areas. The difference is that people in rural areas have less access to health care, especially mental health care. Availability of mental health treatment is scarce in remote rural areas. Additionally, there remains a strong stigma surrounding mental illness and its treatment. The bill we introduce today would address both of these problems: reducing the stigma and increasing access to mental health services in rural areas. Our bill addresses the problem of stigma through $50 million in grants designed to support community mental health education programs. Existing state and community efforts could be sustained and expanded through these grants, and new efforts could obtain early support. In addition, our bill establishes $30 million in demonstration projects for the provision of mental health education in rural public schools and nursing homes using televideoconferencing technology. Rural schools and nursing homes would have access to information regarding mental illness, information that would reduce stigma, enhance understanding, and increase recognition of mental disorders. Importantly, suicide education and prevention are to be key parts of these programs. Other provisions of our bill address the access problem to mental health services found in the majority of rural communities. Since mental health care in rural communities is often provided solely by primary care clinics, our bill establishes a $150 million grant program to foster close interaction between mental health professionals and primary care physicians. The grants would be available to public universities or educational institutions to develop side-by-side training programs for mental health care professionals and primary care providers. These provider teams would give care to patients in underserved, rural areas without regard to the patient's ability to pay for such services. It is expected that primary care providers participating in such a training program would develop greater comfort and improved coordination with colleagues in treating mental illness in rural settings. Finally, our bill would increase access to mental health care professionals by taking advantage of the latest telehealth technologies. Our bill would fund telehealth demonstration projects that would be focused on providing mental health services to hard-to- reach populations, such as children, adolescents, and the elderly. These individuals would be able to receive mental health services in convenient sites, such as rural public schools and nursing homes. It is my hope that the Rural Mental health Accessibility Act will strengthen existing community efforts to fight mental illness while encouraging the formation of new and innovative programs. I am pleased to join Senator Thomas and others in this effort. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. We are talking a real increase for education. It would require more than inflation, would it not, because the student populations are growing. It isn't enough to just offset inflation. The school population is growing. So the truth of the matter is, in real terms, education is being cut under this budget.

Mr. CONRAD. The Senator makes a powerful point. What they have done-- when they want to reserve money for something, they know how to do it. When they want to reserve money for the tax cut, it is in a reconciliation instruction that goes to the Finance Committee, and they have to report it. When they want to reserve money for defense, they know how to do it. They create a special fund, and the chairman of the committee will decide how much we spend on defense. It is a remarkable thing that one person has the power to decide what we are going to spend on defense. When they want to have funding for education, there is no reserve fund. They say it is the top priority. There is no reserve fund, and there is no increase. In fact----

Mr. CONRAD. I would be happy to do that. It is interesting, our friends on the other side, first of all, they hold up the Bush budget, which has nothing to do with what we are voting on here. We are voting on the conference report that has no increase in education. They also tried to misrepresent what the Bush increase was by claiming credit for money that was advance funded last year when he was Governor of Texas. He didn't have a thing to do with it. They count that in their so-called 11-percent increase he has proposed. Of course, none of that is relevant to what we are doing here because we are dealing with the conference report. Correct me if I am wrong because I look at discretionary spending, the total pot of money that education comes out of, and just to keep pace with inflation it requires $663 billion for 2002. The conference report says they have $661 billion available. So they have cut $2 billion in the total pool of money from which education funding comes. On top of that, defense is about half, and they have increased defense by $3.3 billion. So other nondefense programs have to be cut by $5.5 billion to make this budget. Will the Senator from Massachusetts indicate whether that is a correct conclusion or not? (Mr. BROWNBACK assumed the Chair.)

Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield for another question?

Mr. CONRAD. And would the Senator from Massachusetts correct me if I am wrong. As I read the conference report, there is no increase in any year for education, other than the sense-of-the-Senate language buried deep in the document that every Senator knows isn't worth the paper it is written on because it means zero. Isn't that correct?

Mr. CONRAD. That is what is in the President's proposal. It is very interesting. We had the Senator from Texas hold up a chart that talked about the President's proposal. Will the Senator from Massachusetts correct me if I am wrong? Are we voting on the President's proposal or are we voting on the conference report?

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Not only is there no adjustment for population growth, in truth, there is not a full adjustment for inflation. This was done in the dark of the night in one of these closed rooms when none of us was able to be there. They actually took out another chunk of money, nearly $60 billion, so they don't even have an inflation-adjusted budget.