Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are here discussing the education bill. Yesterday, the Senate passed a measure to increase funding for education over what is in the baseline by $150 billion. I supported that. But we have an incredible disconnect going on between what we are doing on the floor of the Senate and what we are about to do in the budget resolution. The budget resolution that has come out of the conference committee has no new money for education-- none, zero. So we are all out here talking about education being the top priority--and, indeed, it is--but we have a budget resolution coming out of the conference committee that gives no priority to education--none, not one thin dime of additional resources to education. It is really an incredible disconnect--the difference between the rhetoric on the floor and the reality of this budget resolution. The new President of the United States proposed a very modest increase in education over the so-called baseline. He proposed $13 billion of new money for education over the 10-year period. In the Democratic alternative budget, we proposed $139 billion of new money for education over the 10-year period. What passed on the floor of the Senate when we considered the budget resolution was an increase of $308 billion. We passed the Harkin amendment, which reduced the tax cut by $450 billion and allocated half to education and half to debt reduction. The Harkin amendment added $225 billion to education over the next 10 years. It went to conference committee to be worked out as to the differences between the House and Senate, and they came back with nothing, zero, no new money. We passed on the floor of the Senate the Jeffords-Breaux amendment which added $70 billion to fund IDEA. That went to the conference committee and came back with zero--a big nothing. So there is no new money in this budget for education, and our colleagues ought to be aware of it as we consider the budget next week. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, next week we will be considering the budget of the United States. We have gone through sort of the ``Perils of Pauline'' here crafting the budget for the country. After much talk of bipartisanship, the other side locked out the Democrats from the conference committee. That is the meeting between the House and the Senate budget members to work out the differences between the two sides. We were invited to the first meeting and told we would not be invited back, that the Republican majority was going to write this budget all on their own, which they have done. So much for bipartisanship. That is unfortunate. I think we could have crafted a much better result if we would have had a chance to work together. We really had an unprecedented year working on the budget in which there was no markup in the Budget Committee, and now a conference committee to work out the differences between the House version of the budget and the Senate version of the budget completely excluding Democrats from the consideration. As a result, I think we are going to get an unbalanced budget, a budget that threatens to put us back into deficit, back into debt, a budget that does not reflect the values of the American people, that does not put a priority on education when everybody is giving speeches about the critical importance of education. I grew up in a family in which my parents were killed when I was young. My grandparents raised me. My grandmother was a schoolteacher. In our family, education was the priority. It was not just the first priority; it was the second priority; it was the third priority because my grandparents believed that education was what unlocked opportunity for every child. They just did not talk about it; they lived it. My grandparents, who were successful people but not wealthy by any means, set aside a fund so every one of my brothers and cousins could go on to higher education. As a result, everyone in our family got an advanced degree. There were 13 cousins in my immediate family and everyone got an advanced degree--from a middle-class family. That was because my grandparents truly believed in the value of education. They were right. Those are the right values. Those are American values. We hear a lot of Senate speeches about education being the priority. When they go to the back room and write a budget, all the speeches are right out the window. It is all hot air. It is all fluff. It does not mean a thing. It is all words--words and not deeds. That is not right. In fact, it is misleading people to stand up and say they are for education and then go in a back room and cut out every penny of money to strengthen education. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. We are going to have a real chance to compare votes on education in this Chamber with votes on the budget, and we are going to see how they match up. We are going to see who is being straight with the people they represent and who is not. Here is what we have learned of this conference report. This is what the President's budget was. This is the Democratic alternative. This is what the Senate passed. This is what is coming out of the conference committee. It is very interesting. The tax cut has gone up from what was passed in the Senate. But when you look at education--this is the education line. We passed $308 billion of funding for education, new money for education. What came out of the conference committee? Zero. No money. It is not just there that this budget fails us. On the environment, the President proposed a huge cut. What came out of the Senate was a substantial cut but not as big as the President's. What has come out of the conference committee? Zero. No new money for protecting the environment. It does not end there. On strengthening Social Security--to me, this is, along with education, the most valuable because we know--there is not a Senator who does not know we are headed for a crisis when the baby boomers retire. We know that. This is not a projection. The baby boomers have been born. They are alive. They are going to retire. And they are going to dramatically increase the draw on the Federal Treasury and the programs of Social Security and Medicare. The President has a big event at the White House saying he is for strengthening Social Security. Then when you go to match the words with the deeds and you look at the bill coming from the conference committee, do you know what you find that has been a set-aside to strengthen Social Security? Nothing. Zero. No money. It is all words about how education is a priority. It is all words about how strengthening Social Security is a priority because there is no new money for either one--nothing for education and nothing to deal with the long-term debt that is facing this country in Social Security. I think we probably know, as I reviewed before and as this chart details, what happened in the Senate. In the Senate, we passed the Harkin amendment that provided $225 billion over 10 years to improve education in America, money that is desperately needed. My colleague from Idaho said money doesn't make a difference. It doesn't in and of itself solve the problem. We all understand that. It takes more than money to improve education. We will have a hard time getting the best people to be teachers in this country if we don't pay them decently. What is happening all across America is that many of the best teachers are leaving education because they are not being fairly compensated. I have a cousin who was a teacher on an Indian reservation in North Dakota--a wonderful teacher, absolutely superb. But she was being paid so little money she really couldn't make ends meet. So she left to go to the private sector, started a store and became a small business person. That is terrific. But education lost a star performer. It is just not here, but across America people are leaving education for higher paying jobs somewhere else, and we are losing some of the best. We can either say it doesn't matter or we can respond. We have schools all across America that were built in the 1950s that are not prepared for the high-tech world of today. We turned our back on that and said: Well, tough luck, kids. You are not going to be educated for the world that is to come. We are going to leave you out of the high- technology workforce. That is a mistake. We know that classrooms have too many students in them. We know that every objective standard has indicated that if you have smaller classrooms and fewer students, the individual student who gets more attention does better. It costs money. Here is what we did in the Senate. We said we are going to put the money where our mouth is. We are going to put some money into education: $225 billion. We are going to reduce the tax cut by $450 billion. We are going to put half of it into education. We are going to put half of it into further debt reduction. Look at what came out of the conference committee: Zero. They took out every dime of additional money for education. We passed in the Senate the Breaux-Jeffords amendment for IDEA funding. That is the disabilities act. Congress made a promise when it passed the disabilities act that they were going to fund 40 percent of the cost. They did not do it. We said: Let's provide the money to keep the promise. And we did it in the Senate. It goes to the conference committee, and they come back with a big goose egg. Why is this being done? I believe it is being done because the overall budget doesn't add up. It doesn't add up. If you include an education initiative, if you include the money that is being asked for by the Defense Department to strengthen America's defense, then you have a budget that doesn't add up. You have a budget at that point that is raiding the Medicare trust fund and the Social Security trust fund. Of course, everybody says they do not want to do that. Our friends on the other side of the aisle have produced a budget that is kind of a hide-and-seek budget. It hides big chunks of spending that all of us know are going to occur. For example, there appeared in USA Today on Friday, April 27, ``Billions Sought For Arms. Secretary seeks to reduce role of ground troops,'' talking about the Secretary of Defense. The story goes on to say, ``As Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, nears the end of a top-to-bottom review of Pentagon, he is expected to seek a large boost in defense spending--$200 billion to $300 billion over the next 6 years.'' Is that in the budget? Is that big defense buildup in the budget? No. None of it is in the budget. They do not have $200 billion to $300 billion of new money in the budget for defense. Why not? Because if they put it in before the tax cut passes, the budget doesn't add up. They are into the Medicare trust fund and the Social Security trust fund. What is going on here is a giant scam. That is what is happening. It is a giant scam to mislead the American people--pass the tax cut, and then come back to Congress and say: Oh, by the way, we forgot about the money that we need for defense. We need $200 billion or $300 billion just for the next 6 years. Remember, this is a 10-year plan on which we are working. They say they are going to need another $200 billion to $300 billion just for the next 6 years, only it is not in the budget that we are going to vote on next week. Not a penny of it is in there. Why? Because, if they put it in, the budget doesn't add up. That is their problem. As soon as you are honest with people about the true costs of funding defense and of improving education, then you are raiding the Medicare trust fund, the Social Security trust fund, and doing it in a big way. These aren't the only items left out. Let me conclude on the defense item. This is a story that ran in the Wall Street Journal. This was May 1st. ``Pentagon plan sees 42 percent rise in the arms budget.'' Is there a 42 percent rise in the budget we are going to vote on next week? No, there is no 42 percent rise. They have not put this money in the budget. They are going to announce the week after next, after we have passed the budget with the big tax cut in it, because they don't dare show the true budget, the true spending, or the true plan until they get their tax cut passed because if they show the try numbers, it doesn't add up. It doesn't come close to adding up. They are raiding the Medicare trust fund to the tune of $250 billion. They are raiding the Social Security trust fund to the tune of $50 billion. That is what is really going on in this town. It is a hide-and-seek budget. They are going to hide the true effects of this budget until after the tax cut passes. Then they are going to come back to us, and they are going to say: We have to do something more for defense. We have to do something more for education. We have to do something to fix this alternative minimum tax problem. That is a big one they aren't talking about. The alternative minimum tax today affects about two million taxpayers. The Joint Tax Committee has told us that if we passed the Bush plan, 35 million people are going to be caught up in the alternative minimum tax. Boy, they are in for a surprise. They thought they were going to get a tax cut. But instead, one in four American taxpayers will be caught up in the alternative minimum tax. They will be paying more. It costs $300 billion to fix it. Do you see that anywhere in the budget? It is nowhere in the budget. They don't have a dime in this budget to fix the alternative minimum tax. They don't have a dime for this big defense buildup they are getting ready to announce. They don't have a dime of new money for education. Why? Because, if they did, they would have a budget that doesn't add up. It is right back into deficit. It is right back into the bad old days of deficits and debt and decline. The harsh reality is, unlike the 1980s, if we go back to deficits and debt now, this is no time to recover, because the baby boomers start to retire in 11 years. Then all of this changes. We go from big surpluses today to massive deficits in that 10-year period. That is the Comptroller General of the United States warning us of where we are headed. He says we face a demographic tidal wave that is unlike anything we have ever seen in this country. That is because the baby boomers are such a large group, when they retire, the number of people on Medicare and Social Security double in very short order. We ought to be setting aside money today to deal with the problem we know is coming tomorrow. This budget does not do it. This budget does not set aside a dime to strengthen Social Security for the long term. There is no money in the budget for that. In our budget, we propose setting aside $750 billion to strengthen Social Security for the long term. But the conference committee comes back and there is no money, just as they came back with no new money for education, no money for this big defense buildup they are going to be asking for week after next, no money for area after area that we know is going to be a real cost--no money to fix the alternative minimum tax. The reason is simple and clear: It is only by showing a false budget that they can get it to add up. If they put the true costs in, if they put in the defense buildup, if they put in the cost of alternative minimum tax reform, if they put in new money for education, then they are heavily raiding the Medicare trust fund, heavily raiding the Social Security trust fund. That is the truth. This is exactly how we get into trouble in the country: betting on a 10-year forecast that even the people who made the forecast warn us is unlikely to come true. In fact, we have a projection of a $5.6 trillion surplus over the next 10 years--$5.6 trillion. But that is just a projection. That money is not in the bank. In fact, the people who made the forecast said that number only has a 10-percent chance of coming true; a 45-percent chance there will be more money, a 45-percent chance there will be less money. That forecast was made about 10 weeks ago now. What has happened in the interim? The economy has weakened. We have a jobless report today that suggests quite dramatic weakening in the economy. So do we bet there is going to be more money or less money? I would say all the signs are there is going to be less money. That puts us in grave danger of going back into deficit, going back to the bad old days of raiding every trust fund in sight. I say to you, the thing that is most wrong about that approach is that in the 1980s we had time to recover. This time, if we get it wrong, there is no time to recover. The baby boomers start retiring in 11 years, and all of these things that have been working in our favor start to turn the other way. There is not a Member of this body who does not know that is true. I just hope that before we vote on this budget, people will think carefully about the implications, and they will think carefully about the risks, and they will think carefully about the danger of going back into deficit, back into debt, just before the baby boomers start to retire; and we know these surpluses of today turn into massive deficits tomorrow. That would just be a serious mistake. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. This will come off leader time, Mr. President.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator from Idaho if I may speak for 3 minutes before he speaks.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the leader.

Mr. CONRAD. Is there an understanding on Tuesday morning there will be time for both sides to sum up before the vote on the budget?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. CONRAD. Might I request that given the importance of the budget, in terms of the sequence, there be at least one amendment preceding it so people are here to actually hear the debate?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, two questions. One, we had people on this side ask for a little more time on Tuesday morning--we have at least 5 minutes on the budget--given the importance of it. No. 2, is there an order to the votes on Tuesday morning?

Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Chair of the HELP Committee in a colloquy regarding eligibility for Section 117 of the Carl Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act. Section 117 authorizes funding for Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational and Technical Institutions. The funds have been awarded annually to the two existing tribally controlled postsecondary vocational institutions that are devoted to providing vocational and technical education, United Tribes Technical College and Crownpoint Institute of Technology. Historically, these two institutions have not received assistance under the Tribally Controlled College and University Assistance Act, so the Perkins funds are key to their existence. On March 28, 2001, the Department of Education issued a Request for Proposals, RFP for funding under Section 117 that would open up funding for this program to the tribal colleges. The Department is operating under the mistaken view that the 1998 Perkins Amendments changed the previous Perkins law with regard to eligibility for these funds. In fact, it was not the intent of Congress to in any way alter eligibility for Section 117 funding when it enacted the 1998 Perkins Amendments. The members of the North Dakota and New Mexico delegations disagree with the Department and have written to Secretary Paige stating our view that the 1998 Perkins amendments did not change the eligibility for what is now the Section 117 program. Do the Chairman and Ranking Member of the HELP Committee agree with our view?

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator for his remarks. I am pleased that the Senator from Iowa, who is a champion of education, shares my strongly-held view that Congress must continue work toward current statutory federal funding goals for the tribal colleges. I look forward to continuing to work with him on this.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator. I would also like to note that the need for federal funding is especially critical for these schools because most tribal colleges and universities were founded less than 25 years ago and are located in rural and impoverished areas, and they do not have access to alumni-based funding sources and local financial support.

Mr. CONRAD. And is it the view of the Senator from Iowa that this funding has not reached the level authorized by the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance Act?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Senior Senator from Iowa in a colloquy about funding for the Nation's 32 tribal colleges and universities. These schools, located in 12 States, serve more than 250 federally recognized tribes nationwide. The colleges serve students older than the traditional college age who are seeking another chance at a productive life. The vast majority of tribal college students are first-generation college students. However, the States provide little, if any, funding to the tribal colleges and universities because the vast majority of tribal colleges are located on federal trust lands. Additionally, non-Indians account for about 20 percent of tribal college enrollments, although the States do not provide financial support for these students. Does the Senator from Iowa agree that the Federal Government needs to play a significant role in funding these schools?

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, during the final months of the 106th Congress, the Senate and House completed action on the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act which will respond to the shortage of skilled IT workers and help ensure our nation's continued growth and leadership in the information technology field. Congress increased the cap on the number of H1B visas available for foreign workers with high-tech skills to fill the job vacancies in information technology in the US. As important as action by Congress to permit companies to hire foreign-born skilled IT workers is, this legislation by itself will not address our long-term IT worker needs. Throughout the recent debate on the IT worker shortage, I have urged that we focus our efforts on IT training and partnerships between the business and education communities. Many excellent partnerships between the IT community, state and local government, high schools, and colleges and universities that provide individuals of all ages with education and training opportunities in information technology are already underway. Partnerships include ExplorNet, a non-profit organization working with local community and school officials to train educators and students to rebuild computers; e-learning opportunities for IT training through more than 100 community colleges nationwide, including Bismarck State College; Cisco Systems Training Academies in many school districts; AOL/Time Warner Foundation's ``Time to Read'' literacy program; Green Thumb and Microsoft working with seniors to improve their IT skills; Great Plains Software's, Fargo, ND, partnership with Valley City State University; and Texas Instruments sponsored training for educators to improve technology skills in the classroom. These are excellent examples of the IT and education communities working together to meet the growing demand for information technology skills. Although these partnerships are helping to train individuals to fill many IT job vacancies, these educational opportunities cannot keep pace with the demand for workers with advanced technical skills--a demand that continues for the long term despite our current economic slowdown and recent layoffs in the IT sector. Furthermore, continuing to rely on foreign workers who obtain H1B visas is not the answer to our shortage of skilled IT professionals. A report of 685 companies released by the Information Technology Association of America ITAA, on April 2, 2001, confirms this continuing demand for skilled IT workers. The ITAA assessment of the current IT job market, although reporting a significant decline in the demand for IT workers because of the economic slowdown, confirms there are thousands of positions that employers are not able to fill because firms are unable to find workers with the necessary technical skills. The study estimates there are currently 425,000 vacancies in the IT field for skilled technical positions. Harris Miller, president, of ITAA, remarked, ``. . . hiring has by no means halted for IT workers, rather, demand still far exceeds supply in this market. Miller continues to encourage individuals to pursue advanced technical education programs. He remarked, ``this is actually the time to prepare yourself.'' Mr. President, in response to this continuing long-term demand for skilled IT workers, I am introducing legislation, the Technology Education and Training Act of 2001, TETA, to provide a tax credit for businesses offering IT training and to enable individuals enrolled in certified IT training to take advantage of the Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning Credits. This legislation is similar to a bill that I introduced in the 106th Congress, and I am particularly pleased that Senator Snowe is joining me again in this bipartisan effort as the principal cosponsor. Also joining me as cosponsors are Senators Reid, DeWine, Rockefeller, and Johnson, colleagues who have taken leadership roles in focusing attention on the importance of information technology for our economy and encouraging IT education and partnerships. I am honored that this legislation is also endorsed by a broad coalition of IT, business and educational organizations, including Computing Technology Industry Association, CompTIA, the Technology Workforce Coalition, the American Society for Training and Development, the Information Technology Association of America, the Information Technology Training Association, the Career College Association, the National Association of Computer Consultant Businesses, Cisco Systems, Novell, Compaq Computer Corporation, Gateway and Microsoft. Under our legislation, businesses would receive a credit against taxes equal to 100 percent of the first $1,500 of information technology training expenses for non-degree IT skills certification on behalf of a current or prospective employee. The credit would increase to $2,000 if the training program is offered in an empowerment zone, an enterprise community, an area declared a disaster zone, a school district with 50 percent or more of students participating in the school lunch program, a tribal community, a rural enterprise community, involves a small business with 200 or fewer employees or involves an individual with a disability. Additionally, this legislation would amend current law regarding the Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning Credits to permit individuals enrolled in non-degree IT training programs and not attending a Title IV institution to be eligible to apply for the Hope Scholarship or Lifetime Learning Credit. Under current law, individuals are not eligible to take advantage of the Hope Scholarship or the Lifetime Learning Credits unless the programs are offered through a Title IV higher education or proprietary institution. In order to qualify for the Hope Scholarship or Lifetime Learning Credit, the IT training program must lead to certification in an IT skill similar to programs offered by Cisco, Microsoft, Novell, and CompTIA. Under the proposed changes in the Technology Education and Training Act, the certification offered by the commercial information technology training provider must be approved by the Secretary of Treasury in consultation with an Information Technology Training Certification Board. The shortage of skilled information technology workers will continue to be a major concern for all sectors of our economy despite the current economic slowdown and the recent layoffs in the IT sector. Our continued growth and leadership in formation technology will depend on a sufficient number of highly trained workers. Additionally, as economies around the world rebound and countries, particularly in Asia, develop their own high-tech corridors, it will be difficult to continue to recruit high-tech workers from these countries to meet the needs of our own economy. Rather than continue our dependency on the H1B program, I believe that encouraging partnerships between the IT and education communities and authorizing additional incentives for businesses and individuals to take advantage of IT skills training offers a more reasonable approach to meeting our long-term high-tech worker needs. The Technology Education and Training Act authorizes important initiatives to respond to this critical shortage. I welcome additional cosponsors of this legislation and urge my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee to support the proposed changes in TETA during consideration of tax legislation in the 107th Congress. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation along with statements of endorsement for the Technology Education and Training Act from the Technology Workforce Coalition, the Information Technology Association of America, and the American Society for Training and Development be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, there is clearly an area of major agreement between the two sides. That is the need for fiscal stimulus now. We had in our budget resolution $60 billion in budget stimulus this year, in the year 2001. Maybe it will be helpful for people to understand the differences between what I was talking about and the budget for the years 2002 through 2011. But we are in the year 2001 right now. So when we compare the tax cut under the Bush budget and our proposal and what passed the Senate, we are talking about the 10 years from 2002 through 2011. The President proposed $1.6 trillion. For that period we proposed $745 billion. The Senate passed something roughly in between. But this does not cover the year 2001, the year we are in right now. Both Senator Domenici in his budget proposal, and me in ours, proposed $60 billion of budget stimulus this year, financial stimulus this year, fiscal stimulus now to give a lift to this economy. What actually passed the Senate was even more generous, $85 billion of fiscal stimulus for the year 2001. What Senator Domenici is saying is perhaps we cannot do quite that much in conference, and perhaps we cannot. But we do have $96 billion available outside of the trust funds of Medicare and Social Security, so we know we have budgeted already enough money to accommodate a fiscal stimulus of up to $85 billion without invading the trust funds of Medicare and Social Security, and we are obviously in very close agreement on this question. I think the American people should take heart from that, that we are going to be working together, fighting together, trying to put together a fiscal stimulus package for this year, the year we are in right now, 2001, to get out to the American people to give some lift to this economy. And that would be a good thing to do. The chairman made mention of a number of other issues that we have talked about in the past--how much debt reduction can you do? We have a disagreement on this question. We believe we can do more debt reduction than they have proposed, certainly than the President has proposed. I note that the Senate agreed with our position. The Senate provided a good deal more debt reduction than the President has said that he believes is possible. That was a good outcome. I hope we do not shrink from that. But the place we really did not do as well is in strengthening Social Security for the long term above and beyond the trust funds themselves. All of us know just saving the trust fund money for the purposes intended is important, but it is not enough. That is why on our side we believe not only should we reserve all of the trust fund money for the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, but then, in addition to that, we ought to take some of the general fund money and use that to strengthen Social Security for the long term because that is what it is going to take to do the job and to prevent a massive buildup of debt from occurring. I think one thing that often gets lost in the debate is the current indebtedness of our country. The gross debt is $5.6 trillion. Under the President's plan, the gross debt of the United States is going to grow to $7.1 trillion. The gross debt, under his plan, is not going to be reduced; it is going to grow. Under our plan, we are able to keep it about where it is because we are putting more money into debt reduction--both short-term and long-term--than is in the President's plan. We believe that is a wiser course. We are reserving about 70 percent of this projected surplus for debt reduction. He reserves about 35 percent of the projected surplus for debt reduction. So that is the major difference. That is where we really have a difference of opinion. We think we ought to put more emphasis on debt reduction because, frankly, given the uncertainty of the forecast--and that is another area where we have a disagreement. Senator Domenici says $5.6 trillion is the number. Well, he is right in the sense that is the number that has been given to us by the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget. That is a very professional forecast. I will not argue with that for a minute. It is well done. But it is a 10-year projection--10 years. The people who made the forecast said there is only a 10-percent chance that number is going to come true. Let's not cast that in concrete. Goodness, that should inform us; it should not lock us into decisions to use every penny of that money. I think what it should tell us is that we should be cautious. That is why we put a greater emphasis on debt reduction because, then, if the forecast does not come true, the worst that has happened is you have reduced the debt less than you anticipated. That is the worst that happens. Under their plan--because they are using all the money, between their tax cut and other priorities--what happens if that isn't true? It risks putting us back into deficit. It risks us raiding the trust funds of Social Security and Medicare all over again. Goodness knows, we have been down that road. Do we have to repeat the 1980s all over again? I hope not. Can't we learn from the 1980s--the time we had a rosy forecast like this one, had a big tax cut, big defense buildup, and wondered why the deficits and debts of the country multiplied geometrically? I do not want to repeat that exercise. That put our country in a deep hole. It took us 15 years to dig out. I do not want to be digging out for the next 15 years. The difference between the 1980s and now is that in the 1980s you had time to dig out. If we make a mistake now, there is no time to dig out because in 11 years the baby boom generation starts to retire, and then these surpluses turn into big deficits as the number of people eligible for Medicare and Social Security double. That is what is going to happen. We know it. It is not a projection. The people are alive. They have been born. They are living today. They are going to retire, and they are going to be eligible. And it is going to cost the Government a lot of money, much more than we are currently having to pay out. So let's be cautious. Yes, let's be conservative. The conservative thing to do is emphasize more debt reduction and to curtail our appetite to spend and curtail our appetite to have tax cuts, which are both living for the moment. It is fun to live for the moment; especially if you are a politician, there is nothing better than to have tax cuts and spending. That is the best of all worlds. The problem with that is that we have a need to be responsible to future generations. Our generation ran up this debt. We have the obligation to pay it down and to do it before we start to retire. Goodness, the last thing we ought to be doing is shoving this debt on to our kids. We ran it up. We ought to retire it. Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. Yes. We are prepared to yield back our time on our side.

Mr. CONRAD. I do as well.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. I think neither of us believes we need 4 hours for this discussion. In fact, we need a relatively brief period of time on our side. I just want to go through the decisions that were made in the Senate in contrast to what President Bush proposed and in contrast to what we proposed on our side, just to put in some perspective where we are going as we go into the conference. I have prepared this chart in order to help me do that in as efficient a way as I can. In this column, we have what President Bush proposed. The second column is what we proposed in the Democratic alternative. The third column is what the Senate passed. If we look at the top, this is the projected surplus over the next 10 years, and we are all in agreement. The agencies that make these forecasts have told us we can anticipate $5.6 trillion over the next 10 years. I am quick to point out that I would not bet the farm on any 10- year forecast or any 10-year projection. The agency that made this forecast themselves warned us of its uncertainty. They have said very clearly there is only a 10-percent chance that number is going to come true. There is a 45-percent chance that there will be more money, according to them. There is a 45-percent chance there will be less money. After the performance of the economy over the last 8 weeks, since the forecast has been made, I would be willing to bet a lot more money that there is going to be less than what is forecast. With that said, that is the official forecast. Then we go to the various elements of the proposals by the President, and by us on our side, and what passed the Senate. The next major item is the Social Security trust fund. The President forecasts $2.6 trillion of Social Security surplus over this next 10 years. He allocates $2 trillion of it to paying down national debt. We allocated $2.5 trillion to paying down the debt. By the way, we had a somewhat different estimate by the Congressional Budget Office as to the amount of the Social Security trust fund surplus. The President's people said $2.6 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office said $2.5 trillion. We are compelled to use the Congressional Budget Office numbers. So we have reserved all of the Social Security trust fund money for the Social Security trust fund because those moneys are not needed immediately. They go to pay down debt. The Senate passed $2.5 trillion. In the Medicare trust fund, the President reserved none of it for the purpose of paying down the debt. In fact, he moved all of it--in his forecast, it is $526 billion. He moved it to an unallocated category. That is something with which we strenuously disagree. We don't believe that money is unallocated, uncommitted. We believe it is fully committed to the Medicare trust fund. Unless you use it for that purpose, you hasten the insolvency of the Medicare trust fund. So we don't believe it is available for other spending. We don't believe it can be used for any other purpose, nor should it be. So in our alternative--again, there is somewhat of a different estimate from the President's, who estimates there is over $500 billion in that category, and the CBO estimates $400 billion--we reserve it all for the Medicare trust fund. That is what the final Senate result did as well. I should make very clear that while, in total, they reserve the full amount for the Medicare trust fund, in 4 of the years they have raided the Medicare trust fund. In 2002, 2005, 2006, and 2007, they go into the Medicare trust fund to fund other priorities. We don't support that; we don't believe in it. We don't believe any private sector company could do such a thing. We don't believe we should be doing it either. That left, under the President's proposal $3.6 trillion and under both the Democratic alternative and what passed the Senate, $2.7 trillion available for other uses. The President proposed, of the $3.6 trillion in his plan that was available, using $1.6 trillion for a tax cut. We proposed $745 billion. The Senate passed $1.2 trillion--roughly halfway in between the two proposals. Then we go to the question of high-priority domestic needs. The President proposed $212 billion of spending for high-priority areas. We proposed on our side $744 billion. The Senate actually passed $849 billion. The Senate actually passed spending of $105 billion over and above what we on the Democratic side proposed. If you look at the constituent elements, you can see the President proposed on education over the next 10 years $13 billion--a very modest sum of new money in the President's plan. We don't believe that is sufficient. We proposed $139 billion to strengthen education in the country. The Senate actually passed $308 billion, which is far more than we proposed and obviously dramatically more than the President proposed. On prescription drugs, the President proposed $153 billion over 10 years. We proposed $311 billion, and the Senate actually passed $300 billion, very close to what we suggested. On defense, the President proposed $62 billion above the baseline. We proposed $100 billion above the baseline. The Senate actually passed $69 billion more than is in the baseline assumption. On agriculture, the President actually proposed a cut of $1 billion. We proposed in our Democratic alternative some $88 billion to match what our major competitors are doing for their producers or match it as closely as we can under current trade law. One can see the Senate actually passed an increase of $58 billion, again somewhere in between our proposal and the President's proposal. On health care coverage, the President proposed no new money. We proposed $80 billion to expand health care coverage, to begin to cover additional people who now do not have the benefit of health care coverage. The Senate actually passed $36 billion, again somewhere in between. On environment, the President proposed very substantial cuts, $48 billion in cuts on environmental protection. We proposed an $18 billion increase. The Senate actually passed cuts of $41 billion. We believe that goes too far. We believe that is not wise given the environmental threats we face--clean air, clean water--and this is an area that should be addressed in the conference. In a category we call ``other,'' the President proposed some $33 billion in spending priorities. We proposed $8 billion. The Senate actually passed $119 billion, most of that for our Nation's veterans. Some $68 billion of what passed in the Senate was for our Nation's veterans, $14 billion in home health care, and the rest in other items. Next is the category of strengthening Social Security. This is where we have a very significant difference. The President proposed using $600 billion from the Social Security trust fund itself to strengthen Social Security for the long term. We believe that is double counting. We do not believe we can take money from the trust fund itself and use it to fund private accounts or anything else. We believe that is double counting, that it hastens the insolvency of the Social Security trust fund itself, and that we ought to reserve every penny of the Social Security trust fund for Social Security, and any additional money to strengthen Social Security should come from outside the trust fund itself. That to us is the more conservative approach and one that has more prospect of working given the demographic tidal wave we face when the baby boomers start to retire. One can see under our alternative and what passed the Senate, neither of us agreed to take money from the Social Security trust fund for that purpose. We proposed using non-Social Security, non-Medicare trust fund money to strengthen Social Security in the amount of $750 billion. This is the area in which what finally passed is, frankly, most deficient. There is not a dime in what passed in the Senate to strengthen Social Security for the long term other than reserving the Social Security trust fund surpluses for Social Security. That is important. It is necessary. It is not sufficient. We simply must do more. All of the testimony before the Senate Budget Committee made very clear that we face a demographic tidal wave just beyond the 10-year window of this budget resolution. That is when the chickens are going to come home to roost. That is when we see these massive surpluses now turning to dramatic deficits. That is why we believe not only should we reserve every penny of the Social Security surplus for Social Security, but in addition to that, we ought to take money out of this general fund surplus to strengthen Social Security for the long term as well. We believe that is just common sense. We hope very much before this conference is done that not only will we reserve the trust fund moneys for the trust funds but that we will make an additional commitment in a contribution from general fund surpluses that are projected. Remember, these are projections. This is not money in the bank. This $5.6 trillion is not money in the bank. This is money that is forecast. That is why we think the President's proposal is especially unwise because he is taking virtually all of the non-trust-fund money and committing it to a tax cut. We just do not think that is wise. We do not think that is prudent. We do not think any institution, if they were faced with a similar set of facts, would make this kind of decision. We do not think they would say we are going to take virtually all of our non-trust-fund money and put it out in a tax cut or, if you were a private sector enterprise, if you were a company promising a shareholder dividend, lock it in now for the next 10 years, virtually every penny outside the trust funds for the retirement funds of your employees and the health care trust funds of your employees. That is what the President has proposed. Is that really what people would do if they were running a company? Is that what they would do? I do not think so. I believe they would pay down their debts to the full extent possible. They would invest in the future. Yes, they would have a dividend for the shareholders, but they certainly would not commit all of their non-trust-fund money for that purpose based on a 10-year forecast that the people who made the forecast themselves say is highly uncertain. Then we have the final differences in the interest costs. The President's interest cost is $461 billion. Ours is $490 billion. The Senate-passed package will cost $572 billion. People say to me: Gee, what are you talking about, interest cost? What is that about? Simply, to the extent we provide a tax cut or we spend money, that requires additional interest costs because to the extent we have a tax cut, to the extent we have additional spending, that reduces the amount that is going to pay down the debt. That means we have more debt than we would otherwise have. That means higher interest costs. Most of the President's additional interest cost is generated by his tax cut. In fact, his tax cut that is advertised to cost $1.6 trillion does not cost $1.6 trillion. It costs, just with the interest cost associated with it, at least $2 trillion. Then, of course, there are other things that have not been factored into the President's proposal because we now know that because of his proposal we are going to have to reform the alternative minimum tax. The alternative minimum tax currently affects 2 million American taxpayers. Under the President's proposal, 35 million people are going to be affected, and it costs over $300 billion to fix it. It is nowhere in the President's budget, but we know that cost is there. We know this Congress is never going to allow one in every four taxpayers in America to be caught up in the alternative minimum tax. It makes no sense. It will not happen, and it should not happen. It costs money to fix it. It is not in the President's budget, but it should be because it is a hidden cost. In addition to that, there are a whole series of other things the President has not included that also cost money. We know that certain tax breaks currently provided in law are going to be extended. Research and development is going to be extended. We certainly are not going to change the energy tax credits that are in current law in the middle of an energy crisis, and we should not. That costs money, but it is not in the President's proposal. Oh, it is there, it is just not funded, and that is another part of the problem of the President's plan. He imposes a lot of costs, but he doesn't fund them. You can stick your head in the sand and say we will not fund them, but we know the reality is different. Finally, on the unallocated category, the President has $845 billion; we propose nothing in the unallocated category. What actually passed the Senate was $129 billion. On the President's side of his $845 billion, I hasten to point out that $526 billion of that is from the Medicare trust fund. His unallocated category is really much less than is advertised. About two-thirds of that money is Medicare trust fund money. All of a sudden he uncommits that money. I don't know from where that idea came. You cannot unallocate it. You cannot uncommit it. It is fully committed. Doing such a thing as the President proposes moves up the insolvency of the Medicare trust fund by 16 years. By 16 years sooner the Medicare trust fund goes broke--sooner than if the money is left where it is supposed to be in the Medicare trust fund. These are the fundamental differences between what President Bush proposed, what we proposed on our side, the Democratic alternative, and what actually passed the Senate. The major differences are in the areas where the President proposed a tax cut, twice as big as what we proposed. On the other hand, we proposed $900 billion more in debt reduction than the President proposed. That is the biggest set of differences between the President and the Democrats. He has a tax cut that is about $800 billion more than ours. We have about $900 billion more in debt reduction than the President. There is the fundamental difference between the two sides. In addition to that, there are also differences in high-riority areas. Let's review them. In education, we propose far more in new resources for education than does the President. The Senate agreed with us. In fact, it went well beyond our proposal. On prescription drugs, we proposed twice as much as the President. And the Senate adopted a number very close to what we proposed. There is no magic to this. There is no secret in it. What the President proposed is totally inadequate. Only 25 percent of people who are Medicare eligible get any help under the President's plan; 25 percent of the people would be helped and 75 percent would not be helped. It is no wonder the Senate adopted a number very close to what the Democrats proposed. Most objective observers say that is what is necessary to provide a meaningful prescription drug benefit. On defense, we proposed more than the President and more than what passed the Senate. On agriculture, the final result was somewhere in between. The President proposed a cut--a cut when we are in the midst of an agricultural crisis. It is the worst we have seen in 50 years. The President is proposing less resources. He is proposing the Congress not be able to respond as we have in each of the last 3 years to pass an economic disaster bill for our Nation's farmers. It makes no sense. We propose to be able to fund what we have been doing the last 3 years, and the Senate came somewhere in between. On health coverage, another major difference, the President proposed no new resources. We proposed $80 billion. The Senate, again, was somewhere in between. As I see it, those are major differences. Those are the issues that will have to be resolved in a conference committee. The House plan is close to what the President proposed. I say to the conferees, you will have to come pretty close to what the Senate passed or the conference report simply will not pass in this body. That tells me we will have to make adjustments. The President's tax cut plan will have to be reduced. There will have to be more resources for education, prescription drug benefits, our Nation's defense, and agriculture than what the President has proposed and what the House has adopted. Also, I hope we come out with a result that is better than what passed the Senate or the House with respect to strengthening Social Security for the long term. Nothing has been done--nothing in the House or Senate versions--to strengthen Social Security for the long term. It has gotten almost no attention. It is going to receive attention. It will receive attention at the end of this 10-year period when the baby boomers start to retire and the surpluses today turn into massive deficits. That is why we ought to take this opportunity with our surpluses to strengthen Social Security for the future. That is our responsibility. That is our obligation. We ought to take it seriously. I hope the conferees will. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the majority leader and the Democratic leader for their kind comments. It has been terrific working with them. I also want to highlight the work of the chairman of the committee who has done a very fair-handed job of managing the Budget Committee. We thank him for his fairness, and we appreciate very much the working relationship we have established throughout the year. I think our committee was one of the first to reach agreement in this power-sharing arrangement. And certainly here on the floor, Senator Domenici worked in such a constructive and gracious way. We appreciate it very much. If I might talk, for just a moment, on the reasons I voted in opposition to this budget resolution after these long hours of work. I would sum it up in the following ways. No. 1, I wanted to do more debt reduction than we ultimately did here. I wanted to reserve 70 percent of the forecasted surpluses for debt reduction. Unfortunately, we fell well short of that. So my first concern with what we passed is there is not sufficient debt reduction. My second concern is that after a detailed analysis of all the amendments that have passed, we are into the Medicare trust funds in the years 2002, 2005, 2006, and 2007, to the tune of $54 billion. As I enunciated when I laid down a budget alternative, I do not think we should use any of the trust funds of Social Security or Medicare for any year. So that would be the second reason I voted in opposition. The third reason was that the tax cut we are left with of $1.2 trillion over the 10 years is simply too large to accommodate the kind of additional debt paydown that I believe is in the best interest of the country. Instead of paying down the publicly held debt to about $500 billion, this budget resolution pays down the publicly held debt to about $1.1 trillion. So I would have liked to have seen us pay down the publicly held debt by another $600 billion. Finally, Mr. President, in the option that I offered our colleagues, we reserved $800 billion to strengthen Social Security for the long term. This budget will fall far short of that at about $160 billion that is available to strengthen Social Security for the long term. So for those reasons, I voted in opposition. In saying that, I do want to indicate that we improved this budget substantially. From what we started with--from what we started with; not from my plan, but from what we started with--we reduced the tax cut, we increased the amount of publicly held debt paydown, and we reserved additional resources for improving education, for a prescription drug benefit, for our national defense, and for agriculture. So those were important improvements. I just would have liked to have seen us do somewhat better. I would have liked to have seen us put more of an emphasis on debt reduction. But we will have other opportunities to make those points and other opportunities to vote on those priorities. I conclude by thanking all of our colleagues for their patience and their graciousness during this period. I also want to take this moment to thank the staffs who worked so hard during this period because these have been long nights and difficult days. I want to start with Mary Naylor, my staff director on the Senate Budget Committee, who did a superb job under difficult circumstances; and Jim Horney, who is also a top staffer, the deputy staff director for the Senate Budget Committee; Sue Nelson, who produced chart after chart that showed us where we stood at every juncture so we knew precisely where we were, which I think helped us make wise decisions; Lisa Konwinski, our counsel, who Lisa drafted amendment after amendment, not only for me but for our colleagues, and did a superb job; Sarah Kuehl, who has primary responsibility in the Social Security area; Steve Bailey, our tax counsel; Dakota Rudesill, who handles national security issues and national defense; Scott Carlson and Tim Galvin, who handle agriculture for the committee; Shelley Amdur, who is our education specialist; Jim Esquea and Bonnie Galvin; Chad Stone, our economist; Rock Cheung, who helped produce those charts, and I think helped us be more successful than we would have otherwise been; and certainly Karin Kullman, who joined the staff to help us do outreach to groups who were interested in the budget; and, finally, my terrific press team, Stu Nagurka and Steve Posner, who had their hands full. Goodness knows, I appreciate the work all of you have done. I appreciate very much the long hours you have put in and your real dedication. You have made me proud. I think you have helped us improve the budget for our country. I thank the staff on the other side, especially the staff director for Senator Domenici, Bill Hoagland, who is a class act. He deserves all of our thanks for the professionalism with which he conducts himself. Mr. President, again, I thank everyone who has made this an interesting first experience for me in my position on the Budget Committee. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, last month the North Dakota State University wrestling team once again showed the strength, grit and determination of North Dakotans by winning the NCAA Division II wrestling championship. Not only was this the second consecutive championship for the Bison, it was the fourth national title in school history. As a native North Dakotan, I am exceptionally proud of this accomplishment. Defending their NCAA Division II Championship, the Bison finished 7\1/2\ points ahead of second place South Dakota State University in the NCAA Division II finals on March 10. This year's dramatic victory came down to the wire needing a victory by Bison heavyweight Nick Severson to secure the victory over second place rival South Dakota State. Severson rose to the occasion by pinning an opponent he has never previously beaten. The stage for the upset heavyweight finale was set when each of the other Bison finalists, Todd Fuller and Steve Saxlund, did their part by becoming national champs at 174 and 184 pounds. For Saxlund, this was an impressive third straight national championship. I congratulate the Bison wrestling program. Exceptional coaching, determined wrestlers, and remarkable teamwork led the Bison to their fourth national championship. They qualified all 10 members of their wrestling squad for the NCAA tournament. With all but one returning for next season, I expect to have the opportunity to make a similar announcement next year regarding the Bison's success in the world's oldest sport. Again, on behalf of all North Dakotans, I extend congratulations to the Bison on yet another successful season and wish the best of luck to the entire team.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we can go to final passage.