Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the budget expenditure limit tool, known as the BELT, that would place artificial price caps on Medicare and jeopardize the quality of the health care received by millions of senior citizens. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks several letters of support for the motion I had planned to make to strike the BELT. It is imperative that the Senate strike this ill-advised provision in order to preserve Medicare beneficiaries' ability to choose their own doctor and health plan.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Does the waiver of the Senator from New Mexico only apply to welfare provisions?

Mr. CONRAD. Thirty seconds.

Mr. CONRAD. The question that I would have----

Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for just a moment for a question of the Senator from New Mexico?

Mr. CONRAD. Do we have a list of what those provisions are?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we previously voted on my plan during consideration of the budget resolution. I received 39 votes. Today, if we held a vote, I might add a few votes to that total but I am under no illusion that I would prevail. In order to spare my colleagues another rollcall vote and in the fleeting hope that I might inspire some of my other colleagues to withdraw amendments that are not absolutely necessary we vote on this evening, I withdraw my motion.

Mr. CONRAD. Could Senators have a copy of that before they vote?

Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent reading of the motion be dispensed with.

Mr. CONRAD. I have a fair share balanced budget plan at the desk.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from Illinois. This is an amendment for those who disagree with cutting taxes by $245 billion at the very time we are adding $1.8 trillion to the national debt. This is the amendment for those who are concerned that the Medicare and Medicaid cuts are too severe. This is the amendment for those who oppose cuts in education. This is the amendment for those who want welfare to be work- oriented but protect the children. This is the amendment for those who are concerned about the raid on rural America contained in the underlying bill. This is the amendment for those who recognize that CPI overstates the cost of living. The advisory commission to the Finance Committee said it is overstated by .7 to 2.0. That means adding $600 billion to the national debt over the next 7 years. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will support this amendment to fairly balance the budget.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am proud to join Senator Chafee in offering this amendment. Mr. President, simply put, this provides health care support to the most severely disabled individuals in our society. Senator Chafee and I received a letter of support from the Consortium for Citizens With Disabilities, 30 national organizations that work to support the disabled. They said, and I quote: We believe that your amendment to establish a minimum floor of eligibility for children and adults with disabilities is a fundamental component of ensuring a basic safety net for low- income people with severe disabilities. Mr. President, health care is not an option for these people, it is a necessity. They have it today. They should not be at risk for losing it tomorrow. During Finance Committee deliberation, we received this communication. It said: Mr. Senator, if you are a person with mental retardation, these services are not optional. Remember, this is a lifelong condition which cannot be cured like substance abuse or unemployment. Also remember, it is not a self-inflicted condition, but rather one that a person is born with. Mr. President, States should not cut severely disabled people from Medicaid. That is the premise of this amendment. I hope our colleagues will support it. Mr. ROCKEFELLER addressed the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this plan for rural America is the equivalent of dropping a neutron bomb in the middle of rural America. Remember the neutron bomb? That is where the buildings remain standing but the people are gone. That is what will happen in much of rural America if this farm plan and this plan for rural America ever becomes law. The Republican plan would force farmers off the land. In a low-price year, it would mean a 60 percent reduction in net returns to farmers in my State. It would close hospitals in rural areas. The hospital association in my State has just done a survey and they say 26 of the 30 rural hospitals in North Dakota would go to negative returns on their Medicare patients. It would shutter nursing homes and represents unilateral disarmament in the world trade battle over agricultural trade. We would pull the rug out from our producers at the very time our competitors are already supporting their farmers at a level three times ours. That would be a profound mistake, not only for the rural parts of this country but for the trade balance of the United States. Agriculture is one of the two areas in which we still enjoy a substantial trade surplus. We ought not to wave the white flag of surrender in this trade fight. We would never do it in a military confrontation. We should not do it in a trade battle.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. These are not my estimates, I might add. These are the estimates of the Joint Committee on Taxation, these are the estimates of the U.S. Treasury Department, that do, as the Senator from North Dakota knows, distribution tables. And the distribution tables they provided the Finance Committee show that everybody earning up to $30,000 a year is going to get a tax increase. That is 51 percent of American families. Of the others who are going to get a tax reduction, interestingly enough, 48 percent of the benefit goes to those earning over $100,000 a year. Let me just make one other point on the question the Senator asks with respect to the notion that the earned income tax credit is a welfare program. We heard that in the Finance Committee, that the earned income tax credit is really a transfer payment to people, at least in part. It is interesting because President Ronald Reagan said the earned income tax credit is the best profamily, prowork, antiwelfare measure ever to come out of Congress. [[Page S 15440]] That is what Ronald Reagan thought about the earned income tax credit. What these folks want people to believe is that the earned income tax credit only relates to the income tax, because it is true; some of the folks who get the benefit of the earned income tax credit do not have an income-tax liability, but guess what. They have a payroll tax liability that is huge. In fact, 73 percent of the American people pay more in payroll taxes than they pay in income taxes, and the earned income tax credit was devised not only to provide relief on income tax but also on payroll taxes for working families. These are not people on welfare. These are people who are working, working families who get a break on their taxes, on their payroll taxes and their income taxes.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the budget reconciliation process that is underway. I think this is most important because we have been told now that the Budget Committee is only going to spend an hour and a half on the debate on the budget reconciliation package that is going to affect every American, that is going to set the spending priorities for this country for the next 7 years, a budget reconciliation package that many of us believe, while it moves toward balancing the budget, does not actually balance the budget. And, also, it is done in a way that is unfair--fundamentally unfair in terms of who is asked to fight this budget battle. After being deeply involved in the budget reconciliation process, both in the Budget Committee and the Finance Committee and the Senate Agriculture Committee, as well, I believe very strongly that while it is critically important that we balance the budget and that we do it as rapidly as possible, the choices that have been made in the proposal that is before us do it in a way that asks the middle class and working families in this country to be in the front lines in the battle to balance the budget but says to the wealthiest among us, ``You are ushered to the sidelines.'' Even worse than that, it says to the wealthiest among us, ``You are first in line for additional tax preferences, tax loopholes, and tax benefits because we are going to let the rest of America fight this fight, not the wealthiest among us. The wealthiest among us, [[Page S 15437]] you can just stand by. You can be observers. You can be on the sidelines. And while you are on the sidelines, we are going to actually direct some of the resources that we are saving from this budget plan toward you.'' Mr. President, I do not think that is what the American people have in mind in terms of balancing the budget. I think they want this job done. They want the job done fairly. Most of all, they want the job done. Unfortunately, the reconciliation package that is on its way to the floor does not even balance the budget. That is not just my opinion, that is the answer from the Congressional Budget Office in a letter that was sent to Senator Dorgan and myself on October 20, by June O'Neill, the Director, in which she says in the last line in the first paragraph, ``Excluding an estimated off-budget surplus of $115 billion in 2002 from the calculation, CBO would project an on-budget deficit of $105 billion in 2002.'' What is June O'Neill talking about when she talks about an off-budget surplus of $115 billion in 2002? She is talking about the Social Security surplus in that year--the Social Security surplus. And the only way you can call this budget that is coming toward the Senate floor balanced is to use every penny of Social Security surpluses, every penny, over the next 7 years. The law does not permit that. If one looks at the Budget Enforcement Act--and I have a copy of it right here--on page 745 it says:

Mr. CONRAD. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, how can it be? We heard all of this talk about a tax cut. Yes; in overall terms, in dollar terms, there is a tax cut; about $245 billion. But not everybody gets a tax cut. Half the people in the country are going to get a tax increase. That is what these charts show from the Joint Committee on Taxation and from the U.S. Treasury Department. Fifty-one percent of Americans, those earning up to $30,000 a year, 44 million American families, are going to get a tax increase. On the other side of the ledger, higher income people are going to get a tax reduction. Forty-nine percent of the American people are going to get a tax reduction. But 48 percent of the benefit is going to go to those earning over $100,000 a year. Let us just see. This is the top 5 percent. What do they get? The top 5 percent. The 2.8 million families making over $200,000 a year get a $3,400 tax break. The top 5 percent get a $3,400 tax break. How about the top 1 percent? Those are the 1.1 million American families that earn over $350,000 a year. They get a $5,600 tax break. Gee. You might wonder. How about my family? How about my family? We are earning $25,000 a year, a family of four. Do you know what is going to happen to you? You are going to get a tax increase. How about a family of four earning from $30,000 to $50,000 a year? What happens to them? They are going to get a slight tax cut of $249. Compare that to the people getting over $350,000 a year. They are going to get $5,600--20 times as much, 20 times as much if you are earning over $350,000 than if you are earning between $30,000 and $50,000. And, of course, the dirty little secret of this tax plan is that Americans earning less than $30,000 a year--51 percent of the American people, 44 million American families--are going to have a tax increase. And then you look at the spread among those who are going to get a tax reduction, and it is unfair. A family earning between $30,000 and $50,000. They get only $250. This small tax cut is going to be completely overwhelmed by the other effects of this overall package because those folks are going to find things that help them being cut, and they are going to wind up in a negative. If you look at how spending programs are being reduced and how the tax cuts affect them, you are going to find that people in the $30,000 to $50,000 category lose under this plan. The same will be true of $50,000 to $75,000. While they get a $565 tax cut, when you take into account the Medicare-Medicaid changes, the college loan changes and all the other Government programs that affect them, you find out their tax cut is going to be completely overwhelmed by the spending cuts that affect them. So what you have here is an overall program that is an enormous transfer of wealth program. It transfers wealth from those who are on the low end of the totem pole and the middle of the totem pole to those who are on top. That is what the overall effect of this Republican plan is. And you know, that is what has been going on in this country for a long time. This chart shows the share of wealth held by the top 10 percent of households in America. It shows in 1969, the top 1 percent had 20 percent of the wealth in this country. By 1979, the top 1 percent held 30 percent of the wealth in this country. And by 1989, they were up to 39 percent of the wealth. The top 1 percent, in 1989, held 39 percent of the wealth in this country. I just say to my Republican colleagues, they accuse the Democrats of being for redistributing the wealth of America. Let me just say they have been the champions of redistribution of wealth, but instead of redistributing wealth from the wealthy down to those who are middle income and lower income, the Republicans have transferred wealth up to the top 1 percent, from the top 1 percent holding 20 percent of the wealth to the top 1 percent now holding 39 percent of the wealth of the Nation. If anything is clear from history, it is that if wealth is concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people, that leads to political instability and that leads to deep trouble in the future.

Mr. CONRAD. The Senator is exactly right. This is a fundamental question. And let me just say those who defend it by saying it is what we have been doing, that is no defense at all. That is just no defense at all. What we have been doing is wrong. We have been doing it since 1983. For most of the time it has not made that much difference because the Social Security surpluses have been very small. But now the Social Security surpluses are growing dramatically. And they are going to continue to grow dramatically. There is a reason for it. The reason was to get ready for the time the baby-boom generation retires. That is why Congress acted in the early 1980's to change the Social Security fund, to design it to run surpluses. And what have we done? We have raided them. We have looted them. And now we will continue that practice to the tune of $636 billion over the next 7 years and call it a balanced budget. That is a fraud. That is an absolute fraud. There is no one who would consider taking trust funds, throwing those into the pot to balance an operating budget as the correct way to do business. It is maybe the Washington way to do business; it is not the right way to do business. And we should stop it. We should stop it now. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD. First of all, when we talk about how it is counted, what the Senator and I asked for is, how about if you do it according to what the law is? The law is very clear. I read the law. The law says you cannot count Social Security surpluses in determining whether the budget is in surplus or deficit. That is what the law says. Ninety-eight Senators voted for that law. They thought it was a good idea to protect Social Security then. They thought it was a good idea not to count surpluses, Social Security surpluses, in establishing whether the budget is in deficit or surplus then. They recognized when they cast that vote that it is absolutely wrong to take Social Security trust fund surpluses and use those to make the deficit look smaller. Now, obviously I think that is right. And then when we asked the question of CBO, here is the final answer we got. There were three answers. The first answer, as the Senator noted, said we are going to have a slight surplus. When we said, ``Yeah. But follow the law, obey the law. What happens when you exclude Social Security trust fund surpluses that are off-budget by law?'' Then she came back and said-- her final answer was, you have a $105 billion deficit in the year 2002, if you obey the law and you do not take Social Security trust fund surpluses. Obviously, that is what we must do. That is what the law requires us to do. And what is the reason for that? The reason is, no place in America would any institution take the retirement funds of its employees, throw those into the pot and say they balanced the budget. Obviously you have got to run surpluses in your retirement accounts if you are going to have money for when your folks retire. It does not take any rocket science to figure that out. If you spend all of the money, what happens when the folks retire? Their retirement funds are gone. That is what is at the heart of this issue. I asked my accountant back in North Dakota, called him up one day, and I said, ``Larry, what would you say to a client, business client, who came to you, and said, you know, he was having some rough economic times, and his company was running in the red. And if this business owner figured out a way to balance was to take the retirement funds of his employees and throw those into the pot and call the budget balanced,'' what would his advice be to a client who came to him with that question? My accountant said, ``I would tell him, `You are on your way to Federal jail because that is a violation of Federal law.' '' And that is precisely what this Republican budget plan contemplates.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, earlier today Senator Domenici inserted in the Record a column by Charles Krauthammer that displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the operation of the Social Security trust funds and attacks my position on this issue. I ask unanimous consent that the response written by Senator Dorgan and me, which ran in the Washington Post on March 16, 1995, to correct the many factual and logical errors in Mr. Krauthammer's argument, also be published at an appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Would the Senator yield, and add Senator Conrad for 15 minutes, as well?

Mr. CONRAD

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

Mr. CONRAD. And I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from California be granted 15 minutes after I conclude.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Thank you, Madam President. I just want to thank my colleague from California. I hope the people from California know what a fighter they have in the Senator from California, Senator Boxer. I am so proud to be a member of the Budget Committee with her because over and over during these discussions and debates, she has stood up and fought for the middle class and the working families, and said, ``Now, wait a minute. Let us understand what the implications are of these policies that are being pursued. Who wins? Who loses? Who is helped? Who is hurt?'' I just want to say once again that I appreciate the strong stance she has taken to say we ought to have a policy that is fair. That is an American standard; that is an American value; that we stand up and fight for something that is fair in this country, that asks everybody to contribute in this budget battle, not just to say to the working class and middle-income people get in the front lines of this budget battle, but to say to those who are the wealthiest among us as well that you ought to participate, too. That is the American way. Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I would like to thank my colleague from Washington for the great work she has done on the Budget Committee. At its root, at its bottom, a budget is the priorities of America. This represents the choices we make about the priorities for the money that we are going to spend over the next 7 years. These are critically important choices, and the Senator from Washington has been loud and clear with respect to what those priorities ought to be--priorities that favor the middle class and working families in this country who are struggling to get by, saying to the students who want to further their education there ought to be an opportunity for a student loan. We should not, as the Republican plan calls for, increase the cost of that student loan $3,100 over the next 7 years. It says to that struggling senior, yes, there have to be savings out of Medicare; we understand that, but not these kinds of draconian cuts that mean a further burden on seniors and that will threaten the closing of hospitals throughout the rural parts of America. To say to others who count on Federal programs in order to survive, as that young man who was in the wheelchair this afternoon who relies on Medicaid for his very breath, that is an American priority, that is someone we care about in the American family. Senator Murray has been right there making these points and carrying this fight. I thank her very much for the effort she makes every day to make certain that the budget reflects the priorities of the American people. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.