Paul Sarbanes

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise to support the VA-HUD appropriations bill. Chairman Bond, a former colleague of mine on the Banking Committee, and Senator Mikulski, the ranking member and my good friend from Maryland, both have a deep understanding of the importance of housing programs that are so crucial to creating safe, decent, and affordable housing for the American people. I want to thank them for their hard work. The committee did a good job of juggling many competing needs and interests that go far beyond housing programs. I want to recognize their good work in both appropriating enough funds to renew expiring section 8 contracts and in adopting the mark-to-market legislation passed as part of the reconciliation bill but unfortunately dropped in conference. This legislation, sponsored by Senators Mack, D'Amato, Bond, and others addresses what Secretary Cuomo calls the biggest crisis facing HUD in a way that saves money and ensures the long-term preservation of the section 8 housing stock. We have worked very hard on a bipartisan basis in a short period of time to iron out differences with HUD on the section 8 legislation. It is my hope that, as the appropriations bill moves forward, the committee will adopt the agreements we reached with HUD which will make the program easier to implement and generally more efficient. Solving this problem will rank as one of our best accomplishments for this Congress and I again want to thank the chairman and ranking member for their interest and dedication in putting the section 8 housing program on a sound financial and management footing. Unfortunately, while these efforts on the section 8 portfolio should bear real fruit, the committee has been forced to try to squeeze too many high-priority programs into too small a box. There is simply not enough money in this bill to address the overall housing needs we face in this country. For example, consider the public housing funding. While public housing has become a much-maligned program, this view is unwarranted. The vast majority of public housing is in good shape. Fewer than 100 of more than 3,300 public housing authorities [PHA's] are troubled. Public housing serves hundreds of thousands of elderly households and nearly 1\1/2\ million children. In many neighborhoods, public housing is indistinguishable from the privately owned housing that may be next door. As in everything, problems do exist. There are bad housing projects and bad housing authorities. However, the Banking Committee is working on legislation that will require the Secretary to react quickly to put the bad PHA's in receivership and to demolish bad projects. We are also reforming the program to create more mixed-income communities and help make it possible for additional working families to get access to public and assisted housing. In fact, public housing represents about one-third of the housing stock affordable to minimum wage workers in ths country. It is for this reason, among others, that Secretary Cuomo called public housing a precious resource. While these reforms will contribute greatly to the overall health of the public housing program, in order to succeed, public housing needs more funding. The bill before us provides $2.9 billion for public housing operating subsidies, the same as this year. Operating subsidies are needed to cover the shortfall between what public housing authorities can collect in rent and what it costs to run the projects. I am pleased that the committee preserved this funding at current levels. Even with the committee's best efforts, however, the $2.9 billion covers only about 85 percent of what the PHA's need to pay for their day-to-day operations. We have put public housing authorities in a bind. They are asked to serve the poor, but not given the funding necessary to ensure that they can house the poor adequately. To close the gap, PHAs are forced to put off routine maintenance and small capital projects. In effect, the housing stock faces slow deterioration just so the housing authorities can pay the heating bill. The capital account in this bill also stays steady at $2.5 billion. These are much-needed funds, and again, I welcome the committee's effort to protect this crucial spending. But the fact is, the National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing said that PHA's need $4.5 billion per year for 10 years to take care of backlogged capital needs, in addition to keeping up with routine maintenance, which, by itself, costs $1.7 billion annually. This combination of low operating subsidies and inadequate capital funding means that we are slowly bleeding our public housing stock to death. All the hard work and good intentions of the committee cannot make up for the fact that the chairman and ranking member were simply not given the allocation necessary to fund these crucial housing programs at necessary levels. Similarly, homeless funding remains level in this bill, although homelessness, despite good progress, continues to be a serious problem. While economic growth is strong, it has not reached down to the people who live on the bottom rung of society's ladder. In fact, the Conference of Mayors estimates that homelessness increased by 5 percent last year. Moreover, as we try to make public and assisted housing more available to the working poor, a worthy goal that I support, we reduce the number of assisted housing units available to the very worst off in our country. In the end, this will mean more homelessness. In my view, Congress ought to recognize that truth and expand the homeless program. One casualty of the fiscal constraints that the committee labored within is the Low Income Housing Preservation and Homeownership Act [LIHPRH], better known as the Preservation Program. This program has preserved over 80,000 units of affordable housing permanently. Another 30,000 units await funding. I urge the committee to work in conference to find some funding for this critical program. I know of the chairman's interest in accomplishing this goal, along with appropriate reforms to the program. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for all their hard work. I support this bill and urge my colleagues to do so, as well. I will continue to work for additional funding for housing programs, and look forward to the day when we are able to adequately address the many existing demands.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. SARBANES. My understanding is that amendment does not terminate MFN.

Mr. SARBANES. It's virtual reality. I might vote for an amendment on substance, but this doesn't do that; is that correct?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Senator.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished manager of this bill, Senator Stevens, in a colloquy concerning the funding of the operation and maintenance account for the Department of the Army. For some time, I have been concerned about the deteriorating conditions of the historic buildings at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center Annex at Forest Glen, MD. In response to my amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act last year, the Department of the Army recently submitted a Comprehensive Plan for the Basic Repair and Stabilization for the Historic District of the Forest Glen Annex. This plan identified the need for $9.8 million in fiscal 1998 to take care of the critical needs for stabilization of the historic buildings at the Forest Glen Annex. I want to inquire whether there is sufficient funding within the Army's real property maintenance account to implement this plan.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Will the majority leader yield on that point?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to support the statement of the majority leader. I don't know what is in these Bosnia amendments, but this is obviously always a difficult and sensitive issue. You know, we are locking in now procedure to try to produce this bill, which I am supportive of. I don't think we ought to put into that mix perhaps acting precipitously on a very complicated issue. I think the majority leader has made a very strong point.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to recognize Dr. John Mather, a senior astrophysicist from Hyattsville, MD, who works at the nearby Goddard Space Flight Center [GSFC] in Greenbelt, MD. Dr. Mather has risen to the top of his field and was recently elected to the National Academy of Sciences for his distinguished and continued groundbreaking achievements in the area of original research. As a senior Astrophysicist at Goddard, Dr. Mather serves as a Study Scientist for the Next Generation Space Telescope, which will be a successor to the Hubbel Space Telescope. He also serves as chair of the Anomaly Review Board for the HST NICMOS Instrumental as PI for the ARCADE/DIMES mission studies, as PI for a Long Term Astrophysics grant for the study of the anisotropy of the cosmic IR background, as well as other projects that will advance science well into the next century. Since joining NASA in 1974, Dr. Mather has received a number of commendations and awards for his cutting edge work in the demanding field of astrophysics. Among his accomplishments are the Group Achievement Award from GSFC, the Exception Achievement Award, the John C. Lindsay Memorial Award, the Group Achievement Award, the Rotary National Space Achievement Award, the National Air and Space Museum Trophy, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Space Science Award, an Honorary Doctor of Science Degree from Swarthmore College, and the Rumford Prize from the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. In recent years, Dr. Mather has continued to publish on the topic of the COBE FIRAS Spectrum, the Far Infrared Absolute Spectrophotometer on the Cosmic Background Explorer and other topics, always maintaining his grasp of current scientific discoveries. A native of New Jersey, Dr. Mather grew up on the Rutgers University Dairy Research Station where his father worked as a geneticist. He went on to graduate from Swarthmore College with highest honors in Physics. He received his doctorate in Physics in 1974 from the University of California at Berkeley. We in Maryland are certainly delighted that he has since decided to become a member of the Hyattsville community and a prominent member of the NASA presence in the state. Mr. President, Dr. Mather's election to the National Academy of Sciences is a tremendous milestone in this public servant's already magnificent career. As Dr. Mather continues to be a rising star in the astrophysics community it is truly an honor to recognize this fine Marylander for his accomplishments and I wish him continued success in future endeavors.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Col. Randall Inouye, Commander of the Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Col. Inouye is moving on to a new assignment in the Pentagon and I want to express my appreciation for the fine work that he has done. In the 3 short years in which Col. Inouye has commanded the Baltimore District he has proved to be one of the best and most accomplished District Engineers. During his tenure in Baltimore, the colonel helped spearhead Maryland's flood mitigation task force--a Federal, State, and local partnership effort to help communities rebuild after the devastating floods of 1996. This task force is now being used as a model for similar efforts throughout the nation. Under his leadership, the Poplar Island restoration project--the largest habitat restoration project ever undertaken in the United States--was initiated. Poplar Island is the first large-scale project to make beneficial use of dredged material and will help protect and promote the recovery of the Chesapeake Bay while at the same time preserving the vitality of the Port of Baltimore. Similarly, Col. Inouye was responsible for many other important environmental restoration and water resource development activities in the region, including the successful restoration of 32 acres of emergent tidal wetlands at Kenilworth Marsh--the largest and last remaining freshwater tidal wetland on the Anacostia; the Maryland coastal bays initiative; and the Tolchester and Brewerton Channel improvement projects, to name only a few. As District Engineer, Col. Inouye also directed and oversaw the succeessful completion of numerous military construction projects in Maryland from the Army's Research Labs at Aberdeen Proving Ground and Adelphi to the Defense Information School at Fort Meade to the new Walter Reed Army Institute of Research at Forest Glen. I came to know Col. Inouye shortly after he assumed command of the Baltimore District and have had the privilege of working closely with him over the past three years on many initiatives throughout Maryland, including those mentioned above. In every instance, the Colonel has distinguished himself for his responsiveness and commitment to getting the job done. He has set a new standard of excellence and accomplishment for other District Engineers to emulate. In recognition of his outstanding service to the Baltimore District and other commands, Col. Inouye has received numerous awards and commendations including the Legion of Merit, the Meritorious Service Medal and the Army Commendation Medal. But perhaps more importantly, his efforts have earned him the respect and admiration of everyone with whom he has worked. I know that many Marylanders join me in expressing appreciation for his contributions toward improving the quality of life in our State and in wishing him the best in his new endeavors.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, will the Senator from New Mexico yield for a couple of questions?

Mr. SARBANES. Will the Senator from New Jersey yield me 5 minutes?

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I want to commend the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts for offering the amendment just voted upon. I think the failure of this amendment dramatically illustrates one of the difficulties plaguing this spending reconciliation bill. This bill, when combined with the tax breaks approved by the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee, places a disproportionate share of the burden of deficit reduction on ordinary citizens. You can't consider the spending reconciliation bill separate and apart from the tax bill we will debate later this week; the two are linked in the budget plan. And when considered in connection with the tax cuts we will soon discuss here, the spending cuts in this reconciliation bill reflect a flawed set of priorities for the Nation. Now, this spending bill contains program reductions impacting numerous Americans, many of whom face extreme financial difficulty and are at the low end of the income scale. At the same time, the tax bill that is also part of the budget gives benefits to people at the top end of the income and wealth scale. That is the set of priorities that is reflected in this spending bill and in the budget as a whole. Take as an example the home health copayment provision just voted upon. As the Senator from Massachusetts pointed out in discussing his amendment, 43 percent of home health users have incomes under $10,000 per year--I repeat, 43 percent have incomes under $10,000 per year. Two-thirds of the people requiring home health visits are women, and one-third of those are women living alone. The Office of Management and Budget has stated: ``We are concerned that a copayment could limit beneficiary access to the benefit.'' These are the kinds of people affected by the program cuts in this bill such as the one that the Senator from Massachusetts sought to strike--people who lie at the bottom end of the income scale, and who can ill-afford even a $5 copayment requirement. At the same time that we require this $5 copayment and other similar cost-cutting provisions, we also include tax cuts in the budget plan. Now, given the objective of a balanced budget, the inclusion of tax cuts in the budget plan necessitates program reductions substantially greater than would be needed to eliminate the deficit if tax breaks were not part of the budget plan. Let me repeat that. Given the objective of a balanced budget, toward which we are all embarked, the inclusion of tax cuts in the budget plan requires program reductions substantially greater than would be needed to eliminate the deficit if tax breaks were not a part of the plan. The math is simple. The budget resolution provides for $85 billion in net tax cuts over the next 5 years and $250 billion in net tax cuts over the next 10 years. In the framework of a balanced budget, these tax cuts require additional program reductions of $85 billion over the next 5 years and $250 billion over the next 10 years over what would otherwise be required. In other words, because you are approving tax cuts, you need to locate program reductions sufficient to offset the tax cuts. Now, the structure of the tax bills reported out by the tax committees makes it clear that those at the very top of the income pyramid will receive very substantial tax breaks--thereby absenting themselves from the deficit reduction effort, indeed shifting the burden to others--while ordinary people will carry a greater burden of program reductions to compensate for the tax breaks. Many programs important to ordinary citizens are being reduced to pay for capital gains tax cuts, inheritance tax cuts, and IRA expansion that will benefit the wealthiest people in the Nation. The cuts in Medicare and Medicaid--such as the one the Senate just voted to sustain--are examples of such reductions in vital programs. After looking at which Americans are affected by the program reductions in this bill, look at the distributional effects of the tax cuts that are also part of the budget. The tax bills reported from the Finance and Ways and Means Committees give the top 1 percent of the income scale the same percentage of the tax benefits as the bottom 60 percent on the income scale. At the same time, in order to make room for these tax breaks, we are reducing programs such as the one that we just voted on, which impact heavily on people who really cannot afford such reductions.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, Members need to ask themselves whether they support the priorities reflected by these choices. For every dollar lost to the Treasury in tax cuts, a dollar must be added to the Treasury through reductions in programs that are essential to many of our citizens. If there were no tax cuts, or if the tax cuts were less than what is being projected, we wouldn't have to cut the home health program. These two things--tax cuts and program cuts--have to be understood together, even though they have been separated into two bills. The fact of the matter is that the whole budget plan, in order to provide for upper income tax breaks, has to reduce programs to offset the cost of the tax breaks. And the vote we just had is one example of a program that is being reduced. So, in assessing this reconciliation bill that is before us, we need to ask ourselves whether providing tax breaks to the very well to do should be a higher priority than adequate funding for programs essential to the well-being of ordinary citizens. On each amendment we have to ask this very question: I repeat, is it more important to give a upper income tax breaks--and, in order to compensate for them, to cut programs such as the very program that we just voted on with respect to home health copayment, a program which clearly helps people at the very lower end of the income scale--or to preserve programs vital to ordinary Americans? I think that question needs to be asked again and again as we confront these various proposals to deal with the program reductions that are contained in the reconciliation bill that is before us. Mr. President, I would like to address one other item with respect to what we are confronting in this budget debate because it looks to the future. Mr. President, the Los Angeles Times just yesterday published an article entitled ``Tax-Cut Plans Could Reseed Deficit.'' I quote: ``Analysts liken House and Senate bills as time bombs set to begin detonating shortly after 2002--the target date for balancing the Federal budget.'' I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, this article points out that under versions of the tax bills approved by the Tax Committees in the two Houses, the revenue loss to the Treasury would take off, starting in the year 2003 and continuing for many years thereafter. What has happened is the tax cuts have been crafted in such a way that they artificially are held down in the early years to stay within the terms of the budget agreement. But because of back loading the principal revenue impact comes in later years. Robert Reischauer, the former head of the Congressional Budget Office, said, and I quote him: . . . warns that of all the debate surrounding the House and Senate tax bills--whether the reductions are skewed too much toward the wealthy, or whether they would overheat the economy--``this is the critical issue.'' I again quote him: If the tax bill explodes, it will explode just at the time that the baby-boom generation is beginning to retire and when we will need every penny we can get our hands on to pay for Medicaid, housing, transportation, and food stamps. Moreover, many of the tax cuts contained in the two bills ``would not be easily reversible'' if the Government decided that it needed the extra revenue after all to pay for these vital programs. The figures are very stark. [The figures] . . . compiled by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation show that during the first five years, the tax cuts would result in a net loss to the Treasury of $85 billion--precisely what the budget agreement has allocated . . . But the figures also show that the House tax writers have held down the initial costs by phasing in some of the reductions slowly. Once the provisions are fully in effect the cost of the package jumps dramatically. As a result, while the House provisions would drain about $18.4 billion from the Treasury in 1999, by 2007, the annual cost would soar to $41.8 billion--more than double the earlier amount. So, in other words, you come to the end of the 10-year period upon which limitations have been placed by the budget agreement and you have the revenue loss projected on trend lines that simply take off over the second 10 years. Some estimates have placed this loss at $600 to $700 billion over the next 10 years--2008-17--compared to a $250 billion cost over the first 10 years, 1998-2007. The same criticism applies to the Senate Finance Committee version--a little less, but not much. Moreover, as I have noted, both bills threaten the deficit through backloaded, phased-in tax cuts, which principally benefit the wealthy. Mr. President, as pointed out in this Los Angeles Times analysis, three of the main provisions in these tax bills--IRA's, capital gains, and inheritance taxes--make heavy use of gimmicks, including delayed effective dates, slow phaseins, and timing shifts in revenue collections to minimize the revenue losses that these tax cuts cause in the early years. But then the costs begin to rise sharply, and they accelerate as you move into the outyears. In short, these cuts place the whole deficit reduction effort at risk. So we have two things happening here. First of all, the tax cuts are inequitable as we have just seen because you do something like this home health copayment charge at the same time that you give a tax break at the top of the income scale. Forty-three percent of the people who use home health services have incomes of less than $10,000 a year, and now will have to make a payment of up to $760 a year under this bill for home health care before they get some assistance. At the same time you are giving a tax break to people at the top end of the income scale on capital gains, on inheritance tax, and on delayed IRA's. Second, the broader question, what Reischauer called the critical issue, is the fact that the tax bill is structured in such a way that the cost of the tax bill will simply take off after the year 2007. It will start moving out after the year 2002, the so-called balance year, and then after the year 2007 it will really take off and we will then be confronted with a major threat to our fiscal stability. As this Los Angeles Times article said, the ``Tax-Cut Plans Could Reseed Deficit.'' The whole purpose of this exercise is to eliminate the deficit, which is not being done. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Tax-Cut Plans Could Reseed Deficit (By Art Pine) Washington.--Prospects for keeping the federal budget balanced after 2002, the year that President Clinton and Congress hope to eliminate the deficit, are being threatened by a ticking time bomb: the tax-cut bills that Congress will take up this week. Under versions approved by the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee, the revenue loss to the Treasury would take off, starting in 2003, and continue for many years after that, most budget experts say. Robert Greenstein, an analyst for the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, says both tax-cut measures have been crafted to keep the impact of the cuts ``artificially low'' for the first few years to stay within the bipartisan balanced-budget agreement. Such ``back-loading'' of the maximum revenue impact, he and other fiscal experts say, could threaten the government's fiscal integrity just as it is likely to be saddled with added costs related to the aging of the baby boom generation. Robert D. Reischauer, a Brookings Institution budget- watcher, warns that of all the debate surrounding the House and Senate tax bills--whether the reductions are skewed too much toward the wealthy, or whether they would overheat the economy--``this is the critical issue.'' ``If the tax bill explodes, it will explode just at the time that the baby boom generation is beginning to retire and when we will need every penny we can get our hands on to pay for Medicaid, housing, transportation and food stamps,'' Reischauer said. Moreover, many of the tax cuts contained in the two bills ``would not be easily reversible'' if the government decided that it needed the extra revenue after all, Reischauer contends. Adjusting capital gains for inflation, for example, would be difficult to undo The figures are stark by any standard. Estimates compiled by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation show that during the first five years, the tax cuts would result in a net loss to the Treasury of $85 billion-- precisely what the budget agreement has allocated for the measure's cost. But the figures show that the House tax writers have held down the initial costs by phasing in some of the reductions slowly. Once the provisions are fully in effect, the cost of the package jumps dramatically. As a result, while the House provisions would drain about $18.4 billion from the Treasury in 1999, by 2007, the annual cost would soar to $41.8 billion--more than double the earlier amount. And Greenstein's group estimates that if the cost of the Ways and Means Committee package escalates at its 2004-2007 pace, the cumulative revenue loss for the second 10 years-- from 2008 to 2017--would surge to $600 billion or more. The Senate Finance Committee version of the bill is only slightly less explosive. The revenue drain rises from $19.7 billion a year in 1999 to $40.2 billion in 2007--again totaling $85 billion for the five years covered by the bipartisan budget accord. Once more, however, calculating the second decade's cost once the provisions have been fully phased in raises the annual revenue shortfall to $74 billion in 2017, Greenstein's group estimates. For the measure's second decade--from 2008 to 2017--it swells to $550 billion. Greenstein and Iris J. Lav, another researcher at the center, attribute the bulk of the explosion in 2004 and beyond to a handful of provisions that provide primarily benefit higher-income taxpayers: cuts in the taxes on capital gains, inheritance and individual retirement accounts. All three provisions ``make heavy use of gimmicks-- including delayed effective dates, slow phase-ins and timing shifts in revenue collections--to minimize the revenue losses [that] these tax cuts cause during the first five years,'' the two analysts argue. ``Their costs then begin to rise sharply, with the pace at which these costs increase accelerating in 2006 and 2007.'' The House provision to allow taxpayers to adjust their capital gains to eliminate the impact of inflation is particularly vulnerable to cost spiraling. Under the terms of the House bill, taxpayers would not actually begin using it to lower their taxes until 2004. Republicans are unapologetic about the apparent trends. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) told a news conference Friday that while Republicans deplore the possibility that the cost of the tax cut might explode, that is not the important point. While Lott said Republicans ``agreed we would not take actions'' that would cause fiscal distress beyond 2002, he added. ``The idea of having significant tax cuts for working Americans, I love it! '' But Reischauer and other critics are less sanguine. The nation already is facing a possible revival of large budget deficits when the baby boom generation reties, they say, and the prospect that policymakers will be able to cut spending then is dubious. Many budget analysts predict that the bipartisan accord Congress and Clinton reached this past spring already runs the risk that the budget balancing--if it actually does occur in 2002, as predicted--will be brief and that the deficit will begin widening again. ``With the vanguard of the baby boom generation having already reached age 50, the nation cannot afford to budget with this type of sleight of hand,'' Greenstein said. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. SARBANES. If the Senator will yield me just 2 minutes to respond to the point that was made.

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I sought the 2 minutes because I wanted to respond to the points made by the chairman of the Budget Committee. First of all, he said, if these senior citizens had difficulty with the copayment requirement, they could get Medicaid. That is true if they are at the poverty level or below-- approximately $9,000 of income or less. But you have a lot of people that are above the poverty level who cannot afford this, and who, without Federal assistance, will suffer these program reductions at the same time that those at the upper income level receive tax breaks. Second, we are told that the distribution tables show that these tax cuts are not going disproportionally to the upper end of the scale. Well, that is because of the backloading gimmicks that are in the tax bill. In fact, the capital gains and IRA proposals on which the distribution tables are based through the year 2002 show no net revenue loss--no net revenue loss--for that 5-year period of time, which is the sole subject of the distribution table. Yet, the combined revenue loss from those provisions for the period 2003 through 2007 is $51 billion. And that is never calculated in the distribution tables, let alone the cost of these tax breaks in the years after 2007, which, as I mentioned before could well be staggering and totally destructive of the deficit reduction effort. Moreover, as a consequence of such backloading, the upper income tax provisions account for a growing proportion of the tax package over time. In the year 2003, outside the scope of the distribution tables that the chairman was citing, they will account for 30 percent of the gross cost of the tax cuts. By 2007, the figure is 42 percent. And as you move out into the next decade, they very quickly eat up more than half of the tax breaks. Now, the way these cuts are structured makes the Joint Tax Committee analysis an inadequate indicator of the distribution effect of these tax cuts. Because of the way they are structured, with the backloading, a 5-year distribution table shows that they are not costing any revenue. But if you carry the cuts out beyond the 5-year period, they cost very significant revenue. And by the year 2010, it is estimated that a majority of the tax cuts in the package will be directed to the upper income sector of the population. Now, as I stated earlier, the fact that you are making those tax cuts requires you, since you are trying to reach a balanced budget, to make program cuts. So you have to look at the tax cuts reported by the committee and weigh them against the program cuts. Here you have home health care being cut, with 43 percent of the people who use home health care making under $10,000, and here you also have tax breaks given to people at the very top of the income scale. These are not the right priorities for the Nation.

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the ranking member for yielding me time.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, it is my distinct pleasure today to recognize the Commander of Ft. Ritchie, Lt. Col. James A. LaFleur, who will retire on Tuesday, June 24th, after 20 years of distinguished service for his country. A highly decorated soldier and respected leader, Lt. Col. LaFleur also has set standards in an area in which the Army does not give any awards, the Base Realignment and Closure process. With great diplomacy, sensitivity and vision, Lt. Col. LaFleur has presided over this very painful process at Ft. Ritchie, a place rich in history that has proved instrumental in the defense of the United States. Like my colleagues from Maryland and nearby Pennsylvania, I was very surprised and disappointed by the inclusion of Ft. Ritchie in the 1995 round of BRAC closings. The base has provided many good jobs for our constituents and we are all saddened by the Army's departure. Under Lt. Col. LaFleur's leadership, however, the BRAC process at Ft. Ritchie has progressed as smoothly as possible. His understanding of the connection between the base and the civilian community led him to work with Washington County, the surrounding areas, and the Local Redevelopment Authority to establish a partnership that has facilitated the transition for Ft. Ritchie's employees. He has reduced the closure time by 50 percent, at the same time that his obvious concern for the base's employees has boosted morale. Lt. Col. LaFleur's efforts in this regard have been recognized by BRAC-affected communities across the nation, as well as by the Army and the Department of Defense. The successful redevelopment process has culminated in the decision by the PenMar Development Corporation to turn Ft. Ritchie into a high- tech conference and training facility, where organizations like the International Masonry Institute will use Ft. Ritchie as an international training center, bringing at least 200 good jobs to Washington County. I.M.I. is even considering building a conference center at this bucolic mountain lake park. It is quite fitting that the man whose stewardship made much of this possible is the same man who will take the site into the 21st century. I was gratified to learn that, rather than leaving Ft. Ritchie, Lt. Col. LaFleur will dedicate himself to the success of the new PenMar Tech Park, serving as its deputy director. Thus, while the Army is losing an effective administrator and a courageous soldier, Washington County is retaining a respected friend committed to the welfare and economic success of the area. Lt. Col. James LaFleur began his military service in 1977 with the 4th Infantry Division at Ft. Carson, Colorado, where he was a platoon leader and battalion officer. Since then, he has served in countries across the globe, including both Iraq and Kuwait, during the Gulf War. For his distinguished service, he earned the Bronze Star Medal, Meritorious Service Medal with second oak leaf cluster, Joint Service Commendation Medal, Army Commendation Medal with fourth oak leaf cluster, Joint Meritorious Unit Award, National Defense Service Medal, Southwest Asia Service Medal, and Humanitarian Service Medal. Mr. President, Lt. Col. LaFleur's service in the field is matched only by his service to Washington County. His determination and spirit has turned a painful base-closing into an opportunity for economic development, all the while engendering a lasting friendship between Ft. Ritchie and the civilians who live and work in its shadow. ``Patriotism,'' said Adlai Stevenson, ``is not the short and frenzied outburst of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.'' Mr. President, Lt. Col. James A. LaFleur is a true patriot. I congratulate him on his distinguished military career, and look forward to his continued success as a leader in Washington County, Maryland.

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I send a modification of my amendment to the desk.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, is the Sarbanes amendment now pending?

Mr. SARBANES

Mr. SARBANES. They are operating on a deficit now. So if we forgive their debt to us, how does that give them money to pay our allies?

Mr. SARBANES. So these figures that are in the bill on page 180--$100 million, $475 million, and $244 million--are correct?

Mr. SARBANES. Well, how does that enable them to pay our allies?

Mr. SARBANES. The Senator said we would have----