April 2, 2001 Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have been reading the book by David Stockman, ``The Triumph of Politics.'' It is about what happened in the 1980s, when, through a series of disastrous fiscal miscalculations, we plunged this country into deep, deep debt. I was not here at the time, but in that book he outlines very clearly what happened when the President advocated a massive tax cut, combined with a big increase in defense spending, all under a rosy economic forecast. The results were a tripling and quadrupling of deficits, a quadrupling of debt. The same voices who were advocating then to give the President a chance are advocating to give this President a chance with the same kind of fiscal scheme. It is amazing how much credence a 10-year forecast has been given in this body, this notion that there is really going to be $5.6 trillion of surpluses over the next 10 years. It is almost mystical, the confidence people have in that kind of forecast. I used to be responsible for forecasting the revenue for my State. I had to do it for 30 months--not a 10-year forecast, a 2 1/2 year forecast. I can tell you, it is a crapshoot to forecast the revenue for 2 1/2 years, much less the revenue for the United States for 10 years. Let me say to my colleagues, if one assumption were changed in that forecast, $2.5 trillion of the $5.6 trillion would be right out the window. If the productivity gains assumed for the next 10 years were the same productivity increases we had in the United States between 1982 and 1995, that $5.6 trillion surplus would turn into a $3.2 trillion surplus--one estimate, one part of the projection, and 40 percent of the surplus goes right out the window. It is not wise to bet the farm on a 10-year forecast, a 10-year forecast made after 5 of the strongest economic years in the history of the United States, at a time a downturn has started. Sometimes one wonders if we have all gotten caught up in the giddiness of markets. We saw the NASDAQ go from 1,500 to 5,000 and fall back to 1,800. Isn't there a warning there someplace? Do we really believe that things that just go up, up, up, just keep going up, up, up? Is there no caution here? I believe we can all hope that things keep going up, up, up. I certainly do. That would be good for the economy, good for the country, and make our jobs a lot easier. But I do not think we ought to bet the farm on it. This whole thing about it is the people's money and we ought to give it back to the people--if you examine our proposal, we are giving as much back as they are. We are just doing it in a different way. We have a tax cut that is half as big as theirs. But we have another $800 billion that we are proposing to use for strengthening Social Security for the long term, to, for example, put in investment accounts for people that they could then match or they could add to, so we would increase the pool of savings and investments for our society so we would have a stronger economy in the years ahead. That money is going right to the American people just as would a tax cut, only it is for savings and investment. The differences between us are important differences, but it is not a question of we want to take the money and just spend it on Government programs and they want a tax cut. Those are not the choices. They are just not the choices. The choices are, No. 1, that we would take $800 billion and use it to strengthen Social Security for the long term by establishing something like the thrift savings plan accounts that every Federal employee has. That is not money that is going to be spent on Government programs. That is money that is going to be available for savings and investment by the American people. On top of that, we advocate another $750 billion of tax cuts. So if you compare their tax cut to our proposal of tax cuts and money that is available for individual accounts, to strengthen Social Security, and provide a pool of savings and investment for the strengthening of the economic future of America, we both have about the same amount of money going directly back to the American people. But in addition to that, we have reserved a lot more of this projected surplus for paying down the people's debt. Yes, it is the people's money, absolutely. It is also the people's debt. It is also the people's education and the people's defense, and the people's Social Security. This is not a question of spending versus tax cuts. I know the other side always loves to use that formulation. That is not our budget plan. Our budget plan is fundamentally a question of more debt reduction, both short term and long term, versus more for tax cuts. That is a fundamental choice before us. We believe, yes, there ought to be a significant tax cut, but we also believe we ought to use more of this projected surplus for paying down both short-term and long-term debt. We devote about twice as much as their budget resolution for those purposes. We think it is a better use of the people's money to dump the people's debt while we have this opportunity because it is a fleeting opportunity. In 11 years, those baby boomers start to retire, and then the obligations of the Federal Government are going to skyrocket. Those obligations are going to be the obligations of the American taxpayer. I hope very much that as we continue this debate, the choices will become clear. I will end as I began, by saying our budget plan seeks to put aside every penny of Social Security and Medicare trust funds, reserving it for those purposes, and then to have a significant tax cut, a tax cut of $900 billion, including interest, $900 billion for high-priority domestic needs such as improving education, a prescription drug benefit, strengthening our national defense, and then that final $900 billion, or roughly that, to strengthen Social Security for the long term--resources reserved so we can strengthen the Social Security system. Every single proposal that is serious about strengthening Social Security for the long term has a cost associated with it, has a need for resources. We provide them. They don't. That is a very fundamental difference between these plans. Again, I look forward to continuing this debate tomorrow and thank my colleagues and others who have been listening. I yield the floor.