May 23, 2001 Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we have just passed a massive tax cut bill. I opposed that legislation. I opposed it because I believe it is fiscally irresponsible. It is not just a conclusion that I reach, but the New York Times said that overall it amounts to another gross abdication of fiscal responsibility. I wish that were not the case. I wish we could have passed a tax cut that I could have supported. I proposed a tax cut of $900 billion in the context of a budget resolution that would have preserved every penny of the Social Security surplus for Social Security, every penny of the Medicare trust fund for Medicare, that would have taken the remainder and divided it in thirds: One-third for a tax cut; one-third for high-priority domestic needs, including a prescription drug benefit, money to strengthen our national defense, and resources to improve education. And even with that additional funding for domestic priorities, we would have continued to reduce the role of the Federal Government. This $900 billion plan was not a tax-and-spend proposal. It would have continued to take down the role of the Federal Government from 18 percent of our national income to 16.5 percent of our national income--the lowest level of Federal spending as a share of our national income since 1951. Then, with the final third, we would have used that money to strengthen Social Security for the future because we know it is not enough just to save the Social Security trust fund money for Social Security. We also need additional resources to strengthen Social Security for what is to come because every Member in this Chamber knows, when the baby boomers start to retire, the story changes from surpluses to deficits. One reason I believe this bill is fiscally irresponsible is that it is back-end loaded. It goes from a $1.35 trillion tax cut in this decade to a $4 trillion tax reduction in the second decade, right at the time the baby boomers begin to retire. I predict now that what we have put in place today will not stand. It will not stand because it is part of an overall budget approach that does not add up. It is going to have to be changed. I opposed this bill not only because it is fiscally irresponsible, but because it is fundamentally unfair. The top 1 percent of income earners in this country, people who, on average, earn $1.1 million a year, get 33 percent of the benefits. Contrast that with the bottom 60 percent of American taxpayers who get half as much. That does not strike me as fair. Additional evidence of unfairness is contained in what was done in the rate reductions that are part of this legislation. We have five income tax brackets in current law. This bill would reduce the rates for four of the five brackets. The one bracket that would get no rate relief is the bracket that applies to the vast majority of the American taxpayers. Seventy percent of the American taxpayers are in the 15-percent bracket, and they get no rate relief, none. I do not know how one justifies that. In addition to that--in addition to being fiscally irresponsible, in addition to being unfair--this bill flunks the test of stimulus. The senior Senator from Florida made the case, I think, very powerfully and very persuasively. We know the economy is weak now. We ought to provide fiscal stimulus now. Fiscal stimulus can be in the form of either tax reduction or expenditure. But what did we do? We have only $10 billion of fiscal stimulus in this year. In the Senate, we passed $85 billion of fiscal stimulus for this year. Somewhere the vast majority of it got left on the cutting room floor. It makes no economic sense. You provide fiscal stimulus when the economy is weak. And the economy is weak now. We ought to provide fiscal stimulus now. This bill does not do it. The final point I want to make is on the alternative minimum tax because currently only 1.5 million--actually somewhat less than 1.5 million--taxpayers are affected by the alternative minimum tax. That is something we passed years ago to make certain the super rich did not avoid taxes altogether. Now we are going to see, under this legislation, nearly 40 million people affected by the alternative minimum tax. As I have said before, boy, are these people in for a surprise. They thought they were getting a tax reduction, and they are going to wake up and find that not only do they not get a tax reduction, they are getting a tax increase. Under the bill passed today more than 1 in every 4 taxpayers in America are going to be swept up into the alternative minimum tax. This is not going to happen. It is not going to happen because it cannot happen, just like much of the rest of this bill is not going to happen. It is not going to happen because it is part of an overall budget that does not add up. That is the unfortunate reality of what has happened today. It is part of an overall budget plan that simply does not pass the fiscal responsibility test. I regret that. I think we could have passed responsible tax reduction, tax reduction that is fair, that is weighted more toward middle-income people in this country than toward the wealthiest among us. And I want to be quick to say, I have nothing against those with great wealth. That is a great opportunity that exists in America. That is part of what makes this country economically strong. But when we are taking the people's money, we have to make judgments about where it should go. I do not think it is fair to take the people's money and give a third of what is provided for in this tax cut to people who, on average, are earning $1.1 million a year. That is not fair. That is not right. I especially do not think it is fiscally responsible to put in place a tax cut of this magnitude in light of the obvious flaws in the budget that serves as a basis for it. That basis is a 10-year forecast, a 10-year projection that everybody in this Chamber knows is not going to come true. Even the people who made the forecast say it is not going to come true. They wrote an entire chapter in the book saying there is only a 10-percent chance it is going to come true; a 45-percent chance it is going to be less money. That forecast was written 10 weeks ago, and since then the economy has weakened. This is unwise. This is not the way we ought to do business. We ought not to lock in a 10-year plan based on a 10-year projection whose makers tell us is highly unlikely to occur. It makes no sense. This Congress meets every year. We should have passed a more modest tax cut and reserved more money for long-term and short-term debt reduction, so we could be certain we are keeping on course to reduce this national debt. Unfortunately, the gross national debt of the United States will not be reduced at the end of this 10-year period. It will not be. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the gross debt of the United States is going to be increased under this 10-year plan, from $5.6 trillion today to $6.7 trillion 10 years from now. That is an increase in the gross indebtedness of the United States. That is not the direction we should be taking. We ought to have embarked on a policy not only to pay down our short-term debt, the publicly held debt that is paid down under this scenario, but to pay down our long-term debt, our gross debt.