Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I have not seen the side by side. Could we do this, could we begin on these?

Mr. CONRAD. Then we will work diligently to come up with something that is acceptable.

Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 747

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. CONRAD. I yield the time in opposition to Senator Boxer.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, in the ongoing debate about the fiscal condition of the country, we have heard once again the finger pointed at President Obama. President Obama did not create this economic collapse. He has only been President about 3 months--less than 3 months. This is not his concoction, nor are the deficits and debt piled up by the previous administration his responsibility. President Obama inherited a colossal mess--a debt that was doubled during the previous administration, foreign holdings of U.S. debt that were tripled during the previous administration, and an economic collapse unparalleled since the Great Depression. In addition to that, he inherited two wars. President Obama is striving mightily to get us moving back in the right direction. His budget, especially the first 5 years of his budget, which emphasizes reducing our dependence on foreign energy, a focus on excellence in education, fundamental health care reform, all the while cutting the deficit by more than half and extending the middle-class tax cuts from 2001 and 2003, has exactly the right priorities for the country. When I hear criticism of President Obama, I must say it is badly misplaced. Our friends on the other side who complain about the fiscal condition of the United States should look in the mirror because they were there as silent sentinels when the previous administration stacked up this record debt, these record deficits, and plunged this country into a deep economic decline. That is their responsibility. President Obama is in on the cleanup crew, and a remarkable job he is doing. We now are prepared to enter into an order for the next several amendments: Senator Casey to be recognized for 10 minutes; then Senator Gregg or his designee for 1 minute; Senator Ensign for an amendment, 15 minutes on his side, 15 minutes for the chairman of the Budget Committee or his designee; then we will go to an amendment by Senator Kerry, who is seeking 15 minutes and will reserve just 1 minute in opposition or to comment. Is that OK with the Senator from New Hampshire?

Mr. CONRAD. I think we are prepared to move forward on those three at this point.

Mr. CONRAD. It will be our intention--we need to work out times and have a chance to look at the amendment--that Senator Gregg would go after that. Our intention is to have a tranche of votes at 2:30 this afternoon. So far, that would involve a vote on the Alexander amendment offered yesterday, the Lieberman-Collins amendment offered yesterday, the Sessions amendment offered yesterday, and then, of course, the pending amendments--Casey, Ensign, Kerry, a potential for Johanns, and a side-by-side from yesterday. We still have that to resolve. And potentially Senator Gregg as well. With that, Senator Casey is up.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, through the Chair to the distinguished Senator from Nevada, would he yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. CONRAD. Absolutely.

Mr. CONRAD. I apologize to the Senator. We thought we had entered a unanimous consent request. It was taken as more of a statement of times rather than a unanimous consent request. We need to get that fixed; otherwise, we could have a long delay here. Mr. President, I ask consent the Ensign amendment we are on now--I ask unanimous consent Senator Ensign have 15 minutes and it be 15 minutes for the chairman of the Budget Committee or his designee; then we would go to the Kerry amendment, 15 minutes for Senator Kerry, 5 minutes for time in opposition; then the Cornyn amendment, 15 minutes for Senator Cornyn, 15 minutes for the chairman of the committee or his designee; then the Lincoln amendment on National Guard, 10 minutes for Senator Lincoln and 5 minutes in opposition; then we would go to the Gregg amendment, 15 minutes for Senator Gregg and 15 minutes for the chairman of the committee or his designee. I ask unanimous consent that we agree to that order.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, if I could get the attention of my colleague, I would be willing to take the amendment on a voice vote-- oh, I am sorry. I have been advised that because of the way the amendment is structured, it gives specific instructions to the Finance Committee that we cannot do so in a budget resolution or the whole budget resolution is no longer privileged. We went through this last year, you may recall, with the Cornyn amendment. The same thing applies here. I will be required to raise the defense of germaneness against the amendment. Let me say this, I support the amendment. I think it is the right signal to send. But the Parliamentarian has advised us that if I do not raise the defense of germaneness against the amendment, then the entire privileged nature of the budget resolution is at risk. I hope the Senator understands. It has nothing to do with the message the Senator is trying to send. What it has to do with is, as I understand it, the specific instructions to the Finance Committee that are contained in this amendment. That is beyond the power of the Budget Committee. We don't have the authority to tell the committees of jurisdictions with specificity what they are to do with the allocations they are given. The power of the Budget Committee is to tell the committees what numbers they have to hit. We don't have the ability to tell them how to do it. It is just like appropriators. We tell them how much money they have to spend. We do not have the authority to tell them how to spend it. If I were able to make a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. CONRAD. Has the Parliamentarian had a chance to review the Ensign amendment?

Mr. CONRAD. Is this amendment defective in the way that I have described; that is, is it too prescriptive in terms of its language with respect to the Finance Committee and therefore would it put at risk the privileged status of the budget resolution itself?

Mr. CONRAD. Let me inquire further. If I fail to raise the defense of germaneness against this amendment, that would put the budget resolution's privileged status at risk?

Mr. CONRAD. So if I raise the defense of germaneness and I were to lose, that would put the privileged status of the budget resolution at risk?

Mr. CONRAD. Excuse me?

Mr. CONRAD. Well the problem is, if the Senator proceeds, I am required to raise the point of order. If I fail to do so, the entire privileged status of the budget resolution is at risk. If I raise it and I lose, the privileged status of the budget resolution is at risk. This, in effect--I do not think this is the Senator's intention, to threaten the entire budget resolution.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, further parliamentary inquiry: So let's review because at least this Senator is getting a mixed message. Let's revisit this. If I fail to raise a point of order against the Ensign amendment, that threatens the privileged status of the resolution; is that correct?

Mr. CONRAD. So let's revisit this once again. If I did not raise the point of order, in fact, supported the Ensign amendment, and it passed, as long as it did not come back from conference committee, the privileged status of the budget resolution would be preserved?

Mr. CONRAD. All right. I think it is clear to all of us. I hope that is clear. Let me make one further parliamentary inquiry because I wish to make certain: If I fail to raise the point of order at this point against Senator Ensign's amendment, that has a corrosive effect, potentially corrosive effect, but it is not fatal?

Mr. CONRAD. It would only be fatal if it came back from conference committee?

Mr. CONRAD. I wish to indicate it would be my intention to support the Ensign amendment. We will have a vote later on it. I would not oppose it. But I wish to make clear to my colleagues this exchange. Senator Ensign needs to know, I cannot bring this amendment back from conference because that would be fatal to the privileged status of the budget resolution. The Senator needs to offer this amendment knowing that full well. I also wish to say to others who might have similarly crafted amendments, and I would ask the Parliamentarian at this time: If there were a series of amendments such as this one that were adopted here but did come back from the conference committee, would just the fact that a series of amendments such as this were adopted be potentially fatal to the privileged status of the budget resolution, even if they did not come back from conference committee?

Mr. CONRAD. It is not theoretical in the sense that we have another amendment coming very soon after this one that is the same. The Cornyn amendment, as I understand, has exactly the same flaw. So we are going to have to go through this exercise again.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, what is very clear is it is fatal to the privileged status of the budget resolution. Requiring 60 votes on a budget resolution, that is fatal. Let's be clear. We all know what this means. I would ask to make a further parliamentary inquiry: Does it make a difference whether I offer the point of order against the Ensign amendment to the risk of the budget resolution, even if it does not come back in conference? Am I clear? Let me restate this. If the Ensign amendment does not come back from conference committee, does the fact that I raise a point of order make a difference?