Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, section 311(a) of S. Con. Res. 13, the 2010 budget resolution, permits the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to adjust the allocations of a committee or committees, the aggregates, and other appropriate levels in the resolution for legislation that authorizes the Food and Drug Administration to regulate products and assess user fees on manufacturers and importers of those products to cover the cost of the regulatory activities. Additionally, section 307 of S. Con. Res. 13 permits the chairman to adjust the allocations of a committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in the resolution for legislation that, among other things, reduces or eliminates the offset between the survivor benefit plan annuities and veterans' dependency and indemnity compensation. The adjustments under both reserve funds are contingent on the legislation not increasing the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 2014 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2009 through 2019. I find that the amendment in the nature of a complete substitute to H.R. 1256, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, contains language that fulfills the conditions of the deficit-neutral reserve funds for the Food and Drug Administration and America's veterans and wounded servicemembers. Therefore, pursuant to sections 311(a) and 307, I am adjusting the aggregates in the 2010 budget resolution, as well as the allocation to the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. I ask unanimous consent that the following revisions to S. Con. Res. 13 be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, section 401(c)(5) of S. Con. Res. 13, the 2010 budget resolution, permits the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to adjust the section 401(b) discretionary spending limits, budgetary aggregates, and allocations pursuant to section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for the aggregate difference for discretionary appropriations in 2010 and related outlays between the Congressional Budget Office's reestimate of the President's budget and the Office of Management and Budget's original estimate of such policies. On May 29, the Congressional Budget Office released its reestimate of the President's request for discretionary appropriations. Based on that reestimate, I am revising both the discretionary spending limits and the allocation to the Senate Committee on Appropriations for discretionary budget authority and outlays. As specified by section 401(c)(5), the adjustment reflects the aggregate difference in budget authority in 2010 between the CBO reestimate and the original OMB estimate of the President's request for discretionary spending, as well as the related outlays. For 2010, I am revising the amount of budget authority by $3.766 billion and the amount of outlays by $2.355 billion. In addition, I am similarly adjusting the budgetary aggregates consistent with section 401(c)(5) of S. Con. Res. 13. In addition to the 2010 adjustments in budget authority and outlays, I am adjusting outlays in fiscal years 2011 through 2014 to reflect further changes in outlays that result from the adjustment in budget authority in 2010. I ask unanimous consent that the following revisions to S. Con. Res. 13 be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, section 401(c)(4) of S. Con. Res. 13, the 2010 budget resolution, permits the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to adjust the section 401(b) discretionary spending limits, allocations pursuant to section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and aggregates for legislation making appropriations for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 for overseas deployments and other activities by the amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes and so designated pursuant to section 401(c)(4). The adjustment is limited to the total amount of budget authority specified in section 104(21) of S. Con. Res. 13. For 2009, that limitation is $90.745 billion, and for 2010, it is $130 billion. On May 14, 2009, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 1054, a bill making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes. The reported bill will be offered as a complete substitute to H.R. 2346, a bill making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes. I find that the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 2346 fulfills the conditions of section 401(c)(4). As a result, for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, I am revising both the discretionary spending limits and the allocation to the Senate Committee on Appropriations for discretionary budget authority and outlays. For 2009, the total amount of the adjustment is $88.290 billion in discretionary budget authority and $26.353 billion in outlays. For 2010, the total amount of the adjustment is $5 billion in discretionary budget authority and $34.753 billion in outlays. I am also adjusting the aggregates consistent with section 401(c)(4) of S. Con. Res. 13 to reconcile the Congressional Budget Office's score of S. 1054 with the amounts that were assumed in section 104(21) of S. Con. Res. 13 for the 2009 supplemental appropriation bill. I ask unanimous consent that the following revisions to S. Con. Res. 13 be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, section 401(c)(4) of S. Con. Res. 13, the 2010 budget resolution, permits the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to adjust the section 401(b) discretionary spending limits, allocations pursuant to section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and aggregates for legislation making appropriations for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 for overseas deployments and other activities by the amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes and so designated pursuant to section 401(c)(4). The adjustment is limited to the total amount of budget authority specified in section 104(21) of S. Con. Res. 13. For 2009, that limitation is $90.745 billion, and for 2010, it is $130 billion. I have already made on adjustment pursuant to section 401(c)(4) for the bill reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes. The reported legislation was offered as a complete substitute to H.R. 2346, a bill making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes. I now file further changes to S. Con. Res. 13 pursuant to section 401(c)(4) for an amendment offered under the authority of the Senate Committee on Appropriations. I find this amendment satisfies the conditions of section 401(c)(4). As a result, for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, I am further revising both the discretionary spending limits and the allocation to the Senate Committee on Appropriations for discretionary budget authority and outlays. For 2009, the total amount of the adjustment is $925 million in discretionary budget authority and $34 million in outlays. For 2010, the total amount of the adjustment is $661 million in outlays. With the further adjustment in budget authority in 2009, the Senate will have used $89.215 billion of the $90.745 billion permitted in adjustments under section 401(c)(4). Finally, I am also further adjusting the aggregates consistent with section 401(c)(4) of S. Con. Res. 13 and to reflect the changes made by this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the following revisions to S. Con. Res. 13 be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would extend reasonable measures to protect access to long-term care hospitals, while ensuring that these institutions are admitting the appropriate type of patients. I am pleased to be introducing the bill along with my colleague, Senator Hatch, and I urge my colleagues to consider cosponsoring this cost-saving proposal. Long Term Acute Care hospitals, or LTAC hospitals, serve a vital role in the Medicare program by providing care to beneficiaries with clinically complex conditions that need hospital care for extended periods of time. I am happy to have two of these hospitals in North Dakota, one in Fargo and one in Mandan. They are a vital part of the North Dakota continuum of care. While these hospitals provide important health services to very frail individuals, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, became concerned with the rapid growth in these facilities, and as a result began to arbitrarily cut LTAC hospital payments across-the- board. The Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007, MMSEA, enacted important changes that included the development of much-needed patient and facility certification criteria to assure that the right patient is seen in the right post-acute care setting. This law issued a moratorium on new facilities and expansions of older facilities and provided regulatory relief to protect patient access to LTAC hospitals while patient criteria are being developed. The legislation I am introducing today would extend these provisions by two years to provide stability to these hospitals and the patients they serve as CMS considers payment bundles and other changes in post-acute care. As Chairman of the Budget Committee, I have a unique appreciation for the enormous fiscal challenges that face our country and respect CMS's efforts to reduce growth in Medicare. We should address the growth in LTAC hospitals, but we also want to ensure that there is a place for patients who truly need long-term hospital stays. It was not easy for the LTAC hospitals in North Dakota and across the country to support legislation that restricts their payments, but I compliment them for working with me to put forward a constructive public policy proposal. Long-term care hospitals serve a vital role in our health care system, and we must protect access to these facilities for those who truly need it. But we can also take responsible steps to ensure that our federal tax dollars are well spent and directed to the most appropriate level of care. I believe my legislation achieves this balance and urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that would extend reasonable measures to protect access to long-term care hospitals, while ensuring that these institutions are admitting the appropriate type of patients. I am pleased to be introducing the bill along with my colleague, Senator Hatch, and I urge my colleagues to consider cosponsoring this cost-saving proposal. Long Term Acute Care hospitals, or LTAC hospitals, serve a vital role in the Medicare program by providing care to beneficiaries with clinically complex conditions that need hospital care for extended periods of time. I am happy to have two of these hospitals in North Dakota, one in Fargo and one in Mandan. They are a vital part of the North Dakota continuum of care. While these hospitals provide important health services to very frail individuals, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, became concerned with the rapid growth in these facilities, and as a result began to arbitrarily cut LTAC hospital payments across-the- board. The Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007, MMSEA, enacted important changes that included the development of much-needed patient and facility certification criteria to assure that the right patient is seen in the right post-acute care setting. This law issued a moratorium on new facilities and expansions of older facilities and provided regulatory relief to protect patient access to LTAC hospitals while patient criteria are being developed. The legislation I am introducing today would extend these provisions by two years to provide stability to these hospitals and the patients they serve as CMS considers payment bundles and other changes in post-acute care. As Chairman of the Budget Committee, I have a unique appreciation for the enormous fiscal challenges that face our country and respect CMS's efforts to reduce growth in Medicare. We should address the growth in LTAC hospitals, but we also want to ensure that there is a place for patients who truly need long-term hospital stays. It was not easy for the LTAC hospitals in North Dakota and across the country to support legislation that restricts their payments, but I compliment them for working with me to put forward a constructive public policy proposal. Long-term care hospitals serve a vital role in our health care system, and we must protect access to these facilities for those who truly need it. But we can also take responsible steps to ensure that our federal tax dollars are well spent and directed to the most appropriate level of care. I believe my legislation achieves this balance and urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I also want to recognize the excellent first speech that the Senator from Colorado just gave. I had a chance to hear part of it on the Senate floor and part of it in the cloakroom. We welcome him. If his first speech is any measure, he is going to make a significant contribution. So we are delighted to have somebody of his thoughtfulness and quality as part of this body. Mr. President, the Senate now begins consideration of the conference agreement on the budget for 2010. I think we have to see this budget in its context. We have to understand what this administration has inherited from the previous administration. To be clear, it is a colossal mess--the worst recession since the Great Depression, a doubling of debt under the previous administration, and a more than tripling of foreign holdings of U.S. debt. I try to suppress partisanship in my discussions on the Senate floor, but it is impossible to overlook the record of the previous administration. They have slammed this economy into the ditch. President Obama is put in the position of the cleanup crew. It is not pretty or easy, and it is going to be a difficult challenge for this country to come out of a policy stew that is impossible to choke down. Let me be clear in my own view of how we got here. I believe we had an overly loose monetary policy under the control of the Federal Reserve ever since 9/11, an overly loose fiscal policy under the control of the White House and the Congress, record deficits, a massive buildup of debt--when the economy was relatively strong and right before the baby boom generation started to retire. That is remarkable. If you look back into history, it is rare to have at the same time an overly loose monetary policy, low interest rates, Congress and the White House running an overly loose fiscal policy with record deficits, even at a time of relative economic strength; on top of that, a dysfunctional trade policy with record trade deficits, which meant we were shipping hundreds of billions of dollars to other countries to buy their goods, over and above what we were producing, and a deregulatory environment administratively and in terms of the laws of this country that allowed things like the AIG derivative fiasco to develop completely without oversight. Those elements created the seedbed for bubbles to form. So we didn't just get a housing bubble, we got a commodity bubble--wheat prices went to nearly $20 a bushel; we got an energy bubble, with oil prices up to $145 a barrel. So if one looks at this historically, we see the formation of these bubbles, and bubbles ultimately burst and create enormous economic wreckage. That is what has occurred here. All of this was under the direction, fundamentally, of the Bush administration. This was their policy that was pursued for 8 years. Our friends on the other side controlled the House and Senate for 6 of those 8 years. They put into place the policies that have been the guiding principles of policy for this country for the last 8 years. As a result, we saw a very dramatic deterioration in the budget picture under the Bush administration. They went from inheriting surpluses to putting us into record deficits. For 2009, there is a deficit of $1.7 trillion. In fairness to them, they are not responsible for that whole amount because part of it is the stimulus package that was enacted. Clearly, they are responsible for at least $1.3 trillion of the $1.7 trillion of deficit in 2009. This is the record on deficit and of debt by the previous administration. After their first year in office, the debt was $5.8 trillion. We typically do not hold administrations responsible for their first year because they are working off the plan of the previous administration. If you look at the 8 years they are responsible for, the debt went from $5.8 trillion to over $12 trillion. Mr. President, that is not the only part of this that is important to keep in mind. It took 42 Presidents 224 years to build up $1 trillion of foreign debt held by foreign entities. The previous administration tripled that. They ran up another $2.5 trillion of U.S. debt held abroad. Some say it is a sign of strength that people are willing to lend us all this money. I personally don't think it is a sign of strength. I think it is a sign of vulnerability that we are running record trade deficits, meaning record borrowing, much of that borrowing done abroad. Last year, of the debt we had to finance, 68 percent of it was financed by foreign entities. Mr. President, this President walked into a truly astounding set of circumstances. Here is what they are: Record deficits, doubling of the national debt under the previous administration, the worst recession since the Great Depression, and financial market and housing crises. Everywhere you look, this President inherited a crisis--in housing, in the financial sector, and in the fiscal sector. Also, 3.7 million jobs have been lost in the last 6 months, and we have ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. So what do we do about it? The budget is a document that outlines the fundamental priorities of the country. In this conference agreement, we have attempted to preserve the President's priorities of reducing our dependence on foreign energy-- critically important to our economic future--a focus on excellence in education, and fundamental health care reform. If we look ahead to the fiscal future of America, no single thing is more important than reforming the health care system. Already, we are spending nearly 18 percent of our gross domestic product on health care. That is $1 of every $6 in this economy going to health care. We are on a trajectory to have 37 percent of our gross domestic product going to health care. That would be more than $1 in every $3 in our economy going to health care. Clearly, that is unsustainable. At the current rate of nearly 18 percent of our GDP going to health care, we are spending twice as much as any other industrialized country. We are on an unsustainable course, and the President says we have to alter that, we have to expand health care coverage so that everybody is included so we can then institute the kind of cost controls that will be necessary. I know it is counterintuitive to think: How can it be that we are going to reduce costs if we are expanding coverage? The thing we know in our current system is that people without coverage still get health care, but they are getting it in the most expensive setting: they are getting it in the emergency rooms of our hospitals all across the country. We would be much better off having them have coverage and having them in a system that is a wellness system, one that is designed to keep people from getting ill and, if they become ill, managing their illness in a way that prevents the most costly of outcomes. This conference report also provides $764 billion in tax cuts focused on the middle class. I know there has been a lot of talk in the press about some tax increases, and indeed there are. For those of us who are fortunate enough to make more than a quarter of a million dollars a year, we will be expected to pay somewhat more--not a lot more but a little bit more. If we are going to get our fiscal house in order, those of us who are most fortunate are going to have to pay a little bit more. But on a net basis, when you add in the tax increases asked for from those who are the most fortunate, with all of the other tax changes, the overall effect is to reduce taxes from current law by $764 billion over the next 5 years, and those tax reductions are focused on the middle class. We also cut the deficit in half by 2012 and by two-thirds by 2014. We get it down to 3 percent of gross domestic product by 2014. Most of the economists say that is the key metric because at 3 percent of GDP, growth of the debt relative to our national income is stabilized. We keep the debt from growing the way it has been. The discretionary spending level in this conference report is $10 billion below the President's proposal. We have cut his spending plan by $10 billion. In addition, there are reconciliation instructions for health care and education. They require at least $2 billion in deficit reduction. I personally believe reconciliation, which is a special process here, a fast-track process, will not be used for health care because as people get into it, I think they will find it is a very difficult way to write major, substantive legislation. My own prediction is that reconciliation will not be used for health care. The committees of jurisdiction have until October 15 to report legislation in the regular order of business using the regular procedure. I have talked with the chairman of the committee that has most of the responsibility for health care, and, of course, that is the Finance Committee. Senator Baucus says it is his full intention to proceed under the regular order, not using the reconciliation instruction. But it is there as an insurance policy. We also have the alternative minimum tax fix for 3 years, so we will not see a big increase in the number of people affected by the alternative minimum tax. There are some 3 million or 4 million people now paying. If we did not take these steps, 24 million people would be expected to pay the alternative minimum tax. Nobody wants to see that happen. So we have a fix for the next 3 years. We also have disaster relief for the next 2 years. We call it a placeholder because it is an estimate of what disaster relief will cost for the next 2 years based on looking back over the last 5 years and doing an average. This is a break from how we have typically dealt with disaster funding. Typically, we have done it through emergency designations. The President thought: Look, we know we are going to have disasters. Why don't we budget for them? It is a worthy experiment, and we will see how it works. Even though none of us can predict what disasters might occur, we know the strong likelihood is that there will be disasters. Certainly, my state has experienced them. We have had flooding all across the State of North Dakota from one end to the other. I have been home three times in the last several weeks going from town to town all across North Dakota, from the Red River Valley in the east, to the Souris Valley in the central part of the state, the James, the Cheyenne--all of them, are experiencing flooding that is unlike anything we have ever seen in recorded history. We know there are disasters. There are going to be costs. In my state, hundreds of millions of dollars have already been experienced in terms of losses, roads, bridges devastated. We have even had dams significantly eroded by these weather events. We know there are costs associated with it, and we have tried to anticipate them in this budget. Most important, this budget coming from the conference committee focuses on three key priorities: reducing our dependence on foreign energy, putting a focus on excellence in education, and fundamental health care reform. First, with respect to energy, it reduces our dependence on foreign energy, creates green jobs, helps protect the environment, and helps with high home energy costs. It does that in three ways. One, it creates a reserve fund to accommodate legislation to invest in clean energy and address global climate change. Second, it provides $500 million above the President's level of discretionary funding for energy for fiscal year 2010. Third, it builds on the economic recovery package investments in renewable energy, efficiency and conservation, low carbon coal technology, and modernizing the electric grid. By the way, modernizing the electric grid presents this country with an amazing opportunity to have a leap forward because we are really dealing almost in the horse-and-buggy era with the grid that we have that is not permitting us to shift power from places we can produce it--clean, green power--to places that need it. In addition, we have in this budget coming back from the conference a focus on excellence in education. We generate economic growth and jobs. We prepare the workforce to compete in this global economy. We make college more affordable. We attempt to improve student achievement, which is at the heart of what education is all about. We do it again in three ways: by providing a higher education reserve fund to facilitate the President's student aid increases; we provide for education tax cuts to make it more affordable for our young people to go to college and other institutions of higher learning; and we provide the President's requested level of $5,550 for Pell grants and fully fund his education priorities, such as early childhood education. The third key priority is fundamental health care reform, and that is accommodated in the conference report. We attempt to bend the health care cost curve to get costs under control, to improve health care outcomes for our nation's people, to expand coverage because we have more than 40 million people now without any health care insurance. We increase research, especially devoted to those areas of highest opportunity to make meaningful progress, and we promote food and drug safety. Again, we do that in three ways with a reserve fund to accommodate the President's initiative to reform the health care system; by funding for at least 2 years a reserve fund that further addresses Medicare physician payments; and continues investment in key health care programs, such as the NIH and the FDA. I want to at this moment indicate that one of the key staff persons on our Budget Committee is himself in the hospital. Joel Friedman, who is the deputy staff director for the Budget Committee, a remarkable person, truly gifted, somebody who has the respect of people on both sides of the aisle, is in the hospital. Our thoughts and prayers are with Joel and his family. I don't know if he is able to watch this. Last week, he was not able to because he did not have C-SPAN in his room. But I want him and his family to know that the entire Budget Committee family--and that goes for Republicans and Democrats--is thinking of him and hoping for his swift recovery. While we have focused on these key priorities of the President-- excellence in education, reducing our dependence on foreign energy, health care reform--we are doing it all in the context of dramatically reducing the deficit. In fact, we cut the deficit by two-thirds by 2014. As measured by the gross domestic product, which economists say is the best measure, we do even better than that, as measured by share of the gross domestic product, we are reducing the deficit by 75 percent, by three-quarters, from 12 percent of GDP in this year to 3 percent of GDP in 2014. Again, that metric of 3 percent of GDP in 2014 is especially important because economists tell us that at that rate, we have about stabilized the growth of the debt. In other words, the debt will not continue to grow faster than our national income if we can continue deficits of 3 percent of GDP. My own view is we should do even better than that. Certainly, in the second 5 years, I think it is incredibly important that we do better than that given the fact the baby boom generation will be retiring. In terms of the revenue changes in the budget resolution, I indicated earlier that if you look at total tax changes in the budget resolution--and this is CBO scoring, this is not my invention--the taxes are cut by $764 billion over the 5 years, and here is where: middle-class tax relief, $512 billion. That includes the 10-percent bracket, the marriage penalty relief, the child tax credit, education incentives, and all of the other 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that affect those earning less than $250,000 a year. All of those tax cuts are extended for the entire 5 years. In addition, we have provided for alternative minimum tax relief for 3 years at a cost of $214 billion. We have provided for estate tax reform at a cost of $72 billion that will permit couples to avoid any estate tax if they have estates of $7 million or less. Let me say that excludes 99.8 percent of estates. Mr. President, 99.8 percent of estates will pay nothing--zero--under the budget proposal. In addition, we provide $63 billion for the so-called tax extenders. Tax extenders are items such as the research and development tax credit. Those have to be extended every year or every other year, depending on which one we are talking about, and we provide for those as well. Those tax cuts that amount to $861 billion are offset by loophole closers of $97 billion. And what we are focused on here is the offshore tax havens; the abusive tax shelters. We now know, from the Permanent Committee on Investigations, that we are losing over $100 billion a year to these offshore tax havens; billions of dollars more to abusive tax shelters. I have shown on the floor of the Senate many times pictures of European sewer systems, and people have asked me: What has that got to do with the budget of the United States? Well, it turns out it increasingly has something to do with the budget of the United States because we have the spectacle of wealthy investors here and companies here buying European sewer systems--not because they are in the sewer business but because they want to depreciate those assets on their books for U.S. tax purposes-- and they turn around and lease the sewer systems back to the European cities that built them in the first place. I picked out sewer systems, because that is most graphic, but it doesn't end there. We actually have companies buying city halls in Europe and depreciating on their books for U.S. tax purposes here leasing those city halls back to the European cities that built them in the first place. Some say if you go after that kind of scam, you are increasing somebody's taxes. Well, I suppose in some sense you are. But you know what. Shame on the people who are doing it. The vast majority of us pay what we owe. But unfortunately, we have an increasing group of companies and individuals who are dodging what they legitimately owe here and they are doing it in these offshore tax havens. I have shown on many occasions a picture of this little five-story building in the Cayman Islands that claims to be the home to 14,000 companies--14,000 companies. They say they are all doing business out of this little five-story building in the Cayman Islands. They are not doing any business out of there. They are doing monkey business. And the monkey business they are doing is to avoid their taxes in the United States. Shame on us if we don't close that down. Some say: Well, this is a big spending budget--big spending. Really? That can only be the statement of people who haven't read this budget, because this budget takes domestic discretionary spending as a percentage of our gross domestic product from 4.4 percent in 2010 to 3.4 percent in 2014. So as a share of our national income, domestic discretionary spending is going down. Facts are stubborn things. Over the life of this budget, non-defense discretionary spending in dollar terms--in dollar terms--is being increased 2.9 percent a year. That is below the rate of growth of our national income. That is why, as a share of our economy, domestic discretionary spending is going down, not up. So when you hear claims this is a big spending budget, it is not this budget. They may be talking about some other budget, but the budget before us is the budget reported by the conference committee, and that budget is tough on spending, it is tough on deficits, it is tough on getting our country back on a more sustainable course. We have a series of budget enforcement tools in this budget resolution that I am particularly proud of: discretionary caps for 2009 and 2010. We maintain a strong pay-go rule. We have a point of order against long-term deficit increases; a point of order against short- term deficit increases. We allow reconciliation for deficit reduction only. And we provide a point of order against mandatory spending on an appropriations bill. This last one I want to emphasize I think is especially important. Because what we have found is our friends on the Appropriations Committee have found a new way around the rules here and they have started to put mandatory spending on discretionary spending bills. Let me be clear. Mandatory spending is for things such as Medicare, for Social Security. If you are eligible, if you qualify, you get your benefits. So that is called mandatory spending, and that is most of the spending of the Federal Government. Most of the spending is now mandatory spending. Medicare and Social Security are the biggest ones. We also have certain veterans benefits, which is mandatory spending for some of it, much of it discretionary. Discretionary means under the discretion of the appropriations process each year. That is why it is discretionary. And discretionary spending, as I have indicated, is going down under this budget as a share of our gross domestic product. But we don't want mandatory spending to be increased in discretionary spending bills, and that started to happen a couple of years ago and we put this point of order in place to provide a barrier, a hurdle, against that bad practice. We also have in this budget resolution provisions addressing our long-term fiscal challenges. I think everybody understands that health care is the 800-pound gorilla. Health care in our Federal accounts-- Medicare, Federal share of Medicaid, and other aspects of health care spending--is where we see spending of the Federal Government soaring and continuing to grow out of control. So there is the health care reform reserve fund that I previously described that is critically important to getting our fiscal future back in line. We also provide program integrity initiatives to crack down on waste, fraud, and abuse in Social Security and Medicare. This is especially prevalent in Medicare. The previous Secretary--Secretary Leavitt--whom I had high regard for, came to see me one day. He had with him information about scams that were being conducted across the country to defraud Medicare, and he had pictures of phony operations in Florida that were in shopping malls where they had individual storefronts set up that were supposedly providing Medicare services, each of them billing $500,000 to $1 million a year in so-called services to Medicare-eligible patients. When they pierced the veil, what they found was they weren't providing any services, they were just doing the billing. They were billing but they weren't providing any services. It was a complete scam. And there were dozens of them--dozens of these storefront operations. The Secretary himself went to some of them in the middle of the day and they were closed. They were closed for the public, but they were open for scam. We have provided funds to go after those kinds of fraudulent operations. We have also provided a long-term deficit increase point of order to try to prevent any action by the Congress to increase the long-term deficit without facing a supermajority point of order hurdle. Let me close on this quote by President Obama, because it is something I agree with very much. While I believe this budget has made good progress at getting our fiscal house back in order for the next 5 years, we have to do much more--much, much more. President Obama said this at the Fiscal Responsibility Summit he hosted at the White House at the end of February: Now, I want to be very clear. While we are making important progress towards fiscal responsibility this year, in this budget, this is just the beginning. In the coming years, we'll be forced to make more tough choices, and do much more to address our long-term challenges. That is true. We have got much more work to be done, especially in the second 5 years. This is a 5-year budget, because of the 34 budgets written by the Congress, 30 of the 34 have been 5-year budgets. The President sent us a 10-year budget. Some have asked why we didn't do a 10-year budget. Very simply, because Congress almost always has done 5- year budgets because we know that the projections for the second 5 years are highly unreliable--highly unreliable. Frankly, a forecast for 5 years is a bit of a crap-shoot. I used to have the responsibility of forecasting the revenue for my State. I had to do it for 3 years. I know how difficult it was to do that for 3 years. Five years is extraordinarily difficult, especially at a time like this of dramatic economic changes and a very steep downdraft. The reality is that 10-year forecasts have very little reliability. So we have done a 5-year budget here. That, as I say, has been done 30 of the 34 times Congress has written a budget under the Budget Act. Thirty of the 34 times, it has been a 5-year budget. I say to my colleagues, I believe this budget is part of economic recovery. We are facing very tough winds. We are facing a very tough economic environment--the steepest downturn since the Great Depression--and we are going to have to be aggressive in terms of preventing a deflationary spiral that could suck this economy down. We saw it in the Great Depression--a failure of Government to act effectively until tremendous damage had been done: the unemployment rate rose to 25 percent, the stock market fell by nearly 90 percent. We had a circumstance in which 25 percent of the people--more than 25 percent of the people--were unemployed, with staggering devastation to the strength of America. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Bernanke, has made it his life's work to study how to avoid another Great Depression. In his analysis, and others like it--as historians look back--the conclusion is there was a failure of the Government to act proactively. It waited too long. It believed the markets would correct themselves. It believed that somehow everything would work out without intervention. That proved to be a fatal mistake. All of the elements of the Federal response have taken a different direction in this downturn, and it started with the previous administration, to their credit. The Federal Reserve has done a great deal to provide liquidity in this economy. Instead of pulling back, it has extended credit. The Federal Government, instead of pulling back in order to balance our budget in the short term, has put forward hundreds of billions of dollars in a stimulus package to provide an increase in aggregate demand to provide stimulation to the economy, to provide liquidity. Without it, I believe the collapse would be far steeper, far more serious, and far more threatening. And remember, what we are faced with is not just a national crisis, it is a global crisis, with global economic activity falling very dramatically all around the world. The response of almost every industrialized country has been like ours, to provide liquidity, to provide stimulus. China has a major stimulus program, Japan, and Europe; virtually all the countries of Europe. Russia has announced a major stimulus plan. I believe those are the right policy responses, however imperfect-- and imperfect they are, the specific packages that have been developed. I myself thought we could have done much better in our stimulus package. I would have liked to have seen much more funding for infrastructure. I wanted much more funding for infrastructure because I personally believe that is a place where you get a two-fer: You get a lift for the economy and you also get an investment that strengthens our economic competitive position for the future. But look, there was a substantial infrastructure component. I would have liked to have seen it be far bigger and more robust, but nonetheless, we are moving in the right direction. This budget moves in the right direction. It is a contribution to economic recovery. It does preserve the President's key priorities of reducing our dependence on foreign energy, which must be done. It focuses on excellence in education, because if we are not the best educated, we are not going to be the strongest country in the world for very long. And it provides for fundamental health care reform--because that is the 800-pound gorilla that could swamp the fiscal boat of the United States, not to mention the boats of every American family and American companies that absolutely need cost containment--at the same time improving health care outcomes for the American people. Finally, yes, dramatically reducing the deficit, reducing it by two- thirds in dollar terms, by three-quarters as a share of the gross domestic product of the United States over the next 5 years. This is not a perfect document. If I were able to write it just by myself I think I could have improved it. I think every Member here believes that; that if they were able to write this document it would be a better document. That is not our option. We have a Senate, we have a House of Representatives, we have a President. This is the work of all three entities: The President of the United States, the Senate of the United States, the House of Representatives. I believe we have produced an important step in economic recovery. I urge my colleagues to support the conference report. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. How much time would the Senator like?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Colorado as in morning business.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, answering through the Chair, that was in the President's budget. We did not provide for that in this conference report. What we did provide for is a deficit-neutral reserve fund. We did not specify an amount that would be necessary for health care because we do not know whether the right number is $200 billion, $400 billion or $600 billion, as the Senator referenced. What we do say is whatever that number is, it has to be dealt with in a deficit-neutral way. It has to be paid for.

Mr. CONRAD. The Senator is correct.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Maryland, Mr. Cardin, who is a very important member of the Budget Committee. We were very lucky to have Senator Cardin join the Budget Committee when he became a Member of the Senate, having come from the House where he served on the Ways and Means Committee. If you look at Senator Cardin's career, it is a career of leadership, being elected at a young age in Maryland, rising to the most powerful position in the Maryland legislature, coming to the House of Representatives, and now to the Senate. We are very fortunate to have his background, his knowledge, and his skills helping us form a budget resolution for the country. I am indebted to him and I appreciate very much his wise counsel. I ask unanimous consent that all quorum calls be charged equally to both sides for the duration of the debate on the conference report accompanying the concurrent resolution on the budget.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I found the presentation of my colleague, for whom I have great respect--but on this presentation I found it highly entertaining, and it bears almost no relationship to the document that is at the desk. It is very interesting, if you read the charts that the Senator presented, they all relate to the President's budget. You notice they don't relate to the budget that is before us. The fact is that we made significant changes in the President's budget, because after the President presented his budget, we learned in the Congressional Budget forecast that we were losing $2 trillion of revenue because of the economic slowdown over the next 10 years. So we made a series of very significant adjustments to respond to that reality. In fact, over 5 years alone, we changed the Obama budget by $555 billion. Not one dime of that was reflected in the Senator's charts. They say if you are a lawyer and if you have the facts, argue the facts; if you have the law, argue the law; if you have neither, attack your opponent. That is what we have heard. They don't have the facts, they don't have the law, and they certainly are not talking about the legislation before us; so they launched an ad hominem attack. Let me go back to the facts, because they are stubborn things. On spending, let's be clear. This budget takes domestic discretionary spending, as a percentage of GDP, from 4.4 percent in 2010 to 3.4 percent in 2014. That is not a big spending budget; that is a tough budget that reduces the share of our national economy going to Federal domestic discretionary spending. On nondefense discretionary spending, in dollar terms, over the 5 years of the budget, the spending is increased, on average, by 2.9 percent a year. That is less than the growth in national income. That is why the share of domestic discretionary spending as a part of our economy is going down under this budget. The Senator said that somehow there is a $180 billion tax increase in this budget. Where? I mean, he made this same assertion last year. He said the budget last year was going to increase taxes. What happened with last year's budget? Did it increase taxes? No. It cut taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars. That is what this budget does. This budget cuts taxes, on balance, over 5 years by $764 billion. That is a fact. That is not made up for the convenience of a political debate. That is a fact. Taxes are cut under this budget $764 billion. On reconciliation, I must say the speech by the Senator is beyond the pale. He acts as though reconciliation is against the Constitution of the United States. Well, it is interesting what he had to say when the shoe was on the other foot. When the shoe was on the other foot in 2001, and he wanted to use reconciliation, what did the Senator say then? Unfortunately for the credibility of his speech here, we have the Record. We know what he said then. Here is what he said then: Reconciliation is a rule of the Senate, set up under the Budget Act. It has been used before for purposes exactly like this on numerous occasions. The fact is, all this rule of the Senate does is allow a majority of the Senate to take a position and pass a piece of legislation, support that position. Is there something wrong with majority rules? I don't think so. So when they wanted to use reconciliation, it was a rule of the Senate, and it simply allowed the majority to work their will, and there was nothing wrong with it. Now when we have a reconciliation instruction as a backup, as an insurance policy, now it is somehow against the Constitution. Please. That is not going to stand up against the Senator's own record. The fact is that reconciliation has been used 19 times--13 by the party on the opposite side. I didn't hear and see crocodile tears from them about how it threatened the Constitution. In fact, the Senator described it then as a simple Senate rule that allowed the majority to rule. I take great offense to the suggestion that this budget is made up. This budget is not made up. It is scored by the CBO, which is nonpartisan. This budget does precisely what I have presented it as doing. It reduces the deficit by two-thirds over 5 years. As a share of GDP, it cuts the deficit by three quarters. The Senator says, you have hidden the doc fix, which is this. We know doctors who treat Medicare patients are scheduled to take major reductions. We have not hidden a thing. We have said that, after 2 years, fixing the downward spiral on doctors' reimbursement for those who treat Medicare patients will have to be paid for. That is not hidden; that is very clear, direct, and it is what we should be doing here--paying for things. When we found we were in a circumstance in which we had $2 trillion less than the President had to write a budget, we had to make changes, and we did. We made responsible changes. One of the changes we made was to say that, no, doctors should not be cut. We will provide the money in this budget for the next 2 years so they are not cut. But after that, additional fixes would have to be paid for. That is what we have to start doing around here--paying for things. And there is the alternative minimum tax. We have said in this resolution that the alternative minimum tax should not be imposed on anybody, and for the next 3 years it can be done without offsets, without paying for it, because we don't want to raise taxes during a time of economic downturn. But after the 3 years, further moves to prevent the AMT from being imposed have to be paid for. The same is true on TARP funding. The Senator said we excluded TARP funding. Yes, we did because we could not pass $250 billion of TARP funding after the way TARP has been handled in the first round. It would not pass. The President said put it in as an insurance policy. He does not have a specific proposal before us, in any event. But we did not include it here because it could not pass this body. On health care, the Senator suggests this is going to add $1 trillion to the debt. Not under this budget. Again, he failed to read the document. It makes very clear, if we are going to have health care reform, it has to be paid for. The reserve fund he kind of glossed over is very specific. I can only change the allocations to committees if the issue is paid for. I have no authority to change the allocation to committees unless health care reform is paid for. On Make Work Pay, the President's middle-class tax cut, in addition to all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that are all included in this budget, over $500 billion of tax cuts for the middle class that are in this budget, the President's middle-class tax cuts that are over and above those that were included in 2001 and 2003, the so-called ``make work pay'' provisions, they are already provided for in the stimulus package. That is already the law for the next 2 years. If it is to be extended, this budget says we have to pay for it. That is exactly what we are going to have to do to bring the deficit down. We are going to have to start paying for things. There are so many things that were said that are in error about this budget, it is breathtaking. I wish to conclude on this note. If this budget is so bad, why didn't the Senator offer an alternative? In 2001, when I thought the Bush budget was fatally flawed, I offered an alternative on the floor of this body. This year, the Senator has offered no alternative. All he offers is complaints and misrepresentations and a rewriting of history. The debt is on an unsustainable course. Why? Because the previous administration doubled the debt, tripled foreign holdings of U.S. debt, and put us on a course in which we face the worst recession since the Great Depression. That is why the debt is burgeoning. It is not as a result of this budget document. This budget document moves the deficit down, reduces it by two-thirds over the next 5 years. We inherited a colossal mess--colossal. To suggest this President is responsible for this colossal mess after he has been in office 100 days does not stand the test of truth and will not stand any scrutiny. We all know how we got to where we are. The previous administration doubled the debt of the country at a time when the economy was relatively good. Unfortunately, when they left office, the economy was in the worst shape in 60 years. History will not treat the previous administration and their supporters on the Hill gently or kindly because they put us in this ditch. The President is seeking to lift us out of it. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. I want to indicate, for the purposes of our colleagues, that we have a series of speakers. We do not have this firmly locked in in terms of an order, but we are expecting Senator Enzi momentarily; Senator Gregg--I see Senator Enzi now; Senator Bunning approximately at 12:30; Senator Johanns at roughly 1 o'clock; Senator Lindsey Graham at approximately 1:30. I will answer, to the extent I determine necessary, as we go through these speeches. But I want to indicate that that is roughly the order of where we are: Senator Enzi, Senator Gregg, Senator Bunning, Senator Johanns, Senator Graham, and Senator Murray after that. We have other Senators also in the train. But if other Senators wish to join this debate and discussion, they are certainly welcome. It will be important for them to call the cloakroom so they can get in the queue so that they do not have to waste their time waiting here on the floor as others speak. With that, I see Senator Enzi has come to the floor. I will give him a few minutes to get ready, because he is, as is so often the case with Senator Enzi, not only on time but ahead of his scheduled time, and we appreciate that very much. We are delighted to have Senator Enzi here. He is also an important member of the Senate Budget Committee. While we have differences--no doubt he will have a different view of this budget resolution than perhaps do I--nonetheless, we have great respect for the contributions he makes. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, very briefly because I see Senator Gregg is in the Chamber, and I know he is on a very tight timeframe. I very briefly say to the Senator from Wyoming, I do not favor reconciliation for writing health care. I, personally, do not believe it will be used to write health care reform. It is here as an insurance policy. I think virtually everybody who has been engaged in the debate publicly and privately has now concluded it is not the preferred alternative for writing health care. One of the things we did do is push back the date to October 15 for the committees to act to give them more time to work under the regular order. Chairman Baucus has made an absolute commitment to try to do this in the regular order. I have done the same. The majority leader has done the same. I sincerely believe health care can and should be written without using the fast-track process of reconciliation. It is true it is here as an insurance policy, as a backstop. I would have strongly preferred it not even be that. But let me say, when it is the President of the United States, the Speaker, the majority leader here, it gets fairly lonely as a conferee. But I do wish to say to the Senator, I agreed with so much of what he said. He is going to be a major player in health care reform. He already has been--certainly in the CHIP legislation. I believe there is going to be a full opportunity to write it the way it should be written, which is in the committees of jurisdiction, with both sides fully participating. That is the best way and the right way to do it.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to especially thank Senator Murray. She is next in line on the Budget Committee. When I really want to threaten her, I tell her I am going to leave as chairman of the committee and she can take over.

Mr. CONRAD. We could not have a stronger or better ally than the Senator from Washington. Senator Murray is exceptional. I have so enjoyed getting to know her over the years and working with her. When there is something you need to get done, you need an assignment that can actually get done, you want Senator Murray on the case. She is somebody who is a performer. She gets results. I have such respect for her and the contribution she makes to this committee and to this Chamber. We are fortunate to have Senator Murray in the Senate. I tell my colleagues, they have seen her in vote-arama go around this floor, convincing colleagues that perhaps this is not the time to offer an amendment, perhaps they could wait. They have seen how effective she can be in personal interactions to get results. It goes way beyond the procedural. It goes to the question of policy and getting a good result for the country. I am so blessed to have Senator Murray as the top Democrat on the committee. I thank her personally for everything she has done as a conferee to bring us to this point, to have a successful resolution and a budget that is responsible, that does help get America back on track. I have heard from the other side: We have tax increases here. Let's get to the facts. The fact is, on balance, we have a very substantial tax cut in this budget proposal aimed at the middle class. They are the ones who deserve and need it. We have also heard that this leaves open the possibility of global climate change being used in reconciliation. Nonsense. There is an absolute commitment from everyone who is a party to this discussion. It is in the wording of the resolution that climate change will not come to this body or to the other body through reconciliation. It is not going to happen. It has the absolute commitment of the majority leader, of the Speaker, and of the President himself. He has said it to me directly. So let's not be chasing straw dogs here. Climate change is not going to be done through reconciliation, period. Again, I thank Senator Murray for her constructive work on this budget.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator for her kindness. Next we have Senator Hutchison. How much time would the Senator require?

Mr. CONRAD. You certainly may.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware, who has been so constructive on many critical issues since he joined the Senate. He is somebody whose career I followed closely when he was in the House of Representatives and as Governor of his State. He is one of the real clear thinkers on fiscal issues before this body. I thank him for all of the contributions he has made. Next, we have Senator Whitehouse, a very valued member of the Budget Committee. He is one of the people who put a great deal of effort and energy into producing the budget resolution that came from the Senate which really served as the model of what we have before us in terms of the conference report. This is a conference report, as I have said repeatedly, that captures the President's key priorities of reducing our dependence on foreign energy, focusing on excellence in education, and providing for health care reform, which is a special passion of the Senator from Rhode Island. It also contains substantial middle-class tax cuts--in fact, over $750 billion in middle-class tax cuts--all the while reducing the deficit by two-thirds over the next 4 years. As measured against a share of GDP, it is even better. We reduce the economy on that metric--and the economists say that is the best metric--by three quarters. No member of the committee has made a greater contribution on health care issues than the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Whitehouse.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I, again, thank the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Whitehouse, who is such a valuable member of the Senate Budget Committee, as is the occupant of the Chair, who has newly joined us and is already making good contributions to our work. We are delighted to have Senator Merkley, the occupant of the Chair and a Member of the Senate Budget Committee, with us and appreciate so much the efforts of Senator Whitehouse and Senator Merkley in developing a budget resolution that, by the way, our outline was largely followed in the conference committee. It is very close to what passed the Senate earlier. I think the reasons for that success are, No. 1, we did capture the President's priorities of reducing dependence on foreign energy, a focus on excellence in education, providing for major health care reform that is absolutely critical to the country's future and, at the same time, cutting the deficit by two-thirds over the next 5 years, by three-quarters as measured by the gross domestic product, and also providing very substantial middle-class tax relief, hundreds of billions of dollars--in fact, over $700 billion--of middle-class tax relief that is in this budget. I think we can be proud of that. We have already seen the budget earlier today pass in the House of Representatives by a very wide margin. I anticipate, when we have our vote, it will also pass with a healthy margin. I, again, especially thank Senator Whitehouse and Senator Merkley, who are key members of the Budget Committee who did so much to help us fashion a document that can command the respect of our colleagues. For one moment, I would like to, as we are waiting for Senator Grassley to arrive, indicate that earlier there were a number of comments made to which I wish to respond. First, that reconciliation could still be used for global climate change legislation. Technically, that is true, but it is not going to happen. We have the absolute assurance of all those who are in leadership positions in the House and the Senate, the President of the United States--in fact, the President has assured me directly--directly--that he would not allow that. Let's take that off the table. Second, we have heard concern from our Republican colleagues about the use of reconciliation. I share those concerns. I have opposed the use of reconciliation for these purposes. But my own belief is health care will not use the reconciliation process. I believe health care will move in the regular order. The committees of jurisdiction have until October 15 to do so. I see now that Senator Durbin, who is a member of our leadership, is here. If he is ready to go--how much time does the Senator request? I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent there now be a time for morning business with Senators able to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CONRAD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 29, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 29, 2009, at 9:30 a.m.