Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the Democratic leader be recognized when the Senate reconvenes at 2 p.m.

Mr. CONRAD. Yes, sir.

Mr. CONRAD. That is correct.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, when Senator Reid is recognized at 2 p.m., I yield him such time as he may consume. I understand the Senator from Virginia has a motion at this time.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am happy to yield an additional 2 minutes to the Senator.

Mr. CONRAD. I yield 7 minutes or the time the Senator might consume.

Mr. CONRAD. Senator Kennedy is recognized for 10 minutes.

Mr. CONRAD. If I might say to my colleague, if we could go to Senator Kennedy, he has only requested 5 or 10 minutes, and then at that point we could consider the amendment.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: At this point we are on the pay-go amendment. It would require consent, would it not, to lay aside the pending amendment?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Florida for his remarks. I thank him, as well, for his leadership. I have thought many times I wish there were more Bill Nelson's in the Senate because he has been a very strong voice on fiscal responsibility and in paying our bills and not shoveling the debt off to our kids and not continuing this policy of borrowing more and more money from abroad. Is the Senator seeking recognition to respond?

Mr. CONRAD. I will yield time off the amendment.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I now yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, who is a very important member of the Senate Budget Committee. Senator Nelson has been one of the most consistent Members on the Budget Committee, insisting on a return to fiscal discipline. I very much appreciate his leadership on this pay-go amendment, which is an attempt to restore the basic budget discipline.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I have the floor now, Senator. Let's be factual here. That chart is a complete concoction. That is all there is to it. That takes amendments that were offered for 1 year, multiplies them by 5, doesn't count the offsets. In the budget resolution, we offset our amendments. We paid for them. That is an offset. When you pay for things around here, that is an offset. I know that is a new idea around here, but that is what we are offering in our amendment, pay-go. We say, you can have new tax cuts. The Senator from Iowa says, we are going to kill all the tax cuts. No, we are saying if you want more tax cuts, you have to pay for it. If you want more spending, you have to pay for it. That is what pay-go is about. That is what Democrats have offered in this fight. We have offered the pay-go amendment. It used to be in place. We used to have it. We used to have that authority. We used to have that budget discipline. If you want to have new tax cuts, pay for them. If you want new spending, pay for it. In addition to the fact that I listed 10 amendments that were offset that don't show up on their chart as offset, that chart is false on every single one of those amendments. In addition to that, they have taken 1-year appropriations amendments and multiplied them into 5-year amendments. Please, those weren't our amendments. Those are a concoction of what our amendments were. I hate to say this, but our friends have lost sight of the fact that they are in control. These deficits and debt didn't skyrocket under our watch. Our friends control the White House. They control the Senate. They control the House of Representatives. They have since 2000. And the debt of the country has gone up from $5.7 trillion to $7.9 trillion. And under the budget that is being considered--and this legislation is part of that package--it is going to go up to $11 trillion. They have raised the debt of this country in 6 years by almost $6 trillion. It wasn't Democratic spending because your side has been in control. Every dime of this spending occurred on your watch. Every dime of this increase in debt is your responsibility. These have been your budgets. These have been your plans. These are your deficits and your debt. You have stacked it up on the American people. I repeat: It took 42 Presidents, 224 years to run up a trillion dollars of external debt, debt held by foreign countries, foreign investors. This President has exceeded it, exceeded a trillion dollars of additional external debt, debt held by foreigners. This President exceeded it in 4 years.

Mr. CONRAD. This Senator may be frozen out, and this Senator is going to object unless he is not frozen out. I am happy to go to Senator Nelson. Why don't we let him go and then see where we stand at the end. But I am not going to enter into an agreement that would not permit me to answer if I felt something required an answer. Amendment No. 2357

Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object, I don't want to get frozen out of this time situation. If the Senator is saying that----

Mr. CONRAD. At this point, we have to go to Senator Nelson, unless Senator Inhofe has--

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the chart the Senator has put up here labeled ``Democrat spendometer'' is a complete fabrication, a total concoction. That chart suggests Democrats have offered amendments costing $460 billion this year. False. Absolutely false. I know the Senator has borrowed that chart from somebody else. He did not prepare the chart, but he has used the chart, and the chart is wrong. First, the ``spendometer'' ignores the fact that many of those Democratic amendments were offset. In fact, because they included additional deficit reduction, the net effect of all Democrat amendments to the 2006 budget resolution would have reduced deficits by $57 billion. The ``spendometer'' double-counts Democratic amendments because it treats them as if they were a package instead of offered individually. Many of the Democratic amendments covered the same subject areas as an earlier amendment that was defeated and would never have been offered if the earlier amendment had been agreed to. The ``spendometer'' also overstates the cost of Democratic amendments in the most egregious way--by transferring 1-year amendments into 5- year amendments. That really strains credibility. To convert amendments that were offered for 1 year on an appropriations bill and make them into 5-year amendments in cost is a complete concoction. The fact is, on the budget resolution, Democratic amendments would have reduced the deficit by $57 billion; the net cost of Republican amendments was $79 billion. They would have increased the deficit by $79 billion. Our colleague says it is a partisan issue, spending. He is right. During the last Democratic administration, spending went down as a share of gross domestic product. That is, the economists say, the best way to measure it. Spending went down each and every year during the last Democratic administration, from 22 percent of gross domestic production down to 18.4 of gross domestic production. Democrats, when they were in charge, cut spending. Let's look at the Republican record. Here is what has happened under the Bush administration. Each and every year, spending has gone up, with one exception, of the time they have been in control. We went from 18.4 percent the last year the Democrats were in control, and we are up to 20.2 percent of gross domestic production now that Republicans have been in control. The story does not end there. The bottom line is what has happened to the debt. When our Republican colleagues took over, the debt of the country was $5.7 trillion. They have increased the debt each and every year by $500 or $600 billion. They have gone from $5.7 trillion this year. The end of 2005, the debt was up to $7.9 trillion. Under the budget that is before the Senate now, they will take the debt up to over $11 trillion. That is the record of our colleagues on the other side. They are in control. They control the House, they control the Senate, they control the White House, and they are leaving this country a legacy of debt, debt, debt. Here is the reality. When they came in and they took control of everything, the debt of this country was $5.7 trillion. Today, they have increased it to $8 trillion. And this is, by the way, when the President said he was going to have maximum paydown of the debt. But look where it is headed. Under the budget in the Senate now, they will raise the debt over the next 5 years to $11 trillion. This is unbelievable. They are approaching $6 trillion of added debt while they have been in control, and they are out here claiming that we are the spenders. Hello? We are not in control. They are in control. They are the ones running up the debt. They are the ones running up the debt. It does not end there. The package they have that they claim is deficit reduction is not deficit reduction. Read all the chapters of the book before you reach a conclusion of what the message is. The message of our friends on the other side is debt on top of debt. The first chapter is the one we have before the Senate now that slices spending a little bit over 5 years. Then we come back, cut taxes more, and add to the deficit. But the third chapter is they will increase the debt limit by $781 billion for 1 year alone. That brings their 4-year total to over $3 trillion of added debt. And the budget they have before the Senate, a 5-year budget--these are not my numbers, these are their numbers--they will run up the debt another $3 trillion. Here is the bottom line: It took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up $1 trillion of foreign-held debt. And this President in 4 years has exceeded what 42 Presidents over 224 years had done to the debt of this country. If they want to start talking about deficits and debt, bring it on. Their record is a record of deficits and debt unparalleled in the history of this Nation. Let me repeat, it took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up a trillion dollars in foreign holdings of U.S. debt. This President has more than doubled it in 4 years. So I hope every time that ``spendometer'' chart comes out, they are prepared to listen to this speech all over again because that chart is a complete concoction. On the Inhofe amendment itself, the Budget Committee has never held a hearing on this amendment. This amendment from the Senator from Oklahoma tries to decide the appropriate level of discretionary funding for years to come; in fact, permanently. This amendment says that an increase in funding over the previous year's level for nondefense, nontrust fund funding would be subject to a two-thirds vote point of order. Just so our colleagues understand the upshot of this amendment--and I am certain it is well intended--this amendment would seek to freeze funding for homeland security, for veterans health care, for education, for the National Institutes of Health, and many more priorities, and not just for 1 year, but permanently. Is anybody listening? The Senator's amendment seeks to freeze funding for the Department of Homeland Security, for veterans health care, for education, for the National Institutes of Health, not for 1 year, but permanently. Permanently is a long time. Sixty-six Senators could support increased funding for our veterans or for homeland security. But it would not be enough under this amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma because he would freeze funding for those functions permanently, unless you could get a two-thirds vote. We have a point of order in the Congressional Budget Act under section 306 for exactly this reason. This far-reaching change to our system of enforcing spending restraint should not be made without Budget Committee oversight. And it certainly should not be done as part of a fast-track vehicle with limited debate. This amendment clearly and completely violates section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act, and it is not germane. At the appropriate point, I will bring that budget point of order.

Mr. CONRAD. Then we go to Senator Lott. Maybe that helps, for the information of our colleagues, as we try to go through this bill with some efficiency as we get toward the end of this day. We will close, by prior agreement, at 8 o'clock.

Mr. CONRAD. Then there may be some discussion on the Inhofe amendment on this side. Then we would go to Senator Nelson. That would be in approximately 20 minutes, perhaps, for the information of Senators. How long would Senator Nelson require?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, because we have a half dozen Senators or more on this side who have asked to have time to speak on the bill, let me send a message in this way, if I can, to our colleagues and the staff who are listening. Obviously, the events of this afternoon have blown a hole in the time on the budget bill. What was the game plan before this afternoon has clearly been altered. Now, we have tried to lay out a schedule of amendments, as the chairman has just indicated. Next, we will go to Senator Inhofe. Could Senator Inhofe give us a picture of how long he might require?

Mr. CONRAD. The chairman, as always, has it exactly right.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD. To further understand, the yielding of time to the Senator from Louisiana is off the amendment; is that correct?

Mr. CONRAD. And can we also have the time left on the bill for today?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold for just one moment so I might inquire? I think it will be useful for us to know where we are in terms of the time at this point on the amendment and on the bill.