Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. If we went to Senator Akaka for 10 minutes and then Senator Stabenow for 15, we would then be very close to 9 o'clock.

Mr. CONRAD. It is.

Mr. CONRAD. Can I suggest that Senator Hutchison had indicated to staff she would be more interested in a little later time slot.

Mr. CONRAD. Yes.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I will take just a few minutes. We have other speakers on the way. I ask the chairman, does he have somebody who wishes to speak?

Mr. CONRAD. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee for his fairness throughout the process, for his professionalism, and for his good humor. We have spent many long days and nights on this floor debating this budget. We have spent a long period in the Budget Committee. It has been with unfailing good humor on his part and a sense of fairness and bipartisanship that we have moved forward. We certainly don't always agree, but we have never been disagreeable. Perhaps that is a good model for the way we function in the Senate. I will take a minute to thank Sue Nelson of my staff. This is her last budget resolution. She has been with the Senate Budget Committee for 20 years. She is my deputy staff director. She is the person who is in charge of our numbers and Medicare as well. She at one time worked for Senator Domenici. We are going to miss the outstanding professional commitment of Sue Nelson. We are going to miss you very much. Thank you for all you have done for our committee and for the Senate. I also thank my staff director Mary Naylor. Mary has put together an outstanding staff and has worked unfailingly for us to make our case on what the budget priorities of this country should be, and to the rest of my staff as well who have worked extraordinarily hard and with a real commitment to fiscal responsibility and to fairness. They are: Sue Nelson, Deputy Staff Director; John Righter, Appropriations; Shelley Amdur, Education/Appropriations; Lisa Konwinski, Counsel; Jim Esquea, Medicaid/TANF; Jim Klumpner, Economist; Jamie Morin, Defense; Rock Cheung, International Affairs; Sarah Kuehl, Social Security/Transportation; Steve Bailey, Revenues; Mike Jones, Homeland Security/Justice; Cliff Isenberg, Energy/Environment; Jim Miller, Agriculture; Stu Nagurka, Communications Director; Steve Posner, Deputy Communications Director; David Vandivier, Planning/Outreach; Kobye Noel, Graphics Production Coordinator; Matt Havlik, Staff Assistant; Tyler Haskell, Staff Assistant; Anne Page, Executive Assistant. Let me also recognize the staff of the Senator from New Hampshire, especially staff director Scott Gudes and the rest of the members of his staff. This is a good relationship that we have between our two staffs. It is one of respect and fairness, and we deeply appreciate the many courtesies that have been extended to us during this process. I want to echo the laudatory comments of Senator Gregg regarding the outstanding contributions made by two senior professional staff members of the Senate Budget Committee, Lynne Seymour and George Woodall. Lynne and George are our two most senior administrative staff members who perform their respective duties with great distinction. They are true professionals who serve the members of our committee and our respective staffs with poise, respect and diligence. I have the utmost appreciation for their service, because they have attended to our committee during some of the most difficult administrative challenges imaginable. For example, in just over 4 years, since the beginning of the 107th Congress, this committee has had four different chairmen: Senators Gregg, Nickles, Domenici and myself. Thanks to the outstanding service of Lynne and George, the transition from one chairman to the next has been flawless. They have arranged for the moving in and out of our different staffs and the literal moving of our offices several times. They made sure our offices were properly equipped and that our computers, printers, phones, faxes and other technical equipment were in good working order--not an easy task, I assure you. They have also served our committee and this Senate during some of the most difficult times. They were here on the morning of September 11, 2001 when the Pentagon was attacked and when we believed the U.S. Capitol complex was also threatened. They were also serving our committee when anthrax was discovered in the mail system here in the Senate. These have not been easy times for staff members. Lynne Seymour and George Woodall have not only persevered, but they have excelled at their duties in serving us. I thank them for their service, and want them to know how much we in the Senate appreciate their long hours, their unselfish contributions and their professional service. With that, I will proceed to wrap up. I will take a few moments and then we will hear from the chairman and then the leaders, and then we will be prepared to vote. While I have great respect for the chairman, I have great respect for the staffs that have assembled this budget, I deeply do not believe that this budget charts the correct course for the country. I say to my colleagues, if you want to be supporting more debt, vote for this budget. If you want higher deficits, support this budget. If you believe that it is right to take every penny of Social Security surplus over the next 5 years and use it to pay for other things, then support this budget. This chart sums it all up. I call it ``building a wall of debt.'' That is what this budget is all about. We have heard people say it is going to cut the deficit in half. I don't believe it. Instead, I believe what is going to happen is the debt of the United States is going to go up, up and away. We are starting with $8 trillion, and every year of this budget debt is going to be increased by more than $600 billion. Every year it is going to go up by $600 billion. Those are not my numbers. Those are the numbers from the budget document itself on pages 4 and 5 of this conference committee report. It shows what is going to happen according to their own analysis and projections to the debt of the United States: $683 billion the first year, $639 billion the second, $606 billion the third, $610 billion the fourth, and $605 billion the fifth year. Anybody who says the deficit is getting cut in half and yet the debt is going up by over $600 billion each and every year is mistaken. This is a mistake for the country. We ought not to support it. I urge my colleagues to defeat this budget resolution. Let's go back to the drawing board. We can do better than this. I thank the Chair and my colleagues.

Mr. CONRAD. Well, that is the plan. That is what this budget calls for. In 2006, this budget accounts for tax cuts to those who earn on average over $1 million a year, and the tax cuts in the year 2006 alone for those earning over $1 million a year--the cost will be $32 billion for that 1 year alone, and every penny of it borrowed. Where are we borrowing it from? Much of it is being borrowed from Japan, China, and countries all over the world. Does anybody really think that is a good idea?

Mr. CONRAD. Let me say what is stunning to me.

Mr. CONRAD. We got into a dialog. We will end that and then we can get back to Senator Hutchison, who has been waiting patiently. What is a little hard to understand about this budget, we are borrowing money at record amounts, much of it from abroad, in part, so we can provide $32 billion next year in tax reductions for the wealthiest among us. Not only are we doing that in this budget, this budget also contemplates every dime of Social Security surplus--about $160 billion a year and growing every year of the 5 years of this budget--that surplus from Social Security is being taken and used to pay for other things when the President is traveling all over the country saying Social Security is short of money. Somehow none of this quite adds up. Social Security is short of money, so this budget takes $160 billion a year of Social Security money and uses it to pay for other things? And we are borrowing $32 billion a year to provide tax breaks for those earning over $1 million a year? And much of it we are borrowing from abroad on top of the 100 percent increase we have already seen in the last 4 years in foreign holdings of United States debt? Something is way off track. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I will take just a few minutes to go back to the central point because I want to make certain that none of our colleagues have missed it tonight, and that is the budget on which we are about to vote dramatically increases the debt of the United States. We have heard a lot of talk about concern for the deficit. We have heard a lot of talk about the deficit being cut in half over the next 5 years. We have heard a lot of talk about the concern of the exploding debt of the United States. It is very important for my colleagues to know what they are about to vote on because those who vote in favor of this budget are voting to dramatically increase the debt of the United States just before the baby boomers begin to retire. I do not think it can be fairly said that anybody who votes for this budget is fiscally conservative or even fiscally responsible. Here is why I say that: Right now, the debt of the United States subject to limit is $8 trillion. Under this budget, each and every year, the debt of the United States is going to increase by more than $600 billion, building a wall of debt that is going to hang like a noose around the neck of every citizen of this country. The President is fond of saying it is the people's money, let us give it back to them. Well, it is also the people's debt. When the President says give the people's money back to them, the problem is there is no money to give back. The money is all gone. Instead, what we have is a sea of red ink. Now, my colleagues do not have to take it from me. This is my chart. I stand by it. But this is not based on my projections or my numbers; this is based on pages 4 and 5 out of this conference report. Here it is. This is the conference report, and if anybody wonders what the effect of this budget is, all they have to do is look on pages 4 and 5. It is right there. What does it say? It says that every year the debt is going to go up by over $600 billion. It says this year $683 billion; next year $639 billion; the next year $606 billion; the next year $610 billion; the next year $605 billion. Where is the cutting of the deficit in half? The debt is going up every year by over $600 billion, and my colleagues say they are cutting the deficit in half over 5 years? Where is it? These are not my numbers. These are their numbers. These are the numbers provided in this conference report, and it shows exactly where we are headed. If this is where my colleagues believe we ought to go, vote for this budget. If my colleagues believe we ought to add $3 trillion to the national debt, vote for this budget. If my colleagues believe we ought to take every penny of Social Security surplus over the next 5 years and use it to pay for other things, vote for this budget. If my colleagues think these are the priorities of the American people, vote for this budget. The Senator from Colorado.

Mr. CONRAD. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. CONRAD. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. CONRAD. It is very clear what it means because, as I have indicated, according to their own budget documents, this budget, which they have advertised as one that is fiscally responsible, increases the debt each and every year by more than $600 billion. The thing that is quite stunning is here is what has happened to foreign holdings of U.S. debt just since 2001. According to this chart, it has gone up 97 percent. The truth is this chart is a little bit behind the times. Foreign holdings of our debt have gone up more than 100 percent in just 4 years. The result is we owe Japan over $700 billion. We owe China almost $200 billion. We owe the United Kingdom over $170 billion. We even owe the Caribbean banking centers over $100 billion. Who would ever have believed the powerful, mighty United States owes the Caribbean banking centers over $100 billion? Here we are borrowing money from the Caribbean banking centers. Why, we have even borrowed over $65 billion from South Korea. I have never heard of a country building its strength by borrowing from abroad. I have never heard of a great power that made itself mightier by borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from countries all over the world. No, this is not a way to strength. This is a way to weakness. This is a way to dependency on foreign central banks. What happens if all of a sudden they decide they are going to start diversifying out of dollar- denominated securities? Well, we all know what could happen. If they did not show up at the bond market options at the U.S. Treasury Department, if they decided not to show up next Tuesday, interest rates would have to go up dramatically. What would that mean? That would mean higher prices on every mortgage, every car loan, every student loan. Every business in America that has to borrow for its financing would be adversely affected. Our competitive position would be hurt, and American economic strength would be damaged. That is the risk that is being run by this reckless policy of deficits and debt.

Mr. CONRAD. Actually, we have Senator Akaka and then Senator Stabenow.

Mr. CONRAD. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. CONRAD. Actually, even more the next year.

Mr. CONRAD. It is very hard to understand this set of priorities. The Senator is exactly correct. This is the amount this budget would need to add to restore education programs to the 2005 level. It would require $4.8 billion. They say, no, they cannot do that because they have to give $32 billion of tax benefits to those earning over a million dollars a year. And it is not just with respect to education, although I argue that education is the clearest priority for our country. What is it that will allow us to compete in this global world economy? What is it that is going to allow us to compete and win? It is having the best-educated, the best-trained workforce, and having the most efficient system to disburse the resources we have, to employ them in the most competitive and effective way. That is what is going to make us dominant. You can see we are slipping. We are running these massive trade deficits. Does anybody care? Is anybody paying attention? It is not just in education. It would cost $1.1 billion to maintain funding for law enforcement. But, no, they say you have to cut the COPS Program, shred the COPS Program. The COPS Program put 100,000 police on the street and helped reduce crime in this country. They say that has to go, we cannot afford it; but we can afford 30 times as much to give tax cuts to those earning over a million dollars a year. A budget is a chance to make choices. That is what it is about. It is about priorities, about what is important. The choices that are being made by our friends on the other side are the choices to add to the debt, add to the deficits, take all the money from Social Security trust fund surpluses--every dime--and use it to pay for other things, including tax cuts that go overwhelmingly to the wealthiest among us. Are those the priorities of the American people? You know, even wealthy people I talk to say these are not their priorities. I have had so many wealthy people say to me, ``I don't need another tax cut.'' A gentleman stopped me the other day--an enormously wealthy individual-- and he said: Look, what matters to me is how my country does. I have been very fortunate. I have done extremely well here. I want others to have the chance I had. That means they have to have a chance to get a good education, and that means our country has to do well. I don't know of a country anywhere, ever, that has gotten stronger by becoming more dependent on borrowing from other countries. I would like some of our colleagues to come out here and tell me what country became stronger by borrowing more money from foreign countries. Where is it written in history that a country made itself powerful and strong by borrowing more and more money from other countries? You know, so many people have warned us we are on an unsustainable course. The Comptroller General of the United States warned us we are on an unsustainable course of deficits and debt. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board has warned us we are on an unsustainable course of deficits and debt. Another thing the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board told us is, you ought to reinstitute the budget disciplines that helped this country in the past, those budget disciplines that apply to both the spending and the revenue side. But this budget doesn't do that. This budget has pay-go provisions that apply on the spending side. Here is what Chairman Greenspan said: A budget framework along the lines of the one that provided significant and effective discipline in the past needs, in my judgment, to be reinstated without delay. I am concerned that, should the enforcement mechanisms governing the budget process not be restored, the resulting lack of clear direction and constructive goals would allow the inbuilt political bias in favor of growing budget deficits to again become entrenched. He said that in 2003 before the Senate Banking Committee. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board was right about that matter. But that is not what our friends have done here. They have not restored the budget disciplines that worked in the past. No, no. They have taken half of the formula. The New York Times ran an editorial on Wednesday: ``In Search of Budget Moderates.'' I would write a different headline. My headline would be: In Search of People Who Are Fiscally Responsible. If you want to spend the money, raise the revenue to pay for it. If you don't have the stomach for raising the revenue to pay for it, cut your spending. Those are the choices that were put before our Republican colleagues. They chose to do neither. They chose instead to run up the debt of this country, which is already at record levels, and they said: Caution to the wind, let's add to the debt $600 billion a year each and every year of this budget. That is what is here. It is their own estimates. It is their own claims about their own budget. It is not somebody else's calculations; it is theirs and they are responsible. They will be held accountable for their votes tonight.

Mr. CONRAD. Yes, I am happy to.

Mr. CONRAD. Yes.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray. She is one of the most valuable members of the Senate Budget Committee. She is thoughtful, she works extraordinarily hard, she is well informed, and she makes a real contribution to the committee. I thank her publicly for what she has done. I have found her to be an exceptional colleague. The Senator from Colorado is seeking time. How much time would the Senator need?

Mr. CONRAD. Yes, I will.

Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CONRAD. Here it is. This chart shows graphically precisely, according to their numbers--not my numbers; these are their numbers-- what they say their budget will do. It says they are going to increase the debt every year by $600 billion. They say they are going to cut the deficit in half over 5 years, but the debt goes up each and every year by over $600 billion. If that isn't doubletalk, I don't know what is. They say the deficit is going down, but the debt is going up. It is their own calculations. They are building a wall of debt that is unprecedented, and they are doing it right before the baby boomers begin to retire, and we all know what that means. They are going to present a future Congress and a future President with the most extraordinarily difficult choices that any Congress or any President has faced in this country's history because this is a complete lack of fiscal responsibility--deficits on top of deficits on top of debt, up, up, and away, no end in sight, and all of it at the worst possible time, before the baby boomers retire. I say to my Republican colleagues: Any Republican colleague who votes for this budget ought to make a pledge here tonight that they will never again claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility, that they will never again claim to be fiscally conservative, because this is a borrow-and-spend budget of historic proportion. Our friends on the other side of the aisle have decided that the way to win elections is to borrow the money and use it to fund tax cuts and use it to fund spending and don't worry about anything adding up because they will be out of town before the bills come due.