Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. So our colleagues should be advised that the voting will begin at or about 1 o'clock. Can the Chair advise us of how many amendments are pending?

Mr. CONRAD. Then the schedule of going to the votes that are in sequence would start at 1 o'clock?

Mr. CONRAD. And then Senator Gregg has 5 minutes in relationship to the Clinton amendment.

Mr. CONRAD. To recap, if I can, so colleagues understand about where we are, is this correct, that we would have 10 minutes on the Lautenberg amendment equally divided which is in relationship to debt limit?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is left in the queue, so colleagues who are watching can be informed where we stand with respect to the schedule?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. CONRAD. Parliamentary inquiry: In terms of the time, when we are charging the time equally at this point, we are charging time equally off the amendment; is that correct?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CONRAD. I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time to be charged equally.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am going to use time off Senator Clinton's time on this amendment. We have before us a budget resolution that purports to be fiscally responsible. This budget resolution before us is anything but that. The hard reality is that the budget before us increases the debt every year of its terms by over $600 billion. When they say this is going to cut the deficit in half, their own document shows their projections of debt increase are over $600 billion a year, each and every year of this budget. That is not fiscally responsible. I see that the Senator from New York has arrived in the Chamber. I advise her that she has about 3 minutes left of her time.

Mr. CONRAD. How much time remains on both sides?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CONRAD. Let's be very clear: The legal effect of our two amendments is precisely the same--precisely the same. Why is that the case? Because a budget resolution cannot compel the Finance Committee to do anything in terms of policy. That is just a fact. I know it is confusing to our colleagues, but the chairman has said a dozen times at least on the floor of the Senate that the budget resolution cannot compel the Finance Committee to make any specific policy determination with respect to revenue. All we are doing is telling them how much revenue to raise. That is the same with respect to the appropriations committees. A budget resolution does not tell the appropriators what specific way they are to reach the numbers. It just gives them a number. So let us be absolutely clear--the force and effect of our two amendments is no different. Senator Bunning is attempting to send a signal to the Finance Committee about how they should treat the reconciliation process. That is what my amendment does as well. We are sending the same signal in the sense that we are both saying, take this Social Security benefits tax as it relates to income tax off the table. The place where I think he has made a very important point is that, since these taxes were put in place back in 1993, there has never been any change in the income levels that it relates to. That is something that I think we can absolutely agree on. This just doesn't make any sense. It is indefensible that there has not been any adjustment. So we are sending this amendment to our colleagues with the hope and the expectation that they will pay the same attention to it that they will pay to the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky. We are about to enter the time when we will cast a series of votes. I don't know how many votes we now have in the queue; I think it is approaching 30 amendments. It may be useful at this point to send a message to our colleagues about how we are going to try to conduct these votes. We are going to be asking our colleagues to accept short time limits on the votes. People will have a chance to make arguments for and against the amendments to remind people of the subject of their amendments. It is important for colleagues to structure their schedules for the remainder of the day that will allow them to stay in or close to the Chamber. We don't want colleagues to miss votes. At the same time, we want to move these votes as expeditiously as possible. Thirty votes is just the beginning. Let us alert our colleagues one more time. In addition to the 30 votes, or thereabouts, already in the queue, we have dozens and dozens of additional amendments that have been noticed. When the first vote starts, we will be asking the leadership--at least on our side, and the Senator can speak to his side--to go to Members who have noticed amendments and ask them to sharply reduce the number of amendments they intend to offer. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the Senator.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this amendment is very simple. It says it is the sense of the Senate that the tax cuts assumed in this resolution include repeal of the 1993 law that subject 85 percent of certain Social Security benefits to the income tax, provided that the revenue lost to the medical hospital insurance trust fund is fully replaced so that seniors' access to health care is not adversely affected. If the inclusion of these proposals would otherwise cause the cost of the tax cuts to exceed the level authorized in the resolution, any excess should be fully offset by closing corporate tax loopholes. We are proposing eliminating that tax on Social Security, as Senator Bunning is proposing. We are proposing doing it in a way that the revenue lost to the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund is fully replaced so that seniors' access to health care is not adversely affected. As I have indicated, if the inclusion of these proposals would otherwise cause the cost of the tax cuts to exceed the level authorized in the underlying resolution, any excess should be fully offset by closing corporate tax loopholes. This will now be in the queue, along with the Bunning amendment. I retain my time.

Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. CONRAD. I send to the desk an amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. CONRAD. It is the best way, I say to my colleagues, to try to keep this all on track. We are trying to get to the 1 o'clock mark and be able to proceed with all of the amendments that are stacked. Amendment No. 243

Mr. CONRAD. I will use the time and talk about the side by side. So we will be using the 7\1/2\ minutes on the other side of this amendment.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, Senator Gregg and I will work out how the time is used right here. It will either come out of the time in opposition or perhaps we could work out how we are using the balance of the time here, the 7\1/2\ minutes. Did the Senator want to use the time in opposition or should I use this time?

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I do have 5 minutes, I have been informed, that I can allocate. Let me give that 5 minutes that I have available.

Mr. CONRAD. The short answer is I do not. Under the agreement that has been reached, all time has been allocated among these various amendments, so there is no time remaining to allocate.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, if I could just alert colleagues, if we could hear from Senator Lieberman's office and Senator Clinton's office about their being able to discuss their amendments tonight, that would help us reach a conclusion on tonight's activities. I ask Senator Gregg if it would not be wise for us to alert colleagues with respect to votes tonight before we start on this hour of discussion?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the more I listen to this debate about the budget, the more I feel as though I am in some time warp, or some sort of surreal out-of-body experience because the other side talks about the need for more tax cuts and more spending. They never talk about the fiscal condition of the country at this moment. They never talk about where it is all headed. This is the circumstance we face tonight as we meet. This looks back to 1980. The green line is the revenue line, and the red line is the expenditure line of the Federal Government. The last time our Republican friends were in control back in the 1980s, we can see the expenditure line is way above the revenue line as a result of the massive deficits. Then a Democrat took office, and the spending line came down steadily. The revenue line went up, and the result was we balanced the budget, we stopped using Social Security money for other purposes. Then we got another Republican administration, and the revenue line collapsed, the spending line moved up, and the deficits again opened up dramatically. That is a fact. That is undeniable. That is what happened. Our Republican friends are plenty ready to spend the money, but they do not want to raise the taxes to cover their spending, and they don't want to cut their spending to match their revenue. The result is deficits as far as the eye can see. Here is what has happened since our Republican friends took over. The deficits have gone through the roof. It is not only the deficits, but the debt as well. The debt was $3.3 trillion--publicly held debt--and now it is headed for $9.4 trillion. Our Republican friends come with a budget that they say is fiscally responsible, but their own numbers give lie to the rhetoric. If you look at their own budget document on page 5 where they estimate how much they are going to increase the debt each and every year of this budget, here is what it shows. They are going to increase the debt $669 billion this year, $636 billion next year, $624 billion the next year, $612 billion the next year, and $611 billion the fifth year. They say they are cutting the deficits in half, but the debt goes up every year by over $600 billion, according to their own estimates. The Senator from Delaware comes with an amendment that says you shouldn't have special protection to further reduce the revenue base. You shouldn't have special protection that says we take the revenue base that has already collapsed and reduce it further with special protections from the traditional way of doing business in the Senate. Instead, if somebody wants to have more tax cuts, they should pay for them. There is an old-fashioned idea--pay for it. That is what the Senator from Delaware is saying. You can have more tax cuts, but pay for them, either reduce the spending to pay for them, or increase revenue somewhere else to pay for it, but don't tack it onto the debt. Don't add it to the deficit. Don't shove this onto our kids. Don't add this onto the already burgeoning Federal debt. It is a conservative idea. It says let us pay for what we do around here. I thank the Senator for his comments.