Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

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

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, might I suggest one other refinement, that we agree on no second-degree amendments. That is the agreement we already made between us. Maybe that would give people some comfort.

Mr. CONRAD. That is very helpful to us. I yield the floor. I think the chairman has a unanimous consent request.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wisconsin. He has been the leader on pay-go and budget discipline that says no spending and no tax cuts. You can have them, but you have to pay for them. There is a novel idea around here. You have to pay for them. Our colleague from Arizona indicated this concept--that if you cut taxes, you get more money. The only problem with that concept is it doesn't work in the real world. It is a wonderful idea. I wish it were true. But it isn't true. Here is what happens with revenues as a percent of our national income. In 2000, we were getting 20.9 percent of gross domestic product in Federal revenue. We passed a series of tax cuts, and what happened to revenue? It plunged to the lowest since 1959. That is what happened when we cut taxes. We got less revenue. The revenue side of the equation simply dropped out. That is why the deficits have exploded. I can remember so well back in 2001 when the Congressional Budget Office told us the range of possible outcomes on the deficits was expressed by this chart, which I call the fan chart. This was what would happen on the low end of their forecast, and this is what would happen on the high end. They chose the midrange, as did the President, which told them we were going to get $5.6 trillion of surpluses over the period. When I said to my Republican colleagues, let's not be so sure of that, let's not bet the farm on that, they assured me: Kent, you are being much too conservative. Don't you understand with the tax cuts we are putting in place we will get much more revenue? We are not going to be at the midpoint of the range, we will be above the midpoint of the range. We can go back now and look at what actually happened. Here is what actually happened. We are not at the bottom of the range, we are below the bottom. Here is what happened in reality: we are way below the bottom. All these tax cuts, what did they lead to? They led to less revenue, and coupled with the increases in spending for defense and homeland security as a result of September 11, the deficits exploded. Here is what has happened: our Republican colleagues, who used to be fiscally conservative, have now become borrow-and-spend advocates. They have no intention of doing anything about these budget deficits except add to them. Here is what that policy has achieved: record budget deficits. The question of pay-go, which is the budget discipline we had back in the 1980s and 1990s that helped us turn record deficits at that time into record surpluses, pay-go is a budget discipline that has worked, and the budget discipline that was in effect then is the budget discipline being offered by the Senator from Wisconsin now. This is the Federal Reserve Chairman on the question of restoring real pay-go. Congressman Spratt on the House side asked: Is it still your position that if we renew the paygo rule it should apply to both; that if we have tax cuts including the renewal of the expiring tax cuts in 2010, that these should be fully offset? Chairman Greenspan: It is still my position. That we have some form of paygo system, which is agreed upon by the Congress, in my judgment, is the overriding consideration here, because, as you point out, it's been quite effective in actually stemming budget inefficiencies and expansion during a period that it was law. Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan: All I'm saying is that my general view is I would like to see the tax burden as low as possible. And in that context, I would like to see tax cuts continue. But, as I indicated earlier, that has got to be, in my judgment, in the context of a paygo resolution. When further asked, the Chairman made clear a pay-go approach that applies to both spending and to taxes. The pay-go ledger in the Senate GOP budget allows massive deficit increases. It allows a $33 billion increase from 2006 to 2010. It allows almost a $260 billion increase in deficits in the period 2011 to 2015. Finally and in conclusion, the Republican budget before the Senate is advertised as cutting the deficit in half over the next 5 years. But the Republicans' own budget document shows something quite different from their assertions. On page 5 of the Republican budget document they provide their forecast of how the debt will increase every year for the next 5 years. Here is what it shows: A $669 billion increase in the debt this year, a $636 billion next year, $624 billion the year after that, $622 billion in the fourth year, and $611 billion in the fifth year. Those are the Republican estimates of the increase in debt if we pass their budget. That is a $3 trillion increase in the debt of the United States if this budget is passed. There is nothing in there that is going to protect us from massive increases of deficit and debt. The opportunity to be fiscally disciplined is the opportunity offered in the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. CONRAD. Is it the understanding of the Chair that all time has been used or yielded back on both sides on the three pending amendments; that is, the Akaka veterans amendment, the Ensign veterans amendment, and the Specter amendment on NIH?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we should follow the advice of the chairman of the Budget Committee on the matter before us. The chairman of the Budget Committee in a floor debate on June 5 of 2002 said this: The second budget discipline, which is pay-go, essentially says if you are going to add a new entitlement program or you are going to cut taxes during a period, especially of deficits, you must offset that event so that it becomes a budget neutral event. He went on to say: . . . if we do not do this, if we do not put back in place caps and pay-go mechanisms, we will have no budget discipline in this Congress and as a result we will dramatically aggravate the deficit which, of course, impacts a lot of important issues but especially impacts Social Security. That is the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee in 2002, saying pay-go ought to apply to both spending and to taxes. He was right then. And it is the right position now. Pay-go should apply to both spending and taxes. That is what the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin does. It deserves our support. I want to say a word about the remarks of the Senator from Mississippi, who said it is time to get serious, it is time to get tough on deficits. He is right. But he is badly mistaken if he thinks this budget does anything about deficits. The only thing this budget does about deficits is to make them worse. This budget before us increases the deficit by $130 billion in excess of what would happen if we did nothing. If we just put this economy on autopilot, we would reduce the deficit by $130 billion compared to this budget. I see my colleague is holding up a chart over there that shows the deficit going down. But what he ought to do is take a look at their own budget document on page 5 where it reveals how much the debt increases if this budget passes. This is not my estimate. This is their estimate. It says the debt is going to increase by over $600 billion each and every year of this budget resolution. This is not a budget that does anything about reducing the increases in the debt, except to extend budgets that explode the debt. They can put up all the fancy charts they want. This one shows the deficit being cut in half. The problem with it is it just leaves out things. The only reason they get to a reduction in the deficit under this plan is they just exclude things we all know are going to cost money. I heard the Senator from Mississippi say we ought to do something about the alternative minimum tax. Indeed, we should. There is not a dime in this budget to do it--not a dime. Under pay-go, you can have any tax cut you want. You can have any additional spending you want--if you pay for it or you get a supermajority vote. Paying for things, that is a new idea around here. Our Republican friends have adopted the policy of borrow and spend, borrow and spend, borrow and spend. They don't want to raise the revenue to cover their spending and they don't want to cut their spending to match the revenue they will support. Instead, they just want to put it on the charge card, run up the debt, shove it off on our kids and wait for the roof to cave in. That is a mistake. Pay-go is restoring the budget disciplines that worked well in the past. We ought to adopt the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin. I thank the Chair and yield my time to the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, let me say to my colleagues, that is the last agreement I will enter into because we are rapidly running out of time on the resolution. We have spent a great deal of time on this matter. Certainly in recognition of Senator Stevens' long service, and his intense interest on this issue, we will agree to that one moving back of the vote.

Mr. CONRAD. May we have order in the Chamber.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, I just want to make sure we have a couple of refinements to this. If we could; one, give people 2 minutes equally divided to describe their amendment before the vote; second, that after the first vote, the subsequent votes be 10-minute votes. And can we send a very clear signal to our colleagues. Some colleagues have been missing votes. We have to ask people to stay in the Chamber. Cast your vote. Make sure you do not miss a vote. Let's try to get these votes off quickly. We have had a couple of votes that took 28 minutes. That just slows down the process for everybody. We should make our colleagues understand that at this moment we have 150 amendments that have been noticed to the leaders--150 between the two sides. At three votes an hour, that would be 50 hours of straight voting. Now, if we want to subject ourselves and our colleagues to that, we will just stay on the current course. If, instead, we want to bring some discipline and some order, then we have to agree to a series of short time limits on votes. What we would like to do is try to conclude work on the budget resolution by some reasonable hour tomorrow night, like maybe 10 o'clock tomorrow night. That could be done, but it is only going to happen if people cooperate. It is only going to happen if we show some discipline. I urge my colleagues, if you sent a notice that you have an amendment, please, if there are amendments that are on a similar topic, join with others. Let's try to remove a substantial number of these amendments so that we can conclude at some reasonable time.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object, let me make certain I understand the request. The problem we have, I say to the Senator, all of the time has been allocated. Maybe there is some additional time you have on your side. We have locked in a 1 o'clock vote, and if you add the time for the veterans amendment and the ANWR amendment, there is 2 minutes remaining before 1 o'clock to come off the resolution.

Mr. CONRAD. If I might, I gave time off the resolution on our side, but I was very careful to check with the timekeeper that there was time that would not impinge on the 1 o'clock vote. That is the problem we have.

Mr. CONRAD. I alert my colleagues of the time situation. I gave 10 minutes off the resolution to Senator Cantwell to control to even up the two sides. Here is the problem: I only have 3 minutes left on the resolution before the 1 o'clock vote. I would be happy to give the Senator from California 1 of those 3 minutes.

Mr. CONRAD. Off the resolution. And that uses all the time until 1 o'clock.

Mr. CONRAD. I do not have before me the anticipated flow of revenue. But, really, that is not so important as the fundamental underlying question: Is this an attempt to do something by way of a policy change that is merely incidental to the budget process? I think one would have to answer: Clearly it is. That makes it an abuse of the process. Reconciliation, again, for my colleagues, was designed to be used for deficit reduction. This cannot be seen, seriously, as a deficit reduction plan.

Mr. CONRAD. National Guard.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield an additional 10 minutes off the resolution under the control of the Senator from Washington.

Mr. CONRAD. I do not object.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are now on the third day of the budget resolution. I inquire of the desk, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes off the resolution to the Senator from Massachusetts so he may be able to answer the questions that were put to him.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would say, in answer to my colleague, my own belief is whatever one's views on opening the Alaska national wildlife refuge for exploration, whatever one's views are, my own belief is this is an inappropriate way to reach that policy conclusion. The Senator is correct. Reconciliation is a process outside normal rules of the Senate. Reconciliation takes away from every Senator their most fundamental right, and that is the right to unlimited debate, the right to have an amendment, and the right as a member of the minority to resist the passage of legislation. Reconciliation is a fast-track procedure that was put in place to try to address what was then record budget deficits. It was an attempt to provide a special protected procedure, not for the purpose of making policy changes that were incidental to the budget process but that were central to the budget process. I do not think there is much question that this is a policy change being put in reconciliation that is incidental to the budget process. It is an attempt to change legislative policy that is far beyond an attempt to effect budget policy. For that reason, I personally believe, whatever one's views on ANWR, that this is an abuse of the process.

Mr. CONRAD. Dorgan amendment on runaway plants.

Mr. CONRAD. I certainly would.

Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to accommodate the Senator in that way. I understand, as I am hearing it, the Senator has another obligation, and he would like to finish his argument, and he would like to be able to respond.

Mr. CONRAD. Maybe we could work out some timing on this so we do not--maybe we could have a mini unanimous consent agreement so we can share this time in a way that does not force up the rest of our schedule here?