Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators be able to file documents supporting their amendments as we go throughout the day.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, for an amendment.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are prepared to take this amendment. We are ready to go to a voice vote on this amendment.

Mr. CONRAD. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CONRAD. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts. Amendment No. 315

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield to Senator Byrd for his amendment.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CONRAD. I yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. CONRAD. I ask the Senator from Nevada if he is ready to consider his amendment.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this is a substitute amendment that has $1.2 trillion less in deficits than the President's plan. It also provides the funding for the war supplemental. It provides for additional funding for homeland security of $80 billion over the baseline. It provides $194 billion of additional funding for prescription drugs, which is still well short of what would be needed to give Americans the kind of coverage we, as Members of Congress, have. It provides $73 billion to keep the promise made by Congress to States on funding for that program. It provides $71 billion for transportation infrastructure, $13 billion for veterans, and balances in 2011, as compared to the underlying resolution of balancing in 2012, and the President's budget which never balances. Colleagues, I urge you to support this substitute which is the priorities of the American people.

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

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this is a whole substitute.

Mr. CONRAD. I yield to Senator Baucus. Amendment No. 348

Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent there be 2 minutes equally divided on this amendment--for all of them.

Mr. CONRAD. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield time to the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are on the verge of completing action on the budget resolution for this year. The occupant of the chair knows well that tomorrow we will turn our attention to the final amendments. There will be 40 amendments in order on our side, some number on the other side, and we will complete action by 4 o'clock on Wednesday. These are momentous decisions that have very important long-term implications. So I thought I would take a moment today to review where we are, where we are headed, and to propose an alternative I will be asking my colleagues to vote on tomorrow, so that we have a chance to describe in some detail what the elements of the Democratic alternative are to the budget being proposed from the other side. Let me start by reviewing where we are and reminding colleagues that just 2 years ago we were told we had some $5.6 trillion in surpluses over the next decade. Now we know that if the President's tax and spending policies are adopted, instead of surpluses we will have $2.1 trillion of deficits over the next 10 years. That is especially important, given the fact that the baby boom generation is poised to retire in this 10-year period. In fact, the baby boomers start to retire in 2008. This is an extraordinary reversal that has occurred, $5.6 trillion in surpluses 2 years ago, $2.1 trillion in deficits now. That is a $7.7 trillion reversal. Let's look at where the money went. This next chart shows where the money went. Obviously, some of it is because of the economic downturn, some of it is because of additional spending as a result of the attack on this country. The biggest reason for the disappearance of the surplus is the tax cuts that have been already passed and those that the President proposes. If you take those tax cuts and the associated interest costs, you see it is the biggest single reason for the disappearance of the surplus. The second biggest reason is labeled here ``other legislation.'' That is primarily spending--spending as a result of the increases for national defense and homeland security. That is where virtually all of the additional spending has gone. The third biggest reason is technical changes, primarily lower revenues--revenues being lower than anticipated, not as a result of the tax cut but because the economic models incorrectly predicted what revenue would be for various levels of economic activity. The smallest reason for the disappearance of the surplus is the economic downturn, although it has clearly played a role, at 9 percent. I think what is most sobering about where we are and where we are headed is this chart from the President's own budget. This is from page 43 of his analytical perspectives. It takes the long view. It looks from 2002, going out to 2050, if the President's policies are adopted, his tax cuts, his spending. What it shows is we never escape from deficit--never. And these are the good times; these deficits are the smallest as a percentage of our gross domestic product, even though they are record deficits in dollar terms. These are the largest deficits we have ever had in dollar terms. This year, the deficit, not counting Social Security, will be over $500 billion on a $2.2 trillion budget. That is a very large deficit by any measure. But look at what happens if we adopt the President's plan. Those deficits get larger and larger and larger as we go forward because the cost of them explodes at the very time the cost of the Federal Government explodes and at the retirement of the baby boom generation. Some are saying deficits don't really matter. Somehow, even people who, for their whole careers, believed deficits matter and that we ought to combat deficits are now saying, well, deficits don't really matter, that these are relatively small deficits in the percentage of GDP terms, and that we need not really worry about that. Mr. President, I will say this. First of all, these are not small deficits: $500 billion deficit on a $2.2 trillion overall base is a deficit of over 25 percent. As a percentage of GDP, A $500 billion deficit on a GDP of $10.5 trillion is a deficit approaching 5 percent of GDP. That is in the range of the very large deficits we saw in the eighties. Again, what I hope will be remembered is that these are deficits that are right on the verge of the retirement of the baby boom generation. That is when the cost to the Federal Government explodes. That is why these deficits are especially dangerous for the long-term economic security of the country. For those who say deficits do not really matter, let's turn to Alan Greenspan who is the chairman of the Federal Reserve. He believes deficits matter. He said: There is no question that as deficits go up, contrary to what some have said, it does affect long-term interest rates. It does have a negative impact on the economy, unless attended. This chart is especially important because it shows why this matters so much. This shows the moment in time we are in and why the previous chart from the President's analysis shows this could be the sweet spot. It is because the trust funds of Medicare and Social Security are right now producing hundreds of billions of dollars of surpluses. This year the Social Security trust fund alone will produce over a $160 billion surplus. That is the green bar on this chart. That is the Social Security trust fund. The blue bar, the smaller bar, is the Medicare trust fund. It is also producing surpluses, although substantially smaller than Social Security. One can see they are much larger in total than the tax cuts that are in place. Look what happens in the next year. Then the size of the tax cuts almost equal the trust fund surpluses. That is true the rest of this decade. Then look what happens. As the trust funds start to go cash negative in the next decade, the cost of the tax cuts explode. Let's reality test. We are already in record deficits now, the biggest deficits in dollar terms we have ever had. We are already in record deficit land. The biggest deficit on a unified basis--that means when we put everything into the pot, all spending, all expenditures, all revenue--the biggest deficit we ever had before was under the previous President Bush, $290 billion--$290 billion. This year the deficit on a unified basis is going to be over $400 billion. Remember, that does not count the $160 billion that is being taken from Social Security trust fund surpluses. Put those together and we are over $560 billion. What is ominous about this is that as we go forward, when the trust funds turn cash negative, the cost of the President's tax cuts absolutely explodes, driving us right off the cliff, deeper and deeper deficits, deeper and deeper debt. That is going to present a future Congress and a future administration with extremely difficult choices. Here is what the CBO Director, the Congressional Budget Office, put in place by our friends on the other side of the aisle. It was their choice for the Director of CBO. CBO is nonpartisan, but they had the opportunity to pick him because they were in the majority. This is what he said: Put more starkly, Mr. Chairman, the extremes of what will be required to address our retirement are these: We'll have to increase borrowing by very large, likely unsustainable amounts; raise taxes to 30 percent of GDP, obviously unprecedented in our history; or eliminate most of the rest of Government as we know it. That is the dilemma that faces us in the long run, Mr. Chairman, and these next 10 years will only be the beginning. That is what he is referring to there--only the beginning. This is going to get much more serious as the baby boom generation retires and as the cost of the President's tax cuts explode. Some are saying: But this is a growth package, and we are going to grow out of this problem by more and more tax cuts. The so-called growth part of the President's tax proposal costs $994 billion. The $726 billion that is advertised in the newspapers forgets about the associated interest costs. If you reduce your revenue or increase your spending, that adds to your interest cost. When you take the whole cost together, it is $994 billion in this 10-year period, but the first year stimulus is only $40 billion. The President only has 4 percent of his package in the year in which we know we need lift to the economy. We know we need stimulus. He is only providing 4 percent of his package in that year. It does not make much sense really if we are trying to get the economy moving again and yet not add in the long term to the deficits and debt that will make our future choices more difficult and more dangerous. This is an analysis of what the President's plan does to economic growth. It was done by Macroeconomic Advisers. This firm is under contract to the White House to do their macroeconomic analysis. They are also under contract to our Congressional Budget Office. Here is what they say. They say that the President's plan crowds out investment and slows the economy after 2004. It is not a growth package at all. It is a package that will hurt growth, will retire growth, will reduce jobs, will reduce opportunity. Why? Because they have concluded the President's plan and the tax cuts in it are offset not by spending cuts but by borrowing the money. You cannot borrow your way to prosperity. What happens because of the President's plan? We go deeper into deficit--remember, we are already in record deficit now. You cut revenue and you raise spending, which is the President's plan; you go deeper into deficit. You go deeper into deficit and you reduce the pool of societal savings. That reduces the pool of funds that is necessary for investment. Less investment, less growth, that is their conclusion. But it is not just their conclusion. We also have an analysis by Economy.com, Mark Zandi, the noted economist there, on the economic impact of the President's plan, comparing it to the plan the Democrats have offered. What they concluded is the plan offered by the Democrats is about twice as strong, is about twice as stimulative as the President's plan. In 2003, the President's plan would increase growth by four-tenths of 1 percent; the Democrats' plan by seven-tenths of 1 percent, almost twice as much. In 2004, the President's plan would increase growth by half of 1 percent; the Democrats' plan by nine-tenths of 1 percent. But I think the most interesting conclusion is the conclusion for the entire 10- year period. He has concluded that the President's plan actually hurts economic growth for the 10-year period. From 2003 to 2013, he finds that the President's plan is negative. Why? Well, he says because of this crowding-out effect. Because the President's plan creates more deficits. That means more borrowing; that means the Federal Government is in competition with the private sector to borrow money; that drives up interest rates. When interest rates go up, economic growth goes down. That is the fundamental problem with the President's plan. Again, it is not just Chairman Greenspan. It is not just macroeconomic advisers. It is not just economy.com. Two hundred fifty of the most prominent CEOs in America, who head the Committee for Economic Development, came out 2 weeks ago with a detailed report that found the following: No. 1, current budget projections seriously understate the problem. In other words, the problem of deficits and growing debt is much bigger than has been acknowledged. No. 2, while slower economic growth has caused much of the immediate deterioration of the deficit, the deficits in later years reflect our tax and spending choices. No. 3, deficits do matter. No. 4, the aging of our population compounds the problem. This is really a confirmation of everything I have been saying to my colleagues. Deficits do matter. Of course they matter, just like they matter to a family. A family cannot go out and spend more money than they have in income without it catching up to them at some point. By the way, it does not happen right away. Just like to a family, one can run up those charge cards, spend more money than they have got coming in for awhile, but at some point it catches up to them. So, too, with nations, even great nations such as ours. We can spend more than we take in for awhile, but at some point the chickens come home to roost. We cannot have deficits that are growing as a percentage of our gross domestic product. That is what every economist will say. We cannot have deficits that grow consistently above the size of the growth of our economy, and that is the problem with the President's plan. The deficits grow faster than the economy is growing--not just a little bit faster, a lot faster. That is what puts us in a very difficult circumstance. Again, that is not just the opinion of the sources I have cited. From the Virginian-Pilot, Norfolk, VA, editorial: Our challenge is to allow Americans to keep more of their money, the President said in his speech Tuesday. That was a sound argument when the Nation was building up a surplus year after year. But our financial outlook has changed for the worse. There is no money left over to give us back. Remember 2 years ago when the President had his plan for a big tax cut and he said, we are only giving back one out of every four surplus dollars. Remember, the surpluses are gone. There are no surpluses. Now all we see is deficits and red ink. There is no money to give back. They continue: So the government will borrow billions to make good the President's IOU. Americans should be skeptical about the promise of something for nothing. It is your tax cuts but it is also your Social Security, health care, schools and roads. They all suffer when the government has to borrow to meet its daily expenses. It is not just the newspaper in Norfolk, VA. The Deseret News, Salt Lake City, UT, says: Now is not the time to cut taxes. War is unpredictable. . . . A long protracted campaign that triggers counterattacks by terrorists and Iraqi sympathizers could be hugely expensive. Boy, were they prescient because today we learned the President is going to come up this week and ask for another $75 billion for this year alone to wage the war in Iraq, not a dime of which is in the budget. None of that is in the budget. Coupled with giant tax cuts, it could send the budget deficit back into levels not seen in a decade or more, which would stifle growth and hamper investment. Exactly the points I have been trying to make to our colleagues during this budget debate. Congress ought to put the President's tax plan on the shelf for awhile until it knows better how the men and women in uniform are going to be spending their year. Let's look at the budget that has been proposed on the other side, because here is what we see: This year alone, the deficit will be somewhat less than the President has proposed, but still nearly $500 billion, and it never goes away. This is all red ink. This is all borrowed money. Not a single year is the deficit below $300 billion under the President's plan or under the plan that the Republicans are offering us in the Senate Chamber. It is truly stunning. Those are the biggest deficits we have ever seen. It is not just deficits, but it is also the debt of the country. Two years ago, the President promised that under his plan he would virtually eliminate the debt by 2008. Well, we see that is no longer operative. If we enact the Senate GOP budget plan, the total debt of $6 trillion in 2002 will be $12 trillion in 2013, almost doubling in that period. Many of us think that would be a serious mistake. This is what we see. This line across the chart at zero is baseline. That is if we do not change the revenue policy of the Federal Government, we do not change the spending policy of the Federal Government. That is the so-called baseline. If we adopt President Bush's budget, we can see $2.8 trillion of added debt during this period. The Senate GOP plan would add $2.2 trillion of debt. What is critical is that we are on the verge of the retirement of the baby boom generation. This is a time we ought to be paying down debt or prepaying liability. Instead, they are talking about dramatically expanding debt, either under the President's plan or the Senate GOP plan. I am going to offer an alternative on behalf of Senate Democrats. These are the key elements of this plan: Instead of a $1.6 trillion tax cut, we will offer a tax cut much more modest, one that is at the front end to give stimulus to the economy, that would cost $61 billion. In terms of covering the costs of the Iraq war, there is no provision in the President's budget, no provision in the Senate Budget Committee's budget. We would provide the $80 billion the President calls for. On homeland security, the President and the Senate budget are in the $22 billion to $26 billion range for the 10 years. We would provide $80 billion for homeland security, because we think it is necessary. On a prescription drug benefit, both of them would provide $400 billion during this 10-year period. We would provide $594 billion for a fuller prescription drug benefit. Make no mistake, this is no Cadillac plan. To give the American people the plan that we as Members of Congress have over that period would cost not $594 billion but $1.8 trillion. To give the plan to the American people that our military has would cost $2.2 trillion over that same period. So it is important to understand that while we are putting more money into prescription drugs than the President's plan or the Senate Republican plan, it is a long way from being generous. As I have indicated, $594 billion is about one-third of the cost of giving the plan that all Federal employees have to the American people. On education, there is no additional money for IDEA. That is the promise we made to States and local communities when we passed the Disabilities Act legislation for our schools. We said we would fund 40 percent of the costs. We only do half as much. To keep the promise to phase it in over 10 years costs $73 billion. We provide for it. Neither the President nor the Senate GOP plan does. On transportation infrastructure, the President actually cuts $18 billion below the baseline, below level funding. The Senate GOP plan also cuts, but now it has been amended by a floor amendment, so they bump it up $27 billion. We would provide $71 billion over 10 years above the baseline. Why? Because, No. 1, it is stimulative. You start building roads and bridges. Those are good-paying jobs. More than that, it increases the efficiency of our economy. If anyone doubts that, go to the Wilson Bridge tonight at 5:30 and see what is happening. Look at the people going nowhere. That has an economic cost to our society. Go out on Route 66 tonight and see what is happening there. Absolute gridlock. It is not just in the Washington metroplex, but all across America. In my State of North Dakota, which is not heavily populated, we have a substantial part of our road and bridge network that needs repair. Many of the bridges in this country, something like 40 percent, are substandard. That will cost money to fix. If a bridge goes out, that creates lockjaw in the whole economic system of that area. That is something we ought to tend to. There is no additional money in the President's budget or the Senate Republican budget for our Nation's veterans. We provide $13 billion over the baseline to say to our veterans: We honor what you do to defend this country, and we believe the promise that has been made to you on your health care and on your treatment ought to be kept. Virtually everyone knows the baseline budget for veterans is insufficient. We try to address that with those additions. The difference in deficits? The President adds $2.1 trillion to deficits; $1.6 trillion under the Senate GOP plan as amended; ours is $863 billion. The difference between our plan and the President's plan is over $1.2 trillion. We have $1.2 trillion less in deficits than the President's plan. Our plan has $750 billion less in deficits than the plan proposed by the Republican majority. The President's plan never balances the budget. The Senate Republican plan balances in 2012, perhaps 2013. We balance in 2011. That is a wiser course for America and what we should do. I very much hope that our colleagues give close consideration to this alternative budget when we vote. I will put more descriptions and detail of our alternative into the Congressional Record so it is available to our colleagues, so when we vote tomorrow on this alternative, Members will have a chance to make their own judgment and to compare very directly what we have proposed, what the President has proposed, and what the Senate majority has proposed. I hope very much that our colleagues will take a close look at what we are suggesting: $1.2 trillion less in deficits than the President's plan; over $750 billion less in deficits than the majority has proposed. Yet we have also tried to address the war cost, which is not included in either the President's budget or the budget from the majority in the Senate. We have tried to address keeping the Federal Government's promise to local subdivisions on education funding. We have also tried to address the transportation gridlock in the country by providing more funds, and the health care needs of America, by some additional funding on prescription drugs. And, of course, the other difference, the additional funding for our Nation's veterans, something we believe is especially called for in this time when they are sacrificing so much, half a world away in the battle with Iraq. Again, a budget is about choices. That is what we are doing. We are making choices on behalf of the American people. What is the future going to look like? I believe the budgets proposed by the President and the Republican majority are dangerous for this country. I believe that deeply. They are pushing us deeper and deeper into deficit and debt right on the eve of the retirement of the baby boom generation. The cost of the President's tax cuts explode at the very time the cost to the Government explodes because of the retirement of the baby boom generation. Remember, we are already in record deficits, and the retirement of the baby boomers is not 20 years away, it is not 10 years away; the leading edge of the baby boom generation starts to retire in 5 years. I believe we will be condemned in history for failing to face up to our responsibilities and our obligations if we do not recognize what is right over the horizon. That is not a part of the projection. That is a matter of simple fact. The baby boomers have been born. They are alive today and they are going to be eligible for Social Security and Medicare. We know exactly what is going to happen. The cost to the Federal Government of having twice as many people eligible for Social Security and Medicare in the years ahead can only do one thing: It will drive up dramatically the cost of Social Security and Medicare. And at the very time those costs expand and explode, the cost of the President's tax cut will expand and explode and put this country in deep deficit, in deep debt, and fundamentally threaten the economic security of this country. I fear some of our colleagues actually intend to shred the programs of Social Security and Medicare. I don't know what other plan they can have in mind. These details, these projections of the spending and revenue of the Federal Government are very clear. Some have said, well, if the economy grows more strongly, won't that help? Yes, it will help. But understand that all of these numbers assume strong economic growth. They assume the kind of economic growth we have had in the past. Let me also say some will look at the plan that I have provided and say, gee, Senator, you have some more spending than the Republican plan. Yes, I do. I pay for this war. I increase funding for homeland security. I increase funding for our veterans. I increase funding for education and prescription drugs--just in those areas. The rest of the budget and domestic affairs we hold to a 4-percent increase. That means other parts of the budget are actually having to be cut in order to provide for the priorities for education and prescription drugs. Other parts of the budget are having to be cut. Let me show a final chart with the long-term spending of the Federal Government from 1981 through 2013. The peak of Federal spending as a percentage of gross domestic product occurred in the 1980s when we were at 23.5 percent of gross domestic product going to the Federal Government. That has come down markedly, to less than 20 percent. Now we have had a jump back up because of the increased defense spending and increased homeland security spending. Look at the difference between my budget and the Senate GOP plan. There is very little difference. We wind up at 19.3 percent of gross domestic product under the plan I am proposing, down from 23.5 percent in the early 1980s; the Republican plan goes to 18.8 percent, a one- half of 1 percent difference. That one-half of 1 percent is important because it is a matter of priorities. It is a matter of choices. The budget I am proposing puts in the $80 billion to fund this war in Iraq. Our friends on the other side do not have any money to fund the war. No. 2, we provide additional funding for our Nation's veterans, $13 billion, not a lot of money over 10 years, but it is meaningful to them. It means we can keep promises we have made to them. In the other major areas of difference, I have provided some additional funding for prescription drugs--again, a plan that is very modest compared to what Members of Congress and Federal employees have. I have also suggested additional funding for transportation because we need it. We need to improve the efficiency of our transportation system in this country. Those are the choices that are going to be before our colleagues. The plan I have offered today is a plan that will produce, as I have indicated, $1.2 trillion less in deficits than the President's plan; over $750 billion less in deficits than the Senate GOP plan. That is important. That is critically important. I hope my colleagues will take a close look at this plan. I welcome their support. I urge them to give full consideration to it. Finally, the other major difference is on education. The plan I have offered would move us toward keeping the promise we made to States and local jurisdictions all across America when we passed the IDEA act. We promised we would provide 40 percent of the funding. We are doing half of it. That is not good enough. When the Federal Government makes a promise, it ought to be kept. Tomorrow, under the rules of the Senate, we will not have time to discuss these options. We will not have much time for debate at all. There will be a minute a side before the vote is called. But all of us will be held accountable for the choices we make tomorrow. They are choices not just for tomorrow and not just for this year, they are choices for the next decade. There has rarely been a more important decade in terms of the choices being made. What we are about to see is something that has never happened in this country before, a circumstance where we have this baby boom generation that almost overnight is going to double the number of people eligible for our retirement programs in this country. Nobody will be able to say 10 years from now, when the crunch really hits, gee, we had no idea this was going to happen. Our colleagues are on notice. They know. We have presented now, over and over, in great detail, where we are headed. The choice is ours to make. I hope we make it wisely. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD

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

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me add my voice in commendation of Lloyd Ogilvie. He has been superb as the religious leader of this body. Several years ago, my chief of staff died suddenly and unexpectedly. I called Dr. Ogilvie on very short notice and asked him to come and lead my staff in prayer and remembrance. I will never forget the extraordinary job, the extraordinary sensitivity that Dr. Ogilvie brought to that task. I will never forget the way he made my staff feel better in a very acute time of loss. Dr. Ogilvie has been a remarkable friend to us all; he has done a superb job of leading us in prayer, and been a counselor to so many in the Senate family. We are going to miss him very much, and certainly miss the presence of Mary Jane as well. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, first of all, the leaders have indicated there has to be trust on both sides. The chairman of the committee has shown himself to be trustworthy in these long, difficult negotiations this whole week. We had instances last night where I had to make a decision that could have disadvantaged our side and did it because that was keeping a promise. The chairman of the committee had to make a decision today that could have disadvantaged his side, but he did it to keep faith with the commitment that he made. I want colleagues on our side to know the chairman of the committee has repeatedly demonstrated trustworthiness. That is important to the functioning of this body. We are going to have to really work together very closely to resolve these matters. Let me say in conclusion to our colleagues on this side, we have 135 amendments pending. We only have 40 spots. That means Senators are going to have to give up what is their right to offer amendments. That is the most precious right any Senator has. So we understand why they guard that right with real fervor at times. But I hope people understand there is no way we can fit 135 into 40. It is going to take restraint, and it is going to take trust. I think together over these next days we will demonstrate we are worthy of this body we serve and this country we love.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be shown as a cosponsor of the Hutchison amendment.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me just say the chairman and I have worked together closely to try to move this agenda, to have amendments and do it in an efficient way. But I must say I don't see any earthly reason this bill has to be done today. The requirement is April 15. I think we are getting over the edge into unreasonableness. When one side gets unreasonable, that creates a reaction on the other side. I have tried to be reasonable, but I say to my colleagues, at some point it is going to be hard to feel that there is some rational reason for this press. We can get this bill done, and get it done in a timely way, without going endlessly into the night. We went until midnight last night, the same the night before. I will tell you, I think we should press ahead, do additional amendments for a time, but I think we need to fold our tent and recognize that we need to come back tomorrow or Tuesday morning and finish. I just ask my colleagues to think about that and, in the meantime, we can try to get an agreement on another traunche of amendments to work on.

Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me say to Members on our side who have amendments pending, we had over 105 amendments noticed. Not all of those have been filed at the desk. We are asking Senators, if you have provided notice of an amendment but it could be put off to another day, please come to us now and advise us of that. We need to reduce the number of amendments. We know that typically amendments Members have indicated an interest in sometimes fall away. Many times many of the amendments fall away. That would be helpful. With that said, I also want to advise Members, I do not see any way that this bill gets completed tonight. There are simply too many amendments Members have indicated they are serious about taking to a vote. That does not mean we should not bend every effort to reduce the number of amendments outstanding so we could complete this as nearly as possible today, and finish up at a reasonable time tomorrow. So this is going to be a challenge to all of us. If we do not do this, let me just say, there are still 85 amendments pending here. We have been doing about three an hour. If we continue on this pace, we are going to be here for another several days. So I implore my colleagues, if you have given notice of an amendment, but you really do not need a vote on it, please advise the staff of that so we can whittle down this list.

Mr. CONRAD. I ask for the yeas and nays.