Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. CONRAD. Yes, it is controlled time.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for her excellent presentation on this amendment and hope that we can proceed with more substantive amendments as soon as possible and that we can have a healthy debate and then vote on these matters so the body has a chance to indicate their priorities. I know there are other Senators wishing to discuss matters. I notice the very able senior Senator from South Carolina is in the Chamber. How much time is the Senator seeking?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his statement. I will take a few moments later to respond. Hopefully, we can get an agreement on the contents of the Senator's amendment. In the meantime, the Senator from Washington has been patiently waiting. I yield her 10 minutes or whatever time she uses.

Mr. CONRAD. We have no objection on this side.

Mr. CONRAD. I would certainly be open to that. I would want the opinion of the manager and chairman of the committee.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I know the Senator from South Carolina has a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. Let me just say I regret that because we have done our level best to stop the practice of offering sense-of-the-Senate amendments on the budget resolution. We have established a point of order against them to try to discourage sense- of-the-Senate amendments. And we have been so far, until this moment, successful on both sides. I just say to my colleagues, if we start down this path, we will be right back to where we were in the past. We are going to be right back to vote-arama. We are going to be right back to a circumstance in which, when all time has expired, we are going to face 30 or 40 or 50 votes and nobody is going to have a chance to explain them. We are going to have Senators, hour after hour after hour, marching down into the well of the Senate to cast votes on issues they have not even had a chance to debate or had a chance to discuss. I regret very much the sense-of-the-Senate amendment has been put in this queue. I say to my colleagues on the other side, if we start down this path, the same thing is going to happen over here. Let me say, it is not the fault of the Senator from South Carolina. He has offered an amendment in good faith. We respect that Senator. But the point is a larger question of how we proceed on a budget resolution. Both sides have worked very hard to prevent vote-arama. We are right now rushing toward that result. I hope everybody thinks very carefully now about the decisions we are making because we are going to reap the whirlwind. Let me just say this to my colleagues. There is an alternative. The Senator from South Carolina has gotten in the queue. I hope we can work out an agreement on his amendment. I understand staffs on both sides are working on that. If we do not draw the line here, it is Katie bar the door. And we should all understand that. No. 2, I hope after the Senator from South Carolina has a reasonable time to discuss his amendment, hopefully during that period our staffs can work together and we can reach an accommodation and agreement so the amendment of the Senator can be adopted without a vote. I urge that course on my colleagues on the other side. Next, that we then move to a debate on another amendment with the ability to come back and finish off on ANWR before the vote that is now scheduled at 3 o'clock. I just hope we all think very carefully, now, in these minutes, before we head down this path, of where it leads. At the same time, on both sides, we discussed trying to reach an agreement on a set number of amendments, those to be debated and those to be in vote-arama. On our side we are calling a caucus to discuss that very question. I hope the other side--I have already talked to Senator Nickles about it--will give it close consideration as well, so we avoid this spectacle of vote-arama. But right now colleagues should understand we are headed for the vote-arama of all time, and it will not reflect well on the body, and it probably will not lead to the best results. With that, I yield the floor and, again, hope my colleagues consider these options. Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina addressed the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD. That will be fine, if we take it from the amendment.

Mr. CONRAD. We are now in a situation where we have had very extended debate on ANWR. At some point, we have to draw it to a close.

Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to do so.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, first of all, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Daschle, Senator Feingold, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Corzine appear as cosponsors of my amendment which is currently pending.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the very able Senator from Maryland for her statement and for the values expressed in that statement. I think we have reached a critical moment. We have 250,000 troops poised on the border with Iraq. There are a number of additional troops from the U.K. Other nations may be involved, as well. There is no provision for the cost of this conflict in the budget. It does strike me as the better part of wisdom to say we ought to limit any additional measures that add to the deficit by either spending or tax cuts, with the two exceptions I have noted before. On the spending side, certainly we would exempt national defense and homeland security. On the tax side, we would be wise to exempt the funds for a stimulus package in 2003 and 2004. Beyond that, we would require a supermajority vote that adds to deficits when we are on the brink of conflict, the cost of which has not been quantified. That is what my amendment is about. I hope as we move closer to the time toward a vote on that amendment, our colleagues will give thoughtful consideration to what I have offered.

Mr. CONRAD. That amendment provides for a stimulus package. The Senator is correct. In 2003 and 2004, that provides for both tax cuts and spending. In the second amendment I am offering, to reduce the size of the tax cut and still leave $150 billion in tax cuts, there is no provision of spending. So I guess this is an example of why it is better if we handle each of these amendments individually rather than to stack them, because we get confused about what amendment we are addressing. I guess that is why we are designed here to offer an amendment at a time. Let me just say, on the second amendment, it is--I say this directly to the chairman--not designed to accommodate the Democratic leader's stimulus plan. It doesn't have the spending that is in his stimulus plan. It simply has $150 billion in tax cuts, $25 billion of which is refundables. I have done that to try to give our colleagues different opportunities to address what I consider the greatest threat we face, which is sinking into this abyss of deficits and debt. I believe, with everything that is in me, that we ought to do something on both the spending side and the tax-cutting side, and that is what the first amendment represents. It is an attempt to say to our colleagues that we are on the brink of war and we don't know what it will cost, we are in record deficit now, and that what we should do is make it more difficult to spend money and to have tax cuts, with two exceptions: We don't make it more difficult to spend money on defense or homeland security, and we don't make it more difficult to have tax cuts to the extent that they are for 2003 and 2004, to accommodate a stimulus package to give lift to the economy.

Mr. CONRAD. Yes, I am happy to.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. Madam President, this amendment reduces the tax cut by $1.2 trillion, leaving a tax cut of $150 billion, and with the reduction in the tax cut, it is put in the reserve fund to strengthen Social Security. That means it will be used to reduce the deficit until it is needed to help supplement the Social Security system.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, how much time remains?

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, let me be clear. My first amendment does not contain the Daschle growth package. It does not. It simply is not reading my amendment. My amendment says very clearly the following: That we would prevent additional increases to the deficit by spending, or by taxes. And we would enforce it with a 60-vote point of order with two exceptions: On spending for national security, homeland security, national defense; on taxes, you can have a stimulus package in 2003 and 2004. It could be the Daschle package. It could be the Nickles package. But you could not have a stimulus package that adds to the deficit in 2005 and beyond. That in no way restricts you to the Daschle package. It would allow it, but it would not prevent any other stimulus package from being enacted for 2003 and 2004. On my second amendment, which reduces the tax cut by $1.2 trillion, still leaving a tax cut of $150 billion, the money is used to strengthen Social Security. It is held in a reserve fund. That allows us to reduce the deficit and reduce the debt. If we want to have a growth package here, we better get serious about the deficit and the debt because most economists are telling us the President's so-called growth package doesn't grow the economy at all. It actually hurts long- term economic growth. Why? Because the President's tax cuts are not offset by spending reductions. The President's tax cuts are offset by borrowing. That increased borrowing, that increased deficit, that increased debt reduces the pool of societal savings, reduces the pool of money available for investment and reduces economic growth.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me take a few minutes to talk about the two amendments I have offered that are now pending. The first amendment I offered says we should not add to new spending initiatives or tax cuts until we have a full idea of the cost of this war. As my colleagues know, there is no provision in this budget, either in the one sent to us by the President or the one that has come out of the Budget Committee, for war costs. We know the number is not zero. That is the number that is in the budget. So the first amendment I offered is to make it more difficult to add to deficits by spending or tax cuts, with two exceptions. On the spending side we would have an exception for national defense or homeland security. On the tax-cutting side, we would have an exception for a stimulus package with costs in 2003 or 2004. So that is the first amendment I have offered. The second amendment I have offered would reduce the tax cut by $1.2 trillion, still leaving a $150 billion tax cut but using the $1.2 trillion to strengthen Social Security, given the fact that the baby boom generation is about to retire, given the fact under the budget resolution before us, virtually every penny of Social Security surplus during the entire next decade is being used to pay for other things. It is being used to pay for tax cuts. It is being used to pay for other expenses of Government. Those are the two amendments I have pending. I hope very much my colleagues will give serious consideration to them. Again, the first amendment says simply this: The Senate may not consider legislation that would increase the deficit until the President submits to Congress a detailed report on the overall estimated costs of the war. That is enforced with a 60-vote point of order, so it could be overcome if there were a supermajority vote here in the Senate. There are two exceptions: On the spending side, legislation relating to national or homeland security and, on the tax-cutting side, an economic recovery and job creation package which does not increase the deficit over the time period 2005 to 2013. That would permit a stimulus package in 2003 and 2004. Again, the second amendment reduces the tax cut, which approaches $1.4 trillion, by $1.2 trillion, and reserves that money to strengthen Social Security. I again welcome support from my colleagues on both of these amendments. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. And the vote is scheduled for 5 o'clock?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object, I want to understand just what transpired before we go forward.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Alisa Blum, Renee Johnson, Mark Kirbabas, Rhonda Sinkfield, Tyler Garrett, Marques Matthews, and Shawn White, all individuals from the Finance Committee staff, be granted the privilege of the floor during the duration of the debate on the budget resolution.