Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his aid in understanding this exemption. I also have a question with regard to Section 102 of the bill--the provisional voting section. I would like to describe the way North Dakota currently operates its ``voter challenge process'' to get my esteemed colleague's perspective on whether our State currently satisfies the requirements of this section. In North Dakota, the members of an election board or poll challengers may challenge the right of anyone to vote whom they know or have reason to believe is not a qualified elector. A poll challenger or election board member may request that a person offering to vote provide an appropriate form of identification to address any voting eligibility concerns, such as age, citizenship, or residency requirements. If the identification provided does not adequately resolve the voter eligibility concerns of the poll challenger or election board member, the challenged person can execute an affidavit before the election inspector affirming that the challenged person is a legally qualified elector of the precinct. The affidavit must include the name and address of the challenged voter and the address of the challenged voter at the time the challenged voter last voted. If the election inspector finds the affidavit valid on its face, the challenged person is allowed to vote as any other voter does and his or her voted ballot is deposited in the ballot box with the rest of the voted ballots from the precinct and counted by a canvassing board, or in the case of a recount by the recount board, in exactly the same manner as a ballot cast by non-challenged voters. In other words, the challenged person's voted ballot is not segregated or designated in any special way for further or future inspection by election officials, canvassing officials, recount officials, or legal authorities. I ask my distinguished colleague the Senator from Connecticut whether this current system satisfies the requirements of section 102 of his bill.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I greatly appreciate the Senator from Connecticut taking the time to answer my questions about his bill. I also want to take this time to commend the Senator for his terrific leadership and work on the very important issue of election reform.

Mr. CONRAD. As my colleague from Connecticut knows, North Dakota currently operates a unique voting system in that we have no registration system whatsoever for our State. This is a very open system that I believe is very much in line with the intent of your legislation to ensure the maximum amount of openness and accessibility in our Nation's voting system. Am I correct in reading the language of subparagraph 103(a)(1)(B) of the substitute amendment to allow North Dakota to continue operating a registration-less voting system for Federal elections in our State?

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I have no intention of dropping those statements which accurately reflect precisely what the President's budget----

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this is where we are headed. In 2016, the Social Security trust funds turn cash negative. Then these surpluses that are being used to pay for tax cuts and other expenses of Government are going to vanish, and instead we will have massive deficits. I urge my colleagues to support the Conrad amendment, to say no to making permanent tax cuts that would be financed out of the Social Security trust funds. Every Member, virtually every Member, has pledged not to do that. This is the time to reaffirm that commitment to the integrity of the trust funds.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, if the Chair would alert me when I have used 4 minutes.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Conrad amendment states the following: Since both political parties have pledged not to use Social Security surplus funds by spending them for other purposes, and since under the administration's fiscal year 2003 budget the Federal Government is projected to spend Social Security surplus funds for other purposes in each of the next 10 years, and since permanent extension of the inheritance tax repeal would cost, according to the administration's own estimate, approximately $104 billion over the next 10 years, all of which would further reduce the Social Security surplus, therefore, it is the sense of the Senate that no Social Security surplus funds should be used to pay to make currently scheduled tax cuts permanent or for wasteful spending. Here is where we are. There are no surpluses left. This chart shows, from 1992 to 2012, the fiscal condition of the country. It shows that, while we were able to avoid using Social Security funds or most of the Social Security funds for 4 years, we have now gone back to the old, bad ways of taking every dime of Social Security funds for other purposes--for the President's tax cuts and for other spending priorities. This is something we all pledged not to do. It is not just in the context of the economic downturn and the war. It is a condition that will confront us the entire rest of this decade, as this chart shows. Where did the money go? The Congressional Budget Office tells us over the 10-year period 42 percent of the reason for the return to deficits is the tax cut the President proposed and pushed through Congress last year; 23 percent is a result of the economic downturn; 18 percent results from the additional defense and homeland security costs necessitated by our response to the attack on our country; 17 percent came about as a result of technical changes, largely underestimations of the cost of Medicare and Medicaid. Last year we were told we would have $2.7 trillion of non-trust-fund surpluses over the next decade. That is where the President's tax came from. Now that entire projected surplus is gone, and what we are left with is deficits of $2.2 trillion--every dime of it being financed by the Social Security and Medicare trust funds under the President's proposal. Last year we were told we would be paying down $2 trillion of debt in the next 10 years. Now the administration informs us that will be only $521 billion. The consequence of more debt is that we will be paying $1 trillion more in interest costs than we were told last year. That means $1 trillion not available to improve the defense of the country or to strengthen homeland security or to pay down the debt. Now the Senator from Arizona comes and says we ought to dig the hole deeper. The Senator from Arizona says: We ought to make permanent the estate tax elimination that was part of the tax bill last year. That would cost $104 billion for the rest of this decade, and over the next decade it would cost $800 billion, right at the time the baby boomers begin retiring in large numbers.

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

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, Senator Kyl talks about the budget baseline. He is not talking about the President's budget. I submit the President's budget that shows clearly it will be raiding the Social Security trust fund by $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years, and add to it, if we pass the Kyl amendment.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I applaud the Senators from Georgia for their advocacy on behalf of some of the people who sent them here: those who are growers of peanuts. I tell you, the two Senators from Georgia--Senator Cleland and Senator Miller--have been very determined advocates on behalf of the farmers they represent. I just hope the people back home realize how much energy and effort the two Senators have expended to secure what is needed to help their people. Senator Miller, who is a very respected member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, and Senator Cleland, who had a distinguished record of service in Washington before he ever came to the Senate and is respected on both sides of the aisle, have made very clear how important this is to their constituents. I salute them for their vigorous efforts. Mr. President, I rose to speak on another matter, and that is the fundamental challenge we face with this farm bill. I see in the press repeated indications that farm assistance is no longer needed. Nothing could be further from the truth. What these media critics seem to fail to realize is that our people are faced with major competition in the world. Our major competitors are the Europeans. They are providing over $300 an acre of support per year to their producers. We provide $38. We are being outgunned nearly 10 to 1. On export support, the Europeans account for 84 percent of all the world's export subsidy; we account for 3 percent. They are outgunning us nearly 30 to 1. The fundamental question before this country is whether or not we are going to fight for our people, whether or not we are going to give them a fair, fighting chance. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, at the appropriate time, I will offer a second-degree amendment that says this: Since both political parties have pledged not to use Social Security surplus funds by spending them for other purposes, and since under the administration's 2003 budget the Federal Government is projected to spend the Social Security surplus for other purposes in each of the next 10 years, and since permanent extension of the inheritance tax repeal would cost, according to the administration's own estimate, approximately $104 billion over the next 10 years and $800 billion in the next 10 years, all of which would further reduce the Social Security surplus, therefore it is the sense of the Senate that no Social Security surplus funds should be used to make currently scheduled tax cuts permanent or for wasteful spending. The situation we face as a nation is last year when we were addressing the budget, the President and the Congressional Budget Office told us we were going to have $5.6 trillion of surpluses over the next decade. Under the President's budget, that is down to $600 billion. The truth is there are no surpluses left. Let me repeat that. There are no surpluses left, not a dime. Every penny of money that is still available is Social Security money, every dime. There are no surpluses left. This chart shows it very clearly. This chart shows from 1992 until 2012 the fiscal condition of the country. We were in deep deficit in 1992. Then we started to pull out of it with the 1993 plan that we passed, I might add, without a single vote on the other side of the aisle, not a single vote, and we started moving out of deficit. In 1997, we passed an additional plan. That one was on a bipartisan basis, and it finished the job. We moved into budget surpluses. We stopped using Social Security trust funds. This chart shows in specific detail what has happened since 1996. In 1996, we were using 100 percent of the Social Security trust funds for other purposes. The same was true in 1997. In 1998, we reduced it so we were only using 30 percent of Social Security money for other purposes. In 1999 and 2000, we stopped using Social Security money entirely. These were the good days. These were the responsible days. In 2001, we started backsliding. Under the President's budget, President Bush's budget, every year we are going to be using 100 percent of the Social Security money for other purposes. Let us go back to what we confront. We are headed for deficits this year, fiscal year 2002, 2003, every year through the rest of this decade. Making tax cuts that were previously scheduled permanent means every dime of it is coming out of Social Security. Where did the money go? The Congressional Budget Office came before the Budget Committee and told us that in the near term the biggest reason was the recession, but over the 10 years of the President's plan, the biggest reason of the tax cuts the President proposed and pushed through Congress last year, 42 percent of the reduction in the surplus and the return to deficits is from the tax cut. Twenty-three percent is from the recession. Eighteen percent of the additional expense is caused by the attack on the United States. Seventeen percent is caused by certain technical changes, largely the underestimation of the cost of Medicare and Social Security. Last year, we were told there was in the non-trust-fund side of the Federal accounts a $2.7 trillion surplus. That is from where the tax cuts came. But you know what. There is no $2.7 trillion of non-trust- fund money anymore. The Congressional Budget Office tells us, instead of surpluses, there are massive deficits, $2.2 trillion of deficits. What the good Senator from Arizona is saying is do not worry about it. Let us just pile on some more. Let us have some more tax cuts. Let us dig the hole deeper. What he is saying is, let us not only have the estate tax reductions that are already scheduled, which are significant--and I would correct those who say there is a death tax. There is no death tax in America. Ninety-eight percent of the estates in America pay nothing, zero. They pay no estate tax. That is what we have in America, not a death tax; it is an estate tax. If one has an estate over a certain value, they start to pay something. Why? Because we have determined that is a fair way to distribute tax burden. The Senator from Texas says this is not part of American history. I beg to disagree. It is a fundamental part of American history. Go back and read what the Founding Fathers had to say on this question. They did not want America to be a land of inherited aristocracy. No, no, no. They wanted this to be a land where people rose and fell on the basis of their own hard work and their own skills and their own talent, not because they inherited from grandpa, not because they inherited from great grandpa. That was not the point of America, and that is why fundamentally we have had an estate tax because our Founding Fathers came from Europe and they saw what inherited aristocracy led to, the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, and ultimately instability and political chaos. They did not want that for us. So the reality is, 2 percent of estates in this country pay any estate tax. We are scheduled to raise the exemption to $3.5 million per person. Only three-tenths of 1 percent of estates are at that level. This would mean that one could transfer $7 million and not pay a dime of tax. The Senator from Arizona is not satisfied with that. He wants anybody to be able to pass any amount to their heirs. The cost in this decade of the Senator's proposal is $104 billion. The cost in the next decade is $800 billion. At the time the baby boomers start to retire, they will take it all out of Social Security funds. That is from where it is coming from. Here is what we confront at the very time they are talking about adding $800 billion of additional tax cuts: Social Security and Medicare trust funds go cash negative at the very time they are talking about another $800 billion of tax cuts, all of it out of Social Security. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget came before the Senate Budget Committee and 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; [we are at 19 percent of GDP now in taxes. Anybody think we will go to 30 percent of GDP? If we do not, they will have to be massive cuts in benefits] or eliminate most of the rest of government as we know it. That's the dilemma that faces us in the long run, Mr. Chairman, and these next 10 years will only be the beginning. I cannot think of an amendment that is more fiscally irresponsible than the one before this body now. The President last year in his State of the Union promised not to use Social Security trust funds for any other purpose. That is the pledge he made. I quote: To make sure the retirement savings of America's seniors are not diverted to any other program, my budget protects all $2.6 trillion of the Social Security surplus for Social Security and for Social Security alone. That is what he said last year. Now, in reading his budget, we see he will take $2.2 trillion of Social Security and Medicare trust fund money and use it for tax cuts and other expenses of Government. The Senator from Arizona says that is not enough, let's take even more money from Social Security--let's take it all and not protect any of Social Security. I don't think so. Those who vote to take it are going to be mighty surprised by the reaction of the American people when they find out we are already on course to eliminate taxes for a couple that would not pay any taxes--not a dime--on $7 million. Now the Senator proposes no limits forever--and take every dime out of the Social Security trust fund. This reversal in our financial fortune has meant that over the next decade, instead of being virtually debt free by 2008, which is what they told us last year, we now find by 2008 there will be $3 trillion of debt. The result of that is we will be paying as a country $1 trillion more in interest over the next decade. Instead of $600 billion in interest, we will pay $1.6 trillion in interest payments. We ought to quit digging the hole deeper. This amendment takes more money out of the trust funds to have a tax cut that goes to a fraction of 1 percent of the American people. The Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Texas earlier argued this is a question of fairness. I agree. It is a question of fairness. Where should the money come from to restore the integrity of the trust funds? Where should it come from? One of the first places we would look is the wealthiest among us, for us to say, if you die and have an estate of over $7 million, maybe you ought to be part of solving this extraordinary problem we now face. I don't think that is unreasonable. We have had some of the wealthiest people in America before the Finance Committee saying they did not think it was unreasonable for them to make some contribution to restoring the integrity of the trust funds of Social Security and Medicare. For those who say this money has already been taxed over and over and over, it is not true. Much of this money has never been taxed because it has been locked up in long-term capital gains and people never paid taxes at all. This is a fundamental question before the Senate, the most basic of questions about priorities, about fiscal responsibility, about paying our bills, about keeping the promise that this President and Members of this Chamber made on the question of not looting or raiding the Social Security trust fund to pay for other things. Now before the Senate is an amendment that says we will take Social Security money and use it to give a tax reduction to the very wealthiest. What a perversion of fairness. Those are not the values of the people I represent. I don't believe those are the values of the American people. I hope when the vote is called tomorrow we will have a chance to vote for the substitute amendment and to defeat the amendment of the Senator from Arizona. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, Division C of Public Law 107-117, the Department of Defense and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States Act of 2002, increased the statutory limits on discretionary spending for fiscal year 2002. Specifically, it raised the cap on general purpose discretionary budget authority to $681.441 billion and the cap on general purpose discretionary outlays to $670.206 billion. The legislation also increased the cap on outlays for conservation programs to $1.473 billion. Accordingly, I am adjusting the Appropriations Committee's allocation and the budget aggregates to reflect the revised statutory caps. In addition, Mr. President, section 314 of the Congressional Budget Act, as amended, requires the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to adjust the budgetary aggregates and the allocation for the Appropriations Committee by the amount of appropriations designated as emergency spending pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended. Public Law 107-38, the 2001 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States, authorized $40 billion in emergency funding. Public Law 107-38 made the first $20 billion immediately available in fiscal year 2001 and the second $20 billion contingent on the enactment of a subsequent appropriation. Mr. President, I previously adjusted the committee's allocation and the budget aggregates for the 2002 impact on outlays from the first $20 billion provided in 2001. Public Law 107-117, which was signed into law on January 10, 2002, made available the second $20 billion in emergency spending. That budget authority will result in new outlays in 2002 of $8.223 billion. Consequently, I am making further adjustments to the committee's allocation and to the budget aggregates. Pursuant to section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act, I hereby revise the 2002 allocation provided to the Senate Appropriations Committee in the concurrent budget resolution in the following amounts:

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation to promote the development of wind energy production across our Nation. My ``Wind Energy Promotion Act of 2002'' would provide incentives and clear regulatory hurdles to allow this economically feasible and environmentally friendly electricity source to help meet our National energy needs. As the Senate begins work to enact a comprehensive National energy policy, we must take advantage of the enormous potential that wind energy offers. Wind is an abundant an inexhaustible renewable resource across our country. North Dakota alone has the potential to produce more than 460,000 megawatts of electricity from wind annually, the highest potential in the Nation. Wind production costs have fallen dramatically over the last two decades, making production affordable, investment logical, and electricity consumption from wind economical for our Nation. Production costs have declined more than 80 percent since the 1980s, from an average of 38 cents per kilowatt-hour to an average of 3-6 cents per kilowatt-hour today. These costs are predicted to fall even lower in the near future. In addition, wind energy produces no pollution, providing a clean, environmentally friendly power option for the Nation. However, wind energy development faces a number of obstacles, which my legislation is designed to overcome. First, my bill will extend the valuable wind energy tax credit for five years. The credit expired at the end of last year, and renewal is simply crucial to the industry. Hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in wind energy in my State of North Dakota are on hold because the Senate has not yet acted to extend this credit. It is time to extend the credit now, for a full five years, in order to ensure substantial investment in the industry across the Nation. Further, my legislation makes it easier for farmers and ranchers to develop wind energy resources. It provides grants and loans to farmers and ranchers and allows producers to put wind turbines on CRP lands. And, because better technology will make investing in both large and small wind harnessing operations more attractive, my bill authorizes more than $500 million over the next four years for wind energy research. My bill also calls for breaking down federal regulatory barriers to wind energy development. The Federal Government should help, not hinder the development of the Nation's wind potential. Because North Dakota and other western States contain large tracts of public lands that contain great wind energy potential, my bill would allow for the development of facilities on public lands. Finally, my legislation would authorize studies on several aspects of developing the Nation's wind energy potential, including one to determine the best possible way to overcome the barriers to adequate transmission of power generated from wind. My bill is not only a key component to providing energy security for the country; it would provide a much-needed economic stimulus to rural America. According to the American Wind Energy Association, every 100 megawatts of wind energy development will produce 500 job years of employment. In addition, payments to farmers and ranchers could equal $4 million for every 2,000 megawatts of wind energy production, money our Nation's producers would get simply for allowing wind development on their land. This would be a critical boost to our Nation's rural economy. Wind energy development would also play a key role in the economy of North Dakota. Extending the production tax credit alone will mean more than $100 million in sales for DMI Industries, LM Glasfiber, and other industry participants in my state in the next year. Using only conservative estimates, the wind industry has the potential to add a half billion dollars to North Dakota's economy in 2002, but only if the Senate acts soon to extend the wind energy production tax credit, the most important component of the legislation I am introducing today. The Senate will be taking up energy legislation this week. As this debate begins, I will be working to include the provisions of my wind energy legislation in a comprehensive energy policy that our Nation seriously needs. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the development of wind energy in the United States through the provisions of my Wind Energy Promotion Act.

Mr. CONRAD

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

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I am pleased to offer this amendment on behalf of myself and the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Crapo. The purpose of this amendment is to provide a predictable, transparent, and equitable formula for the Department of Agriculture to use in establishing beet sugar marketing allotments in the future. This is an amendment that enjoys widespread support within the sugar beet industry. Producers in that industry recall, as I do, the very difficult and contentious period just a few years ago when the Department of Agriculture last attempted to establish beet sugar allotments with very little direction in the law. That experience left us all believing that there must be a better way, that we should seek a method for establishing allotments that is fair and open and provides some certainty and predictability to the industry. On that basis, I urged members of the industry to work together to see if they could agree on a reasonable formula. I am pleased to say the amendment I am offering today with the Senator from Idaho reflects producers' efforts to forge that consensus. It provides that any future allotments will be based on each processor's weighted-average production during the years 1998 through 2000, with authority for the Secretary of Agriculture to make adjustments in the formula if an individual processor experienced disaster-related losses during that period or opened or closed a processing facility or increased processing capacity through improved technology to extract more sugar from beets. In addition, the formula allows for adjustments in the reallocation of beet sugar allotments to account for such industry events as the permanent termination of operations by a processor, the sale of a processor's assets to another processor, the entry of new processors, and so on. Taken together, these provisions offer the predictability, fairness, and transparency we all agree is much needed in the sugar beet industry. I should emphasize that this amendment applies only to producers of beet sugar. It is not in any way directed at producers of cane sugar. Again, I thank Senator Crapo for his work in support of the amendment. I urge its adoption. I would be remiss if I did not also thank the industry. This was not easy for them to do. As one who was centrally involved in 1995, when we last faced this problem, I can tell the Senate, this is a better way of dealing with the problem. Instead of waiting for the problem to develop and then having a chaotic situation on our hands when there was no formula, no agreement, this provides the means of a reasonable and fair distribution of allocation in the future. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

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

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I'm pleased to be a cosponsor of the amendment offered by the Senator from Montana to provide disaster assistance to those farmers and ranchers who suffered crop or livestock-related losses in calendar year 2001. American agriculture is beginning its fifth straight year of rock bottom prices. For those farmers lucky enough to raise a decent crop, the only thing that's been keeping them in business is the supplemental relief that Congress has provided in each of the past four years. Last month, the Department of Agriculture confirmed that net farm income will fall by 20 percent this year, to $40.6 billion, unless Congress responds with improved farm policy. As bad as this situation is, however, the blow is doubly hard for producers whose crops have been ravaged by drought, excess moisture, or some other natural calamity. These producers have little to fall back on, they cannot hope to make up in volume what they are losing under Depression- era prices. In North Dakota, the brutal reality of today's farm economics leaves little margin for either error or misfortune, and for many of those producers suffering natural disaster losses, their luck has run out. That is why Congress must respond. I want to commend the Senator from Montana for his tireless efforts to address the disaster situation. I know that his State has been hard hit by consecutive years of drought, and his ranchers are reeling. He's been trying since last fall to respond in some way. In my own State of North Dakota, we have received some of the rains that passed over Montana. Unfortunately, those rains came just as our wheat crop was maturing, and the result has been serious losses due to scab and other quality problems. Some estimates put North Dakota's disaster losses last year at near $200 million. Even those who have purchased crop insurance find that their indemnity payments won't restore profitability to their operation, so that is why this additional assistance is required. To vividly illustrate what last year's disaster losses have done to the typical farming operation in North Dakota, I would like to cite some figures from an instructor in an adult farm management program in my state. According to this farm management instructor, the farm operations he is advising--located in an area hit hard by natural disasters--had an average net farm income last year of just $25,937--down 54 percent from the previous year. These net farm income figures actually include government payments received under existing farm programs. If farm program payments are excluded, these farmers would have had a substantially negative farm income--losing $46,665 per farm, on average, last year. That's the harsh reality of farming in the Northern Great Plains today. So again, for all these reasons, I am pleased to cosponsor this needed amendment, and I urge its adoption.

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, I support bonus depreciation. I support Medicaid assistance to the States. But I do not support 2 years of bonus depreciation. I do not support 2 years of additional spending on Medicaid for the States. The reason is very simple. On the question of bonus depreciation, the whole purpose of this package is to encourage economic recovery, additional economic activity now. A 2-year provision reduces the stimulus, reduces the incentive to act now. That is not only my opinion, that is the opinion of the Congressional Budget Office that examined the various options before us and said: Don't do multiple years; you reduce the incentive to act now. This is the time we need additional economic activity. Second, the history of fiscal stimulus is always that we have acted too late. We are on the brink of doing that again. A 2-year provision falls right into that trap. The cost of this provision is $45 billion this year; $37 billion next year. That is digging the hole deeper when we have just been informed by the Congressional Budget Office that every penny of these resources will come out of the Social Security trust fund. For that reason, I will raise a budget point of order against this provision.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 311(a)(2)(B) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, could I have order in the Chamber?

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, in my role as Budget Committee chairman, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 311(a)(2)(B) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 311(a)(2)(B) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and ask for the yeas and nays.