Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I remind the majority leader that we offered, last week, to spend this week on a stimulus package. That is the offer we made. We said: Look. We believe we ought to spend this week doing a stimulus package. Don't hold it hostage to a 10-year budget plan. Let's do it now. Let's provide some lift to this economy now. And it was rejected on the other side. Now they come on to the floor, and all of a sudden they are for taking immediate action on a stimulus package. Where were they on Friday when we made the offer to spend this week on a stimulus package? That is what we should have done. That would have been the right course for the economy. That is what we proposed and they rejected. Second, on the notion that this President somehow proposed a 25- percent increase for education, that is not so. The chart of the chairman of the Budget Committee shows very clearly the President proposed a 5-percent increase--not a 25-percent increase, a 5-percent increase. Some of us do not think it is enough to deal with the education challenge facing this country. Third, the majority leader is using language very loosely, and that is a dangerous thing to do. He is suggesting that somebody out here is talking about a tax increase. No one is talking about a tax increase-- no one. What we are all talking about is significant tax reduction. We have even agreed on an amount of tax reduction for this year to provide stimulus. But we do believe that over the 10 years in the future the President's tax cut is too big; that it threatens to put us back into deficit; that it threatens to raid the trust funds of Medicare and Social Security. And that is no longer just a worry; that has become a reality. The two amendments that have been adopted out here--to increase spending on prescription drugs and to increase spending on agriculture--because of the way they were done, raid the Medicare trust fund in the years 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008--and it is all in their numbers, and it is just as clear as it can be. They are into the trust funds already, exactly what we said would happen. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, the Senator from North Dakota is next, and he is yielded 12 minutes.

Mr. CONRAD. I cannot, I say to the Senator, because we have the prior agreement. Senator Dorgan has been here for 2\1/2\ hours.

Mr. CONRAD. Is there any time remaining?

Mr. CONRAD. I ask that Senator Harkin be given the last 2 minutes.

Mr. CONRAD. All right.

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

Mr. CONRAD. Would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CONRAD. Isn't it true that while President Clinton had not submitted a full budget, he had submitted sufficient detail so the cost of his budget proposals could be estimated by the Committee on the Budget, the CBO, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and so the Senate, acting in 1993, had all of the reestimates done that told us the cost of his proposal?

Mr. CONRAD. And is it not true as well that President Bush has not submitted sufficient detail for the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation to do the reestimates that were done on the previous President's budget, so we do not have those reestimates; isn't that true?

Mr. CONRAD. I will go on, if I can, when we look at the level of detail that has been provided by President Bush versus President Clinton, there is a very stark and glaring set of differences. For example, the Clinton document had tables that provided year-by-year budget numbers for 68 specific proposals to reduce discretionary spending. The tables also included the year-by-year numbers for 90 specific proposals to cut mandatory spending. The budget also provided year-by-year detail for proposed increases in spending. The Bush budget does not provide any year-by-year numbers for specific proposed changes in discretionary spending; is that not the case?

Mr. CONRAD. So to compare 1993 to this year does not really stack up, does not hold up under much scrutiny because, as the Senator from West Virginia has made so clear, we had full reestimates then of the cost of the President's tax-and-spending proposals, sufficient detail for the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation to tell us what those costs were. We do not have it now. And we had a full Budget Committee markup then. We do not have any Budget Committee markup now. The fact is, we do not have sufficient detail from the President to have the kind of objective independent analysis done to inform the Senate of the cost of the President's tax-and-spending proposals.

Mr. CONRAD. We were promised the President's budget, were we not? We were promised it was going to be here on April 2 before we took up a budget resolution on the floor. And presto disto, the next thing we know, there is no budget until April 9 when we have completed action. It is a very unusual circumstance. If we are going to be fair and objective about comparing 1993 to now, we will see there are very significant differences. Most significant, we have had no budget markup in the committee, and there was sufficient detail on what President Clinton sent us that the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation were able to give us an objective independent analysis of the cost of the President's spending- and-tax proposals which we do not have here. We do not have them.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, would the Senator from Pennsylvania yield for questions on my time?

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for his leadership on this issue. He has brought this body a long way. We have seen it over a number of years by his persistence and persuasion. I publicly acknowledge the leadership he has provided in an area that is critically important. I have seen in the lives of some of my constituents how important the NIH can be and what an incredible contribution it has made to improving health research and extending the longevity of the lives of the American people. The Senator from Pennsylvania can be very proud of his advocacy. As I understand the Senator's amendment, it provides $700 million to the National Institutes of Health in the fiscal year 2002, is that correct?

Mr. CONRAD. The source of funding for that would be out of the projected surplus for that year?

Mr. CONRAD. If that is the case, I think it may well be we will support that amendment on this side. I have to check with other colleagues, as I am sure the Senator is aware, in order to give that answer. We are in the process of doing that. Perhaps as we go through that process of checking with other Senators, we can find out what their disposition is. We may be able to either accept this amendment or go to a quick vote on this amendment. We will try to get an answer quickly.

Mr. CONRAD. The Senator from Iowa has arrived.

Mr. CONRAD. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. CONRAD. We yield back our time on our side as well.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD. Under the agreement, is the next business of the Senate the Landrieu-Cleland amendment on national defense?

Mr. CONRAD. How much time is available on that amendment?

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield?