Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island and look forward to working with him on the Budget Committee as we attempt to come up with a plan to deal with these multiple challenges.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, pursuant to section 223 of S. Con. Res. 70, I previously filed adjustments to the 2009 budget resolution for H.R. 2095, the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. Those adjustments reflected the Congressional Budget Office's estimate at that time of the budgetary effects of H.R. 2095. CBO has since revised that estimate, increasing the amount of net savings over both 5 and 10 years. As such, H.R. 2095 still meets the conditions required for the release of the reserve fund under section 223, including being fully paid for over both the 6- and 11-year time periods. Consequently, I am revising the adjustments made on September 29 pursuant to section 223 to reflect CBO's updated estimate. This adjustment affects both the budgetary aggregates and the allocation provided to the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the following revisions to S. Con. Res. 70.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, when a departing colleague has been a strong working partner as well as a friend, saying good-bye is not easy. I have had the pleasure of serving on several committees with Gordon Smith over the course of his career. We have sat across the dais from each other at the Budget Committee, the Indian Affairs Committee, and the Finance Committee. I am proud of what Senator Smith and I have been able to accomplish in promoting savings and capital preservation for people in their retirement years. He recognized a long time ago that the sooner workers begin saving for retirement--and the longer they sustain that commitment--the better off they and their families will be when they have to depend on those savings. The successes we enjoyed in getting some of our ideas included in the Pension Protection Act of 2006 led to more ambitious proposals to address the special retirement savings and income needs of women and older workers. And Gordon Smith was the first to join the effort to promote lifetime income instruments as a response to longevity advances, which constitute the greatest threat to the retirement income security of the baby boom generation. In view of the economic situation the country now faces, the efforts that Senator Smith and I began must continue. I sincerely regret that he will not be my primary partner on this agenda in the 111th Congress. I certainly hope that he will continue to use his influence and intelligence to keep the focus on this clear national priority. Finally, I want to salute Senator Smith for the character of his service to his State, this body, and to the Nation. He is the kind of deliberate, open-minded, and thoughtful public servant the Founders must have had in mind when they conceived the Senate. We will truly miss this distinguished gentleman from Oregon. Elizabeth Dole Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Elizabeth Dole, who will be leaving this body after serving the people of North Carolina for the past 6 years. Senator Dole and I have had the opportunity to work together on various issues important to the future of our nation. Senator Dole has been a strong advocate for the interests of not only her State, but the U.S. in general. For example, just recently, Senator Dole and I worked together to pursue a more sustainable energy policy for our country. One of our goals was to transition new vehicles to an alternative source of energy by 2020 and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. This commitment to improving the nation is what defined Senator Dole's tenure in the Senate. Senator Dole has also been active on agricultural issues. Because both of our States have a strong agricultural sector in our economy, this issue is very important to our constituents. From her time on the Senate Agricultural Committee early in her Senate career through the farm bill recently, Senator Dole has consistently looked out for the North Carolina farming community and the farming industry itself. Senator Dole has had a long career of public service. She served as Secretary of Transportation under President Reagan and Secretary of Labor under President George H.W. Bush. This gave her the distinction of being the first woman to serve in two different Cabinet positions during two different administrations. She also served as the president of the American Red Cross, heading one of the largest humanitarian organizations in the world. This list of accomplishments underscores Senator Dole's commitment to serving the public at large. Again, I have appreciated the opportunity to work with Senator Dole and wish her well as she leaves the Senate.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report for fiscal year 2008 prepared by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section 308(b) and in aid of section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. This is my final report for fiscal year 2008. This report shows the effects of congressional action through October 1, 2008. Since my last report, dated September 12, 2008, the Congress has cleared and the President has signed P.L. 110-329, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009. The estimates of budget authority, outlays, and revenues used in this report are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions of S. Con. Res. 70, the 2009 budget resolution. The estimates show that current level spending is below the budget resolution by $5.2 billion for budget authority and $2.4 billion for outlays while current level revenues are above the budget resolution by $3 billion. I ask unanimous consent that the letter and accompanying tables from CBO be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I rise today to honor my colleague, Senator John Sununu, who will be leaving the Senate at the end of this term. Senator Sununu has represented the great State of New Hampshire for 12 years in Congress, serving six of those years in the Senate. Senator Sununu and I both served on the Finance Committee. Although we did not always agree, I found John to be willing to work in a bipartisan manner to confront the major challenges that our great Nation faces. Raised in Salem, NH, John Sununu became interested in public service early in life when his mother served as chair of the local school board. John attended public school in Salem and later earned advanced degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Harvard Graduate School of Business. John Sununu was elected to represent New Hampshire's First Electoral District in the House of Representatives in 1996. In the House, John served on the Budget and Appropriations Committees. He quickly rose in rank on the Budget Committee, becoming its vice chairman. In 2002, he was elected to represent the Granite State in this Chamber, becoming its youngest Member. John and I worked together on numerous occasions. We both served on the Finance Committee This summer, John joined the so-called ``Gang of Ten'' as it expanded from 10 to 20 members. Together, we sought pragmatic, bipartisan solutions to our Nation's energy crisis. Senator Sununu also joined me in standing up for our Nation's senior citizens and opposing cuts to Medicare-financed nursing home care. John will be remembered for his commitment to individual liberties and limited Government. In the uncertainties of today's world, Senator Sununu has been a voice for preserving civil liberties in the light of increased law enforcement needs. I thank Senator Sununu for his years of public service and wish him and his family the best in the future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Pete Domenici, one of the finest Senators I have known and one who represents the Senate at its best. Senator Domenici is someone whom I respect greatly and whose counsel I have very much appreciated over the years. I will miss him very much when he retires at the end of this session. Senator Domenici and I share many interests, but one above all is our deep and abiding interest in the fiscal affairs of our Nation. In the world of budgeting, Senator Domenici is a giant. He is, of course, one of the pioneers on the Budget Committee. He joined the committee in 1975, literally a few months after it was created in July 1974. So he was there at the beginning, helping to shape and guide this new committee. He rose to become chairman in 1981, and he served in that capacity through 1987 and then again between 1995 and 2001. In 2001, we faced the unique circumstance in a closely divided Senate, as he and I traded off being chairman and ranking member in that year. In total, Senator Domenici has served 34 years on the committee, 12 years as chairman and 10 years as ranking member--the most distinguished record of any Member. His impact on the Federal budget and the budget process has been unprecedented. He authored many of the Senate's budget rules that we use today to protect taxpayers. He also helped author major deficit- reduction plans during the 1980s and 1990s, as well as the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. But Senator Domenici will be remembered for more than his service on the Budget Committee. He has been a strong and important voice on the need to diversify our Nation's energy sources. As chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, he helped enact the Energy Policy Act of 2005. He has been a passionate advocate on the issue of mental health and has been a leader in pushing for mental health parity legislation. Senator Domenici was also one of the architects of the Human Genome Project, which I believe people will look back on as one of the greatest accomplishments of all time. And, of course, Senator Domenici has been a tireless advocate on behalf of the citizens of the beautiful State of New Mexico. Born in Albuquerque, he is that State's longest serving Senator. As a young man, Pete Domenici had many options. At one time, he pitched for the Albuquerque Dukes, a farm team for the Brooklyn Dodgers, and may have had aspirations of going to the major leagues. But I am sure that the citizens of New Mexico--and, indeed, all of us--are happy that he chose the path of public service. Let me conclude by saying, and I know that I speak for all of my colleagues, how much we respect, admire, and appreciate his service. For me personally, it has been an absolute honor to serve along with him on the Budget Committee. He has made an extraordinary contribution to the work of the Budget Committee, to the Congress, and to the country. We will miss him greatly.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Could I ask for an additional 5? Madam President, first I thank Chairman Dodd for his extraordinary leadership. Let me say to every Member, we are fortunate to have Chris Dodd at this critical position at this important time. He has conducted himself as a superb professional. Thank you, Chairman Dodd, for the leadership you have provided for the country, and to the rest of the negotiating team from the Senate, Senator Gregg, who did such a strong job of leadership in those negotiations, Senator Schumer, Senator Baucus, Senator Jack Reed--all of whom made major contributions; certainly our own leader Harry Reid, who insisted that we stay at it until the job was done. Colleagues and countrymen, this is a defining moment. History is being written. Our economy is threatened. We all understand that at the heart of this matter is a housing crisis compounded by a fiscal crisis compounded by an energy crisis, all of them closing in on the country at this moment. The home foreclosure rate is the highest level ever. We have seen the stock market decline by more than 22 percent since its peak last October, with the most recent plunge, the day before yesterday, the Dow falling 777 points in 1 day. We all know that. Even more important is what is happening in the credit markets. ``Credit Enters a Lock Down, and Wheels of Commerce Freeze Up.'' But in this story from the New York Times of September 26 are these two paragraphs: With the economy already suffering the strains of plunging housing prices, growing joblessness, and the newfound austerity of debt-saturated consumers, many experts fear the fraying of the financial system could pin the nation in distress for years. Without a mechanism to shed the bad loans on their books, financial institutions may continue to hoard their dollars and starve the economy of capital. Americans would be deprived of financing to buy houses, send children to college and start businesses. That would slow economic activity further, souring more loans, and making banks tighter still. In short, a downward spiral. We can see the beginnings of precisely that dynamic in the credit markets. This, the spread between the 3-month rates on LIBOR and Treasury bills, is a measure of the risks banks see in lending to each other. It has shot up to record levels in these last 72 hours. That means credit is being choked up. That means credit is being locked up. That means the economy is being locked down. What is the result of all this? We have already seen major financial institution after institution fail: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Washington Mutual--the largest savings and loan association in America--AIG--the largest insurance company in the world--Wachovia, Merrill Lynch and, overseas, FORTIS and four other major financial institutions, just over the weekend. Colleagues, we can connect the dots. Something dramatic and serious is occurring. The Chairman of our own Federal Reserve said this to us: If we fail to act, unemployment could rise to 8 or 9 percent in the next 6 months. What would that mean? That would mean between 3 and 4\1/2\ million more Americans would lose their jobs in the next 6 months. Colleagues, let's focus on this point. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve is telling us, absent our action, 3 to 4\1/2\ million more of our countrymen could lose their jobs in the next 6 months. The truth is, none of us knows if this package will be enough--but it is a beginning. It is a solid beginning. It is a bipartisan beginning. We may need to do more, but much has already been done. Let's look at the package that was sent us. The administration sent us a package with no equity stake for taxpayers. That meant no upside for taxpayers. Seven hundred billion dollars was provided in a lump sum. All the power in the hands of one person, the Secretary of the Treasury, and no limits on executive compensation or golden parachutes. In the negotiations from Thursday until now, we have dramatically changed this package. Taxpayers will now receive an equity stake, so they have a potential profit when markets recover. Funding is now to be released in three installments, not just one lump sum, allowing for additional congressional oversight. An oversight board will now be created to ensure that the Treasury actions protect taxpayers and are in the Nation's economic interests. And now, no golden parachutes will be allowed, and executive compensation will be capped. In addition, FDIC insurance is now raised from $100,000 per account to $250,000 an account. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, this is a defining moment. All of us understand the anger of our constituents and our own anger. I must say, as I have been part of this effort over this last week, my own anger level has risen as I have heard descriptions of the extraordinary risky, reckless behavior of people all throughout the chain who have helped create this crisis. We will hold them to account. Already the FBI has launched four investigations. People will be criminally charged, I believe, before this is over. Today, we have a decision to make. Do we support a package to soften the blow, to try to prevent this downward spiral from accelerating and intensifying? That is our challenge. That is our charge. This is our best chance. This is our best chance. I ask my colleagues to support it. Again, we understand this is a tough vote. But our country needs us now. Our country is counting on us now. Let's not miss the chance to do something important for our Nation to prevent this crisis from intensifying. I especially wish to thank the chairman of the Banking Committee who has given his all to this effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, section 225 of S. Con. Res. 70, the 2009 budget resolution, permits the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to revise the allocations, aggregates, and other levels in the resolution for legislation that enhances medical care and other benefits for America's veterans and servicemembers. The revisions are contingent on certain conditions being met, including that such legislation not worsen the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2018. I find that S. 3001, the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, which was cleared by Congress on September 27, satisfies the conditions of the reserve fund for America's veterans and servicemembers. Therefore, pursuant to section 225, I am adjusting the aggregates in the 2009 budget resolution, as well as the allocation provided to the Senate Armed Services Committee. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the following revisions to S. Con. Res. 70.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, section 223 of S. Con. Res. 70, the 2009 budget resolution, permits the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to revise the allocations, aggregates, and other levels in the resolution for legislation that invests in America's infrastructure, including rail projects. The revisions are contingent on certain conditions being met, including that such legislation not worsen the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2013 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2008 through 2018. I find that H.R. 2095, the Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act, satisfies the conditions of the reserve fund for investments in America's infrastructure. Therefore, pursuant to section 223, I am adjusting the aggregates in the 2009 budget resolution, as well as the allocation provided to the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the following revisions to S. Con. Res. 70.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Landrieu, the Senator from Louisiana, for her leadership. Senator Lincoln, who is a valuable member of the Agriculture Committee and the Finance Committee, played such an important role in writing a new farm bill, and Senator Pryor, as well, from Arkansas, who is here. They are fighting for farmers who have been devastated by disasters, farmers who are down and out through no fault of their own. We hear some saying: Wait, there is a disaster program that has just passed that is in the farm bill. Indeed, that is true. In fact, I am the author of that legislation, very proud of it. The problem is, we don't yet have the regulations from the U.S. Department of Agriculture as to how that program will be administered. So these farmers who have been hit by one hurricane after another don't know the rules of the road. They can't know. So they are there wondering if there is any help for them. And what do they see? They see Congress rushing to help Wall Street and understanding that if credit in this country locks up, it is not just going to be Wall Street. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve has told us that if the credit lockup continues, 3 to 4 million Americans will lose their jobs in the next 6 months. So we all understand there is much more at risk than Wall Street. Main Street is on the line. But what about these farm families? What about them? Apparently, there is no place in this package for them. And the excuse? Well, we have a disaster program in the farm bill. But the problem is, it is not in effect and no one knows the rules of the road because USDA hasn't written them. Talk about a catch-22. These farmers, these constituents of Senator Landrieu, these constituents of Senator Lincoln, these constituents of Senator Pryor are out there in limbo land. They are being told: Oh, yes, there is a disaster program for you. But nobody can tell them what it is because the rules and regulations have not yet been drafted. But it is there, so don't you worry. And they are thinking: Well, wait a minute, where is the help? What am I going to do about planting decisions for next year because with no money, I can't finance. With no disaster program yet in place, without the rules and regulations, what do they take to their banker--a newspaper headline that the farm bill was passed with the disaster program? With the current situation of a lockdown in credit, what is the banker going to do with that? What Senator Landrieu is asking for here is exactly what needs to be done; that is, a bridge program to deal with the current emergency until the disaster program that is part of the farm bill is in effect. So, Mr. President, I would hope our colleagues in the House and the Senate and representatives of the administration would help find a way to deal with this crisis because these farm families are in every bit as much a crisis as the families who are being affected by the fiscal crisis, and these farm families deserve our help as well. I thank Senator Landrieu for her leadership. She has been persistent. She has gone from colleague to colleague. She has talked to the House and the Senate, trying to persuade them that these farm families should not be abandoned at their time of need. What an irony it would be if the Congress moved in the next few days to react to a fiscal crisis in the country but left part of the country out and said to those farm families in Arkansas, in Louisiana, and in Texas, and, yes, in Mississippi: Tough luck for you. We have $700 billion for other parts of the country, but we don't have $1 billion for you. Mr. President, that can't be the result. I thank the Chair, and I thank Senator Landrieu for the time.

Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CONRAD. I have been in the Senate for 22 years, and I have gotten letters like that in the past. I know exactly what they mean. It means ``not eligible.'' They say ``probably it is,'' with this one little problem, and the little problem is that because there is another program--the disaster program in the farm bill--CDBG cannot be used for that purpose. They can write all the fancy legal language they want to try to make somebody feel better, but we know at the end of the day how much money it is going to result in for these farmers who have been hit by a disaster--zero, goose egg, nothing. That is what is going to happen. Again, the catch-22 your farmers face and farmers all across America face is we have a disaster bill that was passed as part of the farm bill, but USDA has not written the regulations--the rules of the road. So, in effect, there is no program available currently, yet the disaster is now. These farmers have been hit now. The question is, Is there going to be any help for them now? Here we have the prospect of a massive rescue package for the entire country to prevent 3 or 4 million people from losing their jobs in the next 6 months, and yet we have a need that is now. It is immediate. It is not 6 months from now, it is right now. The Senator is doing the Lord's work, and I hope very much that we can find a way to get a resolution.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to honor my former budget analyst for agriculture, Jim Miller, for his exemplary service. For the last 4 years, Jim has served me as my lead agriculture adviser. His efforts have helped produce great legislative successes for our Nation's farmers and ranchers. Jim's knowledge of agriculture is extraordinary. His encyclopedic familiarity with Federal agriculture policy allowed him to know the answer to any question I would ask about agriculture. Throughout his service, he garnered the respect and admiration of his colleagues as well as other Senators for his intelligence and his good nature. His wise counsel will be missed. Jim came to my office in August 2004 after working for the National Farmers Union. Even though Jim had 20 years of agriculture policy expertise and had farmed in his native Washington State for over 20 years before coming to Washington, he had never worked on Capitol Hill. But he hit the ground running. Shortly after Jim joined my staff, he helped me pass an agriculture disaster assistance package for North Dakota farmers and ranchers in 2004. He also worked for 3 long years to secure additional disaster assistance for North Dakota farmers stricken with flooding in 2005 and severe drought in 2006. I will always remember Jim for his work during the 2008 farm bill. Jim was my lead negotiator and captain of my farm bill team. Without his leadership and dedication, this most recent farm bill would not be as strong as it is. He gave this effort thousands upon thousands of hours of his time, working with people on both sides of the aisle and in both Houses of Congress to get a fantastic end result. He was responsible for helping me deliver the top priorities for North Dakota producers: increased farm program support levels and a standing disaster program. I thank him for helping this Congress produce what I think is the best farm bill we have ever had. And it isn't just me that thinks this--it is reflected in the recordbreaking votes we had in the Senate and the large margin of victory we had on overriding the President's two vetoes. Since Jim left my office, he has rejoined the National Farmers Union. I will forever be grateful for his tireless efforts, his creative thinking, his coalition building, and friendship. I wish him all the best in his new endeavor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I am pleased to honor a community in North Dakota that recently celebrated its 125th anniversary. From July 4 to July 6, the residents of Sheyenne gathered to celebrate their community and its historic founding. Sheyenne is located in Eddy County. The name is said to have come from the Cheyenne Indian Tribe; however, it was misspelled by the area's first explorers and hasn't been changed since. The town was inhabited in 1885 by Clarence E. Bennett and then formally platted in 1892 under the jurisdiction of J.W. Richter. The Richter family built the first store and elevator on what is now Main Street. Sheyenne began as a large wheat growing community and slowly evolved into a small business community with the expansion of the railroad and increased numbers of settlers. The nearby Sheyenne River served as a constant source of food and other goods throughout its development. As my colleagues know, the Great Depression left no community in the Midwest unaffected. Sheyenne suffered greatly as an agriculture community, but--- as they had done during World War I and the influenza epidemic--- citizens helped one another and fought through all of the hardships Today, Sheyenne is home to Hendrickson Park, the Log Cabin Museum, and the Warsing Dam. Volumes of the ``Shining Star'' Sheyenne Newspaper dating back to 1897 can be found at the Log Cabin Museum. Outdoorsmen can catch anything from a largemouth bass to yellow perch along the banks of the Warsing Dam. Camping, hiking, and biking are also popular activities in this area. The celebration of 125 years as a community was nothing short of spectacular. Sheyenne had an all-school reunion, a parade, a BBQ dinner, a Bull-a-Rama, and memorable fireworks to top it off. The community also honored the newly remodeled and expanded Equity Elevator that has been in operation since 1910. This was truly a celebration unlike any other. Madam President, I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Sheyenne, ND, and its residents on their 125th anniversary and in wishing them well for the future. By honoring Sheyenne and all other small historic towns of North Dakota, we keep the pioneering, frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places such as Sheyenne that have helped to shape this country into what it is today, which is why this fine community is deserving of our recognition. Sheyenne has a proud past and a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I am pleased to honor a community in North Dakota that recently celebrated its 125th anniversary. From July 18 to July 20, the residents of Dazey gathered to celebrate their community and its historic founding. Dazey is located in Barnes County. It is proudly named after the famous playwright C.T. Dazey. Classic plays such as ``In Old Kentucky'' and ``Abie's Irish Rose'' were written by C.T. and performed on Broadway during the turn of the 20th century. C.T. Dazey purchased land from the Mack Brothers and donated half of it to the Northern Pacific Railroad to build a new town with the agreement that it would be named after him. World War I sparked life in Dazey giving this ``boom town'' energy to build houses, hotels, banks, churches, a newspaper company, and a post office. The first baseball team in Dazey was put in motion in 1888; it played its first game against the neighboring township of Getchell. Dazey was a thriving community until the Depression. Despite hard times, Dazey hung on and began to grow again. Today, homes are being built and community members have restored the great atmosphere in charming Dazey. The city's 125th anniversary celebration kicked off with an all- school alumni banquet and karaoke dance. The celebration continued into the weekend and included a parade, a play, a tractor pull, a buffalo feed, and a North Dakota mysteries and oddities museum. There was the popular ``mud run'' as well as a play at the Dazey theatre titled ``Stop the Villain.'' It was an event that will be remembered by these residents and visitors for years to come. Madam President, I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Dazey, ND, and its residents on their 125th anniversary and in wishing them well for the future. By honoring Dazey and all other small historic towns of North Dakota, we keep the pioneering, frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places such as Dazey that have helped to shape this country into what it is today, which is why this fine community is deserving of our recognition. Dazey has a proud past and a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I am pleased to honor a community in North Dakota that recently celebrated itsy 125th anniversary. On July 26, the residents of Christine gathered to celebrate their community's history and founding. Christine is a small town located in Richland County in southeastern North Dakota between the Red River and Wild Rice River. The post office was established November 17, 1884, in the general stored owned by John Munger. Settled by Scandinavians, Christine was named for the Swedish operatic soprano, Christine Nilsson. The Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad built a depot at Christine in 1886. Today, Christine remains a proud community that has a prosperous economy consisting of farming. The Christine community center is a valuable asset that provides a place for the citizens to gather. Residents of Christine are known for their honesty, strong work ethic, and living off the land. The community had a wonderful weekend celebration to commemorate its 125th anniversary. Residents began the celebration with a breakfast served by Christine Church at the community center. There was also a parade, a carnival, a presentation of Christine's history, and a dedication of the community center. The evening ended with a city meal and dance with music from the Plow Boys. Madam President, I ask the Senate to join me in congratulating Christine, ND, and its residents on their 125th anniversary and in wishing them well in the future. By honoring Christine and all the other historic towns of North Dakota, we keep the pioneering frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places such as Christine that have helped shape this country into what it is today, which is why this community is deserving of our recognition. Christine has a proud past and a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside so I may call up amendment No. 5634.

Mr. CONRAD. What is the time on this amendment?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have offered this amendment to prevent the alternative minimum tax from hitting 26 million taxpayers in 2008. My amendment is fully paid for. That is how we should provide alternative minimum tax relief. We need to wake up around here. We are facing a fiscal crisis, in part because of the massive deficits and debt we have run up as a Nation that has helped propel this bubble. Our markets are in turmoil. The Bush administration is now proposing to spend hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to stabilize Wall Street. We simply cannot continue to pile debt on top of debt. We have to begin to send a signal that the United States is going to start paying its bills. We are running massive budget deficits, massive trade deficits. The debt of the country has mushroomed. In one fell swoop, the administration is proposing adding $700 billion more. That is on top of the $100 billion dedicated to Fannie Mae, the $100 billion dedicated to Freddie Mac, and the $85 billion dedicated to AIG. Let's add that up. That is nearly a trillion dollars. Let's add the $30 billion for Bear Sterns. We are over a trillion dollars. Let's think very carefully about what is happening. Yesterday, the Washington Post reported the dollar declined in value against the euro by more than 2 percent in a single day. I ask people who are watching and listening to think very carefully now about how these events are connected. The dollar has gone down in value sharply. Already in the last 6 years it has gone down about 40 percent against the Euro. Yesterday, in one day, it went down 2 percent. In one day, the stock market went down almost 400 points. In one day, the price of oil went up by a record amount for a single-day increase. These events are all connected. We have to connect the dots. The dollar goes down in value, oil sells in dollar terms. That puts upward pressure on oil prices. Of course, as people see that we are headed toward some kind of economic weakness, they look for safe havens. One place to look is commodities. A key reason people are losing confidence in the dollar is the mushrooming debt. To add in just a matter of days almost a trillion dollars to a debt that already stands at $9.6 trillion has an effect on people's confidence in the ability of the United States to repay. That means they are going to insist on higher interest rates in order to continue to extend us credit. As we run up these massive deficits and debt, where do we get the money to pay for this? We get it by borrowing, and increasingly we have been getting it from borrowing from other countries. We cannot afford to continue on this course of not paying for things. We can look back now and see the results of these irresponsible fiscal policies. In the last eight years, we have seen the five highest deficits ever recorded, with the highest of those now projected to come in 2009. The 2009 estimate of the deficit does not include the still unknown cost of the Federal intervention to help the financial markets. But our budget situation is actually even worse. The debt is going up much more rapidly than the reported deficit. For example, the increase in the debt in 2008 will be far greater than the estimated $407 billion deficit. That is because the general fund of the United States is taking the surpluses from Social Security and Medicare and using those funds to pay other bills. Let me repeat that: The debt increase in 2008 will not be the $407 billion advertised deficit. The increase in the debt will be $647 billion. For next year, the deficit is estimated to go up $438 billion. The debt will go up by more than $800 billion. And all that is before we include those bailouts. We could easily see the debt of the country go up a trillion dollars next year. The debt, as we sit here today, is $9.6 trillion. That is the gross debt of the United States. This President has been building a wall of debt: $5.8 trillion at the end of his first year; now they want to increase the debt ceiling to over $11 trillion. This chart shows $10.4 trillion in 2009. That has now been erased because what they are proposing to do is increase the debt ceiling to over $11 trillion, nearly a doubling of the debt in that short period of time. Here is what the New York Times headline from this weekend said: ``Administration Is Seeking $700 billion for Wall St.; Bailout Could Set Record.'' That could mean hundreds of billions of dollars of debt added to the wall of debt we already face. That is an unsustainable circumstance. It is a key reason why the dollar went down 2 percent in value in one day. One of the great risks that is being run by this fiscal policy is the risk of a sharp downward break in the value of the dollar. If that were to occur, we would be faced with a series of unpleasant alternatives. One would be a sharp cut in spending by the United States. A second possibility would be a dramatic increase in taxes. A third would be a substantial increase in interest rates to attract additional capital to float this boat. I hope people are listening. I know this is hard to fully comprehend because economic issues are complex. But they are related. They are tied together. The fact that we have dramatically increased the debt and deficit has an impact on the value of our dollar. When we flood the world with dollars, the value of those dollars goes down. When those dollars go down in value, that puts us in a position of having to find some way to attract additional dollars. One way open to us is to increase the rent we pay for those dollars we call interest. If we had to dramatically increase the interest rate to attract dollars to be able to float this enterprise, that would have an adverse effect on economic growth and economic activity. So all of these things are connected. They are related, and they matter. We are already seeing the dollar fall further in response to the prospect of billions of dollars of additional debt being piled on. The Washington Post article I showed earlier said ``Currency's Dive Points to Further Pain.'' ``Currency's Dive Points to Further Pain''-- again, a 2-percent reduction in the value of our currency in a single day. This is after the dollar has already lost about 40 percent of its value against the euro since 2002. I am not the only one who believes we have to start paying for things. Earlier this month, the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve reiterated his opposition to deficit-financed tax cuts. This is what Alan Greenspan said on Bloomberg Television: [U]nless [tax cuts are] paid for on the so-called pay-go, I'm not in favor of it. I'm not in favor of financing tax cuts with borrowed money. To my colleagues who say: Well, it is the people's money so let's give it back to them in a tax cut, what people are we talking about here? It is the people's money, so we give it back to them. The problem is, the people's Government does not have any money. The people's Government is out of money. It is borrowing money, and increasingly it is borrowing from foreign entities. So when people say: We ought to give the people's money back to them, it is a little late. We already did that. We did that, and much more. We went and borrowed money to give it to them. Now, who is going to get stuck with the tab? It is going to be the American taxpayer. Because you can only continue to stack up debt for so long. At some point the chickens come home to roost. That is why I support a fully paid-for alternative minimum tax relief amendment. This alternative minimum tax relief provides tax relief in the first year costing $76 billion, but it is paid for over the next 10 years. I remind my colleagues that pay-go does not require that these bills be paid for immediately. It requires the legislation be paid for over 6 and 11 years. Given the economic downturn and turmoil we now confront, I would not call for paying for AMT relief right now. But we can provide offsets over time to cover the cost. That would be the responsible thing to do, and it would send a signal to the financial markets that we are serious about putting our fiscal house back in order. Some have argued we should not be raising taxes to pay for alternative minimum tax relief. We are not talking about raising taxes. We are talking about closing tax loopholes and making hedge fund managers and oil companies pay their fair share. Here is a list of the offsets or the pay-fors included in my amendment. One, ending deferral of offshore compensation by hedge fund managers trying to evade current taxation. Two, delaying implementation of a new worldwide interest allocation provision designed to benefit some multinational corporations. Three, correcting underpayment of royalties for oil and gas production on federal land in the Outer Continental Shelf. Four, codifying economic substance--prohibiting transactions with no economic rationale, done solely to evade taxes. Does anyone oppose closing these loopholes? Does anyone oppose these offsets, these means of paying for what is needed? Because certainly alternative minimum tax relief is needed. Otherwise, 26 million people are going to get hit by the alternative minimum tax. It is important to recognize these annual alternative minimum tax fixes, as costly as they are, conceal the much longer and larger long- term cost of fixing this problem. The cost to reform the alternative minimum tax over the next 10 years is a staggering $1.6 trillion. Let me repeat that. To fix the alternative minimum tax over the next 10 years would cost $1.6 trillion. So if we continue to pass alternative minimum tax patches that are not offset, that is the real amount, as shown on this chart, we are going to be adding to the Nation's debt. Over the summer, I asked the Congressional Budget Office to examine the impact on our budget and economy from continuing to pass these unoffset tax cuts. CBO found that the debt absolutely explodes if we continue with unoffset alternative minimum tax reform and unoffset extension of the President's tax cuts-- rising to 602 percent of the gross domestic product by 2082. Let me repeat that. This is what the Congressional Budget Office has told us will happen if we continue on this course. As shown on this chart, this is the debt if we proceed with the current policies. That is the green line. Now, this is the debt that will accrue if we continue to pass alternative minimum tax reform unpaid for. That is the black line. Finally, the red line is what happens to the debt with unoffset alternative minimum tax reform and extension of the Bush tax cuts. In that case, the result is the debt of the country goes to 600 percent of gross domestic product. That is five times the record amount. That is five times the record amount of debt to gross domestic product in our Nation's history. What is the implication of such an explosion of debt? What would it mean? I asked the Congressional Budget Office to tell me what would happen if we fail to pay for alternative minimum tax reform and the Bush tax cuts. What would happen to economic growth? Here is what they concluded. As shown on this chart, the black line is the economic loss from not paying for alternative minimum tax reform. You can see, it is very dramatic, the drop in GNP per person. Here is what happens to economic loss from not offsetting the alternative minimum tax reform and the extension of the Bush tax cuts. CBO projects that, over time, it would reduce American living standards by 50 percent. It is because the debt operates as a gigantic drag on the economic growth of the country. How is that possible? Well, very simply, as I described earlier, if you keep adding to the debt, you have to finance it. How do you finance it? You borrow it. Increasingly, we borrow from abroad. That undermines the value of the dollar. That puts upward pressure on interest rates. Rising interest rates stifle economic growth. Again, that is not just my view. Here is what the Congressional Budget Office said in a letter to me on July 17 of this year concerning their estimates: Despite the substantial economic costs generated by deficits in that model, such estimates may significantly understate the potential loss to economic growth from financing the tax changes with deficits . . . In reality, the economic effects of rapidly growing debt would probably be much more disorderly and could occur well before the time frame indicated in the scenario. Is anyone listening to what our own advisers are telling us? Deficit financing of tax cuts hurts long-term economic growth, and the reaction could be disorderly changes in the markets well before the models suggest. I believe that, in part, that is what we are seeing today: a sharp drop in equity values, a sharp drop in the value of the dollar, and all the while we see a massive increase in our deficits and debt. As shown on this chart, this is the long-term budget scenario of the Congressional Budget Office. This is where we are to this point. This is where we are headed without fundamental changes. If we keep patching the alternative minimum tax without paying for it, if we extend the Bush tax cuts without paying for them, there is going to be, according to those who advise us, a sharp reduction in economic growth, a sharp reduction in the economic strength of our country. We have to start somewhere. I propose we start today by paying for the alternative minimum tax relief that is needed. We could do it today. We could open a new chapter. We could get serious about the long-term economic prospects of our country. The alternative is to stay on the current course, keep running up the debt, keep running the risk of a sharp break in the value of the dollar, keep running the risk of a sharp break in the economic strength of our country. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to address the extenders package and the alternative minimum tax amendment now under consideration. Earlier this morning, we debated an amendment to provide several critical energy tax provisions which was fully offset--it was fully paid for. They were important items, such as provisions that will promote renewable and alternative sources of energy. But now we are debating another important amendment, the underlying provisions of which I also support, such as the extension of the research and development tax credit, and other important extender provisions that will help middle-class families and promote economic growth, and another 1-year fix for the alternative minimum tax to ensure that 26 million taxpayers are not thrown onto the alternative minimum tax in 2008. But as the chairman of the Budget Committee, I wish to be clear to my colleagues that the provisions in this amendment are not paid for. The extender and other provisions are only partially paid for, and the alternative minimum tax relief is not paid for at all. That, I believe, is a serious mistake. I fully support these provisions, but they should be paid for. I earlier offered an alternative minimum tax package that was paid for--fully paid for--and paid for in a way that it should be. This spring, I made a commitment to the Blue Dogs in the House that I would raise a point of order against any unpaid alternative minimum tax bill in the Senate. The Blue Dogs are to be commended for fighting for fiscal discipline. I intend to keep my commitment to them and to raise a pay-go point of order against this bill. I do it not just because I made that commitment but because I believe it is the right policy as well. I wish to remind my colleagues that pay-go does not require that these bills be paid for immediately. Pay-go requires that the legislation be paid for over 6 and 11 years. Given the economic downturn and turmoil we now confront, I would not call for paying for these tax reductions right now. But I also do not believe we can simply add them to the national debt without any offset over any period of time. That I believe is a mistake. We can provide offsets to pay for these measures over the longer term, and we should. That would be the responsible thing to do, and it would send a signal to our financial markets that we are serious about putting our fiscal house back into order. So I will vote to uphold my point of order today, but I also recognize my point of order will fail and that this legislation will pass and be sent to the House. Now, why is there a need to have alternative minimum tax relief? Well, the simple answer is: Because if we don't, 26 million people will be hit with additional taxes. In 2008, we would have 4.2 million affected if we passed the alternative minimum tax relief. With no AMT fix, 25.7 million would be affected. In other words, we would have 21 million more affected if we don't have a 1-year fix. The 1-year cost of this alternative minimum tax and extender package is $104 billion. But these annual fixes, as costly as they are, conceal the much larger long-term cost of fixing this problem. The cost to reform the alternative minimum tax over the next 10 years is $1.6 trillion. Let me repeat that. The cost to fix the alternative minimum tax over the next 10 years is $1.6 trillion. On the path we are following, we will absorb all that additional debt without a dime of it being paid for. I believe that is a profound mistake. Not only do I believe it, but the Congressional Budget Office confirms it. Over the summer I asked the Congressional Budget Office to examine the impact on our budget--and, more importantly, on our economy--from continuing to pass these unpaid-for, unoffset tax reductions. The Congressional Budget Office found that the debt absolutely explodes if we continue to pass the alternative minimum tax fixes without paying for them, without offsets. To go further, to pass an extension of the President's tax cuts without paying for them, without offsets, would increase the debt as a share of the gross domestic product to 602 percent. Is anybody fiscally responsible in this Chamber anymore? Does anybody care about the effect on the debt, and more importantly, on the economy? The Congressional Budget Office, let me repeat, made it very clear. Here is what is going to happen to the debt without fixes to the alternative minimum tax, without extending the President's tax cuts. You can see the debt under any scenario is going to rise dramatically, but, if we keep passing alternative minimum tax fixes without paying for them, the debt will skyrocket. If we add to that an extension of the President's tax cuts without it being paid for, the red line shows what happens to the debt. Under that scenario, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the debt will reach 602 percent of the gross domestic product in 2082. After World War II, the debt as a share of GDP was about 125 percent. The debt was about 125 percent of the gross domestic product. The Congressional Budget Office is telling us if we continue to pass these alternative minimum tax fixes without paying for them, and add in the cost of the President's tax cuts, the debt will reach over 600 percent of gross domestic product in 2082. More importantly, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that the effect on economic growth would also be dramatic and devastating. Specifically, the Congressional Budget Office found that a failure to pay for these policies, the alternative minimum tax fixes and extension of the President's tax cuts, will result in an economic loss of almost 50 percent in the gross national product, per person, in roughly the next 65 years. In other words, instead of growing the economy, the Congressional Budget Office is finding and telling us that the debt created by these unoffset tax cuts will act as a giant anchor on this economy, dragging us down with debt and deficits, leading to higher interest rates, leading to less economic growth, more unemployment, and a weaker America. In CBO's letter to me presenting the results of its analysis, the agency noted that the economic disruption caused by these deficits and debt is likely to be far worse than their own models show. Here is what they said: Despite the substantial economic costs generated by deficits in that model, such estimates may significantly understate the potential loss to economic growth from financing the tax changes with deficits . . . In reality, the economic effects of rapidly growing debt would probably be much more disorderly and could occur well before the time frame indicated in the scenario. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I don't know when we are going to absorb this cruel lesson, but deficits and debt do matter. It is not just numbers on a page. This is the question of the economic performance of this country. What the Congressional Budget Office is telling us is that the explosion of deficits and debt hurt long-term economic growth and hurt it a lot--a reduction of 50 percent of the gross national product per person of this country. I deeply believe one of the reasons we have the economic turmoil we have now is because of the explosion of deficits and debt fueling a gigantic bubble. That bubble is bursting and the pain is spreading. We have to make a judgment. We have to make a determination. When do we start paying for things around here? When do we quit shuffling it off onto the debt? When do we stop threatening long-term economic growth and the economic strength of the country? Today could be the day that we begin the march toward responsibility. For that reason I will offer a budget point of order on this measure that is unpaid for and urge my colleagues to support the previous amendment I offered to fully pay for the alternative minimum tax fix that otherwise will hit over 25 million Americans. Mr. President, under the rules of the Senate I will offer the budget point of order as we approach that vote. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the amendment I have offered today is a fully paid for alternative minimum tax fix. To go down the road of fixing the alternative minimum tax without offset, without paying for it, will only grow the debt dramatically. The 10-year fix for the alternative minimum tax costs $1.6 trillion, all of it added to the debt. Yesterday, I say to my colleagues, the dollar dropped 2 percent in value in 1 day, after already falling 40 percent in value over the last 2 years. The key reason analysts gave was burgeoning debt in the United States that undermines the credibility of our national credit. It is time to start paying for things. This is a fully paid for, fully offset alternative minimum tax, paid for in ways that are not controversial. I thank the Chair, and I urge my colleagues to vote aye.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, 53 Senators voted to pay for an alternative minimum tax fix. That is a majority. I am now raising the point of order, a budget point of order against an unpaid-for alternative minimum tax fix, again reminding our colleagues the cost to continue on this path to fix the alternative minimum tax for 10 years is $1.6 trillion, all added to the debt. Yesterday the dollar went down 2 percent in value in 1 day. Colleagues, we simply have to begin to pay for things; otherwise, the creditworthiness of our country will be in question and at risk. Therefore, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates the pay-go section 201 of the S. Con. Res. 21, a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.

Mr. CONRAD. We have raised the point of order. I made a commitment to our colleagues in the House to carry that out. I feel honor bound to have a vote.