Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator withhold for one moment?

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, section 308(a) of S. Con. Res. 21, the 2008 budget resolution, permits the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels and limits in the resolution for energy legislation that meets certain conditions, including that such legislation not worsen the deficit over the period of the total of fiscal years 2007 through 2012 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2007 through 2017. I find that SA 4825, a complete substitute for S. 3036, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008, satisfies the conditions of the deficit-neutral reserve fund for energy legislation. Therefore, pursuant to section 308(a), I am adjusting the aggregates in the 2008 budget resolution, as well as the allocation provided to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. I ask unanimous consent that the following revisions to S. Con. Res. 21 be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Could the Chair alert me after I have consumed 10 minutes?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we ought to get straight world agriculture economics. The Senator from New Hampshire, for whom I have high regard, has been a consistent opponent of a national agriculture policy, one that has produced for our country the lowest priced food in world history, measured by a share of our national income. Not only do we have the lowest cost food in the history of the world as a share of our income, we also have the safest supply, the most stable supply, the most abundant supply. Something is working. Beyond that, he does not deal with world agriculture as it is. Our major competitors are the Europeans. We have about equal shares of the world market. But here is what they do to support their producers versus what we do to support ours. They are spending $134 billion to support their producers while we spend $43 billion. That is more than a 3-to-1 ratio. What happens if you pull the rug out from under our producers? Mass bankruptcy. It is one thing to ask our producers to go up and compete against the French farmer and the German farmer. They are happy to do that. It is quite another issue to compete against the French Government and the German Government as well. That is not a fair fight. That is why it is essential we have a farm policy in this country. Now, my colleague on the other side said a whole series of things about the cost of this bill, the scoring of this bill, that are not so. This administration has said this bill costs $20 billion more than the baseline. No, it does not. According to the Congressional Budget Office--that is independent, that is nonpartisan, that is professional--this bill costs $10 billion above the baseline. End of story. What the administration is talking about and what the Senator from New Hampshire is talking about are fictional numbers based on made-up scorekeeping that the administration has never applied to its own legislation or budgets. Under Congressional Budget Office scoring, our farm bill spends $10 billion baseline over the budget window. That is not my number; that is the number from CBO, which is nonpartisan, professional, and independent. The $10 billion is offset with $10 billion in outlay reductions from Customs user fees. Every penny of new spending is paid for. On the tax side, we are paying for agriculture tax relief with agriculture tax reforms, such as a reduction in the ethanol credit and Schedule F reforms to limit the use of farming losses to shelter off-farm income. There is no tax increase. The administration argues the farm bill contains timing shifts. That is true. But that is also true of almost all major legislation dealing with revenues or mandatory spending. That is what we do to true up the numbers between the timeframes where various budget requirements are imposed. The simple fact is, when you do major reform such as we are doing in this bill, you change programs, you change payment schedules. That is precisely what one would expect. These changes have real-world consequences for farmers. They are making crop insurance payments earlier, for example, under this bill, and getting farm program payments later. That has a real-world cost. The administration has repeatedly used timing shifts, itself, in legislation it has proposed. In fact, the timing shifts in this bill pale in comparison to the cost of sunsetting the tax cuts which the President had in his tax packages repeatedly. Now, in terms of where the money goes, 66 percent of the money in this bill goes for nutrition--two-thirds. Nine percent goes for conservation. Only 14 percent--actually, less than 14 percent--goes for the so-called commodities. That is a dramatic reduction from the last farm bill. In the last farm bill, three-quarters of 1 percent of the Federal budget went to support commodities. In this bill, it is one- quarter of 1 percent of the entire Federal budget going to support farmers and ranchers. That is a dramatic change. The Senator from New Hampshire mocked the reform elements in the bill. They are not to be mocked. They are very real. We have a dramatic reduction in the adjusted gross income limits that will apply in order to qualify for farm program payments. One example: Nonfarm income used to be a $2.5 million limit. It is reduced to $500,000 in this bill. We require direct attribution in this bill. That means it has to be a living, breathing human being collecting these payments; no paper entities. We have eliminated the three-entity rule that was consistently used to get around farm program limits. We have reduced direct payments by $300 million. We have reformed Schedule F to prevent the abusive use of nonoperating losses to shield nonfarm income--a savings of over $450 million. We have crop insurance reform of over $5.6 billion. We have decreased the corn ethanol support by $1.2 billion. We have eliminated these so-called cowboy starter kits where people down in certain States were selling farm and ranchland off as subdivisions and having a farm program payment go with those lots, those 10-acre lots. We brought a screeching halt to that abuse. The disaster assistance in this bill is budgeted and paid for. In the last 3 years, every State in the Nation has received disaster payments--every State--none of it budgeted for, none of it paid for. These disaster provisions are budgeted and paid for, and they further reform disasters because in the past you could have losses on one part of your operation, even though you had gains on the rest of it, and still get a disaster payment. Under this proposal, under this new law, if you have not had losses on your whole farm operation--disaster losses on your whole farm operation--you are not going to get a disaster payment. I wish the Washington Post, when they write their editorials, would bother to read the legislation they are critiquing because clearly they do not know what they are writing about. The final point I want to make: The Senator from New Hampshire, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, who is my friend, somebody for whom I have respect and affection, suggests over and over that somehow this is not paid for, that it is going to add to the deficit. No. The Congressional Budget Office, who are the official scorekeepers, and the Joint Committee on Taxation have scored this bill. This is what they say. We reduce the deficit over 5 years by $67 million; over 10 years, by $110 million. This bill is fully pay-go compliant--fully. This bill is paid for. It is paid for without a tax increase. One final point: The Washington Post wrote another egregious story the other day saying: Oh, there is this $16 billion additional cost that might be out there. Yes, and elephants fly. Look, when are they going to get objective in their reporting at the Washington Post? They have suggested there might be this $16 billion cost. Really? There also might be $16 billion of savings. A lot of things could happen. You know--lightning strikes. A lot of things could happen. Look at the last farm bill. We brought that in $17 billion in the commodity provisions below what was forecast at the time. Did the Washington Post ever write a story about that? Did they ever? No. This bill is paid for. It is paid for without a tax increase. The professional scoring of this legislation is that it is $10 billion over baseline, completely paid for, without a tax increase.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally charged.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we should take a moment to appreciate the historic nature of this vote. This is the first time ever a Presidential veto of a farm bill has been overridden. Of course, we all know this is far more than a farm bill. In fact, that is a misnomer. This is a food bill, a conservation bill, an energy bill--all those things combined in a way that I think should make us all proud. It got 82 votes for a reason. It is a good product. It got 316 votes on a Presidential override because it is a good product. I thank especially the leadership of the Agriculture Committee. Our chairman, Senator Harkin, who is indefatigable, to have a vision to turn farm policy in a new direction, to be more conservation oriented-- history will treat him very kindly. Senator Chambliss--we call him, in our office ``Cool Hand Luke'' because you couldn't ask for a better partner throughout an effort than Senator Chambliss has been to all of us. He has been steadfast. He has been calm, cool, and collected in a lot of situations that demanded real restraint in order to keep things together. I also thank him for the friendship we have formed throughout this effort. To the staffs--I wish to especially thank my staff: Jim Miller, my lead negotiator who has given body and soul to this effort. I calculate he spent more than 3,000 hours over the last 2 years on this effort; Tom Mahr, my legislative director, who has a lot of brainpower that he brought to this effort, as he does to so many jobs in my office. I deeply appreciate all the assistance Tom has given me and the other members, the other negotiators; Scott Stofferahn, my other negotiator, who helped write the disaster provisions that have proven to be so well done. John Fuher is a member of my staff who has taken on a lot of responsibility at a young age. He has stepped up onto the stage. I appreciate it. Miles Patrie and Joe McGarvey handled key sections of the legislation; on Senator Harkin's staff, Mark Halverson, the staff director. I joked the other day he started to go gray in this process. You know, it may go further than gray with the little glitch that happened over on the House side; and Susan Keith, who is so determined to write good agriculture policy, she can be proud of what she has helped accomplish in this bill; Martha Scott Poindexter is a consummate professional, somebody for whom we developed high regard. It has been a delight to work with her; Martha Scott, we appreciate the good humor you have brought to this effort, as well as Vernie Hubert, a consummate pro. These are talented people, good people. They deserve our thanks. I also wish to thank, if I can, the occupant of the chair, Senator Nelson of Nebraska. He is a critically important member of the Agriculture Committee who has provided that kind of mature leadership that is so often necessary in writing legislation of this importance. I thank the occupant of the chair for all he did to make this a reality as well.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have been asked to make a request that we go into morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes; that upon my conclusion, Senator Dorgan be recognized for up to 5 minutes, Senator Casey for up to 5 minutes, Senator Vitter for 15 minutes, followed by Senator Stevens for 15 minutes.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I would say--

Mr. CONRAD. Billion.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I am delighted that our colleague talks about our fiscal record and theirs. He talks about circling back to the policies when the Democrats controlled the White House. He is right that there is a difference. The difference is that when the Democrats last controlled the White House, we had record surpluses, and we were paying down the debt. Under the current President, we have record deficits and record debt. I am delighted to talk about the record because here is their record: In each of the last 3 years of the Clinton administration, we had achieved a budget surplus, we were paying down the debt, and the CBO was projecting that the budget would remain in surplus for years to come. By the time the Bush administration came into power, we had achieved three consecutive years of surplus and were expecting more. But, the Bush administration squandered every dime. By the time this President is done with his responsibility, they will have run up the debt from $5.8 trillion to over $10 trillion. That is the difference in the record. Under the last Democratic administration, we ran surpluses and paid down the debt. Since then, under the Bush administration, the Nation has been beset by record deficits and record levels of debt. That is a fact. Now, my favorite quote of my colleague on the other side--first, let me say I have respect for the ranking member. I have affection for him, and we are friends. But we have a big divide when it comes to fiscal policy. I think the policies of this administration have been reckless. I think they have dug an enormously deep hole for this country. I think the factual record is very clear on the differences between our two parties. Under President Clinton, we achieved record surpluses, and we were paying down the debt. Under President Bush, the Nation was plunged right back into record deficits and debt. That is a fact. But the thing I enjoy most about my colleague's speech is how similar it was to the speech he gave last year. This is what he said last year: It includes, at a minimum, a $736 billion tax hike on American families and businesses over the next 5 years--the largest in U.S. history. The only difference is that now he is saying this budget is the largest tax increase in the history of the world. We can now go back and look at the factual record about what our budget did that was put into place last year. Did it increase taxes? Did it increase them by the largest in U.S. history, as he asserted last year? Well, let's look. Here is the record--not a speech but the factual record. We had Democrats controlling the House and the Senate, and the assertion last year by the Senator from the opposite party was that there would be the largest increase in the history of the United States. But what happened? Was there the largest tax increase in the history of the United States? No. Was there a tax increase? No. Was there a tax reduction? Yes. Here it is: Tax cuts enacted, $194 billion; offsets and closing loopholes, $7 billion; net tax reduction, $187 billion. Now, that is the fact. So much for speeches and for hyperbole. Let's deal with facts. Debt: The President's budget has $83 billion more of debt than the budget we have offered from our side. The Senator questions the Baucus amendment, which is included in this budget, that extends key middle- class tax cuts. That is included in the conference report. We provide $340 billion of tax cuts in this budget. What is he talking about, the biggest tax increase? There is no tax increase in this budget. None. Zero. There are $340 billion of tax reductions for the middle class in this country who deserve it. The Senator says: Why haven't they presented a bill, because they had the Baucus middle-class tax cut extension in last year? Why haven't we? Because, as the Senator well knows, those tax cuts are in place until 2010. We didn't need to take action last year. We don't need to take action this year. Those tax cuts are in place now. But in this 5-year budget, we have provided for their extension because we know they run out in 2010. But there is absolutely no need to have taken the action to extend them last year or this year because they are already in place. Let's deal with facts. The Senator talks about Barack Obama's budget. Barack Obama doesn't have a budget. Barack Obama is not the President of the United States. He is asserting he has $300 billion of spending increases. I notice he didn't say anything about the McCain budget because while John McCain is not the President, either, he has proposed $3 trillion--not $300 billion but $3 trillion--of additional tax cuts, and we already can't pay our bills. We already are borrowing hundreds of billions from China and Japan. So apparently the McCain plan is to borrow some more money from China and Japan. That is what the party of the other side has become, a party of borrow and spend--they've spent $600 billion so far in Iraq with no end in sight, and they've borrowed so much that the debt will have increased from $5.8 trillion to $10.4 trillion by the time this President is done. Then there is one other item to which I need to respond, and that is on the question of the pay-go. The Senator says that pay-go is meaningless. What is it? It requires that if there is new mandatory spending or new tax cuts, they must be offset. That is pay-go. The Senator used to support pay-go. This is what he said in 2002: The second budget discipline, which is pay-go, essentially says if you are going to add a new entitlement program or you are going to cut taxes during a period, especially of deficits, you must offset that event so that it becomes a budget-neutral event. . . . If we do not do this, if we do not put back in place caps and pay-go mechanisms, we will have no budget discipline in this Congress and, as a result, we will dramatically aggravate the deficit which, of course, impacts a lot of important issues, but especially impacts Social Security. The Senator was right in 2002, and, in fact, his prediction came true because his party abandoned pay-go, drove up deficits, drove up debt, and we are the worse for it as a nation. If you wonder about pay-go, here is the record. We had strong pay-go in effect between 1993 and 2000. The deficit was reduced each and every year between 1993 and 1997 and, by 1998, we actually got into surpluses, as I indicated before, which rose in each year through 2000. Then our friends on the other side took charge of the White House. They immediately weakened pay-go, and we plunged right back into deficit. We put pay-go back into effect, and we are starting to dig out of the very deep hole they have dug. On the issue of pay-go being waived, pay-go has been raised 16 times; pay-go has been waived once--once. The Senator says pay-go is not working. I disagree. Excluding the alternative minimum tax provisions that were put in place last year to prevent the alternative minimum tax from costing 20 million people more taxes, instead of offsetting that, the alternative minimum tax was prevented from being expanded without paying for it. If you leave out that one item, the Senate pay-go has a scorecard with a positive balance of over $1.5 billion over 11 years. Every bill sent to the President, other than the alternative minimum tax and the stimulus, which, of course, could not be offset if it was to have a stimulative effect--that was totally bipartisan, both those were totally bipartisan--every bill sent to the President other than those two has been paid for or more than paid for. Pay-go also has a significant deterrent effect, preventing many costly bills from being offered. With respect to the specifics of my colleague's criticism, I will enter into the Record every one of the items he referenced: immigration reform, the Energy bill, mental health parity, prescription drug user- fee amendments, minimum wage, Water Resources Development Act. Every one of them is paid for. CHIP reauthorization, the farm bill--he just talked about the farm bill. The farm bill, which we will vote on sometime later today or tomorrow to overturn the President's veto, is totally pay-go compliant. It is paid for and without tax increases. Higher education, the reconciliation bill, the 2007 supplemental--every one of them in terms of the bill that actually went to the President is paid for. When the Senator from New Hampshire calls pay-go ``swiss cheese-go,'' I call their budget approach ``easy cheese'' because they have faked fiscal responsibility around here long enough, and we are calling them on it because now we have their record, and their record is record deficits, record debt, record borrowing from abroad. That is their fiscal record. It is a fact. It can be checked. They are going to have a hard time running away from their record as we go into an election year. Madam President, I see my colleague, Senator Murray, is here. How much time does the Senator wish?

Mr. CONRAD. I yield her 10 minutes.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Washington, who is an extraordinarily able member of the Budget Committee, someone upon who I rely for much of the very hard work of the committee. She is simply outstanding, and I thank her for her leadership and most of all for her friendship. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Iowa, Senator Grassley, be given 30 minutes on the bill.

Mr. CONRAD. I say to the Senator through the Chair that we would be happy to accede to the request if the Senator could say something nice about the chairman of the committee.

Mr. CONRAD. What a kind and gracious thing to say. We would be happy to agree to the request. The Senator would like 4 additional minutes.

Mr. CONRAD. Why don't we give the Senator 5. You can give back any time.

Mr. CONRAD. May I interrupt the Senator and ask unanimous consent when the Senator has concluded, we go to Senator Wyden? How much time would the Senator speak?

Mr. CONRAD. Are we confident that 10 is sufficient?

Mr. CONRAD. Then I ask unanimous consent to go to Senator Wyden for 10 minutes after Senator Grassley.

Mr. CONRAD

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

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, while we have been in caucus discussing how the business of the Senate will be concluded over the next several days, I note that a number of my colleagues have spoken to once again assert and claim that there is a tax increase in the budget conference report before us. That is a fiction. Our friends on the other side have a very consistent speech, and they give it regardless of what is actually in the legislation. I can say that because we have a record now of their giving this same speech, because they gave the exact same speech last year, almost word for word. Last year, as shown on this chart, this was the description of the ranking member of the Budget Committee with respect to the conference report. He said then: It includes, at a minimum, a $736 billion tax hike on American families and businesses over the next five years-- the largest in U.S. history. Now we are able to check the record and able to see what, in fact, has happened. Did the Democratic Congress pass the largest tax increase in history in the last year? No. Did we pass any tax increase? No. Here is what we did do: We passed $194 billion of tax reduction. That is the record. People do not have to know what specific legislation has occurred here to know what I am saying is true. All they have to do is go to their mailbox. Because tens of millions of Americans are getting a check from the U.S. Treasury, courtesy of the Congress controlled by Democrats and, in fairness, a law signed by the President--one negotiated in a completely bipartisan way to provide stimulus to the economy. There were $7 billion of loophole closers enacted during the same period. So the net effect of the two is $187 billion of tax reduction. That is our record. Now they are saying: Well, they have this big tax increase in this package. No, we do not. That is their assumption. It is not ours. What is provided for in this package is $340 billion of tax reduction. The Baucus amendment, passed here--it is included in the conference report--extends all the middle-class tax cuts and reforms the estate tax. Mr. President, $340 billion of tax reduction. Now, our colleagues say: Well, they had that in last year's budget and did not pass a law to implement it. That is true. You do not need to implement it until the tax reductions that are in place expire. They do not expire until 2010. So, yes, we have provided for them in the 5- year budget. That is to be responsible to show we can balance even with those tax cuts extended. But you do not need to pass the law now because those tax cuts are in effect until 2010. I wanted to say that to set the record straight. I know Senator Kyl is here waiting to speak, so I will stop at this time so he has a chance to make his remarks. I say to Senator Kyl, for the good of the order, could you give us a rough idea how long you might speak?

Mr. CONRAD. Would it be appropriate to have a unanimous consent agreement that the Senator have 15 minutes--or 20, and then he can yield back time if he wishes.

Mr. CONRAD. Might I say, then we have a couple of other Senators on our side who wish to say something and, hopefully, we will then be done on our side.

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

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the very able Senator from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, who is an extremely valuable member of the Budget Committee, for her contribution throughout the budget process this year. She has been an absolute champion of the green jobs initiative. We have $2 billion in this conference report for green jobs, which is not only going to help the economy, but it is also going to be good environmentally, and we think even better long term in the economics of the country, because we are going to have, as the world turns its attention with greater concern to environmental issues, high- paying jobs here in this country. That takes some work, some investment. That is provided for in this conference report. Frankly, it is one of the things I am most proud of in this conference report. It would not have happened without the effort of the Senator from Michigan. She deserves great credit for that. She has also been one of the real leaders on making certain that our veterans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan have the health care they need and deserve. That is the second part of this bill of which I am especially proud--the additional resources--some $3 billion above what the President requested--for health care for our Nation's veterans. A third area in which the Senator from Michigan has been especially helpful has been the health care. She has championed health information technology, and we have a reserve fund here to take advantage of the opportunity that is out there for the Nation by more broadly adopting the use of information technology in medical care. The RAND Corporation has told us--and the Senator has brought it to our attention repeatedly, and that is why it is very much in my mind-- that we can save $80 billion a year, if I am not mistaken, if we would broadly adopt information technology in the health care industry, the health care sector. Think of that--$80 billion a year, over 5 years. That is more than $400 billion. So that makes common sense. I will conclude by saying I think this has been a healthy and full debate today. We have had almost 4 hours, which is about typical on a conference report. I am being informed by the leadership we will not vote until tomorrow morning. I am told that the likelihood is that the budget, which is subject to agreement with both sides--I am being told of the likelihood that the budget vote will not occur until perhaps 9:30 tomorrow morning. I am told the farm bill override vote will also, most likely, occur tomorrow. I don't have that conclusively, but that is the initial indication I am receiving, that that is the most likely outcome. So I urge Senators not to jump in their cars and head home without checking out with leadership staffs on both sides, but that in fact is the likelihood. I don't think I have anything further to add. I do think we have laid out the case for this conference report clearly and, I hope, in a compelling way. This has been a difficult challenge--to write a budget in an election year. We know the Congress has not adopted a budget in an election year since 2000. It is extraordinary, if you think about it. This country, in an election year, has not had a budget since 2000. That cannot be the way we do business around here. I am very proud we had a budget last year. I am very proud we are on the brink of getting a budget this year, even though it is an election year. I hope that sets an example for whoever is in charge that getting a budget does matter. We have to bend our best efforts on both sides to make certain that this country, the greatest nation on Earth, has a budget. That is about as basic as it can get. I again thank the Senator from Michigan for her leadership and her great assistance on the Budget Committee and also on the Agriculture Committee on this very important legislation on which we will be seeking to override the President's veto. That bill really should not be called a farm bill. It is far more than that. It is a food bill, an energy bill, a conservation bill, a trade bill, although inadvertently the enrolling clerk over in the House dropped off the trade title. So that will create a bit of a challenge for us as well. I thank very much the Senator from Michigan. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record data on pay-go.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I will be happy to yield.