Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CONRAD. I would ask the Senator from South Carolina, would it be acceptable--I understand it is with Senator Boxer who has a matching motion to yours--to have 30 minutes equally divided?

Mr. CONRAD. On the two.

Mr. CONRAD. That would help very much. I appreciate the Senator's courtesy. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we have 30 minutes equally divided on the DeMint and the Boxer motions.

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I understand the Kyl motion regarding the alternative minimum tax is already pending, so I ask that my motion on the alternative minimum tax, which is at the desk, also be called up and be made pending.

Mr. CONRAD. No, there is not. That is not correct. That was part of a unanimous consent agreement. There was 16 minutes for Kyl and Conrad combined, and all time consumed was credited against that 60 minutes. So there is virtually no time. I think we will just yield back all time on that motion.

Mr. CONRAD. Senator Nelson may want to speak on OCS. How much time is left on that?

Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield 7 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Florida.

Mr. CONRAD. I will retain 2 minutes on that too. So we each will retain 2 minutes on that amendment and yield back all other time, except for the 7 minutes on OCS.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleague very much. I thank Senator Gregg. We have had an interesting day. Senator Gregg, we can see by his head with that nasty bruise, is bloodied but unbowed.

Mr. CONRAD. He said he got hit by a farmer with a lamb chop or asparagus, I don't know which.

Mr. CONRAD. I think we are ready to proceed to vote.

Mr. CONRAD. I think that is fair.

Mr. CONRAD. I think we would be well advised as well. We advise colleagues, after the first vote, there will be 10 minutes. We will have eight votes. Typically, that will take us 3 hours. If Members will come and stay here, we can conceivably get done in 2\1/2\ hours. It is up to the Members whether we are able to do that. With that, I go to my colleague for an explanation of the first motion.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, has a motion on nuclear energy. The Senator from South Carolina has also graciously agreed to take it on a voice vote. Would the Senator like to take 30 seconds to explain the motion?

Mr. CONRAD. The Senator from South Carolina continues to rise in the judgment of his colleagues. Can we then go to a voice vote on the Graham motion?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, that takes us to the Boxer motion on cap and trade. We have 2 minutes equally divided. These are motions that will require votes, the Boxer and DeMint motions. If the Senator from California would take time to explain her motion.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the House message to accompany S. Con. Res. 70, the concurrent budget resolution; that the motion to disagree to the House amendment be agreed to, the motion to agree to the request of the House for a conference be agreed to; and the motion to request the Chair to appoint conferees be agreed to.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I now ask we enter into 1-hour time agreement, equally divided, on an amendment that will be on or in respect to potential tax increases in the conference agreement.

Mr. CONRAD. Well, Madam President, it is the same song, second verse. Again, it is words. It is no wonder our friends on the other side have lost three congressional elections in a row because they keep chanting the same mantra that has no relationship to reality. These are the exact same speeches they gave last year: biggest tax increase in the history of the world. Now we can come and we can check the record. We do not have to guess; we do not have to suppose; we do not have to engage in make-believe. We can look at the record. Here it is: Democrats lowered taxes by $194 billion. If you are listening, you do not have to wonder if that is true. All you have to do is go to your mailbox because all across America people are getting checks from the United States that represent the tax cuts Democrats in Congress passed. So this is not a question; this is a matter of fact. Democrats cut taxes $194 billion. Those are not my numbers. Those are the numbers from the Congressional Budget Office. All of this talk about big tax increases is just talk. It has no relationship to this budget and no relationship to last year's budget. It has no relationship to this year's budget. I present the factual record. It is as clear as it can be. We lowered taxes $194 billion in the year under the budget resolution we passed last year. With that, Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I will offer a side-by-side amendment that seeks to achieve the same goal. This is one place where we have an agreement. None of us want to see the alternative minimum tax imposed on the American people. That would involve 26 million people, up from 4.2 million now. All of us want the so-called tax extenders to be extended. It would involve the research and development tax credit and others. We would add this additional caveat: We ask that every effort be made to offset the cost of these policies by closing the tax gap, shutting down abusive tax shelters, and addressing these offshore tax havens that are turning out to be so abusive. We think that is better policy. We absolutely agree that the alternative minimum tax should not be expanded. We absolutely agree that the so-called tax extenders, such things as the research and experimentation tax credit, the deduction for State and local taxes, the deduction for classroom expenses, the deduction for qualified education expenses, the incentive for the charitable IRA rollover, the combat pay earned-income tax credit, and various energy tax incentives, be extended. But we believe that rather than just putting that on the charge card and adding to the debt-- meaning that we go out with a tin cup and borrow more money from the Chinese and the Japanese--we pay for it by going after these abusive tax shelters, going after these tax scams, these offshore tax havens, and do it without raising taxes. So I hope my colleagues will support that as a general principle and an instruction to the conference committee. With that, I note the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged equally.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following motions to instruct conferees be the only motions, except the pending motions, with no amendment in order to the motions, and that would be the Conrad AMT and the Kyl AMT amendments, with 60 minutes equally divided, with the time already consumed being applied to the 60 minutes; that there be a Democratic nuclear energy reserve fund amendment and a Republican nuclear energy reserve fund amendment and the two amendments be limited to 30 minutes equally divided; that there be a Democratic OCS amendment and a Vitter OCS amendment, with 30 minutes equally divided. We have already had initial debate on the Boxer China-India and the DeMint China-India amendment with 30 minutes equally divided, and we will apply all time already consumed to that 30-minute limit. Finally, a Gregg or Republican $1 trillion cap on discretionary spending amendment with 30 minutes equally divided; that points of order be waived; that upon the use of debate time on each motion, it be set aside and the motions to be voted in the order listed; that there be 2 minutes prior to each vote, and then after the first vote, the vote time be limited to 10 minutes each; that upon the use of all time, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to each motion; that there be 60 minutes of general debate time available to the chair and the ranking member.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Acting President pro tempore, and I especially thank the chairman of this committee, Senator Harkin. I said last night that without his vision, we would not have a vehicle of this quality that is this forward looking. I think now of the chairman of the committee as the father of a new conservation movement in this country because it was the steady pressure from the chairman of the committee that has pushed us in a new direction for farm policy, one far more oriented toward conservation. I believe in future years Chairman Harkin will be looked upon as somebody who led a fundamental reorientation of agriculture policy, and he will be recognized as someone who broke the path for this new direction, and he deserves enormous credit for it. I also again thank the ranking member, Senator Chambliss, who is a pro's pro. If ever you were to want a partner in a very complicated endeavor, one in which trust among colleagues was absolutely essential to an outcome, you would want Senator Chambliss involved because his word is like gold. All of us who have dealt in difficult negotiations know how critically important that is. I also salute his superb staff: Martha Scott Poindexter, and Vernie Hubert, who played such a critical role in advancing this legislation. At the same time, I want to recognize the staff of the chairman: Mark Halverson, who I said last night has actually gone gray in this exercise--that is how much he has put into it--and Susan Keith, who has played a central role in the developing of the policy, deserves our credit as well. I also recognize Senator Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, for the extraordinary contribution he has made throughout. He has provided the kind of leadership you would hope for in an endeavor of this complexity, and I will be forever in his debt for what he has done for not only production agriculture but what he did to construct the financing of this bill that made it possible to achieve widespread bipartisan support. Certainly I thank his ranking member, Senator Grassley, who played such a critical role as well. I conclude my thank-yous by again thanking my staff: Tom Mahr, my legislative director, who is exceptional and extraordinary and whose intelligence and good judgment have made such an important contribution to this result; and certainly to my lead negotiator, Jim Miller, who, as I said last night, is encyclopedic in his knowledge, but also wise in his construct of policy, and especially in his dealing with people, including me. Jim, I deeply appreciate the extraordinary sacrifices you and your family have made to help us write this bill. And finally, I thank Scott Stofferahn, my other lead negotiator, who also has a deep knowledge of farm policy, and who played such a key role in the disaster provisions that themselves represent significant reform. Let me conclude by saying: Why a bill at all? Well, because our major competitors have much more ambitious support for their producers than we have for ours. This is a fact. The Europeans are providing more than three times as much support to their producers than we provide to ours. If we pulled the rug out from under our producers, it would be a calamity for farmers and ranchers in this country. Where does the money go? Well, this chart shows it I think as well as any could. Two-thirds of the money in this bill goes for nutrition. This is misnamed when we call it a farm bill. This is a food bill. This is an energy bill because it helps reduce our dependence on foreign energy, a critically important priority for this country, and it is a conservation bill. Conservation of our natural resources is critically important to the future. The other point I wished to make in conclusion is that this bill is paid for. It is pay-go-compliant. These are not my estimates; these are not the Agriculture Committee's estimates, these are the professional estimates of the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation, which show this budget saves $67 million--not a lot of money, but nonetheless it does not add to the deficit; in fact, it slightly reduces it. It saves $67 million over 5 years, and it saves $110 million over 10 years. It is completely paid for with no tax increase. Final point: I received last night from the IRS what I think is a very interesting set of facts. We have seen reported in the mass media that a couple could earn $2.5 million and still get benefits. Well, that is akin to the chance of getting struck by lightning because it turns out there are no tax returns in the entire country between $1 million and $1,250,000 that would have farm income below $750,000 and nonfarm income below $500,000. Zero. So all these press reports they have written about how millionaires are going to be able to qualify, they are wrong because there are no people in those rarified categories. You would have to have $750,000 of farm income and $500,000 of nonfarm income and both husband and wife would have to be in precisely those categories. Do you know what the problem with all those stories is? There are no people in those categories. That is not my report; that is the report from the Internal Revenue Service. Again, I wish to close by thanking those who have provided such extraordinary leadership, and I would be remiss in not mentioning Harry Reid, who played behind the scenes a very quiet but strong leadership role in helping us bring together all the people necessary to get this bill done. We should also thank the Speaker of the House on the other side and certainly the chairman, Chairman Peterson, who gave blood, sweat, and tears to this effort, and our own Congressman Earl Pomeroy, the only Member serving on both the Ways and Means Committee and the Agriculture Committee, who made an important contribution to helping us get a breakthrough in the Ways and Means Committee on the financing. This is good legislation. It is good for the country and certainly good for my State but also fair to the taxpayers of this country because it is paid for, and it represents the most dramatic reform since the 1949 act itself. That is a fact. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

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