Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, the Senator began by quoting me about the need for more revenue and was kind enough to indicate he did not know the context of it. I just thought I would provide the context because this was a ``60 Minutes'' program interview, and they were asking me in the context of the Comptroller General of the United States warning the American people we are on an utterly unsustainable fiscal course because the debt is soaring before the baby boomers retire, and that we face a very serious consequence if we do not deal with it. So one question put to me was: Do you think taxes ought to be raised? Senator Conrad: I believe, first of all, we need more revenue. The next sentence, which the Senator did not provide: We need to be tough on spending. And the next sentence after that also the Senator did not provide: And we need to reform the entitlement programs. We need to do all of it. Let me say, I am not alone in that view. The ranking Republican on the Budget Committee said this at a hearing on our long-term fiscal challenges. This is the Republican ranking member: . . . [W]e also know revenues are going to have to go up, if you're going to maintain a stable economy and a productive economy, because of the simple fact that you're going to have to have this huge generation that has to be paid for. So the Senator's reference to my quote was in the context of dealing with the enormous imbalance between the revenues of this Government and the expenditures of this Government. My response was, yes, you are going to have to do something about revenue. Yes, you are going to have to be tough on spending, and you are going to have to reform the entitlement programs. I also said in this interview, none of which aired, that the first place to look for revenue is not a tax increase. The first place to look for revenue is to go after the tax gap, the difference between what is owed and what is paid, to go after these offshore tax havens and abusive tax shelters. That was the context within which I said it. Now, let me just indicate why this matters.

Mr. CONRAD. Yes.

Mr. CONRAD. Yes.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator for his courtesy. I would say to him, I do not believe entitlement reform is ever going to happen--long-term entitlement reform--in a 5-year budget resolution. I think the only way we are going to get entitlement reform is a bipartisan effort, and that is what Senator Gregg, the ranking Republican, and I have offered, which is a task force of 16 members, equally divided, Republicans and Democrats, to come up with a long-term plan. I would be very candid. I think the truth is, it is going to require more revenue. Again, I would say before any tax increase, the first place I would look are these places where people are not paying what they legitimately owe when the vast majority of us do. Now, I must say, I used to be a tax commissioner. I was the elected tax commissioner of my State. I was chairman for several terms of the Multistate Tax Commission. Senator Dorgan and I are probably the only ones who have audited the books and records of companies and individuals. I can tell you, there is loads of money out there. One reason I was elected to the U.S. Senate is I found for my State lots of money that was not being paid over to the State of North Dakota because people were fudging. Large companies were fudging. Senator Dorgan and I in part made our reputations by going after them and very successfully collecting money from taxpayers who were not paying what they legitimately owed. I could go through chapter and verse of what I found as I examined the books and records of major companies. I have shown some of it on the floor of the Senate: a little five-story building in the Cayman Islands that claims it is the home of 12,600 companies. Now, they are not doing business out of that little building in the Cayman Islands. They are doing monkey business. They are avoiding their taxes. I showed earlier another building in the Cayman Islands: a five-story building we now know is being used by one company alone to dodge hundreds of millions of taxes they owe to the United States. That is not right. I would also say with respect to the tax cuts that have been promoted by this administration, overwhelmingly they have gone to the wealthiest among us. Here, in 2007, those earning over $1 million a year on average got a tax break of almost $120,000 a year. I do not think that is right. I have wealthy friends, as I think probably all of us in this Chamber do, who have said to me: I don't need it. I don't need that $120,000 tax cut. I am much more worried about the debt that is being sent to our kids.

Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the distinguished Senator from Michigan, who is an incredibly valuable member of the Budget Committee, and also incredibly important member of the Finance Committee and the Agriculture Committee. We are able to serve on three committees together, and that is rare around here. My admiration for her grows every day. In terms of her leadership, we could not have produced a budget resolution as responsible as this one, nor one that embraces the needs of the American people and their values as closely as this one without the leadership of the Senator from Michigan. I wanted to tell her how much I appreciate that.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Conrad State 30 Improvement Act to extend and expand this program's success in bringing doctors to communities that would otherwise not have access to health care services. The Conrad State 30 program, which I helped create in 1994, has brought thousands of physicians to underserved communities in all 50 states, across our great country. These doctors are foreign born, but have all received training in the United States. Under the Conrad 30 program, foreign doctors already in the country for medical training are granted a waiver from a visa requirement to return to their home country for 2 years. In exchange for this waiver, the doctors must commit to providing health care to underserved populations in the United States for 3 years. By 2020, some projections show that the United States may have 200,000 fewer doctors than it needs; that is a staggering statistic, and one that cannot be taken lightly. If this shortfall is allowed to materialize, rural areas, like my State of North Dakota, will undoubtedly be among the hardest hit. Given the looming deficit of doctors and an increasingly competitive global marketplace, it is vital that we maintain the incentives for qualified foreign physicians to serve patients in this country. The immigration benefits historically provided by the Conrad program, and enhanced in this bill, provide crucial incentives to foreign doctors. And when they do come to our country, it is vital that we make sure that they end up in the places that need them most. This bill makes the Conrad 30 program permanent, something that I believe is long overdue. It also invites a new group of foreign doctors to take part in the program, a change that could dramatically expand the pool of doctors practicing in rural and underserved areas. Further, the bill creates a mechanism by which the current cap of 30 doctors per state can significantly expand, while protecting the interests of those states that have had difficulty recruiting doctors under the program. The bill also creates an important new incentive for doctors to participate in the program by granting them a green card cap exemption when they have completed their service. Finally, the bill gives increased flexibility to State health authorities to determine the needs of their State in utilizing Conrad waivers. I strongly believe the Conrad State 30 Improvement Act can be of great benefit to every state in the country and help combat the growing shortage of health care providers in the United States.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Conrad State 30 Improvement Act to extend and expand this program's success in bringing doctors to communities that would otherwise not have access to health care services. The Conrad State 30 program, which I helped create in 1994, has brought thousands of physicians to underserved communities in all 50 states, across our great country. These doctors are foreign born, but have all received training in the United States. Under the Conrad 30 program, foreign doctors already in the country for medical training are granted a waiver from a visa requirement to return to their home country for 2 years. In exchange for this waiver, the doctors must commit to providing health care to underserved populations in the United States for 3 years. By 2020, some projections show that the United States may have 200,000 fewer doctors than it needs; that is a staggering statistic, and one that cannot be taken lightly. If this shortfall is allowed to materialize, rural areas, like my State of North Dakota, will undoubtedly be among the hardest hit. Given the looming deficit of doctors and an increasingly competitive global marketplace, it is vital that we maintain the incentives for qualified foreign physicians to serve patients in this country. The immigration benefits historically provided by the Conrad program, and enhanced in this bill, provide crucial incentives to foreign doctors. And when they do come to our country, it is vital that we make sure that they end up in the places that need them most. This bill makes the Conrad 30 program permanent, something that I believe is long overdue. It also invites a new group of foreign doctors to take part in the program, a change that could dramatically expand the pool of doctors practicing in rural and underserved areas. Further, the bill creates a mechanism by which the current cap of 30 doctors per state can significantly expand, while protecting the interests of those states that have had difficulty recruiting doctors under the program. The bill also creates an important new incentive for doctors to participate in the program by granting them a green card cap exemption when they have completed their service. Finally, the bill gives increased flexibility to State health authorities to determine the needs of their State in utilizing Conrad waivers. I strongly believe the Conrad State 30 Improvement Act can be of great benefit to every state in the country and help combat the growing shortage of health care providers in the United States.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to join my colleagues in strong support of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. Today has been a long time in coming. I want to particularly recognize the work of my friend Senator Dorgan, the chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee. We would not be here today without his dedication and persistence. In 2004, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a report on the Native American health care system. One item in the report struck a very somber note with me. The report notes that as early as 1926 the adequacy of the delivery of health care to Native American was formally questioned by the government. In response, a report was issued 2 years later that sparked a host of statements by the Federal Government that the health status of Native Americans was ``intolerable.'' Unfortunately, the Commission notes that much of the 1928 report remains true today. It is indeed sad that in the 21st century Native Americans still do not have the access to and quality of health care to which they are entitled. As my colleague from North Dakota has so poignantly illustrated time and time again, there is a health care crisis in Indian country. Native Americans are 200 percent more likely to die from diabetes, 500 percent more likely to die from tuberculosis, 550 percent more likely to die from alcoholism, and 150 percent more likely to die from accidents. Suicide is the second-leading cause of death for Native American adolescents, 2\1/2\ times the national average. Native Americans have a life expectancy nearly 6 years less than the rest of the U.S. population. That is unacceptable. And it is why it is so important that we pass the reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. More than 1.8 million Native Americans and Alaska Natives rely on the Indian Health Service for health care. Since the act was first authorized in 1976, the ways in which health care is delivered in this country have changed enormously. The bill before us helps meet the contemporary needs of Indian country. I believe that the inability of many Indian people to receive preventive and nonemergency care is one of the reasons why there are such significant health disparities that exist between Native Americans and the rest of the U.S. population. In North Dakota, when the IHS clinic closes at 5 p.m. on the weekdays and is closed on the weekends, many go without care. I am pleased the bill before us addresses this challenge by establishing grants for demonstration projects including a convenient care services program to expand the availability of health care. It also has a renewed emphasis on disease prevention and health promotion. The bill also takes important steps to provide training and incentives to increase the number of health care professionals in Indian country, especially Native health care professionals who understand the unique conditions facing their own communities and can provide care with greater cultural awareness. At the University of North Dakota, three programs authorized by the Indian Health Care Improvement Act--the Quentin N. Burdick Indians Into Medicine, Indians Into Nursing, and Indians Into Psychology Programs--are recruiting increasing numbers of Native Americans into medical professional programs. Graduates of these programs are making a real difference throughout Indian country, and I am pleased these successful programs are continued in the bill. It also includes much needed provisions to address the youth suicide crisis that exists throughout Indian country by authorizing grants to deliver more counseling and suicide prevention services to tribal communities. Finally, I am pleased my amendment to increase the use of video service delivery to assist in the outreach and enrollment of individual Indians in Medicare and Medicaid was incorporated into the managers' amendment. Remote video access to government services has all the benefits of face-to-face communication, without the costs and difficulties associated with traveling long distances from rural and remote reservations. To date, video service delivery has allowed for more than 300 completed applications for benefits, more than double what would be expected through conventional delivery methods. My amendment will allow for the expansion of this successful effort to other reservations across the country. We have been working on reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act for a number of years. I think Native Americans have waited long enough and it is time we deliver them this bill which begins to reverse the disparate health disparities that exist. I do not expect that we will be able to solve all of the health care challenges that exist in Indian country with this one bill, but I expect that we will be able to make substantial progress in addressing some of the most pressing needs and creating a stronger system for the future. Again, I want to recognize the extraordinary work of Senator Dorgan in delivering a truly bipartisan bill that meets the urgent health care needs of Native Americans in North Dakota and across the country. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. CONRAD

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

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, yesterday, we received the President's budget for this year and for the next 5 years. I wish to take a few moments to comment on that and then on the need for a stimulus package given what is happening in the economy. First, I wish to indicate that we have seen under the President's leadership a dramatic deterioration in the budget circumstance for the country. Last year, the deficit was about $160 billion. They are now forecasting, the administration is forecasting that under its budget proposal, the deficit for this year will reach $410 billion, the second biggest deficit in dollar terms in our Nation's history, and for next year, again a deficit of more than $400 billion. This does not tell the whole story. This is the deficit story. The debt story is far more serious. As I have been saying for a number of years, the debt is the threat. However, we will never hear the word ``debt'' leave the lips of this President. Never. We will never hear him talk about the growth of the debt. We will never hear him discuss the threat of the debt. We will never hear him discuss a plan to deal with the debt. It is as though the debt of the country for this President does not exist. Why? Well, perhaps because the debt is growing far more rapidly than the deficit. (Mrs. McCASKILL assumed the Chair.)

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, the President says the deficit for 2008 will be $410 billion. If you look at his proposals, you see the debt will increase under his plan by more than $700 billion. Let me repeat that. Under the President's plan, the debt will not increase by the advertised deficit of $410 billion; the debt will increase by more than $700 billion. Why the big difference? The biggest reason is that, under the President's plan, nearly $200 billion in Social Security money is being taken to pay other bills. If you were doing that in the private sector, if you were taking retirement funds of your employees to pay operating expenses, you would be on your way to a Federal institution. But it would not be the House of Representatives or the White House; you would be on your way to the ``big house'' because that is a violation of Federal law. But here the President can propose a budget that does it. In fact, that is what he has done the entire time he has been in office. He has taken trillions of dollars in Social Security money and used it to pay other bills. The problem with that, of course, is that while none of it is counted in the deficit calculation, it all gets added to the debt. The result is that here is what is happening to the gross debt of the United States. At the end of the President's first year--and we don't hold him responsible for that year because he inherited a budget from the previous administration--the debt was $5.8 trillion, the entire debt of the U.S. Government, the Federal Government. We now see that at the end of 2009, which is the last year he will be responsible for, the debt will be $10.4 trillion. So he will have increased the debt of this country by 80 percent in 8 years. What a disastrous legacy this is. He has us on course to have more than $13 trillion in debt by 2013. This is before the baby boomers retire. We cannot pay our bills now. Can you imagine what is going to happen when we double, in very short order, the number of people eligible for Medicare and Social Security? Madam President, perhaps of even greater concern is what this President has done to foreign holdings of our debt. It took all of these Presidents pictured here on this chart--all of the 42 previous Presidents--224 years to run up a trillion dollars of U.S. debt held abroad. This President has more than doubled that amount in just 7 years. He has added over $1.3 trillion of foreign-held debt in his 7 years. That means we now owe the Japanese nearly $600 billion; we owe the Chinese a sum approaching $400 billion; we owe the British over $300 billion; we owe the Koreans over $40 billion. That is the legacy of this administration. Now the President comes with his budget, and says he is going to start doing something about the spending side of this equation. He said: I want to cut Medicare and Medicaid over the next 10 years by $600 billion. No, I didn't misspeak. That is what is in the President's budget. He wants to cut Medicare and Medicaid $600 billion over the next 10 years. That is health care for those who are Medicare eligible--largely the senior citizens of this country. The President wants to cut that by $600 billion. At the same time, in the same breath, in the same budget, he says: While we are doing that, let's cut taxes another $2.2 trillion. Let's dig the hole even deeper and add more to the deficit and debt. Let's go more in hock to the Chinese, the Japanese, and anybody else who will loan us money. Madam President, these numbers of the President substantially understate how serious it is. Why? Because, magically, he has just left things out. On the war, the President has no costs beyond the first half of 2009. The President said there should be no timetable on Iraq. He has just provided the timetable, hasn't he? He provided the timetable for withdrawal in his budget because he says there is going to only be funding for next year. The President, who said he is against a timetable for withdrawal, just wrote one. His timetable is provided in his budget. He says that after 4 months of next year, there is not going to be any funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. How much will be spent for the wars in 2010? He says zero. Next year, it is $70 billion, after spending nearly $200 billion this year. This budget charitably can be called a great work of fiction because it bears no relationship to any reality. In addition, regarding the alternative minimum tax, which everybody says has to be fixed, he has the money to fix it for 1 year. He doesn't have a dime to fix it for any of the next 4 years after that. So we are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars that are not in this budget. Finally, for the fourth year in a row, for the first time in any administration's history, the President provides no spending details past this coming year. So he has the cuts in there, but he doesn't tell you how they are going to be done. More make believe, more fantasy, and more fiction--that is what this budget is all about. Madam President, the war cost $193 billion this year. Next year, it will only cost $70 billion--that is what the President says. That is in this budget. Can anybody believe it? I have not found anybody who does--not if the President's policy is pursued. In terms of the priorities of this budget, they are also subject to serious question because if you look at the relative priorities of what the President has proposed, here is what you see. For those who earn over $1 million a year, the cost of the President's tax cuts for that category of earners will cost $51 billion in 2009 alone. Let me repeat that. The cost of the tax cuts for those earning over $1 million a year will be $51 billion in 1 year alone. On the other hand, the President says we have to cut low-income heating assistance by $400 million. So you don't have $400 million for low- income heating assistance, but you do have $51 billion for tax cuts for the wealthiest among us. The priorities continue in that same vein. It would take $826 million to restore the cuts to education that are in this President's budget-- $826 million for 1 year. Again, the President says, no, it is far more important--if you do the math, he is saying it is more than 60 times as important to provide additional tax cuts for those earning over a million dollars a year, because the tax cuts for that category--the cost of the tax cuts are over $51 billion for next year. The same is true in law enforcement. In many ways, this is the most startling. The President says eliminate the COPS Program, which has put more than 100,000 police officers on the street. The President says forget it, cut it 100 percent. No additional police on the street. What sense does that make when crime is rising? He doesn't say cut it; he says eliminate it. It would cost $596 million for 1 year to restore that program. Again, the cost of the President's tax cuts for those earning over $1 million a year is $51 billion. That is almost 100 times as much as restoring funding for police. If we look at specific proposals by the President in this budget, we see he proposes cutting the COPS Program, as I have indicated, by 100 percent; weatherization assistance, cut that 100 percent; first responders--the aid to our firemen and our emergency personnel--he says cut that 78 percent; clean water grants, cut that 21 percent; community development block grants which help our cities--and every mayor will tell you these are the most flexible funds they get from the Federal Government--cut that 20 percent; cut low-income energy assistance 17 percent. Madam President, that brings me to the subject of the need for a stimulus package. Economic growth, we are seeing, has slowed dramatically. The Congressional Budget Office says economic growth is going to slow to 1.5 percent this year. By the way, all of the numbers I used, and the President's budget--do you know what economic growth number he used? He didn't use 1.5 percent, which comes from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. He says the economy will grow at 2.7 percent. So all those numbers I showed are the best-case scenario, because he has a rosy scenario with respect to what economic growth will look like. If we look at the last quarter of last year, what happened to economic growth? It slowed to six-tenths of 1 percent. That should be a tipoff that we have a problem. Here is what is happening to the housing industry. They are not in a recession; they are in a depression. Here is what happened to new home building. It has gone from a peak in 2006, and it has virtually collapsed. We just met with the homebuilding industry. They say this is the worst downturn since the Great Depression. That ought to get somebody's attention. Energy costs are spiking. We know what happened to fuel prices, fertilizer prices, home heating fuel, gasoline, and diesel. As a result of that, consumer confidence has taken an enormous hit. Here is the index of consumer confidence, which was down very dramatically as we went through the months of last year and into the early part of this year. This is what signals that we are in serious territory and that the economy is seriously at risk. The unemployment rate has risen sharply over the past year. We saw in the last jobs report that we actually lost 17,000 jobs. This was stunning to most economists, who were forecasting there would continue to be slow but modest job growth. Instead, it appears the economy hit a wall. Madam President, this is what the Federal Reserve Chairman told us on January 17: Any stimulus program should be explicitly temporary, both to avoid unwanted stimulus beyond the near term horizon and, importantly, to preclude an increase in the Federal Government's structural budget deficit. He went on to say about an effective stimulus: There is good evidence that cash that goes to low and moderate income people is more likely to be spent in the near term. . . . Getting money to people quickly is good, and getting money to low and moderate income people is good, in the sense of getting bang for the buck. Here are the elements that represent improvements in the Senate stimulus package. We cover 20 million seniors who were not covered in the House package, and 250,000 disabled veterans are included in the Senate package but not in the House's. We have higher rebates for low- income households--$500 versus $300. It extends unemployment insurance benefits, which gives us the biggest bang for the buck. We prohibit illegal aliens from receiving rebates. That was not brought to their attention in an effective way, so, unfortunately, it is conceivable that illegal aliens could get rebates under the House package. We have prevented that in the Senate package. We also have better targeted business provisions, especially the net operating loss carryback. I am proud to have authored an amendment that losses in 2008 could be carried back to profitable years, so that companies that are in this depression--those in the homebuilding industry--will qualify for assistance to prevent them from having even steeper layoffs and cuts. Finally, we encourage investment in alternative energy. Let me just point out that some say, in terms of incentives, that the extension for 1 year, for example, of the wind energy tax incentives, that is not stimulative. Really? Tell that to the company in North Dakota that makes the big blades for wind turbines. They have told me, if the wind energy tax provision is not extended, they are going to start laying off people. They employ hundreds of people in my State. When people say the energy package is not stimulative, I tell you in my State it is because we have manufacturing facilities that make the giant blades for the wind turbines. I have commented on the President's budget because the President is going to dump a debt bomb on the desk of the next President. That is what is going to occur. He has nearly doubled the national debt. He has it going up at a rate of $800 billion a year, not the $400 billion of deficit we read about in the paper. The debt is going up twice as much, $800 billion a year, after this next year when it is going up $700 billion. The next President is walking into a fiscal meltdown of historic proportion. This President has been the most wildly irresponsible fiscal steward in this country's history. That is a fact. The next President and the next Congress better get ready because they are walking into an absolute fiscal quagmire. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to submit to the Senate the fourth budget scorekeeping report for the 2008 budget resolution. The report, which covers fiscal year 2008, was 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. The report shows the effect of congressional action through January 23, 2008, and includes legislation that was enacted and or cleared for the President's signature since I filed my last report for fiscal year 2008. The new legislation includes: P.L. 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007; P.L. 110-84, the College Cost Reduction and Access Act; P.L. 110-85, the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007; P.L. 110-89, an act to extend the trade adjustment assistance program under the Trade Act of 1974 for 3 months; P.L. 110-90, the TMA, Abstinence Education, and QI Programs Extension Act of 2007; P.L. 110-114, the Water Resources Development Act of 2007; P.L. 110-116; the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2008; P.L. 110-135, the Fair Treatment for Experienced Pilots Act; P.L. 110-138, the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act; P.L. 110-140, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007; P.L. 110-142, the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007; P.L. 110-150, a bill to amend title 39, United States Code, to extend the authority of the United States Postal Service to issue a semipostal to raise funds for breast cancer research; P.L. 110-160, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007; P.L. 110-161, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008; P.L. 110-166, the Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2007; P.L. 110-173, the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007; P.L. 110-175, the OPEN Government Act of 2007; and H.R. 4986--pending Presidential action as of January 22, 2008--the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. The estimates of budget authority, outlays, and revenues used in the report are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions of S. Con Res. 21, the 2008 budget resolution. The estimates show that current level spending is below the budget resolution by $24.4 billion for budget authority and $13.5 billion for outlays while current level revenues are below the budget resolution level by $19 billion. I ask unanimous consent that the letter and accompanying tables from CBO be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, pursuant to section 301 of S. Con. Res. 21, I previously filed revisions to S. Con. Res. 21, the 2008 budget resolution. Those revisions were made for legislation reauthorizing the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP. Congress cleared H.R. 3963, the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, on November 1, 2007. The President vetoed that legislation on December 12, 2007. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives was unsuccessful in its attempt today to override that veto. Consequently, I am further revising the 2008 budget resolution and reversing the adjustments previously made pursuant to section 301 to the aggregates and the allocation provided to the Senate Finance Committee. I ask unanimous consent that the following revisions to S. Con. Res. 21 be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, section 302 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 for legislation that improves certain services for and benefits to wounded or disabled military personnel and retirees, veterans, and their survivors and dependents. Section 302 authorizes the revisions provided that the legislation does not worsen the deficit over either 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 H.R. 4986, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008, satisfies the conditions of the deficit-neutral reserve fund for veterans and wounded servicemembers. Therefore, pursuant to section 302, I am adjusting the aggregates in the 2008 budget resolution, as well as the allocation provided to the Senate Armed Services Committee. I ask unanimous consent that the following revisions to S. Con. Res. 21 be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, pursuant to section 302 of S. Con. Res. 21, I filed revisions to S. Con. Res. 21, the 2008 budget resolution. Those revisions were made for legislation that improved certain services for and benefits to wounded or disabled military personnel and retirees, veterans, and their survivors and dependents. Congress cleared the conference report accompanying H.R. 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008, on December 14, 2007. Unfortunately, H.R. 1585 was not signed into law by the President. Consequently, I am further revising the 2008 budget resolution and reversing the adjustments previously made pursuant to section 302 to the aggregates and the allocation provided to the Senate Armed Services Committee. Mr. President, last week the House passed H.R. 4986, a bill that is substantially similar to H.R. 1585 and that also meets the conditions of the reserve fund for veterans and wounded servicemembers. Consequently, for the information of my colleagues, I will be further revising the 2008 budget resolution pursuant to section 302 of S. Con. Res. 21 for Senate consideration of H.R. 4986. I ask unanimous consent that the following revisions to S. Con. Res. 21 be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I wish to take a few moments this morning to pay tribute to our colleague from Mississippi, Senator Trent Lott. Senator Lott has been at the center of every major policy debate in the Congress for more than three decades. Senator Lott was a fierce and effective advocate for limited government. No one who has been involved in debating budget, tax, or health policy with Senator Lott--as I frequently did on the Finance Committee--can question his commitment to conservative principles of government. But what made Senator Lott effective was that he understood that others had different views, and he understood the importance and art of compromise. He was driven to produce results, and he was unrelenting in his efforts to build coalitions to pass legislation and make things better for the American people. He recognized that, in the Senate, compromise is necessary to get things done. As majority leader, he was able to find policies that could hold his caucus together and at the same time win support from the Clinton White House and moderate Democrats. In more recent years, he has played a key behind-the-scenes role in bridging differences between the parties. No one was better at counting votes and knowing the limits of his negotiating flexibility. When Trent Lott told you he could produce the votes for a proffered compromise, he delivered. You could count on it. Perhaps most importantly, Senator Lott had an uncanny ability to persuade and cajole people to get a deal. He has a great sense of humor and a seemingly unparalleled ability to develop friendships and relationships with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle and both ends of the Capitol. He always knows who the key players are, and what will bring them to the table. These skills have produced a great record of accomplishments for Mississippi and the Nation. Personally, I will miss his quick wit, his insights, and his friendship. As Senator Lott prepares to leave the Senate, I wish him and his wife Tricia all the best.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the chairman. I say to the Senator from Iowa when he tells us that we should stop beating a dead horse, the picture he used shows that Trigger rides again. That wasn't a dead horse. That horse is alive, and as well it should be, because the underlying question is whether we pay for anything in this Chamber or do we borrow the money? When we borrow the money, do we borrow it from the Chinese and the Japanese, or do we start paying our bills right here at home? That is the issue before the Chamber. It is not a question of a dead horse or a live horse. It is a fundamental question of whether we pay our bills or put it on the charge card. The issue before us is very simple. If we do not offset the alternative minimum tax or alter it in some way, it will hit 23 million American families, up from some 4.2 million this last year. The bill before us says, yes, adjust the alternative minimum tax so more people are not hit by it, but it also says something very important. It says pay for it; don't go out and borrow the money, don't go out and borrow billions more from China and Japan. The House has it right. We ought to pay for it. Certainly it makes no sense to let the alternative minimum tax sweep up millions more people, but it also makes no sense to fail to pay for it. That is not just my view; that is also the view of the former chairman of the Federal Reserve who said on ABC's weekend program in response to a question from George Stephanopoulos, the question was put to the chairman: So when the Congress this week . . . fixes this patch in the alternative minimum tax . . . and doesn't pay for the increase in the deficit, that is something you're against? Mr. Greenspan: Yes. No qualifications, a simple clear statement in support of paying for fixing the alternative minimum tax. Why is paying for it so important? Because if we fail to do so, we put it on the debt, and already the debt has skyrocketed under this administration, from $5.8 trillion in 2001 to, at the end of the fiscal year that just ended, a debt of $8.9 trillion. Future generations will look back on this one. Perhaps they will be amused by the debate tonight. They will not be amused by the debt we leave them. This generation will not be known as the greatest generation. This generation will be known as a greedy generation, a self-oriented generation, one that was not responsible with the people's money. Some of my colleagues claim we never intended to raise this money, that it was no part of any budget, that it was not part of any revenue projection. I beg to differ. As chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, I can tell you that these revenues have been in every budget written by this President, and written by the Congress, whether controlled by the Republicans or the Democrats. The only way any of these budgets have balanced was to assume this revenue which is the law of the land would either be collected or would be offset, would be paid for. This chart shows the revenue assumptions in the Bush budget. We find alternative minimum tax revenue assumed for each and every year of the 5 years of this budget. I won't belabor the point. This is a question of whether we are going to be responsible. This is an opportunity to fix the alternative minimum tax, to prevent it from being spread to 23 million American families, but to do it in the responsible way: to offset it with other revenue so it does not get added to the deficit, so it does not get added to the debt, so we are not compelled to borrow even more billions from the Japanese and the Chinese and around the world. I hope my colleagues will vote ``aye'' and demonstrate their fiscal responsibility tonight. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, section 301(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 for legislation that reauthorizes the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP. Section 301 authorizes the revisions provided that certain conditions are met, including that such legislation maintains coverage for those currently enrolled in SCHIP and that it 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. In addition, section 304(b)(2) of S. Con. Res. 21 permits the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels for legislation that both increases the reimbursement rate for physician services under section 1848(d) of the Social Security Act and includes financial incentives for physicians to improve the quality and efficiency of items and services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries through the use of consensus-based quality measures. Section 304(b)(2) authorizes the revisions provided 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. Further, section 320(a) of S. Con. Res. 21 permits the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels for legislation that provides for a delay in the implementation of the proposed rule published on January 18, 2007, on pages 2236 through 2248 of volume 72, Federal Register, or any other rule that would affect the Medicaid program or SCHIP in a similar manner, or place restrictions on coverage of or payment for graduate medical education, rehabilitation services, or school-based administration, transportation, or medical services under title XIX of the Social Security Act. The adjustment is contingent on such legislation not worsening 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. Finally, section 320(c) of S. Con. Res. 21 permits the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to revise the allocations, aggregates, and other appropriate levels for legislation that extends the Transitional Medical Assistance program, provided 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. Mr. President, I find that the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007, which was introduced today by Senators Baucus and Grassley, satisfies the conditions of the four deficit-neutral reserve funds mentioned above. Therefore, pursuant to sections 301(a), 304(b)(2), 320(a), and 320(c) of S. Con. Res. 21, I am adjusting the aggregates in the 2008 budget resolution, as well as the allocation provided to the Senate Finance Committee. I ask unanimous consent that the following revisions to S. Con. Res. 21 be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, section 207(c) of S. Con. Res. 21, the 2008 budget resolution, permits the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to adjust the section 207(b) discretionary spending limits and allocations pursuant to section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for legislation reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee that provides a certain level of funding for fiscal year 2008 for four program integrity initiatives. The initiatives are continuing disability reviews and supplemental security income redeterminations, Internal Revenue Service tax enforcement, health care fraud and abuse control, and unemployment insurance improper payment reviews. On July 23, 2007, I revised both the discretionary spending limits and the allocation to the Senate Appropriations Committee for discretionary budget authority and outlays to reflect that the committee had reported legislation that met the conditions of 207(c) for the four program integrity initiatives. The total amount of that adjustment was an additional $1,042 million in budget authority and $699 million in outlays for fiscal year 2008. The level of funding provided for each of the program integrity initiatives in H.R. 2764, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, however, is lower than the levels mandated by section 207(c). Consequently, I am reversing the adjustments made on July 23, 2007, to both the discretionary spending limits and the allocation to the Senate Appropriations Committee for discretionary budget authority and outlays. I ask unanimous consent to have the following revisions to S. Con. Res. 21 printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, section 310 of S. Con. Res. 21, the 2008 budget resolution, permits the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to revise the allocations, aggregates, and other levels for legislation that reauthorizes terrorism risk insurance, provided that such legislation does 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 H.R. 2761, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, which cleared the House of Representatives today, satisfies the conditions of the deficit-neutral reserve fund for terrorism risk insurance reauthorization. Therefore, pursuant to section 310, I am adjusting the aggregates in the 2008 budget resolution, as well as the allocation provided to the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee. I ask unanimous consent that the following revisions to S. Con. Res. 21 be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I want to pay tribute to an outstanding friend and advisor, Wally Rustad, who will be concluding his time as chief of staff on January 10, 2008. In July 2007, when my longtime chief of staff announced his intention to retire, Wally agreed to come out of retirement to serve as interim chief of staff during the transition period. Wally was no stranger to my office. Following a long career working for the National Rural Electric Cooperatives, he served as my state liaison for 6 years. In fact, Wally and I have a history of working together that spans back over 40 years when I was an intern in the office of Congressman Rolland Redlin and he was serving as the young chief of staff for the Congressman. Wally and I have been working together in one form or another ever since. Wally came on board as my interim chief of staff and immediately provided the steady leadership that is crucial during times of change. During his tenure in my office, Wally has done an outstanding job of seeing my staff through personnel changes and legislative challenges, and has provided me the steady advice of a seasoned veteran. His work has been outstanding. Finally, and most importantly, Wally Rustad is an outstanding person. He has never forgotten the small-town values he learned growing up Grenora, ND. He has worked quietly and tirelessly behind the scenes to make things happen and was always happy to divert credit to others. He has been tremendously loyal, dedicated, and a passionate advocate for the people of my State. He has never forgotten that he is working for the American taxpayer. And he has been a good friend and a mentor to others on staff. With extraordinary gratitude for his time serving as my chief of staff, I wish Wally well as he returns home to his lovely wife Marlys. I have been blessed to have Wally as a trusted advisor and confidante but most importantly he has been a great friend. I wish him all the best as he returns to retirement and look forward to continuing our association for many years to come.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank Senator Chambliss for his very kind remarks. I want to say how much I have enjoyed working with him on this legislation. If there were ever a challenge putting together this farm bill, this has been it. Senator Chambliss has been a tremendous partner as we put this legislation together. He has been a consummate professional. The staff has been superb. I also thank the chairman for his vision and his leadership in bringing a bill to the American people that is good for taxpayers, that is good for our farm and ranch families, that is good for the economy. I see the chairman is here and perhaps ready to proceed.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this is a landmark achievement. Let me indicate to my colleagues we have counted the votes--79 votes for this bill--and there are more votes for a farm bill than any farm bill going back to 1973, and that is with the Presidential candidates missing. That would have been another four votes. No farm bill has had more votes than this bipartisan bill since 1973. That is a tribute to our leadership, the chairman of the committee, Senator Harkin, who came to this bill with a vision for moving agriculture in a new direction. This is a good beginning--not everything the chairman would have liked, and some of us had interests that had to be addressed. So we were ready to follow his leadership, but we also had to deal with some of the realities of our individual States, and I know the chairman recognizes that. But we applaud him for his vision because this bill moves in a different direction. We have additional resources, important additional resources for conservation and for nutrition. The people of this country will look back on this bill, and they will also see the beginning of very important reform. The end of the three-entity rule, the direct attribution, dramatic reduction in adjusted gross income for nonfarmers. It will go from $2.5 million down to $750,000. This bill is good for the economy and it is paid for. So we all salute the chairman and his staff: Mark Halverson, the staff director, who has been so dedicated to this cause. Mark, we appreciate the extraordinary efforts and energy you have put into this bill. To Susan Keith, who is a fierce advocate and somebody who is a real pro. She knows these programs backward and forward. Susan, we appreciate all the contributions you have made. To our ranking member, Senator Chambliss--``Cool Hand Luke.'' You couldn't have a better ranking member for this committee, somebody who has been calm in the eye of the storm. This has been tough to do, and the occupant of the chair knows that is the case. Senator Chambliss has been a remarkable partner. So Saxby, we have enjoyed getting to know you and working with you, and thanks for the extraordinary professionalism of your staff: Martha Scott Poindexter. Outstanding. Unflappable. Always there. Very smart, very knowledgeable, and very committed to producing a good bill for this country. Vernie Hubert, an absolute pro. He has been on both sides of the aisle and respected on both sides and somehow is able to maintain that respect. That is exactly the way the Senate ought to function. Thank you so much for the good counsel we have received. To other Senators on the committee, let's say a special thanks to Senator Baucus, chairman of the Finance Committee, who helped us get very important additional resources. Thank you, Senator Baucus. To other leaders on the committee, Senator Leahy, especially on the dairy provisions. So many others. Senator Stabenow, who led the fight for specialty crops. We deeply appreciate Senator Stabenow and all you did to help bring us together as well. Senator Klobuchar. Senator Klobuchar, who had special interest in renewable energy provisions. One of the exciting things about this bill is it is going to reduce our dependence on foreign energy. A new Senator to the committee, Senator Casey, who has been outstanding, a quick learner, and we appreciate his contribution. Senator Sherrod Brown. Boy, he brings passion to this cause. You couldn't have a better member of the committee than Sherrod Brown, who has done his homework and is engaged. To the other Members as well, we so deeply appreciate the contributions that have been made. My partner right here, the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Salazar, who has that gift for bringing people together when it is especially difficult to do so. He has a gift, and he is always there working to bring people in so we can reach conclusion. Certainly to Blanche Lincoln. Boy, I tell you, you want her on your side when you are in a fight. She is fierce, she is determined, and she does not give up. Congratulations, Senator. We know you represented your people and you represented them well. To the Senator from Nebraska, Senator Nelson, who is deeply knowledgeable. Of course, nobody knows more about crop insurance on our committee than Ben Nelson. He has been a huge help to us. We thank them all. I yield the floor.