Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senator Judd Gregg, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, legislation we have called the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action. We are introducing this legislation because, as the chairman and ranking member of the Budget Committee, we understand that we are on an unsustainable fiscal course; that we confront a budgetary crisis of unprecedented proportions if we fail to act. That crisis will be caused by a combination of our current budget deficits and enormous Federal debt, combined with the explosion created by the baby boom generation. Here is the outlook we confront with respect to the demographic tidal wave coming at us. We see, in 2007, we are at about 40 million people who are of retirement age, and that will grow to 80 million by 2050, dramatically changing the budget circumstance for this country. We know we face enormous challenges with Medicare and Social Security. You can see the long-term cost of Medicare. The shortfall over 75 years is now estimated at $33.9 trillion. The shortfall in Social Security over that same period is $4.7 trillion. These are staggering amounts, a shortfall in Medicare of almost $34 trillion, a shortfall in Social Security of over $4.7 trillion. Looked at another way, Medicare and Medicaid spending, according to experts, if it stays on the current course, will consume as much of our national economy as the entire Federal budget does today. Let me repeat that. If the trend lines continue, by 2050 we will be spending as much, just on Medicare and Medicaid, of our national income as we spend for the entire Federal Government today. This fundamentally threatens the economic security of the country. At the same time, we have tax cuts in place. they are extended, according to the President's proposal, it will drive us right over the cliff. This chart shows the Medicare deficits in purple, the Social Security deficits in green, and the cost of extending the President's tax cuts in red. We can see the combined effect is to take us right over the fiscal cliff, deep into debt and deficit in a way that is unprecedented. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve said this about our budget outlook in January: [O]ne might look at these projections and say, ``Well, these are about 2030 and 2040 and so . . . we don't really have to start worrying about it yet.'' But, in fact, the longer we wait, the more severe, the more draconian, the more difficult . . . the adjustments are going to be. I think the right time to start is about 10 years ago. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve has it right. Senator Gregg and I are coming to our colleagues today and calling for this bipartisan task force for responsible fiscal action. What would it do? Simply, it would be given the responsibility to address our unsustainable long-term imbalances between spending and revenue. Everything is on the table. The task force would consist of 16 members, 8 Democrats, 8 Republicans, all of them Members of Congress, except for 2 representing the administration. The Secretary of the Treasury would chair the task force. The obligation of this group would be to submit a report on December 9, 2008. It would take 12 of the 16 members to report a blueprint for our fiscal future. They would be given the responsibility to find ways to address the shortfall in Medicare and Social Security and the ongoing and endemic budget deficits. These 16 members, 8 Democrats, 8 Republicans, would have the opportunity and the responsibility to develop a plan for our fiscal future, but it would take 12 of the 16 to report a plan, and the plan would only come at the beginning of the next administration. This would not be part of election year politics. This would be part of a serious plan to address our long-term fiscal imbalances. If 12 of the 16 agreed to a plan, it would then receive fast-track treatment in the Senate. It would come to a vote without amendment after 100 hours of debate. Final passage would require a supermajority, 60 votes in the Senate, 60 percent of the House of Representatives. Senator Gregg and I have worked on this all year. We have discussed this with many Members in both the House and the Senate. This is our best judgment of how best to proceed. We believe this would give the Congress and the country an opportunity to write a better fiscal future, one that would strengthen America, reduce our dependence on foreign capital and put us in a position to keep the promise that has been made to the American people of a country that is strong and fair, that respects those in retirement and, at the same time, gives maximum opportunity to those working to strengthen their families and this country. I thank my colleague Senator Gregg, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, for the extraordinary time and effort he has put into developing this proposal. I ask unanimous consent to have printed comments in the Record about this proposal: Support for it from David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States; support from the Concord Coalition, the bipartisan Concord Coalition that is well known for its support of a fiscally responsible future; and from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Mr. CONRAD. Again, I recognize my colleague, the very able Senator from New Hampshire, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I again thank my colleague, Senator Gregg, who has been incredibly engaged in this effort. He is very fairminded in the structure of this proposal and I think visionary in terms of understanding the need for action. I say to my colleagues or staffs who may be listening, all those who recognize we are headed for a fiscal cliff and that we need to take action, this is our opportunity. This is it. Those who say we have to do something, here is our chance. This is completely bipartisan, eight Democrats, eight Republicans. It takes 12 of the 16 to make a report, a supermajority; that is, to assure it is bipartisan in result. This is a task force of Members of Congress and representatives of the administration, 14 Members of Congress, 2 representatives of the administration. It is not outside experts, people who would not be responsible or be held accountable for the outcome. These will be people who are accountable, who are responsible for the outcome. This is a measure that will lead to a vote. I say to my colleagues, this will assure that the work of this group will come before the Congress if 12 of the 16 agree. Because if they do, there will then be 100 hours of debate but no amendment permitted, and there will be a vote up or down. Those who recognize it takes us working together to face up to these difficult problems, I ask them to join with us, Republicans and Democrats. Absent this, I suspect what will happen is further delay, further divisiveness, and no real result. That will mean even tougher choices in the future. I urge my colleagues to think carefully of this moment. This will not be considered until after the election. We have done everything we can to take election politics out of this, understanding it is highly unlikely that a matter of this import would be considered in an election year and that perhaps the best opportunity is at the beginning of a new administration. None of us know whether the new administration will be a Republican or a Democratic administration. None of us can know the makeup of the next Congress. What we do know is we face a ticking timebomb. The faster we act, the better for our Nation.

Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator. I had a number of my colleagues, as the Senator knows, come to me with great concern. Their concern was: Gee, you are putting the Presidential candidates in an awkward position. How are they going to react to this? My reaction was: This is a gift to all the Presidential candidates, this is a gift to the next administration because this will provide them a bipartisan blueprint on how to proceed with some of the most vexing issues facing this country. So I see absolutely no downside for either side, Republican or Democratic--for Presidential candidates on either side or candidates for Congress on either side--because this is a process leading to a proposal that would have bipartisan support if it is to proceed. If I were an incoming administration, I would welcome a bipartisan plan to deal with Social Security, with Medicare, with the growth of deficits and the debt, and not to have it come in the middle of an election but to only be presented after the election but before the next Congress meets and the next administration takes on its responsibilities. I see it as not only a gift to the candidates but, more importantly, as a gift to the American people to take on some of the greatest challenges facing our country and to do it in a bipartisan way and to do it in a way that actually leads to a result and action.

Mr. CONRAD. I again thank my colleague. This is the beginning of an effort. I ask colleagues on both sides, please, join us in this effort. Let's do what we all know must happen--that we must take on these issues, that we must come up with solutions, and we must do it sooner rather than later. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I again thank my colleague. This is the beginning of an effort. I ask colleagues on both sides, please, join us in this effort. Let's do what we all know must happen--that we must take on these issues, that we must come up with solutions, and we must do it sooner rather than later. I thank my colleagues.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I rise today to introduce, along with Senator Judd Gregg, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, legislation we have called the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action. We are introducing this legislation because, as the chairman and ranking member of the Budget Committee, we understand that we are on an unsustainable fiscal course; that we confront a budgetary crisis of unprecedented proportions if we fail to act. That crisis will be caused by a combination of our current budget deficits and enormous Federal debt, combined with the explosion created by the baby boom generation. Here is the outlook we confront with respect to the demographic tidal wave coming at us. We see, in 2007, we are at about 40 million people who are of retirement age, and that will grow to 80 million by 2050, dramatically changing the budget circumstance for this country. We know we face enormous challenges with Medicare and Social Security. You can see the long-term cost of Medicare. The shortfall over 75 years is now estimated at $33.9 trillion. The shortfall in Social Security over that same period is $4.7 trillion. These are staggering amounts, a shortfall in Medicare of almost $34 trillion, a shortfall in Social Security of over $4.7 trillion. Looked at another way, Medicare and Medicaid spending, according to experts, if it stays on the current course, will consume as much of our national economy as the entire Federal budget does today. Let me repeat that. If the trend lines continue, by 2050 we will be spending as much, just on Medicare and Medicaid, of our national income as we spend for the entire Federal Government today. This fundamentally threatens the economic security of the country. At the same time, we have tax cuts in place. they are extended, according to the President's proposal, it will drive us right over the cliff. This chart shows the Medicare deficits in purple, the Social Security deficits in green, and the cost of extending the President's tax cuts in red. We can see the combined effect is to take us right over the fiscal cliff, deep into debt and deficit in a way that is unprecedented. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve said this about our budget outlook in January: [O]ne might look at these projections and say, ``Well, these are about 2030 and 2040 and so . . . we don't really have to start worrying about it yet.'' But, in fact, the longer we wait, the more severe, the more draconian, the more difficult . . . the adjustments are going to be. I think the right time to start is about 10 years ago. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve has it right. Senator Gregg and I are coming to our colleagues today and calling for this bipartisan task force for responsible fiscal action. What would it do? Simply, it would be given the responsibility to address our unsustainable long-term imbalances between spending and revenue. Everything is on the table. The task force would consist of 16 members, 8 Democrats, 8 Republicans, all of them Members of Congress, except for 2 representing the administration. The Secretary of the Treasury would chair the task force. The obligation of this group would be to submit a report on December 9, 2008. It would take 12 of the 16 members to report a blueprint for our fiscal future. They would be given the responsibility to find ways to address the shortfall in Medicare and Social Security and the ongoing and endemic budget deficits. These 16 members, 8 Democrats, 8 Republicans, would have the opportunity and the responsibility to develop a plan for our fiscal future, but it would take 12 of the 16 to report a plan, and the plan would only come at the beginning of the next administration. This would not be part of election year politics. This would be part of a serious plan to address our long-term fiscal imbalances. If 12 of the 16 agreed to a plan, it would then receive fast-track treatment in the Senate. It would come to a vote without amendment after 100 hours of debate. Final passage would require a supermajority, 60 votes in the Senate, 60 percent of the House of Representatives. Senator Gregg and I have worked on this all year. We have discussed this with many Members in both the House and the Senate. This is our best judgment of how best to proceed. We believe this would give the Congress and the country an opportunity to write a better fiscal future, one that would strengthen America, reduce our dependence on foreign capital and put us in a position to keep the promise that has been made to the American people of a country that is strong and fair, that respects those in retirement and, at the same time, gives maximum opportunity to those working to strengthen their families and this country. I thank my colleague Senator Gregg, the ranking member of the Budget Committee, for the extraordinary time and effort he has put into developing this proposal. I ask unanimous consent to have printed comments in the Record about this proposal: Support for it from David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States; support from the Concord Coalition, the bipartisan Concord Coalition that is well known for its support of a fiscally responsible future; and from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Mr. CONRAD. Again, I recognize my colleague, the very able Senator from New Hampshire, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I again thank my colleague, Senator Gregg, who has been incredibly engaged in this effort. He is very fairminded in the structure of this proposal and I think visionary in terms of understanding the need for action. I say to my colleagues or staffs who may be listening, all those who recognize we are headed for a fiscal cliff and that we need to take action, this is our opportunity. This is it. Those who say we have to do something, here is our chance. This is completely bipartisan, eight Democrats, eight Republicans. It takes 12 of the 16 to make a report, a supermajority; that is, to assure it is bipartisan in result. This is a task force of Members of Congress and representatives of the administration, 14 Members of Congress, 2 representatives of the administration. It is not outside experts, people who would not be responsible or be held accountable for the outcome. These will be people who are accountable, who are responsible for the outcome. This is a measure that will lead to a vote. I say to my colleagues, this will assure that the work of this group will come before the Congress if 12 of the 16 agree. Because if they do, there will then be 100 hours of debate but no amendment permitted, and there will be a vote up or down. Those who recognize it takes us working together to face up to these difficult problems, I ask them to join with us, Republicans and Democrats. Absent this, I suspect what will happen is further delay, further divisiveness, and no real result. That will mean even tougher choices in the future. I urge my colleagues to think carefully of this moment. This will not be considered until after the election. We have done everything we can to take election politics out of this, understanding it is highly unlikely that a matter of this import would be considered in an election year and that perhaps the best opportunity is at the beginning of a new administration. None of us know whether the new administration will be a Republican or a Democratic administration. None of us can know the makeup of the next Congress. What we do know is we face a ticking timebomb. The faster we act, the better for our Nation.

Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator. I had a number of my colleagues, as the Senator knows, come to me with great concern. Their concern was: Gee, you are putting the Presidential candidates in an awkward position. How are they going to react to this? My reaction was: This is a gift to all the Presidential candidates, this is a gift to the next administration because this will provide them a bipartisan blueprint on how to proceed with some of the most vexing issues facing this country. So I see absolutely no downside for either side, Republican or Democratic--for Presidential candidates on either side or candidates for Congress on either side--because this is a process leading to a proposal that would have bipartisan support if it is to proceed. If I were an incoming administration, I would welcome a bipartisan plan to deal with Social Security, with Medicare, with the growth of deficits and the debt, and not to have it come in the middle of an election but to only be presented after the election but before the next Congress meets and the next administration takes on its responsibilities. I see it as not only a gift to the candidates but, more importantly, as a gift to the American people to take on some of the greatest challenges facing our country and to do it in a bipartisan way and to do it in a way that actually leads to a result and action.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I have come to the floor because at the end of last week the ranking member of the Budget Committee made a speech on pay-go in which he suggested it is a meaningless exercise and that it makes no contribution to fiscal responsibility. I come to the floor because I beg to differ, and I think I have a responsibility, as chairman of the Budget Committee, to give the other side of the story. The Senate pay-go rule says that any new mandatory spending or tax cuts must be offset or get a supermajority vote. So if you want new spending or new tax cuts, you can have them, but you either have to pay for them or get a supermajority vote. That is the Senate rule. It is a good rule, and it has been effective at contributing to fiscal discipline. If we look back in history, here is what we see, as demonstrated on this chart. We had a strong pay-go rule in effect from 1991 to 2000, and the deficit was reduced each and every year. In fact, we moved into surplus--in fact, a surplus so large that for 2 years we stopped using the Social Security trust fund to fund the operating expenses of the Federal Government. That is what happened with a strong pay-go rule. Then our colleagues on the other side took control of both Chambers, took control of the White House, weakened the pay-go rule, and look what happened to deficits afterward. The surplus was squandered. We moved into deficits that grew year after year after year to record levels. Now we have restored pay-go, and we are moving back toward a balanced budget. Pay-go, in fact, is working. The Senate pay-go scorecard shows a positive balance of $450 million. So, in fact, pay-go is working. Every bill coming out of conference this year has been paid for. Every one that has come out of conference has been paid for, or more than paid for. Pay-go also has provided a significant deterrent, preventing many costly bills from ever being offered. Let me say I know that because as the Budget Committee chairman, I am besieged by Members who want to somehow get around pay-go. When we tell them: No, we are going to insist that things be paid for, it is quite remarkable how many of these things go away or are reduced so that they can be paid for. Now, Senator Gregg himself, in a previous incarnation, was a strong supporter of pay-go. Here is what he said previously: The second budget discipline, which is pay-go, essentially says if you are going to add a new entitlement 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 that also lapses. 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. Senator Gregg was exactly right then. Why he has done a U-turn I don't know. The fact is pay-go has been a useful discipline in this Congress, and he previously--even he has acknowledged that fact. Now, the Senator from New Hampshire also criticized the use of the reconciliation process that was just used to extend assistance to college students. He said that was an abuse of reconciliation. I would remind him and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle of what they did when they controlled the reconciliation process. In the bill we just passed, we paid for it completely, and had over $700 million of deficit reduction. That is what reconciliation is intended to do--to provide for deficit reduction. Here is what they did when they controlled the reconciliation process. They adopted legislation that was not paid for, tax cuts that were not offset, and they added $1.7 trillion to the debt using reconciliation, which was designed to reduce deficits and reduce debt. They stood the whole process on its head and used those special rules, those fast-track procedures to explode the deficits and debt. In using reconciliation, we have not only been able to increase the assistance that will go to college students in this country, but paid for it completely. In the 2005-2006 budget reconciliation our friends on the other side controlled, they increased the deficit by $31 billion. It is true they had some spending cuts, but they had even more tax cuts, so once again, they added to the deficit and debt. So let's be clear. In the Senate reconciliation rule we have adopted, we have said reconciliation--which is a special fast-track procedure that has a limited time for discussion and debate and limits amendments--that special procedure can only be used if deficit reduction is the result. That is not what they did with reconciliation. They used it to explode deficit and debt. But on our side, we use the reconciliation process for the reason intended. There is a 60-vote point of order against any reconciliation bill that would increase the deficit or reduce a surplus. The higher education reconciliation bill that was criticized by my colleague on the other side--which, by the way, passed here with an overwhelming bipartisan vote--but that bill increased the Pell grant to $5,400 by 2012; cut the student loan interest rates in half; and reduced the deficit by $752 million. That is in keeping with the spirit of reconciliation that is for deficit reduction. We compare and contrast that with what the other side has done. When they had the control of reconciliation, they used that fast-track procedure not to reduce deficits, which was the whole reason for reconciliation; they instead used it to explode deficits and debt. Our colleague on the other side also attacked the children's health insurance legislation that will cover 4 million additional children and is paid for. Let's review what that legislation does. It provides health care coverage to 4 million additional children. It is fully paid for over both 6 and 11 years, as required under pay-go. It is a 5-year reauthorization; Congress will reauthorize in 2012 with new policies and new offsets. Hopefully, by then we will have enacted reform of health care in America and we will have provided coverage, universal coverage. I think there is a growing bipartisan consensus that any health care reform should provide universal coverage, because that is the way we can most effectively run a health care system. It also provides important coverage to kids, while spurring action on broader health care reform. Let me get back to the simple fact. This bill is paid for. The reconciliation bill for education was paid for. It was paid for because we put in place a pay-go requirement that says: If you are going to have new spending, you have to offset it or get a supermajority vote. We might have been able to get a supermajority vote without paying for these things. We didn't choose to do that. We chose to be fiscally responsible. We chose to pay for an expansion of children's health care. We chose to pay for additional assistance to our young men and women going to college. That was the right thing to do. I might add, if you compare and contrast what they are complaining about, which is the outyear potential funding for children's health insurance, I am talking about this little line out here. This is what they are complaining about, this little tiny gap, and that is a theoretical gap. It is fascinating, because these tax cuts they want to extend without paying for them creates this chasm. They make no complaint about this chasm. They direct all of their attention to this theoretical gap, this tiny thing you probably can't even see on television. There is no credibility to that complaint. They say nothing about this chasm, and they focus all of their complaint on this tiny difference that is wholly theoretical, because this is a 5-year bill. It doesn't extend beyond 2012. They are talking about what is going to happen in the sweet by and by. Nobody can tell us what is going to happen past 2012. We know this bill is paid for until 2012. What happens in the future will be dependent upon the actions of future Congresses. So as I have reviewed the remarks of my colleague on the other side criticizing pay-go, criticizing the higher education bill that passed here overwhelmingly; criticizing the children's health care insurance expansion that is fully paid for, I don't find much merit. A lot of rhetoric there, but not much merit.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I just note, listening to the Republican leader, it is a little difficult to accuse us of delaying a nomination that has not yet been made. This is a new one. The way it works is the President actually has to nominate somebody before we can consider the nomination. So before we rush out here and start accusing our side of delaying a nomination that has not yet been made, they might want to direct their attention to the White House. They are the ones who have an obligation to make the nomination.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, yesterday was 9/11. I think all of us recall that fateful day. I certainly do. Earlier that morning, I had spoken to an education conference south of the Pentagon. I had driven by the Pentagon right before it was struck. I came and parked on the Mall in front of the Capitol. I came up the steps to a leadership meeting. Security people were coming down the steps ordering people out of the building, saying they were concerned about an attack on the Capitol itself. I left here and my military aide met me as I walked back to my offices--I guess, more accurately, I jogged back to my offices because we were being urged to leave quickly. I could hear a fighter plane overhead. My military aide turned to me and said: You know, Senator, those are our guys. Those are the Happy Hooligans from Fargo, ND. The first planes in the air to protect the Capitol were the Happy Hooligans of Fargo, ND. You may be asking yourselves: How can it be that a National Guard unit from Fargo, ND, are the first planes in the sky to protect the Nation's Capital? The reason is they are given that responsibility and they are aircraft flown by North Dakota pilots who are based at a base close by the Nation's Capital. They fly what is called the CAP over the Capitol to protect us, and they were the first planes in the air to provide fighter protection to this Capitol complex. It made me proud at the time to know those were the Happy Hooligans of Fargo, ND. When I went back to my office, I was doing a national radio interview with a man named Ed Schultz who has a national radio show. We were watching in horror as the Twin Towers started to collapse. Security people ran in again and ushered us out, telling us there was a plane 8 minutes out and they were afraid it was headed for the Capitol complex. That is the plane that ultimately crashed in Pennsylvania. I don't think anyone knows for certain where that plane was headed. Most assume it was either the Capitol or the White House that was the intended target of that plane. I think we will always be forever grateful for the men and women who were on that plane who fought back. You think of the incredible bravery of those people, to know they were hijacked, to have learned through cell phone contact that the World Trade Center had been attacked, the Pentagon had been attacked, and they did not just sit. They got out of their chairs and fought back. By doing so, they may have saved either the White House or this Capitol. That was an act of extraordinary heroism and courage. Later that day, Members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats, joined on the Capitol steps, and I will forever remember how spontaneously at the end of the remarks of the leadership we sang ``God Bless America.'' I remember that feeling at that moment: that we are not Republicans, we are not Democrats; we are all Americans, and we stand together and will defend this Nation and we will hold those to account who did this dastardly deed. I hope we all think of ourselves as Americans first. I also think we have to remember that it has now been 2,192 days since that attack. The President promised we would hold those responsible to account. The President said very clearly that this act would not stand. It is especially painful then to see Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri and the other leadership of al-Qaida go on the air, threatening to attack us again. This is what the President said then: There's no question about it, this act will not stand; we will find those who did it; we will smoke them out of their holes; we will get them running and we'll bring them to justice. The President was right in making that statement. That is precisely what our focus should have been. Then you see this Newsweek headline: ``He Is Still Out There. The Hunt For Bin Laden.'' Somehow, we got confused about who attacked us. I just saw an ad being run about Iraq saying they attacked us on September 11. That is not true. Iraq did not attack us on September 11; al-Qaida attacked us. In fact, there wasn't a single Iraqi on any of the planes that hit the World Trade Center or the Pentagon--not one. We know from the 9/11 Commission that the attack was not directed by Saddam Hussein, as evil and dreadful a man as he was. No, that attack was directed by Osama bin Laden and was carried out by al-Qaida, not Iraq. In fact, the 9/11 Commission tells us and our intelligence tells us that al-Qaida was not active in Iraq at the time. They have become active. Now we have al-Qaida in Iraq, but they were not there at the time. It is so important that we get these facts right. Al-Qaida attacked us. Osama bin Laden led that attack. He is still on the loose and so is his chief aide, Mr. Zawahiri. It is critically important that we get it right who attacked us and whom we need to hold to account. I hope we will never give up our efforts to hunt down Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri and the rest of the al-Qaida leadership cadre because they are plotting to attack us again. I have always believed that Iraq was a fateful mistake, a diversion of going in the wrong place, after the wrong enemy, at the wrong time, instead of pursuing the people who did attack us, who did kill Americans, who are plotting to attack us again. We had, yesterday, very important testimony from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. Let me say I have high regard for General Petraeus. I thought the ad that was run by some the other day was unfortunate and wrong. General Petraeus is a patriot. General Petraeus is somebody who deserves our respect. That doesn't mean you have to agree with every position he takes. That is not the point. But he is somebody who is among our finest. We should never in this country start turning on our own, those who serve us bravely and well in the military. That is not right. Ambassador Crocker is one of our finest diplomats. I don't agree with every policy prescription they propose, but they don't deserve to be personally attacked. That is not right. We have to remember and we have to keep perspective somehow about how we advance our national interest. Let me say that yesterday the Washington Post ran a series of polls reporting on what the Iraqi people think is going on. You know, there is a cultural chasm here, I am afraid, between those of us raised in the Western culture and the people we are dealing with in that part of the world. I went to school and graduated from a high school at Wheelus Air Force Base High School in Tripoli, Libya, North Africa. I lived in the Arab world for 2 years. I have some sense of the enormous difference in the way they see things and the way we see things. It is instructive to ask what do the Iraqi people think is happening in their country. After all, it is their country, and what they think has a lot to say about what the outcome is going to be. The Washington Post reported in depth a poll yesterday. The question was: Do you think this increase in U.S. forces in Baghdad and surrounding provinces in the past six months has made security better, worse, or had no effect? In the deployment areas, the areas where we deployed the additional troops, here is what the Iraqi people think. They think, by 70 percent, that the surge has made things worse; 18 percent think it has made things better; 11 percent think it has had no effect. In the areas outside the deployment, elsewhere in Iraq, 68 percent think it has made things worse. Now, is anybody paying any attention here? We have gone, theoretically, first of all, from eliminating weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist, to eliminating a nuclear program that didn't exist, to deposing Saddam Hussein, who did exist and has been deposed; then we are told we are supposed to be making things better for the Iraqi people. But the Iraqi people overwhelmingly think we have made things worse. Now a substantial majority of the people in Iraq think it is OK to attack American forces. We are caught in what is primarily--not solely or exclusively but primarily--a sectarian conflict, a civil war between the Sunni and Shia. This is a battle that has been going on for over 1,300 years. Why we would want our young men and women to be refereeing a fight between Shia and Sunni, at enormous cost in lives and treasure, absolutely eludes me. We have so much else to do--first of all, in terms of our own security, going after the people who did attack us--al-Qaida and going after the leadership of al-Qaida, bin Laden and Zawahiri, who are still on the loose and still plotting to attack us. We are in Iraq being told the idea is now that we are to give breathing room for the Iraqi Government to make political progress to reduce the sectarian violence. Yet the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people say this expanded deployment has made things worse; 70 percent in the deployment areas say we have made things worse, and only 18 percent say we have made things better. Who has a better idea of what is going on in Iraq? I think we ought to be paying some attention to what the Iraqi people think is going on there. When a majority of the Iraqi people say it is OK to attack American forces, and we are there, theoretically, to help them, there is an enormous disconnect here. There is an enormous disconnect between what we apparently think we are doing and what we are actually accomplishing. I am one who does not favor setting a strict deadline for leaving. I don't think that it is militarily wise to say to your opponents that we are leaving by a specific date. But we have to change course in Iraq. We have now lost thousands of brave men and women, with tens of thousands badly wounded. We have committed over a half trillion dollars, and we are told the President is now going to come and ask for another $195 billion. But the President is telling us we don't have the money, for example, for the Transportation bill we passed. The President says we don't have the money for that. How many more bridges have to collapse in this country before we have the money to take care of our own citizens' safety? The President says we don't have the money to maintain the COPS program, which put 100,000 police officers on the street. The President said we should cut that 90 percent at a time when crime is rising in America. We have, apparently, $195 billion to spend in Iraq, but we don't have the several hundred million dollars we need to keep those police on the street in our country. As I look at this, I am increasingly convinced we need to redeploy our forces; we need to, as a matter of our national security, refocus our effort on going after the people who did attack us on 9/11 and fully intend to attack us again, and that is al-Qaida, not Iraq. I hope we will think very carefully in the coming days, as the debate intensifies, on what our future policy should be.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma has an amendment pending before the body that would strike funding for the International Peace Garden in my State of North Dakota. This measure calls for a modest amount of money--$450,000--to support the International Peace Garden. The International Peace Garden has been a proud monument to the history of good relations between the United States and Canada for many years. Canada contributes, the State of North Dakota contributes, and the Province of Manitoba contributes. There has been a history of Federal support, and now the Senator from Oklahoma, for some unknown reason, has picked out the International Peace Garden as something to eliminate from Federal support. This is a story from October of last year in the Minot Daily News, saying: ``Peace Garden Is In Need: Garden In Dire Need Of Money For Repairs, Operations.'' Why on earth the Senator from Oklahoma has picked on the International Peace Garden as something to eliminate leaves me scratching my head. This is a picture of the International Peace Garden. It is on the border between our country and Canada. It stands as testimony to the peaceful relations we have enjoyed on this border for our history. You can see in this photo these are absolutely beautiful gardens, with these memorial towers. This is the site of an international music camp that is conducted every year, which is world class. It is has attracted some of the world's greatest musicians. For some reason, the Senator from Oklahoma says none of this has any value. Let's just cut it all, eliminate all $450,000, which, I might say, is a modest amount of money in the context of an International Peace Garden. This is a monument on the grounds of the garden, which consists of girders from the World Trade Center. Our Governor and the Manitoba Premier were just here today to commemorate the 9/11 anniversary. The Senator from Oklahoma says this has no value. Sometimes things that are not a road or a bridge or a battleship have value. The International Peace Garden has value. The people of North Dakota provide money to support it. The people of Manitoba provide money to support it. The Government of Canada provides money to support it. I hope this body will reject the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma. Why is there any validity to saying there is no justification for Federal support for an international peace garden? I honestly don't know what argument the Senator from Oklahoma advances to say this has no value. Let me indicate where the International Peace Garden is. It is right here, almost equidistant between the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean. The International Peace Garden stands in the middle of my State of North Dakota in Dunseith. This is a headline, again from last year, in the Fargo Forum, the biggest newspaper in my State. It says: ``On the border of withering. The International Peace Garden supporters seek measures to keep alive iconic crossborder park.'' I have been at the International Peace Garden many times. It is an inspirational setting. It is something that I think anyone who visits the more than 2300 acres of--more than 2300 acres of the most spectacular gardens I have ever seen in my life anywhere in the world. Why the Senator from Oklahoma believes we ought to eliminate any Federal support for this peace garden that is dedicated to the extraordinary relationship we have had with our border to the North absolutely eludes me. For him to suggest this has no value, has he ever been there? Has he ever talked with the officials of Canada who have generously supported this institution? Has he talked with the people of Manitoba or the people of North Dakota? I am certain not because he would find in my State, which is a very conservative State, that there is very strong support for the International Peace Garden. This is a point of pride in our relations with our neighbors to the North. More than that, it sends a signal to the world about the value the American people put on peace. Do we have the strongest military in the world? Absolutely, and we are proud of it. Do we have the greatest economic strength of any country in the world? Yes, and we are proud of it. Do we lead in many areas in terms of human accomplishment, science, the arts? Absolutely, and we are proud of it. We also should send forth the signal that we are a country that believes in peace, and we strive for peace because that is part of the American character, too. And this International Peace Garden sends that message. It certainly sends that message to the people of Canada who are among our closest allies, who have stood with us in every crisis. Who, when the tragedy of 9/11 occurred, were the first people to our side? It was our neighbors to the North in Canada. This International Peace Garden, again more than 2300 acres of stunningly beautiful and inspirational gardens, stands as a memorial to that extraordinary relationship between our countries. Certainly, it is worth the expenditure of $450,000 to reinvigorate this symbol of respect. I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the Record the Budget Committee's official scoring of H.R. 3074, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2008. The bill, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, provides $51.1 billion in discretionary budget authority for fiscal year 2008, which will result in new outlays of $47.3 billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, discretionary outlays for the bill will total $114.6 billion. The Senate-reported bill is $7 million below the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation for budget authority and is $286 million below its allocation for outlays. Section 218 of the reported bill exempts the Government National Mortgage Association from the requirements of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. Because the Federal Credit Reform Act is under the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee, this provision is subject to a point of order pursuant to Section 306 of the Budget Act. No other points of order lie against the reported bill. I ask unanimous consent that the table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.

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. CONRAD. Mr. President, section 306 of S. Con. Res. 21, the 2008 budget resolution, permits the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to revise the aggregates, allocations, and other appropriate levels for legislation that would make higher education more accessible and more affordable, provided that the 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 the conference report for H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction and Access Act, satisfies the conditions of the deficit- neutral reserve fund for higher education. Therefore, pursuant to section 306, I am adjusting the aggregates in the 2008 budget resolution, as well as the allocation provided to the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 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, I rise to offer for the record, the Budget Committee's official scoring of H.R. 2764, the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2008. The bill, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, provides $34.2 billion in discretionary budget authority for fiscal year 2008, which will result in new outlays of $17.1 billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, discretionary outlays for the bill will total $33.5 billion. The Senate-reported bill is at the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation for budget authority and is $5 million below its allocation for outlays. The reported bill includes provisions that make changes in mandatory programs--CHIMPS--that result in an increase in direct spending over the 9-year period, 2009-2017. These provisions are subject to the point of order established by section 209 of the 2008 budget resolution. I ask unanimous consent that the table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on the Budget, pursuant to section 313 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I submit to the Senate the following list of reconciliation provisions considered to be extraneous under the Byrd rule, to be printed in the Record. Provisions of the Conference Report Accompanying H.R. 2669, the College Access and Cost Reduction Act, Which Are Extraneous Pursuant to the Byrd Rule None.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the Record, the Budget Committee's official scoring of H.R. 2642, the Military Construction and Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2008. The bill, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, provides $64.745 billion in discretionary budget authority for fiscal year 2008, which will result in new outlays of $38.327 billion. When outlays from prior-year budget authority are taken into account, discretionary outlays for the bill will total $55.001 billion. The Senate-reported bill is at its section 302(b) allocation for budget authority and $20 million below its allocation for outlays. No points of order lie against the committee-reported bill. I commend the distinguished chairman of the Military Construction and Department of Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee for bringing this legislation before the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that the table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I also yield 1 minute to the Senator from California.

Mr. CONRAD. Without objection.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?