Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. And on the other side?

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I say to the manager on the other side, I might take a few minutes. Senator Dorgan is our next speaker. Would that be acceptable?

Mr. CONRAD. That is an interesting endorsement of the persuasiveness of my appeal. Let me say in response, I want to speak of my respect for the Senator from New Mexico. The thought of being the person who produced over 20 budgets through the Budget Committee is a stunning concept to me, after going through this budget. I want to go back to the question he raised about the tax increase. I must say there has been a certain consistency on the other side with respect to tax increases. They have said over and over there is a $700 billion tax increase here. There is only that big a tax increase if the President's budget also had a big tax increase. Do the math. There is only a 2-percent difference between what our budget raises and the President's budget raises on a Congressional Budget Office score, and 2 percent of $15 trillion is $300 billion. They are talking about $736 billion, so they are saying the President had a $436 billion tax increase. I don't think the President would agree with that math. So if that math is wrong, their assertions about our budget are wrong. It is very simple, at least in the math I learned in Bismarck, ND. I go back to what the President said about his own budget. A previous President said facts are stubborn things. Indeed they are. The President's budget, estimated by his own Office of Management and Budget, which he controls, said they would produce $14.826 trillion in revenue over the next 5 years. That is the President's estimate of what his budget would do. Our budget, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will raise $14.828 trillion of revenue over 5 years. That is virtually identical. The President said it was reasonable to raise this amount of revenue. Guess what. That is what we are doing. Some will say, wait a minute, you are using OMB numbers for the President and CBO numbers for Congress. Yes, because the President controls OMB. That is his own estimate of what his budget would do. Let's use CBO numbers for both. Then you get that our budget will raise 2 percent more money than the President's; 2 percent on $15 trillion, which is the amount over 5 years, which is $300 billion. I believe you can easily get 2 percent more revenue by going after the tax gap, the difference between what is owed and what is paid; going after these tax havens, which the Permanent Committee on Investigations says is costing the Treasury $100 billion a year, and these egregious tax shelters, which I have shown repeatedly. We have the remarkable circumstance where wealthy investors in this country are buying European sewer systems, European metro systems, European city halls, depreciating them on the books in the United States to lower their tax obligation here, and then leasing them back to the cities in Europe that built them in the first place. Come on. The vast majority of us do not engage in that kind of charade. This is a budget for 5 years, but we all know we are going to write another budget next year. Let's look at the revenue for next year in our budget and the President's budget. These two lines represent the President's budget request for next year, and ours. Do you see any difference? Do you see any daylight? No, because they are identical. There is no tax increase in this budget. I don't know what our colleagues are going to say next year when there has been no tax increase. I don't know what they are going to say. With respect to spending, I want to go back to that question because the spending under our budget is going to go down as a share of GDP. Here it is. We are going to go from a spending of 20.5 percent in 2008, and each and every year we are going to bring it down until in the fifth year we have spending at 18.9 percent of GDP. Let's look at the record on the other side. Let's look at what our friends did when they controlled the budget. They took spending from 18.4 percent of GDP and ran it up to 20.3 percent of GDP. That is the difference in the spending records. We go back even further to the previous Democratic administration. Let's look at what they did. When President Clinton was in office, he inherited a spending level of 22.1 percent of GDP. Look at what happened under his administration. Each and every year, spending as a share of GDP--which is what the economists say should be the measure because that corrects for inflation--under the Clinton administration it took spending from 22.1 percent of GDP, which is what they inherited from the previous Bush administration, and they took it down to 18.4 percent of GDP. Again, I know this is painful for my colleagues, but it is the record. This is no projection. This is what actually happened. They took that 18.4 percent of GDP they inherited in spending from the Clinton administration, and they ran it up to 20.3 percent of GDP. So when we are talking about who is spending around here, the record shows it has been the other side that increased the spending. At the same time they increased the spending, they basically froze the revenue of the United States. Maybe we could put that chart up for a minute because it is good to look at history and look at facts and not use these tired, old nostrums. Here is what has happened to the revenue while the other side has been in charge. In 2000, the revenue of the United States was just over $2 trillion. The Bush administration came in and real revenue went down. In 2001, they had tax cuts; in 2002, revenue went down further; in 2003, real revenue went down further; 2004, it stayed down; in 2005, it stayed down. Only in 2006 did we get back to the revenue base we had in 2000, in real terms. We had this combination, under our colleagues, of a stagnant revenue base for 6 years combined with a 40-percent increase in spending during their period of control. In dollar terms, 2002 spending was $2 trillion. They have run it up to $2.8 trillion on their watch, or a 40-percent increase. With a stagnant revenue base, what is the result? The result is that debt has exploded. If we can put up the chart that shows what happened to the debt of the United States on their watch, the debt exploded. The word you will never hear leave the lips of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle is ``debt.'' They will never mention it. Here is what has happened to the debt while they have been in charge. It has gone from $5.8 trillion at the end of the President's first year--we will not hold him responsible for the first year--it has gone to $9 trillion on his watch, and if his budget is followed over the next 5 years, it goes to $12 trillion. Even worse, foreign holdings of U.S. debt have more than doubled under this President, putting us deep in hock to the Japanese, the Chinese, the British, the oil-exporting countries. Sometimes I get confused because we are borrowing money from so many different entities right around the world under this President, putting us deeper and deeper in debt. Mr. President, I see that my colleague, Senator Dorgan, has come. The previous agreement we had was that he would go. But Senator Grassley is also here. Perhaps you could inform us of the time remaining. Perhaps we could work it out so Senator Grassley can go next. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Obama.) The Senator from New Hampshire has 22\1/2\ minutes remaining. The Senator from North Dakota has 21\1/2\ minutes remaining.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I think the fair thing would be, if I can say to the manager on the other side, Senator Grassley has been here, and we really intended him to go next.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, if we could----

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, if I might just for 30 seconds say that when the Senator calls this the Wizard of Oz budget, I would accept that characterization of courage, brains, and heart. That is this budget.

Mr. CONRAD. Courage, brains, and heart.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, first of all, I wish to say the Senator from Iowa, the ranking member of the Finance Committee, has been a true gentleman during consideration of the budget resolution. Obviously, we have strong differences with respect to some of the policies here. I wish to say that this man has been a gentleman. I also wish to say, on our side, we will not forget his courtesy during consideration of the budget. I do want to say with respect to one of the charts he had up here, he had 2 years of AMT relief. It is true in the Senate budget we had 2 years of AMT relief. In the conference report, we have 1 year. That would change the numbers in his chart from $115 billion to $52 billion. Second, in what passed in the Senate, we had $15 billion of SCHIP funding within the budget and up to another $35 billion in a reserve fund. Now all of the funding in what has come out of the conference committee is in the reserve fund. So the Senator's chart, which I know was prepared some months ago, is not consistent with what the conference report is. I wanted to make those two points. I again would say to others who are listening, we don't believe there is any requirement for a tax increase in this budget. We only have a 2-percent difference in revenue between the President's budget and our budget and the CBO score. If you look at what the President said his budget would produce in revenue, it is virtually identical to what our budget produces. With that, I yield 11 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota, my colleague, Mr. Dorgan.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Menendez. I thank him for his very important leadership in the Budget Committee. He has been an extremely valuable member on the Budget Committee and has helped us write this budget.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I yield an additional minute to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I make no assertion--I make no assertion--that we have not increased spending over the President's proposal. Certainly, we do because we have more spending for this Nation's veterans and for health care for our veterans. We have more spending for children's health care. We have more spending for education. We have more money for law enforcement. Why? Because the President cut the COPS Program 94 percent--the COPS Program to put 100,000 police officers on the streets. The President says: Cut it 94 percent. We do not agree with that. The President says we are not going to have the funding for our Nation's veterans, which the Nation's veterans say is essential. Madam President, I ask for the time circumstance on both sides.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we now extend the time until 3:45 and equally divided between the two managers.

Mr. CONRAD. Absolutely. I am extending the time past 3:30.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair. I have concluded from the Senator's remarks today he remains undecided on the budget. No. I know the Senator is opposed. He has done a very good job, I might say, of making his side of the case. The great thing about our country and about this institution is we have the right to come here and debate openly and even passionately our different views, and we have the right at the end of the day here to vote, and the majority rules. For 3 of the last 5 years, this country has had no budget. Hopefully, at the end of today, we will have put in place a budget for our country. That is our obligation and our responsibility, and I believe at the end of the day we will have accomplished this. Even though the Senator from New Hampshire and I disagree with respect to the specifics of this budget, we agree on certain very important things. No. 1, we agree on the importance of having a budget. No. 2, the Senator and I happen to agree--and you would certainly miss this if you were listening to the debate today--but the Senator from New Hampshire and I have strong agreement on the unsustainability of our long-term budget situation. The Senator has talked about where we are headed in the long term, and I entirely agree with him, that in the long term we have a budget circumstance that is unsustainable, and it is going to be important for us to discipline the long-term entitlements. It is also going to be important to address these fiscal imbalances we face as a nation. We have begun the process by writing a budget that does balance by 2012, with a $41 billion surplus in 2012. The President still has not presented a budget that balances. The Senator has questioned this whole trigger mechanism. It is true we did not have one in the Senate. The House insisted on a trigger mechanism in the conference. Let me indicate where we are with respect to the way the trigger works. Under Office of Management and Budget numbers, the surplus in 2012 will currently exceed the amount needed to fully implement the Baucus amendment. The budget resolution surplus, excluding the Baucus amendment in 2012, is $290 billion. The trigger says you can only use 80 percent of that amount for tax relief. That would be $232 billion. The Baucus amendment costs $180 billion. So under the current OMB projections, the full middle-class tax relief that was provided for in the budget in the Senate will still be eligible, and that includes the relief for the estate tax reform as well. In terms of how the trigger actually works, under current scoring by the Office of Management and Budget, there is sufficient room to have all of the middle-class tax reductions extended and to provide for estate tax relief. What happens if this changes? What happens is we go through the year. For example, what happens when we pass a supplemental appropriations bill? That will certainly change the outyear forecast. There will be other things that may change the outyear forecast. Hopefully, revenue will come in above forecast. Other things will occur. None of us know. What happens if there is a future military conflict? What happens if there is a horrible natural disaster? We don't know. What we do know is if there are not sufficient resources to permit the middle-class tax cuts being extended, that will not preclude us from providing the middle-class tax cuts; it would simply mean to whatever extent there is not budget room, we would have to find offsets. We would have to find a way to pay for it, or we would have to have a supermajority vote in the Senate. We would have to have at least 60 votes. Does anyone doubt this Chamber would produce a super-majority vote for middle-class tax relief? Let's revisit the Baucus amendment that passed here on the floor of the Senate to provide middle-class tax relief and to provide estate tax reform. What was the vote? It was 97 to 1. That was the vote, 97 to 1. In the House, the vote was 364 to 57. Let's not be scaring people out across the country suggesting that the middle class will see their taxes go up. That is not what this budget provides. This budget provides all the money necessary to extend the middle-class tax relief and to provide for estate tax reform. Those provisions passed the Senate on a vote of 97 to 1 and passed the House of Representatives on a vote of 364 to 57. So even if we get to the point where the trigger is pulled because there are not sufficient resources in 2012, Congress retains the flexibility to extend the middle-class tax cuts and to reform the estate tax, and the evidence is pretty clear, the vote is going to be overwhelming to do it. I thank the Chair. I ask at this point the time remaining.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, the Senator talks about a philosophical difference, that this is the people's money. I agree with that entirely. It is the people's money. It is also the people's debt, and I deeply believe we have an obligation to pay the bills around here. The easiest thing in the world is to come to Washington and be for every spending program and every tax cut. The problem is, that has led to our current circumstance--a debt that is running away from us. Now, this budget does not solve all of our problems. I make no assertion that it does. But it begins the process of balancing the budget by 2012, and it begins the process of controlling the growth of the debt, and that is critically important to us as a country. Let me just say that the House vote is underway. I will take a few minutes but, first, what is the time situation?

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, let me indicate this is the estimate of what this budget would do. It would take the deficit from $252 billion to a balance of $41 billion in 2012--a surplus in 2012 of $41 billion. It would reduce spending as a share of gross domestic product from 20.5 percent in 2008 down to 18.9 percent in 2012. It would begin to control the growth of the debt after 2010. It would bring down gross debt as a share of gross domestic product from 67.7 percent to 66.5 percent in 2012. On the question of revenue, I go back to this point because it is inescapable. The President, when he produced his budget, said he was going to produce $14.826 trillion of revenue over the next 5 years. Ours produces $14.828 trillion. There is virtually no difference. The President said, when he put out his budget proposal, that was a responsible amount of revenue to raise, $14.826 trillion. Our budget raises virtually the identical amount that he said was the responsible amount to raise for this 5-year period. Now, it is true CBO later came back and said: Mr. President, your budget doesn't raise as much as you said it would. That doesn't take away from the fact that the President, when he proposed his budget, thought that the amount of revenue that should be raised over this 5- year period is $14.826 trillion. It doesn't take away from the fact that our budget raises virtually the identical amount. Not only do we deal with the revenue question that has been raised, we also provide alternative minimum tax relief so that tens of millions of people are not caught up in that tax. We extend the middle-class tax cuts. We fully provide for, in the numbers, marriage penalty relief, the child tax credit, the 10-percent bracket, and estate tax reform. At the same time, we move to fund the priorities of this country, expanding health care coverage for children because, not only is it a good investment, but it is the right thing to do. We have up to $50 billion over the next 5 years dedicated to that purpose. We have increased what the President called for in education funding because we think it is critical to help parents who have their kids in college or other higher education. So we have increased the President's budget by some 10 percent for education. Also, our third major priority is veterans health care. Goodness knows, I think every Member of this body believes we need more resources than are provided for in the President's budget to meet the promises that have been made to this Nation's veterans. We closely followed the independent budget advocated by the Nation's veterans organizations. We think this is a responsible budget worthy of our support.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I thank the majority leader. He has been an enormous and able leader going through this process. I can tell you on our side that we would not be here today without his absolute commitment to getting this job done, and getting it done right. My admiration for this leader has grown dramatically, and it was already high. Let me just say what an important leadership role he has played.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I will conclude by saying I think the debate has been vigorous on both sides. I have made my points. At this moment, I thank, first of all, my own staff. Mary Naylor, my staff director. Each and every member of this staff has worked extraordinary hours. I cannot even begin to say what it has been like-- weekend after weekend, night after night. The other night, they were here until 3:30 in the morning. I deeply appreciate the sacrifice and the commitment this staff has made. I also thank very much Senator Gregg, the Republican manager, the Republican ranking member. He is absolutely committed to dealing with our long-term fiscal imbalances in a responsible way. While we may have disagreements with respect to this budget agreement, the truth is, our larger agreement about the need to take on these long-term fiscal challenges, to me, overshadows the disagreements we might have on a 5- year budget resolution. I also appreciate the professionalism of his staff, including Scott Gudes and his entire organization. I thank them. Although I don't like some of the charts they produce, they are really in the best traditions of the Senate. They are serious about public service, and we owe them a deep debt of gratitude as well. Finally, I will conclude by again thanking my staff. My goodness, I will never forget the extraordinary effort they put in. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I just want to thank all my colleagues who supported this budget resolution. It is a responsible first step to restoring fiscal responsibility and meeting the priority needs of the country. I thank my colleagues, I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Hatch, in reintroducing the Medicare Durable Medical Equipment, DME, Access Act. This bill will help protect rural DME providers from the negative consequences of competitive bidding and ensure that seniors have access to the highest quality of DME supplies. It will also help to rid the system of fraudulent suppliers who are filing improper and illegal claims. As many of my colleagues know, the Medicare Modernization Act, MMA, required Medicare to replace the current DME payment methodology for certain items with a competitive acquisition process, which is currently underway. In fact, the first round of bids are due on July 13. Our bill would address several issues that could negatively impact the ability of rural suppliers to compete and ensure that seniors are getting high-quality products. Specifically, our bill would strengthen language in the MMA that allows the Secretary to exempt rural areas by requiring the Secretary to exempt metropolitan statistical areas with fewer than 500,000 people. In addition, the legislation would require that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, include the attainment of quality standards as a factor in computing the winning bid to ensure that patients receive both high-quality and low-cost equipment. Third, the Medicare Durable Medical Equipment Access Act would allow small businesses to continue providing DME in Medicare at the acquisition bid rate, even if the businesses didn't have the winning bid. Finally, the bill would take additional steps to ensure that competitive acquisition results in savings, that providers have access to administrative and judicial review, and that any meetings of the newly created CMS Program Advisory and Oversight Committee on competitive bidding be open to the public. Many argue that there is fraudulent activity in the Medicare DME benefit and that is why competitive bidding is necessary. I agree that it is far too easy to obtain a supplier number and start filing improper and illegal claims. That is why I applaud the efforts of CMS and others who are cracking down on the inappropriate behavior. However, it is also imperative that we ensure sufficient access to quality DME care in the program and protect those suppliers who are acting appropriately. I believe this bill achieves the appropriate balance between these two goals. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Hatch, in reintroducing the Medicare Durable Medical Equipment, DME, Access Act. This bill will help protect rural DME providers from the negative consequences of competitive bidding and ensure that seniors have access to the highest quality of DME supplies. It will also help to rid the system of fraudulent suppliers who are filing improper and illegal claims. As many of my colleagues know, the Medicare Modernization Act, MMA, required Medicare to replace the current DME payment methodology for certain items with a competitive acquisition process, which is currently underway. In fact, the first round of bids are due on July 13. Our bill would address several issues that could negatively impact the ability of rural suppliers to compete and ensure that seniors are getting high-quality products. Specifically, our bill would strengthen language in the MMA that allows the Secretary to exempt rural areas by requiring the Secretary to exempt metropolitan statistical areas with fewer than 500,000 people. In addition, the legislation would require that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, include the attainment of quality standards as a factor in computing the winning bid to ensure that patients receive both high-quality and low-cost equipment. Third, the Medicare Durable Medical Equipment Access Act would allow small businesses to continue providing DME in Medicare at the acquisition bid rate, even if the businesses didn't have the winning bid. Finally, the bill would take additional steps to ensure that competitive acquisition results in savings, that providers have access to administrative and judicial review, and that any meetings of the newly created CMS Program Advisory and Oversight Committee on competitive bidding be open to the public. Many argue that there is fraudulent activity in the Medicare DME benefit and that is why competitive bidding is necessary. I agree that it is far too easy to obtain a supplier number and start filing improper and illegal claims. That is why I applaud the efforts of CMS and others who are cracking down on the inappropriate behavior. However, it is also imperative that we ensure sufficient access to quality DME care in the program and protect those suppliers who are acting appropriately. I believe this bill achieves the appropriate balance between these two goals. I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 17, 2007, at 10:15 a.m., in open session, to receive testimony on United States European Command in review of the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 2008 and the future years Defense Program.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 17, 2007, at 3 p.m., in executive session, to consider a pending military nomination.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 17, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on law enforcement in Indian Country.