Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Senator from Minnesota offers an amendment with which I am entirely sympathetic. In fact, these are many things that I strongly support. I would inquire of the Senator if he would be open to a different pay-for. Let me express why I am concerned about it. The pay-for the Senator has offered is section 920, and section 920 is about, at this point, fully subscribed. We are between $7 billion and $7.5 billion a year on section 920 already, I would say to the Senator. That is about as much as we can do realistically. The President, in his package, had $7.5 billion. The appropriators, in this last bill for the last year, did $6 billion. So the concern I have is that we wind up with a circumstance that will not accomplish what the Senator and I very much want to have happen. I would offer for his consideration that we will not be voting on his amendment right now, in any event, so there is some time for us to consider an alternative. If I could quickly offer as an alternative a reserve fund, which would give total flexibility to the committees of jurisdiction as to how to fund them, would the Senator be open to an alternative?

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator very much. Mr. President, the Senator is exactly right. I think in section 920, we are at about $38 billion. That is over 5 years. The $7 billion I was referencing is for 1 year. The comparison I was making is that the President had given us similar offsets of about $7.5 billion for 1 year. The appropriators, in the last major bill for last year, did $6 billion for the year. So what I am trying to communicate is that I think we are pretty close to fully subscribed there. There is an alternative that would be a deficit-neutral reserve fund that leaves open to the committees of jurisdiction--it actually gives them more flexibility, I would say to the Senator. I would enthusiastically support that, if the Senator would consider a modification.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are now ready to go to Senator Carper. We very much appreciate the patience Senator Carper has shown in getting time on the Senate floor. We thank him for his valuable contributions as we work these many amendments we have already considered. Senator Carper has been an especially constructive member, and we want to recognize him and thank him for that.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CONRAD. The Senator shared that statistic with me the other day, and I would like the Senator to repeat it because I think it is very easily overlooked. Would the Senator repeat that statistic?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I see now that Senator Lincoln has come to the floor. We are running a little bit ahead of schedule, which is very helpful to us. While the Senator prepares, I say this to my colleagues: It is very important for colleagues to get this message because we have agreed between the managers of the bill to the following: In addition to the outline of amendments we have between now and when we start voting, we are then going to stop voting at 6 o'clock tonight. We will then have a period this evening where Senators will be able to speak. They will not be able to offer amendments. They can speak about amendments, but they will not be able to offer the amendments. We will have blocks of 30 minutes. From 6 to 6:30, the time will be under the control of the minority. From 6:30 to 7, it will be under the control of the majority. It will alternate back and forth in that way. So from 6 to 6:30, the minority will control a 30-minute block. From 6:30 to 7, the majority will control a 30-minute block, and so on. From 7 to 7:30, back to the minority. From 7:30 to 8, the majority. Senators and their staffs need to be aware that time will be available for speaking. You can talk on the amendments. You can talk on the budget resolution. You will not be able to offer an amendment, but you can talk about the amendment you will be offering tomorrow.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator. I wish to send the word out to Senators on our side that time will be designated on a first come, first served basis. So Senators need to call the cloakroom or call the Budget Committee to get that time allocated. Now we have time reserved for the Senator from Arkansas, Mrs. Lincoln.

Mr. CONRAD. I wish to thank Senator Lincoln for this amendment. We all know there is a claim backlog that is absolutely unacceptable. According to the General Accounting Office, between fiscal years 2003 and 2006, the backlog of veterans waiting on ratings claims grew by almost 50 percent, including those filed by veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. Similar problems have been cited at the Department of Defense. That is an unacceptable backlog. I wish to thank the Senator for offering this amendment, which I might add is paid for. I especially thank the Senator for that. We now have the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent that we next go to the Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Thomas, for 10 minutes. Is that acceptable to the Senator? We then go back on the previous schedule. At 4 o'clock, we recognize Senator Bayh for 10 minutes.

Mr. CONRAD. We would stay with the schedule we had, but at 4 o'clock we would go to Senator Bayh for 10 minutes. Then after the votes are completed, that we have the first half hour dedicated to the minority, for people with the right to speak on amendments for up to 15 minutes each. That from 6 to 6:30, the time is under the control of the minority; from 6:30 to 7, the time is under the control of the majority; from 7 to 7:30, the time is under the control of the minority, back and forth in those half-hour blocks of time. Senators would be permitted to speak. They would be able to speak on amendments but not to offer amendments during that period.

Mr. CONRAD. I say to the Senator, we may want to think about interspersing Senators because it would be unfortunate if Senators did not appear and there was a large block of time where people were waiting. We are probably going to want to work out some mechanism where Senators, if they are here, we allow them to go forward.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator very much. He has, as always, been very courteous and very helpful in allowing the budget resolution to proceed.

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

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, it is a quarter to 3. Next up is Senator Kyl, to be recognized for an hour, equally divided, on an estate tax amendment. Then we will have Senator Bayh at 4 o'clock. Those are pending matters. These are the votes which are now in order, I advise my colleagues: the Hutchison sales tax amendment, the Ensign means testing Part D, the Sanders amendment to provide additional funding for education, the Enzi amendment that involves small business, the Coleman amendment on energy, the Carper amendment, and the Lincoln amendment on veterans. Those are amendments which have already been offered. At 3 o'clock, we will be going to the Kyl amendment for an hour, equally divided. Let me again say to colleagues and staffs who might be listening, we will be going to votes at roughly 4:15. We will then be voting until 6 o'clock. We would like to get as many of these votes concluded as we can this evening because that will reduce vote-arama tomorrow. Again, colleagues should be aware, starting at 6 o'clock, in half-hour blocks of time, there will be opportunities for colleagues to talk about their amendments they may offer tomorrow or to talk about the budget resolution itself. We will go fairly late tonight with Senators having an opportunity to speak. When we are done today, all but a half hour will be yielded back. Senator Gregg and I will have that time to wrap up. Then we will be going into vote-arama tomorrow. I believe that starts at 9:30 tomorrow morning.

Mr. CONRAD. We should start at 9 o'clock.

Mr. CONRAD. I think we would want to start at 9 o'clock with our half hour to be equally divided between the two of us and then go right to the voting starting at 9:30. It is our intention to try to conclude by 4 o'clock. It is very important that Senators give notice to the managers about amendments they seek to have considered during vote- arama. Let me break this down. From 9:30 to 4--that is 6\1/2\ hours--we can do about three votes an hour. We would be talking about 19 votes. We could probably get in 19, perhaps 20 votes in that time. That is realistic. That is hard, but it can be done. It is going to be incredibly important, for us to finish this budget resolution tomorrow, that colleagues show restraint with amendments they insist on considering. We have already considered many amendments. Senators have had a full opportunity for debate and discussion. Goodness knows, we took dozens of Senators' suggestions in drafting this budget resolution. I am asking--I am speaking to my side of the aisle--Senators to show real restraint in terms of the amendments they insist on because we must conclude our business by 4 o'clock tomorrow. If we do not, it is going to go on into some other time, either on into tomorrow tonight or on into Saturday. Maybe we could stay here all Friday night. Wouldn't that be fun? Please, this is the time to show discipline.

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

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to agree to the Carper amendment No. 538 and the Lincoln amendment No. 542.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair and my colleagues. That helps us make progress. It reduces the number of votes that will have to be considered when we get to votes in the 4:15 time range. This may be a good time to again alert colleagues that we are looking to a series of votes starting at roughly 4:15. Votes will end at 6 o'clock. There will then be half-hour blocks of time available to the minority and the majority in alternating half hours for people to speak on their amendments or on the budget resolution. We now are awaiting Senator Kyl for his amendment. At the end of that hour, which will be evenly divided between the sides, we will have Senator Bayh recognized for 10 minutes. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD. Through no fault of the Senator from Arizona, we are actually into my time on his amendment. As I said to the Senator from Arizona, I am prepared to yield some of my time so that some of his other speakers have a chance. Also, I don't want to completely give away my time because I need to respond. Maybe we can work out an agreement so that those people who are here can speak, and I would like to have 10 minutes. I was supposed to have a half hour, but I would like to retain at least 10 minutes. Senator Grassley indicated he would like a minute. He is not here at the moment, so perhaps we can go to Senator Thune. We have 22 minutes. If I am to retain 10, that leaves 12 minutes. I don't know how the Senator wants to divvy up that time.

Mr. CONRAD. Can we identify the Senators? Senator Grassley for a minute, Senator Thune for 4 minutes, Senator DeMint for 4 minutes, and Senator Graham for 4 minutes, and a minute to Senator Kyl. That would leave me 8 minutes. That is fair enough.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, the Senator has accurately described a situation that makes no earthly sense with respect to the estate tax. There is no death tax in America. There is none. There is an estate tax that applies to estates of over a certain value. Right now, less than 1 percent of estates are affected. By the time we get to 2009, in which the exemption level will rise to $3.5 million per person--so a couple with $7 million in an estate, anything below $7 million will pay absolutely nothing--it will be down to three-tenths of 1 percent of estates paying any tax. Then we have this truly bizarre situation in which the next year, the estate tax is repealed in 2010, and then in 2011 it snaps back and the exemption, instead of the $3.5 million we had in 2009, falls to $1 million. The amendment by Senator Baucus that was adopted yesterday prevents the amount of the estate tax exemption from shrinking to $1 million per person. He at least puts a floor and says it will not drop below the $3.5 million, and that $3.5 million will be adjusted for inflation. He also had the extension of the middle-class tax cuts--the marriage penalty relief, the 10-percent bracket, the childcare credit. That left us with no money left in 2012. The problem with the amendment that is now offered by our colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, is that it is not paid for. That is the problem. It puts us back into deficit in 2012. Here we have spent all this time and all this work digging out of the deficit ditch, and this amendment puts us right back in, to the tune of about a $16 billion deficit in 2012. We have had speeches all week about how important it was to show some fiscal discipline and to stop deficit spending, to balance the books, to balance the budget. We are there. We have a budget now that is balanced in 2012. But this amendment offered by Senator Kyl, as meritorious as it may be in the eyes of some colleagues, as high a priority as they have said it is, wasn't a sufficiently high priority for them to pay for it. It wasn't of enough importance for them to offer the offsets, whether it is spending offsets or revenue offsets, to cover the cost. The result is they have put us back into deficit in 2012. For that reason, I will strenuously oppose the Kyl amendment, and I give notice to colleagues that, I am told, there will be an alternative to accomplish much the same purpose, but one that is paid for, and I understand that will be offered tomorrow when this amendment is voted on. We have had hours and hours of speeches on the floor about the need to address the fiscal condition of the country, about the need to first balance the budget and then deal with the long-term entitlement challenges. Look, this is going the other way. This is going the other way. This is additional loss of tax revenue without any offset, without any replacement, either in spending cuts or alternative revenue. So what it does is balloons the debt by over $30 billion and puts the budget of 2012 back into deficit. That would be a mistake. I reserve the remainder of my time. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. CONRAD. What is the time situation?

Mr. CONRAD. No, no, no. Somehow the timekeeping is not correct. I think the Senator had 1 minute remaining, which I think he has used.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, let me conclude on this matter. First, I thank Senator Kyl. Second, let me make clear, the reason the estate tax is going to run out is because of the Bush tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts, as passed by the Congress, led to this bizarre situation where it is a $3.5 million exemption in 2009, and then it is fully repealed in 2010. Then it goes to $1 million a person in 2011. That was the action of the Republican Congress in conjunction with the Bush administration. They are the ones who created this problem. We adopted, as part of this resolution, the Baucus amendment yesterday that will prevent in 2011 the exemption from falling to $1 million a person and will instead keep it at $3.5 million per person, which means $7 million for a couple can be shielded without paying any taxes. That is indexed for inflation. So just in terms of who did what, the fact is, the Republican Congress is the one that constructed this bizarre circumstance in which the estate tax is repealed in 2010 and then comes back in 2011 with only $1 million per person shielded. Let me conclude by saying this: Look, the problem with this amendment, they say it is a priority, but they have no money to pay for it. The result is that we are faced with a circumstance in which it all gets added to the deficit and the debt. We addressed this in the Baucus amendment yesterday, the problem with the estate tax, but this amendment is not paid for. This amendment will take us back into deficit in 2012.