Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday March 21, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. in 328A, Senate Russell Office Building. The title of this committee hearing is ``Examining the performance of U.S. Trade and Food Aid Programs for the 2007 Farm Bill.''

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 21, 2007, at 9 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``Minimizing Potential Threats From Iran: Assessing the Effectiveness of Current U.S. Sanctions on Iran.''

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Identity Theft: Innovative Solutions for an Evolving Problem,'' on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Witness List Panel I: Ronald Tenpas, Associate Deputy Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC; Lydia Parnes, Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC. Panel II: James Davis, Chief Information Officer and Vice Chancellor for Information Technology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA; Joanne McNabb, Chief, California Officer of Privacy Protection, Sacramento, CA; Chris Jay Hoofnagle, Senior Staff Attorney, Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic, School of Law (Boalt Hall), University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Let me say to colleagues that while I have great sympathy for the purposes of the Senator's amendment, the funding source gives me substantial heartburn. Let me explain why, if I may. The discretionary side would include things such as law enforcement and veterans. We already have, out of section 920, between $7.5 billion and $8 billion taken from that pot. The problem with taking another $13 billion is it goes into an area where we don't have the resources in terms of this magnitude. Let me say why that is the case. The President just sent up a message identifying $7.5 billion in this area that could be cut. Congress, in a recent legislative enactment, took out $6 billion. So we can probably do some more out of 920 but, honestly, to take that additional amount out of 920 is going to have a real impact on these discretionary accounts that it affects--veterans, law enforcement, parks, and all the rest. So I am going to be compelled to resist this amendment, not because I don't favor the basic objective the Senator is trying to accomplish, which is entirely reasonable, but the pay-for presents a problem to this budget. That would take us well over $20 billion out of section 920, and I don't think there are sufficient resources there to accommodate that amount. I want to give colleagues a heads up, and perhaps overnight we can find some other way. Perhaps we can work together and see if there is another way to fund it. I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, if I may inquire of the Senator, for clarification purposes on her amendment, the amendment, as I understand it, on sales tax deductibility--what is the cost of that amendment?

Mr. CONRAD. As I understand it, the Senator funds it out of section 920.

Mr. CONRAD. Would it be out of the mandatory side of 920 or the discretionary side?

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

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, this is the last vote today. We would urge all of our colleagues to vote yea on this bipartisan amendment. I think this is one of the most thoughtful amendments that has been offered throughout the process. It deserves all of our support.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, this is a happy moment. We can all vote for this amendment. This is an amendment I offered a number of years ago. I wish it would have passed then and been in effect because we could have avoided some of the unpleasantness that has followed in taking Social Security funds and using them for other purposes. There is no reason not to support this amendment tonight to try to once again impose the discipline that has been lacking, to prevent Social Security funds from being used to pay other bills. So I welcome colleagues voting for this amendment.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, how much time would the Senator like?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President and colleagues, I think this amendment is well intended. I believe it will actually make the situation worse with these defense firewalls. What it means is that supposedly we are walling off nondefense money and defense money. But here is what is happening. We have had these firewalls in the past. Before we had them, we had three medical research earmarks in the defense budget. This is what happened after defense firewalls. Here are the number of earmarks in the defense budget for medical research. Does anybody believe we are better off doing medical research at the Department of the Army rather than at the National Institutes of Health? That is what this amendment is about. It will be a mistake to adopt this amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I find myself conflicted on this amendment in the following way: On the one hand, I don't think it is particularly good tax policy to establish points of order on this matter. So as a matter of tax policy, I don't think it is a particularly good idea. On the other hand, I don't want to leave the impression that this resolution contemplates an increase in tax rates because it doesn't. So I would say to those on my side, vote your conscience on this amendment. It certainly will not do any damage to this resolution if this were to pass.

Mr. CONRAD. Yes, I think we should set aside the Bunning amendment so that the Bingaman amendment may be offered. The Senator from Tennessee could speak on that. We did ask them to come at this time to do so. I apologize to Senator DeMint. We were not aware that he was on his way to the floor. In fairness, that is what we should do.

Mr. CONRAD. Let us check with Senator Baucus and see.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, however well intended the Kyl amendment is, it spends $72.5 billion with no offset. The surplus is gone under the amendment we just adopted. The surplus is gone. So the effect of this amendment is to take us right back into deficit. This amendment blows the budget. This amendment takes us from a balance in 2012 right back into deficit. My colleagues can extend those tax cuts if they pay for them, if they offset them. The Kyl amendment does not pay for them; it does not offset them; it takes us back into deficit. It ought to be defeated.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, the hour of 5 o'clock having arrived, I think it is the appropriate time to start the votes.

Mr. CONRAD. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico. And then the Senator from Tennessee, how much would the Senator seek?

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, if you want to gut pay-go this is your opportunity. This amendment would completely overturn the pay-go discipline. The pay-go discipline, as all Members know, says: If you are going to have new mandatory spending, you have got to pay for it. If you want more tax cuts, you are going to have to offset them. This amendment would completely strip all of the points of order that exist under the pay-go discipline. This would be a return to deficits and debt as far as the eye can see at the worst possible time, just before the baby boomers retire. This is a critical and defining amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, we have a series of votes starting at 5 o'clock. We have the rest of the evening lined up. I apologize to the desk crew who will be here late into the evening once again. I also want to thank our staffs--my goodness, they have worked tirelessly-- Mary Naylor of my staff, Scott Gudes, and the staff director for Senator Gregg, and all of their assistants who have done a spectacular job of helping us to manage this difficult budget resolution. Votes are to start at 5 o'clock. Why don't we start now. I think we could begin the vote early. Is there a problem with that? I don't think that hurts anything, because what that would allow us to do is we have agreed there would be 10-minute votes after that. I don't think there is any problem with that. Does Senator Gregg have any other observations? Maybe one thing we need to do is remind our colleagues--this may be a very good time to remind colleagues of what it is we are going to face tomorrow. Tomorrow we are going to come in and we are going to have 25 hours left on this resolution. Then we go to vote-arama. We need to finish this by 4 o'clock on Friday. We have a number of our colleagues on both sides who have other obligations, so we need to finish this. So we are calling on colleagues--and I will speak for myself. I am calling on colleagues on our side to please be disciplined about the amendments you insist on getting votes on. We have had perhaps the most difficult year I can ever remember, because we have some of our colleagues on Presidential campaigns, and there have been so many other events we have had to break for. It has made it very difficult to give colleagues the chance to get the votes they desire. We are going to have to ask for continued cooperation to get this done. Senator Gregg, do you wish to say anything further?

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, first of all, I want to say I have been put at a disadvantage here because the Senator from Kentucky, whom I like very much, whom I respect very much, has offered an amendment I drafted. Unfortunately, they did not support it when I offered it back in 2003. It really would have helped us avoid this disaster of using Social Security money. So maybe we have here a coming around to support an issue at least at a later point. I am going to recommend to my colleagues that we vote for this amendment on the floor, as a symbolic measure if for no other reason. When I drafted this amendment and offered it back in 2002, what a difference it would have made if it had been adopted. But, unfortunately, our colleagues who have just spoken so eloquently in favor of it now opposed it then. They opposed it when it actually would have done something. Well, I still appreciate the fact that they now, 5 years later, appreciate the wisdom of my words then. I certainly will not stand in the way of adopting this amendment tonight. In fact, my vote will be cast in favor of this amendment.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the Senator talks about Social Security money being spent in the Democratic budget resolution--and he is right. There is money spent, Social Security money, in the Democratic budget resolution. Why? Because our friends on the other side, in the 6 years they have controlled everything, have dug such a deep hole it is going to take us a while to climb out. Look at the President's budget. That is the only budget from the other side. The other side has not presented a budget other than the President's budget. Here is what the President's budget does in terms of spending Social Security money. The President's budget spends $1.16 trillion of Social Security money over the next 5 years--every dime that is available. We use $1.03 trillion. So let's be clear. The only budget from the other side uses more Social Security money than does our budget. Both budgets use Social Security money because we are now in such a deep hole it is going to take time to dig out. Here is the record from the other side. The record from the other side is they have so far spent $1.1 trillion of Social Security money and, if the President's budget is followed, they will have spent $2.5 trillion by 2017. Every dime of Social Security money that is available to spend will have been spent by our friends on the other side. That is their record. Look, we inherited this mess. We have to climb out and we are making progress. Our budget balances by 2012, and over time we will end this practice of using Social Security money. Let me indicate that in this budget resolution, we have passed a ``save Social Security first'' amendment. It says there can be no new mandatory spending or tax cuts until the 75-year Social Security solvency is restored, unless it is paid for or gets a supermajority vote. That is in the underlying budget resolution to protect Social Security. I say to my colleague, he has offered an amendment I previously offered. When I offered it, it was before we descended into this deficit and debt ditch. It was designed to prevent us from going that road, from going down the path of using Social Security money to fund other things. Unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side opposed it and defeated it. They prevented it from being put in force, which would have hopefully prevented all this from happening. But that was not the case. Now it is akin to closing the barn door after the cattle are gone. Now the Senator from Kentucky offers this amendment. The upshot of this amendment, if it were to pass, would be to create a 60-vote hurdle against having a budget resolution next year. That is what the effect of the Bunning amendment would be. If people want to vote for it as a symbolic measure, that is fine with me. Members should know they are free to vote however they think is the right way when we vote on the Bunning amendment later this evening.