Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. The last 5 minutes under the control of Senator Dorgan.

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. Yes. I thank the Senator for remembering that. I did have a plan. Instead of giving the outsized tax cuts the President proposed, I proposed giving a $900 billion tax cut, very large tax cuts, but to use the rest of the money to strengthen Social Security, to either prefund the liability or pay down the debt. Instead, a different judgment was made. Social Security money that really never was in what I would consider surplus--because it is all needed when the baby boomers retire--has been taken and has been used, every dime under the President's fiscal plan, to pay other bills and to finance tax cuts. I think that was a profound mistake. That is why I offered the amendment the Senator from Kentucky has now offered, an amendment I offered back in 2002, to prevent us from ever going down this path. Now we have gone down it. Both budgets, if we are to be honest, use Social Security funds. We use somewhat less than the President's budget. It is going to take time to dig out.

Mr. CONRAD. I asked her the direct question if she would require a rollcall vote. She said she did not.

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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on the Collins amendment creating a deficit-neutral reserve fund for a teacher classroom expense deduction, that that amendment be considered on a voice vote.

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. Mr. President, it is for that reason that I will support the amendment, because it may, even at this late hour, help build pressure for what the Senator from New Hampshire and I both want to do, which is somehow find a path to addressing these long-term entitlement challenges. It may help do that. In that spirit, I will support the amendment tonight. Now we have Senator Bingaman ready.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we should also make clear we have not done second degrees. We are not doing second degrees. That is an understanding we have on both sides.

Mr. CONRAD. Let me say that I cast that vote in committee because the practical effect of this amendment now is not going to protect Social Security. The practical effect of this amendment is to create a 60-vote hurdle to pass a budget resolution next year. But, look, I am proud of the amendment I crafted 5 years ago. I think we have to send every message we can that it is wrong to be using Social Security trust funds to pay other bills. I believe that with every fiber of my being. Senator Bunning has offered this amendment unfortunately 5 years too late. I am going to support it even though it is 5 years too late.

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

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

Mr. CONRAD. Yes. I thank the Senator very much for his continuing courtesy as we try to move through this. Senator Bunning, we are told, is on his way to the floor to offer an amendment. We are also asking Senator Bingaman to come. I see Senator Bunning is here now. We can go to his 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.

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. The Senator is certainly right. Senator Sessions' amendment would allow all of the tax cuts to be extended without having to be paid for, without having to be offset. So it does directly contradict at least the spirit of the Bunning amendment. I must say, I am very much in sympathy with the spirit of the Bunning amendment because, after all, it was my amendment back in 2002 when it really would have done some good because that was before we went down this path of using Social Security funds to pay all kinds of other bills. I have said many times that what is being done here in Washington is a basic violation of any kind of the sense of the trust fund because trust fund moneys that are in temporary surplus before the baby boomers retire are being used to pay other bills. You could not do that in any other institution. You could not do that in any private business. You could not do that in any other private sector institution. You could not take the retirement funds of your employees and use them to pay your operating expenses. If you did that, you would be in violation of Federal law. You would be on your way to a Federal institution, but it would not be the Congress of the United States, it would not be the White House; you would be headed for the big house because that is a violation of Federal law. But that is the practice that has grown up. It has been, unfortunately, the case here for 30 years, with only 2 years of exception: The last 2 years of the Clinton administration, we were able to stop using Social Security funds to pay other bills. That was one of the greatest achievements of the Congress and the administration. Unfortunately, under this new administration, they went right back the other way, using every dime of Social Security money to pay other bills. Now we are in such a deep hole that it is going to continue for some period of time until we are able to dig out.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Massachusetts, how much time does he desire?

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. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent that the time from 12:30 to 1:30 today be for debate only, equally divided and controlled between Senators Schumer and Brownback--this is the Humphrey-Hawkins report that is part of any consideration of a budget resolution; that at 1:30, Senator Grassley be recognized to call up two amendments, one relating to payment limits and one relating to the Smithsonian institution; that there be a total of 60 minutes for debate with respect to the two Grassley amendments, with the time controlled 30 minutes for Senator Grassley and 30 minutes for the chairman of the Budget Committee; that no amendments be in order to either amendment during this debate time.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I yield 7\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Illinois, Senator Obama, for the wisdom he has displayed with respect to the conflict in Iraq. I read a speech he gave when he was a State Senator warning about the dangers of going to war in Iraq. In many ways it reflected many of the same feelings and analysis I had given in my speech on the floor of the Senate. I gave the last speech before that fateful vote to authorize going to war in Iraq. I believed at the time it was a mistake to go to Iraq before finishing business with Osama bin Laden. After all, it was Saddam Hussein in Iraq whom this administration decided to go after. But it was not Saddam Hussein or Iraq that attacked this country on 9/ 11, it was Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida network that had attacked this country. We have still never held Osama bin Laden to account. I have always felt that was an extremely serious mistake, a military mistake for this country. I was so impressed that the Senator from Illinois, who was a State senator at the time, had the wisdom and the judgment to see that. I wish more had seen it. I, again, thank the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, the Senator from Texas is retaining his time. Perhaps we could modify our previous unanimous consent request so we stay on this question until the votes. The Senator has approximately 15 minutes remaining and we would have 15 minutes on our side to discuss it.

Mr. CONRAD. Does the Senator have some rough idea of what the amendment costs?

Mr. CONRAD. Would the Senator from New Hampshire provide the Senator from Tennessee with time off his side on this amendment?