Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. That is correct.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CONRAD. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 476

Mr. CONRAD. Yes, the Senator's right will be protected to have both of these amendments voted on.

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

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

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. Mr. President, as the Senator from New Hampshire well knows, the war funding is secure. It is absolutely secure. At his urging, we put the war funding in a sidecar. Our cap adjustment for war costs is available only for war costs. That is a red herring of an issue, and he knows it. Let's go back to this question of how things really work. I must say, I am sympathetic to the basic notion of trying to exert discipline and not having money that is appropriated for defense used for something else. I am absolutely sympathetic to that. The problem is, I don't think this works, and I am asking to have the list of earmarks that is in the Defense appropriations bill brought to me because I will then read that list. It will take me a good part of the day because we all know what is really happening around here. The Senator talked about somehow suppressing earmarks. Please, do I really have to read the list of earmarks that has been put in the Defense appropriations bill that have nothing----

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for this amendment. I don't favor this amendment, but it is a thoughtful, serious amendment, and it deserves thoughtful, serious consideration. Let me just indicate that the budget resolution, as it stands with respect to funding for defense and funding for the war, is not affected by this amendment. The budget resolution has the President's full request for the war. So I wish to be clear that the Ensign amendment doesn't affect that. What the Ensign amendment does provide is a 60- vote point of order against any legislation that exceeds the budget authority, which he sets for defense and nondefense discretionary spending, which is in the resolution. So what he is seeking to do is prevent money from going from defense to nondefense or the other way, from nondefense to defense. That is something we have done in the past. My own analysis of it is that firewalls have not worked particularly well. We had them under the 1990 budget agreement. I think what we learned from that experience was they just didn't work as intended. Why not? Because instead of preventing games, I am afraid it encouraged games. Let me say why I believe that is the case. No sooner were firewalls created for defense and international spending and domestic spending in the 1990s than our colleagues started to become very creative about how to jump over the firewalls. For example, Congress started to dramatically expand the amount of medical research done by the Department of Defense. Instead of doing it at the National Institutes of Health, they tried to, in effect, evade the firewall--which, again, is absolutely well intended. But by doing the medical research not at NIH over in the domestic discretionary spending, they shifted the cost over into defense spending. I am very strongly in favor of medical research, as I know my colleague from Nevada is. But does anyone in this Chamber really believe that we would have increased breast cancer research more effectively by not having it done at NIH rather than by the United States Army? And since firewalls were put in place, successive administrations have now started putting FBI budget authority over in the Defense Department. This is the kind of game that I think, in many ways, the Senator is seeking to prevent but I am afraid may just be encouraged. Why has that been done? It has been done to evade the firewalls. It is not clear to me what problem this amendment would actually solve. We haven't had firewalls in the last several years. Yet defense spending has grown rapidly. Since 2001, defense, as a share of gross domestic product, has grown very significantly. Here is a chart that shows what has occurred. Defense, as a share of gross domestic product--which all the economists say is the best way to measure--has gone from 3 percent in 1999 to 4.2 percent of GDP now. Seen another way, defense spending--this is not a share of GDP, but this chart is expressed in constant 2008 dollars so that we have a fair apples-to-apples comparison. We can see that defense spending has gone up very dramatically. In fact, we are now past, in real terms, the spending at the President Reagan defense buildup peak, and we are now set to go beyond the Vietnam war spending peak. The Ensign amendment will actually take away flexibility from appropriators about how best to live within their overall total allocation. They have a much closer perspective on the programmatic needs of the various agencies, and I don't think we should be reducing that flexibility. If the Appropriations Committee were to move to eliminate $50 million in wasteful spending at the Department of Defense--let's presume for a moment that we found $50 million of waste at the Department of Defense--I think those of us close to this know that is not a theoretical possibility--that if $50 million of wasteful spending was found at the Department of Defense, it couldn't be easily reallocated to Homeland Security because it would face this defense firewall block. I think that is a mistake. Finally, I note for my colleagues on the other side that a vote for the Ensign amendment is a vote to endorse and enforce not just defense, but also the nondefense discretionary spending levels in the Democratic budget resolution. My colleagues will be voting to endorse $443.5 billion in nondefense discretionary spending because this firewall works both ways. If my colleagues think money ought to be transferred from domestic nondefense spending to defense spending, it would face this same firewall. It would have the same 60-vote hurdle. On that basis, while I absolutely respect the constructive intention of the Senator from Nevada, I believe it would have precisely the opposite effect that he intends. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I say to Senator Allard, as I expressed in the committee, the only problem I have with this amendment is that, unfortunately, a budget resolution cannot assure the right things would be cut. As you know, we don't really have that power. We just give a block of money to the Appropriations Committee and they decide how to spend it. Mr. President, does the Senator need more time or could we go to Senator Baucus?

Mr. CONRAD. Continuing, that each of the aforementioned Senators have up to 15 minutes, and that they be in the order indicated: Senator Hutchison, Senator Sessions, Senator Durbin, Senator Sanders, Senator Lieberman, Senator Wyden.

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, nobody has used time on either side on the first amendment; is that correct?

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. We thank all colleagues. To revisit, so everybody understands what we will then face, after the votes tonight, Senator Hutchison will be able to offer an amendment relating to sales and use tax, Senator Sessions on the alternative minimum tax; that both of those can have a side-by-side Democratic amendment offered tomorrow if it is deemed necessary; that Senators Durbin, Sanders, Lieberman, and Wyden all be recognized in that order, or if they seek to change the order among themselves they are able to do that; that each of them be limited to 15 minutes; that there be no further votes after the votes that have already been approved; and that at the conclusion of the Senate business tonight, there will be 25 hours remaining on the budget resolution. We thank the excellent staff who have helped us keep track of all this through the day, and we thank very much the occupant of the Chair as well for her attention and for her effort. With that, I recognize the Senator from New Jersey. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. CONRAD. All right. Fair enough.

Mr. CONRAD. Maybe I will take the time because I am advised Senator Baucus will not be here until the vote has begun. Let me recall for our colleagues that the Baucus amendment is to provide for the middle-class tax cuts to also address this anomaly in the estate tax, where it goes from $3.5 million per person of exemption back down to $1 million. It also contains additional funding for the Children's Health Care Program. There are other elements to the Baucus amendment, as well, that were enumerated by the Senator. I hope very much that our colleagues can support the Baucus amendment. It still leaves us with a slight balance in 2012 so that we are not back into deficit. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object, we have only been noticed on this side about one amendment.

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 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. Let me first say that in large measure, I am in agreement with what I hear the Senator saying. I have always thought we are engaged in ``funny money'' accounting around here, taking Social Security money and using it to pay other bills. That is the object of the Senator's amendment; is that correct?

Mr. CONRAD. I see Senator Allard has now come to the floor. We want to thank him for helping expedite the consideration of the budget resolution. We very much appreciate his coming on short notice to the floor to offer his amendment. Senator Allard's amendment is now in order.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 21, 2007. The agenda to be considered: Vice President Al Gore's Perspective on Global Warming.

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. Mr. President, first, we thank the Chaplain for another outstanding prayer. The Chaplain serves this institution very well. We thank him and commend him for that.