Kent Conrad

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, while this amendment is well intended, I believe it will make the circumstance even worse, because it will put Government on automatic pilot. Madam President, more seriously, the automatic CR proposed by the Senator guarantees funding levels; therefore, CBO would score the proposal as effectively prefunding the 2008 bills. Thus, if adopted, this amendment will be scored by the Congressional Budget Office with increasing direct spending by hundreds of billions of dollars. The last time CBO scored this bill, this proposal, they put an estimate of $566 billion on this amendment. The pending amendment deals with matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget. I therefore raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this is one of the all-time worst ideas to be brought to the Chamber. First, it has no place on this bill. This bill is about ethics reform. What our colleagues have brought is a budget matter, without taking it to the Budget Committee first, without hearings, without a chance for review, without a recommendation. As a result, it is subject to a budget point of order which, if other action is not taken, I will be constrained to raise at the appropriate time. Why do I say this is a bad idea? Because it has virtually nothing to do with budget discipline, and it has virtually everything to do with increasing the power of the President. That is what this is about. I hope colleagues understand that this provision, if adopted, would actually undermine the chances to do something about our long-term fiscal imbalances. People listening may wonder: How can that be? How can the line-item veto in any way endanger a long-term agreement on entitlements? Let me say why. Tucked away in this little legislative offering that has been casually brought to the floor without going through the Budget Committee first are provisions that would allow the President to target any agreement reached on a long-term solution to our entitlement challenges. So we could have--and we are working to achieve now--a long-term agreement to face up to the demographic tsunami that is coming at us. We could engage all of this year in resolving those matters in a bipartisan way--Democrats and Republicans working together--and then the President could come in the backdoor and cherry- pick those provisions with which he disagrees. If my colleagues want to undermine the negotiation, the bipartisan negotiation that needs to occur here on long-term entitlements, if they want to endanger that enterprise, adopt this amendment, hand that power to the President. If they want to instead engage in a serious negotiation, forget about this amendment, and let's get about the work of preparing a plan to deal with our long-term fiscal challenges. But if anybody thinks we are going to enter into a seriatim negotiation in which we first negotiate in good faith on both sides to achieve a long- term solution and then we hand the President the ability to come and cherry-pick the whole thing, forget it. That is not going to work. We already know what the President's policies have done to our fiscal outlook. The deficits on this President's watch have exploded. He inherited a balanced budget. He promptly put us in deficit and then in record deficits for 2003 and 2004, 2005, the third worst deficit in our history, and some improvement last year. These have been enormous deficits and deficits that understate the problem because last year while the deficit was $248 billion, the addition to the debt was $546 billion. I find when I talk to my constituents that they are very surprised by this enormous difference between the size of the deficit and the additions to the debt. The biggest reason for the differences is the $185 billion of Social Security money that was taken last year to pay other bills. I have said to my constituents: If anybody tried to do this in the private sector--tried to take the retirement funds of their employees and use it to pay other operating expenses-- they would be on their way to a Federal institution, but it wouldn't be the Congress of the United States, it wouldn't be the White House. They would be headed for the big house because that is a violation of Federal law. The combined result, in terms of our debt, of these fiscal policies has been to increase the debt of the country by more than 50 percent through last year, and we are headed for another $3 trillion of debt over the next 5 years if the President's policies are pursued. That is a combination of increases in spending and reductions in revenue. On the spending side, the President inherited a budget that was spending about 18.4 percent of GDP. We are up to 20.4 percent of GDP last year. This is a very significant increase in spending and, of course, revenue has stagnated. Only last year did we get back to the revenue base that we had in the year 2000. While there has been significant revenue growth in the last 2 or 3 years, even with that we are only now back to the revenue base we enjoyed in 2000. On the question of whether this line-item rescission is going to make a difference with respect to the deficit, here is a USA Today editorial from last year on the line-item veto. The editorial states: . . . [T]he line-item veto is a convenient distraction. The vast bulk of the deficit is not the result of self- aggrandizing line items, infuriating as they are. And make no mistake, I am for disciplining the notion of these line items, these individual items that Members stick into appropriations bills. Senator McCain and I had a legislative proposal last year to discipline that process. The line-item veto before us makes very little difference. The deficit is primarily caused by unwillingness to make hard choices on benefit programs or to levy the taxes to pay for the true cost of government. This is the Roanoke Times, a newspaper in Virginia, from last year. They pointed out: . . . [T]he president already has the only tool he needs: The veto. That Bush has declined to challenge Congress in five-plus years is his choice. The White House no doubt sees reviving this debate as a means of distracting people from the missteps, miscalculations, mistruths and mistakes that have dogged Bush and sent his approval rating south. The current problems are not systemic; they are ideological. A line-item veto will not magically grant lawmakers and the president fiscal discipline and economic sense. They are not alone in that assessment. Here is the previous CBO Director. He is actually still the CBO Director, will be until his successor takes office some time later this week or perhaps some time next week. Here is what he said: Such tools, however, cannot establish fiscal discipline unless there is a political consensus to do so. . . . In the absence of that consensus, the proposed changes to the rescission process . . . are unlikely to greatly affect the budget's bottom line. Not only do newspaper editorialists and the CBO Director cast doubt on the significance of this with respect to the question of fiscal discipline, Senator Gregg said this last year: Passage of [the line-item veto] legislation would be a ``political victory'' that would not address long-term problems posed by growing entitlement programs. The Budget Committee chairman also said: . . . it would have ``very little impact'' on the budget deficit. He was being a truthteller then, and I think it is the truth now. George Will, the conservative columnist, made this point: It would aggravate an imbalance in our constitutional system that has been growing for seven decades: the expansion of executive power at the expense of the legislature. Those are words. Let me put it into a real-life example. If we give this power to the President, what is to prevent him from calling up Senator Conrad and saying: You know, Senator, I know you represent a State that is rural. I know that rural electric cooperatives are critically important to delivering electricity in your rural areas. I know you have a provision in a recent appropriations bill that would address safety concerns on those systems. You know, we are looking at the line-item rescission package that I might be sending up, and I would like to be able to help you on that proposal you have to improve the safety of rural electric systems, but, you know, separately I have a judge who is coming up for confirmation. I know you have said some harsh things about that judge, that you don't want to approve him. I don't want to suggest in any way these things are linked, but, Senator, I need your help on the confirmation of that judge. Separately--I don't want to connect these two at all--I also am reviewing this package of rescissions and would very much hope I wouldn't have to include your provision to make rural electric systems in your State more safe and more secure. I think I would get the message. That is exactly what we don't need: to hand more power to this President; frankly, as far as I am concerned, to hand more power to any President, more power to put leverage on individuals in the Senate and the House to bend to the will of the White House. They already have enough power down there. American Enterprise Scholar Mr. Ornstein said this about the line- item veto: The larger reality is that this line-item veto proposal gives the President a great additional mischief-making capability, to pluck out items to punish lawmakers he doesn't like, or to threaten individual lawmakers to get votes on other things, without having any noticeable impact on budget growth or restraint. More broadly, it simply shows the lack of institutional integrity and patriotism by the majority in Congress. They have lots of ways to put the responsibility of budget restraint where it belongs--on themselves. Instead, they willingly, even eagerly, try to turn their most basic power over to the President. Shameful, just shameful. I think it is shameful. More than shameful, this, I believe, is a fundamental threat to the negotiation which must occur in this body and in the other body and with the President of the United States. That is a negotiation on the long-term fiscal imbalances of this country, including Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, and the structural deficit as well. If we are to engage in good faith on that negotiation, we simply can't be subject to a circumstance in which once that negotiation is completed, the President is free to cherry-pick which part of the deal he will allow to move forward. That would completely undermine the ability to have this negotiation. Let me just end by making these points. One, this proposal represents an abdication of congressional responsibility. Two, it shifts too much power to the executive branch with little impact on the deficit. Three, it provides the President up to a year to submit rescission requests-- up to a year. It requires the Congress to vote on the President's proposals within 10 days. It provides no opportunity to amend or filibuster proposed rescissions--no opportunity to amend. Sometimes I really don't know what our colleagues are thinking. It allows the President to cancel new mandatory spending proposals passed by Congress such as those dealing with Social Security, Medicare, veterans, and agriculture at the very time we are poised to enter into a negotiation on those very matters. If there were ever an ill-considered amendment, inappropriate to the underlying legislation, this is it. I urge my colleagues to either support a budget point of order against this matter because it violates the budget rules very clearly or support a tabling motion to get on to the business of passing this ethics reform proposal. But to mix budget issues with ethics reform has the entire matter confused and fundamentally threatens the opportunity to do what must be done, which is for Democrats and Republicans together to consider long-term entitlement reform. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield so colleagues know plans for the evening.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I come to the Senate to respond to my colleague, the Senator from New Hampshire, with respect to the issue of pay-go. People deserve to hear the other side of the story. I say to my colleague from New Hampshire, who has left the Senate floor, that is one of the most creative presentations on pay-go I have ever heard. And very little of it matches the description I would give of pay-go. The first thing I point out, the Senator from New Hampshire used to be a strong supporter of pay-go. In fact, this is what he said in 2002, 4\1/2\ years ago: The second budget discipline, which is pay-go, essentially says if you are going to add a new entitlement program or if you are going to cut taxes during a period, especially of deficits, you must offset that event so that it becomes a budget-neutral event that also lapses. . . . If we do not do this, if we do not put back in place caps and pay-go mechanisms, we will have no budget discipline in this Congress, and, as a result, will dramatically aggravate the deficit which, of course, impacts important issues, but especially impacts Social Security. He was right. Now we have seen a dramatic transformation in his position. He was exactly right. Look at the evidence. He said it would aggravate the deficits if we did not have pay-go. We can now look at the record. We have now been 6 years without effective pay-go discipline in this Senate. What has happened? The debt of the country has exploded. The debt is now $8.5 trillion and it is headed for $11.6 trillion under the budget plan our colleagues on the side opposite offered in this Senate. They did exactly what he predicted almost 5 years ago without pay-go discipline. Deficits and debt have exploded, and increasingly this debt is being financed from abroad. In fact, it took 42 Presidents--all these Presidents pictured here--224 years to run up $1 trillion of U.S. debt held abroad. This President has more than doubled that amount in just 5 years. The absence of pay-go or effective pay-go is not the sole reason for this, but it is one reason. The Senator from New Hampshire himself predicted that back in 2002. He said that pay-go requires a tax increase. Wrong. Pay-go doesn't require a tax increase. What pay-go does is say this: If you want new tax cuts, you have to pay for them or get a supermajority vote. The Senator from New Hampshire then says, there is no spending discipline. Wrong again, because pay-go says you can't have new mandatory spending. Remember, mandatory spending is well over half of the budget: Medicare, Social Security--those are examples of mandatory spending. And pay-go says you can't have new mandatory spending unless you pay for it, or you get a supermajority vote. The Senator from New Hampshire said to us that pay-go is a stalking- horse for tax increases. That is not true. Pay-go is a stalking-horse for budget discipline. He himself said as much 5 years ago. The Republicans--at least some now--say that tax cuts are treated unequally because they do not continue indefinitely in the baseline. Why is that? It is because our friends on the other side sunset the tax cuts in order to jam more of them into a period of time. Now they say, after they are the ones who constructed these sunsets, gee, there are sunsets on these tax cuts. Guess what. They are the architects of the sunsets. They are the ones who wrote the sunset provisions into the law. If they had not used reconciliation--which is a large word that simply means special provisions here to avoid extended debate--to avoid Senators' right to amend to put pressure on the Senate to act in a very short period of time, if they had not used those special provisions then, the tax cuts would be part of the baseline on an ongoing basis. They are hoisted on their own petard. That is the reality of what is occurring. Now, the Senator from New Hampshire said there has been an explosion of revenue under their watch. No, there hasn't been. Last year we got back to the revenue base we had in 2000. It has taken all this time to get back to the revenue base we had then. What the Senator is talking about is shown on this chart. Here are the real revenues of the United States, and we can see there has been virtually no growth since 2000. In 2000 we had just over $2 trillion of revenue. They put in their tax cuts in 2001 and revenue declined. It declined more the next year. It declined more the next year. And it stayed down the fourth year. Only in 2005 did we start to get close, and only in 2006 did we get back to the revenue base we had in 2000. Now, just because they cut the revenue base did not stop them from increasing spending. They increased spending 40 percent during this same period. The result was, as I have shown in the previous charts, an explosion of deficits, an explosion of debt. Here is what happened to the deficits. Here they are. They inherited budget surpluses. In 2002, we were back in red ink; in 2003, record deficits; in 2004, a new record; in 2005, one of the three worst deficits in the history of the country; in 2006, again, huge deficits. And here we are in 2007. This is a projection at about the same level as last year, actually somewhat worse. But that doesn't even tell the story because, unfortunately, the buildup of the debt is far greater than the size of the deficit. This was the stated deficit for last year, $248 billion. But the debt grew by $546 billion. We will never hear the word ``debt'' leave the lips of our friends on the other side of the aisle. We will never hear the word ``debt'' leave the lips of our President. Because they know these facts and I know these facts. The ``debt'' is growing much faster than the size of the deficit. It is the debt that is the threat. As we have indicated, increasingly we are borrowing it from abroad. Last year we borrowed 65 percent of all the money that was borrowed by countries in the world. The next biggest borrower was Spain, at one- tenth as much as we borrowed. The hard reality is, we are on a collision course because none of this adds up. The result is, we borrowed over $600 billion from Japan. We borrowed over $300 billion from China. We borrowed over $200 billion from the United Kingdom. We have even now borrowed $50 billion from our neighbors to the north in Canada. In fact, we now owe Mexico over $40 billion. Look, their fiscal prescription has failed--failed completely--and the question is, Do we change course? I believe we must. Part of changing course is to go back to the pay-go discipline we had in previous years. That pay-go discipline--and I want to repeat--says this very clearly: If you want new tax cuts, you have to pay for them. If you want new mandatory spending, you have to pay for it. If you do not pay for it, in either case you have to get a supermajority vote. Let me just make clear on middle-class tax cuts, I believe we ought to pay for them to extend them, but even if you did not, there is no question you would command a supermajority vote on the floor of the Senate. There is no question that you would get 60 votes for the 10- percent bracket, 60 votes for childcare credits, 60 votes to end the marriage penalty. We know you would command 60 votes on any one of those. I personally think we ought to pay for it. But pay-go does not require that you pay for it if you can command a supermajority. What our friends on the other side are worried about are the outsized tax cuts for the wealthiest among us because they believe, and perhaps rightly, that you could not get 60 votes to extend those, which means you would have to pay for them, which, in the context of the growth of deficit and debt, probably makes perfect sense. What is most interesting is the change in my colleague's position because, as I indicated, 5 years ago these were his statements. I will end as I began. Five years ago my colleague said: The second budget discipline, which is pay-go, essentially says if you are going to add a new entitlement program or you are going to cut taxes during a period, especially of deficits, you must offset that event. That is what pay-go does. That is exactly what he said 5 years ago. He was right then. He is wrong now because he has changed his position. He said then: If we do not do this, if we do not put back in place caps and pay-go mechanisms, we will have no budget discipline in this Congress. . . . He went on to say: . . . and, as a result, we will dramatically aggravate the deficit which, of course, impacts a lot of important issues, but especially impacts Social Security. The tragedy is, they gutted pay-go. They gutted it. And the result is precisely what he predicted at the time. The deficits and the debt have exploded. What the House has tried to do and what we will try to do here is restore some basic budget discipline. Pay-go is one part of that. It is not the only part. It is not the salvation to our budget woes, but it is a tool that will help. It helped in the 1990s. It will help now. It does not require tax increases. That is just a false statement. It does not require tax increases. It says if you want new tax cuts, you have to pay for them or get a supermajority vote. He says there are no spending restraints. Wrong again. In pay-go, it says very clearly that you cannot have new mandatory spending unless you offset it. And if you cannot offset it, you have to get a supermajority vote. That is the kind of budget discipline we need. That is the kind of budget discipline we have had in the past, and it led us from major deficits--in fact, record deficits at the time--to record surpluses. To say pay-go is a stalking-horse for tax increases is just false. Pay-go is a budget process tool that is designed to help bring some discipline back to this body, to keep us from running up this massive debt. If you think about it, increasingly we are financing these deficits and debt abroad. Fifty-two percent of our debt now is being financed abroad. As a result, we have doubled foreign holders of our debt in just 5 years. That is an utterly unsustainable course. What could it mean? Well, if these countries which are now advancing us hundreds of billions of dollars decided to diversify out of dollar- denominated securities, what would we have to do? We would have to raise interest rates in order to attract the capital to float this boat. That is what we would have to do. That would have very serious consequences for our economy. That is why we cannot continue on this course. Pay-go is one part of the solution to these problems. It is only one part. I would not even suggest it is the major part. What is really lacking around here is will. What is really lacking around here is telling the American people the truth about our fiscal condition, and only if we tell them the truth will they respond with the urgency that circumstances require. I very much hope we are going to be truth tellers in this Congress and we are going to go to the American people and be frank with them about this buildup of debt and the risks it creates for our country and the fundamental challenge it presents to our long-term economic security. The one place I agree entirely with the Senator from New Hampshire is that the long-term entitlement programs must be reformed because we face a demographic tsunami: the retirement of the baby boom generation. Make no mistake, it is going to change everything. This is fundamentally different from anything we have seen before. And this is not a projection because the baby boomers have been born. They are out there. They are alive today. They are going to retire. They are going to be eligible for Social Security and Medicare. The hard reality is, we cannot foot the bill for all the promises that have been made by past Congresses. The Senator from New Hampshire is dead-on on that issue, and he and I and others are going to work our very best together to try to address these long-term challenges. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD. I do not.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, first I commend my colleague from Kentucky for his legislation. This is an area in which I have had a continuing interest as well. I salute him because one of the great challenges facing our Nation is to dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign energy. That is in our energy interest, it is in our economic interest, it is in our vital security interest. I commend my colleague from Kentucky for coming to the floor and offering his proposal on what we could do to make progress. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, first I commend my colleague from Kentucky for his legislation. This is an area in which I have had a continuing interest as well. I salute him because one of the great challenges facing our Nation is to dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign energy. That is in our energy interest, it is in our economic interest, it is in our vital security interest. I commend my colleague from Kentucky for coming to the floor and offering his proposal on what we could do to make progress. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, on this very first day of the first session of the 110th Congress, I am proud to introduce, with Majority Leader Reid, the Restoring Fiscal Discipline Act of 2007. By including this act in our top 10 legislative priorities, Democrats are sending a message. We are saying to the Nation that it is time to restore fiscal discipline in Washington. Unfortunately, we are inheriting a fiscal mess. It is a fiscal mess of historic proportion. The head of the Government Accountability Office, General Walker, has told us: The U.S. Government is on an imprudent and unsustainable fiscal path. General Walker is right. General Walker is the head of the Government Accountability Office. He is the person responsible for reporting to Congress on our fiscal condition, and he is warning us of the serious course correction that is required. As General Walker has said, and as I agree, the fact is that our budget outlook is far worse than what has been claimed. The increase in debt in 2006 is far greater than the reported deficit. It is very interesting how the media reports these things to the American people. They say to the American people that the deficit last year was $248 billion. That is true. What they do not tell the American people, what is not said, is the debt last year increased by $546 billion--almost $300 billion more than the stated deficit. This is an utterly unsustainable course. To add almost $550 billion of debt in 1 year after having done about that amount each of the last 5 years has put us on a course that is utterly unsustainable. It fundamentally threatens America's economic security. Read the reports. Yesterday and today in the national newspapers you saw stories about the declining value of the dollar. The dollar has been in a deep slide for 3 months. There are reports of countries, one after another, announcing that they intend to diversify their investments out of dollar-denominated securities. There is a message here to all of us--a warning, a warning of America's preeminent position in the financial world being threatened. It is being threatened by a mountain of debt. I have tried to put into visual terms how dramatically the change in debt has been in just the last few years. When this President came to office, after his last full year, the debt stood at $5.8 trillion. We do not hold him responsible for his first year because obviously he was operating under the budget of the previous administration. But look what has happened since. The debt has skyrocketed to $8.5 trillion. If the President's course is pursued, over the next 5 years the debt will rise inexorably to $11.6 trillion, and all of this at the worst possible time, before the baby boom generation retires. This is a time we should be paying down debt, not exploding debt. There is no sober or objective observer who does not recognize the fundamental threat to our economic security caused by these budget policies. We must change course. The result of this rising debt is that increasingly we are borrowing the funds to float this boat from abroad. In 2005, our country borrowed 65 percent of all the money that was borrowed in the world by countries. Let me repeat that. In 2005, our Nation borrowed 65 percent of all the money that was borrowed by countries in the world. The second biggest borrower was Spain. They borrowed one-tenth as much. As we look back, this is a historic time with great challenges. The question before this body and the Congress of the United States and this President will be whether we are honest with the American people about the extent of our financial problems. This is a moment of testing. Will we be honest? Will we be truthful? Will we make the tough choices that are required? In the last 5 years, foreign holdings of our debt have doubled. In other words, it took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up $1 trillion of U.S. debt held abroad. That amount has more than doubled in just the last 5 years. This is a course that cannot be sustained. It must be changed. I come to the floor today to offer an important measure, a measure to restore fiscal discipline, by reimposing the pay-go rule that was so effective in the 1990s at helping us get back on track after the record deficits of the 1980s. We know that pay-go works. It was instrumental in our turning deficits into surpluses in the 1990s. The pay-go rule says simply this: If you want more tax cuts you have to pay for them. If you want new mandatory spending you have to pay for it. If you do not pay for it, you have to muster a supermajority vote on the floor of the Senate for more tax cuts or new mandatory spending to go forward. That is a good rule, but it will not solve the problem. No one should overpromise. No one should overstate. It is going to take serious, consistent discipline on spending, on revenue, and on entitlement reform for us to truly make progress. In the joint caucus this morning, the leadership called on all of us to set aside partisanship to make genuine progress. This is going to be an area in which we have that opportunity. We have a window of opportunity, before we get into the next election cycle, to face up to these fiscal challenges. One part of a successful strategy is to reimpose the pay-go discipline. It is not the only thing, but it is a beginning. In addition to reestablishing the pay-go rule, the legislation I am offering today prohibits the use of the fast-track reconciliation process for any legislation that would add to the deficit. Reconciliation is a big word; it is a fancy word. It confuses people, but it is a special process in the Senate to go around the standard rules of this body to pass legislation. It circumscribes Senators' rights. It restricts their ability to offer amendments. It sets a strict time limit on debate. The only reason those procedures were ever adopted in this body--the only reason--was to reduce budget deficits. Unfortunately, over the last 6 years those special procedures have been used to increase deficits, not to reduce deficits. That stood the whole rationale for reconciliation on its head. It is time for us to go back to the reconciliation process that was intended and only use those extraordinary procedures for reducing deficits, not for increasing them. (Mrs. MURRAY assumed the Chair.)

Mr. CONRAD. I note the very distinguished Member of the Senate, the Senator from the State of Washington and a member of the Senate Budget Committee, who understands full well the subject we are discussing today and the critical need for our Nation to return to a more sound fiscal course. I offer this measure today to restore fiscal discipline. I ask my colleagues to bring their ideas to the Senate floor. You have my commitment as the incoming chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to do my level best to bring our country back. Our country needs us now. Our country needs us to be truthful and honest and to work together. I felt, in the Senate Chamber this morning, a new spirit, a new sense of possibility--perhaps the chance that we can come together in a way that would make us all proud. I very much hope we seize that opportunity. I look forward to working with my colleagues to achieve that result. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to recognize a community in North Dakota that celebrated its 125th anniversary earlier this year. On February 25, 2006, the residents of Mandan kicked off a yearlong celebration of their community's history and founding. Mandan is a vibrant community in west-central North Dakota, located along the bank of the great Missouri River in Morton County. With historic roots dating back to 1100 A.D., when the first Native American settlers arrived, Mandan is rich with history. The city of Mandan was incorporated on February 25, 1881, and named for the Mantani Indians, or ``people of the bank.'' With the development of the railroads and the close proximity to the Missouri river, Mandan flourished and became known as ``Where the West begins.'' Today, with a population of more than 16,000, Mandan remains tied to the railroad, housing a major rail equipment maintenance facility. It is also home to the Hebron Brick factory, which is not only the sole surviving brick factory in the State, but is also the oldest manufacturing company of any kind in the entire State of North Dakota. Mandan is known not only for its historical roots, but also for its beautiful scenery. Mandan has become a magnet for hunters, fishermen, and outdoor enthusiasts of all kinds. Mandan is also home to Fort Lincoln which once served as an important infantry and cavalry post. It is from Fort Lincoln that Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer rode out on his ill-fated expedition against the Sioux at the Little Big Horn. Fort Lincoln is also home to the On-A-Slant Mandan village which has been located there for more than 400 years. To celebrate the 125th anniversary of its founding, Mandan residents have planned a full year's worth of events, which included a kick off party that featured local artists, a kids' carnival and a music performance that represented all 125 years worth of local music. Mr. President, I ask the U.S. Senate to join me in congratulating Mandan, ND, and its residents on the first 125 years and in wishing them well through the next century. By honoring Mandan and all the other historic towns of North Dakota, we keep the great pioneering frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places such as Mandan that have helped to shape this country into what it is today, which is why this fine community is deserving of our recognition. Mandan has a proud past and bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize a community in North Dakota that celebrated its 125th anniversary. On July 7-9, the residents of Thompson gathered to celebrate their community's history and founding. Thompson is a growing community in eastern North Dakota, just 10 miles south of Grand Forks. Settlers came to the area as early as 1874. With the arrival of the railroad 5 years later, more pioneers came to settle in the region. Founded in 1881 with the establishment of a post office, the community name was changed from Norton to Thompson by residents to avoid potential confusion with Norton, MN. Thompson attracts people who like small town living but hold jobs in the nearby city. Thompson residents also celebrate the values they instill upon their children, because those are the same values taught to them years ago. The people of Thompson have worked for a sense of community and, in doing so, have established ``Thompson Days,'' a time to meet neighbors and celebrate the heritage of an entire area. Thompson Days features a parade, garden tour, dances, craft shows, classic car show, horseshoe tournament, and lots of other activities. Mr. President, I ask the U.S. Senate to join me in congratulating Thompson, ND, and its residents on their first 125 years and in wishing them well through the next century. By honoring Thompson and all the other historic small towns of North Dakota, we keep the great pioneering frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places such as Thompson that have helped to shape this country into what it is today, which is why this fine community is deserving of our recognition. Thompson has a proud past and a bright future.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, Bill Hoagland is truly one of the best I have had the chance to serve with in 20 years. Bill Hoagland is deeply knowledgeable, decent, caring. He is one person who has extraordinary credibility on both sides of the aisle. I have known Bill in my 20 years in the Senate. Throughout that period I have served on the Committee on the Budget. Bill has been, at various times, the staff director or the leadership stamp on these issues. I have enjoyed so many quiet moments with Bill in which we have reflected on things that concern us about the direction of the country. More than that, I have enjoyed his uncommon decency. Bill Hoagland is somebody who will be very much missed. I believe Bill Hoagland, because of his intense interest in the fiscal affairs of this country, in the economic well-being of our Nation, will always be there to give good advice. On many occasions I have joked with Bill and made him job offers for far more pay than he was getting on the other side of the aisle. Bill always kind of indulged my humor and never paid too much attention to it because he was firmly rooted on the other side. Bill Hoagland represents the best of this institution. And it is with real sincerity I say I will very much miss Bill's very good judgment in this Senate. I thank the leader for his remarks about our very good friend, Bill Hoagland.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to one of the Senate's finest Members, Senator Paul Sarbanes, who is retiring after 30 years of service in this Chamber. Senator Sarbanes has served this Senate, his State, and our country with dignity, wit, and uncommon wisdom. He is simply one of the smartest, most principled people I have ever known. He is, quite simply, a class act. Paul Sarbanes has focused his energies on governance and effective legislating. This thoughtful approach has served him well, served his State well, and served this Chamber well. Paul Sarbanes never lost an election, and he is the longest serving Senator in the history of the State of Maryland. In the Senate, Paul Sarbanes served with great distinction as chairman and ranking member of the Banking and Joint Economic Committees and has long provided wise counsel on the Foreign Relations Committee. At the Banking Committee, he has been relentless in protecting consumers from unscrupulous financial acts. When the country was hit by scandals in the Enron and WorldCom cases, Paul Sarbanes acted to protect against further abuse and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act is the result. That is an act that has stopped further abuse. Paul Sarbanes also fought for affordable housing, for adequate public transportation, for transparency at the Federal Reserve. In debating former Fed Chairmen and the current one, he has never let central bankers forget that they must pursue a dual mandate, with jobs for Americans on an equal footing with fighting inflation. It has been my honor and my privilege to serve with Senator Sarbanes on the Budget Committee. Few can match his understanding of economics and the interaction between the budget and the economy. His insightful and tenacious questioning, his even temper, and his humor have made being his colleague on the Budget Committee both rewarding and a pleasure. My favorite story about Paul Sarbanes is from his youth. Paul Sarbanes was an outstanding athlete. He was a great baseball player and a great basketball player. In fact, he was so good in baseball that he was chosen as a Maryland All Star. He was chosen to play shortstop on that team. When he showed up for the first practice, the manager directed him to second base. Paul Sarbarnes was a little surprised by that because he had been chosen to play shortstop. But he went out and played second base. He thought there might be some mistake. The next day, he came to the next practice and was again directed by the manager to play second base. At this point, Senator Sarbanes thought he should go to the manager and inquire why--since he had been chosen to play shortstop--he was playing second base. The manager looked him in the eye and said, ``Sarbanes, Kaline will be playing shortstop.'' Of course, the Kaline was Al Kaline, who became a Hall of Fame baseball player. That is some measure of the extraordinary athletic talent that Paul Sarbarnes had. It was not his athletic talent that so distinguished him in this body; it was his remarkable academic talent, his remarkable ability to deal with others. I think in my time in the Senate I have never dealt with a person of greater wisdom than Paul Sarbarnes. I wish Senator Sarbanes the very best in his retirement and whatever endeavors he will pursue. His wife, too, has become a special favorite to our family--so bright, so talented, and such a good partner with Paul Sarbarnes. I know they are deeply proud that their son has been elected to the Congress of the United States to represent a district in Maryland. Paul Sarbarnes has been a great colleague and a very dear friend to me. I will miss him and his service on the Budget Committee and in the Senate. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to a retiring colleague, Senator Dayton of Minnesota. Mark Dayton has made a career of public service, in the very best sense of the term. After graduating from college, he taught public school in New York City and served as a counselor to teenage runaways before returning to Minnesota. For 20 years, he served in a variety of positions in State government in Minnesota, from commissioner of Economic Development to State auditor. In the Senate, Mark Dayton has been an independent voice in the tradition of our former colleague, Paul Wellstone. He eschewed political expediency and instead relied on his conscience in making important decisions. For example, he agonized over his vote on the Iraq war, before ultimately deciding to join the small minority of Senators who voted against it. I have worked most closely with Mark on agriculture and other issues affecting rural Americans. Trhoughout his Senate service, he has been a strong and consistent voice on behalf of family farmers. He has helped lead the fight for much needed disaster relief. He has opposed misguided cuts to commodity and conservation programs. And he has been a leader in calling for a significant expansion of ethanol and other renewable fuels that can benefit our rural economies and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Senator Dayton has also been a strong voice on behalf of our troops and their families at home. He has called for better armor and equipment. He has insisted on better care for veterans. And he spearheaded efforts to ensure that soldiers on leave could get all the way home to visit their loved ones rather than simply being dropped off at remote cities and asked to pay last-minute air fares to get home. Mark Dayton has insisted on integrity and honesty in every aspect of his public life. He has been a true champion for Minnesota. Lucy and I wish him well as he goes on to other ventures. lincoln chafee Mr. President, I would like to pay tribute to Senator Lincoln Chafee. Senator Chafee has served the people of Rhode Island well. He has distinguished himself in a number of important policy areas, including strengthening environmental protections and strengthening our national security. I most appreciated his efforts to promote fiscal responsibility. Senator Chafee has been steadfastly committed to sound government budget policies. While he supported easing tax burdens for families by ending the marriage tax penalty and increasing the child tax credit, he had the courage to oppose irresponsible, budget-busting measures that, while politically popular, have resulted in huge fiscal deficits and an unsustainable increase in the Federal debt. Senator Chafee has also been an unwavering supporter of reinstating pay-as-you-go constraints on the Federal budget first implemented by President Bush's father in 1990. Under those rules, any tax cut or increase in Government spending must be accompanied by an equal spending cut or revenue increase. I also appreciated Senator Chafee's commitment to bipartisanship. He understands that reaching across the aisle and working together more often than not results in better decisions and better, longer lasting policy solutions. His efforts were not always appreciated by those in charge over the last couple of years. But those of us who worked closely with him know his commitment is genuine and his word is good. I was pleased to welcome Senator Chafee to the Senate in 1999 when he was appointed to fill the seat of his late father. I had the pleasure of working often with John Chafee. We were both members of the Senate Finance Committee. I was not surprised to find that the son, like his father, was tough but fair-minded and a man of strong principle. Senator Chafee brought a unique set of skills to the Senate. A native Rhode Islander, he earned a B.A. in classics from Brown University and was captain of the wrestling team. Instead of following immediately in his father's footsteps, however, he initially worked as a blacksmith at harness race tracks in the United States and Canada and later in manufacturing management. These experiences gave him a great deal of respect for working people and helped him build a strong sense of independence and plain old common sense. It is also clear that Senator Chafee never forgets his other important job. As a father of three school-aged children, he often reminds his colleagues to consider the impact of our decisions on the next generation. Whether he is working to preserve fragile wetlands in his beloved home State, helping strengthen our homeland security, or preventing massive debts from accruing, he talks often about our responsibility to our children. Senator Chafee has served the State of Rhode Island with integrity and compassion. He will be missed. conrad burns Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge my colleague from Montana, Senator Conrad Burns, who will be leaving this body after serving Montanans for the past 18 years. Since our States border one another, Senator Burns and I have had the opportunity to work together on issues important to our region and the Nation. Senator Burns has been a strong advocate for the interests of his State. In 2002, Senator Burns and I joined forces to create the Bipartisan Task Force on Tribal Colleges and Universities. One of the goals we set for the task force was to secure adequate resources on the Federal level to support and grow these valuable institutions. Senator Burns, as chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, was a strong advocate in helping the task force achieve this goal. Under his leadership, the tribal colleges received some of the largest increases in Federal funding since their inception. This support has opened the door of opportunity for thousands of American Indians. During this past year, we have also worked together on agricultural disaster assistance legislation. Because both of our States have a strong agricultural sector in our economy, this issue is very important to our constituents. The support he has given to agricultural disaster legislation in both the Senate Appropriations Committee and the full Senate has been important to our efforts, and I appreciate his strong support. Senator Burns was also a valuable member of the ICBM coalition. During these past years, he and I have worked together to make sure our Nation has a strong military deterrent to emerging world threats. Since he arrived in Washington as a Senator only 2 years after I did, we have watched the debates and policy discussions in this body together for almost two decades now. During that time we have seen economic ups and downs, a major change in international power structure, and the new challenges we face after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Again, Mr. President, I have appreciated the opportunity to work with Senator Burns and wish him well as he leaves the Senate. jim jeffords Mr. President, today I would like to take a moment to recognize my friend and colleague, Jim Jeffords, who after 32 years of distinguished service in Congress is retiring to spend more time with his family. Jim Jeffords' family roots in Vermont can be traced all the way back to 1794. After attending public schools in Rutland, Jim received his undergraduate degree from Yale University and his law degree from Harvard Law School. He served in the U.S. Navy and retired from the U.S. Naval Reserve. I have worked closely with Jim Jeffords for years on the Centrist Coalition. He is a good friend and someone I could always trust. Jim has always been independent-minded with a strong sense of integrity, a real commitment to fiscal responsibility, an unparalleled dedication to the environment, and a passion for improving education for our children. During his time in Congress, Jim Jeffords left his mark on some of the most important legislation this institution has passed, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the 2005 highway bill. In 2001, Jim Jeffords made a historic and difficult decision to switch his party affiliation to an Independent. He was never afraid to make tough decisions, and this one was no exception. It took courage to stand up against the rising tide, knowing that his decision would tip the balance in the Senate and set us on a new course. Jim Jeffords embodies what it means to be a good Senator--honesty, a strong work ethic, courage, dedication, and being true to one's convictions. He is also thoughtful, modest, and soft spoken. With these character traits it is hard to believe that he has a black belt in tae kwon do. Jim Jeffords has been a true fighter for Vermont. His compassion and conviction will be missed in the U.S. Senate. I wish Jim and his family many happy years ahead. mike dewine Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute and recognize the accomplishments of a colleague who will be leaving the Senate at the end of this term. Senator Mike DeWine has represented Ohio in the Senate for 12 years. During his tenure, he has been an important advocate for the interests of the Buckeye State. Senator DeWine will be remembered for his work on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and particu1arly his success as chairman of the Subcommittee on Retirement Security and Aging. He was a vital and constructive member of the conference committee on the Pension Protection Act, and he illustrated what can be accomplished when you are willing to work across party lines on a common goal. I have also admired Senator DeWine's commitment to our Nation's children and his efforts to stop teen drug and alcohol abuse, as well as crack down on tobacco companies' marketing of their products to children and teens. With unfailing courage, he took on those in his own party and other special interests to protect our kids from harmful tobacco products. In addition, I believe he has set a good example for all of us in the Senate in how to honor those from our States who have fallen in service to our Nation. With deep admiration, I have listened to Senator DeWine come to the floor and speak about the lives and families of Ohio service men and women who have died in Iraq and other fields of battle. It is clear that he understands and deeply respects the sacrifices made by our troops and their families. Mr. President, for these and many other reasons, I have been honored to serve with Mike DeWine. I would like to join my colleagues in wishing the Senator and his family the best in the future and in paying tribute to his contributions to the Senate and our Nation. I wish him well. MIKE DeWINE

Mr. CONRAD

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me just point out that 32 major farm organizations have asked this body to support my amendment and also to support a budget waiver, if it is raised, against the amendment. That has already been done. So that will be the key vote. What is essential is that we get 60 votes, or close to it, so that farmers know there is a possibility of disaster assistance. There are 32 national organizations, including the National Farmers Union, American Farm Bureau, Farm Credit Council, the Sugarbeet Growers, Soybean Association, and the American Corn Growers Association. It also has the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. The commissioners of agriculture from all 50 States have come forward and said: Please pass this legislation. It also includes the Barley Growers, the Farmer Cooperatives, National Farmers Organization, Milk Producers, the Sunflower Association, the Rice Belt Warehousers, the Fertilizer Institute, U.S. Dried Peas and Lentils Council, U.S. Beet Sugar Association, U.S. Canola Association, and Women Involved in Farm Economics. They all say unanimously that this legislation is important and it is important now. To those colleagues or their staffs who are watching the final minutes of this debate and discussion who are wondering, Gee, does this do what the critics say; does it unjustly enrich someone; let me say that the answer to that is an emphatic no. This example I have prepared shows, in North Dakota, what a farmer would get in a typical year on an acre of wheat, which is $157. With a 50-percent loss, he gets $78.60 from the market, $27 in insurance premium, and $7 for this amendment, for a total of $113. He would still be left with a 28-percent loss. For a farmer who has a 75-percent loss of his crop, he would get $39 from the market, $54 in insurance premium, $19.50 from this amendment, for a total of $113, leaving him or her with a loss of 28 percent as well. People are not being unjustly enriched and they are not being made whole. We are simply offsetting some of the dramatic losses people have received as a result of natural disaster--the third worst drought in our Nation's history. I don't know how much more clear I can be. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. In our part of the country, we have supported every region when they have had disasters. We were the first to sign up after Katrina for aid to them and the Gulf Coast States. We recognized their loss. We were among the first to sign up to help Florida in the terrible losses it has suffered. We were among the first to sign up when California experienced terrible losses as a result of natural disasters, whether it was wildfires, mud slides, or any of the rest. We have had a disaster in our part of the country now. We are asking our colleagues to help us. We will remember those who helped, just as we have helped others in their time of need. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given an additional 4 minutes.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the order is for the vote to occur at 5 o'clock; is that correct?

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

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we are about to have a consequential vote. The question before the body is whether the Senate believes disaster assistance ought to be provided to this Nation's farmers and ranchers-- what is now reported to be the third worst drought in the Nation's history. Right down the center of America, we have had a blistering drought. The results: farm fields that look like moonscapes and economic losses that are stunning and ruinous. In other disasters, Congress has responded, especially disasters that have gotten more attention. Perhaps because this disaster is right in the heart of America, where most of the national news media is not headquartered, this disaster has not gotten the attention so many other disasters have. Make no mistake, this disaster is no less devastating. People's economic lives are on the line. We understand full well that this will not be decided today because our friends on the other side, who are in the majority still, have determined not to finish work on the pending appropriations bills. They are leaving that to next year. So this work will not be complete. But this vote remains important because it will signal to the Nation's farmers and ranchers whether there is hope that help is on the way. If there is no hope and there is no help, we are going to see literally tens of thousands of farm and ranch families forced off the land. That is clear. This is a fiscally responsible package. Some have said it is a budget buster. They know, as all of us in this Chamber know, there is no budget for natural disasters--none. That is because it is hard to predict what natural disasters will occur. So every natural disaster must be dealt with on an emergency basis. That is why it requires a supermajority vote. That is the question that is before the body this afternoon. This bill costs $4.8 billion for relief for 2005 and 2006. It is a fraction of what disaster relief was for the years 2000 and 2001. That disaster package was $25 billion. This is less than one-fifth that amount. In answer to the question some colleagues have raised, there are payment limitations--an $80,000 payment limitation. There is a gross- income test. On the question of those who grow the grains we consume as a nation, let me just say, you have to have at least a 35-percent loss before you get anything. Nobody with no loss gets a dime under this proposal. I urge my colleagues to vote to waive the budget point of order so we can send a signal to the Nation's farmers and ranchers that help is on the way. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time be equally charged.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to advise me after I have used 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, may we have a report on how much time remains on both sides?

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

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am glad to yield the Senator from Minnesota 6 minutes.

Mr. CONRAD. I ask the Senator from Minnesota, how much time would you like?