Congressional Budget for the United States Government for Fiscal Year 2009 -- Continued

Floor Speech

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET FOR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009--Continued -- (Senate - March 12, 2008)

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?

The Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the leaders for the action they have taken for a short-term extension of the farm bill so that we can conclude action on it. It has been a negotiation that has gone on well over a year. That is not unusual for a farm bill which is extremely contentious.

I wanted to comment briefly on the Republican leader's statements this morning about our budget. As I was driving in this morning, I heard another Republican on the air saying that we have a trillion-dollar tax increase in this budget. I don't know what budget they are talking about because it certainly is not the budget we have presented here. There is no trillion-dollar tax increase here. There is no tax increase assumed here. Honestly, if I would go down to the Senate dining room and come to this floor and introduce the dining room menu as the budget for the United States, our Republican colleagues would say it was a trillion-dollar tax increase.

This is what they said last year, and we hear the same mantra again this year: It is a trillion-dollar tax increase. When they said it last year, we didn't have a record of a Democratic Congress to refute their claim. Now we do. We can look back and see precisely what happened with Democrats in control. How much did taxes increase after the Republicans asserted repeatedly we were going to increase taxes a trillion dollars? What happened? What happened on the record, not a projection, not a forecast, not rhetorical, what is the fact? It is very interesting. Democrats controlling the House, controlling the Senate, cut taxes $194 billion--not a tax increase, a tax cut that overwhelmingly has gone to the middle class. That is the Democratic record.

Let me say about this budget, we don't have the vast spending increases they are talking about. For this year, if you look at total spending, we have 1 percent more than the President's budget. Where is that money going? We put it into energy, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We put it into education, and we put it into infrastructure because we don't want any more bridges, like the one in Minnesota last year, collapsing into the river with people driving home from work. That is a fact.

In terms of revenue, the truth is that over the 5 years, we have 2.6 percent more revenue than in the President's budget. We believe that can be obtained not with a tax increase--don't need a tax increase to get it--you can go after the tax gap, the difference between what companies and people owe versus what they are actually paying. You can go after these offshore tax havens which the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has told us are costing this country $100 billion a year. You can go after these abusive tax shelters where we have the spectacle of companies in the United States, banks buying foreign sewer systems and depreciating them on their books in the United States to reduce their tax bill here, and then they lease the sewer systems back to the European cities that built them. My goodness. We are better than that as a nation, better than letting people abuse the vast majority of us who are honest. That is not right. That is not fair.

I have shown on this floor many times a picture of a five-story office building in the Cayman Islands called Ugland House. That 5-story building is home to 12,800 companies. I would say that is the most efficient building in the world.

Mr. President, 12,800 companies claim they are doing business out of this little five-story building in the Cayman Islands. They are not doing business there. The only business they are doing is monkey business. What they are doing is evading their taxes.

Now we have seen, according to the Boston Globe, another building down in the Cayman Islands--this time a four- or five-story building too--and we know KBR, who is the biggest contractor for security forces in Iraq and additional workers in Iraq for the U.S. military effort there, is running an operation out of that building to evade the Social Security taxes and the Medicare taxes of thousands and thousands of workers they have employed for Iraq--another tax scam.

It is exactly the kind of thing we on this side think should be closed down. Over and over, when we have tried, this President said: No, you can't do that. That would be a tax increase. Really? Is that a tax increase? I do not think so. Making people pay their fair share, like the vast majority of Americans already do--I do not think that is a tax increase. I think that is making those folks pay like all the rest of us do. That is fair.

Mr. President, we have Senators on the floor ready to offer an amendment. I want to go to that at this moment.

I ask Senator Bingaman, how much time----

Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I will withhold. Senator Gregg is seeking recognition.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.

SENATOR CONRAD 'S 60TH BIRTHDAY

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise this morning to say this is a big, big, big day for the chairman of the committee, and I know he would not want this day to go unacknowledged after having made such an eloquent statement. But it is the chairman's 60th birthday today. So I congratulate him and say, on his 60th birthday, we appreciate all he has done for the last 60 years, and we hope he will be here for another 60 years.

I yield the floor.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member for his continuing courtesy and graciousness. This is my 60th. As I left the house this morning, I told my wife and our son, who is there visiting, I have to question: What have I done wrong in my life to have my 60th birthday spent here managing the budget? But I will get over it.

I appreciate the many courtesies of the ranking member. This is a special day for me, and I am looking forward to a good debate.

With that, we want to go to the next amendment, unless the Senator--

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after Senator Bingaman has spoken on his amendment, and to the extent Senator Alexander wishes to speak, that we then, after that, go to our side for the next amendment.

Mr. CONRAD. Fair enough.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I think the amendment the ranking member has set up for Senator Specter doesn't actually have full repeal. Instead, what it does is change the individual alternative minimum tax from its current two-rate structure of 26 percent and 28 percent to the single 24-percent rate that was in effect prior to 1993. I believe that is what the Specter amendment does.

The first priority, of course, for dealing with the AMT is to protect families who have not been subject to it previously. So our resolution acknowledges this priority and provides a 1-year patch to prevent the alternative minimum tax from affecting another 20 million American households. That is at a cost of $62 billion.

I would prefer that cost be offset, but last year that was not the will of the body. It was not the will of the body in the very clear and compelling vote. So we don't have it offset in our resolution this year.

Our resolution acknowledges the political reality that the will of this body is to extend alternative minimum tax relief without paying for it. Restructuring the AMT, as Senator Specter proposes, is even more expensive. The Specter amendment would lose $185 billion in revenue, and it is not paid for in any way--by spending reductions or other revenue--and therefore it simply gets added to the deficit and debt. If it were adopted as is, the resolution would be in deficit in every year of the budget window.

Mr. President, I don't think that is fiscally responsible, so I am offering an amendment that accomplishes the same policy purpose but requires that it be offset, paid for, so that it is not added to the deficit and is not added to the debt.

I inquire of the Senator, did he send up the Specter amendment?

Mr. GREGG. I did.

AMENDMENT NO. 4190

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I send the Conrad amendment to the desk.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CONRAD. If I can address one of the concerns of the Senator, when we vote--this is a very awkward question, I say to my colleague. Let me be very direct about what it is. We are missing two of our votes. We have a third Member who is ill. So what we have said is we would defer votes on these major matters until at least some of our Members are back. The body is very closely divided. We are completely ready to have votes on other matters throughout this day. The problem is, with the major votes on these consequential issues where we are missing two of our Presidential candidates until tomorrow--they will be here Thursday and Friday--and we are missing Senator Byrd who, as you know, is ill, that is the reason we have asked to defer votes on these major amendments until tomorrow. It is a difficult situation. It has been throughout.

I do thank the Republican caucus for the extraordinary courtesy they extended to the Budget Committee by allowing Senator Byrd to vote--to allow proxy voting in our committee. Our committee does not allow proxy voting, and for a very good reason. We are the only committee that can report a fast-track vehicle to the Senate floor directly. But I do thank the Republican side for doing that. It was very gracious. I think it was in the best tradition of the Senate.

Here on the Senate floor, of course, there is no ability to allow that accommodation to a colleague who is ill. That is the circumstance. I regret it. I just say to my colleague, we are happy to have as many votes as you want to have. The reason we have deferred these major votes until tomorrow is for the reason I have given.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I appreciate that. In suggesting another reason for this, I do not think I am wrong in that, but I do acknowledge that certainly what the chairman of the Budget Committee has said is true. I appreciate his acknowledgment of our courtesy with respect to Senator Byrd. I know the Democratic side would do the same thing. That was done on a previous occasion last year as well. It is one of the better traditions of the Senate.

It is also true probably this is not the first time this year because, for the first time in the history of the United States, I am informed, two Senators will be running against each other for the Presidency so that there may be other occasions where, when there are very close votes, our schedule may to some extent need to accommodate their schedules. Of course, as Members of this body they need to be here to do business as well, but we understand that is not always possible. If we could adhere to a slightly more set schedule that might be possible, but since we don't and it is almost impossible to have that kind of schedule, that issue is one that has to be accommodated, and I appreciate what the chairman said.

I do hope the trend we have seen from 2 years ago to last year to this year of not having votes early on during the week that we consider the budget, but bunching them all at the end, a process which I don't think anybody in this body really likes, would not continue; that certainly the reason the chairman indicated will not pertain next year and that we can revert to the practice next year that we have traditionally followed, which is to try to have debate on amendments, votes, and then debate and then votes, and so on, hopefully, thereby minimizing the number of votes that we consider in this so-called vote-athon that, as I said, nobody in this body likes very much.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would just say to my colleague, last year we did much better.

Mr. KYL. Than this year.

Mr. CONRAD. You remember last year we did more votes earlier. Just in line with what the Senator is thinking because that is the best way. I think all of us would agree that is the best way to do our business, to do the votes earlier. You will recall on the vote-arama on that Friday we actually finished at 2 o'clock in the afternoon because we did have more votes earlier. I am entirely, 100 percent in agreement with the Senator. I would far prefer to do it that way. I think it is easier to follow the debate and to have the votes then coincident with the debate.

(Mr. DURBIN assumed the Chair.)

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, if I might, just on the underlying amendment offered by the Senator, this amendment as we understand it--we have just seen it--would virtually eliminate the estate tax. Let me say why. Let me first say there is no death tax in the country. Of course, if you poll people and you ask them: Do you want to eliminate the death tax? they will say sure. I had a baggage handler stop a colleague of mine, and he said: My No. 1 priority is to eliminate that death tax. My colleague, who is the current occupant of the chair, told him there is no death tax here. You are not going to pay any tax when you die unless you have $2 million.

The guy was very surprised about that because he heard all this talk about a death tax. There is no death tax in America. There is a tax on estates. At today's level you would have to have $2 million to be taxed. That affects only one-half of 1 percent of estates. When the exemption increases, as it does under current law, and reaches $3.5 million per individual, $7 million a couple in 2009, which is next year, only two-tenths of estates will be taxed.

If you are out there and you are hearing about this death tax, don't worry. It does not apply, next year, to 99.8 percent of people who pass away. It only applies to two-tenths of 1 percent of estates.

We already have a tax structure that has overwhelmingly benefited the wealthiest among us. The amendment by the Senator would cost an additional $478 billion over 10 years, and none of it is paid for. That means it goes on the debt. That means we have to borrow that amount of money, and where are we going to borrow it? We are now borrowing over half the money at our bond auctions from abroad--most of it from the Chinese and the Japanese. So we would have, if the amendment of the Senator is agreed to as is, the unusual situation of borrowing this money primarily from China and Japan to give a tax advantage to two-tenths of 1 percent of the people, but the borrowing would be in the name of all of the American people. So 99.8 percent of the American people would be borrowing this money, primarily from China and Japan, to give it to the Warren Buffets, the Paris Hiltons, and others of enormous wealth in this country.

I do not think that is a good policy. In the underlying budget, we have improved the estate tax situation, reformed it in what is, I think, a reasonable way. This is the bizarre circumstance that is in current law. The exemption now, in 2008, is $4 million--$2 million a person. OK? So if you are a husband or wife and you pass away at the same time, you have $4 million of exemption that applies today. You don't pay anything if you have estates of less than $4 million.

In 2009 that will go up to $7 million. Then in 2010, under current law, there is no estate tax, it is repealed. Then, in 2011--it is utterly bizarre--it goes down to $2 million per couple, $1 million a person.

In the underlying budget we are saying, no, that makes no sense at all to go back down to $2 million a couple, $1 million a person. It should be at $7 million a couple, as it is in 2009. If, in fact, we adopt those levels, virtually no one will pay the estate tax. That is a fact.

Here is what has happened under current law: The number of estates that are taxed is falling very dramatically. In 2000, there were 50,000 taxable estates. In 2006, that has been reduced to 13,000. In 2009, we are now expecting there will only be 7,000 estates that will pay anything. As I indicated, that is two-tenths of 1 percent; 99.8 percent of estates are completely exempt. That is a fact.

Now I am going to lay down an amendment.

Mr. GREGG. Would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CONRAD. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. GREGG. Is it my understanding you are telling us how many people are going to die in 2009 in this part of the Democratic budget; that you are projecting deaths in 2009 to be 7,000?

Mr. CONRAD. No, this is this Tax Policy Center, I say to my colleague, and they estimate the number of estates in any year, and then they do a further analysis of how many would actually pay an estate tax, and what they have concluded is two-tenths of 1 percent.

Mr. GREGG. If the Senator would yield further, I wanted to clarify where the number came from. I did not know if the Senator, as chairman of the Budget Committee, was calling on this number of people to die during 2009 for the chart?

Mr. CONRAD. I know the Senator is pulling my chain. Even as slow witted as I am, I can recognize when a Senator is pulling my chain, and here on my birthday, my friend and my colleague is doing that.

What we have tried to do is come up with an alternative. I will send this amendment to the desk to provide an alternative approach to that which the Senator from Arizona is offering, to go over and above what is in the Baucus amendment.

I say to my colleague, it provides another $45 billion, so that in addition to extending the estate tax exemptions of 2009, $7 million a couple, $3.5 million an individual, instead of dropping down to $2 million a couple or $1 million, we stay at the $7 million; index it for inflation.

But in this amendment I am sending to the desk, I say to my colleague, it also provides another $45 billion in a reserve fund, which means it would have to be offset either by a spending reduction or other revenue to further close the gap between what Senator Baucus provided in his amendment the other day, and the amendment Senator Kyl has laid down here.

That would be $45 billion in additional room in order to further reform the estate tax. I want to make clear that would be in a reserve fund, so it would have to be offset, it would have to be paid for.

Mr. KYL. I ask the chairman to yield for a question. The additional $45 billion, would you have an estimate as to--well, first, what policy in the estate tax would be attached to that? And if it is to add to the exempted amount, what would that take the exempted amount up to?

Mr. CONRAD. I do not know. This is not my amendment. This is an amendment Senator Baucus and others have crafted. So I apologize to the Senator, I do not know how much more of an exemption that would permit. But others who have crafted this amendment hopefully will have an answer that can be provided when they are available.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if I might further, I had understood an amendment such as this might be offered. My understanding was it would accommodate both an increase in the exempted amount to $5 million per spouse, and I also believe to reduce the rate further from 45 down to 35, which would make it identical to my amendment. I might be wrong on that. If you can ask the author of the amendment here if that is true, it would conform it to the levels set in the amendment I have laid down as well.

I wonder, as long as I have interrupted the chairman, if I might make one or two other points.

Mr. CONRAD. Maybe I can conclude this part and go back to the Senator from Illinois who is also inquiring and answer his question.

Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator would yield. I wish to ask the Senator a question. I do not know if you want to offer your amendment first.

AMENDMENT NO. 4196

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I send this amendment to the desk. I have styled it Conrad No. 2. In fact, it is not my amendment. It is the amendment of the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, who is at this very moment chairing a hearing on this subject, so he could not be here. That is why I am sending it to the desk.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CONRAD. I ask that Senator Baucus be permitted, when he is able, to further discuss his amendment. I know we have got time reserved for that purpose.

Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator from North Dakota would further yield, I was listening carefully to his debate as I presided. It is my understanding that he says under current law, two-tenths of 1 percent of the people who die in the United States each year might be subject to liability to pay the estate tax or, as the Republicans called it, the so-called death tax.

Mr. CONRAD. Yes, that is true, under the exemption rates for next year. Under the exemption rates for next year, it will be two-tenths of 1 percent. I believe this year it is five-tenths of 1 percent; there are 99.5 percent this year that are exempt. Next year it will be 99.8 percent exempt, as the rate goes up.

Mr. DURBIN. I tried to do a quick calculation on the .2 percent. I think I have come to the conclusion that each year in America, 3.5 million Americans die. Of that number, you are projecting that 7,000 out of 3.5 million might have some estate tax liability next year?

Mr. CONRAD. That is the correct math.

Mr. DURBIN. It is my understanding the proposal by the Senator from Arizona is to further enlarge the exemption of those who pay this tax, so that even fewer than 7,000 will actually pay. Is that correct?

Mr. CONRAD. My understanding is--and the Senator might correct me--that under the Kyl proposal the cost would be approaching $200 billion over--$458 billion over 10 years.

Mr. DURBIN. So the Senator from North Dakota, as chairman of the Budget Committee, has come to the floor repeatedly with a chart which he can get his hands on in a moment that talks about the accumulation of debt in America under the Bush administration compared to the accumulation of debt in America under all previous Presidents. Does the Senator recall the numbers that were involved in that chart?

Mr. CONRAD. Well, first, in terms of the gross debt of the United States, under this President's watch, the gross debt has nearly doubled. The foreign holding of U.S. debt has more than doubled.

This is it. It took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up $1 trillion of external debt. Perhaps this is the chart the Senator is referring to. It took 42 Presidents, all of these Presidents pictured, 224 years to run up $1 trillion of debt, U.S. debt held abroad. This President, as you can see, has far more than doubled that amount in 7 years.

Mr. DURBIN. Let me, through the Chair, ask the Senator from North Dakota a question. The pending amendment by the Senator from Arizona is not paid for, which means he has not suggested increasing some other tax to set it off or cutting spending to offset it; it is simply added to the debt of America. And if that debt the Senator from Arizona wants to add to our national debt over the next 10 years is funded from foreign sources, how much more is going to be added to this figure by the amendment of the Senator from Arizona?

Mr. CONRAD. Well, if his amendment costs another $458 billion, it is not offset. And in a typical bond auction now conducted by the United States, over half of the money, well over half now, is money from abroad. So you can take well over half of the $458 billion, and it would be added to this external debt.

Mr. DURBIN. I wish to ask the Senator, who is going to pay this debt?

Mr. CONRAD. Well, that is the unfortunate part of, as I see it, the amendment of the Senator from Arizona. What he is doing is saying--he is asking all of us, all Americans, to put our name on the bill. But the money is only going to two-tenths of 1 percent of us. I think that is unfortunate.

Mr. KYL. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DURBIN. I will yield when I am done.

Mr. KYL. I think it would be fair to let me answer.

Mr. DURBIN. I think the Senator from North Dakota has the floor. I am sure he will yield to the Senator from Arizona.

So that I understand this--I want to make it clear--in order to spare, at a maximum, 7,000 of the wealthiest people in America who may die in the outgoing years, in order to spare them estate tax liability, even though America has been very kind to them and they have lived very comfortable lives because of this great Nation, to spare them the possibility of paying back to this country for having lived and enjoyed this great Nation, we are going to add some $400 billion plus in debt to Americans. And over half of that will end up being debt we owe to foreign countries, as I understand the Senator from North Dakota. Is that correct?

Mr. CONRAD. I think that is clearly correct.

Mr. DURBIN. So for those who are so-called fiscal conservatives, we are going to cut taxes for the wealthiest people in America, and add debt for everyone else in America, an added debt we are going to borrow from overseas and ask our children to pay for it. It sounds like a great idea if you happen to be in the lucky 7,000 club. This lucky 7,000 club that will be benefitted by Senator Kyl's amendment will have a great outcome. It appears that everyone loses--I take that back. Everyone but China and Japan and other countries will be losers in this proposal by the Senator from Arizona. Is that correct?

Mr. CONRAD. Yes, I think that is undeniably the case. The problem this country confronts now is we have massive deficits and, under this President, a dramatic increase in the debt. So all of these provisions are based on borrowed money. So why would we go borrow this amount of money, which is increasingly from foreign countries, in order to give a benefit to two-tenths of 1 percent of the American people, when 99.8 percent of the estates in this country are already exempted from the taxation? That is lost on me.

Mr. DURBIN. If I can ask one more question--I know the Senator from Arizona wishes to speak--aside from the lucky 7,000 club the Senator from Arizona is taking care of, the wealthiest people in America--nothing but good luck, they have lived comfortable lives in a great democratic, free nation with the protection of our laws, and now, as they leave and go to perhaps a better place, they want to make sure they do not pay back to this Nation, aside from the lucky 7,000 club.

I wish to ask the Senator from North Dakota, I have heard this concept, talking about pay as you go, that the Democrats, when they came to control the Congress, would pay for any tax cuts or any spending increases so it would not add to the national debt. So I wish to ask the Senator from North Dakota, I know he believes in it very passionately: Is this a pay-as-you-go proposal from the Republican side so that there is no net loss to future generations? Is this being taken care of by the Senator from Arizona offsetting it, for example, with an increase in taxes on maybe working people of this country or some other group or cutting spending in some other area?

Mr. CONRAD. No, this is all put on the tab. This is all borrowed money.

Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator.

Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CONRAD. I still have the floor. The Senator from Arizona was seeking to ask me a question.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would be happy to have the ranking member of the committee make a comment. But I wish to correct some of the facts. I can do that either on the Senator's time or on our time.

Mr. CONRAD. I am happy to yield to the Senator from New Hampshire if the Senator wishes to engage in this debate or any other debate.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CONRAD. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KYL. Of course.

Mr. CONRAD. I would like to try to harmonize the numbers because I don't want to leave people with the misimpression that we have some difference on the numbers because I don't think we do. The Senator is talking about 131,000 estates possibly being affected. But that would be at the million-dollar-a-person exemption level; is that not the case?

Mr. KYL. I believe that is exactly the case. By the year 2015, it would be 177,000 estates.

Mr. CONRAD. But that is assuming we have a million-dollar-per-person exemption. Under what is in the budget, we would have $3.5 million per person--$7 million a couple--which, according to our figures, would give only 7,000 estates out of 3.5 million any tax. I think the difference between your 11,000 and my 7,000 was, you are talking about estates that have a filing responsibility. I am talking about estates that would actually have a tax liability. As the Senator well knows, there are some additional people who have a filing obligation even though they don't have a liability.

The numbers the Senator and I are using are actually quite close. We are using somewhat different assumptions. He is talking about if we went down, which current law does, to a million dollar exemption in 2011, 131,000 estates would be affected. What we are seeking to do is to make certain that does not occur, that the exemption amount be $3.5 million a person, $7 million a couple, which would exempt 99.8 percent of estates.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would say to the chairman he is correct. I cannot verify the number 7,000 the chairman is talking about, but I can verify the number I am talking about. The Joint Committee on Taxation projects that 11,800 estates would be required to file estate tax returns each year. So that is a correct statement.

Of course, the additional point I made earlier was that not everybody knows exactly what their liability is and, therefore, you have about 10 times as many people who have to end up filling out the forms, going to the expense of anywhere between $5,000 and $1 million to complete the forms, the 38 hours it takes to do it, only to find some of them do have a tax liability at the end of the day. Some of them do not. The fact that you may not be subject to the tax does not diminish the fact that you will be obligated to spend the money to file a return and do all the work to try to figure out that, in fact, you don't owe the tax.

Mr. CONRAD. That is absolutely fair. I didn't want to leave some impression that you and I had some great difference on the numbers. I think our numbers are actually very close.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if I might respond with one final point, when you got to calculating how many--the lucky 7,000, and all that--I think there was some extrapolation going on, and I think the chairman is right, we should stick to the numbers from Joint Tax. That way at least we know exactly what we are talking about.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I say to the Senator, may I be recognized for a moment? I have a housekeeping item we need to address.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 4196, which I sent to the desk, be restyled as being offered on behalf of Senator Salazar. I sent it to the desk in the name of Senator Baucus.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

Mr. CONRAD. That should be in the name of Senator Salazar. He is the mover of that amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CONRAD. That is precisely correct. I thank my colleague. I will take a few minutes to describe the side by side to the Bunning amendment earlier offered.

The Bunning amendment would repeal the 1993 increases on Social Security benefits--tax increases on Social Security benefits. The amendment would offset the $89 billion 5-year cost with reductions to function 920. What does that mean? Mandatory 920 offsets would lead to an across-the-board cut in all mandatory programs, programs such as Social Security and Medicare. I do not think that is the intention of the Senator.

If discretionary 920s were offset, it would reduce programs affecting education, veterans health, homeland security, and law enforcement. In addition, the amendment would remove a dedicated source of revenue through the Medicare trust funds, adding to the financial problems of that key program.

Our alternative, the alternative I have sent to the desk, would provide for a reserve fund that would allow for the repeal of the 1993 increase on Social Security benefits in a way that would protect Social Security and Medicare, and not increase the deficit over the period of the resolution.

The budget resolution already includes a reserve fund with the primary purpose of providing a mechanism for enacting tax relief, provided it is paid for. This alternative would establish a new deficit-neutral reserve fund that specifically highlights repeal of the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits.

Over the 5-year period covered by this resolution, the cost of repealing the 1993 tax increase is about $89 billion as I earlier referenced. We have already acknowledged in the course of the debate on the resolution we have to limit ourselves when it comes to additional spending or additional tax cuts, because we need to balance the budget.

There are places we can go to cut spending or to raise revenue. I have addressed those repeatedly in terms of the tax gap, the offshore tax havens, and abusive tax shelters.

I ask my colleagues to support the alternative that I have sent to the desk that would not lead to a cut in Medicare or Social Security or other elements I identified.

With that, we would be prepared to go to Senator Alexander for the presentation of his amendment. I see Senator Alexander is in the Chamber. Would the Senator like a moment, or would the Senator prefer to proceed?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. ALEXANDER. I would be happy to proceed. Senator Domenici is going to join me in making our presentation.

Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Senator and indicate that the intention would be, after Senator Alexander and Senator Domenici--Senator Alexander, do you have anyone else whom you wish to speak on your amendment?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Kennedy especially for his passion and commitment to educating the children of our country.

I was raised by my grandparents. My grandmother was a schoolteacher and was only 5 feet tall. We called her Little Chief. She told us, as we were growing up, there were three priorities in our household: Education was No. 1, No. 2 was education, and No. 3 was education. We got the message.

I deeply appreciate the absolute passion and commitment that the Senator from Massachusetts shows to the education issues. It is inspiring that he is able to maintain this level of commitment over these many years and has achieved such extraordinary results, including last year.

I thought one of the greatest accomplishments of the budget resolution was the education package that Senator Kennedy brought before the body and that passed and became law. It increased Pell grants, which reduced the cost of getting a college education by enhancing and improving the loan program. I thought it was one of the two most significant accomplishments of last year. I thought the other one was the expansion of assistance for veterans health care. That, too, became law, and it did so because it was included in the budget resolution. No one had more to do with that package than the Senator from Massachusetts, and we thank him for his leadership.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, the Senator from Nebraska is exactly right. What he is doing with this amendment, which I support, is of the $35 billion which is unallocated, the second stimulus package, an insurance policy against further economic downturn, he doesn't add any money. What he does is of the $3.5 billion that was reserved for infrastructure in the $35 billion, he is doubling that amount to $7 billion of the $35 billion for infrastructure.

I think that is a wise thing to do because I frankly think the infrastructure projects are the most stimulative. We know for every $1 billion spent on highways and bridges, 45,000 jobs are created, and those are jobs in America. As my colleague knows, the money is reserved--the Budget Committee doesn't have the ability to dictate at the end of the day how it is used. Committees of jurisdiction will do that. But what the Senator from Nebraska is doing is sending a message that of this $35 billion, instead of $3.5 billion dedicated for infrastructure projects that are ready to go--and, in fact, we know there are more than $3.5 billion of infrastructure projects ready to fund.

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, if I could reclaim my time, I think the explanation is that this is a reallocation within the $35 billion which was in the original budget, which basically was added to the deficit.

Mr. CONRAD. That is true.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to enter a plea to my colleagues: We need an attitude adjustment around here. We need an attitude adjustment around here. Here it looks pretty placid. Underneath all of this, there is a great deal of turmoil. If we are going to complete this in any reasonable way, we have to have people be more cooperative, less confrontational, less insistent on side-by-side amendments for even minor matters. I plead with my colleagues. I have a feeling what we have here is a lot of staff members who have gone into hyperactive mode, insisting on things in the name of their boss, and I bet their boss doesn't even know. I bet a lot of bosses would be a little embarrassed, frankly, about the insistence being made here from their staffs about how they have to have this and they have to have that, no matter how minor, no matter how insignificant, no matter how petty. I will tell my colleagues, it is wearing pretty thin with me. It is wearing real thin with me. I want to send that message.

Senator Gregg and I have been here for hours, we will be here hours more. We were here all day yesterday. Let's get serious. If we want to get done, then everybody is going to have to start getting a little better attitude about getting done. I hope people think very carefully about what I have said.

I thank the Chair.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source