Congressional Budget For The United States Government For Fiscal Year 2010
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am going to respond briefly to the Republican leader and then we will go to the McCain amendment.
First of all, I have just listened to remarks that are an attempt to rewrite history. Trying to put this deficit and this debt at the door of our new President is simply misplaced. He inherited a debt that was doubled over the last 8 years, and most of my friends on the other side were silent sentinels as that debt grew and grew and grew. Most of them said nothing; worse, they supported the policies that created that doubling of the debt. Beyond that, they tripled foreign holdings of U.S. debt and left the country in the worst recession since the Great Depression. This President inherited a crisis in the financial markets, a crisis in housing, a fiscal crisis, and two wars.
The budget that is before us is not as described by the Republican leader. The budget before us reduces the deficit by two-thirds over the 5 years of its term. In fact, as a share of GDP--which most economists say ought to be the measuring point because it excludes inflation--we reduce the deficit by three-quarters, all while maintaining the President's key priorities of reducing our dependence on foreign energy. That is not just a Presidential priority, that is an American priority. If we are going to be strong in the future, we have to dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign energy.
On education, there is a focus on excellence in education. If we are not the best educated, we are not going to be the strongest country in the world very long.
The prospect of major health care reform, which is provided for in this budget, is the 800-pound gorilla. We are now spending $1 of every $6 in this country on health care. If we stay on the current trend, we will spend more than $1 of every $3 in this country on health care. That is utterly unsustainable.
They describe the budget of the President as having all these tax increases. I would remind my colleagues that when the Congressional Budget Office scores the President's budget, they say there is $2.2 trillion in tax cuts. If they look at the budget I have offered, which is a 5-year budget instead of a 10-year budget, it has $825 billion in tax cuts on a net basis. As I say, all while cutting the deficit in half, which was the President's goal. In the President's budget and the budget I have offered, we cut it by two-thirds.
Now, on spending. Well, on spending, the hard fact is, the budget I have offered reduces deficits and debt by $608 billion compared to the President's budget, on a 5-year comparison to a 5-year comparison. We reduce it by $608 billion in the budget that is before us. And on spending, we increase domestic spending, on average, by 2 1/2 percent a year. Believe me, I have heard lots of criticism from the left with respect to the fact that is not enough. But when you lose $2.3 trillion in revenue because of the new CBO forecast, we felt it was necessary to make adjustments in the President's budget while maintaining his priorities.
Now, in terms of middle-class tax relief, which is contained in this budget, let me be clear that all the provisions from 2001 and 2003 are included in this budget. The 10-percent bracket, the child tax credit, the marriage penalty relief, the education incentives--all of it--is in this budget and an extension for the full 5 years.
In addition, the President's Make Work Pay provision was previously provided for in the stimulus package for 2 years, and we provide the ability to extend that, if there are offsets. In addition, we have provided for alternative minimum tax reform, fully funded for 3 years. No other budgets in the last 5 years have done it for that long. It has always been a year-by-year fix.
On estate tax reform, we take the provisions from 2009 and extend them for 2010--a $3.5 million exemption per person, $7 million per family. Instead of going back to $1 million in 2011, we continue that $3.5 million exclusion per person, $7 million per couple, adjusted for inflation.
We also provide for the business tax provisions and the extenders fully paid for. That is a total of almost a trillion dollars of tax relief, offset by certain loophole closers to go after these abusive tax shelters--these offshore tax havens. We have the spectacle now of companies buying European sewer systems, not because they are in the sewer business but in order to depreciate them on their books for U.S. tax purposes. That is outrageous--United States companies buying European sewer systems so they can write them off on their books here, and then they lease them back to the European cities that built them in the first place.
The guys who came up with these scams didn't limit themselves to sewer systems. They are doing the same thing with public buildings and city halls. We have companies that have bought city halls in Europe in order to depreciate them on their books in the United States and then lease the city halls back to the European countries that built them in the first place. Is that acceptable? I don't think so. The President in his budget and we in our budget say: Enough of that. Let's shut down these abusive tax shelters. Let's shut down these offshore tax havens, which our Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations tells us is costing us $100 billion a year.
If anybody wonders about it, read the Stanford saga. Mr. Stanford was running these offshore tax havens; running billions of dollars through these offshore tax havens. Why? Why are they sending their money down to the Cayman Islands? Is it because they think the banks down there are more secure? Oh, no. They are sending their money down there to dodge the tax liability in the United States. That is the basis upon which Mr. Stanford sold his services.
On a net basis, our budget has $825 billion in tax cuts. Again, on spending, domestic spending increased at an average rate of 2 1/2 percent a year. That is pretty tough.
In our proposal, in the budget before the body, there is no energy tax. There is none contained here. This reference to a national sales tax on energy, it is not in this budget proposal. It is not there. We have a reserve fund that permits the committees of jurisdiction to come up with a way of reducing our dependence on foreign energy. We have the ability for the committees of jurisdiction to write climate change legislation. But there is no endorsement of any specific plan in this budget around climate change that has been posited by others.
I wish to make clear that this budget is responsible, it controls spending, it
reduces the deficit by two-thirds, it extends the middle-class tax cuts, and it adopts the President's priorities of reducing our dependence on foreign energy, putting a focus on excellence in education and providing the possibility of major health care reform. Those are the priorities of the American people, and they are contained in our budget.
Our budget has made significant adjustments from the President's. Again, over 5 years, we have reduced the deficit and debt in the President's proposal by $608 billion.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent that the debate on the McCain amendment appear all as one piece in the Record. I think that will be better for those reading this at some point in the future, if someone does care to read it in the future. It will be better if we keep the McCain debate all together as one.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. First, I thank and congratulate the Senator from Arizona for producing a budget and a budget alternative. That was not done on their side until he did it, and I commend him for it.
I also commend him for producing a budget that in its overall totals is very close to the budget resolution I have advanced through the Budget Committee.
In fact, if you compare Senator McCain's 5-year totals with my 5-year totals, compare his revenue to my revenue, his spending to my spending, they are 98 percent alike. In addition, the size of the deficit in 2014 is virtually the same. Mine is 2.9 percent of GDP, his is 2.8. And the debt, mine is 98.7, his is 98.3, virtually identical in 2014.
So there is some commonality here, and that is something perhaps we can build on. Of course, there are differences, and differences do matter. Largely they appear in two places. The Senator from Arizona appears to reduce mandatory spending by $350 billion over 5 years.
But where does he do it? Does he show savings in Medicare? No. Does he show savings in Medicaid and the health care accounts? No. Does he show savings in Social Security? No. Does he show savings in agriculture? No. He does not do it in any of those places that are the major pots of money for mandatory spending. Instead, he takes all of the $350 billion in savings in Function 920. That is the general overhead function for all of those categories.
So, in effect, what he has is an across-the-board cut in Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, agriculture, and that is how this budget would work. I do not know if that is the intention, but that is what would happen.
In fact, excluding debt service, 85 percent of the claimed savings are from function 920, no specific savings at all. Where are the remaining 15 percent of the savings? Largely, they are in the international affairs budget. Relative to the budget resolution before us, and that is before we adopted the Kerry amendment yesterday, he reduces spending on international accounts by $44 billion over the 5 years. The Senator from Arizona assumes an increase of 1.3 percent in 2010 and less than 1 percent over the remaining 5 years. That runs counter to what the Secretary of Defense has asked of us because he has asked that we plus-up the international accounts so that things that really ought to be done in the international accounts, instead of the Defense Department accounts, be shown there.
Disturbingly, next year, when we will still be recovering from the worst recession since the Great Depression, the budget advanced by the Senator from Arizona would cut nondefense discretionary spending, compared to the resolution before us, by $23 billion. Those cuts would affect virtually every discretionary function, although not defense and not veterans. I commend him for holding them harmless, but that means everything else has to be cut more. That means education, the health care accounts--all of those would have to be cut.
In terms of looking at a budget in a fair and balanced way, while I commend the Senator for producing a budget, it is a budget without detail, a budget without specificity, a budget that is almost ``paint your own picture.'' Because he has this $350 billion of savings in function 920, because he doesn't specify, that would have to be done across the board. That means all of these other functions--Medicare, Social Security, agriculture, all of the other mandatory accounts--would have to take significant across-the-board cuts.
I commend the Senator from Arizona for offering an alternative, but I think the difference between his plan and my plan in overall numbers is very small, but the differences that do exist matter a great deal.
One other point I want to make: As with many of my GOP colleagues' amendments, the McCain amendment would create 60-vote points of order against future budget resolutions, threatening the ability to maintain the disciplines that come through the budget process. Caps on discretionary spending, allocations to committees, the supermajority points of order against excessive spending--all of that would be put at risk in the name of preventing the growth of deficits and debt. While I share the basic idea and the basic value of trying to control deficits and debt, as an unintended consequence, the cure here is worse than the disease. When the answer is to make it harder to do a budget resolution, you actually lose the disciplines we could employ in order to reduce the growth of deficits and debt.
It is a curious thing, if one thinks about it. The way to prevent the growth of debt is not to do a budget or make it harder to do a budget. Unfortunately, around here one of the few things we have to discipline spending is a budget. That is where all the points of order lie when we go to the appropriations process. If it were successful, if you were able to prevent doing a budget resolution, you would then immediately go to appropriations bills and you would have no points of order, no 60-vote hurdles against excessive spending. We want to think carefully whether that is the answer.
My own view is, we would be much better off doing some kind of special process where all of the major players are at the table, everything is on the table, and we have a special process to get whatever plan they develop to the floor for an actual vote. My own belief is, after 22 years of this, the only real hope for changing the underlying policies, for disciplining entitlements, for fundamental tax reform, the only way to do that is some sort of special bipartisan process where everybody is at the table, everything is on the table, and the work of that group comes to the floor for a guaranteed vote. That is the best hope we have.
With that, I yield the floor and retain the remainder of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I think I will take a bit of my time, then, as we await these other Senators. Perhaps the cloakroom could check on the availability of Senators who have time so we can use the time effectively and efficiently.
With respect to Senator McCain's amendment, his substitute, I want to again indicate there is virtually no difference between the debt at the end of the 5 years under his amendment and the amendment that has come through the Senate Budget Committee. The debt as a share of GDP on the budget that is on the floor is 98.7 percent of GDP in 2014. In the substitute amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona, it is 98.3 percent. There is virtually no difference in the debt levels under the McCain amendment and the budget I have offered our colleagues.
With respect to deficits, in 2014, the deficit as a share of GDP in the budget that is before us is 2.9 percent. Under the McCain amendment, it is 2.8 percent.
So I say to my colleagues, if you rack up, if you look at his revenue compared to my revenue: 98 percent the same. His spending versus my spending: 98 percent the same. Where have we heard that figure before?
I think the point that needs to be made, though, is that there are differences, and the differences do matter. The big difference here is the Senator from Arizona saves $350 billion out of the mandatory accounts, but he does not say where. He does not say where. He does not say it is out of Medicare. He does not say it is out of Social Security. He does not say it is out of agriculture. He does not say it is out of the other mandatory accounts. He puts all $350 billion in section 920, which is an across-the-board cut in all of them--$350 billion.
Colleagues, if you want to be voting for cuts that could be $350 billion in Medicare and Social Security, vote for the McCain alternative. If you do not think that is a real good idea, stick with the budget that is before us. Because we have been specific about where the revenues are, about where the spending is, and we have tried to be disciplined about getting down to virtually the same levels on deficits and debt that are in the McCain amendment.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, if the Senator from Nevada will withhold for 1 minute--and this time will not come out of his time--I think it is very important Senators understand that we have done a 5-year budget here. That is what we have done 30 of the 34 times Congress has done a budget under the Budget Act, including the last 5 years and including 2 when the ranking member was the chairman. Now, why have we done 5-year budgets? It is because the projections beyond 5 years are notoriously unreliable. The ranking member himself has said that second 5 years is a guess. My own belief is the fact that President Obama came forward with a 10-year budget is a useful thing. We have that scored. We know what that does. We know what it does in the second 5 years. But Congress has almost always done 5-year budgets. Thirty of the thirty-four times a budget has been written in Congress, it has been done on a 5-year basis because the outyears are so notoriously unreliable.
One other point I wish to make to colleagues. We now have over 100 amendments pending. If everyone insists on their amendment, we can do three an hour, we will be here for 33 hours. It is in the hands of our colleagues. If everybody is going to insist on their amendment and a vote on their amendment, you can do the math. We can do three votes an hour, and we will be here for 33 hours. I hope my colleagues think carefully about that.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, momentarily, we will go to a vote on the Ensign amendment.
Before we do that, I ask unanimous consent that upon the use of all time remaining for debate on the budget resolution, the Senate then proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments in the order listed; that each amendment be reported by number prior to the time for debate with respect to the amendment; that the previous order remaining debate time and vote time remain in effect; provided further, that if a budget point of order is raised against any amendment, then a motion to waive the applicable point of order be considered made, with the vote occurring on the motion to waive.
The list of amendments is as follows: Ensign, No. 805; McCain, No. 882, as modified; Dodd-Shelby, No. 913; Sanders, No. 875; Johanns, motion to recommit; Bennett, No. 759; Bennet, No. 799; Democratic side-by-side amendment to the Vitter amendment; Vitter No. 787; Coburn, No. 892; Casey, No. 755; Coburn, No. 893; Brown, No. 808; Graham, No. 910; Landrieu, No. 931, as modified, with the changes at the desk.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, the chairman's mark that was referenced increases discretionary spending not by 8 percent but by 5.3 percent. That is all domestic discretionary spending is increased--by 5.3 percent. It averages nondefense discretionary spending at a 2 1/2 -percent increase over the 5 years.
The McCain offer and the chairman's mark are almost identical with respect to deficit levels and debt levels. In 2014, the debt is 98.3 percent of GDP under the McCain amendment; 98.7 percent under the Chairman's mark--virtually no difference.
But there are differences. He takes $350 billion in savings out of mandatory programs and doesn't specify whether it comes out of Social Security or Medicare or agriculture--$350 billion. Where does it land?
If you want to risk cutting Social Security and Medicare by $350 billion, vote for the McCain substitute. If not, vote no.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, in more normal times, this is an amendment I might well support, but these are not normal times. We are faced with the steepest economic decline since the Great Depression. The underlying budget mark already cuts nondefense discretionary spending by more than $160 billion. This would cut another $120 billion, much of it front end loaded, at the worst possible time for economic recovery.
One other point I would make. We have more than 200 amendments pending now--more than 200. If the Senator's amendment were to pass--this is a motion to recommit the budget resolution to the committee. If anybody wants to repeat the entire exercise of this week, the week we get back, I recommend you vote for the Senator's amendment. If you prefer to end this today, I recommend you vote no.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I want to inform colleagues that when I said earlier we had 100 amendments pending, I was half right. That was last night. As of now, we have over 230 amendments pending. If you divide 230 by 3, that is almost 80 hours--about 76, 77 hours. That would mean we would be here all day today, tomorrow, and all day Saturday. If everybody sticks to their amendment, that is what is going to happen.
I hope people in the calmness of the moment will think about other options. No. 1, if you will accept a voice vote--Senator Gregg and I are trying to work things out on amendments that could be accepted. If not, if you would withhold until there is another vehicle--and there will be a lot of vehicles this year. Really, we have been doing this for a lot of years. Amendments have sprouted here. I hope people will think: Do we want to do this for 3 days straight?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would say to colleagues, I do not know what it is about this year, but the hole just keeps getting deeper. We still have over 200 amendments, and nobody seems to be much interested in kind of being collegial here and allowing us to get to some kind of reasonable list. Now, 200 amendments pending, 3 an hour--that is almost 70 hours. That is 3 days. So please work with us and be willing to take voice votes. When we have amendments that are being adopted overwhelmingly, you know, really, do we really intend to stay here for 3 days? I hope not.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following be the next group of amendments to be considered; that the provisions of the previous order regarding debate time, vote time, and budget points of order remain in effect for the duration of consideration of amendments to the budget resolution; that the amendments be considered in the order listed: Hutchison No. 866, Menendez No. 921, Coburn No. 895, Brownback No. 840--we have done this? Well, this is good. We are making progress.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, if we are really going to have recorded rollcall votes--what was the final tally--on votes that are 89 to 9, we are going to be here a very long time.
Honestly, I have been doing this for 22 years. I don't know if I have ever seen a year where colleagues just seem to be absolutely insistent on having rollcall votes on things that are going to keep us here a very long time. We cannot make people give up their votes or take voice votes. But at some point there has to be a serious consideration. Is this what we are really going to do to each other? Are we going to be here for 70 hours? That is where we are headed.
With that, we can go to the Snowe amendment--or has the Hutchison-Reed amendment been resolved? We should pass over that and go to Senator Snowe's amendment. She is right here. If the Senator would explain her amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, we already have 3 full years of alternative minimum tax protection in the chairman's mark--3 full years. We have never had that much before in any resolution.
The amendment of the Senator would add $117 billion to the debt. After we lost $2 trillion in the CBO forecast, we had to insist that some additional things be paid for. I urge my colleagues to defeat the Grassley amendment and understand we have 3 full years of alternative minimum tax protection in the chairman's mark.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, just for the information of colleagues, very soon we are going to need to take a break. Floor staff have not eaten; they have not had a break. So we are going to have to take a break.
Before we do that, I would like to dispose of the remaining amendments in this tranche, and I would ask Senator Bond if we would be willing to take a voice vote on his amendment if Senator Stabenow would take a voice vote on hers?
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I will respond by saying that we on this side would like to have a vote on the point of order on the climate legislation.
Mr. CONRAD. So I take that as----
Mr. BOND. No.
Mr. CONRAD. Well, OK. That means two more votes. I do not know how many times we voted on this already. But if people are insistent on having votes, we will get to stay here.
Mr. DORGAN. Would the chairman of the committee yield? Is it not the case that most of the amendments, perhaps 90 percent of the amendments we have voted on today, would have no real policy implications?
Mr. CONRAD. That is probably a pretty fair estimate. The Budget Committee does not have the authority to tell committees of jurisdiction the specifics of legislative outcomes. These are message amendments, and the truth is, we all do it. We do it on both sides. But I have to say to my colleagues, it has run amok this year. For some reason this year we have hundreds of amendments out there, and people are just stuck. Even when they could get a voice vote and it pass, they still want votes. We have had votes that were nine in opposition. But that is a Senator's right.
Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator would yield further for a question, might it not be advisable, given the fact that most amendments have no policy implications at all, if they are made to the Budget Act, just to accept all amendments en bloc by UC and discard all of those without merit once you get to conference?
Mr. CONRAD. The problem is, that would take unanimous consent. It is very clear we cannot get unanimous consent.
Is Senator Coburn in the Chamber? I ask unanimous consent that we set aside for a moment the Stabenow and Bond amendments for the purpose of going to the Coburn amendment because I am told that Senator Coburn would be willing to take a voice vote; is that correct?
Mr. COBURN. I would take it by unanimous consent.
Mr. CONRAD. Even better. I ask unanimous consent that the Coburn amendment, No. 894, be adopted.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source