[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 21, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4603-S4609]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               THE BUDGET

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, last year we were obligated to accept the 
assurances from the majority that under this new regime, pay-go would 
be respected, spending would be curbed, the entitlement crisis would be 
addressed, and the debt would be attacked. Undoubtedly, that was an 
ambitious agenda. Obviously, it didn't happen. We now have results, not 
predictions. When all was said and done last year, there was an $83 
billion increase in discretionary spending. There was $143 billion in 
pay-go violations. Pay-go violations are provisions we put in the 
budget that help assure we get moving toward deficit reduction and 
eventually balancing the budget and reducing debt. We didn't close the 
tax gap. We added to the national debt. The budget was used to add 
spending, not reduce it.
  Previous to that year, we had always had strong budget provisions 
that forced budget discipline that actually held down spending. We did 
nothing for entitlement reform, and we assumed tax increases.
  When we began consideration of the fiscal 2009 budget resolution, I 
hoped everyone was aware of what was promised last year and what 
transpired. I hope they will use that knowledge with what we see today 
to understand that what we have now, with two budgets written, soon to 
be approved, is a pattern, a distinct pattern. That pattern is fiscally 
damaging to this country. The Democratic budget assumes a tax hike of 
at least $1.2 trillion which will hit 116 million Americans. This is 
the second year in a row that the majority party is expecting the 
American public to surrender more of their income to fund big 
government.
  The pay-for assumed in this budget is simply fantasy. The tax gap, 
for instance, instead of being closed, was actually expanded last year. 
Middle-class tax relief was not passed last year either. This budget 
pushes annual spending over the $1 trillion mark for the first time 
ever. It increases spending over the President's budget by at least 
$210 billion over 5 years. That is without including the $79 billion we 
are considering on the floor this week in the supplemental. We have 
certainly lost control of our budget.
  I want to take a moment and comment that our Budget Committee 
chairman must be having a little fun with us with his chart showing the 
difference between his budget and the President's budget. His claim 
that there is little difference between the two lines on his chart must 
be intended to be humorous, when the Y axis is over a trillion dollars. 
If he is teasing us, I appreciate his humor; if he is serious, I fear 
for us.
  Another huge problem in this budget is that the biggest fiscal danger 
in our future, the looming entitlement crisis, is made worse. Actually, 
``danger'' isn't the word. It is not a threat. It is not a danger; it 
is reality. It is a fact. We need to deal with it. For a second year in 
a row, nothing is done to address the $66 trillion entitlement crisis 
now on our doorstep. The budget allows entitlement spending to grow by 
at least $500 billion over 5 years. This is a huge avalanche of debt 
waiting to bury our future. But we do nothing. We are not even doing 
something as productive as fiddling. We are just talking year after 
year and perhaps wishing it will go away. Instead of reducing the debt 
as they promised, the majority allows gross debt to climb by $2 
trillion by 2013. That debt will have to be paid back by future 
generations. In fact, every American child will owe an additional 
$27,000 or more under this budget.
  We didn't see many amendments that tried to reduce the debt. I 
offered one to try to do that, where we looked at those programs that 
were rated as ineffective. I asked the Members of this body to vote 
with me to not have a pay increase to these ineffective programs. I 
thought at least we will let them maintain their funding levels for the 
previous year. We won't give them an increase, just as we would do with 
a poorly performing employee. We were not able to get the votes we 
needed to even put that simple policy in effect. We face a huge 
challenge, and we need to have a budget that provides the enforcement 
mechanisms that bring some fiscal sanity back to the process.
  There is so much that is disappointing in this resolution that I hate 
to call attention to some specific points for fear of ignoring all 
others. But let me point out that an amendment I added in markup, which 
called for disclosures on debt, was removed. This shows the American 
public that there are things being done to their paychecks in this bill 
that the majority party doesn't want them to know. Now that our economy 
is trending in the wrong direction and when we need the benefits of a 
reasonable and pro-growth tax policy, we are going to depress our 
economic growth by adding to the debt and increasing taxes.
  When we consider these tax increases, let's remember, last year we 
were assured we would see tax relief. The first vote we were presented 
on the budget last year was to budget for an alleged middle-class tax 
cut. This never materialized. I believe Congress and especially the 
Budget Committee should be committed to rigid budget discipline, not 
politically expedient gamesmanship. I urge a return to a tighter and 
more credible budget document. I plan to offer several amendments to 
shore up the fiscal discipline we are seeing erode.
  Given that this budget assumes raised taxes, increased spending, 
increases in the debt, failure to address the entitlement crisis, and 
continuing the ongoing erosion of fiscal discipline in the Government, 
I feel compelled to vote against it.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BUNNING. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, in recent polling, close to 80 percent of 
the American public have told pollsters the Nation is on the wrong 
track. We have enormous problems to solve. The American people know it, 
and we should be working together to solve those problems. But this 
budget, written behind closed doors and in secret by a partisan group 
of Senators, will do

[[Page S4604]]

nothing to close the gulf that is keeping us from the people's 
business. Maybe that is by design.
  Majority Leader Reid recently explained that Senator Clinton 
recommended to him that the Democrats should have a Senate ``war 
room.'' The war room is up and running today, churning out falsehoods, 
such as claims that Republicans have staged 71 filibusters--a claim now 
disputed by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. Who are the 
Democrats at war with?
  Just as my good friend, General Petraeus, began to make progress 
reversing the insurgency in Iraq, the leadership of the Senate decided 
to wage a different kind of war--a war on Americans who do not share 
their vision of the future. The vision Democrats would promote, to the 
exclusion of all others, is laid out in this budget document before us. 
It begins with more tax enforcement. Everybody should abide by the law 
and pay the taxes they owe. And I support our new IRS Commissioner. But 
the notion that we can save anywhere near the amount proposed by 
Senator Conrad is nonsense, and he should know it.
  The only way to collect that revenue would be to toss out the 
procedural rights American taxpayers now enjoy. These rights are 
critical because they assure fair and evenhanded enforcement by the 
IRS. The Government will lose far more revenue than Senator Conrad 
proposes to save if the public loses confidence in the fairness of our 
tax system.
  His own colleagues in the House are not serious about this either. If 
they were, the House would not have voted on party lines to stop audits 
of a handful of wealthy Americans under audit by the IRS who claim to 
be Virgin Islands residents. What is the IRS to make of this mixed 
message?
  The next part of the Democratic vision is predictable: more taxes. In 
order to achieve balance, the Democrats' budget assumes $1.2 trillion 
in additional revenue compared to today's baseline. Has anybody asked 
the 80 percent who think we are on the wrong track whether they would 
raise taxes on 116 million Americans?
  At least 43 million American families will pay $2,300 more per year 
in Federal tax for the spending in this budget proposal.
  Finally, and most significantly, the Democrats' plan on entitlement 
reform is to stay the course. Senator Domenici, the former chairman of 
the Budget Committee, told Budget conferees yesterday that he fears for 
our future and the future of our children and our grandchildren. Having 
35 grandchildren, I share his concerns.
  As any ship's captain knows, when you are heading for the rocks, it 
is time to change course. Staying the course is the wrong policy and 
the wrong message, and I am disappointed my colleagues have been 
unwilling to work with me and with the President to turn the ship of 
state in the right direction with this budget document.
  Please--the American people are watching--let's do what is right and 
reject this partisan document and write a budget we can all be proud 
of.
  I yield back.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, while we have been in caucus discussing 
how the business of the Senate will be concluded over the next several 
days, I note that a number of my colleagues have spoken to once again 
assert and claim that there is a tax increase in the budget conference 
report before us. That is a fiction. Our friends on the other side have 
a very consistent speech, and they give it regardless of what is 
actually in the legislation. I can say that because we have a record 
now of their giving this same speech, because they gave the exact same 
speech last year, almost word for word.
  Last year, as shown on this chart, this was the description of the 
ranking member of the Budget Committee with respect to the conference 
report. He said then:

       It includes, at a minimum, a $736 billion tax hike on 
     American families and businesses over the next five years--
     the largest in U.S. history.

  Now we are able to check the record and able to see what, in fact, 
has happened. Did the Democratic Congress pass the largest tax increase 
in history in the last year? No. Did we pass any tax increase? No. Here 
is what we did do: We passed $194 billion of tax reduction. That is the 
record. People do not have to know what specific legislation has 
occurred here to know what I am saying is true. All they have to do is 
go to their mailbox. Because tens of millions of Americans are getting 
a check from the U.S. Treasury, courtesy of the Congress controlled by 
Democrats and, in fairness, a law signed by the President--one 
negotiated in a completely bipartisan way to provide stimulus to the 
economy.
  There were $7 billion of loophole closers enacted during the same 
period. So the net effect of the two is $187 billion of tax reduction. 
That is our record.
  Now they are saying: Well, they have this big tax increase in this 
package. No, we do not. That is their assumption. It is not ours. What 
is provided for in this package is $340 billion of tax reduction. The 
Baucus amendment, passed here--it is included in the conference 
report--extends all the middle-class tax cuts and reforms the estate 
tax. Mr. President, $340 billion of tax reduction.
  Now, our colleagues say: Well, they had that in last year's budget 
and did not pass a law to implement it. That is true. You do not need 
to implement it until the tax reductions that are in place expire. They 
do not expire until 2010. So, yes, we have provided for them in the 5-
year budget. That is to be responsible to show we can balance even with 
those tax cuts extended. But you do not need to pass the law now 
because those tax cuts are in effect until 2010.
  I wanted to say that to set the record straight. I know Senator Kyl 
is here waiting to speak, so I will stop at this time so he has a 
chance to make his remarks.
  I say to Senator Kyl, for the good of the order, could you give us a 
rough idea how long you might speak?

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I say to Senator Conrad, I would say no more 
than 10 to 15 minutes. I will say 15, but probably I will not take that 
much time.
  Mr. CONRAD. Would it be appropriate to have a unanimous consent 
agreement that the Senator have 15 minutes--or 20, and then he can 
yield back time if he wishes.
  Mr. KYL. No. Mr. President, I am happy to ask unanimous consent to 
speak for 15 minutes, and then whatever time Senator Conrad would urge 
after that, subject to Senator Gregg's intercession as well.
  Mr. CONRAD. Might I say, then we have a couple of other Senators on 
our side who wish to say something and, hopefully, we will then be done 
on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, let me engage in a little bit more of the sparring 
between the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee and the 
distinguished ranking member, both of whom have had a good debate here. 
But I would like to add to that debate.
  There is a lot of discussion here that must cause Americans watching 
this to wonder what on Earth is going on here when we pass a budget and 
that budget assumes various things, and then there are charges back and 
forth that you have passed a tax cut, you have not passed a tax cut, 
you have passed a tax increase, you have not, and so on.
  Let me see if I can clarify that with what are, in fact, the real 
assumptions in the budget and what the Senate has and has not done.
  The ranking member of the Budget Committee is correct that the budget 
that has passed the Senate already, and that the Senate is about to 
enact again, in fact, assumes tax increases which will amount to the 
largest tax increase in the history of the world--$1.2 trillion. Those 
are assumed in this budget.
  Now, the chairman of the committee correctly says: Well, we have not 
actually passed those tax cuts. That, of course, is true. The budget is 
not a law, a bill that is sent to the President for

[[Page S4605]]

his signature so he can sign it and then it becomes law. That is not 
what a budget is. The budget is the document we use to frame our 
deliberations in the Congress for this coming year. We are supposed to 
stick to it. It sets an upper limit on spending. It sets the revenues 
that we assume will come in, and part of the revenue is based on taxes.
  So what this budget does is to say we assume we are going to have 
taxes of $1.2 trillion more than we have today. That is what this 
budget assumes, and that is the largest tax increase in the history of 
the world.
  Now, the chairman responded first by saying: Well, actually we have 
also included something else in this budget so you cannot say it is 
necessarily the biggest tax increase in the history of the world 
because we passed what is called the Baucus amendment, and the Baucus 
amendment is supposed to provide an extension of certain current tax 
rates that would otherwise expire in the year 2010, and if we do that, 
then we will not actually have that tax increase.
  The answer is, that is true, were we to do that, that tax increase 
would not occur--at least it would not occur to that amount.
  Well, we did the same thing last year. We had the Baucus amendment 
last year. But Congress never passed any tax relief based on the Baucus 
amendment. So while the Baucus amendment was in the budget, it was 
never implemented. The truth is, it is not going to be implemented this 
year either. I think everyone will acknowledge that.

  So it is no answer to say the tax increases that are assumed in the 
budget are actually wiped off because the Baucus amendment is also a 
part of the amendment. The Baucus amendment is not going to be 
implemented this year, just as it wasn't implemented last year.
  The third response the chairman of the Budget Committee made was: 
Well, that is true, but we actually don't have to pass the Baucus 
amendment until these current tax rates expire because they currently 
exist until the end of 2010. So we can still say we passed a tax cut, 
even though we haven't enacted anything, because we are going to assume 
existing law continues until the end of 2010.
  Well, that is an odd way to argue that you have actually cut taxes. 
You haven't cut any taxes at all. You have done nothing but allow 
current rates to continue for next year and the year 2010. It is a good 
thing those rates are continuing; we wouldn't want them to increase. 
They are the Bush tax cuts that many Democrats have been very critical 
of. But here now Democrats are bragging about keeping them in effect 
for another 2 years. Well, I am glad. I am happy they are being kept in 
effect for another 2 years. I am worried about what is going to happen 
after that. The problem is this budget assumes they are going away. 
That is the $1.2 trillion we are speaking of.
  Now, what happens to average Americans if this tax cut fails to 
materialize and, in fact, the tax increase actually occurs? Well, this 
budget conference agreement we will be voting on assumes that single 
people earning as little as $31,000 a year, couples making $63,000, 
will see their taxes go up. That is because it assumes the 25-percent 
bracket which kicks in around $32,000 next year for single filers, 
$63,000 for married couples, will go to 28 percent. Well, is this 3 
percentage points a lot? Is that a big deal? Well, it is a marginal tax 
rate increase of 12 percent. When you add percentage points onto 25 and 
go to 28, that is a 12-percent increase. That means people in the 25-
percent bracket--and that is people earning as little as $32,000 a 
year--will give the Federal Government 12 percent more of every dollar 
they earn over $32,000 more than they do today.
  What does that mean? Well, let's look at some high school teachers in 
Phoenix and Tucson, AZ, my home State. In Phoenix, they make between 
$42,000 and $63,000 on average. So they would see a significant tax 
increase. How big? Well, according to calculations run by the Budget 
Committee, the average tax increase for this middle-income family will 
be more than $2,000. That may not be much to some, but it is a lot of 
money to the average school teacher in Phoenix. The average school 
teacher in Tucson makes between $38,000 and $56,000, on average. Most 
people think of that as middle class, not wealthy. But under this 
budget, they would see their taxes go up almost the same amount--
$2,000.
  Small businesses, which are the backbone of our economy--that is 
where most of our employment is occurring today. Yet this budget 
conference agreement raises taxes on small businesses because all 
income tax brackets above the 15-percent bracket will increase, and 
small businesses pay on those upper tax brackets. Most small 
businesses--in fact, the owners of small businesses report their 
business income on their individual income tax returns and, in fact, 
over 80 percent of filers in the top bracket report small business 
income. So you think you are going to soak the rich by increasing the 
top tax bracket? Well, you are increasing taxes for the small 
businesses of America. That is who ends up paying the increased taxes.
  According to the Small Business Administration, small businesses 
represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms. They employ about half of 
all private sector employees. They generate between 60 to 80 percent of 
the net new jobs annually. Increasing small business taxes will hurt 
our economy.
  How about investors? This is becoming an investor Nation, people 
saving for their retirement, American seniors living off their savings. 
In fact, every American who saves and invests rather than spending 
their extra earnings will see their taxes go up under this budget.
  The budget allows the 15-percent capital gains rate to go to 20 
percent. That is a 33-percent increase in the tax rate. The dividends 
tax rate will go up a whopping 164 percent. We talked about a little 
bit of an increase--164 percent is not little. That is on dividends. 
That is what seniors get when they invest their retirement savings and 
get a dividend from the corporation they have invested in. That goes 
from 15 percent to 39.6 percent.
  Why are these rates important? Because keeping tax rates low on 
investment income gives people the incentive to put their money to work 
by investing it; by investing in businesses, small and large, and it 
gives the businesses the resources they need to grow: to hire more 
employees, to buy more equipment, produce more goods and services. All 
this, of course, helps the economy grow; it helps produce more wealth 
and, by the way, it helps produce more revenue for the Federal Treasury 
as well.
  I said we have become an investor Nation. Capital gains. Now, 45 
percent of all elderly taxpayers reporting capital gains had an 
adjusted gross income of $50,000 or less. Rich? We are going to tax the 
rich here? No. We may be aiming at the rich, but we are hitting the 
middle class. A $50,000 income is not rich. These are our senior 
citizens' dividends. Mr. President, 67.6 percent of all elderly 
taxpayers reporting dividend income had an adjusted gross income of 
$50,000 or less. The same thing; these are not wealthy people. They are 
receiving dividends based on retirement income, and they are going to 
receive a whopping tax increase under the assumptions of this budget. 
In fact, if you look at the data for all filers under $50,000, capital 
gains that are $50,000 of income, 35.8 percent of the filers reported 
capital gains income. Forty-one percent of the filers with incomes of 
less than $50,000 reported qualified dividend income. So we are talking 
about folks who are not wealthy, who are reporting not only income but 
dividend income and capital gains income, getting a huge increase in 
their taxes because the rates on dividends and capital gains are 
increased under the assumptions of this budget.
  As I said before, there has also been talk of not only taxes going 
up, but the budget chairman actually said we have actually cut taxes by 
about $187 billion. Now, this is--well, let's say it bears examination. 
The tax cut the chairman is counting is simply the existence of the law 
today. It is existing law. It is continuing that law. As he said 
before, we don't have to take any action because it is already law, and 
it continues for 2 more years. That is right. But it is not as if we 
passed a law to cut taxes. We haven't. We have left them alone. That is 
not cutting taxes.
  This year we are going to enact a 1-year fix for the AMT because we 
don't want people to have to pay for that. We are going to extend the 
so-called tax extenders for businesses, such as the

[[Page S4606]]

R&D tax credit. We will do those things, but it is not as if the people 
should be grateful to us for cutting their taxes. That is simply taking 
action to make sure their taxes don't go up. It is to keep them exactly 
where they are. That is not a tax cut; that is protecting people to 
retain the existing level of taxation.
  Then, the stimulus checks which make up the rest of this, they are 
not a tax cut either. Remember, that is what the President did when he 
negotiated with the House of Representatives and said: Let's stimulate 
the economy by giving people $300 or $600 to spend, and that money is 
starting to be received by Americans today.
  So I don't think the Congress should be bragging about a big tax cut 
when, in fact, all we have done is to retain existing rates, and all we 
are going to do is retain existing rates. When I say all we are going 
to do, believe me, that is important. It is important that we not let 
taxes increase, but that is what this budget assumes. As the ranking 
member of the committee pointed out, the biggest tax increase in the 
history of the world is assumed in this budget, and here is the 
problem: Right now, Congress does not have to do anything, as the 
chairman of the Budget Committee said. That is true. But in 2 years, we 
do have to do something or else taxes are going to go up. This is not a 
matter of stopping a big tax increase; this is a matter of all these 
tax rates--the marginal income tax rates, the death tax, capital gains 
rates, dividend rates--all these rates that are currently in law 
expire, and they are all increased unless we act.

  That is the assumption of this budget. That is why it would be 
irresponsible for us to support this budget and assume Congress is not 
going to do the responsible thing and stop those tax rates from 
increasing. That would be devastating to our economy. It is the last 
thing you would want to do in a time of economic downturn, and it would 
be the last straw for American families who are already seeing too much 
of their income having to go to buy gasoline, to buy a quart of milk or 
to buy whatever else it is they need for their families with the prices 
having gone up. To have a tax increase on top of that would, as I said, 
not only be devastating for the economy, but it would be critical to 
American families. Ironically, if we are concerned about revenues to 
the Federal Government, it is also the best way to make sure the 
Government doesn't collect very much revenue either, because in an 
economic downturn, the people don't make as much, and therefore they 
don't pay the Government as much in taxes.
  The bottom line is this is a budget that assumes a huge tax increase. 
It doesn't do a thing to cut taxes. It is not something we should be 
supportive of. I appreciate the comments of my colleague from New 
Hampshire earlier in pointing out the fact it is a budget Congress 
should reject on behalf of the American people. Go back, do this work 
over again, abide by the instructions to conferees that we passed on 
the floor of the Senate last week, and ensure that these things can 
occur without raising taxes, which would be the last straw for the 
economy we are in right now.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor to the Senator from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Ms. STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. President. I wish to, once again, thank 
Senator Conrad and all the conferees who have worked so hard. I know 
Senator Gregg and Senator Conrad may have a different view on the 
budget, but certainly I appreciate our ranking member's professionalism 
in working across the aisle on so many issues and working to place this 
budget resolution, the final resolution, in front of us.
  The chairman and the conferees are presenting the American people 
with a budget resolution that lays out the Nation's priorities and 
focuses on what we ought to be doing to improve our economy. We put 
together a budget, and as a member of the Budget Committee, I am very 
proud to have played a role in putting it together. I believe it gets 
it right. It is about our values and our priorities. It is about 
investing in our future as Americans.
  Today we are saying our Nation's budget, which lays out our values 
and priorities, will focus on the economy, on jobs, and on the future 
of the country. I come from the great State of Michigan, where the 
issue of jobs is very serious and very real. People in Michigan want us 
to act in a way that is going to allow people to have a good-paying 
job, to be able to work hard, to be able to pay the bills and pay for 
the outrageous gas prices and the soaring costs of health care and the 
cost of college and food and all the other things that are squeezing 
families on all sides. They want to know they have an opportunity to 
work. We work hard in Michigan. People across this country, middle-
class families every day are working hard, and they want to know that 
our Federal priorities include creating opportunities for people to 
work, to be able to care for themselves and their families.
  Let me first indicate it gets pretty old. You know, it seems the old, 
tired refrain comes from colleagues on the other side of the aisle. 
When in doubt, when you can't say anything about the economy under this 
White House and 6 of the last 8 years under colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle, when you can't say anything about soaring deficits, 
when you can't say anything about the inaction and unwillingness of the 
White House to work with us in a manner that will quickly respond to 
the housing crisis; when you can't say anything about any of those 
things, what do you say about Democrats? Well, it is the tired, old 
refrain of tax and spend.
  I wish to remind my colleagues that this budget resolution is 1 
percent higher than the President's budget resolution--1 percent 
higher--and it returns to a surplus. In other words, we balance the 
budget in 2012 and in 2013. It is a 1-percent difference. What does 
that mean? This is not about tax increases on low-income or middle-
income families. This is not a budget that is focusing on adding costs 
to families. This is a budget that focuses on taking costs off families 
and valuing work and creating opportunity and investing in the future 
of our children with education, focusing on the things Americans want 
to see focused on. People in America are saying, what about us? We are 
seeing a war where we are spending $12 billion a month, unpaid for--
hundreds of millions of dollars that have gone into rebuilding roads 
and schools in Iraq, even though they have oil revenues and have not 
been contributing, as they should, to rebuilding their own country. 
People in America are saying, what about us, our roads, schools, and 
jobs in America?

  That is what this budget addresses. We focus on the future and on 
making sure American families have the confidence that we are putting 
them first. Last year, Congress began fixing the fiscal mess caused by 
the administration's 6 years of neglecting the homefront. This budget 
continues that effort by focusing on what is most important to American 
families.
  We have three priorities in this budget: jobs, jobs, and jobs. I am 
very proud of that.
  Today, we are bringing fiscal sanity back to our budget, while at the 
same time investing in a plan that will create good-paying American 
jobs, including rebuilding our Nation's aging infrastructure, our 
roads, bridges, and other infrastructure--in other words, rebuilding 
American jobs, rebuilding America, with jobs that cannot be outsourced 
overseas--good-paying jobs, middle-class jobs--investing in America.
  Promoting education and job training is so critically needed in this 
fast-paced, changing world we live in. There is also investment in the 
future of our energy economy. I am proud my green collar jobs 
initiative is a part of that. Let me speak to that for a moment. As 
part of our effort to create jobs and look to the future, I was very 
pleased that the Senate included my green collar jobs initiative, and 
that it is substantially intact as it comes out of the conference 
committee. We focused on 5 areas in the proposal that we put forward: 
energy efficiency, and conservation, jobs, weatherizing buildings, 
grants to State and local communities for energy efficiency, and 
conservation. We can immediately create thousands and thousands of jobs 
by doing the right thing on energy efficiency and conservation.
  Secondly, there is advanced battery technology. When you come from my 
great State, where we are proud to make automobiles, the buzz word 
these

[[Page S4607]]

days is ``batteries.'' If we are going to compete and meet our mandate 
on fuel efficiency and move away from dependence on foreign oil, we 
have to be investing in advanced battery technology. Right now, China, 
Japan, and South Korea are ahead of us. When Ford Motor Company decided 
to make their first hybrid SUV--and I am proud they did that--they 
could not find a battery in America. They had to buy that from Japan. 
With all of the American ingenuity and the smart people we have, we 
have not been investing in advanced battery technology.
  Last year, the President's budget had something like $22 million in 
it versus the hundreds of million around the world. Our plan that we 
passed here in the Senate had $250 million in investment in advanced 
battery technology to make sure we can do the plug-ins, and that GM can 
quickly move on this technology, and Chrysler is investing in hybrids 
and other technology, so our companies can compete globally because 
America invests in our technology.
  Retooling older plants. We don't want to say come over and we will 
build you the plant. We want to keep the jobs in America.
  As to biofuel production and access, we know we have spent a lot of 
energy on biofuel production.
  Infrastructure and assets are very important. It is great to make the 
fuel. We want to grow it in Michigan--and we are--but if you cannot buy 
it at the pump, it doesn't do much good. This focuses on that as well.
  Finally, green job training programs, to create new opportunities. 
That is what this resolution is all about--value work and looking to 
the future. This budget provides, as well, $2.5 billion more than the 
President requested for transportation accounts for rebuilding America. 
It fully funds the highway and transit programs authorized by the 
highway bill and includes funding for airport improvement--all things 
that help us and our communities create safer ways to be able to move 
around, whether it is airports or roads or whether it is commerce or 
families going on a vacation or going back and forth to work. These are 
investments in America. It is about creating good-paying jobs.
  The Department of Transportation estimates that for every $1 billion 
in highway spending, you create 47,500 good-paying middle-class jobs. 
This budget recognizes that. It also creates $2 billion in economic 
activity for every $1 billion we invest in infrastructure.
  I am glad to see, for the benefit of our country and our families, 
that the conferees have also invested in other important areas related 
to education and job training for the future. This is absolutely 
critical for us.
  This budget resolution reflects the values and priorities of the 
American people. It makes sure we are rejecting the President's efforts 
to eliminate the COPS program. We want to keep our families safe in 
their communities, with our children being able to play in parks and on 
the streets, and know that we have community police officers available 
to help keep them safe. Then there are the Byrne grants to help our 
first responders, the firefighters and police officers.
  We also, I am proud to say, keep the promise we began last year to 
fully fund veterans health care as a major priority for our country.
  So there is a lot to celebrate in this budget. On top of the new 
investment and new priorities and changing the way things are done, 
these investments are paid for because we are following what is called 
the pay-go rules, which helped balance the budget back in the 1990s and 
brought us into surplus at the end of the last decade.
  We cannot mortgage our children's future, as the administration has 
done, with soaring deficits and record spending that is not paid for. 
Instead, we invest in our children's future, in our families, and we 
balance the budget by 2012.
  Again, I congratulate our chairman for his tenacity, his passion, and 
his commitment to doing the right thing, doing it in a fiscally 
responsible way. We have all worked so hard to lay out a vision of 
America that is about jobs, about the future, about investing in 
America. It is time we did that. The American people expect us to do no 
less.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the very able Senator from 
Michigan, Senator Stabenow, who is an extremely valuable member of the 
Budget Committee, for her contribution throughout the budget process 
this year. She has been an absolute champion of the green jobs 
initiative. We have $2 billion in this conference report for green 
jobs, which is not only going to help the economy, but it is also going 
to be good environmentally, and we think even better long term in the 
economics of the country, because we are going to have, as the world 
turns its attention with greater concern to environmental issues, high-
paying jobs here in this country.
  That takes some work, some investment. That is provided for in this 
conference report. Frankly, it is one of the things I am most proud of 
in this conference report. It would not have happened without the 
effort of the Senator from Michigan. She deserves great credit for 
that. She has also been one of the real leaders on making certain that 
our veterans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan have the health care 
they need and deserve. That is the second part of this bill of which I 
am especially proud--the additional resources--some $3 billion above 
what the President requested--for health care for our Nation's 
veterans.
  A third area in which the Senator from Michigan has been especially 
helpful has been the health care. She has championed health information 
technology, and we have a reserve fund here to take advantage of the 
opportunity that is out there for the Nation by more broadly adopting 
the use of information technology in medical care.
  The RAND Corporation has told us--and the Senator has brought it to 
our attention repeatedly, and that is why it is very much in my mind--
that we can save $80 billion a year, if I am not mistaken, if we would 
broadly adopt information technology in the health care industry, the 
health care sector. Think of that--$80 billion a year, over 5 years. 
That is more than $400 billion. So that makes common sense.
  I will conclude by saying I think this has been a healthy and full 
debate today. We have had almost 4 hours, which is about typical on a 
conference report. I am being informed by the leadership we will not 
vote until tomorrow morning. I am told that the likelihood is that the 
budget, which is subject to agreement with both sides--I am being told 
of the likelihood that the budget vote will not occur until perhaps 
9:30 tomorrow morning. I am told the farm bill override vote will also, 
most likely, occur tomorrow.
  I don't have that conclusively, but that is the initial indication I 
am receiving, that that is the most likely outcome. So I urge Senators 
not to jump in their cars and head home without checking out with 
leadership staffs on both sides, but that in fact is the likelihood. I 
don't think I have anything further to add.
  I do think we have laid out the case for this conference report 
clearly and, I hope, in a compelling way. This has been a difficult 
challenge--to write a budget in an election year. We know the Congress 
has not adopted a budget in an election year since 2000. It is 
extraordinary, if you think about it. This country, in an election 
year, has not had a budget since 2000. That cannot be the way we do 
business around here.
  I am very proud we had a budget last year. I am very proud we are on 
the brink of getting a budget this year, even though it is an election 
year. I hope that sets an example for whoever is in charge that getting 
a budget does matter.
  We have to bend our best efforts on both sides to make certain that 
this country, the greatest nation on Earth, has a budget. That is about 
as basic as it can get.
  I again thank the Senator from Michigan for her leadership and her 
great assistance on the Budget Committee and also on the Agriculture 
Committee on this very important legislation on which we will be 
seeking to

[[Page S4608]]

override the President's veto. That bill really should not be called a 
farm bill. It is far more than that. It is a food bill, an energy bill, 
a conservation bill, a trade bill, although inadvertently the enrolling 
clerk over in the House dropped off the trade title. So that will 
create a bit of a challenge for us as well.
  I thank very much the Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
data on pay-go.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    GOP CLAIMS ON PAYGO FULL OF HOLES
                    Alleged ``Real PAYGO Violations''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Claim        Fact
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immigration Reform............................   $30.3 B               0
    --Never passed Senate.....................
    --Fully paid for on unified basis.........
Energy Bill...................................     4.2 B          -$52 M
    --Final bill sent to President more than
     paid for.................................
    --Passed Senate 86-8......................
Mental Health Parity..........................     2.8 B               0
    --In conference--final bill will be fully
     paid for.................................
    --Passed Senate by unanimous consent......
Prescription Drug User Fee Amendments.........     0.2 B            -4 M
    --Final bill sent to President more than
     paid for.................................
    --Passed Senate by unanimous consent......
Minimum Wage Increase.........................      50 M               0
    --Fully paid for on unified basis.........
Water Resources Development Act...............       4 M            -5 M
    --Final bill sent to President more than
     paid for.................................
    --Passed Senate 81-12.....................
                                               -------------------------
        TOTAL.................................     $38 B            61 M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: SBC GOP ``Swiss-Chesse-Go'' chart, SBC Majority staff.
Note: Minimum wage increase in 2007 supplemental was fully paid for on
  unified basis, but had small net on-budget cost.


                Alleged ``Gimmicks to Get Around PAYGO''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Claim        Fact
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCHIP Reauthorization.........................     $45 B         -$207 M
    --More than paid for over 6 and 11 years..
    --5-year reauthorization--Congress will
     reauthorize in 2012 with new policies and
     offsets..................................
Farm Bill.....................................    27.5 B          -102 M
    --More than paid for over 6 and 11 years..
    --5-year reauthorization--Congress will
     reauthorize in 2012 with new policies and
     offsets..................................
Higher Ed Reconciliation Bill.................      26 B    -752 M/5 yrs
    --More than paid for over 6 and 11 years..  ........    3.6 B/10 yrs
    --Savings will continue to grow in decades
     beyond budget window.....................
2007 Supplemental--County Payments/PILT/MILC..     6.5 B               0
    --PAYGO rule applies to mandatory spending
     and revenues only--not to appropriations.
    --Discretionary spending controlled by
     separate caps............................
    --2008 budget resolution established new
     60-vote point of order to limit changes
     in mandatory spending on appropriations
     bills and strengthen PAYGO even further..
                                               -------------------------
        TOTAL.................................     105 B          -3.9 B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: SBC GOP ``Swiss-Cheese-Go'' chart, SBC Majority Staff.
Note: Per section 201 of 2008 budget resolution, net savings enacted
  pursuant to reconciliation are not included on PAYGO ledger. They are
  reserved solely for deficit reduction.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, this budget resolution conference report 
allows Congress to take action on many of America's priorities.
  This conference report starts by providing for many priorities 
through the revenue side of the budget.
  This agreement includes monies to pay for extending expired and 
expiring revenue provisions.
  These provisions include the teacher expense deduction, which helps 
teachers who buy school supplies.
  These provisions include school construction bonds, to help repair 
our country's deteriorating school infrastructure.
  And these provisions include help to businesses to stay competitive. 
In particular, the budget assumes extending the research and 
development credit, which gives businesses an incentive to increase 
research. This will keep America as a top innovator in science and 
technology.
  This conference agreement on the budget resolution also includes 
monies to provide for education tax reform. So far this year, the 
Finance Committee has held two tax reform hearings. One of the major 
themes of the testimony has been simplification.
  Witnesses almost always cite education tax incentives as an example 
of needless complexity. This conference report would allow us to help 
make education more accessible and affordable by making the education 
incentives easier to use.
  The agreement also includes my amendment that was successfully added 
to the budget resolution on the Senate floor.
  My amendment took the surpluses in the budget resolution and gave 
them back to the hard-working American families who earned them.
  My amendment provided for some important priorities so that the 
business of America's families can be taken care of.
  First, my amendment provided for permanence of the 10-percent tax 
bracket. That is an across-the-board tax cut for every taxpayer.
  Second, my amendment provided for making permanent the changes to the 
child tax credit. That is a $1,000 tax credit per child. This tax 
credit recognizes that a family's ability to pay taxes decreases as the 
family size increases. Unless we act, the child tax credit will fall to 
$500 per child in 2010.
  Third, my amendment provided for making permanent marriage penalty 
relief. This relief makes sure that a married couple filing a joint 
return has the same deductions and tax brackets as they would if they 
filed separately as individuals.
  Fourth, my amendment provided for making permanent the increased 
dependent care credit and changes to the adoption credit.
  Fifth, my amendment provided for tax provisions to help military 
families. And I am pleased to say that these are very close to being 
adopted by the Congress. This shows that Congress values the sacrifices 
that our men and women in uniform make for us every day.
  Nearly 1\1/2\ million American service men and women have served in 
Iraq, Afghanistan, or both. Nearly 30,000 troops have been wounded in 
action.
  Congress is about to show our support for our service men and women 
by making the Tax Code a little more troop-friendly.
  We will extend the special tax rules that make sense for our military 
that expire in 2007 and 2008.
  We can eliminate roadblocks in the current tax laws that present 
difficulties to veterans and servicemembers.
  One of these roadblocks is how the Tax Code treats survivors of our 
fallen heroes. The families of soldiers killed in the line of duty 
receive a death gratuity benefit of $100,000.
  The Tax Code restricts the survivors from putting this benefit into a 
Roth IRA. We are about to make sure that the family members of fallen 
soldiers can take advantage of these tax-favored accounts.
  Another roadblock in the tax laws impedes our disabled veterans. I am 
talking about the time limit for filing for a tax refund. Most VA 
disability claims filed by veterans are quickly resolved. But many 
disability awards are delayed due to lost paperwork or the appeals of 
rejected claims.
  Once a disabled vet finally gets a favorable award, the good news is 
that the disability award is tax-free. The bad news is that many of 
these disabled veterans get ambushed by a statute that bars them from 
filing a tax refund claim. We are about to give disabled veterans an 
extra year to claim their tax refunds.
  Most troops doing the heavy lifting in combat situations are the 
lower ranking, lower income soldiers. Their income needs to count 
towards computing the earned-income tax credit, or EITC. Under current 
law, however, income earned by a soldier in a combat zone is exempt 
from income tax. This actually hurts low-income military personnel 
under the EITC.
  The EITC combat-pay exception allows combat zone pay to count as 
earned income for purposes of determining the credit. That way, more 
soldiers qualify for the EITC. But this EITC combat-pay exception 
expires at the end of 2007.
  We are about to make this provision permanent.
  The budget resolution conference report also provides for some 
certainty to American families on the estate tax.
  Lowering the estate tax to 2009 levels is the least that we can do as 
estate tax reform.
  I am pleased that the conference report recommends appropriations of 
$240 million more than the President requested for the administrative 
costs for the Social Security Administration for fiscal year 2009.
  These funds are badly needed to reduce the enormous waiting times 
that many applicants for Social Security disability benefits must wait 
before their claims are finally approved. Funds are also badly needed 
to improve the low levels of service to the public in SSA's local field 
offices.
  I am pleased to see that the resolution captures Democratic health 
care priorities and provides economic relief

[[Page S4609]]

for families. It provides funding for maternal and child health; 
nutrition assistance for women, infants, and children or WIC; and the 
Social Services block grant. And the resolution accommodates 
legislation to modernize the unemployment insurance program.
  The resolution retains the reserve funds passed in the Senate to 
reauthorize CHIP and expand coverage to eligible but unenrolled kids. 
This is a personal priority for me.
  The budget also works to protect seniors from unscrupulous marketing 
of Medicare drug plans, thereby laying the groundwork for a strong 
Medicare bill currently under negotiation.
  The resolution also provides for important improvements to Medicare, 
such as promoting the use of Health IT.
  And it would set up a ``comparative effectiveness'' reserve fund to 
help us learn what treatments work best and most efficiently to keep 
Americans healthy. I am working with Chairman Conrad to introduce 
legislation on this topic this year.
  All of these investments take steps toward addressing the underlying 
growth in health care costs.
  The resolution is also tough on government waste, fraud, and abuse 
and includes important program integrity initiatives to crack down on 
wasteful or fraudulent spending in the Social Security, Medicare, 
Medicaid, and Unemployment Insurance Programs.
  This budget resolution also accounts for important international 
trade priorities under the Finance Committee's jurisdiction. The 
resolution establishes a reserve fund for trade adjustment assistance 
and a separate reserve fund for other trade initiatives. These reserve 
funds will allow the Finance Committee to realize legislation to 
reauthorize trade adjustment assistance, as well as pursue legislation 
to extend trade preferences, reauthorize customs functions, and 
implement bilateral trade agreements.
  Mr. President, I am thus pleased that this budget resolution 
conference report allows Congress to take action on these important 
priorities. I look forward to working with my colleagues to implement 
the improvements contemplated in the resolution. And I urge my 
colleagues to support the conference report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). The distinguished majority 
leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I am sorry to interrupt my friend from 
North Dakota, but we are not going to have any more votes tonight. We 
expect votes early in the morning, as early as 9:30. They will go on 
throughout the day. So everyone should be aware we are not going to 
have a vote tonight on the budget or the farm bill, but we will do the 
budget the first vote tomorrow, and after that we will move to the farm 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I thank the leader. I was thinking about 
this the other night. We don't thank the leader enough. We are blessed 
on our side with a leader whom I think every Member on our side has 
high confidence in because of his good judgment, his fairness, his 
balance, his willingness to listen and then decide. Even though he may 
not always agree with any one of us on a particular issue, he always 
listens, and he does it with respect, and then he decides. He makes a 
decision. I thank him for it. I know the role of leader is absolutely 
the toughest job in this town. It is an extremely difficult, demanding 
job, and our leader does an outstanding job of it. That is why he 
enjoys the confidence of our colleagues and the affection of our 
colleagues.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, if I may thank the Senator from North 
Dakota but also say there isn't anything that I agree to out here that 
doesn't have the full consent of the Republican leader. So even though 
Senator McConnell and I in public kick and bite and scratch and all 
those things, I have the ability to work with him on issues, which 
makes it possible for us to get business done outside the press and a 
lot of times Senators.
  I really appreciate my friend from North Dakota. He and I came to the 
Senate together. I can remember the first time I saw Kent Conrad. It 
was in the LBJ Room. It wasn't named the LBJ Room at the time. We were 
there for the purpose of indoctrination--I don't know the right word--
but we were nominees of our parties. We were running for the Senate in 
1986. Neither one of us was expected to get elected. We were both long 
shots. He was running against an incumbent Senator. I was running 
against President Reagan and Paul Laxalt. But we surprised them; we 
won.
  We have such a warm relationship. I love Lucy, his wife. When we 
first came here, a lot of people mixed up Landra and Lucy because they 
are both short, somewhat dark complected, but we don't mix them up.
  I say to the people watching C-SPAN, the only Senators in this 
Chamber are Senator Conrad, Senator Reid, and Senator Stabenow. Senator 
Stabenow has indicated in a meeting we just completed that she said the 
right thing at the right time to help us get to where we are today.
  I am embarrassed with the kind words of my friend from North Dakota, 
but I thank him very much.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the leader.
  Madam President, I wish to indicate to the Chair that we have one 
other Member on our side who is going to come to the Chamber to talk. 
Senator Whitehouse is going to come. I think he will only be seeking 
about 15 minutes, I say to the Chair. He will be here in 10 minutes. He 
will seek only about 15 minutes. I mentioned this to Senator Gregg. So 
after Senator Whitehouse, other than Senator Dodd, who might still come 
for 6 or 7 minutes, that will complete speakers on our side. Senator 
Gregg told me he does not believe he has any further speakers on his 
side.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________