Time	Speaker	Text
00:00:16	Conrad, Kent	MARKET WILL COME TO ORDER. -- MARK UP WILL COME TO ORDER. I WANT TO THANK MY COLLEAGUES FOR THEIR HELP IN PROCEEDING WITH THE MARK UP. ESPECIALLY SENATOR GREGG FOR HIS HELP. IN SCHEDULING THE MARKED UP UP AND CONDUCTING IT IN A WAY THAT IS PROFESSIONAL AND REFLECTS WELL AND I WANT TO THANK HIS STAFF FOR THEIR PROFESSIONALISM AS WE HAVE WORKED TO BRING THE THE MARK TO THE COMMITTEE AND IN THE PROCESS LAST NIGHT, MANY QUESTIONS WERE ASKED OF THE STAFF AND I THINK ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN POSED HAVE BEEN ASKED. I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE ONE MINUTE AND THEN OPEN IT TO SENATOR GREGG AND THE INITIAL COMMENTS AND WE OPEN IT TO AMENDMENT. ON THIS QUESTION OF A FIVE-YEAR BUDGET OR TENURE BUDGET, I WANT TO GO OVER THE HISTORY OF THE 34 YEARS OF THE BUDGET ACT, 30 OF THOSE 34 YEARS WE HAVE DONE A FIVE-YEAR BUDGET INCLUDING THE LAST FIVE YEARS, INCLUDING TWO WHEN CENTER GREG WAS CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE, AND THE ARGUMENT HAS BEEN FOR DOING A FIVE-YEAR RATHER THAN A 10-YEAR BUDGET THAT THE ESTIMATES ARE UNRELIABLE. I HAVE NEVER SEEN THEM MORE UNCERTAIN IN MY 22 YEARS ON THE COMMITTEE THEN THIS YEAR. I AM TALKING ABOUT THE OUT YEAR YES -- ESTIMATES. 6 THROUGH 10. WE WENT TO A FIVE-YEAR BUDGET. I DO NOT THINK ANYTHING IS HIDDEN IN THAT PROCESS. WE HAVE THE CBO 10 YEARS CORE OF THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSAL. IT IS AS CLEAR AS IT CAN BE. IT SENDS A VERY UNMISTAKEABLE MESSAGE THAT THIS FIRST FIVE YEARS WHILE WE MAKE SUBSTANTIAL PROGRESS IN OUR BUDGET MARK MAKES PROGRESS REDUCING THE DEFICIT. IN YEARS SIX THROUGH 10, WHETHER IT IS THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET OR MINE, WE WILL HAVE TO DO A LOT MORE TO GET BACK ON A SOUND FISCAL FOOTING. I DID WANT TO MAKE THE POINT THAT IT AND HAS BEEN ABSOLUTELY THE NORM HERE, 30 OF THE 34 BUDGETS HAVE BEEN, FIVE-YEAR BUDGETS. WITH THAT, I WOULD GO TO SENATOR GREGG FOR ANY OPENING OBSERVATIONS HE MIGHT HAVE AND THEN WE WILL OPEN IT TO AMENDMENT.
00:03:26	Gregg, Judd Alan	I WANT TO SECOND YOUR COMMENTS. IT IS BECAUSE OF YOUR LEADERSHIP AND YOUR STAFF TANGOR CORDIAL APPROACH TO THIS ISSUE. I KNOW WE ON OUR SIDE APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK IT REFLECTS WELL ON OUR BODY THAT ON ISSUES WHICH WE HOLD DEEP PHILOSOPHICAL DIFFERENCES, AT THE CORE OF THE TWO PARTIES THAT WE'RE ABLE TO PROCEED ON WHAT IS AN ORDERLY AND CONSTRUCTIVE WAY OF GETTING OUR POINTS ACROSS AND MOVING ACROSS THIS FORWARD. THAT IS A REFLECTION OF YOUR BALANCED LEADERSHIP. ON THE ISSUE OF THE FIVE-YEAR BUDGET SINCE YOU HAVE RAISED IT, YOU'RE RIGHT. IT HAVE DONE A FIVE-YEAR BUDGET. THE POINT IS THE PRESIDENT'S IN AN ATTEMPT TO DELIVER MORE TRANSPARENCY TO THE PROCESS, TO THE BUDGET AND NIGHT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AND EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION FOR HIS DOING THAT. WHEN YOU DROP THE LAST FIVE YEARS OF YOUR BUDGET IT BECOMES LESS TRANSPARENT. AND THE SIMPLE FACT IS THE CBO SCORE IN THE SECOND FIVE YEARS SCARE ME. THE DEFICITS AND THE DEBT THAT WE ARE APPALLING -- PILING ON THE PRESIDENT THAT IS BEING PURSUED, YOUR BUDGET AND THE PRESIDENTS ARE ASTRONOMICAL AND NOT SUPPORTED. -- SUPPORTABLE. I JUST LEARNED FROM MY STAFF BUT THE ENGLISH GOVERNMENT COULD NOT SELL ITS BONDS IS TODAY. COULD NOT SELL ITS BONDS. WE HAVE HEARD FROM THE CHINESE THAT THEY ARE CONCERNED. WE HAVE BEEN LECTURED FROM THE OF FRENCH ABOUT ARE PROFLIGATE ATTITUDE TOWARD SPENDING. THE HEAD OF THE E.U. WHO IS THE PRIME MINISTER OF CZECHOSLOVAKIA, I WILL NOT QUOTE HIM, HE SAID WE WERE ON THE WRONG PATH. WE ARE. THE DEBT THAT WE ARE RUNNING UP IS THREATENING THE FISCAL STABILITY OF OUR NATION IN THE LONG RUN. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO POINT THAT OUT. THE WAY YOU POINTED OUT IS BUYINGBY DOING AT 10-YEAR BUDGET. I NEVER DID ONE. I DID FIVE-YEAR BUDGETS BUT THIS IS DIFFERENT. WHEN THE PROPOSAL THE PRESIDENT HAS THAT PUTS US ON A PATH TO DOUBLE THE BUDGET AND TRIPLE IT WHEN THE DEBT BECOMES 80% OF GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT, I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO INFORM THE PUBLIC.
00:06:20	Conrad, Kent	LET ME GO BACK TO THIS QUESTION. THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT DISCUSSION. I DO NOT THINK IT WILL SURPRISE YOU THAT I HAPPEN TO STRONGLY AGREE WITH YOU. ON YOUR 6 THROUGH 10. I AM EXTREMELY ALARMED BY CBO'S ESTIMATE OF THE SECOND FIVE YEARS OF THE BUDGET. THE CBO ESTIMATE OF THE SECOND FIVE YEARS OF MY BUDGET WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY LESS ALARMING. $2.40 TRILLION LESS ALARMING. THAT IS A LOT. FRANKLY, I THINK GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A CDOS SCORE OF THE 10 YEARS OF THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET, THERE IS NOTHING BEING HIDDEN HERE. NOTHING BEING HIDDEN. DOING A FIVE-YEAR BUDGET, GIVEN THE UNCERTAINTY OF THE OUT TO YEARS, MAKES SENSE TO ME. THAT IS A DEBATE THAT WE CAN PURSUE.
00:07:34	Gregg, Judd Alan	AS WE GET INTO THE AMENDMENT PROCESS. I BELIEVE SENATOR ALEXANDER IS READY TO OFFER AN AMENDMENT.
00:07:40	Conrad, Kent	I YOU PREPARED TO OFFER AN
00:07:41	Alexander, Lamar	I AM READY. HOW MUCH TIME DO I HAVE?
00:07:49	Conrad, Kent	WHAT WE HAVE TRADITIONALLY DONE, HAVE NOT VISITED ABOUT THAT. THIS YEAR. I THINK WE WILL CONSULT THE COMMITTEE RIGHT NOW. WHAT WOULD THE DRUTHERS BE OF THE COMMITTEE? TRADITIONALLY WE WOULD HAVE FIVE MINUTES AND TWO MINUTES AS A WRAP UP, ONE MINUTE ON EACH SIDE BEFORE A VOTE.
00:08:14	Gregg, Judd Alan	RIGHT. THE FIVE MINUTES SHOULD BE DIVIDED 3 TO THE OFFER AND TWO TO THE RESPONSE.
00:08:25	Conrad, Kent	IF YOU WANT TO TAKE THREE MINUTES TO DESCRIBE YOUR AMENDMENT. WE HAVEA A TWO MINUTE RESPONSE.
00:08:37	Alexander, Lamar	I HAVE THREE MINUTES.
00:08:43	Conrad, Kent	WE HAVE ALSO -- LET'S BE CLEAR. WE HAVE HAD THAT GUIDELINE IN THE PAST FOR THE IMMINENCE. WHEN WE HAVE A CONTROVERSIAL AMENDMENT, WE HAVE EXPANDED THE TIME. IF THE SENATOR WANTS TO PROCEED ON THAT BASIS AND APPROVES -- IT PROVES TO BE CONTROVERSIAL WEEK WILL BE FLEXIBLE AND MAKE SURE EVERYBODY GETS THEIR CHANCE TO EXPRESS THEIR VIEW.
00:09:05	Crapo, Michael "Mike"	I SUSPECT THIS WILL NOT CHANGE ANYTHING BUT I HAVE ALWAYS WONDERED WHY WE HAVE TO DO IT AGAIN WHEN WE GET READY TO VOTE. WE HAVE EVERYBODY SAY THE SAME THING I HAVE ALREADY SAID.
00:09:15	Conrad, Kent	I WOULD SAY THIS. THE REASON WE HAVE ALWAYS ALLOWED A WRAP UP BEFORE THE VOTE IS BECAUSE JUST AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, NOT ALL MEMBERS ARE HERE FOR THE INITIAL ARGUMENT.
00:09:26	Crapo, Michael "Mike"	THAT IS WHAT I THOUGHT THE REASON WAS.
00:09:32	Conrad, Kent	SENATOR, I AGREE WITH THE SENATOR. SENATOR ALEXANDER.
00:09:34	Alexander, Lamar	THANK YOU. THE PRESIDENT DESERVES GREAT CREDIT FOR GIVING THIS A 10-YEAR PICTURE OF THE COUNTRY'S FUTURE WITH HIS BUDGET. THOSE OF US WHO HAVE BEEN AROUND EDUCATION MUCH KNOW THAT A GOOD WAY TO GET A PICTURE OF YOUR COMMUNITY OR YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD OR COUNTRY IS TAKE A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE CHILDREN OF THE FIRST GRADE THEN IMAGINE WHAT THE COUNTRY WILL LOOK LIKE IN 10 YEARS. WITH RESPECT, YOU HAVE SUGGESTED IN YOUR BUDGET THAT WE IMAGINE WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE IN FIVE YEARS. YOU HAVE ASKED THE CHILDREN TO LEAVE THE ROOM DURING THE PHOTOGRAPH LIKE THE AMT TAX AND A FEW OTHERS. THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSAL IS A MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD PICTURE AND I COMMEND HIM FOR IT EVEN THOUGH IT IS A PICTURE I DO NOT LIKE. FOR EXAMPLE, THE PRESIDENT WOULD IMPOSE ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE A $640 BILLION ENERGY TAX. A NATIONAL SALES TAX IN EFFECT ON ELECTRICITY, GASOLINE PRICES IN THE MIDDLE OF A RECESSION. THIS BUDGET SAYS WE MIGHT NOT DO IT AND WE WILL ASK THAT CHILD TO LEAVE THE ROOM WHILE WE TAKE THE PICTURE BUT YOU HAVE OUR RESERVE FUND AND HAVE A PLACE HOLDER. IN THE HOUSE THEY DO MORE SO YOU LEFT A SEAT FOR THIS CHILD. THIS NATIONAL ENERGY TAX EVEN THOUGH WE ARE NOT PASSING IT. MY AMENDMENT WOULD -- WOULD SHOW WE CAN HAVE AN AGGRESSIVE CLEAN ENERGY POLICY WITHOUT NEW TAXES AND HIGHER PRICES IN THE MIDDLE OF RECESSION. IT CREATES A DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO REDUCE DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL BY INCREASING CLEAN ENERGY DEVELOPMENT, EXPANDING DOMESTIC PRODUCTION, AND ENHANCING ENERGY CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCY. CONSTRUCTION OF 100 NEW NUCLEAR PLANTS BY 2013. THAT IS SOME% OF FARD CARBON FREE ENERGY NUCLEAR USE TODAY. WE NEED PERMISSION TO BUILD MORE. ELECTRIFY HAVE FOUR CARS AND TRUCKS. WITHIN THE NEXT 20 YEARS. WE DO NOT NEED TO BUILD ONE MORE POWER PLANT TO DO THAT BECAUSE WE CAN PLUG THEM AND IN AT NIGHT. ENERGY RESEARCH TO MAKE SOLAR POWER COSTS COMPETITIVE WITH FUELS'. CAPTURE CARBON DIOXIDE FROM EXISTING COAL PLANTS. THE NEXT NOBEL PRIZE OUGHT TO GO TO THE SCIENTIST WHO INVENTS A WAY TO LET US USE THE KOLE THAT GIVES AS 50% OF ELECTRICITY AND WE KNOW HOW TO GET RID OF THE SULFUR, NITROGEN, AND MERCURY. WE NEED TO GET RID OF THE CARBON. ENERGY RESEARCH FOR THE PROCESSING OF NUCLEAR WASTE AND STORED. -- STORAGE. CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENT USE OF ENERGY. WE CAN AGREE ON THAT. DEVELOPMENT OF NATURAL GAS AND OIL RESOURCES ON THE OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF. WE MAY NOT AGREE ON THAT BUT WE OUGHT TO DO THAT. WE NEED THE NATURAL GAS TO KEEP HOME AND BUSINESS [UNINTELLIGIBLE] EVEN IF WE ELECTRIFY OUR CARS, HALF OF THEM WILL RUN ON OIL AND NOT TO BE OUR ORAL INSTEAD OF SENDING BILLIONS OVERSEAS TO BUY OIL. THIS IS AN AMENDMENT FOR AN AGGRESSIVE CLEAN ENERGY POLICY. IT IS A BETTER IDEA THAN A NATIONAL SALES TAX ON ELECTRIC BILLS AND GASOLINE PRICES. I MOVE ITS ADOPTION.
00:13:08	Conrad, Kent	THANK YOU. I WOULD SAY IN RESPONSE FIRST OF ALL, WE ALREADY HAVE A DEFICIT NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR ENERGY INITIATIVES IN THE CHAIRMAN'S MARK. WE HAVE PROVIDED THAT IT BE DEFICIT-NEUTRAL. WE DO NOT PRE-JUDGE THE WORK OF THE COMMITTEES OF JURISDICTION. WITH RESPECT TO WHAT LEGISLATION THEY WOULD REPORT BACK. AS I LOOK AT THE AMENDMENT IT STRIKES ME AS OVERLY PRESCRIPTIVE. WHILE I AM A SUPPORTER OF NUCLEAR POWER AND I WAS AN ACTIVE MEMBER OF THE SO-CALLED GANG OF 10 THAT BECAME A GROUP OF 20 EQUALLY DIVIDED BETWEEN REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS TO DEVELOP A COMPREHENSIVE ENERGY POLICY AND ONE THAT HAD SUPPORT FOR NUCLEAR POWER AS WELL AS OFFSHORE DRILLING, I DO NOT KNOW AT THIS MOMENT WHETHER SAYING THAT WE SHOULD CONSTRUCT A 100 NEW NUCLEAR PLANTS BY 2030 IS A NEW POLICY OF NOT. WE SHOULD LEAVE THAT TO THE COMMITTEES OF JURISDICTION WHO HAVE HELD THE HEARINGS AND HOW THE PEOPLE WHO ARE MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE COME BACK WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT IS BEING WORKED ON IN THE ENERGY COMMITTEE RIGHT NOW. THE SAME WOULD EXTEND TO THE ELECTRIFICATION OF AT LEAST ONE HALF OF THE CARS AND TRUCKS IN THE U.S. DURING THE 20 YEAR TIME BEGINNING ON THE DATE OF APPROVAL. I AND OUR GANG OF 10 OR GROUP OF 20 WEEK SUPPORTED THE INITIATIVE FOR THE ELECTRIFICATION OF CARS IN THE U.S., MOVING THEM OFF PETROLEUM BASED FUELS AND OVER THE NEXT 25 YEARS. I CANNOT AT THIS MOMENT SAY THAT THIS IS PRECISELY THE RIGHT POLICY. I DO NOT THINK THAT IS THE APPROPRIATE ROLE FOR THE BUDGET COMMITTEE. THE ROLE IS TO GIVE THE COMMITTEES OF JURISDICTION THE FLEXIBILITY TO WRITE THE BEST LEGISLATION POSSIBLE. TO GIVE THEM THE RESOURCES TO DO IT BUT TO NOT BE PRESCRIPTIVE WITH WHAT THE RESULTS SHOULD BE. I DO NOT THINK THAT IS THE APPROPRIATE ROLE. WE HAVE NOT HELD THE HEARINGS AND HAVE NOT HAD THE REVIEWS THAT THE CAMERA IT -- COMMITTEE OF JURISDICTIONS DO. I WOULD INCUR JUST TO RESIST THIS AMENDMENT. IS THERE OTHER DEBATE?
00:15:45	Gregg, Judd Alan	THE PRESIDENT HAS SUGGESTED A NATIONAL SALES TAX ON ENERGY. YOU'LL PAY A SALES TAX WHEN YOU TURN ON YOUR LIGHTS. THE SENATOR IS SAYING THERE IS A BETTER WAY TO DO IT. THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO HAVE A NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY THAT WILL WORK. PRODUCING MORE AMERICAN ENERGY AND CONSERVING IT. MORE ENERGY. NOT HAVING A NATIONAL SALES TAX ON ENERGY. THAT IS WHAT THE DEBATE IS ABOUT. IT IS A SIMPLE AMENDMENT AND GOOD POLICY.
00:16:17	Conrad, Kent	LET ME SAY THAT THIS AMENDS THE CHAIRMAN'S MARK. THERE IS NOTHING THAT CAN BE TERMED A NATIONAL SALES TAX ON ELECTRICITY OR SALES TAX ON ANYTHING ELSE. THE GENTLEMAN IF HE WANTS TO AMEND THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET WE DO NOT HAVE THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET BEFORE US.
00:16:36	Alexander, Lamar	IT IS A LOT LIKE THE CLASS PHOTOGRAPH. YOU HAVE ASKED THE CHILD TO LEAVE THE ROOM BUT YOU LEFT HIS DESK WAITING FOR HIM TO COME BACK IN THE HOUSE -- AND THE HOUSE IS COOPERATING. I HOPE YOU'RE RIGHT. YOU HAVE BEEN FORTHRIGHT ABOUT SAYING SUCH ATTACKS HAVE NO PLACE IN THE BUDGET. RECONCILIATION, WE SHOULD DEAL WITH THAT IN ANOTHER WAY. I HOPE YOUR DUKE CARRIES. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS A CLEAR ALTERNATIVE HERE. THAT CLEARLY DID NOT INVOLVE PLACING A HUGE NATIONAL TAX ON ENERGY IN THE MIDDLE OF A RECESSION. DO YOU WISH RECOGNITION? CENTER ALEXANDER. ARE YOU PREPARED TO MOVE ON FROM YOUR AMENDMENT TO THE NEXT?
00:17:28	Conrad, Kent	WE APPRECIATE IT. SENATOR FEINGOLD IS RECOGNIZED.
00:17:34	Feingold, Russell	THANK YOU. THANKS TO SENATOR WHITE HOUSE AND SENATOR SANDERS. THIS WOULD CREATE AN ADJUSTMENT TO REDUCE WASTE IN DEFENSE CONTRACTING. SETTING ASIDE $100 MILLION TO RECOVER ERRONEOUS PAYMENTS TO CONTRACTORS WERE RESTRUCTURE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS THAT ARE AT HIGH RISK OF FAILING. THIS WOULD HELP INSURE THAT OUR TROOPS HAVE THE EQUIPMENT THEY NEED. THE PROGRAM INTEGRITY CAPS ARE USED TO PREVENT WASTEFUL SPENDING. IN 2007 THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION REQUESTED A $183 MILLION CAP ADJUSTMENT TO DETECT OVER PAYMENTS TO MEDICARE RECIPIENTS. THOSE FUNDS COULD BE PROJECTED TO PRODUCE SAVINGS OF $330 MILLION. OMB REPORT SAID DOT HAS FAILED TO RECOVER $300 MILLION IN ERRONEOUS PAYMENTS. THIS WOULD HELP ENSURE WE RECOVER AS SUCH OVERPAYMENTS BUT HELP US IMPROVE OVERSIGHT OF CONTRACTORS. OUR INABILITY TO CONDUCT PROPER OVERSIGHT OF DEFENSE CONTRACTORS HAS LED TO TWO OF $95 BILLION IN COST OVERRUNS IN OUR ACQUISITION PROGRAMS ACCORDING TO GAO. SENATOR MCCAIN HAS STATED THAT ON LESS DIFFICULT DOZENS -- DECISIONS ARE MADE AND REFORMS ARE TAKEN OUR ABILITY TO PROVIDE FOR NATIONAL SECURITY WILL BE OVERTIME FUNDAMENTALLY COMPROMISE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT IS TO SUPPORT THE EFFORTS OF THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE AND OTHERS TO REFORM OUR ACQUISITION PROCESS THROUGH SUCH EFFORTS AS INCREASED COMPETITION AMONG CONTRACTORS, INCREASED TESTING AND PROTOTYPING, AND INCREASED WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT OVERSIGHT. ONGOING EFFORTS TO REFORM THE PROCESS, THIS AMENDMENT CAN USE -- BE USED [UNINTELLIGIBLE] THERE IS MORE TO BE DONE AND THIS AMENDMENT WOULD HELP US INCREASE OVERSIGHT. THANK YOU.
00:19:28	Conrad, Kent	ANYONE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? SENATOR GREGG.
00:19:36	Gregg, Judd Alan	THIS WOULD ESSENTIALLY NOT RAISE SPENDING. IT WOULD REDUCE THE CAP AND REQUIRE THAT THAT AMOUNT BE SPENT FOR THIS PURPOSE.
00:19:44	Feingold, Russell	THE MONEY COULD BE SPENT FOR THAT PURPOSE BUT IT WOULD BE UNDER THE CAP.
00:19:50	Gregg, Judd Alan	WHO CONTROLLED THE $100 MILLION? AS A DEFENSE?
00:19:57	Feingold, Russell	THE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE.
00:20:00	Gregg, Judd Alan	THEY GET $100 MILLION THAT CAN SPEND ON THIS?
00:20:01	Feingold, Russell	IS BELOW THE CAP. ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES SET AND DEFINED HERE CAN BE SPENT FOR THOSE PURPOSES.
00:20:12	Gregg, Judd Alan	THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE WILL GET THE MONEY. WILL THEY SET THEIR OWN INVESTIGATIVE STAFF?
00:20:20	Feingold, Russell	THE APPROPRIATE COMMITTEE.
00:20:23	Gregg, Judd Alan	THEY WILL SET UP A NEW OFFICE WITHIN THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE TO MANAGE THIS $100 MILLION?
00:20:28	Feingold, Russell	I DO NOT KNOW HOW THEY WOULD PROCEED.
00:20:32	Gregg, Judd Alan	IS A GAO?
00:20:39	>>	[INAUDIBLE]
00:20:54	Feingold, Russell	I WOULD LIKE TO GET BACK TO YOU. COULD I DEFER THIS?
00:21:03	Conrad, Kent	WE HAVE GOT A VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM THAT SENATOR FINE GOLD IS ATTEMPTING TO ADDRESS IN THIS AMENDMENT. IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT YOU RECALL AT THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY SUMMIT AT THE WHITE HOUSE, SENATOR MCCAIN SPECIFICALLY REFERENCE TO THE ACQUISITION OF A NEW HELICOPTER FOR THE PRESIDENT'S FLEET. AND HOW THE COST OF THAT HELICOPTER IS NOW EXCEEDED THE COST OF THE PRESIDENT'S PLANE. THEY TALKED ABOUT TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS FOR THE 71 PRESIDENTIAL HELICOPTER FLEET, OF $11 BILLION. IT IS -- HAS ESCALATED WILDLY. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WHAT THE SENATOR IS SEEKING TO DO IS PROVIDE THE RESOURCES FOR THE DEPARTMENT THROUGH THE WORK OF THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE TO HAVE THE SAME KIND OF PROGRAM INTEGRITY EFFORT THAT WE HAVE GOT GOING HHS WHICH HAS UNCOVERED TENS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF FRAUD. THE LAST SECRETARY CAME TO ME IN THIS BACK ROOM AND SHOWED ME THE EXTRAORDINARY FRAUD THEY WERE ON COVERING WITH THEIR PROGRAM INTEGRITY FUNDS. MY UNDERSTANDING IS SENATOR FEINGOLD IS SEEKING TO DO THE SAME THING.
00:22:39	Feingold, Russell	WE PASSED THIS LAST TIME IN COMMITTEE. THEIR PREPARATIONS COMMITTEE CAN MARKET WOULD NEVER BUILD A ONE AND PICK AGENCIES THAT THEY WANT TO CREATE THESE PROGRAMS IN. IT IS UP TO THEM TO PICK THE LEGISLATION.
00:22:55	Gregg, Judd Alan	[INAUDIBLE]
00:23:04	Feingold, Russell	THEY COULD.
00:23:08	Conrad, Kent	THE SECRETARY OF HHS TALK TO ME IN HIS DEPARTMENT WAS INVESTIGATORS, AUDITORS, AND PEOPLE TO FILE AND BRING CRIMINAL ACTIONS AGAINST THOSE ENGAGED IN WIDESPREAD FRAUD.
00:23:25	Gregg, Judd Alan	WE HAVE A LOT OF INSPECTOR GENERAL'S AROUND HERE. I AM SURE SOMEBODY RESPONSIBLE WOULD END UP WITH THE MONEY.
00:23:33	Feingold, Russell	THIS MONEY IS NOT ONLY FOR AUDITORS. IT CAN BE USED FOR RANGE OF INITIATIVES. TO IMPROVE TESTING AND INCREASE COMPETITION.
00:23:58	Whitehouse, Sheldon	I WANT TO COMMEND THE SENATOR FOR OFFERING THIS AMENDMENT. I AM DELIGHTED TO BE A CO- SPONSOR. I WOULD REQUEST THAT THE COMMITTEE AS WE GO FORWARD CONSIDERING MORE GENERALLY THE NOTION OF OUR ROLE OF LOOKING INTO EFFICIENCIES AND LOOKING INTO FRAUD AND COST SAVINGS. WE SOMETIMES HAVE TO TAKE THE BUDGET CATEGORY NUMBERS AS GIVENS. WE HAD SO MANY DISPUTES WITH THE LAST ADMINISTRATION OVER POLICY AND INTEGRITY MATTERS THAT TO DRILL DOWN INTO THE EFFICIENCY QUESTION WAS SOMETHING WE DID NOT HAVE THE CHANCE TO DO. I AM HOPING THAT OFF-SEASON ONCE THE BUDGET IS PASSED, THIS COMMITTEE MIGHT CONSIDER A CONTINUING ROLE LOOKING INTO THAT QUESTION SO IN THE FOLLOWING BUDGET WE CAN SPEAK WITH MORE AUTHORITY. THEY CAN BE TAKEN OUT -- BY FINDING WAYS TO DELIVER SERVICES MORE EFFICIENTLY. THE SENATOR'S STEP IN THIS DIRECTION IS A GOOD ONE AND I AM PLEASED TO CO-SPONSOR.
00:25:04	Conrad, Kent	ANY OTHER DEBATE?
00:25:16	Cornyn, John	MY AMENDMENT WOULD CREATE A DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THIS SUNSET COMMISSION. I WOULD INVITE EVERYONE TO GO TO EXPECTMORE.GOV WHICH IS DEVELOPED BY THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET. THIS ALLOWS TAXPAYERS TO SEE HOW EFFECTIVELY THEIR MONEY IS SPENT. ACCORDING TO THE LATEST ASSESSMENT OF OMB THEY FOUND THAT 20% OF THE PROGRAMS WERE NONPERFORMING. MANY OF GARST DATES HAVE SUNSET COMMISSIONS THAT REDOUBT WASTEFUL SPENDING AND UNNECESSARY PROGRAMS. THERE IS NO MECHANISM FOR DOING THAT. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN. AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. ALMOST WITHOUT EXCEPTION. IN MY STATE, SINCE 1977, WE HAVE SEEN THIS SUNSET COMMISSION PROCESS ELIMINATE 50 AGENCIES AND SAVE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. I BELIEVE THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA AS STATED DESIRE TO NOT ONLY GOAL LINE BY LINE THROUGH THE FEDERAL BUDGET TO ELIMINATE WASTEFUL SPENDING, WHICH IS USING THIS MECHANISM TO DO IT, AND I WOULD NOTE THAT VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN WHEN I OFFERED A SCALED-DOWN VERSION OF THE DEBATE FOR A RELIEF, HE STATED HE WAS A FAN OF SUNSET LEGISLATION. I THINK IT IS TIME FOR US TO QUIT TALKING ABOUT IT AND START DOING SOMETHING ABOUT WASTEFUL SPENDING. AND PROGRAMS THAT ARE NONPERFORMING. THIS DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE SUNSET COMMISSION WOULD DO THAT AND IT WOULD NOT ALLOW CONGRESS TO IGNORE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SUNSET COMMISSION BUT RATHER WOULD PROVIDE A PROCESS THAT CONGRESS WOULD CONSIDER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND VOTE ON THEM. I WOULD ASK MY COLLEAGUES FOR SUPPORT FOR THIS DEFICIT- NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THIS SUNSET COMMISSION.
00:27:34	Conrad, Kent	LOOKING AT THE AMENDMENT YOU HAVE OFFERED, IT IS A GOOD IDEA. IF THE SENATOR WOULD EXCEPT ME AS A CO-SPONSOR OF WOULD CO- SPONSOR HIS AMENDMENT.
00:29:38	Whitehouse, Sheldon	MAY I JOIN AS A CO-SPONSOR. I THINK IT IS A FINE IDEA.
00:29:44	>>	BIPARTISANSHIP?
00:29:46	Conrad, Kent	IT HAS BROKEN OUT.
00:30:10	Cardin, Benjamin L.	I RECOMMEND WE CREATE A FUND TO HELP TO BE REIMBURSED WITHOUT THE ANNUAL DOLLAR LIMIT.
00:31:19	Conrad, Kent	DO YOU WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED?
00:31:22	Ensign, John	BECAUSE OF THE -- I HAVE CAUGHT THE BUG OF BIPARTISANSHIP. I WOULD LIKE TO BE ADDED.
00:31:29	Cardin, Benjamin L.	CENTER IN SAN WAS ONE OF THE LEADERS.
00:31:33	Conrad, Kent	HE WOULD LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED AS A CO-SPONSOR.
00:32:30	Cardin, Benjamin L.	THE CHAIRMAN IS CORRECT. IT DOES PROTECT THE BENEFICIARIES. IT IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE WHEN THE -- WHEN THE CAP IS DONE BY THOSE WHO HAVE THE GREATEST NEED ARE THE MOST AFFECTED. IF IT IS AN OUTPATIENT SETTING, YOU ARE PENALIZED. IT MAKES NO SENSE WITH POLICY OR FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.
00:32:53	Conrad, Kent	IN THE PIT -- DEBATE WE JUST HAD ON THE EXTENSION IT BECAME CLEAR TO EVERYONE HOW COUNTERPRODUCTIVE THE CURRENT POLICY IS. THAT IS WHY THERE HAD TO BE AN EXCEPTION.
00:33:10	Ensign, John	THIS IS WHY IT DID NOT UNDERSTAND ON SCORING ON SOME THINGS AROUND HERE. MY GRANDMOTHER WAS A GREAT EXAMPLE. THAT IS HOW I CAME TO THIS ISSUE. SHE HAD BEEN THE REPLACEMENT -- HAD A KNEE REPLACEMENT. HER PHYSICAL THERAPY TOOK LONGER THAN OTHER PATIENTS WHO HAD TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENTS. SHE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO HAVE THE FULL PHYSICAL THERAPY. SHE WOULD HAVE ENDED UP AS AN INVALID, UNABLE TO GET AROUND. SHE ENDED UP LIVING ANOTHER SIX YEARS AFTER HER THE TONE THE REPLACEMENT ON HER OWN, WITHOUT -- NOT LIVING IN AN INSTITUTION. COSTING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LESS MONEY IN THE LONG RUN BECAUSE SHE WAS NOT -- SHE WAS ABLE TO LIVE INDEPENDENTLY. THAT IS A TYPICAL EXAMPLE OF PEOPLE WHO GET THE PROPER KIND OF PHYSICAL THERAPY AND OCCUPATIONAL AND SPEECH THERAPY. ALL THE THERAPIES NECESSARY. NOT ONLY FOR THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE BUT TO BE LESS OF A BURDEN ON THE TAXPAYER IN THE LONG RUN.
00:34:24	Conrad, Kent	THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY SENATOR SEEKING RECOGNITION ON THIS SIDE?
00:34:33	Bunning, Jim	THANK YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER MY DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND TO IMPROVE THE SECURITY FUEL AMENDMENT.
00:34:48	Conrad, Kent	DO WE HAVE A FOLLOW-UP ON THE AMENDMENT?
00:35:36	Bunning, Jim	THIS IS A SECURITY DOMESTIC FUELS AMENDMENT. IT DOES THREE THINGS. CREATES A SECURE DOMESTIC FUEL SUPPLIES FOR MILITARY. ALLOWS THEM TO PURCHASE FUEL IN CONTRACTS FOR UP TO 20 YEARS. AND CREATES AMERICAN JOBS. THE AMERICAN ECONOMY IS TO RESILIENCE OR TOO RELIANT ON FOREIGN OIL AND OUR MILITARY IS NO EXCEPTION. AS THE PRICE OF OIL ONCE AGAIN STARTS TO CLIMB, WE NEED TO PROVIDE A SAFETY NET FOR THE MILITARY SO THEY HAVE A STABLE FUEL SUPPLY REGARDLESS OF KABUL POLICY POLITICS OF OIL. THIS IS WHY I AM OFFERING AN AMENDMENT TO THE BUDGET TO CREATE A DOMESTIC FUEL SUPPLY NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR THE MILITARY. IT WILL GIVE THE BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN IN OUR DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE THE ABILITY TO PURCHASE A CLEAN, CHEAP, AND SECURE SOURCE OF DOMESTIC FUEL. IT WILL ALSO ALLOW THEM TO DO THIS IN CONTRACTS FOR UP TO 20 YEARS. NOT ONLY IS THIS A NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUE, BUT A MARKET PRICE ISSUE. IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO PREVENT A MILITARY FROM ENGAGING IN LONG-TERM CONTRACTS. I BELIEVE THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SHOULD ENGAGE IN THE SAME KIND OF CONTRACTS THAT A PRIVATE COMPANY DOES. LONG-TERM CONTRACTS PROVIDE PRICE CERTAINTY AND ALLOW FOR MORE CONSISTENT BUDGETING. I BELIEVE THIS IS SOMETHING THIS COMMITTEE HAS CONTINUALLY ASKED DOT TO DO EACH FISCAL YEAR. THE MILITARY IS THE LARGEST SINGLE FUEL PURCHASER IN THE COUNTRY. THE SUPPORT WILL HELP SUPPORT A DOMESTIC FUEL INDUSTRY. GIVING THEM THE ABILITY TO CREATE -- WE CAN CREATE AMERICAN JOBS THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS INDUSTRY. AT A TIME WHEN AMERICA'S POCKETBOOKS ARE GETTING TIGHTER, THIS OPPORTUNITY FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH WILL ALSO MEET OUR MILITARY NEEDS. I URGE THE SUPPORT OF MY MENDON AND DEMONSTRATE THE FORESIGHT AND LEADERSHIP WE NEED TO BREAK OUR ADDICTION TO FOREIGN OIL.
00:38:08	Conrad, Kent	THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THIS AMENDMENT. I FIND MYSELF CONFLICTED ON THIS AMENDMENT. LET ME EXPRESS WHY. ON THE ONE HAND, I AGREE WITH THE POLICY THAT YOU HAVE OUTLINED. I HAVE BEEN IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE AIR FORCE ON THE BENEFITS OF WHAT YOU ARE OUTLINING IN YOUR MENDON. THE REASON I AM CONFLICTED IS BECAUSE OF THE SCORING ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS. I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE PROVIDED FOR ITS IN A DEFICIT-NEUTRAL WAY WHICH I APPRECIATE. THAT IS THE RESPONSIBLE WAY TO DO IT. WHEN YOU HAVE THE 20-YEAR LIFE AT CBO. I KNOW YOU HAVE BEEN THROUGH THIS TUG OF WAR AS I HAVE ON THIS QUESTION. THEY SAY THAT THE ONLY WAY THIS WILL HAPPEN AND THE ONLY WAY THESE COMPANIES WILL HAVE ACCESS TO THE CAPITAL MARKETS IS BECAUSE OF THE 20-YEAR CONTRACTS AND THEREFORE, WHEN THEY SCORE IT, THEY SCORE VIRTUALLY THE FULL COST OF THE PLANTS AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. AND -- I HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN THESE DISCUSSIONS BECAUSE OF THE JET FUEL ISSUE OFF FROM FEEDSTOCK THAT WOULD COME FROM MY STATE. I KNOW YOU HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN THESE DISCUSSIONS BECAUSE OF FEEDSTOCK THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE FROM YOUR STATE. I PERSONALLY THINK IT IS THE RIGHT POLICY. WE DO HAVE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE THAT ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE. ANDREW SPEAKER PELOSI'S AND REPRESENTATIVE WAXMAN INSERTED LANGUAGE IN THE 2007 ENERGY BILL TO PROHIBIT GOVERNMENT AGENCIES FROM ENTERING INTO MULTI-YEAR CONTRACTS TO PROCURE ALTERNATIVE FOR SYNTHETIC FUELS UNLESS THE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH PRODUCTION AND COMBUSTION ARE LESS THAN THE EMISSIONS FROM CONVENTIONAL FUELS. SO WE WILL GUARANTEE THAT.
00:40:28	Bunning, Jim	IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT AN AMENDMENT TO THIS EXISTING AMENDMENT, WE WILL GUARANTEE THAT THERE WILL BE LESS THAN EXISTING FIELD.
00:40:40	Conrad, Kent	IF YOU WOULD ALLOW US TO DRAFT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THAT END I WILL SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT.
00:40:48	Bunning, Jim	PLEASE DO. WE ARE NOW TO THE POINT WHERE COMMERCIAL CONTRACTORS WILL GUARANTEE 94% CARBON CAPTURE AT THE SOURCE. AND DEVELOPING THESE FUELS THAT RUN THE ARMY'S DIESEL AND THE AIR FORCE AVIATION FUELS. WE ARE ABOUT TO OPEN A PLANT IN KENTUCKY THAT WILL GUARANTEE 94% CARBON CAPTURE. THAT IS HIGHER THAN THE ABILITY ON FOREIGN SOURCES OF OIL RIGHT NOW.
00:41:38	Conrad, Kent	IF I COULD ASK --
00:41:43	Bunning, Jim	IF YOU PUT A 75% CARBON CAPTURE THAT WOULD MAKE YOU COMFORTABLE BUT THE BIG PROBLEM IS IS THE CONTRACT OR LENGTH OF THE CONTRACT THAT THE MILITARY NEEDS TO SUPPORT THE EXPENDITURE OF $3 BILLION.
00:41:58	Conrad, Kent	COULD I ASK ONE OTHER QUESTION? WOULD HE ACCEPT ANOTHER FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT WOULD, IN ADDITION TO AUTHORIZING PROCUREMENT OF FUELS DERIVED FROM COAL AND OIL SHALE AND BIOFUELS?
00:42:18	Bunning, Jim	ABSOLUTELY.
00:42:27	Conrad, Kent	IF WE COULD HAVE OUR STAFFS WORK ON AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD CAPTURE THESE FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS' TO YOURS, I WOULD BE PLEASED TO SUPPORT WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO. ON THIS AMENDMENT?
00:42:42	Alexander, Lamar	WHERE DID YOU GET THE LANGUAGE YOU JUST READ IDENTIFYING -- I AM IN AGREEMENT. HE DOES NOT SPECIFY THE SOURCE OF HIS AMENDMENT.
00:42:57	Conrad, Kent	I GOT IT FROM A STAFF MEMO.
00:43:02	Alexander, Lamar	IT IS NOT FROM HIS AMENDMENT.
00:43:04	Conrad, Kent	IT IS NOT.
00:43:08	Alexander, Lamar	YOU ARE ARGUING THAT IT WAS TOO PRESCRIPTIVE. I WONDER WHY IT WOULD NOT BE BETTER TO LEAVE THE AMENDMENT THE WAY IT IS.
00:43:15	Conrad, Kent	I WOULD AGREE WITH THE SENATOR. AFTER I LOOK AT THE WORDING OF HIS AMENDMENT VERSUS STAFF DESCRIPTION AND THAT FLOW FROM LEGISLATION.
00:43:26	Alexander, Lamar	THE IMPORTANCE OF THE BUNNING AMENDMENT -- IT IS IMPORTANT FOR US TO GIVE A PUSH TO THIS. THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT HAS LED THE COUNTRY IN THE KIND OF RESEARCH THAT WE NEEDED WITH BARBARA -- DARPA RESEARCH. THEY'RE ENGAGED ALREADY IN TRYING TO FIND WAYS OF USING SOLAR POWER FOR MILITARY SERVICES. THEY MIGHT FIND A WAY WITH CO TO CAPAL TO CARBON IN THE WAY YOU HAVE TALKED ABOUT. WE ALREADY KNOW THAT PLUG IN VEHICLES OPERATED EVEN PLUGGED IN TO COAL PLANTS HAVE LESS OF A CARBON FOOTPRINT THAN GAS VEHICLES. GIVEN THE NUMBER OF TRUCKS GOING TO BAGHDAD, THEY ARE FILLED WITH GASOLINE. THIS IS A CONSTRUCTIVE AND IMPORTANT AMENDMENT. IT IS IMPORTANT TO LEAVE IT BROAD SO THE DEPARTMENT CAN SELECT AMONG A VARIETY WHETHER IT IS COAL.
00:44:43	Bunning, Jim	I DID NOT PUT THE ALTERNATIVE FUELS IN SO THAT ALL COULD BE CONSIDERED.
00:44:48	Conrad, Kent	I GET IT. MY STAFF WAS REFLECTING EARLIER FAUGH BUNNING LEGISLATION. THE SECOND WHEN WE DO NOT NEED GIVEN THE WORDING OF YOUR MENDON. THE FIRST WHEN WE STILL DO NEED. WE WILL WORK TOGETHER AND SEE IF WE CAN GET THAT WORKED OUT. ON THIS SIDE?
00:45:17	Whitehouse, Sheldon	I SEEK RECOGNITION TO OFFER WHAT IS -- I WILL DESCRIBE THIS BRIEFLY. THERE IS A SECTION 2 OF 2, DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND FOR ENERGY. THIS WOULD ADD TO OCEANS OR COASTAL AREAS. IN THE LAST BUDGET WITHOUT CONTROVERSY. WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE RANKING MEMBER. IT IS CO-SPONSORED BY SENATOR CARDIN AND MERKELEY. I HOPE IT CAN PASS AGAIN WITHOUT CONTROVERSY. THE PRESSURE ON OUR OCEANS AND COASTAL AREAS FROM POLLUTION, CLIMATE CHANGE, FISHERIES, AND SO FORTH IS INTENSE RIGHT NOW. AND IF WE CAN HELP THEM IN A DEFICIT NEUTRAL WAY IT THIS WOULD SUPPORT THAT HAPPENING.
00:46:26	Conrad, Kent	IS THERE FURTHER DEBATE ON THE AMENDMENT? I WANT TO INDICATE THAT SENATOR CARDIN AND MERKLEY ARE CO- SPONSORS.
00:46:44	Alexander, Lamar	I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT IT DOES.
00:46:48	Whitehouse, Sheldon	IT EXPANDS THE FUND IN THE CHAIRMAN'S MARK.
00:46:50	Alexander, Lamar	WHICH DOES WHAT?
00:46:55	Whitehouse, Sheldon	TO INVEST IN CLEAN ENERGY AND PRESERVE THE ENVIRONMENT. IT ALLOWS FOR CONFERENCE REPORTS THAT WOULD REDUCE OUR NATION'S DEPENDENCE ON IMPORTED ENERGY AND PRODUCE GREEN JOBS AND CREATE AN IMPROVED ENERGY TRANSMISSION. MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO HYHEAP AND PRESERVE FOR PROTECT NATIONAL PARKS. AND OCEANS AND COASTAL AREAS.
00:47:33	Conrad, Kent	HE IS ADDING IN ADDITION TO NATIONAL PARKS OCEANS AND COASTAL AREAS.
00:47:43	Alexander, Lamar	PROTECTIONS FROM WHAT?
00:47:49	Conrad, Kent	ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION.
00:47:52	Alexander, Lamar	WITH THAT INCLUDE THE ESCAPES OR LANDSCAPES? -- VIEWSCAPES.?
00:48:07	Whitehouse, Sheldon	I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BE A STRETCH. IT IS NOT THE INTENTION THAT IT WOULD INCLUDE VIEWSCAPES. IT IS PROTECTING COASTAL AREAS.
00:48:29	Alexander, Lamar	AN OIL RIG OUTSIDE SAN FRANCISCO WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED.
00:48:33	Whitehouse, Sheldon	IF THERE WERE A MARINE SANCTUARY THAT WERE CREATED, IT WOULD BE COVERED IF IT WERE DEFICIT-NEUTRAL.
00:48:41	Sessions, Jeff	A QUESTION.
00:49:05	Whitehouse, Sheldon	IT DOES NONE OF THE ABOVE. IT IS A DEFINITEDEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND. THEY PROVIDE THE WAY IF IT COMMITTEE AGREES A LEGISLATION AND THE RESULT IS DEFICIT- NEUTRAL.
00:49:33	Alexander, Lamar	I WOULD OBSERVE -- I DO NOT KNOW WHY IT PRESERVES -- WOULD NOT INCLUDE VIEWSCAPES AND LANDSCAPES.
00:49:48	Conrad, Kent	THAT IS AN INTERESTING QUESTION. I HAVE NOT HAD THAT PUT TO ME WITH RESPECT TO THESE ITEMS. WHETHER IT'S A PROTECT VIEWSCAPES -- IT PROTECTS VIEWSCAPES. THERE IS A GREAT CONCERN IN THE ROOSEVELT FOUNDATION ABOUT PROTECTING THE VIEWSCAPES FROM HIS RANCH. I THINK SENATOR WHITEHOUSE IS CORRECT THAT IT WOULD BE A STRETCH GIVEN THE UNDERLYING RESERVE FUND. I DO NOT THINK VIEWSCAPES WOULD BE CONSIDERED. THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE SEPARATE ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION FOR THAT PURPOSE. THAT IS -- SENATOR ALEXANDER, I AM NOT 100% CONFIDENT OF THAT ANSWER. BASED ON THE EXPERIENCE I HAVE HAD WITH THE ROOSEVELT RANCH, THAT IS CORRECT. BUT TO BE ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN, I WOULD WANT US TO CHECK BEFORE WE GIVE YOU THAT ANSWER.
00:51:00	Alexander, Lamar	I WONDER WHAT THE RELUCTANCES TO PROTECT THE NATURAL BEAUTY OF THE AMERICAN LANDSCAPE WHICH WAS THE MAJOR REASON THE NET -- NATIONAL PARKS WERE CREATED. FOR EXAMPLE, THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE ALLOWED A CELL TOWER TO BE BUILT IN FRONT OF OLD FAITHFUL. THEY HAVE CHANGED THEIR RULES AND REGULATIONS TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE WITHIN THE NATIONAL PARKS WHICH IS THEIR MAJOR GOAL. WE HAD A BIG FIGHT ABOUT THAT. IN THE LAST COUPLE OF CONGRESSES. THE LANDSCAPE AND VIEWSCAPES WILL WE GO TO NATIONAL PARKS AND FORESTS AND ENJOY THE NATURAL BEAUTY WE ENJOY WHAT WE SEE. WHAT IS THE RELUCTANCE OF INCLUDING VIEWSCAPES AND LANDSCAPES IN THE IDEA OF PRESERVING AND PROTECTING? . . IT WOULD BE A BIT OF A STRETCH THAT YOU ARE PRESERVING AND PROTECTING OCEANS, AND MY INTENT IS TO FOCUS MORE ON PROTECTING FISHERIES, COASTAL AREAS, AND PROTECTING THE OCEAN ITSELF.
00:53:16	Gregg, Judd Alan	IS THE PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT TO LIMIT OFFSHORE DRILLING?
00:53:19	Whitehouse, Sheldon	NO.
00:53:22	Gregg, Judd Alan	WITH THE AMENDMENT AFFECTS OFFSHORE DRILLING?
00:53:27	Whitehouse, Sheldon	ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT A SEPARATE PIECE OF LEGISLATION WERE PASSED BY THE RELEVANT AUTHORIZING COMMITTEE AND SUPPORTED BY THE APPROPRIATORS, AND THE EFFECT OF THAT WAS TO LIMIT OFFSHORE DRILLING IN THAT AREA. FOR INSTANCE, IF A MARINE SANCTUARY WERE CREATED IN THE WATERS OFF THE NEW HAMPSHIRE COAST, THE MARINE SANCTUARY, BY ITS CREATION, WOULD OBVIOUSLY LIMIT OFFSHORE DRILLING. IT COULD HAVE THAT EFFECT. CHANGING THIS LANGUAGE AND ADDING OCEANS TO THIS RESERVE FUND WOULD IN AND OF ITSELF HAVE NO EFFECT ON OCEAN DRILLING. IT WOULD TAKE AN ACT OF CONGRESS BY THE RELEVANT COMMITTEE.
00:54:16	Gregg, Judd Alan	OCEANS AND COASTAL AREAS ARE NOT BY DEFINITION NATIONAL PARKS. THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN OCEAN AND
00:54:27	Whitehouse, Sheldon	THAT IS CORRECT.
00:54:39	Gregg, Judd Alan	I AM JUST NOT SURE WHAT THE
00:54:40	Conrad, Kent	[LAUGHTER]
00:54:54	Gregg, Judd Alan	WE ARE A YEAR OLDER SO WE ARE MUCH SMARTER.
00:55:04	Sessions, Jeff	IN MY AREA OF ALABAMA, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OIL PRODUCING WELLS IN THE DAY, INSIDE DAUPHIN ISLAND. SOME NOT LIKE THAT YOU. SOME AND NOT SEEM TO BE BOTHERED BY IT, AND IT HAS PRODUCED BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR THE STATE'S TRUST FUND, MUCH OF WHICH IS USED FOR INTERNAL ENHANCEMENT IN EDUCATION. MANY OF THE WELLS NOW ARE AT THE EDGE OF THE VIEW SKATESCAPE. OFFSHORE, THEY CANNOT BE SEEN AT ALL, WHICH I THINK IS EXTREME. OF THE GULF SHORES IN ALABAMA, YOU CAN SEE THE RIGS AT NIGHT. YOU CAN HARDLY SEE THEM AT ALL DURING THE DAY. WE HAVE NEVER HAD A BIG SPILL. IT IS PRODUCING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OUT THERE EVERY YEAR. IT IS KEPT IN AMERICA, KEEPING OUR WELL AT HOME RATHER THAN BUYING OIL PRODUCED OFFSHORE FROM AFRICA AND SOUTH AMERICA AND IN THE PERSIAN GULF AND VENEZUELA. IT IS NOT AS CAREFULLY PRODUCED AS OURS. I AM JUST PARANOID ABOUT THE AGENDA THAT HAS BEEN OUT THERE THAT HAS BLOCKED OFFSHORE PRODUCTION. I AM UNEASY ABOUT IT. HIS ANALYSIS IS IT THAT BY VOTING FOR THIS, IT WOULD MAKE NO CHANGE UNLESS SOME OTHER COMMITTEE VOTED TO DO IT, IS THAT RIGHT?
00:56:45	Whitehouse, Sheldon	THAT IS CORRECT.
00:56:51	Conrad, Kent	SENATOR WHITEHOUSE TALKED TO ME ABOUT HIS INTENT ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT. IT IS CLEAR TO ME HE HAD NO INTENTION TO BE BLOCKING OFFSHORE DRILLING WITH THIS AMENDMENT. THAT WAS NOT HIS PURPOSE. HIS PURPOSE AS SHE EXPRESSED IT TO ME WAS TO PROTECT MARINE SANCTUARIES, TO PROTECT FISHERIES. THERE WAS NO ULTERIOR MOTIVE HERE TO BE BLOCKING OFFSHORE DRILLING. I PERSONALLY FAVOR OFFSHORE DRILLING AS PART OF A COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTION. OUR GROUP OF 20 SPECIFICALLY OUTLINES THAT IN OUR PROPOSAL. WE ARE DOING A LOT OF DRILLING IN NORTH DAKOTA. WE ARE THE FIFTH LARGEST OIL PRODUCER IN AMERICA AND WE ARE PROUD OF IT. WE ARE HAPPY TO CONTRIBUTE TO REDUCING AMERICA'S DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN ENERGY. I DO NOT BELIEVE TO THE VIEWSCAPE ISSUE, IT IS NOT A MATTER OF SOMEONE'S RELUCTANCE TO WANT TO PROTECT THEM. I WAS TRYING TO EXPRESS WHAT THE LEGAL PRECEDENT IS. THE LEGAL PRECEDENT AS I UNDERSTAND IT FROM MY LIMITED KNOWLEDGE OF DEALING WITH THE ROOSEVELT RAN TO NORTH DAKOTA, VIEWSCAPES ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS KIND OF LEGISLATION. THERE HAS TO BE SEPARATE PROTECTIVE LEGISLATION TO DEAL WITH THEM. IF SOMEONE HAS AN ALTERNATIVE LEGAL VIEW OF THAT, THAT IS JUST MY BEST -- WHAT MY EXPERIENCE TELLS ME IS THE FACT OF THE MATTER.
00:58:41	Gregg, Judd Alan	I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST WE GET BACK TO THE ISSUE OF THE DAY.
00:58:49	Conrad, Kent	BEFORE WE DO THAT, DID WE WANT TO DISPOSE OF AMENDS?
00:58:53	Gregg, Judd Alan	WE DICTATE BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT -- WE COULD TAKE BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT --
00:59:04	Conrad, Kent	WE NEED TO WEIGH ON THE BUNNING AMENDMENT UNTIL WE HAVE A LANGUAGE. WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS, AND SENATOR GREGG, DURING THE LAST DEBATE, SAID TO ME, MR. CHAIRMAN, WHY DON'T WE DISPENSE WITH SOME OF THESE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE NONCONTROVERSIAL. WE DO NOT NEED TO VOTE ON THEM. THEY ARE BIPARTISAN. WE WANT TO GO THROUGH THAT LIST.
00:59:49	Gregg, Judd Alan	THE WHITE HOUSE AMENDMENT ON OCEANS, AND WHEN SENATOR BUNNING GETS THE LANGUAGE AGREED TO, WE COULD ALSO DO THAT. IF YOU WANT TO VOTE, WHICH ONES DO YOU WANT TO VOTE ON? WE WILL HAVE VOTES ON THEM.
01:00:15	Conrad, Kent	IN THAT CASE, WHY DON'T WE LIST THE OTHER AMENDMENTS. CARDIN AND CORNYN -- IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO TAKING THOSE AMENDMENTS? WE WILL ACCEPT BOTH OF THOSE AMENDMENTS. CONGRATULATIONS TO OUR COLLEAGUES. WE WILL NOW PROCEED.
01:00:41	Crapo, Michael "Mike"	THIS IS AN AMENDMENT ON THE DEBT DISCLOSURE. HAS EVERYBODY GOT IT? WE WILL MOVE FROM VIEWSCAPES TO THE NATIONAL DEBT. MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS AMENDMENT BASICALLY FOCUSES OUR ATTENTION WERE I BELIEVE THE BUDGET COMMITTEE'S ATTENTION SHOULD BE FOCUSED, AND THAT IS ON THE NATIONAL DEBT. OUR GROSS NATIONAL DEBT IS GROWING SO RAPIDLY NOW THAT IS HARD TO READ THE NEWS ON ITS ON SUCCESSIVE DAYS WITHOUT SEEING NEW NUMBERS. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE NATIONAL DEBT NOW TOTALS MORE THAN 12 TRILLION DOLLARS. I CAN REMEMBER MANY TIMES WHEN OUR CHAIRMAN HAS BROUGHT UP THE WALL OF DEBT. HIS WORDS ARE THAT THE DEBT IS THE THREAT. IN THESE TIMES WHEN WE ARE FACING SUCH SIGNIFICANT PRESSURES FOR SPENDING IN CONGRESS, IS IMPORTANT THAT THE BUDGET COMMITTEE PUT TOGETHER PROCEDURES FOR AMERICANS TO BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY WHAT THE BUDGET DOES TO THE NATIONAL DEBT AND TO HAVE -- TO HELP THEM SEE THIS AND CREATE A PROCEDURE WHEREBY THE BUDGET CAN BE FORCED TO MAKE THESE DISCLOSURES. IN THE CURRENT MARK, THE INFORMATION IS THERE, BUT IT HAS TO BE THOROUGHLY REVIEWED IN ORDER TO BE FOUND. WHAT THIS AMENDMENT WOULD DO IS PROVIDE FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND ANYBODY WHO PICKS UP THE BUDGET AND ABILITY TO CLEARLY FIND WHAT THE IMPACT ON THE NATIONAL DEBT OF THIS BUDGET IS WITHOUT HAVING TO SEARCH THE DEPTHS OF THE BUDGET DOCUMENTS OR HIRE AN ACCOUNTANT TO EVALUATE IT FOR THEM. I OFFER THE AMENDMENT THAT SIMPLY REQUIRES THAT THE DEBT IMPACT OF THIS BUDGET AND ALL BUDGET RESOLUTIONS IN THE FUTURE INCLUDE A DEBT DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. BUDGETS THAT NEGLECT TO INCLUDE SUCH A STATEMENT WOULD BE RULED OUT OF ORDER ON THE SENATE FLOOR. ADDITIONALLY, WHEN A BUDGET RESOLUTION INCREASES THE NATIONAL DEBT OR SPENDS THE SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS OR BOTH, THE REPORT ACCOMPANYING THE BUDGET MUST ALSO INCLUDE A JUSTIFICATION TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FOR WHY IT IS IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST TO CONTINUE RUNNING UP THE DEBT ON THEIR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN. HIS POINT OF ORDER DOES NOT MAKE A BUDGET THAT INCREASES THE NATIONAL DEBT OUT OF ORDER. IT REQUIRES THAT THE BUDGET DISCLOSE WHAT THAT -- HELD A NATIONAL DEBT IS IMPACTED AND REQUIRES AN EXPLANATION FOR WHY IT IS BEING RUN UP. I ALSO POINT OUT THAT THIS AMENDMENT IS ONE THAT OUR COMMITTEE HAS UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO IN THE PAST. OUR FORMER COLLEAGUE OFFERED A VERY SIMILAR AMENDMENT TO THIS COMMITTEE'S MARKUP LAST YEAR AND THE AMENDMENT WAS ACCEPTED BY VOICE VOTE. I WOULD HOPE THAT MY COLLEAGUES WOULD AGAIN SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT AND HELP US TO PUT ONE MORE PIECE IN PLACE TO HELP THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SEE WITH TRANSPARENCY WHAT IS HAPPENING AS A REMARK OF THESE BUDGETS. -- AS WE MARK UP THESE BUDGETS.
01:04:05	Conrad, Kent	I AGREE TO THIS AMENDMENT LAST YEAR. I KNOW SENATOR WHITEHOUSE AND OTHERS HAVE SOME ALTERNATIVE VIEWS OF HOW THIS IS MOST ACCURATELY PORTRAYED. I DO NOT KNOW SENATOR WHITEHOUSE IS GOING TO OFFER AN AMENDMENT ON THIS OR NOT, BUT MAYBE WE COULD DEFER THIS DEBATE UNTIL WE FIND OUT IF THERE IS GOING TO BE AN ALTERNATIVE OFFERED. I THINK THE BASIC UNDERLYING IDEA IS WORTHY, AND THE QUESTION IS, WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE WAY OF DISPLAYING THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT WE ARE IN?
01:04:55	Crapo, Michael "Mike"	I HAVE NO PROBLEM WORKING TO SEE IF WE CONFINE AND AGREEABLE PATTERN OR A SYSTEM FOR REPORTING, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS, WE NEED TO MAKE IT CLEAR IN THIS BUDGET THAT NATIONAL DEBT WILL GO UP BY FOUR 0.96 TRILLION DOLLARS DURING THE PERIOD OF THE BUDGET WINDOW, AND THAT REPRESENTS $16,200 ON EVERY U.S. CITIZEN. THAT KIND OF BASIC INTERMISSION NEEDS TO BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED IN THE BUDGET DOCUMENTS SO AMERICANS DO NOT HAVE TO SORT THROUGH THE DEATH OF ALL THE DOCUMENTS.
01:05:31	Conrad, Kent	I SUPPORTED THE BASIC IDEA LAST YEAR. OTHERS HAVE DIFFERENT IDEAS OF WHAT DEEPER PRE DISPLAY IS. I THINK WE NEED TO DEFER THAT UNTIL THERE IS A CONCLUSION IF AN ALTERNATIVE IS GOING TO BE OFFERED.
01:05:56	Sessions, Jeff	I WANT TO EMPHASIZE TO ANYONE LISTENING AT THE NUMBERS WE ARE USING ABOUT THE DEBT AND THE DEFICIT THAT SENATOR CRAPO REFERRED TO, THOSE ARE NUMBERS IN THIS BUDGET BOOK THE PRESIDENT HAS SUBMITTED. HE HAS NOT MADE THESE NUMBERS UP, AND A SURGE IN INTEREST PAYMENTS EACH YEAR ARE FAIRLY EASILY CALCULABLE. I THINK MAKING IT MORE CLEAR SENSE IS SO IMPORTANT IS CERTAINLY A GOOD REFORM.
01:06:30	Conrad, Kent	THANK YOU FOR THAT OBSERVATION. YOU ARE RIGHT. IN ALL THESE BUDGET DOCUMENTS, THIS INFORMATION IS INCLUDED. HE IS SAYING TO MAKE IT MORE EASILY ACCESSIBLE.
01:06:48	Gregg, Judd Alan	WHY IF IT WAS OFFERED AND ACCEPTED LAST YEAR WAS A NOT DONE THIS YEAR?
01:07:01	Conrad, Kent	IT WAS IN THE BUDGET DOCUMENTS. THE WAY IT WORKED IN TERMS OF LAST YEAR, WITH THE ADOPTION IN THE COMMITTEE, IT WAS IN THE BUDGET DOCUMENTS THAT WENT TO THE FLOOR.
01:07:16	Gregg, Judd Alan	WHY SHOULD WE HAVE FOLLOWED THAT COURSE OF ACTION THIS YEAR?
01:07:20	Conrad, Kent	I DO NOT KNOW. SENATOR WARNER.
01:07:29	>>	MY AMENDMENT IS A DEFICIT NEUTRAL AMENDMENT IN REGARD TO SOME OF THE POLICY HOLDERS ABOUT HEALTH CARE, I THINK WE WOULD ALL AGREE THAT ONE UNDERLYING BASIS SHOULD BE WE SHOULD MOVE AWAY FROM A HEALTH CARE SYSTEM THAT IS BASED ON THE QUANTITY OF SERVICES FORMED AND MOVE TOWARDS ONE THAT FOCUSES ON QUALITY AND VALUE. ONE WAY TO DO THAT IS MAKING SURE THE AMERICAN CONSUMER IS ACTUALLY INFORMED ABOUT THEIR CHOICES AND ABOUT THE COSTS AND QUALITY OF THEIR CHOICES. MY AMENDMENT, WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE POLICY ON SECTIONS 7 SIMPLY ADDS THE LANGUAGE TO EMPHASIZE TRANSPARENCY IN COST AND QUALITY INFORMATION TO AMERICANS, SO THAT AS WE MOVE TOWARDS WHAT WILL HOPEFULLY BE A HEALTH CARE IT SYSTEM THAT THE INFORMATION IS SHARED IN AN EASILY UNDERSTANDABLE WAY WITH AMERICANS AND NOT JUST HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS.
01:08:40	Conrad, Kent	I THINK IT IS A VERY CONSTRUCTIVE AMENDMENTS. I AM ON THE FINANCE COMMITTEE AS WELL THAT IS DEALING WITH HEALTH CARE REFORM. IF THERE IS ONE THING THAT IS VERY CLEAR AND VERY BIPARTISAN IN ALL THE DELIBERATIONS THAT HAS BEEN FOCUSED ON, IS THE IMPORTANCE OF INFORMATION FOR PATIENTS COMING INFORMATION FOR TAXPAYERS, IN PERMISSION FOR PROVIDERS, AND WITH MORE TRANSPARENCY, THE VIEW IS THERE COULD BE ADDITIONAL SAVINGS AND IMPROVEMENT IN HEALTH CARE OUTCOMES. I THINK IS CONSTRUCTIVE AND VERY MUCH IN LINE WITH WHAT THE FINANCE COMMITTEE HAS TENTATIVELY CONCLUDED AS THEY PREPARE HEALTH REFORM LEGISLATION.
01:09:36	Gregg, Judd Alan	ON THIS POINT, I AGREE WITH THE SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA WAS THE PROPOSAL. LAST YEAR MYSELF AND SENATOR CLINTON PASSED THE QUALITY ENHANCEMENT ACT WHICH DOES EXACTLY THIS, MAKES MORE READILY AVAILABLE THE INFORMATION NECESSARY TO MAKE GOOD AND INTELLIGENT DECISIONS ON WHERE TO GO FOR HIGH-QUALITY CARE AT THEIR COSTS.
01:10:04	Conrad, Kent	SENATOR GRASSLEY WILL BE RECOGNIZED AS A CO-SPONSOR. WOULD ANY OTHER MEMBERS LIKE TO BE ADDED AS CO-SPONSORS? UNLESS I HEAR OBJECTION, WE WILL ACCEPT THOUGH WARNER AMENDMENT. THE AMENDMENT IS ACCEPTED AND MADE PART OF THE MARK. DO WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT ON THIS SIDE? SENATOR SESSIONS.
01:10:36	Sessions, Jeff	THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THIS DOCUMENT THAT THE PRESIDENT SUBMITTED TO US BY HIS ENTIRE STAFF AND TEAM REPRESENTS HIS PROPOSAL FOR AMERICA'S FINANCIAL FUTURE. HE PROPOSES IN ITS FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR, A BUDGET THAT PROPOSES TO INCREASE DOMESTIC DISCRETIONARY NONDEFENSE SPENDING BY 11.5%. A NUMBER THAT IS STUNNING IN LIGHT OF WHAT IS HAPPENING IN OUR ECONOMY. I FIND IT TO BE UTTERLY IRRESPONSIBLE. IT IS ALMOST UNBELIEVABLE. IN FACT, THE OMNIBUS BILL WE JUST PASSED HAD AN 8% INCREASE IN IT, AND ON TOP OF ALL THAT, OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS WE ADDED $800 BILLION IN STIMULUS SPENDING. PLUS INTEREST THAT WILL ACCRUE ON THAT. THESE ARE HUGE NUMBERS. THE CHAIRMAN'S MARK, AND ONE OF THE AREAS THAT MAKE SOME CHANGES, ALTHOUGH I GUESS HE SHOULD NOT HAVE SAID DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE SENATE CHAIRMAN'S BUDGET. THAT IS NOT WHAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO SAY. HE WAS SUPPOSED TO SAY IT IS A MAJOR COMPROMISE. HE IS LEARNING. [LAUGHTER]
01:16:22	Conrad, Kent	THE CENTER MADE REFERENCE TO MY BUDGET AND USE NUMBERS THAT ARE NOT MY BUDGET. MY NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY NUMBER FOR 2010 IS 520 FOUR DOLLARS BILLION. THEN THE SENATOR SAID AT THE END OF THE FIVE YEARS IN MY BUDGET WOULD DOUBLE. IT DOES NOT. THE MISUNDERSTAND?
01:16:51	Sessions, Jeff	NO, IN 10 YEARS. IF WE CONTINUE TO INCREASE THE SPENDING BY 7% FOR YEAR FOR 10 YEARS, THE BOTTOM LINE WILL DOUBLE.
01:17:01	Conrad, Kent	I HAVE A FIVE-YEAR BUDGET, AND AT THE END OF FIVE YEARS AGO FROM 520 FOUR BILLION DOLLARS TO 500 BIG $5 BILLION, OVER FIVE YEARS. I HAVE REDUCED THE PRESIDENT'S DOMESTIC DISCRETIONARY SPENDING IN THE FIRST FIVE YEARS BY OVER $160 BILLION. ANYBODY THAT DOES NOT THINK THERE IS PAIN IN BALL, AND -- PAIN INVOLVED, I URGE YOU TO COME TO MY OFFICE OR I HAVE HAD EVERY KIND OF UNHAPPINESS EXPRESSED TO ME ABOUT THE REDUCTIONS I HAVE MADE HERE TO GET AS ON A MORE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE COURSE. LET ME SAY FURTHER, I THINK WOULD BE VERY UNWISE TO FREEZE DOMESTIC DISCRETIONARY SPENDING AT A TIME OF A SHARP ECONOMIC DOWNTURN. LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, VETERANS. THE VETERANS OF ACCOUNT WE HAVE PLUS UP BY IT MORE THAN $5 BILLION TO DEAL WITH VETERANS COMING BACK WHO HAVE POST- TRAUMATIC STRESS, WHO HAVE INCREDIBLY SERIOUS INJURIES. ALL OF US HAVE BEEN TO OUR MILITARY HOSPITALS AND SEEN THE DEVASTATION OF OUR YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN WHO HAVE SUFFERED SOME OF THE MOST DRAMATIC WOUNDS EVER IN, AND AT COMBAT. THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SAY PEOPLE WHO IN PREVIOUS WARS WOULD HAVE DIED. THERE IS A COST, AND WE HAVE TO MEET THAT COST. I DO NOT THINK IT WOULD BE WISE TO FREEZE THE EXPENDITURES FOR VETERANS THIS YEAR AND NEXT. I THINK THAT WOULD BE A TRAGIC MISTAKE.
01:19:13	Stabenow, Debbie	I THINK WE ARE REALLY DEBATING WHETHER WE GO WITH THE POLICIES OF THE PAST THAT HAVE GOTTEN US HERE, OR WHETHER WE ARE GOING TO CHANGE COURSE. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, LOOKING AT A BUDGET THAT WOULD GO AGAINST WHAT EVERY ECONOMIST HAS SAID, FROM REAGAN TO CLINTON TO OBAMA ECONOMIST, ACROSS THE BOARD AS WE LOOK AT THIS ECONOMIC CRISIS WE ARE IN, WE HEARD FROM ECONOMISTS THAT WE NEED TO INVEST AT THIS TIME. THAT IS WHAT THE RECOVERY PLAN WAS ABOUT. THE CHAIRMAN HAS DONE THIS IN A VERY RESPONSIBLE WAY, AND THIS IS NOT WITHOUT LIMITS. THERE ARE VERY SPECIFIC LIMITS IN THIS BUDGET, BUT IT DOES NOT GO BACK TO THE KIND OF THING THAT WE DISCUSSED IN THE PAST. THERE HAS BEEN A WILLINGNESS TO GO INTO DEFICITS AND NOT PAY FOR THE WAR. THERE HAS BEEN A WILLINGNESS TO GO INTO DEFICITS AND HAVE TAX CUTS THAT ONLY SOME BENEFIT FROM. IN THE PAST, THE OLD WAY OF THE LAST EIGHT YEARS WAS TO GO INTO DEFICITS FOR EVERYTHING EXCEPT THE INVESTMENTS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE IN COMMUNITIES, FAMILIES, AND AMERICANS. MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU CANNOT HAVE SAID IT BETTER IN TERMS OF WHERE WE ARE IN OUR COMMITMENT TO VETERANS HEALTH CARE. WE ARE ON THE EDGE OF CURES FROM ALZHEIMER'S JUVENILE DIABETES TO PARKINSON'S. NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO CUT BACK ON THOSE RESEARCH EFFORTS, EDUCATION, INVESTMENTS AND JOBS. I WOULD STRONGLY OPPOSE GOING BACK TO THE PRIORITIES OF THE PAST THAT HAVE GOTTEN US WHERE WE ARE. I WOULD ENCOURAGE US TO VOTE NO ON THIS AMENDMENT.
01:21:19	Gregg, Judd Alan	I THINK THE SENATOR FROM ALABAMA HAS HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD, AS THE SAYING GOES. THE ISSUE IN THIS BUDGET IS WHAT ARE GOING TO PASS ON TO OUR CHILDREN? OR GOING TO PASS ON TO THEM A GOVERNMENT WHICH DOES BECOME SO LARGE, SO EXPENSIVE, BARROSO MUCH MONEY IN TAXES THEM AT SUCH A RATE THAT THEY CANNOT COMPETE, AND THEY ARE MOVING INTO A WORLD WHERE THEY CANNOT AFFORD THEIR GOVERNMENT? THE IDEA THAT YOU CANNOT FREEZE SPENDING NEXT YEAR AFTER YOU HAVE PUT IN PLACE A ONE TRILLION DOLLARS STIMULUS PACKAGE, THE MAJORITY OF WHICH WAS NOT A STIMULUS, BUT WAS A BLESSING UP OF APPROPRIATIONS ACCOUNTS -- IT WAS SAYING PLUSSING UP OF APPROPRIATIONS. EDUCATION NOT $11 BILLION IN THIS APPROPRIATIONS PACKAGE. VETERANS GOT A BIG CHUNK OF MONEY IN THE OMNIBUS PACKAGE. THE IDEA THAT YOU CANNOT NOW FREEZE IN NEXT YEAR'S APPROPRIATIONS ACCOUNTS AND ALLOW THESE DIFFERENT AGENCIES TO SPIN OUT THE HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY THEY ARE GETTING THROUGH THE STIMULUS IN A MORE ORDERLY WAY SEEMS TO ME TO REPRESENT A LACK OF FISCAL DISCIPLINE. IF WE CANNOT DO THIS LITTLE ITEM TO TRY TO LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF DEBT WE WILL PUT ON OUR KIDS' ACCESS WOULD GO FORWARD, THEN WE ARE BASICALLY THROWING IN THE TOWEL FOR OUR CHILDREN'S FUTURE, IN MY OPINION.
01:23:08	Conrad, Kent	IF I COULD JUST RESPOND MOMENTARILY. I AM IN VERY MUCH AGREEMENT THAT OUR LONG-TERM FISCAL SITUATION IS UNSUSTAINABLE. THAT IS WHY I HAVE MADE $600 BILLION IN CHANGES TO THE PRESIDENT'S FIVE-YEAR BUDGET TO REDUCE THE DEFICIT BY TWO- THIRDS, TO GET DOWN TO LESS THAN 3% OF GDP IN THE FIFTH YEAR. THAT HAS BEEN A CHALLENGE, BUT I WOULD SAY TO YOU, I THINK FREEZING SPENDING AT A TIME OF THE SHARPEST ECONOMIC DOWNTURN SINCE THE DEPRESSION IS KIND OF LIKE HOOVER ECONOMICS ALL OVER AGAIN. IT IS JUST PROFOUNDLY UNWISE TO FREEZE SPENDING AT A TIME OF A SHARP ECONOMIC DOWNTURN. I THINK IT IS JUST PROFOUNDLY UNWISE. YOU NEED TO COUNTER THE CYCLE TO PREVENT THIS DROP FROM BECOMING FAR MORE PRECIPITOUS. I BELIEVE THAT IS THE LESSON OF THE DEPRESSION. OTHERS HAVE LEARNED A DIFFERENT LESSON. I PERSONALLY THINK IT IS WRONG.
01:24:29	Gregg, Judd Alan	THIS IS NOT A FREEZE. THIS IS A FREEZE PLUS ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.
01:24:41	Conrad, Kent	WE DID A STIMULUS PACKAGE BECAUSE OF THE VIEW THAT A FAILURE TO DO IT WHEN THE ECONOMY IS CONTRACTING AT A RATE OF 6% COULD LEAD TO A MUCH STEEPER DECLINE. IN FACT, WE COULD GO RIGHT OFF THE CLIFF. BUT THIS IS A PROPOSAL TO FREEZE DOMESTIC DISCRETIONARY SPENDING, WHICH WE ALL KNOWLEDGE IS ONLY ABOUT 15% OF THE BUDGET. I JUST THINK IT IS UNWISE. CENTER ENDS IN WAS TO BE RECOGNIZED NEXT. -- SENATOR ENSIGN.
01:25:24	Ensign, John	WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SPENDING, WE TALK ABOUT SPENDING IN GENERAL TERMS AS ALL BEING EQUAL, THAT WE CANNOT CUT SPENDING. I WAS SERIOUS SIMPLE EXAMPLE. I JUST HAD ONE OF THE LARGEST AIRPORTS COME IN AND TALK TO ME ABOUT A FEW ISSUES. WE HAVE HAD A PRETTY DRAMATIC REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF FLIGHTS COMING INTO LAS VEGAS. OUR ECONOMY IS HURTING. OUR STATE GOVERNMENT IS CUTTING SPENDING. OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE CUTTING SPENDING, AND OUR BUSINESSES AND FAMILIES ARE CUTTING BACK. THE AIRPORT GAVE ME SOME EXAMPLES. HE TOLD ALL OF HIS MANAGERS IN THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS TO CUT THEIR BUDGETS BY 20%. THE INTERESTING THING HAPPENED. WITHOUT CUTTING SERVICES, THEY WERE ACTUALLY ABLE TO FIND 20% SAVINGS. THEY DID THINGS LIKE -- SMALL THINGS THAT ADD UP. THEY NEVER WANTED TO RUN OUT OF PAPER TOWELS AND A PAPER TOWEL DISPENSER, EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE FOUR OF THEM. WHEN THEY WERE DOWN TO 25% OF THE ROLE, THEY USED TO REPLACE IT. THAT SAVED $300,000 IN ONE YEAR, JUST BY WAITING UNTIL IT RAN OUT BEFORE THE REPLACED IT. MY FATHER ALWAYS TAUGHT ME, AND GOOD MANAGERS ARE PROVEN DURING TIMES OF TIGHT DOWNTURNS, WHEN YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO LOOK FOR SAVINGS. WE ARE NOT ASKING ANY OF OUR MANAGERS AND DEPARTMENTS TO LOOK FOR SAVINGS. CAN ANYBODY HONESTLY SAY THAT THERE IS NOT WASTEFUL GOVERNMENT SPENDING? I AM NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT WHOLE PROGRAMS. I AM TALKING ABOUT IN THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, AND WE AS A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE NOT DOING WITH THE REST OF THE UNITED STATES IS DOING. AND FORCING A FREEZE, FORCING THEM TO GO INTO THEIR BUDGETS AND SAY, LET'S SEE IF YOU ARE GOOD MANAGERS. LET'S SEE IF YOU KNOW -- SO THAT WE CAN HAVE MONEY FOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE KIND OF HEALTH CARE OF THINGS WE WANT TO DO FOR VETERANS, ELIMINATE THE WASTEFUL SPENDING OUT THERE. WE ARE NOT REQUIRING THEM TO DO THIS. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO SHOW A KIND OF PHYSICAL -- THE KIND OF FISCAL DISCIPLINE AND NEEDS TO BE HAD AT THIS POINT. IF YOU KEEP JUST THROWING MONEY AT PEOPLE, THEY WOULD JUST KEEP WASTING AND NOT LOOK AT HOW CAN ACTUALLY SAVE SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF MONEY TO BECOME MORE FISCALLY DISCIPLINED AND TO THINK ABOUT OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN.
01:28:28	Stabenow, Debbie	I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY I SUPPORT USING THE ENTIRE PAPER TOWEL ROLL.
01:28:37	Conrad, Kent	WE HAVE SENATOR BUNNING YET REGION NEXT AND THEN SENATOR ALEXANDER.
01:28:42	Bunning, Jim	THE BUDGET WE ARE TALKING ABOUT DOES NOT INCLUDE ONE PENNY OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SPENDING -- NOT ONE PENNY. DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MUCH MONEY THE FEDERAL RESERVE HAS SPENT SINCE LAST SEPTEMBER?
01:29:07	Conrad, Kent	I THINK THEY HAVE AT LEAST DOUBLE THEIR BALANCE SHEET.
01:29:13	Bunning, Jim	IT IS FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS PLUS. WE ARE LOOKING AT A BUDGET THAT CENTERED SESSIONS SAID WE OUGHT TO AT LEAST CONSIDER FREEZING DOMESTIC SPENDING. THAT DOES NOT DO A THING TO THE FEDERAL RESERVE PRINTING MONEY AND SPENDING AND GIVING TO OUR BANKS AND OF OUR SECURITY FIRMS AND ALL THE OTHER THINGS THEY ARE INVOLVED IN NOW. BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO RESURRECT THIS ECONOMY. WITHOUT THE BUDGET ITSELF, THE FED AND THE TREASURY HAVE SPENT UNBELIEVABLE FORTUNES. IF YOU CONSIDER WHAT ONE TRILLION DOLLARS IS, AND I WILL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT THAT IS WITHOUT STACKING IT UP. IF YOU WERE BORN THE DAY CHRIST WAS BORN ON THIS EARTH AND SPENT $100,000 A DAY, YOU WOULD STILL HAVE A LOT OF MONEY IN YOUR POCKET IF YOU HAD ONE TRILLION DOLLARS. WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE FED HAS SPENT FOUR TRILLION DOLLARS, JUST THINK ABOUT IT. SO DISCRETIONARY SPENDING, A ONE OR TWO-YEAR FREEZE, AND THEN 1% GROWTH. I DO NOT THINK YOU WILL EVEN MISS THE SPENDING IN DISCRETIONARY ACCOUNTS.
01:31:00	Conrad, Kent	SENATOR ALEXANDER, DID YOU WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED?
01:31:04	Alexander, Lamar	I JUST WANTED TO CORRECT THE RECORD RESPECTFULLY. YOU MENTIONED PRESIDENT HOOVER. HERE IS WHAT PRESIDENT HOOVER DID. HE INCREASED SPENDING AND ENCOURAGE THE STATES TO INCREASE SPENDING, NUMBER ONE. NO. 2, HE RAISED TAXES AND REVENUE AFTER 1932. NO. 3, HE AGREED TO PROTECTIONIST LEGISLATION, WHICH THE CONGRESS PASSED. AS A RESULT, DEFICITS WENT UP, REVENUE WENT DOWN, AND WE WENT INTO THE GREAT DEPRESSION. THIS IS WHAT IS HAPPENING TODAY. SO PRESIDENT HOOVER'S LESSONS ARE USEFUL TODAY, BUT THEY DO NOT ARGUE AGAINST SENATOR SESSIONS'AMENDMENT .
01:32:00	Sessions, Jeff	MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU ARE MARGOT'S TO A 7% INCREASE. I WILL IN KNOWLEDGE THAT OVER FIVE YEARS, EUROPE MARK SHOWS A 43% INCREASE -- YORK MARK SHOWS A 43% INCREASE. I WILL ADMIT IT IS BETTER THAN THAT THUNDEROUSLY IRRESPONSIBLE BUDGET THAT OBAMA SUBMITTED, THIS BLUE THING I SHOWED JUST A MOMENT AGO. IN FIVE YEARS, HE PROPOSES 75% INCREASE IN SPENDING. THE FIRST YEAR, 11.5%. AS YOU HAVE SAID, THESE ARE UNSUSTAINABLE. YOUR BUDGET HIDES A THE SECOND FIVE YEARS. JUST IGNORES WHAT IS GOING TO BE HAPPENING. I SEE NOTHING IN THIS BUDGET THAT REFLECTS ANY COMMITMENT TO CONTAINING THE GROWTH AND SPENDING, AND IN FACT, IT PROPOSES TO SPEND AT A HIGHER RATE THAN WE HAVE EVER SPENT BEFORE. IT HAS NO CONTROL ON ENTITLEMENTS, AND THAT IS WHY IT TRIPLES THE DEBT AND TAKES THE INTEREST RATE, THE ANNUAL INTEREST THAT WE WILL PAY -- AMERICANS KNOW THE CREDIT CARD INTEREST THEY HAVE TO PAY. WHEN WE HAVE THIS DEBT, WE BORROW THE MONEY, AND WE HAVE TO PAY THE PEOPLE THEY GIVE US THE MONEY INTERESTS. THE INTEREST WE WILL PAY IN 2009 IS $170 BILLION. INTEREST WILL PAY 10 YEARS FROM NOW IS $806 BILLION, ACCORDING TO THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE'S ANALYSIS. I THINK WE ARE ON AN UNSUSTAINABLE COURSE. IN SOME SENSE, THIS COULD BE A COVERED BOAT, BECAUSE I AM NOT SURE THE HOUSE WOULD EVEN AGREE WITH THE CHAIRMAN'S MARK. WHO IS THIS A JUST BECAUSE THE CHAIRMAN PROPOSES A 7% INCREASE THAT WILL BE IN THE FINAL BILL. I SUSPECT WILL BE MUCH HIGHER. WE ALSO KNOW OF ANOTHER FACT, WE MANIPULATE THE BUDGET. WHATEVER THE BUDGET IS, WE ALWAYS END UP SPENDING MORE. WITH REGARD TO STIMULUS, THE PRESIDENT IS PROJECTING IN HIS BUDGET SUBSTANTIAL ECONOMIC GROWTH IN THOSE YEARS. WE DO NOT NEED MORE STIMULUS WHEN WE HAVE 4% GROWTH UNDER THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET. I AM JUST REALLY WORRIED ABOUT THIS. I THINK THIS IS A DEFINING VOTE WITH THE STIMULUS MONEY THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN PUMPED INTO THIS ECONOMY. WITH THE MONEY THE FED HAS PUMPED INTO THE ECONOMY, I BELIEVE WE COULD MAINTAIN A LEVEL FUNDING FOR IT TO YEARS -- MAINTAIN A LEVEL FUNDING FOR TWO YEARS.
01:35:27	Conrad, Kent	I DID NOT KNOW WHAT BUDGET YOU ARE REFERRING TO, BUT IT CERTAINLY IS NOT MINE. WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT A 43% INCREASE, THAT IS NOT MY BUDGET. I GO FROM A NET DISCRETIONARY SPENDING. THE AVERAGE INCREASE FOR THE FIVE YEARS IS 2.5%. I GO FROM 520 FOUR BILLION DOLLARS TO $555 BILLION. 40% IS SO FOR OFF, THAT I HOPE YOU WILL CORRECT IT. THAT IS JUST NOT TRUE. THIS GOES FROM 2010, 520 FOUR BILLION DOLLARS TO 2014, $555 BILLION. THAT IS AN INCREASE ON AVERAGE OF 2.5% A YEAR. IT IS NOT 43%. ON TOTAL SPENDING, MY BUDGET GOES FROM $3.534 TRILLION. THAT IS NOT WITHIN ANY DISTANCE OF A 43% INCREASE. I AM WITH YOU ON THE SECOND FIVE YEARS OF BEING AN UNSUSTAINABLE COURSE, ALTHOUGH MY BUDGET IS MUCH MORE SUSTAINABLE IF YOU EXTEND IT FOR 10 YEARS AND IS THE PRESIDENT. I REALLY AM AT 3% OF GDP OUT THERE IN THE SECOND FIVE YEARS IF YOU EXTEND IT. BUT THIS TALK THAT MY BUDGET IT IS INCREASED SPENDING OF 43% IS FLAT WRONG.
01:37:23	Sessions, Jeff	OUR PROPOSAL THAT CONTAINS SPENDING TO A LEVEL FUNDING FOR TWO YEARS AND A 1% LEVEL FOR THREE YEARS IS CALCULATED IN THE AMENDMENT. IT SAVES $211 BILLION IN ADDITIONAL SPENDING OVER THAT PERIOD OF TIME. THE NUMBERS JUST ADD UP. YOU CAN TAKE THOSE NUMBERS AND IT LOOKS LIKE A HIGHER FIGURE THAN PERHAPS THE WAY YOU CALCULATE YOUR SPIRIT REGARDLESS, I RESPECT YOUR CALCULATIONS. WE CAN SOMETIMES DISAGREE ON NUMBERS, BUT THESE ARE FLAT EXPENDITURE SAVINGS THAT I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WOULD AMOUNT TO $211 BILLION OVER FIVE YEARS.
01:38:15	Conrad, Kent	SHOULD WE MOVE ON? WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT ON THIS SIDE.
01:38:28	>>	A MUCH SIMPLER AMENDMENT. THIS GOES BACK TO THAT ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE RESERVE FUND WHICH REFERENCES PROTECTING AND PRESERVING NATIONAL PARKS. THERE ARE MANY OF US WHO HAVE STATES WHERE THE BULK OF OUR PROTECTED LANDS ARE IN AREAS SUCH AS NATIONAL MONUMENTS, WILDERNESS AREAS, NATIONAL RECREATION AREAS. SOME STATES ONLY HAVE A SINGLE NATIONAL PARK AND SOME HAVE NONE. THIS AMENDMENT THAT IS BEING PASSED OUT NOW WOULD CHANGE NATIONAL PARKS TO INSERT PUBLIC LANDS AND TO PROVIDE GREATER DISCRETION TO ADDRESS ISSUES THAT MIGHT OCCUR IN NATIONAL MONUMENTS OR WILDERNESS AREAS AND SO FORTH.
01:39:25	Alexander, Lamar	COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THIS DOES?
01:39:30	Conrad, Kent	I WILL LEAVE IT TO THE MOVER OF THE AMENDMENT TO EXPLAIN THE AMENDMENT. I WILL SAY THAT I THINK IT IS A WORTHWHILE AMENDMENT. IT IS IN EFFECT BROUGHT IN FROM NATIONAL PARKS TO PUBLIC LANDS, CERTAINLY IN MY STATE WE HAVE NATIONAL PARKS. WE ALSO HAVE PUBLIC LANDS, AND IS BROADENED THE DEFINITION OF WHAT IS PROTECTED. CENTER ALEXANDER, DO YOU WANT TO FORMALLY POSTER QUESTION?
01:39:59	Alexander, Lamar	I WILL TRY NOT TO GET INTO AN EXTENDED THING. IS THE PURPOSE TO EXTEND PROTECTION TO A LARGER NUMBER OF PUBLIC PROPERTIES? IS THE IDEA TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO GIVE THE SAME KIND OF PROTECTION TO MORE PUBLIC LANDS THAN A DOZEN NATIONAL PARKS?
01:40:21	>>	THIS ARISES IN THE SAME CONTEXT WE DISCUSSED EARLIER. IT PROVIDES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS THAT WOULD ADDRESS NATIONAL DEPENDENCE ON IMPORTED ENERGY, INCREASING GREEN JOBS, PROMOTE RENEWABLE ENERGY, IMPROVE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION, ENCOURAGE CONSERVATION AND ENERGY, AND IT INCLUDES PRESERVE AND PROTECT NATIONAL PARKS. PROPOSALS MAY ARISE IN THE COURSE OF THE COMMITTEE'S JURISDICTIONS WORK THAT MIGHT BE RELATED TO WILDERNESS AREAS, NOT JUST SIMPLY TO NATIONAL PARKS. I WANTED TO GIVE THEM THE DISCRETION TO USE THIS FRAMEWORK TO COVER ISSUES THAT MIGHT ARISE IN WILDERNESS AREAS.
01:41:16	Alexander, Lamar	WOULD MAKE IT EASIER OR HARDER TO PUT A TRANSMISSION LINE 3 WILDERNESS AREA? IT IS FINE WITH ME TO MAKE IT HARDER. I AM JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IT DOES.
01:41:28	>>	THE ANSWER IS IT WOULD DEPEND ON WHAT THE AUTHORIZING COMMITTEE WROTE IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO IN A WILDERNESS AREA. THEY MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT CHOOSE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF TRANSMISSION LINES THROUGH WILDERNESS AREAS. THAT WOULD DEPEND ON THE SPECIFIC BILLS THAT WOULD BE ADOPTED BY THE AUTHORIZING COMMITTEE.
01:42:03	Conrad, Kent	OTHER DEBATES ON THIS AMENDMENT OR QUESTIONS? IF NOT, DO WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT ON THIS SIDE?
01:42:15	Cornyn, John	MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE AN AMENDED TO REDUCE THE PUBLIC DEBT BY MORE THAN $55 BILLION BY REDUCING THE GROWTH IN NON DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING. IS THE NO. 11? THE CHAIRMAN'S MARK INCREASES SPENDING FOR NON DISPENSED DISCRETIONARY ACCOUNTS BY 7%. THE RATE OF INCREASE IN DEFENSE SPENDING IS AT 3.8%. THIS IS AT A TIME WHEN WE ARE ENGAGED IN WARS AROUND THE GLOBE, AND FRANKLY, LET ME JUST SAY THIS WEEK I WROTE TO THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ALONG WITH 13 OF MY COLLEAGUES ABOUT MY CONCERNS ABOUT THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET. THIS IS REMINISCENT OF THE TIME NOT TOO LONG AGO IN THE 1990'S WHEN WE TRIED TO CASH THE PEACE DIVIDEND, BUT I WOULD NOTE THAT WE ARE NOT AT PEACE. WE ARE A NATION AT WAR WITH ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS IN IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, AND EVEN HERE ON THE HOME FRONT. I DO NOT KNOW WHY WE WOULD REDUCE DEFENSE SPENDING RELATIVE TO THE OVERALL BUDGET AND DENY OUR MEN AND WOMEN IN UNIFORM THE RESOURCES THEY NEED IN ORDER TO DEFEND OUR NATION AND PROTECT THEMSELVES. THAT IS WHAT THIS PROPOSAL DOES, IT LIMITS DEFENSE SPENDING TO 3.8% WHILE NON-DEFENSE SPENDING ROSE AT 7%. WHILE I MENTIONED SOME OF THE SHORT-TERM CONSEQUENCES OF THE BUDGET, IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THE LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES OF THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET. IN THE FINAL YEAR HE PROPOSES THAT TAXPAYERS SPEND MORE ON INTEREST THAN ON DEFENDING OUR NATION. IT TOOK 43 PRESIDENTS FROM GEORGE WASHINGTON TO GEORGE W. BUSH TO RACK UP 5.8 TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT. NOW THIS PRESIDENT WANTS TO SET A NEW RACQUET AND PROPOSES TO DOUBLE THAT IN FIVE YEARS. ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS, THE CHAIRMAN HAS HIGHLIGHTED THE THREAT THE GROWING DEBT POSES TO OUR ECONOMY AND OUR NATION. I COULD NOT AGREE MORE, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE WISE AND PRUDENT AT A TIME WHEN WE ARE ASKING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO TIGHTEN THEIR BELTS A LITTLE BIT FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO TIGHTEN ITS BELT. WE HELD THE GROWTH OF NON DISCRETIONARY SPENDING TO THE SAME RATE AS THE MARK PROPOSES TO HOLD DEFENSE SPENDING, WE COULD SAVE A LITTLE BIT OF MONEY AND SET A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE.
01:45:15	Conrad, Kent	THANK YOU FOR YOUR IMMINENT. I WOULD RESISTER AMENDMENT, AND I WOULD RESISTED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. NUMBER ONE, IF YOU LOOK AT MY TOTAL NONDEFENSE DISCRETIONARY NUMBERS FOR THE WHOLE FIVE YEARS, I AM INCREASING AT AN AVERAGE OF 2.5%. THE FIRST YEAR IS CORRECT AT 7%. THE BIGGEST REASON FOR THAT IS THE INTERNATIONAL ACCOUNTS, WHICH I HAVE CUT FROM THE PRESIDENT'S REQUEST BY FOUR BILLION DOLLARS. THIS LAST WEEKEND, BECAUSE OF THE CUTS THAT I ASKED FOR IN THOSE AREAS, I RECEIVED PHONE CALLS AT MY HOME FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE ON SATURDAY, QUICKLY FOLLOWED BY A PHONE CALL FROM THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE. BOTH OF THEM ARGUED AGAINST THE CUTS THAT I WAS ASKING FOR FROM THE INTERNATIONAL ACCOUNTS. BOTH MADE THE POINT THAT THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET HAS INCREASED NATIONAL SPENDING BUT DONE IT IN A VERY DIFFERENT WAY THAN HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST, BECAUSE INSTEAD OF DOING IT FOR SUPPLEMENTALS NOT BUDGETED FOR, THEY PUT IT IN THE BUDGET, WHICH MAKES THEIR INCREASE WOULD BITTER. I TOLD THEM I UNDERSTAND ALL THAT, BUT WE HAVE A NEED TO SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE THE FIVE- YEAR EXPENDITURES, AND THAT I FELT IT ONLY FAIR TO ASK EVERY PART OF THE BUDGET TO SACRIFICE, INCLUDING INTERNATIONAL, INCLUDING THE REST OF DOMESTIC DISCRETIONARY, WHICH ARE REDUCED BY $15 BILLION THE FIRST YEAR. I CAN TELL YOU, IT HAS CAUSED A GREAT DEAL OF BLOW BACK, SHALL WE SAY. I BELIEVE THE 7% INCREASE THIS YEAR IS JUSTIFIED, BASED ON THE EXTRAORDINARY NEEDS ESPECIALLY IN THE WARS IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ, BECAUSE MUCH OF THE INCREASE IN INTERNATIONAL IS FOR THOSE PURPOSES. THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE SAID TO ME VERY CLEARLY, WE ARE SPENDING A LOT OF THIS MONEY IN THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT. IT DOES NOT BELONG HERE. BELONGS IN THE INTERNATIONAL ACCOUNTS. HE STRONGLY URGED ME TO MAINTAIN THE INTERNATIONAL EXPENDITURES INCREASE, WHICH IS BY FAR THE BIGGEST. AS YOU CORRECTLY POINTED OUT, DEFENSE IS INCREASING 3.8%. MY NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY INCREASE IS 7 FOR THE FIRST YEAR, BUT OVER THE FIVE YEARS, 2.5%. I WOULD RESIST THE AMENDMENT OF THE CENTER. I THINK IT WOULD DAMAGE THE INITIATIVES AGAIN FOR VETERANS' HEALTH CARE, FOR EDUCATION, LAW ENFORCEMENT. I THINK IT WOULD JEOPARDIZE MANY OF THE PROGRAMS THAT ARE ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL. LAW ENFORCEMENT ALONG -- I LOOK AT WHAT IS HAPPENING IN YOUR STATE ON THAT SOUTHERN BORDER, AND WE SEE THESE DRUG CARTELS -- SUBSTANTIAL FEDERAL RESOURCES ARE BEING REDIRECTED TO TRY TO TAKE ON THESE DRUG CARTELS. THE MONEY HAS TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE. I HAVE BEEN FAULTED VERY AGGRESSIVELY FOR BEING TOO TOUGH ON DISCRETIONARY FUNDING I BELIEVE THAT YOUR AMENDMENT GOES TOO FAR.
01:48:55	Gregg, Judd Alan	I GUESS I DO NOT ACCEPT THE LOGIC HERE OF THE BUDGET BROUGHT FORWARD. THE FIRST RESPONSIBILITY IS TO DEFEND THE PEOPLE. THESE OTHER ISSUES ARE IMPORTANT, BUT THE FIRST RESPONSIBILITY IS TO DEFEND THE PEOPLE. IT IS RESPONSIBLE TO INCREASE SPENDING, I THINK THAT -- WHEN YOU ARE IN A SITUATION WHERE YOU ARE ADDING TO THE FEDERAL DEBT, IF YOU ARE GOING TO INCREASE DEFENSE SPENDING AT 3%, THAT IS WHERE YOU SHOULD LIKE IN THE REST OF THE DISCRETIONARY BUDGET AT THAT SORT OF LEVEL. I UNDERSTAND YOUR DISAGREEMENTS. HE IS BEING VERY REASONABLE IN HIS APPROACH. THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT IS DEFENSE, WHY WOULD INCREASE OTHER PRIORITIES AT A FASTER RATE THAN THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY?
01:49:54	Conrad, Kent	IF YOU LOOK OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS, DEFENSE AS INCREASE GEOMETRICALLY COMPARED TO THE REST OF DISCRETIONARY SPENDING. WE ALL KNOW THAT. DEFENSE IS STARTING ON A MUCH BIGGER BASE COMPARED TO WHERE THEY WERE FIVE YEARS AGO. WHY IS THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE SUPPORTING THE INCREASE CALLED FOR IN THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET WHICH ALSO PROVIDED FOR IN MY BUDGET? DEFENSE HAS HAD A DRAMATIC, HUGE INCREASE OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS. THE REST OF DOMESTIC DISCRETIONARY HAS NOT HAD THAT KIND OF INCREASE. NOW GOING FORWARD, YOU HAVE TO MAKE REASONABLE ADJUSTMENTS TO BOTH. THAT IS WHAT THIS BUDGET SEEKS TO DO.
01:50:38	Gregg, Judd Alan	YOU NEED TO PUT IT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRE BUDGET AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP. THE SIMPLE FACT IS THAT DEFENSE IS DROPPING UNDER THIS BUDGET. IT IS GOING DOWN. SPENDING ON OTHER ACTIVITIES OF GOVERNMENT, TAKING OUT THE DEBT, IS GOING UP AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP. THAT IS PRIMARILY DRIVEN BY ENTITLEMENT SPENDING. THE FACT IS, DEFENSE, WHICH HISTORICALLY WAS THE PRIMARY PRIORITY OF OUR GOVERNMENT AS A PERCENT OF GDP IS DROPPING. THE SENATOR'S POINT IS THAT AT LEAST RELATIVE TO DISCRETIONARY SPENDING, YOU OUGHT TO KEEP THEM ON A RELATIVELY CLOSE PLANE. YOU WILL HAVE THE EXPLOSION ON NON-DEFENSE SPENDING OCCUR ANYWAY IN THE ENTITLEMENTS.
01:51:32	Conrad, Kent	THERE IS NOTHING I LIKE BETTER THAN GETTING DOWN TO THE NUMBERS. HERE ARE THE FACTS. DEFENSE IS GOING FROM 4.8% OF GDP TO 3.7%. NON-DEFENSE IS GOING FROM FOUR 0.7% TO 3.6%.
01:51:57	Gregg, Judd Alan	ARE YOU INCLUDING ENTITLEMENT SPENDING?
01:52:01	Conrad, Kent	DISCRETIONARY SPENDING DOES NOT INCLUDE ENTITLEMENTS. . . TO 3.6% OF GDP. ENTITLEMENTS, AS THE SENATOR KNOWS, ON AN AUTOMATIC GLIDEPATH, AND IT IS UTTERLY UNSUSTAINABLE. IT IS EATING UP MORE AND MORE OF THE BUDGET. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE CALLED FOR INTIMATE REFORM, BUT, IN FAIRNESS -- FOR ENTITLEMENT REFORM. UNDER THE CHAIRMAN'S MARK, THESE ARE GOING DOWN IN AND ABOUT THE SAME PROPORTION.
01:53:17	Gregg, Judd Alan	YOU CANNOT SEPARATE THESE. WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THESE, YOU REALLY CANNOT SEPARATE THEM, BECAUSE THERE IS NO DEFENSE AND ENTITLEMENT. A LOT OF THE NON DISCRETIONARY AND DISCRETIONARY SPENDING IS FOR SOCIAL COMMITMENTS, WHICH WE AS A COUNTRY DECIDE TO PURSUE, AND THEY ARE ENTITLEMENT GENERATED. THERE IS NO DEFENSE ENTITLEMENT, AND SO, THIS CONTINUES TO DROP AS A PERCENTAGE ANNUALLY. WHAT THE SENATOR IS SUGGESTING IS AT LEAST IN ONE SMALL AREA OF NON-DEFENSE SPENDING IN OUR BUDGET, WE OUGHT TO ATTRACT THE DEFENSE BUDGET -- WE OUGHT TO TRACK THE DEFENSE BUDGET.
01:54:03	Cornyn, John	JUST ONE FINAL POINT. LET ME SAY TWO FINAL POINTS. WE HAVE BEEN SPENDING RECKLESSLY THIS YEAR. WE HAVE SEEN MORE SPENDING SO FAR THIS YEAR THAN WE HAVE SPENT ON KATRINA RECOVERY, ON THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN, AND THE WAR IN IRAQ. THE OMNIBUS THAT THE SENATE PASSED ACTUALLY DUPLICATES FUNDED 122 DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS. IT WAS AN 8.5% INCREASE OVER THE PRECEDING YEAR -- ACTION REDUPLICATE -- ACTUALLY REDUPLICATE -- QUINTUPLICATE -- DUPLICATE FUNDED 122 DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS. OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN WILL HAVE TO PAY THIS. I APPLAUD THE CHAIRMAN AND THE RANKING MEMBER FOR WHAT YOU HAVE DONE WITH IN TIME AND REFORM, -- WITH A ENTITLEMENT REFORM, BUT THIS IS A HUGE MISTAKE IN MY VIEW, BUT FINALLY, LET ME SAY THAT I DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC BY WHICH A NATION AT WAR IS REDUCING DEFENSE SPENDING. I APPLAUD CITY AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO USE EMERGENCY SPENDING -- I APPLAUD SAYING WE ARE NOT GOING TO USE EMERGENCY SPENDING. WE NEED TO BE MORE HONEST ABOUT THAT, BUT TO ME, IS CASHING THE PEACE DIVIDEND WITH NO PEACE -- IT IS CASHING THAT. DOES ANYBODY THINK THAT WILL COST LESS MONEY? AND I THINK YOU ARE RIGHT. THERE IS A LOT OF REQUIREMENTS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS AND THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE, BUT I THINK IT IS WRONG TO SAY NOT DISCRETIONARY, NON- DEFENSE SPENDING GROWING ALMOST DOUBLE THE RATE OF DEFENSE SPENDING -- I THINK IT IS WRONG TO SEE NON DISCRETIONARY, NON- DEFENSE SPENDING GROWING ALMOST DOUBLE THE RATE.
01:56:27	Conrad, Kent	DOES SOMEBODY HAVE SOMETHING ON THIS SIDE? SENATOR?
01:56:31	Cardin, Benjamin L.	YES. I DO HAVE AN AMENDMENT, AN ADJUSTMENT ON THE SPENDING TO HELP THE SBA, AND I WILL HAVE IT PASSED OUT. THIS WOULD INCREASE THE FUNDING FOR THE SMALL BUSINESSES ADMINISTRATION BY $180 MILLION AND MAY BE OFFSET 920. THE PURPOSE FOR THIS -- AND MAKE THE OFFSETS 920. -- THE OFFSET 920. YES, THE SMALL BUSINESS COMMITTEE HAD A HEARING. THIS WAS REQUESTED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND RANKING MEMBER OF THE SMALL BUSINESS COMMITTEE. THE FDA DOES NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES NOW TO PROVIDE THE TYPE -- THE SBA DOES NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES FOR THE OVERSIGHT, MOST IMPORTANTLY, TO MAKE SURE THAT SMALL BUSINESSES ARE GETTING THEIR SHARE OF THE SERVICES OF OUR COUNTRY. I KNOW IN MY OWN STATE, I HAVE TALKED TO THE BIOTECH COMMUNITY, AND MANY ARE HURTING. MANY WILL HAVE TO CLOSE THEIR DOORS. THERE WAS A TOWN HALL MEETING IN COLUMBIA, MD., THIS WEEK, AND WE HEARD OVER AND OVER AGAIN HOW THEY NEEDED HELP FROM THE SBA, AND THE SBA DOES NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES TO DO THAT. THIS IS A MODEST ADJUSTMENT BUT ONE THAT I HOPE THIS COMMITTEE WOULD SUPPORT. I THINK IT IS DESPERATELY NEEDED.
01:58:17	Conrad, Kent	I THINK THE SENATOR FOR HIS AMENDMENT, AND I WOULD URGE COLLEAGUES TO ADOPT IT -- I THINK THE SENATOR. -- I THINK -- THANK THE SENATOR. IN LIGHT OF THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT HAS COME TO THE COMMITTEE AS A RESULT OF THE HEARING, I THINK IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO MAKE THIS ADJUSTMENT IN THE MARK THE I HAVE OFFERED.
01:58:44	Gregg, Judd Alan	MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD JUST ASK THE QUESTION, WHERE DOES THIS 920 ACCOUNT MONEY COME FROM?
01:58:51	Conrad, Kent	NEW HAMPSHIRE.
01:58:56	Gregg, Judd Alan	I UNDERSTAND WITH IN THE CHAIRMAN'S MARK HERE, THERE IS ALREADY $7 BILLION IN THE ACCOUNT. IS THAT CORRECT?
01:59:06	Conrad, Kent	YES, AND THAT IS WAY BELOW WHERE 920 ADJUSTMENTS HAVE BEEN IN THE PAST, I AM PROUD TO SAY, AND I AM HOPING THE RAKING MEMBER WILL HELP YOU HOLD THE LINE WHEN WE GET OUT ON THE FLOOR.
01:59:22	Gregg, Judd Alan	NOW IS SENATOR -- NOW THAT SENATOR CARDIN IS PROPOSING THIS, THE ONLY WAY TO GET THAT IS WITH CUTS.
01:59:31	Conrad, Kent	THAT IS CORRECT.
01:59:35	Gregg, Judd Alan	THIS WILL AFFECT VETERANS, EDUCATION, HEALTH CARE, STUDENT LOANS.
01:59:42	Conrad, Kent	AND YOU KNOW WHAT? THIS GOES DIRECTLY TO THE QUESTION THAT SENATOR CORNYN MADE, AND MAYBE ANOTHER SENATOR, AS WELL. THEY KNOW PLACES WHERE THEY COULD HAVE SAVINGS, AND YOU KNOW WHAT? WE ARE GOING TO ASK FOR THEM TO DO IT. I THINK ANOTHER SENATOR MADE A POINT IN A VERY ARTICULATE WAY. THERE IS WASTE IN GOVERNMENT, AND WE ARE GOING TO ASK THEM TO BE BETTER MANAGERS, AND WE ARE GOING TO ASK THEM FOR REDUCTIONS.
02:00:17	Gregg, Judd Alan	WELL, IF THAT IS THE CASE, THEN, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD ASK CONSENT THAT THE 920 ACCOUNT BE IMMEDIATELY CONVERTED TO AN ACROSS-THE-BOARD CUT.
02:00:33	Conrad, Kent	WELL, I WOULD NOT ACCEPT THAT FOR THE UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST. WE ALL UNDERSTAND. 920 IS THE GENERAL OPERATING ACCOUNTS. IT WOULD MEAN THAT EACH AGENCY HAS TO REDUCE THEIR TRAVEL, HAS TO REDUCE THEIR OVERHEAD, AND I THINK THAT IS APPROPRIATE.
02:00:55	Gregg, Judd Alan	UNLESS WE CONVERT IT AND DIRECT IT AT THE AGENCIES. IT JUST SORT OF GOES AWAY. I AM JUST TRYING TO POINT OUT THAT IT IS A GAME.
02:01:07	Conrad, Kent	NO, 920 IS NOT A GAME. 921 REQUIRED ADJUSTMENTS AND WILL REQUIRE ADJUSTMENTS IN THE GENERAL OPERATING ACCOUNTS OF ALL OF THE AGENCIES -- 920 WILL REQUIRE ADJUSTMENTS.
02:01:22	Gregg, Judd Alan	IN THE LAST FIVE BUDGETS, SO THEY INCLUDE A COUPLE OF OUR OWN, WHERE 920 ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN USED?
02:01:29	Conrad, Kent	WE WILL BE HAPPY TO DO THAT.
02:01:32	Gregg, Judd Alan	AND WHEN IT REQUIRED AN ACROSS-THE-BOARD CUT, TO WHAT EXTENT THOSE CUTS WERE REQUIRED? NOT NOW, I WOULD JUST LIKE THAT.
02:01:41	Conrad, Kent	IT IS A VERY LEGITIMATE QUESTION, AND WE WILL PROVIDE IT. WE ALL KNOW 920 ACCOUNTS ARE GENERAL OPERATIONS OF AGENCIES, AND WHEN WE MAKE A REDUCTION HERE, THAT FLOWS THROUGH, AND THE APPROPRIATORS AS TO MAKE REDUCTIONS.
02:01:59	Gregg, Judd Alan	WE HAVE NOT SEEN ANY OF THAT.
02:02:01	Conrad, Kent	WE WILL BE GLAD TO RECOUNT THE HISTORY. WE HAVE NOW REACHED THE HOUR OF -- HOUR OF NOON, AND I THINK THIS WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE TIME THAT WE MOVE TO THE VOTES. DO WE HAVE A LIST OF THE VOTES THAT ARE AVAILABLE?
02:02:51	Alexander, Lamar	THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THE MAJORITY LEADER, MR. REED, SAID HE WAS WILLING TO CONSIDER PUTTING INTO THE BUDGET -- MR. HARRY REID, SAID HE WAS WILLING TO CONSIDER PUTTING INTO THE BUDGET WAS PROPOSED BY THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET. IT IS NOT IN CHAIRMAN CONRADS BUDGET -- CONRAD'S BUDGET. THERE IS ROOM IN THIS BUDGET AND IN THE HOUSE BUDGET FOR THAT. THEREFORE, THE ALEXANDER CLEAN ENERGY AMENDMENT SHOWS THAT YOU CAN HAVE A CLEAN ENERGY AGENDA WITHOUT A BIG TAX, BECAUSE WE WOULD CONSTRUCT 100 NEW POWER PLANTS THAT ARE NUCLEAR, ELECTRIFIED HALF OF OUR CARS AND TRUCKS, PLUGGING THEM IN AT NIGHT, MAKING SOLAR COSTS COMPETITIVE, CAPTURE CARBON FROM COAL PLANTS -- MAKING SOLAR COST COMPETITIVE, AND DEVELOP NATURAL GAS AND OIL OFFSHORE. THOSE WOULD BE THE THINGS WE COULD DO THIS YEAR WITHOUT PUTTING A $646 MILLION TAX ON ELECTRIC BILLS AND GASOLINE PRICES IN THE MIDDLE OF A RECESSION, AND I MOVE THE ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENT.
02:04:12	Conrad, Kent	I WOULD JUST SAY IN RESPONSE THAT WE ALREADY HAVE IN THE CHAIRMAN'S MARK A DEFICIT NEUTRAL FUNDS FOR ENERGY INITIATIVES. I HAVE PERSONALLY SUPPORTED THE BROAD-BASED APPROACH TO REDUCING OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN ENERGY, INCLUDING DRILLING OFFSHORE AND INCENTIVES FOR NUCLEAR POWER, BUT I THINK THE AMENDMENT OF THE GENTLEMAN FROM TENNESSEE IS OVERLY PRESCRIPTIVE, CALLING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AT LEAST 100 NEW NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS BY CALENDAR YEAR 2030. THIS IS NOT THE COMMITTEE OF JURISDICTION. WE HAVE NOT DONE A SINGLE STATE TO SHESEE IF THAT IS THE RIGHT NUMBER OR NOT, AND I THINK THIS GOES BEYOND. THAT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ENERGY COMMITTEE, SO I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO OPPOSE IT. THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
02:05:12	>>	[ROLL CALL] MR. CHAIRMAN.
02:05:54	>>	NO.
02:05:59	>>	MR. CHAIRMAN, THE MOTION FAILS.
02:06:02	Conrad, Kent	THE AMENDMENT FAILS. THE NEXT AMENDMENT FOR CONSIDERATION IS THE FEINGOLD AMENDMENT. SENATOR FEINGOLD?
02:06:10	Feingold, Russell	THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THIS COMMITTEE ADOPTED THE AMENDMENT THE LAST TIME THAT WE MET. IT WOULD SET OUT MONEY FOR DEFENSE CONTRACTOR AND GIVE APPROPRIATORS BROAD DISCRETION TO FIND A NEW INITIATIVES TO REDUCE WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE. IT CAN BE USED FOR MANY INITIATIVES. FOR ONE EXAMPLE, THEY MAY BE AUTHORIZED, AND THOSE FUNDS COULD COME OUT OF THIS ADJUSTMENT. IT COULD ALSO BE USED TO HIRE ADDITIONAL AUDITORS', TO RECOUP OVERPAYMENTS THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT FAILED TO RECOVER OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS -- TO HIRE ADDITIONAL AUDITORS, TO FOSTER COMPETITIVE BUILIDDING OF CONTRACTS. THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAVE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ENCOURAGE SUCH REFORMS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
02:07:09	Conrad, Kent	ANYONE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? IF NOT, WE WILL VOTE ON THE FEINGOLD A MINUTE. THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
02:07:20	>>	[ROLL CALL] MR. CHAIRMAN?
02:08:11	>>	AYE.
02:08:16	>>	MR. CHAIRMAN,.
02:08:20	Conrad, Kent	THE FEINGOLD AMENDMENT IS PASSED. -- WE WILL VOTE ON THE FEINGOLD AMENDMENTS. I WILL DEFER THIS OTHER TO THE NEXT ROCKET -- TRAUNCH OF VOTING. I THINK AT LEAST YOU AND I COULD BE IN AGREEMENT.
02:08:41	Bunning, Jim	I THOUGHT YOU AND I HAD AN AGREEMENT.
02:08:44	Conrad, Kent	WELL, I THINK YOU AND I DID. I JUST DO NOT THINK IT HAS BEEN REDUCED TO WRITING ON AN AMENDMENT WE CAN SHARE WITH COLLEAGUES.
02:08:51	Bunning, Jim	ALL RIGHT, WE WILL WAIT FOR THE NEXT TRAUNCH.
02:09:02	Conrad, Kent	I APPRECIATE YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.
02:09:06	Whitehouse, Sheldon	THIS IS THE DEFICIT NEUTRAL FUNDS, TO ALSO INCLUDE FOR THE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION OF OCEAN AND COASTAL AREAS, EVEN SMALL INCREASES IN SEA LEVEL, WHICH WE ARE ALREADY SEEING IN OUR STATES, CREATING INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS, AND THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR INVESTMENT IN THOSE, ASSUMING PROPER AUTHORIZATION AND APPROPRIATION WERE PROVIDED, AND IT PREVIOUSLY HAS BEEN UNCONTROVERSIAL AND ENJOY THE SUPPORT OF THE RANKING MEMBER -- AND ENJOYED THE SUPPORT OF THE RANKING MEMBER. I APPRECIATE THE CHAIRMANS TIME.
02:09:54	Conrad, Kent	ANYONE WHO WANTS THE TIME IN OPPOSITION? -- APPRECIATE THE CHAIRMAN'S TIME.
02:10:11	>>	[ROLL CALL] MR. NELSON?
02:10:16	>>	AYE.
02:10:21	>>	MR. MENENDEZ? MR. SANDERS? MR. WHITEHOUSE? MR. WATER-PROOFEDS? MR. GRASSLEY? MR. SESSIONS? MR. BUNTINNING? MR. CORNYN? MR. ALEXANDER? MR. CHAIRMAN?
02:10:59	>>	AYE.
02:11:06	>>	MR. CHAIRMAN, THE AYES ARE 21. THE NAYS ARE 2.
02:11:13	Conrad, Kent	I WOULD BE WILLING TO ACCEPT THIS AMENDMENT IF WE COULD DO IT ON A VOICE VOTE. WOULD THAT BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE SENATOR?
02:11:20	Crapo, Michael "Mike"	THAT IS FINE WITH ME. THANK YOU.
02:11:23	Sessions, Jeff	IF I COULD?
02:11:24	Conrad, Kent	CERTAINLY.
02:11:26	Sessions, Jeff	I WOULD URGE THE GERMAN IN CONFERENCE TO ASSERT -- THE CHAIRMAN IN CONFERENCE TO ASSERT STRONGLY OUR VIEW THAT IT SHOULD BE IN THE FINAL VIEW. -- IN THE FINAL BILL.
02:11:38	Conrad, Kent	COULD I SAY THIS?
02:11:40	Sessions, Jeff	YES.
02:11:42	Conrad, Kent	I LIKE THIS AMENDMENT. I LIKED IT LAST YEAR. I LIKE IT THIS YEAR. THE CONFERENCE COMMITTEE IS A WHOLE DIFFERENT ANIMAL, BUT I WILL ADVANCE THIS AMENDMENT. I THINK IT IS GOOD. I THINK IT IS CONSTRUCTED.
02:11:58	>>	THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. -- I THINK IT IS CONSTRUCTIVE.
02:12:06	Conrad, Kent	ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. THE AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED. SENATOR SESSIONS.
02:12:14	Sessions, Jeff	MR. CHAIRMAN, STATES HAVE REDUCED THEIR SPENDING, AND OUR CITIES AND COUNTIES ARE LIKELY IN A LIKE REDUCTION. THEY ARE NOT DISAPPEARING FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH. THEY ARE WORKING HARD TO PACE -- PRODUCE MORE. THIS AMENDMENT WOULD SIMPLY SAY THAT WE WOULD KEEP OUR NON- DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING FLAT FOR TWO YEARS, AND THEN IT WOULD GO UP 1% FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS IN A FIVE-YEAR CYCLE. IT WOULD SAVE $200 BILLION. IT IS A SIGNIFICANT SUM AND KEEP THE BASE LINE AT A MORE REASONABLE LEVEL FOR THE FUTURE. -- KEEP THE BASELINE THAT A MORE REASONABLE LEVEL. -- AT A MORE REASONABLE LEVEL. SOME OF THIS WILL BE GOING IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS, AND AS A RESULT, WE ARE STILL GOING TO HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN SPENDING BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.
02:13:18	Conrad, Kent	I WOULD ASK COLLEAGUES TO OPPOSE THIS AMENDMENT. I THINK IT GOES TOO FAR. IT IS ALREADY IN THE CHAIRMAN'S MARK. WE HAVE REDUCED DISCRETIONARY SPENDING BY $160 BILLION FROM WHAT THE PRESIDENT PROPOSED OVER THE FIVE YEARS. MY BUDGET HAS AN INCREASE IN NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING OF ONLY 2.5% A YEAR. I THINK TO FREEZE SPENDING FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS AT A TIME OF ECONOMIC DOWNTURN WOULD BE A MISTAKE IN EVERY SENSE. I THINK IT WOULD BE A MISTAKE IN TERMS OF ECONOMIC RECOVERY. I THINK IT WOULD BE A MISTAKE IN TERMS OF THE SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE THAT THIS BUDGET MARQUEZ FOR VETERANS AND VETERANS' HEALTH CARE -- THIS BUDGET MARK HAS FOR VETERANS AND VETERANS' HEALTH CARE, AND I WOULD ASK COLLEAGUES TO RESIST THIS AMENDMENT. THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
02:14:16	>>	[ROLL CALL] MR. FEINGOLD? MR. NELSON? MR. MENENDEZ? MR. CARDIN? MR. STANDARDS PROVE -- MR. SANDERS? MR. GREGG? MR. GRASSLEY? MR. SESSIONS? MR. CORNYN? MR. ALEXANDER? MR. CHAIRMAN, THE AYES ARE 10. THE NAYS ARE 13.
02:15:12	Conrad, Kent	THE SESSION AMENDMENT FAILS.
02:15:17	Enzi, Michael B.	COULD I ASK TO HAVE THAT DEBATE? WHEN WE PUT THE WORD "PUBLIC LANDS" IN, WE ARE ADDING A LOT MORE THAN WHAT WAS DISCUSSED BEFORE. -- COULD I ASKED TO HAVE THAT DELAYED? IT IS MORE THAN HALF OF WYOMING THAT WE ARE SUDDENLY GOING TO INCLUDE IN THIS BILL. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT NATIONAL PARKS, THAT IS A BIG PART OF MY YIELDING, AND THAT NEEDS TO BE IN THERE.
02:15:50	Conrad, Kent	THIS WAS SCHEDULED FOR A VOTE. I THINK THE ONLY FAIR THING AT THIS POINT WOULD BE TO PROCEED UNLESS THE SENATOR IS WILLING TO WITHHOLD.
02:15:58	>>	I WOULD LIKE TO INSTEAD EXPAND ON MY EXPIRATION EARLIER, AND HOPEFULLY THAT WILL SATISFY THE SENATOR, AND HE WILL PLEASE SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT. WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM IN OREGON, AND I KNOW IT EXISTS IN OTHER STATES, AS WELL, WITH MILLIONS OF ACRES OF SECOND- GROWTH FOREST BETTER OVERGROWN. THERE IS A PROBLEM OF DISEASE, WITH FOREST FIRES. ONE OF THE ISSUES -- SECOND- GROWTH FORESTS THAT ARE OVERGROWN. THIS IS THINNING PROVIDES LOGS FOR THE MILL. IT CREATES SOME STANDS THAT ARE BETTER FOR ECOSYSTEMS AND SOME THAT ARE BETTER FOR TIMBER PRODUCTION, AND IT DOES, OF COURSE, REDUCED FOREST FIRES. WE HAD LEGISLATION THAT HAS LOOKED AT FUNDING THIS TYPE OF THING -- SITTING -- THINNING BECAUSE THIS IS ALSO VERY SIGNIFICANT FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. I WOULD LIKE THE SORT OF INITIATIVE. IF THEY WANT TO PURSUE THAT TYPE OF IMPORTANT ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION, I WOULD LIKE THEM TO BE ABLE TO PURSUE IT, NOT JUST ON NATIONAL PARK LAND, BUT FAALSO OTHER AREAS THAT ARE IN DESPERATE NEED OF THIS POLICY.
02:17:30	Conrad, Kent	I AM IN OPPOSITION.
02:17:32	Enzi, Michael B.	MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I THOUGHT THAT IS WHAT THIS AMENDMENT DID, I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF IT, BECAUSE WE OF ONE OF THE FASTEST-GROWING THE POPULATIONS IN THE NATION, AND WE SHARE THAT WITH COLORADO -- WE HAVE ONE OF THE FASTEST-GROWING BEETLE POPULATIONS. WE HAD SOME PEOPLE DOING RESEARCH ON THAT, AND THAT WAS NOT POSSIBLE IN THE FIVE-MINUTE TIME THAT WE COULD DO IT, SO I REALLY WOULD HOPE THAT WE COULD WAIT TO MAKE SURE THAT IS REALLY WHAT IT DOES. I THINK IT WOULD HAVE EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE EFFECT.
02:18:10	Ensign, John	MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I CAN HAVE 15 SECONDS ON THAT. A LARGE PART OF MY STATE IS PUBLIC LANDS, AND ONE OF THE CONCERNS I HAVE IS WE ARE TRYING TO EXPAND, FOR EXAMPLE, SOLAR ENERGY AND OTHER TYPES OF THINGS ON PUBLIC LANDS, AND I POSITIVELY SUPPORT WHAT YOU JUST SAID. I HAVE BEEN TO YOUR STATE A LOT, AND MY FAMILY IS FROM THERE. I KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, AND IF THERE IS A CONCERN THAT THIS IS OVERLY BROAD, YOU MIGHT ACTUALLY BE INHIBITING SOME THINGS LIKE SOLAR POWER DISTRIBUTION, SO WE HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THIS WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED, THAT IT MIGHT HAVE A NEGATIVE EFFECT, NOT JUST THE POSITIVE EFFECTS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
02:18:53	Conrad, Kent	I WOULD JUST SAY TO MY COLLEAGUES, FIRST OF ALL, THAT THIS VOTE HAS BEEN SCHEDULED FOR THIS TRAUNCH. IT HAS BEEN DEBATED. OBVIOUSLY, SENATORS ARE FREE TO SUPPORT IT OR OPPOSE IT, AS THEIR BEST JUDGMENT DICTATES. THIS IS 8 -- LET'S REMEMBER WHAT THIS IS. THIS IS A DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND -- THIS IS A -- LET'S REMEMBER WHAT THIS IS. THIS IS SUBJECT TO A FILIBUSTER, SO I THINK WHAT THE SENATOR HAS DESCRIBED IT IS, AGAIN, VERY MUCH WHAT HIS INTENTION IS. HE HAS LAID IT OUT ON THE RECORD HERE WHAT HIS INTENTION IS. I THINK ANY SUBSEQUENT LEGISLATION THAT TRIED TO GO BEYOND WHAT HE HAS EXPRESSED IS THE INTENTION WOULD RUN INTO THE PROBLEM OF WHAT HAS BEEN LAID OUT VERY CLEARLY IN THE LEGISLATIVE RECORD AS THE BASIS OF THIS VOTE. WITH THAT, I WOULD ASK THE CLERK TO CALL THE ROLL.
02:19:57	>>	[ROLL CALL] MR. FEINGOLD? MR. NELSON? MR. MENENDEZ? MR. CARDIN? MR. SANDERS? MR. WHITEHOUSE? MR. WARNER? MR. GREGG? MR. GRASSLEY? MR. SESSIONS? MR. CRAPO? MR. CORNYN? MR. ALEXANDER? MR. CHAIRMAN?
02:20:48	>>	AYE.
02:20:58	>>	MR. CHAIRMAN, THE AYES ARE 16. THE NAYS ARE 7.
02:21:04	Conrad, Kent	THE AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED. SENATOR CORNYN, YOUR AMENDMENT ON DEFENSE -- NON-DEFENSE -- NOT DISCRETIONARY DEFENSE.
02:21:20	Cornyn, John	THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THIS WOULD REDUCE THE GROWTH IN NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING TO MATCH THE GROWTH IN DEFENSE SPENDING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT IT.
02:21:36	Conrad, Kent	I WOULD ASK, SENATOR CORNYN, YOU GET A PRIZE FOR THE BREVITY. I DO VERY MUCH APPRECIATE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS. I WOULD ASK THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO RESIST THIS AMENDMENT. WE HAVE HAD A VERY SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN DEFENSE AS A SHARE OF OUR TOTAL BUDGET MEASURED BY GDP FROM 3% OF GDP TO 4.7% IN 2009, A VERY DRAMATIC INCREASE. A MUCH SMALLER INCREASE IS NOT DEFENSE. IN THIS BUDGET, WE HAVE A 3.8% INCREASE IN THE FIRST YEAR FOR DEFENSE, 7% FOR NON-DEFENSE. THE NON-DEFENSE IS INCREASE OVER FIVE YEARS BY ONLY 2.5% A YEAR. BOTH DEFENSE AND NONDEFENSE IN THE CHAIRMAN'S MARK ARE SHRINKING AS A SHARE OF GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT AND ON ALMOST THE IDENTICAL TRENDLINE, DEFENSE FROM 4.8% OF GDP IN 2010, TO 3.7% IN 2014, NONDEFENSE FROM 4.7% OF GDP IN 2010 TO 3.6% IN 2014. I WOULD ASK THE CLERK TO CALL THE ROLL.
02:23:00	>>	[ROLL CALL] MR. FEINGOLD? MR. NELSON? MR. MENENDEZ? MR. CARDIN? MR. WHITEHOUSE? MR. WARNER? MR. GREGG? MR. GRASSLEY? MR. SESSIONS? MR. CRAPO? MR. CORNYN? MR. ALEXANDER? MR. CHAIRMAN?
02:23:57	>>	THE CHAIRMAN VOTES KNOW.
02:24:02	>>	MR. CHAIRMAN, THE YAYS ARE 10, THE NAYS ARE 13.
02:24:09	Conrad, Kent	THE AMENDMENT FAILS. THE NEXT AMENDMENT IS THE CARDIN AMENDMENT.
02:24:17	Cardin, Benjamin L.	THIS IS TO INCREASE THE SBA ACCOUNTS. THIS COMES OUT OF THE HEARING BY THE SMALL BUSINESS COMMITTEE THAT I HEAR -- SARAH VAUGHN. -- THE SMALL BUSINESS COMMITTEE THAT I SERVE ON. THIS IS SO THAT THE SBA BE ABLE TO ASSIST SMALL BUSINESSES IN THESE EXTRAORDINARILY DIFFICULT TIMES TO CARRY OUT PEABODY'S OF ASSISTING AS WELL AS OVERSIGHT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE AGENCIES, IN FACT, DO WHAT THEY SAY THEY ARE GOING TO DO -- TO CARRY OUT ASSISTING AS WELL AS OVERSIGHT.
02:24:59	Gregg, Judd Alan	THIS MEANS EITHER AN ACROSS- THE-BOARD CUT, WHICH MEANS IT WOULD COME OUT OF VETERANS AND EDUCATION, HEALTH CARE, TRANSPORTATION, OR, ALTERNATIVELY, IT DOES NOT MEAN ANYTHING, BECAUSE IT IS AN EXERCISE. EITHER SCENARIO, I DO NOT THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE.
02:25:19	Conrad, Kent	THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
02:25:21	>>	[ROLL CALL] MR. FEINGOLD? MR. NELSON? MR. MENENDEZ? MR. CARDIN? MR. WHITEHOUSE? MR. WARNER? MR. GREGG? MR. GRASSLEY? MR. SESSIONS? MR. CRAPO? MR. CORNYN? MR. ALEXANDER? MR. CHAIRMAN?
02:26:20	Conrad, Kent	THE RANKING MEMBER TRIED TO TRICK ME. THE CLERK WILL REPORT.
02:26:33	>>	WOULD YOU MIND REPEATING YOUR VOTE, PLEASE?
02:26:38	>>	AYE.
02:26:43	>>	THE NAYS ARE 10.
02:26:50	Conrad, Kent	THE CARDIN AMENDMENT PASSES.
02:26:53	Grassley, Charles "Chuck" E.	PROBABLY EVERYBODY WILL WANT TO GO EAT RIGHT NOW. WOULD YOU LISTEN TO TWO SENTENCES BEFORE YOU GO, AND THEN IF YOU WANT TO GET UP AND LEAVE, I WILL NOT CONSIDER IT ROUTE? -- RUDE? WHAT I AM GOING TO OFFER FROM THE REPUBLICAN POINT OF VIEW IS THAT MY AMENDMENT SAVES A LOT OF MONEY, AND YOU OUGHT TO BE IN FAVOR OF THE. FROM THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE OF THE TABLE, WHAT I AM QUICK TO OFFER -- AND YOU SHOULDN'T -- YOU OUGHT TO BE IN FAVOR OF IT. FROM THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE OF THE TABLE, WHAT I AM GOING TO OFFER IS WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS. PAYMENTS TO FARMERS THE OF THIS IS IN THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET. FROM THE SAVINGS, WE WOULD DIRECT HALF OF IT -- PAYMENTS TO FARMERS -- PAYMENTS TO FARMERS LIKE THIS IS IN THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET. I SHOULD NOT THE OVERWHELMING, BUT WE HAD 57 OR 58 VOTES FOR IT. IT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE FARM BILL. THE SENATE SAID IT WANTED TO SEEK PAYMENT LIMITS AND IS A REAL REFORM -- AND SOME REAL REFORM, AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET OUT OF THIS IS 10% OF THE FARMER IS GETTING 72% OF THE FARMERS OUT OF THE FARM PROGRAM, SO WE ARE SUBSIDIZING BIG FARMERS TO GET BIGGER WHERE THE PROGRAM WAS MEANT TO HELP SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED FARMERS OVER HAMAS THAT WERE BEYOND THEIR CONTROL, LIKE NATURAL DISASTER -- FARMERS OVER HUMPS. THE PRESIDENT RECOGNIZES THIS PRIORITY. THE ONLY WAY WE ARE GOING TO KEEP URBAN SUPPORT SO THAT THERE IS A FARM RATIONALE, WE NEED A SAFETY NET FOR FARMERS, BUT WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO KEEP URBAN SUPPORT WITH THE ADVERTISEMENT THAT IS OUT. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE ONLY WAY WE ARE GOING TO KEEP URBAN SUPPORT FOR THE FARM SAFETY NET IS WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GET RID OF THIS PUBLICITY WHERE 10% OF THE FARMERS ARE GETTING 72% OF THE BENEFITS OUT OF THE FARM PROGRAM. WE HAVE TO KEEP THE TARGETED WHERE IT WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED. SOME MEMBERS OF THE SENATE HAVE ARGUED THAT THE FARM BILL MADE ALL OF THE COMMODITY PROGRAM CHANGES THAT WERE NEEDED, AND WE DID MAKE SOME IMPROVEMENTS IN THIS AREA IN THE FARM BILL, BUT, OBVIOUSLY, THE PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES DOES NOT FEEL WE DID ENOUGH, OR HE WOULD NOT HAVE INCLUDED IT. I WILL ADMIT THAT WE MADE SOME CHANGES, LIKE ELIMINATING THE THREE-ENTITY WORLD. I WILL NOT GO INTO THAT. -- THE THREE-ENTITY RULE. THE FARM BILL MADE SOME GAINS UNLIMITED. THIS ACTUALLY WEAKENS THE 2002 LAW THAT WAS REPLACED BY THE FARM BILL LAST YEAR, AND PEOPLE THAT HAVE STUDIED IT, INCLUDING THIS SENATOR, FEEL THAT WHAT WE DID IN THE FARM BILL IS KIND OF A JOKE. BY CAPPING THE LEVEL OF FARM SUBSIDIES, MY AMENDMENT WILL SAVE $235 MILLION OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. OF COURSE, IT WILL BE A BIGGER FIGURE IF YOU WANT TO USE A 10- YEAR FIGURE. IT MAY NOT SEEM LIKE A LOT OF MONEY, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED BECAUSE IT IS THE POLICY. ONE YEAR AGO WHEN WE WERE TRYING TO DO THIS, IT WAS UP MUCH HIGHER, BUT SOME CHANGES WERE MADE ALREADY IN THE FARM BILL. SO, AGAIN, I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT HALF OF IT GOES TO CHILD NUTRITION. CHILD NUTRITION LATER ON THIS YEAR IS GOING TO BE A MAJOR ITEM THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST TO THE CHAIRMAN THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO SUPPORT THIS, BECAUSE YOU REMEMBER, YOU ASKED ME TWO YEARS AGO NOT TO TAKE A VOTE ON IT, AND YOU SAID THAT IF WE TOOK A VOTE ON IT, YOU MIGHT NOT DITCHER BUDGET RESOLUTION ADOPTED, SO I DID NOT ASK FOR -- YOU MIGHT NOT GET YOUR BUDGET RESOLUTION ADOPTED, SO I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU WOULD RETURN THE FAVOR.
02:31:21	Conrad, Kent	YOU KNOW, AND I USED TO LIKE YOU. LET ME JUST SAY -- OH, YOU ARE GOOD. YOU'RE WHITE SAID THE SAME THING. SHE SAID YOU'RE THE BIGGEST HIT OF ALL OF THE SPEAKERS -- YOUR WIFE SAID THE SAME THING. LET ME JUST SAY THIS. NO, WE ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE AT THIS MOMENT. MY INTENTION IS TO OFFER AN ALTERNATIVE TO THIS. LET ME SAY TO MY COLLEAGUE THAT I AM CONSTRAINED TO DO THIS FOR OTHERS THAT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT INTEREST IN THIS MATTER. I THINK IT IS ENTIRELY REASONABLE THAT WE HAVE SAVINGS OUT OF AGRICULTURE. I WILL ENDEAVOR TO PRODUCE AN AMENDMENT THAT WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANCE HORRIBLE SAVINGS AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THIS THAT WE CAN BOEHNER -- HAVE SIGNIFICANT THIS HORRIBLE -- HAVE SIGNIFICANT SCORABEABLE SAVINGS AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THIS BILL THAT WE CAN HAVE. LET ME JUST SAY, THIS IS, AS EVERYONE KNOWS, A HUGELY CONTROVERSIAL AMENDMENT, AND THERE ARE MANY COLLEAGUES, FRANKLY, THIS IS NOT CONTROVERSIAL IN MY STATE, BUT THERE ARE OTHER SENATORS FOR WHOM IT IS DEEPLY CONTROVERSIAL, ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE. I MEAN, WE HAVE TO BE HONEST AND FAIR ABOUT THIS, AS SENATOR GRASSLEY ALWAYS HAS BEEN.
02:33:13	Grassley, Charles "Chuck" E.	I THOUGHT IT WAS TIME FOR CHANGE.
02:33:16	Conrad, Kent	IT IS. IT IS TIME FOR CHANGE, BUT REMEMBER, WE JUST WENT THROUGH THIS BATTLE LAST YEAR. WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. WE JUST WENT THROUGH THIS BATTLE LAST YEAR IN THE FARM BILL FIGHT. THE FARM BILL GOT 81 VOTES. THE FARM BILL WAS FULLY PAID FOR, AND DID NOT, DID NOT ADD A DIME TO THE DEFICIT AT MY INSISTENCE, SO IT IS VERY TOUGH TO REOPEN THE WOUNDS FROM THAT BATTLE, AND WHILE I AM PERSONALLY VERY SYMPATHETIC TO WHAT SENATOR GRASSLEY IS SEEKING TO ADVANCE, AND I MUST SAY, I WAS LESS SYMPATHETIC TO THE PRESIDENT'S VERSION, BECAUSE I THINK THE PRESIDENT'S VERSION PROBABLY HAD A MISTAKE IN HOW IT WAS EXPRESSED, BECAUSE HIS LIMITATION DID NOT GOOD TO WIN COME. HIS INCOME WENT TO SALES. -- DID NOT GO TO INCOME. I UNDERSTAND, SENATOR GRASSLEY, BUT WHEN YOU SAY THAT YOU AND PRESIDENT OBAMA ARE JOINED AT THE HIP, YOU REALLY ARE NOT, BECAUSE HE HAD HIS LIMITATION BASED ON SALES, NOT ON INCOME. YOU, TO YOUR GREAT CREDIT, HAVE IT BASED ON INCOME, WHICH MAKES A GREAT DEAL MORE SENSE.
02:34:37	Grassley, Charles "Chuck" E.	HE DOES HAVE THE $250,000 LIMIT IN HIS PROPOSAL. HE ALSO HAS A $500,000 GROSS. I AM NOT DOING THE $500,000, BUT LET'S MAKE IT CLEAR THAT I AM DOING EXACTLY WHAT PRESIDENT OBAMA SUGGESTS.
02:34:52	Conrad, Kent	YES, WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE THE $500,000 LIMIT HE HAD BASED ON SALES RATHER THAN INCOME, AND --
02:35:02	Grassley, Charles "Chuck" E.	IF YOU WANT TO GO THAT WAY, I WILL ADD THAT, AND PRESIDENT OBAMA AND I WILL BE THE SAME. WE WILL MAKE IT ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME.
02:35:17	Conrad, Kent	SERIOUSLY, THAT WAS, I THINK, A MISTAKE ON THEIR PART. YOU HAVE CORRECTED THAT PART OF THEIR AMENDMENT, SO YOURS IS MUCH MORE DEFENSIBLE, BUT I WOULD SAY TO MY COLLEAGUES, I WOULD NEED TO CONSULT, AND FRANKLY, ON BOTH SIDES OF THE EYE OF YEAR, BECAUSE THERE ARE COLLEAGUES, REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES AND DEMOCRATIC COLLEAGUES, WHO ARE AFFECTED BY THIS -- ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE HERE. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ACCEPT YOUR AMENDED.
02:35:48	Grassley, Charles "Chuck" E.	YOU DID NOT ADDRESS OUR CONVERSATION OF TWO YEARS AGO -- ACCEPT YOUR AMENDMENT.
02:35:54	Conrad, Kent	HE IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. IT WAS ONE OF THE MOST STATESMANLIKE THINGS I HAVE EVER SEEN DONE IN THE SENATE, AND I TOLD THE SENATOR THAT. IT WAS AN ACT OF ABSOLUTE --
02:36:08	Grassley, Charles "Chuck" E.	ON MY PART.
02:36:14	Conrad, Kent	I WAS THINKING OF A DIFFERENT WORD, BEGINNING WITH S. I WAS THINKING YOU WERE A STATESMAN, AND YOU WERE, YOU WERE INCREDIBLY GRACIOUS, AND I NEVER ACKNOWLEDGED THAT PUBLICLY, AND I HAVE SAID PRIVATELY, AND I WILL SAY IT HERE, BUT I DO HAVE AN OBLIGATION AS CHAIRMAN OF THIS COMMITTEE THAT GOES BEYOND MY OWN PERSONAL INTERESTS, AND I DO HAVE THE NECESSITY TO CONFER WITH PEOPLE ON YOUR SIDE OF THE AISLE, AND SO, I WOULD SAY TO MY COLLEAGUES THAT I WILL OFFER AN AMENDMENT THAT DOES HAVE AGRICULTURE SAVINGS BUT THAT WOULD BE LESS CONTROVERSIAL AND HAVE LESS CHANCE OF ENDANGERING THIS BUDGET RESOLUTION ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE.
02:37:02	Crapo, Michael "Mike"	MR. CHAIRMAN, I APPRECIATE YOUR APPROACH TO THIS, AND I AGREE WITH THE GENERAL SENTIMENT. I NOT SEEN IT YORK -- I HAVE NOT SEEN YOUR AMENDMENT YET, BUT YOU ARE RIGHT. THE FARM BILL HAS ALWAYS BEEN A HEAVILY BATTLED BILL AS IT MOVES THROUGH CONGRESS. I SAT ON THE COMMITTEE LAST YEAR. THIS AND OTHER ISSUES WERE VERY, VERY EXTENSIVELY CONSIDERED.
02:37:27	Conrad, Kent	WILL THE SENATOR HOLD FOR JUST A MINUTE? WE SEE SENATORS LEAVING. AFTER THE SENATOR IS DONE, I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE A BREAK OF 45 MINUTES, COME BACK, HANDLE ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS. THE FLOOR HAS TOLD US THERE WILL BE A TRAUNCH OF AMENDMENTS ON THE FLOOR AT 2:30. WE NEED TO COME BACK HERE BY 1:15, AND FOR THOSE WHO HAVE AMENDMENTS TO OFFER, WE WILL CONSIDER THOSE AMENDMENTS. WE WILL VOTE ON THEM AT 3:30. THERE WILL BE NO MORE VOTES AT THIS TIME. WE WILL TAKE A BREAK AFTER THE SENATOR IS FINISHED UNTIL 1:15. WE WILL COME BACK FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO OFFER AMENDMENTS. WE WILL BREAK FOR THE 2:30 VOTES ON THE FLOOR. WE WILL COME BACK YEAR FOR VOTES AT 3:30. SENATOR? I APOLOGIZE. -- WE WILL COME BACK HERE FOR THE VOTES AT 3:30.
02:38:32	Crapo, Michael "Mike"	WE DEBATED THIS ISSUE AND A NUMBER OF OTHER ISSUES RELATED TO THE FARM BILL, WHICH, AS YOU POINTED OUT, WAS PASSED, FULLY FUNDED, AND IS NOW IN ITS IMPLEMENTATION STAGE. LOOK. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE EVERY YEAR WHO DO NOT LIKE THE RESULTS WHEN WE HANDLE THE FARM BILL. IT IS ONE OF THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE MAYBE NOBODY LOVES EXACTLY WHAT THE FINAL PRODUCT IS, BECAUSE WE ALL WOULD HAVE LIKED TO SEE THINGS DIFFERENTLY, BUT WE HAD THAT DEBATE, AND WE HANDLED THAT ISSUE LAST YEAR, AND I DO NOT THINK THAT EFFORTS NOW TO REOPEN THE FARM BILL AND THE DEBATE ABOUT IT ARE HELPFUL. IN PARTICULAR, WITH THE ISSUE OF THE INCOME LEVELS. THE 2008 FARM BILL SIGNIFICANTLY ADDRESSED THOSE ISSUES FROM LEVELS THAT I THINK WERE ABOVE $2 MILLION. IT REDUCED THE ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME LEVELS TO $500,000 OF NON-FARM AGI. IT ELIMINATED THE THREE-ENTITY RULE, AND IT REQUIRED THE DIRECT ATTRIBUTION OF PAYMENTS TO LIVING PERSONS. THERE WERE A LOT OF THESE ISSUES IN THE CONCERNS RAISED IN HOW THE FARM INCOME -- THE FARM PAYMENTS WERE ALLOCATED. NOW, CERTAINLY, THERE CAN BE MORE IMPROVEMENT, AND I DO NOT BELIEVE ANY OF US WILL OPPOSE WORKING ON IMPROVEMENTS, BUT I BELIEVE A BUDGET COMMITTEE IS NOT THE PLACE WHERE THESE ISSUES SHOULD BE RESOLVED. THE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE AND THOSE INVOLVED IN PUTTING TOGETHER THE FARM BILL, LIKE I SAID, CONSIDERED THIS MATTER EXTENSIVELY, AND THIS WAS THE RESULT. THESE ISSUES WERE DEBATED AND VOTED ON ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE AS WELL AS IN COMMITTEE, AND I WOULD URGE COLLEAGUES NOT TO REOPEN THIS DEBATE.
02:40:22	Conrad, Kent	SENATOR, I ALWAYS THOUGHT YOU WERE A VERY WISE MAN, BUT NEVER MORE SO THAN AFTER THAT PRESENTATION.
02:40:30	Grassley, Charles "Chuck" E.	IS THERE ANY CHANCE I CAN SEE WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO OFFER?
02:40:33	Conrad, Kent	PROBABLY NOT. YES, YOU WILL. ABSOLUTELY.
02:40:36	Grassley, Charles "Chuck" E.	THANK YOU.
02:40:38	Sessions, Jeff	MR. CHAIRMAN?
02:40:40	Conrad, Kent	SENATOR OSSETIANS?
02:40:42	Sessions, Jeff	I WOULD JUST ECHOES SOME OF THOSE ISSUES THAT THE SENATOR RAISED -- SENATOR SESSIONS? 8yYOU CANNOT RAISE COTTON AND OTHER CROPS ON 203 HUNDRED ACRES OF LAND. -- 200 OR 300 ACRES OF LAND. FARMING THOUSANDS OF ACRES OF LAND, A COTTON PICKER COULD HAVE $600,000 NEEDED JUST TO PURCHASE IT. SOME OF THE OTHER CROPS LIKEWISE ARE EXPENSIVE. WILL THEY HAVE THEIR LAND LEAST TWO PEOPLE TO FARM THEIR LAND? -- TO PEOPLE TO FARM THEIR LAND? THEY ARE GETTING MORE PER ACRE OR MORE CROP. IT IS JUST THAT THEY ARE FAR MORE ACRES. AND SENATOR GRASSLEY HAS SMALLER CORN FARMERS, PRIMARILY, SOYBEANS IN HIS STATE, AND IT IS NOT AS IMPACTFUL AS THE PEOPLE THAT I TALKED TO THAT FEELS IT IS AN UNFAIR CHANGE IN THE WAY FARMING HAS TO BE DONE IN MY STATE.
02:41:57	Conrad, Kent	I WOULD JUST SAY THIS. THE FARM BILL PASSED LAST YEAR, AND, AGAIN, I WANT TO EMPHASIZE, WAS FULLY PAID FOR, GOT 81 VOTES IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE. THAT BILL HAS THE GREATEST REFORM OF ANY FARM BILL EVER, INCLUDING ELIMINATING THE THREE- ENTITY RULE, INCLUDING IMPOSITIONS OF PAYMENT LIMITATIONS, NOT AS FAR REACHING AS SENATOR GRASSLEY MIGHT PREFER, AND NOT AS FAR REACHING AS I MIGHT PREFER. ON THE OTHER HAND, IN FAIRNESS, MY PART OF THE COUNTRY HAS A DIFFERENT AGRICULTURE THAN SENATOR SESSION HAS -- SESSIONS HAS, AND I THINK IF WE WERE TO RECOGNIZE THE REALITY OF THE DIFFERENCES, THEY ARE FAR MORE CAPITAL INTENSIVE IN THE SOUTH AND THEN ARE WE, AND IMPOSING THE SAME LIMITATION -- VAN ARE WE -- THAN ARE WE, AND I THINK THIS IS HARD TO JUSTIFY IN FAIRNESS TO OUR COUNTRYMEN IN THE SOUTH. THE COST OF AGRICULTURE IN THE SOUTH IS MANY TIMES THE PER ACRE COST IN OUR PART OF THE COUNTRY, AND TO IMPOSE THE EXACT SAME LIMITATION ACROSS EVERYONE IS -- I HAVE GOT TO TELL YOU. ALTHOUGH IT DOES NOT HURT ME. IN FACT, IT WOULD BENEFIT ME. IT IS REALLY NOT FAIR. BUT THIS IS AN ENORMOUS THE CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENT. -- AND ENORMOUSLY CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENT. -- AN ENORMOUSLY CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENT. WE WILL TAKE A BREAK. WE WILL WELCOME EVERYONE BACK AT THAT TIME, OTHER THAN SENATOR GRASSLEY. [CAPTIONS COPYRIGHT NATIONAL CABLE SATELLITE CORP. 2009] [CAPTIONING PERFORMED BY NATIONAL CAPTIONING INSTITUTE]
00:00:04	>>	ONE. CSPAN COVERING WASHINGTON LIKE NO OTHER.
00:00:06	>>	THE FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUDGET PROCESS CONTINUED TODAY AS THE SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE MARKED UP ITS VERSION OF THE BILL. THIS PORTION OF THEIR MEETING IS THREE HOURS.
00:17:23	>>	YES.
00:17:26	>>	THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO INTRODUCE IT.
00:19:55	>>	HE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT?
00:25:10	>>	WHO SEEKS TO BE RECOGNIZED?
00:27:52	>>	WE HAVE HAD SENATOR WHITEHOUSE COME TO ME A FEW WEEKS AGO AND SAID WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION IN THIS COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT. I THINK ALL THIS NOTE THE BY IN OUR BONES THAT THERE IS MONEY BEING WASTED. THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT OFFERED BY SENATOR FEINGOLD ON WHAT IS HAPPENING IN PROCUREMENT, THE STORY IS COMING OUT ON THIS HELICOPTER SITUATION. IT IS NUTS. I THINK WE KNOW THERE IS TOO LITTLE OVERSIGHT BEING CONNECTED. CENTER WHITEHOUSE -- SENATOR WHITEHOSUEUSE -- THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO GET AT. IN YOUR PROPOSAL. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I ASKED A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO WAS COULD WE GO OUT AND LOOK AT ALL FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND TO LOOK AT HOW MUCH MONEY GOES IN THE SPIGOT AND HOW MUCH MONEY ACTUALLY COMES OUT THE OF AND. I THINK WE FIND THAT SOME OF THESE PROGRAMS HAVE BECOME SO INEFFICIENT THAT A FRACTION COMES OUT THE OTHER END OF WHAT GOES IN AT THIS AND. AND SO I THINK THIS WOULD BE A HEALTHY EXERCISE.
00:29:47	>>	THERE IS HOPE. WE AGREED NOT TO VOTE UNTIL 12. WE WILL WAIT UNTIL THAT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? . THIS SOMEONE WISHED TO BE RECOGNIZED FROM THE SIDE?
00:30:18	>>	DO WE HAVE THAT AMENDMENT? TO BE PASSED OUT TO MEMBERS? THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN BIPARTISAN. WHEN THE THERAPY CAP WAS FIRST PROPOSED. WE WORK ON THE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE IN THOSE DAYS. MANY OF US WARNED THAT IT WAS NOT GOOD POLICY. EVER SINCE THAT TIME WE HAVE EXTENDED THAT. THERE WAS ONE TIME WHEN THE CAP WENT INTO EFFECT. WE HAVE ALWAYS EXTENDED IT AND PROVIDED ALTERNATIVES. SO IT COULD BE LESS HARMFUL TO THE MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES. ANTICIPATES CONGRESS WILL WANT TO DO THE SAME. THIS WILL ALLOW IT TO BE DONE WITH THE DEFICIT-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU HAVE DONE WITH THE REIMBURSEMENT EXPECTED CHANGES. I WOULD URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO ADOPT THIS AMENDMENT.
00:31:37	>>	IF I TAKE A MOMENT TO INDICATE THAT THE MEDICARE IMPROVEMENTS AND PATIENT PROTECTION ACT WHICH WAS SIGNED INTO LAW IN JULY EXTENDED THE CURRENT ACCEPTANCE PRACTICE FOR THERAPY CAPS THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2009, I THINKTHANK THE CENTER FOR THIS AMENDMENT. SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE TO ADDRESS THESE ON A MORE PERMANENT BASIS. I THINK MANY MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE AND I KNOW SENATOR ENSIGN HAS BEEN A STRONG SUPPORTER. THIS AMENDMENT AS I UNDERSTAND IT WOULD ALLOW CONGRESS TO PROTECT MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES ACCESS TO THERAPY SERVICES AND DO IT IN A FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE WAY BECAUSE IT WOULD REQUIRE THAT IT BE FULLY OFFSET.
00:34:52	>>	IF YOU COULD WITHHOLD FOR A MOMENT. SO WE HAVE IT PASSED OUT.
00:48:01	>>	IT COULD.
00:48:48	>>	WITH REGARD TO THIS SECTION THAT IS BEING AMENDED, IS THAT AN AUTHORIZATION OR RESERVE FUND TO EXPEND MONEY AND TO WHAT EXTENT DOES IT DIRECT REGULATIONS AND SO FORTH?
00:52:47	>>	I WILL STOP ICON TECH -- I WILL STOP MY COMMENTS. MOST AMERICANS WHO LIVE ALONG THE COAST LIKE TO LOOK AT THE COAST AND CONSIDER THE VIEW OF THE OCEAN AND THE COAST AS IMPORTANT AS THE POLLUTION OF THE AIR. I HAVE HEARD SENATOR BOXER GIVE SPEECHES ABOUT OIL RIGS THAT SHE DOES NOT WANT TO SEE ALONG THE COAST OF CALIFORNIA. THAT HAS GOTTEN LOST IN OUR DEBATE AND OUGHT TO BE INCLUDED.
01:12:26	>>	THE BUDGET INCREASE YOU PROPOSE IS 7% OF DISCRETIONARY SPENDING. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO NOTE FOR MY COLLEAGUES, THE RULE OF SEVEN IN FINANCE. INTEREST RATES AT 7% OVER SEVEN YEARS DOUBLES. THE BUDGET YOU SUBMIT SETS US ON A PLAN TO DOUBLE THE $500 BILLION TO ONE TRILLION DOLLARS IN JUST 10 YEARS. I THINK THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE. REMEMBER, THIS IS IN ADDITION TO THE STIMULUS PACKAGE THAT WE PASSED AN ACCIDENT AN ADDITIONAL 280 FOUR BILLION DOLLARS IN DISCRETIONARY SPENDING TO THE BUDGET. A 7% INCREASE IN THE NEXT YEAR GOES TO THE BASELINE OF THE BUDGET. THAT IS WHAT DRIVES UP ARE SPENDING AND OUR DEFICITS OVER THE YEARS. BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD THESE HUGE STIMULUS PACKAGE THAT WE PASSED, I THINK IT WOULD BE SMARTER TO HOLD DOWN THE BASELINE NOW. THIS WOULD PROVIDE AS AN OPPORTUNITY SERGED SPENDING, AND THE PRESIDENT IS PROJECTING WE WILL COME OUT OF THIS RECESSION BY THE SECOND YEAR. I THINK IT WOULD REQUIRE CONGRESS TO EXERT A BARE MINIMUM LEVEL OF FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY BY FREEZING NON-DEFENSE DISCRETIONARY SPENDING FOR TWO YEARS AND THEN ALLOWING A SMALL 1% INCREASE FOR A YEAR -- PER YEAR OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS. MANY OF YOU HAVE HAD IN YOUR OFFICE VISITS FROM COUNTIES AND CITIES AND STATES, AND THEY HAVE BEEN ALL OVER OUR OFFICE IN RECENT YEARS. WHAT WE HAVE EXAMINED IN FIND IS THAT STATES REDUCE THEIR SPENDING SIX TENTHS OF 1% LAST YEAR. IN 2008 IT WAS .6%. THEY ARE NOT DISAPPEARING FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH. OUR CITIES, COUNTIES, AND STATES WILL STILL BE IN EXISTENCE. THEY ARE MAKING SOME TOUGH CHOICES. MAYBE THEY ARE EFFECTING EFFICIENCIES THAT THEY WOULD NOT OTHERWISE HAVE TO EFFECT THAT PROTECT THE LONG-TERM INTERESTS OF THEIR CITIZENS THAT THEY WOULD NOT HAVE MADE HAD THEY NOT HAD A FINANCIAL BELT-TIGHTENING. IT IS ON TO ME THAT THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SEEMS TO HAVE THE VIEW THAT WE CAN NEVER EVEN HAVE A LEVEL FUNDING, MUCH LESS A REDUCTION IN FUNDING. I WOULD JUST SAY TO MY COLLEAGUES, THINK THE BUDGET IS A BIG DEAL. I THINK THIS BLUEPRINT FOR SPENDING IS HUGE. REPUBLICANS HAVE NO ABILITY TO AFFECTED BECAUSE IT IS A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE. YOU HAVE THE VOTES, BUT I DO HOPE AND PRAY THAT YOU WILL ANALYZE WHAT IS HAPPENING AND TALK TO YOUR CONSTITUENTS AND SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT, WHICH SAVES SEVERAL HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS AND WILL NOT REQUIRE THE GOVERNMENT TO CUT SPENDING BUT ACTUALLY HAVE LEVEL FUNDING FOR TWO YEARS WITH A 1% INCREASE THEREAFTER FOR THREE YEARS.
02:02:24	>>	SENATOR FEINGOLD.
02:02:25	>>	ENERGY RESERVE.
02:02:34	>>	THESE SENATORS. n]p CORRECT. WE AGREE ON THE LIST OF AMENDMENTS. WE PREVIOUSLY AGREED THERE WOULD BE TWO MINUTES ON A SIDE. SENATOR ALEXANDER, ENERGY RESERVE.
02:10:06	>>	THE CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
02:15:44	>>	-- THAT IS A BIG PART OF WYOMING.